DOCSLIB.ORG

270212 HIA Report.Doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
270212 HIA Report.Doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment Strand East | Sugar House Lane, London E15 Health Impact Assessment | February 2012 Landprop Holding BV Strand East Health Impact Assessment Project Ref: 23627/021 Doc Ref: Rev001 February 2012 Peter Brett Associates LLP Caversham Bridge House Waterman Place Reading Berkshire RG1 8DN T: 0118 9500761 F: 0118 9597498 E: [email protected] Strand East Health Impact Assessment We print on 100% recycled paper from sustainable suppliers accredited to ISO 14001. J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA ii Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment Document Control Sheet Project Name: Strand East Project Ref: 23627/021 Report Title: Health Impact Assessment Doc Ref: Rev001 Date: February 2012 Name Position Signature Date Environmental Lucy Whitter L. Whitter 27.02.12 Prepared by: Scientist Principal Sue Parr Environmental S. Parr 23.01.12 Reviewed by: Scientist Henk Gelens LLP Director L. Whitter 27.02.12 Approved by: For and on behalf of Peter Brett Associates LLP Revision Date Description Prepared Reviewed Approved Peter Brett Associates LLP disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of this report. This report has been prepared with reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the Client and generally in accordance with the appropriate ACE Agreement and taking account of the manpower, resources, investigations and testing devoted to it by agreement with the Client. This report is confidential to the Client and Peter Brett Associates LLP accepts no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report or any part thereof is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk. © Peter Brett Associates LLP 2012 J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA iii Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA iv Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment Contents Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 4 1.1 Background to the Application 4 1.2 HIA Purpose and Ethos 5 1.3 Structure of the report 6 2 Summary of the proposed development 7 2.1 Development description 7 2.2 Construction 7 3 Health and wellbeing policy context 8 3.1 Introduction 8 3.2 National Context 8 3.3 London Context 10 3.4 Local Context 11 4 Summary of major pathways of health impact 13 4.1 Introduction 13 4.2 Social capital and cohesion 14 4.3 Health and social care services 14 4.4 Education 15 4.5 Employment and access to work 15 4.6 Leisure, recreation and culture 15 4.7 Opportunities for physical activity 15 4.8 Accessibility and transport 15 4.9 Housing standards 15 4.10 Crime reduction and community services 16 4.11 Access to healthy food 16 4.12 Air quality and contamination 16 4.13 Noise and neighbourhood amenity 16 4.14 Adaptation to climate change 16 5 HIA methodology 18 5.1 Introduction 18 5.2 Screening 18 5.3 Scoping 18 5.4 Baseline Assessment and Community Profile 19 5.5 Stakeholder Consultation and Involvement 20 5.6 Analysis 21 5.7 Recommendations / Incorporated Mitigation 22 5.8 Next Steps 22 6 Baseline assessment and community profile 23 6.1 Introduction 23 6.2 Population Profile 26 6.3 Social Capital and Cohesion 27 6.4 Health and Social Care Services 28 6.5 Education 29 6.6 Employment and Access to Work 30 6.7 Leisure, Recreation and Culture 31 6.8 Opportunities for Physical Activity 31 6.9 Accessibility and Transport 31 6.10 Housing Standards 31 6.11 Crime Reduction and Community Services 32 6.12 Access to Healthy Food 32 J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA v Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment 6.13 Air Quality and contamination 32 6.14 Noise and Neighbourhood Amenity 32 6.15 Accidents, poisoning and physical injury (health outcome) 32 6.16 Infectious diseases (health outcome) 32 6.17 Summary 32 7 Community involvement 34 7.1 Consultation 34 7.2 Community Concerns 34 7.3 Response and Changes to the Scheme 35 8 Analysis of the health impacts of the proposed development and recommendations 37 8.1 Assessment Matrix 37 9 Priorities 45 9.1 Introduction 45 9.2 Opportunities for Physical Activity 45 9.3 Education 46 9.4 Employment and access to work 47 9.5 Access to health and social care services 48 9.6 Housing standards 48 9.7 Children in poverty, diverse ethnic and cultural communities and young people 49 9.8 Cumulative Effects 49 10 Conclusions and next steps 50 10.1 Conclusions 50 10.2 Next steps 50 11 References 51 12 Glossary / Abbreviations 53 Tables Table 1: Demolition and construction and operation effects considered Table 2: GP practices within 1 mile of the site Table 3: Examples of comments from the public exhibition Figures Figure 1: Location Plan Figure 2: Determinants of health and wellbeing Figure 3: Administrative boundaries Figure 4: Aerial photograph of land use – prior to demolition (Ref: Google Earth, image date June 2010) Figure 5: Provision of community infrastructure Appendices Appendix A: Key Plan Appendix B: Scoping Report Appendix C: Scoping meeting notes Appendix D: Community profile graphs J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA vi Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment Executive Summary This Health Impact Assessment (HIA) has been prepared by Peter Brett Associates LLP on behalf of Landprop Holding BV. It relates to a hybrid planning application for a mixed use development comprising predominantly residential, office, retail, leisure/community, food and beverage and hotel space in addition to the provision of associated infrastructure including public transport routes. It is anticipated that the construction will be undertaken in a number of phases starting in 2013 and to be complete by approximately 2022. The application site, Stand East, is predominantly located in the London Borough of Newham. The site is located within a wider area known as Sugar House Lane approximately 1.3km to the south west of Stratford town centre and is south of the Olympic Park. There is an increasing awareness of the links between how places are planned and delivered and the health of the communities who live and work in them. The aim of this HIA is to assess the potential positive and negative health and wellbeing effects on the existing communities around the proposed development, and the communities that are likely to live and work in it. Additionally, the HIA recommends options, where appropriate, for enhancing the positive impacts, mitigating the negative ones and reducing health inequalities. Whilst there is currently no direct statutory requirement to use HIA in the UK, its role and value have been endorsed or highlighted in a range of policy and strategy contexts including the London Health Inequalities Strategy April 2010 and the London Plan 2011. The London Borough of Newham’s Core Strategy January 2012 (interim version) states “ Developers will be expected to conduct a Health Impact Assessment for major residential / mixed-use proposals, or address its scope in their Design and Access statements and environmental impact assessments”. An individual’s inherited traits interact with lifestyle, community, environmental, social and economic factors as well as a much wider range of issues to determine their health. This HIA focuses on the determinants of health, which a new development can, to a greater or lesser extent, influence. social capital and cohesion; health and social care services; education; employment and access to work; leisure, recreation and culture; opportunities for physical activity; accessibility and transport; housing standards; crime reduction and community services; access to healthy food; air quality and contamination noise and neighbourhood amenity (tranquillity); adaptation to climate change. An HIA Scoping Report was developed and sent to NHS East London and the City (The Primary Care Trust (PCT)) and the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) who are acting as the planning authority. A meeting was then held with Andre Pinto from the PCT on 23rd November 2011 to discuss the approach. A full assessment has been undertaken of the potential positive and negative effects on all the determinants using a matrix. Key priorities have been highlighted in the matrix for discussion in the text. These have been established through the policy review, baseline assessment, community J:\23627 Sugar House Lane\021 - Health\HIA Report\270212_HIA 1 Report.doc Strand East Health Impact Assessment involvement and discussions with the PCT, along with assessment of the potential for the scheme to have an effect. Potential negative effects associated with demolition and construction are common to all development projects, particularly in London with its dense urban development and residential population and can be controlled through good communication with neighbours and various management mechanisms during construction such as a code of construction practice. Beneficial effects during construction are those associated with job creation. Operational priorities include the following: Opportunities for physical activity Physical activity is an important consideration as current activity levels in the population are low and rates of obesity are high. Increasing activity levels can contribute to the prevention and management of many conditions and diseases including cardio-vascular disease. The scheme provides significant opportunities for physical activity both for the new community and improving facilities for existing communities. Promotion of walking and cycling are maximised. Play infrastructure will include free to use high quality inclusive infrastructure for play at appropriate locations accessible to new and existing communities. As the site is located on the river it provides a good opportunity for river based sports to take place such as canoeing.
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]