Residential relocation process 2: community involvement

CPO legislation empowering local authorities to demolish does not require community consultation in the planning process because of the nature of the intervention (DCLG, 2004).

However, the councils‟ initial failure to consult properly on the strategy generated a great deal of anger and protests against HMR plans. Following the initial unrest and followed by extensive negative media coverage, the Pathfinders experimented with different types of community involvement to enable redevelopment to proceed.

After the enactment of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that made community engagement in the planning process (in general terms) compulsory, some HMR local authorities resorted to extensive engagement exercises. Others decided to design their plans ‗bottom-up‘

(MSP-Respondent S1-6), drafting their plans based on consultation with the community before commencing the planning exercise (e.g. MSP). However, community involvement was rarely crafted for relocation purposes specifically. As the NAO respondent noted in his interview for this research, ‗deciding which parts of the community to involve and when remained a challenge until the end of the programme‘ (NAO Respondent 1).

In this research it was found that community involvement (be it formal or informal) influenced the process and shaped the outcomes of residential relocation in several ways. First, community

154

involvement influenced the length of the residential relocation process. Community protests were proven to have the capacity to delay the process of redevelopment, reduce number of properties planned for demolition and consequently the number of relocations as well as to reshape the ways residential relocation was delivered (e.g. change the value of financial assistance packages, provision resident support and/or alternative property provision).

Based on the analysis of community involvement modes across Pathfinders, three basic types were identified: statutory community engagement, community protests, and institutionalised protest groups‟ engagement (see Table 6-1: Community Involvement: Actors and Relevance to Residential Relocation Process).

Table 6-1: Community Involvement: Actors and Relevance to Residential Relocation Process

Community Involvement

Actors involved Residential Relocation Relevance Statutory community

Community Protests These were self-organised resident groups. In the vast majority of cases the residents were directly affected by demolition and had to relocate

These were resident protest groups that were institutionalised and formed a part of the local governance. In some cases they were given decision making power and were regularly consulted about the change in their neighbourhood

The extent to which one or more of the community involvement modes listed above were present and/or influenced relocation practice varied from project to project (an example is given in the next chapter that examines relocation in BNG in-depth).

6.3.2.1 Statutory community engagement

In the year HMR was launched, the Housing Corporation (2002, 2003) emphasised the importance of engaging the community in the planning and regeneration process. In 2004, two years after the

155

launch of HMR, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 made community involvement compulsory across the board. In 2004, the ODPM stated „the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill specifically requires that Local Development Documents must have regard to the Community Strategy, giving spatial expression to those elements that relate to the physical development and use of land‟ (ODPM, 2004:4). Two documents directly linked to statutory community engagement are the Local Development Scheme (LDS) and the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI).

However, as mentioned earlier, some of the local authorities struggled with the implementation of the changes made by the Act. In addition, even in places where the PCPA 2004 was implemented, non-statutory plans such Area Development Frameworks (ADFs) and Neighbourhood Renewal Assessments (NRAs) formed a part of the HMR process. Community engagement in these was not required but considered as good practice.

In cases where statutory consultation went ahead, there were two major issues concerning residential relocation. First, as a CIH report (2007) pointed out, there were difficulties with community engagement in HMR emerging from the „competing requirements of the different statutory processes, the wishes of residents themselves and the difficulty of accommodating different timescales‟ (Lister et al., 2007:111). Second, the broader perception emerging from the expert testimonies in this research was that the Pathfinders and their local authorities did not have a consultation strategy that specifically addressed issues of residential relocation (see Box 6-12:

Community involvement: statutory engagement).

Box 6-12: Community involvement: statutory engagement

‗We‘ve got a group of residents that we speak to, so called, residents‘ sounding panel. They are people from lots of different areas … they are not all from the clearance areas … but they have their views on it … We have exploited that to see what is going on. What pressures there were ...

it was quite interesting actually‘ (PIA Respondent S1-6).

‗Oh, they [residents‟ representatives] were all for it, regeneration in Walker, but not at the cost of their homes. They all wanted it but not if it affected them ... others … when their homes wasn‘t gonna be demolished, they sort of walked away ‗oh, it doesn‘t affect us‘… they walked away.

Ours, we knew we‘d lost ours, so we said: ‗right we‘ve lost our estate, it is I gone‘ … but we are sticking together for what we want‘ (CS- Walker Resident1).

This meant that in some cases the statutory consultation did not bring the expected results as the residents who were affected by demolition and residential relocation were outnumbered by other community representatives. This meant that some tensions related to residential relocation were not resolved and some residents resorted to protests or formed pressure groups despite statutory engagement taking place.

156 6.3.2.2 Community protests

Residents‟ protests were very characteristic of the first years of HMR implementation, with their numbers peaking between 2003 and 2005. A lack of timely and/or relevant community engagement and consultation resulted in residents‟ discontent that was widely covered by the media. According to a BBC report in April 2004 (BBC News, 6 August 2004), about 80 residents lobbied Parliament to protest at the plans. Some other examples included concerted efforts to overturn the decision to demolish 162 Victorian houses in the Nelson West urban renewal programme, in Pendle in Elevate East Lancashire. The demonstrations against demolitions in Liverpool‟s Walsh Streets and ex-Beatle Ringo Starr‟s birthplace in Madryn Street became one of the symbols of HMR controversy.

While it is important to acknowledge the issues that the residents faced, community protesters were often presented as a homogenous group and generalisations made based on the „loudest‟ ones.

This research found that there were several types of community objectors and protesters who had different motives to object against the plans. Depending on the type these groups had different influences on the residential relocation process and outcomes.

1) Residents who opposed demolition of their own home and neighbourhood outright

2) Residents who wished to be „listened to‟ and taken into account in the process of planning and relocation

3) Residents and groups who did not have a stake in the area, but protested against demolition for idealistic and other reasons.¹⁶

Box 6-13 Community involvement: difference in residents‘ attitudes presents quotes from the first and second group in order to illustrate the difference in views and attitude these groups had.

Box 6-13 Community involvement: difference in residents’ attitudes

‗They will have to bring the bailiffs, bring the boot boys and they will have to walk over our younger member to get to the older members. And will do it very public – they are not having our houses‘ (Action group member PIA, BBC News, 6 August 2004).

‗We‘re not against regeneration, just the wholesale demolition of Spital Hill. We would like to be listened to and to take an active role in rewriting the Masterplan … There is a lot of concern and fear about what‘s happening‘ (Dave Harvard, Burngreave Messenger March 2005).

The three groups had different objectives and different influences on the demolition and relocation process. While the first and the third group worked to stop the intervention completely, the second group wished to be taken into consideration and have chance to influence it. These groups were variably present in different projects. When operating in the same project, they were not

16 Interestingly, the heritage lobby had become involved, supporting the retention of inner city Victorian housing that has faced charges of obsolescence (see for example Inside Housing, 15 August 2003).

157

necessarily in alignment. In fact, relocation of those residents who wished to move and use the statutory compensation offered to make a new start was at times stopped or significantly delayed because of protests by external groups or parts of the community that did not have stake in the areas earmarked for demolition, as was the case in BNG in Gateshead or in NHL in Liverpool (see Figure 6-3: Collision of protesters and those wishing to relocate in Liverpool below) for example.

These issues are rarely taken into account when examining residential relocation, yet they had a fundamental influence on the residential relocation process.

Figure 6-3: Collision of protesters and those wishing to relocate in Liverpool

Residents‟ pledge for demolition in Liverpool Welsh Streets.

Source: http://www/life/com

SAVE bought 21 Madryn Street (Liverpool) in an effort to halt demolition.

Source: http://21madrynstreet.blogspot.com 6.3.2.3 Institutionalised protest groups and ‘bottom up’ planning

One of the more important phenomena identified in this study is what I term institutionalised protest groups. Their title, as well as their position, was controversial. The advantage of this research was that it was conducted in the mature stage of HMR implementation. In the period between 2007 and 2011 it was observed that some of residents‟ groups that initially protested against demolition in their areas joined Pathfinders‟ and/or their local authorities‟ decision making process (in regards to planning process in general and/or residential relocation in particular). In

158

other words, the former protest groups became institutionalised and their leaders joined the Pathfinders‟ partners in planning for relocation. In BNG for example, the Scotswood residents‟

group, which fiercely protested against Newcastle CC‟s plans in 1999, joined the Joint Working Group (in 2002) that brought together NCC officers, local councillors and community representatives to work together on the BNG plans in their area. As a result, the Scotswood residents influenced the way residential relocation was delivered not only in their neighbourhood but in other parts of the city as well (see next chapter for more details). In this research,

„institutionalised protesters‟ were found to have made a significant difference (and improvement) to the residential relocation practice in their local authorities and helped secure better residential relocation outcomes for themselves and their neighbours.

In some other Pathfinders, MSP for example, the local authorities took a so called „bottom up‟

approach to consultation and consulted the residents about the potential plans before drafting them, suggesting a CPO, or confirming any action. This was done in order to avoid and minimise dealing with the areas where the residents resisted demolition, and to focus on those who supported intervention. The approach proved to be more financially sustainable and less time consuming than others based on regular CPO procedure. In these cases the residential relocation outcomes seemed more acceptable to the residents because they were consulted in advance and because residential relocation was conducted in cases where the residents expressed their agreement with it.

Box 6-14 Community involvement: a ‘bottom up’ approach

‗We are working bottom up. In that you are looking at: what can you deliver? … If you are looking at CPO [the question is] what is the level of objections … Is it going to require public inquiry? ... can you do it by agreement?‘ (MSP Respondent S1-4 (LA)).

The review of the Pathfinder projects as well as the media reports on demolition suggested that both formal and informal community involvement had an impact on HMR development in general and residential relocation in particular. For this reason, „community involvement process‟ in this study refers to both formal and informal forms of community engagement related to the residential relocation processes.