Estate Regeneration Briefing for expert panel

Transcription

1 Estate Regeneration Briefing for expert panel This briefing examines the policy context, lessons from previous estate regeneration initiatives and evidence on the relationship between housing and poverty. It also makes recommendations for consideration in the design of the new programme for estates and their residents. If you would like to discuss the points raised please contact: Brian Robson: Policy & Research Programme Manager / Key points Strong evidence from interventions in unpopular council housing estates dating back to the 1970s suggests that involving residents and tailoring schemes to local circumstances improve outcomes. Mixed communities are preferable to the mono-tenure estates of the past. However, tenure has already become more mixed as a result of the right to buy and previous regeneration initiatives. Area-based regeneration initiatives and approaches based on mixed communities have been successful in many places. However, the evidence suggests that initiatives focused solely on physical regeneration are better at improving areas than individual lives. There is also a risk of existing residents getting left behind or dispersed to other areas if they cannot afford regenerated homes. When mixed communities are combined with market-led approaches to regeneration, schemes are vulnerable to housing market downturns. This increases the risk of delays and changes to plans that will undermine the trust of residents. (continues overleaf) 12 May

2 Regeneration works best with the consent and involvement of residents. The panel should consider offering residents a vote on major regeneration proposals affecting their homes and estates in the same way as they are balloted on plans to transfer ownership of their homes. The 140 million of loan finance committed so far will only be enough to cover preliminary work and substantial extra investment will be required to regenerate 100 estates. Given the funding available, the panel should also consider smaller schemes that improve the lives of residents and increase housing supply and are capable of being replicated in other circumstances. The current approach to estate regeneration is leading to a decline in social rented housing and other changes in housing policy will accelerate this trend. JRF research on housing and poverty underlines the importance of secure tenancies and low rents in alleviating poverty and creating incentives to work. The displacement of social rented housing by affordable or market alternatives will increase poverty and the housing benefit bill. Given these wider policy considerations, all regeneration proposals should guarantee that there will be no net loss of social rented housing and a net increase in affordable housing alongside any plans for homes for sale and for market rent. 2

3 Introduction The prime minister pledged in January 2016 to transform sink estates as part of a comprehensive package of measures to end poverty and improve the life chances of the most disadvantaged. David Cameron said the government would work with 100 housing estates across the country to either radically transform them or, in the worst cases, knock them down and replace them with high-quality homes. 1 In an accompanying article for The Sunday Times he explained that: Within these so-called sink estates, behind front doors, families build warm and welcoming homes. But step outside in the worst estates and you re confronted by brutal high-rise towers and dark alleyways that are a gift to criminals. Decades of neglect have led to gangs and anti-social behaviour. And poverty has become entrenched, because those who could afford to move have understandably done so. 2 A more detailed statement published by Lord Heseltine and housing minister Brandon Lewis in February says that: We will engage with up to 100 estates from around the country, to stimulate proposals for the transformation of those estates, a significant increase in housing, and, most importantly, improvements in estate residents quality of life. 140 million of loan funding has been set aside by Government, to be used as a springboard for partnership and joint venture arrangements, with the active involvement of communities. 3 This briefing examines the policy context, lessons from previous estate regeneration initiatives and evidence on the relationship between housing and poverty. It also makes recommendations for considering estates and their residents in the design of the new programme. 1 See 2 Available at 3 Available at

4 Context: estate regeneration over the last 40 years The estates regeneration programme is the latest in a series of schemes and initiatives designed to address concern about unpopular social housing estates and concentrations of deprivation which date back to the 1970s. Other schemes over the last 40 years include: The Urban Programme Priority Estates Project Housing Action Trusts Estate Action Estates Renewal Challenge Fund City Challenge Large-Scale Voluntary Transfer Gap-funded stock transfer Council-led regeneration New Deal for Communities Neighbourhood Renewal Fund Decent Homes Programme Mixed Communities Initiative Housing Market Renewal. Some of these schemes were created during Lord Heseltine s two spells as environment secretary between 1979 and In his autobiography, he praises the transformation of Cantril Farm in Knowsley into Stockbridge Village Trust and the redevelopment of Hulme in Manchester under City Challenge. 4 The proposed estate regeneration programme needs to learn the lessons of these previous interventions. 4 Life in the Jungle: My Autobiography, Michael Heseltine,

5 Estate regeneration: The Evidence Evidence from longitudinal research on estate regeneration shows that it is possible to make progress over the long term, but narrowing the gaps takes sustained commitments of capital funding, revenue funding and attention from central government, landlords and housing managers and residents groups. Key points Previous regeneration initiatives delivered successes but some of the improvements may have been due to changes in the social composition of estates rather than in the lives of residents. Progress requires long-term funding and commitment from local and central government, landlords and residents and a focus that goes beyond bricks and mortar. Community involvement is essential but the aims and objectives need to be clear from the outset. As an illustration of the impact of previous initiatives, a longitudinal study for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation investigated conditions on 20 estates over the 25 years from 1980 to The 20 estates had formed all or part of the catchment area of 61 different schemes over that period, an average of three each. Of these, 34 started under the Conservatives and 27 under Labour. The interventions delivered some successes. The study found dramatic improvements in the perception of the estates by residents and housing managers, especially after For example, 15 out of 20 were seen as difficult to let in the 1980s but none were by Perceptions of neglect and concern about crime fell, structural and design problems were tackled, and levels of home ownership were rising. In 1995 the estates were found to be swimming against the tide, struggling with increased social polarisation, but by 2005 there were significant improvements to suggest they might be turning the tide. However, significant differences remained between the estates and their local authorities and the country as a whole. The study cautioned that while the estates might have improved, the lives of individual residents might not necessarily have changed for the better. At least some of the changes in the social composition of the estates were due to movements of people in an out of the estates rather than changes into their individual situations. The study concluded that: The experience of the past 25 years shows that it is possible to make progress over the long term, but narrowing the gaps takes sustained commitments of capital funding, revenue funding and attention from central government, landlords and housing managers and residents groups. Fully closing the gaps to end significant disadvantage is likely to take more than 10 or 20 years. 6 5 Twenty Five Years on Twenty Estates, Policy Press/JRF, Ibid, pxiii 5

6 Closing the gaps between the poorest neighbourhoods and the rest of the country was the primary purpose of the last major area-based initiative, the New Deal for Communities (NDC). This was prompted by the Social Exclusion Unit s analysis that tackling multiple disadvantage required a multiple response that went beyond bricks and mortar and addressed people-related outcomes (health, education and worklessness) as well as place-related ones (crime, the community and housing and the physical environment). An official evaluation found that the NDC had delivered good value for money and made sustained efforts to involve local communities but by 2008 there had been more net change in place-related than people-related outcomes. 7 Two conclusions seem especially relevant in the current context. First, on mixed communities, there was an association between tenure change and area-level change as an increasing proportion of owner-occupiers diluted the scale of problems in regeneration areas. However, many existing residents in social housing schemes were unable to afford to buy the new homes. New owner-occupied development may thus potentially lead to a displacement of those living in regeneration areas, as they seek out social or private rented accommodation, or cheaper owner-occupied housing elsewhere. It is not always possible to improve places to the benefit of all existing residents. 8 Second, the community dimension was seen as essential to the success of the NDC partnerships. However, it was vital to manage expectations and build capacity and from the outset regeneration schemes need to establish what the community dimension actually means and to set appropriate objectives: consultation, involvement, engagement, empowerment, or delivery?. 9 7 The New Deal for Communities Experience: A Final Assessment, DCLG, Ibid, p42 9 Ibid, p44 6

7 Mixed communities: The Evidence There is widespread acceptance of the desirability of mixed neighbourhoods. Tenure on many social housing estates is now more mixed than in the past, and efforts to regenerate areas based solely on physical change may not reach existing residents. Key points Tenure on social housing estates is already more mixed than in the past as a result of the Right to Buy and previous schemes to boost home ownership. Regeneration initiatives will therefore not just affect social housing tenants but also leaseholder homeowners and potentially private landlords and private tenants as well. Area-based regeneration initiatives and approaches based on mixed communities have been successful in many places. However, approaches focused solely on physical regeneration are better at improving areas than individual lives. There is also a risk of existing residents getting left behind or dispersed to other areas if they cannot afford regenerated homes. Mixed tenure has become a key housing policy objective for governments over the last 25 years. In 1993 the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a groundbreaking report by David Page warning that housing associations risked repeating the mistakes of the past by building large estates with high child densities and concentrations of vulnerable tenants. 10 Since then the idea that mixed communities deliver better social outcomes than mono-tenure estates has become central to policy on new development and the regeneration of social housing. By the 1990s, housing policy was already emphasising the importance of breaking up the most unpopular estates through selective demolition, transfers to new landlords and mixing tenures. A report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation argued that: Within clearly thought-out city strategies, these methods can work well to stabilise difficult areas. Used indiscriminately, however, their effect is to displace problems into other areas. 11 An evidence review on mixed communities for the DCLG published in 2010 concluded that: There is substantial evidence that areas with more mixed social composition tend to be more popular, more satisfying to live in, and have better services than poorer areas. This provides a rationale for continued intervention in low-income neighbourhoods on the grounds of social justice. 12 However, the review also warned of a need for caution that chimes with the evidence noted earlier about it being easier to improve areas than individual lives: To date the evidence is limited that neighbourhood has a large effect on individual outcomes, 10 Building for Communities: A Study of New Housing Association Estates, JRF, Regenerating Neighbourhoods: Creating Integrated and Sustainable Improvements, JRF, Mixed Communities Evidence Review, DCLG, 2010, p3 7

8 over and above individual and household factors. Nor is there robust evidence that neighbourhood mix per se or changes to mix (over and above other neighbourhood characteristics) is influential. On this basis, it is not evident that mixing communities will be a more effective strategy than traditional neighbourhood renewal approaches. The review also cautioned that it was not yet known whether the benefits of mixed communities were justified by the costs. The leverage of private sector investment might make mixed communities approaches seem cheaper than central governmentfunded neighbourhood renewal approaches but there were also opportunity costs (such as the temporary or permanent loss of social housing) and social costs (especially displacement). Meanwhile, financing regeneration through cross-subsidy from private sector new build was more feasible in some areas than others. The role of social housing in creating genuinely mixed communities was one of the terms of reference of the review conducted for the government by John Hills in He found that: Two-thirds of social housing is still located within areas originally built as council estates. These originally housed those with a range of incomes, but now the income polarisation between tenures also shows up as polarisation between areas. Nearly half of all social housing is now located in the most deprived fifth of neighbourhoods, and this concentration appears to have increased since Hills noted that during the 1950s and 1960s council estates did accommodate a mix of incomes. But social housing tenants were now much more concentrated within the poorer parts of the income distribution than in the past as a result of the Right to Buy, the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s and a new inflow of tenants increasingly determined by needs-based criteria. He found little evidence of the positive impact on employment rates that low rents might be expected to provide and cited potential explanations including neighbourhood effects from the concentration of low housing in deprived areas. 14 However, it is also important to note that estates were already becoming mixed in tenure independently of regeneration schemes. The JRF longitudinal study found that the Right to Buy was slow to take off on the 20 estates it studied. Indeed, the Right to Buy may have contributed to an increasing concentration of deprivation on the unpopular estates up to 1995 by reducing housing options elsewhere in the same local authorities. Right to Buy sales accelerated after that and 9 per cent of homes on the estates were owner-occupied by Employment rates among social housing tenants have also increased since Ownership of social housing estates has also become more diverse as a result of the programme of stock transfer in England. A study of second generation urban transfers found that they had generally been successful in fulfilling their ballot promises to tenants, upgrading their stock and stimulating tenant involvement. They had also become much more involved in neighbourhood regeneration (social and economic renewal) than anticipated at the time of the transfer Ends and Means: the future roles of social housing in England, LSE, Ibid, p The Impact of Housing Stock Transfers in Urban Britain, JRF/CIH,

9 Current estate regeneration Evidence from current estate regeneration projects suggests that there is heavy reliance on private investment. The new programme must learn lessons from recent experience. Key points Relying on private developers for investment leaves regeneration schemes vulnerable to economic and housing market downturns. The track record of recent regeneration schemes (especially in London) has created an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust among residents. Irrespective of the social benefits, mixed communities have increasingly become the default option for estate regeneration on cost grounds. The JRF longitudinal study found that even in 2005 four of the 20 estates had effectively provided their own regeneration funding through land sales and five more were planning to follow suit. In post-2010 conditions of austerity, social landlords have become dependent on developers to finance estate regeneration. Given the funding available, this appears to be the assumption behind the new initiative. However, it is important to note the potential consequences of this approach. First, it makes regeneration vulnerable to economic downturn. This is what happened with the Mixed Communities Initiative announced in The initiative aimed to achieve long-term transformation rather than more modest improvements, emphasised changes in population mix and depended on local public/private partnerships rather than central government funding. There were 12 demonstration projects around England and two types of scheme: the demolition and replacement of existing homes on estates, including a planned reduction of social housing; and building on greenfield sites or sites cleared of low demand and poor quality stock. An evaluation for the DCLG found that by 2009 none of the projects were proceeding as planned thanks to the credit crunch and the collapse in housebuilding that followed 16. The projects were taking short-term measures to keep themselves afloat including seeking additional public sector funding, thereby reducing the likely extent of tenure change and population mix. While this might be seen as a response to exceptional circumstances, the evaluation also found that the risk to the public sector was high even before the credit crunch because of the need for early investment in masterplanning, land assembly, demolition, re-housing existing tenants, infrastructure and services. These up-front costs are inherent to the mixed communities approach, and the evaluation has shown that delivering regeneration through this model will only be possible where there is access to public funds to meet these. 17 There were also imputed costs such as giving up the right to land that could be used in other ways and the loss of future social lettings when social housing is cleared. 16 Evaluation of Mixed Communities Initiative Demonstration Projects, DCLG, Ibid, p

10 Similar points were raised in a 2015 report on the challenge of estate regeneration by the housing committee of the Greater London Assembly 18. This looked at schemes for 50 estates planned in the previous decade. The overall number of homes completed or planned was set to double from 34,000 to 68,000. However, the tenure mix would change dramatically, with 8,000 fewer social rented homes and 33,000 more market homes. This shift can be expected to accelerate in future since most of these schemes were planned before the introduction of the Affordable Rent regime in 2011 and the ending of most funding for development for rent in The report noted the constraints and trade-offs faced by councils seeking to meet the needs of current and future residents and the need to capitalise on the value of the land they own to provide more affordable housing. However, it also found that lower capital subsidy and greater reliance on public-private partnerships was leaving schemes vulnerable to changes in the market. Heavy reliance on the market was a major reason why regeneration schemes stall or fail and the effect of market volatility was broken promises to residents. This has created an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust among the residents of estates facing regeneration that will need to be overcome in the new programme. 18 Knock it Down or Do it Up? The challenge of estate regeneration, Greater London Assembly,

11 Resident involvement There is strong evidence that resident involvement is critical to the longterm success of regeneration projects. Ballots have been successfully used to demonstrate resident support for change. Key points The largely successful programme of voluntary stock transfer built transparency, legitimacy and trust through consultative ballots of residents and clear commitments on improvements to their homes and communities. The same principles should apply here. Residents should be entitled to a vote in a consultative ballot on all major redevelopment proposals for their estates and the right to independent advice to judge the merits of any plans put forward. If a major redevelopment is approved, all residents should have a right to return to their neighbourhoods. Leaseholders should have the same rights to be consulted and to vote on regeneration proposals affecting their homes as tenants, as well as access to independent advice to judge the merits of any plans put forward including compensation offered. The importance of community engagement is a theme running through all of the literature on estates regeneration and mixed communities. The Expert Advisory Panel for the new programme is explicitly charged with considering how to ensure that existing estate residents are fully protected in future schemes, as well as how to engage communities in preparing proposals 19. The options for estates will obviously be heavily influenced by the funding available but genuine resident involvement is crucial. As far back as the 1990s, evidence from JRF s Action on Estates programme was highlighting the importance of bringing residents to the centre of regeneration. Urban regeneration schemes only work with a solid base of community participation. Involving residents late - or in tokenistic ways - is damaging. 20 However, as the evaluation of the New Deal for Communities evaluation pointed out, there is a need to be clear about what this community dimension means. It should, for example, include an effective consideration of all the options for an estate, including the decision about whether to refurbish or demolish the homes. An evidence review by University College London points to a growing body of research that extending the lifecycle of buildings by refurbishment is preferable to demolition in terms of improved environmental, social and economic impacts ). 21 It is also argued that refurbishment is quicker, cheaper and less disruptive to tenants than demolition and replacement 22. Before demolition can happen, residents must be 19 Estate Regneneration Statement, DCLG, 2016, available at 20 Regenerating Neighbourhoods: Creating Integrated and Sustainable Improvements, JRF, Demolition or Refurbishment of Social Housing? A review of the evidence, UCL Urban Lab and Engineering Exchange, 2014, p62 22 Estate Regeneration and Community Impacts: Challenges and lessons for social landlords, developers and local councils, CASE 99, Alice Belotti, London School of Economics,

12 decanted or moved out to other accommodation. John Hills noted in his review that: Large-scale remodelling and rebuilding of estates may sometimes be justified, achieving a better mix as a by-product, but the cost and disruption to communities rule it out as a general approach. Alternatives included examining allocations and access policies, encouraging landlords to diversify their stock through other means, using vacant land for diversifying infill, measures to retain higher-income tenants and most fundamentally, policies that support the paid work options and incomes of existing residents. The GLA housing committee report points out that, even allowing for the phasing of work, a large regeneration scheme will also impact on people on the local waiting list as decanted residents are prioritised for vacant homes 23. The report recommends that developers should include an assessment of the lifecycle carbon impacts and existing residents needs and wishes in their options appraisals. After working up a proposal for which the provider believes there is no viable alternative, an independent ballot of residents would inform any final decision to demolish. Independent tenant and leasehold advisors have a key role to play in this process. The treatment of leaseholders has been a particular issue on some regeneration schemes, especially when the value of their current home is not enough to pay for a replacement on the same estate once homes have been demolished and rebuilt. The GLA report recommends there should be an independent valuer to ensure they receive fair compensation and that the starting point should be that they are offered a like-for-like replacement of their home, or a similar offer, wherever possible. The Centre for Social Justice argues that previous regeneration schemes have often ignored residents concerns and that the new initiative must not repeat this mistake 24. It recommends co-design rather than just consultation on estate redevelopments, with an intensive period of engagement and negotiation involving all parties, including residents, the local authority and the developer. And it calls for greater funds from local authority planning budget to expand neighbourhood planning to deprived neighbourhoods. 23 Knock it Down or Do it Up? The challenge of estate regeneration, Greater London Assembly, 2015, p23 24 Home Improvements: A social justice approach to housing policy, Centre for Social Justice, p

13 Resources The 140 million of loan funding set aside by the Government is intended as a springboard for partnership and joint venture arrangements, with the active involvement of communities. It is unlikely to be sufficient to deliver mixed communities and secure the support of existing tenants. Key points The current funding for estate regeneration represents just 1.4m for each of the estates covered by the programme. Mixed tenure approaches necessitate additional up-front costs. The 140 million of loan funding set aside by the Government is intended as a springboard for partnership and joint venture arrangements, with the active involvement of communities. That represents 1.4 million for each of the 100 estates covered by the programme. To put this figure into perspective, grants totalling 2.5 billion were made under the Estates Action programme in the ten years from 1998/ Under the most recent area-based initiative, the 39 New Deal for Communities partnerships each received around 50 million of programme funding and raised a further 730 million from public, private and voluntary sector sources. 26 The costs of individual projects bear this out: demolition costs alone for the Heygate estate in Southwark were costed at 15.2 million; redevelopment of the Holly Street estate in Hackney in the 1990s cost 100 million; and Lewisham council told the GLA housing committee it needed 230 million of investment to double the density of one of its estates. Two schemes mentioned in the programme statement for the new initiative 27 also provide an indication of the scale of investment that will be required: regeneration of the Packington estate in Islington required gap funding of 33 million; and the Castle Vale estate in Birmingham was regenerated through a Housing Action Trust following a resident ballot and was funded by 198 million of government support over 12 years to As for the 140 million, according to the Centre for Social Justice: This fund will only cover costs associated with the planning process, temporary rehousing and early construction. It is therefore expected that the majority of the redevelopment will come from private investors. 28 The CSJ argues that this is not unreasonable given that recent regeneration has often been financed by cross-subsidising homes for social and affordable rent with the proceeds from homes built for sale. However, it cautions that this will only be viable in areas with high values like London, and urges the government to seek capital from social investors and adopt a policy whereby developers will only win 25 UK Housing Review 2016, CIH, The New Deal for Communities Experience: A Final Assessment, DCLG, 2010, p5 27 Available at 28 Home Improvements: A social justice approach to housing policy, Centre for Social Justice, p

14 permission for a scheme in the capital if they take on a less profitable one elsewhere. Professor Anne Power of the London School of Economics argues that demolition costs alone on the 100 estates would be 5 billion. In addition to the costs of building replacement homes and the human costs to tenants of community upheaval, hidden and undeclared costs of demolition include temporary rehousing, the time-lag in emptying large estates, loss of housing capacity, and an increase in crime and vandalism while homes are empty. 29 Analysis produced by Savills for the Cabinet Office ahead of the proposed initiative estimates that 1,750 ha of London s 8,500 ha of local authority housing estate land could be redeveloped at higher densities to deliver between 54,000 and 360,000 additional homes 30. This assumes that all existing social rented housing will be replaced and estimates the build cost at around 20 million per ha. Savills contrasts two different approaches: Contemporary Regeneration, the current model of building higher-density blocks to replace the existing stock but retaining the same layout; and Complete Streets, also to higher densities but designed in streets to reintegrate the estates with the surrounding area. Complete Streets, it argues, would create greater long-term value but require long-term investment and patient capital. This might come from housing associations or institutional and private sector investors or from local authorities deciding to retain a long-term interest rather than take an immediate receipt from the land sale. It argues that: To unlock such a solution, all tenants and owners on such projects would need to be treated fairly and legally guaranteed the right to return to the estate to a property that is equivalent or better. There could further be scope for introducing new quasi-ownership products such that renters are able to invest on a fractional basis in their property or in the scheme as a totality whether through a Rent to Buy or similar scheme. Established residents (and owners where Right to Buy has been exercised) would need to be regarded as fully-fledged stakeholders in the regeneration process and their views on design and urbanism fully interrogated through collaborative stakeholder planning and design processes. 31 This would appear to address some of the points raised above about the vulnerability of mixed communities-type approaches to market downturns. However, the figures do not include the costs of abnormal site conditions, demolition and the cost of temporary housing for residents during redevelopment since these are assumed to be the same under both approaches. As we ve seen, these were precisely the upfront costs identified as inherent to the mixed communities approach. It also remains to be seen how this model would fit with the current and future financial framework for local authorities. To take one example, the Housing and Planning Bill imposes a levy on councils based on the sale of the higher-value homes as they fall vacant to pay for the extension of the Right to Buy to housing association tenants. This could impact on regeneration schemes by discouraging councils from building new homes they may be forced to sell and by creating an incentive to take instant receipts rather than long-term returns. The levy will continue 29 Council estates: why demolition is anything but the solution, Anne Power, 2016, blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/sinkestates-demolition/ 30 Completing London s Streets, Savills Research Report to Cabinet Office, Ibid, p9 14

15 to apply to councils that seek to transfer ownership of their homes. New homes for shared ownership and discounted sale built on the estates could also be counted as the replacements promised for social rented homes sold. This raises a broader point about the role of social housing. 15

16 Affordable housing and poverty The current approach to estate regeneration is leading to a decline in social rented housing and other changes in housing policy will accelerate this trend. Key points JRF research on housing and poverty underlines the importance of secure tenancies and low rents in alleviating poverty and creating incentives to work. The displacement of social rented housing by affordable or market alternatives will increase poverty and the housing benefit bill. Given these wider policy considerations, all regeneration proposals should guarantee that there will be no net loss of social rented housing and a net increase in affordable housing alongside any plans for homes for sale and for market rent. Approaches to estate regeneration that rely on mixed communities are aimed at increasing levels of home ownership. However, a reduction in social or public housing is sometimes an explicit aim as well, as in the Hope VI programme in the United States and many of the Mixed Communities Initiative projects in the UK. This may be justified in some cases, for example in areas of low demand or abandonment. However, the Chartered Institute of Housing has warned that the cumulative effect of government policies including the estates regeneration initiative could be to reduce the social housing stock by 9 per cent or 350,000 homes by This is a matter of grave concern given the importance of genuinely affordable housing in tackling poverty demonstrated in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation s current research programme on housing and poverty. Among the findings worth highlighting in this context: Social landlords have traditionally played a vital role in providing homes for the poorest households and in alleviating poverty. However, recent policy changes including welfare reform, higher rents for new homes and reduced funding for development have persuaded some landlords to rethink this role and aim to house a wider range of people. 33 Housing has profound impacts on work incentives for people competing for low-paid jobs. Settled neighbourhoods facilitate social networks that help people find employment and support such as childcare once they do. Contrary to widespread perceptions about social housing estates, more secure tenancies would improve people s willingness to move to find work and lower rents provide a much clearer financial incentive to work. 34 There is a severe danger that housing s role as a buffer against poverty and deprivation will be undermined and that the housing system could instead create more poverty and deprivation as housing costs continue to rise UK Housing Review 2016, Chartered Institute of Housing, How Do Landlords Address Poverty? JRF, Housing and Work Incentives, JRF, What Will the Housing Market Look Like in 2040? JRF,

17 Local authority areas worst affected by the levy on high-value stock could see a reduction of over 50 per cent in social housing available for letting, at least until replacements are built. If replacements are at Affordable Rent, rent levels, poverty and housing benefit costs will rise. If replacements are Starter Homes or for shared ownership, only 3% of new social tenants could afford them. This will increase the number of poorer households in the private rented sector and in turn increase poverty and housing benefit costs. 36 Conclusion Regeneration schemes have the potential to transform estates and the lives of their residents. These two aims go hand in hand: it is vital to learn the lessons of many different initiatives over the last 40 years about the importance of resident involvement and solutions that are locally led. The new estate regeneration programme should look to build on that experience while recognising the crucial importance of social housing at low rents in providing work incentives and alleviating poverty. 36 Understanding the Likely Poverty Impacts of the Extension of the Right to Buy to Housing Association Tenants, JRF,

18 About the Joseph Rowntree Foundation The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is an endowed foundation funding a UK-wide research and development programme. We work for social change in the UK by researching the root causes of social problems and developing solutions. Together with the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust, we use our evidence and practical experience of developing housing and care services to influence policy, practice and public debate. All research published by JRF, including many of the publications in the references, is available to download from