Baugruppen in the UK

T N I EXTE F T O A L H E W D N TO E MO E P H P IS T GRU UK’S E H U T A N B BLE I RARY ?

O E A P I T A V TEM M I L N C O G C SIN U O H by

BRYN DAVIES

The University Of Sheffield.

Sheffield School of Architecture

btsdavies1@sheffield.ac.uk SSOA October 2019

Thanks to Mark Parsons, whose guidance and assistance has been invaluable in creating this study.

From Top: Figure 1: Big Yard, Berlin (Image architecturalreview.com); Figure 2: Shared Kitchen and Library in Oderbergerstrasse 56, Berlin (Image bararchitekten.de); Figure 3: R50 – Ritterstrasse, Berlin (Image archdaily.com)

Key benefits of Baugruppen:

14

Four Phases of a Baugruppen Scheme

15

Key issues with the UK market

19

How could Baugruppen alleviate these issues?

20

Initiation

25

Legal Forms

27

Land Acquisition

29

Financing

31

Project Management

32

Initiation

34

Legal Forms

36

Land Acquisition

40

Financing

45

Project Management

46

Existing mechanisms to support UK Baugruppen

48

Proposals to better facilitate UK Baugruppen

49

Bibliography

52

Appendix 1: Baugruppen Case Studies

57

Appendix 2: Sources of Funding

59

– Homes commissioned by residents using their own funding – Homes physically constructed by their residents – Homes built by a developer without pre-determined residents to generate profit – Homes designed and built to the particular requirements of specific residents

Figure 4: Oderbergerstrasse 56, a Berlin Baugruppe (Image: bundesstiftung-baukultur.de)

amenities benefitting those living outside the schemes as well as raising the quality of nonThe UK is currently experiencing a housebuilding

Baugruppen housing built on the private market.

crisis, with numbers of new-build houses falling well below governmental target levels whilst prices

Whilst much has been written on both the UK’s need

have risen dramatically over the past few decades,

for new forms of self-provided housebuilding1, and

making

the benefits Baugruppen have provided in Germany,

for many people in the country today.

there has been a distinct lack of discourse examining the

One of the major contributing factors to the situation is the dominance of

, and

outside of Germany. This study seeks to bridge this divide by discussing both

corresponding lack of diversity in housebuilding, as over 60% of all new houses in the UK today are built by just 10 private companies. One of the key ways

, whilst also identifying and could facilitate

assessing what

Baugruppen’s implementation in the UK today.

the UK is currently trying to overcome this is by ,

By examining many examples of German

which today accounts for just 12% of market share

Baugruppen, five key factors were identified that

(well below the European average of 50%).

have enabled the model to see success in Germany (

To achieve this,

of self-provided

housing must be developed, and one previously untested solution could lie in German model of

,a which

,

&

,

,

). The UK housing market

was then studied to see to what extent these mechanisms could be replicated by existing UK systems and legislation.

was developed in the 1990s in response to the country’s own housing crisis. Baugruppen provided an

to those

The report concludes by stating that not only would Baugruppen style housing projects be beneficial in

unable to buy houses on the private market by using

the current UK housing climate, but that the

an economy of scale to allow people to design and

infrastructure needed to facilitate the model already

finance the construction of their own homes.

exists in the UK today, and the delivery of Baugruppen-style homes could begin immediately.

Whilst it is by no means the principal method of housebuilding in Germany, the Baugruppen model has become an important part of the German housebuilding sector with benefits extending beyond financial matters, providing community

Sam Brown and others, Motivating Collective Custom Build (Sheffield Hallam University, 2013).

1

The report also proposes several small, but highly impactful, changes that could feasibly be employed in the UK that could allow the model to have even greater viability today.

has risen in recent years to overcome rapidly rising land costs and a growing German population3.

Baugruppe, the German term for

, is a

model of collective self-provided housebuilding that

Whilst the model was developed for financial

has been developed in Germany over the past few

reasons (Baugruppen are generally 20% cheaper

decades. It describes a model whereby private

than traditional speculative homes4), they are schemes as the ‘developers’ personally

individuals design and finance homes together

live in the property long-term rather than sell them

which they themselves will inhabit.

on for profit. The homes are not seen as a financial The model was developed in Germany to provide an for people who couldn’t afford homes delivered by speculative housebuilders, which are

of the

general population today2. The model’s prevalence

asset, rather as a home, a place to live with real stability. Baugruppen that do generate income usually reinvest the money into amenities and facilities that benefit the local neighbourhood5.

Figure 5: Baugruppe residents standing outside their homes in Vauban’s Freiburg District (Image: hunzundkunst.de) 2 Iqbal Hamiduddin and Nick Gallent, ‘Self-Build Communities: The Rationale and Experiences of Group-Build (Baugruppen) Housing Development in Germany’, Housing Studies, 31.4 (2015), 365–83.

3 Kristien Ring, Selfmade City: Berlin: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions (Berlin: Jovis, 2013).

Ring, Selfmade City: Berlin: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions.

5 Ring, Selfmade City: Berlin: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions.

4

The Baugruppen model is not employed consistently throughout Germany. The movement originated in

Berlin during the 1990s thanks to its unique climate6 including its progressive culture, history of reform and abundance of undeveloped land following Germany’s

Figure 6: e3 Baugruppe in Berlin (Image: baunetzwissen.de)

re-unification. At its peak in 2014, one in six new homes built in Berlin was delivered through the Baugruppe model7. The city is still the ‘home of Baugruppen’ with more completed projects than anywhere else in Germany (over 600 by 2017)8. However, in recent years there has been a substantial uptake of Baugruppe in other parts of the country, most notably in Hamburg, Freiburg and Tübingen9. This study explores how the model could work in the UK, a completely new context, so has examined projects from all over the country, though there is a relatively high proportion of Berlin-based projects simply due to the number of schemes built in the city.

Figure 7: A note on Berlin’s housing market6789

6 Ring, Selfmade City: Berlin: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions.

7 ‘Spreefeld Genossenschaft, Berlin’, Right to Build Toolkit <https://righttobuildtoolkit.org.uk/case-studies/spreefeld-genossenschaftberlin/> [accessed 20 August 2019].

8 Kristien Ring, Building communities - Professor Kristien Ring on the Baugruppen phenomenon at 2017 World Architecture Day, 2017 <https://soundcloud.com/nsw-arb/an-interview-with-professor-kristien-ring>.

9 Hamiduddin and Gallent.

Baugruppen prioritise

» The Baugruppe model has many benefits over both

long-term affordability and employ funding

speculative development and private one-off house

models that ensure residents have no risk of

building, several of which are summarised below:

having their homes repossessed, creating

»

stable communities15.

- The absence of developer profit margins mean Baugruppen are noticeably cheaper than speculative housing, whilst group building reduces costs by up to 20% when compared to one off construction projects10. Some groups utilise nonconventional financing models which can allow wealthier residents to subsidise costs for less affluent members.

Baugruppen consistently

»

deliver homes of an exceptionally high quality, beyond anything else available on the market11, largely due to the personal interest members have in the property12. »

- By designing for known residents rather than generic inhabitants, homes can be better suited to the real needs of their occupants13.

- Many schemes

»

build non-residential facilities within their schemes14, ranging from art galleries to public allotments and gardens, creating Figure 8: The shared garden at the heart of Big Yard, one of the largest Baugruppe in Berlin, home to 45 residential units (Image: architectura.be)

valuable new amenities in residential neighbourhoods.

10

Hamiduddin and Gallent.

Kristien Ring, ‘Self Made City’, Future West (Australian Urbanism), Issue 03, 2016.

12 Jonas Viering, ‘Die Schweine-Investoren sind wir [The Pig Investors are us]’, Zeit Online, 2007 <https://www.zeit.de/2008/01/Baugruppen/komplettansicht>.

13 Hamiduddin and Gallent.

11

14 Ring, Selfmade City: Berlin: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions.

Andrea Kroth, ‘Reinventing Density: How Baugruppen Are Pioneering the Self-Made City’, The Conversation, 2016 <http://theconversation.com/reinventing-density-how-baugruppen-arepioneering-the-self-made-city-66488> [accessed 26 March 2019].

15

There is no ‘standard’ Baugruppe project; every scheme is unique and undergoes its own process 16

Whilst Baugruppen are an inherently communal mode of housebuilding, it is important to draw some key

developed on a case-by-case basis . That said, most

distinctions between Baugruppen and co-housing

schemes generally conform to the following four-

schemes (a form of socially driven housing commonly confused with Baugruppen).

step process17.

I. At its outset the group is an informal collective who simply discuss the possibility of a scheme without any legal connection.

Figure 9: Whilst there is overlap between the two models, they are not synonymous

II. Once planning begins in detail the group is

As socially minded developments, Baugruppen

formalised into a legal entity and financial

frequently feature community centric designs with shared

matters are discussed in detail, though

amenities, such as guest apartments or summer

members can still come and go at this point without financial penalty.

kitchens18. However, communal facilities are not a fundamental requirement of Baugruppen, meaning

projects can consist of traditional standalone homes. Cohousing on the other hand is based around these social

III.

principles so always feature shared facilities.

Group members are committed and legally

The key defining feature of Baugruppen is the self-

bound in to an agreement as construction

funded component, being free of private speculation by

begins. The physical construction is usually

external investors. In contrast, co-housing can be funded

delivered by a third-party contractor paid

by third-party developers19, lacking the quintessential financial component of Baugruppen.

for by the group collectively (members normally secure individual loans/mortgages).

It is also interesting to note that Baugruppen typically are built in Urban contexts in Germany, whereas co-housing developments are frequently built in rural

environments20.

IV.

Once construction is

Figure 10: Baugruppen vs. Co-housing181920

completed the members take up residence in the property which they own themselves and manage without a third-party landlord.

Ring, Selfmade City: Berlin: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions.

17 ‘Bauherrengemeinschaft – Gemeinsam Bauen Und Kosten Sparen’, Immowelt.De <https://ratgeber.immowelt.de/a/bauherrengemeinschaftgemeinsam-bauen-und-kosten-sparen.html> [accessed 9 September 2019].

18 Kristien Ring, ‘Urban Living and Alternative Development Models’, in The Palgrave Handbook of Bottom-up Urbanism, ed. by Mahyar Arefi and Conrad Kickert (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).

16

19 Mike Eliason, ‘Baugruppen: Proactive Jurisdictions » The Urbanist’, The Urbanist, 2014 <https://www.theurbanist.org/2014/05/14/baugruppen-proactivejurisdictions/> [accessed 26 March 2019].

20 Eliason.

and policy is defined at a national level by central government. In many instances where local authorities have attempted to implement To understand the potential viability of Baugruppen

progressive policies contrary to the more

in the UK and test the hypothesis that the model

conservative agenda of central government,

could prove to be an effective form of alternative

national legislation has been created to prevent

housing provision, it is important to identify key

the local policies from being put into action24.

distinctions between the UK and Germany as contexts within which development can take. Some

– Germany has a far more

»

flexible approach to urban development and

of the most notable and relevant differences are:

planning from both civic bodies and general – A defining

»

members of the public25. This is in great contrast

feature of German culture for the past half

to the UK where a ‘NIMBY’ attitude opposed to

century has been the role of citizens in

anything other than the status-quo is prevalent

promoting reform. Citizens have taken an active

throughout the country26.

role in defining political discourse and debate, which has created a culture where citizens are freer to act and develop progressive ideas (such as Baugruppe) without relying on governmental

»

lowest levels of home ownership in the EU27 at

impetus21. »

– Germany has one of the just 43%28, which in some cities is even lower

– In Germany there is

(Berlin’s is just 15%29). The UK’s ownership

no nationwide policy regarding housing

rate is almost 1.5x that of Germany, as 63% of

legislation. Policy is defined by each state on an

the UK population own their own home30.

individual basis22, which permits them to create policy that promotes certain ideas (such as

– Rent caps mean that prices in

Baugruppen) in areas that are receptive to the

Germany are kept affordable and are on

idea (Berlin, Hamburg and Freiburg have policy

average 5% lower than UK31 prices.

supporting Baugruppen23). This is in stark contrast to the UK where virtually all legislation

Ring, Selfmade City: Berlin: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions.

22 Mark Brinkley, How Does Self Build in the UK Compare to Germany?, 2013 <www.houseplanninghelp.com/19>.

23 Hamiduddin and Gallent.

24 Anna Minton, Big Capital: Who Is London For? (UK: Penguin Books, 2017).

25 Brinkley.

26 Brinkley.

21

»

»

– In Germany tenancy law provides far greater protection to

27 Zeigert and Knight Frank, Ziegert - Report | Residential Property in Germany, 2018.

28 Hamiduddin and Gallent, 2015 29 Viering.

30 Distribution of population by tenure status, type of household and income group - EU-SILC survey 2014 31 Institute for Public Policy Research, Lessons from Germany: Tenant Power in the Rental Market, 16 January 2017.

renters, protecting them from unreasonable

higher profit that can be derived compared to

rent increases and unwanted eviction32, and as

brownfield sites40. Interestingly, is also the

a result the average tenancy in Germany lasts

case for most non-speculative developments

11 years, compared with just 2.5 in the UK33.

as most groups can only afford to build in Rural contexts41.This is a complete opposite to

– As mentioned earlier,

»

Germany where greenfield sites can only ever

there is a major difference in the level of self-

be built on in exceptional circumstances42.

provided housing in the German and UK housing sectors. Germany’s rate of 60% is typical for European nations, most of which see over half of new homes built this way34, It is important to recognise that London has a unique set

whilst the UK’s level of just 12% lags behind

of issues regarding its housing market, which is very

the rest of the continent.

different to the rest of the UK43. This investigation seeks to examine how Baugruppen may be viable across the

– Land in the UK is considerably

»

entire county, and therefore will not focus on addressing

more expensive than in Germany, making up

London-specific issues. That is not to say that London

a far greater proportion of the cost of new

will be ignored from this study, in fact many innovative

British housing schemes have taken place in the capital;

housing35.

there will simply be an emphasis on applying Baugruppen across the whole nation, rather than

– Land is far more readily

»

considering how it may work in London’s particular

available in Germany than it is in the UK36 37,

climate. Whilst this means that some of what is

and many of the cities where Baugruppen is

discovered in this study may not be appropriate in

prominent (Berlin, Hamburg) have an

London specifically, it is expected that some of what is learned would still be applicable to London’s housing

abundance of ex-industrial plots available to

sector.

purchase38. »

– Much of the speculative housebuilding happening in the UK today takes place in rural environments on

Figure 11: A comment on London's housing market43

greenfield sites39, principally because of the 32

Institute for Public Policy Research.

Institute for Public Policy Research.

34 NaCSBA, Self-Build Report, October 2008.

35 George Monboit and others, Land for the Many: Changing the Way Our Fundamental Asset Is Used, Owned and Governed (The Labour Party, 2019).

36 NaCSBA. 37 Ring, Selfmade City: Berlin: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions.

38 Viering.

33

Neil Knight13 August 2019, ‘We Need to Introduce a “Brownfield-First” Housebuilding Policy’, Building.Co.Uk <https://www.building.co.uk/communities/we-need-to-introduce-abrownfield-first-housebuilding-policy/5101069.article> [accessed 13 September 2019].

40 Tony Fawcett, ‘The Right Homes in the Right Places - CPRE, the Countryside Charity’, Campaign to Protect Rural England <https://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-planning/housing/theissues> [accessed 13 September 2019].

41 {Citation} 42 Brinkley.

43 Minton.

39

countries who average well over 50%51. Over 60% of new homes in Germany are self-provided, and Baugruppen has been one of the models that has As it stands the UK is facing a massive shortfall in its

contributed to this high level of housebuilding.

44

provision of new housing and is predicted to miss the government’s target for housebuilding in 2020

To date there have never been any homes built in

by 40%45. One of the major issues in the UK market

the UK explicitly using the Baugruppen model, so

of housebuilders46, which has

its introduction could provide a valuable new way

is the

reached an unprecedented level of corporate

to deliver self-provided homes that the UK so

dominance as today 60% of all new housing in the

desperately needs. It is however widely accepted

UK is built by just 10 private companies47. One of the

that “no single solution will solve the UK housing

most effective ways the UK could overcome this is to

crisis on its own”52 so Baugruppen would not be

increase the proportion of new housing which is

able to reform the UK market in isolation, but it

48

, which the government is currently

could form a part of a wider movement to create a

actively trying to promote through various

range of new models of housebuilding53 to increase

schemes49.

the diversity and volume of UK housebuilding54.

The UK has one of the lowest levels of self-provided housebuilding in the world at just

50

,

significantly less than most other European

Figure 12: UK housebuilding is dominated by a small number of large speculative housebuilders 44 ‘Government to Miss Another Crucial Housebuilding Target, Spending Watchdog Reveals’, The Independent, 2019 <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/housing-national-auditoffice-public-land-target-by-95000-2020-a8896641.html> [accessed 10 September 2019].

45 ‘Government Accused of Sabotaging Its Own Housebuilding Targets’, Specification Online <https://specificationonline.co.uk/articles/2019-0724/dclg/government-accused-of-sabotaging-its-own-housebuilding-targets> [accessed 12 September 2019].

46 Brown and others.

47 Homebuilding & Renovating, Self & Custom Build Market Report 2017, July 2017.

48 Homebuilding & Renovating, A 10-Point Plan to Boost Self-Build, May 2013 <https://issuu.com/simplymarcomms/docs/a_10point_plan_to_boost_self-build>.

Figure 13: The UK has one of the lowest levels of new-build Selfprovided housing in the world 49 ‘Right To Build: Legislation and Registers’, Self Build Portal <https://selfbuildportal.org.uk/buildregisters/> [accessed 30 August 2019].

50 NaCSBA. 51 ‘If Britain Wants More Self-Build Housing, We Need to Change Its Planning System | CityMetric’, CityMetric <https://www.citymetric.com/fabric/if-britain-wants-more-self-build-housingwe-need-change-its-planning-system-3767> [accessed 12 September 2019].

Brown and others.

Brown and others.

54 Homebuilding & Renovating, Self & Custom Build Market Report 2017.

52

53

fail to meet promised standards in There are many issues with the contemporary UK

performance58 which have resulted dramatic

housing market. Five key issues have been

decline in buyer satisfaction59.

identified through this study that are the most III.

relevant to Baugruppen.

Within the rental market residents are frequently displaced from their

I.

- For many people in the UK,

communities by rising rents and a lack of

homeownership is well outside their

tenant protection60.

financial capacity, particularly for young families and first-time buyers55. Government

IV.

environments is in decline due to the rise of

schemes, such as the Starter Homes

monotype districts61, often created by large-

Initiative, have routinely failed to combat

scale speculative housebuilding.

this and provide viable ways for first-time buyers to purchase houses56.

II.

The quality of urban

New-build

V. housing in the UK has become

– New-build

architecturally stagnant and is “not keeping

housing stock in the UK is facing a quality

pace with our fast-changing lives”62.

crisis; most houses have major issues that need remedying soon after completion57 and

Figure 14: Demonstrators protesting about the UK housing market (bcnuej.org) John Boughton, Municipal Dreams: The Rise and Fall of Council Housing (London ; Brooklyn, NY: Verso, 2018).

55

Shelter UK, ‘Starter Homes: Will They Be Affordable?’, 2015.

House of Commons APPG, More Homes, Fewer Complaints | Report from the Commission of Inquiry into the Quality and Workmanship of New Housing in England, July 2016.

58 APPG. 59 ‘32 Million People Think Britain’s Homes Are Not “Fit for Purpose”’, HomeOwners Alliance, 2019 <https://hoa.org.uk/2019/03/32-million-britains-homes-not-fit-forpurpose/> [accessed 13 September 2019].

56

57

Minton, 2017 David Madden, HEYU! Urbans, 2016 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwLFlzVpYXM>.

60 61

Richard Vize, ‘The UK Desperately Needs New Homes - but Not These Hideous Boxes’, The Guardian, 13 May 2019, section Society <https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/13/uk-desperatenew-homes-not-hideous-boxes-housing-minister> [accessed 13 September 2019].

62

neighbourhoods and prevent monotype districts. Many community-led housing The benefits of Baugruppen outlined earlier (

)

schemes in the UK have already showcased

could provide solutions to some key issues with the UK market identified earlier (

these benefits65.

).

IV.

I.

By making homeownership affordable, The cost savings of Baugruppe homes could

Baugruppen would provide stability for

provide a viable opportunity for first time

people for whom renting is currently the

63

buyers to get on housing ladder .

II.

only affordable means of living.

V.

The high quality delivered by Baugruppe

By designing their own homes,

schemes will not only provide exceptional

members of Baugruppen acquire housing

quality for houses built through the model,

that caters to their personal desires rather

but also would raise the quality across the

than the ‘cookie-cutter’ homes prevalent

entire housebuilding market64.

throughout the UK. Many self-build schemes in the UK have already provided

III. The non-residential facilities present in many Baugruppen would diversify existing

housing tailored to the needs of their residents66.

Figure 15: Members of the local community in Neukölln playing on the sports pitches built by Ausbauhaus, an the adjacent Baugruppe (Image: berliner-zeitung.de) 63 Design Council and CABE, Technical Paper: Scoping Your Community-Led Self-Build Project (Department for Communities and Local Government, April 2016).

64 Brinkley.

65 Design Council and CABE, Technical Paper: Scoping Your Community-Led Self-Build Project.

66 Design Council and CABE, Technical Paper: Scoping Your Community-Led Self-Build Project.

Whilst the UKâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s housing market is dominated by large speculative housebuilders67, there are still many alternative means of housebuilding used across the country.

As it stands there is no direct equivalent to Baugruppen in the UK today, although there are several models that have strong similarities with the model. The mechanisms and procurement routes developed by many of these alternative housing models have provided an excellent framework for how Baugruppen could be successfully implemented in the UK today.

Figure 17: LILAC Co-housing in Leeds (Image: www.lilac.coop)

Always

No

(sometimes includes additional 3rd -party investors)

Community donations, charitable grants, residents

No

Co-operative

Sometimes

Trust

No

Figure 16: Types of alternative housing in the UK share similarities with Baugruppen, though there are no models that correlate exactly to the German model.

67

NaCSBA.

Sometimes

– Co-housing is arguably the

»

closest UK model to Baugruppen but, as explained earlier, it is not directly comparable as the model always sees schemes include shared amenities, which In recent years the UK government have been trying to

many Baugruppen do not. It does however

promote alternative forms of housing development,

facilitate shared build costs and custom

. In 2016 an important piece of

specifically

homes, proving many of the principles of

legislation was passed called Right to Build, with the purpose of making more plots of land available to people

Baugruppen have already been successful in

interesting in building their own homes . It requires all

the UK.

68

Local Authorities to keep a

of people seeking

land to build their own house on, who must be provided serviced plot within three years of

with a registering.

»

– For these schemes a private contractor will be commissioned to build a series of shovel-ready plots with all the

Whilst the scheme is widely supported by champions of self-provided housing with over 40,000 people signing up

services in place for building housing.

in the first three years, the practical impact of the scheme

Buyers are then free to build custom homes

has been significantly less than was originally hoped.

on the plots of land, though there is rarely

This is principally due to how different councils have

scope for developing the plots as a collective.

embraced the scheme; some councils have for serviced plots of land69, whilst others have placed

which can

include local connection tests or even charges . There has 70

also been a general

of the scheme which

may well have seen far greater use across the country.

Figure 18: ‘Right to Build’ policy in the UK686970

Figure 19: Services plots built by Stoke-on-Trent council with utility access points provided (Image: righttobuildtoolkit.org.uk)

68 Lindsey Davis, ‘What Is the Right to Build?’, Homebuilding & Renovating, 2018 <https://www.homebuilding.co.uk/news/what-is-theright-to-build/> [accessed 26 September 2019].

69 Davis.

Figure 20: Plan drawing for a series of serviced plots built by Stokeon-Trent Council (Imag:e righttobuildtoolkit.org.uk)

70 ‘40,000 Sign up to Self Build despite Postcode Lottery for Right to Build Registers’, NaCSBA - National Custom & Self Build Association <https://nacsba.org.uk/news/40000-sign-up-to-self-build-despitepostcode-lottery-for-right-to-build-registers/> [accessed 26 September 2019].

»

– CLTs are nonprofit organisations that have become a highly effective means of a community being able to enter the property market. Whilst not limited to housing development, CLTs have been formed for countless high-profile community housing schemes including Granby Four Streets in Liverpool and Fishponds Rd. by Bristol CLT. (CLTs are discussed in a later section on UK Legal Forms)

»

– Housing

Self-build is not a standalone model of housing

cooperatives are a type of community-led

development. It is instead a

housing which is owned and run

which can be implemented by any type of alternative

democratically by its residents. Co-ops have

housing development whereby the physical on-site construction is conducted by the future residents, which

strong values in promoting social values

limits the number of people who are interested in

including self-help and equality71. There is a

alternative housing schemes. In the UK, a huge amount

good deal of crossover between the co-op

of alternative housing is self-build, whereas Baugruppen

model and some Baugruppen projects, but a

are far more

73

and are virtually always built

by third party contractors, making them appealing to a

key difference is property is owned by the

far greater proportion of the general population.

cooperative as an organisation with Figure 22: Self-build housing in the UK (Image: Fishponds Rd. CLT, The Bristol Cable, 2017)73

residents not technically owning any property, which is different from the majority of Baugruppen72.

Figure 21: Granby4Streets in Liverpool is one of the most successful CLTs in the UK. The group successfully acquired and refurbished a large amount of terraced housing to provide affordable housing to local residents (Image: academyofurbanism.org.uk)

71 ‘What Is a Housing Co-Operative? – Argyle Street Housing Cooperative’ <http://www.ash.coop/about/housing-coops/> [accessed 26 September 2019].

Ring, Selfmade City: Berlin: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions.

73 Ring, ‘Building Communities - Professor Kristien Ring on the Baugruppen Phenomenon at 2017 World Architecture Day’.

72

To understand how Baugruppen could be implemented in the UK, an investigation has been conducted into what mechanisms exist in Germany that have facilitated the implementation and development of the model. Five key areas have been identified which are crucial to their development: » » » » »

Figure 23: Five core components to Baugruppen Delivery

The third option sees an At a fundamental level there are three key and an

group come together to form a Baugruppe, who then ,a

components all Baugruppen require:

and

search for viable plots of land together (e.g.

. However, for a project to get

Oderberger Straße 56).

underway only two of the components need to exist, the third can be sourced later.

Figure 24: The three core components of a Baugruppe, of which only two need be present for a project to be initiated.

Many schemes begin when an

comes

across a plot of land that could be a viable

for a

scheme74. A useful example of Baugruppen delivered this way is Elf-Freunde, where several architects75 came across a plot of land the local council was selling. Only once they had conducted (150 residents)

an initial feasibility study and begun preliminary design work did they reach out to family and friends to form the

group.

Spreefeld Cooperative is one of the largest Baugruppen in Berlin, built on an ex-industrial site on the bank of

Alternatively, projects sometimes arise as a reaction

the river Spree. The site was originally designated by

from a local community to a third-party

the local council for new commercial space, but a group of locals decided to put forward an alternative proposal

development of a site (Spreefeld Genossenschaft

for housing. With the help of several architecture firms,

exemplifies this)76. In these cases, the group is formed along with a clearly identified

the group convinced the council to change their plans

,

and sell them the land and built an array of homes in various tenures including freehold units, mutual home

who only seek out an architect at a later point once

ownership and rented apartments all within the same

they require design advice.

Baugruppe.

Figure 25: Case Study - Spreefeld Genossenschaft

74

Viering.

‘Elf Freunde, Berlin’, Right to Build Toolkit <https://righttobuildtoolkit.org.uk/case-studies/elf-freunde-berlin/> [accessed 13 September 2019].

75

76

‘Spreefeld Genossenschaft, Berlin’.

During their planning stage most Baugruppen will need to search for residents to ensure the scheme goes ahead. Even in cases where a resident group existed at the outset of the project, groups will likely still have to find additional members, either to replace original members of the group that leave, or for filling new units if the site turned out to have a larger capacity than first thought.

(17 residents) (modified)

Figure 27: A screenshot from Co-housing.de of an advertisement from a group who are seeking one additional member.

Oderberger Straße 56 was a Baugruppe developed by a group of 5 families which included an architect. The

In either case, there are a few means by which

group were originally friends who decided to build

additional members can be found. The first port of

houses for themselves to inhabit. After four years of

searching they located an ex-industrial site which was

call is usually inviting friends/family who might be

up for auction, and successfully bid on the land and

inclined to join77. Alternatively, complete outsiders

built their homes.

can be found via advertisements on online

The scheme includes lots of shared amenities for both

platforms78 dedicated to Baugruppen (such as Co-

the residents of the apartments and the wider

Housing.de). Many municipalities now provide

neighbourhood. The ground floor contains a public art gallery and café, whilst a resident-only shared studio sits at first floor with private apartments above that.

Figure 26: Case Study - Oderberger Straße 56

77 Ring, ‘Building Communities - Professor Kristien Ring on the Baugruppen Phenomenon at 2017 World Architecture Day’.

listings on their official website where groups can advertise spaces in Baugruppen to the general public79.

78 79

‘Bauherrengemeinschaft – Gemeinsam Bauen Und Kosten Sparen’.

‘Bauherrengemeinschaft – Gemeinsam Bauen Und Kosten Sparen’.

individuals82. These groups usually take simple The legal structure of every Baugruppe is unique80,

legal forms as either a

determined by the specific way the scheme will be

both proven highly successful at delivering resident-

funded, owned and managed81. Generally, a group

owned Baugruppen.

or a

, which have

will assume one of the following three legal forms, which is then adapted to the needs of specific

However, some schemes create homes that are owned in non-conventional manners which cannot

requirements of each project:

be delivered through GbRs or GmbHs (partial »

(Civil Law Partnership) (Limited Liability

» Partnership) »

ownership, equity stake, leasehold etc.), and therefore must take on different legal forms, usually as a

(Cooperative)

(Co-operative). This model is

more complex to setup and run than GbRs or

One of the most important factors in deciding the

GmbHs, but it offers an otherwise unavailable

legal structure is the desired tenure of the property.

flexibility that can make Baugruppen affordable to

As one of the core principles of Baugruppen is

those who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford

creating affordable

building their own homes.

homes

, most schemes deliver as private

Private Individuals

Private Individuals

Collective

(residents)

(residents)

(Genossenschaft)

Simple

Simple

Complex

None

€25,000

None

High

Low

Low/None

W.E.G.

W.E.G.

(Partial ownership, leasehold, equity share etc.)

Variable / Custom

Figure 28: The three common forms of legal structures of Baugruppen

80 81

Ring, ‘Urban Living and Alternative Development Models’.

Kroth.

82 Ring, Selfmade City: Berlin: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions.

A GbR is the most common form Baugruppen take, and is defined as “an association of individuals or enterprises united in the achievement of a joint contractual purpose”83. GbRs are extremely simple to establish as only minimal paperwork is required with no need to collate initial capital. The one risk is that all members’ private assets are liable to the cover entirely any debts incurred by the group. Baugruppen using this form operate as the company throughout phases 2-3 (planning and construction), but will close the company once construction has completed and ownership of the property is passed onto the residents as private individuals.

One very interesting point about German home ownership is how apartment buildings are owned.

Virtually every resident owned Baugruppe is run as a

(Wohnungseigentümergemeinschaft), an

extremely common form of home ownership in German apartment buildings. In a WEG residents own the freehold to their individual apartment outright as well as a portion of the freehold of all shared parts of the building (walls, staircases, roof

A GmbH is a limited company whereby members are only liable up to their personal stake in the business. A GmbH does require more setup than a GbR as substantial paperwork and documentation must be completed to register the company. Initial capital of €25,000 must also be raised to permit its formation. GmbH Baugruppen follow the same path as GbR schemes, whereby the GmbH functions until the property is completed after which ownership passes to residents.

Genossenschaften operate virtually identically to cooperatives in the UK and are generally established by their membership to achieve a common shared goal.

Members can buy shares in the Genossenschaft which then entitles them to benefitting from the assets and services of the cooperative (including rental agreements).

In a Genossenschaft the private assets of members are not liable, nor does any initial capital have to be raised, but they are very complicated to set up84 . The main benefit of the model is the flexibility in tenure it affords. As the building is owned outright by the organisation, each member can have a different tenancy agreement, and can consider various factors including their initial stake in the Genossenschaft, their income and the type of property they want. The central ownership also means members can join and leave the group at any time, even when the building is in-use, without requiring constitutional changes85.

etc.)86. Any decisions relating to the building’s management or servicing are made by the WEG as a collective, with no third-party landlords imposing restrictions on the residents (which is the case in traditional leasehold models).

Figure 30: WEG Ownership vs leasehold ownership in apartments

Figure 29: German Legal Forms for Baugruppen

838485

‘GTAI - Civil Law Partnership (GbR)’ <https://www.gtai.de/GTAI/Navigation/EN/Invest/Investmentguide/Establishing-a-company/Company-forms/Partnerships/civillaw-partnership-gbr.html> [accessed 10 September 2019].

84 ‘Genossenschaft Definition’, Gründerszene Magazin <https://www.gruenderszene.de/lexikon/begriffe/genossenschaft> [accessed 10 September 2019].

83

‘Bauherrengemeinschaft – Gemeinsam Bauen Und Kosten Sparen’, Ratgeber.Immowelt.De <https://ratgeber.immowelt.de/a/bauherrengemeinschaft-gemeinsambauen-und-kosten-sparen.html> [accessed 10 September 2019].

86 ‘Wohnungseigentümergemeinschaft (WEG) - Alle Wichtigen Infos Für Sie!’, Hausverwaltung Ratgeber <https://www.hausverwaltungratgeber.de/hausverwaltung/wohnungseigentuemergemeinschaft.html> [accessed 9 September 2019].

85

got to Baugruppen90. This is has become Land is the single biggest issue facing prospective

particularly prevalent on large brownfield

87

Baugruppen in Germany . The limited availability

sites that would typically be sold as a single

and high cost make it a highly desirable asset,

parcel to speculative housebuilders. The

particularly in urban areas where speculative

cities of Hamburg, Freiburg, and Tübingen

housebuilders are keen to develop. Securing plots of

are three of the strongest supporters of this

land in these situations can prove to be difficult for

scheme, and all three require 40% of all

Baugruppen, as large developers generally have

public land sales to be given to Baugruppen,

readily available reserves of capital to finance bids

a real commitment to assisting the growth of

instantaneously, whilst Baugruppen often take

Baugruppen in their regions91.

considerably longer to consolidate funding.

Option contracts

» There are however several policies and mechanisms

are commonplace in Germany where land is

in place in Germany that make land acquisition

initially acquired on short term lease

simpler and more feasible for Baugruppen:

(generally 12-18 months), but with a buyer-

»

option to extend the lease to a substantially

- It is commonplace in

longer duration/buy the land outright92.

Germany for municipally owned land to be sold at an affordable, fixed price in open competition whereby the potential societal benefit of a project is evaluated, rather than financial return of the bid88. »

This massively reduces risk on the group as they can gain planning consent and secure loans to fund the purchase without making any major commitments without knowing these can be secured.

- Many local authorities in Germany now include the provision of a number of lots in urban plans to be developed as Baugruppen. The land will often come with pre-approved partial planning approval, reducing the hurdles groups must overcome89.

»

»

- Councils in Germany often will make land purchases from private landowners with the specific purpose of selling it on to Baugruppen and other self-provided housing developments93.

– In several municipalities in

»

– A common way

Germany governments have made it a

that Baugruppen acquire land is via an

requirement that a proportion of all public

Erbparcht (land lease). Land leases

land sales for residential development must

(typically for 100 years at fixed low interest

Ring, ‘Urban Living and Alternative Development Models’.

Brinkley.

89 ‘Elf Freunde, Berlin’.

90 Eliason.

Ring, ‘Urban Living and Alternative Development Models’.

Ring, ‘Urban Living and Alternative Development Models’.

93 Brinkley.

87

91

88

92

rates94) are a common way that German municipalities dispose of land for private housebuilding95. This type of land ‘purchase’ has benefits for both Baugruppen and municipalities and is regarded as the most effective means of Baugruppen of acquiring land96, particularly when compared to the sell-off of public land97.

Where public bodies retain the freehold, they maintain long-term control over the city’s urban form98, and can easily put in place development conditions specific to the plot. Leaseholds also make land purchases affordable to community groups who may not have large reserves of available capital by reducing the upfront costs and spreading

(38 residents)

the cost of land over the duration of the lease99.

Elf Freunde is a residential terrace Baugruppen built in Berlin. The project is notable for the extremely short timeframe (~18 months) from initial group formation to building completion. A small group of architects came across a plot of land marked for residential housing in a local

(a type of German development plan with

pre-approved planning for certain types of development). They quickly undertook a feasibility study of the site and found it was viable for a Baugruppen scheme.

The remaining residents were found from a mixture of friends and family as well as ‘strangers’ via adverts on web-platforms. The scheme delivered homes in various stages of finish, with some shell-only units requiring resident fit-out with others already set for inhabitation.

Figure 31: Case Study – Elf Freunde

94 ‘Ground Leases and Other Ways of Facilitating Land More Affordably’, Right to Build Toolkit <https://righttobuildtoolkit.org.uk/briefingnotes/ground-leases-and-other-ways-of-facilitating-land-more-affordably/> [accessed 17 September 2019].

95 ‘Ground Leases and Other Ways of Facilitating Land More Affordably’.

96 Ring, Selfmade City: Berlin: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions.

97 Ring, ‘Building Communities - Professor Kristien Ring on the Baugruppen Phenomenon at 2017 World Architecture Day’.

98 Ring, ‘Building Communities - Professor Kristien Ring on the Baugruppen Phenomenon at 2017 World Architecture Day’.

99 Ring, ‘Building Communities - Professor Kristien Ring on the Baugruppen Phenomenon at 2017 World Architecture Day’.

As with the variation in Legal forms, every project has a unique funding model. In general, the expenditure of most Baugruppen falls into two categories, initial

costs and

Quite surprisingly Baugruppen do not require any grants or ‘free money’ to make them financially viable, they instead simply require access to interest free/low interest loans to provide capital to deliver

funding.

the scheme100. As an established model of

Seedcorn costs cover the nominal costs of setting up

housebuilding in Germany, it is relatively simple for

the legal organisation, conducting preliminary

BGs to secure “low-interest development loans and

studies and contracting the services of architects and

mortgages available through relatively mainstream

other professionals during the interest and planning

banks, such as KfW and GLS Bank”101.

stages of the project. They make up only a relatively small portion of the Baugruppe’s overall expenditure and can usually be paid by the

As well as the economy-of-scale cost savings in

members of the group using their own personal

construction that Baugruppen offer, homes built

savings.

under this model also receive some tax savings compared to speculative development (though they

The construction costs are far more substantial as

are typically far less substantial than the economic

they encompass the cost of land purchase, building

benefit of collective building). All land transfers in

costs and professional fees for the design team. Each

Germany are liable to pay a tax called

member’s individual contribution will already have

‘Grunderwerbssteuer’ (approx. 5% of a transaction,

been defined in the formation of the legal group (be

varying on a state-by-state basis102), but schemes

it a GbR, GmbH or Genossenschaft). Generally

under the Baugruppe model sees this tax applied at

speaking, each member will be responsible for

a lower rate than speculative housebuilders103.

securing their own funding (via mortgage or loan) which is paid to the Baugruppen organisation which in turn pays contractors/fees etc.

Figure 18: Funding throughout a project Ring, ‘Urban Living and Alternative Development Models’.

Winnie Chan, ‘What Changes When a Community Starts Building?’ (unpublished Master Thesis (Presentation), Dessau Institute of Architecture (DIA) Graduate School at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Germany, Dessau, Germany, 2010).

100

101

Andreas Kunze, ‘Construction community: Building together with tax advantage’, FINblog.de <https://www.finblog.de/baugemeinschaftsteuervorteil/> [accessed 31 August 2019].

103 RA Alfred Morlock, ‘Grunderwerbssteuer bei Baugruppen’, Architektenkammer Baden-Württemberg.

102

Running a building project is no easy task, particularly one with multiple clients or unusual financing and procurement methods. Yet most Baugruppen keep the management of their scheme ‘in house’ with the finances, contract management and external communication dealt with by group members, frequently by persons with no prior expertise in the matters104. This can be a rather daunting task105, but the cost savings the group can make compared to commissioning external assistance mean many groups choose to retain a high level of self-autonomy106.

In the early days of Baugruppen groups had to teach themselves about these topics, but nowadays several municipalities have established departments specifically to train and educate Baugruppen to successfully manage and deliver communal housing projects108. Organisations such as Stattbau in Berlin or Buergerbau in Freiburg, have full-time teams including lawyers, business managers and planners that deliver workshops and classes about issues related specifically to Baugruppen, often without cost to the groups109. Some departments will even organise trips to visit completed projects where they

In instances where an architect was a member of the

can speak with residents to discuss their experience

group from its outset their professional knowledge

of the process and gain an insight into how they

can aid the group in some areas, though they will

were delivered.

likely still be uneducated in matters regarding legal organisations or financial management.

Figure 32: Stattbau employees running a workshop with a Baugruppe during its early stages (Image credit107)

104

Viering.

Viering.

106 Viering.

107 Stattbau Berlin, ‘Newsletter: Agentur | INKLUSIV WOHNEN’, March 2018.

105

Figure 33: Lego models on floor plans used as an aid at a Hamburgbased Baugruppe at a meeting run by Stattbau (Image credit110)

Alternative Housing Delivery: Baugruppen (Beacon, December 2016).

Alternative Housing Delivery: Baugruppen.

110 Stattbau Berlin.

108

109

below. They, like the information in the previous section, have been heavily informed by many case To concisely summarise the information in the

studies of built and ongoing Baugruppen in

previous section and show how the principles are applied in a practical sense, three hypothetical

Germany (further information can be found in the appendix).

projects have been devised and outlined in the table » Architect identifies in plot of land put up for by council in . » Architect conducts feasibility study, confirming viability for potential BG project. » Architect who may wish to join group. » Group formalized into

.

» Further spaces in the scheme are advertised on and filled » Initial plans for scheme are devised with input from residents and submitted in bid. » Members secure individual , to be paid if bid for site succeeds. » Group’s bid for site is successful and lease is signed.

» Site in neighborhood is designated for new commercial buildings by in council’s development plan.

»

to conduct feasibility study and initial proposals.

»

» Residents pay to become members of newly formed which will own property. » Scheme designed with additional units to be leased to nonmembers. » Group secures build and land costs

is formed by group.

» Site is purchased by group on for initial 18 months.

» Council contacted about group acquiring land.

» Plans developed with input from residents. » Residents secure individual funding from bank with . » Planning permission granted for the scheme.

to fund

on site is granted

» Initial finance initial land purchase.

» Construction costs covered by the loans secured in Phase II.

» Construction begins with capital costs funded by .

» Fixed annual are paid by the WEG.

to build on. » After a while, a vacant plot of land goes up for sale that appears viable for BG.

» 3rd party organisation provides and on management.

» Residents cover low initial land fees with private savings.

» Building managed and operated by residents as

» They begin

» Local residents and identify site as opportunity for new housing.

» 100yr by council.

» Building Completes

» Resident group (including an architect) forms seeking new housing.

» Completed property is owned and managed by

» Land , and land freehold acquired using residents’ private funds. » Construction costs covered by the loans secured in Phase II. » Building Completes .

» Members pay income-adjusted ‘mortgages’ to Genossenschaft, to repay bank loan. » Further units are leased to members of local community.

Table 1: A trio of Hypothetical Projects

» Building managed and operated by residents as

As the UK is currently a market with no history of Baugruppen, the fundamental trio of requirements for a project’s successful initiation must reflect how early Baugruppen were formed. As such any It would be reasonable to imagine that Baugruppen

Baugruppe in the UK will require a proactive

in the UK would have the same trio of fundamental

architect to initiate them along with either residents

requirements that German projects have in the need

or a site.

for a

,

and an

, with

only two of the components being required for a project to be initiated. However, these principles describe the current Baugruppen market which has been developed substantially over the past 20+

This means only two types of initiation need to be considered, firstly how a group of residents including an architect could go about or alternatively how an Architect with a site would go about

years.

,

for a Baugruppe. Site

searching is covered in the section on Land During the 1990’s Baugruppen had not become an

Acquisition, whilst the former will be addressed here.

established model of housebuilding, and there was very limited knowledge of the model amongst professionals, council members and the general population. The model itself was pioneered principally by architects because of a slow market and ambitions to create interesting homes for themselves to live in. This meant that for many years virtually onboard from their conception111, in conjunction with

.

The Open House Project in Sheffield is an excellent example of the role architects must play in initiation alternative housing schemes in the UK today.

The group was formed in 2011 by architect Leo Care (third from left) with some close friends and family.

Under Care’s supervision the group successfully

Figure 34: Successful UK Baugruppen will likely have need to have an architect from its conception unlike German BG

acquired a site by 2013 and have been building their homes in line with Care’s designs since the acquisition.

Figure 35: Case Study - Open House Project, Sheffield (Image: openhouseproject.wordpress.com)

111

Viering.

In Germany there are two ways that additional members are generally found for a Baugruppe, both of which ideally should be possible in the UK. First is simply through word of mouth, where an architect or existing members of a group speak with their friends and family about the project with the hope that some of them will join the group. This is perfectly viable in the UK as it requires no thirdparty infrastructure, though prospective residents may need the ideas of Baugruppen explaining to them in more detail than in Germany because of the relative obscurity of the model.

Figure 36: A screenshot of the UK Cohousing Network's online project directory. Though not explicitly for Baugruppen, it may be a useful place to advertise for them until a dedicated platform is created.

The second method involves advertising availability in groups on web-platforms with dedicated listings for Baugruppen. In the UK there are no websites currently dedicated to Baugruppen as the model has never existed in the country, though there are several websites who advertise for other forms of alternative housing. The UK Cohousing Network list co-housing projects currently underway including those seeking new members112, as well self-helphousing.org as who have an online directory of current projects classed as ‘self-help’113. Both these sites would be good places for prospective Baugruppen to advertise today, and if the model were to prove successful in the UK, a national or regional Baugruppen organisations could be established to advertise Baugruppen projects specifically.

‘UK Cohousing Directory’, UK Cohousing Network <https://cohousing.org.uk/information/uk-cohousing-directory/> [accessed 9 September 2019].

112

‘Directory: Existing Projects | Self Help Housing’ <http://self-helphousing.org/directory-existing-projects/> [accessed 30 September 2019].

113

conventional tenures include residents paying As discussed with Baugruppen in Germany, the

income-based rent, employing a MHOS (Mutual

legal form of a group would be determined by how

Home Ownership Scheme) or even leasing units to

the group is to be funded, managed and, most

non-members. Co-operatives have been used

importantly, owned. It could be expected that, like

provide housing in the UK principally through

in Germany, most UK Baugruppen would be formed

housing co-ops (which are not a form of

to deliver

housing, though a few

Baugruppen), though there have been a few

may deliver alternative models of ownership to

cohousing schemes which have used the model118,

facilitate people in different financial situations.

suggesting that the model may have a potential use for Baugruppen.

Most resident-owned Baugruppen in Germany use simple legal structures of GbRs or GmbHs114, suggesting that the most appropriate way for UK groups to deliver resident-owned homes would be to form as a company with a simple legal structure.

The most suitable form would appear to be a (CLG), a simple business that can be formed easily by a group of individuals115. In the UK today CLGs are the most LILAC was formed in 2006 by a group of 5 families who

common form of legal structure used by cohousing

wanted to find a more sustainable way to live. After

groups116, so there is already strong precedent for its

several years researching, the group formalised into a

use to provide alternative housing.

Co-op society alongside additional members forming the resident group. In 2012 they acquired a site from Leeds

There are however a few Baugruppen that deliver

council and began construction of the scheme, which

homes through alternative tenures (equity share,

was completed in 2013. The homes are owned under a n innovative MHOS, where residents pay means tested

leasehold etc.) catering to a broader range of

rent (35% of their income) rather than a flat rate per unit.

potential residents. In Germany most groups use a The scheme was designed with sustainability in mid,

Genossenschaft, which could be replicated in the UK by using a

with countless features promoting a sustainable lifestyle.

. Whilst they are

It also includes many shared amenities including a garden, communal kitchen, offices and a workshop.

more complicated and expensive to set up than CLGs117, they offer far more variety in how residents

Figure 37: Case Study â&#x20AC;&#x201C; LILAC (Image: lilac.coop/resources)

occupy the property. Examples of these non114 Ring, Selfmade City: Berlin: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions.

115 Wrigleys Solicitors, A Guide to Legal Structures to Community-Led Housing, 2017.

Wrigleys Solicitors.

Wrigleys Solicitors.

118 Wrigleys Solicitors.

116 117

A CLG is a type of company that can be set up by a group to trade as a single entity. CLGs are quick to set up with minimal registration fees and provide good protection to members who are liable for only a very small guarantee (usually £1 or £10). CLGs are a common type of company in the UK, making it simple to conduct business with external lenders/contractors familiar with trading with companies of this type119.

Baugruppen using the CLG model would operate in virtually the same manner as a German GmbH model.

Once the CLG is formed residents would contribute their own funds to the CLG which would purchase land/pay contractors throughout phases 2-3. Following the property’s completion it would then be transferred from the ownership of the company to residents either as a and the CLG could Commonhold or a be folded.

An important part of many resident-owned Baugruppen’s success is their in-use management and operation as a

. Since the building is

owned exclusively by its occupants, no third-party landlords can dictate how the building will be run.

This protects the residents from exorbitant service charges and short-term leases, major concerns for many leaseholders in the UK today120. As such, if Baugruppen were to be implemented in the UK, alternatives to Leaseholds would have to be implemented.

There are two main options that are available to UK

A co-op society conducts its business for the mutual benefit of its members, which in the context of housing means granting residency or tenancies to its members. In housing Co-operatives the property is owned in its entirety by the co-operative as an entity, and residents are then granted leases to live in the property at the discretion of the co-op.

The main benefit of Co-operatives is that they can permit a range of tenure types that make housing more affordable to those less fortunate. Rents can be adjusted based on personal income rather than size of a resident’s dwelling, or they can be subsidised by the initial investment that each member made in the co-op. In many cases the scheme will see the property owned under equity shares, where the rent paid by residents converts into equity shares in the co-operative and its assets (namely the property). Should a member decide to stop living in the co-op, the member must sell these shares back to the co-op which can then be bought by a new resident in the scheme.

There are financial benefits to organising as a Co-op over companies, particularly regarding raising capital from members, though they are rather complex and will not be covered in this study.

Baugruppen. First is a

agreement,

which is virtually identical to a WEG with residents owning their apartment’s freehold and a share of communal/shared spaces121. The second option is a , where the entire property’s freehold is owned by a ‘landlord company’, which in turn is owned of the residents of the building.

This ‘company’ leases the units out to residents for peppercorn rent and should a resident move out from the property they must sell their stake in the company to the next resident122. The shared freehold model ultimately behaves the same as a commonhold as residents themselves dictate the building’s management, albeit through a slightly convoluted process.

Figure 38: UK Legal Forms appropriate for Baugruppen119

Wrigleys Solicitors.

‘Leasehold v Freehold: Differences’, HomeOwners Alliance <https://hoa.org.uk/advice/guides-for-homeowners/i-ambuying/leasehold-v-freehold-whats-the-difference/> [accessed 24 September 2019].

119 120

‘Leasehold vs Freehold: Why How You Own Your Home Matters’, This Is Money, 2015 <https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article1585043/Mortgages-homes-guide-Leasehold-vs-freehold-rightbuy.html> [accessed 20 August 2019].

122 ‘Leasehold v Freehold’.

121

Whilst at first a commonhold would appear to be the most appropriate way for UK groups to own their property, the model is relatively new with fewer than 20 commonholds existing in the UK today123. This unfamiliarity may make it difficult for the group to secure mortgages and funding against the property. Conversely, shared freeholds are relatively well known so it may be more viable for groups to use this model when delivering Baugruppen in the UK.

Figure 39: Commonhold and Freehold as Landlord-free alternatives to leasholds

123

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Leasehold v Freeholdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

example of a highly successful educator and Community Land Trusts are type of not-for-profit organisation in the UK that provide community

facilitator who have recently begun delivering homes themselves127.

groups with the means to develop and manage,

Whilst CLTs are not a viable structure for a

amongst other things, housing124. A CLT is

Baugruppe, umbrella CLTs may be able to facilitate

in itself, so all CLTs are established as

independent groups building their own

some sort of company usually a CLG, a CIC

Baugruppen. As well as providing advice and

(community Interest company) or a CBS

training on housing development, they could

(Community Benevolent Society, a charitable variant

potentially acquire land that is normally unavailable

of a co-operative).

to private companies128 which they could then lease

CLTs can access funding and land that many private companies (such as CLGs) rarely can, and one could expect them to be a fantastic means for delivering Baugruppen. However, CLTs are currently because of a set of legal requirements regulating CLTs. CLTs must provide assets which have a wider benefit to

to Resident-owned Baugruppen registered as private companies (CLG etc.). Should Baugruppe prove to become a successful model in the future, it may even be possible to establish CLTs that are dedicated exclusively to facilitating Baugruppen, akin to the some of the organisations set up by some German Municipalities129.

everyone in a community, usually an entire neighbourhood or district, so small housing schemes benefitting just the residents would not qualify.

Umbrella CLTs are types of CLTs which operate principally as facilitators for smaller groups, rather than as developers themselves125. Their services include providing advice, training and management

Figure 40: How Umbrella CLTs could facilitate alternative means of land acquisition for Resident-Owned Baugruppen

for smaller independent groups to help them deliver housing. Interestingly, umbrella CLTs can still develop their own projects and own/manage their own property126. RUSS CLT in South London are an 124 ‘About CLTs’, National Community Land Trust Network <http://www.communitylandtrusts.org.uk/what-is-a-clt/about-clts> [accessed 10 September 2019].

125 Jennifer Aird and Community Finance Solutions, Lessons from the First 150 Homes | Evaluation of the National Community Land Trust Demonstration Programme, p. 14.

126

Aird and Community Finance Solutions.

‘About RUSS’, Rural Urban Synthesis Society, 2015 <https://www.theruss.org/about/> [accessed 24 September 2019].

128 Via Community Asset Transfer or other means, described in the section ‘Land Acquisition’.

129 Ring, ‘Urban Living and Alternative Development Models’.

127

In Germany land acquisition is one of the most pressing challenges Baugruppen face130 and it is only likely to be more problematic in the UK where people already have great “difficulty of and

land”131 in the current market. The

issues stem principally from two issues, the the

and

132

of land purchases , neither of which is

nearly as problematic in Germany.

Both these issues could make it extremely difficult for Baugruppen to successfully purchase a site through conventional means, particularly if the group were formed by Residents and an Architect without any idea of a prospective site.

Figure 41: Issues with land acquisition 133134135

Figure 42: Vacant Brownfield sites such as that pictured above are extremely difficult to both find and purchase (Image: pbctoday.co.uk)

Ring, ‘Urban Living and Alternative Development Models’.

Monboit and others.

132 Monboit and others.

133 Ring, Selfmade City: Berlin: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions.

130

131

134 ‘Finding a Plot’, Build It, 2018 <https://www.self-build.co.uk/findingplot/> [accessed 10 September 2019].

135 Monboit and others.

Local government plays a key role in providing access to land for many Baugruppen in Germany, many of whom acquire land either directly from In 2014 eleven Vanguard Councils were appointed by

public bodies or from private landowners with their

central government to pioneer the new ‘Right-to-Build’

assistance136. In the UK around 40% of all

scheme139, a policy that aimed to promote custom-builds

developable land is owned by central and local

across the country. These councils all received a share of

government137, so it would be reasonable to expect

£550,000 to trial new approaches to increase custom-

many UK schemes could acquire their land from

builds in their jurisdiction140, ranging from a commitment to deliver 2,000 custom-build homes from Cherwell

public bodies.

council141 to “a ground breaking ‘5% self-build’ policy”142 from Teignbridge District Council.

These councils have been some of the strongest

As mentioned earlier,

legislation

supporters of self-provided housing in the country and

requires all local authorities to keep a register of

have showcased many innovative ways other councils

people seeking plots of land and provide land for

could successfully promote self-provided housing. Many of the mechanism they have utilised have strong

these people. Certain registers also allow groups to

comparisons with German systems that support

sign up looking for a single site to develop as a

Baugruppen, proving that there is a real opportunity to

collective138, which would be perfect for Baugruppen

implement new policy in that will support the development of Baugruppen in the UK.

seeking land, though it may not be particularly convenient as members on the register do not get

Figure 43: Vanguard Councils - Right to Build pioneers

139140141142

any say in where the land is and it could also take several years for the council to provide them land.

136

Eliason.

‘Community Right to Reclaim Land’, Designing Buildings Wiki <https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Community_right_to_reclaim_la nd> [accessed 22 August 2019].

138 ‘Register’, Local Self Build Register <http://localselfbuildregister.co.uk/register-with-us/> [accessed 30 September 2019].

139 ‘The 11 Vanguard Councils’, Custom Build Strategy <http://custombuildstrategy.co.uk/news-article/vanguard-council/> [accessed 17 September 2019].

137

‘Right to Build Vanguard Councils Chosen’, Build It, 2014 <https://www.self-build.co.uk/right-build-vanguard-councils-chosen/> [accessed 3 September 2019].

141 Ecomotive, ‘Self Build and Custom Build Support in New “Right to Build” Areas.’, Local Self Build Register <http://localselfbuildregister.co.uk/self-build-custom-build-supportnew-right-build-areas/> [accessed 17 September 2019].

142 ‘Innovative Custom Build Policy Adopted by Teignbridge District Council’, Custom Build Strategy <http://custombuildstrategy.co.uk/news-article/teignbridge-innovativecustom-build-policy/> [accessed 9 September 2019].

140

should they identify public land viable for a scheme.

In the earlier section on German land acquisition several key devices were identified that supported

– In the UK local plans allow

»

Baugruppen. The following points discuss how

councils to define how areas and

viable the German principles are in the UK and

neighbourhoods are to be developed.

explain what mechanisms (if any) exist to facilitate

Recently there have been calls for local

their implementation in the UK today.

authorities to use plans to “allocate a portion of strategic sites for

– Many German

»

”, which could provide sites for

Baugruppen acquire their land on social merit

Baugruppen. Teignbridge District Council, a

through fixed-price tenders, a relatively

vanguard council, have successfully adopted

common type of sale in Germany. In the UK

this approach and implemented a policy

however this model is almost non-existent,

stating that 5% of all sites sold must go to self-

and land is virtually always sold to the highest

builders145.

bidder despite repeated calls to end this unsustainable approach143. Whilst it is very

»

– If large public plots are to be

»

uncommon, there have been a couple of

sold to speculative developers, it has been

instances where vanguard councils have sold

suggested that councils could require the

land through fixed-price tenders, so a

buyer to sell on several plots within the parcel

precedent for these types of land-sales does

to

146

, an approach

exist should councils seek to implement it in

already in place in Germany . A similar

the future.

approach has already been implemented in

147

the UK by some councils to allocate self-build

– As described in the earlier

plots in private developments148. It would

chapter, Land Leases are an extremely

therefore be reasonable to assume that this

favourable form of land acquisition for both

principle could extend to designate plots for

Baugruppen and municipal landowners144.

Baugruppen in future land sales.

Land Leases are already an established mechanism so UK Baugruppen should be able

»

to easily acquire land through this method

– In the same way that Baugruppen in Germany use bridging contracts, UK groups could use option

Brinkley.

‘Persimmon to Provide Serviced Plots on a 85 Home Scheme in Sheffield’, Right to Build Toolkit, 2016 <https://righttobuildtoolkit.org.uk/persimmon-provide-serviced-plots85-home-scheme-sheffield/> [accessed 25 September 2019].

143

147

144

148

Monboit and others.

Ring, ‘Urban Living and Alternative Development Models’.

145 ‘Innovative Custom Build Policy Adopted by Teignbridge District Council’.

146 Ring, ‘Building Communities - Professor Kristien Ring on the Baugruppen Phenomenon at 2017 World Architecture Day’.

contracts to acquire land initially on a short-

more viable device for councils (and

term lease, with the option to extend the lease

Baugruppen) to acquire land.

or buy the land at a pre-agreed price149. This window gives the group time to secure funding for the main purchase without the risk of an external party stepping in. This type

Ever since the election of the Con-Lib coalition

of contract has been used successfully by

government in 2010, the UK government has placed

many community housing projects, including

an increasing responsibility for developing built

the Open House Project in Sheffield150.

amenities (including housing) on local communities155. To facilitate this the Localism act of

– In a similar

»

2011 enacted several community-oriented policies

approach to German council-backed land

into UK law to give

purchases, UK Local Authorities could use

powers to develop built projects in their

CPOs to purchase vacant privately-owned

neighbourhoods156. They have proven extremely

land that is suitable for development151 (land

useful to many groups for acquiring land and

like this exists in abundance because of a

enabling development and have been vital for the

152

). Once acquired, this land could be

transferred to Baugruppen by freehold sale, land lease or, in certain situations, Community

greater

development of many community-led housing schemes157.

Asset Transfer. Unfortunately, CPOs are not

The definition of a ‘community group’ is not

particularly viable at present because of ‘Hope

consistently defined, but it is unlikely that UK

Value’, which means councils must pay an

Baugruppen could be classified as such because of

additional cost to landowners for the potential

their limited size of beneficiaries158, meaning they

for ‘future land value increases’, making many

would not be able to utilise the following

land purchases rather untenable153. There

mechanisms. However, should the scope of these

have been calls recently to abolish hope value

mechanisms be extended to include Baugruppen

payments154, which would make CPOs a far

they could have sizeable benefits to increasing the viability of Baugruppen across the country.

149 Justin Kuepper, ‘Call Option Definition’, Investopedia <https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/calloption.asp> [accessed 6 September 2019].

150 ‘Financial and Legal Situation’, Open House Project, 2013 <https://openhouseproject.wordpress.com/barnes-hall-farm/financial-andlegal-situation/> [accessed 6 September 2019].

151 ‘Lesson of the Master: An Interview with David Rudlin’, The Planner <https://www.theplanner.co.uk/features/lesson-of-the-master-an-interviewwith-david-rudlin> [accessed 9 September 2019].

152 David Madden, HEYU! Urbans, 2016 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwLFlzVpYXM>.

153 Lord Andrew Addonis, ‘Councils Need Fair Compulsory Purchase Order Powers’, Inside Housing

<https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/comment/comment/councils-need-faircompulsory-purchase-order-powers-57771> [accessed 9 September 2019].

154 Monboit and others.

155 Brown and others.

156 MyCommunity, ‘Understanding the Community Right to Bid’, 2012.

157 Impact Assessment on Localism Bill: Neighbourhood Plans and Community Right to Build (Department for Communities and Local Government, January 2011).

158 ‘What Is Community Led Housing (CLH) | CLH Toolkit’ <http://clhtoolkit.org/introduction-clh/what-community-led-housingclh> [accessed 30 September 2019].

– CAT has been

»

communities with a six-month window to

arguably the most important mechanism in

source funds and plan their bid. Currently

successfully delivering community

the policy doesn’t cover residential property

developments and has been fundamental to

(land or buildings) so it would need a

many community-housing schemes,

substantial overhaul to become useful for

particularly those by CLTs. The policy

Baugruppen.

facilitates the transfer of publicly owned assets (often vacant land or unused

not cover land acquisition, it can have a

buildings) to a community, usually on a

major role in enabling communities to

leasehold basis159. Currently no councils

deliver small-scale developments in their

classify Baugruppen as eligible for this

locality163. RtB allows communities to

policy160, but if frameworks could be altered

circumvent standard planning procedure

CAT could become one of the most

process if a scheme receives support from

important means of land acquisition for

local residents.

Baugruppen. »

– Whilst RtB does

»

– This mechanism allows communities to force local authorities to dispose of publicly owned land that is vacant or unused to be disposed of (sold) on the open market161.

Government guidance actually suggests community housing as a viable use of the mechanism162, implying that Baugruppen would benefit greatly from it should they become eligible to use the mechanism.

»

– *This policy exists only in Scotland. Right to Buy permits community groups to effectively issue and enact their own CPOs to acquire underused or vacant land from private landowners, . This would be an extremely useful tool for Baugruppen, but as the policy only is in place in Scotland, the policy would need to be implemented by UK Central government to have wider application across the country164.

»

– This gives all communities the right to submit a bid on any assets of community value (nominated by local communities) that are set to be sold to private buyers. The policy provides

159 Locality and Power to Change, ‘Understanding Community Asset Transfer: A Guide for Community Organisations’, 2018.

160 Bradford City Council, ‘Community Asset Transfer Policy’, 2017.

161 MyCommunity.

162 ‘2010 to 2015 Government Policy: Localism’, GOV.UK <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-

government-policy-localism/2010-to-2015-government-policylocalism> [accessed 6 September 2019].

163 MyCommunity.

164 Monboit and others.

(calculated at 18-45%

pay As stated in the earlier section about the funding of

of profits made on the development165) which is only

German projects, Baugruppen do not require grants

payable in cases where there is intent “to realise a

or ‘free money’ to be viable, instead they simply

profit or gain from disposal of the land when

need to be able to access affordable third-party

developed”166.

loans. That being said, there appear to be several charitable and governmental grants that Baugruppen might be able to access which might make the model more accessible to those less financially well off. The details of these funds identified can be found in the Appendix.

is another tax that Baugruppen might be able to avoid paying. Stamp Duty is payable on all land purchases of £125,000 or leases with lease premium of £40,000 or higher167. Many Baugruppen would be purchasing land below this threshold, as most groups would not be seeking particularly large plots of land, nor requiring land with pre-existing

Within the UK there are two banks that would appear to be viable investors, with a good track record funding alternative housing provision in the UK and recommendations from the National CLT

planning consent (which dramatically increases the ‘value’ of land). Land acquired on a leasehold basis could also avoid stamp duty contributions as groups could arrange for the annual premiums to be under the £40k threshold to avoid stamp duty (particularly

group and NaSBa.

if the land was acquired on a long-lease basis). » »

– Sustainable lender - Specialise in

N.b. It is also worth noting that groups operating as charities are not liable to pay SDLT, though as discussed earlier not many groups would likely be eligible for charitable status.

funding sustainable (inc. social) projects

Under current UK legislation Baugruppen would receive several tax savings compared to speculative housebuilders. Firstly, they would not be liable to

‘Property Development - Guidance on Property Development Tax’, One Accounting <https://www.oneaccounting.co.uk/blog/propertydevelopment-guidance-property-development-tax> [accessed 12 September 2019].

166 ‘HMRC Publish Their Guidance on Property Development Tax and New Transactions in Land Legislation’, Gabelle Tax Consultants – 165

Independent UK Tax Experts, 2016 <http://www.gabelletax.com/blog/2016/12/20/hmrc-publish-theirguidance-on-property-development-tax-and-new-transactions-in-landlegislation/> [accessed 31 August 2019].

167 ‘Stamp Duty Land Tax’, GOV.UK <https://www.gov.uk/stamp-dutyland-tax> [accessed 12 September 2019].

is a national organisation that can

» For non-professionals to successfully manage and

provide training and assistance in the form

deliver a construction project it is vital that they seek

of courses and web-resources for groups that

adequate training in all matters regarding the in

are aiming to deliver Community-Led

terms of organisation and administration of a

Housing172.

project168. This is particularly important when multiple parties are involved such as in

»

There are also national organisations dedicated to particular types of community

Baugruppen, to prevent conflict where different

173

,

group such as the

people may have different opinions169.

174

the

175

.

In Germany Baugruppen have become a wellestablished form of development, and there are now many organisations that provide advice and training

»

Information relating to self-provided housing can be found at the

specifically tailored to the Baugruppen model170.

with resources covering many of the

Since in the UK there have been no projects

organisational and managerial concerns self-

completed under this model, so there is no

provided housing projects entail176.

Baugruppe-specific information available to assist groups. Whilst no bespoke Baugruppe advice is

or the

»

The

provides

available, groups can access lots of advice and

information tailored to industry

information that is still relevant to Baugruppen from

professionals covering detailed guidance on

the following sources:

alternative methods to deliver housing177. have produced a

»

series of documents and reports that aim to help community groups to mobilise and initiate their own self-provided construction

This is accompanied with a range of case studies that showcase a variety of projects that have delivered housing in unusual manners.

projects171.

168 Design Council and CABE, Briefing Paper - Design for Everyone: A Guide to the Design Process.

169 Design Council and CABE, Briefing Paper - Design for Everyone: A Guide to the Design Process.

170 Alternative Housing Delivery: Baugruppen.

171 ‘Community-Led Design & Development’, Design Council, 2015 <https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/builtenvironment/community-led-design-development> [accessed 3 September 2019].

172 ‘Locality | Building Community-Led Homes’, Locality <https://locality.org.uk/services-tools/support-for-councils-service-

providers/building-community-led-homes> [accessed 19 September 2019].

173 ‘UK Cohousing Directory’.

174 ‘About CLTs’.

175 ‘Home’, CCH Confederation of Co-Operative Housing <http://www.cch.coop/> [accessed 19 September 2019].

176 ‘Self Build Portal’, Self Build Portal <https://selfbuildportal.org.uk/> [accessed 19 September 2019].

177 ‘Right to Build Toolkit | Home Page’, Right to Build Toolkit <https://righttobuildtoolkit.org.uk/> [accessed 19 September 2019].

In the UK today there is a desperate need for reform in the housing sector, particularly regarding the diversity of housing being built. Self-provision is a key way that the UK is seeking to diversify the housebuilders, and it seems that Baugruppen would be an extremely effective new model to further promote self-provided housebuilding, with many of its benefits correlating to many of the problems in the contemporary UK housing market.

However, several cultural and systemic obstacles have been identified in this study which would limit the potential of developing Baugruppen in the UK today. The availability and cost of land, the inability for many local authorities to promote new policies and the general lack of knowledge of alternative housing provision would make it very difficult for Baugruppen to have widespread application across the country. There is also a perception in the UK that any self-initiated housing developments are always self-build which turns people away from developing their own homes.

»

on group management and legal matters in group housing schemes

Even though no Baugruppen have ever been built in

is available from numerous organisations

the UK to date, there are many mechanisms that

including RightToBuildToolkit, CABE and the

already exist that could be used to support the

British Design Council.

development of UK Baugruppen immediately without needing to be adapted or changed. The most notable of these mechanisms are summarised as follows: »

UK

There are a range of groups could use to operate as an

independent self-developer (notably CLGs). »

of WEG can be

The German

replicated using shared freeholds to provide true homeownership and control without external landlords. »

Existing

could provide a

means of forming groups and locating additional members. to provide the

»

required capital can be acquired easily from two third-party lenders (Triodos and Ecology Building Society) who already fund many alternative housing developments in the UK. »

could be used to acquire land from local authorities. could be written into in

»

more land purchases to enable groups to compete with larger developers when acquiring land.

public land to groups with smaller numbers of beneficiaries.

Whilst the existing mechanisms describe in this report already permit Baugruppen to begin

from Scotland across the rest of the UK to

construction today, its application could be far

allow groups to purchase undeveloped sites

wider reaching. The following suggestions describe

that have been land banked.

a series of viable changes that could be put in place in the UK that could dramatically increase the

»

opportunity for building Baugruppen in the UK.

would enable groups to identify viable sites that they may not otherwise know was

effective means of forming new groups if

available to them. Initially this could just

they were made public. A public listing of

cover public land but could be expanded to

people interested in developing their own

include private sellers in years to come if it

homes would allow for previously

proves effective.

unconnected individuals to coordinate and form new groups.

»

(potentially via CPD presentations to practicing architects or articles on architecture websites) would enable them to act as the initiators needed for projects to go ahead, particularly whilst the model is in its infancy.

Several regional

could be

founded with the sole purpose of facilitating land acquisition for Baugruppen. »

Councils could designate sites for Baugruppen in

. could be used by local

»

authorities when selling off public land. »

Local Authorities could establish devoted to facilitating

on the model

»

»

A free-to-access detailing all plots for sale on the market

could become

»

could be extended

»

The scope of could be expanded to cover the transfer of

alternative housing which could include Baugruppen.

Bibliography and Appendices

‘32 Million People Think Britain’s Homes Are Not “Fit for Purpose”’, HomeOwners Alliance, 2019 <https://hoa.org.uk/2019/03/32-millionbritains-homes-not-fit-for-purpose/> [accessed 13 September 2019] ‘40,000 Sign up to Self Build despite Postcode Lottery for Right to Build Registers’, NaCSBA - National Custom & Self Build Association <https://nacsba.org.uk/news/40000-sign-upto-self-build-despite-postcode-lottery-forright-to-build-registers/> [accessed 26 September 2019] ‘2010 to 2015 Government Policy: Localism’, GOV.UK <https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio ns/2010-to-2015-government-policylocalism/2010-to-2015-government-policylocalism> [accessed 6 September 2019] ‘About CLTs’, National Community Land Trust Network <http://www.communitylandtrusts.org.uk/w hat-is-a-clt/about-clts> [accessed 10 September 2019] ‘About RUSS’, Rural Urban Synthesis Society, 2015 <https://www.theruss.org/about/> [accessed 24 September 2019] Aird, Jennifer, and Community Finance Solutions, Lessons from the First 150 Homes | Evaluation of the National Community Land Trust Demonstration Programme, p. 14 Alternative Housing Delivery: Baugruppen (Beacon, December 2016) APPG, House of Commons, More Homes, Fewer Complaints | Report from the Commission of Inquiry into the Quality and Workmanship of New Housing in England, July 2016

August 2019, Neil Knight13, ‘We Need to Introduce a “Brownfield-First” Housebuilding Policy’, Building.Co.Uk <https://www.building.co.uk/communities/ we-need-to-introduce-a-brownfield-firsthousebuilding-policy/5101069.article> [accessed 13 September 2019] ‘Bauherrengemeinschaft – Gemeinsam Bauen Und Kosten Sparen’, Immowelt.De <https://ratgeber.immowelt.de/a/bauherreng emeinschaft-gemeinsam-bauen-und-kostensparen.html> [accessed 9 September 2019] ‘Bauherrengemeinschaft – Gemeinsam Bauen Und Kosten Sparen’. ———, Ratgeber.Immowelt.De <https://ratgeber.immowelt.de/a/bauherreng emeinschaft-gemeinsam-bauen-und-kostensparen.html> [accessed 10 September 2019] Bradford City Council, ‘Community Asset Transfer Policy’, 2017 Brinkley, Mark, How Does Self Build in the UK Compare to Germany?, 2013 <www.houseplanninghelp.com/19> Brown, Sam, Cristina Cerulli, Fionn Stevenson, Canny Ash, and David Birkbeck, Motivating Collective Custom Build (Sheffield Hallam University, 2013) Chan, Winnie, ‘What Changes When a Community Starts Building?’ (unpublished Master Thesis (Presentation), Dessau Institute of Architecture (DIA) Graduate School at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Germany, Dessau, Germany, 2010) ‘Community Right to Reclaim Land’, Designing Buildings Wiki <https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki /Community_right_to_reclaim_land> [accessed 22 August 2019] ‘Community-Led Design & Development’, Design Council, 2015

<https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/whatwe-do/built-environment/community-leddesign-development> [accessed 3 September 2019] Davis, Lindsey, ‘What Is the Right to Build?’, Homebuilding & Renovating, 2018 <https://www.homebuilding.co.uk/news/wh at-is-the-right-to-build/> [accessed 26 September 2019] Design Council, and CABE, Briefing Paper - Design for Everyone: A Guide to the Design Process ———, Technical Paper: Scoping Your Community-Led Self-Build Project (Department for Communities and Local Government, April 2016) ‘Directory: Existing Projects | Self Help Housing’ <http://self-help-housing.org/directoryexisting-projects/> [accessed 30 September 2019] Ecomotive, ‘Self Build and Custom Build Support in New “Right to Build” Areas.’, Local Self Build Register <http://localselfbuildregister.co.uk/selfbuild-custom-build-support-new-rightbuild-areas/> [accessed 17 September 2019] ‘Elf Freunde, Berlin’, Right to Build Toolkit <https://righttobuildtoolkit.org.uk/casestudies/elf-freunde-berlin/> [accessed 13 September 2019] Eliason, Mike, ‘Baugruppen: Proactive Jurisdictions » The Urbanist’, The Urbanist, 2014 <https://www.theurbanist.org/2014/05/14/ba ugruppen-proactive-jurisdictions/> [accessed 26 March 2019] Fawcett, Tony, ‘The Right Homes in the Right Places - CPRE, the Countryside Charity’, Campaign to Protect Rural England <https://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-

do/housing-and-planning/housing/theissues> [accessed 13 September 2019] ‘Financial and Legal Situation’, Open House Project, 2013 <https://openhouseproject.wordpress.com/ba rnes-hall-farm/financial-and-legal-situation/> [accessed 6 September 2019] ‘Finding a Plot’, Build It, 2018 <https://www.selfbuild.co.uk/finding-plot/> [accessed 10 September 2019] ‘Genossenschaft Definition’, Gründerszene Magazin <https://www.gruenderszene.de/lexikon/beg riffe/genossenschaft> [accessed 10 September 2019] ‘Government Accused of Sabotaging Its Own Housebuilding Targets’, Specification Online <https://specificationonline.co.uk/articles/201 9-07-24/dclg/government-accused-ofsabotaging-its-own-housebuilding-targets> [accessed 12 September 2019] ‘Government to Miss Another Crucial Housebuilding Target, Spending Watchdog Reveals’, The Independent, 2019 <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p olitics/housing-national-audit-office-publicland-target-by-95000-2020-a8896641.html> [accessed 10 September 2019] ‘Ground Leases and Other Ways of Facilitating Land More Affordably’, Right to Build Toolkit <https://righttobuildtoolkit.org.uk/briefingnotes/ground-leases-and-other-ways-offacilitating-land-more-affordably/> [accessed 17 September 2019] ‘GTAI - Civil Law Partnership (GbR)’ <https://www.gtai.de/GTAI/Navigation/EN/I nvest/Investment-guide/Establishing-acompany/Companyforms/Partnerships/civil-law-partnershipgbr.html> [accessed 10 September 2019]

Hamiduddin, Iqbal, and Nick Gallent, ‘Self-Build Communities: The Rationale and Experiences of Group-Build (Baugruppen) Housing Development in Germany’, Housing Studies, 31.4 (2015), 365–83 ‘HMRC Publish Their Guidance on Property Development Tax and New Transactions in Land Legislation’, Gabelle Tax Consultants – Independent UK Tax Experts, 2016 <http://www.gabelletax.com/blog/2016/12/20 /hmrc-publish-their-guidance-on-propertydevelopment-tax-and-new-transactions-inland-legislation/> [accessed 31 August 2019] ‘Home’, CCH Confederation of Co-Operative Housing <http://www.cch.coop/> [accessed 19 September 2019] Homebuilding & Renovating, A 10-Point Plan to Boost Self-Build, May 2013 <https://issuu.com/simplymarcomms/docs/a _10-point_plan_to_boost_self-build> ———, Self & Custom Build Market Report 2017, July 2017 ‘If Britain Wants More Self-Build Housing, We Need to Change Its Planning System | CityMetric’, CityMetric <https://www.citymetric.com/fabric/ifbritain-wants-more-self-build-housing-weneed-change-its-planning-system-3767> [accessed 12 September 2019] Impact Assessment on Localism Bill: Neighbourhood Plans and Community Right to Build (Department for Communities and Local Government, January 2011) ‘Innovative Custom Build Policy Adopted by Teignbridge District Council’, Custom Build Strategy <http://custombuildstrategy.co.uk/newsarticle/teignbridge-innovative-custom-buildpolicy/> [accessed 9 September 2019]

Institute for Public Policy Research, Lessons from Germany: Tenant Power in the Rental Market, 16 January 2017 Kroth, Andrea, ‘Reinventing Density: How Baugruppen Are Pioneering the Self-Made City’, The Conversation, 2016 <http://theconversation.com/reinventingdensity-how-baugruppen-are-pioneeringthe-self-made-city-66488> [accessed 26 March 2019] Kuepper, Justin, ‘Call Option Definition’, Investopedia <https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/call option.asp> [accessed 6 September 2019] Kunze, Andreas, ‘Construction community: Building together with tax advantage’, FINblog.de <https://www.finblog.de/baugemeinschaftsteuervorteil/> [accessed 31 August 2019] ‘Leasehold v Freehold: Differences’, HomeOwners Alliance <https://hoa.org.uk/advice/guidesfor-homeowners/i-am-buying/leasehold-vfreehold-whats-the-difference/> [accessed 24 September 2019] ‘Leasehold vs Freehold: Why How You Own Your Home Matters’, This Is Money, 2015 <https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mor tgageshome/article-1585043/Mortgageshomes-guide-Leasehold-vs-freehold-rightbuy.html> [accessed 20 August 2019] ‘Lesson of the Master: An Interview with David Rudlin’, The Planner <https://www.theplanner.co.uk/features/less on-of-the-master-an-interview-with-davidrudlin> [accessed 9 September 2019] ‘Locality | Building Community-Led Homes’, Locality <https://locality.org.uk/servicestools/support-for-councils-serviceproviders/building-community-led-homes> [accessed 19 September 2019]

Locality, and Power to Change, ‘Understanding Community Asset Transfer: A Guide for Community Organisations’, 2018 Lord Andrew Addonis, ‘Councils Need Fair Compulsory Purchase Order Powers’, Inside Housing <https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/comment /comment/councils-need-fair-compulsorypurchase-order-powers-57771> [accessed 9 September 2019] Madden, David, HEYU! Urbans, 2016 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwLFl zVpYXM> Minton, Anna, Big Capital: Who Is London For? (UK: Penguin Books, 2017) Monboit, George, Robin Grey, Tommy Kenny, Laurie Macfarlane, Anna Powell-Smith, Guy Shrubsole, and others, Land for the Many: Changing the Way Our Fundamental Asset Is Used, Owned and Governed (The Labour Party, 2019) Morlock, RA Alfred, ‘Grunderwerbssteuer bei Baugruppen’, Architektenkammer BadenWürttemberg MyCommunity, ‘Understanding the Community Right to Bid’, 2012 NaCSBA, Self-Build Report, October 2008 ‘Persimmon to Provide Serviced Plots on a 85 Home Scheme in Sheffield’, Right to Build Toolkit, 2016 <https://righttobuildtoolkit.org.uk/persimmo n-provide-serviced-plots-85-home-schemesheffield/> [accessed 25 September 2019] ‘Property Development - Guidance on Property Development Tax’, One Accounting <https://www.oneaccounting.co.uk/blog/pro perty-development-guidance-property-

development-tax> [accessed 12 September 2019] ‘Register’, Local Self Build Register <http://localselfbuildregister.co.uk/registerwith-us/> [accessed 30 September 2019] ‘Right To Build: Legislation and Registers’, Self Build Portal <https://selfbuildportal.org.uk/buildregisters /> [accessed 30 August 2019] ‘Right to Build Toolkit | Home Page’, Right to Build Toolkit <https://righttobuildtoolkit.org.uk/> [accessed 19 September 2019] ‘Right to Build Vanguard Councils Chosen’, Build It, 2014 <https://www.self-build.co.uk/rightbuild-vanguard-councils-chosen/> [accessed 3 September 2019] Ring, Kristien, Building communities - Professor Kristien Ring on the Baugruppen phenomenon at 2017 World Architecture Day, 2017 <https://soundcloud.com/nswarb/an-interview-with-professor-kristienring> ———, ‘Self Made City’, Future West (Australian Urbanism), Issue 03, 2016 ———, Selfmade City: Berlin: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions (Berlin: Jovis, 2013) ———, ‘Urban Living and Alternative Development Models’, in The Palgrave Handbook of Bottomup Urbanism, ed. by Mahyar Arefi and Conrad Kickert (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018) ‘Self Build Portal’, Self Build Portal <https://selfbuildportal.org.uk/> [accessed 19 September 2019] Shelter UK, ‘Starter Homes: Will They Be Affordable?’, 2015

‘Spreefeld Genossenschaft, Berlin’, Right to Build Toolkit <https://righttobuildtoolkit.org.uk/casestudies/spreefeld-genossenschaft-berlin/> [accessed 20 August 2019] ‘Stamp Duty Land Tax’, GOV.UK <https://www.gov.uk/stamp-duty-land-tax> [accessed 12 September 2019] Stattbau Berlin, ‘Newsletter: Agentur | INKLUSIV WOHNEN’, March 2018 ‘The 11 Vanguard Councils’, Custom Build Strategy <http://custombuildstrategy.co.uk/newsarticle/vanguard-council/> [accessed 17 September 2019] ‘UK Cohousing Directory’, UK Cohousing Network <https://cohousing.org.uk/information/ukcohousing-directory/> [accessed 9 September 2019] Viering, Jonas, ‘Die Schweine-Investoren sind wir [The Pig Investors are us]’, Zeit Online, 2007 <https://www.zeit.de/2008/01/Baugruppen/k omplettansicht> Vize, Richard, ‘The UK Desperately Needs New Homes - but Not These Hideous Boxes’, The Guardian, 13 May 2019, section Society <https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/ may/13/uk-desperate-new-homes-nothideous-boxes-housing-minister> [accessed 13 September 2019] ‘What Is a Housing Co-Operative? – Argyle Street Housing Cooperative’ <http://www.ash.coop/about/housingcoops/> [accessed 26 September 2019] ‘What Is Community Led Housing (CLH) | CLH Toolkit’ <http://clhtoolkit.org/introductionclh/what-community-led-housing-clh> [accessed 30 September 2019]

‘Wohnungseigentümergemeinschaft (WEG) - Alle Wichtigen Infos Für Sie!’, Hausverwaltung Ratgeber <https://www.hausverwaltungratgeber.de/hausverwaltung/wohnungseige ntuemergemeinschaft.html> [accessed 9 September 2019] Wrigleys Solicitors, A Guide to Legal Structures to Community-Led Housing, 2017 Zeigert, and Knight Frank, Ziegert - Report | Residential Property in Germany, 2018

Oderberger Strasse 56, Berlin

5 (17 pers) 2350 €/sqm

2003 – 2007 – 2010

45

Berlin

(135 pers)

Land purchased through auction in industrial neighbourhood

Standard BG

Architect + Site

Scheme devised initially

Standard BG

Zanderroth architekten

prior to site acquisition + BG formation

Architect + Site

Land awarded in quality competition

Umweltbank (eco bank)

GbR > WEG

Winfried Hartel (Management)

-

Umweltbank (eco bank)

GmbH & Co. KG > WEG

Winfried Hartel (Management)

Umwelt Bank

GbR > WEG

Winfried Hartel (Management)

BAR Architekten

7.5%

Big Yard,

Architect + Residents

2006 – 2007 - 2010

2280 €/sqm 14% R50 – Ritterstrasse 50,

16

Berlin

2130 €/sqm

(62 pers)

2010 – 2011 – 2013

Co-funded by deposits from BG members and bank loan

GbR (Modified)

-

Living spaces privately owned, shops and amenities are rented to third parties GbR . WEG Members found online via webplatforms

Assistance organising and coordinating project by SmartHoming

ifau und Jesko Fezer |

11%

HEIDE & VON BECKERATH Wohnen am Hochdamm Kiefholzstraße 418, Berlin

65 (215 pers)

2010 - ? 2013

2122 €/sqm

Architect + Site Immolog Architects

12% Baugemeinschaft Sarkauer Allee

19 (55 pers)

2011 - ? 2015

Architect + Site Jankowski architects

Land Lease

Land Lease Reinhard Eberl-Pacan Architekten +

– –

Steinstraße

22 (50pers)

1998 – 1999 – 2004

Residents + Site Christian Schöningh (Nonresident, friend of initiator)

Anklamer Strasse 52

10 (19 pers)

2003 – 2003 – 2005

1570 €/sqm

67

Berlin

(150 pers)

-

GmbH & Co. KG > WEG

-

-

GbR > WEG

Group members found through online platform

-

-

Genossenschaft

Info From righttobuild + SMC

Roedig + Schop Architekten

30% Spreefeld,

Architect + Site

Vacant site bought by residents, held for a while then developed later

2007 – 2010 – 2014

2100 €/sqm

Site + Residents

50% funded upfront by residents - All owners have 50% ownership of homes

Site was provisionally earmarked for offices but residents opposed this and proposed new housing scheme

18%

-

Remaining 50% comes from rental fees paid by all residents Some flats are available at 100% rent at comparable rates to Berlin Social Housing

Elf Freunde,

11

Berlin

? pers 1860 €/sqm 16%

2010 – 2010 – 2011

Site + Architects Colleagues, Family + Friends invited to join, 2 further from internet platforms

Land bought with B-Plan for site (Provisional masterplan and bldg. dimensions) at fixed price from Berlin Council

ING-DiBa bank (Using KfW product)

GbR > WEG

-

.

The following table outlines a number of types of charitable funds and grants that might be available to prospective Baugruppen in the UK. Many of the funds are only available at certain times in a project’s development (marked as and

, ).

Grants of £50k ave. will be awarded for Feasability work, pre-development costs + post-planning work prepping site (All funds must begin being spent within 3 months of grant award) The fund is only available to groups registered as a charitable body (inc. CIC or CLT) *Must be for schemes providing at least 50% affordable housing Funders: Power to Change Nationwide building society aims to support housing that will strengthen local communities, offering grants of up to £50k This scheme is only open to certain regions in the country as it is in its final stages of deployment.

Funder: Nationwide Building Society CLH funds offers small grants (£4k) to fund initial project, feasibility, room hire etc. – AND “1:1 support from community led housing enabler hubs” *Must be for affordable housing Funders: Confederation of Co-operative Housing, Locality, National Community Land Trust Network and UK Cohousing Funds for community/volunteer groups (£300-10,000) that make a positive contribution to local area – “They're made for community led housing groups!” ** https://www.communityledhomes.org.uk/get-funding/national-lottery-awards-all** Pay for equipment//training/staff/advice Funders: National Lottery Loans available for 2 stages: £20-60k for pre-planning, £200-400k for construction costs The fund is only available to groups registered as a charitable body (inc. CIC or CLT) *Must be for schemes providing at least 50% affordable housing Funders: Charitable Aid Foundation (CAF) Shares in a co-op or community organisation can be sold to local residents to generate start-up capital Funders: Local Residents/businesses *Many of these revenus sources are available only to projects delivering ‘affordable housing’. BGs are often built by those who are seeking financially accessible means of house purchase, and as such many BG schemes in the UK could be classified as ‘affordable housing’ (generally defined by Home Truths Report 2013 as “housing costs as affordable if they are less than 35% of disposable household income.”). However, the criteria for ‘affordable’ is constantly changing, so it cannot be guaranteed that these affordable funds would be available to all BG projects.

This table outlines several charitable funds and grants that might be available to prospective UK Baugruppen. As with the charitable funds, they have been categorised by times.

Many of these grants or funding sources identified will not be permanently available for supporting UK based BG projects and were established with limited funding pools or expiration dates.

This means the following list will likely only be relevant for a few years, though it would be reasonable to expect new funds are created that would fill this void. For any future BG schemes it will be important for any groups to keep a keen eye out for potential new funding sources and may find websites that collate up to date information about revenue opportunities very useful for identifying new streams of income for their schemes such as fundingcentral.org.uk or grantsonline.org.uk.

Funds available to ‘community housing’ schemes - Set up in 2016 £60m for 1 year, expanded by further £163m through to 2020/2021 ‘Community Housing’ is not defined concretely, but in general it should ensure it has: “meaningful community engagement and consent occurs throughout the development process” “the local community group or organisation owns, manages or stewards the homes and in a manner of their choosing” “the benefits to the local area and/or specified community must be clearly defined and legally protected in perpetuity” - Community Housing Fund Prospectus TWO PHASES TO FUNDS: Phase 1: Initiation + Planning Funds made available for “for project-specific activities that support development of community-led housing proposals and capital bids for local infrastructure projects that will result in housing developments that meet the criteria for being community-led.”

Phase 2: Land Acquisition + Construction Funds covering capital costs of the physical project £630m fund to restart stalled projects on small sites. Principally for projects that have faced unexpected obstacles to development such as extra land remediation or new legal complications. £1.3bn fund to buy and prepare land that isn’t ready for construction yet (e.g. land contamination, infrastructure requirements). Grants can vary tremendously in size depending on site conditions/proposals Currently S106 funds are used to build community facilities that are needed as a direct result of private housebuilding. Seeing as Baugruppen so often include new community assets it might be possible to access some level of S106 funding to contribute to these communal amenities. However, distribution of funds is decided on a council-by-council basis, so it cannot be guaranteed that all Baugruppen would be able to access these funds.

Help to buy is a very prominent fund in the UK which can provide a 20% loan on all newbuild houses up to £600k to anyone (even previous home owners) where the new home will be their sole property. n.b. This is only available to homes built by Registered Builders (though there are many of them), so Baugruppen would have to hire contractors with this accreditation to benefit from this funding opportunity.

BRYN DAVIES MARCH ARCHITECTURE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD

The University Of Sheffield.

Sheffield School of Architecture