2025SPRING CHENYAN WANG

The Rural Urban Synthesis Society (RUSS):
A Model of Community-Led Housing and Participatory Governance

Introduction

The Rural Urban Synthesis Society (RUSS) is a contemporary and highly educational model of community-led housing. Taking the precedent of 1970s self-build culture in the UK—the case of Walter Segal's timber-framed housing at Walter's Way—RUSS reworks and develops this tradition in response to the conditions of urban housing problems of the 21st century. It offers a platform for debate on the question of how alternative grassroots models of housing can simultaneously address structural housing inequalities and reimagine participatory governance in urban development.

The Origins and Evolution of RUSS:

The intersection of participatory community formation and architectural production is perhaps most clearly articulated in the self-build housing movement. Rooted in collective action, self-build housing positions residents not merely as beneficiaries of housing but as co-producers of both the built environment and the social frameworks that sustain it. These projects often center on individual homes linked through a legal or institutional structure—frequently a land trust—or bound by a shared ethos of cooperative ownership and long-term management. A canonical example is Walter’s Way, developed in the mid-1970s in Lewisham, London. Designed using the Walter Segal method of timber-frame and infill panel construction, the project enabled twenty households to collaboratively design and build homes tailored to their needs on land provided by the London Borough Council. The project’s significance lies not only in its architectural ingenuity but also in its demonstration of how municipal land policy and self-build methods can support resident-driven urban development.

Historically, land trusts have been either rural agricultural cooperatives, or single-family housing communities. RUSS- among several other trusts in British city centers, has taken on this mission to bring land trust development to a scale that can address the scale of the urban housing crises. British government provides a general supporting framework for his experiment in that it requires local councils, even those in dense urban areas, to consider self-build projects for the receipt of city owned property on a periodic basis. The Rural Urban Synthesis Society (RUSS), founded by Kareem Dayes—the son of one of Walter’s Way’s original self-builders—seeks to reimagine self-build principles within the context of contemporary urban conditions, characterized by escalating housing inequality, land scarcity, and systemic disinvestment. Building upon Walter Segal’s foundational values of sustainability, adaptability, material reuse, and shared equity, RUSS adapts these ideals to address the social, economic, and spatial challenges of 21st-century city living.

RUSS seeks to democratize access to urban land by acquiring sites for the development of mixed-tenure, permanently affordable housing, integrating a participatory co-design process and long-term co-governance by residents. Its governance model is situated within a broader policy landscape shaped by the UK’s Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act (2015), which mandates that local councils maintain a register of self-build interest and make publicly owned land available to meet demand. Although differently implemented, this policy framework has enabled organizations like RUSS to enter the urban land market and challenge conventional developer-led housing production.

1: Institutional Innovation: RUSS as a Distinctive CLT Model

RUSS marks an important institutional shift from typical community land trusts (CLTs), which often acquire land but lease it to third-party developers for housing delivery. In contrast, RUSS retains integrated control over land, design, construction, and long-term governance—positioning itself not only as a land steward but as an enabler of community agency, architectural experimentation, and socio-spatial equity. It is this thorough, end-to-end model that allows residents to participate meaningfully at each step of development, from co-design through continuous governance.

The Church Grove project, RUSS's first built project, embodies this model. It includes council-leased flats, shared-equity houses, and market rentals under a combined resident-governed site. According to one RUSS member, although there are over 700 land trusts spread across England, they are intermediate in nature and pass on the development work to housing associations. In doing so, they forgo ownership and the power to shape long-term outcomes. RUSS, by contrast, adopts a more assertive model of land stewardship—one that makes responsiveness to residents not only in planning and development but through the entire life cycle of the built environment its highest goal.

RUSS diverges from conventional CLTs in several critical ways:

1) Integrated Development Control: RUSS maintains comprehensive oversight of its projects, ensuring that decisions related to land use, design, construction, and governance remain within a unified, participatory framework. Its expanded definition of “self-build” encompasses not only physical construction but also broader forms of resident agency—social, financial, and spatial—positioning housing as a tool for both affordability and collective empowerment.

2) Mixed-Tenure and Financial Plurality: RUSS deliberately constructs mixed-tenure communities, incorporating publicly subsidized units (council housing), shared equity homes, and market-rate rentals within the same development. While blended financing models are not uncommon in affordable housing, RUSS’s inclusion of state-supported tenants alongside homeowners and renters—within a resident-managed governance framework—is notably rare. This approach enables greater social diversity while stabilizing the financial model.

3) Community-Rooted Residency: RUSS prioritizes local inclusion, recruiting residents from the surrounding neighborhood and designing amenities that are accessible to the wider public. This reflects a commitment to housing not just as shelter, but as infrastructure for community regeneration.

4) Open and Participatory Governance: RUSS operates on a principle of open membership. Any individual, including members of the broader public, may purchase a share and become a voting member of the organization. A board of trustees, including both residents and external stakeholders, guides strategic decisions. With a membership of approximately 1,000 and around 40 active volunteers, RUSS transitions the role of the public from that of passive beneficiaries to engaged co-governors. This open structure also extends to project design and programming, allowing the broader membership a voice in shaping development outcomes. Moreover, this wider membership can have a voice in the initial design and programming of projects. The larger long-term ambition of RUSS is the creation of an ecology of land trusts interconnected communities.

5) Urban Density and Community Design: Unlike traditional rural or suburban CLTs, RUSS operates at urban density. It aligns participatory design with public planning requirements, creating a replicable model for other city-centered reuse projects.

2: Land Acquisition and Political Opportunity

Following its formation, RUSS’s first major objective was to initiate a flagship project that would operationalize its mission. This project became Church Grove. While British policy technically obligates local councils to consider self-build proposals for publicly owned land—particularly under the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act (2015)—in practice, institutional support is often limited or inconsistent.

Lewisham Council, however, offered a relatively favorable political and historical context. The borough had previously hosted a number of alternative housing developments, including Walter’s Way, Segal Close, and Nubian Way—each of which reflected a legacy of experimental, community-driven, or self-built housing models. This precedent created both institutional memory and a degree of political receptivity to similar initiatives.

Jon Broome, a long-standing advocate of sustainable self-build and former collaborator of Walter Segal, identified a suitable parcel of land owned by the council near a railway yard. With Broome’s assistance, RUSS submitted a proposal to develop the site based on a multi-tenure, community-led model. The proposal was sufficiently compelling to earn a grant from the Council to conduct a feasibility study. When the results of that study were presented at a public meeting, the self-build concept received widespread support.

By 2015, RUSS had formalized its vision into a concrete proposal for an affordable, mixed-tenure development. In 2016, it was awarded a 250-year lease on the site—a rare and significant success for a community land trust in an urban context. This moment marked not only the beginning of Church Grove but also a foundational step in demonstrating the viability of community-led, participatory housing within the formal urban planning system.

3: Establishing the Resident Group + Financial Structure

Anurag Verma, reflecting on the Church Grove experience, recounts a resident’s observation: “Initially, I didn’t see the big deal about the community aspect—but now that I’ve moved in, I understand it fully. You do the community first, then the building.” This sentiment captures the ethos of RUSS’s approach, where community formation is not an outcome but a foundational process.

While not a conventional form of community visioning, the selection of residents was a crucial aspect of engagement. RUSS operated under the principle that residents should be locally rooted and that their presence should produce reciprocal benefits for the broader neighborhood. The project thus prioritized individuals who could both contribute to and benefit from Church Grove’s shared infrastructure and social resources.

Resident selection was shaped by both social and financial imperatives. RUSS sought a group that could support the project's vision for mixed-tenure living, meet diverse housing needs, and ensure the financial viability of the development. The mix of publicly subsidized tenants, shared-equity owners, and market-rate renters was intended to create a balanced social fabric while providing sufficient capital to underwrite construction. The initial financial model assumed that RUSS would retain a portion of equity in each unit to ensure financial sustainability. However, this framework became strained due to delays in issuing occupancy certificates, particularly for self-built units. Because mortgage financing could not be accessed until these certificates were obtained, RUSS was forced to sell several fully finished duplex units in advance—an unplanned move designed to bridge cash flow gaps.

In retrospect, Verma places these financial complications within the broader context of an increasingly untenable housing market in London. With interest rates rising and government grants declining in real value, the economics of social housing have become progressively more difficult. Verma suggests that the self-build model—delivering homes as unfinished “shells” to be completed by residents—may reflect a larger cultural shift toward incremental, user-led housing. “It’s about being able to get into your home, even if it means finishing parts later,” he notes.

Yet this model presents its own challenges. RUSS attempted to implement legal agreements requiring self-builders to complete their homes to a certain standard, but ultimately relied on mutual trust. Homes were transferred in a “first-fix” condition, and it was up to the residents to complete the interiors, secure certification, and finalize their purchases. In future projects, RUSS hopes to develop new financial tools that would allow residents to purchase unfinished shells with mortgages or subject them to clearer timelines for completion.

This model has the potential to distribute risk more equitably. Contractors assume less liability, RUSS can recoup costs earlier, and self-builders gain ownership with the flexibility to complete their homes over time. However, delays and complications remain significant liabilities. As Verma reflects, “Self-build doesn’t necessarily save money if you factor in the time commitment. If you have the money, my advice is to hire someone, get it done, and move on with your life.”

The complexity of matching tenure types to unit sizes over a 15-year development period required RUSS to maintain multiple waiting lists. These were segmented by financing category and household configuration. As life circumstances changed, many individuals cycled on and off the lists. Even Kareem Dayes, RUSS’s founder, originally intended to live in a smaller unit but later secured a larger one suitable for his family.

The final resident group at Church Grove reflects the project’s aspirations. It includes council tenants, equity stakeholders, and local professionals—among them pediatricians from a nearby hospital. In the early months of occupancy, the building’s shared courtyard has become a vibrant social space, animated by children and informal gatherings. A self-built community center is actively used, while the community garden and playground remain in development. Internal governance structures are still emerging, shaped by informal participation and gradually formalized decision-making processes.

Of particular note is the fact that many residents were not part of the original co-design cohort. Some moved in as much as nine months after initial occupancy, raising questions about continuity and cohesion. This circumstance invites further inquiry into how participatory design processes shape long-term community formation—and how those processes are experienced differently by those who helped initiate them versus those who joined later.

4: The Co-Design Process

As Jon Broome noted, “There were two stages. The first stage was more about designing the project than designing the building.” This distinction captures the layered nature of the co-design process at Church Grove, which unfolded over multiple phases and engaged a diverse group of future residents and professionals long before the building’s form was finalized.

The design process began even before RUSS had secured full funding or finalized its list of residents. To ground the engagement in realistic constraints, RUSS commissioned an initial "control scheme" from the architecture firm Architype, working in close consultation with Jon Broome, a RUSS board member and expert in self-build housing. The control scheme served as a planning baseline, clarifying the physical and regulatory parameters of the site. This ensured that co-design participants would operate within viable boundaries, avoiding the risk of generating ideas that could not be implemented.

The first major co-design phase ran from April to September 2016. It was led by Jon Broome and Sam Browne—both seasoned practitioners in participatory architecture and self-build methods—in collaboration with Architype. The process was structured around five interactive workshops, each designed to move from values articulation to spatial planning:

The “Hello” Event: This initial gathering brought together the provisional resident group for the first time, shortly after their selection from the ballot but prior to the completion of individual financial assessments. The event outlined the equity model and financial review procedures. It also established foundational norms of governance, communication, and resident participation, including early discussions around preferences for self-build involvement.

Design Festival: This kickoff session formally introduced the control scheme and the planning approval process. It included a group site visit, thematic presentations on self-build approaches, and a preliminary design workshop.

3–5 Thematic Design Workshops: A sequence of four evening workshops followed, each dedicated to a key aspect of the emerging development: (1) Site Planning, (2) Character and Feel, (3) Housing Typologies, and (4) Sustainability and Energy/Self-Build. These sessions combined technical presentations with collaborative exercises and visioning activities, supported by preliminary sketches from Architype.

During the final workshop, RUSS conducted a detailed survey of residents’ construction skills and their interest in self-building. It became evident that many participants faced significant time constraints due to work and family obligations. As a result, RUSS and its design team sought to calibrate the project’s expectations—offering flexible levels of involvement and ensuring that self-build remained accessible without becoming a burden. This responsiveness to resident capacity exemplifies the adaptive ethos at the heart of RUSS’s participatory model.

Overall, the co-design process did not merely shape the physical form of Church Grove; it laid the social and procedural groundwork for future governance, mutual accountability, and the layered meaning of “self-built” as an act of collective authorship.

Jon Broome described the co-design process as a reciprocal learning exchange: professionals gained insight into residents’ priorities and constraints, while residents confronted the complexities of contemporary housing delivery. Inputs from the design charrettes were synthesized by the architects into a comprehensive “Design Menu” and revised scheme, which was subsequently reviewed by the resident group. The process culminated in a joint public consultation with planning authorities, marking a transition from participatory input to community-led advocacy within formal planning structures.

5: The Self-Build Process and Construction

Jon Broome, reflecting on his earlier work with Walter Segal, noted that the act of building one’s home fosters not only individual confidence but community capacity. “People learn, and they receive help. The big takeaway was the immense sense of achievement… it brings invaluable social benefits.” For Broome, self-build is less about prior technical skill and more about empowerment through participation.

a. Implementation Challenges and Learnings

At Church Grove, 16 of the 36 households opted to fully fit out their homes from unfinished shells, while several others chose partial self-finish options such as tiling or cabinetry. The remaining residents moved into completed units. Unlike earlier self-build projects like Walter’s Way—with their informal, barn-raising ethos—Church Grove was an urban, three-story concrete frame development, subject to standard construction logistics, insurance restrictions, and health and safety protocols. These requirements limited site access and constrained the collaborative spontaneity typically associated with self-build initiatives.

Delays in construction funding, particularly for the self-build manager, caused further interruptions. Moreover, due to regulatory hurdles, residents could not gain access to their units until occupancy certificates were issued. RUSS provided a support team—including a carpenter, architect, and electrician—and a three-day training course. Still, the asynchronous schedules of participants, combined with family and work obligations, often made coordination difficult.

RUSS has acknowledged the structural limitations of this approach and plans to revise the financial framework in future projects. One proposal involves allowing residents to purchase unfinished shells earlier in the process, subject to specific completion timelines, to safeguard the financial and physical stability of the overall development. As one participant observed, “Self-build doesn’t necessarily save money if you factor in the time commitment… It’s tough to juggle self-build, family, and other responsibilities.”

Nonetheless, the broader intent of RUSS’s self-build model—understood as a pathway to agency and social cohesion—remains intact. As residents engage in consensus-building around shared amenities like the community garden, self-build becomes less about construction and more about cultivating a culture of collective care.

b. Architectural Form and Social Space

Church Grove comprises 36 dwellings in two blocks, ranging from one-bedroom flats to four-bedroom duplexes, including a reservable guest unit. The design draws from London’s social housing typologies: ground-floor entries, external walkways, and individualized front porches. Functional community spaces—such as the self-built community hub, bicycle storage, laundry, and offices—are positioned to enhance accessibility and social interaction.

The site’s constraints—including its narrow footprint, adjacency to a rail line, and location within a floodplain—led to several unique architectural decisions. The building was raised a meter above grade, requiring ramped access on both wings. The bifurcated form, influenced by neighboring residents’ desire to preserve sightlines, was connected by a pair of pedestrian bridges that have become architectural landmarks of the project.

Architecturally, the project balances functionality with flexibility. Dual-aspect units benefit from cross-ventilation and light. Generous porch spaces serve as semi-private thresholds, enabling residents to personalize their frontages with seating and plants. While cost-driven revisions eliminated some material richness—such as timber finishes—the project retains its emphasis on social infrastructure and the visual expression of resident individuality.

As one resident noted, Church Grove’s design does not impose a singular architectural vision but instead reflects a different “productive order”—one rooted in community-making rather than formal aesthetics. This ethos affirms RUSS’s broader ambition: to make housing a shared, evolving, and lived social project.

Photos of the bridges connecting the wings

The homeowner arranges each space to match the tone of the exterior façade.

6: The Emergence of Community:

The long-term aspiration for Church Grove—described by one resident as a “utopian dream”—is to become a self-managed, fully integrated community. In its early stages, the development continues to receive substantial support from the RUSS parent organization, along with both trustee and non-trustee volunteers. While financial governance is relatively stable, based on rents and shareholding, the social governance of common spaces remains in formation.

Deliberately, RUSS did not impose a predetermined governance model, favoring instead an emergent, bottom-up structure. Currently, resident coordination is informal, though there is growing recognition of the need for clearer protocols. Self-organized groups have initiated key communal projects—such as the self-built playground and the establishment of a community garden. Recently, a series of community meetings has been launched to support conflict resolution and shared decision-making, marking early steps toward a more structured, resident-led governance model.

Photos of the self-build of the playground and the establishment of the community garden

The Community Hub is the center of the commons at Church Grove. It was fully co-designed and self-built (using windows salvaged from a West End skip and flooring from an exhibition on Walter Segal) by the future residents and other trust members in advance of the housing and as such is a statement of principle. Having such a project that could be realized early in what became a drawn out and difficult process was of real benefit to RUSS in keeping the prospective community engaged and optimistic.

The Community Hub has become a central gathering space for Church Grove. Designed and built by future residents and RUSS members, it now hosts regular community assemblies and serves as the site of the RUSS School of Community-Led Housing. The school, initially held on-site for a year, continues to share its curriculum online, extending the ethos and technical knowledge of self-build beyond the immediate resident base. The Hub also fulfills its original intention as a space for wider public programming.

Looking ahead, the future governance and social fabric of Church Grove remain in active formation. Questions of continuity and inclusion are central: Will long-term residents remain and move within the development as their needs evolve? How will new households—those without the shared history of co-design or construction—integrate into this community?

These uncertainties are reflected in the ongoing revision of internal policies. For example, the original allocations policy, written before occupancy, presumed a forward-looking model focused on flat assignment and purchase. Now, the community must determine how to handle vacancies: Should existing residents be prioritized for transfers, or should newcomers from the broader community be given access?

Each approach carries trade-offs. Prioritizing current residents promotes continuity and allows families to adapt housing to their changing needs, reinforcing social bonds. However, this can also lead to insularity, limiting opportunities for external participation and fresh perspectives. As with many aspects of Church Grove, these governance questions remain open—not as problems to be solved once, but as dynamic negotiations at the heart of community-led housing.

Appendix:

Timeline_ Development of RUSS and Church Grove Project:

1970s-80s: Segal self-build communities supported by Lewisham Council
Walter’s Way is realized and is formative in initiating the UK self-build movement.

2009: RUSS is formed
Kareem Dayes helps his father to update his home in Walter’s Way to be more energy efficient. This initiates “a half a dozen people sitting around the dinner table to begin thinking about sustainable development and the housing crisis. The will to conceive “sustainable neighborhoods designed, built, and managed by its community” leads to the formation of RUSS.

2005: Jon Broome writes paper on history of Segal’s self-build work in Lewisham
This paper in collaboration with the founding members of RUSS includes a business plan for the Ladywell parcel, a former derelict school and industrial site at Church Grove.

2015: Lewisham Council commissions feasibility study & calls public meeting
A strong interest for a community-led self-build project prompts the council to bid the site via an Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) tender process. The initial design for the Best and Final Offers (BAFO), which RUSS provided as part of the competitive dialogue OJEU process during 2015, was accepted in principle by LB Lewisham and consists of 33 homes of varying tenure and size.

2012: Triodos Bank Partners with RUSS
Since 2012, Triodos has assisted with Chrch Grove offering advisory work and financial modelling.

2015: RUSS submits site bid
RUSS submits a bid for the site premised on maximizing social value by the provision of a 100% affordable, multi-tenure scheme.

2016-2020: The RUSS School of Community-led Housing: developed a workshop programme of 5 modules
RUSS has developed a workshop programme of 5 modules, aligned with the 5 stages of CLH development: Group > Site > Plan > Build > Live. Module 1 has been run since 2016, and RUSS introduced Module 2 in November 2018. In 2020 RUSS trialed new module 3A.

2016: Development agreement signed & site leased
RUSS signs a development agreement with Lewisham and the site is given on a 250-year lease.

2016: Ballot selects self-builders for Church Grove Project
A ballot to select the residents for the Church Grove project took place at Lewisham Town Hall in March 2016. Residents were involved in a series of co-design sessions in 2016 and 2017 with our architects and our self-build facilitator, Jon Broome, and again in meetings with architects SEH in 2020. A Design Review Panel (DRP) was held in October 2016.

2016: Community Arts Education Program: RUSS City
At a local community fair in June 2016, volunteers organized a collaborative art project called "RUSS City." This involved local children and their families creating their ideal city using a wide range of materials that were provided by the RUSS team. The volunteer behind this pilot initiative applied for a grant to enable RUSS to run a community arts education program linked to the Church Grove project.

2017: Strategic brief is written for community-led housing development
Jon Broome Architects and Sam Brown assist RUSS to form a strategy with the following outcomes: tenure mix, self-building, sustainability, co-design, community use, affordability, environmental performance and resident involvement.

2017: Architype commissioned to lead the design process
Facilitated by Jon Broome, future residents were involved in a ‘co-design’ process with the professional team. Spread over five sessions, addressing six topics (site, landscape, character, materiality and feel, internal layouts and sustainability) feedback from the community was incorporated into the development of the scheme.

2017: Church Grove Self-Build Community Space fundraising
In the summer of 2017, RUSS organized a crowdfunding campaign to finance the construction of a self-build community space on the Church Grove site in Ladywell. The project was supported by The Mayor of London and more than 300 other backers who, between them, raised £52,000.

2017: RUSS appointed its Client Representative
RUSS appointed an experienced project management consultancy called Local Agenda to act as its Client Representative on the project. The Local Agenda team is responsible for instructing contractors and for liaising with RUSS and the residents. The team also monitors and manages costs on behalf of RUSS. One of Local Agenda's other key tasks is to appoint a Management Contractor, after planning permission was granted in June 2018. RUSS appointed HUSH as Client Representative, HUSH supported RUSS in the management of the scheme through the delivery phase.

2018: RUSS secured a £988,000 grant from the GLA
Late in 2018, RUSS secured a Housing Innovation Fund grant of £988,000 from the GLA to enable it to progress the project from the ‘planning consent’ stage to being ready to start on site. This grant will cover the cost of remediating the land and enable RUSS to comply with the Planning Conditions. It will also fund the professional consultancy team to prepare detailed technical drawings and the procurement of a suitable Management Contractor to oversee the work.

2018: Architype submits successful planning application to Lewisham Council (with the decision formally issued on Friday 14 December 2018)
The architects continue to develop the project in detail in collaboration with various professional consultants. RUSS successfully completed a public procurement process and signed a Development Agreement with Lewisham Council for a ‘community-led, affordable, self-build housing development’ on a former derelict school and industrial site at Church Grove.

2018: Crowdfunding success for innovative Community and Training Space
A crowdfunding initiative has successfully raised £52,598 from more than 300 backers to build London’s first training facility for would-be community self-builders. The innovative building will be constructed in Ladywell, Lewisham on part of the land set aside for a new 33 home affordable self-build housing project.

2018: National Lottery’s Awards For All Scheme Supports London Community-Led Housing Training Initiative
RUSS has been awarded a grant of £9,450 by the National Lottery’s Awards for All scheme. The funding will enable RUSS to run a series of training workshops during 2019 to explain how people can team-up to commission and build their own affordable homes.

2019: The RUSS Community Hub was built
The RUSS Community Hub was built by more than 90 volunteers during the summer of 2019. It provides a flexible community/work space that is approximately 7m x 5m. The building now functions as RUSS’s main administrative base.

2019: Shepheard Epstein Hunter Architects retained as lead designer
After bidding the project, the development is cost prohibitive and SEH assumes the lead of the project.

2020-21: Scheme revision to meet budget
SEH develops a revised scheme in consultation with the residents, the Local Planning Authority and RUSS. Material and assembly changes along with some editing of the scheme enables the project to be delivered within budget. Originally the project was to be built using timber, including a structural timber frame and timber cladding, as per the designs of Architype who had brought forward plans as part of a co-design process with RUSS. However, with Brexit, Covid and Grenfell impacting the price and perception of timber, that scheme had to be amended. Shepheard Epstein Hunter subsequently came on board and in its revised scheme, was able to increase the number of dwellings from 33 to 36.

2020 May: Approval for grant of £127,000 of capital funding from the Mayor’s Community Housing Fund Programme
Expenditure of £127,000 from the Community Housing Fund, to provide grant to the Rural Urban Synthesis Society Limited (RUSS) to support its delivery of affordable community-led homes. The additional funding is required to pay for work to value-engineer the project, streamline the design and undertake a re-tendering process. This additional work is needed because it has become apparent, following a recent tender exercise, that the total cost of the scheme will be far higher than originally envisaged and that, as a consequence, it needs to be refined and retendered.

2021: Open House London: Ladywell Self-Build Community Hub
The RUSS Community Hub has hosted events for London Open House 2021, teaching sessions for the Lewisham School of Muralism and a ‘start on site’ event to thank funders, partners and supporters.

2021: Revised proposal approved by Lewisham Council

the Council approved ‘Minor Material Amendments’ to the scheme, which include:

▪       Adding three more affordable homes to the scheme, including one more social rented flat

▪       Improved public access to the Ravensbourne river front and a new playground

▪       Low maintenance, non-combustible fibre cement cladding, which has an A+ sustainability rating

▪       An all-electric scheme to eliminate fossil fuels for heating and cooking.

2022: Construction of the project commences
Building work started in Spring 2021

2023: RUSS Hands Over Shell Flats for Resident Completion
In January 2023, building company ROOFF handed over five flats as ‘shells’ to be made into homes by the inhabitants themselves. Residents put in partitions, ceilings, kitchens, bathrooms and floors under the guidance of the Self Build Management Team, Sarah Boyd and Harry Bridgeman.

2023: RUSS Hub has secured permanent planning consent
RUSS have secured permanent planning consent for our existing Community Hub, meaning it can continue to serve the local community and future RUSS residents.

2024 Feb: Project complete
We developed a revised scheme via consultation with the residents, the Local Planning Authority and the client that met the residents desire for supporting and enhancing the community aspects of the development; was brought back within the client’s budget; and stayed true to the high-quality design intent of the original proposals to meet RUSS's and the Local Planning Authority's aspirations. As part of the revised scheme, we were able to increase the number of units from 33 to 36. The tenure mix includes social rent, London Living Rent, shared ownership and share equity. To address the fire risk concerns, the timber structure and timber cladding were replaced with alternative materials. The revised proposals were approved by Lewisham Council in February 2021. The project started on site in 2022 and will be complete in 2024.

*Finance
RUSS secured early-stage funding from the Greater London Authority (GLA) to develop its proposals and engage consultants. Planning permission was financed through a loan from CAF Venturesome, while Triodos Corporate Finance assisted in establishing a viable budget and cash flow forecast. The construction of the homes was funded through a combination of GLA capital grants and loans from social investors and banks, which will be partially repaid by residents purchasing shared equity and shared ownership homes with individual mortgages.

A long-term loan will be required to cover the remaining costs, which will be repaid through rental income from shared ownership properties. Due to grant requirements, the rented flats had to be owned by a Registered Provider (RP). While RUSS aspires to become an RP in the future, it partnered with CDS Co-operatives, which purchased the flats, assuming the role of landlord and overseeing management and maintenance across the broader scheme.

Resident assessments were conducted by Parity Trust, a charity dedicated to supporting low-income individuals in accessing home ownership. The trust evaluated prospective residents' financial needs, their ability to raise a deposit, and their capacity to sustain mortgage repayments or rent, along with associated costs such as service charges, council tax, and utility bills.