Proof of Evidence Aylesbury Estate Compulsory Purchase Order (2014) APP/NPCU/CPO/A5840/74092RD London Borough of Southwark Public Inquiry January 2018 Dr Michael E Leary-Owhin1 2 3 PG Dip TP, MSc, MA (Lond), PhD (Lond), MRTPI, FHEA, FRSA 1 2 3 © Michael Leary-Owhin Please note that in 2014 I changed my name from Leary to Leary-Owhin Cover image, Chiltern House at Dusk © Michael Leary-Owhin Contents List of Appendices 1 Introduction 2 Scope of Evidence 3 Preamble 4 Proposals for the Compulsory Purchase Order Land 5 Representing the Aylesbury Estate 6 Mapping Deprivation in Southwark 7 Urban Regeneration: definition and challenges 8 Gentrification: a derogatory term 9 The Community Conundrum 10 Regeneration Policy 11 Mixed Communities-based Regeneration 12 Underpinnings and Critiques of Mixed Communities Policy 13 Mixed Communities Policy 14 Evaluation of the First Development Site Proposals 15 Regeneration Benefits 16 Conclusions and Key Issues 17 Statement of truth and declaration 2 List of Appendices MLO 1 Conceptualising Public and Quasi-public space MLO 2 Residents’ Representations of the Aylesbury Estate MLO 3 Lefebvre’s Spatial Triad: explication and interpretation MLO 4 IMD 2015 Scores for the Aylesbury Estate MLO 5 A Gentrification Balance Sheet MLO 6 A View on Gentrification and the Impact of Churn MLO 7 Relevant Estate Regeneration Case Studies MLO 8 Rehousing the Aylesbury MLO 9 Views of Estate Residents who have been Rehoused MLO 10 Mixed Communities Regeneration (Policy Extracts) 3 1 Introduction Qualifications, experience and relevant publications 1.1 My name is Michael Leary-Owhin. I live in Lambeth. I first visited the Aylesbury Estate (the Estate) when I came to live in London in 1992, since then I visited family and friends on the Estate many times in the 1990s. I have visited the Estate recently for site visits with our postgraduate planning students and I have visited the Estate several times in connection with this Public Inquiry. 1.2 I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute (since 1988) and have the following relevant qualifications: 1. Postgraduate Diploma Town Planning (1985) 2. MSc Urban Planning (1985) 3. MA Culture Globalisation and the City (2003) 4. PhD Urban Regeneration and Public Space (2011) 1.3 I have 30 years’ experience in planning and urban regeneration. I am a Senior Lecturer at London South Bank University (since 1992). Before that I was a Principal Planning Officer, South Oxfordshire District Council (1988 – 92). I have given expert witness evidence at over ten planning public inquiries. Over the years I have taught planning and regeneration at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. I have carried out relevant research, published books and academic journal articles, presented papers at major international conferences and devised and delivered relevant Continuing Professional Development training for practitioners, including giving evidence at public inquiries. 1.4 I have over the years worked as a planning consultant for the public and private sectors and been awarded research grants and commissions by the public and private sectors. Recently, I was interviewed by The Guardian newspaper and Global TV News Canada regarding urban regeneration and public space. I sit on the editorial board (since 2012) of the international peer reviewed journal Urban, Planning and Transport Research (Routledge). In addition I am peer reviewer in the fields of urban planning and regeneration research for academic publishers: 4   Policy Press, Bristol (book proposals) Peer reviewed journals Urban, Planning and Transport Research Urban Planning Local Economy Space and Culture Postcolonial Text 1.5 Relevant recent publications and conferences - Leary-Owhin, M. E. and McCarthy, J. P. (eds) (forthcoming 2018) The Routledge Handbook of Henri Lefebvre, the City and Urban Society, Routledge - Special Issue Editor for the international peer reviewed journal Urban Planning, Issue entitled “Urban Planning and the Spatial Ideas of Henri Lefebvre”. (forthcoming 2018) - Leary-Owhin, M.E. (2016) Exploring the production of urban space: Differential space in three post-industrial cities, Policy Press - Leary, M. E. and McCarthy, J. P. (eds) (2013) The Routledge Companion to Urban Regeneration, Routledge - Leary-Owhin M. E. (2017) “Urban Abandonment and Quasi-public Space: a new Lefebvrian approach” paper presented at AESOP 2017 Spaces of Dialogue for places of Dignity, Lisbon, 11-14 July - Leary-Owhin M. E. (2017) Convenor, Session 24 “The Right to The City: urban and global justice”, RC21 Conference, Rethinking Urban Global Justice: An international academic conference for critical urban studies, Leeds University, 11-13 September 2 Scope of evidence 5 2.1 At the heart of this proof of evidence is an evaluation of the regeneration benefits and disbenefits of the First Development Site (FDS) proposals for the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) Land. In my evidence I will describe, explain and analyse how the FDS proposals are likely to impact on the Aylesbury Estate and contribute to the well-being of Estate residents in Sites 1b and 1c, in the interests of the residents and in the wider public interest. In order to do this I will provide an explanation and discussion of four complex concepts: ‘gentrification’, ‘community’, ‘regeneration' and ‘mixed communities’. I will draw in particular on the following documents: - National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (CD33) - Estate Regeneration National Strategy (2016) (CD 73) - The London Plan (2016) (extracts at CD 71) - Homes For Londoners: Draft Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration (2016) (CD74) - London Borough of Southwark Core Strategy (2011) (CD 21) - The Aylesbury Estate Area Action Plan (2010) (AAAP 2010) (CD 2) - Section 106 Obligation (August 2015) between London Borough of Southwark (the Council) and Notting Hill Housing Trust (Notting Hill) (CD64) - Deed of Clarification 14 October 2015 (Section 106 Obligation) (CD 65) - The Development Partnership Agreement between the Council and Notting Hill (CD68) - Outline Planning Permission 14/AP/3844 (2015) (CD62) - Full Planning Permission 14/AP/3843 (2015) (CD62) - First Development Site Design & Access Statement (14/AP/3843) (CD19) 2.2 Specifically, I will: a) focus on the three tests in section 226 (1A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (CD 72): 6 226 Compulsory acquisition of land for development and other planning purposes. (1) A local authority to whom this section applies shall, on being authorised to do so by the Secretary of State, have power to acquire compulsorily any land in their area; (a) if the authority think that the acquisition will facilitate the carrying out of development, re-development or improvement on or in relation to the land; (b) which is required for a purpose which it is necessary to achieve in the interests of the proper planning of an area in which the land is situated. (1A) But a local authority must not exercise the power under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) unless they think that the development, re-development or improvement is likely to contribute to the achievement of any one or more of the following objects— (a) the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area; (b) the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their area; (c) the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being of their area. b) note that the local authority is only required to demonstrate the achievement of one or more of the tests in (1A). c) stress that from a regeneration perspective, the CPO decision must be made principally regarding the benefits and disbenefits likely to accrue from the FDS proposals for the Order Land but that other material considerations will also be relevant. In addition the concept of benefit may be applied to any part of the acquiring authority’s’ area.4 4 DCLG (2015: 40) Guidance on Compulsory purchase process and The Crichel Down Rules for the disposal of surplus land acquired by, or under the threat of, compulsion (CD 58) 7 d) show that the Aylesbury Estate is a troubled place and has been for several decades. That said, I demonstrate that residents have a range of ambivalent views about the Estate as a place to live. e) explain the nature of deprivation issues at the Aylesbury Estate drawing on the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Indices of Deprivation 2015 (and 2010). f) explain how urban regeneration, ‘gentrification’ and ‘community’ can best be understood in the context of the Order Land. g) explain the need for regeneration intervention to improve conditions on the Aylesbury Estate. h) evaluate the extent to which the redevelopment and regeneration proposals for the Order Land are in accordance with relevant regeneration policy at the national London and local levels. i) present evidence to evaluate the extent to which the proposals for the Order Land will bring significant benefits to residents and others across the social, economic and environmental spheres. j) draw conclusions based on an evaluation of the regeneration benefits and disbenefits of the FDS proposals presented in this proof of evidence. Relationship to other evidence 2.3 My evidence will concentrate on the regeneration implications of the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) Land development proposals. Other evidence will cover the full range of matters identified in the Council Statement of Case. 3 Preamble 3.1 Coming to the CPO issues with fresh eyes and an open mind several months ago, I was struck immediately by five things. Firstly, the objectors, the Council and their regeneration partner Notting Hill all have the same goals and aspirations for the Aylesbury Estate. They all want it to be a place where families and individuals can live healthy, fulfilled and prosperous lives in safety. They want a neighbourhood with strong cohesive and supportive communities; a neighbourhood that provides the appropriate range of community support and social and commercial facilities. They all want an inclusive neighbourhood where 8 a range of people can afford to live, regardless of income. They all want to reduce and remove the severe stigma with which the Estate is undoubtedly burdened. 3.2 Secondly, what separates the objectors from the Council and Notting Hill is the strategy, means and mechanisms by which these shared goals should and can be achieved. There are strikingly few Estate residents who are objecting the FDS proposals. Of the 74 original leaseholders on the CPO land only five remain and one of those has exchanged contracts (6 December 2017), another has agreed compensation terms. What became evident is that the remaining leaseholder objectors and their supporters favour the status quo. They want things to stay much as they are. They want the tenure mix on the Aylesbury Estate to stay as it is. Paradoxically, the leaseholders are the agents of the mixed communities policy to which they are opposed. It is ironic too that each social rent property that is sold to the council tenant, reduces the stock of social rent properties and exacerbates the social housing crisis. Some objectors want to retain the 1970s structures and spaces. They want what remains of the Estate to be refurbished, with the implication that the virtual social rent tenure monopoly and serious problems inherent in the Estate will remain. This puts them at odds fundamentally with national, London wide and local planning and housing policy, democratically arrived at. 3.3 Thirdly, the Council and Notting Hill accept that to achieve the desired goals there must be change. These changes take several key forms: change to the tenure mix, change in the social mix, change in housing management and change in the physical environment. 3.4 Fourthly, are the different views regarding time. The leaseholder objectors take a short term view and are concerned with what happens in the intermediate short term phase of rehousing and reconstruction. This is understandable. The leaseholders have an intense concern with compensation and although it is not a matter for this Public Inquiry, such concern is understandable. The Council and Notting Hill take a long-term view and are concerned with the fortunes of the Aylesbury Estate during a timescale that runs into decades rather than years. 9 3.5 Fifthly, each strategy, whether it be the status quo or change, brings benefits and disbenefits. So a major issue for this Public Inquiry is, what is the range of benefits and disbenefits and on whom do these benefits and disbenefits fall in the short, medium and long-term. Karl Marx said famously that all that is solid melts into air. By this he meant that under conditions of capitalism, changes especially in things we regard as permanent, are inevitable and relentless. However, for the Aylesbury Estate, do nothing is not a viable option. 4 Proposals for the CPO Land The present context 4.1 Since the creation of the Aylesbury Estate New Deal for Communities (NDC) in 1999, about which Stephen Platts gives background, the Estate has rarely been out of the local and national news media. Large amounts of data have been collected about the problems and the regeneration interventions. So much so that it is easy to become lost in the detail and think that the Estate regeneration proposals are simply a local matter. They are not. This Inquiry must of course be concerned principally with the proposals for the First Development Site (FDS) (full planning permission 14/AP/3843) and Daniel Davis and Mr Platts will present evidence regarding these. However, those proposals can only be appreciated properly in the wider context. This wider context has ten key elements: a) The effective prohibition since the early 1980s by government, in the UK and England after devolution in 1998, of council house building.5 b) Public sector austerity policies since 2010 that have seen government grants to local authorities cut by up to 40% with inevitable cuts to local authority ‘neighbourhood services’.6 7 c) The national housing crisis, particularly in London, in the provision of affordable housing for people on average and low incomes, alongside a 5 Harris J (2016) The end of council housing, The Guardian, 4 January Butler P (2017) Council spending on 'neighbourhood' services falls by £3bn since 2011, The Guardian, 25 April 7 Maguire P (2017) Ministers move to ‘shift blame for funding cuts to local councils’, The Guardian, 5 February 6 10 dysfunctional housing market that, for example, in London will see the development of 54,000 flats priced at more than £1 million 2016-18.8 9 d) The unprecedented and ultimately unsustainable escalation of house price inflation that pushes up private sector rents with terrible consequences for the annual UK housing benefits cost of about £25billion per annum.10 This is a direct transfer of public money mainly to private sector landlords. e) The wider planning policy framework provided by the London Plan (2016) and NPPF (2012) f) The planning framework in the adopted Aylesbury Area Action Plan (2010) which forms part of the development plan and must therefore be given considerable weight. It should be noted that the AAAP includes not just the Aylesbury Estate but Burgess Park and Albany Road g) The successfully completed developments at Sites 1a and 7 in phase 1 of the 20 year Aylesbury Estate regeneration programme and the considerable benefits specified in detail in the Development Partnership Agreement (DPA) between the Council and Notting Hill. h) The vision of comprehensive redevelopment expressed in the adopted AAAA (2010), which is part of the Development Plan, can only be achieved if all of the phases of development are completed. i) vacant possession of some of the residential blocks within the CPO land has been achieved and demolition has commenced. j) there are now four safeguards, legal and/or statutory mechanisms, that will ensure the regeneration benefits are secured. 5 Representing the Aylesbury Estate Post-war optimism for public housing Jenkins S (2016) London’s empty towers mark a very British form of corruption, The Guardian, 25 May 9 Jenkins S (2016) Panic over a property crash will just leave London poor and ugly, Evening Standard, 26 January 10 Kelly L (2014) UK housing benefit bill will soar to £25bn by 2017, The Guardian, 24 April 8 11 5.1 Catherine Bates, Simon Bayliss and Stephen Platts present evidence regarding the history and physical characteristics of the Aylesbury Estate (the Estate) so I will not dwell on these here. The Estate was a product of post-World War Two (WW2) optimism regarding town planning potential for social improvement. There was in the 1950s and 60s a good deal of certainty about the benefits to be gained from the application of modernist planning principles to the provision of public housing (or council housing). This was fused with a relatively well funded public sector underpinned by a strong welfare state political consensus. When families first began to occupy the Estate in the early 1970s, their new homes and environment were seen as much better than the cramped Victorian terraced housing that often lacked basic necessities they left behind. For a while residents heaped praise on the Estate in a manner that was repeated for similar council housing estates throughout the country. 11 In time a host of community support networks and organisations developed.12 That satisfaction soon turned sour after a few years. Or at best it turned to ambivalence and for many residents severe disappointed. Problems emerged across the physical, social and economic spheres and while the causes of the problems were complex and interrelated the design and physical configuration of the Estate played their part.13 5.2 What made matters worse was that through time the nature of the problems shifted. Taking crime as an example, the rise of drug and gang crime were not initially problems. Similarly, the problems of water and sewerage penetration into the buildings’ structure and apartments did not surface until years after completion. Since 1979 council housing has been under attack by academics and successive governments in the UK. Bashing local authorities for their regeneration responses to financial and other pressures put on them by government has become a national pastime. These pressures result from successive governments’ 11 BBC News Magazine (2014) 'I loved/loathed my 1960s high-rise block', 17 September www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29160925 12 To this day some residents still value the variety of civil society and not for profit supportive community organisations that function on the Estate, see Creation Trust (2017) Ten Years of Working on the Aylesbury Estate 13 Godwin R (2013) We shall not be moved: residents give their verdict on life on the Aylesbury Estate, Evening Standard, 26 March 12 attachment since 1979 to political neoliberalism. We live in an age since 1979 of state regulated neoliberal capitalism. Neoliberalism is the political doctrine that: … refers to a political ideology, rhetoric and governmental practice which favours reduced or minimal state intervention in markets and an expanded role for the private sector based on the privileging of individualistic over civic and communal values. Paradoxically, it simultaneously relies on an enhanced interventionist role for the state in facilitating and protecting market based economies nationally and internationally [and carrying out urban regeneration], even after periods of acute economic crises such as the 2006–08 credit crunch and its aftermath… Regarding its impact on urban public space and post-industrial city transformation several writers stress the manner in which a neoliberal political economy is used to create urban environments and public spaces conducive to commodification and capital accumulation.14 Above all it is clear that Thatcher’s neoliberal government [and UK governments since] was committed to reducing the size of the public sector, public spending, red tape and state interference in markets, but facilitating the expansion of markets and private sector wealth creation.15 5.3 The impact of neoliberal inspired government cuts to local authority funding have been severe indeed and impose on local authorities extremely difficult choices regarding service provision in general and housing and urban regeneration programmes in particular. 5.4 Urban regeneration and planning have great impacts for public space. Open, inclusive, tolerant public space is often taken for granted but is precious. It is a key marker of democratic society and enhances city liveability. But although deceptively simple, it is a highly complex concept and the terms spaces of publicness and privateness are more precise and useful (see appendix 1). 14 Leary-Owhin (2016: 10-11) Exploring the production of urban space: Differential space in three post-industrial cities, Policy Press 15 Leary-Owhin (2016: 233) 13 5.5 The Estate has been in an intense media spotlight light since 1997 that has, with a few exceptions, portrayed it as a failure despite genuine attempts to bring about positive change. Urban regeneration initiatives are usually controversial and are simultaneously resisted and welcomed. So it is with the Aylesbury Estate. One of the latest journalistic forays that touches on the Estate is the 2017 film, Dispossession: The Great Social Housing Swindle by the documentary film maker Paul Sng. He too directs much criticism of estate regeneration at local authorities. The film however, acknowledges that some good has come out of estate regeneration. In particular, Beverley Robinson, a leading critic of the FDS proposals accepts that the scheme does bring some benefits. Sng’s film is most effective though when he elucidates the bigger picture of the shocking national social housing crisis in the UK and especially London. Sng and a range of experts blame the government, rather than local government for the decades long scandal of social housing provision in the UK. Right to buy without replacement, and cuts to local authority budgets are seen as a prime cause of the social housing crisis. 5.6 Unfortunately, the film opens with some misinformation stating that, “at the beginning of the 1980s, 42% of the [UK] population lived in social housing”. It continues, “today that figure has fallen to less than 8%”. In fact, in 1981, according to the UK Census the proportion was 33% and the 8% stated by Sng ignores the additional 10% of people living in housing association property. 16 It is a pity that such social housing misinformation is being propagated through social media. The film also gives a misleading impression of the extent of the dispersal of residents out of Southwark and London, using what appears to be a map similar to one given in evidence by Professor Loretta Lees at the first Inquiry. This issue was discussed at the first Public Inquiry and Inspector Coffey was not convinced by the data or the arguments – see Inspector Coffey’s Report, 2016, CD 50 p2683 para 348. 5.7 Market orientated policies of successive UK governments since 1979 have helped construct an entirely dysfunctional housing market that delivers a tiny proportion of the affordable housing needed. Simultaneously, governments have 16 Birch J (2017) “A review of the film Dispossession”, Inside Housing, 10 August 14 not acted robustly enough to dampen house price inflation that has seen private sector rents spiral to unprecedented levels fuelled in London and elsewhere by overseas and UK ‘buy to leave empty’ investors.17 I call that phenomenon ‘emptification’ and along with house price inflation over the last two decades it is, in my opinion, a more serious problem than ‘gentrification’. 5.8 For 60 years in the UK a cross-party political consensus accepted that council housing was the best way to provide decent affordable housing for people on average and low incomes. That changed after 1979 with the election of Margaret Thatcher’s first administration. Mrs Thatcher introduced the controversial right to buy council housing for secure tenants. The consequences for social housing capacity have been disastrous.18 Between 1979 and 2013, 1.6m council homes were sold; “council housing went from an inbuilt part of the post-war settlement to something pushed to the social margins”.19 Six years later the publication of a book by Alice Coleman saw council estate housing demonised and stigmatised in an attack from which it has never recovered: Thatcher's guru was Alice Coleman, then professor of geography at Kings College London. In 1985, Coleman published the book Utopia on Trial [visions and reality in planned housing] in which she advanced the provocative argument that badly designed social housing turned its occupants into criminals. By "badly designed" Coleman meant the thousands of blocks hoisted up across Britain after the war - the "plague of flats", she called it. "These are the blocks that breed anti-social people," she warned. 20 Booth R and Bengtsson H (2016) “The London skyscraper that is a stark symbol of the housing crisis”, The Guardian, 24 May 18 Gallagher P (2015) “Right to Buy: 40% of homes sold under Government scheme are being let out privately”, The Independent, 13 August 19 Harris J (2016) “The end of council housing”, The Guardian, 4 January 20 Hunter-Tilney L (2012) “Architecture: Paradise lost, Ludovic Hunter-Tilney meets Alice Coleman, Thatcher’s utopian thinker”, New Statesman, 12 March 17 15 5.9 Coleman’s research as the title suggests was not just a critique of modernist large scale council estates but an ideological attack on the provision of post-WW2 public housing that resonated well with the Conservative neoliberal government of Margaret Thatcher. Coleman subscribed to the controversial theory of environmental determinism. This is the idea that one’s environment, in this case a public housing estate, can determine complex social behaviour including for Coleman, children being taken into care. Everyday experience shows that environment can have an impact on behaviour. People will move to a shady part of the street if the sun is too hot or indeed in England, tend seek out the sunny side of the street. What has to be explained by exponents of environmental determinism is why the vast majority of residents and visitors to public housing estates including the Aylesbury commit no crime at all. When crime happens in other parts of cities, say at a bus stop or in a super market car park, we do not condemn those environments. I do not subscribe to crude causal ideas about environment and complex human behaviour but I do agree that the layout and design of public and other housing can facilitate or inhibit crime, anti-social behaviour and indeed social interaction and cohesion. 5.10 Medium and high rise council housing in Britain since Coleman’s intervention has been unable to shake off the stigma of the so called sink estate and the Aylesbury Estate is no exception. It is clear though that residents have a much more ambivalent relationship with the Estate, ranging from deep-seated attachment and appreciation to fear and utter despair. While waves of media attention in the recent decades have condemned the modernist council estate, a more nuanced kind of journalism has captured the ambivalence and complex views of residents in recent years.21 The quotations in appendix 2 give a flavour of the complexity with which residents understand their lives and what they think of the Aylesbury Estate. These residents’ first-hand accounts present what might be called spatial representations of the Estate. 5.11 In my research over the last 15 years I have deployed a theoretical framework based on three differing representations of space devised by the French Jones R (2013) ”The people I know are decent, you just never hear about us": Residents on Europe's largest estate say it isn't hell, it's home, Daily Mirror, 12 January 21 16 neo-Marxist philosopher/sociologist Henri Lefebvre.22 He argued that urban space, that is, places like the Aylesbury are created (produced) by three spatial imperatives in a spatial triad: spatial practice, representations of space and spaces of representation. See appendix 3 where I provide an explanation and interpretation of the triad.23 This way of understanding urban space is important and useful because it foregrounds the role of officialdom and experts such as politicians, planners and regenerators (representations of space) but also ordinary people (spaces of representation). Lefebvre argues that power relationships influence greatly what kinds of space are produced and for whom. Public participation in planning and regeneration is a legal requirement in the UK and the involvement of residents in decision making, including this Inquiry allows spaces of representation to influence representations of space. 5.12 Such contradictory anecdotes (in appendix 2) although powerful first hand testimonies and beloved by journalists and politicians cannot on their own help decision makers charged with deciding the future of the Estate. It should be remembered that the Estate replaced poor quality working class Victorian terrace housing that was also stigmatised for a range of physical, social economic but also moral problems. So the Council has been the location for neighbourhoods with a range of problems since the 1960s. Southwark was identified in 1968 by Harold Wilson’s government as suffering from acute social, housing and unemployment problems in Home Office circular 225/68 that led to the setting up of the Urban Programme. This with hindsight was the start of urban regeneration policy in the UK. At that time the government used Census data to identify acute social needs. Since then techniques for measuring the geographical location of physical, social and economic problems have become more sophisticated. However, these problems are distributed neither randomly nor evenly. Problems tend to concentrate in certain parts of towns and cities. In Southwark problems are more severe in the north of the Borough and less severe in the south. The Estate lies almost wholly within the local authority of Faraday electoral ward in the north of the Borough. Since the 1960s the government has been measuring what has 22 Lefebvre H 1991 The Production of Space, Oxford, Blackwell Leary-Owhin M.E. (2016) Exploring the Production of Urban Space: Differential Space in Three Post-Industrial Cities, Bristol: Policy Press 23 17 become known as multiple deprivation, interrelated problems that afflict certain neighbourhoods. 5.13 The most authoritative data about the Estate comes from the government’s Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) (England). These are statistical summaries of conditions in England and have been produced since the late 1990s. They were in the 1990s and 2000s used to inform government regeneration policy, especially the New Labour government’s Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy. Far more important than Prime Minister Blair’s inaugural speech at the Aylesbury Estate in 1997, was the fact that the data from the DETR Index of Deprivation 1998 was used to identify the Aylesbury Estate as a potential location for New Deal for Communities (NDC) investment. The Council devoted considerable resources to putting in a bid to the government that was ultimately successful, bringing in about £56M of public money over the 10 years from 1999. A split of resources saw £36 million allocated for physical renewal projects and £20 million for a range of social programme interventions. 5.14 For its part the NDC was involved heavily in organising and funding community participation in the Aylesbury Area Action Plan (2010) (AAAP) consultation phases. This consultation in 2005 revealed that 53% of residents were in favour of demolition and redevelopment and 25% in favour of refurbishment (about 70% of residents responded to the survey).24 The exit strategy of the Aylesbury NDC involved the setting up of the not for profit Creation Trust in which the residents played and still have significant roles. It was set up in 2007 as a resident led organisation dedicated to supporting residents through the large scale regeneration of the Estate.25 6 Mapping Deprivation in Southwark The Indices of Multiple Deprivation Approach 24 ERS Research and Consultancy (2010: 18) Aylesbury NDC: Physical Environment Theme Evaluation, Final Report 25 Creation Trust (2017) Ten Years of Working on the Aylesbury Estate 18 6.1 Currently, the IMD measure physical, social and economic conditions called domains (shown below) for small areas called lower super output areas (LSOA) with a population of about 1,500 residents. Each electoral ward will have several LSOAs and there are 32,844 in England. A relative ranking system grades each local authority and each lower super output area so that number one is the most deprived and number 32,844 is the least deprived. The Council has consistently for several decades had several wards and LSOAs in the worse 10% or worse 20% in England. 6.2 Choices have to be made in constructing indices of deprivation and the current approach has evolved through time as different aspects of areas have been measured using different variables. There is no single agreed set of variable and, “the fitness of measures for specific purposes is too rarely discussed.”26 Caution is needed when interpreting the IMD. Relative positions of LSOAs for domains is given on a ranking scale and while some of the indicators measure absolute values, the rankings only show each LSOA in comparison with others. The numbers of the ranking are merely labels not units of measurement. So a ranking of 10 is not twice as bad as a ranking of 20. More frustrating for policy makers is that movement up or indeed down the ranking does not necessarily mean that things are becoming better or worse. So for example, a movement up the ranking could mean that things have become worse elsewhere and factors in a domain in the area have actually stayed much the same. Finally, the IMD is an area based assessment so that within each area there may well be individuals and families who are not only not suffering from deprivation but may in fact be well educated, healthy and have well paid employment. 6.3 That said, a neighbourhood that languishes consistently in the bottom 10% or 20% for any appreciable length of time will be experiencing severe stress and must give cause for concern. An area that scores low on a domain ranking means a high proportion of residents are suffering stress associated with that domain, and the reverse is therefore true. Attention must be drawn also to area characteristics that the IMD do not measure, such as patronage of local businesses, social class, length of residency (so called churn) and civic society, 26 Simpson L, in Fenton, A (2013) Small-area Measures of Income Poverty, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE 19 community and political engagement such as active membership of clubs and voting rates respectively. 6.4 In 2015 the DCLG published the English Indices of Deprivation which is divided into seven domains. These domains are experienced by people living in the area and contribute to their well-being or otherwise: 1. Income Deprivation 2. Employment Deprivation 3. Education, Skills and Training Deprivation 4. Health Deprivation and Disability Deprivation 5. Crime Deprivation 6. Barriers to Housing and Services Deprivation 7. Living Environment Deprivation 6.5 Thirty seven indicators are used to arrive at a summary measure for the domains27, for example, for the crime domain data are used regarding recorded crime for: violence, burglary, theft and criminal damage. Data are gathered on 17 types of actual offences in these four categories. 6.6 The Aylesbury Estate approximates to six LSOA, five (015C 015D, 015E, 016B, 016C) are in the Faraday Ward and one (015A) is in East Walworth Ward. appendix 4 is a series of graphical representations of the IMD 2015 data for the Estate. 28 These maps were generated using the DCLG web-based software IMD Explorer. The map legend indicates that purple shading denotes areas that come into the 10% most deprived in England and red the worse 20%. Note that the shading is uneven due to the colour shading of the underlying Ordnance Survey map. Figure 1A (appendix 4) shows the overall IMD scores for the Estate. It is noticeable that the whole Estate comes in the worse 20% range. Figures 2A to 8A in appendix 4 show similar scores for the IMD domains. Figure 2A shows income deprivation on the Estate to be a serious problem with all the Estate’s LSOAs coming within the worse 10% or 20%. A similar bleak picture is painted by the 27 DCLG (2016) The English Indices of Deprivation 2015: Technical report DCLG (2015) Indices of Deprivation 2015 Explorer dclgapps.communities.gov.uk/imd/idmap.html 28 20 domains for: barriers to housing and services (figure A3), crime (figure A4), income deprivation affecting older people (sub-domain) (figure A5) and living environment (figure A6). 6.7 However, regarding other domains the situation in the Estate is either patchy or not so bad: employment (figure A7), health and disability (figure A8). In the context of the other scores, such impressive education, skills and training results (figure A9) are a tribute to the work of the teachers, parents, carers, the Council, and of course, the students in the local schools. It is interesting to note that the results for IMD 2015 are similar to those for IMD 2010 (figure A10) with three of the six Aylesbury Estate LSOAs coming in the worse 10 to 20% in England. Given the long term nature of the problems this is to be expected. Various elements of deprivation have been an intractable feature of many towns and cities in the UK for several decades. Government attempts to tackle these problems have since the 1980s been known as urban regeneration. This term was used repeatedly during the first Public Inquiry so it is important to elucidate just what it might mean. 7 Urban Regeneration: definition and challenges Aspirational regeneration 7.1 Despite the fact that it has been around since the 1980s, for the last seven years local authorities have had little or no effective steer from government as to what urban regeneration does, should or could mean. This is odd since there are many definitions in a variety of academic literatures. On the other hand the plethora of differing interpretations may be contributing to the confusion. Over the last 30 years I have watched definitions of regeneration change with the political and academic times in the UK. When co-editing the 48 chapter, globally orientated 2013 book The Routledge Companion to Urban Regeneration I felt it was imperative to develop a viable definition of urban regeneration. It is worth quoting this definition in the context of the text that comes immediately before and after: 21 Regeneration requires a definition that stands outside the day-to-day struggles and contradictions of the politics and practicalities on the ground. It also needs to suggest something to which politicians and practitioners can aspire, while perhaps not always attaining. Regeneration requires a definition which academics, even if not condoning completely, can take seriously. We offer the concept of the ideal type - ‘aspirational regeneration’ - to help circumvent the definitional problems of becoming bogged down in attempts to encompass positive details of regeneration strategies, policies and projects at the national level and across the global range. What is necessary is not a tool that politicians and regeneration professionals can apply off the shelf but an ideal type definition that inspires enthuses and legitimates. With this in mind we propose that: urban regeneration is area-based intervention which is public sector initiated, funded, supported, or inspired, aimed at producing significant sustainable improvements in the conditions of local people, communities and places suffering from aspects of deprivation, often multiple in nature. However, we do accept that there may well be a significant role for the private sector, voluntary sector or community enterprise. Nor do we wish to imply that regeneration efforts should focus exclusively on seeking solutions within the troubled areas themselves …. What this aspirational definition does is put the foci on public sector leadership, locality and outcomes. Partnership is a key feature of regeneration but the precise arrangements need to be organised with care ... The notion that within partnerships, private enterprise ethos and skills will diffuse to the public sector was a sine qua non for their initial establishment in the early 1980s. However, we feel strongly that public sector leadership is crucial, not just in terms of financial subsidy and where appropriate, the direct provision of regeneration projects but in terms of providing the crucial strategic vision and longevity needed through strategic policy and if necessary, legal frameworks.29 29 Leary M.E and McCarthy P (2013: 9) The Routledge Companion to Urban Regeneration, London: Routledge 22 7.2 The problems that urban regeneration initiatives seek to tackle span a range of often interlocking physical, social and economic issues as illustrated by the IMD. A major challenge for policy makers and regenerators is disentangling cause and effect, for example, does crime cause poverty or does poverty cause crime: do poor environments cause crime or vice versa? Producing effective intervention programmes and strategies is complicated further by the issues of correlation and causation. Just because two variables, say public housing and poor educational attainment are correlated does not necessarily mean one is a cause of the other. This is the well-known statistical problem of correlation without causation. We can only be certain of causation when we have a sound empirical and theoretical understanding of the issues involved. Then there is the issue of timescales. 7.3 It has become obvious over the decades that urban deprivation problems are protracted and intractable. Given their long term nature it follows that intervention should be long term. But a feature of regeneration interventions over the decades is their short termism. The only exceptions are some of the NDC programmes and the Urban Development Corporations for London Docklands and Merseyside that had medium timescales. What is also noticeable is that intervention solutions tend to be underpinned by one of two rationales. There is the social needs rationale that was the basis of intervention in the 1960s and 70s and again (partially) 1997-2010 and the property-led regeneration rationale that underpinned intervention from the early 1980s until today. Each approach has strident advocates. The social needs (disadvantage and deprivation) in question usually relate to people who might be termed, ordinary working people or indeed ‘working class’ though they may not necessarily be in paid employment. 7.4 Another urban regeneration consideration is whether to demolish existing residential buildings and redevelop or refurbish. In principle I tend favour the latter because it tends to be more sustainable when the environmental costs of demolition are included. It is also usually less disruptive. Refurbishment assumes of course that the residential buildings and built environment in question remain fit for purpose. In my 2016 book I document a range of demolition and refurbishment for adaptive reuse of historic buildings in Vancouver, Lowell MA and Manchester. But refurbishment is not always feasible either technically or 23 financially. The UK value added tax (VAT) regime seems not to favour refurbishment. My understanding is that the construction of (most) new residential properties is zero rated but the full 20% value added tax rate is payable for the refurbishment of existing residential. This is of course one factor in the costs of refurbishment. So the financial viability problems of refurbishment in regeneration schemes stem partially from central not local government. Another major consideration is that refurbishment tends to leave a range of problems in place and in the current fiscal climate, generate no significant additional funds for the public sector. Residential refurbishment usually cannot increase the number of residential units to the extent that demolition and redevelopment can; a serious hurdle for those advocating Aylesbury Estate refurbishment. Stephen Platts and Catherine Bates deal in more detail with the refurbishment issue. 7.5 Negotiation, compromise, subsidy and cross-subsidy are definitive features of urban regeneration, therefore the expertise of urban regenerators and planners is vital. Depending on national and local economic circumstances subsidies may flow from the public to the private sector or vice versa. Each regeneration scheme with a property-led element will be unique and there is sometimes potential for distribution of reasonable profits to the private sector and financial surpluses to the public sector, local communities or civil society groups. Crucially, the precise distribution and the trade-offs between project objectives will be achieved through negotiation and one would hope and expect this is transparent as possible where public money is concerned. 7.6 A fundamental premise of area-based urban regeneration is that local people should not be disadvantaged simply because of where they happen to live. This applies with more force to children. Therefore people suffering disadvantage and living in an area suffering from deprivation should expect to see improvements in the factors identified in the domains of the IMD. More than this the United Nations HABITAT III declared that all urban inhabitants have what is called a ‘right to the city’: We share a vision of cities for all, referring to the equal use and enjoyment of cities and human settlements, seeking to promote inclusivity and ensure that all inhabitants, of present and future generations, without 24 discrimination of any kind, are able to inhabit and produce just, safe, healthy, accessible, affordable, resilient, and sustainable cities and human settlements, to foster prosperity and quality of life for all. We note the efforts of some national and local governments to enshrine this vision, referred to as right to the city, in their legislations, political declarations and charters.30 7.7 The idea of the right to the city was developed by the French Marxist philosopher/sociologist Henri Lefebvre in the 1960s. It has been taken up by many campaign groups and city leaders.31 Lefebvre believed that ordinary city dwellers, citizens should expect the right to urban life: … Lefebvre articulates two key rights to the city: the right to inhabit the centres of cities (centrality); and the right to enjoy urban space for its use value rather than its exchange value: Among these rights in the making features the right to the city (not to the ancient city, but to urban life, to renewed centrality, to places of encounter and exchange, to the life rhythms and time uses, enabling the full and complete usage of these moments and places, etc.). (Lefebvre 1996: 179, emphasis in original) Their right to live in or close to the city centre was stripped from them as they were pressed to the periphery of Paris and other cities. Hence Lefebvre stressed their right to urban as opposed to suburban life: The right to the city cannot be conceived of as a simple visiting right or as a return to traditional cities. It can only be formulated as a transformed and renewed right to urban life. (Lefebvre 1996: 158, emphases in original) Lefebvre had in mind a range of rights related to urban life which may appear in the form of customs and prescriptions sometimes 30 United Nations HABITAT III (2016 : 2) New Urban Agenda Perry F. (2016) Right to the city: can this growing social movement win over city officials? The Guardian, 19 April 31 25 enshrined in legislation. Under this heading he included rights to: work, education, training, health, housing and the right to rest or non-work leisure (Lefebvre 1996: 157).32 7.8 For Lefebvre, who witnessed the peripheralisation of working class people in Paris in the 1960s, a central right to the city was the right to live in the city centre. But not necessarily the right to live in a particular property. In the UK we enjoy a range of regeneration related rights including: decent health care and education, the minimum wage, decent housing and not to be homeless. The right to the city encompasses these rights and more. Any large regeneration scheme will have a variety of objectives related to these rights such as: providing new affordable and market housing, public services, public space, employment opportunities, health, education and community services, including health services. In addition there will be a range of environmental objectives concerned with, for example, carbon reduction, habitat creation, biodiversity and sustainable transport. In addition the local authority and any regeneration partner will want to see a reasonable return on their financial investment. For local authorities this represents opportunities to re-invest capital and rental receipts in future public housing and services. A major challenge for regeneration decision makers is that all of the objectives cannot be maximised simultaneously. For example, the higher the density of a scheme, to maximise returns on investment, the less amount of land for public space and the more potential for overshadowing. Trade-off between objectives and between benefits and disbenefits therefore are an essential element of regeneration policy and practice. The more transparent is the democratic oversight of the trade-offs, the better for public confidence in the regeneration scheme. 7.9 Interestingly, the proposals for the Aylesbury Estate constitute a hybrid approach that draws on both regeneration rationales: social needs and propertyled development. Critics, be they residents, campaigners or academics argue that the proposals constitute ‘gentrification’, lean too far towards property development and private profits and force working class people out of their homes and away from central locations. Two major weakness of these critiques are that: 32 in, Leary-Owhin (2016: 268) Exploring the Production of Urban Space: Differential Space in Three Post-Industrial Cities, Bristol: Policy Press 26 1) Notting Hill is a not for profit trust dedicated to providing a range of affordable housing including social rent, 2) the Council secure tenants (a large majority of residents on the Estate) have opportunities and options to be rehoused on the Estate, and 3) there are now four safeguards, legal and/or statutory mechanisms, that will ensure the regeneration benefits are secured. Along with these criticisms is another focused on who is supposed to benefit from regeneration interventions. Therefore I now turn to the issue of gentrification. 8 Gentrification: a derogatory term An analysis of gentrification 8.1 Since the 1970s the term gentrification has been used in a wholly derogatory way to signify harmful social change related to the operation of the housing market. This makes impartial evaluation of the processes and outcomes involved difficult indeed. Local authorities have taken the brunt of the criticisms although government has also been implicated. It is important to consider the original piece that coined the term because, although it is decades old, several of the arguments apply today, especially those regarding the causes. 8.2 In the early 1960s a university academic could never have imagined that one word in the introduction to a book could spawn a major academic industry spanning 50 years and become the battle cry of activists around the world. Ruth Adele Glass (1912–1990) was a Marxist all her adult life and sought through her work to influence government policy for the benefit of the working class and both White and Black-British. The book London: Aspects of Change was published in 1964. Glass argued that a new kind of social group was moving into working class areas of inner London. She likened them to the ‘gentry’, a social group somewhere below the British aristocracy and while she is silent about their ethnicity, we can assume they were White although Glass also wrote about Black-British people moving into working class areas of London. Glass was living in Islington at the time and based her analysis on her own observations rather than any systematic quantitative analysis. 27 8.3 Due to the fact that the piece by Glass has often been misrepresented for several decades I offer here a detailed critical analysis. Surprisingly, given its impact and its wholly negative connotations, the word gentrification appears only once: One by one, many of the working class quarters of London have been invaded by the middle classes - upper and lower. Shabby, modest mews and cottages - two rooms up and two down - have been taken over, when their leases have expired, and have become elegant, expensive residences. Larger Victorian houses, downgraded in an earlier or recent periods - which were used as lodging houses or were otherwise in multiple occupation have been upgraded once again. Nowadays, many of these houses are being sub-divided into costly flats or "houselets" (in terms of the new real estate snob jargon). The current social status and value of such dwellings are frequently in inverse relation to their size, and in any case enormously inflated by comparison with previous levels in their neighbourhoods. Once this process of "gentrification" starts in a district, it goes on rapidly until all or most of the original working class occupiers are displaced, and the whole social character of the district is changed. (emphasis added)33 8.4 The changes that Glass documents may be called traditional or Type 1 gentrification. This type of gentry-led gentrification is not happening in the case of current estate regeneration in England. Instead, if the two harmful impacts are present then this process may be called state-led or Type 2 gentrification. It is worth stressing that Glass identifies only two harmful consequences of gentrification: 1) all or most original working class occupiers are displaced, 2) the whole social character of the neighbourhood is changed. These are the two gentrification tests that need to be evaluated in the case of the FDS proposals. The objectors have to show that on the balance of probabilities, both tests have been met. 8.5 Given that much of the ‘character’ of Islington in the 1960s was decrepit, run down and unloved, some change may have been a good thing. What is striking Glass R (1964: xviii) “Introduction”, in, Centre for Urban Studies (eds) London: Aspects of Change, MacGibbon & Kee 33 28 about this quotation is that Glass is almost completely neutral about the social process being described. Only two words “invaded” and “displaced” hint at disapproval. Social change even of the “whole character” of an area is not always harmful; indeed this is often what ‘social needs’ driven urban regeneration seeks. Clearly, Glass implies that displacement is coercive and relocation is forced rather than voluntary, but no evidence is provided.34 That said, for a time in the 1950s and 60s the notorious Notting Hill landlord Peter Rachman, did use violence to evict working class families from private rent-controlled properties so he could gain vacant possession and raise the rents. 8.6 Nor does Glass consider what would happen to the declining working class areas of shabby cottages in inner London without the infusion of middle class investment and spending power. Further complications arose in later understandings of gentrification due to wider societal trends: There is a consistent assumption in the literature that gentrification is a direct cause of working-class displacement. While this is undoubtedly true in some cases, it is argued here that the slow reduction of the working class population in many inner-city areas is, in part, a result of a long-term reduction in the size of the working-class population of London as a whole (by a combination of retirement, death, out-migration or upward social mobility) and its replacement by a larger middle-class population. In other words, the key process may be one of replacement rather than displacement per se.35 8.7 No further details are provided by Glass about the nature of this social change and its potentially harmful impact on the working districts. There is nothing in principle though to stop the incoming middle class forming social relationships with their working class neighbours and creating a vibrant supportive community. But Glass is sceptical that this was happening. In refreshing language Glass 34 In contrast, brutally violent forced eviction is a well-documented feature of ‘gentrification’ in some countries of the Global South. 35 Hamnett C (2003) Gentrification and the Middle-class Remaking of Inner London, 1961–2001, Urban Studies, Vol. 40, No. 12, 2401–2426 (emphasis in original) 29 accepts it is not at all clear whether social mixing or social segregation is occurring: There is some interlocking of social groups. Even so, the impression remains – and often it is the dominant one – that there is increasing segmentation. It seems that what is happening is neither an obliteration nor an accentuation of long established class cleavages, but the superimposition of a criss-cross web of social divisions, which has yet hardly been recognised. (page xxii) 8.8 And neither were the processes necessarily producing permanent or clearly defined change: The place and time – London in 1963 – make it exceptionally difficult to weigh up current trends. Post-war history has followed a zig-zag line, and may well before too long take another turn again. (page xxiii) No doubt Glass had in mind the fact that over the decades and centuries many districts in London have changed their social character: Brixton, Notting Hill, Stamford Hill, Spitalfields and Soho are examples. 8.9 Glass was living in Islington at the time and based her analysis on her own observations rather than any systematic quantitative analysis. That would be provided by research through the decades. And although it is fairly straightforward to track the changing social character of a district using Census data, it is much harder to establish empirically what harm this is having. In fact Glass is much more concerned in her introduction with the causes of gentrification rather than its impact and her perceptive analyses are still relevant today. Crucially, she does not point to local authorities. For Glass gentrification is not the cause of social change in working class inner London. Those causes lie elsewhere: a. lack of investment by property owners Shabby, modest mews and cottages – two up and two down – have been taken over… 30 b. demographic, political and economic pressures And this is an inevitable development , in view of the demographic, economic and political pressures to which London, and especially Central London has been subjected. (page xix) c. spiralling land and property values Competition for space has become more and more intense in London … As real incomes and aspirations rise … the competition for space thus produced is bound to get out of hand, and lead to a spiral of land values, if it is nether anticipated nor controlled. And this is precisely what has happened. (page xix) The sanctioning [by government] of the spiral of real estate values is evidence of disregard for coherent urban development. It still goes on despite the obvious consequent difficulties for the economy, the labour recruitment and the social stratification of London. (page xxvi) d. relaxation of planning regulations and rent control Since the fifties, town and country planning legislation has, in essence, been anti-planning legislation ... real estate speculation has been ‘liberated’. These measures, together with the relaxation of rent control have given the green light to the continuing inflation of property prices with which London, even more than other large cities is afflicted. (page xx, emphasis in original) 8.10 So Glass points to the bigger picture of gentrification causes, rather than blaming either the local authorities or in fact the gentrifiers themselves. For her central government plays a key role in gentrification. Critics of gentrification must be able to say with some clarity backed by evidence what the causes of gentrification are and precisely how and why it is harmful. Many academics and journalists have pointed to the potential benefits of gentrification, especially in a period of austerity. Appendix 5 offers a gentrification balance sheet to spur this kind of nuanced analytical approach.36 36 Atkinson R and Bridge G (2005: 5) Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism, London: Routledge 31 8.11 The other striking omission by Glass is any attempt to define systematically who the middle and working classes actually are and how they can be identified and classified. Indeed it is not evident from her introduction to the book how Glass knew the newcomers were middle class and the existing residents working class. Social class in the UK is usually categorised by occupation rather than lifestyle or behaviour which are notoriously difficult to identify and classify. Although Glass uses the terms middle and working class, for over 50 years social researchers and the UK government has used a classification based on occupation rather than social status or lifestyle. It is though possible to map reasonably well the middle and working classes onto the current classification but problems remain not least the position of the unemployed: 1 Higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations 2 Lower managerial, administrative and professional occupations 3 Intermediate occupations 4 Small employers and own account workers 5 Lower supervisory and technical occupations 6 Semi-routine occupations 7 Routine occupations 8 Never worked and long-term unemployed37 8.12 To complicate matters, Glass admits in fact that because of “this new diversity of consumption, there is also apparently, new uniformity” between social classes. Superficially at least: … class distinctions in looks, clothes and in domestic equipment have narrowed considerably: differences in these respects are now more noticeably determined by age than by social status. Conventional terms of social categorization, such as ‘black-coated worker’ or ‘white collar worker’, no longer have a straightforward descriptive value. (page xiv) Leary M. E. and McCarthy J (2013: 575) The Routledge Companion to Urban Regeneration, London: Routledge “Gentrification is good for the poor”, The Economist, 21 February 2015 37 ONS (2010) The National Statistics Socio-economic Classification 32 It could be said, for example, that Britain, in general – or London, in particular – has more social homogeneity than in the inter-war and immediate post-war periods. Millions of people from different social classes and localities consume the same diet of radio and television programmes, advertisements and films; they are subject to a national network of retail outlets, newspapers, public services… (page xvii) 8.13 Despite this, for Glass old class alignments are being maintained and the problem is not so much gentrification but rather the lack of social mobility and continuing social claustrophobia (page xvi). This shocking problem, the death of social mobility in the UK persists to this day.38 I call this mobility stagnation, ‘mobilification’. It is not hard to appreciate how mobilification contributes to some of the problems experienced on the Estate and elsewhere. 8.14 Working class parts of Islington in the 1960s may well have exhibited strong community ties but nowhere in her famous gentrification piece does Glass use the term community. The closest she comes is “working class quarters” and “social character of the district”. Interestingly, both terms take a geographical or propinquity view of community. Claims about community are at the heart of many class-based critiques of gentrification and this enigmatic term is examined next. 8.15 In coining the term gentrification, Ruth Glass provided a useful and thought- provoking series of observations regarding residential social processes of change in a market economy with particular property rights. In the intervening decades, the concept has travelled the globe and has unfortunately, resulted in the inability of academics to agree what gentrification is, leaving the concept weakened as an analytical tool. See sections 14 and 15 below for an alternative analytical approach. 9 The Community Conundrum: Three types of ‘community’ 38 Malik S and Barr C (2016) UK faces permanent generational divide, social mobility tsar warns, The Guardian, 11 March Milburn A (2015) Social mobility has come to a halt, The Telegraph, 25 May 33 9.1 A consistent complaint regarding gentrification is that it breaks up ‘the community’. We should give this heartfelt complaint some respect but also subject it to critical scrutiny. We need to ask which kind of community? Only in the late 19th century did sociology begin to try to understand and analyse the notion of community. Originally, the warm, tight knit, supportive, face to face social relations of the village were compared with the cold, impersonal, financially based and often at-a-distance, social relations of the growing modern industrial city. It was not until the publication in 1957 of the landmark book Family and Kinship in East London by Michael Young and Peter Willmott that the idea of supportive, tight knit city-based community, began to be taken seriously. This East London community was of course working class. So what exactly is ‘community’ and why is the concept itself so problematic? 9.2 Community is in essence intense, long term, meaningful social interaction. It is facilitated by family ties, friendship bonds and shared interests. Such interaction can take place between people in a fairly small geographical area, or across great distances. In a particular geographical area, community is facilitated by civil society organisations such as sports and social clubs, places of worship and not for profit enterprises. Schools serve as key sites for social interaction not just between children but also their parents and carers. Commercial enterprises too such as the: café, pub, barber, hairdresser, laundrette and street market can facilitate community cohesion and social interaction. These social interaction and community cohesion sites should all be considered noteworthy for their community capacity building potential, whether they rely on public, voluntary or private sector resources. Additionally, triggers for community social relations can be: celebrations, parties, festivals, sports and artistic events, external and internal threats, campaigns and sadly tragedy. Public spaces too can facilitate social interaction allowing people to ‘hang out’, meet by chance and chat. 9.3 Part of the confusion in trying to specify the meaning of community, stems from its conflation and confusion with a neighbourhood or district. These are smallish geographical areas of usually a few thousand people in towns and cities and are popular with town planners. But residents may not engage in social 34 interaction with each other or it is at best perfunctory. This gives two types of legitimate understandings of community: Type 1 - a group of people living in proximity who enjoy a high degree of regular, intense, supportive, face to face social interaction occurring over the long term, often in intergenerational fashion. - a community of meaningful social interaction propinquity. Type 2 - a community of interests or community at a distance – a huge variety of this kind of community exist based around such things as hobbies, sport or pop group fandom and a wide variety of leisure pursuits, professional and trade associations. Another notable example is the campaign community, such as the groups of campaigners that have emerged to oppose the FDS CPO, many of whom have no geographical tie to the Estate. In a democratic society their participation in this Inquiry is of course most welcome. - a community of shared interests. Rather than identifying a third type, I rely on the term neighbourhood. A neighbourhood is groups of people living in proximity in a geographical area, within a town or city, with no significant and intense social interaction, beyond saying hello to a neighbour. It should not in my opinion be regarded as a community. 9.4 Supportive, warm, friendly and inclusive communities are usually to be welcomed and encouraged but five things complicate the concept of community as presented so far. Firstly, is more helpful in a multi-cultural, multi-faith society such as London to think of communities in the plural rather than a singular, homogenous ‘the community’. Secondly, even if there was one community, opinions and beliefs of several thousand people in and regarding their neighbourhood will always differ. People’s views on problems, priorities and solutions will vary and reaching a consensus may not be possible but ultimately decisions have to be made. Thirdly, a community is by definition exclusionary and 35 membership of one community may preclude membership of another. One of the most extreme forms of this is the street gang community. Fourthly, where a community consists of several thousand members and seeks to campaign on issues or influence public policy, whose voices should be heard and whose opinions counted? Fifthly, is the issue of timescale. Communities take time to cohere and are simultaneously resilient and fragile. One irony of the emergence over time of the Aylesbury Estate communities, is that they replaced the communities displaced by the redevelopment in the 1970s. Social relationships between strangers take years and decades to develop so length of residence in a neighbourhood becomes crucial. The longer people stay the more social interaction will occur and the stronger will be the community bonds. 9.5 And most worryingly, the reverse is true, short term residence, or churn, is the enemy of Type 1 community. So a question Ruth Glass could have asked was not, are the newcomers middle class but how long will they stay? Population churn of different kinds has become a serious problem in parts of London. That said problems can also result from an immobile population.39 Middle class people can of course create and contribute to local community spirit through establishing social relations between themselves and their working class neighbours but there is a well-recognised pattern of owner occupiers seeking out inner city properties for short term financial gain, captured well in a piece by Southwark Notes (appendix 6). Note the use of the Ruth Glass’ Type 1 gentrification claim that the “whole social character of the neighbourhood is changed” in appendix 6. Note also that the working class does not have a monopoly on Type 1 community. The threat to community cohesion stems less from the class status of residents and more from population churn and a lack: of social capital (friends, family, work, spare time, social confidence) and lack of neighbourhood investment in social and community infrastructure, especially in the key community cohesion sites. 10 Regeneration Policy Evolving regeneration policy 39 Scanlon K et al (2010) Population churn and its impact on socio-economic convergence in the five London 2012 host boroughs 36 10.1 Much of the history of regeneration in the UK is a history of projects and programmes without coherent policy and strategy, which at best come as afterthoughts. By the 1980s there were so many projects and programmes that the Audit Commission said in an elegant prose poetic style: … government support programmes are seen as a patchwork quilt of complexity and idiosyncrasy. They baffle local authorities and business alike. The rules of the game seem over-complex and sometimes capricious. They encourage compartmentalised policy approaches rather than a coherent strategy…40 10.2 For a while in the 1990s until 2010 there was a serious attempt to devise a coherent regeneration strategy for England under the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. But this approach along with the work of the Cabinet Office, Social Exclusion Unit was jettisoned by the Conservative lead Coalition government after 2010. An attempt in 2011 to fill the strategy void41 was subject to swingeing criticism by the DCLG Parliamentary Select Committee which said it: … lacks strategic coherence and does not seek to define what is meant by the term "regeneration". It is unclear about the nature of the problem it is trying to solve and to what overall outcome the measures set out will contribute… We recommend that the Government identify a set of clear objectives to enable the success of its approach to be assessed at both local and national level.42 10.3 Although the policy was reissued in 2012, the government did not respond to any of the Committee’s criticisms, preferring to offer instead: a nod to civic leadership, local businesses, social needs and community involvement. The 2012 strategy contains some broad generalisations about the localism role for regeneration objectives, stressing the austerity context and leaving it for local 40 Audit Commission (1989) quoted in Leary M. E. and McCarthy J. (2013: 5) The Routledge Companion to Urban Regeneration, London, Routledge 41 DCLG (2011) Regeneration to enable growth: What Government is doing in support of community-led regeneration 42 DCLG Parliamentary Committee (2011), quoted in Leary M. E. and McCarthy J. (2013: 5) The Routledge Companion to Urban Regeneration, London: Routledge 37 government to define regeneration.43 It is not clear whether this is still government regeneration policy. Senior officers at DCLG told me recently that it has been replaced by estate regeneration policy (see below) but it appears not to have been superseded and withdrawn formally. 10.4 The policy patchwork quilt continued into the 1990s until the City Challenge regeneration programme (1991 to 1993) introduced a holistic approach. City Challenge funded the controversial but largely successful demolition and redevelopment of the so called Hulme Crescents, a modernist, high rise council estate in Manchester. This may well have been the first example of what later came to be called estate regeneration. Since then many high-rise and mid-rise council housing estates in the UK have been either refurbished extensively or demolished and redeveloped. Few if any of these have been carried out solely by a local authority. Estate regeneration schemes have been delivered by partnerships between local government and the private sector or the not for profit housing sector. Carrying on the strategy vacuum tradition estate regeneration had to wait 15 years before government caught up with local authority practice. In 2016 Prime Minister Cameron announced a programme to regenerate 100 postWW2 modernist council estates in England.44 45 While some saw this as offering hope to residents trapped in poor housing and poverty46 others saw it as yet another attack on the principle of decent council housing for ordinary working people: I grew up in council houses, Part of what made Britain great There are some here who are hell-bent On the destruction of the welfare state.47 43 DCLG (2012) Regeneration to Enable Growth: A toolkit supporting community-led regeneration 44 Bennett A (2016) David Cameron's war on sink estates could destroy Jeremy Corbyn, The Telegraph, 14 January 45 Mudie K (2016) David Cameron's £140m sink estates fund exposed as documents reveal it has to be paid back, Daily Mirror, 28 February 46 Johnston P (2016) The welfarist Left wants poor people to be trapped in sink estates forever, The Telegraph, 11 January 47 Ad lib lyrics by the South London band The Squeeze during a performance of their song Cradle to the Grave on the BBC Andrew Marr Show in the presence of David Cameron, Sunday 10 January 2016 38 10.5 Cameron appointed Lord Michael Heseltine to chair a panel to develop national policy (England) for estate regeneration. The panel took evidence from a range of stakeholders and visited many estate regeneration schemes. A suite of policy documents followed under the umbrella of DCLG Estate Regeneration National Strategy (2016) (see CD 73). The principal policy documents are: DCLG (2016) Estate Regeneration National Strategy: executive summary DCLG (2016) Estate Regeneration National Strategy Good Practice Guide - Part 1 DCLG (2016) Estate Regeneration National Strategy Good Practice Guide - Part 2 Activity Map DCLG (2016) Good Practice Guide, Part 3: Design and Quality Checklist DCLG (2016) Estate Regeneration National Strategy: Case Studies 10.6 Given that we are now at least 10 years into the programme of regeneration for the Estate, much of the 2016 estate regeneration policy guidance is only of retrospective interest. However, the following extracts are relevant for this Inquiry: We have seen many estates in need of regeneration, characterised by poor quality housing, unattractive buildings in physical decline, and large areas of underutilised and degraded open space. They are often inward looking and physically, socially and economically disconnected from their surroundings, leading to higher concentrations of social deprivation and lack of opportunities for communities living there.48 Estate regeneration can transform neighbourhoods by delivering well designed housing and public space, a better quality of life and new opportunities for residents. It provides an opportunity both to improve housing for existing residents and to provide much needed new homes, particularly in urban areas, where estates have been built at relatively low 48 DCLG (2016) Estate Regeneration National Strategy: executive summary (CD 73 p 3682-2 para 4) 39 densities. We believe estate regeneration has the potential to deliver thousands of net additional homes over the next 10 to 15 years.49 We have seen some excellent examples of regeneration schemes in all parts of the country. Whether finished, in delivery, just getting going or still an idea, it is clear that no two schemes are the same and different places face different challenges. A ‘one size fits all’ national approach is not appropriate. But we think there are three key principles that underpin successful estate regeneration: a. Community engaged as partners b. Support and leadership of the local authority c. Willingness to work with the private sector [and presumably, the not for profit sector] to access commercial skills and lever in investment.50 10.7 In addition, 16 good practice cases studies are highlighted in the National Estate Regeneration policy. Several of the case studies (appendix 7) are illuminating and highly relevant. They offer appropriate comparisons with the CPO Land and wider Aylesbury Estate proposals. An important point to note here is that the case studies range from complete and partial refurbishment to complete demolition and redevelopment. It therefore becomes apparent that each model may be appropriate depending on local circumstances and each model is highlighted by the government as good practice. 10.8 It is pertinent to highlight Case study 12: Rayners Lane. This estate regeneration project, which included significant amounts of demolition, is the only one of the 16 case studies to have independent evaluation of the scheme. A research team from the London School of Economics (LSE) found that: - 85% of residents said the estate was now better than it was before the regeneration. 49 (CD 73 p3682 -2 para 1) DCLG (2016) Estate Regeneration National Strategy: executive summary (CD 73 p3682-2, para 3) 50 40 - 80% believe the quality of life is good or excellent, compared to a quarter in 2003. - Half of residents said they believed crime had reduced, while there was also a positive impact on health. - Brian Ham, director for enterprise and development at Home Group, said: “These results are really positive and a good benchmark for other regeneration projects. Most importantly, residents are now clearly very happy with their homes, think highly of Home Group as a landlord and generally feel much safer and more involved with the community.” 10.9 Anne Power, Professor of Social policy at LSE who helped carry out the research, said: “Rayners Lane shows that it is possible to rebuild a former council estate with most of the existing tenants in place. By providing local management and community resources, the landlord can help the community flourish.”51 52 10.10 However, the government (England) still does not offer a definition of urban regeneration and it is to their credit that the Council and most local authorities have undertaken many worthwhile regeneration schemes in this definitional vacuum. In some ways it is not surprising that the current right of centre neoliberal Conservative government is reluctant to define what it means by regeneration, since regeneration is de facto state intervention as is evident from DCLG (2016) Estate Regeneration National Strategy. In addition regeneration encompasses two of the most hotly contested concepts in planning policy and practice, and social science: gentrification and community therefore, I address both of these below. An understanding of just what urban regeneration might mean is absolutely necessary though in reaching a view as to whether the FDS CPO should be confirmed. 11 Mixed Communities-based regeneration What is a mixed community? 51 quoted in, Apps P (2016) LSE: tenants positive about regeneration, Inside Housing, 9 May 52 Provan B, Belotti P and Power A (2016) Moving on without moving out: the impacts of regeneration on the Rayners Lane Estate, LSE Housing and Communities 41 11.1 Despite mixed communities being an aim of government and local policy (set out below), the precise meaning of the concept of mixed community is far from settled: a) Social mix (or social balance) is thought to prevent or decrease societal problems, such as poverty and unemployment, or at least their concentration, and to avoid the stigmatisation of residents living in a specific neighbourhood (social mix is supposed to be achieved at neighbourhood level). This theory is based on the assumption that space has a deterministic effect on those who live in a specific area. b) However, there are problems in defining what is meant by a mixed community. Is it income mix, ethnic mix, social mix or tenure mix? How mixed should the mix be? And at what spatial scale? c) In the UK, a key focus has been on diluting or preventing concentrations of poverty that can arise from the spatial concentration of public housing. A further aim of UK governments has been to use tenure mix to achieve communities that are sustainable into the future.53 11.2 It is evident that to the list in c) above can be added: age, disability, sexual orientation, religion, employment status and social class. The claims for mixed communities 11.3 To reiterate, concentrations of people, families and neighbourhoods suffering from disadvantage or what the government calls multiple deprivation, have been and are regarded as a serious problem for towns and cities in England. The range of problems is captured well by the IMD. Post-1980s such areas have consistently been characterised by high levels of lower income residents living in social rent housing. It should be noted however, that while there is a statistical correlation between deprivation and social rent housing, no research or government has ever demonstrated theoretically or empirically that the latter causes the former. Given that concentrations of deprivation exist, mixed 53 Monk S et al (2011: i) Mixed Communities Literature Review, Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research, University of Cambridge 42 communities policy, especially mixed housing tenure, has been proposed as a solution by government for several decades. The rationale for long term strategic mixed community policy is that in neighbourhoods suffering from deprivation and disadvantage it will:54 a) Reduce place-based stigma. b) Improve life chances for disadvantaged residents (usually working class). c) Improve social networks of (working class) people suffering from deprivation (often multiple in nature). d) Increase social control and improved social organisation of neighbourhoods suffering from deprivation. e) Crate a positive ‘role model’ influence of middle-class people on working class people suffering from deprivation, particularly regarding education and employment. f) Improve the provision of public sector and private sector goods and services in the neighbourhood. g) Improve physical environments (related to point 6). h) Ameliorate harmful social exclusion. i) Promote tolerance of social and cultural differences. j) Encourage a sense of social and community neighbourhood responsibility and belonging. k) Promote a more socially cohesive neighbourhood. l) Lever in private investment. 54 Adapted from: Fraser, DeFillipis and Bazuin (2012) “HOPE VI: Calling for modesty in its claims” in, Bridge, Butler and Lees Mixed Communities: Gentrification by Stealth, Policy Press Tunstall R and Lupton R (2010) Mixed Communities Evidence Review, DCLG Camina M and Wood M (2009) “Parallel Lives: Towards a Greater Understanding of What Mixed Communities Can Offer”, Urban Studies, 46(2) 459–480 Lupton R and Fuller C (2009)”Mixed communities: a new approach to spatially concentrated poverty in England”, International journal of urban and regional research, 33: 4, 1014-1028 43 11.4 It is unlikely that the objectors, the Council and Notting Hill do not share these goals and aspirations for the Aylesbury Estate. So the question becomes, how should these objectives be achieved? 12 Underpinnings and critiques of mixed communities policy Research findings 12.1 In a proof of evidence for a public inquiry, there is a limit to how much mixed communities research can be included sensibly. In a nutshell, researchers and academics disagree about the impacts, positive and negative of mixed communities as an approach to regeneration. Academic advocates of mixed communities policy point to a range of benefits (discussed below). Critics argue that the major problems with mixed communities policy are that it: forces social rent tenants out of the area, pushes up the prices and rents of residential property and leads to a loss of local shops and services on which people on lower incomes rely.55 Note that Professor Lees’ (2014) Aylesbury Estate paper seems to be based on research carried out in 2011 and therefore predates the FDS proposals by several years. Critics also claim that residents are excluded from decision making processes. While some academics are vehemently opposed to mixed communities, suggesting it may be gentrification by stealth.56 12.2 Others are critical that it cannot overcome structural social and economic constraints of capitalist society.57 However, even anti-gentrification academics accept that in the UK the potential harmful side-effects of mixed communities policy are mitigated: Those nations who have promoted policies or programmes and social mixing in inner-city neighbourhoods share something very particular in common, something that the gentrification literature is only beginning to think Lees L (2014) “The Urban Injustices of New Labour’s “New Urban Renewal”: The Case of the Aylesbury Estate in London”, Antipode, 46: 4, 921-947 56 Bridge G, Butler T and Lees L (2012) Mixed Communities: Gentrification by Stealth? Bristol: Policy Press 57 Cheshire, P. (2007) Segregated neighbourhoods and mixed communities: A critical analysis. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation 55 44 through now – they are all functioning liberal democracies and have welfare programs of one variety or another. This is important because, despite claims about the revanchist nature of gentrification in the Global North… The fact is that welfare programs, no matter how limited and problematic they may be, will still act as mediators against the worst atrocities of gentrification. This is rarely the case in the Global South, because in cities such as Mumbai, Karachi and Shanghai gentrification is much more visceral – the displacement quantitatively and qualitatively larger – and in these countries, the state makes no effort to conceal it…58 12.2 Use of the phrase “atrocities of gentrification” is unfortunate hyperbole and in the UK context of estate regeneration I am not aware of any atrocities. Nor am I aware of research that demonstrates UK residents of mixed communities-led regeneration initiatives being forced out of their homes and relocated against their will. Secure tenants in UK council housing have choice about to where they wish to be rehoused. And usually have the’ right to return’ to the redeveloped estate (see para 14.6 below). 12.3 Professor Lees’ critique of the Aylesbury Estate regeneration predates the FDS proposals by several years. In addition, Professor Lees accepts in the context of the Aylesbury Estate regeneration that: … mixed communities policy in countries of the global North (unlike the global South) guarantees at least some social housing and protection for the poor (disputes over “affordability”, displacement and gentrification aside)…59 12.4 In the Afterword conclusions to the book, the editors present a damning critique of mixed communities regeneration: 58 Bridge et al (2012: 3) in, Mixed Communities: Gentrification by Stealth? Bristol: Policy Press 59 Lees L (2014) “The Urban Injustices of New Labour’s “New Urban Renewal”: The Case of the Aylesbury Estate in London”, Antipode, 46: 4 45 This book has explored social mix policies in a number of countries and in terms of policy expectations and outcome. In spite of the differences in national policy contexts, housing systems, city and neighbourhood characteristics, the overwhelming conclusion of this review is that social mix policies are largely ineffective in enhancing the welfare of the poorest urban residents, and in some cases detrimental to the welfare of the urban poor.60 12.5 This raises three major concerns. Firstly, the poorest urban residents do not usually live in secure social rent tenure housing and other government initiatives quite rightly, aim to support them. Secondly, these Afterword conclusions disavow any possibility of benefits for existing working class residents arising from mixed communities regeneration (see below). Thirdly, and more fundamentally, there is a, “lack of conceptual and an ontological consistency between chapters, particularly with regard to gentrification”.61 In other words, examining mixed communities regeneration through the lens of a poorly defined derogatory term is deeply problematic. 12.6 All the mixed communities research I have encountered relies on case studies and a cross-sectional, rather than longitudinal research design, that is, the research collects data at one point in time, rather than over several years. The analyses are usually qualitative. They can be inherently useful providing valuable detail about the particular cases. But quantitative approaches allow statistically based generalisations to be made. Great care must be exercised in generalising from case study data since every mixed communities’ initiative is unique. That said, a variety of researchers conclude sensibly that significant benefits have and can be derived from mixed communities-based regeneration interventions, for example: The three case neighbourhoods studies with illustrate good that investment infrastructure and in focused well-planned community development support provided the opportunity for people to live lives that were reasonably free from the problems associated with areas of 60 Bridge et al (2012: 319) Gent van W.P.C. (2013: 1313) Book Review, Mixed Communities: Gentrification by Stealth, Urban Studies, 50: 6, 1311-13 61 46 concentrated deprivation. We are seeing parallel lives, but with a strong community of interest.62 However, in the light of evidence of genuine neighbourhood effects… - i.e. that there is a net change to life-chances by living in one area rather than another - and the potential for neighbourhoods of this type to provide escape routes from social disadvantage, the policy of promoting such developments is important. The research findings go some way towards reassuring the doubters, while also indicating limits on what can be achieved.63 It may be considered an achievement of policy that home owners have bought properties in deprived, stigmatised and formerly run-down areas and there is no doubt that these developments have changed these housing estates for the better. There has been a reduction in stigma, and an improvement in optimism for the future which, in themselves, may serve as forces that will help to drive the job market and social inclusion in the future. While we cannot be sure of such outcomes the existence of similar outcomes across the three estates suggests that similar conditions might produce outcomes consistent with the results of this research. This study shows that the proposition that home owners can help transform deprived communities is not a hopeless one. 64 12.7 Government sponsored independent academic research also supports, in a careful circumspect way, mixed communities-based regeneration: There is widespread international and UK researcher and stakeholder consensus that limited evidence on negative neighbourhood effects from living in an unmixed area or positive neighbourhood effects of changing area tenure and social mix is no justification for throwing either the Camina and Wood (2009: 478) “Parallel Lives: Towards a Greater Understanding of What Mixed Communities Can Offer”, Urban Studies, 46(2) 459–480 63 Camina and Wood (2009: 474) 64 Atkinson R and Kintrea K (2000: 106) “Owner-occupation, social mix and neighbourhood impacts”, Policy & Politics vol 28 no 1: 93–108 62 47 neighbourhood renewal or the mixed communities babies out with the bathwater. The agreement that mixed communities approaches do not offer a quick or dramatic fix for the problems of disadvantaged areas does not imply giving up, and some kinds of mixed communities approaches have a part to play.65 12.8 It must be stressed though that academic support for mixed communities regeneration is not unequivocal. It is always cautious, contingent and clear that mixed tenure alone does not provide a magical solution to problems of neighbourhood disadvantage of the type experienced on the Aylesbury Estate. Mixed communities regeneration can only bring benefits when part of an integrated holistic package of initiatives and investments across the social, economic and environmental spheres: … there should be a range of policies to address the problems of concentrations of poverty, both in terms of avoiding the creation of new concentrations and addressing what is happening in existing neighbourhoods. Introducing mix as part of regeneration schemes can be successful if it is undertaken in a sensitive way with the full support of existing residents and minimum disruption, although this may be a tall order. The main conclusion is that mixed communities as a policy should not be seen as a panacea.66 12.9 Regarding the proposals for the FDS there are indeed a range of policies to tackle multiple deprivation that aim to deliver a variety of housing, health, social, economic, community, environmental and public interest benefits. I evaluate the most significant benefits and disbenefits of the FDS scheme in sections 14 and 15 below. Before that it is important to consider mixed communities policy. 13 Mixed communities policy 65 Tunstall R and Lupton R (2010:27) Mixed Communities: Evidence Review, DCLG 66 Monk S et al (2011: ii) Mixed Communities Literature Review, Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research, University of Cambridge 48 National policy 13.1 Mixed communities policy at the national level for England (NPPF 2012) is focused on housing type and tenure but seeks by implication to secure the kinds of improvements identified at para 11.3 above. NPPF gives strategic guidance regarding mixed communities and affordable housing stressing that, “Such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time.” see appendix 10. London wide policy 13.2 The adopted London Plan (2016) contains the Mayor’s strategic mixed communities policy. The Mayor offers a more holistic approach to mixed communities than NPPF, referring to factors other than tenure that are necessary to make it work. This concept is not explained or defined but the implication is that a more balanced mix of tenures means the proportion of social rent is reduced and owner occupation increased. The Plan also relates mixed communities to the concentrations of deprivation and the achievement of regeneration benefits (appendix 10). 13.3 In December 2016 the Mayor published a draft mixed communities strategic policy document for consultation67 (see CD 74, and appendix 10). It is important to note that the Mayor accepts that demolition is a legitimate aspect of mixed communities regeneration. He also acknowledges that it may involve some disruption, take years to come to fruition and that residents’ involvement and support are crucial. And I am pleased to see the use of the term ‘right to return’. This is something of which I am sure Henri Lefebvre would approve. London Borough of Southwark: local policy 13.4 Given that a large part of Southwark contains neighbourhoods suffering disadvantage as measured by the IMD 2015, it is unsurprising that the themes of regeneration and mixed communities run through most of the policies in the Core 67 Mayor of London (2016) HOMES FOR LONDONERS: Draft Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration 49 Strategy (2011). Here I draw attention to three strategic objectives of the Southwark Core Strategy (2011) concerning mixed communities and related policies regarding laces for learning, enjoyment and healthy lifestyles and homes for people on different incomes (appendix 10). Rather than relying solely on mixed tenure, the Council takes a sensible integrated approach to mixed communities of the kind recommended by government and academic research (see sections 11 and 12 above). This includes delivering a range of social and physical infrastructure and working with other agencies, to achieve regeneration benefits that aim to improve the lives and well-being of residents. This policy approach is important because it demonstrates clearly how the policy is related to the range of regeneration benefits identified in independent mixed communities research (see section 12 above). 13.5 At the first Inquiry Inspector Coffey concluded that the FDS redevelopment specified in (planning permission) 14/AP/3843 accords with the planning framework for the area specified in the Development Plan (See CD50 p2681 para339). I agree with that conclusion. Since 2015 the important regeneration policy development is the Mayor’s (2016) Draft Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration. This is mainly a refinement of the regeneration policies in the London Plan. I conclude that the proposals for the Order Land are in accordance with this emerging draft policy. From my perspective it is clear that the proposals for the CPO Land comply with mixed communities-led regeneration policy. It is worth stressing that this compliance needs to be understood in terms of the FDS proposals alongside the objectives of the AAAP (2010) for the whole Aylesbury Estate. This is one of the challenges for the Inspector and Secretary of State, necessitated by the long timescale and phasing requirements of such a huge regeneration scheme. 14 Evaluation of the FDS Proposal Trade-offs between regeneration objectives 14.1 In an ideal world regeneration would bring only benefits but we live in a complex, messy world of political priorities, serious societal challenges and compromise. Jeremy Bentham the English philosopher and social reformer, noted 50 perceptively in the 18th century that the state could never intervene in public life in any significant way without imposing disbenefits on somebody. Similarly, no large regeneration intervention can bring only benefits and no disbenefits. So the questions become not, are there any disbenefits but what are the benefits and disbenefits, over what timescales do they operate and how do they measure up against each other? Since some disbenefits are unavoidable, such as disruption during the construction and decanting phases so another question becomes how can they be mitigated and compensated where appropriate? In addition the FDS scheme has a range of objectives regarding, for example affordable housing, secure tenants’ options to return, shared ownership and open market housing, public open space, carbon reduction and environmental enhancement. Some of these benefits are to an extent mutually exclusive so the more of one means less of another. There will be difficult and contentious trade-offs between benefits and between benefits and disbenefits. There will be negotiated compromise. It is important to stress that the benefits of the CPO scheme are not simply a Council wish list or some developer’s vague promises. There are four safeguards, legal and/or statutory mechanisms, which will ensure the regeneration benefits are secured: a) the section 106 obligation (5 August 2015 – CD 64)) and associated Deed of Clarification (14 October 2015 – CD65). b) the Development Partnership Agreement between the Council and Notting Hill (CD 68) c) the conditions required by full planning permission 14/AP/3843 (CD 62). d) the Design and Access Statement for the FDS. Disbenefits 14.2 I do not take issue with all parts of Inspector Coffey’s report, but there are certain matters to which I must draw attention. At the first FDS CPO Public Inquiry (2015) the Inspector identified a number of disbenefits as follows: a) overshadowing of some land and buildings and inadequate sunlight into some habitable rooms (CD50 p2695 para 417). b) a reduction in social rented residential units (CD50 p2681 para338). 51 c) 50% of tenants being rehoused away from the footprint of the Estate (CD50 p2683 para 349). d) impact on the Human Rights of leaseholders under EU law (CD50 p2696 para 422) (covered by other witnesses). 14.3 One of the regeneration challenges is that daylight and sunlight objectives for regeneration schemes have to be weighed alongside other project objectives such as density, number of residential units, tenure mix and cross-subsidy of affordable housing by open market housing. The Council faced some difficult choices regarding these objectives. Inspector Coffey seems to assume that the original Aylesbury Estate met current sunlight and daylight standards but no assessment of this has been carried out for comparative purposes. Ideally, the standards set out by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) would be achieved. But BRE is clear that the standards are not mandatory and should be applied flexibly.68 BRE accepts that for high rise modern developments, “a higher degree of obstruction may be unavoidable.” 69 Achieving higher densities to make more efficient use of land in an urban location is a major part of the vision for the FDS. Daniel Davis and Simon Bayliss cover these issues in their evidence. 14.4 There is an expected reduction of about 100 social rent units on the FDS. This is mitigated by several key facts: 1) the FDS scheme will see a significant rise in the number of new housing units and an increase in tenure choice; 2) an overall gain in affordable residential accommodation of 9,910 square metres (see CD83 p4342 para 7.11); 3) the increase in dwellings suitable for larger families and the delivery of an extra care facility for the elderly and specialised facilities for people with learning difficulties (CD50 p2683 para 346); 4) the provision of affordable housing in the FDS scheme and for the Estate is fully in accordance with the adopted local planning framework that constitutes the development plan (CD50 p2681, para 339) (see section 15.16 below regarding the section 73 amendment). 14.5 Allied with the issue of social rent units is that of the proportion of Council tenants remaining on the Estate after redevelopment. Inspector Coffey states categorically that about 50% of existing residents will be rehoused away from the 68 Littlefair P (2011: para1.6) Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: a guide to good practice, BRE 52 Estate (CD50 p2695 para 416). In fact this figure relates to the whole Estate not just the CPO Land and is derived not from the section 106 or any planning permission but from the AAAP (2010). It is important to realise that this 50% relates to the early phasing of the scheme before rehousing directly onto new properties on the Estate becomes feasible: 7.2.6 In order to minimise abortive expenditure on blocks which are due for demolition, we will demolish the worst blocks first and maximise the pace of change by undertaking a managed programme which will include the acquisitions of existing leaseholders, the rehousing of tenants and demolition. We will accommodate approximately 50% of existing tenants through the re-provision of homes on site; the remainder will be accommodated off site, but given the option to return to the estate (CD2 p 109). 14.6 So the 50% is an approximation rather than a fixed target. In fact it is clear that the intention is to accommodate more than 50% on site is guaranteed by opportunities and options for secure tenants to be rehoused on the Estate footprint or close by. This happened for London and Quadrant redevelopments at Sites 7 and 1a. Effectively, this is ‘a right to return’. Of course some may not wish to return. The Council owns many social rent properties close to the Estate and the priority was, is and will be to rehouse some secure tenants on the Estate or close by so they can retain easily the community relationships enjoyed on the Estate. Given the size of the Estate, some tenants rehoused just outside the Estate will be closer to their former home than if they moved to another part of the Estate. That said, the right to return must be understood as a return not to the isolated, troubled Aylesbury Estate but to a transformed new London district, integrated into its surroundings and without the terrible stigma. 14.7 This right to return certainly does not infringe their Lefebvrian right to the city that I consider to be of great importance. In her conclusions Inspector Coffey found no statistical evidence, notwithstanding the testimony of objectors and the anecdotal evidence of Professor Lees, was presented at the first Inquiry, to show that the majority residents were being rehoused far from the Estate due to necessity rather than choice (CD50 p2683 para 348). 53 14.8 The rise in the proportion of owner-occupied and market rented is seen as a disbenefit by some objectors, giving rise to an influx of middle class residents leading to a mixed community and gentrification. It is far from clear what harm would be caused here given that no forced relation or coercive displacement of residents will happen. In any case any potential disbenefit needs to be weighed alongside the provision of an increased number of dwellings across the FDS, the increase in dwellings suitable for larger families, the delivery of an extra care facility for the elderly, specialised facilities for people with learning difficulties and a wide range of other physical, environmental, social and economic benefits. 14.9 On the one hand, several objectors and other witnesses at the first Inquiry along with campaigners and journalists have expressed the view that there will be a loss ‘community spirit’ or a ‘sense of community’ if the FDS scheme goes ahead. On the other, Aylesbury Estate residents complain about the distinct lack of community. It is difficult to know which of the two types of ‘community’ the objectors have in mind. I assume they are referring to Type 1; communities of intense, durable social relations in a specific geographical location. Inevitably today however, this type of community is facilitated by social media and these social relations are independent of geographical location. Importantly, I would not expect Type 2, communities of interests to be disrupted by the FDS proposals. 14.10 It is apparent that Inspector Coffey did not share the view of some objectors and Professor Lees that the FDS scheme threatened Type 1 community at the Aylesbury Estate. On the contrary, she was adamant that the significant proportion of residents being re-accommodated within the Estate would help maintain the existing sense of community(CD50 p2683 para 349), or as I would say, maintain intense, meaningful social relations of propinquity. I would add that existing working class residents leaving the Estate would not impact on Type 2 community relations. 14.11 Other witnesses will cover the Human Rights issue and the potential impact on leaseholders regarding their human rights under EU law is of course a serious matter. My concern here concerns the residents’ right to the city or centrality. Unfortunately, there is no absolute right to a particular private or public residential 54 property and all private land interests in the UK may be subject to the compulsory purchase by the state inasmuch as the CPO acquisition is proportionate and necessary in the public interest. I can empathise with the leaseholders as my own family was impacted by the compulsory purchase of our Victorian terrace home by Manchester Corporation in the 1960s. If the leaseholders were being forcefully relocated against their will to the periphery of the London, then their right to the city would be violated in ways contrary Lefebvrian ideas and to UN Habitat III. Other Disbenefits 14.11 In addition to these four disbenefits raised by Inspector Coffey in her conclusions, there is another I would highlight: disruption caused by the demolition and construction phases. Demolition and construction will impact on leaseholders and any remaining tenants on the FDS site. They will have wider impacts too on other residents across the Estate. These impacts are mitigated by a number of measured specified in the conditions for planning permission 14/AP/3843 specifically: a) Condition 5, Demolition Environmental Management Plan b) Condition 19. Construction Environmental Management Plan 14.12 These are short term disruptions. Over the decades however, many residents on the Estate have had to endure long term disruption that has become a way of life related to: crime, anti-social behaviour, lift break down, heating system failure and water and sewerage leaks. 15 Regeneration benefits Physical and environmental benefits 15.1 In this section I evaluate the benefits of the FDS proposals from a regeneration perspective. In bringing forward the regeneration proposals, the Council and Notting Hill were mindful of the importance of securing benefits that improve or promote one or more of the: environmental, social and economic well55 being of the FDS. The range and depth of local community involvement over at least a decade is striking, for the FDS scheme in particular (see Inspector Coffey’s report, CD50 p2681 para 339 and pp2693-4 para 408, and the evidence of Mr Platts. 15.2 69 The section 106 obligation (August 2015) and Deed of Clarification October (2015) (CDs 64 and 65) specify significant regeneration benefits, regarding the FDS proposals that will improve well-being. In addition, the section 106 obligation refers to other regeneration benefits outside the FDS as part of outline planning permission 14/AP/3844 (2014). I am explicit below where benefits refer to the FDS or the outline permission. The vision to deliver the benefits overall depends in part on the delivery of the FDS scheme. Similarly, confirming the FDS CPO is material to maintaining momentum and facilitating decants and rehousing in later phases. This rehousing is part of the options and opportunities in the tenants ‘right to return’. With this in mind I have identified where benefits will accrue for the FDS and outside the FDS as part of the outline permission. 15.3 For analytical purposes I have arranged the regeneration benefits under three headings. However, it is obvious that several of them interrelate and are mutually reinforcing. Few disagree that the design of the FDS enhances safety in public space through active ground floor frontages and properties that overlook the new streets, play areas and London Cycle Hire and car club areas. The adopted public spaces of the CPO Land will be genuine public space in that they will have high degrees of publicness as define above. In addition Notting Hill must allow the general public all year, free and unobstructed access to the non-adopted ‘public spaces’ for the lifetime of the development.70 15.4 Under the terms of section 106 legal obligation71 Notting Hill will provide: a) Children’s Play Facilities (FDS Development) £78,369 (index linked) for 12+ years’ play equipment in Burgess Park. 69 Notting Hill (2017) Regeneration Programme Timeline, www.aylesburynow.london/regeneration/regeneration-programme 70 section106 Obligation (5 August 2015) Schedule 3 71 section 106 Obligation Schedules 3, 5 and 6 Site Wide Children’s Play Provision Strategy Schedule 3, 13 56 b) Children’s Play Facilities (Outline Development) £737,369 for 12+ years’ play equipment in Burgess Park. c) Children’s Play Facilities Two Multi Use Games Areas (within the Outline Development) and 2 public play spaces (within the FDS). d) A ‘Quiet Way’ within the FDS (on sections of Portland street and Albany Road will be delivered by the Council and a contribution of £647,123 (if required) will be made by Notting Hill. e) London Cycle Hire contribution £200,000 (FDS). f) London Cycle Hire contribution £150,000 (stage 2a Outline Development). g) London Cycle Hire contribution £50,000 (stage 2b Outline Development). h) Legible London Signage contribution £17,500 (Outline Development). i) Legible London Signage contribution £17,500 (FDS). j) Bus contributions, to be used for improvements to bus services and bus stops serving the Outline and FDS developments: I. Prior to implementation of stage 4a £750,000. II. One year after implementation of stage 4a £750,000. III. Two years after implementation of stage 4a £750,000. k) Archaeology Contributions for survey and evaluation work in the Borough £39,116 (Outline Development). 15.5 The biggest tranche of money is guaranteed by the DPA. Notting Hill will make a £9M infrastructure payment to the Council for Plot 18 (also known as Site 10). This money could contribute to the health and early years’ facilities, the library and new public square.72 The FDS redevelopment will help fund these benefits and FDS residents will enjoy these facilities. Eleanor Purser’s evidence will cover these issues from the Notting Hill perspective. 15.6 Significant biodiversity and nature conservation benefits will accrue from the scheme for the CPO Land as follows (full Planning Permission 14/AP/3843 (2015, conditions): a) Ecological Management Plan: biodiverse green roofs, nest boxes, rain gardens, native planning, Condition 6. 72 DPA, Schedule 4 (redacted sections) but now in the public domain 57 b) Green/Brown Roofs, Condition 14. c) Biodiversity Roofs, Condition 22. d) Bat Tubes and Boxes, Condition 23. e) Swift Boxes, Condition 24. f) Ecological Monitoring, Condition 31. 15.7 An innovative aspect of the section 106 is the requirement for an Interim Uses Strategy, also known as ‘meantime uses’. Notting Hill must have approved in writing by the Council a strategy for how best use can be made, for the benefit of ‘the community’, of vacant sites during the development stages.73 For example, there is provision for community allotment-type gardening spaces.74 This initiative will help build Type 1 and 2 community relations and build on the existing allotment initiative located in phase 4. These initiatives will support and enhance community relations and capacity building. 15.8 Condition 17 Designing Out Crime (14/AP/3843) will help guarantee improved public safety. Public space on the Aylesbury Estate tended to rather forbidding and inward looking, dominated by internal courtyards, dark under crofts, parking areas and hard play areas. The new layout creates streets that reestablish the historic 19th century street pattern and will facilitate social interaction between the new development and the immediate surrounding area. In addition the scheme provides for a new public square for Plot 18 (Site 10 in the AAAP masterplan) and a range of play spaces guaranteed by the AAAP (2010), the Site Wide Children’s Play Provision Strategy, the Pedestrian and Cycle Delivery Plan and the Access and Design Statement (14/AP/3843). 15.9 There will significant increases in energy efficiency and a reduction in the per capita carbon footprint arising from two features of the CPO Land redevelopment. Firstly, the new residential and other properties will be much more energy efficient than the 1970s Estate, making the FDS scheme far more sustainable.75 Secondly, a combined heat and power system also called a district heating system and energy centre will be installed to service the FDS and later 73 74 75 section 106 Obligation (5 August 2015) Schedule 3 Business Plan section 9.7.3.3 Inspector Coffey’s Report 2016, para 83 58 whole redevelopment. It will be as fuel efficient and produce the least CO2 possible in accordance with a Site Wide Energy Strategy prepared by Notting Hill and approved by the Council. 76 Social benefits 15.10 The redevelopment of the Estate has already delivered a community Resource Centre for people with mobility impairment (Site 1a). This will benefit existing and future residents of the FDS and the whole redevelopment. It is important per se but it is also important because it gives a concrete indication of the significant social benefits the FDS scheme will bring. In the short, medium and long term the proposals for the CPO Land will deliver, initiate, facilitate or contribute to the following benefits: increased number and range housing units and tenures, health facilities and community facilities. At present Notting Hill funds and manages or works in partnership to deliver a raft of community support and cohesion initiatives under the banner of ‘Know Your Regeneration’. They include community building activities such as: gardening, cooking, sports’ coaching, business training, singing, drama, snowboarding or ski sessions for young people, an intergenerational summer programme, the Walworth Road 4 Streets Festival and a Latin American Festival. These programmes indicate the commitment of Notting Hill to supporting Type 1 community across the Estate. 15.11 Currently, the residents and wider Southwark population enjoy a range of health services on the Estate. But the functioning of the services is impaired by the Estate’s well known problems inherent in the 1970s design and building defects. In addition the GP Surgery operates at basement level which is less than ideal. The new facilities will be built on the former Amersham Site which has been cleared and is ready for development: 76 section 106 Obligation (5 August 2015) Schedule 8, 18.1 and planning condition 18 WSP Group Ltd (2015) Energy Assessment and District Heating Study – Version 2 59 … now referred to as Plot 18, [Site 10) along Thurlow Street, next to the current Aylesbury Medical Centre. The development will contain a new GP and health centre, early years’ facilities, a stay and play service, retail space including a new pharmacy, and a public square, plus around 120 new homes – at least half of which will be a mix of social rent and shared ownership for residents on the Aylesbury estate.77 15.12 The facilities will be funded mainly by the Council with index linked contributions from Notting Hill as follows:78 a) Health Contribution (FDS) £950,411. b) Health Contribution (Outline Development) £3,201,077. 15.13 Notting Hill will contribute towards new community facilities (Use Class D1 or D2) as follows: a) Community Facility Contribution (Outline Development) up to £583,570 towards the cost of new or refurbished community space or pre-school facilities in Faraday Ward.79 b) an index linked pro-rata rate of £354 per square metre (GIA) if there is s shortfall in the provision of Early Education and Childspace or Flexible Community Space (Outline Development).80 15.14 The FDS development will provide additional social rent habitable rooms and larger family housing units. It will provide extra care accommodation for elderly people and supported housing for people with learning disabilities and will therefore meet housing needs not currently satisfied either within the CPO Land or the Estate.81 Notting Hill is required contractually to market the open market flats (locally, London, nationally) for at least three months before marketing them 77 LBS (2016) A £35m investment into new community facilities at heart of one of London’s biggest regeneration projects has been approved, www.southwark.gov.uk/news/ 78 section 106 Obligation (5 August 2015) Schedule 6 79 section 106 Obligation, p10 80 section 106 Obligation, Schedule 6 81 Inspector’s report 29 January 2016, para 346 60 overseas.82 It will provide funding to the Creation Trust of £250,000 per annum for five years from 1 April 2015 (DPA). Of the affordable units 75% must be social target rent units. The Council amended the section 106 obligation following a suggestion by the 35% Campaign, to specify a particular definition of affordable housing, that is, social rented housing.83 Attention is drawn to Schedule 3 of the DPA which provides a range of obligatory community, social and economic benefits to be delivered by Notting Hill. 15.15 Data provided by the Creation Trust84 show that a significant proportion of residents have so far been rehoused within the Estate footprint or close by (appendix 8). Of course others have chosen to live away from the Estate but close by in Southwark. And we know that some residents have chosen for personal reasons to rehouse in other parts of London or other parts of the country. This distribution should come as no surprise given the ambivalence of many residents towards the Estate and the fact that some residents find living on the Estate too challenging. The leaseholders have been made an offer that allows them to retain their right to the city in the sense that they will be able to stay either on the footprint of the Estate or close by. They will be able to enjoy urban life and social relationships with family and friends locally in similar fashion as before. In fact the Estate will become a much more pleasant place to live, after some initial short term adjustment. 15.16 In the arena of this Public Inquiry there is a focus on the objections of some residents. Many more residents understand that the regeneration will cause some disruption during the redevelopment and rehousing phases but understand also the opportunities created. The Creation Trust supports residents through the rehousing process and gives voice to residents who have been rehoused in the magazine Aylesbury Echo. These honest accounts speak of some of the difficulties but also acknowledge the benefits of rehousing away from the Estate (appendix 9). 82 83 84 DPA para 10, Schedule 3 Deed of Clarification (14 October 2015) Creation Trust (2017) Echo26, Newsletter, Summer edition 61 15.17 Notting Hill has submitted an application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for an amendment to full planning permission 14/AP/3843 (2015). Details of the amendment are set out in the evidence of Daniel Davies. In brief, the main aims are to increase the provision of affordable housing for the FDS scheme and to refine some parts of the design. Given the two year hiatus, this is to be expected. The changes are welcome, but are not fundamental. Economic benefits 15.18 Finally I highlight the economic benefits that will flow from the redevelopment of the FDS. Considerable additional local spending by incoming residents will accrue estimated at £7.4M per annum. The Council will derive a considerable income over the long term from the sale of its interests in the land and from a share of any development surplus, or overage. This income can presumably be used to reduce the Council’s borrowing and provide much needed services to the residents of the Borough. Significantly, the increase in the number of residential units on the FDS will lead to an increase in council tax receipts for the Council. Notting Hill is contractually obligated to provide employment and training opportunities for unemployed and other Borough residents. This is a substantial package of regeneration benefits for the lifetime of the construction phase of the FDS and whole redevelopment. Training and workspace funding will be provided (index linked) by Notting Hill as follows:85 a) £47,503 for programme management and monitoring costs of the Training and Employment Advisor (FDS). b) £159,995 for programme management and monitoring costs of the Training and Employment Advisor (Outline Development). c) £3,730,000 for Employment in the Development Contribution (Outline Development), for new or refurbished workspace within the Borough. 85 section 106 Obligation (5 August 2015) Schedule 6 62 15.19 I will not repeat the rest of the economic benefit details here but these initiatives will impact positively on the lives of FDS, Estate and Southwark residents.86 15.20 A flavour of the employment and training impact is given in this interview with 21 years old Jermaine who has lived on the Estate since he was three years old and worked on Site 1a: What’s the best things about doing an apprenticeship? I am not paying any fees! Durkan, my employers pay my fees. If you just go to college, you might get a qualification, but you don’t get the experience, so you might find it hard to get a job. Having a trade is a really solid basis for the future. When I saw the new buildings starting to be built, I called the developer and said how can I work there? They interviewed me and now I am working for them and getting my qualification. As a little boy, I was always taking things apart and then putting them back together, now I get to do that as a living! How does it feel to be part of the team rebuilding where you grew up? It feels good to be rebuilding the estate. My mum’s block will be emptied by the end of this year and every new flat I finish working on I think, I wonder if this one will be my mum’s new place, it’s very exciting to think about that.87 15.21 It is fitting that I close this evaluation with Jermaine’s own words. He is obviously delighted for his Mother and himself with the regeneration of the Estate. Aspirational urban regeneration is and should be about seeking to improve the lives of ordinary people who happen to be living in areas suffering from multiple deprivation. 86 87 see section 106 Obligation (5 August 2015) Schedules 3, 5 and 6 Creation Trust (2012) Newsletter, Issue 04 63 16 Conclusions and key issues 16.1 This proof of evidence has presented a large amount of data, research and analysis ranging from the grand sweep of urban problems and government regeneration policy over several decades, to the minutiae of planning permission 14/AP/3843, the section 106 obligation and the heartfelt views of Estate residents, be they objectors to or supporters of the regeneration proposals. The conclusions I reach, based on careful consideration of the data, information, arguments and counterarguments presented in this proof of evidence are as follows. 16.2 The Aylesbury Estate is a troubled place across the environmental, social and economic spheres and has been for several decades. A long term response is needed and the FDS proposals present an integrated and holistic set of regeneration interventions in line with government, London and Council policy. 16.3 for Urban regeneration has no settled definition. Above all the prime objective regeneration must be to support local residents, communities and neighbourhoods suffering disadvantage. Area based regeneration initiatives may well benefit other people but this should not be to the detriment of the prime objective. The ensures that significant benefits will accrue to Aylesbury Estate and Southwark residents. 16.4 Despite the fact that the FDS proposals for the Estate have become something of a cause célèbre, and a rallying point for some objectors and campaigners, only a small minority of Estate residents are opposed to the FDS proposals. The objectors raise some genuine concerns but the key questions are not, are there some disbenefits for some residents, but how are the benefits mitigated and how do they weigh against the regeneration benefits and the wider public interest in the long term? 16.5 Gentrification as a concept struggles to encompass the complexities of the FDS proposals. The term implies three putative harmful impacts. Firstly, that working class people, often: in low or social rent accommodation, on low incomes and suffering disadvantage, are forced out of their homes against their will, to make way for middle class owner occupiers, to the benefit of them and capitalist 64 property interests. Secondly, that this process results in the whole character of the area being changed. Thirdly, capitalist property developers make excessive profits through estate regeneration. The Development Plan, including the London Plan, the AAAP and the London Borough of Southwark Core Strategy will simply not allow such harmful impacts to happen on the CPO Land and Aylesbury Estate. There is too the added safeguard of the section 106 obligation and planning conditions on planning permission 14/AP/3843. In addition the Council’s redevelopment partner, Notting Hill is a not for profit organisation. 16.6 ‘Community’ is a slippery concept, understanding of which is not helped by the tendency to conflate the notions of a geographical neighbourhood with social interaction. Two types of community can be distinguished but only one of them, Type 1 is vulnerable to potential disruption through estate regeneration interventions but today social media interaction softens this impact. There are some strong Type 1 community cohesion sites on or near the Estate, especially schools and a variety of clubs, support groups and voluntary organisations. It is vital that these community support and capacity building initiatives continue and it is clear that the Council and Notting Hill, through the section 106 obligation are providing resources to assist with this. 16.7 Mixed communities-led regeneration is supported by independent academic research for the benefits it can bring. Despite this, it is regarded by some objectors and academics as de facto gentrification. That position is not tenable and objectors have to explain how the disbenefits of the FDS scheme outweigh the obvious and substantial benefits in the short, medium and long term. The policy and practice of mixed communities are not perfect and do not offer utopian solutions in the case of the Estate. It is evident though, that this approach in the present socioeconomic climate, has the capacity to deliver genuine improvements to troubled estates, the Aylesbury included. 16.8 Regeneration and mixed communities policies are complex and multifaceted with linkages to related policy areas. The FDS proposals for the CPO Land comply with policy in their own right but should also be considered in the light of the whole masterplan for the Aylesbury Estate. 65 16.9 ‘Community’ is best understood using the twofold typology explained in this proof of evidence. Similarly, a wholly negative understanding of the term gentrification is not particularly useful is assessing the merits and disadvantages of the FDS proposals. Mixed communities-led regeneration has far more utility as a framework for evaluation. 16.10 Urban regeneration, especially that driven by mixed communities policy, is never easy, quick or uncontested. One must think in terms of decades rather than years and the Council and Notting Hill are right to do so, albeit that I understand the frustration of some residents regarding such a timescale. All regeneration programmes create benefits but unfortunately disbenefits too. The major challenges for any regeneration partnership are to: include local people in strategy and project formulation, identify clear objectives and seek to maximise benefits and minimise any potential disbenefits. I conclude that in this case that is what the Council and Notting Hill have managed to achieve. 16.11 In exercising its compulsory purchase powers, the Council must be able to demonstrate convincingly that the CPO scheme will contribute to well-being as specified in section 226. I conclude that the four safeguards are highly likely to achieve significant short, medium and long term environmental, social, and economic benefits. 16.12 I conclude that the FDS proposals will bring genuine aspirational regeneration to the Estate. The FDS proposals are likely to bring significant sustainable improvements in the conditions of Aylesbury residents suffering from aspects of deprivation, often multiple in nature. Others to benefit will be incoming residents who find a home in the FDS, especially an affordable one, and those who find employment during the long construction phase and after completion. Nevertheless, a long term view must be taken regarding: safeguarding, delivery and resourcing of this estate regeneration programme. 16.13 Finally, I conclude that under section 226, the Council must show that the FDS proposal for the CPO Land promotes or improves one or more of the: social, economic or environmental well-being of the area. This is right and proper because the FDS scheme impinges on tenants’ and leaseholders’ property rights. There are 66 undoubtedly and unfortunately some disbenefits associated with the CPO proposals. However, drawing on the evidence presented in this proof, I am convinced that the regeneration benefits of the FDS scheme for the CPO Land are substantial, guaranteed to be delivered and far outweigh the disbenefits. I look forward to the CPO being confirmed so that the benefits can be achieved, to improve the lives, livelihoods and life chances of Aylesbury Estate residents. 67 17 Statement of truth and declaration 17.1 I confirm that I have made clear which facts and matters referred to in this report are within my own knowledge and which are not. Those that are within my own knowledge I confirm to be true. The opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinions on the matters to which they refer. 17.2 I confirm that my proof of evidence has drawn attention to all material facts which are relevant and have affected my professional opinion. 17.3 I confirm that I understand and have complied with my duty to the Public Inquiry as an expert witness which overrides any duty to those instructing or paying me, that I have given my evidence impartially and objectively, and that I will continue to comply with that duty as required. 17.4 I confirm that I am not instructed under any conditional or other success- based fee arrangement. 17.5 I confirm that I have no conflicts of interest. 17.6 I confirm that I am aware of and have complied with the requirements of the rules, protocols and directions of the Public Inquiry. 17.7 This Proof of Evidence has been prepared, and is given, in accordance with the guidance of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) Code of Conduct (2016). The opinions expressed within my proof are accordingly my true and professional opinions. Signed Michael Leary-Owhin 7 December 2017 68 $$.'(#5 &'%.$3678#2#'9 $608#% 7'( :672#!$608#% 2$7%. & 0 7 7 0 $ 8 ! 9 0 6 $6 07 / 8 : / 0 8& 6 ! / ; 8 8 / / / / 6 $ 0 0 / $6 0 0 0 / 8 8 < 0 $ 7 / 8 6 0 / 0 $ / 8& =/ & 9 4 ) -# * 15 6 3 4 0 58 & 0 0 0 0 8 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 8 & 0 > 8 ! 8 & 0 / 6 0 / $ 8& 6 ? / / 8 ( 0 @ 0 0 ?8 < / / 8 ! 0 0 6 0 ?6 > 0 8 ; 6 0 0 6 $ 6 6 6 6 ? 0 888 4 $$.'(#5 .2#(.'32; 1.$1.2.'373#&'2 &4 3). <8.2061< 2373.* 4.71" 8&73)#'9 7'( 744.%3#&' ( 0 6 A( / / B 0 8 C' 00 C& D / > 6C / ? 6 ( 0 8 8 8 > ? / ? D / / 8C 6 # C / ?C 28* / / ? 0 ? / ' D ? 6 " 6/ 6 0 D 8 6E F / /6 6 < D 8 " 0 0 0 6 / ? 8 0 0 ? 6 6 6 E 0 ? + " 06 8 ' 6 D 8 , 8 6 ? / 6 0 $ 8 CG 0 / D ? ? / ? ? 6 ? # 0 / D 6C 6 8 CG / 8H / / 6 D 8C < 0 8 C& 0 0 8 , ? 6 6 8H ? / ? 0 6 D 0 5 6 06 / / 0 0 8C ; 0 0 8 6 / 6 $ / & 6 0 0 ) ( /8 / 6 0 6 6C 0 6 > I ))6 / 0 " 0 0 6 / 0 06 ? 6 00 ? 6 888C / / ? / 8 / CG 6 06 D / 0 6 0 / 60 / / 8C ! # C" G 8= 0 & 6 8 G 0 8 C" 6 C 0 0 6/ D 0 / *) 0 ( / 8 # J G ? 0 ? / 8" / D 8C 6 6 *36 0 ? / 0 8 ! 8 C" / C, 6 D ? > A ? ? 8C ! 6C I * B / ? / 0 ? 8 0 8 " 6 8 CH / 8C ! ? 9 6 / 0 0 8C 6, 6 4 ))*5 ( # C 6 ? 0 0 6 %= 6 (> 0 , 0 6 * 6 0 0 , 6 3 8 / 6 / ? 0 0 / > C& D 6C / D / I1)) 0 6 0 $8 8 C" 6 ?8 G 0 0 8 &D 0 6 0 6 0 0 / ?8 & ? 6 / 0 0 $ 8 ' / 8C K" D L / , 6 0 0 D / 6 0 $ 0 8 " 8 ; D ? 8 0$ 0 0 B 0 0 6 0 6 6 ? 6 0 8 0 0 / 0 6 8 & / $ *) 6 " 0 K M 0 , 0 , 0 0 ? 8 " 8 ! 0 ? 6 6 0 6 / ? < 6 0 ? 8& / ? ? 0 / 6 K 8 CG 8C ; A / 6C / + F 0 6M 6 0 0 8K 8G N + 0 $ / 0 ? 6 0 "/ O E 4 ) )5 ! )L 9 6 ? / 8 < $ 8 0 / #! 7 ? / ? / P" ? ( / 8 ! 8 ! 6 ? 0 8 , 0 " 0 6 6 / 0 0 0 0 *16 / 6 ? # 0 ? / M7 8 0 ?6M 8 K 0 JM ! / / 8 & / 0 33 8 ? & 6 / #K 6 ? 0 / 0 /# 6 / 0 6 0 ? 8 " 0 ? ( 0 0 6 7 ) , 8 , 8 KG -) 6 G / 6M 0 / 8 KE / / 8& / 0 / 8M 6, 6 # 6 " " 6 L 4 ))15 8 8 ?Q / 6 8 & + ///8 / 8 ? % 9 8 0 0 6 8 6 0 6 / ? ( / 8M < / 6 / , / 0 06 L / 7 K K& ; 6 / 9 0 8% 6M 6 Q )21 6, 8 ))36 8 8 ?6 & 0 0 )6 8 + , / 0 K& > ( / ! ? 8 / / 6M 0 , " 0 6 / ? 8 K" ? / 8 G 8 , 0 PG 6 0 / / / @ 6 8 , 0 00 ? 8 & / 6 8 ! 0 6 0 8 = F 6M + 0 ? 9 &0 6 9 0 6 / 0 F 0 8 " / / 6 0 0 0 / 6 0 6 / ?/ 6 / 6 0 3226 0 0 8, 6/ # K& 0 0 $ 6 0 ; 8 : A 32%B8 K& H ; 6 8 8M 8& 8 KH 6 / 0 / 08M $ / ? 6M 6 0 / 6 ? 8 / 8 & + ? / 8 6 0 / 8 K' ' 6 > / 8M / 6 ! 6 # K / 0 0 / 9 0 0 06 ' &/ 8M * 0 N 0 0 8 & 0 0 ! / / 8 KH ? / / 6 &0 8& 0 8M 0 ! 0 7 8 K& ? 7 ' 6M / / / 8 8 < 6 ! 0 / ,8 K& 0 / ' " ' N KG OM ' N C& ? / " 0 6 6 / + , 0, L 6L 9 C# / ? N 7 8 A 00 8 & 0 L ? 0 / 6 ? 8M / 0 / $ 8 B8 6 ' 6 6M 8 7 8 KG 0 - ? 0 < * / 8 < O! ? JM- 0 4 ) -5 " 4 ) 5 M" 6 &? D # KG / 6 D > 6 D 0 6 L 10 $$.'(#5 = .4.0>1.;2 2$73#78 31#7(* .5$8#%73#&' 7'( #'3.1$1.373#&'- 0 / 0 6 0 ' $ $ 6 8 ; $ / / $ 8 0 0 / 6 / 6 0 / / 8 : 0 0 / N 8 ' ' $ 6 $ 4 6 )) 58 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 / ' 6 $ 0 / 0 ; 4 33 5 0 / 6 / / 0 0 0 8 / / ? 6 8 & / 0 0 0 / 6 / 0 4 0 =/ 8 : 0 8 1 8 4 ) -# ; 0 $ 0 0 6 8 58 " / / / *5 6 11 / Q 0 8 0 8' R 0 0 > 0 S 0 # 5 0 > / # 5 60 0 / S 0 / 6 $ $ 5 8 & 7 8 R # 6 6 6 0 0 # 6 / 6 8 " 0 8 " 0 0 / / 6 $ 0 / F 0 9 ? 0 7 R 0 0 > 0 / # 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 / 6 8 / 0 6 0 0 6 0 S 6 6 / 8 " / ? 0 7 0 8 12 #961. ? *( 00 & 8 6 0 ?# R # 6 0 0 R 6 00 8 # $ 8 & / 0 R $ 8 > # 0 6 0 0 8 13 14 $$.'(#5 #961. , >.1788 .$1#>73#&' %&1.2 4&1 3). <8.2061< 2373. 15 $$.'(#5 #961. , '%&/. .$1#>73#&' %&1.2 4&1 3). <8.2061< 2373. 16 $$.'(#5 #961. = , <8.2061< 711#.12 3& &62#'9 7'( .1>#%.2 .$1#>73#&' %&1.2 4&1 3). 2373. 17 $$.'(#5 #961. , 1#/. .$1#>73#&' %&1.2 4&1 3). <8.2061< 2373. 18 $$.'(#5 #961. , , '%&/. %&1.2 4&1 3). .$1#>73#&' <8.2061< 44.%3#'9 8(.1 .&$8. 260!(&/7#' 2373. 19 $$.'(#5 #961. @ , #>#'9 '>#1&'/.'3 .$1#>73#&' %&1.2 4&1 3). <8.2061< 2373. 20 $$.'(#5 #961. - , /$8&</.'3 .$1#>73#&' %&1.2 4&1 3). <8.2061< 2373. 21 $$.'(#5 #961. , 4&1 3). .783) 7'( <8.2061< #270#8#3< .$1#>73#&' %&1.2 2373. 22 $$.'(#5 #961. , 4&1 3). (6%73#&'" <8.2061< A#882 7'( 17#'#'9 .$1#>73#&' %&1.2 2373. 23 $$.'(#5 #961. >.1788 %&1.2 4&1 3). <8.2061< 2373. 24 $$.'(#5 , .'31#4#%73#&' &2#3#>. 787'%. )..3 .#9)0&61)&&( /$7%32 .973#>. .#9)0&61)&&( /$7%32 6 6 8 9 " 8 0 0 / ! 0 0 8 0 " 0 ? ( 8 0 0 : 8 0 0 8 6 : 8 8 0 $ 0 0 / 00 8 / 0 / 6 8 0$ / 8 0 0 0 8 0 8 " 0 9 " 8 /8 8 , # ? ! " '8 8 , #6 L4 ) ' 6 + 4 ))*5 # # *5 # # 25 . S 0 8 6 0 8 < 0 0 00 &0 0 0 / $ ? 8 0 0 ? / 26 $$.'(#5 @ B#.C &' )73 & .'31#4#%73#&' 7'( 3). /$7%3 &4 . .7' @ < )61' .'31#4#%73#&'D # " " $ " % A L / = B & ' # # # '% ; 6 4 31356 0 @( 0 0 00 / ?E ? *M 8 6 0 / ) 0 0 6 ! ) ? 0 3 # 0 0 ? 8 4 ))15 8/ 8 0Q/ Q 27 E D E / 4 ? @ 6 @ 0 ' < 0 56 0 ? / / 00 8& ? ? 0 F 0 0 > / / 8 " ? " 0 ? , 0 0 + # 0 * / # $ 7 @, - ! 0 $* 0 8 " " 0 E @) 0 ' ))1 # " / 0 " . / # " # 9 @ 0 " # ' " # /8 $ $ # ( " # # % , " " " @ # 8 & 0 0 0 ? 6 0 / /O ; 6 , " 7 00 8 & 6 $ 6 0 ? / 0 6 8 " / 0 0$ 0 8& ? > 0 / 0 / 8 < / 0 6 / / E 6 / / / / 0 8 / 0 6 6 / 0 / 0 0 8 ; 0 / 0 0 28 8 0 6 0 0 00 6 00 0 0 8 29 30 $$.'(#5 - .8.>7'3 2373. .9.'.173#&' 72. 236(< =* , 72. 36(#.2 ..%)C&&( B#8879." / 2 0 ; 72#8(&' 6 8 0 3-) 6 ? / 8 ? 0 8 ! / 0 0 / 0 " > / ?8 " 0$ 6 0 0 0 / / ? 0 %)1 6 8 9 0 8 0 6 8 0 0$ 8 " 8 E / 00 , 72. 236(< @* ) ( + 4 ) -5 / 8 #(01&&A. B#8879." ! 1..'C#%) 1 1 31 N ? 0 . / 8& / 0 6 0 " ; 6 0 3)) 0 08 , + 0 / , ? < 0 0 00 / 8 = %62)) / ) 6 , 0 ? < 0 / 00 6 0 8 " / 0$ 6 6 9 8" 0 8 " 8 00 6 / / 6 6 / 6 6 8" " 0 / 0 / 8 00 8 ! 0 *)) 0 0 / 0 00 8 72. 236(< E * ! &13) &8#)688 .9.'.173#&' / 3-) , 0 / 0 / 08 " 0 6 % / ? 8 & )) 6 ! ' , 0 0 00 ))*6 E 4!', 5 * 6 ! 9 4E! 5 / 8 , / < < 0 0 %)6))) !', / S G' S 00 6 / 8 & ! 0 & 8 " 0 ? 6 / 0 32 0$ 6 /6 / / 6 1)) 6 / / 221 *)T $ 8 - 8 0 6 / 0 / 0 0 0 * / 00 8 " ? 8 0 6 0 / 6 / / 00 8 72. 236(< " * &13&0.88& 0 ? ( G + :671." &13) E 6 .'2#'93&' N 0 0 / 8 + 0 / > , 31) 6 0 6 8 !9 / 6 $ 0 0 8 , ? ? ? 0 8 ! 0 ? / 9 ? / / 0 0 / / 6 8 " ? / 00 0 8 / N 6 < / , + 00 0 / / ; / ? 0 / 8 / 6 6 0 / / 0 8 / / / 60 33 0 / 6 8 " / 0 9 0 ? *%) *)) 0 6 / / / 9 $ 72. 236(< / 8 " 0$ 00 ?8 * ( / 7<'.12 7'." &'(&' &1&69) &4 711&C 0 " 0 0 0 6 6 0 / / 0 0 00 0 8 / 3-) 33) / ? 0 0 8& 0 ; 6 6 8 / 6 , < 8G 0 0 ? )) / ? / < 0 + )) $ " 0 8 0 / 6 / 0 0 9 6 0 8 0 0 * 3 6 0 0 0 8 " 6 6 0 0 2))8 0 @ 0 ! 0 / / 0 8 " 00 $ 0 0 0 0 8 34 $$.'(#5 .)&62#'9 3). " <8.2061< 4 ) 15 6 ! 00 35 36 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K, / / ? 0 , ? KG 6 / 0 $ 0 6 G 0 0 & JM 6 0 / 0 6 / 0 & / I- I ) ? / / K' 6 8! & 0 6 / 6 0 0 8G J & ? 8 & 8" 8" 00 6 0 8M 6 ? / 0 8 & / / 6 ? 8 G / / / 08 & 0 0 < 0 / 6 / > 8M K ? 6 & 0 8 " %% / 0 & ? & 6 6/ 0 / 6 / K 8M 6 ( 0 6 0 ? 0 6 8! 0 8& K& 0 0 ? 00 ? / / 0 &/ 0 / 8M 0 > / 7 & JM 39 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$$.'(#5 #5.( &//6'#3#.2 * .9.'.173#&' &8#%< 5317%32 = *)8 " / 0 9 0 / 6/ 6 00 6 I 0$ # 0$ 60 4 0 ? 00 6 0 / 6 6 0 0 / 6 0 6 / / 5S I F 6 6 9 6 0 S I / 6 0 6 9 4 $ 0 0 > 0 ? 0 $ ?5 > 0$ 00 $ ? 8 ! 0 ? 0 8 ). &'(&' 87' @* =? @ J 3173.9#% 00 0$ 0 0 / 0 0 $ / 0 6 00 41 6 / 6 8" 6 0 , 0 0 9 8 0$ 6 0 / 0 8 7<&1 &4 6#(. 3& &'(&' 2373. @ * 1743 &&( 17%3#%. .9.'.173#&' @ > 6 0 / 0 0 6 0 6 6 0 8 ' 60 0 0 8 00 0 0 6 6 0 / 8 " 0 9 6 0 6 / " 0 0 8 ' 6 0 6 8 " 6 / / 0 / 6 $ 84 %5 42 &1. 3173.9< " $= 3173.9#% 0G.%3#>. 8 ) / 7'( ? .%3#&' ,* / 0$ ? 6 > 6 &8#%< K / / 6 6 6 00 6 00 3173.9#% &8#%#.2 1.73. /#5.( %&//6'#3#.2 ! 6 ). 84 )5 87%.2 4&1 8.71'#'9" .'G&</.'3 7'( ).783)< 8#4.23<8.2 4 1%5 &C C. C#88 7%)#.>. &61 >#2#&' 3& #/$1&>. &61 $87%.2 1, 23 1, 2 3 1, 2 1, 2 . 3 1 1, 4 # 1, 5 ## . # . # 61 7$$1&7%) #2 " / / / 0 ( 0 00 00 / 8 6 0$ 00 8 . C#88 (& 3)#2 0< 8 ; / 00 ? 00 0 8 8 0 0 $ 00 6 / 8 8 %8 , 0 / / 0 0 8 $ 8 43 *8 0 / 8 -8 ! 0 0 / 0 0 0 18 0 8 0 / 3173.9#% 4 E<! ! &8#%< @ K / ?8 &/.2 4&1 $.&$8. &' (#44.1.'3 #'%&/.2 2 5 &C C. C#88 7%)#.>. &61 >#2#&' 3& #/$1&>. &61 $87%.2 != # 0$ != # 0 00 0 != % # 0 0 ! / ? !=* # ( / 61 7$$1&7%) #2 ( 0 / 0 / 6 0 8 ( 0 0 0 / 0 0 00 0$ 8 . C#88 (& 3)#2 0< 8 9 0 0 ) 0 8 8 0 ) 26**2 / ) -8 8 0 , 0 0 , %8 0 = ) 0 0 0 0 --* = , / ) ? 6 ) -8 6%)) / ) -8 44 *8 -8 0 0 / ) 21* G ) -8 6 )) / 18 0 ))3 9 / ) 28 9 ) -8 0 0 0 0 *T 0 8 *)T *)T P 45 $$.'(#5 #5.( &//6'#3#.2 * .9.'.173#&' &8#%< 5317%32 = *)8 " / 0 9 0 / 6/ 6 00 6 I 0$ # 0$ 60 4 0 ? 00 6 0 / 6 6 0 0 / 6 0 6 / / 5S I F 6 6 9 6 0 S I / 6 0 6 9 4 $ 0 0 > 0 ? 0 $ ?5 > 0$ 00 $ ? 8 ! 0 ? 0 8 ). &'(&' 87' @* =? @ J 3173.9#% 00 0$ 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 6 46 $ 00 6 / 6 8" 6 0 , 0 0 9 8 0$ 6 0 / 0 8 7<&1 &4 6#(. 3& &'(&' 2373. @ * 1743 &&( 17%3#%. .9.'.173#&' @ > 6 0 / 0 0 6 0 6 6 0 8 ' 60 0 0 8 00 0 0 6 6 0 / 8 " 0 9 6 0 6 / " 0 0 8 ' 6 0 6 8 " 6 / / 0 / 6 $ 84 %5 47 &1. 3173.9< " $= 3173.9#% 0G.%3#>. 8 ) / 7'( ? .%3#&' ,* / 0$ ? 6 > 6 &8#%< K / / 6 6 6 00 6 00 3173.9#% &8#%#.2 1.73. /#5.( %&//6'#3#.2 ! 6 ). 84 )5 87%.2 4&1 8.71'#'9" .'G&</.'3 7'( ).783)< 8#4.23<8.2 4 1%5 &C C. C#88 7%)#.>. &61 >#2#&' 3& #/$1&>. &61 $87%.2 1, 23 1, 2 3 1, 2 1, 2 . 3 1 1, 4 # 1, 5 ## . # . # 61 7$$1&7%) #2 " / / / 0 ( 0 00 00 / 8 6 0$ 00 8 . C#88 (& 3)#2 0< 8 ; / 00 ? 00 0 8 8 0 0 $ 00 6 / 8 8 %8 , 0 / / 0 0 8 $ 8 48 *8 0 / 8 -8 ! 0 0 / 0 0 0 18 0 8 0 / 3173.9#% 4 E<! ! &8#%< @ K / ?8 &/.2 4&1 $.&$8. &' (#44.1.'3 #'%&/.2 2 5 &C C. C#88 7%)#.>. &61 >#2#&' 3& #/$1&>. &61 $87%.2 != # 0$ != # 0 00 0 != % # 0 0 ! / ? !=* # ( / 61 7$$1&7%) #2 ( 0 / 0 / 6 0 8 ( 0 0 0 / 0 0 00 0$ 8 . C#88 (& 3)#2 0< 8 9 0 0 ) 0 8 8 0 ) 26**2 / ) -8 8 0 , 0 0 , %8 0 = ) 0 0 0 0 --* = , / ) ? 6 ) -8 6%)) / ) -8 49 *8 -8 0 0 / ) 21* G ) -8 6 )) / 18 0 ))3 9 / ) 28 9 ) -8 0 0 0 0 *T 0 8 *)T *)T P 50