![Sample our Urban Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110826/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Urban-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper examines governance processes shaping the experiences of neighbourhood restructuring-induced residential relocation in Housing Market Renewal (HMR) areas in England. Since the 1950s and 1960s, residential relocation has been examined as a matter of social and political debate, especially in gentrification studies focusing mainly on negative residential relocation outcomes long after the process was over. This paper argues that such a focus had led researchers to ignore subtle, practical dimensions of relocation delivery and the causal relationships between these and often very diverse relocation experiences. Based on the HMR case, the study shows that residential relocation in a differentiated polity is delivered by complex networks of actors and that residential relocation outcomes are the result of cooperation or non-cooperation of network members. Key innovation rests in devising a theoretical vehicle that shows how governance has a profound impact on relocation delivery and residential relocation experiences.
Acknowledgements
The research presented in this paper is based on the author's PhD research and would not be possible without the University of Westminster, School of Architecture and Built Environment research scholarship 2007–2010. Therefore, the author especially thanks the supervisory team: Nick Bailey, Toni Manzi and Marion Roberts for their support and encouragement to publish this paper. She thanks all respondents who contributed this research with their time, expertise and experience, including representatives of the HMR Pathfinders, local authorities, RLSs, ALMOs, private developers and community groups affected by relocation. She thanks the Housing Studies referees and visiting editors Ade Kearns and Reinout Kleinhans for inviting her to contribute her work to this Special Issue and for their helpful comments on the submitted manuscript. Finally, she thanks Shani D'Cruze for helpful suggestions and professionally proofreading this paper.
Notes
1 In 2002, nine Pathfinders were formed by the government. After 2006 an additional four were added. This research focuses on nine original Pathfinders as they had commenced the process of demolition and relocation at the time of inquiry.
2 Pathfinders differed in terms in their makeup. According to NAO (Citation2007) partners that were most often present in the partnerships were local authorities, regional development agencies and local strategic partnerships. Depending on the Pathfinder in question, other partners may have included: private sector organisations such as private developers and public organisations such as the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships (replaced by Homes and Communities Agency after 2009), National Housing Federation, at times Strategic Health Authority and Police as well as partnerships delivering other policies in Pathfinder areas such as New Deal for Communities.
3 ALMOs are non-profit companies that provide housing services on behalf of a local authority. ALMOs are usually set up by the local authority to manage and improve all or part of its housing stock. Ownership of the housing stock itself normally stays with the local authority.
4 Respondents responsible for residential relocation belonged to the Pathfinder team or local authorities depending on governance arrangements in each Pathfinder.
5 RSL is an alternative term for a ‘housing association’ in the UK. RSLs are private, non-profit making organisations that provide low cost social housing for people in need of a home. Although independent, they are regulated by the state and commonly receive public funding. They are now the UK's major providers of new housing for social (as well as in some cases private) rent. RSLs may also run shared ownership schemes to help those who cannot afford to buy a home outright. In recent years, some RSLs have also developed regeneration and planning services. They are often contracted by the local authorities to prepare plans, redevelopment strategies and conduct community engagement exercises.
6 Community engagement in Walker, as in other Pathfinders' projects, was supported by the launch of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA) (2004) that made community engagement in the planning process compulsory.
7 Development of FAPs was supported by the launch of the Regulatory Reform Order (RRO) (2002). RRO granted local authorities powers to develop appropriate forms of assistance for homeowners, including grant aid, loans, provision of materials, advice and information.
8 The ‘Homeswap’ scheme was designed in the Seedly and Langworthy areas in Salford (MSP Pathfinder) and soon became popular in other Pathfinders [e.g. NH, BNG, TSY, PIA, GW]. It consisted of local councils buying empty properties near demolition areas and refurbishing them for residents (owner-occupiers and/or social tenants) to relocate. In 2008, the reported that the scheme was one of the most popular relocation options.
9 ‘Lifetime’ homes are homes incorporating 16 design criteria that can be universally applied to new homes at minimal cost. Many local planning polices in the UK require the Lifetime Homes standard in new developments. Good design, in this context, is considered to be design that maximises utility, occupiers' independence (in case of disability) and quality of life, while not compromising other design issues such as aesthetics or cost effectiveness.