Balancing act

There should be less wriggling out of obligations to provide social housing on site by paying commuted sums, less obligation to provide social housing where there is already over-provision. And there should be more mixed income housing projects - with the use of discounted equity stakes for low to middle income households in areas where property values are high.

Remember these points? They were a key element in the blueprint for a balanced community set down by Lord Rogers’ Urban Task Force report last year. Developers working in London have not had a chance to forget them since because, even without the iron rod of legislation, the recommendations are already being enforced. “The idea of buying 32 acres of land in London and filling it with rich people can’t happen - and it won’t happen outside London for much longer,” says Tony Carey, managing director of St George.

Carey’s St George is working on innovative discounting solutions to bring new homes on prime land within the financial reach of working Londoners at Imperial Wharf, west London. At the same time, other developers have come up with a very different way of freeing home occupants from the tenure trap. “In London and the south east the problem is land provision and how you integrate affordable and private, but in northern cities there is an oversupply of affordable housing and high voids, so there it is a matter of bringing in owner occupation,” says Clive Wilding, managing director of Gleeson Homes. Whatever the approach, the end result is similar: a community where every resident is a stakeholder and where homes are integrated in design and location, irrespective of tenure.

Achieving that is not easy. “Most developers don’t want affordable housing on site at all, and if it is there they want it pushed to the back,” says John Assael, director of urban design specialist Assael Architecture. “So it is a balancing act that often means producing higher density private housing in return for providing the social housing with quality.”

Housing associations too have concerns about working within the private development framework, particularly when higher density can only be achieved by building high. For housing associations still battling against the stigma left by 1960s tower blocks, the prospect of housing tenants in high rise may be taboo. “Most housing associations will only go up to six storeys, because of historical associations, but then it can be difficult to achieve the density,” says Assael. His solution for one upcoming London scheme is a mixed tenure tower, with affordable housing at lower levels and private buyers at the top Private urban schemes also often come with underground car parks, security guards, lavish landscaping and other expensive facilities beyond the budgets of housing associations or their tenants. “Most housing associations are very nervous about the cost,” says Assael. “We try to arrange it so that the private subsidises the social.”

“It is a common issue that needs to be addressed,” says Peter Hibbert, development director with Network Housing Association.“There is a need to integrate management and maintenance.” Overall, Hibbert sees mixed sites bringing housing associations and developers closer together. “Since policy has been more rigidly enforced we have been more readily accepted. People are coming and talking to us early.”

Nonetheless, Network HA’s decision to go it alone and develop a 160-unit scheme of private and affordable apartments in London’s Victoria has offered benefits. The registered social landlord carried the initial risk in the venture, but has pre-sold all 79 private apartments in the not-yet-built scheme. “It has given us control,” says Hibbert. It also gives a better deal for tenants, he believes. “We can decide what goes into the specification. The quality of external and internal finishes is high.” Affordable units will have such features as fitted wardrobes, and bathrooms fitted with such extras as mirrors, cabinets and shower rails.

At St George’s Imperial Wharf housing associations have less control, but are taking a pragmatic view, according to md Carey. “The housing associations would rather have houses with gardens, but they are recognising that this is an urban scheme. There is some medium rise.”

With the Government Office for London deciding not to call in the scheme, Imperial Wharf is expected to receive planning permission imminently, and its approval will mark the dawning of a new era in the development of sustainable, mixed communities. Of 1665 new homes there, almost half will be defined as affordable. That definition will cover traditional affordable and discounted rental, available to key workers at a 40% discount on market rent, and discounted sale, available to nominees of the local authority at 30% discount on market value. Under the developer’s agreement with Hammersmith and Fulham council, the discounts will apply in perpetuity.

“This has got to be the way forward,” says Carey. “The danger is that London is becoming a place for the rich and the poor and there is no one in between. The concept here is that people will live here, work here and take their leisure here. There will be jobs for 1000 people on the site. We are hoping to get ownership.”

Carey acknowledges that it could be more difficult to market this utopia outside London. “We can sell the mixed use, mixed tenure concept. It may be more difficult outside where buyers have a more suburbanite, Brookside mentality.” But Surrey housebuilder Bewley Homes has no problems developing or selling mixed tenure. “It helps if you are able to influence which housing association you work with, but sometimes local authorities won’t allow that and nominate,” says Colin Brooks, managing director with the housebuilder. “It relies heavily on the quality and management of a housing association. On one site in Surrey we were very happy to have the housing association in the lead-in road. Sometimes developers and housing associations want to create different housetypes - that’s when you start getting ghettoes.”

Unlike many other housebuilders, Bewley seldom plans specific areas of private and social homes on its sites. “We design the site first and then decide afterwards which units will be social,” says Brooks. “So far we have never had a problem. There is a site opposite our office with the social housing right in the centre and five years after it was built you still can’t see the join. It was well landscaped and still is - we find that the more landscaping we put in the better it remains.”

Establishing private housing in areas associated with social housing can be equally successful. Mark Oliver Homes has made its reputation out of developing homes for sale at 25% discount on cleared council estate sites, with councils given nomination rights. It is developing 136 two and three-bed houses on a site in Bradford. “It works well and we think there is a great demand for this,” says David Sheinman, director of Mark Oliver Homes.

But sales success relies on tackling a negative image that may have dogged council estates may for decades. “Estates do become stigmatised,” says Gleeson’s Clive Wilding. “A site needs to be big enough so that it can be changed dramatically, and you can put in new shops if that’s the problem, or take away deck access if that’s the problem.”

Gleeson Homes is currently selling homes at Bramwell Gardens in Sheffield, formerly a council estate characterised by boarded up homes in deck-access and tower blocks. Part of the estate has been refurbished, and part demolished to allow Gleeson with North British Housing Association to provide 120 homes, 70 of which are for sale. Gleeson started selling two and three-bed houses at from £45 000 six months ago. Today homes start at around £52 000, and Gleeson is selling apartments with bed decks and wood flooring to tempt buyers to invest in the estate. “Design is key to making it work,” says Wilding. “We are creating an image everyone wants to buy.” And whether schemes are private or social housing sector-led they have to get the image right - and make sure it stays that way.