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.

What developed was a coalition of tenants associations, community and voluntary sector organisations and local businesses. Alongside this, some expertise was brought in, including a town planner who had a community approach and someone who worked to bring in some of the ethnic minority community groups.

A community vision was developed during this time. There were interim uses of buildings on the Kings Cross railway lands to ensure that when a plan for a new development came forward, they couldn’t say ‘it’s an empty space’. People were living there and working there - in all kinds of businesses.

Groups involved initially identified that they wanted to keep the area’s Victorian heritage. The notion of streets was introduced - opposed to what had happened in the Docklands, with all its blocks. When the council started to talk about ‘new housing’ we said they should talk about ‘net’ housing, because if you are knocking down homes it is important to know how many additional homes we might be getting through new developments and redevelopments.

There was a lot of learning. Generally, the value of bringing in expertise can not be underestimated. For instance, around getting the value of the land estimated, which enables groups to be able to better negotiate with the council. Often council officers don’t know enough about land value, so it is very useful to have your own experts.

There was a very large regeneration scheme is this part of Somers Town / St Pancras, which was driven by the community. Marion said that at that time, she was working with some tenants groups who were involved in the regeneration, through here employment with Voluntary Action Camden. Through this, some money was awarded to the KXRLG to enable it to work better with and support the community in looking more widely at the Kings Cross development These kinds of alliances and networks that brought in funding and links were very important.

As well as the railway lands, there were also plans to bring the Channel Tunnel Rail Link into Kings Cross. KXRLG had big success in getting the Channel Tunnel Rail Link to come underground into St Pancras, thus stopping original plans that would have resulted in demolition of homes.

KXRLG was also involved around some of the legislation on the construction impact to give protection to local people. Near to the completion of the Channel Tunnel works, it was decided that the contractors needed to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Because of KXRLG’s involvement, there was a public inquiry which was held at the tenants’ hall on the Coopers Lane Estate. A lot of residents, the health authority and the council gave evidence at it. Eventually, after it went back to court several times, the judgement required the contractors to produce a proper plan of work that was acceptable to the local community. Incredibly, the contractors told KXRLG afterwards, that in the end, this had saved them money.

Having local people and their expert knowledge of their area helps to challenge those who are

5 putting straight lines of a map that might look neat and tidy, but are actually damaging to the local community. The more that are involved and know what’s going on, the greater people feel they have some ownership of the process.

KXRLG attempted to register as a charity, but were turned down by the Charity Commission. Marion said that in a way, this was fine, because they didn’t have to deal with the Commission’s rules and regulations, however, it did mean they had to deal with tax because they had some income. At one stage, the group got seriously into problems and was fined. But in the end, having explained their situation to the tax office, they got a refund. Marian said that groups campaigning often have difficulties such as this, but should try not to get disheartened.

Millions of issues arose during the KXRLG’s campaigning; homes, jobs, community training and public spaces. The group had 88 members stretching across all sorts and types of organisations. Key topics would be identified, then further discussion would take place on these issues amongst local community organisations. KXRLG had pages of issues raised by individuals and groups and its members spent many hours ploughing through the detail of plans produced by the developers.

Marian’s slides -

Some of the KXRLG taking a tour of the area just before the planning application was submitted. Michael Parkes is explaining what it would all look like.

Petitioning against the knocking down of The Granary building; one of the successes of the Culross. campaign

56 People are living in these blocks just a few The construction skills centre, which got doubled in minutes from the train station. Originally they were size, paid for through sec 106. going to be office blocks.

Looking towards some of the new blocks - North Looking East to South with development beginning to rise high.

Looking South towards Kings Cross and some of Looking West the new buildings; huge in height. St Pancras spire, although in the distance, is dwarfed by them.

7 (i ) View from Royal College Street prior to Kings Cross A 27-storey student block that wasn’t in the original railway land development taking place, with low rise plan. At the end of that street there were trees, but not buildings in the distance . ( ii) New blocks in St Pancras now. Way; development expanding beyond the railway land.

Greater Lane estate - a low rise estate nto the North of Where the tunnel comes through and the houses that the Kings Cross development. At the front were are still standing industrial buildings that have now been knocked down. New buildings will be higher (following the construction of the student block going up – which seemed to set the model and facilitate other higher blocks to go in).

Q&A AND COMMENTS

- Q: “There is a problem with high rise blocks; they brings with them a wind tunnel effect and they make for a very cold microclimate, are you concerned about that?”

- Marion : “Was this an issue we raised and were we concerned about this? Yes it was, although there are differing views on this issue and the impact largely depends on their design.”

- “Do you think you were able to ensure that there are enough trees?”

- Marion : “There was one representative that used to attend the meetings and would always say - ‘I think we should plant trees’ . Eventually a charity called London Trees came along and you will see that, all around Somers Town, they planted trees. Some have beautiful colours. It was one of the things that no one wanted to take responsibility for, but in the end, we did have success with.”

- Q: “I’m from a local tenants association and it is good to see slides showing what was happen-

8 ing years ago. Some of us are in the pictures. We did fight against this development, but we have again been facing these kinds of problems in Camden. There are several older members of KXRLG that are still working with us and people from the Kings Cross Development Forum. We have to remember that the local authority has the power; the full control. Even when we explain this is not good for the local community, they just go ahead with their plans. It should be important to ensure that in every development, the people who live there are the ones who have the influence.”

- Q: “I think we started today by looking at where these Opportunity Areas came from. My understanding is that they derive from the Mayor’s office which promotes London as a global city. If that means building luxury flats, displacing people and building for overseas investors to buy, that’s not what I understand to be an opportunity. We have one in Tower Hamlets, chosen because it is near Canary Wharf. Local residents are considered secondary; ancillary to the requirements of Canary Wharf. I’d like to have a definition of an ‘Opportunity Area’.”

- Comment from another attendee: “The previous Mayor, Ken Livingstone, was looking at brownfield areas where you could get the homes and jobs needed in London - areas large enough to be developed holistically. They were called Opportunity Areas since they provided an opportunity to create something, rather than let the developers pick off the sites that generate the best profits. The idea was that a master plan would be developed for the area which told the developers what you were looking for. Unfortunately, most of the master plans were not developed on time, so, effectively the developers planning applications determine the frameworks, by default. That’s certainly what happened in Earls Court. We do need to develop these areas for the kinds of homes and jobs that we need. But your concern and mine is this; are they the right kind of homes and jobs?”

- Marion : “The councils do have the power and there are times when they play dirty, but a lot of these development plans also contain policies that have also been put together with input from local people; we have to get those bits implemented. KXRLG had a regular press officer. This was very good to have, even if only to highlight the consultation failures. Yesterday, local residents here received notice of an HS2 consultation. Much of the consultation period is over Christmas, the biggest festival period of the year, when people are taking holidays from work and time to be with family. They will not want to be holding consultation meetings or making consultation responses. When the authorities do this kind of thing, the media loves it.

With the first Kings Cross consultation, the council extended the original consultation period. They then suggested they were doing the community a favour when actually the new timeframe was what they were required to provide. During that time they doubled the amount of office space in the plan. Really KXRLG should have gone for a judicial review. But, if you do fail on anything then it is good to at least embarrass them by letting the press get stuck in. This is also a reminder of why you need to get information out to your members and put things on your website - it helps to keep issues in the public domain. Finally, the more the community is involved, the more that information is spread by word of mouth.”

Michael Parkes—Peoples’ Plans Michael is a town planner and chartered surveyor. He said that the KXRLG originated from a meeting held in 1986 at the Theatro Technis (Crowndale Road), of everyone who was to be effected by the Channel Tunnel Railway Line. In those days it was planned to go to the north of England and to Scotland, through a massive hole at the bottom of the Caledonian Road. At that time Michael ran Planning Aid for London and had been invited to lead a workshop on community plan making. From 1990–2005 he was the KXRLG’s planning 9 worker, paid one day a week, and was utterly committed to the interests of the group.

Michael said that over the years he learnt a huge amount and the group moved a long way. Part of the work of the group was about making plans. Obviously umbrella groups tend to start off campaigning against developments. Sometimes this works, but KXRLG found that another way of campaigning was to put forward alternative (and better) proposals. It decided to put forward its own plans for the railway lands. This was done by first having massive involvement of local groups all around Kings Cross to identify their hopes and fears, strengths and weaknesses. This was called the People’s Brief . Then there was a planning-for-real exercise on the 100-acre site. Because the umbrella group comprised entirely of community and voluntary sector groups, each member would bring views back from their own members to feed into the project.

The Peoples Brief led onto the Peoples Plan . KXRLG knew that housing, jobs and training were needed and that they had to get rid of the proposals for the railway line and all its manifest works and horrors. One of the successes of the KXRLG was to counter the view that local communities don’t understand strategic planning and that they are all very local and NIMBY. KXRLG’s net- worked, not just locally, but with other campaign groups all the way down the line to Folkstone. Eventually, through this and over the period of 1989-1991, they devised a route for the Channel Tunnel Railway Line that was significantly different to the existing plans. In fact, it went along the line that it now takes. The government didn’t change its mind in favour of this option until 1996 and it wasn’t finally built until 2007-09. In this respect the KXRLG has a striking record.

Another claim to fame was its umbrella group. When you are looking at something that is as strategic as an Opportunity or Intensification Area, you are really looking at regional planning. So you need to have an umbrella group to bring together people of all the relevant constituencies and issues.

In terms of the plan making and the consultation work, it was KXRLG not the local authority or the developer, that was in control. This was critical. It set up working groups on key issues - including homes, jobs and the environment Michael said that, without a shadow of doubt, this facilitated capacity building through massive sharing of information and knowledge. He said that Phil Jeffery who was for some time the chair of KXRLG but is sadly no longer here and many of the other group’s management committee members knew many more things than he did. He said that Phil came to learn more about petitioning select committees of the House of Lords and the House of Commons than any Camden borough officer did. It was Phil Jeffrey’s work that resulted in the public inquiry at Coopers Lane, which held in favour of the tenants in terms of the code of construction.

Michael said that when campaigning, you are always on the outside looking in. The odds against you are enormous (because you are outside the structures of politics and money) and the chances of success are slim. He suggested that one lesson is be careful where you lead your membership to. A vision is necessary but expectations can be raised and trashed.

He asked: what is a successful campaign? He suggested that it is not simply networking - that is just the beginning of it. It’s also about property development, planning policy, communities’ hopes, fears, aspirations and needs, and how you bring all those together.

Q&A AND COMMENTS

- Q: “Two very powerful points have been made (i) people need to work together and (ii) the politicians are employed by or work for us and they have to listen to us.”

10

- Michael Parkes : “Yes, we employ the politicians, but politicians also work to a legal brief. They are statutorily charged with providing certain public services, and if they don’t, they could be surcharged and, in extreme circumstances, sent to prison. They find that, increasingly, they don’t have the budgets to deliver expensive public services in a massively changed global, multi- cultural city. So, yes, we employ politicians, but politicians are often advised by officials that they are moving into illegal or unwise territory. In Camden, they are having to sell off public assets like parks to raise the money (according to Camden’s Community Investment Programme) to ‘bridge the funding gap’.”

- Q: “ The Kings Cross project is good if it can bring jobs to the community. There are also fami- lies who are overcrowded homes and are moving from two bedroom to one bedroom homes. We need space to build homes for overcrowded families.”

- Michael : “This is a fact and I guess it is a matter of how we deal with this.”

– Q: “ I live on this estate. We have the biggest infrastructure project (HS2) that Britain has ever faced going through here and we are also on the edge of the Euston Opportunity Area. I was interested in you talking about Kings Cross and alternative routes on the rail line. You also talked about a public inquiry.”

- Michael : the public inquiry, specifically mentioned by Marion, was long after the bill had become an act and both the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and extension to St Pancras station were being built. In all major infrastructure projects there is something called a ‘code of construc- tion practice’. The public inquiry was into an application that had been refused by Camden Council to extend the working hour of the sub-contractors. It was the only inquiry in which the local residents succeeded in stopping the contractors and sub-contractors doing what they wanted to do.”

- “There doesn’t seem to be any way in which we, or even the council (who are also opposed to HS2, but have little or no input into it, let alone power) can fight this.”

- Michael : “I’m not saying the route of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link was changed solely by the KXRLG and community groups up and down the line; frankly a key reason was the treasury. Obviously the cost of HS2 is a also major consideration now. What we can do is make sure the petitions we put forward to the hybrid bill as intelligent, relevant and as piercingly cogent as we possibly can. At the local level we can give it the local flavour and try to bring together as much evidence as possible to feed into the petitions we make.”

- Q: “ What you are talking about is the incredible work KXRLG did, almost in spite of the authorities. It concerns me that you also make excuses for the way Camden Council acted. I don’t think we should be afraid of criticising them or taking them very seriously to task. We have to accept what the situation is and do a lot of work to counter that. We should be up front and try to get the council to do what is best for the community. Surely the council’s interests should be that of the community. Regarding the height of the student block, mentioned by Marian, this didn’t actually set the standard; it was simply that the borough wanted to facilitate the needs of the developers rather than the community.”

- Michael : “I’m not excusing the council, I was just trying to explain the situation that yes we employ the politicians, but to an extent they are not free agents. It’s slightly more complex than that. But you are quite right, the councillors are politicians. There is a democratic political and perhaps also undemocratic way. But I agree we have to say to them - you are failing in your political responsibilities. We have work on all fronts.”

11 Michael Edwards - Viability and Deliverability Viability and deliverability have been important issues in every struggle about big developments in western countries. It was so in battles at Covent Garden in 1960’s and 1970’s, and at Tolmer Square the other side of Euston Station in the 1970’s, which both precede the Kings Cross story. It has always been very important to challenge the economic arguments made by developers, and often councils, for schemes that they want to build that are contrary to communities needs.

Michael said that he wanted to give a flavour of the approach that was taken on this in the Kings Cross project in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. British Rail Property Board had entered into an agreement with a firm of developers, Rosehall Stanhope,who set up a subsidiary with the “hilarious” name of the London Regeneration Consortium. Norman Foster and Partners (the ar- chitects involved) knew little about planning or about assessing need; they simply did what they were told to do by their developer clients.

From the beginning of KXRLG’s establishment, members felt it really important to challenge the developers who would say – “sorry, the things you want to do are just not financially feasible”. A group of eight KXRLG enthusiasts evaluated the finances of the project and as a result produced a 30-page document called People or Profit . Thousands of copies were circulated and the docu- ment got a lot of press coverage. Michael said that there may still be some useful lessons in it, which we can use today. It was illustrated by a local resident with a mix of drawings, bar charts, definitions and very simply written text, covering - “what do we mean by profit?”, “what do we mean by delay?” and “what do we mean by flexibility?” – all the words that the developers use in their documents.

The bar charts were designed to show how much the scheme proposed by the London Regeneration Consortium would cost, how much capital value it would produce, and what huge profit there was to be made out of it.

The things KXRLG were talking about, from the Peoples Plans that Michael Parkes mentioned were cheaper, more modest, low-impact schemes that met social needs. They provided substan- tial benefits and would still pay for themselves, but would just not make huge profits for British Rail or the developers. The People or Profit document contained a model calculation. You could insert the kind of mix of housing and jobs that you would want, to calculate how much it would cost. It show just how much the wool was being pulled over the eyes of the general public by the developers. It also demonstrated that more community orientated plans could generate both the revenue to cover costs and provide some sort of profit.

It was a useful thing to have done. It helped the arguments to grow and had some influence on some of the Camden councillors that KXRLG felt should demand more in terms of social housing, sports and play space, community facilities, health services and schools in the Kings Cross plans.

Michael said we are currently in an extraordinary situation where credit driven land speculation is escalating. He showed diagram detailing what had happened to house prices in Britain between 1990s and now. It showed that in London house prices had risen until the 2008 crash and had since returned again to an absolute frenzy of developer activity and rising prices.

The problem in challenging this, is that developer viability is fully embedded as part of the planning system and rules. Firstly there are a lot of problems around the analysis of how viability is assessed, which need to be challenged. Secondly there is the issue is who carries out the analyses. At present, they are done by developers to make their arguments on what they can do.

12 Usually, the local authorities have their own experts or hire them. This is all problematic. The third problem is the issue of commercial confidentiality.

Essentially the kind of analysis that’s done about profitability is very simple. A calculation is made of what the market value of the project will be when it’s finished. This is called the gross development value. The cost of construction, professional fees and other costs such as displacement of people are then deducted. Conventionally these deductions have also included within it a very dodgy thing called ‘normal developers profit’ - of 15 or 20% of turnover; as though this profit were a cost. You take the value of the project, deduct the cost of doing it and that leaves you with a residual amount (net value) and then you compare that with what you think the land should be valued at; the threshold land value. If the resultant figure is positive, it is deemed viable and if negative it is not.

There are a lot of problems in the way all these calculations are made. The problem with real estate evaluation is that financial assessments are made at the beginning; in a period in which there will be heavy expenditures, and before money starts coming in from rent or selling buildings. Critically it depends on what the future is going to be like - whether the developer thinks there will be static rent values in the future or that rents and values are going to accelerate by 2/3% times a year or faster. Developers always make their estimates on a very cautious basis.

Their analyses are mainly done by chartered surveyors. Usually, the same firms give a lot of advice to both developers and local authorities (although would not on the same project). There is a clear sense that their primary loyalty is with the developers; a biased relationship. A lot of chartered surveyors advertise themselves as being able to help developers to bargain the absolute minimum of section 106; used to deliver community benefit - such as social housing, green and play space.

Nick Mathasion, Bureau of Investigative Journalism has carried out good research on this which was published in the Guardian in September 2013 - www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/09/18/thousands -of-affordable-homes-axed/. Community groups nee more help in trying to fight this.

The fact that these assessments of viability are confidential, between a few council officers and developers, means that there is no public scrutiny. Heygate tenants made a request to see the viability assessments made on their estate through the Freedom of Information commissioner. He issued a ruling which that it was an issue of public interest to disclose the assessment ( http:// www.insidehousing.co.uk/legal/southwark-forced-to-reveal-heygate-information/6527913.article .) Southwark Council is now appealing against this and there will be a full week of hearings on this in February 2014. This is a very important case. We need changes in the law on this, but we may have to wait at the very least for a new government or perhaps a riot to get this. Michael said that nonetheless community groups should also be more confident and challenge where they possibly can and should lobby London Councils to make more specialist advice available for community groups and indeed the boroughs that are often very badly advised.

Q&A AND COMMENTS

- Q: “ This is a very serious issue. Developers in London expect a 24% profit, while the average across Europe is only 8%. The biggest problem is that the government have given developers a get out of their obligations card, called viability. This enables them to renegotiate (with government support) any agreements that they have made under section 106 or Community Infrastructure Levy, if they can say that they can’t afford these things. We are losing social housing contributions and social and community infrastructure contributions. In addition, 13 local authorities don’t have the skills to challenge the developers’ books. Only Westminster Council, so far, seems to have some success on this. Stewart Murray, the GLA’s Assistant Director of Planning says that the Mayor’s office will produce guidance on this.”

- Q: “ All of these presentations have, in part, focused on whether we have power or not. One of the most inspiring bits of community power that I’ve heard about was in New South Wales where the construction unions in solidarity with community groups imposed a ban on certain types of development. This went on for quite a long time - a year or more. We are some way off that and we have the problem that many workers in the construction industry are self- employed. I feel that when we are challenging these kinds of developments, especially where councils are sponsoring or supporting them, that there should be stipulations that the workers will be directly employed.”

- Michael Edwards : “ I agree with you on this but whether there is any possibility of making this enforceable, is questionable.”

- Q: “ I don’t see how profits margins of 24% can be allowed if the European average is only 8%, likewise the failures to deliver social housing or community infrastructure. There is such need for genuinely affordable housing. This really is shocking. Together, can we challenge the Mayor and the Government on this?”

- Michael: “I wish I was living in the kind of world we would like to see. We could afford to build the housing we need. In fact, we could build a homes for a £100,000 or less which could be rented at a genuinely affordable rent. However, the problem is that land speculation and the chances of either the London Mayor or the Government changing this is slim because they are more sympathetic to the land owners and speculators than they are to community needs.”

- Q: “ Some boroughs would support some of what you have said. Some have got together to put in a judicial review against the Mayor saying that he should accept the inspector’s recommendations from the Revised Early Minor Alterations to the London Plan that they should be able to use their land and affordable housing grant to deliver affordable homes at a cost that is affordable in their boroughs. We will have to see what comes from this. The Government says that public funding for new housing should be spent on affordable rent homes that are at up to 80% market rents or, on average, 65% market rent costs in London. This is not ‘affordable’.”

- Q: “ I want to raise issue of building of high rise homes, which some of us have been cam- paigned against. The only answer we get from the authorities is that because of the economy of land the only solution to delivering enough homes is to build high-rise. In social housing this can result in increased levels of crime. The first speaker said it is in the hands of those with ex- pertise to address this. How long is it going to take the experts to challenge justification for high rise construction?”

- Q: “A lot of boroughs have very close connections with the developers, support what they are doing and are happy to negotiate less affordable housing. Greenwich, one of the boroughs involved with the judicial review for example, has recently supported the re-negotiation of affordable housing targets on the Greenwich peninsula from 38% to 21% and for some plots to have no affordable housing at all. This was then supported by the mayor. We also have to question how many of the new supposedly viable luxury housing developments are sitting there empty. Doesn’t viability (set out in government guidance) also have to be balanced against principles of sustainable development? Isn’t this something we should be defining also for our-

14 selves or be arguing strongly at the local level?”

- Michael : “I’m not convinced that most London boroughs are going to be our friends on this, but if they are challenging the government and the Mayor on this I feel we need to support them. I agree that liveability, sustainability and environmental quality are essential in any assessment of viability and shouldn’t continue to get squeezed. Regarding high rise; some love living in high rise, indeed there have been some famous redevelopment scheme in London where there have been campaigns to retain the high rise blocks. Some like living in them, and that is their choice. But I think that the issues you are raising are very serious. Many people are being forced to live in high-rise buildings where they don’t want to be, particularly those with children. It can make life more difficult if children want to go out to play. The thing is that we can achieve high density housing without going for high-rise. It seems the combination of ar- chitects, mathematics and land speculation means things are coming out wrong.”

Judith Martin - Preservation of social buildings

Judith said that she lived in the Kings Cross area for a long time. She started off thinking that she was going to be a conservationist, but had ended up becoming a mix of architectural historian and housing activist.

Her first slide (left) is of the Hillview estate, which is situated across Euston Road from the railway lands. It is Victorian philanthropic housing, built when it was clear that housing conditions for the working-classes was unacceptable, particularly to people like Charles Dickens and Charles Kingsley who were writing about how terrible it was at that time.

The estate was built by Henrietta and Canon Barnett, and was an example of the East End Dwellings Company coming across to build in central London. Canon Barnett founded the company. Judith said that Hillview was being used as short-term housing when she was involved with KXRLG. In 1994 a Hillview tenants association was founded and the estate came to be refurbished with housing corporation funding. This wasn’t gentrification; it was still affordable housing for local people. Judith said she thought that Canon Barnett would have approved of the refurbishment - given a quote that she have found from him. He said that “a visitor to the ideal city would be charmed by its first aspect, its variety of architecture, its beauty and colour, and that it would have none of the pressures of great wealth or poverty. None would be very rich or very poor”. None of the block has been sold off under the right to buy. It can now cost £310,000 for a microscopic studio flat in Kings Cross and £675,000 for a four bedroom flat in a house that was built by Canon Barnett, which Judith said she felt was not acceptable.

Judith’s next slide was of Culross buildings, which was ran parallel to the canal and was very important to the development of the Kings Cross area. The first industrial input into the area was the canals followed by the railway lines. The canal ran East-West. What was rather nice about Culross is that it was actually set back a bit from the canal. It was built for the railway workers for the 1881-1891 Kings Cross expansion and 15 construction of the second departure platform. The plans were drawn up by the engineers office of the Great London Railway and showed a level of care and social concern that was not often seen.

Culross Hall Culross Hall (pictured left) was situated at one end of the housing and had quite a reputation for radical meetings which is probably why , Judith suggested, it had to be demolished. Judith agreed with Marion that the business of net gain of housing is very important. When you build homes that replace others that have been flattened, there is no net gain.

All of the Kings Cross Railway Lands area was a conservation area. Culross was a listed building but was demolished in 2008. Judith said that she felt that English Heritage had behaved shamefully; just rolled over and put up no defence. She said “Camden shouldn’t have even accepted an outline planning application in a conservation area, but seemingly that meant nothing to them.”

Only two (North and South) of the initial five blocks of Stanley Buildings (right) were left when KXRLG was campaigning. Both blocks were cut in half to make way for new railway lines in 2002. Then, in 2007, the North building was demolished to leave a straight road for the St Pancras International station. At one time one of the blocks had a mural of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers painted on it.

It was built in 1864-5, with a fantastic floor plan, which showed the Victorian belief around transmission of disease by the air. It had back offshoots, which English Heritage described as being for ‘ablutions and scullery’. Everyone had a private toilet and scullery - which was advanced for the time in which it was constructed - as well as fantastic balconies. Stanley Buildings were one of the first developments of the Improved Industrial Dwellings Company; another philanthropic body. They were designed by John Dower who also designed some similar buildings Bethnal Green, which are still there. Stanley buildings were listed, but this meant nothing to the developers, Camden Council or English Heritage. Judith said “again and again Councils seem to be answerable to the developers rather than to local people”.

Charlton Mansions (to the right) is in Brixton. If you take off the ground floor it looks like a fire station. It is a most extraordinary building and local opinion is that it was built for the railway, since the railway line goes straight across at first floor level there. In fact, it was a bit of speculative development. Again, it has an interesting floor plan and is a listed building.

It is in a cultural regeneration area. The building, which is planed for demolition, is actually occupied

16 by 16 artists who have been a housing co-op for about 30 years. Incredibly, Lambeth Council are going to start this cultural regeneration work by kicking out the

artists. Oval theatre is to relocate to the area and are also unhappy about the planned demolition. Lambeth Council is behaving abominably. It carried

out a fire risk assessment and come up with some ludicrous solutions. It’s been through the court three

times and Lambeth has lost but are going back again in April. ‘Nuclear Dawn’ mural, east wall of Charlton Mansions

Southwyck House (to the right) is also in Lambeth and threatened with demolition. Judith said that someone had applied for a listing of the building, but, “with all due respect,” it wasn’t a very good application and was turned down. One of the reasons English Heritage didn’t like it was that the windows were too small. It had a write-up in the Architectural Journal in 1973. The architect, who is still alive, worked for Lambeth Council. It was part of a terrible plan for a raised six land motorway that was to run through heart of Brixton, but was thankfully scrapped. Construction of the building started before the bigger plan was stopped. It looks like it does because it’s a ‘barrier block’. It was designed to protect the Somerleyton Estate from inevitable pollution and traffic noise. The zig-jag design is intended to bounce sound back to the ground. It has low rise blocks in the middle and if you look at it from above, it looks a bit like a mother hen with wings wrapped round its chickens. It had a nursery, shops and was community focused. For Lambeth, seemingly, this is just an opportunity to sell for development that will likely end up with a derisory percentage of about 20% social housing, instead of 100%. Judith said attendees could add in examples from their own boroughs here, since, “they all do it”.

Malcolm Tucker - Preservation of Industrial Buildings Malcolm has been involved in the Kings Cross area since the 1970’s. He is member of the Greater London Industrial and Archaeology Society and a member of the Kings Cross Conservation Area Advisory Committee. He highlighted the paradox of having an Opportunity Area, where much of it is also a conservation area .

Malcolm provided information about the history of the area. His first slide showed the area in 1862, ten years after the railway came into Kings Cross. The area north of the Regents Canal was at that time all green fields, while to the south it was totally built up. The railway arrived in 1850. It came into the goods yard and a there was a basin serving it on the canal. A branch went off under the canal to the Kings Cross Passenger Station which look longer to construct (until 1852).

The centre piece of the goods yard was a magnificent six storey grain warehouse (slide 2) which had its own basin at its front, connected to the canal. Barges could go in and out underneath to take grain out of the granary to the canal; to the rest of London or to the goods sheds on either side. Miraculously, much has survived - partly because it remained as a railway goods yard until the 1970s, and partly because it was well built in the first place. It was one of the largest goods yards that had been built. Slide 3 shows the granary and various other buildings still intact in the 1970s. It was still in use by British Railways at that time. Slide 4 is from 2007 at a time when all 17 the railway facilities were closed. The channel tunnel rail link was coming in from the east into St Pancras, which resulted in quite a change in scene, but the granary and all the goods sheds around it were still intact. The canal and the aforementioned Culross buildings, the German gin building, and gas holders from the previous important gas works were also still there at that time.

Slide 5 is the Argent development scheme that was put forward for planning permission on behalf of the landowners. It was a scheme which they had obviously been negotiating with the council about, to some extent, before then. All high-rise development is shown and, in amongst it, the granary and some of the goods sheds and coal drops. This Granary was given a grade 2 listing in 1978. The eastern coal drops were also listed. It was all a conservation area and English Heritage did exert some pressure. However, at the same time, the then London Mayor, Ken Livingstone was saying “this is an Opportunity Area” and Camden Council saw it is real estate and an opportunity for necessary housing. The developer considered it as a prime site that could contain a large amount of offices. All the areas highlighted in red are heritage buildings that have been kept. There are also relocated gas holders, which seems fine until you realise that they are going to be crowded out, front and back, by housing or 16 storey offices blocks

1 2

3 4

5 6

1718

7 8

9 10

11 12

The first phase of that development was for the University of the Arts to take over one of the principle heritage sites; the Granary and some of the surround buildings, which has worked quite well – and English Heritage was behind it for once. Slide 6 shows the granary in 1878 and how it looks today. Very little has changed externally - this has been done very well.

A conservation architect worked along side the development architect and he was making sure that a lot of the features of this building were retained. In slide 7 you can see the imprint (which has been conserved) of some demolished sheds that in the past were used to assemble the goods trains going out. Its historic, artistic and good conservation. Slide 8 shows on the left how the building looked (internally) in 1974 - with some grains in sacks still there. The photograph on the right of the slide shows it converted into a library. It’s regrettable that they are putting in air conditioning ducts and have also raised the floor slightly, but still it has worked reasonably well.

There has been more compromise in some of the work. For example the 600 ft long goods train shed - slide 9. In the interest of commercial purposes the developers got rid of the smaller windows for larger openings and all the blank panels have been converted into shop fronts; not very satisfactory at all.

19 Steps were taken out and replaced, as they were not suitable for high heeled shoes (slide 11). There were many features inside which should have been kept but have been removed. Slide 12 shows a turntable which was earmarked as being special. It has been kept but it has been totally disguised. For example, the turntable had flanges - places that the wheels could go through, and even the gauges they have reinstated on the rails are wrong. From an industrial archaeologist’s point of view, this is very poor refurbishment. The granary square (slide 13) is very pretty with fountains and people go there – but the basin which they should have kept and commemorated has gone. There are just some very miserable sets of lines where its boundary was.

13 14

15 16

17 18

An awful lot of paving has been ripped up. There is still a marvellous expanse of paving in the yard beyond where the photo in slide 14 was taken and which is in a phase of work yet to come. Will they want to rip all that up too?

There were other compromises. This was a rather nice surrounding wall (slide 15) with very nice brickwork. Much of that is going, in fact some has already gone. There were ideas of opening up arches for big window to look onto the canal. However, the reproduction brickwork on rebuilt walls is not very good. Also, the idea of opening up to the canal was so that you could see through

20 to St Pancras spire, but actually, 16-storey office blocks will be built around it.

There are a couple of gas holders from the gas works. The first (slide 16) was taken down but as it was listed, they are obliged to (and will) re-erect it. There was an architectural competition for a design of what was to be inside. Having awarded the scheme to an architect, they then said they couldn’t afford it. A compromise idea was eventually agreed, but seemingly, as a result of pres- sure from some people who say we must have more greenery, they are going to be planting green- ery all around the gas holder. Again this is not good from an industrial archaeologist point of view. They should show how the gas bell went up and down but actually that will be obscured.

The other remarkable gas holders which stood where the St Pancras station extension is now (slide 17) that had to go for the channel tunnel rail link. They were dismantled and are now going to go back up with luxury flats inside them.

In 1850 before the Kings Cross passenger station was opened, they had a temporary station and this was where Queen Victoria made her first railway journey up to Balmoral. Slide 18 shows you the arcades of the 1850 station; one of which still survives, but will be sadly kept inside a reflective glass screen in what is a strictly private, rather than public, space.

Q&A AND COMMENTS

- Q: “ Regarding this issue of viability. At a couple of meetings I went to at Hackney council, the council said they were afraid to turn down planning applications because they were afraid of the cost of the developer appealing. I’m concerned about this because there nothing in print that I can see that allows me to approach the council to say ‘look we have something here that sets out something against this.’ We just need more guidance, because it seems the authorities do feel under pressure to accept these applications.”

- Q: “I’m involved with ‘Sustainable Hackney’. We have various opportunity and intensification area within the borough boundaries. I’m convinced that the increase in developments and dwellings is a fundamental part of the council’s financial strategy at the present time, and I think its important that we should try to expose that. This make is very difficult for any of us.

“I also want to say something on the issue of direct employment of construction workers. The training and requirements for training to sustainable standards for new build and retrofitting is a complete shamble. They haven’t even got many of the methods needed in renovating or in new construction, even in the training schemes. The way in which the projects are managed are not looked at overall; there is a stream of consecutive trades coming in. Most of the money for training on the energy efficiency technologies goes to manufacturers, and all they are doing is training people to install whatever they are manufacturing. There is no quality assurance. Training is not transferable and is not part of a coherent set of skills. Having good quality buildings is not just about sustainability and a shortage of resources, but also the colour and quality of life and the money we have to spend, especially as energy costs continue to rise.

“Community and union organisations should try to work together and we should look to see how can we create local co-ops and social enterprises that can ensure good quality control and more community control.”

21 3. WORKSHOPS Workshop 1 Alternative, community-determined plans: Developing alternative plans is not new, but this may have been given new focus and impetus through the Localism Act. This workshop looked at some produced in the past and the London picture now, particularly in large development areas. It considered to what extent communities are able to use alternative plans to challenge and influence the authorities’ plans and to set out a strong independent community-determined vision for their areas.

Sharon Hayward distributed copies of the Carpenters Community Plan. LTF and Just Space supported development of the plan with some funding from Antipode (international geography journal) and assistance from UCL students. It provides a consensus and community determined vision for the estate and has significant democratic weight. It took a long time to develop - through workshops, walkabouts, an exhibition and a consultation which involved interviewing the majority of households on the estate and local businesses.

The estate is in the Lower Lee Valley Opportunity Area near to the Olympic Park. There were plans to demolish the estate and to replace it with a new ULC campus. Newham council has been decanting residents off the estate for a long time, resulting in almost half the homes now being empty. The BBC and Al Jazeera filmed the Olympic Games from the top floors of one of the tower blocks on the estate. Some local businesses who were moved from near the estate during the Games returned afterwards. There was a successful campaign against the UCL plans (which were eventually withdrawn) involving residents and UCL students

Residents have presented the community plan to the London Legacy Development Corporation, which now has planning powers in this part of Newham. There have been discussions with them around possible co-production of some parts of its Local Plan (currently being developed).

Dave Morris (Our Tottenham) provided some information about regeneration in Tottenham, which he said is corporate led and covers about a quarter of the Upper Lea Valley Opportunity Area. High profile property developers are involved. The council is generating propaganda on a large scale. It is currently developing a strategic framework. Dave handed out a leaflet drawn up by Our Tottenham, which is promoting community planning in the area. They feel that this is preferable to developing Neighbourhood Plans that have a lot of rules imposed by the Government. Our Tottenham has also been lobbying the council and is highlighting the positive successes of community led plans, such as the refurbishment of the Lordship recreation ground. Dave said he felt that developing grass roots plans helps to strengthen campaigning and provides a positive focus for community mobilisation.

Michael Parkes said he felt that transport planners can be the worst sort of planners; mentioning the 1970’s plans for Covent Garden. He said that Neighbourhood Planning which was introduced in the Localism Act is the latest in a long line of tradition of community planning. Having a good umbrella organisation with a wide networks of groups is essential when embarking on the process of drawing up community plans. Michael said that sometimes treasury initiated plans can work, but it is essential to but have good community planning. He said he thought it amazing that we now have statutory Neighbourhood Plans. He also suggested that there are benefits for local authorities and developers in entering into relationships with voluntary and community sector organisations anyway around planning.

Community networks can produce better proposals, help to delay developers’ plans and sometimes challenge developers plan through looking carefully at what’s in the borough’s plans. 22 The Finsbury Park Action Group managed to do this in their opposition to developers plans for a vast shopping centre near the Rainbow / Holloway Road / Harvest Estate area. The council’s plans were in favour of more housing, so they focused on this. The Harvest Estate TRA was already formed and went quickly into action. The KXRLG plan suggested 1000’s of homes instead of offices, but unfortunately this was not acceptable because of the railway layout which needed a wide curve for the long Eurostar trains. This cut in a third more of the railway lands that had been anticipated.

Michael also said that working on design games is useful in community planning - letting people use different colours to show what they want and where.

Comments from the workshop

• In Tottenham we are looking where community plans have been done, to help in mobilising, because communities can easily get demoralised. • Hopes can also easily get raised and then dashed. It is good to start small so that items can be accomplished in partnership. • The lessons from Covent Garden were unique. The GLC had been elected and Ken Livingstone came into power at the time of a property slump. The developers were not used to handling the community - or didn’t know how to. The plans were not just stopped by the community, but by a general anti-motorway feeling amongst the general public. A void was filled and some basic principles around what the community wanted were set out. A Neighbourhood Council was formed. After this there was a report that advocated the establishment of Neighbourhood or Parish councils with statutory powers. There was a Covent Garden Forum. Forty people were named and elected for two-years. There were some dedicated GLC professionals who worked with the Forum. It would be good to encourage the development of Neighbourhood Councils. • The map of where Neighbourhood Forums are being developed in London shows that they are not evenly distributed across the capital. There are a lot in Camden. • Voluntary Action Camden is supporting the Somers Town Neighbourhood Forum. The area has a population of around 7,000. It is a sensible size and does not cross borough boundaries. It is a coherent geographical area and has about 30 people leading the work being carried out. There is massive developer interest and the council is as rapacious in selling off property. Once Neighbourhood Plans get through they become part of the local authorities planning documents. • The community has to see the value of land and there needs to be an open book policy on this and the sale of public assets. • Developers think they know it all! At Covent Garden the community negotiated for the central market to be put into a trust. The traders pay 2% of their income into the trust. • The Coin Street land is owned / leased communally. • There are good schools in my area (in Lewisham), but there has been a decline in local shops which means people have to travel further to access shops and services that they need. • The shopping street is a good place to begin a community plan. • Events like this are useful for understanding what’s going on and to gain knowledge. • We need to do a lot more work on building alliances. • The idea of having open book policies freaks out the local authorities and the developers • Many of us feel isolated and that we are dealing with a lot of complex issues. However, there is a lot of repetition around what’s going on across London. We have a lot to share. • It is very important to have both knowledge and advice. 23 • We need to look at successful examples. Coin Street is still thriving on land gifted by the GLA. • No local authorities are gifting land; other than to developers. • We need to have local neighbourhood democracy and mechanisms to get active in opposing councils and developers. • We need a London-wide website to share and exchange, to include stories of groups’ successes and how they have overcome difficulties. • We need a vision, such as an alternative London Plan • We need to be looking forward to what we do want, rather than being defensive. • Developing neighbourhood forums and plans need a huge amount of resources and time. We should focus more on developing community plans. We should look at all types of community planning - historical and current. • There is some useful information on development trusts on Locality’s website. Planning Aid for England also has some good information. • We need to have a place to store information on the work that different community groups are doing and we must argue for an open book policy on residential land values where public land is being sold off. • It is great to have support from students - this is a fantastic resource.

Key points for the plenary session:

1. We should encourage the development of community plans as a tool for negotiating and mobilising, and as a focus for positive outcomes and opportunities for success. 2. Practically we need to understand sites and planning policies, develop networks and partnerships and demand open book policies around the sell off of public land. 3. We should learn from present and current examples for inspiration including Covent Garden, Coin Street, Broadwater Farm and Lordship recreation ground. 4. Access to grants and getting support from students would be good.

Workshop 2. Making gains on new jobs preventing losses of existing, at Kings Cross and elsewhere Huge amounts of industrial land has been lost in London and with it jobs that would in the past have sustained ordinary (working class) communities, often in close proximity to their homes. Businesses, even those still viable and serving local communities, are being displaced in large development plans. This workshop will consider what was achieved at Kings Cross, what is occurring elsewhere and what London-wide work is being carried out on alternative strategies around provision of local employment.

Marian Laragy provided some information around work carried out on jobs and local economy throughout the Kings Cross Railway Lands Group (KXRLG) campaigning years.

• Analysis was commissioned by KXRLG (through UCL) around the kind of employment already existed in Kings Cross and what kinds of opportunities for new jobs there might be within the development plans. The analysis strongly highlighted a need for retaining existing employment and encouraging new enterprise start-ups. • There was a variety of existing employment on the Kings Cross lands – including local artist studios and voluntary sector project work. KXRLG highlighted this to demonstrate that the land was not actually derelict; as was often portrayed. There was some discussion around how these jobs could be protected. • Plans were for big offices, which KXRLG was very concerned about.

24 • The issue of possible job opportunities was raised at every stage of the development and KXRLG was keen to get a target for jobs for local people set. A definition of ‘local’ and a target for 25% of new jobs to go to local residents was achieved. • It was often suggested that when the development was finished there would be lots of jobs for local people. KXRLG was concerned that jobs be provided for the local community in the construction of the development as well as post construction. Eventually the group got to the position where the developer agreed to take on 400 local construction workers. KXRLG also wanted to persuade the developer that it was worth their while putting in money for training. It negotiated with the developer around training requirements relating to the disability access regulations that had been introduced in through the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. • KXRLG had links with local youth projects, who could talk with local young people around the kinds of training courses that they might access. • At the same time, it tried to get in the best expert support that it possibly could. This included support from the London Mayor’s office to look at issues around barriers to BME communities gaining employment in the construction industry. • KXRLG wanted section 106 monies to be used to support a new Constructions Skills Centre in Kings Cross. The group had already brought together a lot of groups and local businesses through its community networks to identify people who were, or who might be, interested in gaining construction skills. It particularly wanted training and short taster courses to be run on things such as decorating. It was hoped that this might entice people in and that they might become later be interested in doing other courses. • Part the Kings Cross area is Islington, although fewer from borough were involved with the KXRLG. However the group had discussion with Islington Council’s regeneration section about how they might help to be linked in. KXRLG had found out that regeneration section had been successful in introducing any new big firm that came into the Kings Cross area to local employment advisers, support projects and local providers (including caterers and cleaners). This work was also successful in terms of getting work placements. KXRLG was able to get people on the edges of the area involved through this link. • KCRLG gathered information about the London Skills and Employment Strategy and met with people from the national Construction Industries Training Board. • It looked at gaining support for local people in bidding for contracts. • It also held discussions with the developers and planners around keeping many of the existing streets to facilitate small shops going back in at the street level (rather than having a Canary Wharf style development).

In the discussion following Marion’s introduction,

• General concerns were raised about implementation of section 106 agreements. Marian said that often discussions rarely occur with the local community around what they might want section 106 monies used for, and when they do, it is at the last minute. KXRLG had its wish list ready and was actively engaging in conversations, not just with the council, but also with other public bodies such as the health authority. • Some discussion took place on EU regulations and whether or not these may be difficult in terms of securing local employment targets and policies. • It was noted that there are lots very good reasons for having local employment policies including environmental benefits. They can help to reduce the use of transport (for getting to and from work) and support attempts to improve air quality.

25 • While many people may not want to do basic admin, catering, care or cleaning work, these are essential jobs. They should be respected and people doing them should be paid the London Living Wage. There is huge emphasis on everyone getting into third level education, but actually there are a lot of graduates doing jobs such as this. These jobs should also be done locally. We cannot have sustainable communities if people have to travel huge distances to less well paid jobs. • Many local authorities have no idea about how to ensure that there are local jobs. Many are looking just at retail. Many local high streets are being replaced with large retail centres. We don’t need these big cathedrals of consumption. • There is need to have the whole Kings Cross story written up in a simple and easy way so that it can be shared with others.

Myfanwy Taylor provided some background information on Just Space and its Economy and Planning Group. Just Space is formed of voluntary and community groups including tenants and special interest groups who want to have a voice on planning policy in London. It’s a mutual support group. It supported around 60 groups to participate in statutory consultation processes on the new London Plan in 2010. Kings Cross Railway Lands Group was one of its founding members.

Economic issues were always part of these discussions. The London Plan makes assumptions around growth of the London economy. That growth is unsustainable and is not thought about in terms of poverty and inequality. The processes of consultation on the London Plan have not really facilitated debate on alternatives; what the London’s economy might or could be. As well as the broad economic ideas underlying the London Plan, it has been difficult to get proper discussion on issues such as London’s markets, small shops and social enterprises. This is partly because of the dominance of organisations like the City of London, London First, big businesses and proper- ty developers in the debates on London’s economy. There is also the tendency to view London’s economy in terms of finance. The Global City idea is dominant.

After some years of discussing these issues in workshops at events and conferences like this, it was agreed to form a Just Space Economy and Planning Group. The group tries to pro-actively build capacity around London’s economy so that Just Space is better equipped to marshal the arguments, evidence and community experiences. It also provide a space where ideas for a London economy and planning can emerge to challenge, at both the London wide level and in each opportunity area.

The issues coming up in each of these areas tend to be about securing local jobs and training - protecting existing jobs and the kind of economy that local communities want. Can we tackle these London-wide as well as in each individual opportunity area? This is where the issue of how we value different kinds of jobs comes in. If we only consider high tech and digital media busi- nesses as being productive and valuable, when actually they don’t employ that many people, we miss out on the ways that work, such as caring, cleaning and admin supports many more people. Such jobs are also valuable to local communities and their local economy. Points raised in the following discussion:

• One small scheme developed for homeless people at Kings Cross also involved the piloting of a scheme for insulating homes that involves injecting foam into wall cavities. Camden Council later took up on that scheme and began to integrate it more generally into schemes for upgrading properties. • A London Enterprise Panel has now been established. This is something that we need to 26 look at seriously. It predominantly comprises big business and its strategy will increasingly guide what happens around the economy in London. • It’s important to look locally at the kinds of shops and services that are needed. • Social housing creates jobs in repairs, maintenance and community engagement. • Access to affordable office space is very important; especially in areas where the larger media and high tech jobs are being introduced and are forcing up prices. • It would be good if we could have guidance on listing assets of community value – there is a question around how much money communities can raise to buy buildings. • Listing assets of community value can publicly highlight the assets that are important for local communities and may put some pressure on local authorities to preserve them. The fact that an asset of community value is listed may be of material consideration where a planning application is made for change of use. Communities can also get grant support from Locality to buy assets. Local authorities should have information on their websites on how to make applications to have assets of community value listed. • Dianne Abbott MP has recently raised concerns on the Olympic Legacy. She said that in 2010 figures released by the ODA revealed that of the 6,423 workers on the Olympic park; just 130 came from Hackney. In addition, only 7 of the apprentices on the site lived in the borough. £850,000 of section 106 money was spent on job brokerage. • Monitoring of delivery of section 106 agreements is very important. Hackney will negotiate every penny they think they can obtain, but there is a lack of transparency on what the money gets spent on. • We need more information on the introduction of Community Infrastructure Levy. Some goes to the Mayor to support transport infrastructure changes. There is need for East / West transport improvements in London. However, the problem with Crossrail it that this is designed to bring people in from outside London rather than to service existing local community needs. • We must highlight and document communities’ successes. • There is also a problem that public sector workers, including police and firefighters, don’t live locally. • Local jobs need be advertised locally. • Education should be valued in the round – not just as a training to get a job. • There should be more focus on jobs relating to food growing, energy efficiency and retrofit- ting and other green industry work. • We should involve small and local businesses in our networks as they are our allies. Like social housing tenants, many local businesses and services are being displaced. We need to link our arguments around homes and jobs more effectively.

Workshop 3. Getting housing that meets need, and viability assessments: This workshop will look at the levels of social-rented and ‘affordable’ homes being delivered and also demolished in opportunity areas. It will consider the changes that are taking place at the most and least expensive ends of the housing ‘market’. It will explore what national policy and emerging practice guidance say on viability and deliverability, how this is being used to reduce levels of affordable homes in developments, and challenges that might be made on this.

Key points for the plenary session : 1. The role played by 'viability' tests in today's urban planning and housing decisions is a matter of grave concern. It puts private profitability ahead of all other considerations and must be challenged as a matter of priority. The workshop considers that the current crisis is 27 being used by developers to radically jack up levels of profit. 2. The confidentiality surrounding viability assessments is entirely unacceptable because it makes major decisions invisible and prevents any challenge to the assumptions on which developers' and councils' agreements are based. It also creates fertile ground for corruption and un-ethical practices. 3. It is a high priority that someone should produce a manual of advice and guidance for community groups to use in challenging viability assessments and/or doing their own ones. Just Space needs to consider how this could be done and by whom. 4. There is a need for experts who can be called upon to challenge valuation assumptions.

Workshop 4. Preserving buildings of community interest: To what extent are existing buildings being torn down in large development areas in an attempt to erase their past history? Can a strategy of preserving existing buildings help not only to sustain existing communities but also retain, in built form, some of their social and industrial history? What strategies and existing policy can we best use to pressure for refurbishment of buildings of community interest and to secure them for community use?

Introductions:

• Just Space re-iterated the aims of the LTF project - to establish a local networks in London, gather cases and examples to foster shared learning, and build cooperation and

collaboration • Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society was established in 1968 and has about 500 members today. It feels there is a challenge in creating interest and momentum, particularly amongst young people. Photography and Flickr can certainly help to promote

industrial architecture. It is very active in Kings Cross and Tower Hamlets • The UK Association of Building Preservationists works with diverse groups across London. It hosts an annual conference and sometimes regional events. Its focus is on empowering civic groups to watch planning applications and to use the media for exposure. It can

connect people to local BPT and advise on potential funding options. • London Forum of Amenity & Civic Societies has a website with updates on planning applications; uses assets of community value process to preserve pubs; chose to use 21 community members to apply for asset status instead of a registered charity, because those 21 members represented business, residential interests of the community rather than one single organization. The process of listing assets of community value is more like “right to bid” rather than “right to buy’. Adding a community theatre to the pub has made it of greater community value. Many different community uses can be added to pubs or other assets of community value. The Ivy House pub was bought as an asset of community value using a combined loan of 800,000 from the Architectural Heritage Fun and the Southbank Business Fund.

Cases:

• The Architectural Heritage Fund lends money for heritage preservation. It is a sister organisation to the UK Association of Building Preservation Trust. It operates across the UK and generally supports derelict and unused spaces or spaces damaged by fire. • Shoreditch Light Bar - a Victorian Pub and former power station. The Light has been a pioneering symbol of the east End since it was built in 1893 to generate electric light for the

28 nearby Liverpool Street station. Its historic importance to the area is evident from Shoreditch's motto adopted in 1900: ‘more light, more power.’ It is now one of the remaining pieces of evidence of an area once characterised by its industrial function. It avoided demolition following an 18 month campaign to save it. • London’s waterways are loved by people but lack public support. They are big assets to London, but remain under-protected. One way to protect the waterways would be to reinvigorate them for economic use; for both commercial and industrial shipping. Developing landing and loading sites around the canals is relatively easy these days. There is a possibility of listing heritage sites around the waterways. Wharfs aren’t even listed as heritage sites. Young people will get involved if they have a task to do that isn’t policy-based or theoretical. • Pimlico library. Three years ago the library was moved to a new, nearby location, leaving the original site, a well-known heritage building in a central location with lots of space. The building is listed as an asset of community value. Residents want to keep the original site for community use and local business space. Sainsbury’s wants to purchase the site and the council wants to sell it to make money.

What policies can we use?

• Various listings, including asset of community value, local listing, UK heritage listing, world heritage listing and understanding the framework and protection of each. Search for “heritage” or “preservation” in the borough’s core strategy, the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 65) or the London Plan.

How can we network?

• Keep having events like these • Understanding the different cases and the process of preservation used; the challenges and successes. • Use the London Tenants Federation project website (currently being developed) as a means to stay connected. • Possibly use the London Tourism office as a means of generating interest in heritage sites.

29 Workshop 5. Maintaining a consensus voice and getting it heard: Kings Cross Railway Lands Group managed to bring together a relatively tight knit locally based and focused campaign, involving a wide range of tenant and community groups and others. What difficul- ties do groups have in achieving this, particularly around keeping people fully informed and in providing a consensus voice? How do we also ensure that community voices are heard (through media and elsewhere) and that any pressure we might apply is sufficient to achieve the changes we want?

What are the main obstacles from consensus building? • There is a potential obstacle is getting people to work together. Language and communication can be an issue. The more diverse the group, the greater the chances of engaging more people. • “Apathy is everywhere”. • Consensus building can lead to the lowest common denominator or taking option that are not controversial. • A way to bring people together is to show a presence that is not always focused on the issue itself, but sometimes just meeting to meet each other etc. • The ‘system’ sees units of housing rather than people, which makes things difficult and is dehumanising. One example was provided of residents in a block where residents were not aware of plans for their estate, and where other residents went around knocking on doors to inform people and put notices up in the hope that it would mobilise people. • At the Elephant & Castle - a residents charter was put together and visioning events were held to get a grass roots and consensus voice. • KXRLG did not work by consensus. There was a complicated voting system. There was a constitution and votes were delegated representatively. When against deadlines groups may have to make a majority decision. It is not always passible to get agreement. KXRLG members did not necessarily see eye-to-eye and had to vote in the way that they did. • HS2 will result in demolition of an areas of London - good reason to get people together but it is difficult to organise them. The larger the project the more difficult it is to mobilize people.

Ways of engaging :

• Making use of local newspapers and magazines is a good ways of getting ideas out into the public domain. • Another good idea is to hold different types of events - a picnic was used in Wanstead Flats as a way of expanding attendance. • Put together a website. However, publicising it may be difficult and there are still a number of people who don’t have internet access or skills. • Putting leaflets through doors. This is good, but it is very time consuming. • Email lists. These allow people to be kept in the loop without having to go to a meeting. • It is having a clear understanding of an issue that helps brings people together. • Giant posters like billboards can be useful. • Using a combination of factors can ensure a maximise number of people are involved. • Knowing neighbours can be important. • Having access to accessible community spaces also important. • Knocking on doors.

30 How do we get better participation?

• Make meetings more interesting. • Get things in the press - by submitting press releases. • Develop a blogs • Develop contacts with certain journalists. • Create a database of who lives where and what their key issues are. • Not breaching confidentiality. • Create lateral connections - link with others who have similar concerns. E.g. residents on the Carpenters Estate that were campaigning against UCL plans made alliances with UCL’s student union. • Organize stalls in public areas - offer people tea and coffee to get them interested. • Use novel ideas. For example at the Elephant and Castle campaigners put speech bubbles with quotes in the trees to make things more interesting for passers by. • Try and get younger people involved.

Discussion on the developing website for groups involved in areas of large developments.

• The website is being created as network of different pages that groups can feed into. Groups from different boroughs and opportunity or intensification areas are able to post and update individual section of the site. Each section would need to be moderated by an individual or group. • It has been created through an easy-to-use word press site with indexes that would be easy to access other different sections. • A forum or blog could be added to allow discussion online or email lists could be added so that people can be included in round-robin emails. • The aim is to get cross-fertilization of ideas - especially relating to problems that span borough boundaries. • It aims to facilitate sharing of good best practice. • Links can be made to other sites.

Key points for the plenary session

• Not all are optimistic about future of consensus building. • There is a need to recognise that different audiences may need different ways of accessing information. • Consensus can be improved by building long term links between people. • Local media can be important - utilise local newspapers and journalists • The use of creative ideas can be powerful. • It is important to raise interest through utilising websites that allow cross-fertilisation of ideas.

31