What is happening with Sadiq Khan’s estate regeneration ballots?

What is happening with Sadiq Khan’s estate regeneration ballots?

It’s getting on for a year since Sadiq Khan began requiring the support of residents to be secured through a ballot as a condition for receiving his financial help for estate redevelopment projects. The provision was not included in the draft of his best practice guide for such regenerations, and its insertion into the final document was seen by many at the time, not least some Labour-run boroughs, as a concession – or capitulation – to demands from the Corbyn Left, the Green Party and others involved in activism against such projects. Certainly, it was greeted in those circles as a victory. Their expectation was that tenants and other residents would use this new power at their disposal to prevent the destruction of their homes and the building of some different form of estate in their place. Is that how things have worked out?

Judging by some appearances, the answer has been no. Residents of five London estates have given a firm thumbs up to regeneration so far. Four have been conducted by three housing associations, in Barnet, GreenwichLambeth and Bromley. The other ballot was run by Ealing Council. However, as the GLA’s website states, bodies seeking money from the Mayor are required to notify him if residents vote in favour of the plans drawn up and no list of any with negative outcomes is kept. Have there been any? On London hasn’t heard of any, but then On London hasn’t been looking. Maybe readers can help.

Another question. Has the need to secure a “yes” outcome in a ballot put any housing associations or councils off seeking mayoral funds and otherwise pushing ahead with regeneration schemes because they fear they would lose them? Labour AM Tom Copley asked the Mayor about this and has received the following written answer:

“Councils do not need to provide a reason when they do not bid for my funding. However, the planning application by Wandsworth Council to demolish and rebuild the York Road Estate and part of the Winstanley Estate recently came to the GLA and I was disappointed to learn the council has not bid for my affordable homes funding for this project, as this could increase the level of affordable housing in the rebuilt estate beyond what is possible through the planning process alone. Personally, I was concerned it seemed the council may have been avoiding my funding as they are unwilling to undertake a ballot.

Interesting. There’s also a GLA list of 23 estates which the Mayor has exempted from the need to produce a “yes” ballot outcome in order to qualify for his funding. There are five different grounds for exemption. In twelve cases it was because GLA funding had been committed before the ballot rule was introduced. In eight, it was because the necessary planning consent had been granted before the rules came in. In one case, both of those exemptions applied.

That leaves two. One of the them, owned by Barnet Council, was exempt because “demolition of social homes [was] required to reconfigure provision of supported and/or specialist housing”. The other, of obvious interest in view of recent history, concerns the Tangmere block of Haringey’s Broadwater Farm. Mayor-supported replacement of its homes can go ahead in order to “address concerns about the safety of residents”, as Haringey Council had hoped.

Is the Mayor’s balloting requirement smoothing the path of estate regenerations or mostly blocking it? Is it enabling more residents to get more of what they want, or the opposite? Can anyone really tell for sure?

OnLondon.co.uk is dedicated to providing fair and thorough coverage of London’s politics, development and culture. The site depends on donations from readers and is also seeking support from suitable organisations in order to get bigger and better. Read more about that here. Thank you.


Categories: Analysis

1 Comment

  1. Karl Lewkowicz says:

    Residents of the Gilbeys Yard and Juniper Crescent estates in Camden have voted against demolition/redevelopment by 91 to 68 in a recent ballot on the future of their homes.

    The ballot was brought forward by One Housing who are seeking funding from the Mayor of London to demolish the two estates as part of the Camden Goods Yard development, a joint venture with Countryside.

    The Gilbeys Yard Tenants and Residents Association (TRA) cited a lack of transparency and a rushed consultation process among the reasons for residents rejecting the proposals, describing the information given prior to the ballot as “confusing and vague”.
    “The scheme was originally promoted to the community here as a development that would make a real difference to helping the homeless on Camden’s waiting list. However, despite our repeated requests, the number of new homes with social rents which would be created has never been disclosed,” said Karl Lewkowicz of the Gilbeys Yard TRA.
    “In May and June we requested a delay to the ballot until September to discuss these issues, but One Housing insisted on proceeding with the ballot, despite consultation and engagement with tenants being virtually impossible in the preceding weeks at the height of the COVID-19 lockdown.”

    Prior to the ballot, residents requested clarity around space standards and the cost of service charge and council tax in the new homes. They also requested to know the number of additional new homes that would be for social rent (aside from replacement homes for existing tenants). None of this information was provided to residents, either before or during the ballot.

    Residents were also concerned that the consultation process had not been completed prior to the ballot and was not in line with the Mayor’s guidance.

    “We want any scheme here to be the result of real and transparent engagement with tenants as well as of maximum benefit to those in greatest housing need in our borough,” said Mr Lewkowicz. “If the scheme is not a significant improvement for the existing and future community and a benefit for Camden’s waiting list, the homeless and Key workers, then tenants can and will vote against it.”

    “This is a textbook case of how not to conduct consultation but unfortunately the picture is similar across many other estates where ballots have so far taken place,” said Ron Hollis of London Tenants Federation (LTF). “Tenants are given misleading or incomplete information and too often told that the choice for their estates is between demolition and neglect.”

    Over one hundred estates across London are currently earmarked for or undergoing demolition, according to Estate Watch, a new website by LTF and Just Space which provides resources and information for estate communities going through demolition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *