All mixed up

The importance of mixed communities has long been a shibboleth of government policy, both here and abroad, in order to avoid the segregated enclaves of exclusion, so often stigmatised as “sink estates” of deprivation.

In the US this policy has been underpinned by the Hope VI programme, while in the UK it hinges on the planning agreements known as Section 106, whereby a percentage of affordable housing is included in all new developments for sale. Holland, Ireland and France also actively promote similar policies to avoid the ghettoisation of poverty.

Now, however, internal research carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the social policy research charity, is showing that far from creating the mixed communities so vitally needed, unexpected market factors are creating exactly those enclaves of 100% social housing that the policy was designed to avoid.

The role of the investor market

The research, based on anonymous interviews with housebuilders, found that the growing role of the investor market is seeing investors bulk buying the for-sale properties on mixed estates and leasing them back to councils, which then rent them out to homeless families in temporary accommodation.

The result is that far from becoming a mixed-tenure, mixed-income community, the entire estate becomes a low-income estate for homeless families and social tenants.

Many investors are diversifying their rental base. Rushgrove Gate in Woolwich, south-east London, was built as a mixed-tenure development and the for-sale homes purchased by investor Imagine Homes. Homes have subsequently been leased back to Greenwich council and used to house homeless families (see factfile,).

The drivers for this new market phenomenon are complex, but are underpinned by the soaring demand for housing for homeless families – a direct result of the decline in social housing – which in turn has fuelled the role of investors in housing social tenants. Lack of demand from private sector buyers and renters for the types of property on offer is also a factor.

Not only is the surge in demand for housing for homeless families creating a lucrative market – in London homelessness has risen by 37% over the last four years according to the mayor’s office – but paradoxically the housing benefit system is stoking it further.

This is clearly borne out by the research which revealed that while £90 a week in rent is the norm for assured shorthold tenancies, by contrast local authorities will pay more than £400 a week for lettings to homeless families.

Children and density

The research found that a combination of other market and policy factors, particularly in relation to density, children and antisocial behaviour, were also producing outcomes quite at odds with the sustainable communities envisaged.

The main concern relates to the policy drive to produce high-density homes, which inevitably house singles or childless couples. However, although such homes characterised the for-sale portion of the estates reviewed, larger, family-sized homes were provided in the affordable component of schemes, so as to meet local authority needs for family housing. The results were often a stark division between the affordable and owner-occupied homes, based on whether there were children.

Any kids getting up to what they shouldn’t will be branded affordable housing kids

UK housebuilder

One housebuilder explained: “With 30% housing in a development you might think you’d get 30% of the children in the estate

living in affordable housing, but in fact we’re finding that 95 per cent of all kids live in affordable housing. Any kids getting up to what they shouldn’t will be branded affordable housing kids.”

Another developer pointed out that this mix was failing to create communities that work. “It’s not so much how the housing association integrates with private housing,

but how families integrate with first-time buyers, how families interact with single people. It’s a cultural thing. We’re missing it. We’re hitting targets for one beds and four beds but we’re not looking at what works as a community. You end up with a load of affordable families and first-time private buyers. It doesn’t really mix,” he said.

Design

Design was the other big factor seen to be contributing to segregation within estates, with the majority of developers clearly preferring “zoning” of affordable and private housing rather than the “pepper-potting” approach which ensures that different types of tenure are indistinguishable from each other.

However, many developers also pointed out that it was in fact housing associations that often took the lead on zoning. Many insisted on segregated design as this facilitated their ongoing management of the affordable parts of the scheme.

Next steps

This research in no way indicates that the goal of mixed communities is misplaced. However, it does show that in a growing number of cases, projects on the ground are not in tune with these vital aspirations.

According to the JRF, these examples of “bad practice” have been passed on to government and are currently being examined in Whitehall. The indication, at least, is that that government is equally concerned to minimise the damage created by the gap between policy intentions and results and so avoid growing levels of segregation and exclusion.