Bringing real localism into practice through co-operative housing governance

The role and prospects of community-led housing in England

Structure of the Presentation 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Introduction Aims and Methodology of the Study Localism Debate and Community-led Housing Structure of the Community-led Housing Sector Infrastructure Needs of Community-led Groups Support Mechanisms: Self-help vs. External help Lessons from the Austrian Model Discussion & Conclusions Developing Research Agenda

Key Statements on the Community-led Housing Sector in England The community-led housing sector in England is quite new and incorporates at least six different models some of which relate closely to a longer standing co-op sector. The development of a Mutual Housing Group working with the main umbrella groups in each field provides a potentially fruitful mechanism for sharing learning and influencing the institutional environment. While the sector has been stimulated by recent localist policies; it has needed to assert its own values and aims and longer standing traditions while engaging selectively with new opportunities. Two key lesson for newer community-led sectors from the early coop movement in England: o Considering early on how to secure essential resources such as funding, technical expertise and legitimacy. o Building management and governance competence among residents who will be running the schemes. Possible ways the sector could grow: o either, the grass roots communities mobilise the resources needed (bottomup approach): Traditional (user) self-help model or Extended (community) selfhelp models, with some support from within sector umbrellas

the sector goes into partnerships with housing associations or secondary coops and umbrella organisations for funding and other resources (bottom-linked approach). Governance Models with External Enablers Housing associations can play a key role in supporting community-led initiatives through management and governance competence, consultancy, funds, or even by

establishing their own community-led projects. In many ways community-led groups are now taking on the roles and spaces that HAs have vacated as they have grown into some of the largest and most asset rich organisations in the third sector. However, the involvement of HAs leads to paradoxical relations and is not always welcomed, as empirical data shows. This is because of their different institutional logics and less localist focus. Community-led organisations therefore have concerns about the form of engagement with HAs and the need to maintain independence and community leadership while securing resources and support.

Key Statements on International Experiences (Austrian Model) Developer Competitions in Vienna - scaling up co-operative elements Developers are scored according to a set of criteria referring to architectural quality, economic aspects, ecological quality and also the social sustainability of the projects (including increasing resident participation in subsidized housing estates) For the English context, the introduction of social sustainability aspects in developer competitions could institutionalise community-led housing on the policy level and link it to public funds. This would change the current approach whereby HAs compete nation ally for the bulk of state funding on Value For Money while a small programme is top sliced for community led housing. Resident Participation in Vienna To make cooperative idea popular within larger parts of the society, movement accepted that not every resident wants to engage actively. Traditional cooperative participation mechanisms should be kept but cooperatives have to reach out to different (mainstream) resident groups with different, for instance low-threshold participative methods. But: cases show that community-led housing is very much about involving residents in a participation process than about delivering a ready-made product, i.e. affordable homes. Furthermore, possible tensions between active participants and non-active community members who are involved in two tiered local governance arrangements with
active members of the housing scheme and interested local residents both included in Open Governance structures.

Umbrella Bodies and Isomorphism in Vienna Keep and support diversity not only of community-led provider models but also of umbrella bodies within the cooperative movement It is in the nature of the co-operative movement that local communities invent and experiment with new organisational structures and with umbrella bodies But: Dissemination of good practice models is relevant to the growth of the movement.

Conclusions New co-operative and community-led housing fields are facing similar challenges to earlier co-operative housing movement. Not able to grow and expand significantly through self-help mechanisms alone, given their inherent scarcity of economic capital, compared with other co-operative sectors. Require some form of external support, such as that of public housing programs, which however threatens the co-operative and community-based nature of these housing providers. This enabler role can be carried out by HAs or secondary co-ops which are committed to community-led housing. Balance of self-help and external support is crucial. Achieving balance between local determination and broader societal influence through structural partnerships with Government.