29 Nov 2018
Tenure mixing, and mixed income communities have become an essential component underpinning residential development in Scotland. Policies aimed at achieving tenure diversification have been introduced in response to ongoing issues of geographically concentrated poverty, social exclusion and a lack of affordable housing.
Tenure diversification within new developments seeks to address these problems through the aspiration that high income earners in an area will provide support to less well-off members of society, thereby allowing social mixing, reducing concentrated poverty, and minimising prejudiced views. Evidence that has informed this thinking has been widespread from research completed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), The Scottish Government, and GoWell.
The belief that mixed tenure developments will address social issues comes mainly from the acknowledgment that in areas in which majority of the housing tenure is socially rented there are higher levels of violent crime, lower educational attainment and poorer health. Shown below are the general proposed benefits of mixed communities found throughout my research:
Concentrated areas of urban disadvantage lead to residents being disadvantaged, therefore suggesting that mixed communities decrease the likelihood of residents being stigmatised by the place that they live.
Across the UK, the promotion of tenure diversification has been undertaken largely through planning policy, which has been implemented at both national and local level. Within Scotland this aim is promoted through Scottish Planning Policy (SPP).
To achieve these goals the SPP makes several provisions. Firstly, to achieve affordable housing but also promoting mixed tenure communities, Section 75 agreements are implemented. Like Section 106 agreements in England, these agreements work as a method of securing developer’s contributions through the planning system. In 2008 the Scottish Government published a revision to ‘Scottish Planning Policy SPP3: Planning for Homes’, which sets a benchmark of 25% affordable units for any development of more than 12 units
The SPP also sets out broad objectives to achieving mixed tenure stating that “development plans should encourage the creation of mixed communities rather than single-tenure developments. As far as possible, tenure of housing should be indiscernible from its design, quality or appearance.”
But have these policies influenced how people and places relate to each other and are residents mixing?
Firstly, the policies and objectives set out in the SPP aren’t particularly strong e.g. ‘opportunity for the creation of mixed communities will not necessarily be applicable to every site’ meaning limited weight may be attached to ensuring these policies are actively achieving their objectives. Also without clear cut policies it makes it difficult to review their success.
Additionally, evidence on the success of mixed tenure communities in creating social mixing is difficult to ascertain and is often mixed and variable, differing between studies. These difficulties are acknowledged by key advocates JRF.
Research highlights from the works such as GoWell and others such as Bond et al and Sautkina et al show that that social mixing within these communities is predominantly at a superficial level and social integration is, in most cases, down to individual preferences and not as a product of their environment. Social mixing is much more successful between school children due to the fact they do not hold preconceived ideas of social mixing.
Furthermore, wider geographical stigmatisation is often reproduced on a smaller scale within these developments. This can lead to blocks or areas of development being stigmatized due to the type of tenure within them. This is often related to home-owners’ expectations about whether or not landlords are likely to address antisocial behaviour by, or perceived to be caused by, social housing tenants.
A common result of regeneration and mixed tenure policies is the loss of social networks which can be vital to people’s livelihoods. As affordable units can come forward through any new development this can lead to existing social networks being spread all over a city.
Some mixed tenure schemes are significantly more successful than others and this often directly relates to the quality of design (ensuring a strong tenure blind approach) and the range of tenure types and sizes of properties available. A good example of this in the Pennywell urban regeneration project in Edinburgh which has a mix of detached, semi-detached and low-rise flats for private sale, social rent and mid-market rent.
 Scottish Government, ‘Planning for Homes’ Revised 2009, Paragraph 94 Scottish Government, ‘Planning for Homes’ Revised 2009, Paragraph 80 Scottish Government, ‘Planning for Homes’ Revised 2009, Paragraph 81 Bond et all, ‘Mixed Messages about Mixed Tenure: Do Reviews Tell the Real Story?’ 2012 Sautkina et al ‘Mixed evidence on mixed tenue effects: findings from a systematic review of UK Studies (1995-2009) 2012 Joseph Rowntree Foundation, ‘Developing and sustaining mixed tenure housing developments’ 2008 Scottish Government ‘ Mixed Communities – Literature Review 2011 GoWell, Website: Key findings 2015
Last week I attended the National BID Conference 2018, hosted by the British BIDs network, where delegates engaged in a lively debate on the key issues facing Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) across the country, and how places need to evolve to survive. It seems timely therefore to reflect on the growth of UK BIDs in recent years, and the opportunities they present for those working in planning and economic development.
Originating in North America, Business Improvement Districts are partnerships between local authorities and local businesses whereby businesses within a defined area or ‘district’ pay a levy to local authorities. The levy income allows members to benefit from shared services such as street management, security and investment in green infrastructure which can often be under-resourced within conventional local authority budgets. According to there are currently 305 BIDs operating in the UK and Ireland, a figure which has tripled since 2010.
The map below shows that BIDs are mostly concentrated within large cities and major town centres, a reflection of the fact that BIDs are commonly town centre- It also shows that BIDs tend to be most common in parts of London, the South East and Midlands.
The Capital now accommodates some 50 BIDs, with a particular concentration of town centre-focused BIDs in central London, and some industrial BIDs in Outer London Boroughs. London-based BIDs generate some of the highest levy incomes, for example, London’s New West End Company generated levy payments of over £3.8 million last year.
Given these potential annual levy incomes, BIDs are being increasingly recognised as key drivers of growth and regeneration for town centres. Beyond the traditional ‘basket and bins’ approach of providing flower baskets and waste management, BIDs are now turning their attention to a wider range of place-making interventions. For instance, Lichfields has been working with the Manor Royal BID in Crawley to assess the Business District’s economic impact as well as advising on how Manor Royal can retain its competitive position as a premier business location following a successful ballot renewal in March this year. This includes provision of facilities, wider promotion, enhancements to the public realm and continued efforts by the Manor Royal BID to represent and co-ordinate activities across the Business District. Our final report and set of recommendations can be read here.
Whilst BIDs have continued to grow both in number and economic contribution, this year’s national survey of BIDs identified two emerging challenges of particular relevance to the development sector: the changing nature of retail, and the nature of engagement with the planning system. Besides the large-scale shifts from ‘bricks to clicks’ (a trend towards shopping online rather than in store), BIDs are also experiencing challenges from everyday activities such as safety, security and falling business rates arising from increased vacancy in town centres. To help tackle these issues, the Autumn Budget announced a £675 million Future High Streets Fund, and a High Street Taskforce which will be deployed to help local areas respond to their unique challenges. BIDs will likely play a critical role.
It is also clear that planning remains a central issue for BIDs, with just over 20% of BIDs reporting some involvement with Neighbourhood Planning, indicating much greater scope for involvement. Many BIDs have also strongly lobbied for their local authority to implement Article 4 Directions to prevent the ongoing erosion of office space in town centres, particularly where this has negatively affected the day-time economy and town centre footfall. These issues could be resolved by working more closely with local planners, urban designers and developers and by demonstrating the tangible impact and contribution generated by the BID business community for the local economy.
BIDs have grown quickly in a relatively short period of time, and it is clear that they are here to stay. As an increasingly significant player in local economic growth and town centre revitalisation, they will become an increasingly important stakeholder within planning and economic development; after all, BIDs mean business.