Levent Kerimol

by: Levent Kerimol

Some years ago, we would have had to look to Germany, Scandinavia, or the States to find examples of community led housing such as Baugruppen, Cohousing, or Community Land Trusts. Today London has several recently completed examples with different approaches to community led housing. This adds to a legacy of established co-operative housing projects. As the sector grows, we will undoubtedly see more innovative ideas and projects emerge from communities motivated to take control of their housing situations and contribute to housing delivery in London. There are at least 60 emerging groups and projects in London with a real diversity, which could deliver around 1500 homes.

Communities can help achieve higher densities or unlock sites that may otherwise be difficult to develop, bringing greater diversity and increased housing supply, as well as more stable, supportive, and happier neighborhoods through the empowerment of current and future residents.

Councils and housing associations have an important role to play in enabling community led housing to become a more mainstream part of housing delivery. All too often communities have seen a reluctance from what should be considered their natural partners. Where support has come from local authorities it has been in ad-hoc, one-off special cases.

The Future of London report launched today finds that this reaction is often due to a lack of understanding and trust amongst staff, and common ‘urban myths’ about what is possible. The associated learning program we supported sought to break down barriers and create an environment where council officers could feel comfortable about not knowing all the answers to this new area of housing and regeneration. There was a large emphasis on co-production, and testing concepts with projects such as PEACH and E16 CLT in Custom House.

We are here to provide practical assistance to officers. We are actively working with Tower Hamlets, Croydon and Barking & Dagenham, and seeking to build relationships between community led housing groups and housing associations who could take on an RP landlord role on their projects.

We hope to continue this learning network, to help housing associations and boroughs move from ad-hoc reactive responses to more streamlined proactive programs with a regular stream of opportunities for community groups. For example, a proportion of developments or small sites being made available specifically for community led housing through property or planning policy initiatives; or by local councils, developers, or housing associations acting as enabling developers to assist groups.

These partnerships are key to embedding the role of communities in making a positive contribution to London’s housing delivery now and into the future.

by: Levent Kerimol

With growing interest in Community Led Housing (CLH), councils and public authorities are making land and opportunities available. Sometimes they have entered direct arrangements with a single CLH organisation, some have decided to run selection processes for CLH groups.

But which approach is best? The public sector tends to opt for a selection process, whilst for many groups, the idea of competing for land against one another seems contrary to the spirit of community led housing.

Characterisations of “the community” as a singular entity, ignore the fact that we are all part of a series of complex and overlapping communities. Communities may be geographic, intentional or demographic, cutting across borough boundaries. Even geographical areas may overlap at different scales. Community Led Housing involves a participatory choice to devote time and effort to a housing organisation, and people may be members of either one, several or no CLH organisations.

This makes it difficult to prescribe a clear route, and instead requires a common sense and nuanced approach.

At Marklake Court in Bermondsey, the site was identified by residents and Leathermarket JMB, the estate’s Tenants’ Management Organisation (TMO). Southwark Council made it available without a selection process, as the TMO has a local and clearly defined geography and are already accountable to residents. It would have been non-sensical to advertise the site to other CLH organisations.

It is a similar story for Neighbourhood Forums, their geographic boundaries are evaluated and assessed by the local authority. Sometimes they are asked to work with others in the area, or their boundaries separated, to ensure there is a clear singular community arrangement. There have been several natural progressions for effective and inclusive Neighbourhood Forums to move onto housing delivery, and here again, it doesn’t seem sensible to select other communities.

Then there are CLH organisations, such as the St Ann’s Redevelopment Trust, that exist entirely around a single identified site. These organisations are very local and geographic in character and not interested in other sites. They typically identify the site that is of particular interest and seek partnership with public bodies. The specificity of these cases can mean light touch sifting and dialogue may be more appropriate.

It is of course prudent for public bodies to ensure the organisation has the capability and credibility to deliver what is required, but this can be done without the pretence of a selection process, by drawing on support from CLH London and others.

In many other cases, sites are outside the local geographic area of an interested CLH group, and a selection process is sensible. With enough notice, soft market testing, or consultation, it may also be a way of ensuring any latent local desires to start a CLH organisation are explored.

Selection processes should be focused and proportionate, and clearly define the terms and what public bodies are looking for, appreciating the effort required by people. The GLA’s Small Sites x Small Builders programme offers a simple process with standardised terms and delivery controls, which can be focused specifically to support the emerging sector and delivery model. Both TfL and Croydon Council have used this approach recently meaning start-up groups with relatively little access to capital in the early stages, are not competing against more established developers.

Similarly, CLH groups don’t need to feel daunted by the idea of “bidding for sites”. After all, it is not unusual to have application processes for other limited resources such as funding or bank loans. It is all part of the learning required to build and manage housing. The process can bring some discipline and resolution to ideas, and even groups who miss out can come back better prepared for future opportunities.

Although the word “bidding” appears to place an emphasis on financial offers, it is more than likely public bodies and even private landowners will have a range of aspirations from a process, including the credibility and likelihood of delivery, as well as affordability, sustainability and other social value.

 

photo: © StART are deeply connected to the site, regularly going out to sketch and paint its many trees