Estate Regeneration Roundtable - October 2022

There was valuable input from all of those who attended and presented at this event, particularly the 14 councils who received Estate Regeneration Funding: Newark and Sherwood District Council, Trafford Council, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, Colchester City Council, Derbyshire Dales District Council, London Borough of Haringey, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, London Borough of Sutton, Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, Rochdale Borough Council, Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, London Borough of Camden, Cheshire West and Chester Council, Calderdale Council.   

The roundtable provided the opportunity for those involved in the programme to celebrate the estates and projects supported, as well as their reflections and learning on estate regeneration, approaches to place making policy and delivery.

The presentations from Andy von Bradsky, Derbyshire Dales District Council and Irwell Valley Homes are available for viewing. Andy Von Bradsky highlighted a number of key estate regeneration guides: Altered Estates (2016 and 2022) and Better homes for local people (the GLA good practice guide to estate regeneration).

Estate Regeneration – The Policy Context

John McManus, Deputy Director, Regeneration Delivery Unit at DLUHC, provided a valuable overview of the policy context of estate regeneration, taking account of previous thinking and looking ahead to current and upcoming government priorities:

• The Levelling Up White Paper marked an important moment for estate regeneration policy development by recognising the need for delivering holistic regeneration and the role the build environment can play in delivering this, by addressing productivity, education and health.
• Levelling Up remains a priority exacerbated by cost-of-living pressures and the need to strengthen the UK economy alongside increasing housing supply.  
• One of the primary issues to resolve is how to rejuvenate existing areas, so that they can benefit from this agenda. 
• Looking at how the above can be delivered a number of opportunities stand out:
  • How can technocratic barriers be removed to enable greater estate regeneration, for example reflecting on the role of Green Book review and Red Book valuations in applying for estate regeneration funding.
  • Viewing estate regeneration through a wider lens and considering how it can contribute to battling inequality.
  • Strength of partnerships – how can the government support forming the right partnerships and not crowding out private partners.
  • There are particular challenges around how to strengthen the offer to coastal and rural communities and consider how government interventions work in different parts of the country.
  • How could simplifying funding programmes provide greater opportunities and allow local leaders to deliver in their markets.
• It is clear without a solution to estate regeneration issues there is a challenge around how to rejuvenate towns and cities to create economic growth.
• Through the Estate Regeneration Fund the DLUHC Estate Regeneration Policy Team has sought to lay the groundwork for these conversations to develop. The projects funded through this programme, may not have been funded if traditional ideas of value for money were used in the design of the fund.

Workshops     

Two breakout sessions gave attendees the opportunity to explore policy and delivery successes and barriers.

Practical successes and barriers to delivery of estate regeneration projects

• This discussion built on many of the key themes of Altered Estates 2, mentioned by Andy von Bradsky in his presentation. 
• One of the biggest barriers to delivering estate regeneration projects identified is timing. Projects are often large, complex and run over multiple years. However, funding programmes tend to have short application windows, followed by short spend and delivery windows.
• Developing on this, how funding programmes are designed was a concern for participants. Having to bid for different discrete pots of funding for specific parts of a project creates a lack of security of individual projects and is very resource intensive. In some cases projects are unable to progress, for example compulsory purchase orders being on hold, until they are able to prove they have funding for all the phases.     
• The importance of community engagement was a theme throughout the day. The breakout group discussed how good community engagement results in a more successful project. However, good community engagement is a continuous process, and can’t be a one off consultation at the start of a project. This is again resource intensive and creates a challenge, but is essential to ensuring the community buy-in and recognise the value of a project to themselves and their community.    
• Sustained and meaningful community engagement is particularly important as substantial estate regeneration programmes often constitute a number of phases, over a five to ten year time period, where residents may change and needs alter.  
• Resident’s ‘project fatigue’ can also be a challenge. Even with strong community engagement residents may feel they are forever living on a building site. On larger multi-phase, multi-year projects there will be residents who are yet to feel direct benefits as work is phased across the estate. 
• The Estate Regeneration Fund’s approach to placing a high value on Non-Monetised Benefits was highlighted as a key success as it provided an opportunity to capture social value and a boost to value for money scores in areas with low land values., that otherwise would have struggled to meet previous project funding criteria.

Policy successes and barriers to delivering estate regeneration projects

• The breakout group reflected on John McManus’ presentation particularly thinking about how greater empowerment of local leaders can remove barriers to estate regeneration.
• Devolution was identified as a mechanism for enabling funding to be focused on local priorities, particularly if place-based approaches are considered rather than siloed investment processes.   
• Previous comments about the challenge of inclusivity within devolution areas were discussed further with participants highlighting the need for the unique challenges different areas of the country face to be understood. For example, rural areas have an estate regeneration challenge, but can be overlooked in strategic devolution conversations.
• Funding policy was highlighted as a key risk to estate regeneration as siloed funding pots with different criteria and one off funding settlements for projects exposed councils to risk of future funding gaps.
• A potential solution to this could be to explore opportunities to coordinate and signpost councils to longer term funding streams, perhaps through Homes England, to better fit with the long term aspects and challenges in delivering estate regeneration schemes.
• The role additionality plays in the design of funding programmes was also considered. In areas where housing supply is the key issue, additionality should be a consideration, however supply is not as important in all areas of the country. Where quality is the key issue, additionality criteria can be a barrier to estate regeneration.