Responses to mayor of London Sadiq Khan’s proposals to make ballots compulsory, obtained from City Hall under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that nine housing associations gave their views on the plans. Of these, five opposed ballots and four were in favour.

The UK’s largest housing association Clarion – as well as Catalyst, Orbit, Swan and Riverside – opposed the policy, giving various reasons.

Guinness, on the other hand, supported the mayor’s proposals, along with Places for People, Home Group and Poplar Harca.

Clarion argued in its response to the consultation: “Ballots will slow down and increase the risk in what are already long-drawn-out and uncertain regeneration programmes, and are a disincentive to investing early on in the process at just the point when the focus should be on investigating residents’ needs and exploring the underpinning master planning principles.”

Swan, meanwhile, said: “The need to achieve a simple majority in support of a regeneration scheme does, we believe, have the potential to allow the interests of a few to decide the needs of many.”

It argued that residents in low-rise, low-density housing would not vote for regeneration.

Catalyst said that a ballot should only be required if a particular regeneration failed to meet the mayor’s various objectives, such as ensuring no loss of social housing. Riverside put forward a similar view.

Most of the respondents who supported the policy did, however, have suggestions on how to improve it.

Poplar Harca argued: “We agree that resident ballots as a funding condition for estate regeneration schemes is sound but to ensure that schemes of size (more than 150 units) are not stopped or delayed by the opinion of a very small number of residents we would advocate that in addition to the 150 trigger in terms of numbers of new units, there is also a minimum threshold of number of units to be demolished.”

Places for People supported the policy but said “consideration should be given to how funding conditions will affect and influence the actions of the local authority”.

In addition to the housing associations responding, a huge number of campaigners, residents and academics supported the proposals.

Developer Countryside, meanwhile, disagreed with the proposals and said that if they were to go ahead, the mayor should have the ability to override a ‘no’ vote.