New Horizons
Research Programme
Impact Evaluation of the
Selected Demolition of Housing
Final Report
Jane Kettle
Steve Littlewood
Angela Maye-Banbury
CUDEM
Leeds Metropolitan University
February 2004
Contents
Acknowledgements
Page
1
Executive Summary
2
Section 1: Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing
5
Section 2: Methodology
9
Section 3: The Case Study Areas
13
Section 4: Resume of Literature Review and Other Works in Progress
20
Section 5: Thematic Review of the Evidence
 Demolition and the Community
 Decision-Making and Community Engagement
 A Learning Curve
23
25
35
42
Section 6: Conclusions & Recommendations
44
Section 7: Commentary to the Methodology
47
References
48
List of Tables & Figures
Figure 1: Profile of Tenants in Area B (2002)
Table 1: Community Safety and the Environment in Area B
18
37
Appendices
Appendix 1: List of Interviewees, Interview Schedules
Appendix 2: Literature Review
50
53
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
Acknowledgements
This research has been funded through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's
New Horizons Research Programme. Any views contained in the report are
those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Office. The research team
would like to thank all those who contributed to the research, in particular those
professionals and local residents who gave up their time to take part in
interviews.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
1
Executive Summary: Impact Evaluation of the Selected
Demolition of Housing
Jane Kettle, Stephen Littlewood and Angela Maye-Banbury, from the Centre for
Urban Development and Environmental Management (CUDEM) at Leeds
Metropolitan University, carried out this project. The research was a case study
evaluation of the impact of selected demolition of housing. It was a qualitative
study, which from which a number of key themes have emanated. These themes
are presented in the report alongside a narrative account of the way in which
demolition has impacted on communities living in the selected case study areas.
Expert testimonies were also collated and analysis from this data was integrated
into the commentary.
This qualitative study established a number of themes that are analysed in the
relation to the data collected. The themes that emerged from the research were
arranged under three broad categories:



Demolition and the community
Decision-making and community engagement
A learning curve
Key findings:
Demolition and the Community:

There appeared to be an acceptance among residents that in certain
circumstances, the time was right for demolition. Overall, this decision
was welcomed. However, the processes leading to that decision did not
always allow for a full consideration of alternatives. When the decision to
demolish was taken, there appeared to be a lack of robust planning of the
management of the area after the houses had been cleared. Speculative
attempts to regenerate the areas significantly undermined attempts to
capture the significant, rich social capital, which was consistently
manifested within the communities included in the analysis. In addition,
there appeared to be scope for a wider evaluation of different uses,
including providing for community spaces. However, the inherent tensions
between community benefit and financial stringency appeared to be in
competition, strongly supporting the view that further emphasis on
proactive and pragmatic approach is required to synergyse effectively
converging policy objectives, and the adoption of a more pragmatic
overview would be helpful.

The robustness or otherwise of existing communities appears to be
crucial to the success or failure of schemes. This would suggest that a
measure for “auditing” community might be appropriate. Sustainable
communities did not appear to be dependent on the fabric of the dwelling,
although respondents felt that more intensive tenancy management might
engender more cohesive communities. There was clear evidence of a
concept, or spirit of community at a very local level, and people of all ages
associated themselves with their area. They had an opinion on what was
good about their area, and had concerns about the image their area
presented to the outside world. This association appeared to have both
negative and positive impacts. Tapping into the positive, and fostering
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
2
engagement with the entire community, would appear to be a crucial part
of any strategic approach to demolition/reprovision, and the need to
acknowledge the existence of micro-communities is essential.

There was also clear evidence that demolition was sometimes used as a
means to solve housing management problems, such as serious antisocial behaviour. The research team felt that there was nothing
inherently wrong in applying that approach but that it would be good
practice to be candid with local residents that this was the intention. In
this context, there is evidence from the research that housing policy
makers significantly underestimate the capacity of communities to
develop the necessary frame of reference required to comprehend the
rationale for demolition. This therefore places a responsibility on social
housing providers to reach a consensus regarding their motives for
demolition, to communicate these motives to residents and, where
appropriate consult communities on the matter in a meaningful way. The
links between unsustainable housing and unsustainable communities
were real, and demolition should be seen as one of a raft of tools to tackle
the latter.

The role of children and young people in the maintenance of communities
should not be underplayed. However children’s and young people’s
perceptions were that they were one of the most neglected and
discounted sections of the community, and the responses from parents
involved in the research reflected this exclusion. What did emerge was
the enormous potential they had to make an impact on the shape of
housing policy at a local level. A key lesson from the research was that
housing professionals need to develop skills associated with working with
children and young people, and/or their representatives. There is a huge
potential for the youth service/residents involvement services to engage
more fully with the process of demolition. This social capital, the evidence
suggests from the case studies, is not being maximised.
Decision-Making and Community Engagement:

Evidence suggested that people wanted to be involved, or at least
informed about developments that are going to affect their everyday lives.
However, participation or involvement needed to be voluntary. Reported
feelings of disillusionment may have been counteracted by the
implementation of
intensive/innovative community engagement
techniques, which passed over responsibility more effectively to
residents. The role of elected members could also have a major impact
on the success of community engagement. There is a range of skills
required by elected members as well as practitioners if they are to play a
positive and active role in the reshaping of localities through demolition.

The bureaucratic processes that are of necessity associated with
demolition and reprovisioning were seen to hinder the process. Local
accountability and transparency of decisions appeared to be crucial. The
relationship between practitioners and residents was central to the
success or otherwise of housing initiatives and there was strong support
for locally based housing staff, who were seen as a point of contact even
if they could not answer all the questions. There appeared to be some
suspicion of more distant landlord.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
3

Certainly there was a positive response to the development of the Arms
Length Management Organisations (ALMOS) being established in Leeds
at the time of the research. . A more community focused housing
organisation may approach demolition issues in a more sensitive way.
This approach to the management of strategic issues appears to be in
direct contrast to calls (from residents) for more stringent and “traditional”
approaches to tenancy management with more of an emphasis on
enforcement. This has significance for the way housing managers are
trained and developed and for the way in which the service is
constructed.
A Learning Curve:

From the inception of the research right through to arranging the expert
witnesses, the research team had not considered that issues to do with
skills development/skills shortages among housing practitioners would
play a significant part in our analysis. However it became clear as the
project progressed that interpersonal and organisational skill among staff
assumed primacy. The skills and knowledge required to facilitate major
life-changing decisions about people’s homes cannot be underplayed.
The most crucial stage in the management of the process of selected
demolition was in ensuring that the practitioners who will be engaged with
those communities are supported and equalled with the range of skills to
be able to do so effectively and sensitively.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
4
1.0: Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing
1.1 Introduction, context and aims of the research
The principal aim of this research was to identify sustainable strategies to
promote the involvement of communities in neighbourhood regeneration,
specifically in schemes where clearance and demolition of housing was an
option.
This research was carried out under the “New Horizons” programme, within the
theme “urban living: the provision of decent homes, good quality services and a
more environmentally sustainable way of life”. The Government’s announcement,
in April 2002, of the establishment of pathfinder projects to tackle housing
abandonment, reflected the timeliness of this project. Although Leeds was not
identified as a pathfinder area, there are significant areas where there is
identified low demand and certain local landlords have implemented a scheduled
programme of demolition.
This research investigated the spatial and social impact of selected demolition of
homes (across a variety of tenures) using local level examples. Utilising a
qualitative approach, the research drew on a range of community consultation
techniques including street interviews and focus groups. The project sought to
gather evidence of good practice in community involvement in the management
of selected demolition of housing in unpopular or declining areas. The project
linked with the objectives of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal,
and also with the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Housing Statement (RHS)
2002, which were to help regenerate communities and improve housing
conditions. Specifically, the RHS in its theme “Demand, Supply and
Sustainability” established a number of priorities for action. The development of
an understanding of the problem of changing demand at a detailed local level
was central to this theme.
The national context of this evaluation was that, while there were emergent
housing strategies for each of the English regions, there was no overarching
regional policy to create a balance between these. For example, the “Creating
Sustainable Communities: making it happen”, report, updating progress on
Communities Plans, published in August 2003, focused on £466m for projects in
England’s four growth areas. It remained silent, however, on the issue of
changing and sometimes collapsing housing markets in other part of the country.
It was a challenge to compare the situation in the midlands and the north with the
substance of the discussions in the government’s plans for growth in the
southeast that would involve the construction of “new communities”. Places like
Newham, and Canning Town in east London, for example, are close enough to
major financial centres such as Canary Wharf to enable mixed development in an
area where property values are likely to remain high. This implies that higher
income residents could bring a new affluence to an area by increasing demand
for local services. However where these connections do not exist, and where for
example, the transport infrastructure is unsound, low house prices offer little
scope of this type of cross subsidy and the social and economic recovery that it
implies. There are clear tensions within the Yorkshire and Humberside area
between the different regional strategies, in particular Regional Planning
Guidance (RPG) the Regional Economic Strategy (RES) and the emergent
Regional Housing Strategy (RHS) (CCRS/CUDEM, 2003).
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
5
1.2 Yorkshire and the Humber
Few would dispute the critical role that the provision of decent, affordable and
most significantly, sustainable residential accommodation plays in influencing
positively the character of a region. The tried and tested maxim that “success
breeds success” does seem to hold particular relevance for economic
regeneration. From a broad economic perspective, a thriving community where
its residents are living in high quality housing appropriate to their needs (where
local amenities are accessible if required) and which is sustainable (both
financially and physically) will undoubtedly contribute to an improvement in the
area. In broad terms, flourishing environments represent an appealing option to
both investors and residents who may be more inclined to move and remain
there. However, for many areas in the Yorkshire and Humberside region the
reality is to be found at the other end of the housing and economic spectrum. In a
number of these areas, located predominantly (but by no means exclusively) in
urban areas, the community is characterised by the more negative imagery of
decline and poverty, reflected in high levels of abandonment, protracted void
rates and increased fear of crime. In some cases, selected demolition of social
housing, notably in urban areas, is seen as being one way alongside other
measures to improve targeted estates comprising mainly social housing
dwellings.
Specifically, the Yorkshire and the Humber Regional Housing Board identified the
needs of market restructuring and the over supply of social housing as high
priorities. In a region with two Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders, (Hull and
South Yorkshire) as well high demand issues in North Yorkshire, there was also
the need for consideration of how to support areas in danger of future low
demand and how to deliver more limited interventions to arrest the situation
before it got worse (Inside Housing, 1.8.03 p 18).
1.3 Good practice in selected demolition?
There has been very little evaluation of what constitutes good practice in the
management of the process of demolition. There may be a number of reasons for
this. For example, some evidence suggests that those engaged in the delivery of
regeneration and renewal programmes (including local residents) may have not
had the learning and development opportunities to equip themselves with the
skills and knowledge to manage the process (ODPM, 2002). Indeed, one of the
emergent tasks of this research activity was to scrutinise this phenomenon. The
skills shortages identified within “The Learning Curve” have informed the themes
in this analysis. Another reason may be that demolition does not feature largely
in local debates about renewal. The Centre for Urban & Regional Studies
(CURS) at the University of Birmingham’s latest analysis of changing housing
markets in Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria (August 2003) highlighted the
need for intervention to tackle low demand outside of renewal pathfinders. By
contrast, our research was concerned with the assessment of the processes
leading to viewing demolition as an option for action, and how the demolition
process should be managed in an attempt to address low demand alongside
regeneration. In our analysis, therefore, the inherent assumption had been made
that policy makers had robustly considered alternatives to demolition before
carrying it out. The literature review provides further illumination on this issue and
in particular, suggests some criteria which may be applied in determining
whether demolition is a legitimate financial and social option. Our research
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
6
examined the issues leading to changing demand as well as those associated
with the sustainability debate and aimed to uncover a range of local attitudes,
feelings and presumptions that, in turn, would assist policy makers and
practitioners.
Demolition is arguably the most controversial aspect of any regeneration initiative
and is particularly complex:
“The issue of demolitions is one of the most complex and
sensitive. Growing numbers of empty homes are seen as a signal
of failure, which can prompt people to leave a
neighbourhood…where the empty homes are obsolete demolition
is likely to be the best answer, although there may be strong
resistance from residents who like their homes and are unwilling
to move. In other areas the properties may still be in sound
condition…The difficult choice is whether it is possible to restore
demand through policies of economic regeneration or whether to
accept that it is not realistic and demolish the properties so as to
prevent the negative effect of leaving streets of half-empty
properties.”
(Holmes, 2003 pp 29-30).
There is certainly a suggestion that the tone emerging from the professionals is
an emphasis on the “greatest happiness of the greatest number”. One of the
important questions we wanted to discover some answers to, was “where do you
draw the line between the wishes of individuals and the well being of
communities?” For example, the North Staffordshire’s pathfinder’s interim aims
and objectives proposed the demolition of 4000 surplus homes (Inside Housing
15.8.03). Significantly, Stoke on Trent City Council had a clearance plan of 300
units per year, (determined in the 1960s) but that diminished acutely in the
1980s. There maybe a suggestion that, if it had carried on then maybe the
current situation would not be so acute. Clearly, retrospective analyses of this
type hold limited value within the context of applied research such as this.
However, it does prompt some critical questions regarding the context of
demolition for public sector housing providers today. For example, has the
ideology surrounding the critique of old slum clearance policies masked the need
to be pragmatic about redundant or surplus stock? To what extent has the
residualisation of public sector housing become more acute as perceptions of
deprivation have shifted, when compared with 40 years ago? Although the
phenomenon of low demand today holds different connotations to the 1960s, it is
noteworthy how housing provision has become manipulated further to address
socio economic problems. For example, evidence from Leeds City Council
suggested that demolition was a means to removing known drug abusers from a
specific development. At the same time, strategies to involve young people in
the remodelling of their neighbourhood have resulted in significant decreases in
reported incidents of anti-social behaviour. The need to “micro-manage”
communities whilst still implementing national and regional objectives represents
a considerable challenge to housing policy makers today.
1. 4 Leeds
The research examined aspects of changing demand and the relationship
between this and decisions to demolish in areas of Leeds. Although Leeds has
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
7
radically transformed itself over recent years into an economically thriving city,
there is continuing social and economic polarisation, with long-standing class,
race and gender divides. Sometimes this is evident in areas with a history of
deprivation, such as Harehills, Chapeltown and Beeston Hill, but more often this
is occurring in new areas such as Halton Moor, Gipton and other outer estates
(Haughton and Williams, 1996). In some areas of Leeds, unemployment is as
high as 12%, and up to 60% of households in some neighbourhoods are in
receipt of benefit. Problems associated with deprived neighbourhoods, including
fear of crime, unemployment and social and environmental issues are, to a large
extent, out of the direct control of housing agencies. However, low demand is
increasing in a number of areas of Leeds and where demolition is the chosen
way forward there are many implications for housing organisations in the
management of the process from a variety of perspectives. Sheffield Hallam
University’s recent research into the changing nature of demand for housing
advocated a three-step approach: - auditing low demand, responding to low
demand and developing a strategy (Cole et al, 1999). Our research formed a key
part of the process of developing a strategy. The proposal was to develop a
model of best practice, which would in turn provide a tool-kit designed to preempt the types of problems that are emerging. But one of the overarching aims of
this research remained to gain insights into the microcosm of people engaged in
macro demolition initiatives.
1.5 Objectives of the research
The key objective of the study was to undertake an area-based impact evaluation
of the selected demolition of housing. This involved:

An examination of good practice in the strategic and procedural management
of demolition

An evaluation of the spatial impact of demolition within the context of the
application of alternative strategies

An evaluation of the service delivery impact for housing organisations

The development of a good practice “toolkit” to inform and assist housing
organisations in the management of low demand/demolition
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
8
2.0: Methodology
2.1: Context
This research was carried out by CUDEM, initially working in partnership with
Leeds Federated Housing Association (LFHA) and Leeds Community
Partnership Homes Ltd. (LCPH) (see also the commentary to the methodology at
Section seven). The methodology used to carry out this project deployed a
range of techniques. Some of the techniques used were standard approaches,
but others offered the opportunity to adopt a novel approach to housing-related
research. The literature review, for example, represented an academic
assessment, while the case studies adopted a less formal narrative. This
element, and indeed the main focus of the project was essentially qualitative, and
sought to elicit feelings and opinions from local people whose lives could be
affected by demolitions. It made no attempt to give any sort of “weighting” of
deprivation. The case study areas were selected in discussion with Leeds City
Council and were chosen for their contrasting characteristics. The methodology
took the following form:
2.2: Stage one
A series of initial, qualitative discussions took place with partners, stakeholders
and other agencies to gather baseline information on their activities and work
undertaken to date in specific areas of Leeds. Discussions took place with key
players from Leeds at the project inception as to which areas the case studies
would be focused on. It was decided that three contrasting locations would be
investigated, to provide as wide a range of situations as possible. This was done
taking into full account the Leeds Model of Area Demand (MAD), an assessment
tool for determining the robustness or otherwise, of an area. These three
selected areas were all later classified as potential bid areas in the expression of
interest submitted for the Neighbourhood Management Pathfinders Round 2
(LCC 2003).
The areas that were selected for an in-depth, qualitative study have been
anonymised and are referred to throughout as Areas A, B and C:



Area A (South Leeds)
Area B (West Leeds)
Area C (North East Leeds)
In addition it was possible to draw on related research that took place at the
same time in Area D (East Leeds)
The case study areas are described in Section 3.
2.3: Stage two
This part of the research involved a desk-based review of available data on
conditions and information in the area. This was presented as a full literature
review with sections addressing low demand and regeneration, the rationale for
selected demolition and the regional dimension for selected demolition. This is
attached as Appendix 2 and is reviewed in briefly in Section 4.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
9
2.4: Stage three
Following the completion of the literature review, expert testimony interviews
were held with a range of key individuals and external agencies to develop
issues arising from the baseline survey, understand commitments, and to begin
to identify key themes. These key themes are discussed in Section 5.
Respondents were selected on the basis either of their professional involvement
or their association with one or more of the case study areas. Interviews were
held either face-to-face or by telephone and took a semi-structured format.
Details of interviewees are at Appendix one
The interviews explored four key themes:

General comments were invited on the case study area they were most
familiar with, including particular characteristics, and where strategic
policy may have impacted on local level issues

General assessments of the impact of changing demand for housing on
the delivery of regeneration programmes

The case for selected demolition and how the decision-making process
takes into account the engagement of local communities

Experience of the effect of demolition initiatives on the local and broader
infrastructure.
The topic guides/interview schedules are also attached at Appendix 1
2.5: Stage four
Area case studies were carried out to gain qualitative information on responses
to local problems, and to explore options for action to manage space caused by
demolition. This was done using a range of consultation techniques including:

An evaluation of a community planning process to report on the process
used to inform future community action planning practice (Area D).

The use of focus groups to ascertain what local people and key staff felt
were issues and opportunities within the areas both before and after
demolition, where applicable.

Street interviews were used to introduce or raise awareness of options
relating to demolition and to give residents the opportunity to respond and
comment on issues of concern.

The application of visioning techniques was used as a method through
which members of local communities could articulate their attitudes,
wants, needs and fears around the impact of selected demolition. This
was done in both the focus group sessions and in the street interviews.
It must be acknowledged that the research in Area D was not carried out as part
of the New Horizons Project. That research team, however, had been involved in
discussion and agreed to introduce the topic of demolition into a series of
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
10
community consultation held during spring and summer 2003. Six community
appraisal events were held and more than a hundred adults, and around the
same number of primary school children, attended these sessions. Through a
series of themed workshops, the residents of Area D were able to identify the
problems facing the community, to share their dreams for the area and set
priorities for the future regeneration of their homes, streets and neighbourhoods.
The groups were asked to consider the problems they perceived in their area, to
record their dreams for a better the area by using “Post-it” notes, maps and
photographs to focus on issues of concern and to record these on the flip charts.
A representative speaker from each group then presented the results of the initial
morning workshop sessions. The afternoons began with the groups looking to
identify preferred solutions to the problems raised and to suggest priorities in the
form of which issues should be addressed 'Now' (immediately, in the next few
months), 'Sooner' (within a year or so) and 'Later' (within 2-10 years).
For the street interviews and focus groups, it was acknowledged that there were
many tools and techniques: the plethora of participative methods is described
across the range of community development literature. The New Economics
Foundation and the UK Community Participation Network were, however,
particularly valuable sources of techniques that have been evaluated
(Participation Works, 1998). Useful examples have been the consultations led by
school children in the Preston Road NDC at Hull (www.citybuild.uk.com), and the
techniques implemented by organisations such as Action in Rural Sussex as part
of a strengthening social inclusion and individual empowerment programme
(http://www.srcc.org.uk/).
It was felt that by carrying out street interviews, it would be possible to interview
people who might otherwise not be reached. The research group were aware of
the importance of including views from members of the public who may not
participate in community based activities. This approach was crucial in engaging
large numbers of ‘hard to reach’ groups across the three case study areas.
However, some people proved unwilling to talk, and the time limited nature of this
approach restricted the amount of interaction.
Safety issues were also
significant. For these reasons, a voluntary community organisation located in
Area C, was used as a base for accessing a wide range of residents from that
estate. Individual interviews were carried out with people attending a coffee
morning and bingo session, young children up to ten years old taking part in a
craft group, and teenagers at a drop in session. Volunteers here showed great
interest in the project and also participated in the interviews. The central location
of the accommodation meant that it was possible to “capture” locals going about
their business. For Area B, access to residents was made through the
Neighbourhood Warden, a Community House was used as a base and the focus
group was made up of younger women attending a mother and toddler session.
The Area A interviews were undertaken in October and early November at sites
chosen for their number of footfalls as much as anything. This tended to mean
near shops, the post office, or the main pedestrian thoroughfare. The more
people passing, the more the interviewers would be able to approach individuals
according to age, gender, ethnicity and so on. Interviewees were not chosen on a
scientific basis, but attempts were made to get as good a cross section of the
available people as possible.
In terms of the schedule used for the street level interviews, it was agreed that an
“Appreciative Enquiry” approach would be the most appropriate technique to use,
drawing on the assumptions that:
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
11




In every situation (society, group, and community) there is something positive
that works
People need to bring those things that worked in the past to the future
So it is important to be clear about what is best about the past
The language that we use creates our reality: if the focus is on difficulties,
people become self-defeating. So it was important to establish a context in
which positive feelings could be articulated.
2.6: Data analysis
This rich qualitative data was intended to define issues by developing a data set
of what was working, what was positive and successful in the area, and to take
that forward, incorporating a discussion of demolition, to see what could be better
in the future, and to obtain some sense of how this could be done. Our approach
to undertaking this study was to use a variation of action research in which rich
data relating to local people’s feelings and behaviour could be collated and
analysed. It was felt to be particularly appropriate in this context where the focus
was on issues of process (decisions relating to demolition), and where analysis
of these could lead to some emergent conceptualising about what could happen
in practice and the reasons for this (Huxham, 2003). What did become obvious
was the inter-relatedness of the case studies. We regularly found “small world”
links between individuals and agencies, which informed our data analysis. In
finding the most appropriate ways to transform the data that was collected into a
robust conceptualisation of the problem, our aim was to “take the collection of
observations, anecdotes, impressions, documents and other symbolic
representations that seem depressingly mundane and common and reframe
them into something new” (Thomas, 1993 p 43). Our data analysis took the
following stages:

Each of the three researchers took responsibility for data collection in one
case study area. The material gathered was reviewed independently and
arranged into themes

The second stage involved discussions about whether and how each
theme should be included in the analysis.

The third stage involved agreeing themes and adding in concepts that
had derived from the literature review and subsequent updating.
The final report intended to generate concepts and theory to highlight the
practical issues facing people who have to develop, agree and implement policy
initiatives regarding selected demolition. The analysis is presented as a
narrative, drawing on rich qualitative data. An explanation of the three case
study areas sets the context, however the detailed analysis is arranged, in
section four, by theme. Where appropriate, the location of the case study area
has been noted, but the views and opinions of all respondents are anonymous.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
12
3.0 The Case Study Areas
This section provides a contextual description and discussion of the case study
areas.
3.1 Area A
Area A lies in the south of the city and consists of traditional 19th century housing,
predominantly private sector stock. The area is densely built and some
demolition is planned. Many of the properties are built in the back-to-back style
and the area has a transient population. It is one of the four priority
neighbourhood renewal areas in Leeds led by the Leeds Initiative (the Local
Strategic Partnership). The Neighbourhood Renewal Team has a SRB4
programme to the value of £7.8million, up to March 2005. With over 5500
households in the area, Area A lies within the 10% most deprived wards in the
city. The main issues associated with the area include anti-social behaviour and
drug misuse, poor educational attainment, environmental blight, poor image and
reputation along with some limited pockets of poor housing demand and some
abandonment. The area has had significant community consultation in the past
and has been the subject of targeted research.
This is an area of diversity. It is a place where a mixture of people live in an
assortment of housing types, owned by the local authority, housing associations,
registered social landlords and individual freeholders. It is not, in its main
character, an area of low demand, and it is not, for the most part, lacking in
facilities, transport links, or reasonably local employment opportunities. Despite
all of this, it is an area with a poor reputation, regarded as an undesirable place
to live by many outsiders and many established residents alike, as a place where
some demolition of houses has occurred and seems likely to carry on. It is also
regarded as a place where there are “no-go” areas for some people.
To walk around the area is to see some (mainly socially rented) 1970s houses
and maisonettes which are the result of earlier clearances, some sheltered
housing for the elderly, a couple of blocks of empty flats, large numbers of brick
terraces (some of which are back to backs). There are occasional streets where
the local authority and the housing associations are making improvements to
gardens, windows and doors, and substantial numbers of houses with metal
security grills over the doors and windows. Other properties have and broken
windows and doors, overgrown patches of front gardens, graffiti, and rubbish and
discarded household furniture around them. Some houses are completely or
partially boarded up, described by building workers in the neighbourhood as the
category ‘x’ (due for demolition) properties. Some open space has been created
or renovated, often with metal railings painted in bright colours, sometimes with
playground facilities in place, and invariably with considerable numbers of waste
objects or other vandalism despoiling them. Litter and larger waste is a feature of
a sizeable amount of public and private property and public space. The
impression is of an area not so much neglected, as fading away without the
sustenance of real strategic regeneration, consistency of ownership, pride and
care from the community, and as a result, perhaps not much future.
However, as if to give the lie to the assumption that perceptions gained from
simply viewing an area can delineate its likely success or otherwise as a viable
space for sustainable communities, the research showed that despite the
‘impressions’ recorded above, not all is lost in Area A. In the survey undertaken
by Cole et al, published in 2003, 71% of respondents there said that they were
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
13
satisfied with the area. It also has substantial potential in terms of its location,
near to the city centre and motorway and public transport infrastructure, and
close too to the substantial economic development initiative of Holbeck Urban
Village and other business and industrial estates. The Housing Partnership have
commissioned a study of the area, to provide the necessary ‘master plan’ or
strategic overview within which the various public house-owning stakeholders
might act. It is through this that those stakeholders might talk to the other housing
stakeholders - the residents. This master plan was progressing through a range
of considerations and consulting procedures as our study was taking place. In
response to the complexity of housing ownership in the area, and the designation
of the area for Neighbourhood Renewal and a Statutory Renewal Area, giving the
City Council additional powers to assist in regeneration, a Housing Partnership
was set up in 2002 with representation from Leeds City Council, Leeds
Federated Housing Association, Unity Housing association, Leeds South Homes
(ALMO) and Leeds Partnership Charitable Homes.
The Partnership developed a Housing Strategy that aspires to help make [the
area] a popular place to live. The strategy has the following aims:

To increase stability and reduce transience of households

To increase property values

To improve housing services to all sectors

To increase investment in the area

To improve the quality of housing and the environment for all local;
people

To maximise training and employment opportunities through regeneration

To retain a cultural mix and promote cohesion in the area
In addition, amongst a range of interlinked strands, the strategy has

A group repair scheme in an area of sustainable housing

Acquisition and demolition of obsolete housing, with the potential for
redevelopment for owner occupied housing and local facilities

Private rented sector accreditation Scheme with incentives for good
landlords to join the Scheme and maintain and improve their property,
and proactive enforcement of minimum statutory standards

Harmonisation of social landlords’ housing management policies and
practice – particularly relating to voids, letting and antisocial behaviour

Neighbourhood management – cooperative work with community police,
the multi agency response team and neighbourhood wardens to address
social and environmental issues.
Out of this strategy, amongst other things, the Partnership and the ALMO are
looking at a Public-Private finance Initiative (PPFI) bid to upgrade the housing.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
14
Perhaps unusually for areas with the characteristics of this one, low demand is
not so much the issue in the decline of the area, as high turnover in housing lets.
There are voids in some unpopular back-to-back houses and much of the
privately rented housing is in poor condition. Thus the imperative to introduce
decency standards has become a significant issue, with many of the social
landlords unwilling to risk the necessary investment in a generally poor area.
Nevertheless, the perception is of an area where the type of housing overall is
relatively popular, and previously deflated house values have recently seen a
movement upwards. This trend is in part attributed to speculators who believe
that high prices in the rest of Leeds, and the prospect of wholesale regeneration
of the area, will see prices continue to rise in the near future. However, the
symptoms of an area, rather than housing, in decline persist, with litter, graffiti,
street crime and antisocial behaviour cited by interviewees as endemic.
A ‘Masterplan’ or vision has been produced, under the aegis of the Housing
Partnership to examine the future of the area. In its draft form, which was
consulted upon before finalising, the focus was on a range of the underlying
principles and issues to be addressed and saw a likely need for some mix of
refurbishment/ remodelling/ more comprehensive demolition and new build
replacement housing.
However, since the initial draft, the ‘Vision’ is now nearing completion, and the
partnership has advised all owners/residents in one area of the intention to
acquire property and demolish. There seems to have been little opposition to this
in what is a small corner in very poor condition. In another area there has been
Partnership acceptance of the proposal to demolish property but at the time of
writing they had not yet consulted with residents and owners. The Partnership
are trying to draw up details of home loss and disturbance payments, etc, so as
to be in a better position to advise residents on the implications and options for
re-housing and/or compensation open to them.
A problem that has held back the progress of the Masterplan, and has in many
ways restricted its public airing, has been resistance by one or two local
councillors to the concept of more substantial demolition to free up a large
enough site to attract developer interest for new construction. For this reason the
‘Vision’ remains a draft for consultation, and most of the consultation still remains
outstanding.
In the meantime, a bid for ‘New Tools’ funding submitted to the Housing
Corporation in May 2003 (for acquisition and demolition of privately owned
property) is unlikely to get a decision until November or December. The
Neighbourhood Renewal Team will be consulting in February and March on an
overall land use framework for the area, incorporating input from the ‘Vision’, and
the consultants who are drawing up the Masterplan, or ‘Vision’, have recently
been appointed to carry out a quick exercise to draw up a conceptual framework
for the area north of Area A as input to the Land Use Framework, the proposed
Housing (Round 3) PPFI bid and other housing funding bids.
The Leeds South Homes ALMO has endorsed the proposed PPFI bid, which is to
include:

Upgrading to ‘decency plus’ standard of 77% of its stock in the case
study area (mostly 1960s and 1970s stock – mainly low rise but to
include three 17 storey multis and one 10 storey multi)
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
15

Demolition of four 10 storey multi storey blocks

Demolition of 302 street terraced properties (mainly back-to-backs)

Environmental improvements

50 new build homes
Finally, there are proposals being developed by Unipol and the universities for a
‘student village’ of up to 3,000 student bed spaces; still at a very early stage but
this could also be contentious.
3.2: Area B
The second case study area has not experienced interventions on the same
scale as Area A. To the residents of Area B, waiting to reap the benefits of
regeneration rather resembles ‘Waiting for Godot’. The estate embodies an
account, spanning some two decades, of raised community aspirations through
the vigorous promotion of regeneration initiatives and apparent community
consultation measures. One of these initiatives has been the use of selected
demolition. These aspirations, however, have not been realised. In reality, the
estate has been characterised by fractionalised attempts to address low demand
and improve the quality of life of the local residents, with minimal meaningful
community input. In particular, initiatives that purported to be bottom up and
therefore community driven were, in reality, officer and local councillor led. In
addition, there is evidence to suggest that community involvement has been
undermined by the implementation of top down approach, which both stifles
community innovation and perpetuates disillusionment amongst local residents.
Residents on the estate will require significant persuasion alongside palpable
evidence that their involvement will be reflected in a positive policy outcome in
the interests of the three distinct communities which live on the estate.
Demolition and maximising current vacant land, alongside meaningful long-term
strategies designed to improve the physical, social and economic environment on
an estate represents a genuine opportunity to regain the concept of community,
which, in recent years, has become subverted. Creating genuinely engaged
communities in improving the physical social, economic environment leads to the
promotion of ‘home’ in the spirit intended by housing policy makers and most
importantly, communities themselves. Despite this, there is a strong sense of
community pride in the area.
Area B is an area of mainly local authority, inter-war housing, interspersed with
newer housing association developments of family housing. This area, in the
west of Leeds, has around 4000 households and is not within the 10% of most
deprived wards. It has been targeted for regeneration under SRB round 5. It
suffers from problems associated with increased tenancy turnover and escalating
void rates. It is a sprawling estate of mainly houses and the new build housing
provided by two RSLs now bisects it. This demolition of local authority dwellings
took place in the early 1990s, to facilitate housing association redevelopments
and low cost home ownership. However, the property developer failed to
complete the scheme as intended due to ‘adverse market conditions’.
This new build replaced 1970s system built flats and maisonettes and has a
starkly contrasting appearance to the rest of the estate. Some of the local
authority properties have been sold under the right to buy, and private landlords
now own a number. Area B is flanked on one side by a main arterial route out of
Leeds city centre, and on another side by an area of open space and a stream.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
16
This area is viewed with suspicion and fear, as is a ginnel leading to the local
primary school, following the murder of a young woman by a paedophile. The
feeder road to the estate is a steep slope. Its main feature, a large 1930s
roadside inn had just closed when the research began, and was boarded up for
supposed demolition and conversion into flats. One side of this road contains
1930s owner occupied semi-detached properties, which are well maintained.
In early 1996, the Ridings Housing Association built around 80 dwellings on the
estate. To accommodate the scale of redevelopment, a significant number of
Leeds City Council properties were demolished. The scheme was part of a
broader housing development on the estate where another local housing
association (Leeds Federated Housing Association) also developed a number of
social housing dwellings at the same time. Leeds City Council still has a high
proportion of principally family type properties near the housing association
developments. In addition, the redeveloped land included low cost housing that
was developed by a private housebuilder. However, only around half of these
properties were built with the developer citing ‘adverse market conditions’ as the
reason for non-completion (Ridings Housing association, 2002a). There is also a
relatively small proportion of owner occupied properties on the estate.
A total of 1899 properties have been built on the estate. Leeds City Council is the
largest landlord and also has the cheapest rents out of all the three social
housing providers on the estate. The estate is part of a larger area that is a
designated priority neighbourhood within Leeds’ Single Regeneration Budget
Round 5. Resident turnover tends to be significantly less for local authority
tenants when compared to both of the housing associations. For example, the
average length of tenancy in 2002 was eight and a half years for local authority
properties but the equivalent figure for the Ridings Housing Association was two
and a half years. Leeds Federated Housing Association reported an even higher
degree of tenancy turnover where tenants left after two years. In addition,
although 71% of Ridings Housing association tenants are in receipt of housing
benefit (linked to high rents), the corresponding figure for local authority tenants
was just 37%. As Figure 1 below shows, tenants of the Ridings Housing
association properties are almost twice as likely than Leeds Federated Housing
Association to be both lone parent households and families and tenants of a
younger age group (59% compared to 31%). The proportion of tenants from
Black and minority ethnic households is slightly less than in Leeds Federated
Housing Association properties.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
17
Figure 1: Profile of Tenants in Area B (2002)
70%
59%
60%
48%
%
50%
40%
31%
26%
30%
20%
6%
10%
4%
0%
% Family Households
% of Lone Parents
% BME Tenants
Profile Category
Leeds Federated HA
The Ridings HA
Source (Ridings Housing Association, 2002b)
The estate has a neighbourhood warden, who is employed by the central
housing department rather than the ALMO. She reports problems of truancy and
anti-social behaviour, such as issues around the use of air rifles and tensions
between local youths and older residents. She sees her role as a visible
presence, the eyes and ears of the estate and a routing point for problems.
Walking through the estate itself reveals an image of decay. Many of the
properties have large gardens and these in the main are unkempt. There are a
lot of unsupervised dogs running around. Many of the windows display England
flags and there is an absence of BME residents. Car ownership is low. However,
there is little evidence of activity apart from youths, assumed to be truanting,
roaming round the estate. There are few facilities on the estate. The shops,
down the hill past the housing association development, are derelict, apart from a
late store/off-licence. The nearest supermarket is beyond a comfortable walking
distance. There is a facility in the middle of the estate, known as the Community
House. Owned by the West Leeds ALMO, this is available for community groups
and clubs.
3.3 Area C
Area three is an estate in North East Leeds and, compared with the other case
studies, this could be described as an area of inactivity. Area C is an estate of
mainly local authority housing, currently suffering management problems
although it is set in a popular area of expensive private housing. This estate is
bounded to the south by the Leeds outer ring road, to the east by a major road
out of the city, and to the north and west by a wooded area. There is evidence of
high levels of activity under the Right to Buy. It immediately adjacent to a
residential area, where, at the point of writing, there were over a dozen properties
for sale at more than £500,000 in local estate agencies.
Area C itself is part of three interlinked local authorities estates (although the
third one has a substantial proportion of homes owned a Housing Association)
which are bounded by one major road as well as the main Leeds outer ring road.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
18
With almost 3000 households in the area, Area C is not within the 10% most
deprived wards although it has attracted funding under SRB round 5. Indeed, it
lies in the wealthiest ward in Leeds, and among the most affluent areas of
housing in the country.
As part of the SRB initiative, the three estates were the subjects of a community
planning exercise, which was carried out in 2002. This took the form of a
‘Planning for Real’ exercise, the results of which were intended to guide the
development and implementation of projects to tackle deprivation and contribute
to the regeneration of the area (NIF 2002). None of the respondents living in this
area were able to explain how this would happen.
This area, although not experiencing extensive reductions in demand, has a
deteriorating image and reputation and significant problems with conflict between
young and older people living in close proximity to each other. The estate is
mainly made up of family housing, although there is a number of system built,
walk-up maisonettes. A number of these system-built flats had been demolished
in the early part of 2003 and the land affected was a building site during the
course of the research. The estate was built immediately after the Second World
War, and has a very open layout based on a horseshoe arrangement with wide
roads and significant pace between blocks of flats. Many of the houses, although
a significant proportion system built, have been sold under the Right to Buy. The
central focus of the estate is a street that contains a pub (not apparently used by
locals to a great extent but a thriving business) and a row of shops, all of which
were occupied. In this parade there is a community thrift shop and the community
centre, as well as a post office, and off licence and a fast food take away. The
retail outlets have strong security measures. The area is lively during the day, but
after dark there are gatherings of young people, some just hanging out, but
others involved in serious drug-related activity. It would appear that estate has
traditionally been viewed positively but its image has become more negative over
the years.
There are three primary schools within walking distance of the estate, as well as
one secondary school, which is one of the most over-subscribed schools in
Leeds. There is also a large shopping complex on the ring road, about one mile
away, containing a Sainsbury’s supermarket, an electrical retailer, as well as a
library, pub and smaller units offering a range of services including fast food. On
the estate itself there are no recreational or leisure facilities for children of any
age.
3.4: Area D
Although the scope of this research was confined to these three areas, it was
possible to analyse relevant data from a parallel piece of research being
undertaken by members of CUDEM in an area of East Leeds, a sprawling,
peripheral slum clearance estate. Area D is an area with over 4500 households
and does lie within the 10% most deprived wards. It has been the target of a
range of interventions, most notably NRA, SRB 5 as well as Estate Action. It
suffers from environmental blight, low housing demand and poor image and
reputation. This area has been highlighted as being in need of infrastructure
changes to alter the character of the area. There had been some small-scale
demolition (mainly of obsolete bed-sitter accommodation for single people and
some infill during the 1990s, with mixed success. One scheme has been
demolished after refurbishment. No further demolition has taken place
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
19
4 0: Resume of Literature Review and Other Works in Progress
The literature review, which is attached as Appendix 2, represented the first
element of the research and provided a baseline assessment of the emergent
material on low demand and selected demolition. It was arranged in three parts,
and addressed low demand and regeneration, the rationale for selected
demolition, and the regional dimension. This section does not reiterate the
contents of the literature review, but advances some themes and evaluates some
of the more recent commentaries on the processes of demolition and
regeneration.
4.1: The national context
The government’s approach to low demand and abandonment promotes a
strategic approach that covers whole housing markets. The focus is on radical
and sustained action, concentrated largely on the market renewal pathfinders.
Large-scale clearance appears to be a priority (ODPM 2003). The Yorkshire and
the Humber Regional Housing Statement Update and Sub Regional Statements
for 2002 notes the need to halt the so-called “flight of affluence” from at-risk
areas in West Yorkshire and to demonstrate innovation in determining the
targeting of resources to encourage diversification in housing markets. It echoes
the national government’s assertion that a piecemeal approach is unlikely to be
successful. The chapter relating to West Yorkshire makes brief reference to the
need to tackle obsolescent housing using a raft of measures, including
demolition, as part of the drive to meet the “decent homes” standard by 2010.
4.2 Evidence from the Pathfinders
The Audit Commission’s scrutiny report on the Manchester Salford Market
Renewal Pathfinder (the first pathfinder to submit its prospectus) acknowledges
the complexity of the problems at this sub regional level and the plethora of
potential solutions. It asserts that the planned interventions should prevent
further decline, reverse trends, deliver a vision of a balanced housing market,
sustainable communities and renewed market confidence. It identifies crucial
factors impacting on the success or failure of markets including the quality of the
stock, the attractiveness of the environment, crime levels and the quality of
services. One of its recommendations is that the Pathfinder develops a
taxonomy of the critical factors that drive success (Audit Commission, 2003)
4.3 The Leeds housing market review
A large-scale analysis of the Leeds housing market was carried out and
published in 2003 (Cole et al, 2003). This presents an overview of the subjective
experiences and perceptions of housing markets. One of its key findings is that
the city’s housing market is indeed spatially segmented and that this is
determined by location, tenure profile and image. It asserts the need for localised
approaches to housing market interventions, reflecting the recommendations
made by the Audit Commission above. Leeds City Council’s housing strategy
assumes a demolition/disposals programme for local authority housing of around
5000 units by 2012, but is silent on the issue of clearance in the private sector
(Leeds City council 2002).
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
20
4.4 Emerging techniques
One example of a cost benefit analysis to implement a strategic approach is
“Prism” or the "property reinvestment strategy model" that has been developed
by the William Sutton Trust, to tackle low demand and other housing issues
across its 70 estates (in all, it is to demolish 418 homes). The model has been
designed to enable the Trust to target its repairs and modernisation expenditure
on estates that are sustainable rather than those where sustained demand is by
no means certain. This approach is significant because it represents the
acknowledgement by a major RSL that certain neighbourhoods cannot be
regenerated by their efforts alone, and might be irretrievable. What is new about
the Prism model is its strategic approach across an entire housing stock, not just
those pockets currently suffering low demand.
Prism is a four-stage process:

The first two stages identify "at risk" estates. This is done by compiling a
socio economic profile of an estate over the past year - considering issues
such as housing demand, unemployment, and the local authority's
investment in the area. This is followed by a five-year profile in which each
issue is given a benchmark against which to determine risk.

Stage three involves putting forward reinvestment proposals in the light of the
estate's profile and subjected to a cost/benefit analysis, taking on board nonmonetary, "social" costs and benefits.

Stage four involves putting proposals to tenants and other stakeholders,
including the council, to agree a preferred option.
The pilot carried out by the William Sutton Trust took two years and came up with
radical solutions such as partial demolition on estates. However it would appear
that much of the preparatory work was done without involving local residents,
who were only drawn in during the latter stages of the process. This is in
complete contradiction to the sentiments raised during the Area D consultations
about resident involvement.
Increasingly, there is a view that it is neighbourhood management techniques
that will be pivotal in managing projects where some clearance in taking place,
with a need to balance short-term delivery with ensuring that expenditure can be
justified. It has been suggested that, for example, dealing with rats, rubbish and
barking dogs are essential to longer-term success (New Start, 12.9.03).
Evidence is emerging that the image of a location and its reputation has a major
impact of its perceived desirability. Challenging stigma is seriously hampered by
the somewhat sensationalist media coverage of renewal issues, where council
estates in particular are labelled “underworlds” (Observer, 30.11.03).
4.5: Resistance to demolition?
The emergent picture over the last 6-8 months is that the central and regional
level policy drivers are urging macro and large scale interventions, while there
are increasing signs that, at the level of individual communities, there is a
resistance to large-scale clearance. There is now evidence that, in many
circumstances, micro level interventions are appropriate. Activity at an individual
estate/neighbourhood level may have equal resonance. For example, there have
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
21
been concerted efforts to overturn the decision to demolish 162 Victorian houses
in the Nelson West urban renewal programme in Pendle, with local residents and
pressure groups claiming that the local authority assessment of low demand was
flawed. Interestingly, the heritage lobby had become involved here; supporting
the retention of inner city Victorian housing that has faced charges of
obsolescence (Inside Housing, 15.8.03). Similarly, as part of resistance to
imposed demolition, the South Acton Residents’ Action Group in London
commissioned an urban designer to develop plans emanating directly out or
residents’ experiences of living on the estate. Significantly, amongst the
aspirations forwarded by residents was the publication of clear and objective
reasons for the retention or demolition of homes and to publish them in advance
and make them subject to a vote by residents. One of these was to recognise
that continuity and a sense of history are important and should inform what
happens and which buildings should be retained (New Start, 3.10.03). Hull City
Council recently announced that is was reversing its large-scale demolition
programme, believing that a massive programme was unjustifiable. This is partly
a response to community requests for refurbishment to be taken as an option
(Regeneration and Renewal, 13.6.03)
4.6 Summary
Following the earlier examinations of the causes and impact of changing housing
markets, the literature is now turning to an evaluation of effective solutions, but this
element is very much in its infancy. There do appear to be conflicting imperatives
and the emergence of some evidence of resistance to demolition as a solution for
market collapse/weakness.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
22
5.0: Thematic Review of the Evidence
As outlined above, the research team decided that the most robust approach to
analysing the rich qualitative data was to focus on emergent themes that had
significance across the case study areas. The themes were not, however,
selected at random. They were of necessity informed by the overarching
objectives of the research and were chosen for the way they could inform our
understanding of:


The case for selected demolition and how the decision-making process
takes into account the engagement of local communities
Experience of the effect of demolition initiatives on the local and broader
infrastructure.
The themes presented in this report have been grouped loosely in linked
categories. The first category, “Demolition and the Community”, addresses the
following inter-related themes:
1. Factors informing the decision to demolish rather than to refurbish
2. The effects of demolition on local infrastructure
3. The blurred boundaries between unsustainable properties or
unsustainable communities
4. The importance of the concept of neighbourhood and people’s cultural
attachment to an area
5. The extent to which demolition is seen as a solution for non-housing
problems
6. The recognition of young people as a community resource
The second category is “Decision-Making and Community Engagement” and
the themes here are:
7. The extent of the engagement of local communities in the decisionmaking process
8. The impact of local politics on the demolition debate
9. Tensions associated with bureaucracy and accountability
10. The nature of the connection between practitioners and residents
11. Confidence in the landlords’ decision-making process
12. The renaissance of a more 'traditional' model of housing management
Finally, the third category, tentatively called “A Learning Curve” was selected
with reference to perceptions about skills shortages among practitioners. It was
decided to extrapolate data that related directly to the range of skills that are
deemed to be lacking amongst practitioners in the field of regeneration and
renewal (ODPM, 2002). These include:
13. Interpersonal skills among staff including






Strategic leadership/vision
Managing people
Valuing diversity
Working with the community
Partnership working
Consultation skills
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
23
14. Organisational skills among staff including



Research
Risk assessment
Cost benefit analysis
All respondents whose opinions are quoted in this analysis remain anonymous.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
24
5.1: Demolition and the Community
5.1.1:Theme 1: Factors informing the decision to demolish rather than to
refurbish
The broader perception emerging from the expert testimonies was that the local
authority as a strategic body did not have an overt demolition consultation
strategy that was applied consistently across areas within its boundaries.
Instead, each plan of action was “tailored to the needs of the individual area”.
While this would appear to fit in with the imperative to adopt a local approach to
individual circumstances, it could lead to inconsistencies in the decision-making
process. But what did not seem to be emerging was any consideration of
whether demolition really was the best option in a particular set of circumstances.
Rather it was “how shall we manage the process of demolition” with a sense that
one crucial step, that of determining whether or not demolition was actually the
right solution, being missed out. In addition, there were suggestions that as this
process was controlled centrally prior to the establishment of the Arms Length
Management Organisations (ALMOs) in early 2003, and that this was a example
of “empire building” that was unresponsive to local needs. The suggestion was
that different sections of the local authority were trying to assert their presence,
or expertise, in areas managed on a day-to-day basis by decentralised teams.
In Area A particularly, the practitioner interviewees generally saw refurbishment
as not a realistic option for the area overall, although a patchwork of
refurbishment can be seen in the area and is favoured to continue in the short
term. In the long term though, wholesale refurbishment would be expensive, and
not the radical action that would address core issues. New forms of housing,
more private space, new forms of community engagement, were all suggested,
but as far as the professional went, the hopes for the future of the area appeared
to be mainly vested in a Masterplan drawn up by consultants for the Housing
partnership, and potentially including substantial demolition. Against this, it is
worth noting that people were generally in favour of, perhaps it is fair to say
‘attached to’ in some cases, the style of housing in the area, and the quality of
the houses as homes. This attachment to the style or physical appearance of the
area extended to some (though not all) of the public buildings, including a church,
which has passed from one sector of the community to another, now being a
mosque.
At Area C, there was some feeling by residents that demolition was the right
option because there was an over supply of flatted accommodation: respondents
were certainly aware that it would cost more to renovate than to demolish, and
among the residents who had lived on the estate for a long time (some since it
was built), there was an acceptance that clearance was for the better.
“Some of the buildings around here are, you know, austere. They don’t feel like
proper homes to me. I wouldn’t want to bring up young children there.”
In Area D there was a desire of a balance between refurbishment and demolition,
with the creation of pocket parks to provide space for leisure, and facilitate the
better management and planning of the spaces between buildings and the public
realm in general.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
25
5.1.2: Theme 2: The effects of demolition on local infrastructure
Bramley and Pawson (2002) urged the cautious use of selected demolition and
the need to be extremely clear in the definition of its purpose. There are negative
impacts associated with living next to vacant land and residents may become
confused about the purpose of the demolition. In some areas of Leeds
unconnected with the research (e.g. Middleton in south Leeds) it was reported
that the decision was taken to knock down and not to reprovide. In such a case
there had to be a decision made as to what to do with the land. Leaving it fallow
can lead to all sorts of problems: should it be grassed over to reduce the visual
impact, or would it need bollards to stop misuse? Should it be left fallow just
while the community stabilises? It would appear that change of use was seen as
a last resort, perhaps because in those circumstances, the involvement of the
local authority planning department would be less straightforward. There was
little evidence of joined up working here, or the application of robust impact
evaluation.
Demolition does offer a chance to use space better, whether in the development
of more open and play space, or by returning to these brownfield sites to provide
what local people may prefer to see. However, the management of the process
needs a careful but rigorous approach. Recent research suggests that there is no
clear link between levels of spending and the extent of good or innovative
practice. There are, however, likely to be a wide range of social, educational and
economic benefits associated with green space renewal, especially when this is
community led (DTLR 2002).
The demolition of the flats at Area C triggered mixed reactions. The young
children expressed relief that an eyesore had been removed, and with it the
opportunity for people to go in and engage in vandalism, but it represented a loss
of community: “we can’t wave to the people who used to live there any more”.
There was a feeling that houses and bungalows were to be preferred to flats but
peripheral issues assumed importance, one girl reported that a relative was
being over run by mice as a result of the building works. The teenagers were
more positive and external impressions seemed to matter more, they favoured
more demolition: “It looks better and will look even better”
Although it was felt that demolition had lifted specific parts of the estate,
residents wanted to see re-building and re-design happen quickly (with one area
where demolition had taken place, a considerable time passed before the land
was used again – 18 months)
The impact of demolition on Area B was more marked. The demolition on this
estate took place some ten years prior to the research, and two housing
association estates now occupied the area that had undergone the demolition.
None of the residents interviewed in the focus group could remember what had
gone on before, not the extent to which there had been consultations, they were
vaguely aware that “it used to be tower blocks and maisonettes”.
There was no evidence of any integration of communities defined by differing
housing tenure types at Area B:
“Each end of the estate hates the other end and they both hate the [housing
association properties] in the middle….but there are some lovely people here”.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
26
Other than the demolition described above, no other demolition of residential
dwellings had taken place. Further, there were no immediate proposals to use
demolition to address problems of low demand. However, demolition was
suggested by local members of the community who participated in a community
consultation day facilitated by staff at the Ridings Housing Association as one
solution to empty property and the perceived poor environment of the estate and
specifically linked to residents concerns regarding community safety.
In Area A, final plans for the future are not yet formed, but at the moment there is
a small amount of demolition of category ‘x’ housing, without any particularly
clear notion of what will follow, either in the pockets left by the demolition or in
wider strategic terms. That is not to suggest that there are no choices, simply that
the planning for the future is still at the options stage.
There are small pockets of social housing and public open space that are the
result of previous demolition, and it is clear that substantial money has been
expended to make these spaces attractive and usable, yet they have themselves
become victim to vandalism, and exude no particularly attractive charms for the
community as a whole, although they do in themselves create light where once
there may well have been back-to-backs. It may be surmised that benefit to the
local area from such selective demolition has only been partial at best. On the
other hand, the properties that surround these areas, apparently mainly in private
ownership, have not yet been subjected to significant improvement, at least on
the outside. Where real change is likely to come from is the ‘Masterplan’ and to
try to summarise, this offers three options: to improve the existing homes; to
have some selective demolition with new build only; and large scale
renewal/demolition and new build. The former may well reflect work currently
going on in selected properties to refurbish doors, windows, front gardens and
street-facing walls, but the latter will clearly have a massive effect on the
character of the area, its shops, community resources, transport and roads, as
well as the make up of the community itself.
There was awareness that large-scale regeneration could alter radically the
character of an area on a permanent basis. This was felt to have happened in
Holbeck, with the creation of a largely private “urban village” and an influx on
people on higher incomes. It was not perceived as positive, as local residents
could see no spin offs for themselves, just increased polarisation.
5.1.3: Theme 3: The blurred boundaries between unsustainable properties
or unsustainable communities
“The blaming of physical form for social ills has to rest on the most
vulgar kind of environmental determinism that few would be
prepared to accept in other circumstances (although I note with
distress that another member of Prince Charles’s “kitchen cabinet”
is the geographer Alice Coleman, who regularly mistakes correlation
between bad design and anti-social behaviour with causation)”
(Harvey, 2002 p 172)
To what extent do strategies (or lack of) distinguish between these, or do they
only take action when the two converge? And which comes first? Is demolition
seen as a housing specific response to non- housing issues such as anti-social
behaviour, drugs and crime?
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
27
Evidence from initial reviews of the pathfinders, as reported in the housing press,
suggests that low demand/abandonment seems to be very localised in both
urban and rural areas (Housing Today, 10.10.03). In all our case study areas
there was little evidence of actual abandonment, indeed one area had a waiting
list. The evidence therefore clearly suggests that demolition and low demand do
not necessarily go hand-in-hand. Equally, there does not seem to be one
identifiable cause that triggers the decline of an area.
In the Area C case study the street interviews with older residents revealed
remarkable consistency about what could make or break an area. Proximity to
the shops, especially Sainsbury’s supermarket, access to bus routes and the
open countryside were cited as regularly as the concept of neighbourliness or
family networks. The physical quality of the area did not assume primacy.
However, the concept of the sustainable community was certainly at the forefront
of these respondents’ minds when they were asked what would make the area
better. There was an emphasis on community policing, and of a return to the
more paternalistic style of housing management that they had encountered
during the middle years of the twentieth century. Rubbish dumping, joy riding
and motorcycle racing were seen as particular problems, which did not receive
an adequate response from the police. For these older residents, the success of
an area was almost entirely dependent on the people who lived in the area:
“It’s the people that make the area. The streets are clean and the grass is cut but
people dump rubbish”
“People need to take a pride, maybe once more houses look decent people will
do. If you feel you live in a scruffy area you feel you are scruffy anyway. Now
people haven’t been brought up to have respect for anyone”.
Clearly, the two notions of unsustainable properties or unsustainable
communities are interrelated. However, the evidence from this research strongly
suggests that the properties at Area B were built to a high specification. Yet there
were difficulties with the high sloping nature of a number of the dwellings,
rendering them unsafe for families with small children. As one research
participant commented:
“There is no problem at all with the properties, they are absolutely fine...but those
really steep gardens need sorting out urgently, they are really dangerous for
families with toddlers.”
The Area B estate was generally regarded as undesirable by housing applicants
and members of the housing profession. Significantly, a number of the residents
noted that although the estate generally had a negative image, other housing
estates in Leeds were seen as being less desirable. Evidence from the mothers
and toddlers focus group which took place in October 2003 indicated that on a
local level, the City Council properties were perceived as being significantly more
desirable than the properties managed by the two housing associations.
“People just leave the ones up the road (housing association properties) and they
just end up being trashed, then move down here (local authority properties)”.
To camouflage the fact that voids have occurred, one of the local housing
associations had stopped using steel sheeting to board up empty properties but
now used clear plastic sheeting. This creates the illusion that the property is still
occupied and therefore not an easy target for vandalism:
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
28
“It seems to be doing the trick, people think they are still occupied so that has
really helped”.
To the agencies involved in the provision of social housing, many of the
properties in Area A are not affordably maintainable. Faced with the need to
achieve decency standards and an under-provision of funds, some demolition is
inevitable. Other properties, however, can be maintained, and many are in any
case in private ownership, be they owner-occupiers or landlords. After a period
when house values in the area had stagnated due to low demand, prices are now
moving upwards, partly as a result of prices booming in Leeds generally, and
most likely as a result of speculation concerning the imminent regeneration of the
area.
However, the bars on doors and windows, and graffiti on walls bear testimony to
the fact, recognised here as in areas of social exclusion everywhere, that
regeneration in Area A means going deeper than housing improvement alone.
Money has been provided by SRB for a community safety initiative, there are
what could be termed ‘the usual’ schemes, such as Sure Start, and new schools
are being built and old, stigmatised schools demolished. For here as much as
anywhere, the sustainability of the area as a viable community will be dependent
upon the effectiveness of partnership working including, but also extending well
beyond, the housing agencies, in order for different services and policies to
overlap and to take a holistic approach to area regeneration.
5.1.4: Theme 4: The importance of the concept of neighbourhood and people’s
cultural attachment to an area
This theme assumed great significance in the research. By and large most
people could find something positive about where they lived. For Area A, the
most popular were the attributes of the people from the community themselves,
variously described, mainly by older people, as friendly, helpful, and cheerful.
“People will help their neighbours if they get into trouble, or need a hand”. Others
felt happy to be near their family in the area. The other most often cited good
things were the shops and similar facilities close to hand, availability of buses,
proximity to the city centre, and for a surprising number, the quality of the
houses.
Broadly speaking, the community of Area A Hill may be split into three distinct
groups, although in each group there may be anomalous minorities, such as
asylum seekers or recent immigrants from a range of European and other
countries. There is an indigenous mainly white population of families and older
people who feel that they might call themselves ‘local’ people, and are either
owner-occupiers or relatively long-term social housing tenants. There is also the
growing group of mainly owner-occupier families from the Indian sub-continent,
who have had visibility in the area for perhaps three generations and are
described in the Sheffield Hallam Review as a stabilising factor in the area, and
there is the more transient population of younger people, frequently single, living
in rented accommodation and very often unemployed, and sometimes with a
variety of difficulties, such as poor education, criminal records, drugs-related
problems and so on.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that these groups live amongst each other, but
tend not to have strong social ties, and are unlikely, for example, to be strongly
represented at the same community forums or meetings. This mix, together with
the corresponding mix of housing tenures, suggests that Area A may be clearly
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
29
identifiable in its geography, but not as one community. It may have views, but is
unlikely to speak as one voice, and indeed for some there is seemingly little
desire to speak for it at all. Nevertheless, whilst the community is complex, and
despite the isolation from each other, many people have similar hopes and
aspirations for the area, and several people from BME groups, who by their own
admission had poor English, nevertheless described the area to a man (they
were all men) as “nice”.
There was evidence that children had a strong feeling of what a cohesive
community should be like. The under-ten year olds at Area C felt that the area
would benefit from “more people being kind to each other” and “not so many
nasty boys”. There were concerns about outsiders’ perceptions of the estate, that
they thought it “rough and there are too many people causing trouble”. The
teenage respondents echoed this: “It is awful, it looks bad and is full of druggies,
shooting up and leaving needles”. All the children and young people, as well as
adults, cited friendship and community networks as being a key attraction for the
area they lived in, wherever they lived.
Sometimes, however, cultural attachment to neighbourhood could be seen as
negative. Particularly among the local authority estates there was a fear,
expressed by children and adults alike, that they did not want it to become a
“posh” area. A group of under-tens, speaking in response to the demolition that
had taken place, felt it was “stupid. They should have kept the flats…[the
demolition] is making it posher. Lots of people we don’t know will move in. It will
change the area”
In Area B, research participants often spoke very defensively about the estate
and suggested that those who criticised it from the outside had no direct
experience of the community life on which they could base their assertions. At
the same time, although respondents here emphasised that “people stuck
together in times of crisis”, there was also a notion that acceptance on the estate
was about “who you know and what you know….you must make yourself
known…if people know you they respect you”.
This concept of community has many nuances, which clearly traverses physical
boundaries. The research respondents consistently referred to nuances of
community from which people felt an ontological sense of security (or the
converse when negative views were expressed, such as the prevalence of antisocial behaviour). There was a feeling that, in areas of local authority housing,
there are “big notorious families” who “rule the estates”. They operate as though
they are above the law. As the families were extended, they tended to want to
take on additional properties and there has been evidence that, when people
have moved in (via national mobility schemes) from other parts of the country,
they have not felt sufficiently secure to stay for long.
An example of the importance of the family institution on an estate came from
Area B where a small number of local families have developed considerable
notoriety on the estate. Comments from the focus group participants suggested
that the disproportionate power of a minority of families was one characteristic of
the estate, which would remain unchanged for the foreseeable future. As one
focus group member noted:
“You really wouldn’t mess with them if you want to stay in one piece…if your face
fits, then you’re OK”.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
30
Mothers who attended the mums and toddlers sessions believed that more
groups were urgently needed for the children and their parents.
“We need somewhere indoors for the winter where the children can all play
together…you end up getting them wrapped up pushing them around in their
push chairs outdoors, but you just get really wet”.
The lack of playing fields near the estate was also a perceived as a problem. The
closest one was a walk of a couple of miles and rendered access impractical with
small children on a cold day.
While “women are the organising force” this can be positive, as with the
establishment of craft groups or for example majorette clubs, but “when
something happens they are all up in arms…it makes them feel important…it
blows it all out of proportion”.
The perceptions of outsiders counted too: “If you mention you live on the [estate]
people look at you and think, right, fine, but they shouldn’t judge. People are
rough and ready but we say hello, but its oh I am not going on there”.
The Area B estate is divided into three distinct areas: top, middle and lower parts.
Each area has acquired its own sense of community identity. There is a large
area of land in the middle of the estate that remains unused. Community groups
have voiced concern over the community safety issues presented by this open
space and the extent to which it contributes to the negative image held by the
public, as well as organisations and agencies (Ridings Housing association,
2002b). Groups have asserted that community safety measures are significantly
undermined by this unused space and to a number of residents, the space
represents a ’no-go’ area). Housing management officers, along with members of
the community, are seeking to redevelop this open space (Ridings Housing
Association, 2002a). A further physical problem on the estate that a number of
the properties are located at the top of a particularly steep hill, causing access
problems for older and frail tenants as well as parents with young children in
push chairs. Few community facilities exist in the area. The only local pub, often
the venue for community-based parties such as Bonfire night, is scheduled for
demolition in 2003/03. There do not appear to be any firm proposals regarding
redevelopment of the pub site. The newly developed LAZER centre is a welcome
new community resource and is used extensively by young people on the estate.
However, much more is needed to occupy young people who live on the estate:
“ There’s nothing for them to do, they just hang around the streets, causing
trouble. It’s not that they’re bad or anything, they just don’t know what to do with
themselves. If there is one thing I would change, it would be that”.
These perceptions of “us and them” had particular resonance for the research
team. We were reminded of research carried out in the 1950s and 1960s, for
example Kuper’s self-defined ‘ecological sociology’ that offered perspectives on
life on a council estate, asserting that behavioural problems were more complex
than the phrase “mixing of different incomes or occupational groups” conveyed,
and that the concept of “respectability” was closely located to where on the
estate one lived’ (Kuper, 1953, p.176). This highlighted the importance of intragroup tensions, with the division between respectable and rough: giving voice to
the fears and aspirations of those he was researching. In a similar context,
Tucker observed that prejudice against council tenants was endemic and that
certain estates with concentrations of problematic tenants led to the
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
31
establishment of the council tenant as another species in the minds of outsiders
(Tucker, 1966). Although the mass municipal building programmes of the 1950s
meant that more people than ever before were being offered council tenancies, a
labelling process was underway that relegated the moral and societal status of
those tenants. This does not seem to have been reversed.
There was also great clarity about where should be avoided, and this
understanding crossed barriers of age, gender and race. The areas known as
drug-users haunts were universally avoided, as they were associated with crime
and threats to the person. Although young people saw the same threats as
anyone else, they too were seen as trouble. In Area A and Area C, a few older
people said that they didn’t go out at night. There were few open references to
racial difference, but a few knowing nods of the head from older white people
about areas where Asian families tended to predominate, and particularly in the
context of ‘young people’
5.1.5: Theme 5: The extent to which demolition is seen as a solution for nonhousing problems
It was not always possible to establish what methods were being used in Leeds
to conduct options appraisals but it was felt that there were some underlying
reasons behind decisions to demolish or dispose of properties. The extent to
which demolition proposals were a response to management, rather than supply
and demand, was uncertain. Demolition may be a means to an end, rather than
an end in itself. The young people in Area C wanted the place to look nice and
they were not bothered how this was achieved. Demolition was not seen as an
issue more as a means to get rid of “scruffy” properties: “I’d like them to build
nice houses, not horrible scruffy ones”, with “nice blinds in when are done so it
don’t look scruffy”.
In Area B there was a feeling that “they need the old stuff knocking down and
building a park for the kids, there’s nothing to do and nowhere to meet up and go
for a cup of coffee”.
Demolition can certainly bring about solutions to some intractable management
problems. In Area C, the properties that were demolished were those that had a
high turnover, so the influx of tenants has reduced, together with the associated
anti-social behaviour. However a change in the organisational context of the
landlord may bring into sharper focus the financial implications of demolition. A
demolition strategy within the context of a business plan for some 70,000
properties needs a very different consideration than in the context of an
organisation with less than 7,000.
Overall, the evidence from the research respondents indicated that the impact of
regeneration initiatives on the Area B estate had been limited. This included the
redevelopment of the site following the demolition of the local authority properties
at the beginning of the 1990s. The decision of the private developers to not
complete the building of proposed owner occupied properties on the estate has
had a significantly demoralising impact on the local community:
“We really felt let down by the fact that they pulled out at the last minute.
Somehow and in some way, they should be made accountable for that. Of
course, they won’t be, but that really had a big impact on the local community”.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
32
During the last round of Single Regeneration Budget funding (SRB 5), sporadic
and fractionalised attempts were made to implement community regeneration
schemes. However, many lead organisations (specifically the Ridings Housing
association, Leeds Federated Housing Association and Leeds City Council)
worked very much in isolation.
“ These initiatives are too short term and for the most part, we were working on
our own…there wasn’t really anyone to take this forward.”
Further, this respondent believed that there was reluctance on the part of a
substantial part of the community to become involved in initiatives in a
meaningful way since there was a general belief that senior officers and local
councillors had led decisions. Residents had therefore become disillusioned with
the process:
“Top down approaches were being implemented from the outset, despite a range
of community consultation measures…the community are not willing to be
involved because they have been let down in the past”.
To the bulk of the community it appears that a community call for regeneration in
Area A is prompted not by the state of the housing but by the degeneration of the
area in a wider sense, such as more crime, poor health and so on. This is
understood by the agencies in the area, but for the agencies involved in the
provision of social housing here many of the properties are not affordably
maintainable, and therefore faced with the need to achieve decency standards
and an under-provision of funds, some demolition is inevitable and decisions to
demolish are taken regardless of the wider area needs. Thus there appears to be
no public demand for more than selected properties to be demolished, although
some agree when faced with such a proposition, but what appears to be the case
in Area A is that for the social housing providers to achieve all that they need to
on limited budgets, they require a development partnership with the private
sector which once entered into drives the demolition agenda. The private sector
is not particularly interested in selective demolition or holistic regeneration. It
wants economies of scale, and it wants to maximise value, and that means that
private developers evaluating their prospects here would wish to see a minimum
of 300 houses demolished in favour of new build.
If one assumes (the detailed proposals are not yet available) that the new build in
this scenario is to be a mixture of private and social housing, it is also reasonable
to assume that the community that will inhabit the area in this scenario may well
not be the same as that which constitutes the current residents. More particularly,
the people with the most problems, financially and otherwise, may well move on
to another area. Area A’s solution could become another area’s problem, and so
on. There is an awareness of these amongst the members of the Housing
Partnership, and there is at least one good example from the ALMO, for
example, of where a negotiated demolition and new build project managed to
return all the householders to live in their new homes side by side with their
original neighbours. This was a small and very stable part of the community
however, and some people questioned whether this would be replicable over a
larger scale.
At the end of the day, there is an overriding sense that Area A is symptomatic of
the complexity of struggling neighbourhoods, where short term issues cause
long-term plans to be changed, where issues evolve outside of strategies, where
funding is allocated for decent housing but not for the wider aim of a ‘decent’
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
33
area. As one practitioner put it, the solution is to some extent a philosophical one,
not just about bricks and mortar. Regeneration is always a compromise, but is
fruitless without a clear vision that can not only be acceptable to all stakeholders
but, more than that, provide a lift for the whole community.
5.1.6: Theme 6: The recognition of young people as a community resource
In general there was little perception that children and young people could be a
community resource. All the young people interviewed did, however, have plenty
to say about their perceptions of where they lived, and how they engaged with
their local community. At Area C, the under-ten year olds found it hard to
associate their immediate surroundings with positive experiences and were
anxious about the behaviour of older boys. They were acutely aware which
properties were being used for illicit activities, and exactly who the drug dealers
and users were. Children as young as eight knew who and what to avoid.
Teenagers, often perceived to be a problem, shared similar concerns with adults.
When asked what outsiders thought of their estate, a group of youths “hanging
around” in the twilight said “It is awful, it looks bad and is full of druggies,
shooting up and leaving needles”
Although teenagers request unreasonable interventions such as the provision of
a swimming pool, they would have accepted better shops and a “youth hut” for
people of high school age.
Teenagers reported no involvement in discussions or decisions about changing
the physical structure of the estate. That did not mean that they were not
interested: “If I knew they was going to do something I would go to a meeting”
Intergenerational tensions were present, especially on the council estates, with a
suspicion of young males in particular: “ it’s a generational thing, you see these
fourteen year old lads… you can see them growing up…and think oh uh”. There
was a feeling among the young mothers that youth did not respect their elders,
one stated how a teenage boy had said he used to think she was a “real woman”
at first even though she was not much older than him, and once he found out she
was not the “older generation” he tended to respect her more. This attitude, if
typical, could inform strongly ways for engaging more directly with youths.
Clearly, this is only one example of how perceptions of ‘young’ and ‘old’ may
converge to positively (or negatively) impact on community engagement.
However, it does reinforce the notion that relatively small generation (actual or
perceived) gaps are relevant to the success of community engagement
exercises.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
34
5.2: Decision-Making and Community Engagement
5.2.1: Theme 7: The extent of the engagement of local communities in the
decision-making process
The importance of engaging the community in regeneration has been was
emphasised by the Housing Corporation and as demolition may be an integral
part of regeneration, community consultation is clearly crucial (Housing
Corporation, 2002).
The Area D consultations (spring and summer 2003) suggested that local
residents do want to be involved. The community felt that local people would be
interested in assisting The Groundwork Trust in planning, designing, creating and
managing new public open spaces and would welcome the chance to work with
East Leeds Homes on identifying place-specific opportunities for environmental
improvements and the better management and planning of the spaces between
buildings and the public realm in general. It was felt that local residents could and
should play a major role in any short-term strategies aimed at addressing the
problems of litter, environmental education and awareness raising. If ‘quick-fix’
efforts to clean up those parts of the area which suffer most from this type of
problem where supported by complementary initiatives aimed at encouraging the
better management of rented properties, the enforcement of tenancy agreements
and the fostering of individual and collective environmental stewardship, then this
would go a long way towards improving, even reversing, the current negative
image of the area.
However in Area A there was no evidence that consultation processes were
reaching into the community and the mass involvement of residents appeared
not to be happening. Although one expert testimony described the place as
having the most advanced community involvement structure in Leeds including a
range of neighbourhood forums, disabled and young people’s forums, the
majority of people that we talked to neither knew nor apparently cared about
consultation, a feeling borne out by housing consultation reports. Most
homeowners who had been living in the area for some time had been aware of
some instance of demolition, but not beforehand. This may be because unlike
council tenants, they had no knowledge or experience of any consultation
process, or it may be a reflection of the feeling that even the council tenants
tended to be subjected to information giving rather than participation processes.
Area A appears at one and the same time to have a considerable amount of
consultation but not the same degree of engagement, insofar as there is plenty of
evidence that the Housing Partnership and its members have been committed to,
and practised, consultation with tenants, but less evidence that the participation
goes deep enough to involve a large proportion of the community.
The Sheffield Hallam study of the Leeds Housing Market also surveyed and
consulted local residents, whilst the ALMO and Leeds Federated Housing do
periodic research on housing demand, studies of the implementation of decency
standards and so on. However, an example of a consultation day at the Area A
Festival and Mela, to consider the Future of Housing produced only four
response sheets. Another similar consultation day on the ‘Masterplan’, held on a
Saturday in the local primary school, produced only 65 attendees and 25
response sheets, despite publicity in the form of flyers to local groups, banners
across streets and posters in the local shop windows. It may be that Area A is
the victim of consultation-fatigue, but the impression gained was that the right
methods to really engage with the community have yet to surface.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
35
It is clear that in future strategy development some hard decisions will be taken,
which inevitably will have to weigh the time and resources to undertake what is
perceived to be ‘effective’ consultation with the seeming reluctance of the
community to become widely involved beyond the ‘usual suspects’. Thus at the
time of writing, there has been limited and targeted consultation on the area A
PPFI bid and it has been approved by Councillors and selected tenant
representatives have been contacted. However, it is recognised that much
greater consultation will still be required. The proposal to demolish 302 terraced
properties implies demolition of a further 1,000 or so privately owned houses
(including privately rented) as the ALMO’s homes are scattered through the area
and adjoin the other properties. This could be very contentious, and much faith
is placed in the assertion that more people will become more engaged with the
process as each of the stages of regeneration of the area unfolds.
Some members of the community in Area B cast doubt over their own ability to
legitimately and competently contribute to any consultation process. This
suggests that considerable progress needs to be made in enhancing residents’
confidence in both themselves and in the process. However, the Area B study
also revealed a general feeling that local residents should be consulted about
decision, not just connected with the management of their homes, but also other
resources. For example, the local public house had just closed and the women
living in Area B felt its loss. It had a beer garden that was a safe play area for
children, and although it was the scene of violent fights, it was a valued resource,
used for community bonfires and Christmas parties. There was now fear and
suspicion that “the council” was going to turn it into flats for refugees although
there was no evidence to support this.
In June 2002, as part of a strategy to promote further inter-agency collaboration,
Leeds City Council, Leeds Federated Housing Association and the Ridings
Housing Association began formal discussions to improve the co-ordination of
housing services on the estate through encouraging resident as stakeholders. In
addition to the three lead housing agencies, other organisations including youth,
education and health, were also approached. This was the first formal
consultation exercise, which had taken place although anecdotal evidence has
been collated based on residents’ views of the estate. The output was a
qualitative audit of community aspirations, needs and level of achievement on the
estate specifically since the implementation of SRB initiatives (Ridings, 2002a).
Significantly, the selective demolition of further empty properties on the estate
was identified a one key way to improve the physical and social environment on
the estate. Table 1 below provides summary data how residents and community
groups perceived the role of selective demolition alongside other measures to
deal with the general environment alongside empty and neglected properties on
the estate as a way of improving community safety:
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
36
Table 1: Community Safety and the Environment in Area B
Theme
Details
Suggestions
Neglected
property and
poor
environment
-Empty
properties on
the estate;
vandalism
and dumping
-Poorly
maintained
properties
- Derelict
land
- Badly kept
gardens
- Selective demolition
- Firmer action
against people who
do not maintain
property or gardens
- More presence and
action by officers
- Improved security
-Better publicity re:
refuse services
What Has
Been Achieved
To Date
- SRB 5
Environmental
work
-Feasibility
study on
derelict land
- New
neighbourhood
warden
- Provision of skips
- Improved ASB
reporting
Source: Adapted from Ridings Housing Association (2002a)
5.2.2 Theme 8: The impact of local politics on the demolition debate
Amongst practitioners there was a feeling that local elected members could make
or break initiatives. Some were very supportive but “some think they own you”. At
Area C the ward members were seen to be engaged and supportive but this was
not universal. The primary data gathered for this research strongly indicated that
residents on one estate had become somewhat disillusioned with attempts to
promote community participation and consultation. In particular, there was a
belief that outcomes of important decision-making processes are already
decided. For example, when determining the boundaries for the SRB 5 for Area
B, local councillors despite protestations from local housing management
seemingly arbitrarily excluded some streets and community staff who were
representing the views of the residents.
In Area A, the impact of just two local councillors has had a significant effect
upon process and timing of consultation and the rolling out of housing
regeneration options. The ward councillors appear to have been closely engaged
with the visioning and master planning process from the beginning. However,
other councillors on the periphery of the area did not engage with it until largescale demolition was mooted, and this began a long process of persuasion which
meant that details of the options available to present to the community were kept
under wraps for months. Although the restricted scope of the research was not
able to take the research deeply into this issue, nevertheless the impression is
that the arguments around this were not public, and were very much the product
of councillors with their own views in opposition to practitioners with their own
agendas, whilst the public were largely excluded. Whatever the case, months of
planning, development and public consultation time were lost.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
37
5.2.3: Theme 9: Tensions associated with bureaucracy and accountability
With regards to Area C, there was a strong feeling among the voluntary sector
professionals that the local authority had not handled the whole process of the
demolition and refurbishment very well, and senior personnel in the local housing
office, who had little or no involvement in the decision-making process, echoed
this bad feeling. There was a feeling that there had been departmental “empire
building” rather than inter-professional collaboration and that this had had a
detrimental effect on the residents. Because a different section carried out the
consultation it was all found to be a bit “hit and miss” but this really seemed to
reflect a sense of injustice that the housing management section had not been
involved at all. This feeling was supported to a certain extent by tenants on the
estate who certainly demonstrated confidence in the estate manager, who was
seen as accessible and straightforward, even though she was not really able to
give a lot of information about the reprovisioning.
The housing management practitioner interviewed felt that it was inappropriate
that the report about reprovisioning on Area C that was presented to the
Executive Board of the council did not explain any consultation process with the
residents who would be affected, yet it was approved. Perhaps this was because
many of those people were frail elderly moving from one sheltered scheme to
another? Whatever, one of the impacts was that some people, particularly
families, moved because of the demolition, and did not want to wait for family
housing, and so left the area. While demolition of flats provided a handy
opportunity to decant some of the less “desirable” people, it also meant that
some considerable social capital went too.
Much of the sentiments expressed at Area C appeared to be rooted in a sense of
injustice that the area had been neglected in the past because of where it was.
Its situation in an affluent part of the city meant that residents felt that facilities
and general maintenance had been neglected: “other council tenants may wish
to leave here but would not realise that there are fewer facilities and lass spent
on them than other areas. They think we are all rich round here”.
5.2.4: Theme 10: The nature of the connection between practitioners and
residents
In Area C the two housing associations involved in the replacement of homes
were seen as distant and uncommunicative: “they only came up last November,
we were very much in the dark”. It was felt that the main point of access was the
ALMO Estate Officer, who held a surgery on the estate. She had no responsibility
for the demolition works and was not always well informed, so for many people
“the only way [was] to witter her”. (Witter means to bother someone.) There was
a feeling that the residents had not been well served and now that the ALMO had
responsibility for all aspects of managing the estate, a concerted effort was being
made to build bridges.
At Area B, there was clear evidence that improvements to the physical
environment (principally to address concerns regarding community safety) were
widely linked to overall strategic measures to tackle low demand and promote
housing sustainability in the area. Optimising the derelict land available on the
estate was central to achieving this. The research strongly indicated that a critical
problem that needed urgent attention was the lack of provision for young people
living on the estate. Residents had called for derelict land (particularly the land
located in the middle of the estate current which remains unused) to be
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
38
developed into play facilities. The newly developed LAZER centre, however,
provided one important community resources and this is a welcome addition on
the estate.
High levels of crime (in particular petty crime caused by young people) and antisocial behaviour (including racial abuse) had been identified as key problems by
residents and agencies working in the area. At the same time, there was a
perceived low level of policing and a lack of detached youth workers as well as
youth work provision and activities which were seen as a significant gap in
service.
Joint working on a number of housing management initiatives between the
Ridings Housing Association and Leeds Federated Housing Association had
taken place, and these had seen mixed results:
“They put lots of different type of people on the estate, hoping that the good ones
will have a positive effect on the ones with problems. But it doesn’t work like that,
I wish it did. All that happens is they just end up bringing the whole place down to
their level”.
In many ways Area A is an exception to the rule that the problem of selected
demolition is low demand. It is not an area of low demand as we would generally
understand the meaning of the term. When a rented property becomes vacant, it
tends to be reoccupied reasonably quickly, albeit by members of a fairly transient
population. Property that comes on the market tends to sell, witnessed by the
increasing house prices. This is, however, contradictory to the view that a
significant number of (white) families would like to move out, according to the
street interviews, and that outsiders have a low regard for the area. A few
responses in the street interviews suggested that this may in part be attributable
to the white perceptions of living in close proximity to BME groups, although it is
also due to crime, vandalism, and a general perception that the local services,
such as street cleaning and bin emptying, tend to ‘short-change’ Area A. (There
is no evidence of a desire for flight amongst the Asian community beyond a
general desire to take advantage of economic prosperity).
This ambivalence about the area is reflected in both consultations undertaken by
the Housing Partnership and our own street interviews. People are torn about
why they like and dislike aspects of the area, and about how they perceive the
housing quality, but for the main part they appear to be happy to maintain the
current housing stock, albeit at great expense and with the exception of the odd
property which is beyond repair, rather than demolish.
The push for demolition is therefore coming from the housing providers and,
indirectly, private sector developers, and consultation appears to be substantially
centred upon educating the public as to the realities of life for social housing
providers. This has included a prolonged period of time through the current year
when the public discussion of the ‘Masterplan’ was pre-empted by the opposition
of a small number of local councillors to some of the plan options, particularly the
option of large-scale demolition. For the Housing Partnership this was an
unwanted intrusion in the consultation and planning process, and caused a delay
of much of the public debate by six months or more. For this study it was a
reminder that, at the end of the day, as providers consult and negotiate with the
community, the whole question of demolition is, at core, a political issue.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
39
5.2.5: Theme 11: Confidence in the landlords’ decision-making process
No-one remembered how the housing association development on the the estate
had come about “just the bulldozers turning up and the flats being blown up.”, but
there was concern among the council house residents that, with reference to
these new homes, “people were getting them, trashing them and then coming up
here…I got offered one but turned it down…noisy neighbours, don’t want a
repeat of that sort of thing”. There was a feeling that the council didn’t “keep them
posted”, although they were aware that the local Armley forum was a good way
of finding out what was going on. They wanted to see local councillor surgeries
starting round there.
There was a real fear of “outsiders getting nice new properties”.
There was an emergent feeling that the implementation of a choice based
lettings system in Leeds had had unintended detrimental effects, with the result
that it was enabling “problem families” to gain accommodation in the area, when
the main aim for the residents was to “keep the good elements and get rid of the
bad”.
There was a mixed response to the decision at Area C (largely enforced by
circumstances) that all reprovisioning would be for elderly people or those with
medical priority. While some residents welcomed the fact that the area would be
quieter, local volunteers and practitioners were concerned that the demographic
balance would be out of kilter, that the estate would be unrepresentative, that
there would be some impact on provision for youth, but that the problem of unruly
youth would remain.
However there were expressions of confidence in the decision-making process: “
I trust the decision makers to make the right decisions”.
In Area A there was a feeling that the limited demolition of the past and current
refurbishment had been handled appropriately, albeit with most people having
little awareness of the decision-making process. This confidence appeared to
extend to any future decisions that might be taken by the housing partners.
However, we were constrained from asking if this view was likely to be
maintained if mass demolition was on the agenda by the fact that consultation on
mass demolition had not yet started and it was not appropriate for researchers to
introduce the issue onto the public consciousness.
5.2.5: Theme 12: The renaissance of a more 'traditional' model of housing
management
There was clear evidence across all of the case studies in the responses from
social housing tenants that residents of all ages favoured a return to what could
be perceived as more traditional methods of housing management, with a focus
on both external appearance and the behaviour of individuals. Young people
want the council to “clean up and get rid of dog dirt” as well as “evict all the drug
users, we don’t want them round here”, whilst all residents felt that more action
against litter and fly tipping was vital. In Area D, there was a feeling that local
residents could and should play a major role in any short-term strategies aimed
at addressing the problems of litter, environmental education and awareness
raising. There were repeated requests for a more visible housing officer
presence together with more police and community wardens. The older tenants
remarked how they would welcome a return to the more stringent assessments
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
40
of potential tenants that they had experienced as young householders, with
vetting of tenants and further tenancy enforcement actions. This was echoed too
by young people, who were sympathetic to the more paternalistic approach to
tenancy management prevalent in the mid years of the twentieth century. . It was
felt that “housing managers aren’t firm enough when tenancies are breached”
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
41
5.3: A Learning Curve
5.3.1: Theme 13: Interpersonal skills among staff
“It would be nice for people who are involved to know exactly what it going to
happen to then and not hear lots and lots of rumours…I don’t think they realise
that they are dealing with people’s lives, that box has got people in it.”
What emerged from our research was that there appeared to be a lack of direct
engagement with residents and that could only diminish the effectiveness of any
programme. There was inconsistency in the levels of competence among
different parts of the local authority. Communicating with residents and engaging
in a meaningful consultation process does seem to be at the heart of a
successful project. The elderly tenants in Area C felt strongly that they should be
consulted, were aggrieved that they had not been involved but doubted the true
value of any such initiatives:
“Yes, some consultation takes places but feeling is that the main decisions have
already been made”
For these people there was little evidence that things change as a result of
participation: “Would it carry any weight?”
A cross cutting perception was that the organisational cultures of the housing
agencies did not really facilitate participation or involvement. This was in direct
contrast to the sense of vibrancy and engagement associated with the voluntary
agency centre at Area C. By all accounts this had added unquantifiable value to
the neighbourhood and was used by a meaningful cross-section of the estate.
As a voluntary entity, it was totally reliant on grant aid, which meant that the paid
worker on chasing money spent a significant amount of time. Yet the facility had
opened up all sorts of possibilities for residents and was instrumental in fostering
a real sense of community on an estate, which harboured resentment about
perceived neglect by the statutory authorities.
5.3.2 Theme 14: Organisational skills among staff
One major issue that emerged form the research was the need to weigh up the
social versus the financial implications of demolition and these were often found
to be in tension. For example, if the land were surplus to requirements, part of
the environmental/infrastructure plan could be to try to persuade a chain
supermarket to go there. But if there was a potential for a private developer
(always the case in North Leeds) the impetus and the pressure was on from the
Leeds Development Agency to sell for housing. However in some areas that is
not possible. And sometimes a charitable organisation for example, Doorstep
Greens might want to lease it. That may be a better for the community than
selling off land to private enterprise However, it is not clear where the decisionmaking process makes available the opportunity to explore these issues.
Another issue was that, for a large landlord, demolition might seem the best
option, but following the establishment of the ALMOs, rental loss assumed
greater significance. For example Leeds North East has fewer than 7000 homes
so demolition was then seen as much more of a last resort. The housing
management focus in this circumstance may well be to maximise the collection of
existing rents via an appropriate allocations policy rather than reducing the stock.
This is where risk management and financial appraisal skills become important:
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
42
management issues and matters to do with the fabric of the dwellings become
fused and “decisions have to be made about balancing scarce resources against
draining resources from the management perspective”.
In Area D there was a perception that issues if tenancy management went hand
it hand with the fostering of individual and collective environmental stewardship,
which could go a long way to reversing the decline of the area, but this may well
be an impossible objective.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
43
6.0: Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusions
Although the three case study areas were very different physically and
geographically, there were consistent themes emerging from the research, to do
with perceptions of community and neighbourhood, fear of change, and aspects
of professional practice.
6.1.1: Demolition and the Community
There appeared to be an acceptance among residents that in certain
circumstances, the time was right for demolition. Overall, this decision was
welcomed. However, the processes leading to that decision did not always allow
for a full consideration of alternatives. When the decision to demolish was taken,
there appeared to be a lack of robust planning of the management of the area
after the houses had been cleared. There appeared to be scope for a wider
evaluation of different uses, including providing for community spaces. However,
the inherent tensions between community benefit and financial stringency
appeared to be in competition, and the adoption of a more pragmatic overview
would be helpful.
The robustness or otherwise of existing communities appears to be crucial to the
success or failure of schemes and a measure for “auditing” community may be
appropriate. Sustainable communities did not appear to be dependent on the
fabric of the dwelling, although respondents felt that more intensive tenancy
management might engender more cohesive communities. There was clear
evidence of a concept, or spirit of community at a very local level, and people of
all ages associated themselves with their area. They had an opinion on what
was good about their area, and had concerns about the image their area
presented to the outside world. This association appeared to have both negative
and positive impacts. Tapping into the positive, and fostering engagement with
the entire community, would appear to be a crucial part of any strategic approach
to demolition/reprovision, and the need to acknowledge the existence of microcommunities is essential.
There was also clear evidence that demolition was sometimes used as a means
to solve management problems, such as serious anti-social behaviour. The
research team felt that there was nothing inherently wrong in that, but it would be
good practice to be open and honest about it. This therefore places a
responsibility on social housing providers to reach a consensus regarding their
motives for demolition, to communicate these motives to residents and, where
appropriate consult communities on the matter in a meaningful way. The links
between unsustainable housing and unsustainable communities were real, and
demolition should be seen as one of a raft of tools to tackle the latter.
The role of children and young people in the maintenance of communities should
not be underplayed. However children’s and young people’s perceptions were
that they were one of the most neglected and discounted sections of the
community, and the responses from parents involved in the research reflected
this exclusion. What did emerge was the enormous potential they had to make
an impact on the shape of housing policy at a local level. A key lesson form the
research was that housing professionals need to develop skills associated with
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
44
working with children and young people, and/or their representatives. There is a
huge potential for the youth service/residents involvement services to engage
more fully with the process of demolition. This social capital, the evidence
suggests from the case studies, is not being maximised.
6.1.2: Decision-Making and Community Engagement
Evidence suggested that people wanted to be involved, or at least informed
about developments that are going to affect their everyday lives. However,
participation or involvement needed to be voluntary. Reported feelings of
disillusionment may have been counteracted by the implementation of
intensive/innovative community engagement techniques, which passed over
responsibility more effectively to residents. The role of elected members could
have a major impact on the success of community engagement. There is a
range of skills required by elected members as well as practitioners if they are to
play a positive and active role in the reshaping of localities through demolition.
The bureaucratic processes that are of necessity associated with demolition and
reprovisioning were seen to hinder the process. Local accountability and
transparency of decisions appeared to be crucial. The relationship between
practitioners and residents was central to the success or otherwise of housing
initiatives and there was strong support for locally based housing staff, who were
seen as a point of contact even if they could not answer all the questions. There
appeared to be some suspicion of more distant landlords.
Certainly there was a positive response to the development of the Arms Length
Management Organisations (ALMOS) being established in Leeds at the time of
the research. A more community focused housing organisation may approach
demolition issues in a more sensitive way. This approach to the management of
strategic issues appears to be in direct contrast to calls (from residents) for more
stringent and “traditional” approaches to tenancy management with more of an
emphasis on enforcement. This has significance for the way housing managers
are trained and developed and for the way in which the service is constructed.
6.1.3: A Learning Curve
From the inception of the research right through to arranging the expert
witnesses, the research team had not considered that issues to do with skills
development/skills shortages among housing practitioners would play a
significant part in our analysis. However it became clear as the project
progressed that interpersonal and organisational skill among staff assumed
primacy. The skills and knowledge required to facilitate major life-changing
decisions about people’s homes cannot be underplayed. The most crucial stage
in the management of the process of selected demolition was in ensuring that the
practitioners who will be engaged with those communities are supported and
equalled with the range of skills to be able to do so effectively and sensitively.
6.2 Recommendations
The recommendations are expressed as a series of issues that have arisen
directly out of the analysis. They represent areas for consideration and relate
ultimately to the raft of interpersonal and organisational skills required among
practitioners.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
45

In some circumstances, the unsustainable nature of housing stock may
mean that demolition is the only option. In these circumstances, the
consultation process should be varied, but certainly include an educative
element that explains where and why options are limited, or at the least
what the drivers of a particular option are. Failure to do this can raise
public expectation to unrealistic levels, and lead to disillusionment.

There are very differing perspectives of what constitutes good
consultation:
These perspectives need to be accounted for and
integrated into action plans, and the mode and extent of consultation
made appropriate to the particular action that it relates to. The aim should
be that as consultation is rolled out people can see results and benefits
that accrue from participating in the process. The hoped for result is that
confidence in the consultation process, and between public and
practitioner should create good decisions within the constraints upon
action that all sides fully understand.

Whilst hard options for action presented to the public might vary, and
methods of consultation reflect this, there should also be space for
community visioning which enables all parties to look beyond the confines
of available resources, regulation and public policy. This may be the most
difficult to engage the public in, and to pitch at the appropriate level,
particularly in communities already suffering consultation-overload.
However, it may well be the most creative, rewarding and ultimately
positive part of confidence building and community regeneration.
These recommendations are further informed by the toolkit developed as a result
of this research.
Recommendations for further research could include:






An evaluation of the potential for demolition comparing the situation on
two or three different ALMOs or stock transfer organisations
An assessment if the revenue costs and economic impact of selected
demolition
An assessment of the methodologies adopted by landlords to reach
decisions about stock
An evaluation of potential techniques for attracting new markets to use
less popular housing
An examination of innovate ways to use existing housing
An evaluation of the “creeping blight” effect on neighbouring communities
when there is successful regeneration
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
46
7.0: Commentary to the Methodology
7.1: Project inception
The project was developed as a direct result of informal talks between the then
Chief Executive of Leeds Federated Housing Association and CUDEM. At the
time LFHA was formalising its position as a preferred partner with Leeds City
Council and wanted to develop a better understanding of the nuances of
changing demand. The central strategy unit of Leeds City Council and Leeds
Community Partnership Homes Ltd were willing and involved partners.
7.2 Development of the project
However, following the approval of the tender, and the timescale associated with
finalising the details, the Chief Executive of LFHA left, and the board approved a
merger with Bradford and Northern HA. The key officer who was project liaison
officer left to take up a new post. There was no longer any input into the project
from LFHA in terms of support for the fieldwork. This meant that ultimately the
core project team at Leeds Metropolitan University, whilst still informed by the
local housing agencies, nevertheless had to conduct all the research themselves,
necessitating a negotiated extension of time.
In addition, during the period the research was undertaken, Leeds City Council
formed a series of Arms Length Management Organisations. Clearly, this was a
significant period of change for the local authority in which a considerable
amount of staff time was invested. Nonetheless, input from City Council
representatives was strong despite this.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
47
References
Audit Commission (2003) Scrutiny Report: Market Renewal, Manchester Salford
Pathfinder, Manchester.
Available at www.audit-commission.gov.uk
Bramley, & Pawson, H (2002) Low demand housing and unpopular
neighbourhoods, Housing Research Summary 114, Heriott Watt University and
ODPM, Edinburgh and London.
Centre for City and Regional Studies, University of Hull & CUDEM, Leeds
Metropolitan University (2003) Links and Consistency between Regional
Strategies in Yorkshire and the Humber, for Yorkshire Futures, Hull and Leeds.
Dobbs, L & Moore, C (2002), “Engaging communities in area-based
regeneration: the role of Participatory evaluation”, Policy Studies, Vol 23, No. 3-4,
157-171.
Cole I, Kane S and Robinson D (1999) Changing Demand, Changing
Neighbourhoods: The Response of Social Landlords, Sheffield: Centre for
Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.
Cole, I Hickman, P & Reeve, K with McCoulough, E & Lister, D (2003) The
Leeds Housing Market, Perceptions of change, CRESR, Sheffield Hallam
University, Sheffield.
Harvey, D (2001) “The Condition of Postmodernity” in Dear, M.J. & Flusty, S
(eds.) The Spaces of Postmodernity, Blackwell, Oxford. Pp 169-176
Kuper, L (ED.) 1953) Living in Towns: Selected Research Papers in Urban
Sociology, The Cresset Press, London.
Leeds City Council (2002), Creating better neighbourhoods and healthier
communities: Housing Strategy Update 2001/2 – 2005/6, Leeds, Leeds City
Council, Leeds.
Leeds City Council (2003) Neighbourhood Management Pathfinder round 2:
Expression of Interest for the Cross Green/East End Park Area
Holmes, C (2003), Housing, Equality and Choice, IPPR, London.
Housing Corporation (2002), The Big Picture, Housing Associations and
Regeneration, Housing Corporation, London.
Huxham, C. (2003) “Action research as a methodology for theory development”,
Policy and Politics, vol. 31 no 2 pp 239-248.
Neighbourhood Initiatives Foundation (2002) Community Consultation Exercise:
Moor Allerton Estates Leeds, January - June 2002, NIF.
ODPM (2002) The Learning Curve: developing skills and knowledge for
neighbourhood renewal, ODPM, London.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
48
ODPM (2003) Sustainable communities: building for the future, ODPM, London.
Ridings Housing Association (2002a) Audit of Community Consultation on the
[Area B] Estate, Ridings Housing Association, Leeds.
Ridings Housing Association (2002b) Resident Profile Data, The Ridings Housing
Association, Leeds.
Thomas, J (1993), Doing critical ethnography, Sage, Newbury Park.
Tucker, J (1966), Honourable Estates, Gollancz, London.
Yorkshire & Humberside Housing Forum/GOYH/Housing Corporation (2002) The
Yorkshire and the Humber Regional Housing Statement Update and Sub
Regional Statements for 2002.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
49
Appendix 1: List of Interviewees, Interview Schedules
List of interviewees:
Sue Blackburn, & Michelle
Alex Sobel
Claire Warren
Martyn Millar
Chris Collins
Huw Jones
Ann Waite
Chris Coates
Barbara Kempf
Gwen Smith
Jeremy Morton
Jerri Shevlin
David Horner
Richard Warrington
And also:
Thirty-two people, including children, at Area C who agreed to be interviewed.
Thirty-three interviewees at Area A.
All the women attending the Mother & Toddler Sessions at Area B.
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
50
Expert Testimony Interview Questions
THEME 1: OVERVIEW OF EACH CASE STUDY AREA (where applicable) plus
general issues
1. Are they familiar with any/all of the case study areas?
2. Comment on the effectiveness of regeneration initiative that they are familiar
with, Leeds generally/case study areas particularly.
3. Draw out comments on the relationship of selected demolition in localised
areas in the overall strategic context. Can they comment on how and where
strategic policy (e.g. driven by the LSP, the Leeds Initiative, or the emergent
Communities Plan) impacts on local level issues?
4. What are the key characteristics of the area (if familiar with more than one,
focus on one. If not familiar, ask in general terms). Prompts: boundaries:
nature of community: changing communities?
5. Identify key problems on any/all these areas? Does anything make them
stand out?
THEME 2: GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF LOW DEMAND
1. Aware of any prior consultation/research taking place in the area into
solutions to falling demand?
2. What do they perceive to be the main symptoms that suggest
demand/popularity is declining? How does this relate to the Leeds MAD
(Model of Area Demand)?
3. What are the options available for delivering regeneration programmes in
areas where there is a lack of demand for housing (any tenure)?
4. Are they aware of any specific plans that address low demand?
THEME 3: THE CASE FOR SELECTED DEMOLITION
1. To what extent is demolition a feasible solution to problems?
2. Can they outline the key elements in the decision-making process (leading to
demolition) and how local communities are engaged during this process?
3. How are decisions made about what to do with the space created by
demolition?
4. What are the advantages/disadvantages of demolition (prompts:
social/environmental/financial)?
5. How much is low demand the driving factor leading to decisions to demolish?
(Prompts: social factors/stock condition/tenancy problems)
THEME 4: EFFECTS ON INFRASCTURE
1. How do these local issues fit in with broader planning and regeneration
strategies?
2. To what extent is the decision to demolish a political issue (rather than
environmental or financial)?
3. Have they had any experience of small-scale demolition? If so what has been
the impact? (on community/perceptions of the area/appearance of the
area/community opposition/community support)
4. Would they be relevant for a focus group/willing to be in one
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
51
Street interview questions (these were amended for younger children)
Street interviews
1. What are the 3 best things about living round here?
2. Are there any parts of this area to be avoided?
3. Do you think you should be consulted about what happens in the area?
4. How have you been involved in decisions about demolishing homes?
5. How could you take part in decisions about whether to do any more demolition?
6. What do you think about the demolition that has happened?
7. How has the demolition changed the area?
8. Should there be any more demolition?
9. What do outsiders think about the area?
10. What would make the area better?
Impact Evaluation of the Selected Demolition of Housing: CUDEM, Leeds Metropolitan University
52
Appendix 2: Literature Review
Research into Selected Demolition 2003
Literature Review
Submitted by: Angela Maye-Banbury, Jane Kettle and Steve Littlewood
Centre for Urban Development and Environmental Management
School of the Built Environment, Leeds Metropolitan University, LEEDS, LS1 3HE
Tel: 0113 283 1708
Email: j.kettle@leedsmet.ac.uk
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Key Themes
1
2
Section 1: Definitions of Low Demand
Definitions of ‘Low Demand’
Definitions of ‘Regeneration’
Evaluations of Low Demand in England
Causes of Low Demand
Characteristics of Residents in Low Demand Areas
Properties Effected
Other Issues Relevant to Low Demand
Consequences of Low Demand
Responses of Public Sector Housing Providers
Importance of Community Consultation
Funding Regimes
Mixed Income Communities
3
3
4
6
7
7
8
8
9
10
10
10
Section 2: The Rationale for Selected Demolition
Overall Rationale for Selected Demolition
Options Appraisal
Numbers of Dwellings Replaced Following Demolition
Economic Viability of Demolition
Framework for Assessing Demolition Case
ODPM Transfer Guidance and Demolition
11
13
14
14
15
17
Section 3: The Regional Dimension of Regeneration
Regional Dimension
Joint Housing and RDA Agenda
19
20
Bibliography
Full Bibliography
Other Relevant Publications
22
25
List of Figures
Figure 1: ‘On the Spot’ Screening Tool
Figure 2: Possible Outcome of Mapping Exercise
Figure 3: Towards Implementing a Joint Housing and RDA Agenda
16
17
21
Introduction
This literature review represents the first project milestone for the research into ‘Selected Demolition
– An Evaluation in Leeds’ as part of the New Horizons research programme, supported by the
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2003.
The review provides an overview of the literature which has emerged regarding low demand and
selected demolition, specifically over the last four years, thereby constructing sound, robust
parameters for the research. The review is presented in three sections:
Section 1 – Low Demand and Regeneration
Section 1 of the literature reviews uses seminal research to define key terms of reference for ‘low
demand’ and ‘regeneration’. An overview of some critical research with respect to low demand and
social housing are reviewed here, alongside some of the causes of low demand and the socioeconomic characteristics of residents living in areas defined as low demand. Research relating to
which properties most likely to be classified as being in low demand and the consequences of low
demand are also included in Section 1. This is followed by a review of the strategies which have
been implemented by local authorities and housing associations to address low demand, with
specific reference to new approaches to housing management, community consultation and funding
regimes. Section 1 ends by providing a review of the research regarding mixed income
communities.
Section 2 – The Rationale for Selected Demolition
In the second section of the review, research regarding demolition of social housing is reviewed.
This section focuses on literature regarding options appraisal for public housing landlords, net loss
of dwellings as a result of demolition and the economic viability of demolition, compared to
refurbishment. Research regarding a framework for assessing the case for demolition is also
reviewed alongside a review of key housing management initiatives designed to combat low
demand. Guidance notes published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, with reference to
transfer of housing stock, is also reviewed.
Section 3 – The Regional Dimension
Section 3 provides a review of the literature which emphasises regional approaches to low demand
and regeneration. The synergy between different elements of policy systems, including planning,
economic and housing.
1
Key Themes
Although the reasons for low demand varied throughout the country, a number of key themes have
emerged:
 Low demand was not exclusively housing related. Rather, economic decline leading to
outward migration, particularly at a sub-regional level, was consistently identified as a factor
(Bramley and Pawson; 1999).
 Demolition is increasingly being used by local authorities in areas where significant
investment through a range of funding initiatives has failed or proved ineffectual.
 Integrated approaches to regeneration, regionalisation and addressing low demand,
specifically in the public sector, are critical to the economic and social success of an area;
Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), regional planning guidance (PPG3) and housing
strategies must be therefore more synergised (Farnworth 2001; Cole et al 2000 and 2001;
Maye-Banbury, 2003).
 The planning system needs to respond to low demand by rationing land use in one area as a
way of preventing the collapse of housing markets in another (Bramley and Pawson; 1999;
Maye-Banbury, 2003).
 Interagency management should be co-ordinated by local authorities (Cole et al 2000 and
2001; Bramley and Pawson; 1999.
 Crime and anti-social behaviour have a cyclical, destabilising effect on an area; local
authorities should seek to promote further confidence in areas of low demand by addressing
crime and anti-social behaviour, notably through the Crime and Disorder partnership working
(Cole et al 2000 and 2001; Bramley and Pawson; 1999).
 To promote equality in social housing markets, people from all groups and in particular,
Black and Minority Ethnic groups should be consulted across all tenure groups; local
authorities should focus on creating balanced, sustainable and safe communities for all
groups but particularly for BME households where safety is often an important feature (Cole
et al 2000 and 2001; Bramley and Pawson; 1999).
 Effective resolution of low demand is critical to strengthening services, stabilising
communities and supporting regeneration efforts (Cole et al 2000 and 2001; Bramley and
Pawson; 1999).
 Although it is important to improve physical conditions, social-economic factors are more
important to address. Such factors include crime, anti-social behaviour and poverty (Cole et
al 2000 and 2001; Bramley and Pawson; 1999).
 Pockets of private renting for often transient groups may often be a negative factor in
promoting long term occupation of social housing in an area (Cole et al 2000 and 2001;
Bramley and Pawson; 1999; Maye-Banbury, 2003).
 It may not always be strategic to tackle low demand by concentrating on the worst areas
first. More integrated, strategic options (such as widening out space and the creation of
more private areas around dwellings) may be appropriate (Bramley and Pawson; 1999).
2
Section 1 – Low Demand and Regeneration
_____________________________________________________
Definitions of ‘Low Demand’
In Bramley and Pawson (2000), the researchers made a useful distinction between ‘absolute low
demand’ and ‘relatively unpopular housing’. With regard to absolute low demand, housing was
defined as difficult to let or sell because there are insufficient households in the area looking for
accommodation. However, relatively unpopular housing is difficult to let or sell because it is of a
type, or in a particular type of neighbourhood, which has specific problems which make it very
unpopular relative to other housing available. The evidence presented suggested that causes and
responses vary according to the type of low demand.
Definitions of Regeneration
Research published by the Housing Corporation (2002) as part of the Corporation’s Innovation and
Good Practice Guide offered a range of definitions of regeneration. It also highlighted some key
messages for housing associations seeking to address neighbourhood renewal issues. For some
years, the work of associations in regenerating communities has extended beyond simply providing
homes. However, this new work raises some complex issues. More recently, with greater emphasis
from Government on tackling social exclusion and creating sustainable communities, these issues
have come strongly to the forefront. The Research identified several examples of good practice, as
well as areas that need to be clarified by housing associations themselves and their regulators. It
stressed that it is equally important that housing associations accounted for the resources they
devoted to ‘community investment’ activities. This importance of community need, rather than
simply individuals’ housing need, should be the main consideration when letting housing. Choosing
to give priority to community need can lead to greater long-term success in the lettings as well as in
the communities.
The Housing Corporation (2002) suggested that although some housing associations have tried to
contribute directly to the local economy of the areas they are regenerating, more could be achieved.
A number of specific areas of recommendation were mentioned in the report including:
 Rural as well as urban areas need regeneration, although people experiencing social
exclusion in the countryside have much in common with those in towns and cities, different
approaches are needed.
 While there are now more opportunities to secure funding for regeneration, housing
associations need to work with partners, taking a more strategic approach to reduce gaps in
their resources and be clear about what they can legitimately fund themselves.
 Housing associations should adopt the codes stemming from the Challenge Report from the
Race and Housing Inquiry, and develop action plans with definite targets, which will drive
improvements on race equality and diversity.
 In the interests of long-term sustainability, it is important to improve the image of areas
undergoing regeneration.
 Associations involved in partnerships to carry out regeneration programmes should ensure
that they enable communities to contribute on an equal footing from the outset.
3
Evaluations of Low Demand in England
A comprehensive overview of low demand, with specific reference to social housing, is contained in
Bramley and Pawson (1999). This report, published by the ODPM’s Policy Action Team (PAT) was
underpinned by an analysis conducted by Herriot Watt University, which sought to collate and
analyse robust data of the nature of low demand across all housing tenures. Overall, local authority
housing stock had the highest level of low demand, followed by housing association then the private
sector (both owner occupation and private rents).
A central finding contained in the PAT Report 7 was that the majority (61 percent) of local housing
authorities involved in the research reportedly had high levels of unpopular local authority stock.
This accounted for 11.5 percent of the stock nationally, comprising around 377,000 dwellings. Low
demand council stock was particularly concentrated in the North East, North West, Yorkshire &
Humberside. It is noteworthy that some areas of London were also classified as being in low
demand for local authority accommodation, although overall, these areas constituted a small
proportion of the overall housing stock in the capital.
With regard to housing association accommodation, lower levels of low demand were recorded
(only 8 percent of total stock). Here again, the North East emerged as one area of low demand but
the South East also featured; for both regions, certain types of housing stock such as sheltered
accommodation dominated.
In respect of private sector, the research suggested that only 3 percent of private sector was
classified as being in low demand. In addition to the North West and Yorkshire & Humberside, the
East and West Midlands was also single out as areas of low demand.
Power and Mumford (1999a) found that good quality; modernised homes were being abandoned in
some inner city neighbourhoods. House prices had fallen, in some cases to zero, and demolition of
empty properties had not generally stemmed the tide of abandonment. The research reported that
whole areas have virtually no demand for housing. Britain's major cities had been losing population
since the turn of the century. Manchester and Newcastle, the two cities studied, lost a fifth of their
population since 1961. Depopulation had paralleled severe job losses, mainly in manufacturing, and
job losses had hit low-skilled men particularly harshly. Long-term unemployment in inner cities was
reportedly chronic.
The North West region was studied in Nevin et al (2001). This is a comprehensive review of the
conditions affecting the housing market in the conurbations in this region. The report also contained
reviews of other research initiatives. The authors examined the housing and socio-economic
characteristics of the area as well as the changes in the processes of demand.
Power and Mumford (1999b) present a study of low demand housing in four wards in two cities,
including evidence of the alarming speed with which acceptable neighbourhoods may experience
low demand, abandonment and dereliction. The research found that good quality homes were being
abandoned in inner city areas with the attendant problems of private house prices declining
dramatically. The instance of low demand housing was therefore found to be prevalent in both
public and private sectors. Perhaps the most pessimistic conclusion of the report is that the social
polarisation of some communities will not be alleviated, despite the government’s attempts to tackle
social exclusion, unless the driving forces of the processes of change are altered.
Ford and Pawson (2001) noted that tenant dissatisfaction was found to be particularly high in the
Midlands and North, much less in the South, and a relatively high proportion of HA tenants of Indian
and Pakistani origin live in areas close to or affected by low demand.
The issue of low demand is pursued further in Property Forum (2003) The article reports that one in
five homes in Britain is said to be in danger of being abandoned through low demand. Here reasons
4
are given as loss of industry and jobs having caused mass exodus in parts of the north, leaving an
excess of housing, panic selling, price collapse and abandonment. Such events have take place
over a fairly short period of time in places like Salford and North Manchester where the traditional
rules of the housing market no longer apply. The article asserted that there are stories of homes
changing hands in pubs for cash. In contrast, London prices have risen by 150 percent since 1996,
pricing lower paid workers out of the market and raising fears of a repeat of the 80s boom and bust
cycle. Migration of households is also significant, the article reports. In just 12 months Manchester,
Merseyside and the North West lost 11,000 people; Yorkshire and Humberside more than 7,000;
the North East 6,000. During the same period, the South gained more than 21,000 people. This
commentary suggested that the problem of unwanted housing appeared to be being worsened by
planning policies that are encouraging the construction of thousands of new homes in the North
East at the same rate as the national average i.e.7,000 new homes in the last three years and 5,500
a year until 2016. In England as a whole, the population is expected to grow by 6.9 percent over the
next 20 years, but in the North East it is expected to fall by 3.5 percent. Despite this projected fall,
homes were being constructed in the northeast at 6.8 percent per thousand households, the same
as the national rate. The high level of empty properties in the region raised doubts about the
accuracy of outdated council estimates.
However, the above idea of population shifts from North to South is challenged in Bate (2000) The
evidence presented here shows that the perception of an exodus from North to South is misplaced
and that most of the migration takes place within regions. Similarly, the perception of a flight from
the cities is not supported by the evidence and argues there are complex factors affecting outward
flows and equally the balancing influx. Coupled with the movement of people, the supply of suitable
housing is shown to be inadequate in terms of both location and type. The preferred housing types
are not being built to meet the demand and the replacement of the older stock is below the market
requirements. Several policy strategies were discussed ranging from the tighter controls to a more
relaxed approach to settlement and land use. No effective solutions were put forward to ease the
flow or consequences of migration but there is an acceptance of the inherent difficulties of
interference at all levels. The current orthodoxy of neighbourhood based approaches and urban
renaissance were seen to be away forward. Throughout the publication, there is an acceptance of
the influence of London as both an economic force and a social magnet.
Bate (2000) also highlighted the issue of area abandonment as a result of voluntary migration.
Northern conurbations such as Manchester and Newcastle were mentioned and there is a further
acceptance that this is now affecting smaller urban areas. Although the earlier experience of
abandonment in the USA is mentioned it is not explored in depth. A clear view is expressed that
area abandonment and low demand are affecting areas of sound housing not as previously
experienced, the abandonment of slum housing areas. This type of abandonment was seen as
recent, in contrast to the longer standing problem in the USA.
5
The paradox of low demand empty housing whilst there remains an estimated need for more
housing is also reviewed in Niner (1999). Here, the author reflected on the need to bring the supply
and demand for housing more into harmony and suggests what might be done by bringing together
programmes at national, regional, city, district and local levels. The simple ‘one size fits all’ policy
approach was seen as inadequate in tackling housing problems that are different across the
regions. A significant observation in the paper was on the question of ‘frequent movers’ i.e. people
who move from house to house on a regular basis in low demand areas. These people were often
described as a causal factor in area decline but the paper argues these people are perhaps victims
of crime rather than its cause.
Housing Corporation (2001) highlighted the regional dimension of low demand. The report’s key
findings are summarised as follows:
 Over the period 1996–99, the number of housing association homes classed as low demand
rose by two-thirds, an increase significantly greater than the overall expansion in the sector
seen over that period.
 Whilst clear evidence of the North-South divide existed in relation to the incidence of low
demand housing association housing, the East Midlands also stands out as an area where
the problem is particularly serious.
 The local authorities of Corby (East Midlands) and Blyth Valley (North East) consistently
appeared in the top 10 rankings of two indicators of low demand in housing association
housing.
The Housing Corporation (2001) review also demonstrates that although the incidence of low
demand housing is consistently higher in the North and Midlands regions, considerable intraregional variation exists according to the local authorities most affected.
Causes of Low Demand
The underlying antisocial causes and lack of confidence are attributed to the depopulation of the
inner cities, job losses and unemployment are documented in the Power and Mumford study
(1999b), but symptoms can be surprising. For example, in many cases social landlords were
operating in direct competition with each other; landlords used the '100 per cent benefit system' to
facilitate the movement of a diminishing number of tenants around surplus stock; private landlords
were often willing to rehouse evicted tenants as long as the rent is guaranteed. There was also
evidence that private landlords speculated around demolition decisions, buying up property for little
in the hope of high rent from temporary lettings, before Compulsory Purchase Orders were
executed.
The research commissioned by the ODPM from DTZ Pieda Consulting (2000) highlighted how the
combination of negative physical and social conditions may result in low demand housing. High
density, deck access and maisonettes are unpopular with existing and prospective tenants often
impact on crime, the condition of the dwelling and the proximity of the estate to local amenities such
as transport, shopping and schools. Groups, often vulnerable households, who have little power to
exercise alternative housing choices, were offered accommodation in hard to let areas. Social
systems began to disintegrate and the symptoms of social exclusion (high unemployment, high
crime rate, low levels of educational achievement) were manifested.
Bramley and Pawson (2000) pointed to a range of causes of low demand but the critical theme,
which emerged in the research, is the poor stigma of an area caused by actual or perceived crime
(along with lack of visible policing) and anti-social behaviour. Other secondary factors were poor
building design, housing type and what the authors referred to as ‘environmental conditions’. Low
6
demand may become a self-perpetuating phenomenon, which can lead to declining educational
attainment levels, lack of community cohesion, high child density, low level disorder and disruptive
local cultures. The authors stressed the importance of both neighbourhood and district levels are
important in addressing low demand.
Characteristics of Residents in Low Demand Areas
Bramley and Pawson’s (2000) work has highlighted some of the socio demographic characteristics
of households who occupy low demand areas.
Welfare dependency was one factor consistently identified in the research either as a result of
unemployment or long-term illness or disability. The authors suggested that these households are
likely to become even further socially excluded and communities therefore more destabilised. Many
research respondents reported that they felt unsafe both inside and outside their homes and a high
proportion had been a victim of crime. Most said that they would welcome more policing in their
neighbourhoods.
Based on responses from those who participated in the research exercise, the authors report that
may residents feel ‘stuck’ in the area and express a wish to move out, principally because of the
declining neighbourhood. A number of respondents reported, however, that generally they were
satisfied with the condition of their home.
Properties Effected
Bramley and Pawson (2000) assert that inter-war build and those properties built between 1967 –
1987 were most likely to be classified as ‘low demand’. Pre 1900 older properties, particularly those
acquired by RSLs, along with high rise and smaller units were also likely to be unpopular. Family
type properties and low/medium rise flats also fall into this group. In some instances, low demand
applied to sheltered housing but the research points out that this does not tend to be concentrated
in specific areas.
This analysis is confirmed by Ford and Pawson (2001) who also assessed the specific
characteristics of housing association housing stock affected by low demand. The authors found
that oldest and most recently built housing association stock was disproportionately likely to be
located in areas close to low demand housing. About 11 percent involved recently constructed
housing.
7
Other Issues Relevant to Low Demand
A range of key issues relevant to low demand and housing policy are summarised well in: Farnworth
(2001) who is cited in recent minutes to the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and
the Regions Evidence to Above Select Committee.
The specific points made by Farnworth (2001) to the Committee included:
 Some empty homes were no longer desirable to the general population regardless of what is
done to them on a bricks and mortar level.
 An oversupply of cheap new build properties made some older properties less desirable and
they remain empty.
 Methods of dealing with areas of low demand and areas with many empty homes were
inadequate, new techniques need to be employed such as private sector partnerships for
clearance and renewal.
 Government had to accept that the housing markets in the regions are different and local
initiatives will have to be accepted to bring about improvement at local levels.
 The evidence showed there are links between empty homes and degeneration this was
clearly seen as early as the 1960s and 70s in the USA following the loss of industry in what
was called the 'Rustbelt'.
 Housing should not be viewed as an economic commodity, rather a national resource that
should be managed. The concept of negative equity stemmed from individuals expecting to
‘play the market’ and win every time. People should therefore be aware that investments
might go down as well as up.
Finally, by way of contrasting a declining low demand area with one on the way ‘back up’, Power
and Mumford (2003) present their vision what a regenerated low demand area in England might
look like. They emphasise the need to 'redesign inner neighbourhoods, so they are modern yet
rooted in history, green yet dense enough to feel safe and mixed enough to support good shops and
schools linked by transport routes to the centre'.
Consequences of Low Demand
Bramley and Pawson (2000) pointed out that low demand increases opportunity for crime, thereby
perpetuating the overall negative image of the area. The transient nature of residents destabilises
communities and contributes to significant problems in areas such as schools and local services.
Increased cost for local authorities is incurred, thereby increasing the financial vulnerability of public
sector landlords. Other housing markets next to the area of low demand may also be affected. This
may lead to the selling properties to private developers and marginalizing owner-occupiers in the
area.
Furthermore, Power and Mumford 1999a) noted that low demand had resulted generated falling
school rolls, loss of confidence in the area, a vacuum in social control, anti-social behaviour and
intense fear of crime.
8
Responses of Public Sector Housing Providers
According to Bramley and Pawson (2000), the most popular response of local public sector housing
providers, the application of marketing strategies alongside changes to allocations policies, tended
to be the least effective. These strategies have ranged from local lettings policies, promotion of
voids through advertising, relaxation of under occupation rules and unlimited offers. Many social
landlords were considering other initiatives such as furnished lets and community lettings.
Increasingly, however, local authorities were considering introducing selected demolition to address
low demand and promote regeneration, specifically in urban areas (Cole et al 2000; 2001)
Bramley and Pawson (2000) also noted that whilst housing management initiatives were effective in
some instances, a more successful strategy might be radical physical transformation of estates. The
most common physical response by social landlords was the introduction of security measures to
tackle crime and environmental problems. Around a quarter of those interviewed in the Bramley and
Pawson (2000) research opted for demolition and/or rehabilitation. Significantly, selected demolition
was used more commonly in the North where the problem of low demand was perceived as
irresolvable. The limitations of other measures to combat anti-social behaviour include revisions to
tenancy agreements and further collaborative working with the police and other relevant
organisations were also acknowledged in the report.
Property People (2003) highlights the case study of a family participating in a ‘Homeswap’ system in
Salford where residents were supported to move from run down areas of low demand to more
popular housing. This initiative enabled them to remain amongst their own community but away
from blighted areas. In the case cited, it did not take long for the area to decline. When the family
moved into Langworthy it was a ‘good place to live’, with a traditional community, and the area was
ideal for the starter home market. Twelve years ago the houses were at the peak of their value
between £25,000 and £30,000. Manufacturing decline led to a reduction in the need for workers and
therefore the need for the terraced housing to accommodate them. Properties in Seedley and
Langworthy still remained relatively popular until new starter homes were built nearby in the early
1990s. Within this neighbourhood, it was later recognised that more was needed to regenerate the
area than simply building new homes. There was also a need to regenerate community spirit and
community involvement. The Seedley and Langworthy Initiative (SALI) is a resident’s group set up
with the help of the Manchester Methodist housing association, which sought to regenerate the
area. The group encouraged the council to provide regeneration funds and has set up community
facilities, which provide after-school and holiday activities for local young people. To try and prevent
further decline, the council introduced a landlord accreditation scheme.
An earlier article in Property People (2002) former ‘hard-to-lets’ reborn as modern city apartments
described one aspect of how the introduction of mixed tenancies in areas can regenerate areas of
low demand. In Wythenshawe, an area of previous social housing was taken over by private
developer and transformed into one-bed and studio apartments. In a deal that involved no public
funds, LPC agreed to provide affordable rather than social housing so as not to compete with
Manchester City council for tenants. They took the unusual step of setting a salary minimum for their
tenants of £12,000 for a single occupant and £15,000 for doubles. Rent for a one bed flat is £75 a
week, including security and use of a gym.
After two years, each tenant will have the right to buy the flats, which are alongside a retail park,
supermarket and Habitat store, and are expected to go for around £50,000. An LPC Director said
the flats had been allowed to degenerate and become an undesirable area where no one wanted to
live. In the article, the Director stresses the affordability dimension of the dwellings: “There was no
need for social housing in the area and the council was keen to change the demographic make up,
which is why we put the minimum salary figure in …. One of my gripes about most regeneration is
that it is city centre apartments for high earners. Here we are talking about people on £12,000 who
could not normally afford a modern city apartment.”
9
Monitoring and evaluation of strategies such as these will significantly inform local authorities’ and
housing associations’ strategic approach to low demand.
Importance of Community Consultation
The importance of engaging the community in regeneration was emphasized in Housing
Corporation (2003). This paper drew on research across a range of other sectors to explore how
different product and service providers engage with the public and involve end users. Consultative
initiatives are also highlighted in Cole (2000; 2001) and Bramley and Pawson (2000).
Funding Regimes
Bramley and Pawson (2000) also highlighted a number of issues significant to funding regimes,
which have had a negative impact on dealing with low demand. For example, the annual local
authority bidding exercise for funds was seen by those authorities which participated in the study as
competitive and therefore strategies designed to promote housing and community cohesion
fractionalised. In addition, the research called for further integration with the Approve Development
Programme and housing strategies, alongside the creation of a single capital pot for housing which
will give LAs more flexibility with their resources. The authors emphasised that engagement with the
local community is of equal importance to working effectively with public and private partner
organisations.
Mixed Income Communities
Bramley and Pawson (2000) emphatically endorsed the notion of mixed income communities and
points to evidence which strongly suggested that ‘problem estates’ have a higher than average
proportion of social housing dwellings. The authors pointed to best practice in Chicago where
ownership could not be distinguished by physical appearance. Here, grants for deposits on new
affordable dwellings alongside low cost mortgages had all significantly contributed to the success of
the ‘City Lots for City Living Scheme’ in Chicago.
10
Section 2 – The Rationale for Selected Demolition
__________________________________________________________________________
Overall Rationale for Selected Demolition
A consensus exists that demolition of social housing dwellings has become more prevalent in the
last 6 years (Bramley and Pawson; 2000; DTZ Pieda Consulting 2000).
Large-scale demolition was advocated as one solution in a report commissioned from Sheffield
Hallam University by the Housing Corporation. This seminal research, produced by Cole, I. et al
(2000), was the first report to meaningfully study the phenomena of the hundreds of sparsely
populated and even empty housing estates to be found all over the country. Uncovering what the
authors describe as "a problem that dare not speak its name", the report studied 18 housing
associations and local councils in Newcastle, Salford, Manchester, Sheffield, Liverpool and Leeds.
The researchers found that many people refuse to live in such areas, and that in some cases there
was no alternative but to "manage the decline" of such blighted estates. The authors report that
around that nearly one million “unwanted” homes in Britain are located in areas that are blighted by
large-scale poverty, unemployment and crime.
Cole et al (2000) suggest that measures should not always be taken to attempt to rejuvenate areas
of housing termed defined as ‘low demand’ —the demolition of the stock may be the only answer.
The report estimated that there were 500,000 council and housing association dwellings located in
areas of low demand. This figure represents 10 percent of the publicly owned housing in England. A
further 450,000 privately owned houses were facing the same fate.
The local authorities which participated in the Bramley and Pawson (2000) research also reported
that selected demolition was the most effective way to deal with low demand (where there is a clear
surplus of stock), followed closely by intensive housing management. Significantly, the report
stressed that selected demolition must be used with care since there have been instances where
this course of action has led to further decline. Local authorities needed, therefore, in preparation for
demolition need to be clear about the purpose of the initiative to avoid confusion amongst residents
and to minimise the negative effects of living next to unsightly, vacant land. Many local authorities
reportedly found the Compulsory Purchase Order system bureaucratic; the (then) DETR is
considering issuing guidance to minimise this.
Blackman (2001) presented a robust analysis of how selected demolition may address low demand.
Councils and housing associations, particularly in the north of England, wanted to redevelop
selected estates but faced a barrage of opposition from all sides. Housing demolition, the authors
report, was higher on the agenda than at any point since the slum clearance programme of the
1960s, as a result of collapsing demand, particularly across the north and the Midlands, especially
in ‘clapped out’ post-war estates and Victorian and Edwardian terraced housing said to be past its
sell by date. Manchester was cited as an example by Blackman (2000), where it was acknowledged
that only a small portion of planned new homes will be aimed at low income earners and the
proportion of total stock that was social housing will decline as they increase the level of owner
occupation. The analysis also highlighted the relevance of tenure balance and pointed out that to
change the tenure balance, private house builders must be lured to build in the area. Clearance
advocates argue, the authors suggest, that apart from liberating land for development, it will rid the
area of housing that is no longer wanted and has often become a haven for antisocial behaviour.
The resistance from owner-occupiers and landlords was emphasised when faced with the prospect
of compulsory purchase. Paradoxically, the steep decline in property values in unpopular areas
makes it harder for owners to surrender their homes, and owner occupiers living in very low demand
areas were likely to vociferously fight comprehensive redevelopment proposals, as all they are
entitled to in compensation is the existing value of the property. This meant, the report suggests,
that homeowners in areas such as east Manchester, where negative equity is the norm, have little
incentive to go along with the loss of their homes.
11
Other research, undertaken on behalf of the ODPM by DTZ Pieda Consulting (2000) identified the
scale of demolition on local authority estates and the motivation of local authorities in undertaking
such demolition activity. The research also included an evaluation of whether such demolition
activity represents value for money. Data was gathered from a number of sources including:
Housing Investment Programme returns indicating level of demolition; responses from a postal
survey targeting local authorities which had undertaken a significant amount of demolition during
1991 – 1997; analysis of the rationale for development. Twelve local authority case studies were
analysed in detail including 3 in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. These were: Sheffield City
Council, Bradford Council and Leeds City Council.
The key findings from the DTZ Pieda Consulting (2000) research initiative may be summarised as
follows:
 Around 40,000 local authority owned dwellings were demolished in the six-year period April
1991 to March 1997, roughly 1 percent of the stock of local authority dwellings in 1991. The
level of demolition activity has increased significantly during this 6-year period.
 Demolition activity had focused on the worst properties on the least popular, ‘problem’
estates which were hard to let and hard to manage.
 Authorities had often undertaken selective demolition as part of wider estate regeneration
schemes. This has allowed them to achieve objectives such as tenure diversification and
securing a better match of dwelling size and demand through redevelopment.
Benjamin (2000) highlighted a demolition area in Bradford. The landlord, the William Sutton Trust,
was about to bulldoze 418 homes, including 14 one-bedroom flats on Dick Lane estate, so that they
the could target repairs and modernisation expenditure on other estates that are sustainable. This
was perceived as a more cost-effective option than refurbishment of the dwellings. In this instance,
although the Trust was demolishing 418 houses, a further 576 were to be modernised, and a raft of
environmental and social improvements will be introduced over the next 10 years at a total cost of
£84m. The article reports that tenants welcomed the demolition of dwellings that that were said to
be the source of drug culture and crime in the area.
The DTZ Pieda Consulting (2000) showed that local authorities targeted the most problematic
properties for demolition when rehabilitation would have proved most expensive and the least likely
to attract new tenants. The demolition option was often exercised when other initiatives (SRB, City
Challenge) to turn around the estate had failed.
Apparent oversupply of dwellings, particularly in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and
Humberside, was also another motivating factor. Interestingly, the research has noted that even if
action taken to improve an estate is successful, it may still remain hard to let. This has presented a
further challenge for local authorities but in these cases, demolition represents a real alternative
provided it is based on an overall strategy involving community consultation and clearly defined
alternative use for the land. The research acknowledges the significant reluctance on the part of the
authorities to demolish their own dwellings, given the scarcity of resources available for
replacement. This reluctance is particularly accentuated by the overall net loss of dwellings.
The work of Llewelyn-Davies, et al (2000) has also made a sound contribution to this body of
knowledge. The research focused on the redevelopment of existing land and places specific
emphasis on the role of demolition and conversion in promoting housing and economic
regeneration. In total, nine case study areas were examined (including Bradford in the Yorkshire
and Humberside region). Findings emanating form these cases study areas where then
extrapolated to a national level. Significantly, this research pointed to the lack of robust data on the
nature of a site prior to development and units of accommodation (data on HMOs proved
particularly problematic with regard to the latter). Significantly, housing associations were identified
in the report as key players in providing low cost homes which private developers could not viably
12
produce. The research also highlighted a number of key factors which act as a catalyst to promoting
redevelopment of and conversions in areas at a local level. These included:
 Local population changes where new markets emerge and housing requirements need to be
met; the research cites a growth in student population as one example where
accommodation is required close to the university and highlights the opportunities open to
landlords. This phenomenon could equally apply to other groups e.g. the recruitment of a
new work force to service an employer which had recently moved to the locality.
 Perception of an area: a more positive perception of an area could lead to an increased
demand for housing in the city centre such as waterfront developments (Leeds is a good
example of this).
 Introduction of facilities and public transport which increases the value of a property and
demand for smaller units of accommodation.
Options Appraisal
The DTZ Pieda Consulting (2000) research suggested that options appraisal were generally only
undertaken when it was a requirement by central government, particularly when it was linked to
specific funding regimes such as SRB, City Challenge and Estate Action.
13
Numbers of Dwellings Replaced Following Demolition and Net Loss
The DTZ Pieda Consulting (2000) study showed that in some cases, selective demolition has
allowed estates to be remodelled. However, the research indicated that not all demolished
dwellings have been replaced. For example, in 10 percent of estates which have been (or will be)
redeveloped, were altered into non-residential use. For the remaining 90 percent, were (or will be)
developed for housing, although often parts are released for non-residential development.
Overall, for every ten dwellings demolished, only 6 were replaced. This was because sites were
redeveloped at lower density levels than in the past.
Just over three quarters (78 percent) of all dwellings replaced were family type houses. This form of
build sharply contracts with the design of properties which were demolished (purpose built low rise
flats – 33 percent; maisonettes 26 percent and 16 percent high rise flats).
There was a marked shift from LA dwellings to RSL or private sector accommodation when the
sites were redeveloped. The majority of all new build was social housing (RSL recorded at 56
percent; LA 11 percent and shared ownership 8 percent). The remainder were developed for the
owner occupied market.
Economic Viability of Demolition
The research undertaken by DTZ Pieda (2001) has emphasised some of the key economic factors
which underpinned the local authorities’ decision to choose redevelopment as opposed to
refurbishment. Most critically, the higher the unit cost of refurbishment for a specific group of
dwellings, the more likely it is that redevelopment will be the preferred option. Other factors to
consider include:
 In areas of low demand, redevelopment was found to be more economic since it was
possible to reduce the number of social dwellings available without the requirement to make
allowances to make social housing available elsewhere in the District. Land may therefore
be released completely or partially for private housing or other ‘non-housing’ development.
Such an approach does some way to redressing the disequilibrium which exists in some
local housing markets.
 A further factor is the unit cost of new property build. The research suggested that this is
more of a viable option in areas where building costs are relatively low, such as the North of
England. The research also noted that rehabilitation costs were much more variable than
new build costs. Financial forecasting is therefore clearly more accurate with the latter.
 In areas where land prices are relatively high, redevelopment of low intensity council estates
represents good value for money because the scope for intensification unlocks the potential
value of the land without any loss of social housing dwellings.
14
Framework for Assessing Demolition Case
Bramley and Pawson (2000) pointed to the urgency of taking preventative measures, with specific
emphasis on housing management strategies when the initial signs of decline are apparent to
ensure that endemic degeneration does not sink in.
This approach, remodelled, was also advocated by Cole et al (2001) who have provided a
framework for evaluating whether social housing providers would benefit from a strategy described
in the report as ‘On the Spot Housing Management’. The ‘On the Spot’ approach’s principal concern
centred around improving housing management performance and tailoring local housing policies to
local communities by emphasising holistic service delivery. It is particularly advocated by the
report’s authors as part of a wider strategy to counteract low demand and to promote sustainability.
The research all suggested that the approach is applied as an ad hoc response to individual
problems (such as racist incidents) and to involve tenants more in decision - making processes. The
cost effective nature of the On the Spot Approach is emphasised in the report.
A useful element of the research is the inclusion of a screening tool, comprising four data domain.
This tool enables public housing providers to undertake a preliminary assessment of whether
housing management problems may be resolved by applying the ‘On the Spot’ Approach or
whether more radical measures such as demolition are appropriate. The domain axis, measured
from low to high, are:
 Problems with demand: stock turnover, length of time on waiting list, percent of available lets
for the first time, re-let times, void rates.
 Level of deprivation: unemployment and crime levels, ASB; nuisance; spend against
vandalism; poverty audit, participation in local assemblies or tenant groups; percent of
tenants on HB.
 Problems service quality: performance indicators; tenant satisfaction; staff perception.
 Service costs.
The report suggested that this device may be used (identifying whether high levels or low levels in
each sector are recorded) in conjunction with the judgment of housing professionals and using
existing data sources, to assess the specific response of the housing organisation. The cost
efficient nature of the tool was also emphasised. The report’s authors stress that this tool is not
intended as a sophisticated device to determine housing management actions but as an expedient
way to identify a strategy using the collective expertise of a skilled team.
15
Figure 1 provides a diagrammatic illustration of the assessment model proposed by Cole et al
(2000):
Figure 1: ‘On the Spot’ Screening Tool
Problems with
Housing
Demand
High
Problems
with
Service
Quality
High
Low
Low
High
Level of
Deprivation
High
Service
Costs
In brief, using Cole et al’s (2000) screening model, an estate’s position is mapped using the
expertise of staff and other data resources and then mapped. In cases where demolition or
disinvestments may be an appropriate form of action, the axes may form to produce a shape similar
to the one below in Figure 2.
16
Figure 2: Possible Outcome of Mapping Exercise When Demolition May Be Appropriate
Problems with
Housing Demand
Problems
with
Service
Quality
Level of
Deprivation
Service
Costs
It is noteworthy that the model proposed by Cole at al (2000) contains no reference to community
consultation.
ODPM Transfer Guidance and Demolition
In its Housing Transfer Guidance the ODPM (2002) recommended that local authorities consider
the remodelling, demolition and rebuilding of existing dwellings when existing stock is not of the
right type or size to meet existing demand. The guidance pointed to the sensitivity of the demolition
issues and recommends that local authorities engage fully with their communities in assessing
alternative use for these neighbourhoods. As part of this guidance, the ODM suggests that
selective, targeted demolition may be considered an option even if low demand is not essentially a
feature of the estate.
The report stated that “even where the assessment shows there would be strong long-term
demand, and renovation would be the main strategy, some selective demolition and redevelopment
might be considered necessary to tackle pockets of unpopular and/or high cost housing, for
example estates that have a very high turn-over and are difficult to let because of poor design or
layout”.
The importance of undertaking comprehensive assessments of housing needs and awareness of
good practice with respect to low demand areas was also highlighted in the ODPM’s (2000)
guidance notes. In this way, any proposals to support demolition may be made robust.
17
The report also pointed to inner city areas where private sector housing is virtually non-existent; the
centre of Bradford is cited here as an example of an area which comprises principally warehouses
and commercial buildings. Such areas did not, the report suggested, represent an attractive option
to private sector developers where the markets for new accommodation is somewhat untested.
However, the report noted that general investment in an area (including SRB funding) can kick start
investor confidence.
18
Section 3 – The Regional Dimension
___________________________________________________________________________
Regional Dimension
The literature review has also illustrated the regional dimension of low demand and proposals to
promote regeneration.
One of the first strategic documents published at the end of the 1990s on the issue of low demand
and associated demolition in the UK was a regional government publication, focusing on the North
West. The statement, published by the Government Office for the North West (1999), sets out a
vision for the future of housing in the North East based on choice, good quality housing and secure
sustainable neighbourhoods. The aims to achieve the vision were also set out, these deal with
issues of supply, obsolescence, depopulation, social inclusion, affordability and issues relating to
black and minority ethnic issues. The situation within each of the six sub-regions is reviewed in
detail giving a clear outline of the conditions prevailing in each around the end of the 1990s.
On a regional level, Government Office for the North West (2000) paper clearly identified the
problem of low demand housing in the private sector and accepts that greater intervention was
required to address the problem. In contrast to the main themes of the time, the statement saw the
need to clear areas of obsolete housing and the replacement of the low demand, housing stock on a
significant scale. This was one of the first reports to unequivocally accept the need for renewal of
the housing stock on grounds of obsolescence rather than unfitness. Further, it supported other
recent findings that low demand is not caused solely by levels of unfitness but by aspirational
changes in society and an increase in accessible, more acceptable housing options.
Murie (2002) focused on the significance of changing demand for the social rented sector, although
it also refers to the private rented sector and home ownership change. The research suggested that
the observed increases in turnover and voids was not simply a ‘blip’ in the data but represented a
significant and sustained change. The report proposed new policy approaches based upon market
renewal areas and housing innovation areas. For example, market renewal should come into play
where market failure is beyond the capacity of local authority and Housing Corporation funding to
reverse. Murie (2002) also proposed that strategies may be adopted to create a new, sustainable
market by the end of a fixed period (e.g. 10-15 years, through new regeneration companies.
Housing innovation would be similar, but apply where several linked neighbourhoods are in decline
and where additional specific spending would not be required beyond that provided through the
local authority, Housing Corporation, sale of land and the private sector. The report also referred to
the recently appointed housing Pathfinders (two of these projects are located in South Yorkshire
and Hull/East Ridings) appointed following the Spending Review 2002. However, since these
projects are at their initial stages of development, it is too early to assess their impact on low
demand.
19
Bramley and Pawson (2000) also urged low authorities to work proactively with partner
organisations in the public and private sectors in encouraging regeneration. Significantly, the report
acknowledges the importance of ‘housing gap funding’ for private sector renewal on brownfield sites
where the development costs exceed the market value of the dwelling(s). The considerable financial
resources available to Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) could serve to bridge this shortfall
thus minimising the financial risk posed by these developments as well as significantly contributing
to their longer term viability and sustainability. This approach would also ensure that risk is shared
amongst a number of partners.
Joint Housing and RDA Agenda
In Maye-Banbury (2003), the regional dimension of urban regeneration and low demand was also
highlighted, with specific reference to a collaborative agenda between social landlords and RDAs.
The article highlighted the potential pivotal role RDAs may play in enhancing housing
opportunities for people in housing need in both rural and urban areas. The critique presented in
the paper, which refers to the Yorkshire and Humberside region, set out a framework for
integrating planning, housing and regeneration policies to meet chromic housing shortages and to
deal with low demand areas. The article pointed to the importance of housing gap funding in
meeting development costs, the role of RDAs in mixed development schemes and the importance
of the two recently appointed ‘Pathfinder’ projects in Yorkshire in tackling low demand. Using data
from the Yorkshire Housing Forum (2002), the paper proposed a framework for progressing a
robust regional property and regeneration agenda. This framework is reproduced in Figure 3
overleaf:
20
Figure 3: Towards Implementing a Joint Housing and RDA Agenda


Define common housing and regeneration
objectives
Devise implementation strategy
Regional
Economic
Strategy
Regional
Housing
Strategy
RDA: Yorkshire Forward
URCs: Sheffield 1, Hull City Build &
Bradford Regeneration Company
Other relevant strategies on areas including: regional transportation; -neighbourhood
renewal, rural, crime and disorder, LSPs, ‘Supporting People’, social inclusion, BME
communities, community involvement, user involvement, health and social care.
Housing
Demand
Housing Need
Condition &
Renovation
New Housing Provision
Requirements
Condition &
Renovation
Requirements
Housing Supply by
Tenure (Over
Projections and demographic change
&
Under)
RPG
- Sets
affordable
housing
framework
Such an approach is advocated by Bramley and Pawson (2000) where the authors suggests that
assessments of housing needs should be extend beyond local authority boundaries. This approach
would serve to ensure that local authorities developed a more strategic approach to supply/demand
and households growth issues and that new build was only considered when adequate
consideration had been given to existing resources.
21
Bibliography
Full Bibliography
Bate, R et al (eds) On the Move: The Consequences of Housing Migration. Joseph Rowntree
Foundation.
Benjamin, A (2000) ‘Living room’. The Guardian, 29th November.
Blackman, D (2001) ‘Destroying the demons of demolition’, The Guardian, 20th November.
Bramley, G. and Pawson, H. (1999) National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: Report of Policy
Action Team 7, Herriot Watt University & Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Edinburgh & London.
Available at:http://www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/local/pat7/index.htm
Bramley, G. and Pawson, H. (2000) Low Demand Housing and Unpopular Neighbourhoods,
Housing Research Summary 114, Herriot Watt University & Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,
Edinburgh & London.
Available at:http://www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/hrs/hrs114.htm
Chartered Institute of Housing (1998) Low Demand for Housing, CIH, Coventry.
Cole, I. et al (2000) Changing Demands, Changing Neighbourhoods – The Response of Social
Landlords, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University,
Housing Corporation, Sheffield & London.
Available at:
http://www.housingcorplibrary.org.uk/HousingCorp.nsf/AllDocuments/4248FC4ED7DE383180256A
B9003EB1B7?OpenDocument
Cole, I. et al (2001) On-the- Spot Housing Management: An Evaluation of Social Landlords’ Policies
and Practices, CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University & ODPM, Sheffield & London.
Available at: http://www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/information/housingmanage/01.htm#fn1
DETR (2000) Responding to Low Demand Housing and Unpopular Neighbourhoods: A Guide to
Good Practice, DETR, London.
DTZ Pieda Consulting (2000) Demolition and New Building on Local Authority Estates: Housing
Research Summary No 115 2000, DTZ Pieda Consulting & ODPM, London.
Available at:
http://www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/hrs/hrs115.htm
Farnworth (2001) Minutes of the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the
Regions Evidence to Above Select Committee - Memorandum, HMSO, London.
Available at:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/240/240m32.htm
Ford, T. and Pawson, H (2001) Sector Study 13: Characteristics of Low Demand Housing
Association Housing, Housing Corporation, London.
Available at:
http://www.housingcorplibrary.org.uk/HousingCorp.nsf/AllDocuments/E18F06DF93938A8680256
B560056A8B0/$FILE/ss13.pdf
22
Government Office for the North West (1999) North West Regional Housing Overview. Government
Office for the North West, Manchester.
Holmans, A. and Simpson, M. (1999) Low Demand: Separating Fact from Fiction, CIH, Coventry.
Housing Corporation (2001) The Big Picture: Empty Properties Strategies and Models: Review of
IGP Projects, Housing Corporation, London.
Available at: http://cig.bre.co.uk/igp/pdf/EmptyPropertiesStrategiesAndModelsSummary.pdf
Housing Corporation (2002) The Big Picture: Housing Associations and Regeneration, Housing
Corporation, London.
Available at:
http://www.housingcorplibrary.org.uk/housingcorp.nsf/AllDocuments/05630665F17E8AAD80256C4
B0037B248
Housing Corporation (2003) Housing Corporation Pushes the Boundaries on Tenant ParticipationDiscussion Paper, Housing Corporation, London.
Available at:
http://www.housingcorplibrary.org.uk/housingcorp.nsf/AllDocuments/8F5D3321EDE007CA80256B0
B0057C68D
Llewelyn-Davies, et al (2000) Conversion and Redevelopment: Process and Potential, University of
Westminster and ODPM, London.
Available at:
http://www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/hrs/hrs107.htm
Lowe, S et al. (1988) Housing Abandonment in Britain; Studies in the Causes and Affects of Low
Demand Housing, University of York, York.
Maye-Banbury, A. (2003 forthcoming) ‘Regional Development Agencies and Housing Policy’,
Yorkshire Forward Intelligence Network Policy Briefing, Spring 2003
Murie, A (2002) The Big Picture: Changing Demand, Housing Corporation, London.
Available at:
http://cig.bre.co.uk/igp/pdf/CHANGINGDEMAND.pdf
Nevin, B et al (2001) Changing Housing Markets and Urban Regeneration in the M62 Corridor,
Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Niner, P (1999) Insights into Low Demand for Housing, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2000) Local Housing Needs Assessments: A Guide to Good
Practice Housing Research Summary 117, ODPM, London.
Available at:
http://www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/hrs/hrs117.htm
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2002) Housing Transfer 2002 Guidance Programme, ODPM
Guidance Notes, London.
Available at:
http://www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/transfers/guidance2002/index.htm
Power, A and Mumford, K (2003) 'Boom or Bust', Inside Housing, 21st February.
Power, A and Mumford, K (1999a) The Problem of Low Housing Demand in Inner City Areas,
Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
23
Power, A and Mumford, K (1999b) Slow Death of Great Cities? Incipient Urban Abandonment or
Urban Renaissance? Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
Property Forum (2003) Thinktank, Demolition Derby, Property Forum, London.
Available at:
http://www.psa.co.uk/forum/tthousing_111002.asp
Property People (2003) ‘Stopping the rot of low demand’, Property People, Issue 373, 20th
February.
Available at: http://www.ppmagazine.co.uk/
Property People (2002) Former ‘hard-to-lets’ reborn as modern city apartments,
Property People, Issue 343, 11th July.
Available on: http://www.ppmagazine.co.uk/343.html
Yorkshire Housing Forum (2002) Regional Housing Statement: Update and Sub Regional
Statements, Yorkshire Housing Forum, Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber and the
Housing Corporation, Leeds.
24
Other Relevant Publications
Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Bringing Britain Together: A National Strategy for Neighbourhood
Renewal, SEU, London.
Cabinet Office (2001), A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal – National
Strategy Action Plan, Cabinet Office, London.
DTLR (2000), Regeneration Research Summary – Indices of Deprivation 2000,
Number 31, 2000, DTLR, London.
DTLR (2001), Local Strategic Partnerships: Government Guidance, DTLR, London.
William Sutton Housing Trust/ HACAS Chapman Hendy/Housing Corporation (2000),
Stock Investment and Social Change: A Case Study for a Registered Social
Landlord, William Sutton Trust, London.
25