Estate regeneration ballots can’t be a referendum of whether to build new homes at all

The Pembury Estate, Hackney: not, to our knowledge, due to be demolished. Image: Geograph.co.uk/creative commons.

The Labour mayor of Hackney on the role of democracy in regeneration schemes.

Estate regeneration has become an increasingly polarised debate. Events in my neighbouring borough of Haringey this week and Sadiq Khan’s backing of ballots for future major estate regeneration projects this morning demonstrate this better than anything.

It’s always worth reminding ourselves why we’re talking about this at all. When our country is shamed by the 120,000 children who spent last Christmas in temporary accommodation, it’s clear we urgently need to unleash a new generation of genuinely affordable council housing – a challenge the government continues to spectacularly fail to meet.

We must stand up for the needs of the many – the 13,000 families waiting for a council home in Hackney alone – but not at the expense of existing tenants and leaseholders, some of whom have lived on their estate for generations. They are rightly concerned about the prospect of development and change on their doorstep.

That’s why I’ve been working closely with Sadiq to develop his Estate Regeneration Good Practice Guide, which he also announced today. And I’m delighted Hackney is recognised as a trailblazer.


It sets out the red lines existing tenants should expect when their home faces demolition – no net loss of social housing, a guaranteed right to return to a new home at the same type of rent and rights, and the opportunity to have a real say throughout the planning and design process.

That’s something we’ve been doing in Hackney for years. We’re building 3,000 homes ourselves through our estate regeneration programme, with the consent and deep involvement of local communities – and at least half of those are for social rent and shared ownership. That’s complimented by council housebuilding on empty and underused land, where we are increasingly focussed, with an even higher percentage of council social rent and shared ownership.

Regeneration done well can provide fantastic new properties for existing residents, much-needed homes for homeless families, and massive improvements to the sometimes poor public & community spaces on estates. It can also bring jobs, training and inject new life into the local economy.

But our estates aren’t just brownfield land ripe for development. They are real communities. The rhetoric of government ministers for the last eight years has suggested otherwise – and I’m pleased to see Sadiq redress that balance.

Labour councils aren't gentrifiers. They are trying to build new homes during the worst housing crisis since the war – a housing crisis in which, despite the rhetoric, there is no meaningful funding from the Tories for new council homes, just further years of austerity.

Londoners rightly want to see the system change, and we will continue to make their case loud and clear. But we can't just sit on our hands if we are to build the homes places like Hackney need.

This week, I joined local residents in Shoreditch to celebrate a construction milestone in one of our biggest projects. The same residents through a petition overwhelmingly backed the original planning application to build nearly 200 homes for outright sale, which will pay for their new Council homes.

That was only possible because of the years of close partnership with them, architects and independent advisors on where those homes should go, where those homes should be, and why we are building them at all.

This isn’t rocket science. If you want to demolish people’s homes, no matter how vital new ones are, they should have a meaningful say in what, how and when that will happen.

If a ballot of residents cements these principles, we should consider how we can introduce it into the process in a constructive way, and I welcome the necessary conversation Sadiq has started today.

Ballots have a long history in regeneration programmes – but this has generally been when Labour governments were ploughing cash into building new social housing. Because ministers now don’t give a penny to build council homes, local authorities like Hackney are forced to build homes for sale to subsidise the genuinely affordable homes we need.

Sadly, right now if we don’t accept that principle, we don’t build any homes. But what ballots shouldn’t be is a referendum of whether we build new homes at all – everyone worth their salt agrees with that. And if recent history has taught us anything, it’s that a binary yes/no vote can be more complicated than it seems.

Philip Glanville is the elected Labour mayor of the London borough of Hackney.

 
 
 
 

Here are eight thoughts on TfL’s proposed cuts to London’s bus network

A number 12 bus crosses Westminster Bridge. Image: Getty.

In 2016, the urbanism blog City Observatory had a modest proposal for how American cities could sort out their transport systems: “Londonize”.

Its theory, the name of which referenced another popular urbanism blog, Copenhagenize, was that the key plank of Transport for London’s success was something that even transport nerds did not consider very sexy: its buses.

Though the Tube might get more glamorous press, London’s bus service really is impressively massive: It carries roughly 2.3bn passengers per year—much more than the Tube (1.3bn), close to the New York City subway (2.8bn), and nearly half as much as every bus service in America combined (5.1bn), while serving a population roughly 1/35 as large.

How has TfL done this? By making its bus network high frequency, reliable, relatively easy to understand and comprehensive. We rarely talk about this, because the tube map is far more fun – but the reason it’s so difficult to fall off the transport network in Greater London is because you’re never that far from a bus.

Given all that, we should probably talk about TfL’s plans to rethink – and in most cases, cut – as many as 36 different central London bus services over the next few months.

I’m not going to rehash details of the changes on which TfL is consulting from next month: there are just too many of them, and anyway it’s someone else’s scoop. The story was originally broken by Darryl Chamberlain over on 853 London; there’s also some fascinating analysis on Diamond Geezer’s blog. You should read both of those stories, though preferably not before you’ve finished reading this one.

Before offering my own analysis of the proposed changes, though, I should offer a few examples. More than a dozen routes are facing a trim: the 59 from King’s Cross back to Euston, the 113 from Oxford Circle to Marble Arch, the 171 from Holborn all the way down to Elephant & Castle and so on. A couple – the 10, the 48, the C2, and at most times the special routemaster version of the 15 – are being withdrawn altogether.

On, and one new route is planned – the 311, from Fulham Broadway to Oxford Circus. This will help plug some of the cuts to the 11, 19 and 22.

So, what does all this mean? Some thoughts:

1) This might not quite be as awful as it initially sounds

TfL says that demand for buses has fallen by around 10 per cent in London in recent years. It predicts it’ll fall further when Crossrail opens, as passengers switch to the new line, or to the tube routes relieved by the new line. So: the idea of taking some unwanted capacity out of the system is not, in itself, terrible.

Striping out unnecessary buses should also improve air quality in some of London’s worst pollution hot spots, and improve traffic flow, hopefully speeding up journeys on those buses that remain. 

A map from the presentation in which TfL explained its plans, showing the reduction in bus numbers on key arteries. Hilariously, notes Darryl Chamberlain, “It no longer produces its own maps, so has had to use one prepared by a bus enthusiast”.

The plans might even free up buses and staff to increase frequencies in outer London where demand hasn’t fallen – though these plans won’t be unveiled until next year and, for reasons I’ll come to below, I’ll believe it when we see it.

2) For many bus users, a lot of these changes will pass almost unnoticed

By my count, I use nine of the affected routes with any regularity – but only three of the changes are things that I’m likely to be at all inconvenienced by. Most of the changes either affect a part of the route I don’t take, or one where there are easy, and pain free, alternatives.

This is anecdotal, obviously – perhaps I’m just lucky. But my suspicion is that a lot of these changes will go unnoticed by most passengers. It’s only the sheer number of them happening at once that makes this look like a big deal.

3) The Hopper fare makes this easier...

Once upon a time, if you had to switch buses, you had to pay a second fare. This isn’t true of journeys on the tube or railways – and since bus passengers have, on average, less money than tube passengers, it amounted to a pretty unfair tax on poorer Londoners.

But in January, in what is probably his most notable policy achievement of his two years in office so far, London’s mayor Sadiq Khan changed the rules. Now you can take as many buses as you want within an hour, for a single fare: that means you can switch buses without paying a penalty.

That will have made it easier for TfL to cut routes back: replacing a direct bus journey with one that requires a change no longer means imposing a financial penalty on passengers.


4) ...but not that easy

That’s about where the good news stops, though – because there are reasons other than cost why people prefer direct bus routes. Needing to change buses will be difficult for anyone with any form of mobility impairment, for example. Even for those of us lucky enough not to fall into that category, it’ll be annoying: it’s just easier to stay in one seat for 40 minutes than to get turfed off and have to fight for a new one halfway through.

More than that, from the passengers’ point of view, excess capacity feels quite good a lot of the time: it means your bus may well be nice and empty. Reducing the number of buses along those key corridors will also make those that remain more crowded.

5) The motive is almost certainly financial

Another of Sadiq Khan’s big policy promises was to freeze fares. He made this promise at a time when central government is massively reducing the financial support it gives TfL (the work, Chamberlain notes, of Evening Standard editor George Osborne, back when he was chancellor). And the Hopper fare, while a great idea in many ways, means a further reduction in income.

So: TfL is scrambling for cash: this is why I remain cynical about those new outer London bus routes. I would be amazed if money wasn’t a motivation here, not least because...

6) TfL thinks no one will notice

Any attempt to reduce tube frequencies, let alone close a station, would result in uproar. Hashtag campaigners! Angry people pointing at things in local newspapers! Damning reports on the front of the Evening Standard from the bloke who made it happen!

Buses, though? Their routes change, slightly, all the time. And do you really notice whether your local route comes every 10 minutes or every 12? That’s not to mention the fact that bus passengers, as previously noted, tend to be poorer – and so, less vocal – than tube passengers.

So cuts, and the savings they bring, are much easier to sneak through. TfL probably would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for those meddling bloggers.

Although...

7) Scrapping the C2 might be a mistake

The C2 runs from Parliament Hill, through Kentish Town and Camden to Oxford Circus. In other words, it links north London, where a lot of journalists live, to the offices of the BBC and Buzzfeed.

As occasional New Statesman writer James Ball notes, this is probably not the easiest route to quietly shelve.

8) None of this is set in stone

The consultation doesn’t even begin until next month and then will run for six weeks – so all these plans may yet be forgotten. We shall see.

Anyway – here’s Darryl Chamberlain’s original scoop, and here’s some detailed analysis on Diamond Geezer. Please support your local bloggers by reading them.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.