Changing
places,
changing
lives
Assessing the impact
of housing association
regeneration
Changing
places,
changing
lives
Assessing the impact
of housing association
regeneration
Contents
Introduction
David Montague, Chief Executive L&Q
1
The national perspective
Jane Dudman, Editor, Guardian Housing Network
5
L&Q regeneration area impact assessment
Goldsmiths, University of London, Centre for
Community and Urban Research
9
01
Executive summary
11
02
Overview
17
03
Methodology
27
04
The impact assessment framework
31
05
L&Q’s impact: analysing the neighbourhoods
35
06
L&Q’s impact: assessing the seven areas
41
07
Key findings
53
08
Appendices
61
09
Bibliography
89
10
Footnotes
95
Introduction
At L&Q we want to mark our 50th anniversary year by learning
from our achievements and developing a set of principles that will
guide us over the next 50 years.
We set out to discover the ingredients for successful cities and
communities, and to explore how, in a world of austerity, we can
continue to create places where people want to live.
Some of our discussion has taken place on our dedicated Future
of Housing hub on the Guardian’s Housing Network site. This hub
has attracted up to 40,000 page views and 33,000 unique visitors
every month. ‘Creating places where people want to live’ – our
mission statement – is clearly a topic which people are passionate
about.
We also decided to bring in independent experts to probe our own
practice more deeply, and help us identify what we need to learn
for the future. We turned to Goldsmiths, University of London, and
their renowned Centre for Community and Urban Research. We
asked the CCUR to assess L&Q’s impact across six regeneration
projects in London.
Is there evidence that we are improving physical, social and
economic conditions, or is our mission no more than words? What
recommendations can CCUR’s action research offer to help us
develop better places going forward?
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
1
Introduction
50 years of creating places where people want to live
By definition this research analyses the work of one
housing association in just the one geographical
location of London. We want to share our findings,
as a contribution to the wider debate.
We also asked the Guardian’s housing network to
help add a national perspective.
The housing network surveyed housing
professionals throughout the country, and editor
Jane Dudman summarises these views and
feedback here.
A fascinating discussion, but have we developed
a set of principles to guide L&Q over the next
50 years?
We believe we have made a good start. Here’s what
our key partners believe:
We are a social business, driven by a social mission.
We change lives. We are not a local authority but we
are much more than a private company.
‘Creating places where people want to live’ starts
with building more homes but it is about much more
than that. To succeed in future we must:
• Connect with health, education, employment, the
arts and whatever works locally;
• Tap into local communities, local intelligence and
local commitment;
2
• Create tenure-blind mixed communities,
rich in diversity;
• Assess the impact of our work over the
long-term and share the results;
• Learn from different approaches;
• Focus on what we do best and work with
like-minded organisations to do the rest; and
• Forge strong partnerships, based on trust, with
local authorities to deliver their vision.
If there is anything good about austerity it is that it
is liberating – we could wait for the money to come
back but we will probably wait a long time. Instead,
we are taking responsibility for our own future.
With liberation comes choice and with choice
comes risk – the risk that we could lose sight of our
founding social principles.
That is why this discussion is so important to us. In
the year of our 50th anniversary we want to embed
our social principles deep in our foundations so that
we stay true to them forever.
In 50 years’ time we want the documentaries to tell
us that we got it right: that austerity forced us to
reinvent housing and that, in partnership with others,
we created places where people want to live.
David Montague
Chief Executive, L&Q
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
3
Aerial view of Haggerston
The national
perspective
Housing lies at the heart of all our lives. We are in the grip of a
housing shortage that affects us all, but designing, building and
maintaining communities where people feel safe, comfortable and
proud to live is about so much more than just laying bricks.
Housing has a huge part to play in creating vibrant, resilient
communities, but despite this, our national survey of Guardian
Housing Network members, carried out to complement this
report, highlights a surprising lack of confidence about
demonstrating the impact of housing on both national and
local economic health and well-being.
A staggering 90% of housing professionals in the survey said they
did not think the housing sector is good enough at explaining its
work and the positive social and economic impact housing has on
local communities.
“At present, the government thinks we perpetuate dependence,
rather than help people become better citizens,” was one
comment. Another said they see little evidence of government
taking into account the many ancillary benefits of improving
housing, including better health, better educational attainment,
lower anti-social behaviour and crime. “The government does not
recognise the work we do to achieve their targets,” commented
one housing professional. “We do for free what they are paying
work programme providers to deliver,” said another.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
5
The national perspective
Housing at the heart of lives
Why are housing professionals so reticent about
highlighting their very real achievements, given the
huge and growing demand for housing and the
present fiscal climate, which makes the need for
community building by the housing sector greater
than ever?
One reason has been a lack of central
acknowledgement of the sector’s wider impact.
Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury,
recently acknowledged that the government has
been slow to realise the importance of housing as
a potential driver of economic recovery. The focus
is usually on roads, rail, broadband and energy.
But there are signs of change, with an indication
of government willingness to take the financial
measures necessary, such as increasing more
flexibility on how much local authorities can borrow.
This report is being launched on the day chancellor
George Osborne will announce the comprehensive
spending review for government spending in 2015.
At a time when local authorities have already
seen spending cut to the bone and many senior
community leaders have expressed their concerns
about the implications for local services, the
independent research carried out by Goldsmiths
demonstrates the real impact of housing.
6
Housing professionals have a huge role to play
in building communities – yet 81% of the housing
professionals in the Guardian’s national survey
said the sector is failing to track and demonstrate
the impact of their work across local communities.
“There is some fantastic work being done, but
outcomes are not recorded or publicised as much
as they could be,” said one professional.
Almost three-quarters of the professionals
in the Guardian survey agreed that housing
associations are an increasingly important source
of community development funding, given the
current tough financial climate. “We are one of the
few organisations increasing our budgets in this
area,” said one professional. “Social housing is
a crucial part of the social fabric for low-income
communities,” commented another.
Part of the success of community cohesion
has been the development of mixed-tenure
neighbourhoods – 86% of housing professionals
in our survey agreed that this is vital for successful
regeneration, although several acknowledged the
challenges involved and one member pointed out
that tenure per se is less important than income.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Our survey for the Guardian Housing Network
underlines the main conclusions of this independent
research report. There is more need than ever to
measure the impact of the housing sector and
we need commonly recognised ways to do this,
including both soft outcomes and quantifiable
results. This is not, of course, an issue limited to
housing. Academics and charity professionals
have faced similar challenges in measuring and
highlighting the impact of their work at a national
economic level.
Reductions in funding for housing, combined with
welfare reform and rent caps, will increase the
pressure on the housing sector to balance financial
and social aims. As one housing professional put
it, “Safe and secure housing is essential for stable,
healthy and fruitful lives.”
There is still more to do. But the need is clear.
Housing forms the literal building blocks of local
communities. The picture could not be clearer:
“Families and workers need domestic stability to
contribute to the economy and establish themselves
in communities through their children, schools, jobs
and so on.”
The Guardian Housing Network has been pleased to
work with L&Q and Goldsmiths on this report, which
we hope will be just the beginning of an informed,
national debate about the role of the sector within
the wider economic recovery of the whole country.
Jane Dudman
Editor, Guardian Housing Network
The pressing question for all housing professionals
is how to capture and quantify the undoubted
benefits of housing and present those benefits at
a national level, to gain recognition from central
government, particularly George Osborne and his
colleagues at the Treasury.
Safe and secure housing is essential
for stable, healthy and fruitful lives.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
7
L&Q regeneration area
impact assessment
research
A report from Goldsmiths, University of London, Centre for
Community and Urban Research by Imogen Slater, Susan
Lelliott, Alison Rooke and Gerald Koessl June 2013
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
9
River Mill Park, Lewisham
01
Executive
summary
The Changing Places, Changing Lives research into L&Q’s
‘community impact’ demonstrates the unique position of
housing associations as social landlords. It examines seven
neighbourhoods, which span two periods in urban governance:
the area-based initiatives of the last Labour government, which
aimed to regenerate and ‘renew’ specific neighbourhoods
characterised by large swathes of public housing; and the
current housing policy of the coalition government, which places
an emphasis on decentralisation and localism (rather than
centralised spatial strategies). With the demise of regeneration
monies, such as the Single Regeneration Budget and New Deal
for Communities, and the considerable cuts to the budgets of
local authority services, the ability of social landlords to attract
mobile capital, nurture indigenous capacity and talent and provide
community resources at this time is particularly significant as they
shape urban neighbourhoods.
The research clearly points to extensive impacts upon the social
and cultural landscapes that L&Q is working within. As developers,
L&Q clearly have a commitment to not merely developing better
homes but also to creating better neighbourhoods for the
residents living in them, through partnerships with local agencies
and stakeholders. This is born out over time through the work
of housing associations’ neighbourhood management and
community investment teams.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
11
Executive summary
Changing places, changing lives
The research finds that L&Q engage with tenants,
residents, leaseholders, shared owners and
outright buyers during the course of their work.
By necessity, they therefore develop strong and
lasting relationships with neighbourhoods. L&Q
work to build relationships with delivery partners,
local organisations and groups. They are therefore
in a pivotal position in relation to the creation of
real communities. L&Q has demonstrated that
housing associations can contribute to physical
enhancement, social environment, and community
engagement and cohesion in neighbourhoods.
These impacts are often over and above those
associated with the award-winning design and
redevelopment of homes and urban spaces that
L&Q delivers. In undertaking regeneration, L&Q’s
approach, which involves working with a range of
partners and residents combined with grassroots
community development and delivery, wider social
impacts undoubtedly occur.
The title of this report, Changing Places, Changing
Lives, resonates with some of the strongest
themes of this research. L&Q are working in parts
of London undergoing tremendous change as the
built environment transforms, bringing a new level
of density to urban centres and the associated
changes to local demographics. Many of the areas
studied are characterised by population growth,
which is over 4 times the national average (8 per
cent) and more then double the population increase
of London as a whole (14 per cent). The mixed
tenure communities which are brought into being
12
through these processes need careful weighting
and management if they are to be truly interactive
and viable. The title of this report invokes the ways
that housing associations as agents of urban
change, in their role as developers, landlords and
neighbourhood managers, impact on the lives of
Londoners beyond bricks and mortar in this urban
context. Social housing providers therefore carry
the responsibility of ensuring that these changes
are widely beneficial to the people whose lives
are affected.
Research aims
One of the questions the research aimed to
address was the extent to which L&Q is creating
‘viable communities’ and ‘places that people
want to live’. This reflects current debates in the
regeneration and housing sector and in urban
research and theory more generally. It also speaks
to the unique role of housing associations who,
as social landlords and developers, are shaping
and managing neighbourhoods across London
working in partnership in areas of governance
which were formerly the terrain of the local state.
The research has found that L&Q have made
extensive investments in the neighbourhoods they
are working in beyond merely building, refurbishing
and managing properties. Common questions
across the case study areas were: to what extent is
L&Q creating ‘mixed communities’ in the process
of regenerating a neighbourhood? And what is the
impact of a new social mix on some of the historical
problems that regeneration seeks to address?
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Methodology
The inquiry was conducted by researchers at the
Centre for Urban and Community Research (CUCR)1
over a period of 4 months. This tight timeframe
shaped the research methodology. The research
was weighted towards desk-based research
methods, and was reliant on data provided by
L&Q. The results of this desk research were then
triangulated through a number of site visits and
targeted interviews with L&Q staff and a small
number of local stakeholders.
The research comprised six main activities:
• Rooting the exercise within the organisation by
building relationships with staff;
• Gathering and assimilating L&Q regeneration
scheme performance evidence;
• Setting the indicators for regeneration impact by
creating an impact assessment framework (IAF)2,
which was drawn up with reference to national
neighbourhood indicators, available L&Q data and
available census data sets;
• Profiling six of the seven selected neighbourhoods
using the framework (the seventh lacked sufficient
evidence for profiling);
• Testing the IAF, and adding to the profiles via
contextualising neighbourhood research, site
visits, and interviews with staff residents and
stakeholders; and
• Interpreting and then reporting on the findings.
The research employed a mixed methodology
and, given the necessity of evidencing the impact
retrospectively, has drawn on quantitative and
qualitative data from a range of sources.
The impact assessment framework
The research team developed an impact
assessment framework, which was tested out
through the research process (see Appendix 2).
The framework evolved as a result of enquiry into:
• Housing and third sector impact assessment
models and indicators, including those that are of
particular interest to L&Q;
• Available L&Q development, community
investment and management information data; and
• National, regional and city data sets that would
complement, or allow for, comparison and
triangulation of association data.
The main thrust of the framework was to use data
sets and fieldwork to assess changes that have
occurred in regeneration locations and explore
whether it is possible to ascertain who or what
brought about these changes, who the changes
have benefitted and in what ways.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
13
Executive summary
Changing places, changing lives
Findings
This research highlighted the unique position of
housing associations in London. In summary,
L&Q achieved, and in some instances surpassed,
its original ‘offer’ or aims in all of the profiled
regeneration areas with regard to supply of homes
and additional infrastructure, community and
resident benefits. It also found that L&Q:
• Have had extensive impact in re-shaping
neighbourhoods;
• Need to record evidence better from the outset –
enabling benchmarking and a full assessment of
the resulting impacts;
• Ensure that staff from all teams are focused on the
common goal of community benefit;
• Make sure that a legacy plan is in place; and
• Demonstrated embedded principles informing
practice across staff teams.
Creating homes: The combined investment of
regeneration-focused funding, together with the
staff development and management resources, has
undoubtedly improved the physical living conditions
across all of the schemes for residents. The
improvements brought about by regeneration and
refurbishment are being actively maintained to a high
level by both L&Q staff and by residents.
14
Viable communities: The research has found that
L&Q, and social housing providers more widely, are
shaping neighbourhoods and that in doing so they
have the ability and arguably the responsibility for
creating neighbourhoods where viable communities
can grow post-development. L&Q need to more
strategically build on their examples of good
neighbourhood management and integration
practices, imaginatively engaging their increasingly
diverse tenants and residents both during and
after development.
Well-being and life chances: L&Q’s approach
to its regeneration projects, informed by
organisationally embedded principles, is the key to
schemes being successful when assessed against
the framework indicators. As a well-resourced
regeneration partner, L&Q often invest in local
agencies as part of its Community investment
Strategy. Some of the impacts on individual
residents’ ‘quality of life’ arise from living in improved
homes and neighbourhoods. The wider impacts
this research has begun to identify arise from an
investment in social as well as physical regeneration.
With the demise of regeneration monies, the
community resources that housing associations can
provide make a valuable contribution to the social
and physical fabric of neighbourhoods.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
15
7
Haggerston West and Kingsland Estate, Hackney
02 Overview
This research has arisen out of recognition of L&Q’s role as a
place-maker and a desire to better identify and evidence the
‘impact’ of the work of housing associations on communities
and the neighbourhoods they live in. The overarching aim of this
research project was to consider the extent to which L&Q have
fulfilled their mission and created ‘places where people want to
live’. The results of the research were intended to inform L&Q’s
housing and impact assessment activities. The research focused
on a retrospective assessment of a selected group of L&Q
regeneration developments utilising a bespoke impact
assessment framework (IAF).
The IAF was used in relation to seven London-based3 L&Q
developments in order to examine evidence in relation to four
key questions:
• Has development lived up to the expectations of residents
and the local authority?
• Has the development improved the physical living conditions
of residents in terms of their housing and surroundings?
• Has a viable community been created in the development? and
• Is there any evidence to show that individual or family well-being
and life chances have been enhanced as a result of living in the
development?
The seven developments were selected by L&Q in order to
represent a varied portfolio of their refurbishment and regeneration
schemes across the capital.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
17
Overview
Assessing the impact
Over the past 15 years L&Q has, on varying scales,
invested in estate regeneration and refurbishment
in the following London boroughs: Enfield, Waltham
Forest, Hackney, Brent, Ealing, Southwark,
Lewisham, Lambeth, Haringey and Greenwich.
L&Q’s consultation around these developments, and
the performance indicators set for them:
• Are related largely to housing outputs, the
community element of development being
executed in regard to providing community
buildings; and
• Did not include evidenced measurement and
an evaluation of impact over time.
As well as providing an evidence base to inform
future good practice and evolve housing and
community practice, the research is also intended
to assist in setting terms for future priorities for the
L&Q Foundation4.
The impact assessment framework was developed
by the Centre for Urban and Community Research
(CUCR)5 in order to be able to assess physical and
non-physical impacts consistently and robustly in the
different areas.
This report includes the following sections:
• A contextualising discussion locating the research
in contemporary debates regarding the future of
London and the creation of ‘mixed communities in
response to urban and national policy and market
forces’;
• A methodological explanation setting out the way
the research was designed and conducted;
• An introduction to the impact assessment
framework setting out how it was developed;
18
• Analysis of evidence for L&Q’s impact across
seven studied developments;
• Assessing L&Q’s impact - key findings; and
• Suggestions for future practice: The research has
highlighted the difficulties of trying to measure
impact retrospectively. The current economic and
political climate makes it critically important for
social housing providers to be able to evidence
their unique practices and resulting impacts,
which can only be done through clearly
establishing aims and measurements as part of
the development process.
It presents findings emerging from the development
of an impact assessment framework and its
application to date across the seven L&Q
regeneration developments. These should be
read with an understanding of the research
methodology (section 4) and the predominately
desk-based nature of this research. It has not been
possible to fully triangulate the desk-based findings
with extensive local qualitative research given the
scale of the project.
Changing places, changing lives:
A contextualising discussion
This section sets out some of the surrounding
debates that this research speaks to. These include
the role of housing associations in the city, the
changes to regeneration policy and practice due to
the decline of area-based regeneration under the
former government. It debates the ways that mixed
tenure approaches to urban development may or
may not result in social mixing between residents of
different socio-economic circumstances and how
regeneration results in mixed communities.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
This research is conducted in the context of
contemporary debates regarding the shaping of
London as a global city through urban regeneration,
governance and population change. The broader
urban context includes:
• Population characterised by ‘super diversity’
(Vertovec 2007) with high rates of population
churn. In the last 10 years London has seen an
overall 14% growth in population and considerable
changes in terms of ethnicity and tenure mix;
• London’s changing economic and social
landscape with growing income disparity
and a historical pattern of wealth and poverty
existing side by side. London is an increasingly
unaffordable city in which to live; in 2012, it was
ranked the 13th most expensive city in the world6,
moving up three places. Its population is already
higher than the figures projected for 2016 – leading
to estimates that London could be a ten million
megacity by 2030 (JRF 2013)6. London has also
been the site of increasing economic polarisation
and occupational restructuring;
• Changes in national government and associated
housing and regeneration policy including a shift
from area-based publicly financed regeneration
programmes, a reduction in central government
funds for spending on affordable homes, reduced
bank lending, and a market driven model of city
regeneration.
The Changing Places, Changing Lives research
into L&Q’s ‘community impact’ demonstrates the
unique position of housing associations as social
landlords. It examines six neighbourhoods which
span two periods in urban governance: the areabased initiatives of the New Labour government,
which aimed to regenerate and ‘renew’ specific
neighbourhoods characterised by large swathes of
public housing, and the current housing policy of the
coalition government, which places an emphasis on
decentralisation and localism (rather than centralised
spatial strategies). With the demise of regeneration
monies such as the Single Regeneration Budget and
New Deal for Communities, plus the considerable
cuts made to the budgets of local authority services,
the ability of social landlords to attract mobile capital,
nurture indigenous capacity and talent and provide
community resources at this time is particularly
significant as they shape urban neighbourhoods.
The research to date clearly points to extensive
impacts upon the physical, social and cultural
landscapes that L&Q is working within. As
developers, L&Q clearly have a commitment to
not merely develop better homes, but also to
create better neighbourhoods for the residents
living in them, and the agencies who they work
in partnership with when managing them. This is
borne out over time through the work of L&Q’s
neighbourhood management and community
investment teams. The research finds that L&Q
engage with tenants, leaseholders, shared owners
and outright buyers during the course of their work.
By necessity, they therefore develop strong and
lasting relationships with neighbourhoods. L&Q work
to build relationships with delivery partners, local
organisations and groups. They have the capacity
to develop strong and lasting relationships and
sustainable neighbourhoods. L&Q has demonstrated
that housing associations can contribute to physical
enhancement, social environment and community
engagement and cohesion in neighbourhoods.
These impacts are often over and above beyond
those associated with the award-winning design
and redevelopment of homes and urban spaces
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
19
Overview
Assessing the impact
that L&Q delivers. In undertaking regeneration,
L&Q’s approach, which involves working with a
range of partners and residents combined with
grassroots community development, wider social
impacts undoubtedly occur. However, the question
of whether the housing association sector, in
general, can use its distinctive independence and
considerable assets to work across the sectoral
boundaries of “housing” and other services (many
of which were formerly provided by the local state)
and create strong integrated communities in the
process is a matter of current debate and remains
to be seen in the longer term given the changes
to London’s socio-economic demographics and
property market. Critics have voiced concerns
regarding the sector’s governance models and
public accountability (Smyth 2013, Lupton and
Tunstall 2008) and the challenge of finding a balance
between its financial and social imperatives within a
difficult economic climate (Mullins 2010).
Housing in London
L&Q are working in a city where there is a widely
acknowledged shortfall in housing provision7 and
more specifically a lack of affordable housing options
that fill the gap between full home ownership and
market renting. Recent research by the Joseph
Rowntree Foundation (JRF 2013) finds that
London is a city with its own unique challenges
regarding housing. London has a housing market
that is distinct from that of the rest of the UK. It
is distinguished by its tenure mix, high levels of
housing need and homelessness (which increased
by 27% between 2011 and 2012), and high levels
of population mobility. London has high disparity
between rental and income levels8. An increasing
percentage of London’s population live in housing
association homes. In 1981 the percentage
of London households renting from housing
20
associations stood at 4.1%; by 2001, this proportion
had increased to 9.4% (Watt 2009: 215) and recent
census data (2011) shows that the proportion of
people renting from housing associations has
reached 10.6%.
The core housing association activities of
building and managing homes and surrounding
neighbourhoods are a crucial contribution to the
urban fabric. As Mullins (2010) points out, larger
associations are sometimes seen as having grown
away from their third sector roots, though their
capacity to generate a social as well as a financial
return on their investment in cities is undoubted.
In today’s policy landscape, social landlords are
uniquely positioned. Housing associations’ ‘hybrid
financial model’ (Mullins 2010) creates a tension
between their social and commercial objectives.
The potential impact of creating regenerated
neighbourhoods resulting from their combined
business models with considerable community
investment and neighbourhood activities cannot
be underestimated.
Reconfigured regeneration
Under the coalition government, and at a time of
fiscal austerity, tenure mixing is largely achieved
through a market-led mechanism whereby local
authorities create conditions that attract private
investment, thereby promoting growth and a
cascade of benefits flowing from investment as
local authorities sell publicly owned land to private
developers in return for investment in public housing,
infrastructure (such as transport) or facilities. In
this process, regeneration has been reconfigured
(Lupton and Tunstall 2008: 111), bringing about
changes in tenure and improvements to the physical
and social fabric of an area. A number of urban
theorists concerned with gentrification and urban
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
regeneration are understandably critical of changes
to cities and the development of neoliberal models
of urban governance that have resulted in expensive
private developments or ‘gentrified neighbourhoods’,
which are not always spatially, socially and culturally
integrated with the surrounding urban fabric. If
regeneration initiatives are to significantly and
consciously address social inequalities and impact
local communities positively, developers are required
to do more than build new and improved homes.
They must also generate a host of benefits such as
employment, access to services, affordable homes,
good quality schools, improved transport links and
reinvestment in neighbourhood improvements. In
this political and economic climate, large developing
housing associations such as L&Q are clearly an
attractive development partner in comparison to
private developers. Housing associations have
expertise in social housing management and
community development. They are able to broker
local relationships and ensure that the voices of
minorities and vulnerable members of society are
heard in the process of regeneration.
Regeneration through the creation
of mixed communities
Within regeneration discourse, the promise of
‘socially mixed neighbourhoods’ rests on the
premise that that targeted redevelopment and
reduced spatial segregation might allow greater
benefits for all local people. Creating ‘mixed
communities’ is a key element in the government’s
approach to the regeneration of disadvantaged
neighbourhoods. The prevailing logic is that
more economically prosperous residents moving
into an area prevents the re-concentration
of low-income residents and the associated
neighbourhood problems. Alongside changes in
tenure, simultaneous improvements to the physical
and social fabric of an area appeals to private
investors who are in search of profit in run-down
areas. Consequently, desirable city spaces attract
wealthier urban residents who are often seeking a
good investment in an ‘up and coming’ area of a
global city. In London, the Mayor, Boris Johnson,
stated his commitment to mixed communities in
the 2011 London Plan and his Revised Housing
Strategy (2011). This can be understood as a recent
manifestation of a much longer tradition of urban
policy stretching back to the garden city movement.
Under the last Labour government, the underlying
logic of socially mixed developments was that:
• social mixing is good for community cohesion;
• it breaks up estates of social housing with
problematic cultural norms, which result in antisocial behaviour (ASB) and criminality; and
• it addresses the stigmatisation of areas with poor
reputations (see Kearne and Mason 2007 for
further discussion).
The current commitment to mixed tenure
development can be understood as a market-led
solution to diversifying large areas of social housing,
labelled as ‘sink estates’ and ‘difficult’ places (SEU
1998), which have been associated with entrenched
social problems. By improving the physical fabric
of the area, and making them attractive to home
buyers, areas that were formerly dominated by social
housing are replaced by mixed tenure developments
where the percentage of social housing is far lower
(Bolt et al. 2009, Kearns and Mason 2007).
This mixed communities approach to urban
regeneration replace New Labour’s area-based
approaches (ABIs), such as the New Deal for
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
21
Overview
Assessing the impact
Communities (NDC), which invested in improvements
to existing homes and facilities and was combined
with social welfare programmes. Instead, the
argument in favour of mixed tenure developments
is that more varied housing stock and forms of
tenure, which combine private home ownership and
social housing, will attract more economically mixed
populations, breaking up formerly mono-tenure
social housing and the associated social problems
of physical deterioration, low levels of safety and
liveability, and weak social cohesion (Dekker
and Van Kempen 2004, Swaroop and Morenoff
2006, Wassenberg 2004) and complex models of
local governance. The argument is that a marketdriven solution will result in poverty being less
concentrated, as a wider range of resources
will be available, and the levels of bridging and
bonding social capital (Putnam 2001, Bourdieu
1986) will increase9.
Variety in type of tenure is, in itself, a crude indicator
of mix in the socio-economic status of residents
within a neighbourhood. Furthermore, it is not in
itself an indicator of the extent to which social mixing
between residents of different tenure takes place.
The commitment to mixed tenure communities is an
indication of the former government’s interest in, and
reliance upon, social capital as a means to improve
circumstances for deprived communities (Kearns
2003). Advocates of mixed communities argue that
they can potentially have a range of beneficial effects
upon neighbourhoods and their residents (see
Kearne and Mason 2007, and Atkinson and Kintrea
2000, for a review). These include:
• economic and service impacts such as more
economic activity, better public and private
services, increased employment;
22
• community level effects such as increased social
interaction, a stronger sense of place, more
residential stability;
• social and behavioural effects such as reduced
ASB and better up-keep of properties, raised
aspirations and educational attainments; and
• a reduction in social exclusion resulting from
the reduced stigma of an area, enhanced social
networks and increased connectivity.
Many of these outcomes hinge on a belief in the
power of the bridging and bonding of social capital
(Putnam 2001) and the considerable cultural capital
(Bourdieu 1986) of the middle classes in effecting
local change.
“It has long been argued that deprived areas, those
areas most in need, tend to receive worse services
than other areas… The argument for mixed tenure
neighbourhoods is that the middle classes would
be less likely to put up with this situation, or, slightly
differently, that with a more mixed neighbourhood,
public servants would not try to get away with
providing a lower quality of service. Of course, one
of the reasons for these effects is that the middle
classes have better means, through a mixture of
social and cultural capital, to bring about resolutions
or improvements to problems with services, and to
gain the most from existing provision”. (Kearne and
Mason 2007: 666)
However, the evidence to support these approaches
to urban change is inconsistent. In a review of
research evidence in the UK and the Netherlands,
Kleinhans (2004) found some evidence to support
benefits to the environment, mixed evidence on
improving reputation, little evidence to support the
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
idea that there was increased social interaction
between residents across tenures and, therefore,
little “role model effects”10.
This approach to urban change has come under
considerable criticism from theorists of gentrification
(Glass 1964, Smith and Williams 1986, Atkinson
1999, Lees 2000, Clarke 1987) who argue that:
• regeneration carried out in the name of social
mixing results in class succession in areas broadly
characterised by working class and unskilled
households, resulting in the economic and spatial
displacement of working class city dwellers
(Marcuse 1986); and
• the social capital of social housing residents found
in community ties, and formal and informal social
networks and local economies, are strong in areas
of economic poverty, as they have developed as
a way of coping with the withdrawal of investment
prior to an area-based regeneration initiative
(Slater 2013: 376).
Butler and Robson’s (2001, 2003) studies
of London’s middle classes across four
neighbourhoods find low levels of social mixing
between newer middle class residents and
established populations. They describe a pattern
of “social tectonics … whereby people move
across each other like the plates of the earth”
(2003: 92), as wealthier residents exercise their
ability to strategically insulate themselves from the
obligations of social capital. As a result, little social
mixing between newer and more long established
residents takes place (see also Mohan 1999).
Research on London’s riverside developments finds
swathes of ‘luxury’ one bedroom or two bedroom
flats, marketed to appeal to urban professionals,
which attract a demographic who do not look to
neighbourhood-based resources such as small
businesses, shops, markets, cafés, schools, parks
or nurseries. Instead, these younger, often childless,
couples spend much of their leisure time socialising
in Central London. Furthermore, their residency
is generally short-term (three to five years). As a
consequence, their perception of, and social and
cultural investment in, their neighbourhood differs
dramatically from that of more established local
residents whose lives are intricately bound to local
space (Davidson 2010: 173). It is also worth noting
that London housing is an attractive speculative
financial investment for a mobile global elite
rather than simply the middle classes11. Clearly,
spatial proximity alone does not necessarily make
community nor is it a mechanism of regeneration
in itself. As research by the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation points out:
“Mix is a necessary but not a sufficient precondition
for sustainable communities: ‘tenure mix by itself
will not guarantee the success of a development’”
(Allen et al. 2006: 4) and that “income mix does not
alleviate the need for public funding” (Silverman et
al. 2005: 71). “Where tenure mix is adopted, careful
attention needs to be paid to the design and layout
of homes and their surroundings, the provision of
the full range of facilities, as well as accessibility
and integration into the wider locality
(Bailey and Manzi 2008).”
In an overview of the evidence for mixed
communities, Bailey and Manzi (2008) found that
well-managed mixed tenure developments do have
the potential to facilitate social interaction between
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
23
Overview
Assessing the impact
residents if they are attractive developments which
encourage neighbours to stay in their chosen
area. (However, the impact of the ‘mix’ is difficult
to extrapolate from other environmental effects).
Current research shows that, in order for mixedtenure developments to be successful beyond the
terms of market value or delivery on a local ‘offer’,
they need to be ‘sustainable’12. Recent research
into neighbourhood cohesion in two South London
neighbourhoods finds that housing and the built
environment are pivotal to how residents experience
community. In this context of regeneration and
population change in areas which are now attractive
property investment options, open neutral public
space (both indoors and outdoors) is found to be
central to creating cohesion across differences of
ethnicity and social class (Jensen et al. 2013).
24
This body of research and the debates that stem
from it go to the heart of the questions that inform
this report: the extent to which a ‘viable community
has been created in a development, and the extent
to which a development has increased well-being
and life chances. The mixed tenure developments
L&Q is building, managing and investing in are
sites where these issues of social capital and
social mixing are unfolding. L&Q working across
departments allows L&Q staff to develop strong
and lasting relationships with neighbourhoods.
In comparison to private developers, L&Q is in a
strong position to be able to mitigate against the
potential negative impact of mixed communities on
disadvantaged residents, for example by creating
community forums and improving community
facilities and resources.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
25
Silwood, Lewisham
03 Methodology
The research was conducted by CUCR over a period of 4 months.
This tight timeframe shaped the research methodology. The
research was weighted towards desk-based research methods,
and was reliant on data provided by L&Q. The results of this desk
research were then triangulated through a number of site visits
and targeted interviews with L&Q staff and a small number of
local stakeholders.
The research comprised six main activities:
1. Rooting the exercise within the organisation by building
relationships with staff;
2. Gathering and assimilating L&Q regeneration scheme
performance evidence;
3. Setting the indicators for regeneration impact by creating an
impact assessment framework (IAF) drawn up with reference
to national neighbourhood indicators, available L&Q data and
available census data sets;
4. Profiling six of the seven selected neighbourhoods using the
framework (the seventh lacked sufficient evidence for profiling);
5. Testing the IAF, and adding to the profiles via contextualising
neighbourhood research, site visits, and interviews with staff
residents and stakeholders; and
6. Interpreting findings and reporting on them.
The research employed a mixed methodology, and given the
necessity of evidencing impact retrospectively, has drawn on
quantitative and qualitative data from a range of sources.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
27
Methodology
Quantitative and qualitative input
The research began with a project initiation meeting
with key staff to agree the parameters, objectives,
milestones and schedule of the work. An initial
checklist of data was drawn up comprising both
L&Q information and data to be accessed from other
sources including the National Office of Statistics.
The data was then gathered, filtered and presented
so that it could be easily referenced. There was a
regular on-going liaison with L&Q staff in order to
report on progress, and to ensure that L&Q had
maximum input into the data gathering and
research direction.
An on-going review of relevant housing and social
impact literature also contextualised the research.
These tasks then informed the creation of a tailormade impact assessment framework, which set key
indicators for measuring impact against potential
data sources. It did this by drawing on research and
indicators from a number of other sources where
they were relevant to this work.13
28
The impact assessment framework (IAF)15 was then
used to profile six of the selected neighbourhoods in
which L&Q regeneration has occurred. The seventh
was used as a research resource but not profiled as
there was insufficient data available due to the time
that had elapsed since the scheme commencement.
A profile report has been produced for each area
which includes data from a wide range of sources
that have been augmented through targeted
interviews with key staff and residents. Each of
these highlights the significant characteristics and
evidence of change and impact in the selected
regeneration areas and lessons for future practice.
The findings from these profiles collectively inform
this emergent findings report.14
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
29
Sidcup teenager Abidomi Godwin benefited from motorbike repairs and maintenance training. Through
L&Q Foundation
forEstate,
projects
such as this, we are helping our residents gain employment skills.
Burgess
Terrace,support
Aylesbury
Southwark
04
The impact
assessment
framework
The impact assessment framework
The impact assessment framework (IAF) in this report sets out
the available evidence for L&Q to achieve its mission of ‘creating
places where people want to live’. Impact on L&Q residents in the
selected locations was a key consideration. The framework has
been tested through its practical application in neighbourhood
profiling and requires revision as a result of this process. In using
it to assess impact in the selected areas, retrospectively, there
were gaps in the available data though, used formatively, it could
address these at the outset. It is important to note therefore that it
is still in a developmental stage and further work is needed in order
to present a simplified model that is readily usable and able to
inform setting baselines for subsequent impact measurement.
The framework evolved as a result of enquiring into the following:
• Housing and third sector impact assessment models and
indicators, including those that are of particular interest to L&Q;
• Available L&Q development, community investment and
management information data; and
• National, regional and city data sets that would complement,
or allow for, the comparison and triangulation of housing
association data.
The main thrust of the framework was to use data sets and field
work to assess changes that have occurred in regeneration
locations and explore whether it is possible to ascertain who
or what brought about these changes, who the changes have
benefitted and in what ways.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
31
The impact assessment framework
Identifying improvements
Asking whether a neighbourhood has improved
and who has benefitted from the changes leads to
consideration of a significant number of complex
factors. Asking which agencies have wrought which
changes is complex too, as organisations often
work in partnership to regenerate neighbourhoods.
The identification of causal changes in a given
neighbourhood, and pinpointing who has benefitted
from change, is therefore a challenging task.
The drive to be able to assess the impacts of
housing and neighbourhood developments has
therefore resulted in large numbers of physical and
non-physical neighbourhood change indicators
being generated. These cut across fields such
as mental health, building and design and wellbeing (see Appendix 1, for example, in terms of the
indicator source lists). In general, the indicators are
designed to help measure the impact of services
and projects on places, and more latterly, people.
The framework focussed on indicators that covered:
• Regeneration scheme information, eg the intended
size, aims and beneficiaries of the scheme;
• Locational information, eg siting and key features;
• Resident and neighbourhood management
information, eg L&Q tenant data and resident
satisfaction; and
• Social and physical changes to the location, eg
population changes.
The recently published Creating Strong
Communities: How to Measure the Sustainability
of New Housing Developments16 was particularly
important to the framework. It utilises three
dimensions to assess sustainable regeneration:
32
amenities and infrastructure; opportunities
for residents to influence and social and
cultural opportunities.
In order to tie the assessment framework into
L&Q’s Community Investment Strategy17 we used
L&Q’s Community Strategy headings to categorise
regeneration activity that fell within the ‘social
and cultural opportunities’ dimension. L&Q’s four
community strategy headings are: increased
employability, positive youth futures, strengthening
communities and financial inclusion.
The impact assessment framework has a mix
of features that are not found together in other
assessment models:
• It is exploratory in nature. It examines the impact
of L&Q in the neighbourhoods whilst yielding
lessons about the assessment tools and impact
assessments on housing. It is not definitive. It
highlights lessons about how impacts might be
better recorded in the future. It explores a range
of social, economic and built environment factors
relating to L&Q’s participation in developing and
maintaining neighbourhoods;
• It seeks to identify causal changes in locations.
Where possible, it then looks at the extent to
which we can know L&Q has contributed to
neighbourhood changes;
• It is designed to explore issues surrounding the
identification of beneficiaries, and the ways in
which they have benefited, from regeneration
activity. For example, it will explore the evidence
for L&Q residents having benefited from
developments;
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
• It recognises the useful data that housing
associations hold. Social housing providers differ
from private providers. In their neighbourhood
management and community investment roles
they have the potential to gather considerable
amounts of information on tenants, leaseholders
and neighbourhoods. This framework attempts
to deploy that data alongside national and
regional data sets in order to assess the impact of
association development activity; and
• It utilises data held by social landlords. Housing
associations differ from private providers in
that they have development, neighbourhood
management and community teams who all
contribute to the development and sustainability of
neighbourhoods. The framework draws data from
across these teams to assess impact.
Recent research into impact assessment in social
housing has revealed that “the sector as a whole
needs to develop a greater consensus around how
it measures and evidences its impact. It’s still early
days for social impact measurement in the housing
sector.”18 Given the above factors, the framework has
the potential to make a considerable contribution to
sector learning.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
33
05 L&Q’s impact
Analysing the neighbourhoods
The research findings set out a brief analysis of changes to the
socio-demographics in the seven researched neighbourhoods
between 2001 and 2011.
London is a rapidly changing city that has, for example, in the last
ten years seen huge population growth and considerable changes
in terms of ethnic make-up, tenure mix and income disparity.
Against this background churn, all of the profiled areas have seen
significant population changes. These broadly reflect London-wide
trends, as younger, more affluent populations move or relocate
to new areas within the city, and poorer populations move to the
suburbs and outer London19. However some of the studied areas
are experiencing changes that are distinct or greater than
London trends.
This section is a brief summary of the analysis of census data
from 2001 and 2011, which was accessed through use of the
Neighbourhood Statistics section of the Office for National
Statistics (ONS) website 20 for each of the areas. The research
looked for any evidence of change in the regeneration areas (at
Lower Layer Super Output Level (LSOA), or Medium Layer Super
Output Level (MSOA), if a scheme spread across several LSOAs21
). It is important to notes that in some SOAs (Super Output
Levels), such as the Beaumont LSOA or the Silwood LSOA (where
L&Q residents make up the majority of the SOA), the described
changes can be attributed to L&Q’s regeneration activity, whilst in
other SOAs L&Q only accounts for a smaller proportion of the total
households. This makes it more difficult to identify any relations
of causality between L&Q’s regeneration activity and the census
data. The likelihood is that L&Q will have contributed to these
changes but the level of direct impact cannot be ascertained.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
35
L&Q’s impact
Analysing the neighbourhoods
The census findings made apparent the fact that
L&Q’s regeneration activities are taking place in
areas that are undergoing rapid urban changes,
which are more marked than those found across
the whole of London. For example, while London’s
population is increasing, many of the areas studied
are characterised by population growth, which
is double that of London and over four times
the national average. This was also significant
for changes in tenure (especially in terms of the
reduction of council housing), and also for other
types of change such as occupational composition
and ethnicity. There also appear to be different
dynamics at work in terms of the boroughs that lie
within inner London (where some changes were
much more pronounced than at the city level), and
the regeneration schemes that are located in outer
London boroughs.
We can surmise that L&Q’s regeneration activities
have contributed to socio-demographic changes
in the regeneration areas. Notably, there have
been significant increases in the total populations
in River Mill Park and Silwood. There have been
decreases in the proportion of ‘White British’
and ‘Black Caribbean’, especially in Lewisham
Park, Aylesbury and Haggerston. All of the areas
evidenced a decrease in relation to indices of
deprivation, with Lewisham Park, River Mill Park
and Silwood revealing greater decreases than at
city level. There has been an increase in elementary
occupations and also in qualification levels across
most schemes. Where L&Q residents make up either
the majority or a significant proportion of the SOA
population22 then it can be inferred that the sociodemographic changes are largely attributable to
L&Q’s regeneration activities. To further evidence
the full impacts of these types of change, and what
they mean for communities and individuals in a
36
given area, further research would be needed
and should include census data triangulated
with housing management data and qualitative
community-based research.
The following areas of socio-demographic change
covered are those that are most relevant to the
research questions and we highlight where the
profiled areas stand out as being in contrast with
wider area and city trends. For further details on these
socio-demographic areas please see Appendix 5.
I. Population and gender: Significant population
increases in Silwood, River Mill Park, and
Haggerston West & Kingsland. Beaumont is
the exception and experienced a population
decrease (12.7%). Gender changes in line with
London (at approx 1%) other than Silwood,
which has seen a 4.2% increase in the female
population.
2. Ethnicity: London-wide, there has been a fall
of almost 15% in the ‘White British’ population.
This trend was echoed in the profiled areas
within a range from 23% decrease in River Mill
Park to a 6.5% increase in Silwood. Most areas
saw a moderate decline in the ‘Black Caribbean’
population alongside a notable increase in the
‘White Other’ population. The biggest divergence
between the areas was in relation to the ‘Black
African’ population, with Silwood and Haggerston
recording 8% and 7% decreases while Green
Horizons had an 8.3% increase.
3. Tenure: Across London, the percentage of
people living in council housing has dropped
by 4.3% and those who own their home with
a mortgage or loan has decreased by 6.5%.
Instead, more people are now renting privately
or from social housing providers. Some of these
trends were more pronounced in the profiled
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
areas, with the social renting category showing
the biggest increases (well above the London
average), and the decline in the proportion of
council tenants being more marked, for example
of up to -66% in the Silwood LSOA. There has
also been an above average rise in private renting
in River Mill, Aylesbury, Green Horizons and
Haggerston.
4 Economic activity: The biggest change in
terms of economic activity in London as well as
in the seven SOAs has been a decrease in the
proportion of full-time, but an increase in the
proportion of part-time, employment.
5 Qualifications: Qualification levels in the 7 SOAs
have predominantly increased (and decreased)
in line with the London trend. In Haggerston this
trend has been particularly notable, with a strong
increase in qualifications (Level 4+) and a big drop
in residents with no qualifications.
6 Occupations: The most striking change in
terms of occupations that has occurred in the
seven SOAs (and across London) is an increase
in people in professional occupations. This
increased varied between 2.3% in the Beaumont
LSOA to 17.4% in the Haggerston West &
Kingsland LSOA. The London average lies in
between, at 7.6% for ‘professionals’.
7 Indices of deprivation: In line with the London
trend over the period 2001 to 2011, the majority
of SOAs experienced a decrease of households
in multiple deprivation. The total households not
recording any deprivation have notably decreased
in the River Mill Park LSOA.
Table 1: Changes in tenure
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
37
L&Q’s impact
Analysing the neighbourhoods
There are also always limitations to these types
of data sets, with their broad and arguably simplistic
categorisations, and to their ability to communicate
the detail and complexities involved. For example,
the patterns of London’s changes in ethnicity
between the 2001 and 2011 census dates reflect the
city’s hugely diverse character, but are not overlaid
with other variables such as immigration status,
labour market experience, age and
spatial distribution.
Whilst the census (and other sources of quantitative
data) revealed population changes at both London
and local levels, they are clearly only one dimension
of the fuller picture required for impact assessment.
If they tell us that the diversity of tenure has
increased, or that there have been shifts in the ethnic
makeup of an area, we then need to find out how
these changes are experienced and negotiated by
residents and stakeholders in specific places. We
also need to know about the environmental, social
and economic contexts that are integral to sociodemographic evidence. The framework headings
therefore draw out key aspects of these data sets.
38
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Residents at a community day on the Beaumont Estate, Leyton
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
39
Sidcup teenager Abidomi Godwin benefited from motorbike repairs and maintenance training. Through
L&Q Foundation support for projects such as this, we are helping our residents gain employment skills.
06 L&Q’s impact
Assessing the seven areas
The section provides a summary of how the
assessment framework relates to the seven
regeneration areas.
The sections below refer to the assessment
framework headings. There are seven in all and each
assesses the seven regeneration areas in relation
to these, based on the research evidence gathered.
They highlight the development areas that provide
the best evidential examples of each aspect relating
to:
6.1 Amenities and infrastructure
6.2 Homes
6.3 Neighbourhood management
6.4 Opportunities to influence
6.5 Social and cultural opportunities
6.6 Employment and finance inclusion
6.7 Community engagement
More detailed information can be found in each of
the area profiles23. The following table lists each
of the schemes alongside tenure and investment
information for the seven schemes studied.
It should be noted that this investment includes
investment in neighbourhood community projects
as well as homes.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
41
L&Q’s impact
Assessing the seven areas
Table 2: Scheme summary information
Start date Complete
Units
handed
over
Tenure mix*
1. Forest
Homes:
Beaumont
Estate, Waltham
Forest
Rebuild and
refurbish
2002
On-going
build for
sale
746
GN: 81% LH:
16% AR: 3%
FH: 0.3%
915
£120 million
2. Silwood,
Lewisham
Rebuild
2003
On-going
build for
sale
480
GN: 62%
SO: 29%
IMR: 5%
FH: 4%
428
£149 million
est
3. River Mill,
Lewisham
Rebuild
2003
Yes
196
GN: 59%
SO: 18%
LH: 11%
FH: 11% AR:
0.5%
196
£9.6 million
4. Lewisham
Park, Lewisham
Refurbish
2007
Yes
204
GN: 77%
LH: 20%
AR: 2.4%
MR: 0.5%
204
£6 million
5. Haggerston,
Hackney
Rebuild
2008
On-going
83
GN: 100%
761
£202 million
6. Aylesbury 1A, Rebuild
Southwark
2010
On-going
71
GN: 73%
IMR: 21%
SO: 4%
C: 1%
261
£61 million
7. Green
Horizons,
Enfield
Rebuild
1998
Yes
546
N: 95%
LH: 3%
AR: 1%
FH: 1%
548
Not known
Totals/
Summary 5
LAs
5 rebuild
1 refurbish
1 mixed
15 years’
time
span
Three
2274
complete,
four ongoing
3313
£538
million
across
five
schemes
Scheme and
local authority
Scheme type:
all stock
transfers
Scheme
total
Investment
units
L&Q24
* Tenure descriptions: GN = general needs; IMR = Intermediate market rent; SO = shared ownership; LH = leaseholder; AR = affordable rent;
C = commercial; DM = direct managed; FH= Freehold; MR = market rent.
42
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
6.1 Amenities and infrastructure
Physical transformation
Aside from investment in housing, L&Q has invested
over £6 million in community buildings on three
schemes (Beaumont, Aylesbury and Haggerston)
and over £5 million in commercial properties across
two schemes (Aylesbury and Haggerston) with a
total investment of £538 million across five schemes.
This is drawn down from a variety of public sources
but also includes L&Q-generated investment. It
s also worth noting that, more recently, public
sources have decreased whilst L&Q investment
has increased.
L&Q regeneration has resulted in the physical
transformation of the surrounding environs in
four locations (Beaumont, Silwood, Lewisham
Park and River Mill Park) and commencement of
transformation in two new locations (Aylesbury
and Haggerston). It has also contributed to public
park improvements in three areas (River Mill,
Beaumont, and Haggerston). Examples of cited
successful design features include courtyards,
squares, traffic calming, cycle stores, homes with
gardens-patios-balconies, disabled adaptations,
landscaping, bringing listed buildings back into use
and pedestrian prioritisation. That properties were
also being designed to be ‘tenure blind’ was seen
to be important on some schemes, for example in
Aylesbury, by both tenants and staff.
The transformation of River Mill Park through
regeneration partnerships has been recognised
through several awards:
Winner
Best New Public Space, London Planning
Awards 2008;
Winner
Best Streetscape Project, Horticulture Week
Landscape and Amenity Awards 2007; and
Winner
Waterways, Local Government News’ Street
Design Awards 2008.
My kids moved away and when they came back
they could not believe the transformation
Beaumont resident
People now like to sit on the benches or in the grass.
It was not like that before the regeneration
Lewisham Park resident
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
43
L&Q’s impact
Assessing the seven areas
6.2 Homes
Development and refurbishment
Over £400 million has been invested in homes
by L&Q across four of the locations (Forest
Homes, Haggerston, Aylesbury and Lewisham
Park). The profiles evidence the development and
refurbishment of over 2,400 homes built to, and
sometimes exceeding, quality standards.25 All of the
profiled schemes evidence this, as the standards
were clear from the outset, however later schemes
are better examples of these standards as design
has improved through L&Q’s learning. For example,
space was an issue on some earlier schemes (for
example Silwood and Beaumont) whereas on newer
schemes, such as Aylesbury, space is 10% above
the standard. There are a further 860 new build
homes planned in these locations.
Central to L&Q’s regeneration is the refurbishment
and development of new homes, in areas where the
existing housing stock had become dilapidated and
outdated. Resident consultation is well facilitated
and supported across their schemes. The design of
homes has improved over the timeframe of schemes
profiled and it is clear that residents’ feedback has
informed these improvements. For example, in the
newer schemes the amount of space in homes
has increased. There have also been additional
features including fob security, white goods,
carpets, etc. Residents interviewed expressed high
levels of satisfaction with their new homes. This
was particularly apparent in instances of those
who had been local authority tenants before the
redevelopment.
There were particularly high levels of satisfaction
from residents responding to surveys on Forest
Homes, Silwood, Lewisham Park and Aylesbury.26
The high levels of consultation and good liaisons
with residents during the regeneration (with L&Q
staff and contractors) arguably enhanced this
satisfaction. The process of ‘induction’ of residents
into their new homes and the opportunity to feed
back post-completion was also deemed to be
important. Some residents also reported on the
level of support they had been offered during the
transition.
Schemes are typically becoming more mixed in
tenure, and the research was keen to explore the
impacts of this. Although at this stage the evidence
is not robust enough to make any claims with
certainty, on the newer Aylesbury and Haggerston
schemes staff and residents report that the mixed
tenure nature of the schemes are a positive feature,
as residents of different tenures do interact. The
design and build quality on Aylesbury is such that
one member of staff commented that it all “looks
private”. Aylesbury recently won the 2013 London
Planning Award for ‘The Best New Place to Live’.
However, what this means for residents in terms
of lived experience and impact clearly warrants
further enquiry.
It’s a nicer place in terms of houses with
gardens; let’s face it, most people want to live
in a house with a garden…
Silwood resident
44
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
6.3 Neighbourhood management
There is clear evidence of reductions in crime, ASB
and neighbourhood nuisances in two previously
high crime locations (Beaumont and Silwood).
L&Q have developed strategies in partnership with
police and local stakeholders and initiated clear
actions in order to achieve this during and after the
regeneration period. This strategic commitment to
working pro-actively in partnership is then reinforced
through strong and vigilant on-going neighbourhood
management in all of the regeneration locations.
neighbourhood-level staff have with specific
schemes and their residents and is strengthened
by neighbourhood management services that are
responsive, encourage resident involvement and
feedback and include, in some instances, caretakers
and concierges as well as regular maintenance and
cleaning. This strategic approach underpinned by an
operational level of close responsive management
was particularly commented on in relation to
Beaumont, Silwood, Lewisham Park, Haggerston
and Aylesbury.
This approach is underpinned by the grounded
relationships and local knowledge that individual
You tell L&Q that something is wrong
and they take care of it – they sort it out
River Mill Park resident
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
45
L&Q’s impact
Assessing the seven areas
CASE STUDY
TACKLING ANTI-SOCIAL
BEHAVIOUR
Beaumont Estate: Forest Homes
As a result of consultation with residents,
the offer document made it clear that the
neighbourhood would be strongly and
supportively managed with a range of core
and extra neighbourhood management activity
taking place alongside intensive preventative
and diversionary community safety work.
Staff passionately described the scheme before
(“A crime generator” and “A no go area for
police”) and after L&Q intervention. The strong
crime and community management that has
been implemented was outlined by staff and
residents alike. Close knit partnerships between
L&Q, residents, police and other agencies have
resulted in considerable community safety
achievements, including the closure of 37
crack houses, reductions in illegal occupancy,
clamping down on pirate radio stations and
L&Q setting case law by being the first landlord
to obtain an ASB injunction.
During interviews, staff mentioned the
importance of working to gaining the trust
and respect of residents via a local and
approachable presence, action orientation
and quick and visible ‘wins’ at the outset of
neighbourhood changes. “Residents slowly
realised that the staff were genuine and what
they were offering them was therefore genuine
too rather than a sales pitch” - L&Q staff
interview
This presence and active management has
continued in the post-development phases.
There is now local L&Q housing management,
caretaking and a community centre presence,
which includes a new L&Q office in the Forest
Homes location. Monthly Community Safety
meetings are still held between the housing
organisation, the Council and the police
and L&Q are actively involved in the London
Borough of Waltham Forest’s CCTV Steering
Group. The communal gardens have CCTV
surveillance that is linked to a 24 hour ‘manned
service’ and the estate is serviced twice a
week by refuse collection through a special
arrangement between L&Q and the Council.
There is still a Beaumont gang but their strength is
nowhere near what it was in 2002. There was also a lot
of proactive work between the police and L&Q to root
out those responsible and hold them to account
L&Q staff interview
46
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
6.4 Opportunities to influence
Involving residents
Across the seven developments we have found that
residents have considerable opportunities to influence
the places they live in. Throughout the development
period this has been facilitated by L&Q staff through
consultation. L&Q are particularly proficient at
involving residents during the development phase,
when they are negotiating on future homes with
existing residents being transferred from social
housing. Here, the process whereby L&Q negotiate
the ‘offer document’, which sets out L&Q’s promise
to residents into the future, involves bringing residents
together to discuss the details of developmentspanning macro-issues such as the design of public
spaces, to micro-matters such as the choice of
cupboard handles.
There is evidence of imaginative and consistently high
levels of involving existing tenants in regeneration
across all the profiled schemes. Opportunities range
from providing regular information, supporting local
boards, through to organising ‘demolition parties’.
These opportunities to give ‘voices’ are visibly
translated into action. There are good examples
of residents’ views being taken into account in the
design of all the schemes, which are then adapted in
phases accordingly (eg Silwood, Aylesbury, Lewisham
Park and River Mill).
The research asked how resident involvement,
motivated by regeneration, was sustained postcompletion. It found evidence of the transfer of
knowledge from development team staff to the
management team staff at the completion stage. As a
result of this activity, residents are able to get to know
the neighbourhood officers from the outset of the
neighbourhood management phase. Furthermore, the
induction of new residents includes making sure that
they know how to contact L&Q, how to get involved
and have opportunities to have a voice should they
wish to. L&Q offer a number of formal and informal
ways to have their views heard, including ‘mystery
shoppers’, Tenants and Residents Associations,
and by becoming ‘estate champions’. It is worth
noting that L&Q has delegated community and
estate management budgets to residents boards as
‘estate champions’ across all locations, and in some
locations these were substantial budgets, for example
£25K per year to the tenant-led forum in Haggerston
for community projects.27
6.5 Social and cultural life
Enabling communities
L&Q is clearly moving towards a more residentinformed model of deploying resources at a
neighbourhood level during the development phase
and beyond. L&Q have invested considerable
resources in neighbourhood facilities and amenities
which support the on-going social and cultural life
of the L&Q developments and their neighbours.
Investments across the seven researched
development sites have:
• Provided three high specification community
centres in three locations and upgraded existing
community space in Beaumont, Silwood, River Mill
Park and Aylesbury;
• Provision of four new high specification community
facilities (nursery and community centres) in
Aylesbury, Haggerston and Silwood; and
• Upgraded seven existing community spaces and
the provision of Cyber Centres, youth centres and
community rooms (Beaumont: Forest Homes,
Silwood, Aylesbury and River Mill Park).
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
47
L&Q’s impact
Assessing the seven areas
CASE STUDY
HAGGERSTON ARTS AND
CULTURAL INITIATIVES
Arts and culture have been successfully
employed in mediating the development
process. Some of this has emerged in
response to the regeneration process impacting
on resident artists living in the area. The ‘Inside
Out’ Project saw artists and young people turn
the estate into a gallery, while the ‘I Am Here’
project posted large portraits of residents on
the older blocks of flats to show who was still
resident on the estate during demolition.
The participatory nature of the artwork has
meant that art has been an effective community
engagement tool for existing residents.
The ‘I Am Here’ project has been a way for
residents to respond to the changes in the
area and L&Q’s support of these projects,
combined with a refusal to grant permission
to filmmakers and TV shows seeking to use
stereotypical ‘crappy housing estates’ as film
locations, is a farsighted example of the positive
uses of cultural approaches to regeneration.
L&Q have also utilised local creative skills to
produce films about the regeneration, and the
resident involvement in shaping it, for use in
communication and publicity materials.
There is also a community arts studio on the
estate where, amongst other activities, local
film viewings are held. These cultural events
and artworks have resulted in positive PR for
the area as they celebrate the history of the
area and look forward to its future, for example
during the Open House Event.
Other community engagement activities have
included: the Court Yard Improvement Project,
the table tennis project, parties and seasonal
celebrations, Over 50’s Group, Knit and Natter
Project, and a Demolition Party.
Onlookers no longer stand unchallenged, as their gaze
is met and returned by a multitude of faces consisting
of current and former residents on the estate. Thus, the
project literally humanises a piece of architecture on its
final journey
Resident artist
48
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
6.6 Employment and financial inclusion
Helping residents
L&Q staff have been employed to actively work with
residents in need of support regarding employment
and financial inclusion. This work has been
developed in recognition of the impact of the current
financial climate, and the welfare reform policies
of the coalition government on social housing
tenants. During the regeneration phase there has
been rigorous tenant needs assessment work in all
locations. Staff have worked closely with residents to
ensure that they understand the cost of their housing
(eg on Aylesbury) and have offered additional
support with budgeting as part of the package.
L&Q’s investment in initiatives and partnerships
which aim to impact unemployment amongst
residents has been strong on many schemes. On
Silwood, Forest Homes, Haggerston, Aylesbury and
Lewisham Park developments, there are examples
of the ‘offer’ including training and employment for
local residents. These include:
• Providing direct funding for a Benefits Case Worker
and Worklessness Co-ordinator (Aylesbury);
• Worklessness – two staff posts to tackle
•
•
•
•
unemployment and training (two-year funding).
The key groups were identified as those who need
additional support, including single parents, those
with mental health issues and older unemployed
(25 plus). This work includes: residents assisted
with Jobsearch, one-to-one support with CVs/
applications/interview techniques, Short Adult
Learning Courses, SE17 Working Launch event
and Job Fair Group Employability workshops;
Facilitating construction and related skills training
on all schemes for local residents;
Assisting business start-up and support schemes
on Haggerston and Beaumont. Construction
Programme benefiting 30 students from local
schools and a referral process for 20 work-ready
residents;
Providing funding or facilitating community-learning
provision on five schemes, often with accreditation
opportunities; and
Carrying out in-depth preparatory work with all
general needs tenants in advance of national
welfare reforms.
L&Q has also supported high levels of ofteninnovative youth work in four locations through
funding and partnership-working, eg countering
gang crime on Beaumont. At Aylesbury, through the
Silwood was one of the worst estates in London and that
L&Q scheme has been about doing things that make
sense in terms of trying to create opportunities for
people to be able to develop skills and get employment.
Their apprentices worked in construction on a community
centre. All of that makes sense. It’s great.
Mayor of Lewisham
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
49
L&Q’s impact
Assessing the seven areas
CASE STUDY
fully realise the extent of L&Q’s community
investment in the area.
AYLESBURY
Working with local partners to deliver
local initiatives that are responsive to
identified needs
There is strong and effective partnership
working on the Aylesbury at a local level. L&Q’s
approach has been to work with established
local organisations in the area in order to
support residents. Key partners include
Southwark Council and the Creation Trust, a
community development trust with a voluntary
board made up of local residents
and stakeholders.
L&Q helps to fund the Creation Trust and
some of its support is targeted at specific
areas of work, which have been worklessness
and youth. For example, it funded a six-week
summer youth programme on the estate in
2012. L&Q has also supported Tykes Corner,
a parents and toddlers group, by refurbishing
its premises and paying for a part-time member
of staff.
As a result, L&Q has fostered very positive
relationships with those involved. This is
valuable in that it supports grassroots level
organisations that are already well established
and networked in the area, and staff stressed
the importance of this “collaborative approach”.
Adversely, it may mean that residents do not
50
L&Q has committed £1.35 million of ‘added
value’ funding in regard to the social and
economic development on the Aylesbury
estate. The majority of the funding has been
directed via the Creation Trust. To date,
approximately £850,000 has been committed
to deliver various programmes and staff posts
until 2015 covering areas such as employment,
regeneration, welfare reform and young people.
In addition, £2 million has been spent on the
infrastructure of the ‘resource centre’, which is
run and managed by Southwark Council.
SE17 Working is a new partnership to help
Aylesbury Estate residents into work by
removing barriers to finding work and linking
residents with employers. The scheme is
funded by L&Q, Southwark Council and the
Creation Trust. L&Q will also ensure that there
is training, apprenticeships, placements and
employment for local people during Phase 7 of
the Aylesbury development.
A recent needs assessment identified three
current priority groups: single parents,
people with mental health issues and older
unemployed people (aged 25+).
L&Q is currently funding the creation of three
new posts that focus on work with older people
and operate in relation to financial inclusion and
welfare advice.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Creation Trust, L&Q have supported a range of youth
initiatives including a summer programme of events
and activities.
In Haggerston there has been partnership with
the Council and the Youth Offending Team on a
borough-wide project called ‘street law’, which was
designed to tackle gang activity. On Silwood there
has been and continzues to be extensive youth work
in the area, which is supported through partnership
with local agencies including a youth arts and film
project. Community engagement
6.7 Community engagement
Supporting cohesion
Community engagement is integral to much of
L&Q’s work and it is covered in several sections
of this report, including the discussions above
regarding engaging residents and local stakeholders
in decisions about the deployment of resources
at a neighbourhood level, and in the discussion
of resident involvement. L&Q’s engagement work
with local residents and wider communities through
resident forums and local boards are not merely
mechanisms for gathering opinions and feedback
or opportunities for influence. They are also spaces
for participative governance, which is integral to the
process of creating viable communities.
As L&Q are building developments for residents
with very disparate incomes (for example, residents
in receipt of benefits living alongside those who
are able to buy a home valued at £300,000+), as
well as diverse and changing ethnicities, matters of
community engagement are paramount if L&Q is to
create ‘mixed communities’ rather than merely mixed
tenure developments.
Community engagement work is important if L&Q
are to recognise their role in local stewardship
and governance. As developers, neighbourhood
managers and investors in communities, L&Q have
a strong stake in ensuring that neighbourhoods
are well managed and harmonious. It is important,
therefore, to recognise that social sustainability is
a joint responsibility. Some aspects of it these are
directly delivered by L&Q as a developer. Others
depend on the expertise and involvement of other
arms of the association working in partnership
with local stakeholders including the residents
themselves.
L&Q are beginning to develop good practice
in supporting and developing cohesion, for
example using cross-cultural and arts mediated
approaches to developing mixed communities
within neighbourhoods. The Silwood, Haggerston
and Beaumont developments offer examples of
L&Q supporting resident-led social and community
activities, which brings residents together, eg at
parties, celebrations, and street events. Of particular
note are:
• Beaumont (cohesion);
• Haggerston (arts and cultural); and
• Green Horizons and Forest Homes’
award-winning work.
Forest Homes won an Award for Safer
Neighbourhoods from the Chartered Institute of
Housing, having previously been seen as “a crime
generator” and “a no go area for police”. However,
the interviews conversely raised mixed messages
with regards to cohesion between residents
across different tenures in different schemes, with
interviewees commenting on the tendency to ‘live
alongside’28 rather than interact.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
51
52
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
07
Key
findings
These findings are the result of: profiling six neighbourhoods
and researching seven locations, 35 interviews (with staff and
residents), one local authority interview, six site visits and extensive
desk-based research. The analysis from these combined research
methods have so far revealed that L&Q has had a considerable
positive impact on the type and quality of homes provided in all of
the locations.
The research has evidenced that in all of the locations L&Q has
worked in partnership to improve the homes and their surrounding
environs. L&Q has also worked (usually in partnership) to meet
broader community aims and address, often longstanding, local
issues. L&Q’s contribution to this includes:
• Physical and community development resources;
• Co-ordination and procurement of development and community
activities; and
• Supplying dedicated (sometimes neighbourhood-based) staff to
liaise with residents, stakeholders and delivery partners during
and after regeneration.
The following sections draw from the available evidence detailed
in the profiles to refer back to the key research questions and in
doing so identify the overarching domains of L&Q impact across
these sites.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
53
Key findings
Assessing impact
Has the development lived up to the
expectations of residents and the
local authority?
“Because they are organisations that have a social
purpose, they have looked at doing things that are
more than simply building a house and making sure
you get your rent. They have sought to do more
than this. You don’t necessarily get that with private
developers” - Mayor of Lewisham
The research indicates that L&Q achieved, and in
some instances surpassed, its original ‘offer’ or
aims in all of the profiled areas with regard to supply
of homes and additional infrastructure, community
and resident benefits. However, this is difficult to
fully confirm as in some areas the original
offer document was not available for scrutiny.
Furthermore, in some areas, the aims, as opposed
to the deliverable objectives, were not sufficiently
clear at the scheme outset.
Whilst the processes involved in large scale
regeneration schemes are complex and often
contentious, L&Q has evidenced a strong
commitment to working closely with local residents
and stakeholders throughout the development
phases. In considering whether expectations
were met it is important to look at how they
were met and how residents were consulted and
enabled to express their views and input into
aspects such as scheme design.
The research revealed evidence of good practice
in relation to L&Q’s work regarding resident
involvement and voice. For example, investment in
arts and cultural activities and collaboration with
small arts initiatives has been valuable in mediating
negative public perceptions of the regeneration
process. In Haggerston, arts collaborations have
54
created opportunities for public debate, built
community interactivity and developed a sense
of place. To some extent this was made possible
through the presence of residents who worked
in the creative sector and were invested in the
neighbourhood. However, there is clearly scope
for considering the value of such approaches to
managing change and bringing residents together
simultaneously.
Resident views of the schemes have been varied
and have often changed over time. The research
heard from several L&Q tenants who had been
resident in the area prior to regeneration. They
spoke of initial scepticism about the developments
being proposed, particularly where this involved
a change in landlord from the local authority to
L&Q. However, area research also detailed the
consultation processes involved, and the efforts
made by development and management staff to
involve residents and to assist them in negotiating
these changes. Some of the residents interviewed
described how through this process their views
had changed and how were now positive about the
benefits of the regeneration for themselves and for
the area.
The building of relationships with local residents
and local groups and ‘hand holding’ through
the processes of consultation, development and
subsequent management have been critical. The
clarity about these processes and residents seeing
their ideas and involvement in decisions being
actualised has been critical. For example, one
resident on Aylesbury spoke proudly of how they
had insisted that the new build used typical London
yellow stock bricks.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
With regards to local authority views of the schemes,
within the timeframe of the research it was only
possible to conduct one local authority interview
(Lewisham), which took account of three of the
schemes.
The combined investment of regeneration-focused
funding, together with the staff development and
management resources, has undoubtedly improved
the physical living conditions across all of the
schemes for residents.
Has the development improved
the physical living conditions of
residents in terms of housing and
surroundings?
The changes are well illustrated by both the photo
archive (including before and after images) and by
residents’ own accounts. The research has also
found that the improvements brought about by
regeneration and refurbishment are being actively
maintained to a high level by both L&Q staff and
by residents. Residents interviewed commented
on various positive aspects including the quality
of architecture, the space, layout, security, and
reductions in ASB. The physical and environmental
changes are broadly reflected in the decreases in
indices of deprivation, where one of the four factors
is housing. However, understanding the full impacts
of these changes to residents in terms of their lived
experiences would warrant more in-depth research.
“Residents slowly realised that the staff were
genuine and what they were offering them was
therefore genuine too, rather than a sales pitch”
“On Forest Homes it was all about presence. Being
there, knocking on doors, doing over and above the
promise. Being there weekends. Removing burnt out
cars, fixing windows…” - L&Q staff
Across the researched regeneration areas, L&Q
will have built over 3,300 new homes of which
2409 are social rented units. Over £538 million
has been invested in homes by L&Q across five
of the locations (Forest Homes, Haggerston,
Silwood, Aylesbury and Lewisham Park). In
three of the studied locations L&Q contributed
community buildings/and or environ improvements
to developments, totalling £6 million of investment
(Beaumont, Aylesbury, Haggerston) and over
£5 million in commercial properties across two
schemes (Aylesbury and Haggerston).
Across the locations, L&Q generated additional
funds from external sources and therefore brought
considerable added value to the regeneration
areas. The qualitative interviews highlighted the
considerable investment of housing association staff
time across all of the developments.
Has a viable community been
created in the development?
One of the biggest impacts of L&Q’s regeneration
activities has been the changes in the mix and
variety of tenure30 within the schemes researched.
Some of these have radically changed from being
socially rented mono-tenure with small numbers
of leaseholders to a mixed tenure with high
percentages of private and shared ownership.
Alongside this, the researched schemes have
seen significant changes in population, specifically
population growth and changes in ethnic mix. It may
prove useful to further explore what these changes
mean in terms of the lives of those that remain in the
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
55
Key findings
Assessing impact
area. Furthermore, what these changes highlight is
the need for initiatives, resources and spaces that
enable social interaction and connections between
established and new residents, which also bridge
socio-demographic divides and income disparity.
It is important to understand and assess what the
kinds of changes the research has identified mean
in terms of the lived experiences of residents and,
crucially, it raises the question of whether the new
residents become an integral part of a transformed
local community who share a sense of place.
Alternatively, do residents simply live alongside
each other in “their own little bubble”? Therefore,
is it true to say that “the everyday sharing of public
space cannot be translated into more than passive
coexistence based on a level of public familiarity”31?
In Aylesbury, Haggerston and River Mill Park, L&Q
is working in areas where inner-city regeneration
and gentrification is having a significant impact on
the socio-demographics of neighbourhoods. These
impacts are challenging for social housing providers
who seek to ensure that community cohesion and
sustainability is carefully considered and resourced
in order to avoid creating ‘social tectonics’ (Butler
and Robson 2001, 2003).
Two of the research areas (Green Horizons and
Beaumont: Forest Homes) offer strong examples of
L&Q being a force for building a sense of inclusion
and cohesion between communities. Green
Horizons won a Chartered Institute of Housing
award for Innovative Community Safety. Schemes
like Aylesbury 1A and Haggerston provide an
opportunity to monitor how a sense of community
grows in a mixed tenure development over time.
When one Aylesbury resident was asked about
56
the scheme, his view was that the ‘old community’
now resides in the new scheme. However, the
question of how long-term Aylesbury residents
interact with newer residents and the extent to
which a sense of community grows remains to be
seen. On Beaumont there was the view that there
is some ‘separateness’ between different groups of
residents, whilst on Silwood staff were of the view
that residents tended to live in ‘different worlds’.
L&Q will undoubtedly continue to be a critical factor
in this dynamic and are in the position through their
development and management roles to facilitate
interactive communities.
To summarise, the research has found that
L&Q and social housing providers are shaping
neighbourhoods more widely and that in doing so
they have the ability and arguably the responsibility
for creating neighbourhoods where viable
communities can grow post-development. L&Q
need to more strategically build on their examples
of good neighbourhood management and
integration practices, imaginatively engaging
their increasingly diverse tenants and residents
both during and after development.
Is there any evidence to show that
individual or family well-being and life
chances have been enhanced as a
result of living in the development?
This question was the most difficult to answer within
the remit and scale of this research. Evidencing
improved well-being and life chances requires
longitudinal study on a level that engages with
individuals and groups. However, the census data,
enhanced through interviews, pointed to a number
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
of factors that are likely to impact on well-being and
life chances.
In two of the profiled locations (Beaumont: Forest
Homes and Silwood), population analysis and
interviews reveal that L&Q has had a positive impact
on crime. It is also likely that L&Q has contributed
to the decrease of some indicators of deprivation.
In Silwood, changes to levels of deprivation and
qualification could be due, in part, to population
movement. On the Beaumont Estate (Forest Homes)
L&Q took the lead on regenerating the area and, as
part of this, it spearheaded change, with targeted
action aimed at reducing levels of crime and ASB.
It is worth noting that where there is evidence of a
reduction in crime and deprivation in L&Q schemes,
interviews with ‘on the ground’ staff suggest that
this is in part due to the changes in population
(resulting from decanting), which have contributed
to the success (this is the case on Silwood and
Beaumont). However, it can also be attributed to
L&Q’s determination to tackle local ASB issues and
to work in partnership with local residents, police
and local authorities to do so. This change is then
embedded through the ongoing engagement and
responsiveness of management teams.
L&Q, as a large housing association and property
developer, has considerable resources at its disposal
at a time when many voluntary sector agencies
providing community level services are facing severe
financial difficulties. As a well-resourced regeneration
partner, L&Q often invests in local agencies as
part of its community investment strategy (with the
following priorities: strengthening communities;
positive futures for young people; increased
employability; and financial inclusion). The work on
the Aylesbury estate offers a positive illustration of
how local needs can be assessed and responded
to through strong collaborative partnerships (in this
instance with the Creation Trust). Through these
types of additional community-based initiatives it
is likely that there is impact on individual residents’
well-being and life chances.Resident involvement
Overarching findings
This research highlighted the unique position of
housing associations in London. It also found that
L&Q:
• Achieved their ‘offer’ in relation to homes,
infrastructure, community and residents benefits;
• Have had extensive impact in re-shaping
neighbourhoods;
• Need to record evidence better from the outset
– enabling benchmarking and full assessment of
resulting impacts;
• Ensured that staff from all teams focused on the
common goal of community benefit;
• Ned to make sure that a legacy plan is in place;
and
• Demonstrated embedded principles, informing
practice across the staff team.
The research indicates that L&Q achieved, and
in some instances surpassed, its original ‘offer’
or aims in all of the profiled areas with regard to
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
57
Key findings
Assessing impact
supply of homes and additional infrastructure,
community and resident benefits. However, this is
difficult to fully confirm as in some areas the original
‘offer document’ was not available for scrutiny.
Furthermore, in some areas the aims, as opposed to
the deliverable objectives, were not sufficiently clear
at the scheme outset.
Suggestions for future practice
Both the research process and the findings pointed
to opportunities for learning for L&Q’s future
practice. These were developed in an internal
document for L&Q. To summarise these, L&Q should
include learning in regard to:
• Regeneration performance management:
Some of the schemes studied have been
recognised as containing examples of imaginative,
innovative and rigorous practices. L&Q should
develop an explicit system of regeneration
scheme evaluation which records the impact of
neighbourhood development more systematically
and creates a consistent archive.
• Community investment performance
management: L&Q deploys considerable
resources to community organisations and provides
for community level activities. Particularly given
the climate of fiscal constraint, it is advisable to
target resources according to needs analysis and
set measurable performance indicators for those
receiving funds. This approach would give L&Q vital
information about the wider outcomes and impacts.
• L&Q in principle and practice: The research
revealed that, across all the regeneration schemes,
L&Q has strong organisational and principles,
58
which is translated into an action-oriented approach
to community level investment, support and
capacity building. This could be enhanced by more
integration between the development team and
other neighbourhood work in L&Q, thereby building
on the good practice identified in the research.
• Post-development housing management
practice: There are examples of good practice
whereby development staff have worked closely
with management staff to ‘hand over’ local
knowledge and transfer the strong relationships
built with residents to the post-development
stage. There are opportunities for increasing
opportunities for ‘mixing’ between new and more
recent residents here.
Further research
The research has contended with the difficulties of
trying to measure impact retrospectively. The current
economic and political climate makes it critically
important for social housing providers to be able
to evidence their unique practices and resulting
impacts, which can only be done through clearly
establishing aims and measurements as part of
the development process. Helen Cope described
“one of the weaknesses of the whole activity of the
sector” as not evidencing or tracking the wider social
and community impacts.
Full impact measurement would be informed
by setting population and development needsassessment baselines against which any changes
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
could then be clearly charted. Findings could
be implemented alongside further research (if
necessary). This might be most usefully done in a
situation with practical application where researchers
work with L&Q staff at the development stage of
a scheme. This would enable the assessment
framework to be further honed and used from the
outset, thereby providing benchmarking against
which to effectively measure impacts over time.
in order to make this possible and financially viable.
The future density and tenure mix of these London
locations had risen, is rising or is set to rise. This
is a context that is conducive to exploring housing
and community integration practices set against
the backdrop of a debate about how to negotiate a
balance between the social responsibilities and the
financial imperatives of the sector.
This report presents findings emerging from the
development of an impact assessment framework
and its application to date across the seven
L&Q regeneration developments. As discussed
earlier in this report, these should be read with an
understanding of the research methodology and the
predominately desk-based nature of this research.
It has not been possible to fully triangulate the
desk-based findings with extensive local qualitative
research given the scale of the project.
At present it is too early to say that creating
more ‘mixed communities’ has directly improved
the L&Q regenerated areas for individuals and
communities (in relation to social and economic
indicators). However, it is possible to state that
the combined drivers of L&Q staff commitment,
physical (eg design, infrastructure) and population
changes have undoubtedly contributed to significant
transformations in the profiled regeneration
schemes. Private sales/intermediate market rent and
shared ownership have provided the essential funds
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
59
Sidcup teenager Abidomi Godwin benefited from motorbike repairs and maintenance training. Through
L&Q Foundation support for projects such as this, we are helping our residents gain employment skills.
08 Appendices
Appendix 1
Neighbourhood impact indicator and
framework documents informing the
L&Q impact assessment framework
62
Appendix 2
Pilot impact assessment framework
64
Appendix 3
L&Q impact assessment table: Positive
outcomes, outputs and achievements
70
Appendix 4
Record of interviews
78
Appendix 5
Socio-demographic analysis
80
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
61
Appendix 1
Neighbourhood impact indicator and framework documents
informing the L&Q impact assessment framework
1) Creating Strong Communities: How to Measure
the Social Sustainability of New Housing
Developments, Parts 1 & 2, The Berkeley Group
in partnership with Social Life and the University
of Reading, 2013.
2) Design for Social Sustainability: a framework
for creating thriving new communities, Saffron
Woodcraft with Tricia Hackett and Lucia CaistorArendar, Partnership between the Young
Foundation, Future Communities and Homes
and Communities Agency, 2011.
3) Presentation on Urban Regeneration and Impact,
Assessment for Social Sustainability, Professor
John Glasson and Dr Graham Wood, CoDirectors, Impacts Assessment Unit (IAU), Oxford
Institute for Sustainable Development (OISD) and
Oxford Brookes University (UK), undated.
4) New Economics Foundation Well-Being
Indicators: http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/
neweconomics.org/files/Five_Ways_to_Wellbeing.pdf
6) The ambitions and challenges of SORI, Third
Sector Research Council Working Paper 49, Dr
Malin Arvidson, Professor Fergus Lyon, Professor
Stephen McKay and Dr Domenico Moro, 2010.
7) The Social Impact of Housing Providers, Daniel
Fujiwara for HACT, 2013.
8) Urban Regeneration and Impact Assessment
for Social Sustainability, Professor John
Glasson and Dr. Graham Wood, Co-Directors,
Impacts Assessment Unit (IAU), Oxford Institute
for Sustainable Development (OISD), Oxford
Brookes University (UK).
9) Delivering Great Places to Live: 20 questions
you need to answer, Building for Life,
Commission for Architecture and the Built
Environment (CABE) on behalf of the Building
for Life partnership, 2008.
10) Economic Impact Assessment, the
Berkeley Group with Ernst & Young LLP
(Ernst & Young), 2012.
5) HM Treasury Green Book – Annex 2
62
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
63
Appendix 2
Pilot impact assessment framework
L&Q regeneration area: Pilot impact assessment framework:
Scheme information
Information
Sources of information
Example-related frameworks
and indicators
Start and, where applicable, end
date of L&Q scheme. Identify
whether it’s on-going and if so,
what stage of development has
been reached
L&Q development and community
investment information and
publicity, including Business
Plan and Community Investment
Strategy
Creating Strong Communities, How
to Measure the Social Sustainability
of New Housing Developments,
Berkeley Group with Social Life and
the University of Reading
L&Q spreadsheets
Building for Life Guide (CABE)
Local authority area and
community plans
Berkeley Group Economic Impact
Assessment 2012
•
•
•
•
Approval
Development start
Property handover dates
Proportion of lets to voids/out of
charges to date
• Development phases
Interviews and telephone
discussions with staff stakeholders
Fit with L&Q strategic/business plan (local authority economic
and community investment strategy development/allocations staff) and
Intended beneficiaries of the L&Q
residents
scheme, eg former local authority
tenants and numbers, single young Site visit
people, young professionals etc.
Walking the patch
Whether L&Q was selected for this
scheme and if so why the proposal
was successful.
HM Green Book Guidance on
Regeneration
Whether it was part of a larger
regeneration framework or master
plan, eg a business corridor, nature
and extent of that and the key
partners that were involved.
• Fit of L&Q scheme with wider
frameworks and schemes
• What the development replaced,
or was integrated with
Size and extent of L&Q scheme:
• Homes improved or created and
their type, eg flats and tenure
64
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Information
Sources of information
Example-related frameworks
and indicators
• Changes to public realm
• Community facilities improved or
built
Community engagement plans and
structures
Investment level of L&Q and, if
known, of partners: fiscal, in kind
and other
What factors influenced the L&Q
scheme’s design
• Whether the design was specific
to this scheme;
• Fiscal and planning constraints;
• Resident consultation;
• Resident participation in
the design
Which construction company
carried out the scheme
• Estimated number of jobs
and training places created by
the build
Siting of L&Q units (developed and
‘under development’) and related
L&Q developments in relation to
surrounding SOA
L&Q development unit totals and
postcodes
N/A
SOA postcodes and boundaries
(census 2011)
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
65
Appendix 2
Pilot impact assessment framework
L&Q regeneration area: Pilot impact assessment framework:
Census SOA information
Information
Sources of information
Example-related frameworks
and indicators
Notable features of location
Desk-based research
N/A
Census data:
Creating Strong Communities, How
to Measure the Social Sustainability
of New Housing Developments,
Berkeley Group with Social Life and
the University of Reading
Siting
Historic development
Urban/suburban
Regeneration activity other than the
L&Q scheme
Socio-demographic picture of the
SOA 2001 and 2011:
Deprivation level
Population numbers
Population type:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Qualification levels
Socio-economic classification
Economic activity
Income levels
Health
Tenure
www.neighbourhoods.co.uk
House price data from
internet sites, eg:
www.ourproperty.co.uk
www.zoopla.co.uk
Crime stats:
www.homeoffice.gov.uk
www.police.uk
Business:
www.UKstastics.gov.uk
Putting the ‘S’ Word Back into
Sustainability, The Berkeley Group
with Oxford Brookes University,
Matrix for Assessing Social
Sustainability
HM Green Book Guidance on
Regeneration
No wider comparison located
Local authority economic
development statistics
No of units, voids and ‘out of
charge’ units – L&Q spreads
Housing density
Characteristics of population flow
Average number of L&Q residents
per household in the location (given
unit size)
House prices and rent levels
Crime rates
66
Units x average number = estimated
population
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Information
Sources of information
Business start-ups and closures
No of units, voids and ‘out of
charge’ units – L&Q spreads
• Indication of the extent to which
L&Q residents comprise the
SOA population in 2011
Notable features of location
Example-related frameworks
and indicators
Average number of L&Q residents
per household in the location (given
unit size)
Units x average number = estimated
population
Siting
Historic development
Urban/suburban
Regeneration activity other than the
L&Q scheme
L&Q regeneration area: Pilot impact assessment framework:
L&Q resident and neighbourhood information
Information
Sources of information
Example-related frameworks
and indicators
Current principal tenant:
L&Q management information
No wider comparison located
Other known features of the tenant
population, eg high levels of single
parents or young men
Neighbourhood management and
local authority staff interviews
No wider comparison located
Defects reported on homes in
the location as compared to an
external benchmark
L&Q management information
Source of external benchmarking
No wider comparison located
•
•
•
•
•
Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure
Benefit
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
67
Appendix 2
Pilot impact assessment framework
Information
Sources of information
Example-related frameworks
and indicators
ASB reporting rates in the location
over time as compared with crossAssociation rates
L&Q management information
HM Green Book – Annexe 2
L&Q management information
Re-locate sources that link
neighbourhood sustainability with
population flux
Types of ASB in the location
Community safety activity
undertaken by L&Q in the location
Turnover of tenants and
leaseholders in the location (from
handover date) as compared with
cross-association turnover rates
Current average property re-let
times in the location as compared
with cross-association figure
L&Q resident satisfaction levels
(over 3 years) as compared to
cross-association levels
Wider benchmark?
Local authority allocation L&Q
neighbourhood staff interviews
Resident interviews
L&Q resident satisfaction survey
results
GoWell Project (Scotland) –
Measurement of the impact of
regeneration schemes on well-being
Resident interviews
Overall satisfaction with housing
association
Satisfaction with repairs
Satisfaction with housing services
Homeowner satisfaction with
homes
Resident associations and local
governance groups in the location
Staff interviews
L&Q community investment
information
68
Urban Social Sustainability
Contributory Factors List by
Dempsey et al. as cited in
Creating Strong Communities
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
L&Q regeneration area: Pilot impact assessment framework
– Changes in the location
Information
Sources of information
Notable changes in SOA, as
compared with ward and city
changes
Census data: SOA, ward and City
level 2001 & 2011
L&Q scheme start and completion
dates
What can be inferred about who
has and has not benefited from
these changes
Extent to which L&Q residents are
Changes that could be inferred to
interrelate with L&Q scheme activity
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Deprivation level
Population numbers
Population type:
Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Qualification levels
Socio-economic classification
Economic activity
Income levels
• Estimated to comprise the SOA
• Population in 2001 and 2011?
L&Q principal tenant data
Example-related frameworks
and indicators
Putting the ‘S’ Word Back into
Sustainability, The Berkeley Group
with Oxford Brookes University,
Matrix for assessing social
sustainability
Social Sustainability in Practice:
Acting on the Four Dimensions
(Amenities and Infrastructure,
Social and Cultural Life, Voice and
Influence, Space to Grow) – from
Creating strong communities:
developing the framework
L&Q resident turnover and re-let
times
Health
•
•
•
•
•
Tenure
Housing density
Business start-ups and closures
Population flow
House prices and rent levels
Crime rates
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
69
Appendix 2
Pilot impact assessment framework
Information
Sources of information
Changes to amenities and
infrastructure within the SOA since
the commencement of the L&Q
development
SOA ‘notable features’ section of
this assessment
Non-L&Q regeneration schemes
Staff and stakeholder interviews
Amenities and services
Resident interviews
Map of location
Cultural innovations
Transport links
Map of location
Changes that can be directly
assigned to L&Q
Resident interviews
70
Staff and stakeholder interviews
Changes that L&Q contributed to
Site visit/walking the patch with
check list
Changes not involving L&Q
Assessment ‘scheme’ information
•
•
•
•
•
Urban Social Sustainability
Contributory Factors List by
Dempsey et al. as cited in Creating
Strong Communities
How to Measure the Social
Sustainability of New Housing
Developments, Berkeley Group
with Young Foundation and
University of Reading
Social Sustainability in Practice:
Acting on the Four Dimensions
(Amenities and Infrastructure,
Social and Cultural Life, Voice and
Influence, Space to Grow) – from
Creating strong communities:
developing the framework
Changes to amenities and
infrastructure in scheme location
since L&Q began developing
•
•
•
•
•
Example-related frameworks
and indicators
Urban Social Sustainability
Contributory Factors List by
Dempsey et al. as cited in Creating
Strong Communities
How to Measure the Social
Sustainability of New Housing
Developments, Berkeley Group
with Young Foundation and
University of Reading
Homes
Schools
Surgeries/health centres
Shops
Meeting spaces – buildings
and external space
Cultural innovations
Transport links
Business facilities
Parking
Walking and cycle routes
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Information
Sources of information
Resident satisfaction with their
home:
Resident interviews
L&Q neighbourhood staff interviews
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Internal layout
Quality of finishes
Security
Noise disturbance
Quality of build
Access to green space
Space
Rent levels and service charges
(where appropriate)
L&Q defect data
Amenities and infrastructure (as per
list above)
L&Q resident satisfaction surveys
Community concerns: ASB, crime,
access, voids, community mix
Economic opportunity: local
employers, financial inclusion
projects
The social impact of Housing
Providers, Daniel Fujiwara for
HACT, 2013
Social Sustainability in Practice:
Acting on the Four Dimensions
(Amenities and Infrastructure,
Social and Cultural Life, Voice and
Influence, Space to Grow) – from
Creating strong communities:
developing the framework
Resident interviews
Social and cultural life (mixing with
diverse neighbours, volunteering
opportunities community
groups, social groups, learning
opportunities)
GoWell Project (Scotland) –
Measurement of the impact of
Regeneration Schemes on Wellbeing
L&Q resident satisfaction surveys
Lived experience of the location
and, where at all possible, how this
compares with pre-development
lived experience.
Opportunities to influence L&Q
and location (eg resident networks,
links to L&Q staff, opportunities to
influence the development scheme)
Example-related frameworks
and indicators
L&Q neighbourhood management
staff interviews
Impact Assessment ‘Scheme
Information’
L&Q Community Investment
Information
L&Q ASB and community safety
data
L&Q void and re-let data
GoWell Project (Scotland) –
Measurement of the impact of
regeneration schemes on well-being
Creating Strong Communities, How
to Measure the Social Sustainability
of New Housing Developments,
Berkeley Group with Social Life and
the University of Reading
Building for Life Guide (CABE)
New Economics Foundation, Five
Ways to Well-being
Urban Social Sustainability
Contributory Factors List by
Dempsey et al. as cited in Creating
Strong Communities
Social Sustainability in Practice:
Acting on the Four Dimensions
(Amenities and Infrastructure,
Social and Cultural Life, Voice and
Influence, Space to Grow) – from
Creating strong communities:
developing the framework
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
71
Appendix 3
L&Q impact assessment table: Positive outcomes, outputs
and achievements
Achievement/output/outcome
Quotes/examples
Profiles that best evidence this
Amenities and infrastructure
Silwood was a wider regeneration
scheme and there is no breakdown
of the 120 million over all figures.
River Mill Park: never received
investment information
Over £6 million invested in
community buildings on three
schemes (Beaumont, Aylesbury/
Haggerston)
Over £5 million invested in
commercial properties across
two schemes (Aylesbury and
Haggerston)
Community investment = Silwood/
Haggerston/Aylesbury. No figures
for the other schemes. It will be an
underestimate
Retail investment occurred on
Beaumont and possibly Silwood but
no figures are available
The physical transformation of
the surrounding environs in four
locations (Beaumont, Silwood,
Lewisham Park, River Mill Park)
and the commencement of
transformation in two new locations
(Aylesbury/Haggerston)
Courtyards, squares, traffic
calming, cycle stores, homes with
gardens/patios/balconies, disabled
adaptations, landscaping, bringing
listed building back into use
(Beaumont)
Beaumont, River Mill Park,
Lewisham Park
“You could not wish for anything
else. I think we are in a nice place” RMP resident
All schemes evidence this –
standards were particularly clear
Contributing to public park
improvements in three areas (River
Mill Park, Beaumont, Haggerston)
Homes
The creation or refurbishment of
over 2000 homes built to, and
sometimes exceeding, quality
standards, eg Lifetime Homes,
Parker Morris Space Standards,
Secure by Design and Code Level
4 (energy efficiency) Standards
“My kids moved away and when
they came back they could not
believe the transformation” Beaumont resident
Later schemes are better examples,
as space was an issue in Silwood
and Beaumont
860 further new builds planned in
these locations
Over £400 million invested in
homes by L&Q across 4 of
the locations
72
Forest, Aylesbury, Haggerston and
Lewisham Park
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Achievement/output/outcome
Quotes/examples
Profiles that best evidence
Neighbourhood management
Evidence of a reduction in crime, ASB
and neighbourhood nuisance in two
high crime locations
“People now like to sit on the benches Beaumont and Silwood
or in the grass. It was not like that
before the regeneration.” – Lewisham
Park resident
“People no longer sleep in the
garages” - Lewisham Park resident
“We closed 37 crack houses” - L&Q
staff
“We don’t get as many call outs that
end now” – Lewisham Police
re Silwood
Strong and vigilant management over
time in all of the regeneration locations
“L&Q are a good landlord” - Silwood
resident
Beaumont, Silwood, Lewisham
Park and Haggerston
“You tell L&Q that something is wrong
and thy take care of it – they sort it
out.” – River Mill Park resident
Strong local care taking, concierge and
community presence
“L&Q keep the blocks clean” Aylesbury resident
In all locations but particularly
Lewisham Park and Beaumont
Lewisham Park and Beaumont
Closing 40+ crack houses in 2 schemes
Opportunities to influence
Delegating community and estate
management budgets to residents
across all locations. In some locations
these were substantial, eg £25,000
per year to the tenant-led forum in
Haggerston
Haggerston, estate champions
in all locations
Taking into account residents’ views in
the design of all schemes and adapting
the scheme phases accordingly
Silwood, Aylesbury, Lewisham
Park, River Mill Park
Imaginative and consistently high
levels of involving existing tenants
in regeneration across all schemes.
Opportunities range from providing
regular information through to
organising ‘demolition parties’
“Resident feedback has been key to
driving improvements on the project.
For example in Phase 1 a passive
ventilation scheme was employed
which residents were not happy with.
As a result, this has been changed for
future phases” - the Housing Forum
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
73
Appendix 3
L&Q impact assessment table: Positive outcomes, outputs
and achievements
Achievement/output/outcome
Quotes/examples
Profiles that best evidence this
Social and cultural
Providing three high spec
community centres in three
locations and upgrading
community space
Beaumont, Silwood, River Mill Park,
Aylesbury
Provision of four new, high spec
community facilities in three areas
(nursery and community centre)
Aylesbury, Haggerston, Silwood
Beaumont, Silwood, River Mill Park
Upgrading of seven existing
community spaces/provision
Cyber Centres, youth centres and
community rooms
The funding of many existing
community projects in regeneration
areas, eg Aylesbury, the Creation
Trust and Tykes Corner
Aylesbury, Haggerston, Beaumont
Employment and financial inclusion
Possible reduction in deprivation
of residents (less likely here to
be brought about by population
changes)
Silwood and Beaumont
Supporting high levels of
employability work in three
locations via funding and
partnership working
Haggerston, Beaumont and
Aylesbury
Facilitating construction and related
skills training on all schemes
Beaumont and Haggerston
Assisting business start-up and
support schemes on two schemes
Providing, funding or facilitating
community learning provision
on five schemes, often with
accreditation opportunities
Not Lewisham Park, little in River
Mill Park
In-depth work with all general
needs tenants on welfare reform
74
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Achievement/output/outcome
Quotes/examples
Profiles that best evidence this
Community engagement
Silwood, Haggerston, Aylesbury,
Beaumont
Supporting high levels of often
imaginative youth work in
four locations via funding and
partnership working, eg countering
gang crime
Given changes in population (rises
in the majority of locations – not
Beaumont or Lewisham Park), new
tenure mixes (varying extent in all
locations – drop in White British in
all and African Caribbean in all but
one) and local authority divides on
some estates. L&Q are beginning to
develop good practice in cohesion,
cross-cultural and arts-related work
“People all from all over the world
live here now” - River Mill Park
resident
Beaumont (cohesion) and
Haggerston (arts and cultural)
“People live in their own little
worlds” - L&Q staff
“People live in their own little
bubble” - L&Q resident
Supporting resident-led social and
community activity, eg parties,
celebrations, street events
Silwood, Haggerston, Beaumont
During regeneration – rigorous
tenant needs assessment work
In all locations
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
75
Appendix 3
L&Q impact assessment table: Positive outcomes, outputs
and achievements
Achievement/output/outcome
Quotes/examples
Profiles that best evidence this
Fair minded approach – giving
residents a good service and
expecting respect for homes and
locations in return
“We may own the property but to
our tenants it is home” - L&Q staff
Silwood, Haggerston, Aylesbury,
Beaumont
Action orientation – delivering on
offer promises and sometimes
exceeding them in 4 locations
“99% of L&Q staff give over 100%” - In Haggerston and Aylesbury this
L&Q resident and employee
has yet to be realised
L&Q principles and practice
“I heard the phrase ‘going the extra
mile’ three times”
Beaumont, Haggerston,
Lewisham Park
The deployment of large-scale
human resources in order to ensure
that regeneration schemes work,
eg up to 100 staff on particular
schemes
Ensuring a strong local presence in
the majority of schemes
“In Forest Homes it was all about
presence. Being there, knocking on
doors, doing over and above the
promise, being there weekends,
removing cars, fixing windows” L&Q staff
All schemes: Beaumont, Silwood
and Lewisham Park being strong
examples
Staff recognising the importance
of gaining the trust of local people
– going the extra mile – doing what
is needed – tailoring transfer and
lettings support
“We committed on day 1 to
tackle the issues. We did 100%
door knocking and sign ups in
properties” - L&Q staff
Lewisham Park, Silwood, Aylesbury,
Extensive partnership working,
often building on, and supporting
existing provision, eg over 90
organisations counted as being
partners across the six locations
and this will not represent all the
partnerships that exist.
76
Beaumont, Silwood, Haggerston,
Aylesbury
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
77
Appendix 4
Record of interviews
Scheme
Green Horizons
Forest Homes
Development
Staff/Staff
Involved at
Development
Phase
John Johannu
12.04.13
Richard Southall
10.04.13
Resident and
Community
Neighbourhood Investment
staff
Staff
Residents /
Other
N/A
N/A
Chris Newton
– Team Leader
22.04.13
Jehan
Weerasinghe
15.04.13
Silwood
Jan Mackey
27.03.13
Karen
Westbrook
Paul Nehra
(Cray Hub)
Matt Randle
(Garret Lane
Hub)
Sheryl Martin
(Stratford Hub)
24.04.13
Site Visit
1 resident/L&Q
employee
22.04.13
22.04.13
19.04.13
19.04.13
Estate
Champion
28.04.13
28.04.13
Also spoke with
residents during
site visit on
29.4.13
20.04.13
29th April and
spoke with
residents during
site visit
21.04.13
15.4.13 active
Aylesbury
resident for
40 years
15.4.13
Patricia
Okonkwa
Maria Middleton
River Mill
Caroline
Boguzas
10.04.13
Karen
Westbrook
Janet Easton
Lewisham Park
Caroline
Boguzas
10.04.13
Tamara Morris
Anne Winston
Nicholas Pyne
78
Haggerston
West
Lukman Ahmed
15.04.13
Aylesbury
Adam Simpson
15.04.13
Natalie James,
Melanie Banton
and Bianca
Callaghan
8.04.13
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Scheme
Scheme-wide
Development
Staff/Staff
Involved at
Development
Phase
Resident and
Community
Neighbourhood Investment
staff
Staff
Residents /
Other
Site Visit
Matthew Corbett
- Feb 2013
Mike
Donaldson’s
views at the first
L&Q meeting
Emma Brooker
and Leanne
Hollins - 02
March 2013
Oliver Jones Feb 2013
Lewisham
Schemes
Steve Bullock
– Mayor of
Lewisham
21.5.13
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
79
Appendix 5
Socio-demographic analysis
Table 3: Population changes in scheme LSOAs
Please note that the ward and borough data for River Mill Park is the same as for Lewisham Park.
Population and gender
Between 2001 and 2011, the overall population
of London increased by 14%, from 7.1 million to
8.1 million. All the study areas have experienced
population increases to differing degrees, except
for the LSOA number in which Forest Homes:
Beaumont Estate is located, which saw a -12.7%
drop, as the graph above shows. The highest
increases of population occurred in Lewisham in the
LSOA in which River Mill Park is located (+38.3%),
80
followed by the LSOA in which Haggerston West &
Kingsland is situated (+36.2 %). As handed over L&Q
properties only account for 10% to 35% of the total
households within the corresponding LSOAs (with
the exception of Silwood where the figure is approx
70% and Beaumont, where principal tenants account
for 97% of the LSOA), increases of population can
only partly be attributed to L&Q’s activity but these
developments are taking place in areas where there is
rapid population change in general.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
In terms of gender, apart from the LSOA in which
Silwood is located, which has experienced an
increase of its female population by 4.2%, the LSOAs
gender changes in the majority of the SOAs are in line
with the London trend (increase in proportionate male
population by 1%).
Ethnicity
The patterns of London’s changes in ethnicity
between 2001 and 2011 reflect the city’s hugely
diverse character, which is not captured sufficiently by
census categories that do not capture other variables
such as immigration status, labour market experience,
age and spatial distribution. However, given these
limitations we can identify a fall of almost 15% in
the proportion of the ‘White British’ population. This
overall trend could also be identified in all of the SOAs,
and was sharper in some areas (eg a 23% fall in River
Mill Park SOA, to a reduction of 6.5% in Silwood SOA
and 6.8% in the Haggerston West & Kingsland SOA).
The highest increase in terms of ethnicity occurred
among the group of ‘White Other’ (in London +4.3%).
This increase was less pronounced in the Beaumont
LSOA (+2.2%), the Green Horizons MSOA (+2.5%) and
the Lewisham Park LSOA (+2.5%), while other SOAs
experienced an increase of the group of ‘White Other’
that was far above the London average (eg River Mill
LSOA: +9.9%, Aylesbury1a LSOA: 9.6%, Haggerston
West & Kingsland LSOA: +7.1%). Most SOAs (apart
from the Silwood SOA) also saw a moderate decline
in the proportion of the group of ‘Black Caribbean’.
The highest divergences in terms of (proportionate)
increases versus decreases in population among
SOAs occurred within the group of ‘Black African’.
While there was an increase of this group in the
Beaumont LSOA (+3.4%), the Green Horizons MSOA
(+8.3%), Lewisham Park LSOA (+4.1%) and River Mill
Park LSOA (+1.4%), other SOAs have experienced
a decrease in this ethnic group (Silwood LSOA:
-8%, Aylesbury1a LSOA: -3.4%, Haggerston West &
Kingsland LSOA: -7%). Over the period 2001 to 2011,
Table 4: Ethnicity changes in London
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
81
Appendix 5
Socio-demographic analysis
Tenure
Across London, the percentage of people living in
council housing has dropped by 4.3% from 17.1%
in 2001 to 13.5% in 2011 and those who own their
home with a mortgage or loan has decreased by
6.5% from 33.5% to 27.1%. Instead, more people
are now renting privately (14.3% to 23.7%) and from
RSLs (from 9% to 10.6%). Some of these trends
have been more pronounced in the seven SOAs, as
the following graph illustrates:
Table 5: Changes in tenure
The biggest changes in tenure in the 7 SOAs
occurred in the social renting category. While
the proportion of people renting from the council
declined far above the London average (up to
-66% in Silwood LSOA) in the majority of SOAs
(except Green Horizons where changes are only
slightly above the London average), the percentage
of people renting from other RSLs has increased
much above London average in most SOAs (except
Aylesbury1a LSOA).
82
However, there has also been an above London
average rise in private renting in River Mill Park
LSOA, Aylesbury1a LSOA, Green Horizons MSOA
and Haggerston West & Kingsland LSOA. Only
Silwood LSOA shows almost the same level of
private renting in 2001 and 2011. Shared ownership
has only increased in River Mill Park LSOA and
Silwood LSOA. Interestingly, almost all SOAs and
London show a decline of home ownership with
a mortgage or loan as well as a decline in outright
ownership (except Aylesbury1a LSOA, where there
was a 2.4% increase in the latter).
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Economic activity
The biggest change in terms of economic activity
in London as well as in the seven SOAs has been
a decrease in the proportion of full-time and an
increase of the proportion of part-time employment.
Except in the Aylesbury 1a LSOA (+5.2%),
Haggerston West & Kingsland LSOA (+6.3%) and
Lewisham Park LSOA (+0.7%), which have seen an
increase in full-time employment (and hence a lower
increase of part-time employment), the remaining
SOAs are in line with the London trend.
Between 2001 and 2011, unemployment across
London has increased by 0.85%, which is also
reflected in most SOAs, including the Beaumont
LSOA, the Green Horizons LSOA and the Lewisham
Park LSOA. These increases are however only
marginally above the London average. A decrease
of unemployment was registered in the Haggerston
West & Kingsland LSOA, the Aylesbury1a LSOA and
the Silwood LSOA. Census data has also shown that
by 2011 there had been a decrease in retired people
living in London and the majority of the SOAs reflect
this (except the Silwood LSOA and the Beaumont
LSOA). Self-employed people without employees
have gone up in all SOAs (except Silwood), which is
reflective of the London picture. The following graph
illustrates these changes.
Table 6: Changes in economic activity
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
83
Appendix 5
Socio-demographic analysis
Qualifications
Qualification levels in the seven SOAs have
predominantly increased (and decreased) in line with
the London trend. This trend shows an increase of
Level 3 and Level 4 and above qualifications and
a decrease in the proportion of people with no
qualifications, and Level 1 and Level 2 qualifications.
In the Haggerston West & Kingsland LSOA, this
trend has been particularly marked (ie a strong
increase in Level 4 and above qualifications and a
big drop in people with no qualifications).
Table 7: Changes in qualification levels
84
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Occupations
The most striking change in terms of occupations
that has occurred in the seven SOAs (and across
London) is an increase in people in professional
occupations. This increased varied between 2.3%
in the Beaumont LSOA to 17.4% in the Haggerston
West & Kingsland LSOA. The London average lies in
between at 7.6% for ‘professionals’.
Table 8: Changes in occupations
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
85
Appendix 5
Socio-demographic analysis
Indices of deprivation
In line with the London trend over the period
2001 to 2011, the majority of SOAs experienced
a decrease of households in multiple deprivation;
that is, a reduction of households that state that
they are deprived in more than one dimension.
These dimensions30 include clearly defined
aspects regarding employment, education, health
and disability as well as housing. Only the Green
Horizons LSOA saw a slight increase in households
being deprived in all four dimensions.
There has however been an increase in households
whose census responses revealed that they are
deprived in one dimension. This was the case
in River Mill Park and the Haggerston West &
Kingsland LSOA. Additionally the total households
not recording any deprivation have decreased in the
River Mill Park LSOA. The general trend, however, is
a clear overall reduction of deprivation levels, which
is also reflective of the London picture.
Table 9: Changes in deprivation levels
Whilst it is positive to report that there have been
decreases in deprivation, it is challenging to identify
any direct correlation between L&Q’s impact on
the Indices of Deprivation at a neighbourhood
level due to several factors. Firstly, that separating
L&Q’s impact from that of an overall regeneration
partnership is retrospectively problematic and,
86
secondly that there have been socio-demographic
changes with newer wealthier homeowners moving
into mixed-tenure developments. However, there is
statistical evidence of a reduction in deprivation of
residents on Silwood and Beaumont over and above
any changes which are likely here to be brought
about by population changes.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
87
Sidcup teenager Abidomi Godwin benefited from motorbike repairs and maintenance training. Through
L&Q Foundation support for projects such as this, we are helping our residents gain employment skills.
09 Bibliography
Atkinson, R. and Kintrea, K. (1998) Reconnecting Excluded
Communities: The Neighbourhood Impacts of Owner Occupation.
Scottish Homes research report 61 Edinburgh: Scottish Homes.
Atkinson, R. and Kintrea, K. (2000) Owner-occupation, social mix
and neighbourhood impacts, Policy and Politics, 28 (1) 93-108.
Atkinson, R. (1999) Discourses of partnership and empowerment
in contemporary British Urban Regeneration. Urban Studies, 36,
59-72.
Bailey, N. and Manzi, T. (2008) Developing and Sustaining Mixed
Tenure Housing Developments JRF Findings (available at http://
www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2295.pdf)
Bolt, G. Phillips, D. and Van Kempen, R. (2010) Housing Policy,
(De)segregation and Social Mixing: An International Perspective.
Housing Studies 25 (2) (available at http://www.tandfonline.com/
toc/chos20/25/2)
DCLG (2003) Sustainable Communities, Building for the Future.
Butler, T. and Robson, G. (2001) Social Capital, Gentrification
and Neighbourhood Change in London: A Comparison of Three
South London Neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, November 38 (12),
2145-2162.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) Distinction. A Critique of the Judgement of
Taste. London Routledge.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
89
Bibliography
Chevin, D. (2013) Social hearted, commercially minded: A report on tomorrow’s housing associations, The
Smith Institute.
Cope, H. (2012) Flexible and focused: the specialists at the heart of neighbourhoods: The role and value of
small housing associations in London, G320.
Davidson, M. and Lees, L. (2005) New-Build ‘Gentrification’ and London’s Riverside Renaissance.
Environment and Planning A, 37 (7), 1165-1190.
Davidson, M. (2010) Love Thy Neighbour? Interpreting social mixing in London’s gentrification frontiers,
Environment and Planning A, 42 (3), 524-544.
Dekker, K. and Van Kempen, R. (2004) Urban governance within the big cities policy. Cities, 21 (2), 109-117.
Gidley, B., Jayaweera, H. and Jensen, O. (2012) Diversity, Cohesion and Change in Two South London
Neighbourhoods’ Concordia Discors Final Report, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (Compas),
University of Oxford.
GLA (2011) The London Plan.
GLA (2011) The Revised London Housing Strategy.
Glass, R. (1963) London: Aspects of Change (London: University College London).
Jensen, O., Jyaweera, H. and Gidley, B. (2013) Diversity, Cohesion and Change in Two South London
neighbourhoods. Concordia Discours. ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, (Compass) University
of Oxford.
Kearns, A. (2003) Social capital, regeneration and urban policy, in: R. Imrie and M. Raco (Eds.) Urban
Renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy (Bristol: The Policy Press).
Kearns, A. and Mason, P. (2007) Mixed tenure communities and neighbourhood quality, Housing Studies, 22
(5), 661-691.
Kleinhans, R. (2004) Social implications of housing diversification in urban renewal: a review of recent
literature, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 19 (4), 367-390.
90
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Lees, L. (2003) Visions of “urban renaissance”: the Urban Task Force Report and the Urban White Paper,
in: R. Imrie and M. Raco (Eds.) Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy, pp. 61-82
(Bristol: Policy Press).
Lupton, R. and Tunstall, R. (2008) Neighbourhood regeneration through mixed communities: a ‘social justice
dilemma’? Journal of Education Policy, March, 23 (2), 105-117
Marcuse, P. (1986) Abandonment, gentrification and displacement: the linkages in New York City, in: N. Smith
and P. Williams (Eds.) Gentrification of the City, pp. 153-177. London: Unwin Hyman.
Mohan, J. (1999) A United Kingdom? London: Arnold.
Mullins, D. and Murie, A. (2006) Housing Policy in the UK. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mullins, D. (2010) Housing Associations. Third Sector Research Paper, Working Paper 16.
Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Bringing Britain Together: A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal.
London: SEU.
Putnam, R. D. (2001) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Smith, N. (1996) The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. London and New York:
Routledge.
Smith, N. (2002) New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy. Antipode 34 (3), 427450.
Smith, N. and Williams, P. (1986) Alternatives to orthodoxy: invitation to a debate. In
Gentrification of the City, ed. N. Smith and P. Williams. London: Allen & Unwin, pp. 1-10.
Swaroop, S. and Morenoff, J. D. (2006) Building Community: The Neighborhood Context of Social
Organization Social Forces, March, 84 (3), 1665-1695. Available at http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/social_forces
Smyth, S. (2013) The privatization of council housing: Stock transfer and the struggle for accountable housing.
Critical Social Policy, February, 33 (1), 37-56.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
91
Bibliography
Wassenberg, F. (2004) Editorial: Large social housing estates: From stigma to demolition? Journal of Housing
and the Built Environment, 19, 223-232.
Watt, P. (2010) Social housing and regeneration in London, in: Regenerating London: Governance,
Sustainability and Community in a Global City, in: R. Imrie, L. Lees and M. Raco (Eds.). Routledge, London
and New York.
Wilkes, V. and Mullins, D. (2012) Community Investment by Social Housing Organisations: Measuring the
Impact, HACT in partnership with TSRC.
Vervotec, S. (2007) New Complexities of Cohesion in Britain: Super-Diversity, Transnationalism and CivilIntegration, Commission on Integration and Cohesion, CLG Publications.
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadMetadataDownloadPDF.
do?downloadId=31839
http://www.nao.org.uk/report/financial-viability-of-the-social-housing-sector-introducing-the-affordablehomes-programme/
http://www.londonWell-beingconference.co.uk/
http://www.lqgroup.org.uk/_assets/files/flexible-and-focused_fullrpt.pdf
http://www.theairportgroup.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Airport_Group_Giving_Neighbourhoods_a_
Flying_Start_2009_FINAL.pdf
http://g15london.org.uk/double-the-impact/
92
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
04 Introduction
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
93
Sidcup teenager Abidomi Godwin benefited from motorbike repairs and maintenance training. Through
L&Q Foundation support for projects such as this, we are helping our residents gain employment skills.
10 Footnotes
1 See www.gold.uc.uk/cucr
2 See Appendix 2.
3 The work focused on seven schemes but in fact fully profiled
six. These are: Beaumont Estate: Forest Homes, Silwood, River
Mill, Lewisham Park, Haggerston and Aylesbury 1a. Green
Horizons was researched but not profiled. See table 2 for more
information.
4 The L&Q Foundation was established in 2011 to help
communities. It improves people’s chances in life by creating
opportunities and developing innovative projects that tackle
disadvantage and social inequality. The work of the Foundation
is fundamental to our vision of improving resident satisfaction
and creating places where people want to live. http://www.
lqgroup.org.uk/services-for-residents/about-landq/investing-inneighbourhoods/the-lq-foundation/
5 CUCR sits within the Sociology Department at Goldsmiths
College, University of London. For more information see http://
www.gold.ac.uk/cucr/
6 http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2013/03/housing-london-cost
7 http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/property/article3730944.ece
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
95
Footnotes
8 In 2012, London had 366,613 households on housing waiting lists, an increase of 73 per cent over
the previous 10 years. In some boroughs, such as Newham, the housing waiting list comprised 35
per cent of all households. First-time buyers in London face paying 20 per cent more of their salary
on mortgage payments than buyers in the rest of the UK http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/affordablehousing-london-summary.pdf
9 The underpinning logic of redevelopment in the name of improving neighbourhood outcomes is a
causal argument of ‘where you live affects your life chances’ so therefore improving neighbourhoods
improves life chances. This has perhaps inadvertently given weight to the idea that ‘poor people are
bad for each other’ (Lupton 2008: 114). While critics of what is known as the ‘cottage industry of
neighbourhood effects’ influences literature, Sampson (2002) and Slater (2013) argue that the social
problems these approaches seek to alleviate are not simply the result of ‘neighbourhood effects’ but
rather other structural inequalities which give rise to differential life chances and produce inequality, ie
the reverse argument: ‘Your life chances affect where you live’.
10 Several researchers have found the discourse regarding social mixing and the ways that such
approaches are evaluated problematic (see Atkinson and Kintrea 2000, Smith 1996, 2002, Bond et
al. 2011).
11 Offshore buyers are a driving force in London’s housing market due to an attractive taxation system
as ordinary “professional middle classes are being priced out of ‘super gentrified’ neighbourhoods”
(Butler and Lees 2006) as the pro-active spatial disengagement of the affluent results in emerging
forms of self-segregation and social insulation from what are perceived to be ‘risky’ urban
environments. Rather than their social capital contributing to social and cultural improvements, this
research finds that the ‘super rich’ are largely distanced from the mundane flow of social life in urban
areas and tend to be withdrawn from the civic life of cities more generally. This emerging ‘Alpha
Territory’ is the subject of a current ESRC funded research project at CUCR http://www.gold.ac.uk/
cucr/research/super-rich/
12 Sustainable communities can be defined as “places where people want to live and work, now
and in the future. They are places that meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents, are
sensitive to their environment, and contribute to a high quality of life. They are safe and inclusive, well
planned, built and run, and offer equality of opportunity and good services for all“ (2003 Sustainable
Communities Plan).
13 See Appendix 1 for source details
14 Whilst L&Q collect significant amounts of different types of information (tenant data, investment
96
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
data, management data, scheme development data etc), this was not consistently or centrally held and
was often not formatted in ways that yielded accessible information for review and analysis. Ascertaining
L&Q’s impact from this this data was also challenging where partnerships were involved and partners held
data (eg about specific local projects). A wealth of information resided with the staff closely involved in an
individual scheme. Interviews with staff and residents were vital to gleaning detail, checking against other
data sources, and better understanding the processes and impacts arising from regeneration in specific
neighbourhoods. However, the extent of these interviews was limited by the timescale and scope of the
research.
15 See Appendix 2 for the impact assessment framework
16 Commissioned by Berkeley Homes and conducted in partnership with Social Life and the University of
Reading (Prof Tim Dixon) Oct 2012.
17 L&Q Foundation Community investment Strategy 2012/15
18 Community Investment by Social Housing Organisations: Measuring the Impact, HACT in partnership with
TSRC, Vanessa Wilkes and David Mullins, 2012
19 See http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/22826 which finds that poverty is increasing
20 http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/ accessed on 2 May 2013
21 A Lower Layer Super Output Area (LSOA) has a minimum population of 1,000 and a maximum population
of 3,000 or a minimum number of households of 400 and a maximum number of households of 1,200. A
Medium Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) has a minimum population of 5,000 and a maximum population
of 15,000 or a minimum number of households of 2,000 and a maximum number of households of 6,000.
(http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/beginner-s-guide/census/super-output-areas-soas-/index.html accessed on 1 May 2013)
22 The six neighbourhood profiles are available on request from L&Q.
23 At the time of writing the research team did not have full investment figures for all schemes. This
was further complicated by the fact that the different sources of L&Q investment (eg L&Q grants,
revenue generated by property sales and funds received by L&Q from authorities and the Homes and
Communities Agency) were not clearly delineated for the majority of schemes.
24 Lifetime Homes, Parker Morris Space Standards, Secure by Design and Code Level 4 (energy efficiency)
Standards.
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
97
Footnotes
25 See individual profiles for more survey information.
26 At the time of writing it is proposed that the ground rent for this site (estimated to be between
£100,000 and £140,000 per annum) is set aside in perpetuity for the local board to spend as they
deem appropriate on local estate management and improvements.
27 See individual profiles for more survey information.
28 Gidley, B., Jayaweera, H. and Jensen, O. (2012) Diversity, Cohesion and Change in Two South
London Neighbourhoods’ Concordia Discors Final Report, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society
(Compas), University of Oxford.
29 Speaking at the London Well Being Conference 2013 ‘Creating Communities’. Helen Cope is a
former Chief Executive of the East Thames Group and an expert on housing and worklessness. For
more info see - http://www.londonWell-beingconference.co.uk/
30 With the exception of Lewisham Park, the only refurbished scheme.
31 Deprivation dimensions: The dimensions of deprivation used to classify households are indicators
based on the four selected household characteristics:
• Employment (any member of a household not a full-time student is either
unemployed or long-term sick)
• Education (no person in the household has at least Level 2 education,
and no person aged 16-18 is a full-time student)
• Health and disability (any person in the household has general health at
a ‘bad or very bad’ level or has a long term health problem), and
• Housing (household’s accommodation is ether overcrowded, with an occupancy
rating of -1 or less, or is in a shared dwelling, or has no central heating).
A household is classified as being deprived in none, or one to four of these dimensions
in any combination. Source: http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/
LeadMetadataDownloadPDF.do?downloadId=31839
98
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
Changing places, changing lives | Assessing the impact of housing association regeneration
99
One Kings Hall Mews I Lewisham I London SE13 5JQ
Tel: 0844 406 9000 I Fax: 0800 619 0213
L&Q is an exempt charity
www.lqgroup.org.uk
© L&Q Design Studio 2013. LQ0364