Housing tenure and urban unrest: Responding to contemporary rioting through housing-related mechanisms By: Gareth James Young A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Sheffield Faculty of Social Sciences Department of Urban Studies and Planning September 2016 Front Matter Abstract Abstract In 2011 England experienced the worst outbreak of urban unrest in a generation (Newburn, 2015). The cost to the public purse was significant, lives were lost and property destroyed. Immediate political pronouncements and media coverage reporting the disorder painted a picture of lawlessness and anarchy. The focus of responses from political figures and in mainstream media was on the declining moral and respect of those involved (Flint & Powell, 2012). The day before the riots the Department for Communities and Local Government launched a consultation seeking views on extending the powers of possession to social housing providers to make the process of eviction easier and more flexible. This consultation was updated on the 10 August 2011; just four days after the riots had begun, to reflect the disorder. Within this consultation a question was added as to whether more eviction powers needed to be given to housing providers to deal with situations such as riots. Despite vociferous contestation from organisations such as Shelter, the proposals passed into legislation under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014). To this day there remains little evidence about the actual housing tenure of the rioters. Very little has since been discussed about the use of housing-related mechanisms as a suitable way of dealing with urban unrest. Housing has remained relatively elusive in the discussion about the riots despite new powers of possession specifically geared towards social housing tenants as a result of the 2011 disorders. This study seeks to address this gap. The exploration of the housing-urban disorder nexus is the thread running through this thesis, and it examines how the responses to the riots demonstrates contemporary rationalities for governing marginal populations and explores the apparent shift towards a more punitive society. Empirical data has been collected from 30 frontline practitioners working in housing, behaviour control and policing roles. These practitioners work in cities across England for organisations of various scales. Establishing a practitioner view was important, as these are the actors who sit between national level policy frameworks and the tenants whose day-to-day lives are governed (to a certain extent) by housing management practice. The aim of this study is to explore and attempt to understand from the perspective of one-the-ground officers and authorities why such a housing-related response to the disorders materialised, to what degree it is believed that these mechanisms are appropriate and a useful part of the behaviour-control arsenal and what, if anything, this might change for the future of governing populations. i Front Matter Abstract Acknowledgements I am indebted to so many people for their ongoing support and encouragement, which without it, I would not have been able to continue through the process. I would like to take this time to thanks some of these people. Firstly, without funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, this project would never have been possible. I am also grateful to my supervisory team, John Flint and Caroline Hunter, who have persevered, encouraged and supported me though four long years. I am also grateful to Tom Moore, who encouraged me to apply for this studentship and to everyone at BSHF who helped me secure the scholarship. To all the participants and organisations involved in this study and who have helped with recruitment and participated in interviews, your input has been greatly appreciated and invaluable to this study. To my family and friends who have shown unfaltering love, support, encouragement and pride in me through the highs (of which there were many) and the lows (of which there have been some, especially towards the end). My grandparents, parents, brother and Sheila have all been a constant source of energy that has allowed me to keep going. And to Paul, who has had the faith in me from day one and has put up with my moaning, panicking and tantrums for the duration of this PhD. It is difficult to tell who is more relieved that it is over! Throughout my time on this study, I have been afforded a wealth of excellent opportunities and would like to extend my gratitude to colleagues in Urban Studies and Planning who have included me in their teaching and research projects; each of these experiences have helped me strengthen my own skills, my research and ultimately paved the way for me to begin my career within the Faculty of Social Sciences here at the University of Sheffield, in particular Richard Dunning, Craig Watkins and Jenny McNeill. To all my PhD colleagues who have been through this journey with me. In particular to Emily, Clare and Radmila, with whom I’ve shared many a coffee discussing my lack of progress and ability to grasp exactly what it is I am supposed to be doing. Your words of wisdom and shoulders to cry upon have been most gratefully received. And finally to all my colleagues in the Faculty and SSPIKE: Claire, Lizzie, Natalie, Sarah B, Sarah H, Alistair, Rob, Lucy and Naomi who have been fabulous over this last year, which has without doubt being the most difficult of them all. Your understanding, kindness, tea and biscuits have got me through the final push. To all of you, thank you! ii i Front Matter Contents Table of Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. i Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ ii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... i List of Appendices .............................................................................................................................. i List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction 1.1 Overview of the study .................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 The 2011 riots ........................................................................................................................... 19 1.3 The Housing Crisis .................................................................................................................... 22 1.4 Broken Britain, Big Society and Austerity................................................................................. 23 1.5 The Research ............................................................................................................................. 26 2. Governance mechanisims for behaviour control: conceptualising housing and anti-social behaviour 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 31 2.2 Increasing punitive techniques: from welfare to workfare? ...................................................... 37 2.3 Understanding ASB: the stigmatisation of particular social groups? ...................................... 39 2.4 Governing populations: the use of housing and anti-social behaviour policy .......................... 46 2.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 60 3. Competing interpretations of the 2011 riots: political protests or acts of anti-social violence? 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 64 3.2 The 2011 riots ........................................................................................................................... 65 3.3 The threat to norms: the riot of an underclass? ........................................................................ 74 3.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 78 4. Methodology 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 83 4.2 Research Strategy: A Qualitative Approach ............................................................................. 84 4.3 In the field: A reflexive account of the empirical study ............................................................. 91 4.4 Analysing the data ..................................................................................................................... 99 4.5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 102 5. The construction of issues and responses 5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 105 5.1 Reactions to the riots ..............................................................................................................