Community Success Through Exchange – summary of workshop
Steve Hoey & Jimm Reed – Leeds Community Homes
Leeds Community Homes started small from initial conversations between Steve H and Paul Chatterton; it grew to a steering group of eight plus a wider group of interested people as a sounding board. It was set up as a Community Benefit Society (CBS) in order to allow a community share issue. LCH is now the community-led housing hub for West and South Yorkshire.
This brought in £362k plus, importantly, over 200 people who then had a stake in LCH, giving it much more clout and credibility.
Leeds Community Homes
Leeds Community Homes had three main aims:-
To enable community-led housing
To develop housing itself
To help the community-led housing movement to grow.
The next step forward was gaining grant funding from Power To Change – this enabled staff to be employed and radically improved the ability work effectively without time/family/day-job constraints. This was followed by CLH grant funding.
The share issue funding was targeted at a development done in partnership with Citu in Leeds Climate Innovation District – which was massively delayed. LCH took the funding and applied it to a different development, Mistress Lane in Leeds.
The original ethos of LCH was to pursue a number of routes to community-led housing, and this is still very much its way of working – both enabling and doing. But:-
Realisation that LCH was becoming a developer – which has led to aiming to register as an RP, which in turn has required some structural/legal changes (from being a CBS with an asset lock)
Appreciation that credibility is important (and was very helpful when grant funding became available) and has allowed new limited company (People Powered Homes) to be established to do consultancy, to broaden its area of interest and engagement and to do broad work including on diversity etc.
The issue of retention of community roots while becoming a bigger beast – especially a RP (“like a housing association, selling your soul to the devil”) - dealt with by careful thought of the detail of structure, and by constant reference back to original aims.
David Boyes-Watson - Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust
Key to JRHT is clear goals and aims, which date back to New Earswick, which showed how community could support people in their lives. This has been carried through to the present via Derwenthorpe – high standards of environmental performance and a mixed community with 40% affordable (Mix of shared ownership and social rent). It also includes facilities for the community – from landscaping and play areas to a community room and governance support for community groups.
Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust, Derwenthorpe, York
Recent work in New Earswick includes development of Red Lodge, improvements to the Folk Hall ( a community hub), retention of a post office in the village and creation of new play area to ensure all generations benefitted.
Forward plans include 1000 homes in and around York over ten years. On York central JRHT sees itself as either/both:-
Development partner with community group(s) and/or
An advisory/enabling role – giving development and negotiation expertise, access to funding etc.
Behind all it does is JRF which sees York Central as being diverse, non-standard and affordable, aimed at providing for local people.
James Neward / Imelda Havers – Yorspace
Yorspace born in 2014 from the inspiration of LILAC in Leeds. Set up as:-
Community Land Trust – branding which expresses purpose – “the wrapper”
Community Benefit Society – the legal form – “the sweet”
Jimm Reed notes - Interesting how the structures follow the intentions- "form follows function!" - the CLT element to hold land, CBS to raise community cash, and at a finer level (with Yorspace/Lowfields) is the co-op to own the properties and provide for the interests of the resident/members.
YorSpace - Lowfield Green, York
Central challenge was how to build affordable homes in an expensive city – adoption of Mutual Home Ownership Society (MHOS) model which brings complication, but for a reason (it allows mutual ownership, not individual, and avoids rise in value being taken out of the scheme).
Community share issue (which raised £422k, mainly from small, local investors) and grant funding have provided a useful financial resource, to cope with with delays to getting on site, changes in government funding, and a “fighting fund” to enable developing ideas around other housing projects (such as YoCo).
MHOS brings up interesting issues around the purpose of housing and how many see it as a pension pot, or something for their children (and conversely how people see MHOS as a way to keep affordable housing available for future generations).
Jon Lee – Ecology Building Society
Ecology exists to finance sustainable projects, including community groups, and have expertise in unusual projects other lenders may not be able to support. At the Ecology Building Society lending has become more diverse over time – moving from predominantly individual projects to a mix including co-housing and other non-standard approaches – but all with the same underpinning environmental ethic.
Main challenge is having the resources to fund the schemes they want to support. Often these are non-standard, and the pandemic has boosted demand for shared space and projects which provide it. Example of non-standard approach is a project in Granby, Liverpool which links sale prices of homes to local wage levels.
Pricing of borrowing costs reflects environmental sustainability of projects (reduced rates for Passivhaus etc) and Ecology BS sits alongside Triodos and CAF but with greater ability to structure long-term secured funding. Community-led projects are not seen by the mainstream lenders as a volume market, so they tend not to invest in learning how it works. There is a perception of higher risk although this isn’t borne out by Ecology BS experience.
They have worked with projects incorporating non-standard approaches – Passivhaus affordable housing, off-site manufacture for remote sites, custom-build apartments, and the use of share capital within a project to provide common space.
Summary of key issues:-
Security – ensuring legal charge / collateral warranties
Ecological / energy specification
Evidence of good governance
Evidence of demand and affordability
Stress testing to ensure no surprises just down the road
Flexibility to suit borrowers – staged payments, interest-only options, no non-utilisation fees.
Paul Kelly – Homebaked Bakery and CLT, Anfield, Liverpool
Homebaked was born out of a market renewal programme that was in the process of sweeping all away. A collaboration with the Arts Council allowed a questioning of what was happening. Anfield had been a model neighbourhood – like New Earswick in a way – but it was being dismantled. Homebaked challenged the community to take action and invited it to be part of what happened, rather than expecting it to be done by others.
Homebaked, Liverpool
The CLT is now nine years old and much learning has happened along the way as it has sought to create homes and workplaces (alongside the cooperative bakery). Land ownership has always been a key issue – Homebaked’s growth has been driven by the need to own assets. The situation is in many ways very different to York – there is more housing than people to live in it – but there are shared issues of inequality.
Funding has come from a variety of sources – including arts funding and donations from overseas (“don’t overlook the potential of billionaire donors”). Also worth noting that more affordable housing allows more disposable income which allows more money to circulate in the neighbourhood economy (“more pies!”)
Homebaked was originally set up as a Community Interest Company but has converted to a CBS, and will shortly be launching a Community Share Offer. Becoming a RP has been accepted as a necessary part of being a solution to problems and taking overall responsibility.
Common themes and issues for further deliberation:-
Co-ownership and control – how to maintain democratic process and connection with community / members / investors but ensure it remains manageable and decisions can be made swiftly when necessary?
Maintaining balance – how to engage with big organisations (for example in York the universities or big commercial entities while at the same time engaging individuals and communities.
How to go broader than housing (and co-housing) and bring in commerce, culture, education in an integrated way?
How to get adequate resources – ie money – both for capital stuff (land / buildings) and also for functional purposes – employees to get things done, professional skills to compete within a land / development market?
Jon Lee responded to these questions with some immediate thoughts:- “I do wonder whether there are some useful sources of reference from within the Garden City model (e.g. Letchworth) where a very long-standing community landlord across a range of assets seems to work rather well. Perhaps harder to do within an existing Local Authority area like York in the 21st century but might provide a bit of inspiration?”
Some useful links here: