MIXED TENURE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
THE BACKGROUND: Government policy is that at least 30% of all new housing
developments are “affordable”. In fact many new developments exceed this figure
and, within
This policy automatically leads to
the question of mixed tenure (owner occupiers being on the same estate as those
in social housing). Does it work? I ask the question because current public
policy assumes mixed tenure estates, which have not been the norm in the past. But whilst
policy assumes this principle I have met many people, who have exposure to such
developments, and who say, baldly: “mixed tenure areas just do not work”. But,
I ask, what is the alternative? Do we build separate estates,
which is fine for the owner occupiers, but also leads to the run down
estates with major social problems, like many 1960s developments that we are
currently pulling down?
As I wrestled with these questions,
I was glad to come across a Joseph Rowntree
Foundation report, published this year, entitled – “Mixed tenure, twenty years
on – nothing out of the ordinary”. This report examines the experience of three
mixed tenure estates that are at least 20 years old. (They are in
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?:
-
A mixture of sizes of dwellings and types of tenures
enables kinship networks to be maintained. (Children can live near parents,
both parents can live close together following relationship breakdown) – this appears to have been the case in the three areas
studied.
-
Residents from different social backgrounds will mix and
interact, so reducing social tensions. In the studies there seemed to be little
tension but interaction was on a superficial level and renters and owners had
different social circles. Cross tenure social interaction only tended to arise
when the children mixed at school.
-
Although the areas were not problem
free they have escaped some of the problems found in areas where there is a
large concentration of social housing.
ISSUES THAT ARISE:
-
All three developments had
residents from a fairly similar background. As expected, the rich do not live
on estates and because there was vetting of tenants the poorest and those with
the greatest social problems were excluded.
-
House designs were similar
between social and owned properties on all estates and also intermingled. This
is not true in some newer developments.
-
Much resident satisfaction
came from the high quality of the physical environment and provision, from
early days, of a range of local services. (These were much greater than normal
in estates of this period) Thus it was part of a larger picture. Some of these
facilities have remained (use of cycle paths, walkways and quality play areas)
others have declined.
-
The vision
of local communities with their own shops, doctors, etc. has not survived or
were never built. But the question must be asked as to whether this is a
feature of mixed tenure or of changes in society generally?
-
These developments seem to
have been built at relatively low densities and have remained attractive both
to new renters and purchasers. (House prices have risen at least in line with
the rest of the area) Will this apply to new developments with the pressure to
build at higher densities? (Current planned building densities in the South
East Regeneration Areas are probably twice those of these estates)
-
With the introduction of
“right to buy” an increasing number of houses have moved from tenancy to owner
occupier, thus reducing the mix.
-
With the encouragement of
parental choice in education especially from the 1990s the owner occupiers were
more likely to exercise this right and so the schools have became more segregated
reducing the major benefit of children mixing.
-
It has been claimed that
owner occupiers and those who have risen up the social/economic ladder would
provide role models for others if they lived in the same neighbourhoods. There
is no evidence of this as there is so little social interaction.
-
There are tensions between
planners and developers who wish to make a profit. The developers may try to
build the private first, hide the social housing and minimise and delay the
building of community facilities. This must be resisted by the planners.
-
The current trend towards
“buy to let” may lead to a deterioration of an area.
-
The report mentions that land
was allocated for churches in all the estates but nowhere is mentioned what has
happened to them except a passing reference to one church centre that has
produced a monthly newsletter since the 1970s with a circulation of 3,500. It
currently is 24 pages with over 100 people contributing so presumably there is
church activity.
CONCLUSIONS
-
The
Britannia village experience is salutary. A wall between the housing
association part and the private which is now 60% buy to let! (Archdeacon
of West Ham)
On balance the experience of these estates is positive but expectations
need to be realistic and mixed tenure is unlikely to totally overcome poverty
and social exclusion.
-
The design and facilities of the estates play a key part
in their
success – good
quality building and environment, similar designs
and no segregation
of different tenures and with community
facilities built in from
the start. (In these examples it is
difficult to tell how
much it is design and facilities that have
contributed to their
success)
-
Because all the estates contained a limited social range
of residents there is no evidence as to how much the issues of extreme poverty
and anti social behaviour could be alleviated through mixed tenure.
-
“Right to buy”, “buy to let” and parental educational
choice have an adverse effect on the development of mixed communities by
reducing the mix, reducing community stability and segregating the children.
-
Mixed tenure is no protection from general social trends.
e.g. changing patterns of shopping.
