On April 30, BCC and Berkeley signed a development agreement that was largely kept from public scrutiny.
On September 26, a heavily redacted version of the agreement was shared as evidence of a commitment to “being open and transparent throughout the regeneration process and this next stage of consultation and planning.”
A reading of the agreement raises several concerns and questions around democracy, the communication of phases, the ways in which BCC and Berkeley will control the flow of information to the community, the proposed housing provision and the influence of viability, the nature of the “meanwhile offer,” and BCC and Berkeley’s commitment to local value and the environment.
Phases
The Development Agreement dedicates a significant amount of space to the project’s phasing.
The Development Agreement was signed on April 30, yet residents were told months later — including during the July workshops — that the phases had not been agreed upon. This raises serious concerns about transparency and the authenticity of the communication with the community.
Specifically, the Agreement contains at least 125 pages detailing phase leases and phase development agreements, including what appears to be a phasing map or plan (the indicative draft phasing plan) — all of which have been redacted.
Further details regarding land assembly, phase viability, specifications, the programme, the development execution plan, and over 300 pages — the subject of which remains unknown — have also been withheld from public scrutiny.
Withholding Information
It is concerning — or at least requires further explanation — why requests for information about the regeneration are subject to consultation with the Development Partner before “confirming or denying that such information is held and/or disclosing the information” (clause 17.4.1).
Was the Council’s and Berkeley’s denial during the July workshop — that the phasing had already been agreed — a result of this clause?
Similarly, why was the contract, even in its heavily redacted form, released at all?
Was this done because it was “legally requisite” (clause 18.1.3)?
If so, further explanation is needed as to why the Development Agreement was only made public now, rather than closer to the date of its signing.
Housing Provision
The “minimum requirements” of the agreement include the reprovision or refurbishment of all 1,266 council-owned properties.
The Agreement also states that 20% of all housing units across the project will be “affordable.” This figure excludes the refurbished tower blocks but includes the remaining 638 council homes and 146 homes owned by registered providers.
However, the Development Agreement does not include a breakdown of what constitutes “affordable” housing, nor does it clarify whether that 20% includes any social housing.
What exactly 20% affordable housing amounts to is also unknown, as the exact number of homes to be built is not specified.
In this regard, the reference to “over 7,500 homes” suggests a significant change from the 2023 Cabinet Report — a change that appears to have taken place without public scrutiny.
Any change to the total housing count requires public discussion. An additional increase in density would also necessitate the provision of further services, which the current agreement does not appear to account for.
Viability and the retainment of the existing
The proposed “affordable” housing is tied to financial viability — the developer must secure a 20% profit margin — meaning the amount ultimately delivered could be far lower if those profit targets aren’t met.
This could affect not only the delivery of new affordable housing, but also the amount of existing social housing that is reprovided, despite early assurances, resulting in higher levels of displacement in the area.
Provisions within the contract give further cause for concern.
According to the agreement, the developer may proceed to a new phase even if key planning conditions for the previous phase have not been met. Will this apply to the commitment to reprovide all council properties by the end of Phase 1?
Moreover, under Clause 3.6, Berkeley and the Council are entitled, “at their absolute discretion and in writing,” to waive Phase conditions — conditions that are not publicly accessible.
Meanwhile, the commitment to homeowners is minimal, consisting of a vague offer of the “opportunity for existing private homeowners to stay,” which falls short of residents’ demands for a like-for-like, no additional cost guarantee
The Tower Refurbishment Fund
The Tower Refurbishment Fund, the value of which has been redacted, is to be provided by Berkeley but managed by the Council.
Given the Council’s long record of negligence in maintenance and repair, and the lack of public scrutiny over contractor performance, this is troubling.
While the recent Asset Management Strategy promises new kitchens and bathrooms, concerns remain. Residents continue report poor maintenance, lack of compensation for damage, and delays in resolving critical issues, including asbestos and failing soil and vent pipes.
Democracy
The Agreement states that changes to the project’s cannot be requested if they “would make a Phase less financially viable.”
This raises concerns that, in practice, the agreement limits the community’s ability to meaningfully shape the unfolding of the regeneration through the coming rounds of consultation, while the Council may already have agreed to terms that are potentially disadvantageous to residents and lack a clear democratic mandate or public oversight.
In this regard, the absence of any provision allowing residents to influence or shape these amendments is concerning. Their participation, it seems, is conditional on the agreement of the Council and the Developer.
Equally troubling is the lack of any provision for residents’ views or representation on the Project Board. Why have they been excluded?
The Meanwhile Offer
The Meanwhile Offer focuses on the temporary use of land during redevelopment — such as public art, community gardens, pop-up events, and food festivals. While welcome, these initiatives are insufficient given the scale of disruption and distress the regeneration will cause, and the lack of clear guarantees for residents’ right to remain in the area.
Local Value
“Local value” is primarily understood in terms of employment within the construction sector. However, what provisions exist for those seeking employment in other sectors?
The “local” area is defined as extending up to 30 miles, encompassing areas beyond Ladywood and even outside the city limits. To what extent are these provisions targeted at residents affected by the Ladywood regeneration?
Why will the Ladywood Community Development Trust be run primarily by Berkeley? Why was the structure not designed to support an independently run community board?
Environment
Temporary greening — including wildflower meadows, beehives, bug hotels, and green hoardings — might be welcome, but risks amounting more to a performative ecology than to a substantive environmental transformation.
The environmental section relies heavily on Berkeley Group’s corporate targets — net zero by 2040 and “carbon positive” status — as evidence of sustainability. However, these are group-wide goals, not binding commitments within the Ladywood Development Agreement.
Environmental measures focus largely on construction-site management (reducing energy use, using motion sensors, biodiesel, electric excavators, and on-site waste remediation). These actions mitigate short-term construction impacts but fail to address the ecological footprint of demolition.
For instance, there is no assessment of embodied carbon from demolishing existing structures. A Carbon Management and Action Plan is mentioned as forthcoming but not included, leaving it unclear how emissions, offsets, and monitoring will be managed within Ladywood itself.
Ladywood Unite 
Leave a comment