The writing below was produced as the primary piece of coursework for this 'Urban Lab' design module, and represents a crucial theoretical foundation for my proposal. It is written in an academic style and earned a first-class mark.
1. Introduction
Urban regeneration is a considerably expansive and fluid phenomenon, taking on any which form depending on such context pointers as time, place, or actors involved – even intersecting with conservation, in some cases. Nonetheless, Roberts and Sykes (2008, p.17) provide a baseline definition for urban regeneration as “comprehensive and integrated vision and action which leads to the resolution of urban problems and which seeks to bring about a lasting improvement in the economic, physical, social and environmental condition of an area that has been subject to change”. Bearing that in mind, this report regards London’s Royal Docks; specifically, the Royal Albert Dock (RAD) - upon which continued attempts at regeneration have been made over the past half-century (Brownill, 2018, p.1). A current strategy covering the site is landowner Greater London Authority’s (2022) ‘Opportunity Area Planning Framework’ (OAPF) for the Royal Docks and Beckton Riverside and shall be a key focus for analysis henceforth.
2. Reconciling the OAPF and Regeneration
In the chain of precedence of planning policy, the OAPF sits below the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), London Plan, and Newham Local Plan respectively. It must prove workable in complying with all of these, while achieving its objective of supporting and guiding “emerging development” (p.7) in the opportunity area. This public sector strategy paints its vision for the site as becoming a “vibrant location for culture (including cultural production), business, industry, and known for its high-quality neighbourhoods” (p.11). Rather than penned by or specifically aimed at the proximate existing communities in Newham, there is a focus on bringing in new elements – namely people and investment - to the site. This is indicative as to the nature of regeneration that the OAPF is promoting; exclusively community-led it is not. Nor can it be exclusively private sector-led, as the public sector retains ownership of the site.
Indeed, it is evident that the GLA (2022, p.55) is expecting to be working with a “range” of stakeholders to deliver their vision for the RAD, this mix including fellow public sector agencies, the community, and private developers. A public-private partnership is certainly reminiscent of Canary Wharf: a regenerated docklands upstream along the Thames from the Royals, which has become a “blue print [sic] for future regeneration” (Brownill, 2018, p.3) through its perceived success. Unfortunately, this success has proved disproportionate between developer, the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC), and local community – with the latter failing to benefit from the project (p.5). More dualities arise in the similarity of the ‘Enterprise Zone’ Canary Wharf found itself in during the 1980s, and which the RAD currently finds itself within (p.6) after the 2011 reintroduction of these planning-lite areas to stimulate growth (Tallon, 2021, p.11). It is understandable as to why the GLA may seek a development partner for the site, diverting risk and cost onto the private sector. However, this surely poses the risk for a loss of control by Newham residents over the future of the RAD – and sets the site up for the same kind of failures wrought by previous development partner AFD until their removal by the GLA (Ing, 2022). All this said, it is arguable that the fact that the GLA is working with a more diverse mix of stakeholders than merely the private sector demonstrates a more holistic take on regeneration than a strict public-private partnership.
3. OAPF – Further Analysis
Efficacy of communication is a key point of consideration when appraising publications in which connecting with stakeholders is an objective. In considering the language the GLA (2022) uses throughout the OAPF, it is largely explanatory where it needs to be. Foundational principles shaping the vision are laid out dutifully (pp. 55-79), industry technical jargon is kept to a minimum, and visual aids are employed to consolidate existing data. This is positive – the result is an accessible document, legible to as many stakeholders as possible, including members of the community with limited exposure to planning. However, there are instances of language used in relation to the site’s future being suggestive, rather than directive. Tentative suggestions include amenities that “could be completed by new development”, “opportunities for water-based recreation” (p.185), and a “potential to transform [Royal Albert Way] for walking and cycling” (p.189). Positively, these suggestions represent the implementation of NPPF (MHCLG, 2021) policy, by way of mixed-use communities (p.35) and sustainable mobility (p.30). Unfortunately, such non-committal language does anything but guarantee these inclusions. Instead, a leeway is provided - the inclusion at the discretion of the acting developer, rather than by necessity. In the short-term, the GLA (2022) aims to establish ‘meanwhile uses’ on the currently largely unoccupied site (p.187). This represents efficient use of space and may serve to kickstart vitality amongst the site in terms of footfall. Furthermore, this should intersect with the OAPF’s longer-term design actions for the RAD – an objective being the creation of new streets, which should serve to improve the public space network’s permeability and legibility.
The OAPF makes brief reference to the heritage buildings onsite but does not elaborate as to their plans for these listed assets. This lack of candidness is concerning; until a clear plan is put into place, the future of these buildings may as well hang in the balance.
Per GLA’s vision (p.11), there are signs of a yearning for growth. As the site is situated within an area of high deprivation (Newham Council, 2018, p.7), growth in the form of “an influx of private capital” will pose an inherent risk of gentrification (Smith, 1996, p.2). This is not to say that the OAPF is consciously side-lining Newham’s existing community, but there must be care taken to avoid displacement of residents around the site once new growth takes hold on the RAD.
4. On Alternative, Community-Led Plans
Thus far, this report has identified the need to involve the public in developing a site which fits their needs. It is not as if community-led plans haven’t arisen; after the docks were decommissioned in 1981, a ‘People’s Plan’ was assembled by the Newham Docklands Forum (1983) as a vision including input from local groups, individuals, and trade unions. Its themes heavily contextualise the site as a place of employment and cultural centre for the surrounding community – indeed, the plan was “first and foremost about jobs” (p.4). Besides the push for employment, other recommendations from the community included an access to housing with adequate gardens (p.11), childcare (p.12), and adequate public transport and amenities (p.15). A stance was taken against the proposed airport, the forum arguing that the “docks have more to offer” than merely space (p.20). The People’s Plan was not statutory. Instead, it was simply one proposal ultimately overlooked by a planning inspector in favour of another - the LDDC’s partnership (Brownill, 2018). It may not have been implemented, but it does not mean that community spirit was ousted – Sendra and Fitzpatrick (2020), praise a community-led plan drawn up by the People’s Empowerment Alliance for Custom House (PEACH), covering the eponymous Newham community immediately approximate to the RAD.
5. Conclusions
Codifying the above findings to guide the RAD’s continued development, the following recommendations are found:
Employ holistic regeneration. The public sector should retain primary control of the RAD, the recipient of profit – which can be reinvested in the community. A mix of fellow stakeholders should steer the development.
Engage communities, with reference to the PEACH plan, to produce a development to fit their needs.
Regard the RAD as an employment site for the London Borough of Newham, as per the People’s Plan. This will, in turn, curtail gentrification by tying the RAD with the surrounding areas.
Implement the virtues of the OAPF: these being mixed uses, facilitation of sustainable mobility, scope for vitality, permeability, and legibility.
Word count: 1283
Bibliography
Brownill, S. (2018) ‘The Song Remains the Same: Regeneration Narratives in the Royal Docks’, in Duman, A. et al (eds.) Regeneration songs: sounds of investment and loss from East London. London: Repeater Books, pp. 69-87.
Greater London Authority (2022) Royal Docks and Beckton Riverside opportunity area planning framework consultation draft 2022. Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/rdbr_oapf_consultation_draft.pdf (Accessed: 24/10/2022).
Ing, W. (2022) Developer kicked off Farrells’ £1bn Royal Docks project. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/developer-kicked-off-farrells-1bn-royal-docks-project (Accessed: 22/10/2022).
Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2021) National Planning Policy Framework. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005759/NPPF_July_2021.pdf (Accessed: 24/10/2022).
Newham Council (2018) Newham local plan 2018: a 15 year plan looking ahead to 2033. Available at: https://www.newham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1111/newham-local-plan-2018-pdf- (Accessed: 23/10/2022).
Newham Docklands Forum (1983) The people’s plan for the Royal Docks. London: Garden House Press.
Roberts, P. and Sykes, H. (2008) Urban regeneration: a handbook. London: SAGE Publications.
Sendra, P. and Fitzpatrick, D. (2020) Community-led regeneration: a toolkit for residents and planners. London: UCL Press, pp. 50-54.
Smith, N. (1996) The new frontier: gentrification and the revanchist city. London: Routledge.
Tallon, A. (2021) Urban regeneration in the UK. 3rd edn. London: Routledge.
Comments