In 2015 they won a competition by New London Architecture partnering with Enfield Council to produce a scheme as one way of solving the housing crisis. They were part of the Urban Community Land Trust family and, like us, were responding to the need of families who don’t qualify for social housing but are unable to afford a home on the open market. Stephen likened our approach to a not-for profit Community Interest Company called Naked House. The initial group have a significant role in designing and creating the community. Cohousing groups are intentional communities run by the residents. Cohousing is slightly different and perhaps closer to what we were envisaging. There is quite a formal governance and legal structure, and those who set up the CLT do not necessarily get to live in it. As such, we did not represent a community benefit organisation.Ĭommunity Land Trusts steward land for the community, with the community having a say in the organisation, and members have a vote. Stephen set out our current position and set out two or three different routes of community led housing we could look at.Īt the present time we were two families looking to house ourselves with the potential to help other families along the way. We met with Stephen Hill, then Chair of UK Cohousing Network and Trustee of Community Land Trust Network. If the Church and Council were looking at marrying the two sites for a larger housing development, then being both public mission landowners surely they should at least consider a community scheme for local families committed to the local area and local church? We began to pick up where we had left off with our ideas of community building. They also approved my application for a bursary ticket for the National Community Led Housing Conference later that month. Community led holds the keyĪbout the same time I received an email from the Community Land Trust Network that our application for first stage funding had been successful ( see blog 5) and I could chose an advisor to work with us for our first scoping day. The door had obviously and firmly been shut but there was a small window open. The obvious question was: ‘Should we now give up?” Peter and I held the view that we should pursue something until every door and window was shut in front of us. It had been almost a year since I came across the Right to Build Legislation, and eight months since we started pursuing the Council plot. We had not only built up our own hopes but our friends’ too. I put down the phone and the tears poured out! We had been so close. The reality was that we would not be able to compete with a better financed developer to develop both sites. The conversation ended in an awkward silence. Our chance of building two homes was now slim. When I asked where we stood he confirmed the strength of our offer lay in the fact that at a future date we might work with the Council to develop their site but events had changed and the Council and Diocese were now talking about marrying the two sites themselves. When I rang the Diocese development manager a few days later his manner was cooler than it had been (at least I imagined so). “Pick yourself up, brush yourself off and start all over again,” my old philosophy tutor used to say. But at the last minute the Council contacted the Diocese to look at a commercial scheme marrying the two sites. We made an offer on the Vicarage plot, partnered with a family who were a great fit with us and had got as far as Heads of Terms with the Church. Part 7: Best consideration – pursuing our community building idea
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |