Residential relocation process 5: relocation support

‘To exercise real choice requires not only a range of options but also accurate information about them‟ (Lister et al, 2007:85).

As shown in previous sections, residential relocation was a complex intervention, involving trial and error and frequent changes of approach. This put relocatees in a challenging position. They had

168

to negotiate the complexities of public service delivery and navigate through changing relocation options and choices and also to respond to many consultation and engagement activities. This led to confusion and disillusionment among the residents and uncertain residential relocation outcomes, as well as wasted resources on the Pathfinders‟ side. In some cases the councils faced protests and resistance despite community engagement being completed. Resident support as a residential relocation process for all affected tenures evolved in response to the increasing complexity of the residential relocation process in the HMR framework.

It is worth noting that resident support was not required from acquiring authorities under the CPO legislation. During the time of HMR implementation, resident support process developed, from mandatory support to social tenants (under decanting policies), to cover owner occupiers as well as (though less often) private tenants. The previous sections showed that the relocation options differed between projects in the same local authority and changed during the time a single project was implemented. Information relevant to one project was often not relevant in the next. The relocation process and options differed between tenures. The respondents in the pilot studies pointed out that there was a different approach to counselling about relocation depending on the tenure type. Because of the legislative position, the information needed to be provided to owner occupiers, social and private tenants was different; the organisations to which relocatees needed to be directed for alternative properties for instance, were also different. In addition, different tenures were eligible for different types of FAPs and properties.

The residential relocation information systems and teams were set up at first in response to community pressure (see Chapter 8) and later through the support of the Regulatory Reform Order 2002. The RRO granted local authority funding for appropriate forms of assistance advice and information among other things.

Resident support processes developed to cover a wide range of information and advice to the relocation affected households (e.g. organising the removal, finding an alternative property, contacting the right organisation for issues of property valuation, distribution of FAPs, providing information about alternative property options and choices in each household case, etc.). In many Pathfinders printed, web and video information was supplied in order to support the residential relocation teams‟ work and keep residents informed about relocation choices and options (for illustration see Figure 6-4: Resident support examples).

169

In the process of HMR delivery, special purpose relocation teams were set up on the local authority or Pathfinder level depending on the case. These teams were a part of local council staff, ALMOs or local Housing Associations depending on the case. The relocation teams were the frontline delivery service that dealt with all the details of relocation, and usually had up-to-date information about the project phasing, availability and value of FAPs along with the APPs. These teams worked with each individual household that was affected by demolition daily on a one-to-one basis, in some cases for several years, as reported by the relocation team in BNG‟s Your Homes Newcastle ALMO. The respondents reported that because of the length of involvement, teams developed a strong relationship with relocatees.

Resident support was proven to be an important residential relocation process that helped the residents navigate through the dynamic and complex maze of residential relocation choices and options, and reduced anxiety and feelings of fear and uncertainty among the residents. The teams were also used by the Pathfinders to learn about the community and the possibilities of intervention in more mature stages of HMR implementation.

6.4 Conclusion

This chapter showed that residential relocation practice developed in a complex and demanding policy context. It showed that residential relocation in HMR was delivered differently and variably, not only on Pathfinder or local authority, but on project level within each of the 26 Pathfinder local authorities. There was no consensus among practitioners as to what residential relocation entailed.

Figure 6-4: Resident support examples

Relocation team Information and newsletters

170

The development and evolution of residential relocation delivery was a result of responses to issues the respondents encountered in their local authorities at project level.

In order to make sense of the disparate approaches across numerous Pathfinders‟ projects, the study built a conceptual model – the „Residential Relocation Matrix‟ – drawing on extensive empirical research in GT tradition and the governance theory concept of „game‟. This tool is presented in Figure 6-1 (Residential Relocation Matrix). The Residential Relocation Matrix systematises residential relocation processes identified to shape residential relocation in the HMR framework. These are: planning strategy, community involvement, resident support, financial assistance provision and alternative housing provision. The five residential relocation processes describe HMR residential relocation delivery from the moment a decision to demolish or acquire properties has been approved. This issue is important, as residents‟ agreement to demolition and relocation did not guarantee acceptable residential relocation outcomes and vice versa. The residential relocation processes were found to differ depending on the tenure affected by housing demolition; they were differently developed across Pathfinders and their projects. The procedural approach to residential relocation contributes to the literature concerning residential relocation in two main ways. First, it shows that residential relocation consists of several interdependent processes. The findings suggest that focus on residential relocation as a homogenous process or focus on one of its processes (e.g. new building) may not have the capacity provide an explanation about the nature of the residential relocation outcomes or the solutions needed. Community involvement (Power, 2007) may not be sufficient if private developers refuse to build alternative properties for relocation. Phasing new building, demolition and relocation (Cole & Flint, 2007) may be vital in a limited number of cases where new building is planned for relocation, but not in others.

The findings in this chapter point to the need to identify residential relocation processes as they relate to a specific project, analyse them together, and use the results to explain how their interaction shapes residential relocation outcomes. It is only through such in-depth analysis that the researchers will be able to tackle the complexity of the processes shaping specific residential relocation outcomes.

Identifying the processes that shaped mixed tenure residential relocation in HMR is important, not only to describe how residential relocation was delivered but also to facilitate in-depth analysis of residential relocation practice on project scale, to help identify the actors shaping residential relocation and their roles responsibilities in this framework. These themes are addressed in the

171

following chapter through the in-depth case study of Bridging Newcastle Gateshead and its three primary intervention areas: Scotswood, Walker, and Bensham and Saltwell.

172

7

Chapter 7. Residential Relocation Delivery in Bridging Newcastle