research presented to royal geographic society / institute of british geographers annual conference...

Research presented to Royal Geographic Society / Institute of British Geographers Annual Conference 26-29 August 2014 “Geographies of co-production” Session : Alternative housing in London (1): visions, values & strategies

“Alternative strategies for ‘alternative’ housing – a look at mainstreaming opportunities for the utopian vision”

Dr Martin Field, Collaborative Centre for the Built Environment, University of [email protected]

Alternative housing : visions, values & strategies

• Purpose of ‘mutual/collective’ housing policy research

• Research parameters

• Indicative headlines

• LAs policies with zero mention of ‘mutual/collective’ housing

• LAs policies with some mention of ‘mutual/collective’ bodies

• LA policies with specific mention of ‘mutual/collective’ housing

• Discussion

Contents of presentation

RGS- IBG 26-29 August 2014


• What application of the national policy background?Localism Act, 2011National Housing Strategy, 2011National Planning Policy Framework, 2012

• What understanding is evident of ‘utopian’ ideals to seek new housing provision through ‘mutual / collective’ means?

• What general or specific ‘policy hooks’ are identifiable or useable by local people at local levels?

Purpose of ‘mutual / collective’ housing policy research



• Desk-based

• Internet / website info from all London Councils : 33 + GLA

• Examination of formal policies :- Planning (Core Strategies / Spatial Strategies / LDFs)- Housing (Housing Strategies / SHMAs)- Community (Community Strategies / Sustainable

Communities / Community Plans / …)

• Identification of key terms or concepts :- Self build / Custom build / Co-op / Community-led / Community

Land Trust / Cohousing

Research parameters



• LAs with zero mention of ‘mutual / collective’ housing : [ 14 ] / @42.5%

• LAs with some mention of ‘mutual / collective’ bodies :[ 11 ] / @33.5%

• LAs with specific policy mention of ‘mutual / collective’ housing :

[ 8 ] / @24% ……… plus ‘London Plan’

[NB : Two LAs come into both of the last two categories]

Indicative headlines



LAs with zero policy mention of ‘mutual / collective’ housing


Barnet Harrow

Bexley Hillingdon

Brent Newham

City of London Richmond

Croydon Sutton

Greenwich Waltham Forest

Haringey Wandsworth


LAs with some policy mention of ‘mutual / collective’ bodies


LA Self Build Custom build

Co-ops Community-Led

Land Trusts

Cohousing

Barking ‘Energy co-op’

‘Renewables’

Bromley Neighbourh. plans

Camden Abbey estate

Regeneration partnership

H/Fulham Co-ops in 3rd sector

Hounslow In ‘Big Society’

Commun. Trusts

Islington Existence of TMOs


LAs with some policy mention of ‘mutual / collective’ bodies




Land Trusts

Cohousing

K/Chelsea ‘Credit unions’

Kingston In ‘Glossary’

Merton General ‘trusts’

Redbridge An RSL ‘format’

An RSL ‘format’

Westminster ‘Food co-op’

‘Community build’ sites

Local‘Trust’


LAs with policies that quote specific - - ‘mutual / collective’ housing(s)




Land Trusts

Cohousing

Ealing Enfield Hackney ( ) ( ) ( ) Havering Lambeth Lewisham Southwark * * T Hamlets * Lon. Plan Lon. Hsg S.

* Other mention


Total LA policies quoting new ‘mutual / collective’ housing (from 33)




Land Trusts

Cohousing

TOTALS 3(+) 1(+) 0 1(+) 4 0

• (+) Where pan-London strategies have been quoted• Only 2 LAs make specific mention of more than one approach



Land Trusts

Cohousing

TOTALS 4(+) 3(+) 0 3(+) 6 0

Total no. of London policies with positive mentions (GLA + 33 LAs)


• Possible omission or overlooking of information that might be located on websites, following clarification of how local indexes have been compiled

• The potential age of existing policy documentation will predate key national developments, although only 2 LAs have all policy from pre-2011 • This research has not examined ‘asset transfers’ to support collective housing provision, although no such public sector policies are obvious…..

• Actual scheme development (like Cohousing in Barnet / Hackney) is ahead of specific policy encouragements….

Discussion points



Concluding Remarks …..


• A first start at ‘benchmarking’ an identifiable set of policies to support ‘alternative’ and collective housing provisions…..

• Information ‘from the ground’ notes further initiatives under way that are below the ‘policy radar’…..

• The majority of LAs are aware of ‘collective’ provisions of some kind, but cannot evidence this with regard to ideas on future housing provision

•Scant evidence of understanding ‘collective’ routes of housing provision to herald wider utopian ideals for shaping localities or neighbourhoods


Key sources

• Current ‘planning’ / ‘housing’ / ‘community’ policies from all 33 local authorities across Greater London Authority area, 2003 - 2014

• London Plan, 2011 (+ 2013 amendments)

• London Housing Strategy, 2011

• Localism Act, 2011

• National Housing Strategy, 2011

• National Planning Policy Framework, 2012



SUBMITTED ABSTRACTProposed title : “Alternative strategies for ‘alternative’ housing – a look at mainstreaming opportunities for the utopian vision”While there remains a widespread and prevailing interest in the UK for ‘alternative’ and utopian forms of housing and neighbourhood development, there nevertheless remain significant barriers in the way of promoting such ambitions on any par with more conventional outcomes. Supporters of ‘alternative’ visions have long called for a new development ‘paradigm’ to be promoted that could allow a mainstreaming of these, however the reality is that ‘alternatives’ still occupy the periphery of planning and construction activities.

It is therefore interesting to note that the recent change to different forms of national guidance for planning and housing provisions – particularly the Coalition’s National Housing Strategy (2011) and its National Planning Policy Guidance Framework (2012) – has provided clear encouragement for local planning and development agencies to promote opportunities for some new local development to be centrally shaped by local interest and ambition. This paper therefore reviews what formal strategies and policies are emerging in and across London Boroughs to promote and support what are classed as ‘alternatives’ to the contemporary norm – namely neighbourhood housing that could be ‘co-operatives’, ‘cohousing’, ‘land trusts’, ‘self build’ or ‘custom build’ in their character.

The paper examines different local strategies and policies for housing provision, for ‘community’ development, and for spatial planning frameworks, in order to pose questions on the extent to which support for grassroots or ‘community-led’ housing and neighbourhood values is at all evident in the formal structures that are used to harness the resources and approvals required to realise any building and development ambitions. It considers what evidence there is of current ‘best practice’ to champion the establishing of ‘alternative’ provision on the ground, and it reviews whether or not ‘utopian’ values are having any manifest impact upon how institutional structures could respond to the visions of local people.


Any Questions?

research presented to royal geographic society / institute of british geographers annual conference...

Documents

national housing strategy

new housing provision

mutual collective means

values strategieslas

national policy background

specific policy hooks

custom build coop community

london councils