The charter and other unanswered questions

The signing of the Development Agreement between Birmingham City Council (BCC) and St Joseph/Berkeley Homes, formally announced on April 30, marks a new chapter in the Ladywood regeneration. The commitments made—including delivering 20% affordable housing, minimising demolition, establishing a Steering Committee, appointing an independent advisor, and holding further consultation before finalising the Residents’ Charter—were presented as steps toward a more inclusive and transparent process.

Yet, many critical questions remain unanswered.

Demolition, Displacement, and the Right to Return

BCC and Berkeley have committed to retaining or replacing 70% of existing homes. However, “replacement” implies demolition, and over 600 households—approximately 30% of current residents—could face displacement. Moreover, housing provision is still subject to “viability,” which might result in increased demolition if profitability targets (e.g. 20% developer profit) are not met.

Can the provision of the existing be made not subject to viability?

Will residents right to return and the right to community be enshrined as core principles of the regeneration?

Residents within the regeneration area has been built over decades of neighbourly relationships and everyday interactions. It is a vital source of emotional and social support. Displacing this community would seriously endanger residents’ mental health and disrupt long-established communal bonds.

Steering Committee and Independent Advisor

How will members of the Steering Committee be selected? Will the residents’ Steering Committee have decision-making power?

What criteria has been used to select members of the Independent Advice Organisation Procurement Evaluation Panel?

What criteria will be used to select the independent advisor, and how will their independence be guaranteed? Who will define the remit of the advisor’s work? Will the advisor support residents in challenging decisions that adversely affect them, or simply provide advice on decisions already made by BCC and the developer? There are concerns that the remit of the independent advisor has already been defined, and that their role may be limited to endorsing decisions that have already been made—even those that negatively impact residents.

Will residents be given seats on the Ladywood Project Board?

Equality Assessment

The regeneration process was initiated without adequate preparation. For example, the Equality Impact Assessment published within the 2023 Cabinet Report was of poor quality. It relied on self-affirming language, emphasising regeneration benefits while minimising its negative effects—particularly on the elderly and people with disabilities. A more rigorous and transparent impact assessment is necessary. MP Shabana Mahmood’s survey has already highlighted a mental health crisis in the estate. Will the 2023 Equality Impact Assessment be updated as stated in section 7.6.2 of the 2023 Cabinet Report?

The Charter

A new version of the Community Charter was published on June 9. BCC claimed it was “developed in collaboration with the community after extensive consultation.” However, it has not provided any evidence to support this. A Freedom of Information (FOI) request for consultation data was refused, with the council stating that this data would only be shared in February 2025. As of now, there is no clear indication of how residents’ feedback has shaped the Charter.

In a letter sent to residents in May, Berkeley stated: “Whilst substantial work has already gone into the formation of the Charter, we believe that its latest draft needs further consultation with the wider community and soon to be formed Residents Steering Group before it can be published”

After the publication of the Charter on June 8, residents were given only until June 22 to respond. The survey does not allow for meaningful engagement with the content and the offer to residents, which is still largely unrepresentative of the residents’ views detailed in the Charter itself. The newly announced BCC workshops—one per tenure—have not been explicitly framed as focused on the Charter, but rather on the broader regeneration. This is not consultation.

Reassurances or commitments?

One noticeable aspect of the Charter is that the Welcome section tends to emphasise “reassurance” rather than articulating firm commitments to the community.

Consultation vs Engagement

Importantly, while the Regeneration Aims refer to “meaningful consultation,” the diagram in the Welcome section instead refers to “engagement.” This distinction is significant: there is a clear difference between engagement and consultation. Engagement remains discretional. Consultation is statutory. What is needed is binding consultation—not informal feedback sessions. If consultation is promised, it must follow statutory guidelines that are legally binding.

Furthermore, in the Regeneration Aims section, the previously stated commitment to a pro-active engagement approach and to fostering healthy debate—alongside a more detailed discussion on accessible communication, as seen in the draft charter—has been omitted from the current version.

Offer to council tenants

The offer to council tenants is more detailed than in previous iterations of the Charter. However, important questions remain regarding the actual provision of council housing.

Will the promised provision of 20% affordable housing relate to the 7,531 homes, or to a larger, increased total number of homes across the estate? How many of these 20% will be new homes?

Does the refurbishment of the 628 homes in the tower blocks and the demolition and reprovision of 638 council homes count toward the 20%?

LU was told that 10% of the homes in the regeneration will be social rent, which at the current proposition means a net loss of 500 social housing in the area. Clarity is needed in this regard.

In the draft Residents’ Charter (September 2024), the council promised a “fully refitted and refurbished tower blocks”. The current version of the charter says “refurbished tower blocks”. What is the difference?

The budget available for the refurbishment of council homes is quoted as £47.3 million in Appendix 2 C3 of the 2023 Full Business Case, and as £37.7 million in Section B of the same document.

What is the actual amount allocated for the refurbishment of existing homes? How will it interact with BCC’s ongoing capital investment in council properties in the area?

Will Berkeley work on refurbishment? Or will this work be subcontracted? To whom? Will it be BCC’s repair and maintenance’s contractor?

Council tenants within the regeneration area are currently raising concerns about the poor quality of maintenance and repairs, the lack of compensation for damages, and delays in addressing critical issues, including asbestos and aging soil and vent pipes.

Moreover, the risk of displacement is currently being downplayed based on the assumption that housing delivery will proceed as planned. Delays are a common part of the construction process. Such delays could result in council tenants being displaced and moved elsewhere, despite the Charter’s stated intention to minimise demolition and ensure residents are moved only once. What is the plan to minimise these risks for the community?

Offer to homeowners

The offer to homeowners has not evolved. The reference to “products that support with bridging a financial gap” remains too vague to offer genuine reassurance, let alone constitute a clear commitment.

Delays in the construction process may also significantly impact homeowners. Over time, time and delay might result in an increase of the cost gap between their current property and any new home they may need to purchase if affected by demolition.

Will residents affected by demolition be given a good-quality home without additional costs and without being worse off?

Offer to residents in temporary accommodation

Of particular concern is the offer to residents in temporary accommodation, which appears to have worsened. The previous Charter unconditionally stated: “Any household that has been in temporary accommodation for longer than 12 months will be entitled to a permanent home on the new Ladywood estate.” The new Charter now makes this offer conditional, stating that th offer to remain in the estate depends on whether “households have settled and established connections within the regeneration area prior to any outline planning approval being granted.”

Faith and community organisations

The offers made to faith groups and community organisations remain unchanged and provides no guarantees against demolition. The stated commitment to minimising disruption and demolition is immediately undermined by an acknowledgment that buildings could still be affected.

Businesses and Local Services

The September Draft indicated that council-funded professional support for these groups will extend beyond valuation and sale negotiations to also include assistance in relocating to alternative premises. The new version of the charter, however, only mentions help with valuation and sale negotiation, without explicitly including relocation support.