The Politics of Preservation

The Politics of Preservation Democratic Approaches to Affordable Housing

CONTENTS 1.

2.

Abstract Research Questions

5 6

3.

A chronology of legislative measures

7

The Post War Period - Early 20th Century Late 20th Century Right to Buy Sink estates

7 10 11 12

4.

Contemporary Strategies Co-operative Housing and Com-Ben Societies Self Help Housing Community-led Housing The Community Land Trust Model

2

13 14 15

5.

Case Study The Camley Street CLT

17

6.

Conclusion

19

7.

Bibliography

20

3

ABSTRACT Current issues and concerns with the availability and affordability in London’s housing market can be attributed to long-established schemes such as Right to Buy which was introduced with the intention of providing opportunities of home ownership to residents. Over time, this has resulted in substantial portions of the council housing stock to move into the private sector. Following years of underinvestment between 1979 to 1997, Council Housing formed the focus for the Labour Government in the succeeding years with a target of building three million homes by 2016.

At present, the Conservative-led coalition’s main objective being the reduction of government debt, has cut investment in the national affordable housing program by 63% for the next four years.

Rents for newly built residential developments are estimated to be set at 80% of the market rate which has proven to be unaffordable for many middle to low income households.

In addition to this, the city is transforming rapidly from a manufacturing to service based urban economy focused on financial, business and creative services1. The resultant change includes spatial transformations in the built environment, a restructuring of governance models and stakeholders resulting in the disempowerment of urban inhabitants. The research here examines the possibilities which enable land reform systems such as Community Land Trusts to be instrumental in preventing the large scale displacement of established local communities due to gentrification, function as an agent of democracy, and effectively increase affordable housing stock in cities.

4

1. Hamnett, Chris.

2003. “Gentrification and the Middle-class Remaking of Inner London, 1961– 2001” Urban Studies, (Vol. 40, No. 12, 2401–2426)

5

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

A CHRONOLOGY OF LEGISLATIVE MEASURES

o How have past legislations and processes adversely affected the housing market and contributed to the current housing crisis in London?

Early 20th Century The influence of war and political conflict, the period between 1914-18 marking the beginning of these, introduced several changes in society and social policy. The scale and intensity of conflict involved the population at large, and the responsibility of instilling order to chaos through social reforms was left to government agencies. Central government finance being used to subsidize local-authority building was gradually accepted by the wartime planners of reconstruction2. An advisory Housing Panel chaired by Lord Salisbury in 1917 concluded that the collective anticipation of post-war requirements were insufficient, and private enterprises could not be expected to supply the deficit. A proposal with a target of 300,000 houses were to be achieved through a partnership of shared responsibility which designated ownership rights to local authorities with the provision of financial aid from the state3.

o What are the mechanisms that are being considered at present in order to increase the affordable housing stock? o What is the role of the Community Land Trust in acquiring land and tackling issues of housing provision and affordability at an urban and neighbourhood scale? o How has the Community Land Trust provided an opportunity for local communities to participate in a democartic process of land ownership and housing provision? o Who are the primary stakeholders involved in these processes?

What are their roles?

A second cause of the post-war housing crisis can be attributed to the Rent and Mortgage Restriction Act of 19154. Passed at a time when the rising rents were causing widespread discontent, the act fixed rent levels existing at the outbreak of war. In a post-war era, this was nearly impossible to repeal due to rapid inflation and housing shortages5.

Alternatively, since the rents were pegged at levels acceptable to a bygone era of socio-political conflict, meant that speculative builders would build houses at unaffordable rents when the cost of labour and materials were increasing6. Therefore, the post-war housing shortage were specific to lower-income groups with houses rated at 13 to 20 pounds per annum7.

This was the kind of housing that private enterprises could not be expected to provide.

o How has the city of London been successful in this endeavor through the establishment of Com- Ben Societies and CLTs?

The situation prompted major changes in housing policies to be initiated which addressed not only the housing shortage, but the quality of housing for the working-class population.

6

2 - 10. Burnett, John.

1978. “A social history of Housing, 1815 - 1970�

New policies of state-aided housing were supported by two acts passed in 1919 by the coalition government8. Under the supervision of D. Christopher Addison, the Housing and Town Planning Act required local authorities to survey the need of the areas under their jurisdiction for the provision of the houses needed with the approval of the ministry of Health9. Due to several reasons, the Addison Acts however failed to provide the required scale and multitude of working class housing units. They did however provide quality dwellings for the urban poor with a high level of 7 consumer satisfaction10.

The Chamberlain Act was introduced by the Ministry of health in the new Conservative Government in 192311. It entailed a subsidy of 6 pounds to be paid for a maximum of 20 years, either to private builders or local authorities for the provision of housing adhering to certain specifications set by the government12. A section of the act stated that local authorities would only be permitted to build only if they were able to convince the ministry that their involvement would be more beneficial as compared to that of private enterprises13. This reversed the policy initiated in 1919 which primarily encouraged local authorities to participate in the provision of working class housing with addition to the stat-aid being restricted by fixing a low maximum contribution until October 192514. Following this, the provision of working class housing became the sole responsibility of private enterprises15.

However, the involvement of local authorities in the provision of housing begun in 1919 revolutionized standards of working-class housing and lifestyles24. The principle of cottage estates in garden suburbs were adopted which dispersed people from the inner city towards the suburban areas residential districts created on the outskirts and newly planned communities away from former residential areas25. In this way, the housing policies institutionalized the process of suburbanization for the working classes, a process that had already begun for the middle classes since the mid-19th century. Mass relocation of people and the creation of residential districts were undertaken by the LCC (London County Council), which obtained sites in the outskirts of London, especially to the east near Essex26. Massive estates were created on sites previously covered by farms and marshland. One of the foremost examples of these was Beacontree, built between 1921 and 1934, which accommodated 90,000 residents and was the largest planned residential suburb in the world at the time27. Cities such as Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, Nottingham and Bristol followed in the footsteps of the London County Council in creating residential suburbs in the outskirts of the towns28. This trend proceeded to create a new pattern of life for people which essentially separated the location of work from home.

A total number of 438,000 houses, 363,000 by private enterprise and 75,000 houses by local authorities were yielded as a result of the Chamberlain Act which lasted for a period of six years16.

The Wheatley Act was passed following the Chamberlain Act only a year after, in 192417. The primary intent of the act was to reinstate the power of the local authorities with respect to the mass housing schemes and to encourage an enhanced degree of participation by introducing higher subsidies and long-term housing programs. This new act recognized the increasing shortage of social housing in 1924 as compared to 191918. In addition, local authorities, building workers and manufacturers required the assurance of a fifteen- year program which ensured a raised output from the present 60,000 houses a year to between 150,000 and 225,00019.

According to the act, a subsidy of 9 pounds a house for forty years would be granted for houses built by local authorities if they met standards laid down by the act, but only if they were let20. Rents were fixed as opposed to the rent control of pre-war houses which prevented loss exceeding 13 pounds a year21. The Wheatley Act remained in operation until 1933, and is generally regarded as the most successful of housing measures during the inter-war period. It yielded a total of 508,000 houses most of which were provided by local authorities22.

Between 1919 and 1934, a total of about 2 million new houses were built - 31 percent by local authorities and 69 percent by private enterprises only a quarter of which were subsidized23. The requirement for a substantial increase in working-class or social housing recognized in 1919 were not adequately met by this time.

8

Council housing flourished on smaller estates with the advantage of natural surroundings in the presence of trees and contoured landscapes.

Their identity had a pronounced effect on the built and the unbuilt.

11 - 23. Burnett, John. 1978. “A social history of Housing, 1815 - 1970”

24 - 28. Burnett, John.

1978. “A social history of Housing, 1815 - 1970”

9

Late 20th century

Right to Buy

The notion that State sponsored housing was cost-effective, inclusive, concerned with identity and sensitive to the needs of established communities gradually dissipated during the mid-1970s. The total output of council homes had decreased to one-tenth of the level that had been previously achieved in 194829. Issues with disrepair and insufficient spatial dimensions in the new housing contributed to the negative image of council built homes. It was also understood that these developments employed fast paced construction techniques through industrial processes in order to relocate the masses from 19th century slums (in western and central Europe)30. Post-war housing provided by the state and municipal governments was associated with a period of political strife and ceased to be relevant to contemporary needs of society. A variety of approaches were considered for the refurbishment of post-war era housing developments which turned obsolete over the course of time and were subject to severe criticism. ‘Self build’ in South London and ‘Critical Reconstruction’ in west Berlin were supplanted by new, private and speculative housing, an alternative to social housing, which was charitable rather than municipal31.

In the 1980s, the government presided over by Margaret Thatcher introduced the Right to Buy scheme, which enabled residents to buy their properties at a discounted rate after a period of three years. This caused considerable portions of the housing stock to move to the private sector and the residual housing, which was not of purchase quality, was found in states of disrepair and remained vacant. The single-most pressing concern of the State during this period was to provide additional council housing that would meet immediate housing requirements and to replace the previously displaced housing stock. On the other hand, the investment of councils faced a risk from future developments being sold under the scheme, with more investment being required to provide housing to households in need of socially rented homes. In 2014, a total of 36% of council homes which were sold under the scheme were being privately let. Subsequently, the government ensured that homes sold under the Right to buy scheme would be replaced by the construction of new council homes. Newly built council housing did not meet the specifications of the housing that was being sold under the scheme. Additionally, a failure to meet the desired number of council homes prompted the government to introduce a ring-fence offer which included rules that would be required to adhere to in order to use receipts from the sales of council homes. In the case that the council is unable to replace sold properties, the proceeds would be returned to the GLA.

29 - 31. Burnett, John. 1978. “A social history of Housing, 1815 - 1970”

10

32 - 34. 2015. “Exemplary Housing Estate Regeneration in Europe” The Architect’s Journal

By 2008, these new approaches and schemes were discredited by a massive property crash, financial crisis and aesthetic revulsion at the chaotic results. Aside from a few Boroughs in London, who managed to build housing that adhered to the strict limits which were set, viable solutions and preferred alternatives to the post was era housing and financial crisis had not emerged. Neo-liberal housing in Europe arose from the criticism of ‘social democratic housing as being repetitive and interchangeable’32 and therefore had to be varied and distinct in order to be sold in an open market unlike state sponsored housing. This redefinition of mass housing schemes following the war was based on each nation’s interpretation of social housing and the post-war era period which seemed to largely reflect Marxist ideologies33. Cities such as Manchester, Dublin, Warsaw and Moscow were subject to a deregulated market and consequently favoured a deregulated architecture devoid of any architectural quality control, overall planning schemes or infrastructure managements34.

11

CONTEMPORARY STRATEGIES

In 2016, an increase in the property values in the housing market, attributed to the Housing and Planning Act, impacted social housing schemes in a way which transformed urban growth. The sole focus rested on the needs of a higher income group. 7000,000 people in London who fell below the poverty line face the risk of homelessness as local councils and housing associations are pressured into selling off housing stocks and set standardized rents.

Transformative schemes, both long established and those in their infancy, seek to influence the provision of housing while keeping rents affordable.

Contemporary strategies based on the provision of affordable home ownership include: Community Benefit Societies and Housing Co-operatives Self-help housing Community-led Housing Community Land Trusts (CLT)

Sink Estates Sink estates like the Aylesbury in Southwark, have contributed to the failure of past social housing schemes and practices. Similar to social housing projects such as Pruitt Igoe in the United States, the issues associated with the failure of these mass housing estates include a lack of maintenance staff and an alienating architectural language. There are instances that illustrate more positive experiences in these housing estates which involve tenants from low income groups and the aging population.

It can be inferred that this is perhaps an expected response from a demographic that is resigned to ageing in place, and that council housing has thus far been characterized by standardized and repetitive models which dehumanize residential developments and neighbourhoods.

Co-operative Housing and Com-Ben Societies Housing Co-operative in the UK are incorporated under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014, formerly known as the Industrial and Provident Societies (IPS) Act, 1965 Community Benefit Societies are a useful tool for a community to ensure that developers who acquire land from the council as a result of them exercising their right of Eminent Domain, use it for developing affordable housing35. Community Benefit agreements are legally binding contracts that involve a developer, and a coalition of community representatives36.

The process involves the developer and representatives to identify requirements including – employment opportunities, environmental mitigation measures, infrastructural improvements and affordable housing, in exchange for the communities’ support as the project goes through planning approvals37. Through the contract, the developer is liable to the representatives of the community who assure that the terms of the agreement are met38.

The Aylesbury Estate is known to have stopped a CPO which would enable the council to acquire the estate, in order to demolish the failed housing development and replace it with better designed council housing. In the possibility where the estate would not be replaced with council housing, and would instead be subject to gentrification, a trend set by neighbouring developments, the CPO ruling would be considered to have been in favour of council housing as well as mindful of the rights of the tenants.

In addition, the failure of the state to provide adequate accommodation for the interim period, the inadequate price for the property and the unnecessary burden of the forced move would bear heavily on the tenants.

On the other hand, resistive forces such as these contribute to the myriad forms of obstacles in the course of changing the nature of social housing in cities today.

12

35 - 38 Matthew J. Parlow. 2006. “Unintended Consequences: Eminent Domain and Affordable Housing”, 46 Santa Clara L. Rev. 841.

The Co-operative Housing model is one of the most successful initiatives developed in the UK and the EU for the provision of affordable housing (for sale or rent), based on the concept of communal living and incorporating housing needs for an aging population. The system is a deviation from mainstream and housing provided by large scale developers and housing providers. Co-operative housing has been instrumental in redefining housing practices through the renovation of derelict or vacant properties, and the creation of new typologies based on communal living arrangements.

13

The Co-operative enables individual households to buy membership shares in the housing, which gives them voting rights and the use of residential units in the housing development. The membership democratically controls the actions and assets of the organization through meetings39. The Housing Co-operatives units are made affordable by regulating the price of the shares in the co-operative40.

COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS Land trusts function as non-profit entities that do not fall under governmental jurisdiction and operate in a tax-exempt status42.

Community Land Trusts are manifestations of the Georgist theory presented through the work of the American Economist Henry George (18391897) that is based on the belief that poverty has resulted from the private ownership of land by private developers and landowners who continue to reap the benefits of appreciating land value. The philosophy asserts the availability and accessibility of land as a public asset that is meant to be shared by everyone. The CLT movement has been inspired by parallel initiatives which introduced the leasing of community-owned land such as the Garden City Movement in Great Britain and the Gramdan movement in India, the latter of which included gifts of land made to entire villages43.

The CLT movement has been viewed as a preventive measure for the rise of communism and socialism.

Self-help Housing Self –help housing schemes employ the use of vacant or derelict properties by renovating them for community projects. The process often involves property acquired by local authorities from the private sector40.

Community-led Housing Community-led Housing schemes are focused on affordable housing for the benefit of local communities, either individually or in partnership with a builder or local housing provider.41

The CLT model has been established as a successful mode for the provision of affordable home ownership. The Community Land Trust system rehabilitates existing housing stock into an accessible, available and affordable commodity to the public. In addition, it also ensures the construction of new affordable housing units to replenish the affordable housing market.

Stakeholders

39. Radical Routes, Confederation of Co-operative Housing. www.radicalroutes. org.uk

14

40. 41. Field, Martin.

2017. “Models of Self Build and Collaborative Housing in the United Kingdom” Self – Build Homes. Social Discourse, Experiences and Directions, UCL Press

42. Kulwicki, Victoria.

2017. “Land in trust: Preserving Farmland through easement and fee-simple ownership in rural, suburban and urban contexts” T18:07:05.627Z 43 - 45. Varady, David P. 2012. “A Review of ‘The Community Land Trust Reader.”

Journal of the American Planning Association 78 (2): 216-17.

Stakeholders who participate in the creation and management of Community Land Trusts include: 1.

The Government or Local Council 2.

Foundations 3.

Local Communities 4.

Community Benefit Societies 5.

Housing Associations Community Land Trusts are established through charities or Community Benefit Societies that gift or buy the land9. CLTs are owned by key stakeholders and are open to communities44. The Community Land Trust, in partnership with a Housing Association or a Land Developer and a design and construction team comprising of a sub-contractor, a custom-build facilitator, and architect and a project manager develop the site according to terms of the contract45.

15

Community Land Trusts have gained popularity due to:

CASE STUDY

The provision of home ownership, once provided by schemes such as Right to Buy that failed to provide a permanent solution to the affordable housing crisis in London Recycling subsidies – Subsidies are used to support the cost of the land that is held in trust, and for the construction of housing from Central and local councils, foundations and corporate donors.

A provision of affordable home ownership that is unaffected by rising market prices.

The creation of social capital in the neighbourhood.

The Camley Street CLT The Community Land Trust model has often exemplified the process through which communities have retained control over their properties and land, resisting forces of gentrification and land acquisitions by local governments and private developers. Camley Street at Camden, London comprising of about a 1000 working class residents most of whom are employed in the food sector serving central London, witnessed a gradual transformation of their neighbourhood brought on by gentrification starting with the demolition of an industrial building. Efforts in renovating or rehabilitating a neighbourhood which cease to be conscious of the residential and employment conditions of a community can cause irreparable damage to established networks of work and home. Industries in the area on short term leases from the local government feared that their leases would not be renewed and they would be forced to relocate.

CLTs offer: Permanence in affordable home ownership on leased land not only for current residents but for long-term benefits A lease structure that prevents land speculation, absentee ownership and exploitation Prevents the risk faced by low income family land owners from foreclosures by creditors Reduction of the resale price of a property, even when house prices in the neighbourhood rise.

Representation of communities and homeowners on the board.

Signs of regeneration including the construction of two residential towers prompted the community to take initiative which led to the creation of the Camden CLT, London’s largest Community Land Trust created with the objective of preserving local industries in the area and building affordable housing. The rents would be capped at 33 percent of local median salaries as compared to the rest of London where residents spend up to 50 and 60 percent of their income on rents.

Issues and concerns: The CLT model however, limits the homeowner’s equity46. At present, Community Land Trusts face issues of land acquisition from government and local councils.

The Camley Street CLT intended to create an affordable, ecologically sustainable neighbourhood focused on community needs including 700 to 800 new homes housing 2000 people and more space for industrial development. The strategy ensured established residents and industries to retain their properties.

Methods employed by CLTs to acquire land generally follow two processes: Easement - in rural areas Fee-simple ownership (through donation) - in urban contexts

The CLT was funded by pension funds amounting to about 750 million pounds. The financial plan included a full repayment of loans within a period of 75 years, and future gains from affordable rents could be used to fund a complete rebuild within the next 100 years.

The geographical situation of a CLT and the land determines the process of acquisition which is used to acquire the land by the CLT. The process of easement is used to acquire land in rural geographies for land with lower values, where as land in urban contexts is acquired through fee-simple ownership through donations based on governmental and community partnerships47.

16

46 - 49.

Varady, David P. 2012. “A Review of ‘The Community Land Trust Reader.”

Journal of the American Planning Association 78 (2): 216-17.

17

CONCLUSION

Community Land Trusts have existed as a land reform model providing affordable home ownership to residents since decades. They were initially active in rural areas and involved local communities, moving to urban contexts, where rising housing prices and luxury estates were forcing out local communities. More recently, the model has been defined as a ‘tool to resist gentrification’50 in urban communities comprising of 20 to 30 homes. According to the National CLT Network, the network of CLTs has expanded six fold in Britain in the last 10 years, amounting to 225 CLTs at present. In London, plans such as the St Clement’s Hospital CLT and the Brixton Green CLT have been approved along with others in the process.

The approval of plans such as Community Land Trusts are often subject to conflicts and competition in the urban political landscape and in the case of the Camden CLT, a process that was stalled since autumn 2016 and later accepted in December 2017, the potential of the plan has been recognized.

The council reserves the right to involve the community or the CLT, but has expressed interest in the sustainable and affordable regeneration plan the CLT envisaged. The approval of the plan including the CLT group would revolutionize the affordable housing movement in London with many more CLTs following suit.

Neoliberal restructuring in cities is leading to the disenfranchisement of its inhabitants, especially with respect to the control on decisions that reshape and govern cities51.

Global restructuring in the socio-political and economic spheres post 1970 have essentially changed the way cities are governed. The reconfiguration of mechanisms that governed cities in the past have included policies being directed away from redistribution and toward competition, with state functions being transferred to institutions, corporations and subsets of the state. The rescaling of governance structures has empowered local governing institutions to participate in economic development, social services, the provision of infrastructure and spatial planning52. This shift in power has resulted in governance institutions in cities to take on the authority of policy formation for urban areas53.

The right to the city presents a reconfiguration of social, political and economic relations that are concerned with decision making processes in the city. It reorients policy formation away from the stronghold of the state onto local democratic collectives empowering urban citizens in the process of the production of urban space.

Governance models such as Community Land Trusts provide citizens and communities with a greater democratic power enabling them to participate in and influence the reshaping of neighbourhoods along with the reconfiguration of urban policies. Systems such as these seek to offer real solutions to the problem of disenfranchisement of citizens brought on by gentrification and the involvement of institutions and corporations in the governance of cities. The CLT model is therefore an initiative that has the potential to pioneer urban democratic restructuring from a bottom-up perspective and provide permanent solutions to issues of availability and affordability in the housing market.

18

50.

Varady, David P. 2012. “A Review of ‘The Community Land Trust Reader.”

Journal of the American Planning Association 78 (2): 216-17.

51 - 53.

Purcell, Mark. 2003. “Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and its urban politics of the inhabitant” GeoJournal 58:99-108, Kluwer Academic Publishers

19

Bibliography and References 1.

Burnett, John. 1978. “A social history of Housing, 1815 - 1970”

2.

Matthew J. Parlow. 2006. “Unintended Consequences: Eminent Domain and Affordable Housing”, 46 Santa Clara L. Rev. 841.

3.

Kelly, Crispin. 2015. “Architecture Tomorrow Housing.” Architect’s Journal 241 (14): 26-27 4.

Varady, David P. 2012. “A Review of ‘The Community Land Trust Reader.” Journal of the American Planning Association 78 (2): 216-17.

5.

Klump, Cathy. 2002. “Land Trusts.” Journal of the American Planning Association 68 (1) : 117 6.

Webster, Harriet. 2000. “From Hopeless to Home Run.” Planning 66 (12) :18 7.

Hamnett, Chris. 2003. “Gentrification and the Middle-class Remaking of Inner London, 1961– 2001” Urban Studies, (Vol. 40, No. 12, 2401– 2426) 8.

Field, Martin. 2017. “Models of Self Build and Collaborative Housing in the United Kingdom” Self – Build Homes. Social Discourse, Experiences and Directions, UCL Press 9.

Purcell, Mark. 2003. “Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and its urban politics of the inhabitant” GeoJournal 58:99-108, Kluwer Academic Publishers 10.

2015. “Exemplary Housing Estate Regeneration in Europe” The Architect’s Journal 11.

Kulwicki, Victoria. 2017. “Land in trust: Preserving Farmland through easement and fee-simple ownership in rural, suburban and urban contexts” T18:07:05.627Z

20

21

Trisha Sarkar MA City Design

Case Study Seminar Royal College of Art