Edited by Nic Bliss

www.ccmh.coop

Edited by Nic Bliss

www.ccmh.coop

Published by Commission on Co-operative and Mutual HousingISBN 978-0-9564332-0-6Copyright © Commission on Co-operative and Mutual Housing 2009www.ccmh.coop

Edited by Nic BlissDesigned and produced by Homer Creative

2

Adrian Coles (Chair)Director GeneralBuilding Societies Association

Diane BellingerChief Executive OfficerCommunity Gateway Association

Sarah Anne BergerCo-housing Network

Nic Bliss (report editor)*Chair Confederation of Co-operative Housing

Gavin Cansfield*Chief Executive OfficerTower Hamlets Homes

Terry Edis MBE FRSAChair National Federation of Tenant Management Organisations

Pauline GreenChief Executive OfficerCo-operativesUK

Dr Chris Handy OBE*(Executive Commissioner)Chief Executive OfficerAccord Housing Group

Blase Lambert* Treasurer Confederation of Co-operative Housing

Gun-Britt MårtenssonCECODHAS – the European Liaison Committee for social housing

Bruce MooreChief Executive OfficerHanover Housing Association

John Morris*Chief Executive OfficerTrident Housing Association

Professor Alan Murie*University of BirminghamCentre for Urban and Regional Studies

David OrrChief Executive OfficerNational Housing Federation

Ben ReidChief Executive OfficerMid Counties Co-operative

David Rodgers*Executive DirectorCDS Co-operatives

Sarah WebbChief Executive OfficerChartered Institute of Housing

* Members of the Commission’s research sub-group. John Goodman from Co-operativesUK was also a member of the sub-group

The Commission on Co-operative and Mutual Housing

3

Contents

With thanks to:.............................................................................................4

Bringing Democracy Home

Executive summary ...................................................................................5

1 Co-operative & Mutual Housing

what’s that all about then? .............................................................9

2 Housing – where do we go now? ................................................13

3 What do people out there want? ................................................19

4 Co-operatives and mutuals?

What’s different about them? .....................................................29

5 Well, so what’s the big deal? .......................................................37

6 Myths and realities .........................................................................49

7 So what’s it like in other parts of the world? ........................55

8 Making it happen..............................................................................61

Appendix - proposals for action ..........................................................71 A summary of the Commission’s recommendations by organisation

The Commission’s sponsors:Accord Housing GroupCDS Co-operativesCommunity Gateway AssociationConfederation of Co-operative HousingCo-operativesUK

Hanover Housing GroupHousing Associations Charitable TrustHuman City InstituteLiverpool Mutual HomesMatrix Housing PartnershipM.E.L ResearchMid Counties Co-operativeTrident Housing AssociationWATMOS Community Homes

Organisations who assisted Commission hearings:All Party Parliamentary Group on Housing Co-operativesand community Controlled HousingBirmingham Co-operative Housing ServicesBristol Co-operative Development AgencyCDS Co-operativesChartered Institute of HousingCo-operativesLondon, Co-operativesNW, Co-operativesScotland, Co-operativesSE,Co-operativesSW, and Co-operativesWM

Co-operativesUK

Co-operative Housing in PartnershipCo-operative Housing in ScotlandEast Midlands Tenant Participation ForumHousing Associations Charitable TrustLocal Government AssociationLondon Federation of Housing Co-operativesNational Housing FederationNational Tenant Voice Project GroupNorth West Housing ServicesRedditch Co-operative Homes

Case studiesBelgrave Neighbourhood Co-operative HACommunity Gateway AssociationHomes for Change Housing Co-operativeLiverpool Mutual HomesRedditch Co-operative HomesSanford Housing Co-operativeShahjalal Housing Co-operativeSt Mungos and Outside InWATMOS Community Homes

People/organisations who made submissions:ABC Southwark Housing Co-operativeB-line HousingBuilding and Social Housing FoundationChartered Institute of HousingCHIBAHCllr Bill Hartnett, Redditch Co-operative HomesCommunity Gateway AssociationConfederation of Co-operative HousingEast Midlands Development AgencyEmilia LaszcykGlyn ThomasNational Housing FederationNew Longsight Housing Co-operativeSarah Blandy – University of LeedsTAROETenant Services AuthorityTPASUK Co-housing Network

OthersTrevor Bell, NFTMOJeremy Carson, Friday Hill TMORobbie Erbmann, Co-operative PartyJohn Goodman, Co-operativesUK

Kevin Gulliver, Human City InstituteDebbie Hanley, Trident Housing AssociationDawn Hendon, Accord Housing GroupKelly Hunt, M.E.L ResearchMartin Kovats, London Borough of SouthwarkPeter Marsh, Tenant Services AuthorityNicola Parlby, LHA/ASRAMoseley and District Churches Housing AssociationRob Pocock, M.E.L ResearchDawn Prentice, Human City InstituteRob Rowlands, University of Birmingham Centre for Urbanand Regional StudiesLynn Spirrett, BITMOLaura Shimili, Local Government AssociationJon Stevens, BCHSTamzin Taylor-Rosser, St Basils

PhotographsSupplied by organisations featured in case studiesAdditional images supplied by Bob Kauders Photographyand the Accord Group

4

With thanks to:

5

The independent Commission for Co-operative andMutual Housing was launched in 2008 to research theEnglish co-operative and mutual housing sector and todraw conclusions about its relevance in the currentenvironment to national housing strategy. A sector largelyforgotten by UK housing policy makers since the 1980s,the Commission has found that co-operative and mutualhousing has been consistently producing a range ofbenefits. We call for an aim to be set that by 2030, eachtown, village and community should be able to offer co-operative and mutual housing options to potentialresidents.

Marked by above average resident satisfaction ratings,confirmed by Government research as being significantlyhigher than other types of housing, independent researchalso shows that service provision statistics are generallyas good as, if not better, than the best of other housingproviders. The Commission shows that this is because thepeople who live there democratically own and/or managetheir homes, taking responsibility and feeling a sense ofbelonging, identity and ownership.

The Commission has heard about:

■ many members of co-operative and mutual housingorganisations who would not want to live in any othertype of housing, not least because of the mutuallysupportive communities they have established, wherethey know that they have friends and neighbours whowill look out for them – a tapestry of human interactionthat characterises the sector.

■ how mutual support has helped members of co-operative and mutual housing organisations whostarted out with broken lives start to reshapethemselves, get skills, get into work, move on in theirlives.

■ ordinary people in co-operative and mutual housingorganisations who want to do things to tackle climatechange, volunteer as school governors, or participatein various other community activities.

■ co-operative and mutual housing organisations set upin neighbourhoods affected by a lack of trust and lackof community, starting to transform them, helpingresidents feel like they are part of something.

But in England, it’s a tiny sector. It makes up only 0.6% ofthe UK’s housing supply, compared with 18% in Sweden,15% in Norway, 8% in Austria and 6% in Germany. Thesmall scale is due to a number of factors:

■ the different elements that came together to form co-operative and mutual housing sectors in othercountries – Government policy working in sympathywith the sector, an effective development, support andadvice framework, and grass roots communitydevelopment – has never come together at the sametime in the UK.

■ prevailing housing establishment perceptions havedeveloped a folklore that ordinary people andcommunities can’t be trusted to make decisions. Whilstthe Commission recognises that there have beengovernance and other problems, it is possible to createsystems of support, checks and balances to preventproblems arising or deal with them when they do.

■ there is an overwhelming problem with regards to thepromotion of co-operative and mutual housing options.The Commission has heard from local authorities wholike the idea of co-operative and mutual housing, butcall it “Britain’s best kept secret”. Little information isavailable for communities, local authorities, housingassociations or others who are interested in exploringco-operative and mutual housing options, and modelsare hard to develop in an environment not establishedto support them.

Different models of co-operative and mutual housing,united by them being democratically and legally ownedand controlled by a service user membership, offer a widerange of potential for communities to choose from:

■ housing co-operatives that collectively own anddemocratically manage affordable homes are thelargest part of the sector, consistently out performingother housing providers over many years.

■ tenant management organisations managing homesowned by other landlords have inspired change, havegreatly improved services and have stimulatedcommunities.

■ community gateways and mutuals, tenant andmembership owned housing organisations, have madea start on injecting democracy into large scale housing,transforming their local neighbourhoods into beaconsof hope.

Bringing Democracy HomeExecutive summary

■ co-housing schemes, intentional small scalecommunities, are providing community housingalternatives to the alienation of modern life, particularlyfor elderly and multi-generational communities.

■ community land trusts and mutual home ownershipschemes, couching aspirations for individual assets ina community safety net, offer a potential way forwardfor the intermediate housing market, for those caughtin between the overwhelming hegemony of homeownership, and the increasingly scarce social rentedsector.

As well as this, the Commission recognises that manyhousing organisations now recognise the value ofcommunity, and that some are taking steps towards co-operation and mutuality. We identify the next steps thathousing organisations could take on this journey. Whilstthe Commission is not suggesting that it is only throughco-operation and mutuality that community basedapproaches can be developed, our research has shownthat there are specific benefits that derive from co-operative and mutual housing organisations, and thisreport discusses those benefits.

This is a sector that provides some potential answers tothe serious housing and community challenges we face,significant problems even before the global financial crisismade them even harder to resolve. Aspirations toindividual home ownership are less likely to be fulfilled for

a growing number of people, but co-operative and mutualhousing can meet many of the factors behind thoseaspirations – having a decent home, security, freedom,status, community, lifestyle, environmental. TheCommission has identified that co-operative and mutualhousing could provide homes:

■ through mutual home ownership and communityland trusts for low income households who stand littlechance of getting onto a housing ladder that’s beenpulled beyond their reach.

■ through co-housing and mutual retirement housingdeveloping mutually supportive environments forelderly people that values their ongoing contributionsand provides them with respect.

■ through housing co-ops, tenant managementorganisations and community gateways offeringdifferent ways to provide housing for low incomehouseholds that helps them to help and respectthemselves and to feel like they’re part of society.

All potentially producing sustainable mutually supportivecommunities with less reliance on the state, co-operativeand mutual housing could potentially be an investment forsociety. It is a move away from detached managerialismand the dependency created by an expectation that thestate will always be there for people.

Bringing Democracy Home - Executive summary

6

7

The Commission’s recommendations for developing amature co-operative and mutual housing sector in Englandgo beyond simply calling for Government support. Theyare underpinned by the need for society as a whole to beaware of co-operative and mutual housing solutions. Witha need for England to become a nation of home builders,the Commission’s research suggests that manycommunities would find co-operative and mutual housingoptions more attractive than traditional models … if theyknow about them, and if they have a clear route map toimplement them. With this in mind, the Commissionmakes recommendations in six broad areas:

1 NATIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT – THE WILL TO CHANGEif we want the benefits that come from co-operativeand mutual housing, national and local governmentneeds to start to trust ordinary people andcommunities. National and local political will has tobe there to make co-operative and mutual housingoptions available to people and to take the stepsnecessary to make that possible. A legal, regulatoryand support framework needs to be developed thatunderstands and is sympathetic to democratic usercontrol of housing.

2 THE HOUSING WORLD – PEOPLE AND COMMUNITIESchange has already started in the housing world,but much more needs to change. The housing worldneeds to embrace the idea that its biggest assetsare the people and communities they house. Thehousing world needs to learn the importance ofcommunity from the co-operative and mutualhousing sector, and re-align its skills and expertiseto help facilitate ordinary people and communitiesto take control.

3 THE CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT - EMBRACING HOUSINGthe UK co-operative movement is a powerful part ofour national democracy. It has reinvigorated itselfover the last ten years. But co-operation starts inthe home. Where people live is as much a part ofthe co-operative movement as where they shop,where they bank and where they work. If theRochdale Pioneers were alive today, they’d bebuilding housing co-ops! The co-operativemovement needs to rise to the challenge, putting itsdynamism, imagination and vision behind the co-operative and mutual housing sector.

4 CO-OPERATIVE AND MUTUAL HOUSING –UNITE AND GROWthe co-operative and mutual housing sector needsto recognise its importance, its success, its uniqueidentity and believe in itself. It needs to cometogether to get its message across and be muchmore outward facing through comprehensive andprofessional sector leadership throughrepresentative bodies. It needs to build andmaintain strong open, transparent and accountabledemocratic governance and the support structuresnecessary to make this possible.

5 FINANCING AND ENABLING – SUPPORTING A WINNERmoney usually likes to support things that work. Ifwe want co-operative and mutual housing optionsto be available for people, the resources andframeworks need to be there. But this isn’t all aboutpublic money. This is about national and localGovernment coming together with the privatefinancial sector to work out what needs to berealigned and developed to facilitate the expansionof co-operative and mutual housing.

6 DEMOCRACY COMES HOME – A MUTUAL HOUSING VISIONdemocracy starts in the home. If we want thebenefits of co-operative and mutual housing, weneed to recognise it as a distinct form of housingwith its own identity and vision that captures theindividual vigour of home ownership in a communitysafety net. With national and local promotion, co-operative and mutual housing options could capturethe imagination of the British people, could meetpeople’s aspirations and could become a tenure ofchoice that stimulates active citizenship andcommunity resilience.

The global financial crisis has meant that there is a needfor an ongoing debate about financing all forms ofaffordable housing, including co-operative and mutualhousing, in the changed financial world. To avoidlengthening this report with technical detail, we haveoutlined financial models for co-operative and mutualhousing on the Commission’s website.

The Commission started with a firm commitment that itsconclusions would be evidence based, an independentcommission that drew together the mainstream and co-operative housing sectors. The overwhelming weight ofthe evidence that has been presented to us has led us tothe clear conclusion that the UK needs to bring co-operative and mutual housing options into our nationalhousing policies. We need to bring democracy home.

This introduction sets out:

■ why the Commission for Co-operative andMutual Housing was set up;

■ the key questions the Commission set out toaddress and where in the report we answerthem;

■ points made by various stakeholders inwelcoming the Commission’s work;

■ a definition of the words co-operative andmutual;

■ a brief note on the Commission’smethodology.

1.1 Strong co-operative and mutual housing sectorsexist in various countries across the world. Of the35,000 member organisations of the Europeanhousing body CECODHAS, 30,000 of them are co-operative, particularly drawn from Norway, Sweden,Austria, Germany, Italy and Spain who haveextensive co-operative and mutual housingtraditions. Despite a strong English co-operativeand mutual sector, where “over 4,820 jointly owneddemocratically controlled businesses, owned bymore than 11.3 million people, 1 in 5 of the Britishpopulation, creating and sustaining more than205,800 jobs, contributing £28.9 billion in turnoverand £9.7 billion in assets to the UK economy”1, onlya small English co-operative and mutual housingsector exists, and there has been limited debateabout its relevance outside of the sector.

1.2 The Commission on Co-operative and MutualHousing2, an independent Commission chaired byAdrian Coles, Director General of the BuildingSocieties Association, that brought the“mainstream” and co-operative housing sectorstogether, was set up in 2008 to examine why this isthe case. Against a background of supply, quality,access and choice problems, “Bringing DemocracyHome” seeks to address whether and how a moresubstantial contribution from co-operative andmutual housing could have a beneficial impact inEnglish housing strategy. The Commission soughtto build on the work of the Co-operativeCommission, which reported in 2000 on the strategyand structure of the British co-operativemovement3. With housing policy devolved to theScottish Parliament and the Welsh and NorthernIreland Assemblies, our remit was limited to theEnglish housing sector. However, we consideredelements of Scottish co-operative housing because

their experience has relevance in England, and theconclusions and recommendations in this report willhave interest to policy makers and others in theother UK countries.

1.3 Key questions - some of the key questions thereport seeks to answer can be found in Table 1 onpage 10.

1.4 Interest in the Commission - generally, theCommission’s work has struck a chord with moststakeholders who have given evidence to theCommission:

■ “This is a significant time to be consideringresearch into this area and demonstrating thebenefits of co-operative and mutual housing. Notonly could the research support tackling barriersto delivery of co-operative and mutual housing,but the strengths of community empowermentthat it brings could influence tenant control andempowerment more widely.” Sarah Davis Chartered Institute of Housing(CIH)

■ “The Federation believes co-operative andmutual housing organisations have the potentialto play an increasingly important part in housingprovision, and this can be seen in the growth ofthe community gateway model. Co-operativeand mutual housing organisations clearlycomplement the wider agenda of providinggreater empowerment to local communities inrelation to the services they receive. They arewell placed to provide excellent housing servicesto and with their tenants.” Helen Jeffery National Housing Federation(NHF)

■ “TAROE consider it to be an appropriate andtimely stage for the researching of co-operativeand mutual housing. The social housing sector isundergoing the most significant restructuring fora generation, and there are opportunities atpresent for shaping the regulated housing sectorto ensure the pre-eminence of ‘tenant primacy’.Whilst co-operative and mutual housingrepresents only a very small proportion of thesector as a whole, it is however much moresignificant in what the tenure represents.” Darren Hartley Tenants and ResidentsOrganisations of England (TAROE)

1 Co-operative and Mutual Housing – what’s that all about then?

9

■ “TPAS welcomes the establishment of theCommission. We are supportive of all models ofco-mutual and co-operative housing that aresupported by tenants. TPAS believes that goodquality housing which is democraticallycontrolled or subject to effective tenantinvolvement has the potential to empowerpeople and this in turn can aid the process ofcommunity improvement and renewal. TPASbelieves that housing co-operatives with theiremphasis upon engaging with tenants offer thepotential to upskill people and to generateambition, aspirations and confidence.”Michelle Reid Tenant Participation AdvisoryService (TPAS)

■ “More needs to be known about mutual housingin general as it is an area of social housing thatboth experts and laymen are quite uninformedabout. Tenants need to know all the optionsavailable to them. Mutual housing may well bethe favoured option for many tenants whorequire more control and responsibilities overtheir housing.” Phil Morgan Tenant Services Authority (TSA)

1.5 What is co-operative and mutual housing? Theunifying factors behind co-operative and mutualhousing are considered in more detail in Chapter 4,but the Commission needed to define the sector itwas considering.

1.6 Co-operatives are defined by the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA), as “an autonomousassociation of persons united voluntarily to meettheir common economic, social, and cultural needsand aspirations through a jointly-owned anddemocratically controlled enterprise”. The ICAdefinition goes on to describe a set of internationallyagreed co-operative values and principles4. Housingco-operatives are one subset of co-operative formsof housing distinguished by the incorporation of thevalues and principles in their governance and rules.

“The essential characteristic of a co-operative isthat it is a democratic organisation engaged in themarket place, providing goods and services. It isnevertheless based on people, not on capital orgovernment direction. In its essence, it can neverescape, even if it wanted to, the capacity ofmembers to exercise control whenever they wish todo so.”5

1.7 Mutual is defined in various ways in the OxfordEnglish Dictionary6 to mean common relationshipsbetween two or more parties, and in relation tobuilding societies and insurance companies “ownedby its members and dividing its profits betweenthem”. In the housing context, the Commissiondefines a mutual housing organisation as one whichenables residents, through having the right tobecome members, to control or participate ingovernance and to exercise control over theirhousing environment, neighbourhood andcommunity.

1 Co-operative and Mutual Housing – what’s that all about then?

10

The second chapter examines the current English housing framework and considersquestions about the market segments that co-operative and mutual housing mightpotentially cover. The third chapter explores the needs and aspirations of thehousing consumer and seeks to assess co-operative and mutual housing againstthose needs and aspirations.

The fourth chapter identifies the existing English co-operative and mutual housingsector and its distinct and unifying factors, leading into the fifth chapter thatexamines the sector’s performance.

The sixth chapter considers various myths and perceptions about co-operative andmutual housing, identifying where there are issues that need to be dealt with.

The seventh chapter compares the English experience to co-operative housing sectors in other countries.

The eighth chapter sets out what needs to happen if the co-operative and mutual housing sector is to be developed in England, including aseries of specific recommendations that are summarised in Appendix One.

Could co-operative and mutual housing optionsadd to supply, quality, access and choice in thehousing market?

What exists in the current English co-operative andmutual housing sector? What makes co-operativeand mutual housing distinct from other forms ofhousing? How well does it perform? What is itspotential?

What are the perceptions of co-operative andmutual housing? What is the truth about issues inthe sector?

What can we learn from the internationalexperience of co-operative and mutual housing?

How do we develop the English co-operative andmutual housing sector? What can housingorganisations learn from co-operative and mutualhousing?

Questions Where they are considered

Table 1 - Key Questions

11

1.8 In adopting this definition, the Commission is notsaying that benefits deriving from mutualism areautomatically turned on by adopting a mutualconstitution. Indeed some housing organisationsadopt some of the community characteristics ofmutualism without being legally mutual.Nonetheless, a defining characteristic of a mutualhousing organisation would be the extent to whichactive membership is encouraged. The more serviceusers who take up and take advantage of theirmembership rights, the more mutual theorganisation becomes, and potentially the morebenefits.

1.9 Whilst in the UK the majority of existing co-operative and mutual housing exists in the socialrented sector, some are private organisations set upby their members without state aid. In othercountries, co-operative and mutual housingorganisations house a much wider economic andsocial strata of residents.

1.10 Methodology - the Commission has based thisreport on evidence gathered during the Commissionthat has included:

■ initial independent research about the nature ofthe English co-operative and mutual housingsector carried out for the Commission by theUniversity of Birmingham’s Centre for Urban andRegional Studies7.

■ research carried out by the Human City Instituteon baseline and mapping information about thesector8.

■ a series of hearings with people living in co-operative and mutual housing, and with tenant,housing association, local authority and co-operative movement audiences.

■ various case studies into particularorganisations.

■ call for evidence submissions from a number ofhousing related stakeholders and otherorganisations9.

■ a set of focus groups carried out by M.E.LResearch into the housing aspirations of socialrented housing tenants and shared homeowners,homeless and recently homeless people, andprivate renters10.

■ the report has been assembled by a Commissionresearch sub-group11, and has been edited byNic Bliss from the Confederation of Co-operativeHousing (CCH), who also carried out additionaldesktop research.

1.11 The Commission owes a debt of gratitude to ourfunders and the large numbers of people andorganisations who have participated in our work,particularly including those who have attended ourhearings, responded to our call for evidence andacted as our case studies. We could not haveassembled our evidence without these contributionsand we give heartfelt thanks to all those who havesupported our work.

Footnotes1 Co-operativesUK (2009) Co-operative Review2 The Commission’s key terms of reference and methodology are on

the Commission’s website3 Co-operative Commission (2001) The co-operative advantage:

Creating a successful family of Co-operative businesses Co-operativesUK. The Co-operative Commission was an independentcommission set up by Tony Blair at the request of leaders of theBritish co-operative movement. Its aim was to review the strategyand structures of the sector, with an aim to suggesting ways todevelop and modernise the movement, and its members comprised“business leaders, politicians, trade unionists and co-operators”under the chairmanship of John Monks, the General Secretary of theTUC.

4 The ICA definition of co-operatives and co-operative values andprinciples are included on the inside back cover of this report

5 Dr Ian McPherson (1994) The Co-operative Identity in the Twenty FirstCentury Review of International Co-operation 3/94

6 Full Oxford English Dictionary definition “1 experienced or done byeach of two or more parties towards the other or others. 2 (of two ormore parties) having the same specified relationship to each other. 3held in common by two or more parties. 4 (of a building society orinsurance company) owned by its members and dividing its profitsbetween them”

7 Rowlands, R (2009) Forging Mutual Futures – Co-operative andMutual Housing in Practice – History and Potential University ofBirmingham Centre for Urban and Regional Studies. This research isavailable on the Commission’s website

8 Gulliver, K. and Morris, J. (2009) Exceeding Expectations: The Natureand Extent of Resident and Community Controlled Housing in theUK, Human City Institute, Birmingham. An extract from this researchis shown on the Commission’s website

9 A listing of the submissions received are shown on page 410 Hunter, K (2009) Commission on Co-operative and Mutual Housing

focus groups M.E.L Research. This research is available on theCommission’s website

11 Membership of the Commission’s research sub-group is shown onthe Commission’s membership list

This chapter discusses:

■ the challenges we face in national housingstrategy;

■ the changes to housing strategy over theyears;

■ the issues facing the three predominanttenures – owner occupation, private rentingand social renting;

■ what co-operative and mutual housing mightoffer to national housing strategy.

2.1 Housing in England is at a crossroads. Presentstrategies for delivering housing are not working.Long established difficulties in building enoughhousing to match demographic change havebecome more dramatic in the aftermath of theglobal financial crisis. Households unable to accessor afford home ownership may find alternativeprivate renting options unattractive, leading toincreasing waiting lists for local authority andhousing association homes. Concerns are growingthat social rented housing as it currently operatesrestricts the life chances of the people it houses.Increasing numbers of households in all tenuresexperience overcrowding, insecurity and a lack ofcontrol over their home and their future housing.

2.2 Changes in housing strategy - housing in Englandhas undergone a series of transitions over the pastcentury. A hundred years ago, England was a nation

of tenants. Nine out of ten households, from thepoorest to the wealthiest, rented their homes fromprivate landlords. During the 20th Century, housingpolicy was principally concerned with improvinghousing quality (building new high quality housing,clearing slums, improving defective housing andreducing sharing and overcrowding), and councilhousing and home ownership became the means ofachieving these objectives, both tenures expandingto take the place of private renting.

2.3 But as the worst problems of housing condition andsupply had been resolved, home ownership becameseen as the tenure of choice, and since the 1960s.all governments have sought to make the tenureavailable as widely as possible. At the same time,changing aspirations, the introduction of the Rightto Buy, and public expenditure restrictions endedthe growth of council housing and the number ofcouncil homes declined from the 1980s onwards.This led to council housing increasingly becoming aresidual tenure with a narrower social base and lesscommunity stability on many estates. Althoughhousing associations have grown through new buildand transfers of council housing, the social rentedsector as a whole continued to decline until 2008.Whilst England retains a large social rented sectorby international standards, its overall direction hasbeen towards it becoming a sector of last resort.

2 Housing – where do we go now?

13

Table 2: Dwellings by tenure in England (Thousands)

England 1971 1981 1991 2001 2007

Owner-occupiers 8,334 10,653 13,397 14,838 15,449(51.9%) (59.5%) (68.1%) (70.0%) (69.6%)

Privately rented 2,051 1,767 2,133 2,866(11.5%) (9.0%) (10.1%) (12.9%)

Housing association 410 608 1,424 1,886(2.3%) (3.1%) (6.7%) (8.5%)

Local authority 4,530 4,798 3,899 2,812 1,987(28.2%) (26.8%) (19.8%) (13.3%) (9.0%)

All dwellings 16,065 17,912 19,671 21,207 22,188

Source: DCLG, Housing Statistics

Combined3,201

(19.9%)

2.4 Limitations of home ownership based strategies- whilst home ownership has provided opportunitiesfor many, it has never offered a solution for allhouseholds at all stages of their lives. England maynow have reached the maximum possible homeownership expansion. Further expansion could onlybe achieved with significant subsidy, and even thenwith the risk that those supported will not be able tosustain ownership. The global problems caused bymarketing sub-prime mortgages at low incomehouseholds and those with poor credit ratings arenow well known.

2.5 The seemingly settled objective of moving morepeople into home ownership by marketing mortgagepackages further down the income distribution isnow less tenable. Firstly, affordability problems havebecome a constant characteristic of a housingmarket dominated by home ownership. Secondly,banks and building societies have now returned torationed lending based on stringent credit checks,conservative valuations and substantial depositrequirements. And thirdly, whilst current historicallylow interest rates are reducing mortgage costs forsome existing home owners, interest rate rises,predicted by some12, could have severe financialconsequences for home owners.

2.6 Some green shoots of recovery may have beendetected in the housing market, but, whilstproblems of access and affordability may moderatein the future, they are unlikely to go away.Insufficient new building, falling far short of theBarker Review aspirations13 and unequal incomes,look set to continue inflating some parts of themarket, whilst lack of access to credit, falling houseprices and negative equity will continue to causemultiple problems. Abigail Davies of the CIH14 said“a constant feature is a strong but misguided hopethat the market will soon get back to familiar groundwith strong price rises and huge profits to be made.The performance of the market to date is not good –it does not deliver affordability, sufficient supply, orhousehold mobility, either in good times or bad.”

2.7 Private renting alternatives - against thisbackground, the fastest growing tenure in the futureis widely expected to be private renting - a sectorthat grew in 2007 at the expense of homeownership, which suffered its first decline in marketshare in over 50 years. Private renting is the easiestsector to access and is a suitable tenure for somehouseholds. But it is more prone to sub-standardhousing (40.6% non decent homes in the privaterented sector, as opposed to 29.2% in social rentedhousing and 24.9% in the owner occupied sector15)and to insecure tenure arrangements, an advantagefor young, affluent or mobile groups, but potentially

a problem for households seeking long term stablehousing.

2.8 Rugg and Rhodes identify that private rentingserves as “a first port of call for new households, abolt hole when circumstances change, a stoppingoff point when people change jobs and movehouse”, as well as being a long term home for somehouseholds (21% of private renters having lived intheir current home for more than five years)16. Theygo on to identify a number of sub-categories ofprivate renters, ranging from groups positivelychoosing private renting for various reasons (suchas young professionals, students and high incomerenters) to those with no alternatives (such as thehousing benefit market, slum rentals, immigrantsand asylum seekers, and temporaryaccommodation). They conclude that “the perceivedproblems with property quality, security of tenureand affordability all play a part in persuading tenantsthat the private rented sector provides, at best, aninsecure home.”

2.9 Social rented housing - the squeeze on homeownership and the inability of the private rentedsector to meet the needs and aspirations of allhousehold types have resulted in a social housingcrunch. Social renting waiting lists that stood ataround 1 million in the 1990s have risen steadilysince 2003. In 2008, 1.7 million households wereregistered on waiting lists - 1 in 12 of all households- and this figure is likely to rise in the future. Thesupply of new social rented housing was notmatching this demand before the credit crunch.

2.10 With the proportion of social tenants in the poorest30% of all households rising from under 30% in 1963to 67% in 200817 and with many of its more popularhomes sold under the Right to Buy, social rentedhousing has increasingly been seen as a lessattractive safety net for the most vulnerable. Calls forsocial rented housing to grant less secure forms oftenancy to encourage greater mobility could, ifenacted, further marginalise the sector and its tenants.

2.11 Following a number of enquiries and reports intohousing supply and planning and the social rentedsector and its regulation18, Government’s responsewas to initiate the most significant reorganisation ofhousing regulation and investment for decades inthe establishment of the Tenant Services Authorityand the Homes and Communities Agency. As wellas creating the platform from which to launch amajor increase in housing supply, it signalled agreater commitment to improving the quality ofhousing and services for tenants and increasingaccountability.

2 Housing – where do we go now?

14

15

2.12 However, even while the details of these newarrangements were being finalised, the creditcrunch was unfolding. The dramatic falls in privatesector housebuilding, the shortage of credit and theinability of housing associations to continue crosssubsidising social rented housing through homes forsale or mixed tenure now make it even harder forthe supply of new homes to match demand.Population predictions19 (an increase of 4.4 millionby 2016, and if past trends continue, up to a totalpopulation of 71 million by 2031), changinghousehold demographics, longer life expectancy,changing needs and cultural and religiousexpectations, all suggest a potentially deepeninglong term problem of housing supply.

2.13 What could Co-operative and Mutual Housingoffer? The three dominant tenures all play importantroles, but with home ownership unlikely to expand,and with the rented sectors not able to meet allneeds and aspirations, this report argues that co-operative and mutual housing, largely overlooked by

public housing policy debates for many years, has apotential for growth and innovation to respond toneeds emerging from current challenges. On theone hand, the evidence we have gathered showsthat co-operative and mutual housing is asuccessful and attractive model of social rentingthat can deliver what people want. On the otherhand, co-operative and mutual forms of homeownership could provide collective protection for anintermediate market20 from individual risk andmarket fluctuations whilst capturing investmentgains collectively. The next chapter suggests thatco-operative and mutual housing could meet someof the needs and aspirations of people unable toaccess other tenure forms. At a time when extremehousing market vagaries have left many housingconsumers insecure and unsure about the future,co-operative and mutual housing might be anattractive alternative option, not just to stateprovision of housing, but also to market provision.

2 Housing – where do we go now?

16

2.14 Indeed, the fifth chapter of this report points to arange of other performance, social, community andenvironmental benefits of co-operative and mutualhousing that suggests that there are a number ofpositive reasons to support the sector. Whereproperly fostered and nurtured, co-operative andmutual housing can:

■ deliver high resident and member satisfactionwith services alongside vibrant communityidentity;

■ stimulate individual and community resiliencethrough active and democratic citizenship;

■ provide a place-making cornerstone, makingplaces work better for people who live in them;

■ contribute to addressing social disadvantageand worklessness;

■ can enable collective influence over whathappens beyond the immediate boundary of anindividual property, whilst at the same timesupporting the individual household interest inhousing;

■ be a tenure of status, meeting the needs andaspirations of people who want their individualityguaranteed through community based solutions.

Key conclusions

1 A housing policy simply based on mass homeownership and a residual social rented housingsafety net was too limited and inflexible evenbefore the credit crunch, and is now even more so.

2 Whilst private renting is an attractive option forsome in the intermediate market, it will not beable satisfactorily to house increasing numbersof households who will not be able to enterhome ownership or social renting.

3 Co-operative and mutual housing is not auniversal panacea to all problems, but it canprovide solutions for some people for whomcurrent arrangements do not work, for someparticular groups of people, and for others whowant to consider alternatives.

4 Co-operative and mutual housing particularlymight be able to make a contribution in thecontext of renewed interest in alternatives to thestate and the market and a stronger emphasis onresponding to consumers and communities.

5 In particular, there is a need for innovative newforms of housing to meet the aspirations of thosein need of an affordable home, who, before theglobal financial crisis, aspired to and would havebeen able, albeit at a high price, to access homeownership.

17

Footnotes12 Nationwide Building Society’s Chief Economist’s Martin Gahbauer,

speaking at the 2009 Chartered Institute of Housing conference,predicted rises in mortgage interest rates, leading to high levels ofrepossession

13 Barker, K (2004) Review of Housing Supply, Delivering Stability:Securing our Future Housing Needs’ Final Report –Recommendations. London: HMSO

14 Writing in the Guardian on 18th June 200915 DCLG, English House Condition Survey16 Rugg, J and Rhodes, D (2008) The private rented sector: its

contribution and potential University of York Centre for HousingPolicy

17 Craven, E (1975) ‘Housing’ in Klein R (ed.), Inflation and Priorities,Centre for Studies in Social Policy, London, pp. 105-130

18 Barker, K (2003) Review of Housing Supply: interim report. London:HMSO; Barker, K (2004) Review of Housing Supply, DeliveringStability: Securing our Future Housing Needs’ Final Report –Recommendations. London: HMSO; Barker, K (2006) Barker Reviewof Land Use Planning: Final Report. London: HMSO; Hills, J. (2007)Ends and Means: The Future Roles of Social Housing in England(London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School ofEconomics and Political Science); Cave, M. (2007) Every TenantMatters: A Review of Social Housing Regulation (Wetherby:Communities and Local Government); DCLG, (2007) Homes for theFuture: More Affordable, More Sustainable HMSO Cm 7191

19 Office of National Statistics20 Wilcox, S (2005) “Affordability and the intermediate housing market”

University of York - Centre for Housing Policy defines theintermediate market as “the proportion of working households ineach area who cannot afford to buy at the lower quarter point ofhouse prices for two- and three-bedroom homes. This includes threesub-sectors: working households unable to afford social housing rentwithout housing benefit; households in the narrowly definedintermediate housing market [see below]; and households able toafford to buy the lowest decile point of house prices, but not at thelowest quarter point”. Wilcox defines “the narrowly definedintermediate housing market” as “the proportion of workinghouseholds in each area who can afford social housing rent withouthousing benefit but cannot afford to buy at the lowest decile point ofhouse prices for two- and three-bedroom dwellings”

This chapter considers:

■ what people are looking for from theirhousing choices;

■ the key criteria that makes home ownershipthe aspiration of choice;

■ how co-operative and mutual housingmeasures up to those aspirations;

■ positive aspirations for co-operative andmutual housing;

■ a growing cultural change that makes co-operative and mutual housing more relevantat this time;

■ the balance between community andconsumer based approaches.

3.1 During this chapter we particularly draw fromfindings from the Commission’s focus groupscarried out by MEL Research21 with social rentedhousing tenants and shared homeowners, homelessand recently homeless people, and private renters.

3.2 Housing and home ownership aspirations - themajority of the UK population aspires to individualhome ownership. This aspiration was clearlyconfirmed in the Commission’s focus groups andarticulated by Shadow Communities MinisterCaroline Spelman22 - “my dad passed on thereceived wisdom that the best investment you canmake is bricks and mortar. And he was right. If youlook at where young people can best make their

investment that over their lifetime will yield the bestreturn, it is in buying their own home, without aquestion”. In 2007, the Council for MortgageLenders23 reported that “following a protracted dipthat started after the early 1990s recession, some84% of adults hope to be homeowners in ten years’time.” They particularly pointed to a growth in thenumbers of under 25 year olds aspiring to homeownership from 40% to 50%.

3.3 However home ownership aspirations are notentirely clear cut. In 2007, the Hills Review24

reported that whilst 90% of home owners and 72%of private renters wanted to own their own home, asignificant 43% of local authority tenants and 47%of housing association tenants wanted to be tenantsof social landlords. More recently, the TSA’s 2008Existing Tenants Survey25 found that “most socialrenters (72%) stated a preference for remaining inthe sector over the next ten years. Only 16% would,if possible, switch to the private sector.” Based onpoints raised at the Commission’s focus groups,Hunter26 suggested that that tenure choice “reallydepends on the individual, where they have comefrom and the experiences they have had in housingso far”. She goes on to say that lifestage andlocation are important, but that “the main driverwhich directed participants’ choice of tenure wascost or affordability. Whilst many aspired to becomehomeowners one day, the financial cost of doing soacted as a barrier.”

3 What do people out there want?

19

Owner Occupation Local Authority Housing Association Private Landlord Other

Table 3: CML figures for home ownership aspirations 2007

Owner Occupiers Council Tenants RSL Tenants Private Renters

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

“You’ve asked us for the ideal, and most peoplewould say homeownership, but the reality of it isthat not everyone will end up owning their ownhome.”27

3.4 Even in 2007, the Council for Mortgage Lenders28

identified that “there may now be significant groupsof households, including many young, singlepeople, those on lower incomes and those withoutgenerous parental support, that face difficulty inachieving or to all intents and purposes areexcluded from home ownership.” A Notting HillHousing Trust report29 at the same time showed thatwhilst 63% of social renters want to own a property,they “have a number of concerns about the realityof being able to achieve this goal.” The reportcontinues that “nearly three quarters (73%) worryabout taking on too much debt and 58% of socialtenants believe home ownership to be too much ofa responsibility.”

3.5 Post credit crisis affordability pressures havechanged perceptions further. In 2008, the threenational tenant organisations30 analysed housingaspirations, concluding that not all were best metthrough owner occupation. Subsequently, a YouGovsurvey commissioned by the CIH31 identified that,whilst 70% of respondents still considered homeownership a good long term investment, the“biggest change in attitudes has come in the 25 to34 age range, with a 14% reduction from 83%saying to own their own home was their ideal livingsituation before the credit crunch, compared to69% saying it is currently their ideal living situation.”The report goes on to say that only just over a thirdof those aged between 18 and 24 consider homeownership as their ideal living situation. The CIHcomment that “we’ve driven too many people intounsustainable owner occupation and we need tomake a far better job of putting renting and owningon a level playing field. A generation has grown upbelieving it has to own at any cost – in part becausewe haven’t provided them with decent informationabout the alternatives.”

3.6 Nonetheless, in the CIH study, 22 year old RuhulAlam said “ownership is an aspiration to mostyoung people. Ownership gives you security, youcan’t be evicted. It gives you freedom and it is astatus thing” and a recent study commissioned byScottish Provident in 2009 reported that 89% ofhome owners surveyed believe that owning theirown home is important for a “reasonable standardof living.”32 As well as the fundamental issue ofhaving a decent quality home, these points identifysome of the key perceptions that sit behind housingaspirations - security, freedom, status and standardof living. We go on to discuss these aspirations,suggesting that whilst it is often perceived that

home ownership will meet them most successfully,the reality is that this may not always be the case.

3.7 A decent quality home - the most fundamentalhousing aspiration is access to a decent qualityhome with sufficient space and facilities. Hunter33

pointed out that the Commission’s “recentlyhomeless” focus group “focused on havingsomewhere nice to stay, typically with a garden andtheir own space.” Generally the key criteria inrelation to access is the resources a household hasavailable and in a market where demand outstripssupply, choice will be limited for some. The socialrented sector seeks to allocate its homes inaccordance with need, but limited supply meansthat not all needs can be met. Whilst “choice basedlettings” were introduced to enable an element ofchoice in social lettings, the lack of supply has oftenmade this choice illusory.

3.8 Security - once in a home, security is a keycomponent in most people’s housing aspirations –knowledge that nothing will threaten continuingoccupation of a home. Some attendees at theCommission’s focus groups particularly referred tothe security inherent to home ownership, and manyhome owners feel a strong sense of security in theirhome. However, security in home ownership can belimited for those affected by negative equity orreducing income, perhaps due to retirement,relationship breakdown or other reasons.

3.9 Social rented housing currently offers a strong levelof security to remain in the home. That social rentedtenants can remain in their homes provided theypay the rent and comply with other tenancyagreement terms provides some of the mostvulnerable people in society with a security that theymay not be aware of, particularly important at timesof difficult economic circumstances. As somecommentators have proposed less secure socialrented tenancies, tenants have expressed concern.The tenant representative body TAROE34 has saidthey “will vehemently oppose any proposals todilute tenancy rights, either for existing or futuretenants within the regulated housing sector. One ofthe key strengths of the current regulated housingsector is the security and stability it offers tenants.”

3.10 As well as this level of security, the relationshipbetween social rented tenants and the landlord aregoverned by a system of safeguards andprotections, which form a fundamental part of theequitable and fair treatment that tenants expect.Protections include rent levels, health and safetyprotection, freedom from discrimination, and accessto a housing ombudsman amongst other things.

3 What do people out there want?

20

21

3.11 Freedom - the concept of freedom in relation tohousing may refer to a range of criteria, includingthe ability to move to any location in the country; tomake decisions and effect change in one’s livingspace and neighbourhood; and to have a generalperception of independence.

3.12 Mobility is a problem for all forms of housing,primarily due to scarce resources in all sectors. Theprivate renters focus group considered that privatelyrented housing offers the greatest degree offlexibility and mobility. Mobility is dependent onresources available, but negative equity and highhouse prices can make it difficult to move in thehome ownership sector. In the social rented sector,opportunities to move can be very limited, leadingto the Conservative Party proposing a Right toMove for longer term social rented tenants.

3.13 Given that, subject to resources, planningpermission and some other constraints, homeowners can usually do whatever they want in theirhome and garden, home owners are usuallyperceived to have the greatest freedom to makedecisions and effect change in their living space.

3.14 In the social rented housing sector, the potentialexists that its tenants can be collectively involved indecisions about their homes and neighbourhoods,dependent on their landlord. The TSA35 refers to a“strength of feeling” expressed by tenants in theirNational Conversation about being “involved indecisions about their homes”, but they went on tonote that a disproportionately high number ofactively involved tenants in housing associationsand local authorities are less satisfied because theydo not see the difference their involvement ismaking.

3.15 On an individual basis, social rented housing doesoffer some means by which tenants can improvetheir homes, gardens and neighbourhoods (not leasta legal Right to Improve their homes subject tolandlord agreement) and many tenants do makeconsiderable improvements and take pride in them.

3.16 Status – defining status attached to housing isdifficult because it is dependent on trends that aredifficult to capture. Described in 2007 by KateDavies36 as a “renting rut”, some consider thatsocial renting in particular has a negative status.That home ownership is often considered to be theonly tenure of status may be partially due to it being“talked up” by Government and others. A recentCLG select committee report37 concludes that “forthirty years Government policy has been focussedon promoting home ownership. Current economiccircumstances, however, demonstrate that there isno immutable law that owner occupation should

increase. The tenure is not appropriate for asignificant proportion of the population who needhomes, and much more attention needs to be paidto developing the roles of both the private andsocial rented sectors.”

3.17 Standard of living - owning a home does not per selead to a higher standard of living. Some peoplewho buy homes may have higher incomes, but morehome owners live in properties in Council Tax BandA than local authority tenants38. The housing assetgives the potential for higher standards of living,and as home owners pay off mortgages, disposableincome may be comparatively higher than thosewho still pay rent for their homes. However housingassets can soon dwindle as elderly people needsheltered and supported housing and have to payfor it.

3.18 It is questionable whether standards of living arehigher for those still paying off mortgages. Whilstthe Commission’s private renters focus groupsidentified the common perception of rent as “deadmoney”, Sunday Times columnist Merryn SomersetWebb39 points out that the difference betweenaverage rent and mortgage payments could createa more substantial asset than a bought home. Aswell as this, home owner standards of living may benegatively affected by their liability for repairs andmaintenance of their home, with 84% of socialrented housing tenants recognising the value of nothaving that liability40.

3.19 What this brief analysis suggests is that theperceptions and realities of the different tenures canbe different. Home ownership is often perceived tobe a better tenure, and for most people who buytheir home, their aspirations are met through theirhome ownership. But for some this is not the case,and other tenures have positive features.

3.20 As well as this, other factors than tenure influencepeople’s quality of life, such as the type, size andvalue of properties (irrespective of tenure), access togreen spaces, schools and other facilities, and thecharacteristics and reputation of neighbourhoods.The blurring of tenures, with many neighbourhoodsnow containing a tenure mix, even those that usedto be considered to be “council estates”, meansthat a household’s tenure arrangements are not theonly factor that determines whether their aspirationsfor security, freedom, status and standard of livingare met.

3.21 How does co-operative and mutual housingmeasure up? Co-operative and mutual housingdoes have the potential to meet some of theaspirations identified above, particularly wherehouseholds cannot afford to buy their own home.

3.22 Currently, access, choice of home, and mobility aredifficult in co-operative and mutual housing becauseof lack of supply, but the problems are broadlysimilar to equivalent tenures. For example, in asocial rented housing co-op, access is restricted tothose in the most housing need, and in a co-housing scheme, access is limited by resourcesavailable. Whilst many co-operative housingorganisations also have access criteria relating toaccepting participation responsibilities, co-ops havesuggested to us that their allocations processesoften lead to more genuinely homeless people beinghoused than through local authority nominationsprocesses, described by the Commission’s“recently homeless” focus group as being like a“gameshow or a lottery”.

3.23 On the face of it, housing co-op tenancies offer lesssecurity of tenure than the assured and securetenancy regimes for housing association and localauthority tenants. This is because under the distinctfully mutual legal identity of most co-ops, they issue“contractual tenancies”, where tenancy conditionsare based solely on what is included in the tenancyagreement (as opposed to statutorily based assuredand secure tenancies). However, housing co-opsregistered with the TSA are required to grant similarrights in their tenancy agreements, and in generalthe legal membership rights and democratic controlin co-operative and mutual housing provide a

community based approach to security andfairness. The CCH commented that “most housingco-ops are run by people who aim to ensure thattheir members receive the same levels of fairnessthey would expect to receive themselves. Co-opsusually have to operate on the basis that they willhave to account to packed general meetings ifanyone proposes anything that is unfair.”

3.24 Commission case study Sanford Housing Co-operative illustrates that some co-op membersconsider security and fairness should go hand inhand with an individual responsibility to co-exist in acommunity with other co-op members. Notregistered with the TSA, and therefore able to conferrights they wish to in their tenancy agreements,provided they comply with landlord/tenant and otherlegislation, Sanford provides high density sharedhousing in the New Cross area of London. JimNoble from the co-op told the Commission aboutsome evictions that had taken place because ofpeople not being able to co-exist in particularshared houses – “if we want to evict someone, wehave to show the court that it complies with ourconstitution and rules, and the judge has to grant uspossession. We go through fair processes beforewe evict, including the matter being discussed at aco-op general meeting. But some of the cases wehave dealt with have been about alleged heroindealing, physical and mental aggression and sexual

3 What do people out there want?

22

Commission case study – set up in the 1970s to provide low cost accommodation for single people, SanfordHousing Co-operative provides 134 rooms in 14 shared houses with 6 studio flats. It is governed through amanagement committee made up of representatives from each of its houses, which holds monthly open meetings,and buys support services from CDS Co-operatives through a dedicated officer who works specifically for the co-op. The co-op operates a long list of 42 officer roles that cover everything from the standard chair role to gardensand ponds officers.

23

harassment, things that can’t be tolerated in sharedhousing. In effect, if we as a community did not takeaction, we would by implication be evicting theother tenants who would be forced to leave. Ourcommunity has our own rules and we apply themfairly.”

3.25 Legal membership rights and democratic controlalso means that co-operative and mutual housingconstitutionally enshrines the means to makecommunity decisions about homes andneighbourhoods. Mick Davies from New LongsightHousing Co-op suggested that “co-operativehousing can give people a similar feeling of controlof their housing as does home ownership.”

3.26 For some, co-operative and mutual housing inEngland has a status of its own. Havingexperienced co-op membership, people often don’twant to live in another tenure, and the CCHmentioned that some housing co-op members feelthat they can’t move because they don’t want tolose the benefits they gain through living in a co-op.Samantha Dyer from Argyle Street Housing Co-op inCambridge41 commented that “I wouldn’t want tolive in any other type of housing other than co-ophousing. I have lived here for 20 years and havefound it an empowering environment in which tospend my life. I moved in as a young 20-year-oldand have grown up to be a parent. We stay herebecause we love living here and can’t think of abetter environment in which to bring up our child.”

3.27 Until recently, it has not been possible in the UK forindividuals to develop personal assets through co-operative and mutual housing, but the developmentof mutual home ownership by CDS Co-operatives42

offers the potential to change that. As a new model,mutual home ownership enables households onmodest incomes who cannot afford to buy a hometo build an equity stake in their housing throughowning equity shares in a mutual.

3.28 Positive aspirations for co-operative and mutualhousing - some people positively aspire to co-operative and mutual housing because of lifestylesassociated with it. The UK Co-housing Network’swebsite43 describes co-housing as bringing“individuals and families together in groups to sharecommon aims and activities” and as “a means ofcompensating for the alienating effects of modernlife where neighbours don’t recognise each otherand where day-to-day collaboration is minimal.”

3.29 These values, generally common to all forms of co-operative and mutual housing, were recognised in aCommunities and Local Government report as ofparticular relevance to elderly people44 - “there isgrowing interest among older people in co-housing

communities, where they can control their own self-contained accommodation and live as a mutuallysupportive group with some common space”. Thereport continues that “It is hoped that these forms ofhousing will help meet the needs of a growing, single,older population looking for congenial company andsupport as they grow older.”

3.30 Housing for elderly people and multi-generationalhousing was identified by some in response to theCommission’s call for evidence, as being a particulararea of importance for co-operative and mutualhousing. The CIH, in its submission to theCommission, suggested that “demographic changesand the ‘ageing society’ in particular could triggerdemand for new or alternative forms of living whichthe co-operative model might provide. Models suchas ‘generational living’ along mutual/co-operativeprinciples, whereby younger households lendsupport to older households have sprung up inGermany for instance. Whilst such models are still inan embryonic state and not very widespread,increasingly tight welfare budgets and furtherindividualisation of society means that such forms ofhousing could become more than just a nicheprovision.”

3.31 Thomas45 argues for mutual retirement housing forelderly people through community land trusts. Hepoints out that, in the context of Britain’s ageingsociety, “Mutual Retirement Housing removesworries and provides residents with a better quality oflife. It ensures that everyone would have an equal sayin how the place is managed. But equally everyonewould have their own front door key and be able toenjoy their own company when they want to.Experience in existing co-operative housing schemeswith elderly residents has shown that residents tendto look out for each other and providecompanionship for those who feel in need of it”.Thomas argues that mutual retirement housing wouldmaintain the independence of elderly people throughmutual self-help and market drivers, as opposed tothrough the welfare state, important in the context ofa society where meeting the increasing care andsupport needs of elderly people is set to become amajor social and economic challenge. Brenton46,referring to examples in other countries, suggeststhat it is in the wider economic interests of societythat mutual housing choices for older people beexplored and developed.

3.32 Whilst existing housing co-ops statistically make only8% of their lettings to elderly person households,some co-ops have been particularly targeted atelderly people and evidence given at Commissionhearings suggest they meet the needs of elderlypeople well. Brian O’Hare of Huyton Community forthe Elderly told the Commission that his co-op had

recently lost its last original member. “He had beenactive into his 90s carrying out day to day activitiesfor the co-op as a member of the managementcommittee. Involvement in the co-op gives elderlypeople an ongoing challenge in their lives and helpsto prolong their independent living.” Phil Welsh MBEhighlighted how West Whitlawburn Housing Co-ophad used their local community knowledge to ensurean effective concierge safety net service for theirelderly members.

3.33 Co-operative and mutual housing solutions have alsobeen set up with an identity relating to the needs andaspirations of particular groups of people, such aswomen, black and minority ethnic people, andpeople who wish to adopt a particular “lifestyle”.Private sector co-ops, such as Sanford Housing Co-op and Cog Housing Co-op, who gave evidence tothe Commission’s Bristol hearing, pointed to groupsof young people who positively want to live in sharedhousing, often with shared ethical views andcommon practices. Sanford Housing Co-opconsidered that it would not be possible for theirshared housing to be run in any other way thanthrough a housing co-op.

3.34 Commission case studies Shahjalal Housing Co-opand Belgrave Neighbourhood Co-operative HousingAssociation were set up to provide homes in theethnically diverse areas of Aston in Birmingham, andBelgrave in Leicester respectively.

3.35 A changing culture? - Whilst co-operative andmutual housing potentially measures up well againstthe aspirations set out above, it may be an option ofchoice for some because it offers some of the bestopportunities to establish a shared sense ofbelonging and identity in communities, the centralimportance of human relationships being a keydefining feature of the sector. Sarah Blandy from theUniversity of Leeds said that “there is a small butsignificant demand from people who are searchingfor community rather than individual control ofhousing, and for the benefits which that brings. It isa particularly attractive setting in which to bring upchildren, or to live in old age, because of the mutualsupport.”

3.36 Hunter47 reported that all of the Commission’s focusgroup participants “were positive about the idea ofco-op housing, with the main selling point being thecommunity side of things”. She goes on to say that“the real plus side for the [private renters] group wasthe community aspect – sharing responsibility anddecision-making, being part of a wider community,and the potential to have fun.” The private rentersfocus group illustrated their interest in co-operativeand mutual housing with a number of detailedquestions, such as how to access it, how equity inmutual home ownership would work and how co-operative and mutual housing ensures thatindividuals don’t dominate.

3 What do people out there want?

24

Commission case study – taking its name for spiritual leader Shah Jalal, who spread Islam through the Sylhetregion of Bangladesh, Shahjalal Housing Co-operative was formed in 1996 from three co-ops set up in the1970s to meet the housing needs of families faced with severe overcrowding in the Aston and Saltley areas ofBirmingham. Now managing 85 homes and with assets of £3.7m, the co-op is governed by a managementcommittee made up ten annually elected and five co-opted members, and buys support services from localagency BCHS.

25

3.37 Co-operative and mutual housing is particularlyrelevant within a wider changing cultural shift fromindividualism to collective, communitarian, ethicaland environmental approaches - approaches whichemphasise place making, a sense of belonging anda sharing of risk. It may be that co-operative andmutual housing sits alongside trends such as carsharing, recycling, use of low energy appliances andlocal produce and positive responses to the Co-operative Bank’s and Co-operative Group’s ethicalpolicies - all suggesting an emerging generation ofpeople who want a lifestyle not built entirely on theindividual and consumption but one that seeks tobuild a new contract with how and where we live.Thake48 notes the emergence of “new forms ofindividual action” emerging as “a myriad of ordinarypeople every day in places where they do havecontrol – behind front doors, on their streets and intheir neighbourhoods”. He argues that “the retreatinto protective individualism” can be seen as aresponse to the failure of agency and a loss ofsolidarity. Thake concludes that we need to“develop a shared narrative for personal and groupbehaviour relevant for the twenty-first century” andthat “the role of government is to create theenvironment which enables communities to mobilisetheir latent energies to take control of their lives.”

3.38 Bauman49 goes further arguing that an “absenceand withdrawal of society” have led to “the liquid-

modern, individualised society of consumers”. Hecontinues that “the marketplace, which long agoexpanded to include the relations of production, hasnow expanded to include all relationships. We’vestopped recognising ourselves in any obligation tolive for the sake of something else than ourselves.”Bauman considers that this has led to “cognitivedissonance – people want what they will not getdespite being told that this is a meritocracy leadingto anger and resentment.” He concludes that ashumans, we need both recognition and to beincluded.

3.39 There is evidence that these theoretical conclusionsare supported by the realities of what people want.Scase/Scales50 identified that living in a friendlycommunity was the most important priority forsurvey respondents asked about what they wantfrom their neighbourhood. They went on to suggestthat a friendly quiet community with low crime mayeven compensate for poor levels of services andamenities. Similarly, a CLG survey51 in 2006/7concluded that “individuals value good communityrelations”, with 69% of those surveyed stating thathaving good neighbours is very important to qualityof life. Hunter52 identifies that “for some [of theattendees at the Commission’s private renters focusgroup], it was the sense of community whichattracted them, and kept them, in the area.”

Commission case study – with 353 homes, including one sheltered scheme for the elderly, housing more than460 members, Belgrave Neighbourhood Co-operative Housing Association is the largest housing co-op inEngland. It was set up in the 1970s in the Belgrave area of Leicester, and buys services from LHA/ASRA. Run by amanagement committee of 13 tenants and 2 co-optees, in 2009 the co-op attracted 350 of its members to anannually held multicultural event.

3.40 In 2009, the Young Foundation53 reiterated theimportance of increased contact betweenneighbours, leading to improvements in localdecision making and the impact that this can haveon neighbourhood well being. The YoungFoundation highlight that “regular contact betweenneighbours is an important element, feeling asthough you belong to a neighbourhood”, and citeincreased geographical mobility and the demise ofcivic institutions as causes for declining contactbetween neighbours. They continue that “there aremany ways to increase the sense of worth thatpeople have in their neighbourhoods; valuing theircontributions and people feeling that they havesome say and stake in the place they live are alsoimportant factors in creating the conditions for thatsense of worth.”

3.41 The appointment of a Communities Minister in 2004reflected a growing interest in communities andneighbourhoods. Speaking in 2005, David Miliband,the first Communities Minister, highlighted that “atthe heart of this renewal is the commitment to civicaction that creates value for society - civic actionthat is done in the main at local rather than nationallevel - civic action that is rooted in civic pride”. TheCommunities Ministry has led to an agenda for“localism”, seen by some as an antidote to thefacelessness, impersonality and cost of centralcontrol and big government, although it is unlikelythat most activities that have stemmed from thisagenda, primarily operating at a local authority level,will engage at a level “local” enough for ordinarypeople and communities to engage with.

3.42 Communities and consumerism - this growingcommunity agenda – Thake’s shared narrative andBauman’s recognition and inclusivity - sitsuncomfortably with the individualist consumeragenda. This is particularly illustrated in the socialhousing sector, where a lack of experience ofcommunity amongst most tenants, and varyinglevels of ability amongst traditional sector providersto understand, engage or in some cases to evensee the importance of community relationships, hasled many to espouse that tenants’ single aspirationis to receive good quality service, and that the wayto meet that aspiration is to treat tenants solely as“customers”. For example, in 2004, the HousingCorporation argued for54 greater use of “marketingtools, customer intimacy and market segmentation”.

3.43 This is an over simplification of the relationshipbetween tenant and landlord. Firstly, it oversimplifies a wide range of tenant needs andaspirations, such as providing life and employmentopportunities, tackling anti-social behaviour,providing environmental improvements ordeveloping community. These issues cannot be

mapped using market techniques, particularly giventhat it is rarely easy for social housing consumers tobehave like customers and take their customelsewhere.

3.44 Secondly, the TSA55 identification that tenants wantthe “softer, human elements of service” and a“cheerful, helpful, caring, understanding attitude”echoes a previous identification by the NationalConsumer Council56, discussing all public services,that “people spoke about empathy, compassion,warmth, the human touch, respect – taking the timeto listen and respond to individual circumstances,and focusing help on people who need it most.”Tenants often suffer isolation, and their links withtheir housing service can be one of their onlyexternal links. The relationship between tenant andlandlord often performs an important socialfunction, and in some cases, it is a vital lifeline.

3.45 Thirdly, an approach that seeks to match theproduct to the customer is premised on a pre-determined product, with an assumption made thatthe infrastructure is right and that it is only theproduct that needs to be adjusted to meet customerexpectations. An approach based solely on peopleas “consumers” means that people are notencouraged to have higher expectations than theproduct currently on offer, particularly in the socialrented sector where people have low expectations,and where their ask will usually be at best a slightlybetter version of what is already on offer.

3.46 The Tenant Involvement Commission57, consideringthe relationship between tenants of housingassociations and their landlords, concluded thatmuch of the sector has a “paternalistic get what youare given culture” and argued that tenants want a“new relationship” based on a synthesis ofcommunity and consumer approaches. They saidthat tenants “want good quality services, but therelationship they want with housing associationsgoes beyond normal customer service as it opensup an element of partnership. There is a need torenew and refresh the relationship between landlordand tenant, based on customer service, mutualityand business success.”

Key conclusions

1 People’s primary housing aspiration is to live in adecent quality home that meets their needs.Once in a home, they refer to issues such assecurity, freedom, status and the role of thehome in their standard of living and quality of life.

2 Most people identify individual home ownershipas being the tenure that is most likely to meettheir needs and aspirations and for many

3 What do people out there want?

26

27

households the experience of home ownershipwill match their expectations. However thevariability of the sector and issues of access andaffordability, particularly for newly forminghouseholds, mean that the tenure does notdeliver the same benefits to everyone.

4 Co-operative and mutual housing is able meet atleast some of the needs and aspirations ofpeople with regards the areas we have identifiedas being what people want from their housing,such as security, status and standard of living.

5 Freedom in relation to housing tenure is acomplex mesh of perceptions, choice and othercriteria. More freedom and independence isavailable to those with greater resources, but forthose on middle to low incomes, freedoms canbe limited. Co-operative and mutual housingmodels may offer significant levels of freedom forthose who cannot afford to buy a home.

6 Co-operative and mutual housing is an option ofchoice for some people because of its sharedsense of belonging, identity in communities and

mutual support structures. With publicity, co-operative and mutual housing models have thepotential to become the option of choice for awider body of people.

7 Co-operative and mutual housing may have aparticular role to play in meeting the need for anew intermediate market for home ownership,particularly providing homes for young peopleand newly forming households not able toaccess traditional home ownership. It could alsoplay a role in providing mutual supportivehousing for elderly people, black and minorityethnic people and other particular groups.

8 There may also an opportunity for the co-operative and mutual housing sector to re-framethe relationship between individuals asconsumers and as members of society in waysthat both respect people’s desire to makechoices about the kind of services they requireand their need to engage with and shapeservices and communities on a human level thatgoes beyond a simple commercial interaction.

Footnotes21 Hunter, K (2009) Commission on Co-operative and Mutual Housing

focus groups M.E.L Research. This research is available on theCommission’s website

22 Quoted in Inside Housing 17 July 200923 CML Housing Finance report “Improving attitudes to home

ownership” – Bob Parnell March 2007 – studies based on BMRBOmnibus surveys carried out in January 2007

24 Hills, J (2007) Ends and means: the future roles of social housing inEngland – London School of Economics – figures from the BritishSocial Attitudes Survey 2005/6

25 Tenant Services Authority (2009) Existing Tenants Survey 2008 TenantMobility and Aspirations based on interviews with 19,307 generalneeds tenants, 808 supported housing tenants and 1,147 sharedhome owners

26 Hunter, K (2009) Commission on Co-operative and Mutual Housingfocus groups M.E.L Research

27 An attendee at the Commission’s social housing tenants focus group28 Williams, P (2007) Home ownership at the crossroads - CML Housing

Finance Report29 Ipsos Mori (2007) Assets and opportunities – Notting Hill Housing

Trust30 TAROE, NFTMO, CCH (2008) Developing housing strategy in a post

credit crunch world31 YouGov (2009) – a Chartered Institute of Housing survey of 2,028 UK

adults, with particular interviews carried out with members of theYouth Empowerment Board of east London housing associationPoplar HARCA

32 Ipsos Mori (2009) High Wire Britain - Scottish Provident33 Hunter, K (2009) Commission on Co-operative and Mutual Housing

focus groups M.E.L Research34 TAROE (2009) – Response document: Building a Regulatory

Framework35 Tenant Services Authority (2009) Building a Regulatory Framework36 Kate Davies, Chief Executive Notting Hill Housing Trust – press

release for Assets and Opportunities 200737 House of Commons CLG committee (2009) Housing and the Credit

Crunch: follow up report38 Communities and Local Government - Survey of English Housing39 Merryn Somerset Webb – writing in the Sunday Times 200540 Tenant Services Authority (2009) Existing Tenants Survey 2008 Tenant

Perspectives on social landlord services41 Argyle Street Housing Co-op (2007) The case for new co-operative

housing in Cambridge42 Rodgers, D (2009) New Foundations: unlocking the potential for

affordable homes The Co-operative Party43 UK Co-housing Network website – www.co-housing.org.uk 44 DCLG (2008) Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods – a national

strategy for housing in an ageing society Department of Communitiesand Local Government/Department of Health/Department of Worksand Pensions

45 Thomas, G (2009) Keeping control of our lives: mutual retirementhousing for older people

46 Brenton, M (1998) Co-housing communities for older people in theNetherlands Bristol Policy Press and Brenton, M (2005) Co-housingfor older people: housing innovation in the Netherlands and Denmark’Australian Journal of Ageing

47 Hunter, K (2009) Commission on Co-operative and Mutual Housingfocus groups M.E.L Research

48 Thake, S (2008) writing in report series on Social Evils - JosephRowntree Foundation

49 Bauman, Z (2000) Liquid modernity50 Scase, R and Scales, J (2003) Regional futures and neighbourhood

realities National Housing Federation. The research quoted from theESRC British Household Panel Survey based on interviews withc.12,000 families. 56% of survey respondents listed “friendlycommunity” as the most important neighbourhood priority, followedby a quiet area (42%), low crime (38%), access to town and shops(37%), access to countryside/open spaces (29%) and transport(28%)

51 Communities and local Government Best Value PerformanceIndicators (2006/7)

52 Hunter, K (2009) Commission on Co-operative and Mutual Housingfocus groups M.E.L Research

53 The Young Foundation (2009) Neighbourhoods, empowerment andwellbeing

54 Housing Corporation (2004) Sector Study 35a55 Tenant Services Authority (2009) Building a Regulatory Framework56 National Consumer Council (2005) Playlist for Public Services57 Tenant Involvement Commission (2006) What Tenants Want National

Housing Federation - based on the views of a cross section oftenants assembled at a deliberative forum held in Leeds in 2005

This chapter identifies:

■ different types of co-operative and mutualhousing;

■ statistical information about the sector – itssize, who it houses, where it is;

■ common characteristics and what unites thesector.

4.1 Co-operative and mutual housing organisationsexist or have existed in a number of different forms.As well as identifying co-partnership housing in theearly 20th Century and its links with the Garden CityMovement, Rowlands58 refers to two subsequentco-operative and mutual housing developmentphases – co-ownership followed by “commonownership and tenant management”.

4.2 Co-ownership housing was promoted byGovernment through the Housing Corporation in the1960s and 1970s. It was intended to be a form ofco-operative housing for those who would not beeligible for social renting but who also would beunlikely to enter individual home ownership.However, neither the Housing Corporation, normany of the initiators of co-ownership societies hadany commitment to co-operative housing andconsequently, although the co-ownership sectorgrew to more than 35,000 dwellings, they did notpass co-operative values and principles on to thesector’s members. The resistance to its dismantling,when the opportunity for sales to individualoccupiers arose, was limited, and so in the 1980s, itwas largely transformed into a part of the homeownership sector.

4.3 The “common ownership and tenant management”phase developed from the 1970s onwards and wasfocused on people in social housing need.

4.4 Social rented co-operative and mutual housing -currently there are a number of social rented modelsthat could be considered co-operative and mutualhousing including:

■ Government funded ownership housing co-operatives – where members and tenants ofhousing co-ops own, manage anddemocratically control their housing. Most ofthese co-ops developed as a result of aGovernment programme to enable access topublic funding in the 1970s and 80s, which

meant that most of the 450 co-ops developedthrough this route at that time were for people insocial housing need. By 1990, their number haddwindled to 247, but that number has remainedmore or less constant since then. They aresupported in various ways, but significant groupsbuy services from support organisations inLondon, Birmingham, Liverpool, Sunderland andLeicester. Redditch Co-operative Homes, withits five independent leasehold housing co-operatives has been the only significantdevelopment of Government funded newownership housing co-operatives in the lastdecade.

■ tenant management – where tenants of localauthorities or housing associations formorganisations to take responsibility for thedemocratic management of features of thedelivery of housing services through amanagement agreement and allowancesnegotiated with their landlord. Som