Approaches to regeneration
The 2026 Plan appears to have become less prescriptive about how regeneration and housing delivery should take place, particularly in relation to mechanisms for securing community benefits and supporting alternative models of development. This is significant because some of the provisions contained in earlier versions of the Plan have either been removed or substantially weakened.
Community-led development
Community-Led Development has been removed as a Local Plan policy in the 2026 document. This is a significant change from the 2025 Plan, which recognised community-led housing as part of its approach to regeneration.
The earlier policy recognised community-led housing as a model in which homes are developed by or with a not-for-profit organisation to meet the needs of members or the wider community, rather than primarily as a commercial enterprise. The 2025 Plan also referred to the Council’s objective of achieving 5% of new homes through community-led development by 2031, in line with its Housing Strategy.
The 2026 Plan retains references to community-led energy initiatives, but community-led housing is no longer supported through a dedicated Local Plan policy.
This represents a loss of policy support for a form of housing delivery that can give communities a greater role in shaping regeneration and can provide an alternative to predominantly commercial development models. If the Council intends to retain its objective of increasing community-led housing, the Local Plan should explain how this objective will be supported in the absence of a specific policy mechanism.
The Plan should therefore reinstate a clear policy framework for community-led housing and development, including mechanisms for identifying and supporting suitable sites and delivering the Council’s stated ambition for community-led homes.
Protecting existing housing
The Plan continues to recognise the importance of protecting and improving Birmingham’s existing housing stock, and in some respects strengthens the wording of previous drafts. The 2026 Plan requires the loss of residential accommodation to be justified by demonstrable public benefits arising from a change of use, or to provide essential infrastructure or community facilities.
The Plan also promotes the retrofit and improvement of existing homes, recognising that making better use of existing buildings can reduce the carbon emissions associated with demolition and rebuilding.
However, there is a potential gap between these objectives and the specific protection offered to existing family housing. The stronger protection proposed for existing two-, three- and four-bedroom C3 dwellings against conversion into flats, HMOs and other forms of shared housing applies to conversion, but does not appear to provide equivalent protection where those homes are to be demolished.
This distinction matters. A policy may protect existing homes from conversion while still allowing their permanent loss through redevelopment. Where demolition and replacement are not subject to equivalent safeguards, there is a risk that regeneration schemes could result in the loss of existing family housing rather than its improvement, adaptation and continued use.
The Plan should therefore provide equivalent protection for existing family housing where demolition and redevelopment are proposed, and should demonstrate that redevelopment will not result in an unnecessary loss of suitable existing homes. The presumption should be towards retaining, retrofitting and adapting existing housing
This post is an extract from a longer post about the Birmingham Local Plan, published on the LinkedIn page of the BLUEPRINTS project. Read the longer post here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/housing-regeneration-when-local-plan-risks-becoming-marco-di-nunzio-rrise/
Ladywood Unite 
Leave a comment