Unanswered questions at the Scrutiny meeting

On September 11, the Ladywood Regeneration was discussed at the Homes Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The answers given to councillors’ questions raised further concerns about the regeneration.

The context

“A report without context is very difficult to understand,” the Chair of the committee noted at the beginning of the meeting.

The report submitted to the committee, and the responses provided during the meeting—including the assertion that nothing of significance occurred between the official launch of the regeneration in February 2019 and the signing of the contract in April 2025—did not sufficiently set out the broader context of the regeneration.

The period immediately preceding the launch in 2019, as well as the developments between that point and the June 2023 Cabinet Report—when the scheme was first publicly announced to residents—are the factors that have ultimately shaped the circumstances of today’s regeneration.

The first concerns the breakdown of democratic representation; the second, the bidding process.

Residents were not involved in the longlisting and shortlisting of potential options for redeveloping the Ladywood Estate, prior to the bidding process. The February 2019 Cabinet Report mentions that local residents’ representatives had been “consulted through a forum established by local ward members” ahead of the completion of the report. Yet, despite repeated requests for information, there is no clear public evidence of when these meetings occurred, who was invited and why, how many attended, or whether these sessions were genuine workshops enabling residents to influence the scheme—or merely informative briefings.

In June, August, and December 2019, ward councillors promised residents that they would be fully engaged. It is important to acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic that followed may have disrupted these plans. However, the rapid adaptation of institutional and working life during 2020 also provided the tools and knowledge needed to engage residents in a timely way.

By contrast, BCC proceeded with engagement with prospective bidders during the “social dialogue” phase of the procurement process throughout 2020.

The procurement process itself involved a sole bidder. While this is permissible under the regulatory framework, it is not considered best practice in public procurement and raises concerns about competitiveness and accountability.

What is for the residents?

The committee repeatedly asked what the regeneration will actually deliver for residents.

It is welcome that principles 7 and 8 from the 2019 Cabinet Report—absent from documentation since June 2023—have reappeared in the latest materials.

In Appendix 5, the Council commits to “regenerating Ladywood for the benefit of the local community,” including the delivery of “new, high-quality social housing” and “ensuring that the existing community is retained and involved in the development of the new neighbourhood.”

Responses in the meeting highlighted commitments by BCC and Berkeley to accelerate the reprovision and refurbishment of council homes, secure Tower Fund investment for refurbishing tower blocks, and deliver a minimum of 20% affordable housing.

 These are important commitments, but further details are needed.

• Does the provision of 20% affordable housing relate to the 7,531 homes, or to a larger, increased total number of homes across the estate?
• Do the refurbishment of 628 tower block homes and the reprovision of 638 council homes count toward the 20%?
• How many of these 20% will be new homes?

Moreover, affordable housing is not social housing. Representatives of Ladywood Unite were 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 urgently needed.

The commitment to “build first” is welcome, yet further information is essential, as the risk of displacement is currently being downplayed.

• If the regeneration aims to retain the existing community and deliver benefits for local residents, why is it anticipated that at least 30% of homes across all tenures—amounting to nearly 600 households and more than 1,500 people—may face displacement?
• What guarantees exist that the retention of the current provision of social housing and the “opportunity for private homeowners to stay in the area” (4.2.1) will not be subject to changes arising from viability or value engineering?

Moreover, the “build first” approach rests on the assumption that housing delivery will proceed as planned. In practice, delays are a common feature of large-scale construction projects. Any such delays could result in council tenants—and existing residents more broadly—being displaced and rehoused elsewhere.

It is understood that Tower Fund investment will complement BCC’s ongoing capital investment in council properties. Yet residents already report poor maintenance, lack of compensation for damage, and delays in resolving critical issues, including asbestos and failing soil and vent pipes. How will repair performance and compensation processes be improved?

Councillor Trickett’s question also remains unanswered: “How are we actually going to ensure that people who’ve worked really hard to secure owner occupation aren’t disadvantaged by this regeneration?”

Community Engagement

It was claimed that the regeneration has been “heavy on community engagement,” with surveys and workshops taking place since October 2023. However, concerns remain about their reach and the selective use of residents’ feedback.

Council officers themselves admitted in a meeting (attended by Ladywood Unite representatives) that they had “cherry-picked” feedback when drafting the Residents’ Charter. Similarly, the Understanding Ladywood feedback reports reframed demands to remain in Ladywood into something residents merely “value,” making this appear optional. The reports also introduced a distinction between “expectations” and “non-negotiables” that was never presented to residents in workshops, which instead focused on priorities, community needs, and suggestions. This reinterpretation risks deprioritising matters central to current residents.

This tendency was repeated in the scrutiny meeting and report, where residents’ concerns about displacement were notably absent from the list of “common themes” emerging from workshops.

Masterplan

The existence of an illustrative masterplan—with phases and housing numbers—has long been contentious, prompting FOI requests and journalistic investigations.

Serious concerns remain about residents’ ability to shape decisions that may result in displacement or radically transform their neighbourhood.

Responses at the scrutiny meeting claimed the aspiration was “to have something tangible for the community to comment on, dissect, challenge us on, and participate in during the early part of next year.” But will residents be able to challenge the masterplan as a whole, or only minor details within an already-decided framework?

Governance

At scrutiny, it was emphasised that “strong governance” was “wrapped around” the regeneration, including relations with WMCA, an internal strategic board reporting to the major projects board at BCC, a partnership board, and an implementation board. None of these bodies include resident representation. Why not?

The Steering Group has been established to represent residents’ views. Yet, the remit of this group seem to be already pre-defined.  

At the meeting, it was explained that the group will be responsible for monitoring BCC and Berkeley’s performance against the Charter. As such, the role of Steering Group is one of compliance monitoring rather than decision-making – and this in relation to a document, the Charter, the drafting of which has been characterised by a selective use of residents’ input.

The report sent to scrutiny also claimed the Steering Group “is representative of the existing community, ensuring that the broadest range of views and voices are reflected in the group’s makeup”. Yet a briefing note for prospective members stated: “clearly if you do not support any kind of regeneration then your membership of the group would not be practical”.

The selection of an independent advice organisation is also crucial. As it was stated in one of the responses to the scrutiny committee, the Council should not be marking its own homework. Yet concerns remain.

It was claimed that “residents have informed the specification” of the independent advice involvement. The report submitted to the Scrutiny meeting also stated that “a representative panel of residents developed the quality and social value questions.” This assertion requires further context, particularly regarding how the extent of their involvement, and the degree to which their input shaped the final outcome.

In practice, the focus group that was involved in discussing the quality and social value questions was attended by only nine residents. Participants were asked to provide opinions on pre-set questions, and the process itself was difficult to follow, rendering it poorly suited to meaningful engagement.

Equalities

The report to scrutiny stated that there are no specific implications about equalities at this stage. However, two years have passed since the last Equality Impact Assessment (EIA).

The 2023 EIA, published as an appendix to the Cabinet Report, was of poor quality. It relied on self-affirming language emphasising the benefits of regeneration while downplaying potential negative impacts, particularly for Black communities, elderly residents, people with disabilities and local religious communities..

A more rigorous and transparent impact assessment is necessary. Will the 2023 Equality Impact Assessment be updated as stated in section 7.6.2 of the 2023 Cabinet Report?