Advertisement

Council estate demolition dismisses resident welfare, new research shows

Research from the University of Manchester has discovered the axing of council estates is driven by the desire to profit rather than to provide housing affordability, security and safety for locals.

In a recent article published by the University’s sector leading policy engagement institute, Policy@Manchester, Dr Nick Thoburn argues ‘demolition brings about social and individual cost, uprooting residents from support networks and jobs, fragmenting communities, and reducing the supply of affordable, safe and secure housing.’ 

In addition, Dr Thoburn warns that ‘demolition also has an environmental impact which is hidden behind claims that net-zero carbon targets will be achieved through ‘green’ replacing housing.’

It has become known that the UK’s construction sector is responsible for 30% of the greenhouse gases that pollute the atmosphere, but various organisations have pledged to switch the types of martials they use and install homes with greener upgrades. However, with the current cost-of-living continuing to bite government prioritises have shifted to providing more affordable homes and with this, developers are abolishing homes creating toxic air to make room for new ones.

Dr Thorburn said: ‘Yet central and local governments, housing associations, and developers still proceed apace with estate demolition and rebuild. The common justification is that residents share the dominant mood and opinion about council estates. However, our research project with residents at East London’s Robin Hood Gardens found this not to be the case.’

The research discovered that residents involved were ‘almost entirely absent from the prominent public debate about the estate’s merits, failings and impending demolition.’ In addition, experts highlighted locals ‘despaired of the lack of investment in and maintenance of the estate’ with the combined neglect and disrepair often becoming ‘managed decline’ where councils leverage long-term disinvestment for demolition.

As a result of the findings, experts have suggested two policy solutions. The first is to retrofit existing social homes in which ‘demolition should not be the favoured option but the very last resort.’

The second suggestion comes from Dr Thorburn as he argued: ‘Residents should be consulted meaningfully and fairly. Since 2018, London local authorities are required to obtain a majority in a formal ballot of residents for any redevelopment proposal involving whole or partial estate demolition, an opportunity refused to residents of Robin Hood Gardens.

This is progress, and it should be extended to all parts of the country. But the ballot process is stacked in favour demolition and must be overhauled.’

Image: Kois Miah

Comments

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Help us break the news – share your information, opinion or analysis
Back to top