All posts by Rob Williams

Delays and disappointment

News, , , , , , ,

Second staircase stalling

What feels like a lifetime ago in July, Mr. Michael Gove made the now infamous announcement about new buildings over 18 meters requiring a second staircase. The announcement also made reference to a transition period and help to ensure viability of building projects. Fast forward to November and little more information has been released.

Let’s be clear we welcome any movement to make improvements to fire safety and building regulations that will mean that residents of blocks feel and are safer. However, post the tragedy at Grenfell, the lessons learnt have led to little in the way of a joined-up and coherent package of steps that will ensure this. It has all been a bitty and released in dribs and drabs which sometimes feels like a knee jerk reaction rather than a well thought out approach. I’m also not entirely sure where residents fit into any of this…..has anyone really asked them about changes?

Anyway, back to the second staircase! So what has happened since July? Put simply, very little. Just from the work we are involved in we can see a wasteland of stalled projects; constructors and landlords are hedging their bets. What has made this situation worse is the mention of transition arrangements, with no details. This has lead to a stop across the aboard with not only planning applications having to be resubmitted or withdrawn but also projects on site stopping and those with full planning approval not starting.

So landlords and contractors are worried about viability what any changes to design may mean:

  • Who exactly is required to add the second staircase? What if you’re on site now but won’t complete in 2 years? What if you have planning approval but have not started? What if you have approval for an outline masterplan but still need to submit detailed plans for later phases?
  • What will adding a staircase mean to the foot print or height of the block and will the planners agree to changes?
  • What do changes to blocks mean for mix of tenants, leaseholders and others? If you lose social units where are they replaced? When blocks have been designed to rehouse existing residents in a regeneration scheme what will happen to these residents ?

These are just a few questions facing those making the decisions and some answers will become available as announcements are made. There are however questions that residents want answering too! I am not aware of a single regeneration project that has actively had a conversation with residents about their view on what the changes mean for them. Any guidance when issued will still give a pass to some new buildings not having a second staircase. Residents we talk to want to know:

  • What does this mean for me? Will there be delays in me being rehoused or getting a new home?
  • Will the change in blocks design affect the design of my new home?
  • What about blocks that are being built now? With no second stair case what alternative arrangements will be in place?
  • Why are we not having a conversation about this? I have to live in the block!

Even Tenant Management Project I worked with in South London spent a lot of time negotiating with the Council so that they could have some control over any regeneration of their estate. They are now looking at a stalled building site where homes once stood with no idea when this will restart. Mr. Gove, ‘pull yer finger out’!

Social housing should not be viewed as ‘second class’ or an experiment

News, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I was at a workshop on building new homes and we got to a contentious point about what was being planned.  I asked the room  (mainly architects and regenerators) if they would take the same action / design they were planning if this was not social housing. There was silence in response because most recognised the likely answer was no. I then asked if they personally would live next door to or above the facility they were planning and again the answer was silence.

Why oh why do Councils and Housing providers still persist in designing things into new social housing and estates that they would not dream of placing on a ‘private’ estates? The answer clearly comes down the fact that this would result in  a reduction in sale price whereas it is not seen as an issue in social housing. All too often there is still this unconscious perception that it does not matter with social housing because ‘they’ don’t own the property.

I grew up on a council estate and am all too familiar with the snobbery and patronising behaviour that can be directed at social housing. Anybody who knows me will be aware of my complete antipathy for murals and mosaics which were the universal panacea for all ‘deprivation’ ills between the 1970’s and 1990’s. ‘These poor people are deprived, lets give them a mural (and let them eat cake too)’. Don’t get me wrong I am big supporter of public art, but I’m talking quality and well thought out work, not something  bad that marks you out as a ‘deprived’ area. How many murals and mosaics do you see on new ‘private’ estates …mmm… none! I like graffiti and a nice Gaudi mosaic but not as a marker  and I mean you too Banksy.

All too often on mixed new build estates I hear the term ‘tenure blind’ but it never is, the quality of the work surfaces, tiles and finishes is always just that bit cheaper in the social units.

A few things to consider:

  • Rent covers all costs in the same way as a mortgage does so stop treating different tenures differently
  • If it is not alright where you live why do you think it will be alright in ‘social housing’
  • By putting a different financial value on social housing you are also putting a lower social value

The numbers still don’t add up

News

In one of my blogs last year I raised the issue of how often the numbers don’t make sense when talking about the value of social housing. Recently a couple of studies have thrown up even more food for thought.

Local Government Association commissioned research has shown that if the government(s) had been more consistent and persistent in their approach to building social housing over the last 20 years , £7billion could have been saved in housing benefit. In addition the residents housed in the new homes would also have benefited with an increase in disposable income of £1.8 billion. When you factor in the knock on effect from expenditure on construction or increased disposable income the the potential advantages to the local economy is great.  Building social housing is not throwing money down the drain as some seem to believe.

However, a recent Chartered Institute of Housing report has found that in eight years between 2012 and 2020  just under 200,000 units of social housing will have been lost. This is mainly through right to buy and demolition.  In addition, the CIH analysis found that up to 2020-21 of the government funding for housing 79% is directed at private housing and just 21% at ‘affordable’ housing.

Despite the governments much lauded plans for building more social housing  we are still looking for clear commitments and targets to be met.

Still not convinced  about building social housing? A GLA assembly member FOI request produced the information that London Councils are spending £22 million, annually,  renting back properties that were sold under right to buy.

It’s a mystery why most landlords are shopping less

News, , , , , , , , , , ,

In the early part of this century  even before the halcyon days when there was a Tenants Services Authority ( who remembers them?), the customer or tenant or leaseholder were King and Queen. Landlords were keen to find out what their service users thought of them!

I spent a lot of time training both residents and landlords in the fine art of Mystery Shopping and getting them to ask meaningful questions that would actually deliver real opinions. Fast forward to today and very few landlords are using this tool or even worse are using a version that is so antiseptic it tells them nothing.

Why is this happening? I have a few theories.

Too truthful

Good Mystery Shopping actually tells you.in real time, what your customers are experiencing. This can often at first be unpalatable. I spent many a feed back session, gently explaining that the written testimonies were what residents were actually getting when they phoned the call centre/used online services/visited the office. With support most landlords could learn to use this as a tool for improvement. Over time staff change and the skills atrophy so the strength and opportunity that ‘shopping’ offered got lost.

Deregulation

As the housing sector has become increasingly deregulated then there has been an associated reduction in the time and money dedicated to seeking resident’s views. Good Mystery shopping which resulted in change  was real plus point for audit and could lead to better satisfaction ratings. Neither of these two carry anything like the importance they used to.

Cuts

Almost always the first thing to go with cuts (or the rent reduction which is the same) is any form of resident involvement. Unfortunately, Mystery Shopping  was seen all too often as an involvement tool. In reality, Mystery Shopping is cheap and effective quality assurance and service improvement.

Landlords, don’t be shy find out what your customers  think by testing your service! With the increasing move into new sectors Mystery shopping offers real feedback. Some of the targeted ‘shops’ we have developed include:

  • The experience of new home owners, share owners and tenants when they move into new homes
  • How was the regeneration for you – learning lessons for new developments
  • Channel Changing – our experience of moving it all online

Any Mystery Shopping needs to be bespoke to the landlord and residents and will tell you how it really is!

 

New Homes Nightmares…..

News, , , , , , , , , ,

One of the things we hear from residents who are facing the demolition of their existing social housing is the fear that  a new build  home will not are not as well built as their old home. It takes a lot to allay this fear including and many visits to new build schemes.

I was saddened to  read the article by John Harris in the Guardian on 11th April  about Housing Associations facing a storm of complaints about new homes. There has been a lot of articles both in the press and on the news about the Orchard Village scheme, which has got to the point where the housing association (Clarion) is buying back new build properties. I was also aware about the problems with Solomons Passage as one of my friends (a tenant) has been decanted so they can knock down the building that is 7 years old. This article implies that the problem may be wider.

So what is going wrong?

Working on large schemes I always say to residents and officers that a contractor will only be as good as the contract management applied to them. Lets be clear, developers and builders are in this to make money, whilst they do think about their reputations their primary focus is to make a profit. It requires good contract management  by the client i.e. the housing provider to ensure that corners are not cut and that specifications are kept to. Quality control, checking, checking and independent testing are key.

We have seen an increase in building by social housing providers  and this has not been matched by an increase in the right staff within Housing Associations and Councils who oversee new build from cradle to grave. At least one association I have worked with has seen their new build properties increase from just over 100 units in 5 years to nearer 5000 over the next 5 years. Whilst the teams overseeing the work have increased, its not proportionate and  more crucially  emphasis has had to be placed on slowly developing skill in house which is  a very steep learning curve. All too often the focus is on design rather than good structural quality. Nice pretty apartments with lovely work surfaces  may sell but are they liveable and sustainable, apparently  not in some cases.

It is crucial that good technical advice is sourced BUT over reliance on external technical consultants is part of the problem. On the schemes mentioned where were the Clerk of Works and the Employers Agent?

Going forward  there are a few options for social housing providers  to think about balancing:

  • Building up internal technical expertise not just  project management and design
  • Earlier involvement by those teams that pick up problems – the repairs and major works teams
  • Accepting you don’t have the skills and passing the risk on to someone who specialises in building and will ensure they don’t carry a large defects cost
  • Stop trying to be everything you do not necessarily have the skills to build on a large scale and manage social housing- something may have to give
  • A good clerk of works is worth their weight in copper piping but the spec they inspect against must be right in the first place

Above all else, learn from your mistakes! A lot of landlords would not get away with this if they were working in the open market.

Happy New Year for Regeneration Residents

News, , , , , , ,

Just before Christmas the Mayor of London issued a draft Good Practice Guide for Estate Regeneration (Homes for Londoners). Whilst the guide contained nothing earth shattering, it was an attempt to place residents back at the centre of regeneration.

Inpicture2 a previous blog, I spoke about the long term nature of  regeneration programmes meaning that the community changes over time. However, there are  a really stalwart group who will soldier on and who are involved from start to finish. They also tend to be the most forgotten and overlooked group.

The residents who want to exercise their right to return can easily be forgotten or become a list of names that ‘have to be consulted’. People, and by people I mean officers, often tend to forget that these are the original  residents that are giving up their homes to make way for the bright and shiny new homes for sale and it is they that are helping housing providers meet their new build targets.

Here is a special plea to go with the Guide. These residents should be cherished and treated with the utmost respect. All too often they are the older residents who never wanted to move in the first place, they are more vulnerable and it is them hold the history of an area.  These residents are often living in half empty buildings that are no longer being kept up or they have been moved off to a decant property where they know no-one. Those who hold their fate in your hands, because things are being ‘done’ to them, should think about making some simple pledges and checking how well you are working against them:

  • Don’t let buildings  and communal areas become run down and ensure occupied properties, often in half empty buildings, are in the same state of good repair as you would for any tenant
  • Work to support a community who has been dispersed and don’t just check box consult with decanted residents, they are still the residents of the future estate
  • Recognise how hard this is for some people who are losing their homes , they will be resistant, they may be curmudgeonly  and they are upset. You have no project without them.

Remember,  regeneration is first and foremost about people.

 

 

Why I hate community and resident involvement!

News, , , , , , , , ,

Well, not per se. It’s the words and what they imply.

I was walking past a well respected community building last night and noticed a sign saying ‘Council Community Involvement unit’. This made me realise how much the word involvement implies a really unbalanced power relationship.

Don’t think so? Can you imagine a Community or Resident Control Unit? No council or housing association would countenance  that combination of words because they imply either residents in charge or more likely being controlled. A very wise man once said that language structures reality. The use of the tepid ‘involvement’ real suggests that any organisation is being rather gracious and letting you  be ‘involved’. Given that residents of a council or housing association,  by the fact they live there, are already involved this seems  just a wee bit paternal (or possibly patronising).

Of course, this is being simplistic because what most organisations probably intend with the word involvement  is involvement in decision making and shaping services. However, this still does not signpost a more equal relationship. For quite awhile organisations played with the idea of  a ‘menu’ of involvement. Maybe we should take this further  with a little chilli like warning symbol to imply how much power you are given:

Resident Survey – 1 Chilli (you maybe listened to)

Mystery Shopping – 2 Chilli (they can’t really ignore the comments)

Scrutiny Panel-  3 Chilli ( you get to ask the awkward questions)

So what’s the suggestion for a better approach. Well, it would help if your landlord or service provider could be honest about what you really can have power over, what you can have a say on and what you can comment on. By being upfront this can at least open the dialogue on where the influence / control line sits. Are you viewed as a customer, a shareholder or an owner? See language does imply different power levels!

And yes I know we use involvement on the website, it’s the current jargon. Let’s change it.

 

Building strength

News, , , , ,

2016-07-16 12.42.35I heard on the grapevine of a relatively new TMO where an investigation is underway because of suspected fraud by the Manager and contractors. Whilst this could happen to a Council and to a Housing Association it is much more upsetting where residents have put their trust in a new resident led vision for their estate.

Tenant Management is one of the most underused yet most successful tools. At this time, we are seeing a very low number of projects going through the ‘Right to Manage’ route, which is a real pity given that many of the traditional avenues for resident control are closing down. In a universe where funds for resident involvement are being hit by Local Authority cuts and residents of Housing Associations are looking at their landlords becoming ever bigger via mergers, giving residents more control is looking less likely.

Tenant Management offers the opportunity for residents to set the standards for the services they receive, to spend their rent and service charges in the way they want and to build a truly local vision. To get to the point where your landlord and the Government agrees that you are competent residents have to go through nearly 2 years of planning and development and be subject to external assessment. However, things can still go wrong.

There are a number of key things that residents can do with support from there advisor to minimise the chances of this type of thing happening:

  • Way before going live, agree the exact report arrangements that you expect your TMO manager to adhere to. Set these up and do trial runs with the advisor to check on the data
  • During your recruitment make sure you take up all references, that you set clear probationary targets and you appoint against a JD that is clear about experience required
  • Once a quarter board members should undertake a ‘verification’ exercise to look at the raw information behind the reports. By setting up a scrutiny sub group who can focus on specific areas you pick up on any concerns
  • When agreeing your procurement policy and procedure make sure you put in place checks and balances. Residents should be involved at all stages, agree clear schedules of work with clear prices and have a system in place to agree an variations in cost that involves board sign off
  • Verify: before and after pictures from contractors Joint spot checks with the board and the staff of works completed
  • Once a year do a 100% doorknock to pick up on any issues

As board members of a TMO residents should not be sitting looking over a managers shoulder, this is not good for either party. Instead, put in place procedures and checks and make sure they are carried out!

It’s all about the money, money, money

News, , , , , ,

images

As Jessie J said we all have a price tag. There have been a spate of money related articles and reports that highlight how the conversation on Social Housing is increasingly being framed in economic terms. This is not entirely surprising as most of this is aimed at a Government that primarily uses, sometimes blunt, economic tools to deliver its policy. One of many worries here is that policy and the numbers are at odds.

Peabody and the CBI recently produced a report which attempted to quantify the contribution to London (£15.3bn) of social tenants. Just a while later we get the great and the good Moodys, downgrading the credit rating for Places for People and Genesis because more risk has been introduced because of diversification away from Social Housing. We also have the thresholds for Pay to Stay, £31,000 outside London and £40,000 in London. So it seems that the argument for social housing is now being fought on the numbers playing field.

The latest indications on what government grant will be available point clearly to a policy that is about fiddling at the edges of market intervention on build for sale and is not about increasing social housing supply. Indeed, as the details emerge on the Right to Buy for Housing Associations and the money effectively being removed from Local Authorities another avenue for increased building is shut off.

So we have a situation at best where social housing rental supply will be at best static. It seems that supply will be met by using Pay to Stay to push people out into the private market and ‘free up’ units. Mmmmm, there are a few issues here that don’t quite make sense:

  • An already overheated private rental market and lack of affordable sale properties for those being pushed into leaving the social rented market
  • Brexit pushing properties off the market
  • HA’s risking more borrowing costs because effectively they cannot build the level of social housing they would like and therefore higher build costs = either less supply of new homes or inflated costs

Throw in Housing Benefit caps and (if ever) Universal credit and the numbers look less like adding up.

Maybe we need a bit more advanced economic modelling which really takes into account the benefit brought to the economy by workers accessing really affordable housing and what the impact on our economy of the multiple squeeze on this group will be.

One other important point made by CIH and NHF, in the last recession virtually the only significant building was of social housing which saved us from even worse economic turmoil.

Resident’s Happy with Regeneration? Really? (Well they can be)

News, , , , ,

Maybe I’ve been around the block a few too many times (including refurbing it, knocking it down, rebuilding it and making it green). When I saw reports from the LSE being trailed as ‘RESIDENTS HAPPY’. Anyone who has worked on long term regen projects immediately asks which residents? With some projects taking over 10 years you are very often talking about completely different communities at the start and at the finish. I often work with community groups to help them become a ‘critical friend’ so here goes! The LSE report is very focussed on a particular estate and what they define as a specific model. I am sceptical about some of the interpretation of the findings and real wider application. As someone who has regularly worked with residents on 100% door knocks and making sure that we have met with all households I do question that the study is based on 50 independent surveys. However, I am a massive fan of the LSE and its studies of regeneration and in particular Anne Power and I think there are some clear messages to be taken from this report.

Anne Power is quoted as saying ‘(the scheme) shows that it is possible to rebuild a former council estate with most of the existing tenants in place. By providing local management and community resources, the landlord can help the community flourish’
In just one sentence a few key points have been identified:

  • The landlord has to have as one of its aims of regeneration that the community flourishes. All too often little time or space is given to considering what this means. Who is the community now, what will happen to them and who will the community be when we are finished? Are not questions that are really formally addressed. Too much emphasis is placed on building costs and ASB stats as the drivers. These are just numbers!
  • The need for well thought out community resources. All too often it’s a case of there was a community centre so we will just re-provide a bright new one it will be fab and have a mezzanine! So little thought is given to how it will run and survive, too much reliance on assumption of a ‘community trust’ in Business Plans or PDAs. The community changes over the life of a regeneration project so must the community offer. Please! No more white elephant centres, S106 get outs and small community groups scrabbling for survival. If you have a new estate, where is your new community resource model!
  • One of the recurring things you hear from residents on estates that ‘need regenerating’ is it feels like things are being done to them. If you really want to regenerate an area how about regenerating the power balance. So much time is taken to involve resident’s in the planning and getting ‘sign off’ this needs to be developed into a longer term model of greater community control

So 3 things:

Have a worked vision for the community and demographics in regeneration.

Have your short/medium and longer term community resource model and methods for continually testing its validity.

Build in your plan for greater control, the community may change but you can still build the structures (ever heard of a TMO or EMB?).