The Duty of Care to Design Social Inclusiveness

THE DUTY OF CARE TO DESIGN SOCIAL INCLUSIVENESS Barking Riverside; the exploration of Opportunity Areas and their socioeconomic impacts on existing communities.

JANUARY 15, 2020 ATTA-UL-KARIM AHMED 14012695

Introduction London is growing at an unprecedented rate with large scale development of all forms, which the question arises; do we build up or out? Urban regeneration of brownfield sites has been the main agenda of the Mayor of London. The Greater London Authority has designated numerous Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks (OAPF) to accommodate housing schemes and employment wharfs in the east end of London 1. A study conducted in 2011 illustrated that Greater London is highly urbanised. The “built-up area” classification (a conurbation of built infrastructure of varying scales) that GLA refers to constructed land, stated that approximately 85% of the capital is urban 2. Therefore, there is extraordinarily little opportunity to utilise green infrastructure sites; such as; parks and greenfield sites for development of both commercial and private dwellings. While the allocations of brownfield developments have been a focus of intensifying regeneration schemes, these sites alone are incapable of implementing London’s housing shortage. The GLA has classified 46 OAPF sites that enable a minimum of 300,000 homes to be constructed by 2050. However, it is estimated by GLA that 1.5 million homes need to be constructed to accommodate the exponential increase of population 3. Therefore, 50,000 homes need to be constructed every year until 2050 4. These developments will apply long-term strain on the public infrastructure and the existing population.

This capitalist approach of privatising large areas of land for regeneration schemes through the private sector means that the that GLA is taking an unsustainable route of tackling social deprivation. The failure in the duty of care does not simply fall onto the architect, however there is a lack of legislation that encourages inclusive growth in regeneration schemes beyond Section 106 5. This is apparent in the East End of London where multitudes of social problems are incurrence within existing communities. The regeneration schemes are often superficially treating some of the social symptoms but is not dealing with the root of the problems i.e. deprivation. This report will outline unseen socio-economic impacts on business and existing communities where designated OPAFs mask existing problems in the east end by specifically investigating Barking Riverside.

Barking and Dagenham is currently under transition from the Essex Design Guide to the New London Plan outlined

by GLA 6. Barking and Dagenham is the site of the largest regeneration scheme in Europe; the London Riverside Project. The London borough of Barking and Dagenham is an economic master planned that aims to increase the number of jobs from 0.4 jobs to 0.46 working age citizen 7. This delivered through the investment of planned regenerations schemes, such as; the Barking Wharf by constructing higher density employment areas and integrating flexible workspaces. These regeneration schemes in the borough have marketed their designs to increase social wealth by bring new life into the borough. However, these regenerations schemes fail to accommodate on going social issues in Barking and Dagenham.

“So in cities today we must think beyond the design of the buildings and circulation systems. We must establish volumes of space that are in scale with the needs of the present time and defined by means which in harmony with modern technology. These volumes of space must be infused with a spirit which is generated by architectural forms.

In this way richness and variety can be established in the city, and through cumulative effect of various kinds of association with the different parts of the city, its citizens may build loyalty to it.” 8 Edmund bacon states in his book Design of Cities that housing and the need for the public design should reflect the innovation, technology and fabric of the city. The modern city of today has a unique range of topologies that interact with one another. This is most evident in areas of Central London, such as; Liverpool Street. Where different housing and land ownership conflict with how certain developments take form. However, the necessity of such topology should not appear needlessly in Barking and Dagenham. The approach set out by the mayor to develop 1.5 million homes in London in order maintain London’s growth lead to a failure of integration both physically and socially. This approach is deeply rooted into the government due to the Neoliberalist movement that occurred in the 1980’s whilst Margret Thatcher was in power. London’s class divide is one shaped by the influx of capital from around the world.

The capital is becoming an ever increasingly unaffordable, costing upwards of £1.2 million 9 for an average flat. The city has become fully post-industrial, as the number of working-class citizens is have decreased to one in ten people.

This pragmatic issue has been also witnessed through the London Riots which occurred in 2014. The duty of care that architects should provide needs to reflect the necessity of their designs in its context. The lack of legislation, in providing inclusive designs and a pressure to construct homes by GLA has resulted in a series of failures that inhibit social and economic growth to existing communities.

GLA Report: City in the East Briefing Future of London: Delivering Infill Development - A London 2050 briefing paper Future of London: Delivering Infill Development - A London 2050 briefing paper 4 Future of London: Delivering Infill Development - A London 2050 briefing paper 5 https://www.local.gov.uk/pas/pas-topics/infrastructure/s106-obligations-overview 6 https://www.essexdesignguide.co.uk/about/history-of-the-essex-design-guide/ 7 The London borough of Barking & Dagenham: Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2019 8 Edmund Bacon, Design of Cities 9 https://www.foxtons.co.uk/living-in/central-london/house-prices/ 1

2 3

London Overview

Map illustrating 14 designated OP Hubs (Red Dots) and OAPF sites (Light Grey) across of London

The total population of London is approximately 9,176,530 10, as the city expands the demand for various infrastructure increases. There is a reasonable scope to develop affordable and commercial homes in poorly utilised land and provide the necessary improvements to public infrastructure (i.e. school, hospitals, care homes, libraries, community centres and public space). The City in The East master plan initiated by the previous mayor of London, Boris Johnson aims to transform the Thames into a gateway for London for industrial, commercial and economic development. Location, such as; Barking Riverside are key infrastructure hubs that will provide transport, leisure and housing for majority of the East London. However, the shift from the Victorian houses to skyscrapers means that a high density of the population living in the city centre. An important distinction is that these new high-density developments are procured through the new London plan, where the old developments are predominately privately rented. The Private Rented Sector has grown substantially; fuelled by consumer demand in central London, changes to tenancy laws and the introduction to buy-to-let mortgages schemes. This has caused a number of issues where owner occupation in the developing areas become harder to attain, especially in borough such as; Barking and Dagenham.

The current London Plan aims to build up and not out, resulting in an intensification of housing units being erected.

Over 541 tall buildings are under planning with 121 of them in construction as of 2019 11. To put into perspective, the central population of London is almost equivalent of the total population living in the outskirts of London. The current population of inner London is 3,673,800 and the population of outer London is 5,432,277 12. Furthermore, the area to population density varies greatly; inner London has a population of 101.2 per hector, and outer London has a population of 39.4 per hector. This means that the centre has more than twice the density of outer London. This modernist high-density living has already accumulated strain in varies sector of London, where public space and green infrastructure are lacking for community engagements and inclusive growth. Furthermore, the projected population increase for outer London is 4,536,953 compared to inner London which is 6,671,295.

10 11 12

GLA Population Index: land, area and population index The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/news/2019-year-tall-building-london-set-record-number-skyscrapers/ GLA Population Index: land, area and population index

However, London is not simply developing unutilised brownfield sites, but is also freeing up industrial land for Strategic Industrial Locations. Manufacturing and production communities such as; Barking and Dagenham rely on industrial jobs. The E5 Policy that is legislated through the New Draft London Plan currently states how and what needs to be protected and what should be considered in delivering SILs by local authorities. 13 Key industrial businesses that are located in the south of Barking and Dagenham are under threat due to the allocation of SILs through the Roding Made Creative Enterprise Zone in Barking and Dagenham Action Plan. Whilst this Creative Enterprises is a justification to increase the range of employment sectors in the borough, though controversially results in the loss jobs even if short term. The majority of employment Wharfs that are being proposed are financial sector orientated and only 20% is dedicated to the Creative Enterprise scheme 14. Therefore, the current employment sector which the thousands of residents rely on will not be able to adapt to the new set of financial economy that the borough is now pursuing. With a constrain infrastructure in adult Education, the lack of personal development opportunities results in the gentrification of the native population in the borough. The designation of Strategic Industrial Land at Dagenham Docks is necessary for the development and expansion to business such as Ford. Forfeiting too much industrial land will change the borough into a post-industrial state, which will impact employment rate for native residents and become too dependent on financial and business services.

Map of Creekmouth designations of SIL and numerous financial and creative employment hubs

13 14

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/draft-new-london-plan/chapter-6-economy/policy-e5-strategic-industrial-locations-sil Roding Made Creative Enterprise Zone in Barking and Dagenham Action Plan

The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham The London borough of Barking and Dagenham was formed in 1965 by the London Government Act of 1963. The borough was once the ancient parish of Essex which hosts numerous listed buildings such as; the Barking Abbey (World Heritage Site), Valance House Museum (Grade 2 Listed Building) and Barking Town Hall (Grade 2 Listed Building) 15. Barking and Dagenham is known for its fishing and ship construction manufacturing during the early 18th century. Industrial manufacturing has been part of the borough ever since, with majority of the current population being employed in these sectors. The borough has phased through numerous industrial productions from constructing World War 2 aeroplane parts to producing Ford cars. In Addition, the borough hosts what was once known as the largest Post War social housing estate in Europe; the Becontree Estate, constructed between 1921 1935 16. The unique Post war housing initiative was different compared to London’s approach as, the proposed lowlevel dwellings with large gardens and segregated public and private domains. The council estate offered quality life and enabled people to escape from the slums of the East End. This later became the basis for the Essex Design Guide in 1973. The guide influenced a number of master plans for town in the Essex County, by forming communities with respectful designs that interacted with the historic assets of their context.

During the inter-war period, majority of the London boroughs faced challenges with inadequate public services and housing, resulting in mass slums settlements across London. In 1955 the slum clearance enabled industrial settlement in the borough, introducing industrial estates which produced Leather, soap, and car manufacturing. People across the East End relied on the manufacturing industries for jobs and other provisions. However, the decline of those industries during the 1980’s resulted in numerous job losses, especially in Barking and Dagenham; where the Ford Motor plant could not compete with their European counter parts due to low quality manufacturing and lack of highlevel engineering precision. The fall of motor production was a direct result of the UK decision of joining the EU Free Market.

Barking Reach before complete industrialisation of Creekmouth 1945

A council survey conducted in 2018 estimates that the borough has a population of 211,998 people of which (27%) 57,240 people are aged 0-15, (9%) 19,080 are aged 16-64 and (5%) 10,600 are aged over 65 17. Employment rates in the borough are also lower than the national average as; 69% of people in the borough are employed, which compared to the national average (74.5%) is substantially lower 18. Furthermore, academic qualification compared to the London average are the lowest of all London boroughs; with 33% with only achieving higher education certificate/BTEC and 8.2% having no qualification. Barking and Dagenham has the highest range of diversity, with 37.8% of the population having been born abroad. Housing prices in the borough are also far below the London average, with a median house price being £310,000 and an average household income of £27,004, it also has the highest number of income support claimants in any London borough. The magnitude of social problems cannot be solved with simply building more homes and employment sectors, but rather initiate quality of education and encourage exchange through social enterprises. 19

The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham: https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/conservation-areas-and-listed-buildings https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/what-like-live-becontree-dagenham-1601549 The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham: https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/social-progress-index 18 The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham: https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/social-progress-index 19 The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham: https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/social-progress-index 15

16 17

Primary Research To understand the situation in the borough, I had investigated residents of Barking and Dagenham and surveyed their opinions in regard to the developments that are occurring in the borough. Furthermore, I had contacted a member of the Thames Ward Community Project called Matt Scott, who runs charities, volunteer programs and specifically works in community enhancement project within the Thames ward. Furthermore, he has provided numerous financial costing reports for community project and advised on how to fund them. We had a thorough talk in regard to the Barking Riverside Development and how that has affected the community in the ward. After the meeting he introduced me to Lye Owendo who lives in Barking and works for the GLA under the mental health department.

The meeting with Matt Scott (far right) and Lye Owengo (far left) with peers from my Design unit

To summarise our 2-hour conversation: Matt Scott states: “There is massive deficit in public amenities - a lack and there should be more. Especially noting the huge amount of developer activity that builds housing units of variable quality and safety and neglects social infrastructure transport, GP, post office etc…”

“So, if you look at the council cooperate plan strap line from 2012 it talks about constructing 50,000 homes, so... those housing units are going to go somewhere and predominantly they are going to go here in the borough. The land that this development near Valance House used to be a vastly contaminated area, which was worth not very much but now is worth billions… and then If you look at the council’s inclusive growth strategy, then one of the challenges is how, what will you achieve in terms of growth; because growth varies in proposition. There will be physical growth as you construct the schemes, there maybe some economic growth. BREXIT is quite uncertain.

Social, in terms of inclusive, well usually not. Usually that doesn’t happen and people who are either homeless or otherwise, who will be resettled in the midlands or north west for example. So there is a real challenge in terms of the pressures from the housing market...”

“It is divisive and a form of social cleansing and gentrification. There is a lack of scrutiny on planning issues and a failure to provide a duty of care to residents. Especially looking back to the fire which devasted 20 homes similarly to Grenfell”. 20 The interview made it quite clear that there are number social issues throughout the borough and the councils approach to tackle these issues through development is not the right answer, as it does not provide inclusive growth to the extend predicted. Companies such as; Be first and Barking Riverside often market their concepts to the public but fail to deliver an accurate report at the end of construction. Furthermore, public engagement programs which are hosted in the vicinity of the development often compromises community project. Matt explained on one occasion, a small gardening club in the Thames ward required some piece of land for temporary use, he contacted the developer of Barking Riverside asking to occupy for a small piece of vacant phase 4 land. He then stayed that; “On numerous occasion the developer just ignored my requests and simply pushed responsibility of the matter around various bodies in the organisation”.

This meant that the public engagement is superficial to the extent provided in their delivery of the project. After out meeting, he introduced us to Lye Owengo, who is a mental health supervisor at GLA, and overlooks the vast number of mental health programs in the borough. Lye, as a resident of Barking and Dagenham felt that the social issues are being undermined through the focus of development. He stated; “There is a huge demand for funding in the community projects and mental health awareness. The council has provided some arrangements in regard to tackling metal health issues in the borough, but majority is managed by charities and community engagement programs.“ 21 Furthermore, I conducted a survey in East Street market, an historic asset of the borough that has been present for over 200 years. There, I questioned locals, street vendors, shoppers and security guards in terms of how they felt in regard to the development in the city centre and what their view was regarding the Barking Riverside Project. In 2012 there were concerns that the development in the town centre will compromise the East Street market, the street vendors took off to protest against the construction of high-rises 22. However, after numerous talks between the council and the street vendors, a conclusion was made that there will be no impact on the market, nor are they going to be resettled. I informally questioned 12 people and received a variety of responses from the public, though will only be providing 2 conversations.

Survey Questions: Q1) Area of Residence. If in Barking and Dagenham, which ward?

Q2) Age Q3) Ethnicity Q4) If you are from Barking, do you identify as someone from London or Essex?

Q5) Favourite place in the Borough of Barking and Dagenham?

Q6) What do you think about the public amenities in the borough? Is there a lack of it or should there be more?

Q7) With the Barking Riverside project going on, what do you think about the general development across the borough?

Q8) Do you know if the development is going to affect you in anyway or is affecting you already? Long term and Short term.

Q9) With the development in progress across Barking and Dagenham, should more be done to aid schools, creative arts and community centres than commercially develop the borough?

Q10) What exists in the rest of London that doesn’t exist in Barking and Dagenham?

20 21 22

Interview conducted with Matt Scott: Thames Ward Community Project member Interview conducted with Lye Owengo: GLA Mental health Supervisor https://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/barking-market-jobs-set-to-be-saved-despite-public-square-works-1-1329975

Nasir from northern Punjab, is a market vendor (selling knock off sneakers) at the East Street market in the heart of Barking Town Centre for the last 14 years. He stated that: “I welcomed the development, as it brings more people into the market and allowed me to sell more stuff” and “though I don’t feel that much has changed since the protest, at least I was listened to and am able to keep my place here”. He further mentioned that there some small issues such as; pollution and redirection of routes to the market due to shipments to the construction sites, though only temporary. One of the major concerns Nasir had was the impact of demographics in the town centre; he stated that “if only a little bit of housing is affordable and majority is privately sold then it would mean that the type of stock I sell will need to change”.

Continuing on the market, I talked to a couple from Bangladesh running a small food truck who have worked in the market for the last 2 years. I spoke to them in Urdu, as English did not seem applicable for them; I questioned on how they felt living in the borough, what they liked or disliked about the borough and what they had to say in regard to the upcoming development. They said that they are happy where they are, and due to the large diversity of people, they felt right at home. The wife stated that; “there is a lot of communities here, but the majority of what I have seen are mainly from Pakistan and Bangladesh”. Questioning their opinion on the development; they both agreed that it is good for the borough and may drive homelessness away from the streets. Furthermore, the had concerns in regard to the shopping centre, they felt that that project may undermine their business as well as the market space. It seems that the perception of majority of people in the market was that social issues were being handled well by the local authority but statistics show that over 6531 people are homeless in the borough and waiting lists for social housing is an estimated 7000 households.

Stratford City Case Study

Proposed Housing and Employment schemes in Barking Town Centre

“In most cities there are buildings of character which lose their effectiveness because they are situated in out-ofthe-way locations; there are prominent sites occupied by uninteresting buildings which make no contribution to the surrounding area. In urban design there should be a skilful deployment of architectural energy so that the influence of the fine buildings radiated outward, articulating the whole fabric of the city.“ 23 The architecture that thrives in London today is about consumerism and an exchange of commodities. The soring housing prices and the ever-increasing divide in social classes has caused many areas across London to become unstable, currently seen in places such as; Croydon and Battersea. The cause and effect of certain developments is often overlooked at a wider scope. However, there are positive precedents that have enabled local economies to grow through regeneration. A successful regeneration scheme that has positively enabled inclusive growth is Stratford City.

Stratford City as regeneration scheme in 2009 provided positive inclusive growth whilst developing community infrastructure as well constructing affordable housing. Stratford, like Barking and Dagenham was a dockland site that was known for its agricultural and industrial production. However, during the 1960’s when the closure of the docklands resulted in a loss of several thousand jobs resulted in economic deprivation of the district, where unemployment was the highest in the UK and health was incredibly poor. Homes were constructed to replace the prefabricated housing that was built for residents due to the war. Between 1981 and 1989, urban regeneration enabled the development of the dockland sites, which provided much needed community infrastructure and housing.

Shopping centres, cinemas and many other public engagement programmes.

However, the key regeneration scheme occurred in 2012 due to the Olympic bid which enabled economic growth with a lasting legacy for public infrastructure. The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park filled the gaps in the much-needed community infrastructure. The transport hubs, Zaha Hadid’s Aquatics Centre and the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park enabled an inclusive diversity between Stratford’s residents and its neighbouring communities. However, it has been 8 years since the Olympic legacy, the change that Stratford is undergoing currently is one of social division where many residents feel that they are being slowly pushed away.

23

Edmund Bacon, Design of Cities

Housing prices in the district have increased substantially by 60% (compared to 30% in central London) in the last 5 years 24. New structure erected to join East Village (former Athletes Village) have transformed into readymade residential units, with numerous luxury hotels, high-rise employment and the Westfield Shopping centre, the community is feeling the impact of an inflated economy. Small commodities such as coffee or food from the markets are pricing out the residents as the shift of target audience in consumerism is diverted to entrepreneurs in the employment areas. The scheme under the Stratford City Master Plan was audited to rejuvenate the area and become a metropolitan centre for London. However, these large-scale development schemes are littered with CGI’s and visionary statements aimed to encourage young entrepreneurs to come and settle in the developments and avoid marketing to the existing community. A study formed by Centre for London outlined that more than 20,000 commercial properties have been empty for the last 6 months, with 11,000 being empty for more than 2 years (2018) 25. What occurred in Stratford may very well occur in Barking and Dagenham and the impact of rising housing costs is leaving many citizens behind. The impact of this specific case study illustrates that when housing and employment areas that do not proportionally balance with public infrastructure, which results in the unintentional gentrification of existing communities.

Stratford City, Olympic legacy

24 25

Housing in London 2015: The evidence base for the Mayor’s Housing Strategy newspaper The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/23/empty-homes-in-england-up-by-11000-last-year-study-shows

Proposed Barking Riverside master plan.

Image issued by Barking Riverside

Barking Riverside “Imagine arriving by train along a raised track swooping under the pylons that march across the site over wet grasslands with flocks of gulls, coots and Canada geese. On the approach a knoll to the left is surrounded by a sinuous masonry rampart of homes, a hill town that dominates the flat lands. The train pulls into a high-level station; passengers go straight down into a lane with a covered market to one side, a sports club and a couple of bars on the other. A glimpse of the river leads to a piazza on the waterside; a riverboat is discharging a host of passengers at the jetty. Surrounded by cafés and shops, this place has a festive air in the slanting evening light…” 26 Barking Riverside is an OAPF development that aims to construct 10,800 homes by 2028 27. It is Europe’s largest housing development scheme. The scheme is located in a 443-acre brownfield site situated in the south of the borough of Barking and Dagenham. The scheme aims to promote a new community in place of the existing. The Thames ward faces numerous social issues such as; deprivation, overcrowding and poor health (due to industrial estates in proximity to housing). The master plan aims to provide the borough with a range of facilities and spaces for public use. However, the concentration of these public realm infrastructure; housing, care homes, schools and a 65,000 sqm commercial floor space will be primarily for the new constituents in the development. Therefore, the impact of the development will not benefit the many, but the few. Whilst the scheme does provide 35% affordable homes, they only offer Shared Ownership units that guidelines into section 106. The housing prices, which to an extend are below the London guideline prices offer some leverage but do not facilitate the statistics of disposable income of the native residents have in the borough. In addition, the scheme financially is implemented to suit the developer more than the local authority, as Bellway Homes own 51% of the development and the authority 49%. The uneven distribution pushes the scheme to be inclined towards the client’s benefits, though there are certain provisions in the scheme offers which enables this route of procurement. The scheme is to offer an extension to the over ground services and provide numerous infrastructure offsets which the developer will maintain.

These Opportunity Areas, designated by GLA have legislated guidelines and policies in providing inclusiveness designs through; Section 106 and S5 28, D2 29, D6 30 Policies and Community Infrastructure Levy 31. Furthermore, legislation to provide affordable and inclusive housing, needs to be reassessed by investigating developments to understand how much of these developments adhere to the policies. A report conducted by Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2006 examined the effectiveness of section 106, as the legislation first introduced in 1990 and revised in 2013 has not provided a clear picture of how much developers are implementing this legislation. Currently, there is no report or outline of how many completed developments have utilised section 106.

Barking Riverside: Design and Access Statement https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/draft-new-london-plan/chapter-3-design/policy-d2-delivering-good-design 28 https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/draft-new-london-plan/chapter-5-social-infrastructure/policy-s5-sports-and-recreation 29 https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/draft-new-london-plan/chapter-3-design/policy-d2-delivering-good-design 30 https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/draft-new-london-plan/chapter-3-design/policy-d6-optimising-housing-density 31 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy 26 27

Conclusion

Architects and their ethics, morals and the duty of care are the codes that every architect must adhere to. However, the role of architect is being subverted as numerous entities and guidelines set by clients, local authorities and central government push and pull design decisions which limits inclusive approach. The majority of developments that are being constructed are done in areas where; deprivation, homelessness and public infrastructure are lacking. These developments do not solve issues that are rooted in the context but simply push them away, as seen in Barking and Dagenham. Local authorities need to realise that developments need to be able to integrate into the existing fabric of the city. Development need to become a secondary objective, which enhances existing infrastructure. This can be achieved by firstly tackling social issues, such as; teaching new skills and qualification to a working-class society or enhancing public facilities such as libraries and colleges. Once doing so, an inclusive strategy may occur naturally.

This has proven to be both financially viable and morally inclusive as seen in places like Stratford, where education and the integration of public infrastructure resulted in an efficient and inclusive set of developments. As architect, we need promote inclusiveness and provide alternatives to clients where section 106 impact the development at a larger economic scale. Whilst section 106 is utilised more than ever, the limitation of economic growth is not implemented in the policy, hence certain negotiations limit opportunities for a stronger social fabric.

The inclusive growth strategies implemented by local authorities needs to include the investigation of place making.

Fluid Architects have formed a coherent set of principles where primary research through talking to individuals in the areas of development enhance the designs whilst maintaining financial viability for the client. This approach should be implemented into the planning guidelines, beyond public consultations as that is dependent on how many people turn up. Barking Riverside as a masterplan provides the necessary infrastructure that the borough is desperately in need off. However, the public outreach response has been too one sided and has not taken into account the entire borough. In the public consultation report of 2016, issued by Barking Riverside the primary bodies of engagement were a small number of the public questioning aspects in the consultations, the planning engagement lack tremendous public information during design phases.

I believe that the role of the architect needs to become more transparent through a more direct public outreach and that designation of OAPF should consider a wider economic approach that integrates the needed topologies of infrastructure into existing communities. Furthermore, section 106 should be revisited to promote inclusive growth in areas of high deprivation, whilst keeping a record that informs future designs in regard to the methods in utilising the policy. We need to establish a precedent that enables developers to understand other financial viability through inclusive design and Barking Riverside is not such a precedent.

References Bacon. (1974). Design of cities. London: Thames and Hudson.

Barking Riverside (2015). London Riverside Opportunity Planning Framework. Public Consultation Report. London: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.

Future of London (2015). Delivering Infill Development. London: Future of London.

Greater London Authority (2015). City in the East. London: Greater London Authority.

Greater London Authority (2015). London Riverside Opportunity Area Framework. London: Greater London Authority.

Greater London Authority (2018). Inclusive London The Mayor’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy. London: Greater London Authority.

Greater London Authority (2019). How Green is London?. London: Greater London Authority City Intelligence.

Kleinman, M. (1998). Include Me Out? The New Politics of Place and Poverty. London: London School of Economics.

London Borough of barking and Dagenham (2019). Infrastructure Delivery Plan. London: London Borough of barking and Dagenham.

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (2015). The A13 Riverside Tunnel: Road to Regeneration. London: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (2018). Methodology Report Social Progress Index Barking & Dagenham.

London: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.

Newman, W. (2005). The Essex design guide. Essex: Essex County Council and Essex Planning Officers Association.

Scanlon, K., White, T. and Blanc, F. (2018). Residents’ experience of high-density housing in London. LSE London/LSE Cities report for the GLA. London: Greater London Authority.

WARD, C. (1983). Housing: an anarchist approach. London: Freedom Press.

Yang, T. (2005). Impacts of Large Scale Development: Does Space Make A Difference?. Master of Architecture and Urbanism. London College London.

Clugston, H. (2016). London 2012, 4 Years On: How Stratford Has Transformed. [online] Culture Trip. Available at: https://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/england/london/articles/london-2012-4-years-on-howstratford-has-transformed/ [Accessed 11 Jan. 2020].

Florida, R. (2013). Class-Divided Cities: London Edition. [online] CityLab. https://www.citylab.com/life/2013/11/londons-class-divides/6056/ [Accessed 5 Jan. 2020].

Available

at:

Foxtons.co.uk. (2020). House prices in Central London - View Central London property prices and values. [online] Available at: https://www.foxtons.co.uk/living-in/central-london/house-prices/ [Accessed 1 Jan. 2020].

Lbbd.gov.uk. (2019). Social Progress Index | LBBD. [online] Available at: https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/social-progressindex [Accessed 11 Jan. 2020].

Legislation.gov.uk. (2019). The Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2019. [online] Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2019/9780111187449/regulation/9 [Accessed 3 Jan. 2020].

Lydall, R. (2019). Work starts on £1bn 'culture boost' project in Olympic Park. [online] Homes and Property.

Available at: https://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/olympic-park-regeneration-work-starts-on1bn-culture-boost-project-set-to-bring-10000-students-and-a131671.html [Accessed 11 Jan. 2020].

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2019). Affordable Housing Supply: April 2018 to March 2019 England. London: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Perry, F. (2014). 'This is east London, not Park Lane': Stratford's regeneration, in your words. [online] the Guardian.

Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/aug/15/stratford-regeneration-your-stories-olympiclegacy [Accessed 11 Jan. 2020].

Rivera, H. (2015). Political ideology and housing supply: rethinking New Towns and the building of new communities in England. London: University College London.

Trufelman, A. (2015). The Gruen Effect - 99% Invisible. [online] 99% https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-gruen-effect/ [Accessed 9 Jan. 2020].

Invisible.

Available

at:

Wainwright, O. (2015). Revealed: how developers exploit flawed planning system to minimise affordable housing. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/25/london-developersviability-planning-affordable-social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright [Accessed 9 Jan. 2020].

Waldheim, C. (2016). Landscape as Urbanism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

BBC News. (2018). Unused London buildings 'could be housing'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45720960 [Accessed 11 Jan. 2020].

[online]

Available

at:

Befirst.london. (n.d.). Opportunities – BeFirst London. [online] Available at: http://befirst.london/opportunity/ [Accessed 9 Jan. 2020].

Bloomfield, R. (2018). Number of empty homes in London now above 20k as homelessness rising. [online] Homes and Property. Available at: https://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/number-of-empty-homes-inlondon-now-above-20000-these-are-the-worstoffending-boroughs-a119846.html [Accessed 10 Jan. 2020].

Draft New London Plan. (2019). Policy D2 Delivering good design. [online] Available https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/draft-new-londonplan/chapter-3-design/policy-d2-delivering-good-design [Accessed 13 Jan. 2020].

at:

Draft New London Plan. (2019). Policy D6 Optimising housing density. [online] Available https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/draft-new-londonplan/chapter-3-design/policy-d6-optimising-housing-density [Accessed 13 Jan. 2020].

at:

Draft New London Plan. (2019). Policy E5 Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL). [online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/draft-new-londonplan/chapter-6-economy/policy-e5-strategic-industrial-locations-sil [Accessed 10 Jan. 2020].

Draft New London Plan. (2019). Policy S5 Sports and recreation facilities. [online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/draft-new-londonplan/chapter-5-social-infrastructure/policy-s5-sports-and-recreation [Accessed 10 Jan. 2020].

Draft New London Plan. (2019). Policy SD1 Opportunity Areas. [online] Available https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/draft-new-londonplan/chapter-2-spatial-development-patterns/growth-corridors-and [Accessed 10 Jan. 2020].

at:

En.wikipedia.org.

(2011).

Localism Act 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localism_Act_2011 [Accessed 10 Jan. 2020].

at:

[online]

Available

GOV.UK. (2018). Community Infrastructure Levy. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/communityinfrastructure-levy [Accessed 13 Jan. 2020].

Legislation.gov.uk. (2013). The Town and Country Planning (Modification and Discharge of Planning Obligations) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2013. [online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/147/contents/made [Accessed 9 Jan. 2020].

Local authority housing statistics: Year ending March 2018, England. (2018). London: The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, pp.Page 1 - 5.

Local.gov.uk. (n.d.). S106 obligations overview. [online] Available at: https://www.local.gov.uk/pas/pastopics/infrastructure/s106-obligations-overview [Accessed 9 Jan. 2020].

London City Hall. (2019). About Good Growth by Design. [online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/whatwe-do/regeneration/advice-and-guidance/about-good-growth-design [Accessed 3 Jan. 2020].

Monk, S. and Crook, T. (2006). Delivering affordable housing through Section 106: outputs and outcomes. [online] JRF. Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/delivering-affordable-housing-through-section-106-outputs-andoutcomes [Accessed 7 Jan. 2020].

CityLab. (2013).

Class-Divided Cities: London Edition. [online] https://www.citylab.com/life/2013/11/londons-class-divides/6056/ [Accessed 11 Jan. 2020].

Available

at:

Department for Communities and Local Government (2013). Section 106 affordable housing requirements. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2017). The value, impact and delivery of the Community Infrastructure Levy. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.

Draft New London Plan. (2019). Policy D8 Tall buildings. [online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/whatwe-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/draft-new-london-plan/chapter-3-design/policy-d8-tall-buildings [Accessed 13 Jan. 2020].

Economicsonline.co.uk. (n.d.). The multiplier - multiplier effect | Economics Online. [online] Available at: https://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Managing_the_economy/The_multiplier_effect.html [Accessed 10 Jan. 2020].

GOV.UK. (2019). New housing statistics show increase in affordable homes. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-housing-statistics-show-increase-in-affordable-homes [Accessed 15 Jan. 2020].

Greater London Authority (2004). The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. London: Greater London Authority.

Hook, J. (2018). Borough has the fifth highest rates of homeless people living in temporary accommodation. [online] Barking and Dagenham Post. Available at: https://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/barking-anddagenham-has-the-fifth-highest-rates-of-homeless-people-l-1-5792751 [Accessed 14 Jan. 2020].

Lbbd.gov.uk. (n.d.). Applying for council housing | LBBD. [online] Available at: https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/applyingfor-council-housing [Accessed 14 Jan. 2020].

London City Hall. (2015). FOI - Affordable homes and S106 Agreements. [online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/governance-and-spending/sharing-our-information/freedominformation/foi-disclosure-log/foi-affordable-homes-and-s106-agreements-0 [Accessed 13 Jan. 2020].

Neate, R. (2018). Ghost towers: half of new-build luxury London flats fail to sell. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/26/ghost-towers-half-of-new-build-luxury-london-flats-fail-tosell [Accessed 12 Jan. 2020].

Perry, F. (2014). 'This is east London, not Park Lane': Stratford's regeneration, in your words. [online] The Guardian.

Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/aug/15/stratford-regeneration-your-stories-olympiclegacy [Accessed 8 Jan. 2020].

Phillips, J. (2012). Barking Market jobs set to be saved despite public square works. [online] Barking and Dagenham Post. Available at: https://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/barking-market-jobs-set-to-be-saveddespite-public-square-works-1-1329975 [Accessed 14 Jan. 2020].

The London borough of Barking and Dagenham (2013). Barking & Dagenham Economic Development Study.

London: The London borough of Barking and Dagenham.