BCC invited further feedback on the draft of the Community Charter. While the newsletter sent on August 28 referred to the survey, council officers in contact with Ladywood Unite have failed to mention the survey in their communications. This omission is a serious shortcoming.
The survey will close on December 2. You can fill the survey here
Below are some comments and suggested edits to include in the survey.
- The charter
The council stated that they have been “listening to and working with the Ladywood community” to “ensure the community is treated fairly, offered choices, and assured about what [residents are] entitled to.”
We have serious doubts about this claim.
This very statement contradicts what the council purportedly says about one important aspect of the charter: to “reflect your priorities and aspirations for your neighbourhood and community.”
These priorities have largely been decided by council officers who, as one admitted during a meeting that included representatives from Ladywood Unite, “cherry-picked” residents’ feedback.
2. Strategic Narrative.
We note that residents have not been invited to comment on the Strategic Narrative. This omission is a serious flaw in the survey, as the Strategic Narrative outlines important principles that should be subject to consultation and public scrutiny.
The Strategic Narrative section sets out the principles of the regeneration, yet two of the most critical principles for the community are conspicuously absent. These principles are listed as Principles 7 and 8 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
It is imperative that the charter reinstates these principles as part of the Strategic Narrative for the regeneration.
3. What We Know So Far
The section includes a list of demands from residents.
However, there are significant discrepancies between the specific demands outlined in the “What We Know So Far” section and the commitments presented in the Residents’ Offer within the Charter. It is difficult to see how the residents’ concerns and needs are being adequately addressed in the current version of the Charter.
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.
One specific comment is to ask how residents’ feedback, as reflected in this list, has been used to shape the drafting of 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?
For specific suggestions for this section see this blogpost here
Additionally, the title of the section raises questions. Who does “we” refer to? The title is misleading, as it suggests that the section summarizes what is known about the regeneration. In reality, it focuses on the demands residents have put forward. A clearer and more accurate title would be “What Residents Have Told the Council So Far.”
4. Engagement Principles
The Council states that their approach is shaped by the Powered by People policy. Yet, stating they do does not mean they actually doing.
Shifting power to communities
Shifting power to communities is a key principle outlined in the Powered by People policy (p.9). However, measures to ensure this shift of power to the community are notably absent. This commitment must be explicitly reflected in the Charter—particularly in the process of creating the Charter itself.
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. Ask to delete references to reset, reshape and restat
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.
Ask for 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 the right to choose the type of independent advice they wish to receive, as well as who provides that advice. However, residents have learned that a procurement process is already underway—initiated without their involvement. If the council unilaterally determines the nature of the independent advice available, that advice ceases to be truly independent.
5. Offer to council tenants and & 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.”
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.
The level of compensation
The proposed level of compensation is not fair and appropriate. It is the statutory offer. What about including compensation for the level of disrepair, damage to property, and adverse impact on mental health caused by the negligence of the council and its contractors?
6. 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 ask the council to define or delete “reasonable.”
The Meaning of “Wherever Possible”
“Wherever possible, we will try to match with the different commercial spaces available on the estate.”
Ask to delete “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.
7. Offer to Non-Residential / Residential Homeowners
The financial compensation and support being offered is not fair and proportionate
The Right to Remain
“Wherever possible, you will be supported to secure a new home on the estate should you want to remain.”
Ask to delete “wherever possible”
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 or delete “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 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.
9. 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.
10. The meanwhile offer
A Dedicated Housing Officer
This is a community of over 5,000 people and over 1,900 residences. One dedicated housing officer is insufficient to meet the needs of such a large and diverse population.
Decent Home Standards
Council tenants and leaseholders are experiencing significant delays in repairs, resulting in damage to properties and severe impacts on their physical and mental health. The installation of new kitchens and bathrooms has caused additional issues, such as leaks and reduced hot water pressure. These problems stem from the council and its contractors failing to address major structural issues affecting residents. Furthermore, residents have not been kept informed about the schedule for any major works. A statement of principle is ineffective without concrete and timely action to address these ongoing issues.
Well-being
The council’s negligence in repairs and maintenance, combined with the imposition of a regeneration process that residents could not influence from the outset, has significantly worsened mental health in the community. Will the well-being offer account for the harm caused by the council’s actions in the regeneration area?
Ladywood Unite 
Leave a reply to Anonymous Cancel reply