Grassroots innovations in community-led housing in England: the role and evolution of intermediaries

Figures & data

Figure 1. The interplay of forms of social capital in community-led housing. (Source: Authors adapted from Agger and Jensen 2015; Geels 2002).

Note: CLTs = community land trusts; CLHA = Community-Led Housing Alliance; UKCN = UK Cohousing Network; NCLTN = National Community Land Trust Network; CCH = Confederation of Co-operative Housing.

Table 1. Characteristics of CLH sub-niches as grassroots innovations (Source: Authors based on Seyfang and Smith 2007; Hatzl et al. 2016; Heywood 2016).

	Cohousing	Cooperatives (including mutuals and tenant management organisations)	Self-Help Housing	Self- and Custom Build	Community Land Trusts (CLTs)
Context (Dominant institutional housing contexts in which CLH initiatives operate)	Private home ownership, cooperative rental	Non-profit social (rented) housing	Private rented housing	Home ownership	Non-profit social (rented) housing
Driving force (Main motivations of participants)	Mainly ideological values: alternative lifestyle, intentional community, environmental awareness	Mainly social needs: affordability; good housing quality; member /community democracy	Mainly social needs: affordability, housing quality; capacity building; work integration; poverty alleviation	Place making; alternative lifestyle, architectural innovations, local control of production	Mainly social needs: affordability; place stewardship; local resilience
Organisational form (Legal aspect)	Range – private, cooperative, community – some include CLT status	Member / community cooperatives, housing associations	Range including community benefit societies, community interest companies, companies limited by guarantee, cooperatives, charities, CLTs	Range – mainly private but also some collective custom build using community interest company or member cooperative	Range including private, cooperative, community, all include CLT status to lock in asset for community benefit
Organisational form (Governance)	Typically bottom-up, resident self-management	Bottom-linked governance: mix of local resident self-management and top-down professional management by secondary cooperatives	Typically local project-based partnerships led by sub-niche intermediaries, incl. social enterprises	Typically developer-led with resident participation	Bottom-linked governance: mix of local community self-management and top-down professional management by CLT umbrellas and/or housing associations
Resource base (Financial resources, revenues, operating resources)	Mainly self-financed, in-kind contributions and commercial bank loans; some early stage public grants	Public grants, social business model, voluntary work, cooperative member resources	Public funding, voluntary work, cross-subsidising from social enterprise activity	Funding channelled through commercial developers; commercial loans, government grants	Early stage public grants, external support from large private builders and housing associations, voluntary works
Size (sector and project)	14 completed schemes with over 40 in development in England Average project size: clusters of homes 15–30	836 organisations across the UK, about 169,000 units, 91% of cooperatives based in England Average project size: individual homes to clusters >50	110 organisations by 2015, bringing about 1297 properties (3025 bedrooms) back into use between 2012 and 2015 Average project size: usually individual homes	Individual self-builders represent around 10% of all new builds in England Average project size: one off homes to large clusters >100	About 160 projects around England Average project size: small clusters of homes 5–30

Table 2. The process of strategic niche management in CLH in England. (Source: Authors).

	Period
	Public promotion and stagnation of cooperative housing (late 1960s to early 1990s)	The re-emergence of CLH and blossoming of intermediaries (2006–2014)	Towards integrated CLH intermediaries (2014-date)
Key developments on the regime level	Urban renewal programmes promote cooperatives as alternative to housing clearance Housing Act of 1974: registered cooperative providers can apply for grants Co-operative Housing Agency (1976–1979): specialist government intermediary providing infrastructure and funding to cooperatives Housing Act of 1988: focus shifts to mixed funding and large housing associations	Global Financial Crisis in 2008 Conservative party manifesto for election in 2010 Coalition Government’s ‘Big Society’ and ‘Localism’ agenda leading to small-scale funding programmes, such as Empty Homes Community Grants Programme (2012–2015) 2011 Housing Strategy for England leading to national self-build register and pressure on local authorities to release land for (community) self-build	‘Community Housing Fund’ announced by Central Government in November 2016 Large national third sector funding organisations (Unltd, Locality and Power to Change) launched dedicated programmes for CLH in 2017
Strategic Niche Management (Levels 1–3)
Strategic Niche Management Aspect 1. ‘Forming new vertical networks with intermediaries’	Individual consultants and professionals start raising awareness for the cooperative idea among residents Emergence of first intermediaries in the cooperative sub-niche (Level 2), so-called secondary cooperatives (‘secondaries’) in certain places (e.g. Birmingham, Liverpool, London) ‘Secondaries” formalise personal linkages to regime-level actors, such as Housing Corporation, local and central government to secure public funding for new projects on Level 1	Emergence of new sub-niches (Level 1) and respective regional and national intermediaries (Level 2): UKCN (2007), NaCSBA (2008), Self-help-housing.org (SHHO) (2009) and NCLTN (2010) These sub-niche intermediaries initially pursue independent upwards linking to access small-scale regime level resources and distribute to their sub-niche groups on Level 1 New intermediaries SHHO, NCLTN and NaCSBA are more closely aligned around Central Government priorities in housing compared to incumbent intermediary CCH	Incorporation of the charity BSHF (now ‘World Habitat’) into the MHG (2014) on Level 2 Emergence of first integrated niche intermediaries (Level 3): ‘Community-led Housing Alliance (CLHA)’ (2014–2018) and later ‘Community Led Homes’ Lobbying led by NCLTN in Westminster for a ‘Community Housing Fund’ and also for support from foundations which should eventually benefit different sub-niches
Strategic Niche Management Aspect 2. ‘Learning and dissemination practices involving intermediaries’	Formalised ‘secondaries’ promote the concept of cooperative housing and facilitate the emergence of individual (‘primary’) cooperatives on Level 1 ‘Secondaries’ provide moderation, mediation and access to finance and management for tenant communities in ‘primary’ cooperatives (Level 1)	Sub-niche intermediaries serve as central knowledge and information pool for their sub-niche projects on Level 1 through websites, newsletters, handbooks and events for advocacy, promotion and competence building CCH Mutual Housing Commission in 2009 results in joint promotion activities of CLH options to (potential) Level 1 groups (e.g. ‘Getting it built’ co-organised by UKCN and NCLT in 2012)	Major learning event at Windsor castle in 2014 facilitated by BSHF BSHF sought promotion with central government and provided guidance and advice on CLH for over 40 local authorities Nationwide Foundation provides grant funding to strengthen actor links within the CLHA, commissioning launch of website and research reports to create evidence base Emergence of regional enabler hubs (such as Leeds Community Homes)
Strategic Niche Management Aspect 3. ‘Expectations’ alignment among intermediary actors’	Upwards fitting: one group of cooperatives aligns more around vision of professionalisation and growth to strengthen legitimacy among regime-level actors (e.g. BCHS, RCH) Downwards fitting: another group aligns more around vision of resident self-management, independence and loose connection to ‘secondaries’ to strengthen legitimacy among local communities (e.g. Radical Routes network) National cooperative federation (CCH) formed in 1993 after various attempts	Messiness due to multiple sub-niches labels and intermediaries each driven by unique contextual factors, priorities and ambitions Some projects on Level 1 still establish vertical links to regime without support from intermediaries (e.g. CLTs to housing associations) Attempts of umbrellas to represent other parts of the niche, e.g. by SHHO Mutual Housing Group (MHG) from 2010–2014: Loose coordination body of all sub-niche umbrellas on Level 2	Closer alignment of expectations and joint attempt to create sustainable income streams for the niche ‘Establishment of “community-led housing” as a term…widely used across the media, housing sector and beyond’^a Community Housing Fund leads to sub-niche intermediaries agreeing to take responsibility for different aspects of strategic niche building: training and accreditation (CCH), common website as single-point access (UKCN), support for regional and local enabler hubs (NCLTN), small grants programme (Locality)

^a http://www.nationwidefoundation.org.uk/projects-we-fund/funding-2013-16/building-and-social-housingfoundation-bshf/ [accessed November 14, 2018].

Agger A, Jensen JO. 2015. Area-based initiatives – and their work in bonding, bridging and linking social capital. Eur Plan Stud. 23(10):2045–2061.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Geels FW. 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case study. Res Policy. 31(8–9):1257–1274.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Seyfang G, Smith A. 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new research and policy agenda. Environ Polit. 16(4):584–603.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hatzl S, Seebauer S, Fleiß E, Posch A. 2016. Market-based vs. grassroots citizen participation initiatives in photovoltaics: a qualitative comparison of niche development. Futures. 78–79:57–70.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Heywood A 2016. Local housing, community living: prospects for scaling up and scaling out community-led housing, London: The Smith Institute; [accessed 2018 Nov 14]. http://www.smith-institute.org.uk/book/local-housing-community-living-prospects-for-scaling-up-and-scaling-out-community-led-housing/

 Google Scholar