Here are some comments and suggested questions you can raise in the upcoming charter workshops.
These comments and suggestions are ordered according to the structure of the charter itself.
A summary of the list of questions can be found below for download
1. Welcome
Sharing Power
Powered by People is an official BCC policy. In this document, BCC committed to share power and shift power to communities.
This commitment should be reflected in the charter.
Here a suggested edit of the fourth paragraph in the Welcome section: “Through the charter, the Council will demonstrate its commitment to shift power to and share power with residents, work collaboratively, and keep the Ladywood community fully informed, involved, and at the heart of future decisions.”
A Working Document, But for Whom?
“The Charter should be seen as a working document, subject to ongoing review as the development programme progresses. More detailed offers will be included in later versions and developed in partnership with our development partner.”
In communications with Ladywood Unite, council officers have mentioned that the regeneration will consist of a partnership between the developer and the community, with the Council acting as an enabler.
What appears in the charter is not good enough. This gives the development partner the ability to rephrase the Charter to its advantage. Residents need to be given veto power over any changes to the Charter.
2 Strategic Narrative
Missing Principles
This section rehearses the eight principles, but the two most important principles for the community are missing. These are principles 7 and 8, mentioned in Appendix 3 of the February 2019 BCC Report to Cabinet (pp. 4–5):
- New, high-quality social housing
- Ensuring that the existing community is retained and involved in the development of the new neighbourhood
The principle of involvement does feature in the charter, but firm commitments to “new, high quality social housing” and to ensure “that the existing community is retained” are missing.
The Meaning of Affordable
Council officers have pointed out that in BCC policies, the term “affordable homes” includes social housing, shared homeownership, and affordable housing (80% market price houses).
Fair enough. In a document available on the BCC website, called Affordable Housing Supplementary Guidance, the 35% affordable housing provision is stated (3.1) to be structured as follows:
- 25% as social rents and subsidized home ownership, including shared ownership
- 10% as low market housing or affordable housing
Would the definition of affordable homes in the present version of the Charter follow such definitions and percentages? If so, we need this in writing. As it is, it is too vague.
3. What We Know So Far
Misleading Title
Who is “we” in the title? The title is misleading as it seems to suggest that what is listed below refers to what is known about the regeneration. Instead, this section is about the demands that residents have put forward. Suggest rephrasing the title, possibly to “What Residents Have Told the Council So Far.”
4. Engagement Principles
Reset, Reshape, and Restart
“Reset, Reshape, and Restart” is the slogan that BCC is using to embellish the cuts to social services it is implementing following the bankruptcy procedure. Whatever phrasing and rephrasing, the fact that “Reset, Reshape, and Restart” is mentioned as a principle of the regeneration is concerning.
Resident Steering Group
The table that follows mentions the Resident Steering Group/Development Trust.
More clarity is needed on how this is going to be formed, who is going to be part of it, and importantly, its powers.
This is especially relevant in relation to the Ladywood Project Board, which, as featured in Appendix 4 of the 2023 Cabinet Report, has no resident representation.
A firm commitment to give residents seats in the Ladywood Project Board and give decision-making powers to the Resident Steering Group is needed.
Accessibility
“Where engagement is by digital means, other options such as by telephone or in person will be made available” – more details are needed about the work BCC has done so far on this.
“We will use technology to maximize inclusivity such as immersive readers and real-time translation tools” – This technology is not available in the community charter sessions, excluding those in need of meaningful conversations about the document. The council is already failing on its promises.
Independent Advice
Residents should have a right to choose the kind of independent advice they wish to have, as well as who should provide that advice.
Residents have heard that a procurement procedure is already in process.
This has been initiated without residents’ involvement.
5. Residents’ Offer
“It must be noted that as the Ladywood Estate is at an early stage of the regeneration process, the offers put forward below will become more detailed as the regeneration progresses.”
Please ask council officers about the meaning of “more detailed.” Who will define those details? A firm commitment to make residents equal partners in defining those details is needed.
6. Offer to Council Tenants & Tenants of Registered Providers
The Meaning of “Wherever Possible”
“Wherever possible, we will only ask you to move once, but if this is not possible, you will have an option to return to a new home on the Ladywood estate that is suitable for the needs of the household.”
Please ask the council officers for confirmation about what “wherever possible” and “if this is not possible” are contingent on.
If they are not clear, please ask them to delete “wherever possible” and “if this is not possible.”
Estimated Timing of Return
What is the estimated timing of return if one needs to move more than once?
There are serious concerns here.
Take Phase 1, for instance. Site assembly will possibly begin in 2026, with the first build to be completed in 2030. If lucky, a four-year wait between one losing their home and being relocated to a new house. This could extend longer to the final build in 2040.
Phase 2 will follow, with site assembly starting in 2031 and the first build to be completed in 2035 and the final build to be completed in January 2044. One would need to wait between 4 and 15 years if they stay in Phase 2. Even if those who lose their homes in Phase 2 are relocated to Phase 1, there could still be a period of one to nine years between demolition and completion.
A Firm Commitment on Social Housing in a Regenerated Ladywood
This section mentions that council tenants and tenants of registered providers will be given social housing rent. Yet, there is no clear and firm commitment that the social housing will be in Ladywood.
We also need a stated percentage of social housing provision that will cover the totality of existing council tenants and tenants of registered providers in Ladywood.
We also need a commitment from BCC that the stated provision is binding for the development.
At the moment, the 2023 Full Business Case states that the provision of affordable housing – within which apparently social housing is part – is subject to viability (Appendix 2: B4), and that such viability is “largely predicated on achieving private unit sales” (Appendix 2: C3).
This means that the provision of affordable and social housing is subject to the developer gaining a 15-20% profit margin.
The concern is that whatever is stated in the Charter has no teeth because it is subject to viability. We need a strong and binding commitment from the council about the provision of social housing.
7. Offer to Non-Residential / Residential Homeowners
The Right to Remain
“Wherever possible, you will be supported to secure a new home on the estate should you want to remain.”
What is the meaning of “wherever possible”? What is this contingent on?
Freehold/Leasehold
What are the conditions of ownership of the new home in a regenerated Ladywood?
The 2023 Cabinet Report stated:
“The Council will retain the freehold with the long-term estate management handed to a management company. The City Council will have some input into how the estate is run as freeholder with the estate charge run by the management company.”
Would this mean that homeowners in the new developments will be leaseholders?
We need a firm commitment for a like-for-like offer.
The Meaning of Reasonable
“The council will pay reasonable costs for the appointment of a solicitor to sell your home as part of the regeneration.”
Please ask the council to define “reasonable.”
Eligibility for Affordable Homes
“If you do not wish to purchase another property, either on the estate or elsewhere, you will be entitled to an affordable rented home, either on the estate or elsewhere in the city.”
More details are needed about this offer. Also, would the current eligibility criteria for affordable rented homes apply in this case? Or would they be waived?
Financial Models for Homeownership
“We commit to exploring all possible financial models to make sure you are not ‘priced out’ of the estate; this might include shared equity or zero rent shared ownership.”
These are not favourable financial models.
In the shared equity model, a homebuyer will basically take a shared equity loan on the rest of the deposit and then take out a mortgage for the rest of the home.
The problem here is that if the property price goes up, the size of the equity loan would increase, with the result that one could end up having to pay more under a shared equity scheme than if one were able to offer a bigger deposit and get a standard mortgage.
The zero rent shared ownership is possibly better, but only in relative terms. Would the eligibility criteria for shared ownership be waived in the case of Ladywood? Even if this is the case, concerns remain. The price of portion of the house on shared ownership could go up, making paying the rest of the house more difficult and burdensome over the years.
We need a firm commitment that truly affordable homes will be available for homeowners and leaseholders.
Home Offer for Leaseholders and Freeholders – In Numbers
Would there be enough homes to accommodate everybody?
The plan is to build 1,236 “affordable” housing units in Phases 1, 2, and 3. It is understood that this will accommodate current council tenants.
Access to affordable homes should be an option for these homeowners and leaseholders.
Yet, even if this is the case, there won’t be enough homes for everyone. There are currently 567 homeowners in the area. Even counting the additional 427 new affordable homes to be built in Phase 4, there will potentially be 140 households left without an offer for a new home.
We need a firm commitment that truly affordable homes will be available for homeowners and leaseholders.
8. Offer to Non-Secure Tenants/Temporary Accommodation
The Meaning of “Wherever Possible”
There are too many conditionals and “wherever possible” in this offer. Non-secure tenants and tenants in temporary accommodation have already moved multiple times, as the Charter recognizes. There is a need for a firm commitment to not further displacement.
Delete “wherever possible” from the charter. We need firm commitments.
9. Offer to Businesses
The Meaning of Reasonable
“Should you wish to appoint a surveyor to undertake a valuation of the business, the Council will pay reasonable fees incurred.” Please define “reasonable.”
The Meaning of “Wherever Possible”
“Wherever possible, we will try to match with the different commercial spaces available on the estate.”
Please define “wherever possible” as well as the dependability of “trying to match.”
Ladywood is a central location. The potential relocation to other areas of the city might itself be a loss in terms of business opportunities.
A firm commitment to guaranteeing the right to return in a timely manner to existing businesses is needed.
10. Offer to Local Services
Education
“We want to ensure the children’s educations are not disrupted and schools meet the needs of both existing and future pupils and families.”
More details on this are needed. This is too vague.
Community and Faith Organisations
The Equality Analysis in the 2023 Cabinet Report states that “the proposals do include the loss of some religious buildings. The impact of the loss of these buildings will be mitigated against, to some extent, by the provision of secular community buildings.”
Religious communities have not been involved previously in the design of this proposal. The complete lack of early engagement and consideration for the existing religious communities of Ladywood is concerning.
This lack of prior consultation and engagement is a serious breach of the “due regard” public authorities should have towards groups and individuals with protected characteristics, as spelled out in the Equality Act 2010, section 149, and the 2012 Public Sector Equality Duty.
Within this context, the offer to pay “reasonable fees” for obtaining professional advice on the evaluation and sale of premises is not good enough and does not acknowledge the problematic nature of the overall decision on this matter.
Ladywood Unite 
Leave a comment