Surrey Canal – a case study of urban regeneration
The Surrey Canal regeneration scheme aims to comprehensively transform a predominantly industrial area around, and including, Millwall football stadium in North West Lewisham (bordering the Borough of Southwark), South East London into a new place in the capital. The scheme will include:
A new station Surrey Canal on the Overground Line New bus routes 2400 homes across five communities within the scheme 2000 new jobs An improved setting for Millwall FC New facilities for the Millwall Community Scheme An iconic local and regional indoor sports complex A 150-bed hotel with conferencing facilities A major new church to seat a 1200-strong congregation A creative industries quarter A health complex specialising in sports injury and community care Improved permeability including walking and cycling links A business incubation centre Creche and nursery An improved park at Bridgehouse Meadows.
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
Hall and Barratt (2012, 148 cited in Tallon: 2013, 8) summarise the concerns of contemporary urban regeneration as:
Physical environment Quality of life Social welfare Economic prospects Governance.
The theory is that improvements in each of these areas ‘combine to secure the upward trajectory of a locality in a long- term and sustainable manner’ (Tallon: 2013, 5).
This report will analyse the Surrey Canal regeneration scheme in each of these five areas. However, this report will not be able to assess the long-term sustainability outcomes of this regeneration scheme because the development only received planning permission in 2012; is in the early stages of construction and is expected to take 15 years to complete. The report will however attempt to conclude by making some informed judgments on whether the scheme will be likely to create, and contribute to, a socially sustainable society (Manzi et al: 2010) at a local, regional and national level.
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
How the scheme has been informed by policy
Lewisham The Surrey Canal site is identified for significant mixed-use development in the London Borough of Lewisham Development Framework Core Strategy, Submission Version, October 2010. The site is recognised by Lewisham as a major regeneration opportunity to create new jobs, homes and community facilities, new sporting facilities, an improved setting for Millwall Football Club Stadium, new linkages and new publicly accessible open spaces in a safe and welcoming environment.
Lewisham’s Core Strategy has outlined a number of areas expected to significantly impact on the borough up to 2026. They are: Housing provision; growing the local economy, and building a sustainable community. The council aims to implement regeneration by securing sustainable provision of appropriate accomodation through the Lewisham Housing Strategy and economic growth through the Economic Development Business Plan. In addition, Lewisham’s Physical Activity, Sport and Leisure Strategy outlines an aim to bring together different stakeholders in the borough to ensure adequate provision of facilities in the borough.
Greater London Authority The London Plan identifies the Mayor’s vision and objectives for ensuring sustainable growth for London, while, Surrey Canal comes under the London Plan’s Lewisham-Catford-New Cross Opportunity Area. In addition, the Mayor’s Economic Development and Housing Strategies encompass the main regeneration and sustainable community development policy for London.
The London Plan promotes mixed-use development, maximizing potential of previously developed sites. It supports the provision of high-quality publicly-accessible open space and play space, appropriate community provision and the encouragement of the tourism and leisure sectors. It also promotes the creation of local employment in developments and the promotion of skills training and other initiatives to enable this. The rhetoric of the London Housing Strategy is about promoting opportunity and a real choice of home for all Londoners, in a range of tenures.
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
National Policy The site application was submitted under the previous national policy framework and lists the following policies as being relevant to the scheme:
PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS1 Supplement: Planning and Climate Change; PPS3: Housing; PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth; PPS5: Planning and the Historic Environment; PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation; PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste and Management; PPG13: Transport; PPG17: Open Space, Sport and Recreation; PPS22: Renewable Energy; PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control, PPG24: Planning and Noise; and, PPS25: Development and Flood Risk.
The Renewal Regeneration Statement states that ‘although policy under the newly formed government is still emerging, several key themes have been outlined that will of significance to the future of urban regeneration and sustainable community development, including:
Localism, giving increased freedom for local authorities and partners to define their own visions and priorities for their area, alongside changes to financial arrangements to allow them to benefit from development, and new mechanisms to invest in infrastructure to support development. Re-balancing the economy to achieve growth in underperforming areas Encouraging enterprise in areas dependent on public sector employment and therefore vulnerable to public sector cuts Reforming welfare to encourage employment and, in the longer term, the introduction of a universal credit to simplify the benefit system and improve work incentives Enabling communities and residents to help themselves and each other’ (Renewal: 2011, 15).
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
The socio-economic context
Deprivation in the Surrey Canal area (DCLG: 2007).
The area has a high number of people aged under 16, a large Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic population, and a low proportion of residents with higher education qualifications, while crime rates are relatively high (ONS: 2011), with unemployment and worklessness being problems at the local level.
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
Health deprivation in the Surrey Canal area (DCLG: 2007).
New Cross ward has a high level of deprivation, mortality rates and shorter life expectancy (ONS: 2011), with the need for better services involving diet and exercise for the whole family (Renewal: 2011, 12-13).
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
Physical environment
‘Urban regeneration has attempted to improve the built environment, concerns having now embraced environmental sustainability’ (Hall and Barratt: 2012, 148 cited in Tallon: 2013, 8).
The site sits on 10.5 hectares of previously developed land and includes several industrial and business estates, alongside the Millwall footfabll stadium and the Lions Centre. The local area lacks investment and is subsequently of poor asthetic quality.
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
Improving the built environment Most of the area is inaccessible to the public, except on match days, and to the few people working in warehouses along Surrey Canal Road. However, the scheme was envisaged by developer’s Renewal when they heard of the infrastructure improvements coming to the area in the form of the new Surrey Canal Overground line station. The developers Renewal state that the development will help in:
Breaking down community severance, reconnecting the area through new walking routes and high quality public realm, creating new places for local people and setting a new benchmark for quality publically accessible open space in the area (Renewal: 2011, 2).
The design of the scheme has been shortlisted for the NLA awards and planning awards in recent years. It also comes highly recommended by CABE and there is a Design Quality Review Team who will continue to review designs as the scheme progresses.
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
Lewisham Council have noted that the proposals ‘would provide more activity and a much greater degree of natural surveillance of public places’ (2012, 178), which should help to lower crime in the area and increase social cohesion. They also recognise that improved accessibility connected with the scheme will help local people to access jobs and services in the surrounding area.
Embracing environmental sustainability With regards to conserving energy, materials, water and other resources, Surrey Canal will conform to Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 and create, and use, a district combined-heat-and-power network by adapting the nearby incinerator. The scheme will also promote sustainable forms of transport by catering for a low number of cars (Surrey Canal is already a heavily- congested road at peak times); providing for cycle parking, car clubs, electric vehicle charging and greater permeability for pedestrians and cyclists, and significantly increasing public transport provision.
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
Quality of life
‘Urban regeneration has sought to improve the physical living conditions, or local cultural activities, or facilities for particular social groups’ (Hall and Barratt: 2012, 148 cited in Tallon: 2013, 8).
Improving physical living conditions Along with the vast improvements to the public realm and the creation of five communities within Surrey Canal, the scheme will also provide commercial, health and community facilities, including a 1200-person church with offices, a children's area, cafe, meeting rooms, rehearsal space and library. This development will no doubt improve the quality of life for people who live nearby in the local area, as well for the people who live within the scheme itself.
Local cultural activities – a new ‘Sports Village’ The vision stated by the developers is to create a fully self-contained community. Renewal also envisages Surrey Canal becoming a destination in its own right by positioning the area as a ‘sports village’ with ‘a regionally important cluster of new sports venues and training facilities adding to the existing New Den and Lions Centre to create a new high profile sports destination for the Capital’ (Renewal: 2011, 1). This is likely to further benefit the quality of life of existing local and future residents, particularly as there are so many young people in the area and people with poor health who could benefit from living more active lives.
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
Social welfare
‘Urban regeneration has endeavored to improve the provision of basic social services in certain areas and for certain populations’ (Hall and Barratt: 2012, 148 cited in Tallon: 2013, 8).
The scheme will improve social welfare provision through building one of the five communities alongside a health centre. The increased sports facilities, which will be run by a non-profit organisation, will also be beneficial to nearby residents, schools, colleges and universities. And the 1200-person church will be housed within a building providing wider community space and facilities. Increased public transport provision should also help meet people’s basic needs by making it easier for them to access services and work opportunities. Further to this, the developers will be investing £400,000 in a training and job brokerage programme to ensure local residents benefit from construction and operational job opportunities connected with the scheme. The £400,000 offered to fund this employment programme is below the £850,000 contribution that the guidance in the Planning Obligations SPD says is required for a scheme of this profile. However, Lewisham council decided that the offer of £400,000 is acceptable in light of financial viability issues and the overall mitigation package being paid by Renewal (2012, 177), which included a signification contribution to the new Surrey Canal Overground line station.
Affordable housing Another fundamental aspect of social welfare is providing affordable and social rent housing for people who are priced out of market alternatives. In total, the scheme will provide 2400 homes across up to 200,000 sq. m of residential floor space. However, contrary to Renewal’s statement about the importance of affordable housing for building sustainable communities (Renewal: 2012, 29), the scheme itself will only provide 12% affordable housing (by habitable rooms), even though there is great housing need in London (IPPR, 2012).
The developer says that a high proportion of socially-rented housing in the surroundings means it’s better to aim for a more balanced community on the site, creating a ‘living and working community’ of around 4500 residents (Renewal: 2011, 1-29) – currently, 54% of housing in New Cross is social rent tenure (ONS: 2011). However, only 6% of existing local residents are currently claiming Job Seekers Allowance, so New Cross is already very much a ‘living and working’
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
community, with many of those claiming benefits being single parents, with 40% of households with dependent children having a single parent and 35% having no parent in employment (Lewisham: 2011). This communicates that the scheme will not necessarily create a more balanced community in terms of the number of people working.
With regards to creating a ‘balanced’ sustainable community at Surrey Canal, Manzi (2010, 41) has identified the trend of Residential Social Landlords in choosing those tenants for social rent properties who are less-likely to disrupt other residents within mixed-tenure communities. He therefore argues that the mixed-community approach carries the ‘implicit commitment to the social control of neighbourhoods’ and does not necessarily provide housing for those most in housing need. This claim for ‘balancing’ the community has also meant that of the affordable housing that Renewal will be providing, only 25-27% will have to be social rent, with the remainder providing intermediate accommodation such as shared ownership for example, due to the high percentage of social rent housing already in the area.
The tenure split for the scheme has been calculated by habitable rooms. Initially, it appears Renewal were aiming for between 80%-100% being private dwellings (Renewal B, 2011). However, the council have since negotiated the 12% affordable housing provision and have not been able to set it higher due to the developer’s financial viability constraints. However, because the scheme is likely to take 15 years to complete, the council are going to assess if the affordable housing provisions can be increased up to as much as 50%, depending on what the economy is doing, every two years (Lewisham: 2011).
It is a positive step that Lewisham Council have built-in an ongoing assessment of affordable housing and financial viability, as a condition of planning consent, to ensure the development does as much as it can to meet housing need. The council themselves are restricted by national funding changes for affordable housing which mean there is no longer any funding for social rent housing (Bowie: 2012). Recent policy changes also indicate that social rent housing can instead be provided as affordable rent housing at up to 80% market value (London Plan: 2011 – September 2013 revisions). It is therefore highly questionable if this scheme will have much impact at all on meeting urgent housing need both locally and across London. This implies that reforms must occur at a national and regional London-wide level if there is any hope of meeting increasing housing need and creating a sustainable society. Developers usually assess the viability of a scheme based on making a 20% profit, however because of the high cost of land in London this tends to
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
leave little else for affordable housing provision. The lack of regulation on land value appreciation and recent changes in policy, together with the current dependence on private investment and lack of public funding into housing provision makes the long-term positive impacts of regeneration schemes, such as this one, unsustainable.
Family and accessible housing Renewal state that of the residential accommodation, between 85% and 90% of the units will be 1 and 2-bedroom properties, with only 10-15% being 3 and 4-bedroom units (Renewal B: 2011) – there is a tendency for private developers to favour 1 and 2-bedroom properties because a higher number of units overall is likely to increase their profit margins. The Mayor of London expressed that he was not happy with such a low-level of larger units suitable for family housing (Lewisham: 2011). Further to this, even though over 70% of accommodation in the New Cross ward is in the form of flats (Census 2011), it is not possible to find any plans for family houses to be incorporated into the scheme. However, the scheme’s Development Specification document (Renewal B: 2011, 8) states that ‘residential uses at ground floor level will be provided as flats or as maisonettes’. It is questionable whether this is sufficient given family housing need in London (Bowie: 2010). However, the need for high-density housing is evident from the amount of money that needs to be spent on supporting infrastructure to make this scheme viable, so this could be making it more challenging to provide more family housing. The development will provide all accommodation at Lifetime Homes Standards and 10% will be wheelchair accessible.
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
Economic prospects
‘Urban regeneration has sought to enhance the employment prospects for deprived groups and areas through job creation or through education and training programmes’ (Hall and Barratt: 2012, 148 cited in Tallon: 2013, 8).
A sports-led regeneration strategy to create a visitor destination Renewal’s economic strategy seems to be underpinned by a sports-led regeneration strategy, inspired by the Olympics and its regeneration of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. They want to transform Surrey Canal into a visitor destination. This is a sensible aim that should help to make a significant difference to the sustainability of North Lewisham. This is because the Borough of Lewisham has the third smallest economy in London (Lewisham: 2012) with most of its deprivation situated within the north of the borough. Renewal’s Environmental Statement identifies £50m a year being generated from additional employees and residents on the site, while visitors to the sporting facilities will contribute even more (Renewal: 2011).
Opportunities for local people Renewal state that this approach, together with environmental and infrastructural changes, will help to get people into work ‘by providing good opportunities for local residents to upgrade their skills base and level of qualification attainment, addressing long-term unemployment and economic inactivity’ (Renewal: 2011, 21). A concern here however is the reliance on the private sector to provide these job opportunities.
Dependence on the private sector In an email interview with Renewal the Communications Director Jordana Malik told me that their ‘primary objective to ensure a successful project is to secure exciting occupiers for the scheme which will help to create the new place and provide footfall across the whole development.’ She continued, ‘To ensure this, we have extensively researched each type of use across the scheme and have targeted end users who will bring something new and exciting to the development.’ However, what happens if there is another recession? Will this mean that locals will not benefit from job opportunities? This therefore highlights that this approach is only possible in growing economies where people want to invest - a common barrier to implementing regeneration schemes in less profitable areas outside of London.
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
An entrepreneurial approach to community empowerment Further to the above, there have been many critiques to the entrepreneurial approach to community empowerment that aims to help people help themselves. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Secretary for the Environment Michael Hesseltine were advocates of this approach. Influenced by the US model of public-private partnerships to deliver urban renewal programmes, they adopted a top-down government, free market, property-led, rather than planning-led, approach that aimed to redevelop the urban fabric of neighbourhoods that had declined following the move away from a manufacturing-led economy (Evans & Jones: 2008, 2). They were successful in doing this. However, the final evaluation of the grant regimes noted that though they were successful in attracting investment, they ‘did not address the basic causes of poor regional or local growth’ (Price Waterhouse: 1993, 63 cited in Cullingworth & Nadin: 2006, 362). However, in the current context, the new planning obligations framework should help to mitigate this by, for example, providing funding for an employment support programme. Saying this, it could be argued that more fundamental reforms are needed to really ‘help people help themselves’ by sufficiently funding and planning public services and infrastructure on a national, regional and local scale.
The move from manufacturing to a service-led economy Renewal highlight how the re-branding of place within North Lewisham will help to attract growth sectors. ‘Culture, arts and tourism are particularly beneficial to restricting industrial areas that are seeking to diversify their economic bases, environmental benefits (new facilities, creative use of redundant space and buildings and improved infrastructure) and image change (lively, animated and cosmopolitan ambiance) and can positively alter outside negative mental maps of post-industrial areas and help re-position them as more attractive places for inward investment’ (Renewal: 201, 22- 23). This move away from manufacturing towards providing services is part of a wider move since the 1970s away from production to a consumption-led economy. In relation to this Hall has argued that despite improvements to built environments and the reputation of many areas, this has not done a great deal to help the long-term unemployed who lost their opportunity to work with the shift from a manufacturing to a service-led economy, in order for the nation to be competitive on a global scale. Poverty and disadvantage therefore remain, often passing from generation to generation. 'If urban regeneration is to be considered successful, these problems will have to be addressed' (Hall: 2006, 75).
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
Governance
‘There has been a shift from city government to city governance within urban regeneration, and public policy more generally, which is highlighted by the rise in importance of partnership, community engagement and multiple stakeholders in the process and delivery of urban regeneration’ (Hall and Barratt: 2012, 148 cited in Tallon: 2013, 8).
Private sector-led partnership Renewal state that ‘a successful regeneration will need to be supported by public services and community and voluntary groups’. They continue ‘we can enable this be providing a forum for these to operate’ (Renewal: 2011, 23). Given the sporting heritage of the area, Renewal wanted to develop and extend the sporting offer. In close partnership with the London Borough of Lewisham they approached Sport England, and jointly commissioned a Needs and Evidence based report for sport. They found that the report clearly showed that there is little provision of sporting facilities in the north of the borough’ (Renewal C, 2011). They also worked closely with the stakeholders listed below but they, as a private developer, were the driving force.
Multiple stakeholders
Local residents Sport England Hillsong church Local businesses Lewisham Thunder basketball Environment Agency Local Schools club Millwall Community Scheme London Borough of Lewisham English Table Tennis Millwall Football Club London Borough of Association Transport for London Southwark Fusion Table Tennis Club Greater London Authority.
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
Community engagement As well as local residents, Renewal identified the Millwall F.C. fans, young people and faith groups as important sectors of the community to engage with. Overall, they promoted the scheme to 76,074 community members and directly spoke to approximately 4,825 people through exhibitions, meetings, workshops and www.surreycanal.com (Renewal D, 2011: 2).
Renewal state that consultation has adapted which sports are provided for at Surrey Canal; how to increase job opportunities for the local community and what should be should be included in a revitalised park at Bridgehouse Meadows. Community consultation also demonstrated the huge growth in demand for religious facilities in the area.
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
Securing the upward trajectory of the locality in a long-term and sustainable manner?
Renewal imply that they were informed by best practice within regeneration by stating, ‘In the 1980s and 90s the comprehensive redevelopment programme for the Docklands had completely transformed this disused, rundown, decaying area of the old London Docks, clearly illustrating the impact that bold design, high quality materials, a clear vision and unshakeable sense of purpose could achieve. The effect that the DLR and Jubilee Line subsequently had on the regeneration of this area and beyond was confirmation of the huge impact that infrastructural improvements can have on the renewal and revival of an area’ (Renewal C: 2011, 8)
It is suprising that the Docklands regeneration is mentioned because it has been widely-critiqued (Nadin & Cullingworth: 2006) as pump-priming profit; physically regenerating place but not being informed by, or increasing quality of life for, local residents. The Olympic regeneration scheme is perhaps the most relevant example referred to by Renewal, with the scheme’s focus on redeveloping an industrial area and creating a new community based around sport facilities, while helping to increase access to opportunities and resources for local residents. However, that scheme benefitted from a significant amount of public investment.
The trend of regeneration promoting gentrification The Surrey Canal scheme reinforces Tallon’s (2013, 275) argument that the thematic approaches to urban regeneration in the UK are strongly set in the context of urban sustainability and are based on retail, housing and culture. He argues that this approach has emerged from a context of city competitiveness, social inclusion and the shift to new forms of governance associated with entrepreneurialism and the increased role of communities. However, he argues that, 'many projects centred on retail, housing and culture projects have promoted trends towards the commercial and residential gentrification of city centres and inner cities’ (Smith: 2002; Lees et al: 2008 cited in Tallon: 2013, 275).
Gentrification is defined as ‘the process by which the poor and working class neighbourhoods in the inner city are refurbished by an influx of private capital and middle class homebuyers’ (Tallon: 2013, 210). Tallon suggests that the winners of the gentrification process are local government, initial owners of property, incoming owner-occupiers, developers and speculators, while the losers are the less well-off, who often, in the long-term, lose affordable housing, experience increased homelessness and see further housing demand pressures on surrounding poor areas, among other effects.
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
A concern is that once the Surrey Canal scheme is near to completion, there will be more interest from developers looking to cash-in on the increasing investment in the area. This could lead to many nearby social housing estates being re-developed and, due to recent changes in policy, many social rent tenants who have been in the community for years, may be displaced. If this indeed occurs, it will lead to the loss of social diversity and will mean that this regeneration scheme has, in fact, been the impetus to worsening the quality of life for local residents, given that over 50% are currently housed within social rent properties.
A strong regeneration scheme operating in a limiting policy and funding framework Despite noting the downfalls of many contemporary regeneration schemes, compared with the proposals for nearby Convoy’s Wharf and other large-scale London regeneration projects, the Surrey Canal scheme is certainly far better at being informed by local heritage and need, with its sports focus, together with the multi-faith centre and heathcare element, aiding the development of a sustainable community.
The case study demonstrates that the local community were consulted in the planning process and are predominantly in support of the development. There is no doubt that the scheme is providing a signification amount of new and sustainable infrastructure, in addition to housing, and will do wonders for North Lewisham’s economy, as well as improve the quality of life for many of the area’s residents, by not only providing many facilities but also through creating a more inviting and accessible link between New Cross and Bermondsey. But for those existing households whose place in the local community is within social rent housing, there are greater forces at work.
This is because the scheme is unlikely to meet urgent housing need on a meaningful scale, with only 77 of 2400 homes currently being allocated to social rent provision, and even they may end-up being affordable rent homes at up to 80% market value due to recent changes in national and regional policy. It is therefore important to note that the wider socio-economic context and policy framework can have a huge impact on the potential of regeneration schemes.
A common problem with regeneration is that it focuses on communities that have become deprived due to a society that is not functioning properly for one reason or another. Therefore, although neighbourhood-based, locally-specific, and - informed, programmes, such as this one, are vital to regenerate areas, it is a losing battle if the forces that created large pockets of deprivation in the first place are not also addressed. To create long-lasting sustainable communities, regeneration schemes must be developed, and exist within, a framework that supports and encourages sustainable
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
development and sustainable communities for the benefit of all, through creating a better functioning society on a local, regional and national level, where everyone has a role to play within it.
For example, many local people may not benefit from the service sector jobs that the scheme will create. This is because with the jobs market being so bad currently, many graduates, including even PhD graduates, end-up using their communication skills by working in retail and cafes and so on. This means that in order to provide for those with a lower skills base in the short-term, manufacturing and construction jobs may in fact be better suited, and in the long- term, a more holistic approach must be taken on a national scale to reform the economy and provide jobs, and sufficient publically-funded infrastructure and services, for all people within society.
We can conclude from this case study that within the present policy context, there is an over-reliance on the private sector to lead development and investment. This is not sustainable on an ongoing basis because it can have detrimental effects. In this case, it has meant that although 2400 homes are being built, only a very small number currently look like they will be ‘affordable.’ This is because with national and regional planning policy’s focus on financial viability and lack of available public funding, the short-term needs of the economy have been placed above the needs of people and any hope of creating a sustainable society in the long-term.
The trend of large regeneration schemes providing less truly affordable housing will lead to more overcrowding, more people becoming homeless, worse public health, less people being able to work and more people claiming from the state. This will have a negative effect on the economy as a whole and the sustainability of our society. In the long-term, it will lead to the existence of more deprived areas in society needing ‘regeneration’: the cycle will continue and the slums will grow.
It is important to note that this is why the planning system was introduced in the first place: due to the urban sprawl, poor public health and high unemployment that emerged from the market-led economy of the industrial revolution, the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act (along with the welfare state) was introduced following the Second World War to ensure the long-term sustainability of society, and that development meets not only economic need, but social and environmental need as well.
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
Bibliography
Bowie, D (2012) Strategic planning interventions in the post-recession period; a London case study – Failures of governance and preconditions for a new model. Regional Studies Association Winter Conference.
Bowie, D. (2010) Politics, Planning and Homes in a World City. Oxon & New York. Routledge.
Cullingworth, B. & Nadin, V. (2006) Town and Country Planning in the UK. Fourteenth edition. Oxon & New York Routledge
Department of Communities and Local Government (2007) Indices of Multiple Deprivation in the UK
Evans, J. & Jones, P. (2008) Urban Regeneration in the UK. London, California, New Delhi & Singapore. SAGE
IPPR (2012) Affordable Capital? Housing in London. Available at: http://www.ippr.org/publications/55/9064/affordable- capital-housing-in-london [Accessed on 25 March 2014]
London Borough of Lewisham (2012) Local Economic Assessment. Available at: http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/mayorandcouncil/aboutthecouncil/strategies/Documents/LocalEconomicAssessment201 2.pdf [Accessed on 28 March 2014]
London Borough of Lewisham (2011) Strategic Plannng Committee, 13 October 2011. Available at: http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/files/EC84CCA47D1D5879E311F89855F15BFF/pdf/DC_11_76357_X- Committee_Report_13th_October_2011_Pt_1-139123.pdf [Accessed on 29 March 2014)
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
London Borough of Lewisham (2010) Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy, Submission Version, October 2010. Available at: https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/planning/policy/Documents/CoreStrategySubmissionVersion.pdf [Accessed on 22 March 2014]
Manzi, T. et al (2010) Social Sustainability in Urban Areas: communities, connectivity and the urban fabric. Earthscan, London & Washington
Office for National Statistics (2011) 2011 Census profile. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011- census/population-and-household-estimates-for-wards-and-output-areas-in-england-and-wales/index.html [Accessed on 22 March 2014]
Renewal (Undated) Surrey Canal Regeneration website. Available at: http://www.surreycanal.com/ [Accessed on 22 March 2014]
Renewal (2011) Regeneration Statement. Available at: http://www.surreycanal.com/docs/Feb%202011/3.01%20Supporting%20Reports%20(A4)/4%20Regeneration%20Stateme nt.pdf [Accessed on 28 March 2014]
Renewal B (2011) Development Specification. Available at: http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online- applications/files/B036E61D99D37F2E2FE95E6CDC5B0A0B/pdf/DC_11_76357_X-Development_Specification-140988.pdf [Accessed on 29 March 2014]
Renewal C (2011) Design and Access Statement. Available at: http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online- applications/files/17FC6EF3726B280A9B54D7E88E5A32E2/pdf/DC_11_76357_X-Design_and_Access_Statement_Pt_1- 151581.pdf [Accessed on 29 March 2014]
Renewal D (2011) Statement of Community Engagement. Available at: http://www.surreycanal.com/docs/Feb%202011/3.01%20Supporting%20Reports%20(A4)/3%20Statement%20of%20comm unity%20engagement.pdf [Accessed on 28 March 2014]
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/
Tallon, A. (2013) Urban Regeneration in the UK. Second edition. Oxon and New York. Routledge.
All images are sourced from the Renewal website and planning application documents.
Tessa Gooding: http://freethinker85.wordpress.com/