The secret ingredient to make mixed-tenure estates gel – money

Well, eventually I hope they will. But I know from experience with a small town called Edenbridge in Kent how long a sense of alienation can sometimes last. Thirty years ago, the Greater London Council built a London overspill estate in Edenbridge – and succeeded in creating a divided community in the process. The newcomers were deeply resented by many existing inhabitants – all crime and bad behaviour was attributed to the "immigrants" and their unruly children.

Three decades later, despite bridges being built by a number of key figures in both communities and the agencies that serve them, resentments remain. But recently I have become more optimistic about the future. The estate, which passed from the GLC to the council to us, is now 60% owner-occupied because of the right to buy.

In a true In Business for Neighbourhoods way, this has not stopped us from investing heavily to improve the physical environment of the estate and employing an excellent caretaker/gardener to maintain the appearance of the whole area to a high standard, as well as providing extra services such as a summer time activities for the kids.

All our tenants across our stock have paid for these improvements and continue to pay for most of the costs of these services – provided both to tenants and owner occupiers – through their rents.

Don’t pull the rug out from under an initiative that works – the community warden has reduced petty crime and made most residents feel safer. But his job is in jeopardy

Similarly we are contributing to the cost of a community warden who not only serves the estate but also the wider area. This warden has been a great success at reducing petty vandalism and crime and making 76% of residents feel safer, but his continued employment is in jeopardy because half his cost is paid for from central government funds with only a three-year commitment to the contribution. Next year, unless we and the other agencies involved agree to double our financial commitment – or the government has a change of heart and realises that three-year funding is just daft – we will have to make our community warden redundant.

This situation is replicated across the country. The government can rightly take credit for the warden scheme, which has been a great success, but it is risking bad publicity with its short-term approach.If an initiative works, let's celebrate and support it, rather than pull the rug out from under it.

My concern for the new communities is that, alongside the physical infrastructure of roads, water, schools, shops and health care centres, there is a need for a investment in less tangible services. Unlike private developers, which are about to get social housing grant, housing associations and their local authority partners have the appetite to provide these extra services that are needed to help make new housing estates into decent neighbourhoods.

When we invest in an area we are in it for the long haul. This is what the In Business agenda is all about. But added value inevitably leads to some added costs. Following Sir Peter Gershon's review with its emphasis on cost efficiency, it is all the more important that we make the long-term case for spending.