shura - sheffield hallam university research …shura.shu.ac.uk/16410/1/ferrari - new housing...

New housing association development and its potential to reduce concentrations of deprivation: An English case study

CROOK, Tony, BIBBY, Peter, FERRARI, Edward <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5506-7670>, MONK, Sarah, TANG, Connie and WHITEHEAD, Christine

Available from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at:

http://shura.shu.ac.uk/16410/

This document is the author deposited version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it.

Published version

CROOK, Tony, BIBBY, Peter, FERRARI, Edward, MONK, Sarah, TANG, Connie and WHITEHEAD, Christine (2016). New housing association development and its potential to reduce concentrations of deprivation: An English case study. Urban Studies, 53 (16), 3388-3404.

Copyright and re-use policy

See http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html

Sheffield Hallam University Research Archivehttp://shura.shu.ac.uk

http://shura.shu.ac.uk/

http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html

Article

Urban Studies2016, Vol. 53(16) 3388–3404� Urban Studies Journal Limited 2015

Reprints and permissions:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0042098015613044usj.sagepub.com

New housing associationdevelopment and its potentialto reduce concentrations ofdeprivation: An English case study

Tony CrookUniversity of Sheffield, UK

Peter BibbyUniversity of Sheffield, UK

Ed FerrariUniversity of Sheffield, UK

Sarah MonkUniversity of Cambridge, UK

Connie TangUniversity of Cambridge, UK

Christine WhiteheadLondon School of Economics, UK

AbstractSocial housing across Western Europe has become significantly more residualised as governmentsconcentrate on helping vulnerable households. Many countries are trying to reduce the concen-trations of deprivation by building for a wider range of households and tenures. In England thispolicy has two main strands: (1) including other tenures when regenerating areas originally builtas mono-tenure social housing estates and (2) introducing social rented and low-cost homeow-nership into new private market developments through planning obligations. By examining wherenew social housing and low-cost home ownership homes have been built and who moves intothem, this paper examines whether these policies achieve social mix and reduce spatial

Corresponding author:

Tony Crook, The University of Sheffield, Urban Studies &

Planning, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK.

Email: [email protected]

concentrations of deprivation. The evidence suggests that new housing association developmenthas enabled some vulnerable households to live in areas which are not deprived, while somebetter-off households have moved into more deprived areas. But these trends have not been suffi-cient to stem increases in deprivation in the most deprived areas.

Keywordsdeprivation, housing association development, low-cost home ownership, social housing

Received February 2013; accepted September 2015

Introduction: Social housing andsocial deprivation

For at least three decades after 1945, gov-ernments in much of Western Europe builtlarge public-sector housing estates to allevi-ate housing shortages and accommodatebroad groups of society including full timeworking households. These estates, whilemono-tenure, were initially what today wecall mixed communities (Whitehead, 2003).However across Europe, as housingshortages were overcome, incomes rose,private-sector opportunities expanded andpolitical systems changed, the emphasismoved to accommodating more vulnerable,lower income households less able to obtainadequate market housing (Harloe, 1995;Malpass, 2014; Scanlon and Whitehead,2008; Whitehead and Scanlon, 2007). Theresult has been concentrations of depriva-tion and social exclusion in social housingareas (Rowlands et al., 2009; Scanlonet al., 2014; van Kempen et al., 2005).These trends exist in countries where policyhas continued to provide for a full range ofhouseholds, such as the Netherlands andSweden, and those where local and man-agement pressures tend to favour securehouseholds, as well as in countries wherethe emphasis is on housing the poorest.This suggests that the trends are not just amatter of policy but also an outcome ofdemand, with those able to pay increas-ingly opting for market housing.

Across Europe there has been concernabout these concentrations of deprivation insocial housing, especially as the housingstock is often deteriorating and poorly ser-viced and sometimes in inaccessible areas.However there are only two ways to reversethis trend – either allocate to less deprivedhouseholds, or separate tenure and spatialdeprivation by creating mixed tenure devel-opments meeting a wider range of needs.Even so, as Meen and colleagues (2005) sug-gest, using tenure effectively to offset thestrong trends towards segregation dependson achieving a threshold high enough to sus-tain the more dynamic environment and pro-viding services and infrastructure to retainmore economically active households.

A number of European countries haveintroduced policies to generate more mixedpopulations in regeneration areas at thesame time as improving economic opportu-nities in these areas. Germany, France andthe Netherlands have placed great emphasison this, partly because their large-scale post-war developments need redeveloping toachieve contemporary standards. Ensuringmore mixed-income communities has oftenbeen seen as a prerequisite for the success ofthis new investment (Scanlon et al., 2014).

Some countries have also introducedplanning legislation to ensure that new marketdevelopments include affordable housing. InGermany and the Netherlands this has oftenbeen achieved by public acquisition of devel-opment land, providing the infrastructure and

Crook et al. 3389

then disposing of the serviced land to develo-pers with specific requirements about whatcan be built, including social housing (Crookand Monk, 2015).

England as a case study

The development of post-war social housing inEngland has been no exception to thisEuropean pattern. However, policy which ismore centralised and prioritises accommodatingpoorer households has been more entrenchedthan in much of continental Europe.

Until the 1980s, local authority tenantswere a broad cross-section of English house-holds, so concentrations of social housingdid not generally mean concentrations oflow-income and deprived households(Benthan, 1986; Holmans, 1970). But overtime the tenure became increasingly residua-lised, as better-off households moved intoowner-occupation, and policy emphasisedmeeting priority needs (Forrest and Murie,1983, 1990; Hills, 2007; Pearce and Vine,2014). And while the Right to Buy meantgreater tenure mix in many social housingareas, the population mix, especially inpoorer quality urban areas, was often notsignificantly modified.

More recently, successive governmentshave acted on the understanding that areasof concentrated deprivation negatively affectpeople’s life chances and that one way for-ward is to build more mixed-income com-munities that can attract and retain a widerrange of household types, avoiding segrega-tion by mixing dwelling types and tenures(Cabinet Office, 2005; Glossop, 2008; Monkand Whitehead, 2010).

There have been two main policyapproaches, one aimed at reducing existingconcentrations of deprivation and socialhousing and the other at building new mixedtenure developments. The first involvesregenerating existing estates, generally fol-lowing experience in Europe quite closely to

create mixed tenure and use. The second,which aims to mix tenures in new develop-ments, requires private developers to providesome affordable homes. In both approacheshousing associations are critical to successbecause their investment and allocation deci-sions determine the outcomes with respect tothe provision of social and other affordablehousing.

With respect to the first approach, localauthority dwellings in regeneration areashave been demolished and replaced withnew social rented homes together with low-cost homes for sale, market housing andcommercial development. Beginning in theearly 1990s, this policy was initiated by localauthorities, but subsequent central govern-ment policy endorsed it (DCLG (Departmentof Communities and Local Government)2010, 2014; DETR, 2000; ODPM, 2003).More recently greater emphasis has beenplaced on economic growth by increasing thelinkages with welfare and employment sup-port and securing more jobs (DCLG, 2011a,2012). Ownership and finance are critical.Local authorities and their partners are thelandowners but need finance to make schemesviable. Introducing private developmentincreases projects’ overall value and cross-subsidises the affordable housing and othercommunity infrastructure. Higher replace-ment densities ensure at least the same levelof social rental provision as before and a dif-ferent mix of dwelling types and sizes (usuallymore small flats), and therefore the likely mixof occupants. The introduction of commercialactivity makes it more attractive to better-offhouseholds (Ferrari, 2007).

The second approach involves local plan-ning authorities negotiating S106 planningagreements with private developers to pro-vide some homes for social rent and low-costhome ownership (LCHO) on market salesites, thus bringing lower income householdsinto more affluent areas. Government policyfrom the late 1980s endorsed this way of

3390 Urban Studies 53(16)

securing more affordable homes with lessgovernment grant and creating more mixedcommunities (Crook and Whitehead, 2010;DCLG, 2011b). Agreements reduce site prof-itability and land value and implicitly enablecross-subsidy to affordable housing andinfrastructure. Agreements are usually speci-fied in numbers terms and tend to favourlower-subsidy LCHO and smaller units.They may also modify the types and sizes ofnew market housing that developers provide.

By 2006–2007, provision through S106had become the main way of securingaffordable housing in England, accountingfor 65% of newly completed affordablehomes. The LCHO proportion had by thenincreased to over 40% (Crook and Monk,2011) and subsequently to 48% by 2013–2014.1 Thus a high proportion of newaffordable homes are now in areas wherethere is demand for new market housing.

The main government objective withrespect to these policy strands has not beento ensure mixed communities, although bothapproaches assume that a wider range oftenures and income groups would leadto lower concentrations of deprivation(Livingston et al., 2013; Sautkina et al.,2012). In the regeneration approach, thecore reason for the policy is financial – mar-ket housing and commercial activity are nec-essary to make the projects viable. In newdevelopments the core rationale has been toachieve greater value for money from gov-ernment grants and to increase the quantityof affordable housing that can be achieved.

Potential outcomes from the twoapproaches

The regeneration approach relies on fourmain factors: increasing densities; generatinga mix of unit types to attract a wider rangeof households; encouraging businesses on thebasis of a larger and somewhat more affluentconsumer base and improved infrastructure;

and, most importantly, making enough fromselling land to market players to make theproject work and cross-subsidise the socialhousing. The affordable housing elementhelps to provide up-front money but alsorequires the housing associations to takerisks that they will be able to sell the LCHOelement and recycle funds to support furtherdevelopment. Most importantly, successdepends on the economic environment andmany regeneration schemes run into troublewhen the economic cycle turns against them.

The new-build model is based on a muchmore straightforward model in which plan-ning constraints and S106 agreements gener-ate ‘planning gain’. This value can then betransferred from the landowner to other uses,notably local infrastructure and affordablehousing, as long as clear planning policyenables developers to bid lower prices for theland to reflect the costs of the planningrequirements. The process is market led – so itis up to developers to decide whether they areable to sell the market housing and to negoti-ate agreements that maintain scheme viability.

Success in housing terms is defined firstby introducing social and low-cost homeownership alongside market provision innew developments and market and low-costhome ownership alongside social rentedhousing in regeneration schemes. Second, itis defined by a significant mix of householdand income groups gaining access to thishousing. Evidence of decreasing deprivationin areas of traditional concentrations ofsocial housing and deprivation would be afurther indicator of success.

The research

The questions. Our research questions followdirectly from the measures of success identi-fied above. They include:

� Where were new housing associationhomes being built and have the locationschanged over time?

Crook et al. 3391

� Were a range of tenures made availablein areas where new and regenerationdevelopments took place?

� What types of household gained accessto social and LCHO housing in theseareas?

� Is there any evidence of changes in depri-vation in these areas?

The evidence base. We gathered data aboutthe location and types of new developments,who moved into the new homes and changesto deprivation in the areas. The spatial evi-dence was collected at the small geographicalscale of 100 m grids (i.e. hectare cells). Thisis because housing associations’ individualdevelopments tend to be small (on average20 dwellings) and our core questions areabout how that new investment modifies thespecific localities. The alternative of largerscale census tracts would often contain sev-eral neighbourhoods with different socioeco-nomic make up. There were five stages inour evidence gathering and analysis (Crooket al., 2011).

Stage 1: Spatial scale for analysis. While censuslower super output areas (LSOAs) with aver-age populations of 1000 are the de facto sta-tistical geography in England, they are toovariable in scale for our purposes. Wheredensities are lower, such as peri-urban andrural areas, they cover large geographicalareas. Fringe areas of cities with very sharp‘edges’ (e.g. Birmingham and Sheffield) andhousing schemes bordering industrial areastend also to have large LSOAs. Becausethese are often the areas with S106 agree-ments and regeneration projects, it wasimportant to control for the ‘bigness’ ofLSOAs so that we could better understandwhere the deprivation and new housing waslocated. Equally, the statistical problems ofusing a system of arbitrary zones such asLSOAs (i.e. the Modifiable Areal Unit

Problem) are not trivial (Openshaw, 1983).To mitigate these problems we interpolateddata produced at the LSOA level within theLSOAs using information on the preciselocations of all residential dwellings, to gen-erate equal-sized hectare-square areas whichthen formed the basis of our analysis.

Stage 2: An index of deprivation. A bespokedeprivation index was constructed drawnfrom the last four population censuses (1981,1991, 2001 and 2011).

There were two challenges in constructingthe index. First, the overall level of depriva-tion in England has declined so that the baseagainst which areas can be benchmarked isitself constantly shifting. To address this, weused a composite definition of deprivationsimilar to that developed in 1983 based onthe 1981 Census (DoE, 1983). More recentdevelopments in the measurement of depri-vation such as those reflected in the 2010English Indices of Deprivation (DCLG,2011c) take account of a wider range of spa-tial measures such as access to services, aswell as administrative micro data that permitthe estimation of more nuanced proxies forhousehold income. However, such indicescannot be compared over time and thereforeare of comparatively limited value in track-ing changes in the spatial pattern of depriva-tion. In contrast, our approach was tocombine a range of standard scores fromthe census data2 to generate a compositez-score3 taking account of the spatial coinci-dence of relevant individual components andthus a composite index on the same base.This allows changes in deprivation to bemeasured over the three decades.4 Hectarecells were scored relative to the mean calcu-lated over all the years together. Thus ascore of 0 would indicate that the cell wasaverage across space and also across time,i.e. it was ‘average’ in England across thethree decades. As average real incomeincreases over time deprivation scores


generally fall and the index improves –although not everywhere. However, theaverage of all cells in any given year is notzero, because they are scaled with referenceto the pooled data.

The second challenge is that the geo-graphic definitions of the census tracts5 usedin each of four censuses were different. Toaddress this, we assigned the composite mea-sures to the hectare cell grid which remainedinvariant through time and calculated depri-vation scores for each cell on the grid for1981, 1991, 2001 and 2011 assuming that thedistribution of deprivation simply reflectedthe distribution of all households. The allo-cation of composite scores to hectare cellsused a dasymetric areal interpolation (seeEicher and Brewer, 2013 for a review), whichreflected information on the underlying spa-tial distribution of households within censustracts, as proxied by using the PostcodeAddress File (PAF) at the 100 m resolution.Alternative assumptions (e.g. that it was dis-tributed in accordance with the location ofsocial rented units), by contrast, made nomaterial difference to the results.

Stage 3: The location of new housing associationhomes. To find where new homes were builtby housing associations we used the Homesand Communities Agency’s (HCA)6

Investment Management System (IMS),which provides detailed site-specific infor-mation about all new affordable homes builtsince 1998. We included all new dwellingscompleted between 1998 and 2008 for socialrented and LCHO housing. All were plottedonto the hectare cells, enabling us to link thepattern of new investment with patterns ofdeprivation and housing tenure at the samegeographical scale.

To locate housing association buildingsconstructed before 1998 we combined censusdata with the PAF to identify net change indwellings at the hectare grid level, used LandUse Change Statistics to identify changes to

vacant as well as built land (identifyingwhere there had been demolition followedby replacement housing), and used HMLand Registry data to identify transfers oftitle of these dwellings, enabling separateidentification of new owner occupied fromother (mainly social rented) dwellings.

Stage 4: Relating new build to existing concentra-tions of social housing. The next stage was torelate the location of new housing associa-tion dwellings to the proportions of socialhousing already in place before they werebuilt and the levels of deprivation in the hec-tare cells. An important finding is that justover one in three new social rented dwellingsbuilt after 1998 (37%) were located in newresidential areas: that is hectare cells thathad not previously been developed for hous-ing. More than three-quarters (78%) ofhousing association dwellings built in these‘new’ locations were on brownfield sites,such as former hospitals or factories. Theselocations were generally subject to planningagreements that required developers to pro-vide a mix of private and affordable homes.

We wanted to see how housing associa-tion investment between 1998 and 2008 inthe existing residential areas was related todeprivation in areas which had different con-centrations of social housing at the begin-ning of this period. The nearest date to 1998for which we could measure concentrationswas 2001 and we used census and PAF datato categorise the areas into three groups bythe amount of social housing in the hectarecell itself and in its immediate vicinity: (1)some social housing in 2001 (at least sixsocial rented dwellings per hectare for 300 maround a dwelling); (2) concentrated socialhousing – as (1) but where at least half of thedwellings within a 300 m radius belonging toa social landlord; and (3) elsewhere – cellswith fewer than six dwellings per hectare,including none at all.

Crook et al. 3393

Stage 5: Who lives in the new housing provided byhousing associations?. Data on the first occu-pants of the housing were available from theTenant Services Authority’s (TSA)7 CORE(Continuous Recording) database on house-holds moving into the first lettings of newrented homes and the first sales of LCHOhomes. CORE data are available from 1989but IMS data only since 1998, so it is onlypossible to link data on the location of newconstruction with that on first lettings andsales only since 1998. We therefore concen-trate on this period.

The findings: The location of newhousing association homes

The pattern of deprivation over time

In the four tables that follow, we show theaverage composite deprivation scores of therelevant hectare cells which have socialrented homes and those where new housingassociation homes were built for the years inquestion. Table 1 shows that the averagescore in 2001 of those hectares which hadsome social housing in that year was 0.329,less than those with concentrations of socialhousing in the same year, but much morethan those with little or no social housing.Average scores declined for all types of exist-ing areas with social housing between 1981and 1991 but then increased substantiallybetween 1991 and 2011. Elsewhere, althoughaverage deprivation scores were much lower,

they rose marginally between 1981 and 2011.Thus there is a clear picture of increasingdifferentiation between areas dominated bysocial housing, those with a significant pro-portion and those with little or no socialhousing. In part this reflects the allocationpolicies of social landlords and to beexpected.

The location of new housing associationconstruction in existing residential areas

The next stage is to look at the deprivationscores in both 2001 and 2011 in the existingresidential areas where housing associationsconstructed new social rented homes up to2008. Table 2 shows that scores for the areaswhere construction occurred before 1991were much lower than in the areas withsome existing social housing or with con-centrations of such housing (as shown inTable 1). Moreover the areas where newdwellings were built between 1991 and 2000had much lower average 2001 and 2011 scoresthan the areas where housing associationshad previously built new homes. This suggeststhat, up to 2000, housing associations wereincreasingly building in areas which did nothave the greatest average deprivation.

As Table 2 also shows, since the turn ofthe century this trend has reversed and newconstruction has become more concentratedin areas with higher deprivation measuredon both 2001 and 2011 scores. Table 3

Table 1. Average composite deprivation measures in 1981, 1991, 2001 and 2011 for the three types ofexisting residential area.

Year Composite deprivation index (‘z-scores’)

Some social housing Concentrations of social housing Elsewhere

1981 0.357 0.535 20.0101991 0.312 0.521 20.0362001 0.329 0.568 20.0742011 0.420 0.823 20.067


provides more detail of this later period,showing the deprivation scores in the hec-tares where new homes were built in eachyear between 1998 and 2008. It shows thatthe average 2001 deprivation scores of theareas where new homes were built generallyincreased over the period, indicating thatinvestment was increasingly taking place inareas which were more deprived in 2001.Further, by comparing the 2001 and 2011scores for each year of construction, we cansee that deprivation worsened in the areasafter the dwellings were completed. Thispartly reflects the shift in using new con-struction to alter the character of existingdeprived estates discussed above as well ashousing association allocation policies con-tinuing to give priority to the most deprived.

The initial conclusion with respect toexisting residential areas is therefore thatinvestment policy in the 2000s steered somenew housing association investment intomore deprived areas.

The location of new social rented homes in‘new’ residential areas

‘New’ residential areas, where more thanone-third of new housing association socialrented dwellings were built, were very differ-ent to existing residential areas. Table 4shows the average 2001 and 2011 depriva-tion scores for residential areas lying within200 m of the new areas where housing asso-ciations built homes in each of the yearsbetween 1998 and 2008. Comparing the

Table 3. Average composite deprivation measure in 2001 and 2011 for existing residential areas wherenew housing association social rented dwellings were located by year of construction.

Year of construction Composite deprivation index score (‘z’ scores)

Existing residential areas avscore in 2001

Existing residential areas avscore in 2011

1998 0.184 0.2431999 0.166 0.2572000 0.146 0.2192001 0.208 0.2632002 0.222 0.2752003 0.196 0.2522004 0.248 0.3022005 0.244 0.3052006 0.272 0.3352007 0.234 0.2982008 0.239 0.297

Table 2. Average composite deprivation measure in 2001 and 2011 for existing residential areas wherenew housing association social rented dwellings were constructed in different periods.

Construction date Composite deprivationindex (‘z’ scores) in 2001

Composite deprivationindex (‘z’ scores) in 2011

Before 1981 0.238 0.3301981–1990 0.222 0.2891991–2000 0.113 0.1692001–2008 0.208 0.260

Crook et al. 3395

scores in both these columns with those inTable 3 above for the existing areas showsclearly that these new areas have much loweraverage deprivation scores. Indeed, thedeprivation scores for the areas close tothese new developments were similar tothose for residential areas with little socialhousing or none at all (Table 1). Moreover,the average 2001 and 2011 scores declinedover the period, suggesting that S106 agree-ments were being put in place across a widerrange of area types. Simply put, new residen-tial areas with new housing association pro-vision are adjacent to areas that are farmore like areas with little or no social rentedhousing. This is because these new socialrented homes are parts of market develop-ment sites whose developers have agreed toprovide some of the site as new affordablehomes under S106 planning agreements.

The location of new social rented dwellingssince 1998: Summary

Figure 1 looks at trends between 1998 and2008 in the proportions of all new socialrented housing built in new residential and

existing residential areas, the latter dividedinto quartiles reflecting their relative 2001deprivation index. It shows that the bigchanges are in the increased proportion ofnew social rented dwellings built in new resi-dential areas and the smaller numbers beingbuilt in the existing more affluent areas. Thisnational picture is broadly repeated acrossregions, although there were higher propor-tions of new social rented housing beingbuilt in new residential areas in southernEngland than elsewhere.

The location of new low-costhome-ownership dwellings

The proportion of first sales of LCHOdwellings built by housing associations indifferent types of neighbourhood is shownin Figure 2. The available data only allowexamination of the more recent past, from2003 to 2008, but they too show the consid-erable and increasing proportion of newLCHO dwellings that are in new residentialareas. A falling proportion, from approxi-mately 40% to 25% of first sales between2003 and 2008 was in areas with the highest

Table 4. Average composite deprivation measure in 2001 and 2011 in locations adjacent to newresidential areas where new housing association social rented dwellings were located by year ofconstruction.

Year of construction Composite deprivation index score (‘z’ scores)

Within 200 m radius of newresidential areas: av score in 2001

Within 200 m radius of new residentialareas: av score in 2011

1998 0.128 0.1801999 0.102 0.1482000 0.117 0.1702001 0.120 0.1702002 0.056 0.1032003 0.080 0.0752004 0.060 0.0862005 0.078 0.0572006 0.044 0.0552007 0.042 0.0542008 0.042 0.052


deprivation scores. Even so, this still repre-sents a slight increase in absolute numbersas the total number of new LCHO dwellingsbuilt by housing associations in Englandrose from 7500 in 2003–2004 to 13,500 in2008–2009. There were regional differences,however. In the three northern regions ofthe North East, North West and Yorkshireand Humber the majority of new LCHOdwellings were in the most deprived areas, areflection both of the emphasis on tenurerestructuring in regeneration programmes inthese regions and of the limited planninggain available in new development sites inthese regions (Crook and Monk, 2011).

The relative importance of different areas

There are now large volumes of new homesin mixed tenure schemes. In the mostdeprived existing areas 85,000 new dwellingswere built by housing associations between2003 and 2008, including 36,000 for LCHOand 49,000 for social renting. Over the sameperiod associations built 59,600 newly socialrented homes and 31,000 new LCHO homesin new residential areas. Together these

constitute 63% of all new housing associa-

tion homes built over that period.8 Although

there is no systematic information on the

numbers of new private market homes built

in either of these types of area, S106 plan-

ning agreements at that time typically

required up to one-third of all new dwellings

to be affordable (Crook and Monk, 2011).

This suggests that 275,000 new dwellings

were constructed in new residential areas

which involved housing associations, of

which two-thirds were market housing,

around 20% social renting and 10% plus

were LCHO homes.Overall three distinct trends are apparent.

First, the proportion of new affordable

homes (both for rent and LCHO) built in

new residential areas, generally near areas of

low deprivation and with limited existing

social housing, rose from 15% to 42%

between 1998 and 2008 (Figure 1).

Deprivation levels are, however, still positive

– so these are not the highest value areas,

confirming earlier work on the location of

S106 sites (Crook et al., 2006). Second, a

relatively stable proportion (between one-

quarter and one-third, depending on the

Figure 1. Percentage of new social rented dwellings built between 1998 and 2008 within new residentialareas and in existing areas classified by 2001 deprivation score quartiles.Notes: mod = moderately; affl = affluent; dep = deprived.

Crook et al. 3397

year between 1998 and 2008) has been builtin areas of high deprivation on or near exist-ing estates, often as part of regeneration pro-grammes. Third, the proportion built inother existing, including affluent and moder-ately deprived areas, where there are rela-tively few or no existing social rented units,declined significantly. This is likely to bebecause many development sites in theseareas tend to be too small for on-site provi-sion of new social rented homes under S106agreements. Thus new residential areas havesubstituted for affluent and other lessdeprived areas, while development has beenmaintained in areas where social housing isconcentrated, often as part of regenerationprogrammes. But in addition, especially inthe northern regions LCHO has been intro-duced into very deprived areas as part ofthese regeneration programmes.

Who has been housed in newsocial and affordable housing?

We next examine who moved into new hous-ing, especially in the most deprived and newresidential areas. In the latter, tenure mixand who lives in new stock can make a

significant difference to household mix. Inexisting areas new build makes more limitedchanges as allocations to existing accommo-dation may have a greater role to play,depending on the extent of new build.CORE classifies properties by dwelling type,bedroom numbers, transaction type (initiallet, re-let or sale9) and location. Householdsare classified by the age of household mem-bers, household type, economic status, ethni-city and whether previously homeless.

The national picture

With respect to house type, analysis of thenational picture over the two decades up to2008–2009 revealed clear patterns (Crooket al., 2011). In the 1990s there were muchhigher proportions of houses, but flats, espe-cially two-bedroom flats, came to dominatein later years as housing associations maxi-mised output from grants and planningauthorities wanted higher densities. Smallhouseholds constituted an increasing pro-portion of tenants moving to new homesand household ‘heads’ average age fell stee-ply. New lets went increasingly to employedhouseholds and existing tenants

Figure 2. Percentage of first sales of new LCHO dwellings built between 2003 and 2008 within newresidential areas and in existing areas classified by 2001 deprivation score quartiles.Notes: mod = moderately; affl = affluent; dep = deprived.


The picture is different for LCHO purcha-sers. Their average age rose as affordabilityworsened. More than 90% were in work andonly 6% had children. At the same time, theproportion of existing social rented tenantsbuying fell from 22% in 2001–2002 to 6% in2008–2009, probably reflecting rising prices.

Lettings and first sales of new homes

We examine initial lettings locally over theperiod 2002–2003 to 2008–2009 and firstsales between 2003–2004 and 2008–2009 inthree area categories: the most deprivedexisting areas (i.e. the bottom quartile); allother existing areas; and new residentialareas.

Table 5 looks at the allocation of newsocial rented dwellings. It suggests that rents,allocation principles and outcomes were gen-erally similar for all areas, although differ-ences increased over time. In 2002–2003,there were more households in employmentand with children in new compared withexisting areas – reflecting higher proportions

of houses and larger dwellings. In all areasexisting social tenants were the majority ofthose moving into new dwellings.

By 2008–2009, the proportion of two-bedroom flats, while it had not increasedmuch in deprived areas, had more thandoubled in new residential areas. Partly as aresult, more younger and employed house-holds were allocated new dwellings in newareas while far fewer social tenants werere-housed there than in 2002–2003.

Table 6 shows who bought the LCHOdwellings. While purchasers were very differ-ent from social tenants in terms of age andemployment, purchasers across the threearea types were generally similar. The maindifference was the large proportion of exist-ing social tenants who bought LCHO dwell-ings in the most deprived areas in 2003–2004(perhaps reflecting their wish to stay in theareas they knew) in contrast particularly tothe very small proportions in new areas. Butby 2008–2009, the proportions of socialtenants buying across all area types hadfallen significantly, reflecting problems of

Table 5. Who has been accommodated in new social rented housing?

2002–2003 2008–2009

Existing areas New areas Existing areas New areas

Mostdeprived

Otherareas

Mostdeprived

Otherareas

% Age \35 45 47 48 47 51 56% Working 30 35 38 37 42 46% Previous tenure:Social housing

59 52 58 52 44 37

% Previously living withfamily/friend

20 18 16 16 20 25

% LA nomination 59 70 76 62 74 83% Internal transfer 14 10 10 16 10 5% Homeless 14 15 14 17 16 18% With children 48 51 57 47 51 58% Houses 52 59 66 49 47 46% 2 bed flats 20 17 14 24 30 34Average rent perweek in £ (flat)

58 60 61 82 82 81

Crook et al. 3399

affordability and problems in accessingloans. Instead, LCHO units were acquiredmostly by those moving from other tenuresor by newly forming households.

The picture in existing deprived areas

New social rented homes continue to go tothose in the greatest need, evidenced by thehigh proportions not in work and previouslyliving in insecure accommodation. At thesame time, the construction of LCHO homeshas introduced a very different group ofhouseholds: mainly in work, younger andmoving from other accommodation, includ-ing formerly living with family and friends(suggesting they were first-time buyers), par-ticularly in 2008–2009. The fall in the pro-portion of houses is concentrated in theLCHO sector, reflecting expectations of whowill wish to buy (increasingly younger house-holds just starting their housing careers) andthe way S106 negotiations trade increasednumbers of units against their size. This isparticularly important as the tenure mixshifted over time from renting to LCHO(Crook and Whitehead, 2010).

Thus, achieving a tenure mix in the mostdeprived areas has ensured a higher

proportion of working households; a lowerproportion of households with children; awider range of ages; and those with very dif-ferent housing careers. However, the limita-tions on dwelling size have restricted thetypes of household who buy and will belikely to generate significant movement outwhen these younger households have chil-dren. Thus how long this greater mix lastsdepends on future sales and allocations, justas the long-term impact of the Right to Buypolicy on tenure and household mixdepended on who bought re-sales into thesecond-hand market (e.g. Jones and Murie,2006).10 Moreover, the fact that, on 2011evidence, the deprivation index for the areaswhere housing associations were investingdid not improve (see Table 3 above) suggeststhat, whilst the ‘injection’ of working house-holds via LCHO programmes had contribu-ted to a wider tenure mix, it was of itselfinsufficient to generate areas with lowerdeprivation.

The picture in new residential areas

The mixing of new social rented and LCHOhousing in new residential areas bringstogether a quite different mix of households

Table 6. Who has bought the new low-cost homes?

2003–2004 2008–2009

Existing areas New areas Existing areas New areas

Mostdeprived

Otherareas

Mostdeprived

Otherareas

% Age \35 59 53 59 63 63 66% Working 92 90 98 94 90 94% Previous tenuresocial housing

62 35 12 17 9 5

% Previously living withfamily/friend

15 30 44 35 31 42

% With children 19 22 24 15 22 16% Houses 78 69 50 43 54 38% 2 bed flats 15 17 16 31 25 26


compared with those in surrounding areas.These new areas have typically accommo-dated a mix of young, often childless, work-ing LCHO buyers and somewhat olderhouseholds, many with children but withonly a minority in work, allocated the newsocial rented dwellings.

We know nothing about households buy-ing the open-market dwellings in these newresidential areas but we do know that theimmediately surrounding areas are much lessdeprived than the areas where housing asso-ciations have built new homes in the past.11

Hence new residential areas have broughttogether younger employed and moredeprived households all moving to more ‘upmarket’ neighbourhoods.

Bringing the story together:Conclusions and implications

Housing association investment has shiftedsignificantly since 1998, mainly because farmore is being built in new residential areasand proportionately less in more affluentexisting areas. Proportions in deprived areashave stayed relatively constant but nowinclude significantly more LCHO.

Both regeneration programmes and S106planning agreements have created tenureand household mix. In deprived areas mar-ket and LCHO housing makes regenerationfinancially feasible and brings in youngeremployed households. In new residentialareas on-site contributions required fromplanning gain makes social housing andLCHO possible. LCHO brings in lowerincome employed households, many not pre-viously social housing tenants, while thesocial housing enables those in housing needto move to these less deprived areas, helpingto create a mix of households both in andout of work and with and without children.

One outcome of the increasing emphasison smaller flats is that it generates higherconcentrations of younger singles and

couples, especially in the LCHO sector, andreduces access for families in the social andLCHO sectors. It is reasonable to assumethat these areas will be unable to retain theoriginal households who move there as theylater look for larger homes more suited tofamilies. Sustaining the mix created byregeneration and planning gain policy thusdepends on households similar to the firstbuyers purchasing the dwellings in thesecond-hand market.

Overall, the evidence shows that housingtenure can be a tool, at least initially, in tack-ling deprivation. Providing social housing inmixed tenure developments has enabledgreater movement within the system, takensome people out of unsatisfactory neigh-bourhoods and improved neighbourhoodsduring redevelopment. The fact that one-third of all new social and affordable hous-ing has been located in new residential areas– where mixed tenure policies have the powerto imprint a significant element of social mixon to the development – is of particularimportance.

The story with respect to the regenerationof highly deprived areas with significantexisting social housing is rather less clear-cut. The short-term dynamics suggest thatthe process of regeneration may initiallyworsen deprivation and segmentation. Thusthe deprivation index evidence shows noimprovement in the indices in most deprivedareas where there has been new social rentedand LCHO investment. This reflects the pri-ority attached to allocating new social rentedas well as existing dwellings to deprivedhouseholds. Only if these tenants’ circum-stances or allocation priorities change or ifthere is a much bigger injection of LCHOdwellings with working owners is mixedtenure policy in regeneration areas likely togenerate the intended benefits of mixed com-munity policies.

Thus the imperative of allocating scarceresources to the most needy suggests that

Crook et al. 3401

reducing area deprivation through tenurepolicies may be much harder to achievethrough regeneration policies than throughnew building in less deprived areas.

Under the last government there was ashift away from spatially specific policies. In

2013, ‘Help to Buy’ equity loans were made

available to first-time buyers for all new

market housing. There are also moves to

include privately rented housing on new

market sites (BSHF, 2012; Montague, 2012).

These provide different ways of reducing

land values to help provide mainly for

younger aspirant households in all types of

area. Mixed tenure through a range of dif-

ferent pathways therefore appears if any-

thing to be more strongly entrenched in the

policy agenda than in the past – but at the

cost of losing concentrated efforts to mix

tenure and households in specific locations.This English case study also points both

to how we have learned from Europe, nota-

bly with respect to regeneration but also to

lessons relevant to other European countries

particularly with respect to new develop-

ments. A national policy such as S106,

together with greater emphasis on providing

partial ownership as well as traditional

social rented housing in new developments,

can provide a scale of intervention which

enables communities with a mix of income

groups and household types. This in turn

has the potential to avoid concentrations of

poverty and deprivation and the potential to

maintain this improvement. Given the con-

centrations of deprivation in social housing

across Europe (even in countries with a tra-

dition of universalism), a mix of different

types of affordable homes including partial

ownership as well as traditional renting

housing in both new developments and

regeneration areas has a better chance of suc-

cess – not just for social housing but in

attracting younger, employed households

that can help make the areas more dynamic.

Funding

The support of the Homes & CommunitiesAgency and the former Tenant ServicesAuthority, who supported some of the researchreported in this article, is gratefully acknowl-edged. The conclusions drawn from the researchdo not necessarily reflect the views of those whocommissioned it.

Notes

1. Source: DCLG Live Table 1000, availableat: https://www.gov.uk/government/statisti-cal-data-sets/live-tables-on-affordable-hous-ing-supply (last accessed 10 March 2015)The percentage is of all S106 completionswhere no government grant was paid.

2. The variables included in the index are thepercent of (1) economically active residentswho were unemployed; (2) people living atmore than one person per room; (3) house-holds with no car; (4) households rentingfrom the council or a housing association;(5) residents who are lone parents withdependent children; and (6) people in partlyskilled or unskilled occupations.

3. Standard scores, also known as ‘z-scores’,are used to rescale a dataset in terms of thenumber of standard deviations around themean. This is useful in permitting the combi-nation of indicators measured on differentbases or using different units.

4. The variables selected complied with two cri-teria: (1) they were used in all four censusesthus making it possible to construct the com-posite index; and (2) they were consistentwith the approach taken with the definitiondeveloped in 1983 by the former DoE.

5. That is, Enumeration Districts in 1981,again in 1991 (although defined differently),

and Output Areas in 2001 and 2011.6. The HCA is the government agency in

England responsible for regulating and pro-viding housing associations with grants.

7. At the time of this research the TSA was thegovernment agency in England responsiblefor regulating housing associations.

8. Source: combining data from Departmentof Communities & Local Government LiveTable 100 with the evidence on proportions


of new building in different areas (Figures 1and 2, this paper).

9. Initial lets are proxies for newly built prop-erty, although some 10% of initial lets wereacquired properties.

10. ‘Second round’ LCHO sales depend onthe equity LCHO buyers own when selling.If it is 100%, housing associations only havefirst refusal to buy back. If less equity isowned associations have the right to findbuyers.

11. In 2009 buyers of newly built homes in

England were in work (90%), had averageincomes of £47,000, were young (52% under35 years), and bought flats (27%): sources:Department of Communities & LocalGovernment, Live tables 504, 514, 534and 537. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachment_data/file/6695/175 0765.pdf (accessed 28 February2014).

References

Benthan G (1986) Socio tenurial polarisation in

the UK 1953–83: The income evidence. Urban

Studies 23(2): 157–162.Building and Social Housing Foundation (BSHF)

(2012) Building New Homes for Rent. Colville:

BSHF.Cabinet Office (2005) Improving the Prospects of

People Living in Areas of Multiple Deprivation

in England. London: Cabinet Office.Crook ADH and Monk S (2011) Planning gains,

providing homes. Housing Studies 26(7–8):

997–1018.Crook ADH and Monk S (2015) International

evidence. In: Crook ADH, Henneberry JM

and Whitehead CME (eds) Planning Gain:

Funding Infrastructure and Affordable Homes.

Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 227–268.Crook ADH and Whitehead CME (2010) Inter-

mediate housing and the planning system. In

Monk S and Whitehead CME (eds) (2010)

Making Housing More Affordable: The Role

of Intermediate Tenures. Oxford: Wiley-

Blackwell, pp. 101–119.Crook ADH, Bibby PR, Ferrari ET, et al. (2011)

New Affordable Homes: What, For Whom and

Where Were Registered Providers Building

Between 1989 and 2009. London: Homes &

Communities Agency.Crook ADH, Monk S, Rowley S, et al. (2006)

Planning gain and the supply of new affordable

housing in England: Understanding the num-

bers. Town Planning Review 77(3): 353–373.Department of Communities and Local Govern-

ment (DCLG) (2010) Mixed Communities Evi-

dence Review. London: DCLG.Department of Communities and Local Govern-

ment (DCLG) (2011a) Laying the Foundations: A

Housing Strategy for England. London: Depart-

ment for Communities & Local Government.Department of Communities and Local Govern-

ment (DCLG) (2011b) National Planning

Policy Framework. London: DCLG.Department of Communities and Local Govern-

ment (DCLG) (2011c) English Indices of

Deprivation. Neighbourhoods Statistical Release.

London: DCLG.Department of Communities and Local Govern-

ment (DCLG) (2012) Statement by Commu-

nities Secretary Eric Pickles on Housing and

Growth, Originally Given in Parliament. Lon-

don: DCLG. Available at: https://www.

gov.uk/government/speeches/housing-and-gro

wth–5 (accessed 21 November 2012).Department of Communities and Local Govern-

ment (DCLG) (2014) Estate Regeneration

Programmes. London: DCLG.Department of the Environment (DoE) (1983)

Urban Deprivation. Information Note 2, Inner

Cities Directorate, London: Department of

the Environment.Department of the Environment Transport & the

Regions (DETR) (2000) Quality and Choice: A

Decent Home For All. London: DETR.Eicher CL and Brewer C (2013) Dasymetric map-

ping and areal interpolation: Implementation

and evaluation. Cartography and Geographic

Information Science 28(2): 125–138.Ferrari ET (2007) Housing market renewal in an

era of new housing supply. People, Place and

Policy Online 1(3): 124–135.Forrest R and Murie A (1983) Residualisation

and council housing: Aspects of the changing

social relations of housing tenure. Journal of

Social Policy 12(4): 453–468.

Crook et al. 3403

Forrest R and Murie A (1990) Selling the Welfare

State. London: Routledge.Glossop C (2008) Housing and Economic Develop-

ment: Moving Forward Together. Cambridge:Housing Corporation Centre for Research andMarket Intelligence, University of Cambridge.

Harloe M (1995) The People’s Home: Social

Rented Housing in Europe and America.Oxford: Blackwell.

Hills J (2007) Ends and Means: The Future Roles

of Social Housing in England. London: TheLondon School of Economics, ESRC

Research Centre for Analysis of Social Exclu-sion Report 34.

Holmans AE (1970) A forecast of the effectivedemand for housing in Great Britain in the1970s. Social Trends 1: 33–45.

Jones C and Murie A (2006) The Right to Buy:

Analysis and Evaluation of a Housing Policy.Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

Livingston M, Kearns A and Bailey N (2013)Delivering mixed communities: The relation-ships between housing tenure mix and socialmix in England’s neighbourhoods. Housing

Studies 28(7): 1056–1080.Malpass P (2014) A history of social housing. In:

Scanlon K, Whitehead CME and FernandezM (eds) Social Housing in Europe. Oxford:Wiley Blackwell, pp. 257–276.

Meen G, Gibb K, Goody J, et al. (2005) Eco-

nomic segregation in England Causes, Conse-

quences and Policy. York, Joseph RowntreeFoundation.

Monk S and Whitehead CME (2010) Making

Housing More Affordable: The Role of Inter-

mediate Tenures. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Montague A (2012) Review of Barriers to Institu-

tional Investment in Private Rented Homes.

London: Department for Communities &

Local Government.Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)

(2003) Sustainable Communities Plan. London:

ODPM.Openshaw S (1983) The Modifiable Areal Unit

Problem. Norwich: Geo Books.Pearce J and Vine J (2014) Quantifying residuali-

sation: The changing nature of social housing

in the UK. Journal of Housing and the Built

Environment 29(4): 657–675.Rowlands R, Musterd S and van Kempen R

(2009)Mass Housing in Europe: Multiple Faces

of Development, Change and Response. Basing-

stoke: Palgrave.Sautkina E, Bond L and Kearns A (2012) Mixed

evidence on mixed tenure effects: Findings

from a systematic review of UK studies, 1995–

2009. Housing Studies 27(6): 748–782.Scanlon K and Whitehead C (eds) (2008) Social

Housing in Europe II: A Review of Policies and

Outcomes. London: London School of

Economics.Scanlon K, Whitehead CME and Fernandez M

(eds) (2014) Social Housing in Europe. Oxford:

Wiley Blackwell.Van Kempen R, Dekker K, Hall S, et al. (2005)

(eds) Restructuring Large Housing Estates in

Europe. Bristol: Policy Press.Whitehead C (2003) Restructuring social housing

systems. In: Forrest R and Lee J (eds) Housing

and Social Change: East-West Perspectives.

Oxford: Routledge, pp. 46–68.Whitehead C and Scanlon K (2007) Social Hous-

ing in Europe. London: London School of

Economics.


shura - sheffield hallam university research …shura.shu.ac.uk/16410/1/ferrari - new housing...

Documents