Residential relocation process 4: alternative property provision

Alternative property provision (APP) in this research refers to the process of planning for and/or securing properties for re-housing residents from properties earmarked for demolition. It refers to alternative dwelling provision for all tenures (owner occupiers, social and private tenants) whose relocation is required by HMR interventions.

163

The alternative property provision process has a crucial impact on residential relocation outcomes.

The properties meant to replace homes lost to demolition have certain characteristics related to their type and location. These have an impact on the residents not only in terms of the physical environment, but on their economic standing and the development or redevelopment of social relations within the relocated household unit and the community. In this research, type of property relates to its physical characteristics (such as old, new built, refurbished), its size (e.g. two, three, four bedroom) and dwelling type (e.g. flat, terrace, bungalow etc.). The „type‟ of the property defines the living space of a household unit (e.g. family) and caters for their specific needs (e.g.

disability, elderly population, religious needs, or simply personal preferences and aspirations) and social relations between household members. The location of the property defines the aspects of affordability, in terms of its location in the local sub-markets as well as its proximity to the old, demolished neighbourhood and its community. In those terms the location of the alternative property defines and redefines (in the case of residential relocation) the wider social relations of the relocated household with its surroundings.

Re-housing or alternative property provision is not required by CPO in general terms. Only the social tenants are required to be re-housed based on the „decanting policy‟ of their housing providers (housing associations or local councils). However, such a legal requirement does not exist for owner occupiers and private tenants. The acquiring authorities are not obliged to provide alternative properties for owner occupiers and private tenants, except in exceptional circumstances.

The Pathfinders started developing alternative property provision options for these two tenures only after the „exceptional circumstances‟ (in other words inability to move because of the affordability gap or unavailability of alternative properties) were proven. However, similarly to FAPs, APPs varied between the Pathfinders, their local authorities and depending on the project, timing, tenure or delivery.

6.3.4.1 Owner occupiers

There is no legal obligation to re-house owner occupiers. The CPO works under the assumption that the residents will be able to find an equivalent property somewhere else with the statutory compensation to which they are entitled. Following this legislation the relocation ‗depends what is available in the housing market at the time you choose to move … and the amounts of money‘ (PIA Respondent S1-6), as a PIA respondent pointed out. However, in the case of HMR this was not possible, for the simple reason that the cheapest and most „unpopular‟ (Cole & Nevin, 2004)

164

homes were designated for demolition. In many cases the available FAPs were not sufficient to bridge the affordability gap, or simply properties for relocation were not available.

At the beginning of HMR implementation, in the majority of Pathfinders there was only demolition. In many cases the residents could not afford to buy properties in the same state as their old one in other parts of the local market. For this reason, in some of the Pathfinder projects redevelopment was planned in advance or in sequence with demolition. This enabled the owner occupiers to invest their statutory compensation and the FAPs they were eligible for in new-built homes in their old neighbourhood. The option enabled the relocatees move into brand new properties that they would not be able to afford otherwise and preserve connection to their old neighbourhood and social networks. However, this option was not widely available. The process was not without challenges. Namely, general property provision within the HMR framework was entrusted to private developers. These agents provided affordable properties under agreement with the acquiring authorities, in exchange for access to large sites. This meant that the local authorities and Pathfinders became dependent on the private sector to deliver residential relocation.

Box 6-17 Alternative property provision: housing provision by private developers

‗Each developer agreement has a certain percentage of the affordable housing (10-25%). The percentage is decided upon in collaboration with the local authority. The agreements are made between the local authority and the developer‘ (EEL Respondent S1-2).

‗In some cases you have a very straightforward development agreement, where there is a developer, the city council is separate, but we agree that this land will be made available at certain time. In all the situations you have the council as an active partner. However, when there are specific requirements for the site in terms of affordability, the council is in tighter partnership, with a stake in the game, as opposite to the situation when owner occupier schemes are delivered to the market‘ (BNG Respondent S1-1).

In 2008 alternative property provision in the form of new-built homes was especially challenging because of the financial crisis that affected the housing sector as a whole. According to the respondents the main challenge was the ability to sell the properties built for sale. The revenue for these partially financed the affordable properties built for relocation. As the result the private developers stop building altogether (for more details see Chapter 8).

165

Box 6-18 Alternative property provision: difficulties in new housing delivery

‗The challenge is the new building. This is because there is no market for housing in general at the moment. The developers are reluctant to start new building‘ (EEL Respondent S1-2).

‗We need mechanisms that will allow us to get on with new building … to be able to relocate … New building has been stopped by the credit crunch‘ (GW Respondent S1-3).

‗The biggest problem [in new housing provision] is confidence about being able to sell and the impact that this has … because when the stock is sold that money can be taken somewhere else to a next phase … everything is just cluttering up at the moment‘ (MSP Respondent S1-4 (LA)).

Apart from the provision of new affordable properties for relocation, the Pathfinders developed a Homeswap option, to help owner occupiers relocate. The Homeswap scheme was designed and launched in the Seedly and Langworthy areas of Salford, MSP Pathfinder. Homeswap allowed people with negative equity (especially owner occupiers with mortgages) to choose an alternative property in a retained area, in close proximity to their old neighbourhood, which is then renovated both internally and externally to their specifications and to modern standards. In 2008, the Audit Commission (2008:12) reported that the scheme was one of the most popular relocation options in HMR framework.

Box 6-19 Alternative property provision: Homeswap scheme

‗We buy properties on the open market near demolition areas and transfer those to our housing association partners. West Hull and East Hull have different housing associations … They let these as social rented housing. We fully fund the purchase and transfer it to them … we have 100% relocation rights from our relocation areas to those properties‘ (GW Respondent S1).

‗That [Homeswap] proved to be very successful and popular. It also gave you the double benefit, not only were you helping relocating people and avoiding resistance to compulsory purchase … people were comfortable that they were not being disadvantaged. It also meant that you are retaining residents from the community and that you are getting secure owner occupation on properties that were currently standing vacant‘ (MSP Respondent S1-4 (LA)).

In 2003, the council reports showed that Bridging Newcastle Gateshead started to transform Tyneside flats into larger properties and offer them as a Homeswap option (NCC, 2003). In the same year the approach was being explored in Transform South Yorkshire (House of Commons, 2008). By 2005, when the MSP Homeswap scheme was publicised as one of the most popular residential relocation options (SCC, 2005), the approach was adopted in three additional Pathfinders. NewHeartlands offered the scheme to home occupiers in Sefton Council, Bedford Road and Queens Road and social tenants in the Klondyke redevelopment areas (NewHeartlands 2005a, 2005b; Cole & Flint, 2007). Tees Valley Pathfinder developed Homeswap options in Middlesbrough, Gesham clearance area, with Hartlepool and Redcar and Cleveland local authorities following (HBC, 2005; RCBC, 2011; MC, 2011). At the same time Partners in Action

166

Pathfinder (PIA) was examining adopting the scheme as well (Partners in Action, 2005). However, the scheme was not as widely available as it appeared. Usually a dozen homes per project were available through Homeswap. For instance, MSP Pathfinder that invented the scheme, distributed just around 150 Homeswap homes, while it demolished several thousands.

6.3.4.2 Social tenants

Re-housing or decanting social tenants in the event of housing demolition is required by law.

Decanting is a legal term used to explain the process where residents are required to move from their (rented) homes, because an authority with compulsory purchase powers has redevelopment plans for their home. Government legislation has an impact on how HAs or local authorities can implement their decanting policy. The key Acts to be taken into consideration are the Land Compensation Act 1973 and the Planning & Compensation Act 1991.

The plans that require decanting may involve demolition or major repair or improvement to the property (resulting in a significant change of character to the property, e.g. building an extra room), and may require the resident to move out, either temporarily or permanently, for the works to be completed (CIH, 2010). Decanting is done within the properties of the housing provider or through a choice based lettings system. In both cases the social tenants are eligible for a priority card in order to ensure their relocation from areas affected by demolition.

Depending on the Pathfinder, local authority or specific project, the social tenants were relocated into existing social housing properties of the council or housing associations (through a choice based letting system). In some cases where new properties were available for social tenants, they were relocated in brand new properties (such was the case for a number of social tenants in BNG and MSP Pathfinders).

While social tenure was the one of the three that received the most support, there were also challenges that social tenants faced in accessing alternative properties. This research found that the demolition of social housing led to increasing pressure on the social housing stock in the Pathfinder areas. This was because of the HMR goal to reduce social housing in the intervention areas. Generally the number of social tenure units demolished was larger to number of new built ones. This led to long waiting lists and a prolonged process of residential relocation in some cases.

167 6.3.4.3 Private tenants

Private tenants, unlike social tenants, were not required to be re-housed. However, this research found that the Pathfinders developed various ways to attend to the needs of the private tenants. In Newcastle (BNG), for example, private tenants were relocated in the social rented properties as there was no other available option. In several Pathfinders a Private Landlord Accreditation scheme was developed in order to ensure decent housing standards for private tenants.

The enactment of the Housing Act 2004 had a special influence on the issue of private tenants‟

relocation. The Housing Act 2004 granted local authorities power to license all landlords in areas of low housing demand or similar areas, where poor management of the private rented sector frustrated efforts to create sustainable communities. The accreditation was, in effect, an agreement between private landlords in the intervention areas and the local authorities, which guaranteed certain housing standards from the landlord. But it also meant that the residents, both private and social tenants, could be referred to these agents to be relocated to an alternative property.

In summary, alternative property provision significantly influenced residential relocation options and outcomes within a project area; specifically the type and location of a property and the social change that comes with it. In addition, the process of alternative property provision had a vital impact on the process and length of residential relocation for all tenures (feelings of certainty or uncertainty among the residents). While planning strategy set an overall plan and direction for general housing provision in the planned area, alternative property provision had its own pace as it depended not only on the authorities planning and approving redevelopment plans (i.e. Pathfinders and local authorities) but on numerous property providers for all three tenures. Cross-tenure relocation in HMR meant that property provision depended on different housing providers such as private developers, RSLs, ALMOs and private landlords. In turn the Pathfinders and local authorities depended on these actors to complete residential relocation. Dependence on disparate actors to deliver APP for relocation was a challenge that was not envisaged in HMR design, which planned for a „tenure blind‟ approach to housing.