Woodberry Down

Reflections from Geoff Bell, who lived through Berkeley Group’s last major regeneration in Woodberry Down, London. Thank you Geoff for coming to speak to Ladywood Unite in Birmingham yesterday.

The Woodberry Down Story

Introduction

I was chair of Woodberry Down Community Organisation (WDCO) for six years, stepping down in 2019, when two grandchildren arrived on the scene: I wanted to enjoy them and had some (delightful) child-minding duties. I was also getting tired of devoting so much time to WDCO work and was beginning to have doubts concerning the course of the regeneration. These climaxed in the Happy Man Tree incident, a story I will briefly outline below.

 I did subsequently rejoin the executive in WDCO, in 2021 but have just resigned.

I lived in Woodberry Down from the late 1970s Woodberry Down was then an estate in North London, in the London borough of Hackney. It had been built post Second World War by the Greater London Council to house Council tenants. It was transferred to Hackney in 1968. By the 1980s it had declined due to old age and neglect. It’s ownership had also become diluted. The “right to buy” legislation of Margaret Thatcher resulted in approximately 30 percent of the roughly two thousand homes being owned by their former tenants, the large majority of whom remained residents. I and my family remained council tenants. During my own own involvement in WDCO, I rarely experienced any tension between these new leaseholders and the council tenants. We all worked together in WDCO. The first chair of WDCO was a leaseholder, The second, third (me) and fourth chairs were council tenants.

The regeneration of Woodberry Down was decided on by Hackney Council in the late 1990s. This was based on an assessment that the estate homes could not be refurbished to the standards demanded by the Decent Homes legislation. The council said they intended to demolish all the homes in the existing estate and build a new development.

The plan was to demolish and rebuild the estate over approximately thirty years. The number of homes overall was to increase from c.2,000 to c. 5,000. Sixty per cent of these were to be private homes, the sale of which would, in theory, subsidise the building of new social homes for displaced council tenants. All council tenants were promised “the right to return to new builds on the regenerated estate, by the (Hackney) council.

Berkeley Homes was appointed the developer of the new homes, with Genesis, (later Notting Hill Genesis) the new social and shared ownership landlord. The overall plan for the regeneration was agreed in 2005. This outlined eight phases for the regeneration, which is now due to conclude in c. 2035. This is later than originally promised by a few years. Three phases have been completed to date.

Throughout the regeneration WDCO has been an active partner in the regeneration. We supported the overall concept when it was first suggested, believing this was the only way much needed new homes could be provided for council (social) tenants. We were promised a say in the details of the re-build, most notably through the Estate Design Committee, chaired by the developer (Berkeley Homes) on which, as well, as ourselves the council and new social landlord (Genesis/Notting Hill Genesis) also sit. However, this body has no ultimate authority: at the start WDCO had veto rights on this body, but now we are only consultees, and our opinions are often ignored. Berkeley has said in the past the Woodberry Down is a “community-led regeneration” and to an extent this was true, but the longer it was gone on the less true it has become, and even Berkeley has now dropped this claim.

Because we are now well into the regeneration I can make some observations about their course. These follow.

More Homes than planned.

A recurring feature of Berkeley Homes is that they come back time and time again to seek planning permission to build more homes than they originally planned/suggested. While they argue this is a plus, in that they are providing more homes, this has also resulted in an increase in density that means new homes are build in blocks that are close together and present a claustrophobic atmosphere. This is especially true of the latest (third) phase of the regeneration. Private owners who have bought into the estate off plan, now find the have greater density and less open space than the were previously promised.

Overall, the latest plan means one and a half thousand homes are planned than were originally promised.

Less social homes than promised.

While the actual number of homes planned has only fallen slightly the percentage has decreased from 33 per cent at the start of the regeneration to 16 per cent now. We now find there will be less social homes provided than were on the estate when the regeneration began. There has been an increase in the number of shared ownership homes, but although these are classed as “affordable”, they are not so to those on an average wage.

Poor infrastructure.

Berkeley Homes are builders and not social planners. They do not give sufficient thought to looking local shops and social facilities. These can be built or promised, but they are often done so without taking into account local needs. Shops are let without ever consulting with the local community about who these are let to. They can also be built in the wrong areas. Most new local shops are currently provided in Woodberry Down in the windiest part of the development (caused in part by a tunnel effect of the surrounding construction), and with virtually no parking.

There has also been a lack of social provision, notably nurseries or social facilities for elderly people.

Too often Berkeley has treated such issues as secondary, rather than an essential part of planning the regeneration.

The Quality of New Homes

Overall, most residents are happy with the new homes they move into. Perhaps one reason is that social tenants in particular fine them a great improvement to where they lived before.

There have been problems. Many communal doors and bin doors have had to be replaced due to the poor quality of the original ones. Sewerage and plumbing issues have often arisen, due, one suspects, to seeking the cheapest solution when planning and construction.

Service Charges

A major complaint of many new shared ownership and even private residents is that service charges have increased much faster and much more than inflation. While this is common in other areas, a considerable number of these residents have left their new homes because of these increases in Woodberry Down.

If you protest

The major incident we have had over the past few years was felling of “The Happy Man Tree”. This was adjacent to a pub of that name that was demolished in the course of the regeneration. This was a very old tree and it’s planned felling was, it was argued by some, not necessary. An alternative option would have cost Berkeley £1m. They turned this down, despite a 20,000 petition from local people. When people climbed the tree or even stood near it to and prevent its destruction they were served with an injunction and summoned to the High Court where they wear threatened with the possibility of imprisonment. This action was a joint endeavour between Berkeley and the council. The tree was cut down.

Conclusion

I am one of those generally happy with my new home. I have defended the general direction of the regeneration but have became increasingly concerned about aspects of it. I think in part this is due to changes in personnel of those directing the regeneration for Berkeley Homes (notably the death of the company founder and head, with whom I had a good and productive relationship). They have become less and less collaborative. Perhaps I forgot that their first concern was their own profit. Most of my main concerns in the last couple of years has been the diminishing number of social homes, but this in itself is a reflection of a deeper issues of trust and broken promises. It took time for these issues to emerge, but I would now say be very careful when dealing with Berkeley and treat everything they say with scepticism.

I am happy to answer further questions on any aspect of this report.

Geoff Bell

6/1/25