approaches to community governancegovernance, made by a particular faith community. this area shows...

i

Approaches to communitygovernanceModels for mixed tenure communities

Martin Knox and David Alcockassisted by Anna Roderick and John Iles

PPP R E S S

POLICY

ii

Approaches to community governance

Anthony Collins Solicitors

St Philip’s Gate

5 Waterloo Street

Birmingham

B2 5PG

Tel no +44 (0)121 212 3242

Fax no +44 (0)121 212 7442

www.anthonycollinssolicitors.com

E-mail:[email protected]

[email protected]

First published in Great Britain in November 2002 by

The Policy Press

34 Tyndall’s Park Road

Bristol BS8 1PY

UK

Tel no +44 (0)117 954 6800

Fax no +44 (0)117 973 7308

E-mail [email protected]

www.policypress.org.uk

© Anthony Collins Solicitors, 2002

Published for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation by The Policy Press

ISBN 1 86134 461 9

Martin Knox is a Partner, David Alcock and Anna Roderick are Solicitors, and John Iles is a Regeneration

Consultant at Anthony Collins Solicitors, Birmingham.

All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any

form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written

permission of the Publishers.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported this project as part of its programme of research and innovative

development projects, which it hopes will be of value to policy makers, practitioners and service users. The facts

presented and views expressed in this report are, however, those of the authors and not necessarily those of the

Foundation.

The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the authors and contributors and not

of The University of Bristol or The Policy Press. The University of Bristol and The Policy Press disclaim responsibility

for any injury to persons or property resulting from any material published in this publication.

The Policy Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race, disability, age and sexuality.

Photograph on front cover supplied by Anthony Collins Solicitors

Cover design by Qube Design Associates, Bristol

Printed in Great Britain by Hobbs the Printers Ltd, Southampton

iii

Acknowledgements iv

1 Introduction 1A blueprint for action – the case studies 1

2 Background: why bother about governance? 5The background to mixed tenure 5Focus on the neighbourhood 6

3 The community association model 7Stockfield estate, Birmingham 7Royds, Bradford 11

4 Philanthropy in action 15Poundbury, Dorset 15Bournville Village Trust 19

5 The traditional moving forward 23Manor estate, Sheffield 23Churchill Gardens, Westminster 26

6 The disempowered neighbourhood 30Blackbird Leys, Oxford 30

7 Constitutional arrangements 34Neighbourhood governance and partnership 34The options for neighbourhood governance organisations 34Key factors in choosing a vehicle for neighbourhood governance 36

8 Contractual arrangements 38Physical environment 38Behaviour 40

9 Lessons from other places 42Commonhold associations 42Tenant management organisations 43Parish councils 45Faith community involvement – a case study 47

Bibliography 50

Contents

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

iv


The authors wish to thank:

All the residents of the Royds area in Bradford,the Manor estate in Sheffield, the Blackbird Leysestate in Oxford, Churchill Gardens in London,Bournville in Birmingham, Stockfield inBirmingham and Poundbury in Dorset, whoassisted in the research for this report. Withoutthem in particular this study would not have beenpossible.

Peter Marcus and all at the Joseph RowntreeFoundation

Carol Dickinson, Royds Community Association

Richard Clark, Focus Housing AssociationLimited

Keith Proctor, Churches National HousingCoalition

Jai Dosanjh, Passmore Urban Renewal Limited

Stephen Thake, North London University

Charmaine Young, St George PLC

Howard Farrand, Whitefriars Housing Group

Mervin Jones, Willow Park Housing Trust

Jack McBane, Groundwork Dearne Valley

Manjinder Robertson, Robertson & Co

John Handley, University of Manchester

Angus Kennedy, Castle Vale Housing ActionTrust

Acknowledgements

Canon Wallace Brown, St Boniface Church,Quinton

Kathlyn Lovell, Anthony Collins Solicitors

Andrea Seale, Anthony Collins Solicitors

Jane Pillar, Anthony Collins Solicitors

Tina Volante, Anthony Collins Solicitors

Robert Thomas, Anthony Collins Solicitors

Stockfield Housing Office

the Board and staff of Royds CommunityAssociation

the staff of Bournville Village Trust

the Duchy of Cornwall Office in Poundbury

the staff of Pinnacle PSG in Churchill Gardens

the staff of Sheffield City Council working onthe Manor estate

the staff of Ealing Family Association workingon the Blackbird Leys estate

1

1Introduction

Mixed tenure is here to stay. In many newdevelopments in Britain it is already standardpractice. At the same time there has beenincreasing recognition – not least through theNational Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal andthe work of the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) – thatthe involvement of local people in the running oftheir neighbourhoods can make a real impact inbringing about transformation.

This study was commissioned by the JosephRowntree Foundation in the light of theirintention to build a new mixed tenuredevelopment, called New Osbaldwick, justoutside the city of York. The research team wasasked to investigate whether there were modelsof engaging communities in neighbourhoodgovernance that could be applied to areas ofmixed tenure. The study considered governancemechanisms in a number of different situationsaround the UK to see if there were models thatcould provide a way forward.

The team visited a number of neighbourhoods inwhich housing providers and others have enteredinto innovative arrangements with local residents.These included:

• Poundbury in Dorset;• the Royds area in Bradford;• Churchill Gardens in Westminster;• Stockfield in Birmingham;• Blackbird Leys in Oxford;• Manor and Castle estates in Sheffield;• Bournville in Birmingham.

The research team visited the areas in question,conducted focus groups and face-to-faceinterviews with residents and officers, and carriedout background research. In each case anevaluation was made of the neighbourhood to see

whether there was a mechanism for involvingresidents and what effect this had on residents’own views about their community and the long-term sustainability of the neighbourhood.

A blueprint for action – the casestudies

The team found that the following elements wereall of significance in establishing communitygovernance in mixed tenure areas.

Stakeholders

Royds in Bradford, Stockfield in Birmingham andManor and Castle in Sheffield show the benefitsof identifying the full range of stakeholders whowill be involved in a community-based initiativeearly in the process. This may include the localauthority, other statutory agencies (particularlyhealth, education and the police), any privatecompanies involved, social landlords and,crucially, residents. The team also visitedWoodgate Valley in Birmingham as an example ofan entirely different contribution to communitygovernance, made by a particular faithcommunity. This area shows the considerableimpact that a faith group can have on thewellbeing of a neighbourhood and the importanceof ensuring that faith communities are involved assignificant stakeholders in any governancemechanism.

Early resident involvement

The team considered two neighbourhoods inwhich residents were involved in the planning

2


stages of major regeneration involving eitherdemolition or extensive refurbishment –Stockfield in Birmingham and the Royds estates inBradford. Early resident involvement is perceivedby all concerned to have significantly improvedthe quality of life in the area. While bothregeneration initiatives have their shortcomings, itis widely felt that the achievements would havebeen less if the projects had not been activelyoverseen by a group of potential or actualresidents from across different tenures.

Governance vehicle

The report considers in detail the range ofstructures available for resident-led organisations.The research team concluded that a companylimited by guarantee was probably the mosteffective way to allow residents to participate in,and even exercise control over, major decisionsabout their neighbourhood, while protecting theindividual residents from liability and retainingthe option to involve a range of otherstakeholders on the board of the company.Royds, Stockfield and Manor and Castle all usedthis model.

Parish councils were also considered as analternative governance mechanism. The teamconcluded that they have a number of featuresthat may make them a useful vehicle forcommunity governance, while acknowledging theconstraints, as laid down by Parliament, underwhich they operate.

The research team found that residents’perceptions were transformed when there was amajority of residents on the board of agovernance vehicle, as in the Royds example.The Royds experience also illustrates that otherstakeholders need to be involved to ensure thatresidents have access to appropriate advice,guidance and expertise.

By contrast, in the Blackbird Leys estate inOxford, the absence of a strong mechanism forinvolving residents in community governance hasled to a feeling of disempowerment among someresidents.

Accountability

Both Stockfield and Royds CommunityAssociations are known nationally for theirpioneering work on community governance andfor their good practice. In both Stockfield andRoyds an independent legal vehicle wasestablished, which directly involved residents onthe board. Residents have a majority ‘stake’ in thecompany. Resident board members are directlyaccountable by means of democratic elections tothe community and this was observed to create asense of legitimacy and accountability.

The work of the Manor and Castle DevelopmentTrust on the Manor and Castle estates in Sheffieldis also nationally renowned for its achievements.However, the research team encountered deep-rooted alienation among some residents on theestate, and a perception that, while there were asmall number of residents who are activelyengaged with the Trust, there are others whohave been left behind by the regenerationprocess. This merely emphasises the long-termdifficulty of turning around neighbourhoods thathave suffered years of deprivation and poverty,and where even the most laudable attempts tomake progress are regarded with suspicion andhostility unless they are truly ‘owned’ by a wideproportion of local residents.

Funding mechanism

Manor and Castle and Royds both show thestrength that control of core funding can bring toa resident-led organisation. The Poundburymanagement companies and the parish councilmodels both offer alternatives to this approach.In the case of Poundbury, the funding mechanismis an annual service charge payable by residents.Parish councils are able to levy precepts onCouncil Tax payers.

Relationship with mainstream service providers

Significantly, many residents across tenureswanted a greater influence over how services areprovided. In Churchill Gardens, although there isno formal mechanism for involving residents inany democratic structure, an innovative attempt toimplement the principles of neighbourhoodmanagement has taken place through the

3

involvement of Pinnacle PSG who manage theestate on behalf of Westminster City Council.

A strong local staff team based on the estate isable to respond quickly to the needs of residents.While it does not have any formal influence, anactive residents’ group is able to engage directlywith Pinnacle PSG in a way that both residentsand Pinnacle PSG see as of mutual benefit.Residents on the estate comment favourably onthe improvement in housing management sincePinnacle PSG took over. The work at ChurchillGardens emphasises the importance of a locallyaccountable presence for major service providers,which can transform the perceptions of residentsin the neighbourhood.

High quality design

In both Poundbury in Dorset and the Bournvillearea of Birmingham, the philanthropic motivationof those responsible for the development of thecommunity has resulted in extremely high qualityhousing built to excellent design, which is also akey feature in the neighbourhoods. The researchteam found that well-planned design and the useof high-quality materials make theneighbourhoods attractive, and are major factorsin ensuring long-term sustainability. Examples ofthis were also found in Stockfield and the Roydsarea in Bradford.

Integration

In Stockfield, Poundbury and Royds, owner-occupied properties are indistinguishable fromrented homes and the different tenures are mixedin together. Residents commented that this madefor a more integrated community. In BlackbirdLeys there appeared to be divisions betweenowners and tenants, which have not been assistedby the design of the estate that physicallyseparates the two groups.

However, design is only one factor, and bothPoundbury and Bournville at present lack agovernance mechanism that spans tenure types.In both areas there appeared to be a sense ofdivision between owners and tenants, with someresidents commenting on a particular sense offracture on the Bournville estate between owners,tenants who have lived in the area for many yearsand those tenants recently arrived in the area.

Covenants

A number of the areas visited have attempted tocontrol both the physical environment of theirneighbourhood and the behaviour of residents.Several different approaches to these complexissues are considered in the report. The teamconcludes that there remains some difficulty infinding a legal mechanism for enforcing positiveobligations against successive owners, althoughthe new commonhold legislation (in the 2002Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act) maypresent a way forward in this respect. However,the commonhold framework suffers from thedrawback that tenants do not have the samerights as owners to participate in the work of thecommonhold association.

Both Poundbury and Bournville Village Trust haveused extensive covenants to control both thephysical appearance of the area as well as thebehaviour of those who live there, and thoseefforts are by-and-large supported by residents indifferent tenures. Bournville Village Trust hasmade use of nuisance-based evictions and hasobtained and enforced an antisocial behaviourorder.

The report acknowledges that, even in areaswhere community governance is working quitesuccessfully, deep-rooted alienation and a feelingof distance from the sources of power andinfluence will not be changed quickly. The workof building community governance, particularlyacross tenures, requires all those involved to bewilling to look for the best outcome for the wholecommunity, and to maintain a clarity of vision andpurpose. Such work demands a great deal fromthe residents, as well as from the professionalsinvolved.

Introduction

4


Key findings

The key findings of the research were:

• There are several good examples of cross-tenuregovernance mechanisms that involve localresidents and have been at the heart of theprocess of transforming neighbourhoods.Resident involvement can best be achievedthrough a legally constituted organisation withstrong resident leadership and directaccountability to residents from all types oftenure.

• Representation on the governance organisationfrom other bodies active in the neighbourhoodwill increase its chance of success. Thisincludes the local authority, other strategyagencies, voluntary and business organisations,and faith communities.

• The use of a ‘company limited by guarantee’structure will provide a framework that offersprotection from liability, can undertake a fullrange of activities, and is sufficiently flexible toadapt to any changes. Of the other approachesconsidered, commonhold does not appear tofully involve tenants; tenant managementorganisations, while providing a usefulgovernance framework, are not widelyapplicable to mixed tenure areas at present; therole for a parish council structure may meritfurther investigation.

• Positive relationships between tenants andthose who live in homes that they own areimproved by having a fully integrated mix ofhomes rather than, for example, blocks oftenanted properties and blocks of propertiesthat are owned. Clear benefits were foundwhen residents across all tenures were involvedin estate design and layout. The use of high-quality materials and good design was alsoobserved to have a long-term positive impacton neighbourhood sustainability.

• Many residents across tenures want toinfluence service delivery and ensure thatservice providers are responsive to residents’views. When neighbourhood managementdemonstrated a willingness to listen and toconsult with residents, it had a considerableimpact on the way residents viewed the servicesprovided. In some areas disillusionment withmainstream service providers runs very deepand can take significant time and effort toovercome.

• There appeared to be strong support amongresidents for a governance mechanism thatcould vigorously enforce covenants to maintainthe physical appearance of an area and tocombat antisocial behaviour. There are anumber of legal mechanisms available forimposing obligations on owner-occupiers,rather than tenants, but each presentsdifficulties in enforcement. However, someareas have made successful use of bothinjunctions and antisocial behaviour orders incombating problems in neighbourhoods.

5

2

“Every now and again something quitewonderful happens and local peoplethemselves take hold of affairs and theirPriority Need Estate is transformed into atreasured Community once again”. (LaurieGreen, in Churches National HousingCoalition and The Housing Corporation,2001, p 3)

In the autumn of 2000, the Joseph RowntreeFoundation approached Anthony Collins Solicitorsto discuss their proposal for a new developmentjust outside York, to be called New Osbaldwick.Their intention was to make New Osbaldwick amixed tenure community with provision foraffordable social housing alongside housing forsale. The Foundation was aware of Martin Knoxand his team’s involvement, over more than adecade, in community-based housing initiativesand regeneration programmes. Subsequently, theFoundation commissioned Anthony CollinsSolicitors to identify ways in which communitieshave been enabled to influence the running oftheir neighbourhoods and to find good practice,particularly where this good practice appeared tobe applicable to situations of mixed tenure. Thisreport is the product of that investigation.

The background to mixed tenure

Traditional social housing estates with 100%rented dwellings are a thing of the past.Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the wisdom ofproviding large single-tenure social housingestates was seriously questioned. Councilhousing nationally is now in decline and Right-to-Buy sales have made significant inroads intochanging the tenure mix on existing estates. Adiverse range of providers, including housing

Background: why botherabout governance?

associations, are now engaged in the provision ofrented social housing, and many of these nowstand side-by-side with owned homes.

In addition, since 1994, tenants on council estateshave had the right to become more involved inthe running of their communities through theRight-to-Manage regulation which consolidatedthe formation of tenant management organisations(TMOs), including estate management boards andtenant management cooperatives.

Where new neighbourhoods are being built,diversification of tenure has become a keyingredient, whether for cross-subsidy reasons orunder planning agreements under Section 106 ofthe 1990 Town and Country Planning Act.Indeed, recent government planning guidance(DTLR, 2000) states that development plansshould have “regard to social conditions”,including the need for affordable housing. TheGuidance Note (PPG3) states:

It may be desirable in planning terms thatnew housing developments on a substantialscale in both urban and rural areas shouldincorporate a reasonable mix and balance ofhouse types and sizes to cater for a range ofhousing needs. Where there is ademonstrable lack of affordable housing tomeet local needs, authorities may indicatean overall target for the provision ofaffordable housing. (DTLR, 2000)

However, relatively little research has been doneinto how, in a mixed tenure area, residents acrossall tenure types can be involved in governancematters in their community. The team thereforelooked carefully at mixed tenure areas to see ifthere were any models of how communities canwork together on governance matters.

6


Focus on the neighbourhood

Neighbourhood renewal starts from a properunderstanding of the needs of communities.Communities need to be consulted andlistened to, and the most effectiveinterventions are often those wherecommunities are actively involved in theirdesign and delivery, and where possible inthe driving seat. (SEU, 2001, p 19)

As the above quotation from the neighbourhoodrenewal National strategy action plan shows,neighbourhoods have become a priority in thepolicy agenda for tackling social exclusion. Mucheffective work in developing governancestructures that engage with residents has beendone in some of the most deprived communities,where the need for massive change hassometimes galvanised resident activity. Some ofthese ‘beacons of hope’ are detailed in theCommunity-led estate regeneration handbook(Churches National Housing Coalition and TheHousing Corporation, 2001).

The research team undertook a number of visitsto various neighbourhoods of mixed tenure asoutlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Case study areas – tenure mix (%)

Shared Owner-Area Rented ownership occupied

Stockfield 40 12 48Royds 58 0 42Poundbury 20 0 80Bournville 49 1 50Manor and Castle 74 0 26Churchill Gardens 50 0 50Blackbird Leys 50 20 30

These case study areas were selected inconsultation with a project advisory group afterhaving identified four key routes to aneighbourhood becoming mixed tenure:

• the exercise of Right to Buy in an area oftraditional council housing (Churchill Gardens,Manor and Castle);

• through a regeneration programme (Royds,Stockfield);

• newer private developments (Poundbury);• ‘third sector’ developments (Bournville,

Blackbird Leys).

The group also agreed that the report shouldfocus on neighbourhoods of between 500 and5,000 homes, and recognised the importance ofthe work with which Martin Knox had beeninvolved in both Stockfield and Royds as a usefulfoundation.

In each area the team sought to evaluate whetherthere had been any attempt to involve residentsin governance. The team analysed each of themodels of engagement that they found toestablish whether there were principles of goodpractice that could be applied more generallyand, if so, what they were. This report is theoutcome of that process.

7

3

Stockfield estate, Birmingham

Background

In 1987 Birmingham City Council had to addressthe problem of a large number of pre-war houseson the Stockfield estate in Acocks Green, SouthEast Birmingham, that were no longer economicto repair and in an extremely poor condition. Thesocial fabric of the estate was also vulnerable;crime was high and there were a large number ofempty properties.

Stakeholders (see Table 2)

The City Council was prevented from borrowingthe necessary funds by government policy.Birmingham City Council (for whom Martin Knoxthen worked as Assistant City Solicitor), HalifaxBuilding Society (as it then was), BromfordCarinthia Housing Association and, mostimportantly, residents, worked together toproduce Stockfield Community Association.

What became known as the ‘communityassociation model’ emerged: an independentvehicle in which residents could be involved inthe redevelopment of their estate. The Council

The community association model

was able to remain involved – both throughrepresentation on the board and through theprovision of services to the CommunityAssociation. This was possible because localauthorities are empowered to provide goods andservices to community associations under the1970 Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act.For the purposes of this legislation, ‘communityassociation’ is defined as a public body.

Resident involvement

Structure

Table 2: Stakeholders in the Stockfield estate

Resident involvement Social Local authorityvehicle landlord involved Private sector Other

Stockfield Bromford Birmingham Halifax Architects:Community Carinthia City Council Building Webb SeegerAssociation Housing Society Moorhouse

Association

Figure 1: Board structure of the StockfieldCommunity Association

6 residents 2 Council 2 HalifaxBuildingSociety

2 BromfordCarinthiaHousing

Association

Stockfield Community AssociationCharity, company limited by guarantee

Subsidary companyNon-charity, company limited by shares

8


Resident representation on the board of StockfieldCommunity Association is 50%. Companymembers are all also directors and the communitytherefore has a 50% ‘stake’ in the CommunityAssociation.

The structure of a charitable company limited byguarantee with a non-charitable subsidiary wasused in order to take advantage of the benefits ofregistering as a charity; while the non-charitablesubsidiary gave the Association the option todevelop housing for sale, which was then used tocross-subsidise the housing for rent and otherimprovements on the estate.

Accountability

Resident members/directors are elected everythree years. Anyone living on the estate can benominated to stand and each household has avote. There are a set number of places availablefor residents from each of the followingcategories:

• tenants of Stockfield Community Association;• tenants renting properties from housing

associations;• owners.

The elections are by postal ballot and are carriedout by the Council through the local housingoffice.

Funding

The Stockfield regeneration scheme was unusualfor its time in that it was funded by privatefinance, to an association not registered with TheHousing Corporation, and by public cross-subsidyfunding from land sales within the estate. TheCommunity Association now receives rent fromthe 119 homes that it owns, which gives theAssociation an ongoing, if modest, income streamand a platform from which to undertake furtherwork in the community. The Association iscurrently considering how to best further theregeneration of the area.

Influence on service provision

Stockfield Community Association has amanagement agreement with Birmingham CityCouncil in respect of certain functions which theCouncil will carry out on behalf of theAssociation, including housing management ofthe Association’s rented stock and the collection

Stockfield after regeneration

9

of ground rent from owned properties. TheCommunity Association is therefore in a positionto control such housing management through itscontract with the Council. The involvement ofthe Council on the board of Stockfield CommunityAssociation and through their delivery of thehousing management function means that there isan ongoing opportunity for dialogue between theCommunity Association and the Council. This, inturn, gives the Community Association theopportunity to influence other services providedby the Council on the estate.

Residents involved with the CommunityAssociation gave numerous examples of ways inwhich they have been able to influence the levelof service provided by Birmingham City Council.For example, they have been able to choosewhere to site trees rather than having themplanted in areas marked out by the Council, andthey have obtained higher levels of service thanon other similar council estates in relation tohousing repairs. They have not always been ableto oblige the Council to comply with requests anddemands, however: rubbish collection was citedas a particular issue.

Residents also mentioned the monthly‘management meeting’ that resident directors onthe board of the Community Association havewith housing officers from Birmingham CityCouncil and from the housing associationsinvolved in Stockfield. These meetings are oftenalso attended by the local police and have beenattended in the past by the company responsiblefor heating Stockfield properties. The indicationfrom residents involved was that these meetingsare extremely useful in ironing out issues.

Integration

The redevelopment has seen just over 400structurally unsound 1930s houses demolishedand replaced with:

• 119 homes for rent, owned by StockfieldCommunity Association;

• 76 homes for rent, owned by BromfordCarinthia Housing Association;

• 56 homes for shared ownership – part-ownedby the occupier and part-owned by BromfordCarinthia Housing Association;

• 230 homes sold outright.

The different tenures are not differentiated bydesign; indeed, from the outside of each propertyit is not possible to say into which category anyparticular property falls. The perception of someresidents involved in the Community Associationis that owners are perhaps less ready than tenantsto get involved in the running of the estate,although there have been owner members of theboard.

Design

From an early stage residents were involved indiscussions with the concept architect (WebbSeeger Moorhouse). This led to the adoption ofimportant design features, which included:

• ensuring that the external appearance ofdwellings of different tenure could not bedistinguished – this has been a major factor inpreventing a ‘them and us’ attitude betweenthe different tenures, which has beensignificant in promoting a sense of community;

• maximising the use of defensible space andcorrespondingly reducing common areas thatwould prove difficult to maintain;

• maximising ‘secured by design’ features in anattempt to reduce crime;

• enhancing road safety through a combinationof traffic-calming measures and providing eachhouse with two off-street parking spaces;

• retaining environmental features, such asmature trees, on the estate, with theincorporation of a central park and newly-builtchildren’s play area.

Use of property covenants

The Community Association has attempted tomaintain physical standards on the estate byincluding a range of covenants in both tenancyagreements and long leases. The enforceabilityissues for long leaseholders who acquire thefreehold of their property (as they are entitled todo once they have owned the lease for more thanthree years) are discussed later in this report inChapter 8.

Both tenants and leaseholders are bound bycovenants that contain restrictions in relation tocar parking, the construction of garden sheds andthe installation of satellite dishes. There are alsorestrictions against alterations to the appearance


10


of each property without the consent of theAssociation. Views differ as to the effectivenessof these covenants. The research team becameaware of a number of breaches of covenant onthe estate and the Community Associationappears to decide what to do in each situation ona case-by-case basis. Clearly there is a desire toavoid taking action which will create bad feeling,but certainly one view was expressed to theresearch team that this approach lessened theeffectiveness of the covenants.

Use of behaviour covenants

The Community Association tenancy agreementcontains the usual restrictions against tenantscausing a nuisance or other antisocial behaviouron the estate. The Community Association has,on occasion, taken action to enforce theseprovisions against troublesome tenants. Someofficers felt that this has occasionally led toresident board members being put in a difficultposition, as they have known some of theindividuals involved personally and are thereforevulnerable to the accusation of ‘taking sides’. Thegeneral perception among residents to whom theresearch team spoke is that standards ofbehaviour have improved since the estate wasrebuilt. One resident commented thatleaseholders perceive that young people from thetenant families tend to be responsible for most ofthe antisocial behaviour on the estate. However,this resident’s view was that this does not reflectthe reality of the situation, which is far morecomplex.

It is clear, however, that being able to enforcebehaviour covenants is perceived by the residentsinvolved as an important capacity. The researchteam is not aware of any similar enforcementaction taken against any long leaseholder and thisis an area that would merit further research.

Residents’ views

Residents involved in Stockfield CommunityAssociation were extremely positive about theAssociation. They indicated that it provides themwith an effective means of engaging in therunning of their area and clearly felt that they areable to exercise influence over most of theservices provided on the estate. Their view wasthat they do have to engage with the Council in

Key findings

• The creation of an independent company gaveflexibility to the funding of the regeneration ofStockfield estate and allowed residentssignificant control of that regeneration.

• The independent company also secured theinvolvement of other stakeholders in the area,and committed them to the regenerationprocess.

• Residents continue to feel that the companyvehicle has been significant in giving them a‘platform’ through which to influence theprovision of services in their area.

• Design was a key factor in the success of theStockfield estate. Of particular importancewere the fact that owned and rented homescould not be distinguished from the outsideand the incorporation of key environmentalfeatures, such as the retention of mature treesand a central park with a new children’s playarea.

order not to be seen as just another estate and todemand a higher level of services.

It is clear that residents regard the formation ofthe Association as significant, in giving them a‘platform’ to communicate with the otherstakeholders on an equal footing and to worktowards the creation of an area which issomething more than a traditional ‘council estate’.

11

Royds, Bradford

Background

The Royds area covers three housing estates –Buttershaw, Woodside and Delph Hill – that arelocated on the south-west side of Bradford. Thethree estates combined contain around 3,300dwellings and have a population of around 12,000people. Regeneration work in the Royds areabegan with active residents’ groups engaging withBradford City Council and other stakeholders toconsider the regeneration of the area. After fouryears of negotiation, the area was awarded aSingle Regeneration Budget (SRB) programme ofsome £31 million. The programme covers thelocal economy and social infrastructure of theRoyds area, as well as the refurbishment andselective demolition and rebuilding of residentialproperties.



Structure

Royds Community Association (RCA) wasregistered as a company limited by guarantee on10 April 1994 and subsequently as a charity.

Resident representation on the board of RCA is60%. Company members are also directors, andthe community therefore has a 60% ‘stake’ inRCA.

The community association model was used togive residents a vehicle through which they couldbe directly involved in the regeneration of theRoyds area and in which they could have a boardmajority.


Table 3: Stakeholders in the Royds area

Residentinvolvement Social Local

vehicle landlord authority involved Private sector Other

Royds Brunel, Habinteg and Bradford Keepmoat PLC Architects:Community Hanover housing Metropolitan and Haslam Webb SeegerAssociation associations District Council Housing Ltd Moorhouse

Figure 2: Board structure of Royds CommunityAssociation

4 residentsWoodside Estate

4 residentsButtershaw Estate

Royds Community AssociationCharity, company limited by guarantee

Subsidary share company

4 residentsDelph Hill Estate

12 residents 3 Council 7 ‘organisations’

Again, the structure of a charitable company witha non-charitable subsidiary was used in order totake advantage of the benefits of registering as acharity, while at the same time giving sufficientflexibility for non-charitable activities to beundertaken by the subsidiary company, includingdevelopment work.

Accountability

Twelve members of the 22-strong board of RCAare residents elected for a four-year term. Fourresident directors are elected from each of thethree estates that make up the Royds area andcome from both owners and those living in socialhousing. Any adult living within the relevant areacan be nominated to stand and has a vote. Theelectoral process is undertaken by the CouncilElections Department in a similar way to electionsfor the local authority.

Among those residents who participated in ourresearch, opinion was divided about theeffectiveness of RCA’s attempts to consult localpeople. Some residents felt that the reliance onleaflets and other mailshot-based forms of

12


communication was ineffective, as suchpublications often went unread. Others felt thatRCA communicated well with residents. Theboard member who was part of our researchgroup expressed his strong commitment to therole of resident directors in assisting local peopleto participate in the regeneration process. It wasclear from our research, however, that, despitesuch good intentions, this has not been acomplete success.

One resident pointed out that this might be partlybecause of the difficulty of engaging withcommunities of people where low self-confidenceand low self-esteem are widespread. Thisresident remarked that there is only so much thata well-intentioned structure can achieve ininvolving residents: “You can lead a horse towater but you can’t make it drink”. It was clearthat, even where consultation had taken place(for example, over a new playground), RCA hadneeded to deal with the difficulty of dividedresident opinion. It is clear that you cannotplease all of the people all of the time.

Royds Healthy Living Centre – a key community asset

Funding

The Royds area is unusual among the areasstudied for this report in that RCA has been therecipient of over £30 million of governmentregeneration funding through the SRBprogramme. Our research showed that thisregeneration programme has been a powerfulcatalyst for change in the Royds area. Long-termsustainability of the regeneration of the Roydsarea remains a key issue for RCA and theAssociation has been able to acquire a number ofkey land-based assets, which should provide asound financial basis in the future, to somedegree at least. Further research will be neededto ascertain the success of the regenerationinitiative in the long term, once SRB funding hasceased.

RCA was highly unusual in that, for SRBpurposes, it became the ‘accountable body’ fromday one (in the vast majority of SRB programmesthe local authority has been the accountablebody). RCA was fortunate in securing thecommitment of the government minister thenresponsible for SRB, David Curry MP, who metresidents early in the process and agreed that RCAshould become the accountable body. This hasbeen a major factor in its success.

13



RCA is also unusual among the areas studied inthat it is not itself the landlord of the socialhousing in the area. Our research did show somefrustration among both residents and RCA boardmembers that, having refurbished the housing,RCA had had to ‘hand it back’ to the localauthority or one of the other landlords active inthe area.

The fact that RCA is not a landlord has limited itsability to become involved in issues of neighbournuisance and antisocial behaviour. Our researchshowed that such problems remain a concern forresidents. The behaviour of young people andthe quality of parenting skills were also identifiedby residents as key issues.

Integration

The tenure split over the three estates that makeup the Royds area is shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Tenure in the Royds area (%)

Council tenants 48Other tenants 10Owner-occupiers 42

Many of the owners acquired their propertiesfrom the local authority through the Right-to-Buylegislation. More recently, however, there hasbeen an increase in ownership following thedemolition of sub-standard housing by RCA andthe building of new mixed tenure housingassociation stock for rent and for sale. Thecombination of these two factors has led to aconsiderable degree of integration between thedifferent tenures.

Design

The refurbishment programme on the estates gaveresidents, through the RCA vehicle, theopportunity to be actively involved in theredesign of the refurbished and newly-builtproperties.

The importance of resident input during the workis illustrated by case study 1.

Case study 1

When the RCA board came to choose the designfor the new windows for houses in the area, theyrealised that the design they were offered was notsufficiently ‘burglar proof’. Working with thepolice, they chose a new secure design with theresult that crime in those properties felldramatically. When the second wave of propertieswas being refurbished and the budget was tight,residents were told ‘you’ve had your fun’ andasked to choose a cheaper window. They resisted,found economies elsewhere, and crime hascontinued to fall. Burglaries have fallen by 80%and overall crime by 40%.


As RCA is neither a landlord nor a ‘seller’ ofhousing, its ability to use property covenants hasbeen limited. This has restricted its ability to beinvolved in maintaining uniform standards on theestates.


As highlighted earlier, RCA has similarly not beenable to directly affect the behaviour of thoseliving on the estates. This has been a matter offrustration for some residents.

Residents’ views

It was clear from our research that theachievements of RCA were recognised by allresidents involved. Residents agreed on theenormous improvements in the quality of thehousing stock and, significantly, owners alsoacknowledged that they had benefited (althoughperhaps not to quite the same extent) from therefurbishment programme. Residents agreed thatthis had considerably raised the impression of thearea as a whole. Residents were also verypositive about the general environmentalimprovements to the area for which theyperceived RCA to also have been responsible.One unemployed resident spoke positively of hisexperience of RCA’s involvement in his studiesand his attempts to find work as illustrated bycase study 2.

14


Case study 2

One local resident who became involved with RCAwas unemployed at the start of the programmeand lived at home with his elderly parents. WhenRCA awarded contracts for the construction workon the estate, as they were not a public body, theywere able to insert a local labour clause thatensured that a minimum of 20% of the labourforce engaged in the construction should be fromthe estate. This resident got a job with one of theconstruction companies involved in the building ofnew houses for sale. Because he was inemployment, he had enough income to afford tobuy a house and considered moving off the estate.A friend suggested that he buy a house on theestate, and eventually he bought a propertydirectly opposite his parents’ home. He wastherefore able to provide them with ongoingsupport, which would not otherwise have beenpossible.

While residents appreciated the work of RCA inspecific areas, there remained elements ofcommunal life that caused residents frustration,and over which they felt they had little control.Residents identified the following areas:

• street environmental issues, such as dogfouling, grass cutting and car parking;

• health services, particularly the fact that thereis no chemist on any of the three Roydsestates;

• transport issues including bus routes and roadlayout;

• policing – residents complained of thewithdrawal some years ago of a localcommunity policeman by the relevant policeforce without consultation with local people;

• problems with behaviour by local schoolchildren on the buses to and from school.

Residents felt that they had little opportunity tocontrol or influence the delivery of services foreach of the issues listed. It is significant that RCAhas not been directly involved in these areas, withthe exception of the development of the HealthyLiving Centre on the Buttershaw estate, whichwas given considerable approval from theresidents.

Our research shows that feelings of alienation andthe lack of ability to control service provision in aparticular area are deep-rooted problems. Evenwhere residents acknowledge that there is astrong independent structure with adequatefunding and national recognition, in whichresidents are democratically involved, thereremain areas of communal life over whichresidents feel they have little control and continueto be frustrated by the perceived lack of serviceprovider accountability. This would appear toendorse current government thinking aboutneighbourhood management and the necessity ofdevolving the control over services to as local alevel as possible to address this perceiveddemocratic deficit.

Key findings

• Government funding has been a powerfulcatalyst for change in the Royds area.

• Of equal significance, was the fact that RCAbecame the accountable body for thegovernment funding and so had direct controlover it. In turn, RCA was under the control ofthe residents of the area. The view of theresidents is that this has contributed directly tothe widely acknowledged success of theregeneration scheme.

• Resident involvement in design issues againproved significant.

• The use of a company limited by guaranteevehicle has enabled residents to becomeinvolved in a way that has protected them frompersonal liability but allowed them to have realdecision-making power.

15

4

During the 20th century there have been anumber of well-known experiments in theprovision of housing by wealthy individuals whohave sought to challenge the prevailing norms insocial housing provision. The research teamvisited two such experiments: Poundbury inDorset was built at the instigation of the Prince ofWales under the auspices of the Duchy ofCornwall; Bournville in Birmingham was largelythe brainchild of George Cadbury and continuesto be associated closely with the Cadbury family.

Poundbury, Dorset

Background

Poundbury is a new development on the edge ofDorchester, which aims to extend the populationof the town by approximately 5,000 people. Ithas been built (and is still being built) on agreenfield site in four distinct districts over aperiod of 20-25 years (depending on marketdemand).


Philanthropy in action


Structure

Each area of Poundbury has a managementcompany, which is responsible for maintainingthe common parts and associated work. It isenvisaged that there will be up to a maximum of10 management companies, but at present thereare two – Poundbury Man Co 1 and PoundburyMan Co 2. These management companies arecompanies limited by shares and every owner hasa share in the company covering their property.The owners of commercial premises within thearea governed by each management companyalso have shares, which relate to the area coveredby their premises, measured in square feet. TheGuinness Trust owns the shares in respect of thetenanted properties. The Duchy of Cornwall hasa ‘golden share’ in the management companieswhich effectively gives the Duchy a veto over allmajor decisions, although it is envisaged that theDuchy will give up this role once Poundbury isfinally established.

All the shareholders in the company have theright to attend the Annual General Meeting(AGM), which sets the service charge payable byall households living in the area governed by thatmanagement company. Currently this servicecharge is set at £90. The Guinness Trust informsits tenants of the agenda for the meeting and

Table 5: Stakeholders in Poundbury, Dorset

Residentinvolvement vehicle Social landlord Local authority involved Private sector Other

Residents’ Association/ Guinness Trust No significant No significant Duchy of CornwallPoundbury Man Co involvement involvement

16


takes informal soundings of tenants’ views. TheGuinness Trust representative then attends themeeting and seeks to vote in accordance withtenants’ views but also with the interests of theTrust as landlord. It was not clear to the researchteam how the interests of tenants would berepresented in the event of a divergence of theseinterests.

There is also an active Residents’ Association withapproximately 99% membership among all theresidents of Poundbury. Each new resident isinvited to join the Residents’ Association and eachmember pays an annual fee of £2. Meetings areheld quarterly and the three local councillors areinvited to attend. The Residents’ Association actsas a forum for discussion on environmentalissues, provides a point of contact with the localauthority, publishes an informative newsletter andcarries out a semi-policing role (by encouragingthe observance of covenants or tenancy terms).

The Guinness Trust itself has an additionalmechanism for tenant involvement: it holdsregular regional meetings to which tenantrepresentatives are invited. The Guinness Trusttenants living in Poundbury are invited to theregional meeting for the South West. However,due to an initial reluctance to attend on the partof tenants, the former chair of the Residents’Association attended a number of meetings onbehalf of, or with, Guinness Trust tenants fromPoundbury. This proved to be a usefulmechanism, for example, in providing anopportunity to ask the Guinness Trust to repairexternal parts of their properties in Poundbury.This was approved by the Guinness Trust andenabled external redecoration to take place sothat the social housing did not becomedistinguishable from the other housing due topoor maintenance.

Accountability

The shareholders elect directors to the board ofeach management company. Thus, at presentonly owners of property in Poundbury elect thedirectors. Currently there are three Directors ofPoundbury Man Co 1 – two of whom areresidents; the other being the Duchy of Cornwall.The Residents’ Association also elects its officers.

Funding

The management companies in Poundbury willhave a reasonably active role for the foreseeablefuture. This is partly because most of the roads inPoundbury are likely to remain unadoptedbecause they are too narrow to fit local authoritycriteria for adoption. The managementcompanies are also responsible for themaintenance of the satellite television system thatwas installed to remove the need for externaltelevision aerials on each property. The fundingfor these management company activities comesfrom the annual service charge which, asindicated above, is set by the AGM of eachmanagement company.


Some roads through Poundbury are adopted andtherefore it is the responsibility of the localauthority to maintain them. The local authority isalso responsible for the usual services, forexample, refuse collection.

As already noted, three local councillors attendthe quarterly meetings of the Residents’Association and the residents feel that there is avery good working relationship with the localauthority. However, it is recognised that this ispossibly due, at least in part, to the high profile ofPoundbury, which allows its residents tocommand a better quality of service.

Integration

The housing includes approximately 20% ofproperties for rent by the Guinness Trust, withtenants being allocated from the local authorityhousing list. The social housing is integratedwith, and indistinguishable from, the privatehousing. Both the Guinness Trust and the localauthority are anxious to avoid allegations ofexclusivity in Poundbury, so the normal Counciland Guinness Trust criteria apply.

Design

Poundbury is a relatively new community. It isunusual among the areas visited by the researchteam in that it has the lowest proportion of socialrented housing in these areas. The disposable

17

income levels of the residents are therefore likelyto be on average higher than the otherneighbourhoods visited. All the residentsinterviewed by the research team, however, saidthat the relationships between those living indifferent tenures were good. The design of theestate is clearly a factor in this, as rented andowned homes are indistinguishable andintermingled.

Good design and planning are key features in thesuccess of Poundbury. The properties are allunique, creating an interesting environment.They are also economic to run so household billsare reduced. The area is designed to minimisedisruption by cars (narrow streets, courtyards forparking), and all public squares, courtyards andpavements are gravelled, which, althoughunpopular at first, has played a significant part indeterring crime. Local residents clearly enjoytheir physical environment and are keen tomaintain its attractiveness.


Poundbury has seen extensive use of propertycovenants in tenancy and freehold properties.The Duchy of Cornwall exercises an active role in

relation to the covenants and a number of mattersrequire the consent of the Duchy, for example:

• changing front door colour;• putting up a garden shed;• removing or ‘mutilating’ any trees or shrubs on

the property.

A number of things are prohibited altogether:

• bringing a caravan or similar vehicle onto theproperty, or parking it in the car parking space;

• putting up television aerials or satellite dishes;• leaving rubbish outside the property.

For freeholders, these covenants are contained inthe title documentation to each property. Fortenants of the Guinness Trust, they are containedin a separate document annexed to the standardtenancy agreement, and therefore the Trust takesthe view that the covenants are incorporated intothe agreement (although this has never beentested in court).

The general view among residents interviewed,however, seemed to be that these covenants arequite helpful. It was felt that they provide amechanism for maintaining standards in the areaand are more or less self-policing. Most residents


18


have moved into Poundbury with full knowledgeof the restrictions and, in some instances, becauseof the restrictions. The general view was that anenvironment such as Poundbury, in whichcovenants are in place to maintain minimumstandards, attracts a certain type of resident.Those who are not suited to this type ofcommunity either do not move into the area ormove on fairly quickly. Residents felt that theexistence of covenants provides a structure fordisputes between neighbours to be resolved and,as a result, reduces potential conflict betweenneighbours in the community.

Residents interviewed felt that the Duchy appearsto take a fairly common-sense approach and iswilling to grant permission to all reasonablerequests. The Residents’ Association alsoprovides an opportunity to discuss issues thatarise in relation to the covenants, for example,disputes over parking or poor television receptiondue to a prohibition on aerials.


The Poundbury documentation does containcovenants designed to prohibit anti-socialbehaviour. The research team was not aware ofany incidence of these covenants being used.

There is an unusual absence of crime and anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood. Opinionsdiffer as to why this is the case but oneinterviewee said that she felt it was becausetenants tended to socialise elsewhere, quoting anexample of one of her neighbours being broughthome drunk by the police because he had goneout in another part of Dorchester!

Residents’ views

Residents to whom the research team spokeseemed happy to live in Poundbury. They feltthat Poundbury appears to be succeeding througha combination of good planning and design, andactive community interest. The Residents’Association and management companies appearto offer effective means of communitygovernance, at least for the owners. The separatemechanism for tenant involvement offered by theGuinness Trust has provided some successfuloutcomes but this seems to have been largely

dependent on the willingness of owners tocontribute and offer support.

The success of the structure as it stands appearsto be largely dependent on the proactive natureof the local community and a number of keypersonalities who have taken initiative,encouraged involvement and acted as effectivespokespersons when relating to outside serviceproviders. This raises issues over thesustainability of this level of success without moreformal mechanisms for community governance,especially as Poundbury grows in size over theforthcoming years.

Poundbury may even become a victim of its ownsuccess. Some tenants are already expressingfrustration over their inability to exercise theRight-to-Buy (while recognising that this woulddefeat a key characteristic of the community).Meanwhile, house prices have risen by as muchas 40-50% in some cases. This threatens to createa somewhat exclusive community and toemphasise the distinction between owners andtenants.

Key findings

• The use of high-quality materials andmeticulous design can be of enormous benefitwhen planning sustainable communities.

• Ensuring that rented and owned housing isindistinguishable and intermixed creates fargreater opportunities for a genuinely mixedcommunity.

• The use of covenants to maintain standardsacross a neighbourhood can find considerablesupport among residents.

• Resident involvement can depend on a fewsignificant personalities.

• A traditional residents’ association can offersome scope for consultation and involvement,but its influence may be limited.

19

Bournville Village Trust

Background

The Bournville Village Trust (BVT) was foundedin 1900 by George Cadbury. A range ofproperties was built to high standards with theaim of offering an alternative to Birmingham’sinner-city slums. Strict tenancy terms andcovenants were imposed in an attempt tomaintain high standards on the estate.

Bournville was constructed using high-qualitymaterials and design under the personalsupervision of George Cadbury. Many of theowned properties are now extremely sought after,and property values on the estate are high.Visitors to the area continue to comment on thepleasant surroundings.



Structure

BVT, itself a charitable trust and registered sociallandlord, takes its place within the structureshown in Figure 3.

There is no formal mechanism for residentrepresentation on the board of BVT. Residentsappointed by the various residents’ associationsserve on the Housing Services Sub-Committee andthe Estate Management Sub-Committee.

In addition to the residents’ associations, therehave also been a number of tenants’ associations(again, geographically-based). In recent years,however, enthusiasm for these groups amongresidents has fluctuated. There is also theBournville Freeholders’ Association, which is anequivalent organisation for owners in theBournville area. There is no separate body that

represents long leaseholders in Bournville,although the Bournville Freeholders’ Associationnow offers ‘associate’ membership to leaseholdersso that they can attend meetings and receive thenewsletter, but not vote at meetings.

In addition, the Bournville Advisory Committeewas set up four to five years ago. It is the mainforum at which representatives from all theresident bodies meet with BVT trustees andofficers. It includes three trustees – one fromeach of the two relevant sub-committees (housingand estate management), and a third ‘floating’place which trustees take it in turn to fill. Thereare also two residents from the same sub-committees and a resident representative fromeach of the ‘recognised’ associations except forthe Bournville Freeholders Association, which isentitled to send two representatives (as the onlyestate-wide association).

Accountability

There is no formal election process for residentrepresentatives within Bournville.

The residents’ associations in Bournville arelongstanding and those who serve on thecommittees of those associations have often beenin the post for a long period of time. There wassome disagreement among those interviewed bythe research team as to whether the gradualwaning of support for these associations isbecause of apathy among residents or because ofthe lack of turnover of membership on thecommittees.

Funding

BVT currently supports the residents’ and tenants’association with some revenue funding, between£600 and £2,000 per year depending on size.BVT also supports the bodies responsible for thecommunity halls in the area with varying amountsof funding.


Table 6: Stakeholders in Bournville, Birmingham

Resident involvement Local authorityvehicle Social landlord involved Private sector Other

Through residents’ Bournville Village Birmingham City No significant Cadbury familyassociations Trust Council involvement

20


Bournville was constructed using high qualitymaterials and design under the personal supervisionof George Cadbury

Figure 3: Structure of Bournville Village Trust

9 Cadbury familydescendents

1 Religious Societyof Friends

1 BirminghamUniversity

1 CityCouncil

Bournville VillageTrust

Bournville AdvisoryCommittee

Residents’ groups

Estate ManagementSub-Committee

Housing ServicesSub-Committee

Resident

Othersub-committees

Representatives


As outlined in the structural diagram in Figure 3,representatives of the residents’ associations siton the Housing Services Sub-Committee, theEstate Management Sub-Committee and also onthe Bournville Advisory Committee.

The Housing Services Sub-Committee is the bodythat provides for trustees to meet with tenantrepresentatives to discuss matters affecting BVTtenants. A number of the residents interviewedhave sat, or are currently sitting, on thiscommittee.

The committee is used by the trustees to consultwith BVT tenants on issues that affect them.There was a feeling expressed by thoseinterviewed that the committee is ‘good as far asit goes’, but that tenants’ views are listened to butnot necessarily actioned.

The Bournville Advisory Committee is a purelyadvisory body through which the trustees aim toencourage two-way communication with localresidents. Residents felt that it served a usefulfunction in keeping BVT officers ‘on their toes’,providing a useful point of contact with thepolice, who send a representative.

BVT obviously makes a considerable effort toconsult its local residents on key decisions, andhas a number of committees and other bodies inplace for this purpose, as outlined above. Forexample, BVT recently consulted residents on itspolicy to prohibit the sale of alcohol on theBournville estate. Local residents voted in favourof maintaining this prohibition.

The residents also discussed examples ofsituations in which they have felt excluded fromdecisions taken by the board of trustees. Severalexpressed a view that the board of trustees is notaccountable to the local residents for thedecisions it makes and, consequently, localresidents do not feel any ‘ownership’ for anumber of the decisions taken.

21


Integration

BVT owns around 7,500 properties in Bournville,the tenure of which is shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Tenure in BVT properties in Bournville (%)

BVT tenants 33Freeholders 29Long leaseholders 21Tenants of other landlords 10Housing association tenants managed by BVT 5Tenants of Bournville Village Alms House Trust 1Shared-ownership <1

The different types of tenure in Bournville aresplit roughly half-and-half between those that areowned or on long leases and those that are rented(see Table 6). The housing is physically mixed tosome extent, with certain streets containing agood mixture of private properties and homes forrent. However, there are enclaves of exclusivelyowned properties and exclusively rentedproperties.

Design

Bournville as an area is noted for the highstandard of original building materials and alsofor the ongoing high quality of maintenance inthe area. Bournville was well landscaped whenoriginally laid out and there are many well-established trees and open spaces in the area.Many of those who live in the area commentedfavourably on the ‘look’ and this is reflected inthe higher property values in Bournville incomparison with the average across the city ofBirmingham.


Bournville is notable for its use of propertycovenants designed to maintain the physicalfabric and good order of the properties. There isa fuller discussion of the mechanisms used toenforce covenants against owners in Chapter 8,but it is worth noting at this point that BournvilleVillage Trust is unique among the areas visited bythe research team in its ability to continue toimpose positive covenants, even when ownerssell their properties to third parties.


BVT has taken action against some tenants basedon behaviour covenants and has also obtained ananti-social behaviour order. Generally, residentsacross all types of tenure approve of theseactions.

Residents’ views

There is evidently a marked divide betweenowners and long leaseholders and tenants. Thisappeared to stem from the issue of status, butthere was also a lot of resentment on the part ofsome tenants of the freedoms enjoyed byfreeholders and long leaseholders.

Being a development with a fairly long history,there are a number of tenants who have rentedtheir homes from BVT for a substantial period oftime. There is obvious frustration that thesetenants cannot exercise any right to buy and aretherefore prevented from moving up the propertyladder. While there is an understanding of, andsome sympathy for, BVT’s commitment to socialhousing, there is still frustration when this clasheswith an individual’s personal wishes andaspirations.

The research team formed the view that, as ageneral rule, the tenants who had been living inBVT properties for a long time appeared to bequite defensive about their position. On the onehand, they do not have the same status asfreeholders or long leaseholders and feeldiscriminated against as a result; on the otherhand, they cannot identify with the new tenantsmoving into BVT properties (often from theBirmingham City Council housing list).

There was some support expressed for stricter‘vetting’ processes by BVT when allocatinghousing to new tenants.

Although residents felt that they had more controlover services affecting their lives than those livingin other parts of the city (because of the roleplayed by BVT), they still wanted mechanisms tobe put in place that would enable them to havemore input and influence.

22


Key findings

• Where a paternalistic approach is adopted,there will be clear limits on genuineneighbourhood governance.

• Good initial design and the use of high-qualitymaterials can have a major impact on the long-term sustainability of an area.

• Positive relationships between tenants andowners, whether leaseholders or freeholders,require concerted effort on the part of allconcerned.

• Residents’ involvement can be hard to sustaineven in what appears to be a successfulcommunity.

23

5

Manor estate, Sheffield

Background

Construction began on the Manor Estate in the1920s, although the estate continued to expand insize over the next 20 years until after the SecondWorld War. The Manor Estate was built to housepeople who had been moved from Sheffield’sslums. The main source of employment forresidents was the steel industry, until its collapsein the early 1980s. The Manor estate has been,and still is, a close community with manyextended families; unlike many similar areas, thepattern of children growing up and leaving theestate is not as common.

Around the time of the collapse of the steelindustry, a large proportion of properties on theestate were identified as defective and, as aresult, demolished (approximately 2,000 homesover a five-year period). Sheffield City Councilmade arrangements with several housingassociations to replace some of the housing,although there are still large expanses of derelictland on the estate. Several community initiativeshave also sprung up in response to the increasein unemployment and social problems. One ofthese was the Manor Forum, which was set up by

The traditional moving forward

local people and has organised a number ofcampaigns on behalf of residents. The ManorDevelopment Company was also established andbuilt a number of workshop units on the estate toencourage business start-up, and a traininginitiative was started, which continues to operatein partnership with Sheffield College.

Today the Manor estate has a population ofapproximately 13,000 people. It continues to becharacterised by many of the key indicators ofdeep-rooted poverty and social exclusion.



Structure

As a result of an SRB bid, the Manor and CastleDevelopment Trust (MCDT) was established in1997 as a company limited by guarantee. The bidwas largely housing based (since another 1,000homes had been identified as defective and inneed of demolition), but also covered associatedissues, such as employment, health and theenvironment. The bid was successful and anaward of £16.6 million was made. (A further

Table 8: Stakeholders in the Manor estate, Sheffield


Manor and Castle Places for Sheffield City Through the board No significantDevelopment Trust People Council and Bellway involvement

(MCDT) through the boardof MCDT

24


award of £2.5 million of European Objective 2funds has also been made.)

Community representatives make up four of theboard of 12. The research team understands thatthe directors of the company are the same as thecompany members, so there is a 33% ‘stake’ forthe community in the company. The constitutiondoes not provide for any elections or term ofoffice for community members, but the researchteam understands that the three communityforums in the area may nominate communitymembers in the event of a vacancy.

There is a community forum in each of threeareas covered by the work of the MCDT –Wybourn, Park and Manor estates. In addition,there is a wider consultation body known as theManor Assembly. This body meets monthly andis attended by a mixture of local residents andprofessionals working on the estate. Its aim is toprovide a platform for local groups, projectworkers, statutory service providers, councillorsand local people, to work together in partnershipby discussing projects, ideas and local issues.Professionals use it as a sounding board for ideasand it plays a formal appraisal role for proposedprojects applying to the MCDT for funding.

Accountability

The research team is not aware of any process ofdemocratic elections for the communityrepresentative places on the MCDT board. Theabsence of an open democratic mechanism maybe one factor in the perceptions among someresidents as outlined below.

It was suggested that there is a core of localresidents who are committed to involvement onthe Manor estate and who work with a number of

different groups and forums. However, someresidents feel that the community at large remainsrelatively untouched by attempts to involve them.Although apathy was noted as a possible reason,those interviewed suggested that attempts atcommunity engagement to date havedemonstrated a lack of understanding on the partof professionals. Some residents said that theyhave felt patronised by professionals whoseattitudes and ideas demonstrated a lack ofunderstanding of the community and its needs.

Funding

As with Royds Community Association, MCDT hasbenefited from regeneration funding. The MCDTis its own accountable body and has beenpromoted as an impressive example of innovativecommunity action by Yorkshire Forward. As anaccountable body, the MCDT has enjoyedsignificant financial freedom, being able to front-fund projects (as opposed to the usual model ofSRB funding, which is almost always in arrears)and to resist attempts to use SRB funds to replacemainstream funding. It has developed some newhousing for sale on the Manor estate, through anagreement with the developer Bellway. Theprovision of relatively low-cost housing for sale(it often works out cheaper for a family to buy aproperty with a low-start mortgage than to rentone) has led to some people moving (back) tothe estate to be closer to their families. As aresult, the area is increasingly becoming one ofmixed tenure with people having the choice ofbuying ex-Right-to-Buy properties or the newhousing for sale.

Part of the MCDT’s succession strategy for lifeafter SRB has been to enter into an arrangementwith the Council for a transfer of the freehold ofsome of the properties that are for sale. TheMCDT is then able to sell the properties leaseholdand to collect the annual ground rent as income.

The MCDT has provided funding to around 50community projects since its establishment. Theresearch team spoke to one resident who has setup his own business with the help of funds fromthe MCDT. Despite the success of his ownbusiness, he was measured in his praise of theMCDT. He felt that it is still struggling to reallyengage with local people and suggested that farmore needs to be done to provide support tocommunity projects, both in the initial stages of

Figure 4: Board structure of Manor and CastleDevelopment Trust

4 community 4 private sector 4 Council

Manor and Castle Development Trust Board

Community forums

25

applying for funding and ongoing support onceprojects are up and running. He highlighted aserious lack of confidence and self-esteem amonglocal people, which often leads to inertia and areluctance to take up opportunities that areoffered.


MCDT does provide an opportunity for someinfluence over mainstream services; for example,the MCDT is taking over responsibility for someof the grounds maintenance on the estate. It hasalso successfully made a bid for funding toprovide neighbourhood wardens in the first roundof the Home Office Neighbourhood WardenScheme. The succession strategy of the MCDT isto further develop its asset base and, in time, totake over responsibility for some of the Council’sfunctions. In this way, the MCDT could becomemore like a neighbourhood manager. The ParishCouncil model was identified as a possibility, withservices and power decentralised to an area-basedbody that has the potential of being more intouch with, and more accountable to, localpeople.

Integration

The Manor and Castle area was unusual amongthose visited by the research team in the highnumber of properties in the area occupied bycouncil tenants.

Table 9: Tenure in Manor and Castle (%)

Council 65Owner-occupier 26Housing association 4Private rented 3Other 2

Use of covenants

As MCDT is not a landlord, its ability to use eitherproperty covenants or behaviour covenants islimited.

Residents’ views

The community on the Manor estate has, it wassuggested, a reputation for being particularlyvocal. However, this has not necessarilytranslated into community empowerment orgovernance. There have always been tenants’and residents’ associations active on the estateand, although they still exist, they are nowrelatively poorly attended. There is also amonthly meeting of the different landlords on theestate, but only recently have these been attendedby local residents.

Talking with local people indicated theirperception that there has been little improvementin their estate over recent years. Antisocialbehaviour, vandalism and petty crime are, in theirview, rife, and this seriously undermines thequality of life for many who live on the ManorEstate, destroying any sense of community. Itseems indicative of the general feeling amongresidents that they are powerless to influencetheir situation. The implication is that there is along way to go before local people are genuinelyengaged and empowered.

The general feeling among the residentsinterviewed was that the Council has traditionallyshown little interest in listening to, or engagingwith, local people. Local people have becomeused to empty rhetoric and broken promises.There needs to be recognition among allprofessional organisations that people here arestarting a long way back when it comes tocommunity involvement and engagement. Atpresent, there is little trust of professionalorganisations (including the Council) and localpeople do not appear to be persuaded to breakwith the norm and take an active role in theircommunity.

The Manor Estate has had a significant amount ofmoney channelled into it over the years.However, a number of people commented onhow little of this money has actually made it intothe pockets of local people in order tosignificantly improve their quality of life. Theanswer does not seem to lie, therefore, inspending more money on the Manor estate, butrather spending money more effectively. Thereappears to be a general belief in the Council andother ‘professional’ bodies that theimplementation of neighbourhood management isthe way forward. This is mirrored on the ground


26


by a desire among residents to see somecoordination and coherence in the attempts toregenerate the estate. There is recognition thatthe quality of life for people living on the ManorEstate (as a socially excluded area) is very muchmore dependent on the quality of public servicesthan is the case for people living in more affluentareas.

Key findings

• The problems of neighbourhooddisempowerment run deep and require long-term work to overcome them.

• Regeneration funding can make a significantdifference but needs to be widely ‘owned’ bythe community.

• A genuine commitment to democraticaccountability is needed by any organisationthat claims to represent local people.

• Local people want to influence how services aredelivered.

Churchill Gardens, Westminster

Background

The Churchill Gardens estate is a postwardevelopment of approximately 1,800 homes inWestminster on the banks of the River Thames. Itoccupies a site of approximately 40 acres and wasbuilt in four phases, starting in 1946 andcompleting in the early 1960s. It was designed bythe architects Powell and Moya and was inspiredby the concept of an estate village, seeking tomaximise the benefits of open space to createprivacy and a pleasant living environment forresidents.

The housing on the estate comprises 39 flat-roofed blocks set among green spaces and playareas. The estate houses between 5,500 and6,000 people in accommodation ranging frombedsits to four-bedroom flats. Most of the blocksare between nine and eleven stories, with twolow-rise terraced housing blocks and one warden-controlled block for older people. The estate iswell serviced for associated amenities with aprimary school within the confines of the estateand a secondary school nearby; there is also easyaccess to shops, a post office, a library and adoctor’s surgery.

Churchill Gardens has become mixed tenure overthe years, due to exercise of the Right-to-Buy.Currently, approximately 45% of the properties onthe estate are owned by leaseholders who haveeither exercised the Right-to-Buy themselves orbought their homes on the open market. Anumber of these owned properties are now subletby their owners. The remaining 55% ofproperties on the estate are rented, predominantlyfrom Westminster City Council.


Table 10: Stakeholders in Churchill Gardens


Tenants’ Association/ No significant Westminster Pinnacle PSG No significantLessees’ Association/ involvement City Council involvement

Residents’ Panel

27

Before the estate was built, the site was occupiedmainly by terraced Victorian housing, and asignificant proportion of the new properties weretaken by families who had lived in the terracesand been displaced. The estate has now seen anumber of generations of families and asignificant proportion of the current residentshave lived on the estate since its construction.

In recent years, as the Council has been undermounting pressure to house homeless familiesand asylum seekers, ‘local’ families have found itincreasingly difficult to get a property on theestate and there has been a significantdiversification in the ethnic mix of the estate’spopulation.

Churchill Gardens was until recently managed bythe Council. Pinnacle PSG won the contract totake over management of the estate undercompulsory competitive tendering in 1996. Itrecently tendered again for the work and wasawarded a further five-year contract from April2001. This is a ‘single-source contract’ with theCouncil, under which Pinnacle PSG hasresponsibility both for housing management onthe estate and the procurement of major works.


Structure

There are a variety of organisations in ChurchillGardens to encourage resident involvement in themanagement and running of the community.

The Tenants’ Association was set up by theresidents that lived on the estate when it was firstbuilt, as a body responsible for the running andmanagement of a small community hall. As the

estate grew in size the residents asked theCouncil to build them a larger community facility.This building still exists and functions as a socialclub with a bar and a number of committeerooms.

The Tenants’ Association is now a registeredcharity and membership of it is open to allresidents on the estate. It is financed from theprofits of the bar (which is run under a separatemanagement company). The Tenants’ Associationruns a variety of social activities for residents,including an art class, a bowls club, day trips forolder people and a sewing group (which carriesout repairs for local residents at low prices). Italso uses its facilities to run Christmas parties forchildren and older people. The Tenants’Association liaises with Pinnacle PSG to advertiseevents in the newsletter that Pinnacle PSGproduces and distributes to all residents. PinnaclePSG has also taken over running the youth clubon behalf of the Tenants’ Association.

The Tenants’ Association provides a key socialfocus for the estate. However, the view of thoseinvolved is that as the social and ethnic make-upof the estate has changed, the Tenants’Association is finding it increasingly difficult toengage residents.

The Lessees’ Association was established after theadvent of the Right-to-Buy legislation. Itsmembers are predominantly those people whohave lived on the estate for some time beforebuying their own properties; they are, therefore,predominantly older people. The focus of theAssociation is on practical issues, such as thelevel of their service charge, the cleanliness of theestate and the quality of the major works carriedout. Those involved obviously play a key role inthe community on behalf of other residents. Theyare frequently approached for help in solvingproblems and also to act as a ‘go-between’ withPinnacle PSG.

The Residents’ Panel was established relativelyrecently. It consists of four representatives fromthe Tenants’ Association (although these are notnecessarily tenants), five representatives from theLessees’ Association and two representatives fromRussell House (a block of flats separate from themain body of the estate but still managed byPinnacle PSG). The Residents’ Panel meets onceevery six weeks and is chaired by the PinnaclePSG manager with overall responsibility for the


Churchill Gardens, Westminster ©Pinnacle PSG

28


estate. Outside agencies are sometimes invited tothe meetings when appropriate (for example, theCouncil, contractors, the police).

The agendas for meetings of the Residents’ Panelare set by the residents themselves. Since theResidents’ Panel is dominated by leaseholdersthere tends to be an imbalance towardsleaseholder issues on the agenda. Examples ofissues discussed are:

• the major works contracts;• service charge levels;• quality of environmental services provided;• parking;• vandalism and graffiti.

Accountability

The key vehicle in terms of accountability appearsto be the Residents’ Panel, and it is this that hasthe most important role in relation to Pinnacle PSGin the latter’s role as neighbourhood manager.The members of the Residents’ Panel come fromthe different associations on the estate, as outlinedabove. It was not clear to the research teamwhether there is any democratic process for theselection of these members from their constituentassociations, or whether the Tenants’ or Lessees’Associations themselves have any democraticprocess for the election of their committees.

Funding

As noted, the Tenants’ Association generatessome income in respect of the social activitiesthat it runs on the estate. However, as far as theresearch team is aware, this is the only income ofany of the resident bodies on the estate, and thisreflects their essentially consultative nature.


Pinnacle PSG provides its management servicesout of an office on the edge of the estate. It has astaff of 10 and a manager with overallresponsibility for the estate. The members ofstaff divide the blocks on the estate betweenthemselves, each acting as housing officer fortheir respective blocks. Half of Pinnacle PSG’sstaff are local residents in line with its principle ofemploying local people wherever possible.Residents see this as positive.

Pinnacle PSG sees its role as a ‘neighbourhoodprovider’, aiming to ‘recreate’ services from thebottom up. It seeks to put the customer, orservice consumer, at the centre of its estatemanagement, recognising that,

“a brilliant service will give the customers ...some control, with one service providerhaving full accountability to the communityfor all local services.”

Pinnacle PSG holds itself very much accountableto local people having a company ethos of“committing [itself] to each neighbourhood” inwhich it works. For example, as noted above, inChurchill Gardens, Pinnacle PSG has taken overthe management of the local youth club on behalfof the Tenants’ Association. It has arranged forthe employment of a professionally qualifiedyouth worker and also seeks to use the youthclub as a forum for consulting young residents onissues that affect them.

Integration

The tenure mix on Churchill Gardens is around55% council tenants and 45% owned properties.As ownership has arisen largely under the Right-to-Buy legislation, tenure is truly mixed rightacross the estate with no differentiation betweenrented and owned properties.

Design

In 2001, the estate won the Fortieth AnniversaryCivic Trust award as the most outstanding schemeto have won a Civic Trust award over the last 40years. Churchill Gardens won its Civic Trustaward in 1961 and since then six of the blockshave become listed buildings. Its enduringsuccess is credited to the quality of its design andplanning, with a mixture of low- and medium-riseblocks, combining to create an estate with“pleasant character”. The award also recognisedthat good estate management by Pinnacle PSGhas contributed to the success of the estate.

Churchill Gardens is another example of an estatein which design appears to have played asignificant part in the creation of a sustainablecommunity.

29

Use of covenants

The owned properties on the estate became sothrough exercise of the Right-to-Buy. There hasnot, therefore, been the opportunity for strategicuse of property covenants to protect the characterof the estate, as has been seen in other casestudies in this report. This is because there wasno opportunity for the systematic development ofcovenants that might be found in a majorredevelopment or new-build scheme.

Similarly, the research team is not aware of anyincidences of Pinnacle PSG having usedbehaviour covenants in relation to any of thetenanted properties.

Residents’ views

Residents felt that they had a good workingrelationship with Pinnacle PSG and that their staffare helpful, receptive, good at listening andgetting things done. Pinnacle PSG acknowledgedthat the persistent nature of the Residents’ Panelhas played a large part in raising standards on theestate. However, this has also meant thatmeetings are often heated and Pinnacle PSG’sstaff are put under a great deal of pressure.

Examples were given of the efficiency andreceptiveness of Pinnacle PSG:

• The estate had had a serious problem with pestinfestation for many years prior to PinnaclePSG taking over management. When PinnaclePSG arrived, the in-house team from theCouncil were charged with addressing theproblem. Pinnacle PSG drew up aspecification and invited tenders for the work.A contract specific to Churchill Gardens wasawarded to a local contractor who cleared theproblem within three months.

• When Pinnacle PSG took over the managementof the estate, the communal glass on the estatewas cleaned under a city-wide contract. Again,Pinnacle PSG put the work out to tender,awarding the contract to a local business. Thishas led to greatly improved standards.

• One of the residents also explained how localpeople had become concerned about firehazards because of items that they sawcleaners putting into the basements of theblocks when clearing out properties. The issuehad been raised at a meeting of the Residents’


Panel and one of the residents had asked for arepresentative from Pinnacle PSG toaccompany him on a tour of all the basementson the estate to check for potential firehazards. He said that Pinnacle PSG hadcooperated quickly in arranging a tour and alsoin removing those items that the resident feltcould pose a fire hazard.

All the residents interviewed said that they feltthey had influence and control over most aspectsof their lives on the estate, the one exceptionbeing allocations. The longstanding residentsbemoaned the loss of community and the feelingthat they are at the mercy of the Council’s policywhen it came to allocation. They would like theirchildren to be able to get housing on the estate inorder to maintain the community spirit and resentthe fact that properties are now being given topeople of different cultures who do not appearinterested in engaging in the local community.While such views could be construed as racist,they do reflect the very real difficulties involvedin creating sustainable and cohesive communitiesin areas of social housing. Some residents saidthat they would like to have input into theallocations process, suggesting that potentialtenants should have to prove from their trackrecord that they will meet certain ‘standards’before they are allocated a property on the estate,although, clearly, the ability of those fromvulnerable sections of the community todemonstrate such a ‘track record’ may be limited.Some residents questioned whether the exerciseof the Right-to-Buy had damaged the make-up ofthe neighbourhood.

Key findings

• Good estate design and planning is verysignificant.

• Neighbourhood management has had a definiteimpact when backed with commitment.

• Genuine communication between residents andservice provider is invaluable, but costly to theservice provider in terms of time and effort.

• The persistent determined involvement ofresidents has been a key factor in driving upstandards.

30


6

Blackbird Leys, Oxford

Background

Blackbird Leys is approximately four miles fromthe centre of Oxford outside the city’s ring road.The area has had two distinct phases ofdevelopment. The first was in the late 1950s and1960s, when the original part of the estate wascompleted in order to house those working at theCowley car factories. The second phase tookplace in the 1990s as a response to Oxford’sincreasing homelessness crisis. The result hasbeen a housing estate of approximately 13,000people (with 8,500 in the older part of the estateand 4,500 in the new). The two parts arephysically quite distinct, with one roadconnecting them.

The older part of the estate has seen someredevelopment in recent years, with a smallproportion of the housing being knocked downand replaced. Exercise of the Right-to-Buy hasmeant that approximately 40% of the housing inthe older part of the estate is now owned. Thearea suffered bad publicity during the 1980s and1990s, with high unemployment in the older partof the estate as jobs were axed at the Cowley carfactories. The area is still seeking to rise abovethis poor image.

The disempoweredneighbourhood



Structure

The Leys Residents’ Association was set up with agrant from The Housing Corporation at thebeginning of the new phase of development inthe 1990s. It is legally constituted andmembership is open to all residents in the newpart of Blackbird Leys. It has a committee ofapproximately 10 residents and meets monthlywith attendance averaging at 25-30 localresidents. Membership mostly comprises tenantsrather than owners.

The Estate Forum is the main body providingformal communication between local residentsand the housing associations working in the newpart of the estate. It includes four representativesfrom the Leys Residents’ Association, togetherwith a representative from each of the three mainhousing associations. The type of issues that ithas, up to now, addressed, include housingmanagement issues (such as repairs), physicaldevelopment of the area (for example, shops) andcommunity development (such as social events).Residents are entitled to ask for items to be puton the agenda at the meetings, but otherwiseresidents felt they had little influence.

Table 11: Stakeholders in Blackbird Leys

Resident involvement Social Local authorityvehicle landlords involved Private sector Other

Leys Residents’ Ealing Family, Oxford Citizens’ Oxford No significant No significantAssociation, and Cherwell Housing City involvement involvementEstate Forum Associations Council

31

Accountability

The research team is not aware of any formaldemocratic mechanism in either the Residents’Association or the Estate Forum. The Residents’Association on the Blackbird Leys estate is anexample of how traditional resident bodies havesuffered from dwindling support in recent yearsand have often found it difficult to engageyounger residents.

Funding

The Residents’ Association’s running costs arepaid for by the housing associations involved inthe estate. However, it has no other core fundingand its activities are therefore limited.


Views varied about how effective the Residents’Association is. It has campaigned on a number ofissues and has seen some progress over the years.However, a number of residents argued that it isan uphill struggle to achieve any results.

Construction of a local shop on the new part ofthe estate is just about to begin after several yearsof campaigning and negotiating by and on behalfof the Residents’ Association. There are currentlyno shops on the new part of the estate. Spacewas planned for shops to be built but it wasdifficult to persuade a retailer to take up thespace. Spar has now agreed to build and run anew shop and the Residents’ Association sees thisas a major breakthrough.

The Residents’ Association has attempted to raisespecific issues with a number of statutory andprivate sector service providers, including thelocal bus company, the police and Oxford CityCouncil. These attempts have met with littlesuccess.

Case study

The Residents’ Association has written to theprivate bus companies serving the area, as the busservice in the newer part of Blackbird Leys estate isvery irregular. They have invited the buscompanies to come to one of their meetings.However, so far, the bus companies have notturned up. They have made a number of excuses,including the fact that they are unable to recruitdrivers and that the layout of the newer part ofthe estate is difficult for buses to negotiate. Thoseresidents interviewed by the research team feltthat this highlighted the limited power of theResidents’ Association, which appeared to havelittle status in the eyes of statutory and privateservice providers.

Integration

The new development contains three communitybuildings and 1,700 homes of mixed tenure withapproximately:

• 50% rented from housing associations(including 150 units for tenants over 55 yearsof age and a further 100 homes for singleyoung people);

• 30% for sale (mainly starter homes);• 20% for shared ownership.

Oxford City Council had 100% nomination rightsin relation to the first lets of the tenantedproperties. Of these, approximately 50% wereallocated to homeless people, 40% to peopletransferring from other properties owned byOxford City Council, and the remaining 10% topeople on Oxford City Council’s waiting list. Inrelation to re-lets, Oxford City Council has 75%nomination rights, allowing the housingassociations 25% nomination rights for transfersamong existing tenants.

There is a clear divide between the originalBlackbird Leys estate and the newer partdeveloped in the 1990s. The areas are physicallyvery distinct and there was apparently quite a lotof resistance in the older part of Blackbird Leys tothe new development in the 1990s. A number ofinitiatives have taken place to encourage the twoareas to be seen as one; for example, there is asummer fair that takes place on the open spacebetween the old and new parts of the estate.

The disempowered neighbourhood

32


Design

Design was identified as one serious issue on theestate in terms of the mixing between differenttenures.

There is little interaction between owned andtenants of social housing on the estate, which canbe partly explained by the design of the area.The newer part of Blackbird Leys was built with aring of housing for sale on its outer edge. As aresult, the different types of tenure are clearlydistinguishable and distinct from one another.This exacerbates the potential for a dividedcommunity. The owners do not need to go intothe centre of Blackbird Leys at all; they cansimply commute out of the area onto the ringroad. This indicates the importance of design increating a genuine mixed-tenure community.

Use of covenants

As the resident involvement vehicles on the estateare not directly involved in housing management,they have not been able to influence the use ofeither property covenants or covenants to preventantisocial behaviour. The research team was not,therefore, made aware of any specific examplesin either of these two areas.

Residents’ views

Residents perceive there to be a lack ofunderstanding on the part of the Council aboutthe issues facing the residents of Blackbird Leys.One example given was the fact that Oxford CityCouncil has recently started charging(approximately £18) for the removal of large

items of rubbish from the estate. Since residentsare reluctant, or cannot afford, to pay the newcharge, large items of waste have started toappear outside properties, making the area lookand feel messy.

It is felt by some interviewees that those currentlyinvolved with the Residents’ Association, on thewhole, fail to grasp their role as representatives ofthe wider community. There is a tendency forresidents to become involved in the Residents’Association, either because they enjoy the statusof being involved, or to address their ownpersonal concerns and problems. It wassuggested that more training is needed to enableresidents to understand this wider role (includingthe collateral issue of confidentiality). Thehousing associations currently provide an annualgrant to the Residents’ Association for training.However, the housing associations are keen tosee this grant being spent for the benefit oftenants rather than owner-occupiers. Althoughthe housing associations see the Residents’Association as being a body in which owners canbe involved, they would ideally like their moneyto be spent on behalf of tenants (since tenantspay service charges and owners do not). Ownersare poorly represented in the Residents’Association. The general impression is that theydo not see it as relevant to their own lives, eventhough many of the issues that are addressedaffect residents generally.

All of the residents spoken with were verypositive about the role fulfilled by the communitydevelopment worker. She is employed jointly bythe three main housing associations working inthe newer part of Blackbird Leys (although shereports directly to Ealing Family HousingAssociation and does one extra day per week onits behalf). She plays a vital role in coordinatingactivities within the community. However, as anemployee of the housing associations her roletends to centre on tenants and their issues. It wassuggested that her focus should be broadened toalso encompass owners.

The perception among local residents appeared tobe that the housing associations have little swayin influencing Oxford City Council on theirbehalf. Residents feel that they have little, if anypower to influence the Council in the services orstandard of services which they receive. Thecurrent structures do not provide residents withany real power to influence service providers

The layout of Blackbird Leys from the air

33

generally. Success really depends on thepersistence of the individuals involved in theResidents’ Association and the goodwill of serviceproviders.

There appeared to be a lack of coordinationbetween the different service providers. Forexample, the three main housing associationswith properties in the new part of Blackbird Leyscarry out their repairs separately by using threedifferent contractors. As a result, the servicereceived by tenants varies enormously in terms ofthe response times for, and the standard of,repairs. Tenants could not understand why thehousing associations did not work together andpool resources to provide a cheaper, moreeffective service.

Key findings

• Residents were clear that there were manysocial problems on the newer part of theBlackbird Leys estate.

• Traditional resident bodies can have a usefuladvocacy role but unless there is some way ofcompelling service providers to work with them,or unless the will is there from service providersto engage with the community, such advocacycan be largely fruitless.

• The design and layout of an estate is importantif barriers between those who live in differenttypes of tenure are to be broken down.

• Neighbourhood management must involve realwillingness to listen and consult, on the part ofservice providers, in order to be effective.

The disempowered neighbourhood

34


7

It was clear from the research visits carried out bythe team that resident involvement in communitygovernance is facilitated by the presence of thekey factors already identified:

• the commitment of a range of stakeholders;• a structure for resident involvement, which is

democratically accountable, and which hassome source of funding;

• a means to influence mainstream serviceproviders;

• full integration between different tenures;• a well designed estate;• the ability to use both property covenants and

behaviour covenants to regulate life on theestate;

• an engaged group of residents.

Having considered those points, the researchteam examined a number of the different legalstructures available for a neighbourhoodgovernance vehicle. The team has directexperience, in the context of SRB and New Dealfor Communities initiatives as well as otherregeneration projects, of working with particularneighbourhoods to set up such vehicles. Thefollowing represents the combination of theresearch findings and other experience.

Neighbourhood governance andpartnership

Any vehicle for neighbourhood governance willbe within a context of pre-existing activity. Whena particular regeneration programme is planned,current government policy stipulates that thismust be delivered through a genuine partnershipstructure.

Constitutional arrangements

In any case, every neighbourhood includes arange of stakeholders in addition to those wholive there. A vehicle for neighbourhoodgovernance needs to provide a mechanism for allthose stakeholders, including residents, to worktogether. Commonly this will include:

• the local authority;• other public sector bodies – primary care

trusts, the police;• voluntary sector and community groups in the

area;• faith communities; as well as• residents.

Forming a defined organisation gives residentsthe confidence to have a voice in the process ofneighbourhood governance. Indeed, it is ourexperience that the discussions necessary in theformation of a new organisation can:

• help bring people together;• generate enthusiasm;• provide an opportunity for service providers

and other organisations working in the area torecognise the neighbourhood in a new way.

The research team found that this confidenceincreased when residents had a majority ‘stake’ inthe vehicle for governance. This changed thedynamic from one of being consulted, to actuallybeing in control: “a quantum leap” is how oneresident described it.

The options for neighbourhoodgovernance organisations

The first key decision when considering a neworganisation is whether or not to form a new

35

independent legal body which is ‘incorporated’ insome way. The options are:

• unincorporated bodies:◗ unincorporated association◗ trust◗ ‘legal’ partnership;

• incorporated bodies:◗ private company limited by guarantee◗ private company limited by shares◗ industrial and provident society.

Advantages of incorporation

Incorporation creates a new legal entity andtherefore protects the members of theorganisation from liability. If the neworganisation is a company, it will be regulated byCompanies House; if it becomes a charity, it willbe regulated by the Charity Commission.Incorporation also creates a new identity thatother organisations may take more seriously if ithas independent legal status.

Disadvantages of incorporation

Incorporation can take time and costs money.There are fewer administrative burdens for anunincorporated body as there is no requirementfor publishing information or making returns to aregulator. In certain circumstances informalitycan be an advantage.

However, if the new organisation wants to enterinto contracts, employ people, buy equipment,provide or buy services, deliver major projects orown property, it will be better protected in all ofthese circumstances if it is incorporated as aseparate organisation. The research team foundthat incorporation is often a significant step forfledgling neighbourhood governance vehicles andthat it adds to their ability to make an impact.

Unincorporated bodies

Unincorporated associations

An unincorporated association is an organisationof two or more people who are working togetherfor a common purpose, but not intending to makea profit. Many clubs, societies and other informalgroups would fall into this category. Theassociation can have a constitution, will often

have a management committee and can even beregistered as a charity. But, no new separatelegal body is created in an unincorporatedassociation and so any property will be held bythe members of the association and any contractswill be entered into by individual members of theassociation who will therefore be liable underthose contracts. When it is proposed that thenew organisation has substantial activities, this istherefore not a suitable form. Most of theresidents’ associations in the areas visited (forexample in Bournville, Blackbird Leys orChurchill Gardens) were unincorporatedassociations, which clearly limits their potentialrole.

Trusts

A trust is formed where a number of people whoare known as ‘trustees’ hold money or propertyon ‘trust’ for a specific purpose for the benefit ofothers. There will generally be some governinginstrument or deed, which will set out theresponsibilities of the trustees and the purpose ofthe trust. The trustees have a personal duty tomake sure that the money or property is usedonly for the purposes laid down in the governinginstrument. Trusts are subject to a complex areaof law. They can be registered as charities if thepurposes of the trust are recognised by theCharity Commission as being charitable. This is asuitable form for grant-making organisations, butnot those carrying out commercial or servicedelivery activities, because, again, in thosecircumstances the trustees will be personallyliable. None of the vehicles for residentinvolvement in the areas visited were trusts,although the main Bournville Village Trust is sucha body.

Legal partnerships

A legal partnership is formed when two or moreindividuals come together to operate as abusiness with a view to making a profit. Each ofthem will be entitled to a share in that profit.This arrangement is subject to some legalregulation, but there is no requirement to publishany information about the partnership, unlike, forexample, companies, which must file theiraccounts at Companies House. This is the usualform for most law and accountancy firms and alsomany smaller business undertakings. However, it


36


is only suitable for an organisation that intends totrade for profit-making purposes and when theindividuals involved are prepared to be liable ifthings go wrong.

Incorporated bodies

Company limited by guarantee

This is the usual vehicle for non-profit-makingorganisations including charities that are alsocompanies. It is a well known vehicle, which isrecognised by funders. A company limited byguarantee cannot distribute profits to its members.The members of the company undertake to pay anominal sum (usually £1) in the event of thecompany being wound up, and this sum is thelimit of their liability. It has a two-tier structurewith members making up those who ‘own’ thecompany and directors who are responsible for itsmanagement. Being a limited company, such avehicle can hold property, can employ staff andcarry out the full range of legal functions. It isrelatively straightforward to set up, but will ofcourse be regulated by Companies House andsubject to company law. If it is registered as acharity, it will also be subject to regulation by theCharity Commission. It can form part of a groupstructure.

This was the structure chosen by RoydsCommunity Association, Stockfield CommunityAssociation and Manor and Castle DevelopmentTrust. The research team found that, in eachcase, the structure provided a means ofundertaking the full range of regenerationinitiatives, with a separate legal identity giving astrong focus for the community.

Company limited by shares

This is the usual vehicle for a profit-makingtrading organisations. There is two-tier structuresimilar to a company limited by guarantee, exceptthat, with a share company, the owners of thecompany are referred to as ‘shareholders’, andtheir liability will be limited to the extent of theirshare in the company. There are also directorswho manage the company. This is not a formthat is suitable for charitable registration. It may,however, be appropriate in some regenerationcontexts as an alternative to a guaranteecompany, if, for example, commercial companies

wish to establish joint venture vehicles forregeneration purposes.

The Poundbury management companies wereestablished using this model.

Industrial and provident society

This form of organisation used to be the mostcommon vehicle for building societies andhousing associations. There are two types ofindustrial and provident society (IPS) – thecooperative and an organisation set up for thebenefit of others in the area. As with companieslimited by guarantee, an IPS must be a non-profit-making body. It will have a similar two-tierstructure with members and a committee who areresponsible for management.

An IPS is, however, less flexible than a companylimited by guarantee in that it has a less adaptablemembership structure. Registration is a costlierand more complex process and, often, modelrules must be used to satisfy the regulator – theRegistrar of Friendly Societies. None of the areasvisited by the research team had used this model.

Key factors in choosing a vehicle forneighbourhood governance

In each situation the answers to the followingquestions will dictate the choice of vehicle:

• What activities are proposed and is this vehiclesuitable for undertaking them?

• Will the new vehicle be entering into contractsand, if so, how will members be protectedfrom liability?

• Will a new identity help focus those involved?• How easy will the new organisation be to

establish and adapt?• Does the new organisation need to be a

charity?• How will the new organisation be accountable

to the community?

37

Key findings

• A range of unincorporated and incorporatedvehicles is available for a neighbourhoodgovernance organisation.

• The organisation must be one that protectsindividual members from liability wherenecessary.

• Setting up a new organisation can be a positiveprocess for involving residents.

• A company limited by guarantee offers astructure that can protect members fromliability, undertake the full range ofneighbourhood activities and is flexible enoughto be changed with relative ease. This was thechoice of the areas visited that had the mostactive resident involvement.


38


8

Two issues of major concern to all of theneighbourhoods visited by the research team werethe physical environment and the behaviour ofthose living there. This chapter considers some ofthe methods used in these neighbourhoods toexert control over these two aspects.

Physical environment

Tenants

Control of the physical condition of rentedhousing and of the common areas of an estate isa relatively straightforward contractual matter.Tenancy conditions commonly deal with therespective duties of landlord and tenant inconnection with the repair of the outside andinside of the property in question. In Stockfield,for example, the Community Association isresponsible for structural and exterior repairs, butthe tenant is responsible for internal decoration.The tenancy agreement also makes it clear thatthe tenant must keep tidy any garden or garagefor which they are responsible.

Rectifying breach of these conditions is arelatively simple matter to enforce. If a tenantdoes not take adequate care of their property, theCommunity Association can enter the propertythemselves and carry out the necessary work, andthen charge the tenant for doing it.

Owners

The position in relation to owners and thephysical condition of their homes and theimmediately surrounding area is more complex.English law places ownership of property at avery high premium and will only interfere with

Contractual arrangements

that ownership if there is good reason or a clearcontractual agreement by the owner. BournvilleVillage Trust, Poundbury and Stockfield have allsought to maintain the good condition ofproperties in their neighbourhoods through theuse of covenants that are binding on owners. Themechanisms whereby these covenants apply tothe land in question differ for freeholders andleaseholders. A freeholder owns their houseoutright with no other person having an interestin that land; a leaseholder has a long lease forover 21 years (usually in the region of 99 to 125years).

Freeholders and covenants

Traditionally, the law has drawn a distinctionbetween covenants that are ‘restrictive’ (that is,covenants that prohibit the owner from takingsome particular action, such as a covenant not toplay loud music after dark) and those covenantswhich are ‘positive’ (that is, covenants thatinvolve an obligation on the owner to dosomething, such as paint the outside of theirhouse every three years).

The difference between the two is particularlyimportant on the sale of property. For example:

Fred and Mavis live next door to each other, andMavis agrees with Fred that she will not play loudmusic after 11pm at night. That is a restrictivecovenant and if Mavis sells her property to Emma,and Emma knows about this restrictive covenant,Emma must also abide by it once she has boughtthe property. However, if Mavis agrees with Fredthat she will paint her house every three years,that is a positive covenant, and if Mavis sells herhouse to Emma, Emma will not be bound by iteven if she knows about it.

39

Examples of the types of covenants that thecourts have agreed should continue to be bindingon future purchasers have been:

• restricting the colours in which a property canbe painted;

• restricting the fixing of aerials, satellite dishesand cables;

• controlling the hanging out of washing;• restricting the use of a particular dwelling to be

a private dwelling house only.

Of the areas visited by the research team, thenew developments at Poundbury and Stockfieldhave both made considerable use of restrictivecovenants. These include all of those outlinedabove and a range of others that are contained inthe transfer documentation for the sale of eachhouse.

When those involved in developing aneighbourhood want to impose any positiveobligations that will continue to be binding on thefuture owners after sale, this is much moreproblematic. A particular scheme with whichmembers of the research team have beeninvolved concerns the intention to redevelop aparticular estate with some homes for socialrented housing and some for sale on the openmarket. Those involved are concerned to see thearea maintain high standards of repair, decorationand so on after development. They are thereforelooking at ways in which to oblige owners whopurchase homes in the neighbourhood to makean annual payment towards the upkeep of thearea.

It is not a problem to include this as a covenantbetween the company and the first occupiers ofthe new homes, but as soon as any homes aresold on, the problem outlined above is raised.The obligation to continue to pay money towardsthe upkeep of the wider area is a positivecovenant and would therefore not be enforced bythe courts if the new owner refused to pay. Asolution, therefore, might be to grant long leasesof new properties rather than to sell themoutright. However, this approach does notnecessarily give the desired results.

Leaseholders and covenants

The granting of a long lease rather than the saleof the freehold of a particular property means that

both restrictive and positive covenants can beincluded, and both will be enforced by the courts.Both Bournville Village Trust and, more recently,Stockfield Community Association chose to grantlong leases to owners of properties in their arearather than selling the freehold outright forprecisely this reason.

The 1967 Leasehold Reform Act, however, giveslong leaseholders the right to buy the freehold oftheir properties when they have lived in them forthree years or more. This Act obviously has asignificant potential impact on the feasibility ofrelying on leasehold covenants. The Act allowsthe landlord to impose restrictive covenantsanalogous to those imposed in the lease, but doesnot give the authority for the imposition ofpositive covenants.

Bournville Village Trust is unique among theareas visited by the research team in that it islegally able to impose positive covenants inBournville under an exception built into theLeasehold Reform Act when it was first passed.Unfortunately, there was a time limit of two yearsfor making an application for an exception to theAct and this avenue is now therefore closed toother areas wishing to pursue the same course.

It may be possible to provide for an ongoingobligation to pay money toward the upkeep of aparticular neighbourhood by a freeholder througha ‘rent charge’. A rent charge is where, when aproperty is sold, the vendor provides in thetransfer that the purchaser must continue to payhim a sum of money which will be used for thismaintenance. This can be a fixed annual sum ora variable amount in respect of services providedby the vendor. Normally, the purchaser will havethe right to ‘buy out’ the rent charge in the sameway that he can buy the freehold if he is a longleaseholder. However, when the rent charge is tofacilitate the upkeep of common areas or for themaintenance of the immediate environment, thisright does not apply. A rent charge therefore isone possible route to provide for a positivecovenant to contribute towards the upkeep of acommunity, which will survive onward sale to anew freeholder.

Flats

The law as it applies to restrictive and positivecovenants is the same for flats as it is for houses.


40


However, long leases of flats are more commonand the right to buy the freehold of a flat underthe 1993 Leasehold Reform, Housing and UrbanDevelopment Act is a collective rather thanindividual one. However, when this collectiveright is exercised the position is the same as thatfor owners of houses. The position in relation torent charges also applies.

Enforcement of covenants

When covenants exist, the research team foundthat there is strong support for their existence andenforcement. Residents in Poundbury, forexample, felt that some people had moved intothe area because of the existence of thecovenants. Some residents in Bournville felt thatthe covenants that apply were not being enforcedas strictly as they had been in times past. Theywere unhappy that this was the case. They wereconcerned that permission for a newdevelopment can be obtained retrospectively,which they felt weakened the covenants. Overall,our research showed that there was clear supportfor the use of covenants as a means of enforcingstandards.

However, in some areas the use of covenants hasbeen perceived as going too far. In someschemes in the US, covenants preventingbasketball hoops being put up in gardens, certaintypes of vehicles being owned by residents andeven the display of flags at the window byresidents are imposed. It is clearly important thatwhen the use of covenants is being considered,they should not be used to curtail civil liberties.Our research found that the conditions of theneighbourhoods that we visited were of muchgreater concern to those who lived there than thecivil liberties of those that they perceived mightwish to damage their communities.

Behaviour

Antisocial behaviour has been one of the keyconcerns for neighbourhoods in deprived areas.The perceived breakdown of accepted norms ofbehaviour has led to widespread discussion ofhow best to control the actions of those whodamage the quality of life of people living nearthem. The options for controlling such behaviouragain vary depending on the type of tenure.

Tenants

Landlords of social rented housing have threemain remedies available to them when remedyingthe antisocial behaviour of those who live in theirproperties. These are:

• injunctions for nuisance;• actions for possession on the grounds of

nuisance;• antisocial behaviour orders.

Injunctions for nuisance

Bill Pitt, Head of the Nuisance Strategy Group atManchester City Council, has commended the useof injunctions to deal with antisocial behaviour inan article in the Journal of Housing Law:

The injunction has been, above all, the mostconsistently effective key to the earlycontainment of anti-social behaviour....Injunctions are taken out on the basis eitherof breach of tenancy agreement or underSection 152 of the Housing Act 1996, whichprovides for injunctions to be obtainedagainst a ‘person’ who has used orthreatened to use violence ... the civilburden of proof is not an unduly heavy one.The Courts do recognise the ruination of thequality of people’s lives as a matter to betaken seriously. (Pitt, 2000, p 91)

While taking out an injunction under Section 152of the 1996 Housing Act is not available tohousing associations, they are able to apply forinjunctions on the same basis for breach oftenancy agreement. Pitt comments that the use ofinjunctions is not as widespread as it might be,due to a lack of clarity about the process andeffectiveness of obtaining such injunctions. Heargues that this is based on a lack ofunderstanding about the process involved andthat injunctions can be a swift, speedy and cost-effective remedy to antisocial behaviour in theright circumstances.

Actions for possession on the grounds of nuisance

‘Nuisance’ is the shorthand legal term for thegeneral duty that appears in most tenancyagreements for tenants, or those who live withthem or visit them, not to do anything whichmight:

41

• be a nuisance or annoyance; and/or• interfere with the peace and comfort of; and/or• cause injury or offence to; and/or• disturb, frighten or intimidate any person in the

neighbourhood.

When this duty is persistently breached, theCourts have shown that they will make an ordergiving the landlord possession of the home.

For example, Bournville Village Trust have a ‘zerotolerance’ policy towards antisocial behaviour andhave seen a massive increase in the number ofrepossessions on this basis during the last two tothree years. Residents to whom the researchteam spoke were clearly happy with this stanceand supported it. Similarly, Stockfield CommunityAssociation has also taken actions for nuisance.However, our research team found that therewere some concerns about residents who are onthe Association’s board having directresponsibility for decisions about whether or notto evict people for nuisance. Clearly there is aconcern that resident board members might ‘takesides’ in disputes and not remain objective.Appropriate safeguards should therefore be builtinto the procedure for dealing with nuisancematters so that this can be seen to be fair.Nuisance possession actions, as shown by therecent cases involving Castle Vale Housing ActionTrust, are susceptible to challenge under the 1998Human Rights Act, if procedures are not followedproperly.

Antisocial Behaviour Orders

Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) wereintroduced by the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act.This was in a direct attempt to tackle the kind ofissue highlighted by those in deprivedneighbourhoods. Either the relevant localauthority or the police can apply to the courts foran ASBO to be made, in circumstances where aperson over 10 years of age has acted:

in a manner that caused or was likely tocause harassment, alarm or distress to oneor more persons not of the same household.(1998 Crime and Disorder Act, Section 2)

In recent decisions, the courts have shownthemselves willing to make an ASBO a realisticremedy for antisocial disorder problems introubled communities, but so far, a relatively

small number of ASBOs have been made, andsome local authorities and police forces appearreluctant to apply for such orders. There is,however, no reason why more ASBOs should notbe sought to control behaviour by anyonedisrupting life for others in a particularneighbourhood.

The ASBO is the one remedy of the three outlinedabove that can apply to any person living in aparticular area and not just to social housingtenants. It is therefore open as a means tocontrol the behaviour of owners, their relativesand friends, and their sublessees in the same wayas for tenants. It is suggested that, whenappropriate evidence exists, an ASBO may be auseful mechanism for controlling unpleasantbehaviour that is not so serious as to warrantcriminal prosecution. It should also be noted thatthe burden of proof is not as high as for acriminal prosecution.

For a more detailed overview, two recent reportspublished by the Chartered Institute of Housingfor the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on neighbournuisance deal with the issues in depth (seeHunter et al, 2000; Nixon and Hunter, 2001).

Key findings

• Enforcing governance to promote good care ofa particular property, and covenants againstantisocial behaviour, is a reasonablystraightforward matter in the case of tenants.

• Enforcement against owners is more complex.Two routes currently exist – the granting oflong leases or the imposition of negativecovenants on freehold disposal. However,enforcing positive covenants after a freeholdsale remains difficult.

• The use of injunctions and antisocial behaviourorders against badly behaved residents shouldbe further considered.


42


When considering different models of communitygovernance for mixed tenure communities, theresearch team became aware of a number ofother approaches and has considered theirpossible relevance to governance in mixed tenureareas.

The research team considered the followingmodels in particular:

• commonhold associations;• tenant management organisations (TMOs);• parish councils;• faith community involvement.

Commonhold associations

Commonhold associations are not as yet a featureof property ownership in the UK. They are,however, common in the US and Australia. Theywill become a feature of the UK propertylandscape once the relevant parts of the 2002Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act comeinto force.

Commonhold is essentially a form of ownershipby which a purchaser buys the freehold of aparticular ‘lot’, which forms part of a largercommonhold ‘unit’. The common parts of theunit – be they open space, verges and pavements,or landings (for example in a block of flats) –belong to the commonhold association of whichthe owner of each ‘lot’ becomes a member. Eachowner of a lot must pay a periodic service chargeto the commonhold association with which itmaintains the common parts and in respect ofwhich it has a ‘lien’ over each lot, which isultimately enforceable by an action forpossession. Indeed, in some states in the US, a

9Lessons from other places

commonhold association that sues for possessionon the basis of its lien, will have at least equalpriority with any mortgagee and may indeed havepriority over a mortgagee.

The perceived advantages of commonhold arethat it provides:

• a non-profit-making structure by whichcommon areas can be maintained;

• for freehold ownership of flats or otherproperties within larger developments;

• for the enforceability of a whole range ofpositive covenants, which, as we havepreviously observed, might otherwise beunenforceable against a subsequent owner.

Stakeholders

Commonhold is essentially a private sectorphenomenon. In the US commonholdassociations are commonly instituted by privatedevelopers, and are often a prerequisite ofplanning consent. In one state, 75% of all newresidential developments in a given year werebased on some form of commonhold associationmodel. However, the involvement of otherstakeholders in commonhold thus far appearsextremely limited.


Structure

Each owner of a lot is a member of thecommonhold association, which in mostjurisdictions is a non-profit-making company.

However, a feature of commonhold associationsin both the US and Australia is that membership

43

of the association is usually limited to owners –either owner-occupiers or non-resident owners.To date, tenants have had limited rights in respectof commonhold associations and the usefulness ofthe model for mixed tenure areas must thereforebe questioned.

Accountability

The members of the commonhold associationusually have the right to elect the board ofdirectors from among their membership.However, as stated above, this only provides ameans of democratic accountability for owners.

Funding

The commonhold association has a ready incomestream in respect of the service charge that itlevies on each lot within the commonholdassociation unit. This provides an ongoing sourceof income for association purposes.


The research team is not aware of any researchthat has yet been done on the ability or otherwiseof commonhold associations to influence the waymainstream services are delivered to theirmembers. Clearly, once this model is establishedin the UK this will be something that meritsfurther investigation.

Integration

The perceived weakness of the commonholdmodel as it has been applied thus far is thatowners and tenants have not had the same rights.


Property covenants are used extensively incommonhold associations and are often perceivedas a way of maintaining the ‘character’ of aparticular community. There has been somecontroversy in the US over the use of propertycovenants. For example, the research teambecame aware of the covenants governing onesuch association, which prohibited, among otherthings:

• the erection of basketball goals, skateboardramps, or other athletic apparatus;

• the putting up of tents;• the conversion of a garage into a room;• any alteration to the structure of the property

without the consent of the association;• the keeping of rubbish bins in general view;

and• ongoing parking of any vehicle other than in a

garage.

In addition, occupiers are required to cut theirgrass and generally keep their properties in ‘areasonably neat manner’ and not to allow thedumping of any rubbish on any part of theproperty. Some commentators certainly take theview that such regulation is excessive.


A number of commonhold association documentsdo contain covenants against various types ofantisocial behaviour. The research team is notaware of any instances in which proceedingshave been taken against owners, relying on thesecovenants. This is an area worthy of furtherconsideration.

Key findings

• The commonhold association provides anindependent legal structure for owners tobecome involved in their area.

• The commonhold model has shown itself to bea strong legal model for the enforcement ofproperty-based covenants.

• However, the commonhold model, at present,does not appear to meet the needs of agenuinely mixed tenure community, because itdoes not fully involve tenants in thegovernance mechanism.

Tenant management organisations

Background

Following section 27 of the 1985 Housing Act,tenants’ groups were able to negotiate taking onhousing management responsibility for their

Lessons from other places

44


homes from their local authority landlord. Thissaw the establishment of tenant managementcooperatives and the less devolved estatemanagement boards. The 1994 (Housing) Rightto Manage Regulations turned this ability into aright for tenants’ groups that matched certaincriteria, and saw the establishment of a newgeneration of TMOs. These regulations providedfor a framework whereby tenant organisationscould run local housing services such as:

• collecting rents and service charges;• organising repairs and maintenance;• ensuring buildings are kept clean and tidy.

How these services are delivered is theresponsibility of the TMO in question. Theseservices can either be delivered by the TMO, orsubcontracted to a third party, or contracted backto the council. The council continues to ownhomes and remains the landlord. In fact TMOscan, if agreed with the council, deliver non-housing management services for their area. Thiscould include tasks that the existing housingdepartment might have performed that areoutside housing management (such as highways,environmental or street-lighting responsibilities).In practice, however, their responsibilities rarelystray outside mainstream housing managementtasks.

Under the regulations there is a lengthyprocedure to be gone through before a TMO canbe established. This takes a number of phases:

• First there is normally a ‘pre-feasibility’ study toensure that the requirements of the regulationsare met and to help the tenants serve a ‘right tomanage’ notice on the council. This is notmandatory but in practice is usual, and isrecommended by the Office of the DeputyPrime Minister (ODPM), which takes a closeinterest in TMOs.

• Second, if there is support for this proposalamong tenants, this will be followed by afeasibility study. This will be carried out by an

independent adviser and paid for by theODPM. At the end of the feasibility studythere will be a ballot of council tenants to seeif there is support for progressing to the nextstage.

• Third, if the independent adviser thinks thatthe tenants’ group is likely to succeed and ifthe tenants in the area vote in favour of theproposal, an approved agency will work withthe tenants’ group to prepare it to take on thehousing management role – the ‘development’stage. At the end of this stage there will beanother ballot of council tenants.

The whole process can take three to four yearsand requires considerable commitment from thetenants involved. During the development stage,the tenants’ group receives training and alsonegotiates the agreement that will govern therelationship between the TMO and the localauthority, based on a standard modular agreementprovided by the ODPM.



Structure

The TMO gives a clear structure for residents’involvement. Under the regulations, a TMO musteither be a company limited by guarantee or anindustrial and provident society. This protects thetenants involved from individual liability in theircapacity as members, while at the same timegiving the TMO the capacity to enter intocontracts.

Accountability

While there is no specific requirement in theregulations that TMOs be democraticallyaccountable to residents in the area in question,

Table 12: Stakeholders in the TMO model


Tenant management No significant Local housing No significant Independent tenants’organisation involvement department involvement advice agency

45

in practice this is achieved under the modelconstitutional documents provided by the ODPM.These usually provide for a public AGM, whichelects the committee of the TMO on an annualbasis.

Funding

Under the regulations, TMOs must be providedwith office accommodation, facilities and trainingby the local authority responsible for the housingin their area. The consultancy and other set-upwork necessary during the years of establishmentare paid partly by the local authority and partlyby central government through the ODPM. Oncethe TMO has been established, it will be paid forthe services that it provides to the local authorityunder a management agreement. This providesfor at least some financial viability for TMOs.

Influence on service providers

It is clear that a TMO will have some ability toinfluence the way that services are delivered in itsparticular area, either by providing them itself orthrough holding contracts for the delivery of suchservices with other parties. It is not clear whetherTMOs have been successful in influencingservices not contracted to them under themanagement agreement, although the researchteam is aware of some local projects in whichthere has been cooperation between a TMO andthe local police force to combat crime in aparticular area. Some TMOs have been involvedin providing services on a wider scale than simplyhousing management, and the modularmanagement agreement can provide for this.

Integration

Currently, TMOs apply only to properties that areowned by the local authority and let out undersecure tenancies. The research team is, however,aware of some TMOs that have provided servicesto leaseholders and in which leaseholders haveserved on the committee. Some TMOs have seenthe informal involvement of freeholders, but thisis not reflected in the regulations.

Use of covenants

As a TMO is not a landlord, if it wishes toinfluence the use of property or behaviourcovenants to regulate matters in its area, it mustseek to persuade the local authority to amend theterms of the secure tenancy in consultation withthe community. The research team is aware ofsome TMOs that have sought to introduce local‘policies’ on pets and gardens, for example.

Key findings

• TMOs provide a legally constituted,independent, accountable mechanism, wherebyresidents can become involved in the runningof their estates without fear of personalliability.

• TMOs are, to some extent at least, able toinfluence the provision of services in their area.

• The current TMO regulatory framework meansthat they are not applicable to areas withoutsignificant numbers of council tenants.

Parish councils

Background

Parish councils have a long history dating back tothe 1890s, and some have been in existence formany years. The current legislation under whichparish councils are governed is the 1972 LocalGovernment Act. There are over 10,000 inEngland and Wales (including small towncouncils). They vary enormously in size fromthose which represent small towns to those inrural areas with much smaller populations.


Structure

In simple terms a parish council is a corporatebody for which any resident living in the relevantarea may stand for election. As corporate bodies,parish councils can employ staff, enter intocontracts and carry out activities without risk tothe individual members. As a ‘creature of statute’they are subject to the ultra vires rule and can


46


therefore only do those things for which theyhave specific power in legislation, or that arereasonably incidental to the exercise of thosepowers. The new ‘community wellbeing’ power,for example, which was introduced for largerlocal authorities by the 2000 Local GovernmentAct, does not apply to parish councils. Theytherefore have no general power on which to relyand may be constrained in what they can doindependently. Parish councils may, however,enter into contracts with larger local authorities tocarry out the functions of the larger authority onits behalf.

Accountability

Parish councils are democratically elected bodieswith elections every four years, in which allresidents in the area covered by the parishcouncil are entitled to vote. Parish councilmeetings are open to the public and there is realscope, therefore, for this democraticaccountability to play a key part.

Funding

Parish councils are funded by means of a ‘precept’on the Council Tax for each taxpayer in the parisharea. While this provides an income stream, itmay be a limited amount of money. Parishcouncils are able to own assets where this isincidental to or in pursuance of them carrying outtheir functions, and are able to derive incomefrom those assets.


Parish councils clearly have the opportunity toinfluence the way in which a number ofmainstream services are delivered in their area.They are able to carry out a number of statutoryfunctions themselves and, in addition, can enterinto contracts with the wider municipal authorityfor their area, to deliver many of the functions ofthat wider authority. In addition, parish councilsmust be consulted when a larger local authority ispreparing its community plan, and indeed may beinvolved in the local strategic partnership. Parishcouncils are therefore in a strong position toexercise influence over mainstream services.

Integration

By their nature, parish councils cover all types oftenure and therefore are accessible to owners andtenants alike.

Use of covenants

The research team is not aware of any exampleswhere this has taken place, but it would bepossible, under the Best Value process for localgovernment, for a housing authority in aparticular area to contract its housingmanagement functions to a parish council inrelation to its area. The parish council wouldthen carry out housing management in that areaunder the terms of the contract between theparish council and the housing authority. Thiswould only apply to those properties that areowned by the local authority, but would give theparish council some influence in respect of theenforcement of covenants to combat antisocialbehaviour.

A parish council’s involvement in propertycovenants is limited.

Key findings

• Parish councils offer a legally recognised,corporate structure, which is democraticallyaccountable and closer to the community thanthe district, county or metropolitan authority inthe area in question.

• Parish councils have a genuine opportunity toinfluence mainstream service delivery, and evento deliver services themselves.

• Parish councils are, however, constrained by thestatutory controls under which they operateand the doctrine of ultra vires, which mayaffect their ability to carry out certain activities.

• The relevance or otherwise of parish councils tocommunity governance matters in mixedtenure areas is nevertheless an area that meritsfurther investigation.

47

Faith community involvement –a case study

Background

Woodgate Valley is an area of mixed tenurehousing to the west of the centre of Birminghamthat has a number of large estates, originally builtby the local authority. Through the exercise ofRight-to-Buy, these estates have becomesignificantly of mixed tenure. The research teamchose to visit Woodgate Valley because of thesignificant involvement of a particular faithcommunity in that mixed tenure area to evaluatethe role that a faith community can have inpositive and effective governance in its broadestsense (see Brown and Brown, 2000, for a fullaccount of St Boniface church and its relationshipwith the neighbourhood).


Residents’ involvement

Structure

In Woodgate Valley the growth of the church of StBoniface has provided a platform for widerinvolvement in the community. The church issituated on the estate to the north of WoodgateValley itself. Many of the members of thecongregation are from the local area and live inthe parish. Members attend the weekly worshipservice on Sundays and other meetings for prayeror activities during the week.

Members of the church are also involved in theEast Woodgate Residents’ Association, whichfunctions very much as a traditional resident-ledbody in that it has an advocacy role on behalf ofthe local community.

Accountability

There is no formal link between the church andthe wider community in terms of any democraticaccountability. However, all members of the localcommunity are able to become members of thechurch and, technically, every resident of theparish is legally entitled to attend the AGM of theParochial Church Council and vote on theappointment of one of the two church wardens.Key decisions within the church are made by theParochial Church Council, which is electedannually by all the registered members of thechurch.

Membership of the Residents’ Association is opento anybody living in the area and the memberselect a committee annually at their meeting.

Funding

The Council gives to the Residents’ Associationthe power to decide how to spend an annualgrant of £50,000 known as Local Initiative LocalAction (LILA). This has enabled the Residents’Association to give grants to local youth clubs andto provide community facilities. The work of thechurch is funded by a combination of donationsfrom the members of the church and acontribution from the Birmingham Church ofEngland Diocese. This enables the church toemploy a full-time priest who exercises aleadership role over the congregation.


It is clear from conversations with residents in theWoodgate Valley North estate that, in an informalway, the church has been able to exerciseinfluence over some mainstream serviceproviders. Informal links with the local schools,

Table 13: Stakeholders in Woodgate Valley

Resident involvement Social Local authorityvehicles landlord involved Private sector Other

Residents’ Limited Birmingham City No formal Informal contactAssociation, involvement Council involvement with local statutory

St Boniface Church in the area service providers,including local

schools and police


48


the local hospital and general practices, and withthe City Council, have all led to small butsignificant changes in the way that the area isviewed by those service providers. There is alsorecognition among service providers of theconsiderable influence that the church has beenable to exercise in the community. In an areawhere there are very few other formalmechanisms that involve residents in widercommunity life, the church has been able to stepinto the gap. The church has also been able toprovide some services itself through the voluntarywork undertaken by the resident members. Thislocally-based service provision has also beensignificant.

The Residents’ Association has also been able toinfluence service provision, largely throughmeetings with local councillors, the police andother agencies, some of which, again, have beenfacilitated by the church.

Integration

Properties in Woodgate Valley are generally eitherowned by the local authority or by owners.Around 60% of residents rent their homes fromthe Council; the remaining 40% are privatelyowned. As stated above, many of the ownersreached that status through exercising their rightsunder the Right-to-Buy legislation. As mixedtenure arose in this way rather than beingplanned, owned and tenanted properties areintermingled throughout the estate. Neither thechurch nor the Residents’ Association draw anydistinction between residents from different typesof tenure and therefore integration on the estateis not an issue. More significant has been thewithdrawal of many residents from communitylife altogether, due to the high crime rate and lackof any community infrastructure. Residentsinvolved with the church feel that there has beensome measurable success in breaking down thisfear.

Design

As there has been no new-build programme ormajor refurbishment on the Woodgate Valleyestate for some time, the scope for either thechurch or the Residents’ Association to becomeinvolved in design issues has been necessarilylimited.


A number of residents commented on the poorappearance of many of the properties in theWoodgate Valley area. Some felt that those livingthere just ‘failed to care’ for their homes, partlybecause of other, more important, issues in theirlives. One resident reported, however, aconversation that he had had with a local GP whohad noticed a significant improvement in the lookof a number of properties on a particular road onthe estate. The GP, who was not a member of aChristian faith community, commented on the factthat there was a perception in the area that thispositive change was due to the influence of thoseresidents involved in the church.

There are no formal mechanisms in place on theestate for any control over the way that owner-occupiers treat their properties. Tenants in thearea are tenants of Birmingham City Council,whose tenancy agreements contain the usualcovenants concerning repair.


The Council’s tenancy conditions containcovenants requiring tenants not to createnuisances or to behave antisocially.

Residents’ views

Residents involved in the church felt that peopleliving in Woodgate Valley had, in the past, notreally identified themselves as being part of thecommunity. They felt that people hadconcentrated their efforts on protectingthemselves from those around them, by staying intheir homes or associating only with theirimmediate friends and family. As a result, anysense of ‘community’ on the estate had begun tobreak down and there was a need to re-educatepeople in a new ethos of involvement. Therewas an acknowledgment from those involved inthis process that this is extremely difficult andtakes a long time to bring to fruition.

A resident involved in the Residents’ Associationfelt that some individuals there had littleexperience of formal meetings and did not reallyunderstand how best to operate in that kind ofsetting. There was a view that residents involvedin community-led organisations need the support

49

and encouragement of ‘professional’ people whocan work alongside them, to encourage and trainthem, allowing them to make mistakes andprovide something of a safety net when things gowrong. The importance of partnership wasemphasised, so that local people andprofessionals can work together.

Church members felt that there was a significantlink between the personal lives of those living onthe estate and their faith position, and thephysical conditions of their immediateenvironment. They gave the example, mentionedabove, of one street in which a number ofresidents had become committed church membersand others involved in the estate had noticed animprovement in the physical conditions of housesin that road.

There was support among residents for a widerpolicy of neighbourhood management so thatservices provided in the neighbourhood canbecome more accountable to those who livethere. The importance of ongoing dialoguebetween residents and service providers wasemphasised.

Key findings

• In some communities where traditional formsof mutual involvement have broken down, anactive faith community may represent asignificant opportunity for genuine residentengagement.

• A faith-based group can have an important, ifinformal, role in influencing service provision inits area.

• The emphasis that faith communities place onthe value of the whole person can result inunexpected benefits to the wider community.


50


Atkinson, D. (2000) Urban renaissance, Warwick:Brewin Books.

Birmingham City Council (2001) A newpartnership for governance, Birmingham:Birmingham City Council.

Brown, W. and Brown, M. (2000) Angels on thewalls: The risk-taking faith that reclaimed acommunity, Eastbourne: KingswayCommunications.

Burns, D. and Taylor, M. (2000) Auditingcommunity participation: An assessmenthandbook, Bristol/York: The Policy Press/JosephRowntree Foundation.

Churches National Housing Coalition and TheHousing Corporation (2001) Community-ledestate regeneration handbook, revised edn,London: The Housing Corporation.

Collins, D. (2001) ‘Anti-social behaviour orders’,New Law Journal, 15 June, p 876.

Commission on Public Private Partnerships (2001)Building better partnerships: The final reportfrom the Commission on Public PrivatePartnerships, London: Institute for Public PolicyResearch.

Davis, N. (1997) Dark heart: The shocking truthabout hidden Britain, London: Vintage.

DETR (Department of the Environment, Transportand the Regions) (1997) Involving faithcommunities in urban and rural regeneration: Aguide for practitioners, London: DETR.

Bibliography

DETR (1999) New Deal for communities: Phase 1proposals, guidance for applicants, London:DETR.

DETR (2000) Our countryside: The future, a fairdeal for rural England, London: The StationeryOffice.

DETR (2001) Our towns and cities: An urbanrenaissance, London: DETR.

DTLR (Department for Transport, LocalGovernment and the Regions) (2000) PlanningPolicy Guidance Note No 3: Housing, London:The Stationery Office.

Duncan, P. and Thomas, S. (2000) Neighbourhoodregeneration: Resourcing communityinvolvement, Bristol/York: The Policy Press/Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Hunter, C., Nixon, J. and Shayer, S. (2000)Neighbour nuisance, social landlords and thelaw, Coventry/York: Chartered Institute ofHousing/Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Knox, M. (1999) ‘Urban regeneration vehicles: adiscussion document’, unpublished document.

Lewis, P. (2001) ‘Bradford – more than a racewar’, The Tablet, 21 July.

Long, N. (2001) Local councils: Parish, town andcommunity councils, London: Local GovernmentInformation Unit.

51

Nixon, J. and Hunter, C. (2001) Tacklingantisocial behaviour: Action frameworks forgoverning bodies/housing committee members,senior housing officers, frontline housing officers,tenants and residents, Coventry/York: CharteredInstitute of Housing/Joseph RowntreeFoundation.

Page, D. (2000) Communities in the balance: Thereality of social exclusion on housing estates,York: York Publishing Services for the JosephRowntree Foundation.

Page, D. and Boughton, R. (1997) Improving thedesign and management of mixed tenure estatesin London, April, unpublished research fundedby The Housing Corporation.

Partners in Change (2001) Taking the lead,London: The Housing Corporation.

Pitt, B. (2000) ‘The use of injunctions to deal withanti-social behaviour’, Journal of Housing Law,no 6, pp 90-2.

Purdue, D., Razzaque, K., Hambleton, R. andStewart, M. with Huxham, C. and Vangan, S.(2000) Community leadership in arearegeneration, Bristol/York: The Policy Press/Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Roberts, N. (2002) ‘Two cheers for commonhold?,New Law Journal, 8 March, pp 338-40.

Rosenberry, K. (2000) Commonhold law, York:York Publishing Services for the JosephRowntree Foundation.

SEU (Social Exclusion Unit) (1998) BringingBritain together: A national strategy forneighbourhood renewal, Cm 4045, London:Cabinet Office.

SEU (2000) National strategy for neighbourhoodrenewal: A framework for consultation, London:SEU.

SEU (2001) A new commitment to neighbourhoodrenewal: National strategy action plan, London:SEU.

Bibliography

Taylor, M. (2000) Top down meets bottom up:Neighbourhood management, York: JosephRowntree Foundation.

Yorkshire Forward (2000) Active partners:benchmarking community participation inregeneration, Leeds: Yorkshire Forward.

52


approaches to community governancegovernance, made by a particular faith community. this area shows...

Documents