Do Gated Developments in Isle of Dogs Segregate Local Communities?

Aleksejus Ragovskis University Of East London MAASD Urban Ecology 2013/14

Gated Development in the Isle of Dogs

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to understand the social segregation caused by gated developments in the Isle of Dogs, Docklands. It is based on a research related to this field also as interviews with the Isle of Dogs’ residents from gated developments and social housings. The aim of this report is to understand the causes of segregation and analyze them from the point of view of local residents as well as finding a reasonable conclusion on what should be done in order to create sustainable and safer communities.

In the last tree decades the Isle of Dogs have been through a major transformation and has a quite high concentration of the gated developments and social housings. The study addresses the issues of why gated developments have emerged in the UK and have focused on the social and physical segregation of local communities.

Introduction

Large number of gated developments in the Isle of Dogs, which restrict public access, is portrayed as a simple ‘expression of lifestyle choice’, that is reflecting status and more importantly provides the security from the ‘dangers of urban life’ (Atkinson, R., 2004). With a slogan ‘Live above all else. Live at Pan Peninsula’ advertises new developments. But what effect it has on the local communities and social cohesion in the Isle of Dogs?

Gated Developments, by mean of residential developments with a restricted access by non-residents, in Britain if compared to other countries, is a fairly new phenomenon. There is no up to date information on such developments, but according to the studies curried out back in 2004 there was an estimate of one thousand gated developments across the country (Atkinson, R., 2004), and now this number is much higher. Majority of these developments are based in London and South East of England, especially in the Isle of Dogs, which is part of Docklands.

Walled or fenced housing developments, to which public access is restricted, are often guarded by using CCTV and a security person who segregates people in a spatial way. People that are not residents of this development are restricted with access through these areas leaving them with a limited choice of walkways and they have to find their way around these enclosed spaces through ‘access tunnels’ that often has a large footprint. In some cases gated developments also own a part of the riverside and access to it is also restricted, resulting in the Thames path being blocked and people have to walk around the developments.

1. Beginning of the Gated Development in the Isle Of Dogs

The gated developments in the Isle of Dogs have emerged simultaneously with the development of Docklands. This “phenomenon of the gated developments was ‘virtually non-existent until the first gated developments in the newly emerging Docklands’ (Minton, 2009: 61). Docklands that once were a largest dock site in Europe started to decline in 1960 onwards due to the changes in industry and between 60’s and 70’s 150,000 jobs were lost (Innes, 2009:4) causing serious social deprivation. The need for acceleration of the decline transformed Docklands and its population. Government created London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) 1981-1998, was selling parts of the land in Docklands and received money that were invested back into Docklands together with private and public investments. (Innes, 2009:17). Isle of Dogs at that time was a site with the biggest concentration of council housing in the UK located more inland and the surrounded land was sold to the private owners. Steele J. argues that the redevelopment of the Isle of Dogs lead by LDDC had not benefited towards the local communities as much, because most of the riverside sites were sold for private apartment blocks (Archis Nr5, 1998). Still, finance district was built together with apartments for the workers of the finance. But local communities south of Canary Wharf were very poor and British planners wanted to surround new developments with a security, because the new residents were simply scared of the local population (Minton, 2009). And in the last 15 years population in the Isle of Dogs has doubled, reaching estimate of 47,000 people.

2. Why people moves in to gated developments?

Why people choose to live in the gated developments is a complex question that has no straightforward answer. Some choose it because of the investment, some because of the fear of crime and for some it is a way to show their wealth. There is no research curried out in the Isle of Dogs to explain it either, but back in 1997 Castell curried a postal questionnaire in one of the developments just north of the Isle of Dogs, in Bow Quarter. It revealed that “facilities and security were the main reason” for moving into the gated development and “community was an insignificant factor”. (Blandy, Lister, Atkinson, Flint 2003:11). Based on this evidence one can create an opinion that security and comfort are overriding importance against the community. Furthermore in 2002 telephone survey of random 1001 respondents in UK showed general public attitude towards gated developments; 50% of all respondents said that gated developments is a good thing, 43% said not a good thing and 7% didn’t know. Out of all respondents 61% was living in the gated developments (Blandy, Lister, Atkinson, Flint 2003:9). Among a number of factors that influenced a decision to move in, the main ones were calm traffic, setting and prestige. 3. Crime

Last year the metropolitan police, recorded 27564 crimes in the Borough of Tower Hamlets. Majority of this crime consists of violence against the person 6405, motor vehicle crime 2716, and 1485 residential burglary (Met Police Statistics 2013). If to compared other regions in London, it is average or even small number. For instance Islington Council recorded 24979 total crimes, Soutwark - 32508, Haringey - 21267, with highest being Westminster Council where 56439 crimes was recorded.

Unfortunately there are no studies curried out in order to relate these crimes to the gated developments in the Isle of Dogs, but as an example Blakely and Snyder’ study can be used. In California back in 2000 crime rates of two developments were compared, one was gated and the other not. The study revealed that there is “no significant differences between these neighborhoods” (Blandy, 2007:4).

A record shows that there is a crime in Isle of Dogs and Blandy suggests that “it is now recognized that crime and anti-social behavior is concentrated in deprived urban neighborhoods”(Blandy 2007:4). From this statement we can see the link between a crime and gated developments and why people choses gated developments motivated by the fear of crime. They want to isolate themselves from the deprived areas. It is not surprising that British Labour Party’ politician David Blunkett back in 2004 called for spread of the gated communities to “make available to the many what is currently available to few”, motivated that it would return a ‘sense of community safety’ (The Guardian 2004 Jan 22). But what gating really does is that isolates communities from each other leaving people ignorant to the surrounding territories and reducing collective efficacy.

Analysis of the British Crime Survey 2003/4 suggested that “lack of collective efficacy in an area is a strong predictor of anti-social behavior” (Wood 2004). It is understandable that new residents in the area, especially that is surrounded by the deprived area like in Isle of Dogs, wants to surround themselves with a sense of security, but at the same time it is regrettable response to the crime, as gated developments decreases collective efficacy and permeability of the space. It also reduces ‘natural surveillance’ that can be a cause of the increased crime. Gating of privatised areas, “limits natural surveillance from passers by, and from occupants of the dwellings” (LDF, Lewisham Council 2006:12).

Lewisham Council for example is against gated developments and clearly states that “council will normally reject development that takes place within a gated environment”, and instead suggested to deal with a security by ensuring that “development is permeable, and overlooked as much as possible” (LDF, Lewisham Council 2006:12).By creating more collective communities, where people would know each other more, would be more benefitial to the collective efficacy.

4. Physical Segregation

One of the most obvious segregations that happen in the Isle of Dogs is physical segregation. Part of it was created by the London Docklands Development Corporation when decision was made to sell the riverside land for the private developments and many gated developments were built along the river. It interrupted the riverside walk – Thames Path, leaving residents of social housing with limited access to the riverside. The private land that is accessible on foot often interrupts walkway along the river, because both ends of it are blocked and people are forced to walk around it (Fig.1.). The same situation repeat itself along the river many times, people often are forced to walk around such developments and use the same roads that cars are using.

1. Private riverside of gated community (left and right view), Midland Place, Isle of Dogs

Different forms of physical segregation can be observed in the Isle of Dogs. In some cases private properties are restricting the entrance to the property not with physical obstructions, but by law. One of the examples would be Ironmongers Place (Fig.2). Owner of the land is not obliged by law to allow a public access unless this is a common road for public use. It forms a closed enclosure and overall picture of the surrounding becomes very limited from the point of view of public users, permeability of the space is reduced.

2. Ironmongers Place (No Public Right of Way)

Gating of privatized land created a series of spaces that are separated from public realm leaving ‘accesses tunnels’ for the local communities. 5. Social Segregation

Gating also have negative effects on the social level of neighbors, if for instance “some local residents disliked new outsiders more generally, the existence of gating appeared to solidify these views even further” (Atkinson, Flint 2003:8). From this we could draw an opinion that physical segregation with gates also creates psychological segregation between neighbors, and as such reduces social interaction.

6. Internal Conflict

In the Isle of dogs there are several examples of internal conflict involving people themselves, council and developers. First, segregation is a natural process that happens in between residents themselves for economic, religious or ethnicity reasons. Studies of this phenomenon curried our by Atkinson and Flint describes this process as “a product of income and discriminatory filters which operate to allocate people in socio-demographic concentrations in the city” (Atkinson and Flint, 2003:2). In other words people themselves are creating segregation and developers have to follow the wish of the consumer to satisfy market needs, and council is creating a policies to prevent gated developments and create more mixed communities. Tower Halmets Council is currently stating that 40% of the new development should be social/affordable housing and this number to be increased to 50% by 2025 (MDD 2013:24). But how this policy works in the reality, is absolutely opposite than expected. Interviewed local resident explained that in the new developments affordable housing is occupied by a 100% and the rest is only occupied by 10%. It indicates that the people do not want to live together with a lover income-earning people. Automatically it affects the developers who are struggling to sell the flats and to return invested money. Developers offered to the Tower Hamlets council to pay for every affordable housing unit a £50 000 at the same time offering for it to be build elsewhere refused (Interviewed resident). As there is policy stating that “in some circumstances, site constraints may lead to development proposing to provide affordable housing off-site or through payments in-lieu in order to be able to contribute to the delivery of affordable housing and in particular Social Rent family housing” with an agreement that “the living environment for residents and other elements of the scheme, must all be demonstrably better than if affordable housing was provided on-site.”(2011:30,31). But despite the £50 000 offer and available policy council had refused.

Some local authorities like Camden council are increasingly against gated developments, describing them as antithesis of sustainable “territorial” neighbourhoods (Core Strategy Adaptation 2010), and yet developers, motivated by the profit, propose gated developments in other borrows, as they can be sold from ten to twenty percent more than the regular development. It is nothing more than regular development, the only difference is availability of gates, fence and security personnel.

Minton says that the image of the gated developments is that they are for the wealthier people in society, but the reality is that often they are very normal properties and it is just a way that developers have of charging more a very average properties (Minton 2009).

It seems that developers are on the same side with a residents of the gated developments, which resolves a complicated problems with a very quick and simple solutions. Both sides do satisfy individual desires: developers get premium and the residents get a security and isolation.

7. Local Resident

An interview with a Spanish male: a retired worker of the city, who lives in one of the developments in the Isle of Dogs said that the same development applied for the planning permission for the gates, though permission was not granted from the Council of Tower Hamlets, stated that it would have to be visually and physically secure and it would make it hard to collect the rubbish.

Gating creates difficulties for the public services as every time when they respond to regular calls they need to contact someone to open the gates (Atkinson 2011).

8. Permeability

In the Local Development Framework document, the Tower Hamlets Council (2011: 65) clearly states the policy that ‘seeks to secure good connectivity by improving permeability and legibility’. In the policy “connectivity refers to the number of connections and their integration, layout and relationship to one an- other and the impact this has on getting from one point to another, while permeability refers to the variety of pleasant, convenient and safe routes through an area and the capacity of those routes to carry the movement of people”. “As such a development that restricts public access and movement, for example gated communities, is not considered to contribute to a well-connected and permeable public realm. They may also have a negative impact on sustainable communities and social cohesion” (Atkinson 2011:65)

9. St David’s Square Case Study

This essay will focus on two recent planning applications in Isle of Dogs that were submitted to the Tower Hamlets Council. First of two is St. Davids Square development (Fig.3), which made an application for the “erection of entrance gates to Westferry Road, Ferry Street and Thames Walkway together with associated walls to perimeter estate” (P.A. 10/2786:1). . The main argument of this proposal was to reduce a crime, but despite the 138 supports from local residents and only 6 against, planning authority refused this planning application stating that “it is not considered that there is enough of a crime problem here to warrant blocking the whole estate to become a gated development”, and that it would block the important Thames Walk (P.A. 10/2786:1).

3. St Davids Square development 4. Lockeslield Place development

10. Lockeslield Place Case Study

Another example is Lockesfield Place development (Fig.4) located just across the Westferry road of the St. Davids Square. An application made back in 2009 was successful because access in to the Lockes Field development “did not lead to or maintain and enhance the permeability of the site” and there was no trough route, the Tower Hamlets Council stated that “its loss would not be disadvantageous to the members of the public” (P.A. 10/2786:5).

Proposal

“Gated communities are separated and isolated from the rest of the community. They are clearly not part of the fabric of their local areas” (Atkinson 2003:10).

Even though the Tower Hamlets Council contains large number of gated developments, still new proposals are granted with permission for the gating if proved that crime is high in the area and it would not interrupt public movement. It could “conflict with the national planning framework, which encourages freedom of movement”(Blandy 2007:7).

Perhaps taking the example from the Lewisham Council that does not allow gated developments and suggests different ways of dealing with a crime rates, so it would be more beneficial to the public realm. Reducing crime rates with simple gating reduces crime within the gates, but on the broader view it doesn’t reduce the crime itself. By ignoring, and barricading from it, crime is simply shifted to another more accessible places that are not gated.

In order to create a cohesive and solidarity-based society, local authorities should create clearer policy that promotes a design of natural surveillance that would benefit to social cohesion and reduce the crime. Gated communities provide a temporary solution for the problems by isolating from them, but on the long-term it does absolutely opposite, it aggravates these problems. It creates social polarization by separating low and high-income social groups, rather than creating mixed ones.

By promoting public spaces that are accessible to all, generating social cohesion, a community culture and social connectivity within the subdivision will create a more positive environment. Reduction of gated developments would benefit to the public realm also to enhance the quality and overall experience of the communities.

References:

1. Tower Hamlets (2011) Managing Development: Development Plan Document, Proposed Submission Version, London: Strategic Planning and Development Teams [Online], 2 Jan 2014, Available at: http://moderngov.towerhamlets.gov.uk/documents/s25046/1 MD DPD (pp 30, 65)

2. Innes, S. (2009) The Changing Fortunes of London’s Docklands, Birmingham: Regeneration and Renewal Conference [Online], 3 Jan 2014, Available at: http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/other/lddcpresent09conf.pdf (p. 4, 5)

3. Steele, J. (1998) Archis Nr.5, The market and meaning in contemporary British architecture, Amsterdam: Stiching Archis [Online], 4 Jan 2014, Available at: http://volumeproject.org/1998/05/markt-en-betekenis-in-de-hedendaagse- britse-architectuur-the-market-and-meaning-in-contemporary-british- architecture/

4. Blandy S., Lister D., Atkinson R., Flint J. (2003) Gated Communities: A Systematic Review Of The Research Evidence, Glasgow: University of Glasgow, [Online], 4 Jan 2014, Available at: http://www.academia.edu/316535/Gated_Communities_A_Systematic_Review_ of_the_Research_Evidence (p. 9)

5. Corporate Director of Development and Renewal (2011) Planning Application for Decision, Ref. no: PA/10/2786, London: Tower Hamlets council, [Online], 4 Jan 2014, Available at: http://modgov.towerhamlets.gov.uk/documents/s23644/7.1%20app%20a.pdf

6. Minton, A. (2009) Ground Control: Fear and happiness in the twenty-first- century city, London: the Penguin Group

7. Atkinson, R., Flint, J. (2003) Fortress UK? Gated communities, the spatial revolt of the elites and time-space trajectories of segregation, Glasgow: Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow [Online], 2 Jan, Available at: http://www.york.ac.uk/chp/hsa/papers/autumn03/Atkinson.pdf

8. Metropolitan Police Crime Statistics (2012-2013), [Online], 5 Jan 2014, Available at: http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/

9. Blandy S., (2007) Gated communities in England as a response to crime and disorder: context, effectiveness and implications, Leeds: University of Leeds, [Online], 5 Jan 2014, Available at: http://extra.shu.ac.uk/ppp-online/wp- content/uploads/2013/06/gated_communities_england_crime_disorder.pdf

10. The Guardian (2004) Blunkett calls for spread of gated communities, [Online], 5 Jan 2014, Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jan/22/crime.penal

11. Blakely E., Snyder M (1998) Separate Places: Crime and Security in Gated Communities, Washington: Urban Land Institute, [Online] 5 Jan 2014, Available at: http://www.popcenter.org/problems/burglary_home/PDFs/Blakely%26Snyder _1998.pdf

12. Wood, M. D. (2004) Perceptions and experience of antisocial behaviour: findings from the 2003/2004 British Crime Survey. Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, [Online] 5 Jan 2014, Available at: http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/hordsolr/rdsolr4904.pdf

13. Lewisham council (2006) Residential standards, Supplementary planning document, Local development Framework, [Online] 5 Jan 2014, Available at: http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/planning/policy/Documents/Residen tialDevelopmentStandardsSPD.pdf

14. Camden Council (2010) Core Strategy Adaptation, London: Camden council, [Online] 5 Jan 2014, Available at: http://www.camden.gov.uk