This week, David Cameron announced plans to redevelop 100 of the country’s poorest “sink estates.” In practice, this means that the government is to spend £140 million pulling down concrete tower blocks and erecting new houses in their place. Up to 360,000 extra homes could be created under the scheme.
Cameron has branded the scheme a “blitz” on poverty—a much-needed regeneration of run-down areas that will help tackle social decay. But its critics insist that poorer tenants will be forced out of their communities by sky-high rents—and aren’t swayed by government reassurances.
Are the sceptics right? Or is Cameron’s scheme an admirable attempt to address a pressing issue? Our panellists share their views.
Who could dislike the sound of David Cameron replacing “sink estates” with “better homes”? Britons would much rather live in a house than a tower block, and poll after poll backs this up. Improving their way of life is compassionate Conservatism in action.
The Prime Minister has picked an ideal target—“sink estates”—allowing him to seize the mantle of social mobility and “One Nation” centrist politics. Jeremy Corbyn has mocked the amount of money offered by the government, but has opened himself up to accusations that he doesn’t want council house residents to live better. Labour lost the last election because voters thought it was too soft on welfare, so further “pro-welfare” jibes will be politically damaging.
The government will have to make sure it gets the detail right in redeveloping “sink estates,” ensuring that affected residents aren’t left out of pocket—like those who had bought their homes under Right to Buy as part of Margaret Thatcher’s “property-owning democracy.” In terms of over-arching tone at least, the Prime Minister has picked a perfect war to fight.
When answering questions on "sink estates" in the House of Commons on 13th January the Prime Minister displayed a breathtaking degree of ignorance on housing that can only have been sustained by a growing arrogance. He suggested that people paid less than £10 for each hour they work would one day be able to save up to buy homes off the estates which he described as “affordable,” costing £450,000 or more. It would take them over 80 years from becoming an adult to pay the cost, even at very low interest rates. They would be dead before they were re-housed locally. David Cameron has to understand the lack of aspiration by his own party that consigns people to live in "sink estates". Conservative beliefs, ignorance and their dislocation from the lives of others create and sustain "sink estates"; just as Conservatives created, owned and profited from the slums of the past.
Too many of Britain’s post-war estates were badly designed and are poorly maintained. The Prime Minister is right to want to transform them.
Unloved by the public and by tenants, many estates are low density inefficient uses of space. Crucially, many are associated with higher rates of worklessness and crime. Of course, social problems on these estates run deeper than the buildings within which they unfold, but the Prime Minister is right to see estate redevelopment as a part of his wider “life chances” strategy. However, committing to transformation is one thing, delivering is another. £140 million will not go far—though it may serve to catalyse private sector investment. Demolition may be appropriate in some cases, but in most cases the focus will be on more subtle regeneration. Getting this right will be the real challenge.
The government's plan is misguided. Let’s be clear, any support for locally-led regeneration is welcome, but the fact is this government has halved investment in housing and slashed council budgets. Cameron talks about demolishing these so-called “sink estates,” but what is he replacing them with? People across the country will now be worried about the government having no plan to replace homes demolished with homes of the same tenure, ultimately forcing local people out of their communities.
I’ve listened to the Prime Minister talk about how the people on these estates feel, but has he actually asked them? It would be great if he would involve all members of those communities in regenerating their areas. Labours want to see locally-led regeneration, which increases, rather than diminishes, the amount of affordable homes, creating mixed and balanced communities for people to live in.
While the scheme is not “wrong” it certainly isn’t enough. Leaving aside concerns about the programme's relatively small amount of funding, two concerns are worth highlighting. Firstly, this is a continuation of the “brownfield” focused approach that this government and those before it have adopted. However there just isn’t enough Brownfield land to build the number of houses the country needs. And this is even more the case in the very expensive cities such as London, Oxford and Cambridge. The government needs to have an equal, if not greater focus, on releasing accessible, poor quality greenbelt land.
Secondly, the PM’s speech was made in the context of needing to improve the life chances of individuals and families on these "sink estates". A laudable ambition. But the assumption that by improving poor quality housing this will transform the life chances of individuals on those estates is misplaced. The global evidence review undertaken by the What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth found that estate renewal programmes have limited impacts on the local area in terms of increasing income or employment, reducing crime, improving health, wellbeing or education. Any investment in the physical environment of an estate needs to be more than matched by investment in the people living on that estate.
In principle, demolishing ageing housing estates and rebuilding at a higher density is a good idea. But there are major hurdles to overcome if Cameron’s plan is to progress beyond a good idea. The £140m Cameron has stumped up is peanuts; a sum almost laughably low for one estate—let alone 100. Estate regeneration is risky, costs billions, and takes a long time. This means developers and investors require big returns. In lieu of government funding, developers build homes for sale and private rent in order to achieve these returns—often reducing the number of social rented homes in the process.
Under Cameron’s proposals, local authorities will put in land and developers will build to a higher density, thus making it viable to replace affordable housing like for like alongside homes for sale and rent. In reality, it is far from certain this will be deliverable. Furthermore, there is no indication that pension funds (which are expected to pick up the tab) will take on the development risk.
The other big hurdle is the longstanding tenants whose homes he proposes to demolish. Many will, understandably, fear being priced out. Mr Cameron has been cagey about making specific guarantees about the affordability of replacement homes. His solution has been to take “steps to reduce political and reputational risk for projects’ key decision-makers and investors”—hardly the way to win hearts and minds.
Cameron has branded the scheme a “blitz” on poverty—a much-needed regeneration of run-down areas that will help tackle social decay. But its critics insist that poorer tenants will be forced out of their communities by sky-high rents—and aren’t swayed by government reassurances.
Are the sceptics right? Or is Cameron’s scheme an admirable attempt to address a pressing issue? Our panellists share their views.
A perfect war to fight
Asa Bennett, Assistant Comment Editor at the Daily TelegraphWho could dislike the sound of David Cameron replacing “sink estates” with “better homes”? Britons would much rather live in a house than a tower block, and poll after poll backs this up. Improving their way of life is compassionate Conservatism in action.
The Prime Minister has picked an ideal target—“sink estates”—allowing him to seize the mantle of social mobility and “One Nation” centrist politics. Jeremy Corbyn has mocked the amount of money offered by the government, but has opened himself up to accusations that he doesn’t want council house residents to live better. Labour lost the last election because voters thought it was too soft on welfare, so further “pro-welfare” jibes will be politically damaging.
The government will have to make sure it gets the detail right in redeveloping “sink estates,” ensuring that affected residents aren’t left out of pocket—like those who had bought their homes under Right to Buy as part of Margaret Thatcher’s “property-owning democracy.” In terms of over-arching tone at least, the Prime Minister has picked a perfect war to fight.
Breath-taking ignorance
Danny Dorling, Halford Mackinder Professor of Geography at Oxford University and author of books on social inequality and housingWhen answering questions on "sink estates" in the House of Commons on 13th January the Prime Minister displayed a breathtaking degree of ignorance on housing that can only have been sustained by a growing arrogance. He suggested that people paid less than £10 for each hour they work would one day be able to save up to buy homes off the estates which he described as “affordable,” costing £450,000 or more. It would take them over 80 years from becoming an adult to pay the cost, even at very low interest rates. They would be dead before they were re-housed locally. David Cameron has to understand the lack of aspiration by his own party that consigns people to live in "sink estates". Conservative beliefs, ignorance and their dislocation from the lives of others create and sustain "sink estates"; just as Conservatives created, owned and profited from the slums of the past.
It’s about life chances
David Kirkby, Senior Research Fellow, Conservative think tank Bright BlueToo many of Britain’s post-war estates were badly designed and are poorly maintained. The Prime Minister is right to want to transform them.
Unloved by the public and by tenants, many estates are low density inefficient uses of space. Crucially, many are associated with higher rates of worklessness and crime. Of course, social problems on these estates run deeper than the buildings within which they unfold, but the Prime Minister is right to see estate redevelopment as a part of his wider “life chances” strategy. However, committing to transformation is one thing, delivering is another. £140 million will not go far—though it may serve to catalyse private sector investment. Demolition may be appropriate in some cases, but in most cases the focus will be on more subtle regeneration. Getting this right will be the real challenge.
Regeneration, not demolition
Roberta Blackman-Woods, MP for the City of Durham and Shadow Minister for Communities and Local Government, covering housingThe government's plan is misguided. Let’s be clear, any support for locally-led regeneration is welcome, but the fact is this government has halved investment in housing and slashed council budgets. Cameron talks about demolishing these so-called “sink estates,” but what is he replacing them with? People across the country will now be worried about the government having no plan to replace homes demolished with homes of the same tenure, ultimately forcing local people out of their communities.
I’ve listened to the Prime Minister talk about how the people on these estates feel, but has he actually asked them? It would be great if he would involve all members of those communities in regenerating their areas. Labours want to see locally-led regeneration, which increases, rather than diminishes, the amount of affordable homes, creating mixed and balanced communities for people to live in.
Laudable ambition
Andrew Carter, Deputy Chief Executive of the Centre for Cities research and policy instituteWhile the scheme is not “wrong” it certainly isn’t enough. Leaving aside concerns about the programme's relatively small amount of funding, two concerns are worth highlighting. Firstly, this is a continuation of the “brownfield” focused approach that this government and those before it have adopted. However there just isn’t enough Brownfield land to build the number of houses the country needs. And this is even more the case in the very expensive cities such as London, Oxford and Cambridge. The government needs to have an equal, if not greater focus, on releasing accessible, poor quality greenbelt land.
Secondly, the PM’s speech was made in the context of needing to improve the life chances of individuals and families on these "sink estates". A laudable ambition. But the assumption that by improving poor quality housing this will transform the life chances of individuals on those estates is misplaced. The global evidence review undertaken by the What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth found that estate renewal programmes have limited impacts on the local area in terms of increasing income or employment, reducing crime, improving health, wellbeing or education. Any investment in the physical environment of an estate needs to be more than matched by investment in the people living on that estate.
A question of deliverability
Nick Duxbury, Executive Editor, Inside HousingIn principle, demolishing ageing housing estates and rebuilding at a higher density is a good idea. But there are major hurdles to overcome if Cameron’s plan is to progress beyond a good idea. The £140m Cameron has stumped up is peanuts; a sum almost laughably low for one estate—let alone 100. Estate regeneration is risky, costs billions, and takes a long time. This means developers and investors require big returns. In lieu of government funding, developers build homes for sale and private rent in order to achieve these returns—often reducing the number of social rented homes in the process.
Under Cameron’s proposals, local authorities will put in land and developers will build to a higher density, thus making it viable to replace affordable housing like for like alongside homes for sale and rent. In reality, it is far from certain this will be deliverable. Furthermore, there is no indication that pension funds (which are expected to pick up the tab) will take on the development risk.
The other big hurdle is the longstanding tenants whose homes he proposes to demolish. Many will, understandably, fear being priced out. Mr Cameron has been cagey about making specific guarantees about the affordability of replacement homes. His solution has been to take “steps to reduce political and reputational risk for projects’ key decision-makers and investors”—hardly the way to win hearts and minds.
