It is deeply concerning that 30% of residents — nearly half of those living outside the towers — appear to be facing displacement as a result of the Ladywood regeneration plans. Below, a resident has written to the Berkeley Group seeking clarification. We await their response.
Dear Berkeley Group,
I am writing re: the fourth paragraph of Steve Kirwan’s cover letter to the ‘Ladywood Consultation’ pamphlet which Berkeley Group has circulated to residents of the Ladywood Estate.
The final sentence of that paragraph states:
“In fact, our commitment is for at least 70% of the existing homes (all tenures) on the estate to either be retained, refurbished or replaced with new homes, ensuring that residents can move into their homes in a single move on the estate”.
It is not immediately clear why this sentence has been phrased in this way, nor why this decision has been made.
When I spoke with one of the Berkeley Group representatives on the Friday 13th June engagement event, he confirmed that the correct interpretation of this was that Berkeley Group are expecting to displace approximately 30% of households currently living within the estate (across all tenures). He also confirmed that Berkeley Group are aware of the current pattern of tenures within the existing estate, and when I asserted that the project was presumably budgeted on the assumption of a considerable increase in housing density (which the council’s own policies would indicate), he did not contradict this assertion.
This echoes what Berkeley Group representatives told Ladywood Unite members on 10th June. Berkeley representatives confirmed that 30% of homes would not be re-provided, and that private and housing association homes did not need to be re-provided.
I would appreciate some clarification on the specific 70%/30% ratio presupposed in the cover letter, for the following reasons:
A) The council as a whole, and the various elected political representatives covering the Ladywood ward and constituency, have repeatedly made assurances that nobody who wants to remain on the estate will be forced to leave, and that current residents will be able to remain if they want to. Berkeley Group instead seems to be basing its business plan on a presumption that up to 30% of currently-resident households will be displaced; it is not at all clear whether this target is intended to be reached solely through voluntary displacement.
B) The council has also asserted that the large tower blocks are out of scope for the regeneration and will not be demolished or replaced, so the 30% target for households to be displaced will presumably need to be sourced solely from within the lower-rise portions of the estate.
C) At the 13th June event, the information seemed to indicate that current private tenants (renters) would presumptively have no right to be rehomed on the estate. Please could you explain why this decision has been made – is this simply based on applying minimum national legal requirements, or has this decision been consulted on and tailored to the local community? Berkeley Group cannot meet its 30% displacement target solely by evicting all private tenants – there are not enough of them – and in any case, it would be obviously undesirable to do so. If Berkeley and Birmingham City Council have decided not to offer rehoming to any private tenants, why have they made this decision? If they are increasing the housing density, there should be plenty of housing to go round; Birmingham deserves better than the bare minimum legal expectations, and the regeneration project will be counter-productive if it increases housing pressure on other parts of the city by displacing Ladywood residents.
D) Berkeley Group may potentially be assuming that it can achieve its target voluntarily, either through natural residential churn over the course of the project, or by hoping that sufficient numbers of current residents decide to either accept social housing outside Ladywood, or to purchase properties elsewhere. I would be very much interested to see their working and to understand their assumptions; it does not seem intuitively clear how their target could be reached without significant risk of some involuntary displacement.
E) The regeneration project will presumably involve a significant increase in the number of homes in the estate. In this context, I would question why Berkeley Group has been permitted to set this 30% displacement target at all. There will undoubtedly be a percentage of current Ladywood residents who will want to move away of their own accord (if given the opportunity or sufficient bribes), or who will die before the regeneration project is complete – but it seems callous and unnecessary for Berkeley Group to presume that 30% of us (or an even higher proportion, for those outside the tower blocks) can be disposed of so easily.
I would welcome any clarity you may be in a position to provide regarding this 30% displacement figure. My specific questions are:
1) Can you confirm whether or not Berkeley Group’s business plan presumes that around 30% of households currently resident on the Ladywood estate will be displaced?
2) Can the Berkeley Group offer any guarantees that all current residents will be provided with realistic, financially viable options for remaining on the estate? If not, why not, and why has this policy decision been made?
3) The Berkeley Group must have arrived at the 70%/30% figure through some means (for example: by modelling this based on known tenure patterns, through previous experience with similar property development projects, by financial modelling, or via a random number generator). Would the Berkeley Group be willing to explain how and why it arrived at this figure, and why the council has apparently accepted it?
[Name/signature redacted for confidentiality]
Ladywood Unite 
Leave a comment