[Common Space Repost]: Scotland has some catching up to do on community-led housing

As part of a commentary series for Common Space, I outlined a vision for the community-led housing model being embedded in Scotland, showing real-life examples from the rest of UK and further afield and highlighting legal impediments in Scotland to this model flourishing here…

THE Scottish Government is currently consulting on Housing Beyond 2021, a housing strategy intended to provide consistency and sustainable housing delivery over the next 20 years. Scotland needs a vision that will bring community groups into the housing mix and think innovatively as to how it can address the shortfall in affordable housing. My recent research highlighted a need to reassess both Scotland’s approach to self-built housing and community bodies relationship with housing policy.

Housing units built for the majority of the population is a pressing policy problem in Scotland as in the rest of the UK. Since the Localism Act 2011, which launched Community Right to Buy in England and Wales, policymakers have slowly advanced bringing community bodies into the housebuilding mix. This draws on pilot schemes launched by non-profits and cooperative housing associations, based on a financial model of mutual equity-based ownership known as Mutual Home Ownership Societies (MHOS), seen best in the cohousing project LILAC in Leeds.

Source: CommonSpace.

MHOS draws inspiration from a Community Land Trusts in the USA where land is owned in trust by a community body and the freehold is released under the collective interests of its residents, often at prices proportionate to local salaries. Elsewhere, in Germany, non-profit organisations known as ‘Baugruppes’ are achieving long-term affordability and bespoke housing through innovative governance models which allow the community to decide how the neighbourhood invests in itself. The Welsh Government are supporting the Wales Cooperative Centre (WCC) to expand community-led housing construction using similar models. Their aim is to build 20,000 housing units by 2021; this would account for 45 per cent of annual dwelling completions in Wales if realised.  For Scotland, particularly its urban areas, no plans on this scale have been made, although there have been some proposals for implementing similar forms of community ownership.

LILAC have been pioneers of this model of Mutual Home Ownership Societies, which allows residents to purchase shares through their lease in a way proportionate to their incomes. This model allows for the price of the housing to be set in proportion to the income of the family, while rewarding wealthier tenants for providing more investment through higher rates of shares. Communities would democratically decide on the management their residences and commonspace. Though the model is currently in its infancy, versions of this have already been applied elsewhere, notably in Stroud and Liverpool (Granby4Streets).

LILACLEEDS
The MHOS Housing Model in action in Leeds

There are shortfalls with cooperative housing in that it does not address housing to the lowest income members of society in the short-to-medium term, being that the model currently requires early investment and resources that are largely unavailable to those from the most deprived communities. And such models should not replace social housing completely from the housing mix. Community-led housing aims are often along social and environmental sustainability lines, building low-carbon community housing and giving long-term protection to the community body from gentrification and policies such as right-to-buy which hindered the viability for many small-scale housing associations.

This article was originally posted on CommonSpace on the 11th of January. The full article is available here.

A day in the life of a Chief Planning Officer (RTPI Blog)

Earlier in the year, I visited Salford City Council as part of RTPI’s Chief Planners of Tomorrow initiative. Here was a blog I wrote as part of the project. 

I was glad to hear that I had been awarded the chance to spend the day with Chris Findley, the Assistant Director for Planning and Housing at Salford City Council. RTPI’s Chief Planners of Tomorrow presented an exciting chance hear his perspective on the issues facing Local Planning Authorities (LPA), to get an understanding of the corporate culture and to sit in on meetings between him and other Chief Planners of the Manchester’s LPAs

Image result for salford city council

As a young planner working at the Planning and Architecture Division of the Scottish Government, the initiative was my first big chance to see a day in the life at a Local Planning Authority, especially one near my hometown (Stockport). Consequently, I was excited to see how the Greater Manchester Combined Authorities (GMCA) were handling the process of their upcoming Spatial Framework, which will guide developments in area up to 2037.

 

Chris chairs the Greater Manchester Planning Officers Group as current Planning Lead for the AGMA. We started our morning meeting with other Chief Officers across the area. Here I learnt about some of the pressing issues in the run up to enacting a Spatial Framework under the devolved powers arrangement. It was enjoying to listen to the concerns of LPAs in the area and was surprise at the similarities facing the ongoing City Deal. In fact, over the course of the day, conversation topics cropped up that would not have been out of place North of the border!

 

After this, we briefly walked through the city and Chris guided me through the challenges and opportunities facing the area. Salford and Manchester are ever-changing cities, currently witnessing a surfeit of development. It is important that Greater Manchester is a healthy place to live and development is a sustainable manner that benefits everyone. The big challenges facing Greater Manchester are similar to other fast growing cities in the UK.

Image result for rtpi

Our final stop was Salford Council Offices where we met with other senior members of staff for a weekly business round up. With my current role focussing on planning performance, it was fascinating to see how Local Authorities are responding to feedback and improving their service delivery in spite of budget cuts and other challenges to long term development.

Young planners need all the experience they can get to thrive in a field as generalist as planning. I enjoyed hearing about the challenges facing Chief Planners and learning how such major decisions are being made. We need more mentoring opportunities for the planning sector to build its resilience against growing skills gaps. And so I look forward to hearing about similar chances in the future. I would recommend the Chief Planners of Tomorrow initiative to any Young Planner.

 

This post was written as part of RTPI’s Chief Planners of Tomorrow Initiative. More information is available on https://www.rtpi.org.uk/knowledge/networks/young-planners/chief-planners-of-tomorrow/. If you are interested in getting involved subscribe to our newsletter and keep your eyes peeled for the latest RTPI opportunities.

Patrick Geddes: an introduction to an old New Urbanist

The history of Geddes place within the history the Scottish city and urban planning theory demonstrates the shifting roles communities have made on the development of the city. While Geddes’ ideas faced academic wilderness for much of the 20th century, they now enjoy a resurgence in the form of New Urbanism ideas and sustainable development.

According to Hysler-Rubin, Geddes is the city thinker most associated with ‘anything that is sensitive, local and humane in planning’ after Jane Jacobs. Influenced by anarchist and communist thinkers of his day, Geddes coined the term ‘conservative surgery’ on how urban planning should be done. Here, he proposed minor adjustments, ‘enlarging existing lanes…removal of a few of the most dilapidated and insanitary houses…’ and replacing some with gardens and public squares. This compares well with Engels’ 1872 piece How the Bourgeoisie Solves the Housing Question where municipalities paved “long, straight and broad streets through the closely-built workers’ quarters” and erected “big luxurious buildings”, in Paris with the intention of making guerrilla warfare more difficult. It is known that Geddes would have listened to tales of Baron Haussmann from the refugees of the Paris Commune that he worked with him in his Outlook Tower.

Patrick Geddes

But the biggest influence probably came from listening to disgruntled locals being forced from their home. The now notorious William Chambers’ Improvement Scheme of 1867 in Edinburgh may have had the most direct influence on Geddes conservative surgery approach. It is hard to imagine the discontent held by Old Town residents from the widespread clearance of 2,700 dwellings, without consultation, not being mentioned during his early surveys. The improvement scheme attracted controversy partly for the mass evictions but also the wholesale destruction of historic local buildings.

He became involved in the community in the wake of several slum clearances in Edinburgh. To him, planning was a game, like chess, where he may ‘suggest certain advantageous moves… from a survey of the situation as it has arisen’ rather than avoid the reality ‘by attempting to make a clean sweep’ and design motorways, dividing ‘masses of building blocks’ as seen in Australia and the US.

Green spaces were a common theme in his planning. This tied to his rural upbringing and botany background. Geddes was a polymath, which, in part, explains his theoretical development. Notable philanthropists like Octavia Hill mentored him early on, though his dissatisfaction with their paternalistic approach led him to anarchist thinkers like Pyotr Kropotkin, Élisée Reclus and Ebenezer Howard. Though Howard stressed building ‘garden cities’ to alleviate the overcrowding in the cities at the time and Kropotkin stressed decentralising cities to improve working conditions, Geddes focused on what would happen next to those city centres once those ideas were enacted.

He believed in ‘cities and regions operating in concert’ but what separated him from other thinkers was the synthesis of these principles with his botanic background By viewing the city as an organism, a complex network of people and place. This is where the term ‘conurbation’ originally came from.

The ‘Valley Section’ from which Geddes explains his idea of Conurbations

Academic thought about New Urbanism, collaborative planning and environmentalism have given rise to new discussions on Geddes as an early advocate for numerous debates on environmentalism and civic action. Geddes was recognised for his ecological-regionalism by his early acolytes like Lewis Mumford and now his work has growing relevance to the pursuit of sustainability in the city.

Geddes’ proposal for the Old Town of Edinburgh

Today, Scotland celebrates his work through the Footsteps of Geddes Festival, promoted by Planning Aid Scotland, and the RTPI hold annual commemorative lectures in Geddes name and often carry a sustainability or civic engagement theme. Geddesian theory points to the very civic engagement necessary to enact the decentralised spatial frameworks espoused by urban thinkers like Jan Gehl, Rob Hopkins or Wulf Daseking, all of whom have spoken at Geddes Annual Commemorative lecture.
This renewed interest in the ideas of Geddesian ‘folk planning’ and civic society ties with a modern planning community which favours the growth in community engagement and inclusivity. In ‘sharing communication, social and urban processes,’ and by viewing the city as a network (though organism based) Geddes anticipates the development of ‘smart’ city thinking and environmentalism. His community-driven initiatives, appreciation of walkability and public space saw beyond both the laissez-faire, now neoliberal, city and the state-driven socialist city that would dominate British planning soon after his death.

How to improve community engagement: a look at different emerging tools

Community engagement is vital to improve growth in cities and urban areas. It is an under-used tool that could help democratise property booms. Here is a round-up of new trends in the field.

Urban Planning writer Yvonne Rydin complained, urban planners have a habit of seeing the ‘community’ of a homogenous group; what is good for one community may not be good for another that hadn’t even been considered in a master plan.

Take the oft-celebrated drive to create ‘shared spaces’ to improve road safety and congestion. Poynton’s roundabouts were initially heralded as a successful solution for a pedestrian friendly marketplace battling with heavy congestion.

However, the scheme has been criticised for posing new issues to cyclists, who are now trapped in between cars thanks to the narrower roads in the run up to the roundabouts, and blind people, whose guide dogs are unprepared for such spaces.

What tools should planners look to in order to get fresh perspectives on new developments? There are a range of tools and frameworks out there and each serve different advantages.

Place Standard Tool

Currently being widely used in Scotland is the Place Standard tool. Funded by NHS Scotland and the Scottish Government, the Place Standard tool has been providing a basic framework to measure public perceptions on an area since its launch in late 2015.

The tool has proven useful by both third sector, public and private groups as a way of measuring public perceptions. PAS (Planning Aid Scotland) has done a lot of work with the tool, particularly for youth engagement, owing to its adaptability to lesson plans. The tool even now has been made into an app.

But its upsides can produce downsides. While it is effective in describing a place in a range of sizes, this can limit its ability to get to specifics. Furthermore, the tool can be limited by the quality of the practitioner, which can lead to a lack of consistency in its findings.

The tools main benefits are that it can measure quantitively the priorities of a community, yet it often relies on coming to communities rather than communities coming to them. Furthermore, there is concern by the lack of direction for what comes next, especially if used as part of a land use consultancy project.

Urban Diary

Charles R. Wolfe suggested the use of an ‘urban diary’ to improve the level of community interaction with city planning. He expands on this in his book Seeing the Better City but the gist appears to be to encourage participants to create photo diaries of their cities. This encourages personal detailed accounts citizens’ favourite places in a city.

This project sounds entertaining, and is similar to preservation-focussed practices in Cultural Planning and the other engagement project Wolfe himself cites such as ‘Community Character in a Box’ in Austin, TX. But the clear issues are the time, cost and finding committed participants.

Much of community engagement is about encouraging those completely disengaged with the process; my reservation to this comes simply from how much hard work it is for an individual to do compared to other tools. But more crucially is the problems that could arise from researchers themselves interpreting the data. How can a planner understand which urban diary is more representative or vital than another?

Fix My Street

The people at My Society are excellent at finding crowdsourced solutions to local problems. Fix My Street is immensely useful at channel the Great British tradition, of complaining about everything, into a valuable engagement tool.

What’s sad is how if you go through the what actually gets discussed here: mostly about bins and potholes. Where other community engagement tools inspire, Fix My Street succeeds at being a widely adopted port-of-call anyone annoyed about their neighbours parking or the bins not being taken out. It’s possible that with the right guidance/marketing, Fix My Street could well have been a great place for a mass charrette. Maybe time can change that.

Augmented Reality

While in its current form AR seems better suited for property developers showing rather than collaborating with the public, the last few years have seen several advances in the technology. Research at Heriot-Watt is but one example (but see Skywand and Palimpset for others). In development since 2015, UrbanPlanAR allows users to view buildings as they will look when built in 3D through their Smart Phones or Smart Pads. The applications for this are remarkable as this could lead greater buy in for developers but also more informed feedback from stakeholders. As it grows, one could imagine some stakeholders even making counter-proposals, as knowledge of 3D modelling grows amongst the general population.

The main immediate concern would be to ensure this technology is used as a community engagement tool rather than a ‘showroom piece’ for property developers. Time will tell.

Conclusion

The resources above are useful for different times and contexts. To ensure consensual developments, planners and community leaders need to utilise these tools and others to engage a community both with their future and to protect its built heritage.

One concern, I haven’t yet flagged up is the mobility of many modern communities. With student, immigrant and economic newcomers to a city who can often live in unsecure accommodation, reaching these urban dwellers can be a hard task. But crucially a task worth doing.