Tell me about BrixtonGreen - a "community led development" on Somerleyton Road
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
This isn't about you Crispy, we're talking about our endz
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Do you reckon Eme might be up for a bit of guerilla gardening there? This autumn we could put in bulbs for flowering the following spring. We could even write something in bulbs!
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
....or painting in bulbs....the possibilities are endless.
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
And then you could write an article about it for the Guardian.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
In my case it's more likely to be a Gardening mag.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Just been catching up on some of this interesting thread. Though I still need to read some of the posts in detail. What the various posts here make me think is that the Brixton Masterplan consultation should not just have ended when it was produced as a document for Cabinet approval. The Masterplan is the basis for the development of Brixton.
Imo , as I have said before, Future Brixton should have involved people in the actual the implementation of the plan and further consultation on how that is to be done. The Brixton masterplan is supposed about developing existing communities.
I have asked the Council if they want a CLT on Somerleyton road site. (The Masterplan plan mentions CLT but more as an aspiration and does not say where it would go. )The answer I get is that the Council will treat any possible proposals for the site as they would any development proposals. In plain English they (officially) neither oppose or endorse BG. What I need to know from the Council is if they want a CLT on the Somerleyton road site. If thats the case it would imo be best that Future Brixton are involved in further consultation with local residents/ organisations on it and setting it up. Also to provide oversight to ensure community consultation and that its meeting existing communities needs. As an independant arbitrator.
As far as I know Officers are looking at possible Delivery Vehicles for the Brixton Masterplan. The Masterplan split Brixton up into different parcels of land. The Somerleyton road site is one of them. Its not up to Officers to decide who or what organisations (private, public or voluntary) further the plan. They can produce reports and advise. This will be Cllrs decision.
The present economic situation was not bad when the plan was first agreed. The Council is now under severe pressure ( and thats an understatement). I am not clear on how this will affect the aspirations of the plan.
Imo , as I have said before, Future Brixton should have involved people in the actual the implementation of the plan and further consultation on how that is to be done. The Brixton masterplan is supposed about developing existing communities.
I have asked the Council if they want a CLT on Somerleyton road site. (The Masterplan plan mentions CLT but more as an aspiration and does not say where it would go. )The answer I get is that the Council will treat any possible proposals for the site as they would any development proposals. In plain English they (officially) neither oppose or endorse BG. What I need to know from the Council is if they want a CLT on the Somerleyton road site. If thats the case it would imo be best that Future Brixton are involved in further consultation with local residents/ organisations on it and setting it up. Also to provide oversight to ensure community consultation and that its meeting existing communities needs. As an independant arbitrator.
As far as I know Officers are looking at possible Delivery Vehicles for the Brixton Masterplan. The Masterplan split Brixton up into different parcels of land. The Somerleyton road site is one of them. Its not up to Officers to decide who or what organisations (private, public or voluntary) further the plan. They can produce reports and advise. This will be Cllrs decision.
The present economic situation was not bad when the plan was first agreed. The Council is now under severe pressure ( and thats an understatement). I am not clear on how this will affect the aspirations of the plan.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Well Fenian you are clearly not moving ahead with our changing times embracing new challenges 
from the Cooperative commission report:
Page 78
16.8 To support the community acting autonomously Lambeth Council should develop and extend Community Freshview, where local people act together to solve local environmental problems in their very local neighbourhood, across the borough. We also propose that the council work with Brixton Green to explore different ways of engaging with the local community.
From the Coop commission report introduction:
1.1 Throughout England’s history the way in which public services are delivered has undergone constant change. The charity-led approach to delivering services, which was dominant in the 1800s, gradually gave way to a minimal welfare state in the early 1900s. This in turn was replaced by the introduction of the monolithic welfare state at the end of the Second World War. More recently England has seen the emergence of what has been called “the mixed economy of welfare” where the state, third sector and private sector organisations provide a range of public services. Each approach
has provided its own benefits and has brought with it a number of challenges.
1.2 In the early 21st century we have arguably reached another crossroads in our thinking about how public services should be provided. Increasingly we all recognise that public services are more responsive when power is shared, with citizens and the state co-operating with one another. Based on this recognition, Lambeth Council and its staff have been working with citizens, local organisations and a range of experts to develop a new approach to delivering public services. This approach, called “the Co-operative Council”, aims to transform public service provision by handing
power from the provider to the user. It seeks to do this by putting co-operation and mutualism at the heart of how Lambeth Council delivers its services. In practice this means the council working in partnership with citizens to design and deliver public services which meet their specific local needs, incentivising citizens to play a more active role in their local community and more co-operation with a wide range of service providers (be they social enterprises, co-operatives, public sector organisations, businesses, faith organisations and other third sector organisations) to
deliver tailored services in different areas.
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/...il/SharingPowerNewSettlementCitizensState.htm
from the Cooperative commission report:
Page 78
16.8 To support the community acting autonomously Lambeth Council should develop and extend Community Freshview, where local people act together to solve local environmental problems in their very local neighbourhood, across the borough. We also propose that the council work with Brixton Green to explore different ways of engaging with the local community.
From the Coop commission report introduction:
1.1 Throughout England’s history the way in which public services are delivered has undergone constant change. The charity-led approach to delivering services, which was dominant in the 1800s, gradually gave way to a minimal welfare state in the early 1900s. This in turn was replaced by the introduction of the monolithic welfare state at the end of the Second World War. More recently England has seen the emergence of what has been called “the mixed economy of welfare” where the state, third sector and private sector organisations provide a range of public services. Each approach
has provided its own benefits and has brought with it a number of challenges.
1.2 In the early 21st century we have arguably reached another crossroads in our thinking about how public services should be provided. Increasingly we all recognise that public services are more responsive when power is shared, with citizens and the state co-operating with one another. Based on this recognition, Lambeth Council and its staff have been working with citizens, local organisations and a range of experts to develop a new approach to delivering public services. This approach, called “the Co-operative Council”, aims to transform public service provision by handing
power from the provider to the user. It seeks to do this by putting co-operation and mutualism at the heart of how Lambeth Council delivers its services. In practice this means the council working in partnership with citizens to design and deliver public services which meet their specific local needs, incentivising citizens to play a more active role in their local community and more co-operation with a wide range of service providers (be they social enterprises, co-operatives, public sector organisations, businesses, faith organisations and other third sector organisations) to
deliver tailored services in different areas.
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/...il/SharingPowerNewSettlementCitizensState.htm
nah - probably more often the wrong sort of weather!
I agree with Gramsci re his observations on the process of the Brixton Masterplan.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Directors can be remunerated but not get profits. I am not clear about the difference between Board members and Directors.
The land is already owned by community as its Council owned. So why is BG control of it necessary? The Council already use the land , now or in the past, for educational purposes etc without the need of a CLT. Why is BG development better than say a HA and private developer working with the Council to develop the site in line with the Brixton Masterplan?
Sounds like a lot of the substance of the Independant article was incorrect. Not then an "excellant article" as its misleading. I am at a loss to see how the Independant got so many facts wrong in the article
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Maybe someone should ask the person that wrote the article in The Independent. He's got a website through which he can be contacted.
www.grahamnorwood.info
www.grahamnorwood.info
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
I don't avoid it. I don't exactly go "Whoopee! My favourite after-dark part of the journey home!" either though. I could walk the very long way round, but never do. It's a really handy shortcut.
Ms T
Honey-coloured ramparts
It is, but I don't feel safe there after dark so I do take the long way round if I'm on my own.
editor
hiraethified
It's not my favourite route home at night either, although I'm not sure how BrixtonGreen intend to improve it. However you spin it, it remains a narrow alleyway that's traditionally provided a favoured getaway for ne'er do wells. Not sure how a chefs school and hairdressers will change that.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
this book of his looks a must buy:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Profiting-P...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254467545&sr=1-1
editor
hiraethified
Nice. He sounds like a real charmer.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
There is more info on CLTs on this website:
http://www.communitylandtrusts.org.uk/case-studies/urban-clts
from website:
Urban CLTs
The Context
Urban Community Land Trusts were piloted as part of the National CLT Demonstration Programme from 2006 - 2008. From this a practical toolkit was developed featuring 10 case studies of developing projects, advice and guidance on the legal and political challenges, and recommendations for future action.
Developing a CLT in an urban area obviously poses a different set of challenges for communities than in rural areas but it could also open different avenues of opportunity. This report on a Community Equity Trust model published in 2008 (written by Stephanie Saulter, Alison Masterman and Anna Eagar) outlines the model developed by Shoreditch Trust in a New Deal for Communities Area. The model discusses the design of a self-financing and sustainble vehicle for urban regeneration based around the renewal and revitalisation of inner city council housing estates.
Examples
Urban CLT development continues apace and features prominently in discussions over affordable housing solutions in London. The capital city of England can point to two prominent schemes which aim to help develop and embed the CLT concept into local thinking.
London CITIZENS are seeking to develop a Community Land Trust on the site of St Clement's Hospital in East London. Bringing this historic landmark back into use will help regenerate parts of East London and provide much needed family-sized affordable housing. The proposed scheme has received much support within the local community and you can view various resources including video campaigns and the background story at their website.
Brixton Green Community Land is currently developing plans to create a large-scale urban regeneration project. The aim is to create a community-owned mix of housing, employment, health and education to help create local wealth and benefit the Brixton community.
http://www.communitylandtrusts.org.uk/case-studies/urban-clts
from website:
Urban CLTs
The Context
Urban Community Land Trusts were piloted as part of the National CLT Demonstration Programme from 2006 - 2008. From this a practical toolkit was developed featuring 10 case studies of developing projects, advice and guidance on the legal and political challenges, and recommendations for future action.
Developing a CLT in an urban area obviously poses a different set of challenges for communities than in rural areas but it could also open different avenues of opportunity. This report on a Community Equity Trust model published in 2008 (written by Stephanie Saulter, Alison Masterman and Anna Eagar) outlines the model developed by Shoreditch Trust in a New Deal for Communities Area. The model discusses the design of a self-financing and sustainble vehicle for urban regeneration based around the renewal and revitalisation of inner city council housing estates.
Examples
Urban CLT development continues apace and features prominently in discussions over affordable housing solutions in London. The capital city of England can point to two prominent schemes which aim to help develop and embed the CLT concept into local thinking.
London CITIZENS are seeking to develop a Community Land Trust on the site of St Clement's Hospital in East London. Bringing this historic landmark back into use will help regenerate parts of East London and provide much needed family-sized affordable housing. The proposed scheme has received much support within the local community and you can view various resources including video campaigns and the background story at their website.
Brixton Green Community Land is currently developing plans to create a large-scale urban regeneration project. The aim is to create a community-owned mix of housing, employment, health and education to help create local wealth and benefit the Brixton community.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
This book gives budding property developers and investors all they need to know to profit from property. The author offers a new twist on buy-to-let and shows how the market for renting to some groups is expanding even in these tough times. Overseas opportunities are examined too, identifying which countries offer the best opportunities to buy cheap, let and then sell. For investors willing to get their hands dirty there is also an explanation of exactly how to pursue a self-build or renovation project and sell at a profit - with advice on finding the right craftsmen, writing contracts and monitoring progress, plus selecting the best estate agent. This book also looks at how amateur investors can enter the complicated commercial sector of shops and offices, and touches upon property investment trusts for those with faith in the stock market. Getting a lodger as a good source of tax-free income is also demonstrated. * Details opportunities across property markets - helping readers decide how to get involved * Gives expert advice, warning notes and useful contacts - to help avoid the many pitfalls * Learn from case studies of peoples' real-life experience - to find out how it can be done.
http://www.angusrobertson.com.au/book/profiting-from-property-in-a-recession/6766540/
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Toll gate?
Ms T
Honey-coloured ramparts
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
http://www.communitylandtrusts.org.uk/case-studies/urban-clts
Back to the CLT website.
"Developing a CLT in an urban area obviously poses a different set of challenges for communities than in rural areas but it could also open different avenues of opportunity. This report on a Community Equity Trust model published in 2008 (written by Stephanie Saulter, Alison Masterman and Anna Eagar) outlines the model developed by Shoreditch Trust in a New Deal for Communities Area. The model discusses the design of a self-financing and sustainble vehicle for urban regeneration based around the renewal and revitalisation of inner city council housing estates."
Clicked on "This report" to look at Shoreditch Trusts proposed CLT or as they call it a Community Equity Trust. The first 23 pages are good summary of what they propose. Its also the best description of a CLT ive found. ( I have been looking around for a while. The explanations are usually how good the idea is rather than analysis.)
This report looks at the various models for regenerating Shoreditch- PPP, PFI, stock transfer, sales for capital receipts to fund doing up rest of estates.
The problem in Shoreditch is that its becoming a place for the very rich (property buyers) and very poor (on old estates). Its future is to be polarised. These social groups do not interact and lead separate lives.
Shoreditch Trust comes out of New Deal for Communities. A Government funded programme to help with deprived areas. The NDC laid emphasis on community engagement and the need for long lasting improvement rather short term piecemeal programmes.
ST realised that underlying a lot of the social problems in the area was lack of affordable housing for a wide range of people. In particular middle income groups.Those on £30k to £50k who cant get social housing but cant afford market prices.
ST also wanted a model that would bring in services ( banks , shops and small business employment etc) as well housing. As there was a lack of amenities. The rich went out of the area for services.
The looked at and developed there own model based on the USA CLT. This means that land and estates are transferred to CET from Council. The land is used to build commercial property for rent, housing for sale and rented housing.
ST also emphasised community engagement. They developed the model and discussed it with residents first. To see what they thought and whether it was what they wanted to try. As there were other models of development. ST think community engagement is paramount.
The CET model they have developed means that the land is held by the CET. Therefore rent from commercial properties goes into the CLT. Unlike a private developer they do not have to price in a profit margin. So they can deliver more affordable homes. They have also developed a working model to show how many affordable homes they can build depending on financial outcomes. ST say a danger is that a CLT will end up building expensive houses over time if its not careful. As this is one way to make a CLT financially viable in the long term. As building/ development takes place over many years may happen to deal with changed financial circumstances.
To "lock in assets" and sustain community cohesion they propose that even housing for private sale ( lease as land is held by Trust) has 1% share owned by trust. This means that the CET can have some say over private housing. In return the owner gets a vote on the CET and same engagement as social rented properties.
Right to Buy is a problem. So ST have developed a model of one freehold for several houses. A bit complicated but in the piece they explain it as a way to stop RtB from diminishing the affordable housing.
So what they have developed is a model where everyone wins. The land is held in Trust with mechanisms to make sure profits go back into the community and also to provide a range of housing that is gaurenteed to stay.
It also should help community cohesion ( sorry I am sounding like a Council officer now ive got into the habit of using that phrase). As people have a vote in the CET , say in how it develops and more local services.
The thing about the ST is that it had paid staff to go out and investigate this model properly. They also seem to have an ethos of consulting people and asking them there opinion. The say there model might not be appropriate everywhere.
They also come up against officer resistance to the idea. Some for understandable reasons and others is that it is possibly risky as its untried.
Back to the CLT website.
"Developing a CLT in an urban area obviously poses a different set of challenges for communities than in rural areas but it could also open different avenues of opportunity. This report on a Community Equity Trust model published in 2008 (written by Stephanie Saulter, Alison Masterman and Anna Eagar) outlines the model developed by Shoreditch Trust in a New Deal for Communities Area. The model discusses the design of a self-financing and sustainble vehicle for urban regeneration based around the renewal and revitalisation of inner city council housing estates."
Clicked on "This report" to look at Shoreditch Trusts proposed CLT or as they call it a Community Equity Trust. The first 23 pages are good summary of what they propose. Its also the best description of a CLT ive found. ( I have been looking around for a while. The explanations are usually how good the idea is rather than analysis.)
This report looks at the various models for regenerating Shoreditch- PPP, PFI, stock transfer, sales for capital receipts to fund doing up rest of estates.
The problem in Shoreditch is that its becoming a place for the very rich (property buyers) and very poor (on old estates). Its future is to be polarised. These social groups do not interact and lead separate lives.
Shoreditch Trust comes out of New Deal for Communities. A Government funded programme to help with deprived areas. The NDC laid emphasis on community engagement and the need for long lasting improvement rather short term piecemeal programmes.
ST realised that underlying a lot of the social problems in the area was lack of affordable housing for a wide range of people. In particular middle income groups.Those on £30k to £50k who cant get social housing but cant afford market prices.
ST also wanted a model that would bring in services ( banks , shops and small business employment etc) as well housing. As there was a lack of amenities. The rich went out of the area for services.
The looked at and developed there own model based on the USA CLT. This means that land and estates are transferred to CET from Council. The land is used to build commercial property for rent, housing for sale and rented housing.
ST also emphasised community engagement. They developed the model and discussed it with residents first. To see what they thought and whether it was what they wanted to try. As there were other models of development. ST think community engagement is paramount.
The CET model they have developed means that the land is held by the CET. Therefore rent from commercial properties goes into the CLT. Unlike a private developer they do not have to price in a profit margin. So they can deliver more affordable homes. They have also developed a working model to show how many affordable homes they can build depending on financial outcomes. ST say a danger is that a CLT will end up building expensive houses over time if its not careful. As this is one way to make a CLT financially viable in the long term. As building/ development takes place over many years may happen to deal with changed financial circumstances.
To "lock in assets" and sustain community cohesion they propose that even housing for private sale ( lease as land is held by Trust) has 1% share owned by trust. This means that the CET can have some say over private housing. In return the owner gets a vote on the CET and same engagement as social rented properties.
Right to Buy is a problem. So ST have developed a model of one freehold for several houses. A bit complicated but in the piece they explain it as a way to stop RtB from diminishing the affordable housing.
So what they have developed is a model where everyone wins. The land is held in Trust with mechanisms to make sure profits go back into the community and also to provide a range of housing that is gaurenteed to stay.
It also should help community cohesion ( sorry I am sounding like a Council officer now ive got into the habit of using that phrase). As people have a vote in the CET , say in how it develops and more local services.
The thing about the ST is that it had paid staff to go out and investigate this model properly. They also seem to have an ethos of consulting people and asking them there opinion. The say there model might not be appropriate everywhere.
They also come up against officer resistance to the idea. Some for understandable reasons and others is that it is possibly risky as its untried.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
From page 17 & 18 of Shoreditch Trust report saying how important community engagement is:
Assuming that they do stack up, we feel the next step must be intensive community engagement to explain the proposal and gauge resident response to it. The initial impetus to investigate a CET may begin with anyone: a group of residents, the local authority, a regeneration agency. But it can only legitimately be taken forward if a majority of local residents want it to happen. The value of the preliminary financial work at this stage is clear giving people an idea of what their regenerated community might be like, in terms of changes in density, demographics, tenures, land uses and so on, is crucial if they are to make informed judgements about whether or not to support the regeneration.
The amount of time necessary for community advocacy and capacity building in order to facilitate this process should not be underestimated. The Shoreditch NDC area has an advantage in this regard, as eight years of intensive engagement has already done much to build community capabilities around regeneration. An area that has had less intervention may well require more time for this phase; experience would suggest that for a new project requiring the development of new relationships, it is unlikely to require less than two years. However long it takes, the engagement work must be treated seriously and its outcome respected. The community’s response to the CET proposal must be a deciding factor in whether to take it forward – or not. A proposal based on the community ownership, development and management of assets cannot be successful without the support and commitment of the community.
However residents are not the only members of a community. If the CET proposal is to have a future, all stakeholders – including, crucially, the current holder of whatever public asset is the target of the regeneration – must understand and embrace the concept and be willing to work together to carry it forward. The development of this model has been premised on the regeneration of council estates, so the presumptive public asset holder throughout this report is a local authority. But there is no implicit reason why it could not be a primary care trust, an education authority, English Partnerships, the Ministry of Defence, or any other public sector body that owns public land and property.
If the initial financial modelling is encouraging and all stakeholders are enthusiastic, the CET can be formed and the regeneration project launched. This would require the formation of the trust itself; the formal commissioning of the design development and planning approval processes; serious negotiations with financiers and grant or gap funders; and, with these steps successfully concluded, the transfer of the public asset into the CET. In project management terms, this transfer should not take place until it is known that the regeneration project will be able to proceed and all parties involved have agreed and committed to the terms under which it may do so. However there must be a commitment on the part of the public asset holder that once those conditions are fulfilled the transfer will indeed take place....
However the so-called “soft” skills must not be compromised either. The approach of the CET and its Board to community development and management must be based on a continuing ethos of community consultation, participation and representation. The CET would also include in its articles a duty to consult with, and to seek participation from, members of the community with respect to its development, operational and other activities. The CET’s activities will therefore be reflective of, and responsive to, the people it serves; and in so doing, continually encourage the building and maintenance of skills and capacity in the local community.
Assuming that they do stack up, we feel the next step must be intensive community engagement to explain the proposal and gauge resident response to it. The initial impetus to investigate a CET may begin with anyone: a group of residents, the local authority, a regeneration agency. But it can only legitimately be taken forward if a majority of local residents want it to happen. The value of the preliminary financial work at this stage is clear giving people an idea of what their regenerated community might be like, in terms of changes in density, demographics, tenures, land uses and so on, is crucial if they are to make informed judgements about whether or not to support the regeneration.
The amount of time necessary for community advocacy and capacity building in order to facilitate this process should not be underestimated. The Shoreditch NDC area has an advantage in this regard, as eight years of intensive engagement has already done much to build community capabilities around regeneration. An area that has had less intervention may well require more time for this phase; experience would suggest that for a new project requiring the development of new relationships, it is unlikely to require less than two years. However long it takes, the engagement work must be treated seriously and its outcome respected. The community’s response to the CET proposal must be a deciding factor in whether to take it forward – or not. A proposal based on the community ownership, development and management of assets cannot be successful without the support and commitment of the community.
However residents are not the only members of a community. If the CET proposal is to have a future, all stakeholders – including, crucially, the current holder of whatever public asset is the target of the regeneration – must understand and embrace the concept and be willing to work together to carry it forward. The development of this model has been premised on the regeneration of council estates, so the presumptive public asset holder throughout this report is a local authority. But there is no implicit reason why it could not be a primary care trust, an education authority, English Partnerships, the Ministry of Defence, or any other public sector body that owns public land and property.
If the initial financial modelling is encouraging and all stakeholders are enthusiastic, the CET can be formed and the regeneration project launched. This would require the formation of the trust itself; the formal commissioning of the design development and planning approval processes; serious negotiations with financiers and grant or gap funders; and, with these steps successfully concluded, the transfer of the public asset into the CET. In project management terms, this transfer should not take place until it is known that the regeneration project will be able to proceed and all parties involved have agreed and committed to the terms under which it may do so. However there must be a commitment on the part of the public asset holder that once those conditions are fulfilled the transfer will indeed take place....
However the so-called “soft” skills must not be compromised either. The approach of the CET and its Board to community development and management must be based on a continuing ethos of community consultation, participation and representation. The CET would also include in its articles a duty to consult with, and to seek participation from, members of the community with respect to its development, operational and other activities. The CET’s activities will therefore be reflective of, and responsive to, the people it serves; and in so doing, continually encourage the building and maintenance of skills and capacity in the local community.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The "asset lock" p23 of Shoreditch report. Holding the asset base ( land transferred to CET from Council) means that the CET can keep the improvements and control there use for the communities benefit long term. Rather than developing a site to see it sold off at a later date and then it going out of local control.
The Community Equity Trust proposal is the most comprehensive and sustainable model for urban regeneration in the Shoreditch NDC area that the Housing Team has been able to identify. The UK has many urban areas with similar characteristics and a similar range of problems, and the CET’s potential for generating widespread and longlasting positive change is proportionately great. Its most unique feature is that the transformative generation of wealth is not privatised, but is regarded as a legitimate community function. The resulting asset base is held in and managed by the community as a long-term investment. However, unlike some more radical models of collectivism, the CET does not prevent or inhibit the generation of private wealth. The distribution of newly created asset value between the communal and the personal is closely and transparently managed. Given the vast sums of public money that continue to be spent on regeneration, but with few to no asset lock mechanisms or other safeguards to maintain the benefit of that spending for the target community, the utilisation of a methodology that does just that should be made a priority.
p15
Where there is neither an owner-occupier’s nor a landlord’s concern for the physical maintenance of an asset, nor a long-term resident’s concern for the cohesion and harmony of the community, there is little incentive for people to act in a co-ordinated manner for mutual benefit. We felt that, if we were to create a neighbourhood that would be socially as well as physically and financially sustainable, we had to consider whether there were better options than selling homes on the open market. We instead proposed that the CET retain a portion of equity in all of the homes it develops – a so-called “golden share.” In the case of what would otherwise be an open market sale, this share could be as small as contractually feasible – ten, five or even one per cent. The CET would thus derive close to the maximum capital receipt for the property. However by jointly owning the home with the occupant via a shared equity trust deed19, the CET could have the contractual right to enforce agreements regarding the use and maintenance of the property. The owner-occupant would have voting rights in the CET – and be incentivised to use them, and to thereby remain involved in the community’s administration and governance. It has been suggested that this structure might be unattractive to potential purchasers, affecting the overall viability of the scheme. Our research leads us to believe that the opposite effect is more likely to result. High quality homes in desirable areas with strong, accountable neighbourhood management tend to be very desirable, and to appreciate in value
accordingly.
The Community Equity Trust proposal is the most comprehensive and sustainable model for urban regeneration in the Shoreditch NDC area that the Housing Team has been able to identify. The UK has many urban areas with similar characteristics and a similar range of problems, and the CET’s potential for generating widespread and longlasting positive change is proportionately great. Its most unique feature is that the transformative generation of wealth is not privatised, but is regarded as a legitimate community function. The resulting asset base is held in and managed by the community as a long-term investment. However, unlike some more radical models of collectivism, the CET does not prevent or inhibit the generation of private wealth. The distribution of newly created asset value between the communal and the personal is closely and transparently managed. Given the vast sums of public money that continue to be spent on regeneration, but with few to no asset lock mechanisms or other safeguards to maintain the benefit of that spending for the target community, the utilisation of a methodology that does just that should be made a priority.
p15
Where there is neither an owner-occupier’s nor a landlord’s concern for the physical maintenance of an asset, nor a long-term resident’s concern for the cohesion and harmony of the community, there is little incentive for people to act in a co-ordinated manner for mutual benefit. We felt that, if we were to create a neighbourhood that would be socially as well as physically and financially sustainable, we had to consider whether there were better options than selling homes on the open market. We instead proposed that the CET retain a portion of equity in all of the homes it develops – a so-called “golden share.” In the case of what would otherwise be an open market sale, this share could be as small as contractually feasible – ten, five or even one per cent. The CET would thus derive close to the maximum capital receipt for the property. However by jointly owning the home with the occupant via a shared equity trust deed19, the CET could have the contractual right to enforce agreements regarding the use and maintenance of the property. The owner-occupant would have voting rights in the CET – and be incentivised to use them, and to thereby remain involved in the community’s administration and governance. It has been suggested that this structure might be unattractive to potential purchasers, affecting the overall viability of the scheme. Our research leads us to believe that the opposite effect is more likely to result. High quality homes in desirable areas with strong, accountable neighbourhood management tend to be very desirable, and to appreciate in value
accordingly.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Ensuring a mix of housing in the scheme Shoreditch Trust developed this "matrix" p14 and 15 of Shoreditch Trust report. The debt / equity ratio and cashflow predictions in the financial modelling are to do with the fact that Shoreditch land prices are high. If the CET gets the land transferred to it by Council it can borrow off the asset ( land) to develop area. This debt is covered by cashflow from rents ( commercial and social) and sales. The danger is that its easier to develop high price properties to sell to cover the debt easily. This led them to develop this "matrix" to use as the project would have gone along to keep an eye on the range of affordable housing being developed.
Ensuring Affordable Housing Outputs
If our primary purpose had been to come up with financially viable pro forma property developments, the toolkit at this point would have been more than adequate for the purpose. Tables 8a, 8b and 8c in Appendix 4 illustrate the key financial outputs of the debt-equity ratio, the cash flow with which to service development debt, and the value of retained equity as required by financial institutions as part of their risk assessment protocols. However we felt that the aspect which was hardest to monitor was in many ways the most important – the achievement of affordability. With different amounts of equity being sold in different proportions, and varying these amounts and proportions the most obvious way to ‘tweak’ a scheme to achieve viability, it was all too easy to lose track of the range and ratio of household incomes that the scheme could eventually accommodate. And yet, if we ended up with a scheme that was financially achievable only by providing for the poorest and the wealthiest, we would have done nothing to address income segregation and fill the missing middle. We needed a way of monitoring the income profile of households in a proposed
scheme.
We did this by developing a mathematical tool which we call the affordability matrix. The affordability matrix calculates what the annual expenditure on housing must be for each type of household in the scheme. It then adds an appropriate amount for non-housing expenditure, and thereby shows how much gross annual income each household must earn in order to sustainably inhabit a home of the size and tenure indicated. Finally, it displays a range of income brackets and shows, both numerically and as a percentage, how many households the scheme can accommodate in each bracket. We incorporated the affordability matrix into the toolkit at the granular level, showing income profiles for each block and building, as well as at the summary level, for the scheme as a whole. It has become a key tool for us both in how we define and how we measure housing affordability.
Ensuring Affordable Housing Outputs
If our primary purpose had been to come up with financially viable pro forma property developments, the toolkit at this point would have been more than adequate for the purpose. Tables 8a, 8b and 8c in Appendix 4 illustrate the key financial outputs of the debt-equity ratio, the cash flow with which to service development debt, and the value of retained equity as required by financial institutions as part of their risk assessment protocols. However we felt that the aspect which was hardest to monitor was in many ways the most important – the achievement of affordability. With different amounts of equity being sold in different proportions, and varying these amounts and proportions the most obvious way to ‘tweak’ a scheme to achieve viability, it was all too easy to lose track of the range and ratio of household incomes that the scheme could eventually accommodate. And yet, if we ended up with a scheme that was financially achievable only by providing for the poorest and the wealthiest, we would have done nothing to address income segregation and fill the missing middle. We needed a way of monitoring the income profile of households in a proposed
scheme.
We did this by developing a mathematical tool which we call the affordability matrix. The affordability matrix calculates what the annual expenditure on housing must be for each type of household in the scheme. It then adds an appropriate amount for non-housing expenditure, and thereby shows how much gross annual income each household must earn in order to sustainably inhabit a home of the size and tenure indicated. Finally, it displays a range of income brackets and shows, both numerically and as a percentage, how many households the scheme can accommodate in each bracket. We incorporated the affordability matrix into the toolkit at the granular level, showing income profiles for each block and building, as well as at the summary level, for the scheme as a whole. It has become a key tool for us both in how we define and how we measure housing affordability.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I hope this makes some of what a Community Land Trust is a bit more clear.
Its most unique feature is that the transformative generation of wealth is not privatised, but is regarded as a legitimate community function. The resulting asset base is held in and managed by the community as a long-term investment. However, unlike some more radical models of collectivism, the CET does not prevent or inhibit the generation of private wealth.
Though myself I dont see that with the political will more radical models are just as relevant. Even the Shoreditch Report (which I think is excellant explanation) uses that getting people up a rung on the housing ladder phrase. As though if u live in social housing u are at the bottom socially. I watched a History of Council recently. At one point a third of people in this country lived in Council housing. It was meant for all. (Including those that Shoreditch , correctly say, are being pushed out of Shoreditch- teachers etc. )People didnt see anything wrong with living in Council housing after WW2. They felt it was there right.
see here. But its not on i player anymore:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0109dvs
Its most unique feature is that the transformative generation of wealth is not privatised, but is regarded as a legitimate community function. The resulting asset base is held in and managed by the community as a long-term investment. However, unlike some more radical models of collectivism, the CET does not prevent or inhibit the generation of private wealth.
Though myself I dont see that with the political will more radical models are just as relevant. Even the Shoreditch Report (which I think is excellant explanation) uses that getting people up a rung on the housing ladder phrase. As though if u live in social housing u are at the bottom socially. I watched a History of Council recently. At one point a third of people in this country lived in Council housing. It was meant for all. (Including those that Shoreditch , correctly say, are being pushed out of Shoreditch- teachers etc. )People didnt see anything wrong with living in Council housing after WW2. They felt it was there right.
see here. But its not on i player anymore:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0109dvs
Similar threads
