Thames Gateway:
Big numbers or big mistake?
Liz Richardson and Christine Whitehead
LSE Housing and LSE London
Monday 25 April 2005
London School of Economics
Beginners Guide
• The Area
-
43 miles long and 20 miles wide
4,600 hectares brownfield land plus scraps, but half in flood plain
TGL includes 10 London Boroughs
-
2.3 m in TGL, up by 13.6% since 1991 over 250 neighbourhoods
ethnic minority population up from 18 to 26% over 10 years
-
London average owner occupation but social renting high in places
house prices way below London average
Investment gaps in social housing to meet standards
-
7 of the 10 are in the most deprived
legacy of industrial past in skills gaps and unemployment levels
-
Good links in some places but serious gaps elsewhere and uncertain
plans
• The Population
• Housing
• Economic base
• Transport
LSE’s work
• Backdrop of Sustainable Communities
Plan
• Commissioned by TGLP and East
London Housing Directors
• No clear identity for sub-region or
agreed vision
• Other sub regions housing strategies in
place
Our goals
•
•
•
•
•
Work out from the city and existing centres
Increase the attractions of the London TG
Use infill sites and conversions
Renovate and modernise existing homes
Avoid ghettoisation of poor and vulnerable
people
• Avoid a ‘big bang, big brother’ approach
• Minimise environmental impact and energy
use
• Value the natural assets
Recommendations
• Start from existing communities
• Advocate up-front investment in physical
and social infrastructure
• Plan for higher density, more mixed use,
more integrated communities
• Build and renovate homes to the highest
possible eco-standards
• Invest in high quality urban design
• Protect and reinstate the natural
environment
Essential measures of success
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Full remediation
Excellent eco-standards
Ambitious recycling, water use and energy targets
Natural landscaping and waterways
Average densities of new development
Diversifying existing council estates
Renting and owning more even
Building new vs. restoring and repairing existing
property
• Integrating new with existing communities
• Attracting young families in essential jobs
Major Issues
1. Scale: the area covered is enormous,
including three regions and dozens of
local authorities and sub-regions as
well as other agencies
•
•
What elements make it logical to treat as
one? Is it simply the vision? The river? – or
are there real economic and social benefits?
Is the governance structure in place or is it a
way of allowing central government to
dominate?
2. Where concentrate development?:
clearly cannot address the whole area
in one – and no suggestion that
should
•
•
There are areas where development can be
brought forward relatively easily BUT are
these low cost/low value possibilities?
Is there a mechanism for evaluating the
relative NET benefits of different locations/
configurations etc. – or are we simply
seeing plans come off the shelf?
3. Impact on Existing Areas: are the
new plans being imposed on an
existing framework to the cost of
other long-run developments?
•
•
•
Existing town centres – how can they
survive?
Regeneration programmes just outside the
area?
Additionality v. diversion?
4. How Does the Existing Population
Benefit?: Concerns about overstretched
social infrastructure and less interest in
maintaining/improving existing units
•
•
•
Decent Homes
S106 inadequate for infrastructure
Timing of benefits
5. Types of Development: emphasis on
numbers; potential for economic
regeneration
•
•
•
•
Small flats
Key workers
Problems of quality and building for the
long term?
Housing rather than economic base?
6. Big Numbers or Big Mistake?
•
•
•
•
Or
Costs – costs per unit of development
particularly high?
Belief in “infinite” economic rent? – too
much expected from land values?
Adverse effect on lower profile but higher
net value developments elsewhere?
Need for big hits early on with longer term
costs?
are we just grumpy, and in one case old,
women?