Written evidence submitted by Places for
People
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Places for People is one of the largest property
management, development and regeneration companies in the UK.
We own and manage more than 62,000 homes and have assets of £3.1
billion.
1.2 Our vision is to create and manage places
where people want to live and our approach looks at all aspects
of communities rather than focusing solely on the bricks and mortar
provision of homes. Places for People's innovative approach to
place management and placemaking allows us to regenerate existing
places, create new ones and focus on long-term management.
1.3 Places for People has a strong track record
of delivering successful neighbourhood-based regeneration in terms
of both new developments within deprived areas and transforming
existing communities through a combination of physical, economic,
social and environmental change.
1.4 For the past five years, we have delivered
a comprehensive neighbourhood planning approach in a number of
challenging areas across the UK. The impacts have included reduced
turnover, increased customer satisfaction, reduced crime, increased
customer involvement and improved housing management performance.
All these elements contribute towards sustainable neighbourhoods.
The approach incorporates the use of five high-level Key Performance
Indicators which are applied to each neighbourhood and test long-term
impact. These include customer satisfaction, turnover rates, surplus
per property, tenure mix and economic activity levels amongst
our customers.
1.5 In our response to the CLG's inquiry, we
give some general comments in section 3 before responding to the
detailed questions posed by the Select Committee in section 4.
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 Places for People expresses the following
views in this submission:
— We
believe that the approach to regeneration set out by CLG could
bring tangible benefits for local communities.
— We
believe it is vital for the Localism Bill to include a requirement
for local authorities to take account of the requirements of Local
Enterprise Plans (LEPs) or in areas where they are not in existence
the agreed economic strategies of neighbouring local authorities,
in order to deliver economic growth.
— We
feel that the Government needs to structure TIF-type incentives
so that they are applied to the types of schemes or projects that
they are most suited for.
— In
our view, a balanced (economic, social and environmental) approach
is the most appropriate way to deliver sustainable regeneration.
— We
feel that that there is a need to establish how the incentives
and funding models being considered by the Government will complement
each other (ie New Homes Bonus, TIF, etc).
— We
advocate the introduction of a Decent Neighbourhoods Standard
as an effective framework for linking outcomes relating to themes
that underpin the sustainable communities concept (see Appendix
2).
3.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
3.1 We welcome the opportunity to respond to
the CLG Select Committee's inquiry into the Government's new approach
to regeneration. In principle, we believe that the approach outlined
in the "Regeneration to enable growth" paper can bring
real benefits to local communities. As we have set out in previous
submissions, we also agree with the principles of the growth incentives
such as the New Homes Bonus, although we feel that these incentives
should in some way be tied directly to future housing production.
3.2 We have long advocated the introduction of
a Decent Neighbourhoods Standard. This standard would provide
an effective framework for linking outcomes relating to themes
that underpin the sustainable communities concept, such as housing,
environment and health. Place-making is vital to the long-term
success of neighbourhoods and the requirement to maintain Decent
Neighbourhood Standards provides a trigger to prevent long-term
decline. Details of a proposed outcomes framework for the standard
can be found at Appendix 2.
3.3 In light of the above, we believe that it
is vital that the Localism Bill include a requirement for local
authorities to take account of the requirements of Local Enterprise
Plans (LEPs) or in areas where they are not in existence the agreed
economic strategies of neighbouring local authorities. By turning
the Duty to Co-operate into a statutory duty instead of merely
an enabling power, the Government can ensure that the benefits
of public investment are accrued across local authority and neighbourhood
boundaries. Money would be spent more effectively and efficiently,
waste would be minimised and the impact of the investment maximised.
4.0 RESPONSE
TO THE
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
RAISED IN
THE PAPER
How effective is the Government's approach to
regeneration likely to be? What benefits is the new approach likely
to bring?
In particular:
— Will it ensure that the progress made
by past regeneration projects is not lost and can, where appropriate,
be built on?
— Will it ensure that sufficient public
funds are made available for future major town and city regeneration
projects as well as for more localised projects?
4.1 As set out above, we welcome the Government's
localism agenda and believe that the approach to regeneration
set out by CLG could bring tangible benefits for local communities
by removing bureaucracy and enabling local people to make decisions
about regeneration in their community.
4.2 We previously indicated in our response to
the CLG inquiry into Localism in October 2010 that we feel that
Whitehall has an important role to play in ensuring that the right
outcomes are delivered. Incentives for sustainable growth are
crucial and we feel that the Localism Bill needs to explicitly
reference the presumption in favour of sustainable development
as an outcome of the neighbourhood planning process.
4.3 We are concerned that the new approach to
regeneration, in particular the creation of Neighbourhood Forums,
could potentially frustrate development, including regeneration
projects, by advancing claims, plans or permissions for other
developments which could "spoil" larger projects on
social, economic and environmental grounds that might run counter
to Local Economic Partnerships or wider benefits.
4.4 As stated above, we feel it is important
that local authorities should take account of the requirements
of Local Enterprise Plans (LEPs) and/or economic strategies of
neighbouring local authorities. The objective of the Government's
planning framework is to support sustainable economic growth and
it therefore needs to support development and/or infrastructure
where it will subsume local authority boundaries.
4.5 The "Regeneration to enable growth"
document makes reference to reforming public funding through using
mechanisms such as tax increment financing (TIF). We support the
introduction of TIF and business rate schemes, in particular to
support the development of new and existing mixed income mixed
use communities. As we outlined in our response to the TIF consultation
embedded in the Local Growth White Paper (December 2010), we believe
that the Government needs to structure these incentives so that
they are applied to the types of schemes or projects that they
are most suited for. For instance, TIFs are suitable for projects
that require "gap funding" for large infrastructure
investment, like the Northern Line Extension at Battersea, whereas
business rate finance schemes would be more suitable for smaller-scale
investment into the community, notwithstanding that they have
been used for large schemes such as Crossrail (probably in the
absence of TIFs).
What lessons should be learnt from past and existing
regeneration projects to apply to the Government's new approach?
4.6 Previous regeneration programmes have often
had a greater focus upon the physical regeneration of an area.
It is our view that a more balanced (economic, social and environmental)
approach is the most appropriate way to deliver sustainable improvements.
4.7 In many regeneration areas, consideration
of the long-term management of the area has not been addressed,
which results in the physical improvements alone not being enough
to sustain the neighbourhood in the medium to long term. It is
clear that housing-led regeneration will not be successful in
the current climate. Economic-led regeneration will provide a
truly sustainable option in the long term and the changing economic
environments will drive the sustainable future of many local areas.
4.8 Our experience of existing regeneration projects
is that:
— Physical
changes lead more directly to improvements in area satisfaction
levels. However, increased satisfaction (with eg a new Health
Centre) does not lead to improved levels of health.
— Physical
improvements to an area do not always stop people leaving the
area—people change in the main because of who they are,
not where they are.
— Improvements
to an area do not always lead to increased community involvement.
Involvement can actually reduce as areas improve; however, resident
involvement is critical to better decision making.
— Education
and health improvements are difficult to achieve, attach to specific
interventions and often have a significant period of "lag"
before things change.
— Each
neighbourhood is different and therefore the interventions and
outcomes will differ. Outcomes to be achieved should therefore
be prioritised, not standardised.
— The
timescales for improvement are not short-term. Three to five years
is realistic and some improvements can be achieved in this period.
However, twenty years is when long-term impacts can be measured.
— Geography
is important:
— "Connectivity"
is key—if a place has good links, it has potential. Some
areas which do not have good connectivity have little potential
to improve.
— London
is different in that it is totally dominated by housing market
pressures.
— Alignment
of different programme objectives and funding streams has historically
not been effective. Different initiatives have not been "joined
up" so regeneration has been too narrow and not outcome focused.
This does not encourage the co-ordinated approach from developers/investors
that is required to deliver interventions in an integrated manner
(eg Decent Homes and Housing Market Renewal and approaches to
the role and allocation of affordable housing). A clear sustained
framework which is linked to an agreed wider vision is critical.
4.9 Specific examples of our regeneration activity
and experience are attached as Appendix 3.
What action should the Government be taking to
attract money from (a) public and (b) private sources into regeneration
schemes?
4.10 We put forward in our response to the TIF
consultation referred to in paragraph 3.5 above that there is
a need to establish how the incentives and funding models being
considered by the Government will complement each other. For instance,
there might be opportunities for the Government to extend or enhance
the New Homes Bonus scheme for some larger-scale and/or longer-term
mixed-use residential schemes (either new or redeveloped) in order
to invest in community infrastructure and incentivise development.
A similar point exists for the inclusion and operation of complementary
funding vehicles such as Local Asset Backed Vehicles (LABVs) to
enable Local Authorities to use their land to incentivise private
sector development.
How should the success of the Government's approach
be assessed in future?
4.11 We believe that the Decent Neighbourhoods
Standard (see section 2 above and Appendix 2) would be an appropriate
mechanism to assess the success of the Government's approach in
future. The framework we have proposed would evaluate outcomes
across a range of measures and provide a tangible measure for
success.
APPENDIX 1
ABOUT PLACES FOR PEOPLE
Places for People is one of the largest property
development and management companies in the UK, with more than
62,000 homes either owned or managed in a mixture of different
tenures. With over 2,000 employees, it is a unique organisation
that provides a diverse range of products and services to build
quality, safe and sustainable communities. Places for People is
active in 230 local authorities.
Places for People regards itself as a housing and
regeneration organisation that puts people first. We provide solutions
that not only cover a range of different housing tenures but also
offer a range of support services including affordable childcare,
elderly care and financial services—all the things that
contribute to making neighbourhoods of choice; prosperous, popular
and truly sustainable.
Places for People currently has around 40,000 affordable
rented properties, over 6,000 properties available for market
rent and just under 10,000 properties where we retain a freehold
stake as part of either shared ownership or "right to buy"
arrangements in a number of developments throughout the UK. We
also own and manage around 6,000 homes for older and vulnerable
people. Our portfolio is designed to "Create neighbourhoods
of choice for all" and covers the following broad mix of
products:
— Places
for People Neighbourhoods—investment, regeneration and placemaking.
— Places
for People Homes—neighbourhood and property management.
— Places
for People Individual Support—support for independent living.
— Places
for People Property Services—in-house maintenance services.
— Places
for People Development—master planning and building new
developments.
— Places
for People Financial Services—financial products for customers.
— Places
for Children—early years childcare.
— Cotman
HA—managing more than 2,000 homes across East Anglia.
— Emblem
Homes and Blueroom Properties—homes for sale and rent.
We want all our neighbourhoods to be places where
people are proud to live. To do this, our developments need a
mix of homes, easy access to shops, schools, healthcare and leisure
activities, safe public spaces, good transport links and job opportunities.
When we create new places for people to live we plan
a mix of tenures and house types designed for communities that
have people from different social backgrounds. All of our homes
whether for sale or for rent are designed and built to the same
high standards with the same specification, making different tenures
indistinguishable.
APPENDIX 2
DECENT NEIGHBOURHOODS STANDARD—FRAMEWORK
| Key Theme | Outputs
|
| Housing and Community
Outcome:
| — | Number of houses built that lead to mixed income communities and ensure a mix of housing tenures, types, use and size
|
| To create places where people choose to live and are able to participate
| — | Supportive housing services that manage properties in a way that is customer-focused—providing a service that responds to customers' requirements (eg repairs measured in terms of satisfaction)
|
| — | Increase the housing market to the regional average in low demand areas and to prevent displacement of social problems to surrounding areas
|
| — | Map and identify areas that are potentially declining and develop innovative housing, and non-housing measures (with partners) to prevent downturn
|
| — | Increase the number of affordable houses in areas of higher demand
|
| — | Reduce the number of empty properties in an area in a way that increases mix and serves the general need of the whole community and those needing social housing
|
| — | Build houses that people want—ones which are market driven
|
| — | Increase commercial role if financially viable and enable re-investment in social housing services eg provision of housing management services for non-social tenants, provision of renovation services or advice about access to renovation services that are cheap, Right to Buy, or Social Homebuy owners.
|
| | |
|
| Environment | —
| Reduce derelict land |
| Outcome:
To provide places for people to live
| — | Percentage of new build to be Eco-Homes Excellent standard or the equivalent under the Code for Sustainable Homes standard
|
| that are considerate of the environment with well-designed
| — | Reduce the number of existing stock which are not environmentally friendly
|
| public and green spaces | —
| Investment in quality landscaping and design
|
| — | Innovative design and provision of new green spaces in areas of low demand and adapting unused spaces for recreational use (development of recreational / leisure sites for commercial use)
|
| — | Maintenance and improvements of run down and dysfunctional streets, lights and the public realm
|
| — | Work with nature to encourage biodiversity in green spaces of all types, protection and long-term management
|
| — | Air quality improvement to continuously move in line with national future targets
|
| — | Long term management of public realm to reduce incidents of "enviro-crime"—fly tipping, graffiti, abandoned cars
|
| — | Street cleanliness to a level that ensures a sense of belonging
|
| — | Increase in children using green spaces for recreation and education purposes, including provision of sports facilities
|
| | |
|
| Infrastructure
Outcome:
To ensure good transport services are available linking people to jobs, school, health and other services
| — | Improve provision of the availability of public transport in deprived areas
|
| | |
|
| Employment & Opportunity | —
| Improve local access to employment and training opportunities
|
| Outcome:
To increase availability of
| — | Encourage businesses into local area / number of business start-ups enabled where appropriate
|
| employment and training | —
| Increase careers advice and support available to local community
|
| opportunities and ensure they are accessible
| — | Improve local access to employment
|
| | |
|
| Health
Outcome: | —
| Provision of support facilities for those with drug/alcohol addictions (provision of individual support services)
|
| To reduce inequalities and help | —
| Improve delivery of services for the elderly
|
| people at all stages of their life to enjoy the best possible health
| — | Work with partners to ensure the delivery of health initiatives in areas of deprivation
|
| | |
|
| Crime | — | Reduce rates of anti-social behavior
|
| Outcome:
To reduce crime and disorder and
| — | Increase partnership working with police and safer neighbourhood teams
|
| the fear of crime among people | —
| Work in partnership with local authorities to reduce vehicle crime to regional average
|
| — | Provide support services to known ex-offenders to enable re-integration into the community
|
| | |
|
| Education
Outcome: |
— | Provision of school buildings where there is a key need for the community
|
| To ensure the highest quality opportunities exist in education, learning and training, improving school performances and raising aspirations and standards of achievement for all age groups
| — | Maintenance and support services
|
APPENDIX 3
EXAMPLES OF REGENERATION ACTIVITY AT PLACES FOR PEOPLE
AREA-BASED
REGENERATION
At Walker Riverside in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the overall
aim of the regeneration programme is to provide a mixed-tenure/mixed-use
neighbourhood, underpinned by the appropriate infrastructure.
However, the variety of partners and programmes involved with
different objectives and priorities (eg investment in schools)
means that activity has not always effectively aligned. The LSP
Community Strategy and the Masterplan for the area were not sufficiently
aligned to ensure that the partners, programmes and funding delivered
the wider goal of re-development and regeneration.
At Norfolk Park in Sheffield the regeneration programme
involved extensive demolition of tower blocks replaced by a mixed
tenure neighbourhood. The views of existing and, crucially, future
customers has been integral to its success and popularity, as
the regeneration has included much needed and high quality community
provision (eg new school and extra care scheme) as well as a range
of housing for rent and sale. This market-led approach has delivered
a neighbourhood that will be sustainable in the long term.
INVESTMENT BONDS
Places for People has a long track record of developing and delivering
innovative solutions to neighbourhood regeneration and renewal.
Working in partnership with Citylife (the Industrial and Provident
Society, who have developed the Investment Bond model), we have
delivered Investment Bonds in Sheffield, Newcastle and London
which have raised in excess of £ 10 million in investment,
secured significant additional match funding, built public, private
and third sector partnerships and delivered significant impact.
The model is based upon local people and businesses investing
in a five year zero interest Bond. Places for People borrows up
to 80% of the monies raised, which is repaid with compound interest
over a five year period. The remaining 20% is used to fund revenue-related
activities which have been identified as priorities by the investors
and the local community. In most cases the monies loaned to Places
for People have been used to fund a high-profile capital project
which complements the revenue activity supported by the Bond.
March 2011
| 
