BCC invited more feedback on the draft of the Community Charter. The newsletter that was sent on August 28 read:
“The charter has been developed in collaboration with the community after extensive consultation. We held a series of workshops in October and November 2023. After these workshops took place, we ran an online survey in early 2024 to ensure those who could not attend workshops had a chance to have their say. Another opportunity to influence the charter in additional workshops that were held in June and July 2024.“
The page from which the charter can be downloaded also states:
“The charter will be developed in collaboration with the community after extensive consultation. This means we will be talking with the Ladywood community. We held a series of 12 workshops in October and November 2023. After these workshops took place, we ran an online survey in early 2024 to ensure those who could not attend workshops had a chance to have their say. However, we are keen to engage with you and get your thoughts to develop this further. We want to make sure we have it right and it represents the priorities of the Ladywood community. For this reason, residents had another opportunity to influence the charter in additional workshops that were held in June and July 2024.“
It is crucial for residents to continue to be involved and apply pressure on the council. Please use this guide as you complete the survey.
The council claims that the consultation has been extensive, but it must provide evidence to support this. We do not have any consultation data, nor clear evidence that residents’ feedback has been used to shape the charter.
How has the feedback the council has collected since October been used to draft the community charter? And how has the consultation process been used to evaluate the best way forward, as stated within the ‘Involve’ principle of the Powered by People policy?
Here are some considerations:
Participation in the 12 engagement workshops held in October and November 2023 was capped at only 20 participants per workshop, which limited opportunities for meaningful and inclusive engagement. Additionally, the activities carried out at these workshops were not sufficiently or appropriately designed to produce a charter. The questions asked were too generic, and the methodology used to elicit responses was too vague to be effective. From the outset, the workshops were presented and designed as information sessions, not as hands-on activities aimed at producing an output—the significance of which was not fully explained to participants.
A survey was then launched a few days before Christmas, running until the end of February. Structured in four parts, the survey invites participants to state their priorities on a range of topics, including trust, the importance of community involvement, compensation, rehousing options, parking, and green spaces. Four videos accompany each section, detailing the range of feedback and suggestions BCC received in its workshops. However, the clustering of so many topics in one survey and the lack of clarity about how the feedback would be used remains a cause for concern.
Workshops held in June and July focused on the community charter, but residents were not given access to the draft charter that the council had already been working on, limiting how much residents could influence the process.
The draft charter shared during those workshops and the one now up for consultation are nearly identical.
The only change is that some additional residents’ input feature in the section “What We Know So Far”.
The council asserts that these demands have been used “to shape a shared vision for the regeneration of Ladywood,” with the stated vision being:
“Regeneration that works for all: Making regeneration inclusive and beneficial to all; delivering for people as well as places”
Unfortunately, this vision is too generic.
Also, there are clear differences between the specific demands of residents outlined in the “What We Know So Far” section and what the Charter states in the Residents’ Offer. It is difficult to see how the residents’ concerns and needs are being adequately addressed in the current version of the Charter.
Here a comparison between residents’ demands featured in the section “What We Know so far” and what the charter says in the Residents’ Offer
“Not to have multiple moves“
There are too many conditionals in the charter.
In the section about council tenants and tenants of registered providers, the charter states:
“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.”
The same applies to Non-Secure Tenants/Temporary Accommodation. Non-secure tenants and those in temporary accommodation have already moved multiple times, as the charter recognizes. There needs to be a firm commitment to prevent further displacement.
“For all residents who want to remain in the area to be able to do so”
There are also too many conditionals regarding this issue.
In the section on Non-Residential / Residential Homeowners, the charter states:
“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?
“A mix of tenure types that includes social housing”
The charter mentions that council tenants and tenants of registered providers will be given social housing rent.
However, there is no clear, firm commitment that the social housing will be in Ladywood.
A specific percentage of social housing provision that covers all existing council tenants and tenants of registered providers in Ladywood is necessary. Additionally, a commitment from BCC that this provision is binding for the development is required.
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.
“Retention of faith spaces but with consideration to the changing needs of a diverse community“
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.
“A more responsive repairs service / Investment in community infrastructure“
The Meanwhile offer reads:
“We will work towards making sure we achieve 100% compliance across all statutory landlord Health & Safety areas, including aspiring to achieve Decent Homes Standards wherever possible.”
What is wherever possible contingent on?
“Retain where possible, the culture, history and architecture of Ladywood“
There is no mention of this in the charter.
“Regeneration that considers the changing needs of the community, such as housing for older people“
There is no mention of this in the charter, only a generic commitment to “work closely with community partners and other stakeholders to develop a well-being offer to ensure residents have support in the key areas you have identified”
The Equality Analysis in the 2023 Cabinet Report mentions the elderly, however.
The analysis states that the low percentage of older people in the area is proof of no adverse impact. Yet, in the same paragraph, the justification for this observation is the chilling and concerning consideration that the low percentage of the elderly in the area is a result of “the fact that black and ethnic minority groups typically have a lower life expectancy than White British groups”.
The document points out that “older residents may have more difficulty securing a mortgage should they wish to move elsewhere” and that “there could be a specific impact on emotional wellbeing of older residents and those who have lived on the estate a long time, who are more impacted upon by the change”. Yet, the analysis does not have any specific measure to deal with such financial and emotional impacts. The only provision is for re-housing officers who provide relevant information and BCC communication about the CPO process.
“Inclusive regeneration that ensures residents with disabilities have full access to their neighbourhood/community“
There is no mention of this in the charter.
The 2023 Cabinet Report references residents with disabilities in the Equality Assessment, but only in terms of communication—not inclusive regeneration nor access.
The document states that “it is possible that individuals with disabilities may feel have less agency over the change happening to the area, especially if they are being relocated”. “To mitigate against this”, the analysis states, “communication will be open and transparent from the start”.
This is not good enough.
Ladywood Unite 
Leave a comment