Prototipo

Considering that residential relocation was not listed as an HMR goal or intervention by the programme designers (see Chapter 2), and that the available legislation was ambiguous, the question that the next section will address is: how did the Pathfinders respond to this situation and how was residential relocation delivered at a Pathfinder level? This was the objective of the pilot studies and the Pathfinder survey conducted for this research. The Pathfinder representatives considered responsible (by their own partnerships) for aspects of residential relocation were asked what their approach to residential relocation was, whether guidance, policy or strategy for residential relocation was available on their sub-regional level. The following section covers the main themes that emerged from this inquiry.

When asked how they would describe their approach to residential relocation, respondents (Pathfinder survey) suggested that the implementation strategy and residential relocation delivery differed, depending on each individual project or scheme at the local authority level. All ten Pathfinders that took part in the survey indicated that their approach to relocation depended on the project or scheme at hand. Box 6-2 Project focused approach to residential relocation presents some illustrative quotes from the Pathfinder survey. The respondents pointed out that the approach to planning might differ between and within the local authorities and their teams, as well as the implementation.

Box 6-2 Project focused approach to residential relocation

‗It varies from scheme to scheme …. It depends… I am sorry that the answer is ‗it depends‘, but it depends on the scheme that you are doing … area that you are working on..…‘ (MSP Respondent S1-4).

‗Implementation strategy depends on each specific project. Approach to planning is also different. It depends on the local authority in question. In general terms masterplans are produced for all renewal areas. However, on the project level the approach may differ‘ (EEL Respondent S1-2).

‗The projects in two local authorities are not the same size. It would not be appropriate to do the same thing‘ (PIA Respondent S1-6).

‗One of the things I think is quite interesting, and has been quite obvious to me across the whole of the west of the city, has been just the extent to which every project and every area whether it‘s residential or economic or whether it‘s physical or social, every scheme comes with their own history, whether there should be or not is another matter, but there isn‘t one standard route by which these projects happen‘ (BNG Respondent S1-1).

140

6.2.1 Reason 1: tenure of relocation affected residents

One of the key HMR goals was changing the tenure ratio in the affected areas. This meant not only that the residents were offered the opportunity to change their tenure in the process (especially from social and private tenure to owner occupation) but that the new housing provided following the demolition had a different tenure mix. However, the overall HMR approach was envisaged to be „tenure blind‟. A tenure blind approach, according to Nevin and Cole (2004), was envisaged to apply equally to dwellings in intervention areas, and provide resources for renewal, regardless of their tenure.

However, this overall approach did not take into account the legal difference of the residents of different tenures in the process of relocation. As the Pathfinder Survey respondents reported, the tenure of residents affected by demolition made the key difference in relocation.

Box 6-3 Project focused approach: tenure of relocatees

‗The team doesn't take a different approach by definition. The difference in approach is the result of CPO legislation‘ (UL Respondent S1-10).

‗There are obvious differences between the tenures just because of the legislative position … and then you get a layer of some political things …‘ (MSP – Respondent – S1-4).

As shown in the previous section residents were eligible to different types of statutory compensation depending on their tenure. The approach to relocation also differed depending on ownership or occupation. It was clear from the outset that the reason for such differentiation was CPO legislation, as well as the tenure mix planned in the new development. The political matter the MSP respondent was referring to was the intention of the Pathfinders to change the tenure ratio in their constituencies. This intention affected the possibility of people affected by residential relocation returning to their old neighbourhood.

6.2.2 Reason 2: partnership arrangements and agreements

The approach to residential relocation was reported as differing on the development project level depending on the partnership delivering each specific project. When asked about the way that residential relocation was delivered within specific projects, an important point was made by a representative of NewHeartlands in his e-mail response. He pointed to the fragmentation within the partnership as well as the multiplicity of actors involved:

141

Box 6-4 Project focused approach: partnership arrangements

‗Now how that is handled varies from scheme to scheme depending upon the structure of the partnership‘ (MSP Respondent S1-4).

‗There are separate officers responsible for the phasing of development. Other officers would be responsible for the provision of financial assistance and the relocation advisory teams. So to get a complete picture you may need to speak to 2 officers each from the 3 local authorities‘ (NHL Respondent S1-5).

This means that the partners involved in relocation in different Pathfinder areas may have differed.

The way the Pathfinders and their partners organised the delivery and delegated responsibilities also had an impact on the way HMR implementation in general, and residential relocation in particular, was delivered. Gateway Hull and Transform South Yorkshire respondents presented contrasting approaches.

Box 6-5 Project focused approach: partnership agreements

‗We work on the policy level, with our partners responsible for developing strategies for their particular areas … we don‘t physically deliver [the] project, unlike some other Pathfinders, so I am unable to answer in detail the questions [survey] (TSY-Respondent S1-8).

‗We are not like other Pathfinders, we have our teams in the local council, we tell them what to do, we don‘t wait for their approval‘ (GW – Respondent S1-3).

6.2.3 Reason 3: consideration of the ‘human factor’

Several Pathfinder representatives (Elevate East Lancashire, Manchester Salford, Tees Valley and Urban Living, Bridging Newcastle Gateshead) emphasised the importance of the „human factor‟ in relocation delivery. The respondents responsible for residential relocation stressed that relocation delivery was significantly influenced by the way the residents reacted to Pathfinder projects proposing clearance. In fact, several Pathfinder respondents stressed that sensitivity and responsiveness to the community affected by demolition and residential relocation was the main reason for adopting different approaches to HMR implementation at the project level.

Box 6-6 Project focused approach: consideration of the ‘human factor’

‗Implementation strategy depends on each specific project. This is mainly because of the sensitivity toward the requirements of each community‘ (EEL Respondent S1-2).

‗Overall approach to phasing is the same, however each site is specific. This is because each site has different makeup and different community expectations‘ (TV Respondent S1-9).

The respondents emphasised that it was impossible to know how the residents would react to plans for demolition. The response might be very different from scheme to scheme. The Elevate East Lancashire Pathfinder respondent stated that in some schemes residents protested against

142

demolition while others just wanted to leave; the same was reported in Bridging Newcastle Gateshead.

6.2.4 Reason 4: difference in approach based on legislation and HMR funding

Finally, the Pathfinders who were involved with compulsory acquisition commented on links between their relocation practice and the CPO legislation that provided an overall framework. The survey respondents pointed to the complexities of relocation on a project level caused by CPO legislation. First, because of the different ways in which the residents reacted to the demolition plans; second because of the HMR funding regime aimed to cover the expenses of statutory compensation (see CPO).

According to the UL respondent, it was the nature of the law that dictated the relocation approach, not only for the project as a whole, but at the household scale within each project. His team found that every household reacted to the plans for demolition differently, while some residents were happy to move, others resisted. Negotiations with residents from the same street or even the same Box 6-7 Project focused approach: legislation and funding

‗Our team does not take different approach by definition. The difference in approach is the result of CPO legislation. Every household is bound to react differently to the CPO, this is the reason of the CPO implementation is extremely varied in practice. Because of the way CPO is set up, there is a difference in CPO process in case of every project, on the level of the household‘ (UL Respondent S1-10).

‗If you work with the community and you work with people … when you are moving somebody from their home there is expectation from the funders (the government) that it is very easy to do that. That it can be done in a precise timescale … within a quarter. But that is not possible even when you are moving your own house. It is not always possible to get people to move. That seems to be lost when we are doing the report to the government. The current framework is totally inflexible. It needs to be flexible to the human need, rather that the rigid process they have now‘ (TV Respondent S1-9).

‗We acquired most of them [properties earmarked for demolition] but didn‘t … 2 flats within that block and didn‘t acquire the shop so we couldn‘t demolish that whole corner. We had boarded up properties here, but I‘d already started negotiations with [the shop owner] … Now, it gets to November last year and we‘re still saying ―oh, we‘ll give you £200k for your property,‖ ...

That‘s in my programme and in my budget that I‘ll spend £240k on number 1, 2 by March 31st 2010, but if I don‘t spend that, I can‘t carry it over and take it with me, I get me next year‘s funding but it doesn‘t include that £240k but I‘m still negotiating with him, we still haven‘t bought it. For now, I‘ve got to find ... ‗cos he might suddenly say in June ―alright then, you can have it,‖ but the money that I had set aside for that £240k is gone and communities [DCLG]

won‘t give that back. Government won‘t give us that back, we can‘t carry money over from one year to the next. It‘s like there‘s this cut off which says ―if you haven‘t spent it, you lose it‖‘(CS-NCC East Team2).

143

row of terraces may take a different amount of time. For this reason according to this respondent it was impossible to phase demolition and relocation using CPO.

Inability to phase relocation resulted in further challenges for the Pathfinders because the HMR funding regime was planned for precise targets and time scales as indicated by the quotes from the TV and BNG (CS-NCC East Team2) respondents described in Box 6-7 : Project focused approach: legislation and funding. In attempting to satisfy the wishes of the residents (and avoid purchase by compulsion that involves court appeals) and work with HMR funding streams, the Pathfinders and their partners were frequently forced to change or alter plans and approaches within a single project as well.

6.2.5 Conclusion: project focused approach to residential relocation delivery

The examination of residential relocation delivery across ten Pathfinders showed that the decentralised approach to policy design, combined with the lack of residential relocation guidance, has led to the proliferation of a range of strategies for residential relocation that substantially differ over time and space. The Pathfinders indicated that they had taken a so-called project focused approach. Projects varied considerably between Pathfinders and within their boundaries. Project characteristics, community reaction to the project, tenure and structure, and mode of partnership working have been quoted most often as the key reasons for taking different and project focused approaches. An unexpected finding of the Pathfinder survey was that the survey respondents, in effect, „cased‟ residential relocation onto a „project or a scheme‟ level. The „project‟ or „scheme‟

level was the scale and area to which the respondents referred when conceptualising the boundaries of their social action related to residential relocation practice. The scale or case of the „project‟ was delimited based on interviews with respondents responsible for residential relocation (on the Pathfinder or local authority level) or actors in the field (see Chapter 5, Methodology and Methods). A „project or a scheme‟ refers to an area planned for redevelopment, which in this case involves planned housing demolition and clearance. Relocation-related studies often refer to a

„neighbourhood‟ or „community‟ as the focus of their examination; the size, the boundaries of the area, and the number of residents affected (for example, by displacement in gentrification studies) are not clearly defined and are open to interpretation. Unlike „neighbourhood‟ or „community‟, a

„project‟ (or a scheme) has planned and defined boundaries as well as a known number of residents affected by demolition along with their tenure and other details. In fact, as shown previously, the project boundaries and information about the affected parties are requirements of the CPO procedure (DETR, 2004). It is based on these details that statutory compensation, and any other

144

forms of support, are made available to residential relocation affected residents. Consequently, the residential relocation approach and practice differed between the Pathfinders, within Pathfinders between the local authorities, and within local authorities on a project level. However, even within the micro-local scale of a „project or a scheme‟ there are variations to the approach as noted by the TV, BNG and UL respondents.

The flexible approach envisaged by HMR designers was aimed to maximise positive results through decisions being better adapted to local conditions, suited to the demands and needs of the local population (Cole & Flint, 2007). However, in reality the respondents noted that that they were unable to guarantee any particular residential relocation outcome. For instance, the GW respondent noted in her interview: ‗Although we would like to offer everyone the same option, we haven‘t had the new built option¹⁵ in all places‘ (GW – Respondent S1-3). In other words, since there were no set rules, standards or guidance for residential relocation provided by HMR on the national, policy or local levels, and because the legislation only attended to residential relocation issues in part, the practitioners involved in residential relocation delivery designed their strategies in response to specific issues related to each particular project within their local authority. Community reaction to the demolition plans was just one of these factors. For example, BNG and GW respondents indicated that in some particularly deprived parts of their Pathfinders some residents ‗could not wait‘ to be relocated out of neighbourhoods that suffered high levels of deprivation, crime and physical deterioration. They took statutory payments of a few thousand pounds (social tenants) to make the desperate move. Other residents in the same neighbourhood founded community pressure groups and forced the local authority to provide new or refurbished homes, of a size and quality and in a location they desired.

As will be shown in Chapter 7 in detail, as the result of this project focused approach, residential relocation outcomes were highly uncertain and contrasting in terms of process length, location, quality and size of alternative properties. These differences were present at Pathfinder, local authority, project and household levels, between and within tenures.

For instance in BNG (see Chapter 7), some residents were relocated from homes worth less than

£20,000, into sustainable homes worth eight times the price of their old property (without any monetary transaction). They were moved to the opposite side of their street (the Cambrian Estate in the Walker project). Other residents in the same local authority struggled to find or afford

15 In some areas of GW the Pathfinder was offering newly built properties to demolition and relocation affected residents.

This was an option preferred by the residents.

145

alternative accommodation within the boundaries of their local authority (Scotswood project). The relocation process lasted a couple of months for some, up to a decade for others (from the moment the decision to demolish had been communicated to the residents).

It is beyond the scope of this research to examine all Pathfinder projects and their characteristics.

Each Pathfinder included a number of neighbourhoods, and there were several schemes within each of them. For instance, MSP Pathfinder was involved in over fifteen neighbourhoods through eight major intervention areas. According to its 2008-11 business plan, NewHeartlands worked in thirteen neighbourhoods and developed several projects within each of them. BNG Pathfinder developed 13 different projects, among those eight proposed some degree of demolition. In order to analyse the residential relocation delivery across Pathfinders and their projects, two strategies were followed. First, the processes shaping residential relocation across the Pathfinders and their projects were identified, based on the respondents‟ interviews (Pathfinder survey and pilot study).

Second, in order to provide an in-depth insight into residential relocation delivery on the project level, a BNG Pathfinder case study was conducted, focusing on three primary intervention areas involving large-scale demolition and relocation (Ch. 7).

6.3 The ‘Relocation Matrix’: Residential Relocation Processes Shaping