DOCSLIB.ORG

Opportunity & Intensification Areas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Opportunity & Intensification Areas London Tenants Federation Opportunity & Intensification Areas Conference 2013 Report 1 This conference was organised as part of a London Tenants Federation project funded by Trust for London. The project focuses on bringing together networks of tenants and other community groups in six parts of London where large scale developments are taking place (notably in Opportunity and Intensification Areas). It supports groups in influencing or challenging planning policy and in considering where community powers provided through the Localism Act may be of benefit to them. LTF is working closely with Just Space in this project. The conference aimed to link groups from the LTF Trust for London project with London Tenants Federation and Just Space members that are engaged in influencing and challenging regional planning policy It examined what has happened at Kings Cross (the most advanced of the of the 33 Opportunity Areas) and used this as a generator for wider discussion on community involvement in large-scale development areas . Conference attendees considered whether tenant and community groups in these areas can: • make gains or prevent losses in terms of homes and jobs for their communities; • prevent buildings of community interest being torn down; • effectively maintain a strong consensus voice and get that voice heard, including through developing alternative community-determined plans? We would like to thank everyone who supported us in organising the conference, particularly former Kings Cross Railway Lands Group members, Just Space, workshop facilitators and contributors, UCL students, and Ampthill Square TRA. 2 1. INTRODUCTIONS: Pat Turnbull , LTF representative from Hackney Residents Liaison Panel, chaired the conference. Sharon Hayward provided information about the LTF’s Trust for London funded project, which started in January 2013. Opportunity and Intensification Areas are identified in the London Plan as places where most of London’s new homes and jobs will be delivered over the next 15 years or more. They have capacity to provide half a million jobs and around 230,000 homes. The impact of these large development areas is not confined to the areas themselves, and analysis of what is happening in them provides us an overview of whose needs are, or are not, being serviced as the capital grows. The conference pack contained a map showing where the Opportunity and Intensification Areas are situated. Our Trust For London project aims to facilitate local networks of tenant and other community groups coming together, in areas where these large scale developments are taking place, to engage in understanding, influencing and challenging local development policy (much as Just Space does at the regional level). It also aims to further link these networks to LTF and Just Space regional networks. The project came about, in part, as a result of the gradual widening of London Tenants Federations’ focus - to include London-wide strategic planning as well as housing policy. This came about through its membership of Just Space, which brings together a range of voluntary and community groups that aim to influence and challenge regional planning policy). Initially, through it’s Just Space membership, LTF became much more aware of exactly how much housing policy is set out in the London Plan. Gradually, it widened its focus on non-housing issues and found that at the same time it was gaining wider support from others groups on housing policy issues. Importantly through support from more experience Just Space members, LTF member organisations have been able to bring their grass-roots experience and evidence of what’s happening around ‘regeneration’ schemes (much in these large Opportunity and Intensification Areas) to public examinations of the London Plan. LTF is working closely with Just Space on the project, because of its wider expertise in the technicalities of planning policy - particularly on non-housing issues. LTF has made good friends with other Just Space members, who often provide support at LTF events, assist in providing informed debate, and opportunities for groups to share and learn from one another. What are the key issues around these large areas of development? They are not just important because of the large numbers of homes and jobs they are to deliver, but also because tenant and community groups often find that it is incredibly difficult to influence or challenge development policy. Opportunity and Intensification areas are at the edge of what’s taking place across London, particularly around large-scale gentrification. Many are dotted along the river and canal sides, where previously much industry and manufacturing work had been situated and which often had estates housing workers situated nearby. This land is now very high value and of interest to property developers and investors, and a wealthy international elite. In some of these areas, local industry is still exists, such as in Charlton, but is being turfed out to make way for luxury homes. Richard Lee emphasised that one of the key aims of the project is to strengthen tenant and community group networks in these areas. Just Space is a London wide network, bringing 3 together tenant, environmental, civic and amenity groups and communities of interest. People come together for mutual support and shared learning to increase their influence. This is all very well, but most of us don’t think about issues London-wide, we think about where we live or work; the local level. Can this be replicated and supported at that local level through the kind of networking that Just Space has been doing over the last 6 years at the regional level? Within Opportunity Areas there are tenant associations, groups with interests in issues such as transport and the environment; local businesses tying to deliver jobs for local people and many groups involving communities of interest. All are campaigning on their specific issues. Richard said there are benefits in groups coming together at the local level and, if they do, they may well be more effective. The planning system can be very complicated so sharing leaning is of benefit. Equally, if groups successfully network they can put forward alternative visions for Opportunity Areas that protect the existing local community rather than developer or local authority interests. If we are going to put forward a community vision, it needs to be all embracing. It’s not so effective if people are isolated and focused on their single issue. We are more effective if we come up with a community-based vision that we can campaign and negotiate for, in addition to campaigning against what we don’t want. We need to network effectively. In terms of a an alternative development vision, we think that something called Lifetime Neighbourhoods , which LTF has done a lot of work on, does actually set out a framework that is in the community interest. Richard said that it is worth looking at LTF tenants’ definition of a Lifetime Neighbourhood. It focuses on the homes, community facilities and services that people want and need, but also on the proper participation, involvement and ownership that we want. We know is not going to happen unless we are quite forceful. That LTF framework is already there, it’s been discussed and agreed at other conferences, but can we get local networks and groups to add local detail and campaign on this? We are in the middle of a two year project; are we succeeding in our aims, how do we know whether we are being successful; how can such networks be sustained after the project is finished? These are some important issues for us to consider, if the project is to be effective. 2. SPEAKERS: Conference speakers had been involved with the former Kings Cross Railway Lands Group (KXRLG), which was established in an attempt to influence and challenge plans for Kings Cross, the most advanced of London’s Opportunity Areas. Campaigning around the redevelopment of the Kings Cross Railway Lands had started long before the area was defined as an Opportunity Area in the London Plan. Some the group’s members were involved for 25 years. Marian Larragy – 25 years of campaigning at Kings Cross : Marion said that she was member of the Kings Cross Railway Lands Group for around half of its existence and had worked in the building where the group’s office was based before formally becoming a member. Being involved in a new development is complicated and the more people that engage, the better. It’s important for those who do engage not to get too tired or overwhelmed by the amount of information there is to absorb. KXRLG started in face of adversity. There was a big proposal to build giant offices on Kings Cross railway lands in 1987 and everyone wanted to organise against it, including tenants associations and other community groups. Camden Council was minded to grant planning permission, but suddenly there was a change in economic circumstances and the whole development was off. What people decided to do then was to start organising (networking and beginning to set out a community vision for the area) rather than to stop. 4 A lot was going on throughout the 1990’s. The neighbourhood panel on the south side of the Euston Road got together with people over the borough boundary in Islington and they bought together the two local authorities and the health authority and started trying to tackle some of the problems in the area. There were people involved in all kinds of regenerations (including around community safety and employment) in different neighbourhoods. Throughout that period there was also money around for upgrading housing. This was also at the early stages of Right to Buy when there was still quite a lot of tension around people’s differing views on that.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Historical and Contemporary Archaeologies of Social Housing: Changing Experiences of the Modern and New, 1870 to Present
    Historical and contemporary archaeologies of social housing: changing experiences of the modern and new, 1870 to present Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Leicester by Emma Dwyer School of Archaeology and Ancient History University of Leicester 2014 Thesis abstract: Historical and contemporary archaeologies of social housing: changing experiences of the modern and new, 1870 to present Emma Dwyer This thesis has used building recording techniques, documentary research and oral history testimonies to explore how concepts of the modern and new between the 1870s and 1930s shaped the urban built environment, through the study of a particular kind of infrastructure that was developed to meet the needs of expanding cities at this time – social (or municipal) housing – and how social housing was perceived and experienced as a new kind of built environment, by planners, architects, local government and residents. This thesis also addressed how the concepts and priorities of the Victorian and Edwardian periods, and the decisions made by those in authority regarding the form of social housing, continue to shape the urban built environment and impact on the lived experience of social housing today. In order to address this, two research questions were devised: How can changing attitudes and responses to the nature of modern life between the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries be seen in the built environment, specifically in the form and use of social housing? Can contradictions between these earlier notions of the modern and new, and our own be seen in the responses of official authority and residents to the built environment? The research questions were applied to three case study areas, three housing estates constructed between 1910 and 1932 in Birmingham, London and Liverpool.
    [Show full text]
  • The London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2017
    The London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2017 Part of the London Plan evidence base COPYRIGHT Greater London Authority November 2017 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk 2017 LONDON STRATEGIC HOUSING LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT Contents Chapter Page 0 Executive summary 1 to 7 1 Introduction 8 to 11 2 Large site assessment – methodology 12 to 52 3 Identifying large sites & the site assessment process 53 to 58 4 Results: large sites – phases one to five, 2017 to 2041 59 to 82 5 Results: large sites – phases two and three, 2019 to 2028 83 to 115 6 Small sites 116 to 145 7 Non self-contained accommodation 146 to 158 8 Crossrail 2 growth scenario 159 to 165 9 Conclusion 166 to 186 10 Appendix A – additional large site capacity information 187 to 197 11 Appendix B – additional housing stock and small sites 198 to 202 information 12 Appendix C - Mayoral development corporation capacity 203 to 205 assigned to boroughs 13 Planning approvals sites 206 to 231 14 Allocations sites 232 to 253 Executive summary 2017 LONDON STRATEGIC HOUSING LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT Executive summary 0.1 The SHLAA shows that London has capacity for 649,350 homes during the 10 year period covered by the London Plan housing targets (from 2019/20 to 2028/29). This equates to an average annualised capacity of 64,935 homes a year.
    [Show full text]
  • London's Housing Struggles Developer&Housing Association Dec 2014
    LONDON’S HOUSING STRUGGLES 2005 - 2032 47 68 30 13 55 20 56 26 62 19 61 44 43 32 10 41 1 31 2 9 17 6 67 58 53 24 8 37 46 22 64 42 63 3 48 5 69 33 54 11 52 27 59 65 12 7 35 40 34 74 51 29 38 57 50 73 66 75 14 25 18 36 21 39 15 72 4 23 71 70 49 28 60 45 16 4 - Mardyke Estate 55 - Granville Road Estate 33 - New Era Estate 31 - Love Lane Estate 41 - Bemerton Estate 4 - Larner Road 66 - South Acton Estate 26 - Alma Road Estate 7 - Tavy Bridge estate 21 - Heathside & Lethbridge 17 - Canning Town & Custom 13 - Repton Court 29 - Wood Dene Estate 24 - Cotall Street 20 - Marlowe Road Estate 6 - Leys Estate 56 - Dollis Valley Estate 37 - Woodberry Down 32 - Wards Corner 43 - Andover Estate 70 - Deans Gardens Estate 30 - Highmead Estate 11 - Abbey Road Estates House 34 - Aylesbury Estate 8 - Goresbrook Village 58 - Cricklewood Brent Cross 71 - Green Man Lane 44 - New Avenue Estate 12 - Connaught Estate 23 - Reginald Road 19 - Carpenters Estate 35 - Heygate Estate 9 - Thames View 61 - West Hendon 72 - Allen Court 47 - Ladderswood Way 14 - Maryon Road Estate 25 - Pepys Estate 36 - Elmington Estate 10 - Gascoigne Estate 62 - Grahame Park 15 - Grove Estate 28 - Kender Estate 68 - Stonegrove & Spur 73 - Havelock Estate 74 - Rectory Park 16 - Ferrier Estate Estates 75 - Leopold Estate 53 - South Kilburn 63 - Church End area 50 - Watermeadow Court 1 - Darlington Gardens 18 - Excalibur Estate 51 - West Kensingston 2 - Chippenham Gardens 38 - Myatts Fields 64 - Chalkhill Estate 45 - Tidbury Court 42 - Westbourne area & Gibbs Green Estates 3 - Briar Road Estate
    [Show full text]
  • GREATER CARPENTERS NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2019-2028 Submission Version May 2019
    GREATER CARPENTERS NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2019-2028 Submission version May 2019 1 Greater Carpenters Neighbourhood Forum would like to thank the following for their support in helping us to develop our Neighbourhood Plan: London Legacy Development Corporation Planning Officers, Just Space, London Tenants Federation, University College London Engineering Department and Engineering Exchange, UCL engineering and planning students, Locality, Max Fordham and AECOM, for their technical support and the large number of residents and stakeholders who have supported and contributed their local knowledge, views and opinions. We would also like to thank: Trust for London, whose grant funding for London Tenants Federation provided some support from them and Just Space, Locality, for later funding, Julian Cheyne for his photographs of the Greater Carpenters Neighbourhood, students from Bartlett School of Planning who produced all but one of the maps contained in this document and the children from Carpenters Primary School who contributed to a competition to design a logo for the Forum. We found it very difficult to pick just one competition winner so our logo combines several of the best. 2 Content 1. Introduction 2. Vision 3. Objectives 4. Policies Economy and employment Green space, biodiversity and community gardening Homes, refurbishment and sensitive infill Transport connection and movement Community facilities, ownership and empowerment 5. Delivery 3 Greater Carpenters Neighbourhood Area - in the context of the surrounding area. 4 1. Introduction 1.1 Our area: Greater Carpenters Neighbourhood Area is on the border of the Queen Elizabeth Park, Stratford, but is physically separated from it by railway lines. It is adjacent to waterways and green spaces, Stratford Station and Stratford town centre.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Pamphleteer #2 Regeneration Realities
    Regeneration Realities Urban Pamphleteer 2 p.1 Duncan Bowie# p.3 Emma Dent Coad p.5 Howard Read p.6 Loretta Lees, Just Space, The London Tenants’ Federation and SNAG (Southwark Notes Archives Group) p.11 David Roberts and Andrea Luka Zimmerman p.13 Alexandre Apsan Frediani, Stephanie Butcher, and Paul Watt p.17 Isaac Marrero- Guillamón p.18 Alberto Duman p.20 Martine Drozdz p.22 Phil Cohen p.23 Ben Campkin p.24 Michael Edwards p.28 isik.knutsdotter Urban PamphleteerRunning Head Ben Campkin, David Roberts, Rebecca Ross We are delighted to present the second issue of Urban Pamphleteer In the tradition of radical pamphleteering, the intention of this series is to confront key themes in contemporary urban debate from diverse perspectives, in a direct and accessible – but not reductive – way. The broader aim is to empower citizens, and inform professionals, researchers, institutions and policy- makers, with a view to positively shaping change. # 2 London: Regeneration Realities The term ‘regeneration’ has recently been subjected to much criticism as a pervasive metaphor applied to varied and often problematic processes of urban change. Concerns have focused on the way the concept is used as shorthand in sidestepping important questions related to, for example, gentrification and property development. Indeed, it is an area where policy and practice have been disconnected from a rigorous base in research and evidence. With many community groups affected by regeneration evidently feeling disenfranchised, there is a strong impetus to propose more rigorous approaches to researching and doing regeneration. The Greater London Authority has also recently opened a call for the public to comment on what regeneration is, and feedback on what its priorities should be.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Regeneration and Development Impact Assessment
    SILVERTOWN TUNNEL SUPPORTING TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION PRELIMINARY REGENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT October 2015 This report sets out how the Scheme would impact on economic activity at a local, sub-regional, and London level. It draws on a number of strands of evidence and analysis to assess the likely economic and regeneration impacts that could result from the Scheme. This report forms part of the Preliminary Outline Business Case (OBC). This report forms part of a suite of documents that support the statutory public consultation for Silvertown Tunnel in October – November 2015. This document should be read in conjunction with other documents in the suite that provide evidential inputs and/or rely on outputs or findings. The suite of documents with brief descriptions is listed below:- Preliminary Case for the Scheme o Preliminary Monitoring and Mitigation Strategy Preliminary Charging Report Preliminary Transport Assessment Preliminary Design and Access Statement Preliminary Engineering Report Preliminary Maps, Plans and Drawings Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) o Preliminary Non Technical Summary o Preliminary Code of Construction Practice o Preliminary Site Waste Management Plan o Preliminary Energy Statement Preliminary Sustainability Statement Preliminary Equality Impact Assessment Preliminary Health Impact Assessment Preliminary Outline Business Case o Preliminary Distributional Impacts Appraisal o Preliminary Social Impacts Appraisal o Preliminary Economic Assessment Report o Preliminary
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Resident Engagement in Housing Development
    Appendix A Resident engagement in housing development: A scrutiny review by the Housing Select Committee Summary of evidence and main themes December 2019 Table of Contents Early resident engagement ........................................................................................ 1 Identifying local issues and context ........................................................................ 3 Trust, transparency and information ....................................................................... 4 Engagement during the planning process .............................................................. 6 Active and ongoing engagement ................................................................................ 7 A range of methods ................................................................................................ 7 The design stage .................................................................................................... 8 Boundaries and levels of engagement .................................................................... 9 Open and honest engagement ............................................................................. 11 TRA involvement .................................................................................................. 11 Seldom-heard groups and capacity building ............................................................ 12 Resident support and capacity building ................................................................ 14 Early resident engagement 1.1 Engaging with residents
    [Show full text]
  • Carpenters Estate, Newham Regeneration
    The Carpenters Estate, Newham Regeneration Page 1 Contents Introduction p1 CTP and the Carpenters Estate p2 Where we’ve delivered p3 Rohcan profiles p6 Aecom regeneration work p8 Summary p9 Contacts p10 Site plan Page 2 Introduction Introduction An alternative approach – The Community Trust Partnership Rohcan and Aecom combine to form a specialist development team which has a strong track record of delivering sustainable communities with local authorities and other public bodies through the Community Trust Partnership (CTP) development model. Together, Rohcan and Aecom have the ability to provide the funding, experience and expertise to deliver complex regeneration projects. What is a Community Trust Partnership (CTP)? A Community Trust Partnership (CTP) is a non-profit distribution company incorporated on an equal basis between a local authority / public body and an institutional development funding partner. The CTP allows public sector regeneration projects to be delivered using private sector institutional funding. A key benefit of the CTP model is that it allows the local authority to retain control of the content and design of the project, thus enabling them to shape the development to wholly reflect local needs, whilst the private partner is responsible for the delivery of the project. It also ensures that community infrastructure to support regeneration is planned and integrated at the outset of the project. How does it work? The CTP is a non-profit distribution company. It is based on using institutional long term funding (25-35 years) to provide multi tenure housing in urban and metropolitan areas and is ideal for urban extensions, local authority regeneration projects and estate refurbishment and regeneration.
    [Show full text]
  • 3802 the London Gazette, 29Th March 1988
    3802 THE LONDON GAZETTE, 29TH MARCH 1988 Grounds of Annulment, Revocation or Recission—It appearing unknown. Court—HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. No of that the Trustee is holding sufficent funds to pay the notified debts Matter—1179 of 1982. Date Fixed for Hearing—3rd May 1988. and petition costs in full, together with the fees, costs and charges 10.30 a.m. Place—Court 38a Ground Floor, West Green of and incidental to the proceedings. Building, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2JY. RICHARDSON, William George, of no present occupation, of 27 Kempe Road, London NW6, lately a COMPANY DIRECTOR RECEIVING ORDER described in the receiving order as W Richardson (Male), DAVEY, John Michael, of 28 Basedale Road, Dagenham in the occupation unknown. Court—HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. county of Essex, formerly of 16 Hadleigh Court, London Road, No. of Matter—993 of 1982. Date Fixed for Hearing—3rd May Brentwood, in the county of Essex, COMPANY DIRECTOR. 1988. 10.30 a.m. Place—Ground Floor, West Green Building, Court—SOUTHEND. Date of Filing Petition—3rd December Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2JY. 1986. No. of Matter—104 of 1986. Date of Receiving Order— BALLINGER, John Kenneth, described in the Receiving Order as 16th March 1988. No. of Receiving Order—1 of 1988. Whether Mr J K Ballinger,WELDER, residing at 72 Springfield Road, Debtor's or Creditor's Petition—Creditor's. Moseley, Birmingham, lately of 95 Lodge Road, Knowle, Solihull, formerly of 111 Lodge Road, Knowle, Solihull, previously trading at Mosart Works, Woodfield Road, Moseley, APPLICATIONS FOR DISCHARGE Birmingham, all in the Metropolitan County of West Midlands as "John Brent Engineering" as a METAL WORKER.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Lea Valley Planning Framework
    LOWER LEA VALLEY Strategic Planning Guidance January 2007 II | OPPORTUNITY AREA PLANNING FRAMEWORK Copyright: Greater London Authority and London Development Agency January 2007 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 ISBN 978 1 85261 988 6 Photographs: Cover: LDA Foreword: Liane Harris Maps based on Ordnance Survey Material. Crown Copyright. License No. LA100032379 Acknowledgements The Framework was prepared by the Greater London Authority with the support of a consortium led by EDAW plc with Allies & Morrison, Buro Happold, Capita Symonds, Halcrow and Mace and with additional support from Faithful & Gould, Hunt Dobson Stringer, Jones Lang LaSalle and Witherford Watson Mann Architects. LOWER LEA VALLEY OPPORTUNITY AREA PLANNING FRAMEWORK | i FOREWORD I am delighted to introduce the Opportunity Area Planning Framework for the Lower Lea Valley. The Framework sets out my vision for the Valley, how it could change over the next decade, and what that change would mean for residents, businesses, landowners, public authorities and other stakeholders. It builds on the strategic planning policies set out in my 2004 London Plan for an area of nearly 1450 hectares, extending from the Thames in the south to Leyton in the north, straddling the borders of Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Waltham Forest. The Lower Lea Valley is currently characterised by large areas of derelict industrial land and poor housing. Much of the land is fragmented, polluted and divided by waterways, overhead pylons, roads and railways. My aim is to build on the area’s unique network of waterways and islands to attract new investment and opportunities, and to transform the Valley into a new sustainable, mixed use city district, fully integrated into London’s existing urban fabric.
    [Show full text]
  • Kemnal Road Chislehurst
    KEMNAL ROAD CHISLEHURST CollectedA HISTORY and edited by Tony Allen and Andrew Thomas . KEMNAL ROAD CHISLEHURST A HISTORY Collected and edited by Tony Allen and Andrew Thomas Printed privately Chislehurst, Kent 4th edition February 2011 Kemnal Road - a history ‘One of the prettiest walks in the neighbourhood’ (Canon Murray) ‘Lovely woods and songbirds’ (Agnes Tiarks) 'The whole of Kemnal was an absolute paradise for young kids growing up' (Jerry Bourne) ‘Kemnal Road retains the character of a rural lane through dense woodland’ (Bromley LB) First published 2007 This edition, February 2011 Copyright ©Tony Allen and Andrew Thomas, 2011 All rights reserved The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Printed in England by CPI Antony Rowe Eastbourne East Sussex BN23 6PE February 2011 Typefaces used: Chapter headings and subheadings - Perpetua Titling MT Main body text - Adobe Garamond Pro roman Comments and captions - Adobe Garamond Pro italic Memories, recollections, or descriptions - Perpetua italic 2 Kemnal Road - a history Preface to fourth edition e have been extremely gratified with the way that this modest book on Kemnal Road has been received, and by the continued response of past residents and Wvisitors to the Road and its houses who have provided us with memories and/or images. This fourth edition of the book has been radically revised in terms of style and format, and there are a number of significant additions to content, most of which are already reflected on our website www.kemnal-road.org.uk These include the addition of information on Woodlands, which is strictly not on Kemnal Road, but which shares a boundary with it for a considerable part of its length, a wonderful photograph of the Hutton family in the early years of last century, and a number of photographs of the Nelson family at Kemnal Warren, together with much new information.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Findings Council Estate Renewal in C21st London
    Initial Council estate renewal in Findings C21st London ESRC grant ES/N015053/1: Gentrification, Displacement, and the Impacts of Council Estate Renewal in Twenty First Century London Amidst talk of the social cleansingand gentrification of London, this 33-month project explored the impact of council estate renewal on those residents being ‘decanted’from their homes to allow for demolition and redevelopment. As well as compiling quantitative evidence of the scale of the renewal of estates in London, and the amount of demolition which has been undertaken, the project used qualitative methods to explore the impacts of decanting on different resident groups. Some of the major findings are as follows: The scale of decanting from council estates has been under-estimated: there have been at least 161 schemes in London since 1997 which have involved demolition, and at least 55,000 households (approximately 150,000 to 200,000 residents) have had to move. The majority of properties on redeveloped estates are sold at market rate and few meet the definition of ‘affordable’ housing.Housing association rents are usually higher than council rents, properties are generally smaller, and in being moved into housing association properties council tenants lose the extra protections built into council housing tenure. The impact of decanting on residents varies according to tenure. For many leaseholders, compensation payments for their properties do not allow them to buy a similar property near to their previous residence; council tenants are often rehoused nearer the original estate but sometimes out of borough. Temporary tenants are often moved onto estates in the process of being decanted.
    [Show full text]