Questions for the council: “new homes” but for whom?

The Birmingham City Council sees the regeneration of Ladywood Estate as fulfilling its obligations to deliver 51,000 new homes by 2031.

Unfortunately, in the 2021 “Our Future City Plan”, the term “new homes” is often linked to envisioning dispossession and large-scale evictions under the banner of “regeneration” and “replacement”. Talking of gentrification and dispossession has little relevance for current policy frameworks, however it reveals the political and ethical responsibility of councillors and the BCC planning department towards the potentially negative effects on the lives of communities in the city.

1. Insufficient affordable housing provision

The Ladywood Regeneration Scheme is characterised by a concerning imbalance the kind of housing provision, with its preference for high-end commercial estate and move away from social and affordable housing, impinging on the public value of such endeavours.

Specifically:

• This scheme would not result in an increase in the provision of council-owned housing. Currently council-owned housing consists of 1,266 housing units, 628 of them in tower blocks. The scheme envisages the refurbishment of 628 council-owned affordable homes within the seven tower blocks and the demolishment and rebuilding of the remaining 638 homes on a “like-for-like basis” across the first three phases. At completion, the total amount of council-owned housing will remain exactly the same.
• The number of houses owned by Registered Social Landlords, 146, will remain exactly as it is in the present.
• The only addition to the current provision is the construction of 427 new affordable homes in phase 4, currently scheduled to be completed by October 2036 (15 years in the future). This number does not match the 567 homeowners in the area, for whom access to affordable homes could and should be a proposed option.

Including tower refurbishments in the calculation of the percentage of affordable homes within the regeneration schemes is problematic. These are homes that already exist, and the refurbishments, by BCC’s own admission, do not cover “any additional structural elements”.

In reality, therefore, the percentage of affordable homes is 16.08%, well below the 35% minimum threshold of affordable housing required in the BCC Affordable Housing Statement (BCC, Local Information Requirements for Planning Applications, p.9) as well as the scheme’s aspirations and considerations stated in the 2019 Big City Plan – Ladywood Report (7.3.4)

That percentage of affordable homes is potentially even lower if we account for the fact that the number of houses owned by Registered Social Landlords, 146, will remain exactly as it is in the present.

b. Limited amount of funding for the refurbishments of council housing

The 27 June 2023 Cabinet Report states that “the Council’s current housing stock and public buildings in the area would currently require in excess of £125 million of re-investment to simply bring the stock up to EPC standard C, which is the minimum requirement for current living standards and tolerable energy efficiencies” (3.1.7).

Yet, the budget offer from St Joseph for the refurbishment of the 628 council-owned affordable apartments “would potentially not cover any additional structural elements which may still be a latent risk in the towers”. (2023 Full Business Case. Appendix 2: C3).

Regrettably, the reporting of the budget and cost of refurbishment is inconsistent. While the cost of refurbishment is quoted as £47.3 million in 2023 Full Business Case Appendix 2 C3, it is reported to be £37.7 million in the same document, section B2. The inconsistency of these figures is a serious matter.

Whether it is 47.3 million or 37.7 million, the proposed budget for refurbishment is only a fraction of the figure of £125 million specified in the 27 June Cabinet Report as being needed to bring the stock up to EPC Standard C. While we understand that this figure might also account for the cost of council property other than housing, in light of the large discrepancy, we demand to understand the rationale for the limited amount of funding that has been put towards the refurbishment and to see the full extent of the budgeting and evaluation of the refurbishment of the said homes