Monday 25 April 2005 London School of Economics

1. Thames Gateway: Big numbers or big mistake?Liz Richardson and Christine WhiteheadLSE Housing and LSE London Monday 25 April 2005 London School of Economics

2. 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 • The Population • 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 • Housing • London average owner occupation but social renting high in places • house prices way below London average • Investment gaps in social housing to meet standards • Economic base • 7 of the 10 are in the most deprived • legacy of industrial past in skills gaps and unemployment levels • Transport • Good links in some places but serious gaps elsewhere and uncertain plans

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Major Issues • 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?

8. 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?

9. 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?

10. 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

11. 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?

12. Big Numbers or Big Mistake? • 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? Or are we just grumpy, and in one case old, women?