At the end of 2024, a survey by MP Shabana Mahmood painted a daunting picture: 86% of respondents said regeneration had negatively affected their mental health; 71% opposed the plans; and over seven in ten rated the Council’s handling of regeneration as “very bad”.
Since beginning research in Ladywood in October 2023, what I have consistently heard from residents is a shared sense of exhaustion. Many feel regeneration has been imposed upon them, with profound consequences and little meaningful space to shape decisions. Residents told me they would rather spend time with family and neighbours than repeatedly attend consultations to fight to be heard.
The threat of demolition has already had consequences. It has prevented residents from imagining a long-term future in the area. It undermined tenants’ sense of security and discouraged homeowners from investing in their homes.
Council tenants worry about being moved to non–like-for-like homes, losing gardens, ground-floor access suited to health needs, and neighbourly ties. Those newly eligible for Right to Buy fear being relocated to more expensive and less suitable housing
Homeowners and leaseholders argue market-value compensation will not secure a comparable local home. Many reject shared equity because it limits sale and inheritance. For residents from migrant backgrounds who worked for decades to achieve homeownership, losing their home represents not simply relocation but a rupture in a hard-won trajectory of social mobility.
Mental health impacts are tangible. Some residents report being on mental health benefits due to demolition-related anxiety, while fearing that compensation arrangements could jeopardise that support. Insecurity compounds insecurity.
Meanwhile, the community centre has closed, religious buildings are under threat, and the prospect of displacement is weakening a social fabric built over decades. As one long-term resident and council tenant told me: “It’s like the branches of my roots have been cut off.”
I will address the Chair’s questions in three parts: premises, gains and benefits, and participation, and conclude with three practical recommendations.
Premises.
An underlying optimism bias has shaped the assessment of trade-offs
The 2023 Equality Impact Assessment emphasised regeneration’s benefits while downplaying its negative impacts, including on Black residents, older residents, and people with disabilities. Although it acknowledged that Black residents would be disproportionately affected, it concluded the impact would be “positive overall” without clear evidence or targeted mitigation; references to new community spaces, improved education, and connectivity were not specific measures addressing racialised impacts.
For older residents, it recognised potential mortgage difficulties and emotional distress, yet offered no substantive support beyond information about the CPO process. For people with disabilities, despite acknowledging possible loss of agency, the principal commitment was “open and transparent” communication.
Residents report communication has been neither. Moreover, communication alone is not mitigation. Where impacts are foreseeable, substantive protections are required.
Gains and benefits.
A distinction must be made between diffused benefits — improved public realm — and tangible material gains for individual households.
Recent workshops have focused on design aspirations, without clearly setting out what individual households stand to gain or lose.
It is therefore unsurprising that residents have consistently demanded like-for-like replacement at no additional cost, and a guarantee not to be made worse off. That demand only now features in the Charter’s section on “Community Views”. Yet that demand is not substantively addressed.
Regeneration should not merely avoid making residents worse off; it should make them better off.
For instance, the Development Agreement refers to reprovision or refurbishment of existing 1,266 council-owned homes and states that 20% of all units will be “affordable”. The Charter refers to a 50/50 split between affordable sale and affordable rent, with an intention to prioritise social rent. However, the precise proportion of social rent remains unclear.
We know that refurbished tower blocks are excluded from the count. However, if a substantial part of this provision simply replaces the remaining 784 social rent homes, the net gain will be minimal in a city where over 25,000 households remain on the social housing waiting list
All commitments, including the one to homeowners, are subject to viability assessments, which may reduce the delivery of social housing and potentially increase demolition rate over the course of the project. Value engineering presents further risks. FOI data show that in Birmingham between 2018 and 2023, just over 4,500 affordable homes were approved at planning stage but only just over 1500 were delivered.
Contract provisions add concern, in particular the fact that according to the clause 4.3.14 the developer may be allowed to move to a new phase even if key planning conditions for the previous phase are unmet.
Firm guarantees are therefore essential.
Clarity is particularly urgent regarding existing tower blocks. Durham Tower illustrates that essential works should not depend on resident mobilisation before action is taken.
Meanwhile, charter language referring to “intentions” and “wherever possible” fuels uncertainty. A build-first principle is welcome in theory, but it is not an unconditional guarantee of the right to return and remain.
A Local Lettings Plan and Rehousing Strategy is reportedly forthcoming. Why only now? Why has this not preceded key agreements? And how will residents shape it?
Participation.
The process for finalising the Charter has largely involved eliciting feedback on pre-formatted questions rather than co-production, creating the risk of selective use of residents’ input. As a one officer admitted, residents’ feedback had been “cherry-picked.”
Participation levels are concerning. Only 16 people applied to join the Residents’ Steering Group. Workshop attendance fell from 177 in July to 140 in December. These figures suggest disengagement and limited reach. Without a pause and rethink, disengagement risks being used to justify going ahead without residents’ meaningful involvement.
In July, residents felt their knowledge was being used to design a neighbourhood they might not live in. In December, some were left standing in the rain and cold without seating. Information was confusing, including contradictory dates about when residents would be told their regeneration category.
Meanwhile, the sequencing of engagement has changed without clear explanation. Earlier planned discussions on regeneration opportunities were postponed while later-stage sessions on Masterplanning principles went ahead, without clarity on rationale.
The report to scrutiny stated that key lessons for the future include the need of engaging non-English speakers, elderly, disabled, neurodiverse residents, people living with dementia, and Council/Registered Provider tenants. The timing is difficult to justify. Why has this only been acknowledged now, seven years into the process?
At the last scrutiny meeting, “strong governance” was said to “wrap around” the regeneration Yet, none of the boards governing the regeneration includes resident representation.
The Residents’ Steering Group is neither elected nor demographically reflective. Ladywood is 77% Black and Asian minorities, yet the group does not reflect this. Promised positive action to support participation from these communities has not materialised. Residents report not hearing back about attempts to join, with no explanation for exclusion. Processes rely heavily on email and lengthy digital documents, Members had limited time to review key texts, such as the terms of reference, and residents edits to governing documents were only selectively incorporated.
Overall, there is growing concern that key decisions have already been made.
The Charter is described as “live” document, yet it is unclear how residents can amend it.
The reference to “over 7,500 homes”, possibly 12,000 homes in Development Agreement signals a significant shift, with increasing housing numbers and density – a decision being made without public scrutiny.
Meanwhile, residents have repeatedly been told nothing substantive has been decided.
For instance, during July workshops residents were told phases were not agreed. Yet the Development Agreement, signed in April, contained extensive references to development plans and phasing provisions and, notably what appears to be a phasing map or plan. All being redacted out.
In conclusion, three recommendations.
Governance. The Residents’ Steering Group should be elected, not selected, and structured by block representation, similar to Woodberry Down. Elected representatives should sit with decision-making powers on the project board, expanding the Partnership to involve the community.
Transparency. All regeneration documents, including unredacted phasing provisions in the Development Agreement, should be published. Transparency is essential for accountability.
Participation. The Charter committed to a Powered by People approach, yet participation remains at the level of conversation rather than collaboration and empowerment. The Residents’ Steering Group lacks power to shape outcomes, and members I talked to expressed fear their involvement risks becoming a tick-box exercise. Meanwhile engagement with residents is structured around eliciting feedback on pre-formatted questions rather than co-design. The problem is that feedback is discretionary, not binding.
Participation must move toward genuine collaboration and empowerment — through governance reform, firm guarantees for residents, and direct involvement in spatial and design decisions, for example through Planning for Real–type exercises, co-production and similar participatory tools.
Ladywood Unite 
Leave a comment