Housing Stock Transfers, Regeneration and State-Led Gentrification in London

Abstract

This article examines housing stock transfers from local authorities to registered social landlords in relation to regeneration and state-led gentrification in London. The article traces the inter-linkages between social rental housing provision, gentrification and neoliberalism. These inter-linkages are illustrated via an examination of the contestation over stock transfer and housing redevelopment in two New Deal for Communities regeneration schemes in London.

Keywords:

• Local authority housing
• displacement
• gentrification
• neoliberalism
• New Deal for Communities
• stock transfer

Acknowledgements

Versions of this article were presented at the Globalisation, Gentrification and the Re-invention of the Inner City Conference in Prato (2007) and the International Sociological Association Conference in Barcelona (2008). The author would like to thank Mark Davidson, Shirley Koster, Tony Manzi, Gerry Mooney, Seamus O'Hanlon, Peer Smets and the two referees for their comments. The author is grateful to Martin Frost for providing Figure 1 and to Chris Hamnett for providing the Census data for the two London boroughs. Finally the author would like to thank the dedicated staff at the Tower Hamlets Local History and Archives Library and the Minet Library in Lambeth.

Notes

1. Although see Glynn (2008).

2. The article draws upon several data sources. These include: local authority, NDC and anti-transfer campaign documents and websites; articles and letters from two local newspapers, the South London Press and the East London Advertiser; library archive material. Three site visits were undertaken at the Ocean estate (2007–2009) and two at Clapham Park (2008–2009). In-depth interviews were carried out with two DCH activists, Bob and Dave, who played a key role in the anti-transfer campaigns on the Clapham Park and Ocean estates, respectively. Finally, participant observation was undertaken at national DCH meetings including conversations with Lambeth and Tower Hamlets activists.

3. The precise impact on tenure mix is difficult to establish for several reasons. These include the mutating nature of the planning process, some imprecision regarding the tenure of demolished homes in the various planning documents (for example, GLA, 2007), and general definitional issues regarding what counts as ‘affordable housing’ including in relation to ‘intermediate housing’ (often shared ownership). Given that a borough-wide Lambeth survey found that only 180 households in housing need would be able to afford shared ownership in 1998 (cited in LBL, 2001, p. 34), it is highly questionable how far intermediate housing would be genuinely ‘affordable’ for existing Clapham Park residents or their children.

4. See Watt (2009, pp. 228–231) for further details.

5. Tenants and leaseholders were asked different questions in the referendum because of their different legal status (LBTH, 2002).

6. Tower Hamlets Council eventually abandoned its controversial transfer policy in the face of continuing opposition (“Council Puts Lid on Housing Choice”, East London Advertiser, 21 August 2008).

7. The multiple reasons why one NDC stock transfer went ahead whilst another was successfully challenged will be examined in a future article. It is worth noting, however, that the Ocean estate, unlike Clapham Park, had a “tradition as a fighting community” (Dave), as indicated by its earlier opposition to the Housing Action Trust (Woodward, 1991).