FOCUS ON TULSE HILL AN ASSET BASED ANALYSIS PRODUCED BY 7 LSE STUDENTS BETWEEN MARCH AND JUNE 2014
This report was commissioned by Lambeth Council and is the culmination of work carried out by an independent, volunteer and external research team between March and June 2014. The team is composed of seven students from the MSc RUPS (Regional and Urban Planning Studies) programme at the London School of Economics and Political Science: Fanny Blanc Selina Bull Nicola Carnevali Marc Jacquemond Reiner Kravis Andrey Perminov Emma Sagor
page
01
CONTENTS
01 02 05 06 07
0. Executive summary 0.1. Background 0.2. Multidimensional Analysis of Current Trends 0.3. Policy Context and Existing Programmes 0.4. Recommendations and Comparators 0.5. Conclusion
09 09 09 10
1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose 1.2. Aims and Objectives 1.3. Report Outline
11 11 14 14 14 15 17 18 19 18 20 23 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 37 38 38 39 40 41 42 42 42
2. Multidimensional Analysis of Current Situation 2.1. Tulse Hill History 2.2. Geographic analysis 2.2.1. Geographic Overview 2.2.2. Land Use 2.2.3. Boundaries 2.2.4. Connectivity and Public Transportation 2.2.5. Geographical Distribution of Services 2.2.6. Housing Focus on the Built Environment Focus on Cressingham Gardens
2.3. A Statistical Snapshot of Tulse Hill 2.3.1. Statement of Purpose, Methodology, and Data 2.3.2. Basic Demographics 2.3.3. Physical and Built Environment 2.3.4. Mobility and Accessibility 2.3.5. Health 2.3.6. Crime and Aggregate Deprivation 2.3.7. Education and Labour Market 2.3.8. Summary of Statistical Analysis Focus on Tenure Types
2.4. Economic Analysis 2.4.1. Business Activity 2.4.2. Income and Property Values 2.4.3. Employment Focus on Employment in Tulse Hill
2.5. Community and Participation 2.5.1. Features Valued by the Community 2.5.2. Local Identity
42 44 45 43 46 47 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 49 50 50 50 51 51 53 53 53 54 55 56 56 58 58 58 60
2.5.3. Tulse Hill Forum 2.5.4. Community Facilities and Events 2.5.5. Local Elections in Tulse Hill Focus on Tulse Hill’s Youth Focus on Tulse Hill’s Many Community Initiatives
3. Policy Context and Relevant Initiatives 3.1. National Legislation 3.1.1. Localism Act 3.1.2. Community Rights and Responsibilities 3.1.3. Community Infrastructure Levy
3.2. Planning 3.2.1. National and Regional Levels 3.2.2. Local Level 3.2.3. Lambeth Community plan
3.3. Relevant Wider Initiatives and their Local Implementation 3.3.1. Decent Homes Standard and Lambeth Living 3.3.2. Warm Homes, Greener Homes and the Green Deal Home Improvement Fund 3.3.3. Build-it Tulse Hill 3.3.4. Barclays Cycle Hire
4. Synthesized Recommendations and Comparative Examples 4.1. Recommendations for Action and Capitalizing on Neighbourhood Assets 4.1.1. Promoting Tulse Hill through Transparent, Visible, and Positive Communication and Press 4.1.2. Developing Central, Accessible Community Facilities 4.1.3. Engaging Youth Through Innovative, Sustainable, and Relevant Programming 4.1.4. Exploring Economic Partnerships with Neighbouring Areas 4.1.5. Cultivating and Celebrating Tulse Hill’s Strong Residential Identity
4.2. Comparator Studies and Relevant Lessons 4.2.1. Comparator Case of Nunhead, Peckham 4.2.2. Lessons for Tulse Hill 4.2.3. A Success Story: Lorraine (Berne, Switzerland)
61
5. Conclusion
63
Sources
0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
0.1. BACKGROUND This report is the culmination of work carried out by an independent, external research team between March and June 2014. The vision of this project was to synthesize past research with new insight, compiling a more complete and accurate picture of the reality in Tulse Hill, an area in central Lambeth characterised by persistent neighbourhood deprivation. By combining geographic, ethnographic, statistical, and economic analysis into a single package, the team aim to portray a holistic view of the assets, challenges, and opportunities for the Tulse Hill area. Aims and Objectives This research was commissioned in order to produce a comprehensive data package that could be used to drive regeneration initiatives going forward and to promote more ‘joined-up’ strategies for Tulse Hill. Lambeth Council is committed to pursuing regeneration based on existing assets of its neighbourhoods, enhancing and celebrating the strength of existing communities while meeting the needs of both current future residents. This report specifically seeks: 1. To show the potential of the Tulse Hill area by focusing on an assetbased approach to neighbourhood regeneration. 2. To better understand the unique role and contribution of the Tulse Hill area to the borough of Lambeth. 3. To understand the barriers and opportunities that exist between current community initiatives in Tulse Hill. 4. To understand how the changing policy context can impact Tulse Hill and how new policy instruments can potentially be harnessed to promote positive regeneration. 5. To explore comparator neighbourhoods that have successfully capitalised on asset-based models of local regeneration and reduced persistent deprivation, while avoiding more or less sucessfully the risks of gentrification. Structure Following a brief introduction, the findings of the report are presented in four key sections: >> A multidimensional analysis of the current situation in Tulse Hill. This includes sub-sections devoted to historical, geographical, statistical, economic, and ethnographic data. 01
>> A look at the policy context and existing initiatives that can and will impact Tulse Hill’s future development. >> A compilation of five key recommendations for enhancing Tulse Hill’s assets and combating persistent deprivation. These flexible proposals are inherently interconnected and are meant to reinforce one another, addressing multiple strategic priorities through joined-up action. >> A conclusion which summarises the asset-based model derived from this research and a discussion of how this analysis could be used by community groups, Lambeth Council, and invested parties. The report also includes six ‘focus on’ segments that discuss in-depth about key trends and features of the Tulse Hill area: the built environment, youth, tenure, employment, community groups, and Cressingham Gardens Estate.
0.2. MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS OF CURRENT TRENDS Historical Analysis Tulse Hill’s history reveals that the area’s identity has transformed numerous times: from almost being a ‘less grandiose version of Regent’s Park’ in the 18th century, to a high-class Victorian estate, to a working class community characterised by numerous postWar Council owned housing blocks. Despite this dynamic past, the area has a historically strong residential identity. For centuries, its geographic positioning and natural assets lent the area to residential rather than commercial development. This legacy has bearing today as commercial development on its fringes may lead to pressure for a shift away from this residential character. Geographical Analysis In all, Tulse Hill’s geography stands as one of its greatest overall assets. The proportion of green space in the ward and its overall connectivity contribute to it being an ideal residential location. Brockwell Park is a tremendous asset in the eyes of residents, and the high proportion of domestic garden cover adds to its residential appeal. Its high elevations additionally contribute to its residential over commercial or retail feasibility. The height of Tulse Hill allows the area to remain quiet and peaceful. But the steep grades of many of its roads could be a barrier to mobility for elderly or disabled residents, and transport links do not permeate into the centre of the ward. 02
Many of Tulse Hill’s housing estates exhibit tight knit communities and are aesthetically pleasing and diverse. Nevertheless, the design of some estates facilitates anti-social behaviour and crime. Furthermore, the design of Cressingham Gardens is cited by many residents as a tremendous asset. But this may be under threat due to demolitionbased regeneration proposals. Tulse Hill’s situation between major Lambeth commercial town centres of Streatham, Brixton, and West Norwood poses both opportunities and challenges for Tulse Hill. If Tulse Hill is fostered as a unique and special residential buffer between these areas, it may best reap the benefits of its proximity to these centres. Some residents cite fears of encroaching gentrification, however, and we believe that pushes to promote economic development that is not requested or desired by local populations in Tulse Hill may aggravate these fears. Improving the public realm and commercial viability of the Tulse Hill station area could positively impact the community, but this regeneration should be carried out with sensitivity to local needs, culture, and demand. Statistical Analysis The statistical analysis in this report looks at current data to assess intra-ward variation in key domains (crime, employment, density, deprivation) and compares Tulse Hill--and its wider area--to the rest of the borough. While the aggregate index of multiple deprivation presents Tulse Hill as typically worse off than the rest of Lambeth, the disaggregated data shows that there is a degree of geographical nuance to this assertion. However, there doesn’t seem to be any consistent and striking geographical pattern to the distribution of different outcomes, with the exception of the northernmost part which features high crime, indoors, outdoors, income, and aggregate deprivation. There is also some degree of correlation in poor performance in the south of the ward, especially in terms of income, overall deprivation, and unemployment levels. Major assets revealed in this statistical analysis include high relative levels of health and educational attainment. Tulse Hill is a diverse community and is home to a large young population. Economic Analysis Tulse Hill is home to approximately 3.8% of all businesses in Lambeth, far lower than neighbouring wards such as Brixton Hill, Herne Hill, and Streatham Hill. In terms of the business activity, the residential identity of the ward is highly apparent. 03
Comparing figures with neighbouring wards of Brixton Hill, Streatham Hill, and Herne Hill, Tulse Hill has the lowest average income, property prices, and business activity levels. Moreover, it exhibits a high unemployment level of 9.2% compared to the Lambeth average of 7.9%. Nevertheless, while business activity and economic indicators for the ward are (according to the latest available data) quite low, they are generally stable. Business activity levels in Tulse Hill do not demonstrate significant changes during economic shocks. A sizable proportion of Tulse Hill residents are employed in high-skilled industries, despite the area exhibiting quite high unemployment figures. Based on this, there is potential for the area to capitalise on its asset of a large highly skilled sector through the provision of intra-community training and support for the unemployed. Tulse Hill’s proximity to rapidly developing commercial centres like Brixton, Streatham, and West Norwood could also--if capitalised on--help combat unemployment and economic deprivation. Achieving greater connectivity to the commercial services of West Norwood to the south will require improvements to the small retail centre surrounding Tulse Hill Train Station, which currently is home to approximately 40 mostly small businesses and many vacant and long-term unlet commercial units. Investment to improve the area’s streetscape, attract consumers, and enhance its viability should be encouraged. Ethnographic and Community Analysis It is evident from previous asset mapping projects that the existing community in Tulse Hill highly values green space, their estates, diversity, and the friendliness of the area. Residents express concerns about youth in the area, however, including worries about youth unemployment, anti-social behaviour, and gang affiliation. While the community is active, relatively organised, and values Tulse Hill assets, the area still struggles against a ‘local identity’ crisis. This is the result of: vague and overlapping physical boundaries; stigma and reputational threats; a lack of positive, true, and visible information publicly available about the community. The Tulse Hill Forum, created in 2011 as part of Lambeth’s Forum Network, is working to combat this identity crisis and provides a key opportunity for locals to get involved in decisions that affect their area. The forum, through processes like participatory budgeting, allows residents to directly influence local agenda setting and project delivery. Despite its early successes, the Tulse Hill Forum has faced challenges during its inaugural years. It could benefit from 04
addressing its confusing and poorly explicated membership structure and decision making protocol, strategies to best direct restricted resources towards sustainable change, and concerns about adequate community representation in its membership. Although many highly valued community community facilities currently exist in Tulse Hill, these are largely estate-based, and residents strongly desire more communal, central facilities that could foster neighbourhood cohesion and interaction. New physical hubs could house multiple disparate community groups, helping them share resources and ideas.
0.3 POLICY CONTEXT AND EXISTING PROGRAMMES This report briefly discusses national legislation, local and national planning policy, and four relevant wider initiatives that can impact neighbourhood strategies in Tulse Hill. National Legislation The Localism Act, passed in 2012, promises to change the relationship between central government and local authorities as well as between local government and citizens. This policy shift will present possibilities for Lambeth and residents of Tulse Hill to make positive changes. Its provision of ‘General Powers of Competence,’ can encourage a more entrepreneurial approach to local governance, which could help to maximise the potential in Tulse Hill. The Localism Act explicates numerous new rights for community groups, including the ‘right to challenge’ and the ‘right to bid.’ Tulse Hill could use these rights to gain more control over their services and ‘assets,’ or could work towards producing a new neighbourhood plan. Both of these actions, however, require a substantial level of organisation and local resources. Tulse Hill could further benefit from changes to the Community Infrastructure Levy, and Lambeth Council could direct monies levied from nearby development to promoting positive regeneration in the area. Planning Policy Both the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the London Plan emphasise economic development through sustainable growth and the creation of healthy, inclusive, ‘mixed and balanced’ communities. The vast majority of Tulse Hill ward is not located in an opportunity area or an area of intensification. Furthermore, Tulse Hill 05
is rarely cited in Lambeth planning documents, except when linked to development plans for West Norwood. Nevertheless, its close proximity to key areas highlighted in planning policy indicate that the area will be greatly impacted by planning decisions and plan-led development in the coming years. Lambeth’s Community Plan (LCP) (2013) strives to develop a model of cooperative working and aims to promote meaningful dialogue between citizens and the council. It emphasises three overarching goals: >> More jobs and sustainable growth >> Communities that feel safer and more resilient >> Cleaner, greener streets Achieving these, according to the LCP, requires a cooperative working model. Our recommendations are in compliance with these overarching goals, but currently, community organisers express that some residents do not feel they are fully being engaged in a cooperative, participatory way. Wider Initiatives The report explores four existing initiatives in detail, all of which are either currently impacting development in Tulse Hill or could be engaged with to promote asset-based regeneration in the area: 1. Decent Homes Standard and Lambeth Living 2. ‘Warm Homes, Greener Homes’ and the Green Deal Home Improvement Fund 3. Build-It Tulse Hill 4. Barclays Cycle Hire
0.4 RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMPARATORS From this multidimensional research and given the policy context and existing relevant initiatives, we recommend the following five strategies for asset-based regeneration in Tulse Hill: >> Promote Tulse Hill through transparent, visible and positive communication and press; >> Develop central, accessible community facilities; >> Engage youth through innovative, sustainable, and relevant programming; >> Explore economic partnerships with neighbouring areas; >> Cultivate and celebrate Tulse Hill’s strong residential identity. We sought to locate comparators that demonstrate the practicality of this model. As these recommendations all are predicated on preserving 06
and promoting Tulse Hill’s diverse, unique, and positive residential features, we looked for residential neighbourhoods that have either thrived or have faced severe challenges. Nunhead Ward in Peckham is similar to Tulse Hill in its residential character and proximity to rapidly developing commercial centres. Nunhead, however, experienced a dearth of direct protection and concerted efforts to promote its unique identity. It consequently has experienced undeniable trends of gentrification. In contrast, Lorraine in Berne, Switzerland offers a positive example for Tulse Hill. Lorraine has successfully managed to benefit from regeneration without displacing already present residents and compromising the strong identity of the neighbourhood. The area has countered detrimental socio-spatial trends such as growing space consumption and out of context development by shaping regeneration to local needs and existing assets.
0.5 CONCLUSION The following table (next page) summarises the synthesised research within this report into key assets, challenges, and opportunities for Tulse Hill: This compilation of multi-dimensional, synthesised research and the asset-based model derived from it can foster a dialogue about strategies for improving quality of life and counteracting persistent deprivation in Tulse Hill. It can be used to inform future debates about the area, to spark innovative and creative solutions to challenges in the neighbourhood, and should inspire optimism about Tulse Hill’s future.
07
ASSETS
CHALLENGES
Green space and domestic garden cover
Relatively steep elevation gains can limit mobility and accessibility of some residents and create transport challenges
Diverse and aesthetically pleasing built environment
A demolition-focused regeneration programme could lead to tension with Regenerate estates with involvement of existing existing populations and compromise some populations to capitalise on valued local assets of the built environment assets of the area
Well-connected with good transport links
Improved, faster transport could encourage the gentrification of the area, as seen in Nunhead, Southwark
A young, diverse, and educated population reporting healthy living.
Overall high deprivation, but not Promoting and consolidating educational and labour geographically even: the northernmost part market outcomes for young people. Consolidating of the area is one of the most deprived in the outdoors and indoors environments. ward, and is part of a larger crime cluster.
Geography and Built Environment
Statistical indicators
Resilience of the economy and business activity is in line High unemployment level compared to with the borough average in Lambeth times of economic shocks Economy
OPPORTUNITIES
Diversity of retail activities in the border of West Norwood; Potential for further economic development of the station area
Current vacant and long-term unlet commercial units; Risk of redevelopment that is non-contextual with the neighbourhood and further removes it from the ‘Tulse Hill’ community (as it is currently outside of political boundaries)
Enhance identity as a ideally located, peaceful, desirable residential neighbourhood
Promote public realm on borders with key commercial and mixed use areas (Brixton, Streatham, West Norwood)
Provide training and support to the unemployed and cooperate with Brixton, Streatham and West Norwood in terms of local employment
Improve the area near West Norwood to attract more investors and consumers, while encouraging services and retail that are desired by existing community; seek local employment in new commercial development, following example of Brixton SPD
Diverse, active, and engaged Relatively high perception of crime; Lack of community; Community clear identity for Tulse Hill; Concern about Community recognises and values local disengaged youth assets
Create physical and virtual spaces to promote community cohesion and identity (community centres, newsletters, events, etc.); Promote and improve the transparency and visibility of the Forum; Engage youth through relevant programming; Promote dialogue and collaboration across community groups and initiatives
Intense attention paid to Tulse Hill is not considered as a substantial development to areas on the entity in the plans; Appears neglected and borders of the ward: Brixton, may compromise its unique identity Streatham, West Norwood
Take advantage of Brixton’s, Streatham’s and Norwood’s developments to foster employment in Tulse Hill; Promote Tulse Hill in its own right as a unique residential space with specific, non-commercial assets that complement neighbouring commercial centres
Policy and Initiatives New policies encourage community empowerment, emphasis on local context, and devloution of power
08
Barrier to participation; Transparency Build trust and encourage ‘joined-up’ initiatives that between council and community may be combine expertise of the Council and social capital of the hard to achieve; Community level-local policy community; Foster feelings of mutual respect by seeking management (i.e. neighbourhood plans, compromise and creative solutions (e.g. Cressingham ‘right to bid’, etc.) requires ample resources Gardens regeneration strategy) and capital
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. PURPOSE Tulse Hill, located in central Lambeth, is a vibrant, diverse, and attractive neighbourhood. Despite its geographic, cultural, and community assets, however, the area has experienced persistently high levels of deprivation throughout recent decades. This report is the culmination of research by an independent, external team who completed a multidimensional analysis of the area between March and June 2014. The vision of this project was to synthesize past research with new insight in order to compile a more complete and accurate picture of the reality in Tulse Hill. By combining geographic, ethnographic, statistical, and economic analysis into a single package, the researchers hope to portray a holistic view of the assets, challenges, and opportunities for the Tulse Hill area. This research can be used to drive regeneration initiatives going forward and to promote a more ‘joined-up’ thinking among the multiple, isolated groups already working in Tulse Hill.
1.2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The aims and objectives of this report are as follows: 1. To show the potential of the Tulse Hill area by focusing on an assetbased approach to neighbourhood regeneration. 2. To better understand the unique role and contribution of the Tulse Hill area to the borough of Lambeth. 3. To understand the barriers and opportunities that exist between current community initiatives in Tulse Hill, including the Tulse Hill Forum, independent community organising groups, and the political Ward of Tulse Hill. 4. To understand how the changing policy context can impact Tulse Hill and how new policy instruments can potentially be harnessed to promote positive regeneration. 5. To explore comparator neighbourhoods that have successfully capitalised on asset-based models of local regeneration and reduced persistent deprivation, while avoiding the risk of gentrification.
09
1.3. REPORT OUTLINE The report is comprised of four main sections: >> A discussion of the current situation in Tulse Hill. This includes sections on the area’s history, geography and the built environment, demographics and deprivation statistics, economic realities, and community dynamics. >> An exploration of the surrounding policy context and existing initiatives working to improve quality of life in Tulse Hill. >> A comprehensive recommendation section, including an analysis of two comparator studies. These recommendations are broad, flexible, and inherently build upon each other. >> A conclusion, including a summary of the asset-based model we have developed of the Tulse Hill area and a discussion of where this research may lead.
10
2. MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION
2.1. TULSE HILL HISTORY Early development in what is today known as the Tulse Hill ward dates back to the 13th century. Originally, the area was a monastic estate owned by St Thomas’s Hospital. It was not until the 1650s that the area was associated with the Tulse family, whose patriarch, Sir Henry Tulse, was Lord Mayor of London between 1683-4. In the 19th century, Tulse Hill was described as “a flourishing residential area” (Sheppard, 1956). It was divided in two in 1807 to pave the way for a short-lived scheme to develop “the whole area as a less grandiose version of John Nash’s schemes in Regent’s Park.” The plan was not realised and the western part was developed as a high-class estate, while the eastern section became a private park around the newly built Brockwell Hall. This section still exists as the modern day Brockwell Park. A rail line was opened between Tulse Hill and neighbouring Herne Hill in 1863. By the end of the 19th century Lambeth Council purchased Brockwell Hall and started the conversion of the estate into a public park.
Brockwell Hall - 1820 - was built between 1811 and 1813. It was acquired, together with 78 acres of land, by the County Council in March, 1891 for the creation of a large public park.
11
Map of Tulse Hill and surrounding areas in 1840 (www.urban75.org)
Map of Tulse Hill Ward in 1918, before any housing estates had been built. Detached villas lined Tulse Hill and Upper Tulse Hill Roads. These two main roads, developed as parish highways in 1822, linked Brixton Hill with Norwood Road. (www.idealhomes.org.uk)
12
The area’s appearance and character changed dramatically over the 20th century. At the beginning of the century, Tulse Hill remained a wealthy district of London, and “the highly regarded St Martin-in-theFields high school for girls moved” into the area (Hidden London). The construction of numerous council-run estates, however, beginning in the 1930s changed the demographic makeup of the area, facilitating the transition of Tulse Hill into a largely working class community. The large Tulse Hill estate was constructed in 1939, followed by the construction of St Martin’s Estate in the 1950s, St Matthew’s Estate in the 1960s, and Cressingham Gardens in the 1970s. In the 1980s, Brixton was the sight of increased deprivation, racial tension, and eventually violent riots. In response to this violence and unrest, major emphasis was placed by the national government and Lambeth Council on the regeneration and improvement of conditions in south Lambeth and the Brixton area. Consequently, the late 20th and early 21st centuries saw some areas around Tulse Hill, including key districts like Brixton Streatham, develop rapidly and - according to many - begin the process of gentrification. Hamnett (2003) states that in Lambeth as a whole there was a 40% rise in professional and managerial residents by 1991 and a threefold increase in housing prices between 1995 to 2002 in Lambeth. While these processes of regeneration and potential gentrification have in many regions improved deprivation indices, Tulse Hill’s poor deprivation statistics have largely persisted. There is a suggestion that the area has, perhaps, been neglected, with focus devoted to larger, more commercial areas surrounding the ward. Tulse Hill’s geographic positioning, therefore, warrants further analysis.
Postcards - both c. 1910 Left: Elm Park - Right: Upper Tulse Hill, view looking south (landmark.lambeth.gov.uk Copyright London Borough of Lambeth)
13
2.2 GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
2.2.1. Geographic Overview Tulse Hill is located centrally in the London Borough of Lambeth. It is bordered by five wards, including: Brixton Hill, Coldharbour, Herne Hill, Thurlow Park, and Streatham Hill. Brixton Hill Road on the west side, Tulse Hill Road on the east, and Christchurch Road to its south flank Tulse Hill, connecting it to Brixton, the civic centre of Lambeth, and the commercial centres of Streatham and West Norwood. Smaller residential roads cross the thin, relatively narrow ward, many characterized by steep incline grades. The lowest point in the Tulse Hill ward, 19m above sea level, lies at its north point near Brixton Town Centre. In contrast, the highest point in Tulse Hill, in the middle of St. Martin’s estate, is 62m above sea level (Elevation Map, 2014). Partly due to its narrow geography and its positioning on a relatively steep hill, Tulse Hill has retained a historical identity as a residential neighbourhood. In a sense, it is a residential buffer between the more mixed use and commercial neighbourhoods on its borders. Other than a service station and small grocery store on Tulse Hill Road, the only major retail or commercial units in the neighbourhood technically lie outside of the ward boundaries to the southwest by Tulse Hill station.
2.2.2. Land Use Tulse Hill ward includes approximately a square kilometre of land. It is roughly 1.9 miles long at its longest point (north to south) and 0.7 miles wide at its widest point (east to west). Its land uses, listed by proportion, are as follows (DCLG, 2007): >> 26.30% Domestic Gardens (269.81m2)* >> 20.75% Roads (212.70m2) >> 17.75% Domestic Buildings (182.53m2) >> 14.70% Green Space (Not Including Brockwell Park) (150.70m2) >> 12.90% Other Land Use (132.51m2) >> 06.00% Non Domestic Buildings (62.11m2) >> 01.40% Paths (14.4m2) *All areas noted are in thousands of metres squared. Evidently, land cover is dominated by domestic dwellings, domestic gardens, and connecting roads. Very little land is devoted to commercial uses (reflected in the ‘non domestic buildings’ sub-category). Tulse Hill contains a relatively high proportion of green and garden-covered space, representing approximately 40% of its total land use. Residents 14
Situation map - in red: Lambeth Borough (top-right) and Tulse Hill Ward (centre)
Green Spaces Map: the map reveals the major non-domestic green spaces in the area. Along Brixton Road on the ward’s west side lies Rush Common, a narrow strand of green area. Within Tulse Hill Estate there is ample shared green space. Brockwell Park, forming Tulse Hill’s eastern border, is not technically within the Ward boundaries but is cited by numerous residents as a great asset of the community (Voices of Tulse Hill, 2013).
Rush Common
Tulse Hill Estate
Brockwell Park
surveyed in previous ward asset mapping initiatives frequently cite ‘greenness’ as a strongly positive attribute of Tulse Hill (Voices of Tulse Hill, 2013).
Map showing the mismatch between the Tulse Hill Ward Boundaries (Blue) and the Tulse Hill Forum Boundaries (Red)
Tulse Hill Ward
Tulse Hill Forum
2.2.3. Boundaries According to the interviews carried out by national government sponsored community organisers, Tulse Hill residents travel to Streatham, Brixton, or West Norwood for shopping and major services (2014). Tulse Hill is well situated to benefit from these activity centres to its north and south. Because of this geographic accessibility, the community organisers expressed no overwhelming resident desire for commercial development within Tulse Hill itself. The peacefulness that the green spaces and hill setting provide, according to residents, allows Tulse Hill to be a quiet residential buffer between more active economic zones. In Lambeth’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011), the council expresses a desire to improve Tulse Hill’s role as a gateway to the West Norwood commercial and retail area, envisioning the Tulse Hill to West Norwood corridor as a “linear district town centre.” This strategy has great potential, particularly considering the connectivity between 15
the two areas via the A204 and the A215 roads. Furthermore, it allows Tulse Hill to retain its strong residential character while promoting a greater connection to West Norwood town centre through public realm improvements along the ward boundaries. Tulse Hill is undoubtedly connected to its neighbouring wards through shared green spaces (like Brockwell park) and the need for residents to access nearby town centres for services. This does, however, impact Tulse Hill’s geographic identity. As an earlier Lambeth council asset mapping initiative revealed, many Tulse Hill residents turn to service providers and groups outside of Tulse Hill itself for support and leisure. Furthermore, community organisers note that residents are more likely to identify as an inhabitant of a particular estate or of a larger, Tulse Hill Ward Map (Lambeth Council)
16
neighbouring area, such as Streatham or Brixton, rather than of Tulse Hill. Adding to this identity confusion, the ward boundaries do not equal the Tulse Hill Forum boundaries (see map). Particularly when the neighbourhood of Tulse Hill seeks to combat stigma, developing a geographically well-defined area through ward-wide initiatives may be important.
2.2.4. Connectivity and Public Transportation Tulse Hill is well connected to the rest of the borough and to London. At the southern end of Tulse Hill is the major junction between the A204 (Tulse Hill Road), the A205 (South Circular), and the A215 (Norwood Road). The area is served by 10 TfL bus routes, stopping regularly along the ward’s periphery. Tulse Hill Train Station is not technically within the ward boundaries, but lies to the south east of Tulse Hill ward. It is served by an overground suburban train service operated by First Capital Connect. The line runs direct to Central London, and a single journey takes approximately 16 minutes. A return fare costs £7.10. The nearest London underground station is Brixton station, approximately a 1.1 mile walk from the centre of the Ward. Many surveyed residents cite the connectivity of Tulse Hill as an asset. However, given the steep grade of many of the roads, it can be argued that the lack of permeability of bus links into the centre of the ward may limit mobility for residents unable to walk to the periphery to access transport. Map of all TfL bus stops in Tulse Hill (openstreetmap. org)
17
2.2.5. Geographical Distribution of Services There is a relatively low presence of services within the ward of Tulse Hill. Among existing services are three primary schools (Holy Trinity Church of England, Fenstanton, Jubilee), one special school (Elm Court School for children from 11-16 with social, communication, and learning difficulties), and a Children’s Centre (next to Jubilee school). However, the area benefits from the proximity to services that are located near the border. The closest library is located next to Brixton Station, north of Tulse Hill. Moreover, four GP practices can be found at the border of the ward. Finally, the Lambeth offices for Status Employment are located next to Stockwell station, easily accessible by bus.
FOCUS ON THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT The quality of built environment in Tulse Hill is not only much appreciated by current residents but also makes the area attractive to future potential residents. Tulse Hill offers an aesthetically pleasing and diverse combination of architectural styles from different time periods, including Victorian and Edwardian homes, modernist designs from the mid-20th century, and more contemporary buildings. Landmark buildings in the area include Holy Trinity Church, St. Martin’s in the Fields School, and the locally listed but currently vacant Tulse Hill Hotel. The topography of the area offers perspectives on the close and far landscape. The numerous trees and private gardens form a diffuse green infrastructure and Brockwell Park represents an important amenity and open space for recreation, play and sports activities. The housing estates, though all presenting an introverted character, are homogeneously distributed in the urban fabric. The estates’ introverted character can be considered as an asset as well as a threat: residents frequently identify as being from their estate first and Tulse Hill second, and there are prevailing feelings of pride on many estates in Tulse Hill; nevertheless, physical barriers and relative spatial isolation reinforce feelings of insecurity for many people, and a lack of built communal facilities outside of the estates contributes to social segmentation.
18
From top to bottom: Claverdale Rd, St Martin’s in Fields School, detached villa in Trinity rise, Tudor Close
2.2.6. Housing The ward contains eight housing estates, with eleven located immediately outside the ward borders. Tulse Hill Estate, the largest of the estates in the ward, was constructed in 1939, and the youngest estate, Cressingham Gardens, was completed in 1980. The estates exhibit a variety of architectural styles and building heights. For example, the main units on Tulse Hill Estate are 8 stories high, while buildings in Calidore Close are between 3-4 stories high.
From top to bottom: St.Martin’s Estate (picture of the authors), Tulse Hill Estate (wikimapia.org)
The estates provide strong geographic assets while also posing potential threats for quality of life in Tulse Hill. Many residents, according to community organisers working in the area, identify with their estate before the ward or the greater region. The quiet environment fostered by the design of some estates is seen as a residential strength of the area. On the other hand, some estates--including St. Martin’s Estate and Tulse Hill Estate--have footprints that include poorly lit and difficult to monitor areas that may encourage anti-social behaviour and loitering. While overall, many residents cited an overarching feeling of safety in Tulse Hill during previous asset mapping initiatives, informal mapping carried out at the Lambeth Country Show by the Lambeth Forum Network in the summer of 2010 indicated that there were high levels of concerns linked to young people and community safety in the Tulse Hill neighbourhood. Many Tulse Hill estates are candidates for regeneration under the Lambeth Council Estate Regeneration Programme. The need for regeneration, according to the council, exists because “poor quality housing, a legacy of underinvestment and variable housing management has led to a situation where much of the housing stock does not meet the expected standards of residents” (Lambeth Estate Regeneration Programme, 2012). St. Martin’s Estate is currently undergoing regeneration. The Estate Regeneration Programme has also identified Cressingham Gardens as a target estate. This classification has been controversial and led to a strong movement of opposition against the Council’s plan, organised through the Save Cressingham Gardens community group. Beyond the estates, Tulse Hill’s residential streets are lined with many attractive Victorian and Edwardian-era terrraced and semi-detached properties. These properties achieve high values when sold. Residents of these homes, however, do not benefit from the shared facilities and spaces available to residents on housing estates. This is an issue for community cohesion and identity in Tulse Hill, which will be explored later in the report.
19
FOCUS ON CRESSINGHAM GARDENS Cressingham Gardens Estate was completed in 1978. Today, it includes a total of 306 homes housing 185 council tenants, 73 leaseholders, 17 freeholders, 7 long-term voids. Low-rise and low-density, Cressingham Gardens estate was designed by Edward Hollamby while heading the Lambeth Borough Architects Department. According to the council, many of the properties are currently in a state of disrepair. In 2012, it warned tenants that prolonged upkeep and maintenance was too expensive and that estate had been earmarked for regeneration. The estate’s one to four storey homes include a mix of properties ranging from one-bed bungalows to six-person houses set along paved pedestrian walkways that meet in a central green spaces. According to some reports, a number of the properties are currently boarded up and ‘others have a range of issues including leaky roofs and severe cracking’ (AJ, 2013). However, a contrasting structural investigation made by Lambeth Living Technical Services (in 2010) found no major structural problems except for minor problems with the drainage system due to the lack of maintenance. In 2012 the council estimated the cost of necessary works to be £3.4 million, with most of the budget dedicated to roof renewal. After its initial designation as a target for regeneration sparked worries and opposition with existing tenants, Lambeth Council appointed Social Life to study options for the future of the estate. Many residents and estate supporters, well organised behind the Save Cressingham Gardens initiative, believe that the council will push a demolition-based programme, to which they are very much opposed. At the time of publication, the Council is still reviewing options based on the outcome of the Social Life surveys and will reveal their intentions in September 2014 (Lambeth, 2014). According to data offered by Social Life thus far, the residents attribute the responsibility of the estate disrepair to the council. Current tenants and leaseholders state a preference for refurbishment that would allow them to remain living in the estate. 81% of residents want to stay with repairs done, 7% are unsure, 10% want to leave the estate (Social Life, 2013). The Save Cressingham Gardens campaign suggests that the council is making decisions about the estate without taking into account residents’ needs, and there is a feeling of frustration about the lack of transparent communication and collaboration beyond the
20
Three pages from the original Cressingham Gardens Estate brochure, 1970s (Lambeth Council Archives)
Social Life interview scheme. The TRA (Tenants and Residents Association) has asked the council to conduct a structural survey and publicly disclose its findings in order to have a precise idea of the conditions of the estate and of the necessary works to undergo (and budget). At the time of publication, the council has yet to respond.
Pictures of the estate (Single Aspect’s Blog)
21
Frames from ‘Cressingham Gardens’ - a film by Sanda Kolar (https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=wGRf-SENyPk)
One of the pages of Social Life consultation report (2013)
22
2.3. A STATISTICAL SNAPSHOT OF TULSE HILL
2.3.1. Statement of Purpose, Methodology, and Data This statistical portrait of Tulse Hill aims to provide a general picture of striking topical facts, e.g. headline statistics, rather than to go into the details for each topic. The starting points for this portrait are the ward level profiles retrieved from the London Data Store. Doing so gives us a broad picture of the ward, and how it fares in many domains, e.g. from crime to environmental indicators, with Lambeth and London used as benchmarks. We used the most recent data for each figure presented. Dates can be found in parenthesis after each paragraph. This ward analysis is marked by the Ward subheading. Beyond a general picture of the ward, it is our attempt in this part to go below the ward level. To this end we used the most current LSOA profiles from the London Data Store, and the latest indices of multiple deprivation (2010). This allows us to show more geographical nuance in reporting said outcomes, and to highlight the geostatistical boundaries which most accurately approximate the Tulse Hill Forum area. This analysis is marked by the Disaggregated Level subheading. For each domain reported, four bands of colours are used, ranging from lowest to highest, and using only LSOAs within the Borough of Lambeth as the benchmark for the distribution of the data. In other words, such categories give us a visualisation of the LSOAs within Tulse Hill and the Tulse Hill Forum area, and their shade tell us whether they are faring better or worse than Lambeth for the domains presented. Finally, it should be noted that any given definition of the four colourshaded classes is likely to affect the visual patterns we note, and our appreciation of whether certain areas are doing better than others. We used a “Jenks natural-break� distribution to address this issue, since it provides an accurate and non-arbitrary method of representing trends in the data.
23
Map 2.1 - shows the distribution of black, asian, and middle eastern (BAME) residents in Tulse Hill and Lambeth.
Map 2.2 - shows the percentage of population of Tulse Hill and Lambeth not born in the UK.
24
2.3.2. Basic Demographics Ward: The total population of Tulse Hill is 16,000 residents, which represents 5.1% of total population of Lambeth (313,800 inhabitants) (2013). Moreover, Tulse hill is younger (32.9 years old on average) than Lambeth (33.9) and London (35.6). This is not surprising given that the elderly (aged 65+) represent a minority in the ward (6.9% of the ward population, compared to 7.6% in Lambeth, and 11.3% for London) (2013). The population of Tulse Hill is more diverse than in Lambeth and London on average: black, asian, and middle eastern (BAME) populations make up 52.6% of the total ward population, compared to 42.9% for Lambeth, and 40.2% for London. However, the percentage of individuals not born in the UK in the ward (38.6%) is not significantly different from the Lambeth average (38.9%) (2011). Disaggregated level: Map 2.1 shows that the distribution of BAME residents in the ward and forum areas are not uniform. Three LSOAs in the westernmost part of the ward display higher concentrations of white populations compared to the rest of the areas of interest. Furthermore, the distribution of BAME residents does not appear to fully correlate with the distribution of residents who were not born in the UK (e.g. we don’t observe the highest band of BAME residents in the same LSOAs as the highest bands of non-uk born residents in the ward and forum areas) (2011). This, we assume, is due to the relative youth of the population, who are diverse and predominantly born in the UK.
25
Map 2.3 - shows the population density in Tulse Hill and Lambeth.
Map 2.4 - shows the indoor living environment index of deprivation in Tulse Hill and Lambeth.
26
2.3.3. Physical and Built Environment Ward: The average density in the ward area is 16,000 persons per square kilometer, which is very high compared to the London average of 5,293, and to that of Lambeth (11,517) (2013). Disaggregated level: As observed in Map 2.3, there is some geographical variation with respect to density, whereby the LSOAs neighbouring Brockwell Park tend to be denser (in the 3rd highest band of density, in population/ hectare), compared to those in the south which are typically less dense (in the second band). However, it should be noted that the average density in Lambeth is over twice that of London (11,517 vs. 5,293), so, given that the bands are computed based on Lambeth-wide data, even lower density areas in Lambeth are typically of high density (2012). There is some further of geographical variation in the indoor living environment summary index of deprivation domain (Map 2.4), which combines measures of social and private housing in poor condition, and houses without central heating. The worse off areas in this domain are in the north, and in the south east of the ward and forum areas, but from the general pattern in surrounding areas, it does not appear that Tulse Hill, and the Forum area, are particular outliers in this regard (2010). The outdoors environment deprivation score (see Map 2.5 - next page), which summarises outcomes for air quality and road traffic accidents, shows a north-south divide in the forum and ward areas, where northern areas, as well as the Brockwell park area appear deprived compared to other study areas. Despite the presence of the park, this seems to indicate that traffic is a problem in said areas, whether in terms of safety for active transport mode users, or pollution (2010).
27
Map 2.5 - shows the outdoors environment deprivation score in Tulse Hill and Lambeth.
Map 2.6 shows the Geographical Barriers to Services Deprivation Index in Tulse Hill and Lambeth.
28
2.3.4. Mobility and Accessibility Ward: Overall, the ward is slightly less well-connected than Lambeth as a whole. The TFL average Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) for the ward is 4.4, compared to 5.0 for Lambeth. According to these measures, Tulse Hill is better connected than London on average (3.7). PTALs range from 1 to 6, with level 1 indicating extremely poor access and level 6 indicating the highest level of accessibility and services (2012). A substantial share of residents appear to rely on public transportation: car ownership levels are of 0.5 per household, which equals the Lambeth average, but is lower than the London average (0.8) (2011). Disaggregated level: The Geographical Barriers to Services Deprivation Index measure (Map 2.6) is a summary indicator of the four following variables: road distance to a GP surgery, road distance to a food shop, road distance to a primary school, and road distance to a post office. Few areas in Lambeth are part of the highest band of deprivation in this domain, with Tulse Hill being no exception. However, the northern parts of the ward appear to benefit from higher accessibility to services compared to the areas which border the park or are deeper within the ward and therefore farther from service centres of Brixton, Streatham, and West Norwood (2010).
29
Map 2.7 - shows the percentage of Tulse Hill and Lambeth residents reporting bad or very bad health.
Map 2.8 - shows the percentage of Tulse Hill and Lambeth residents reporting very good health.
30
2.3.5. Health Ward: Tulse Hill is doing marginally better than the Lambeth average in the domain of health, but remains worse-off than London on average: the male life expectancy is of 78.2 years (versus 77.4 for Lambeth, 79.3 for London) and 82.7 years for females (versus 82.4 for Lambeth, 83.5 for London) (combined 2008-2012 average). However, obesity is an issue in Tulse Hill. 27.5 % of children in year 6 are obese, a much higher proportion than both the Lambeth (24.7%) and London rates (22.7%) (combined 2009-2012 average). Disaggregated level: None of the areas in the ward appear in the highest band with respect to reporting “bad or very bad health” compared to the rest of the borough, though some geographical variation remains. One area to the south of the ward, which is included in the forum area, for example, displays the highest level of reports of bad health in all of Lambeth (2011). All in all, over 81% of the residents in each of the LSOA that make up the ward and forum areas – with the exception of one of the Tulse Hill Forum LSOAs – report having very good health (2011).
31
Map 2.9 - shows the crime deprivation index in Tulse Hill and Lambeth.
Map 2.10 - shows the IMD (Index of Multiple Deprivation) in Tulse Hill and Lambeth.
32
2.3.6. Crime and Aggregate Deprivation Ward: The 2012/2013 crime rate in the Tulse Hill area is 73.5 offences per thousand people, compared to 112.3 in Lambeth and 92.7 in London. The only types of crimes which are overrepresented in the area are robberies. The robbery rate is 7.4 per thousand for Tulse Hill, which is higher than the London average of 4.2, yet lower than the Lambeth average of 8.5. However, the Aggregate Index of Multiple Deprivation scores show a more negative general picture. All of the LSOAs in Tulse Hill belong in the to the 50% worst-off output areas nationally. The forum area LSOAs demonstrate an average rank Multiple Deprivation rank of 132, compared to an average rank of 199 for Lambeth, with ranks closer to 1 reflecting higher rates of deprivation (2010). Disaggregated level: Overall, it appears that the distribution of crime in the ward follows general patterns of the surrounding area. The highest crime deprivation index scores are concentrated to the north and east of the ward near more typical crime hotspots and areas that naturally attract more traffic and commercial activity (such as Brixton town centre) (2010). The aggregate score for the index of multiple deprivation (Map 2.10) also reveals that northernmost areas and the southern areas of the forum area are the most deprived, lying within pockets of other similarly deprived LSOAs that do not comprise the Tulse Hill area. This indicates that the deprivation may not be a ‘Tulse Hill’ problem specifically but rather a reflection of spillover trends from other areas (2010).
33
Map 2.11 - shows the income deprivation index in Tulse Hill and Lambeth.
Map 2.12 - shows the unemployment rate in Tulse Hill and Lambeth.
34
2.3.7. Education and Labour Market Ward: The rate of jobseekers allowance claimants in Tulse Hill (10.4%) is considerably higher than in Lambeth (7.3%) and London (5.6%) (2013). However, Tulse Hill’s population is on the whole more educated than the London average: 42.7% of the local 16+ year old population had obtained a level 4 qualification or higher, compared to 37.7% for London, though this is lower than Lambeth on average (46.6%) (2011). Disaggregated level: As observed in Map 2.11 and Map 2.12, there are concentrations of income deprivation (which relates to a number of indicators of reliance on benefits and asylum status) and higher unemployment rates in both the northernmost and southern parts of the ward (2010, 2011). Education deprivation indicators (as measured by a range of indicators of performance, and degrees attained in the population) display stark contrasts as well (see Map 2.13 - next page). Both within the ward and across ward boundaries, LSOAs exhibiting high and low education deprivation scores respectively neighbour one another (2010).
35
Map 2.13 - shows the education deprivation index in Tulse Hill and Lambeth.
36
2.3.8. Summary of Statistical Analysis While the aggregate index of multiple deprivation presents Tulse Hill as typically worse off than the rest of Lambeth, the disaggregated data shows that there is a degree of geographical nuance to this assertion. However, there does not seem to be any consistent or striking geographical pattern to the distribution of different outcomes, with the exception of the northernmost part which features high crime, indoor and outdoor environmental deprivation, income deprivation, and aggregate deprivation. There is also some degree of visual correlation in poor performance in the south of the ward, especially in terms of income, overall deprivation, and unemployment levels.
FOCUS ON TENURE TYPES As observed in the graphs, the distribution of tenures in Tulse Hill is different from that of Lambeth, with an overrepresentation of social rented housing in the ward compared to the borough (22% in Tulse Hill vs. 15% in the Borough), and a slight underrepresentation of owned housing with a mortgage (20% vs. 22%), and private rented housing (24% vs. 28%).
Tulse Hill
Lambeth
37
2.4 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
2.4.1. Business Activity According to the ONS statistics businesses registered in Tulse Hill as of 2010 account for 3.8% of the whole number of businesses in Lambeth. This proportion is lower than in neighbouring Brixton Hill, Herne Hill and Streatham Hill wards that are home to 5.5%, 5.8% and 4.9% of registered enterprises respectively. Figure 2.1 reveals that for the period from 2008 to 2010, the share of young businesses (less than 2 years old) decreased. This can partially be explained by the overall decrease in young business activity during financial crisis of 2008 and recovery period. On the other hand, the proportion of Lambeth’s enterprises younger than 2 years from Tulse Hill increased for the same period, which means that the ward weathered the crisis quite well. Figure 2.2 also illustrates low levels of business activity in the ward compared to the neighbouring areas. However, this data also shows that the share of Land Units in Tulse Hill does not change very much, meaning that business activity has the same sensitivity to shocks as Lambeth average. Brixton, on the other hand is more sensitive to shocks, while Herne Hill is less responsive.
Figure 2.1 - Share of enterprises by the age of business registered in Tulse Hill Ward Tulse Hill Ward here is approximated by the data for Middle Layer Super Output Areas (MSOA) named Lambeth 020 and Lambeth 024 as the territory covered by these areas is the closest to the boundaries of the ward.
38
Figure 2.2 - Proportion of Lambeth’s Land Units situated in Tulse Hill and neighbouring wards A Local Unit is defined as an individual site (such as a shop or factory), located in a geographically identifiable place (ONS, 2014).
From the analysis of business activity it can be said that there are capacities in the ward for the development of local businesses and creation of start-ups (young enterprises) as well as possibilities for support of activity in the adjacent areas. Achieving greater connectivity to the commercial services of West Norwood to the south will require improvements to the small retail centre surrounding Tulse Hill Train Station. Currently, the area has approximately 40 shop fronts, including a dry cleaners, multiple takeaway restaurants, bargain stores, a small Co-Operative grocery, beauty salons, and—most sizeably—a Suzuki car dealership. Despite this diversity, there are numerous vacant and long-term unlet commercial units. Among these is the locally listed Tulse Hill hotel building. This space is currently undergoing planning consideration to be renovated and reopened (Lambeth Planning, 2014). Investment of this kind to improve the area’s streetscape, attract consumers, and enhance its ‘gateway to West Norwood’ potential should be encouraged. Alongside commercial development, public realm investment would make the station area more desirable to visit.
2.4.2. Income and Property Values In 2008, the average weekly household total income estimate for Tulse Hill was approximately £810. This is significantly lower than average weekly income figures for the nearest wards. The figures for Brixton Hill, Herne Hill and Streatham Hill households are estimated to be £930, £895, and £870 respectively. 39
Heat Map showing the gradient of property prices - in red the Tulse Hill ward boundaries.
The Heat Map of property prices made by Zoopla (2014) shows that residential property prices are medium to low in Tulse Hill with the lowest values being on the territories of main estates. The rateable value (the value at which a property might be expected to be let for one year (ONS, 2014)) for retail space in Tulse Hill in 2011 was £84 per m2.
2.4.3. Employment Using the economic definition of unemployment used by ONS1 and according to calculations from ONS data, the unemployment rate in Tulse Hill as of 2011 was 9.2%, which is significantly higher than Lambeth and London average (7.9% and 7.2% respectively). About a quarter of the Tulse Hill population are out of the labour force, meaning they are economically inactive. A large share of the Tulse Hill population is still employed in high-skilled industries, despite the area exhibiting quite high unemployment figures. The area could capitalise on its asset of a large highly skilled sector through the provision of intra-community training and support for the unemployed. Moreover, given the proximity to town centres of Brixton and Streatham, cooperation with these areas in terms of local employment may be very valuable. The economic strategy of Brixton outlined in recent SPD aims to support existing employment centres and promote “the creation of new jobs for local people” (Brixton SPD, 2013). In that case the proximity to these areas could be seen as an asset of potential employment for the locals.
40
1. A person is defined as unemployed if he or she is not in employment, is available to start work in the next 2 weeks and has either looked for work in the last 4 weeks or is waiting to start a new job.
FOCUS ON EMPLOYMENT IN TULSE HILL
2. It should be noted that ONS data of employment by industries for 2001 and 2011 use different classifications (SIC 1992/2003 and SIC 2007 respectively) and therefore some biases are possible. The comparison presented used the correspondence of categories, proposed by Office for National Statistics in UK Standard Industrial Classification of Economic Activities 2007 (SIC 2007).
Residents of Tulse Hill are mainly occupied in Scientific and Technical, Health and Social Work, Wholesale and Retail, and Transport and Communication industries2. Manufacturing, Electricity and Gas, and Water Supply are among the least occupied industries. The overall pattern of employment by industries in Tulse Hill and Lambeth is similar. Figure 2.4 shows the change in the share of people employed in different industries for the 10 year period from 2001 till 2011. The largest differences are a decrease by almost 6 percentage points in Manufacturing industry and an increase by almost 8 percentage points in Transport and Communication industries. However part of this variation is due to the change in classification (ONS, 2009). Another notable difference is in the Construction sector. While Lambeth experienced an increase in the share of people occupied in construction sector, the share of people with a job in construction dropped in Tulse Hill. The similar trend is applicable for the Financial industry. The general trend is the shift from more specialised employment in manufacturing and technical activities to service industries with less skilled people, i.e. accommodation, catering, and transportation with the exception of education services.
Figure 2.3 - Employment (%) by industries in Tulse Hill (left) and Lambeth (right) in 2001 and 2011
Figure 2.4 - The 2001-2011 difference in shares of residents employed by industries (percentage points)
41
2.5. COMMUNITY AND PARTICIPATION
2.5.1. Features Valued by the Community From previous asset mapping initiatives and the ‘Voices of Tulse Hill: What Do You Love?’ survey, it is clear that many features in Tulse Hill and surrounding areas are valued by residents. The most prominent among these are parks/green spaces. Locals furthermore highly value their estates and the diversity and friendliness of their neighbours. Several also appreciate the range of ‘local’ shops near to the area and Tulse Hill’s proximity to Brixton.
2.5.2. Local Identity A ‘local identity’ crisis exists in Tulse Hill, stemming from three contributing factors: >> The area includes numerous vague and overlapping physical boundaries. As already discussed, the ward boundaries overlap those of the Tulse Hill Forum. Moreover, areas bearing the Tulse Hill name, such as the small commercial centre near the station, are not physically enveloped by the Tulse Hill ward. >> Tulse Hill unfortunately suffers from stigma and reputational threats due to bad press. Community organisers reveal that some locals would rather identify with Brixton or other surrounding areas rather than Tulse Hill because of neighbourhood stigma. >> There is a severe lack of positive, true, and visible information about community assets in Tulse Hill. For example, on the ‘Explore Lambeth’ webpage, eight neighbourhoods are linked with events listings, but Tulse Hill is not one of them, nor does information about the area appear under another neighbourhood link. Positive and true information about Tulse Hill is difficult to access for the curious citizen, and this sends a message of a lack of attention and investment in the area.
2.5.3. Tulse Hill Forum The Tulse Hill Forum was created in 2011 as part of Lambeth’s Forum Network and provides a key opportunity for locals to get involved in decisions that affect their area. According to their constitution, the mission of the forum is to “give a voice to the people of Tulse Hill... to reflect their aspirations and concerns… [and] to promote Tulse Hill and, in collaboration with the Borough of Lambeth and with other relevant organisations and individuals, work to develop, sustain and 42
Tulse Hill Forum logo
FOCUS ON YOUTH Many residents of Tulse Hill are concerned about younger residents, especially regarding employment opportunities and safety. While conducting our qualitative research, some Tulse Hill Forum committee members voiced concern about youth employment opportunities. Unemployment worries may also translate into fears about antisocial behaviour and crime. The documentary “The Dream Project” (2012) addresses local youth, who express deep concerns about the lack of available, relevant youth programming. Despite their affinity for the area, these youth experience violence and stigma attached to their neighbourhood, and thus feel the need to escape from Tulse Hill in order to enjoy new opportunities. These youth do not believe that the situation will change soon, and find it difficult to trust others. These concerns are also spoken to by the Tulse Hill Safer Neighbourhoods team, which identifies tackling anti-social behaviour as a key priority for the area (‘Tulse Hill Priorities and Promises,’ 2013). Adding to worries about the engagement of Tulse Hill youth are some well-publicised (perhaps sensationalised) reports of gang violence in Brixton and Tulse Hill. The ‘youth problem’ does not only include crime and unemployment, but also higher rates of teenage pregnancies. The Community Health and Wellbeing report (2010) states that the rate of under-18 conceptions in Tulse Hill is significantly higher than that of Lambeth.
Frame from ‘The Dream project’ - documentary (2012) (Source: www.youtube.com/ watch?v=wPTVp493VRY)
43
improve the area’s community, economy, environment and the quality of life and amenity for its residents, businesses and visitors” (Tulse Hill Forum, 2012). Membership is open to all Tulse Hill forum area residents. The Forum is able to raise its own funds and to bid for small grants of funding from the Lambeth Forum Network and Lambeth council. To do this and to set funding objectives and priorities, the Forum engages in a participatory budgeting process. This allows residents to directly influence local agenda setting and project delivery. The forum additionally organised a community market in 2013, which provided opportunities for the development of entrepreneurial skills for residents. Despite its early successes, the Tulse Hill Forum is still a nascent organisation and operates on a small scale. The following challenges have been revealed during its inaugural years: >> The structure and membership are not well explicated to the public, harming the Forum’s public legitimacy. >> The process of decision making within the Forum is currently difficult to comprehend. While committee-members are said to have voting power (Tulse Hill Forum Constitution, 2012), the Forum also engages a wider membership whose participatory role is not well defined. Furthermore, the logistical relationship between Lambeth Council and the Forum is not immediately clear. >> Due to its restricted budget which is divided among several projects, it seems difficult to implement long-term, wide-ranging, or sustainable initiatives. Participatory budgeting may indeed result in resources being spread too thinly for sustainable project development. >> There are concerns that the committee, or even the broader membership of the Forum, may not representative of the entire Tulse Hill community. Currently, the true representation of Tulse Hill’s wider diversity and youth population are in question. Additionally, many of the projects and groups linked to the Tulse Hill Forum are associated with estates, schools, and churches. While these institutions can provide more operational and organisational resources, they may in fact impose a barrier against achieving community-wide sharing of project benefits.
2.5.4. Community Facilities and Events Many community facilities currently exist in Tulse Hill. Arguably paramount among them is the High Trees, the better known name for the St. Martin’s Learning Centre that houses the High Trees Community Development Trust. This centre provides community space, valuable educational courses, and an internet cafe. Shared facilities exist on 44
many estates for use by estate residents and tenant management organisations, such as the Rotunda in Cressingham Gardens. Because shared community facilities in Tulse Hill are tied to the housing estates, this limits the opportunity for full community engagement. Spaces in neutral areas do not exist for use by the whole Tulse Hill community. Events like the Josephine Street Party, planned by the Josephine Avenue Group, demonstrate a keen interest in community-wide engagement and programming. Community organisers additionally express a desire among residents for larger shared community facilities that could house the numerous yet currently disconnected local initiatives in Tulse Hill. A physical hub that collectively houses these groups could facilitate sharing of capital, resources, and ideas, and promote a more ‘joined-up’ philosophy to community organising.
2.5.5. Local elections in Tulse Hill Participation of Tulse Hill residents can also be measured by looking at the past local elections. In July 2013, the election results for Tulse Hill indicated that the turnout for the elections was 20% (2274 votes for an electorate of 11279). This voter turnout is low compared to Lambeth’s local government elections’ turnout (34%). When compared to the turnout for national elections, the contrast is more striking: in 2010, the turnout was of 65.1% across the UK. Labour is the preeminent political preference of the ward. In 2013, the Labour candidate, Mary Atkins, was elected with 69% of the votes. This political preference is also pronounced at the borough level. The Labour party won a strong majority in the 2014 local elections, with 59 seats (among them, three representatives from Tulse Hill) to the Conservatives’ 3 seats, and the Green party’s 1 seat.
45
FOCUS ON TULSE HILL’S MANY COMMUNITY INITIATIVES
46
NAME
WHAT THEY DO
Assist in Sports Coaching (ongoing)
Work experience placement for young people in sports and leisure providers, working towards accreditation
Build-It Tulse Hill
One-to-one support for young people to gain experience in construction sector
Estate-based Debt Reduction (forthcoming)
Placement of specialist debt/financial advisors on Tulse Hill Estate as a pilot to reduce arrears levels
Homework Support (ongoing)
Survey to assess homework policies of local schools
Mental Wellbeing Impact Assessment
Survey to assess well-being impact of (potential) regeneration of Cressingham Gardens Estate
Saint Matthew’s Project
Football and other activities/support for young people
Tulse Hill Jobs Fair
Support for job-seekers
Tulse Hill Market
Monthly market to foster local entrepreneurialism
3. POLICY CONTEXT AND RELEVANT PROGRAMMES
3.1. NATIONAL LEGISLATION
3.1.1. Localism Act The Localism Act, passed in 2012, promises to change the relationship between central government and local authorities as well as between authorities and citizens. This policy shift will present possibilities for Lambeth and residents of Tulse Hill to make positive changes. A key element of the Localism Act is the provision of ‘General Powers of Competence,’ meaning that local councils can act in new ways with more authority, autonomy, and power. This is intended to encourage a more entrepreneurial approach to local governance. Local authorities are now able to offer some abatement of business rates to attract investment and can provide services in certain arenas which were previously prohibited. For example, they can now provide school support programmes, run youth clubs, and possibly establish some social enterprises, which could help to maximise the potential in Tulse Hill.
3.1.2. Community Rights and Responsibilities Within the Localism Act are numerous newly explicated rights for community groups. The ‘right to challenge’ means community groups can issue a proposal to take over the running of a service, to which the local authority must reply. The ‘right to bid’ allows community groups to raise money and bid on an identified ‘asset of community value’ when it comes on the market. Communities of Tulse Hill could use these rights to gain more control over their services and ‘assets.’ However, the level of organisation and funds required could be prohibitive. Finally, neighbourhood planning enables communities to shape local residential, retail, and commercial development.
3.1.3. Community Infrastructure Levy The final element of the Localism Act which may provide an opportunity for Tulse Hill is the Community Infrastructure Levy reform. The reform allows some of the money generated by the levy to be spent on projects other than infrastructure, permits the local authority more 47
say over the rate, and requires that some of the funds raised be spent directly on the neighbourhood of development. As such, it could be an opportunity for Tulse Hill to benefit directly from development that takes place in the area. However, if the council chooses to increase the rate, this will raise the overall price of development and could eventually be passed to consumers.
3.2. PLANNING
3.2.1. National and Regional Levels Both the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the London Plan emphasise economic development through a positive approach to sustainable growth. According to these documents, new development and growth will be concentrated mainly in town centres, opportunity areas, or areas of intensification. The majority of Tulse Hill ward does not fall within any of these categories, so significantly increased economic activity within Tulse Hill would not directly be in conformity with these policies. The NPPF and the London Plan emphasise healthy and inclusive communities in which there is equal access to facilities and services, including social infrastructure. These documents stress the importance of promoting ‘mixed and balanced’ communities (with a diversity of tenures and incomes) especially in areas ‘where social renting predominates and there are concentrations of deprivation’ (GLA, 2011). Urban scholars have noted, however, that, historically, the encouragement of ‘social mix’ often catalyses processes of gentrification and the eventual displacement of poorer tenants from rapidly developing areas.
3.2.2. Local Level Tulse Hill does not feature prominently in the borough’s local plan (including the draft local plan) except in conjunction with West Norwood. West Norwood/Tulse Hill is identified as a district centre, but again, most of Tulse Hill ward is not included and is mainly addressed as a ‘gateway’ to the area. Local plans have thus focused attention on regeneration of the West Norwood commercial centre through commercial-led development and of the town centre through mixeduse development. Local plans also encourage a refurbishment of the railway station and surrounding plaza. These documents emphasise 48
Brixton’s role as a ‘distinctive major multicultural town centre’ and Streatham as the other major town centre in the borough, which is also a diverse area that is experiencing rapid population growth. Brixton’s SPD concentrates on the town centre area and promotes economic development. It advocates that locals should participate in and benefit from the development. Some suggested strategies include: >> ‘businesses should form partnerships with learning providers in the boroughs’ >> ‘developments should have a clearly defined employment and skills plan stating how local employment and skills commitments will be met’ Thus, there is an opportunity for locals to capitalise both through local employment opportunities brought by Brixton’s development, as well as to achieve employment skills that are required by local businesses (better skills matching), and to take advantage of similar opportunities brought by regeneration and growth initiatives in West Norwood and Streatham.
3.2.3. Lambeth Community Plan Lambeth’s Community Plan (2013) strives to develop a model of cooperative working and aims to promote meaningful dialogue between citizens and the council. By joining together the strength of citizens, local businesses, public sector actors, and neighbouring authorities, Lambeth council will work towards three overarching outcomes, which will be prioritised over others (especially in the climate of dwindling public resources): >> More jobs and sustainable growth >> Communities that feel safer and more resilient >> Cleaner, greener streets The cooperative working model represents an opportunity for locals to influence the decisions and the actions of Lambeth council as well as the potential for positive change in terms of the economy, safety, and the physical environment. However, as the community organisers (2014) pointed out, some locals do not feel as though a meaningful and truly cooperative relationship has been established yet between citizens and the local authority.
49
3.3. RELEVANT WIDER INITIATIVES AND THEIR LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION
3.3.1. Decent Homes Standard and Lambeth Living In 2000, New Labour published its Housing Green Paper. The document put forth an ambitious ten year housing renewal programme committed to ensuring that all social housing was of a decent technical standard by 2010. To carry out this policy, armslength management organizations (ALMO’s) were established. These not-for-profit organizations were created to access the funding necessary for social housing renewal and to give tenants a greater say in how their estates would be managed, while reducing the need to pass social housing stock out of council control. Lambeth Living was the ALMO established in the borough to oversee this social housing renewal and management. Since 2010 Lambeth Living has continued this work and is currently spending over £450 million until April 2017 to improve local social housing on estates such as Deronda Estate in Tulse Hill in order to meet the national decent standards.
3.3.2. Warm Homes, Greener Homes and the Green Deal Home Improvement Fund This document is Westminster’s Household Energy Management Strategy with the overarching goal of reducing non-traded emissions from the household sector by 29% by 2020. This plan aims to reduce carbon emissions in households through four main avenues: >> All lofts and cavity walls to be insulated, where practical, by 2015 >> All new homes to be zero carbon from 2016 >> All homes to have received smart meters by the end of 2020 >> Up to 7 million homes offered eco-upgrades by 2020 Further, 7.7 Megatonnes CO2equivalent of emissions reductions will be needed through measures such as solid wall installations, heat pumps, draught proofing and hot water tank installation. By 2020 the Government foresees that 7 million homes will have received eco-upgrades as ¾ of UK housing stock was built before 1976. More recently, in May 2014, the Conservative Government relaunched their Green Deal Home Improvement Fund (GDHIF), a cashback subsidy worth up to £7,600 to households who install new energy saving improvement measures such as wall insulation, double glazed windows and more efficient gas boilers. The subsidy provided eliminates the high costs of renovation that acts as a barrier to many households undertaking these measures in areas such as Tulse Hill. 50
3.3.3. Build-it Tulse Hill The above national initiatives can be implemented at the ward level more effectively if attention is given to local community involvement. The Build-It Tulse Hill programme seeks to capitalise on this opportunity for local engagement, development, and area improvement. First funded by The Big Lottery Fund in April 2013, and in support with Lambeth Council and Lambeth College, the Build-it Tulse Hill programme teaches young people in Lambeth valuable construction and trade skills through partnerships with local tradespeople. The skilled tradespeople and students work together to refurbish and renovate derelict properties in the local area. The programme could be expanded through partnerships with Lambeth Living, perhaps training participants to refurbish occupied properties to meet the higher building and green standards stipulated in the documents above. If these policies can be carried out in Tulse Hill they could be directed at regenerating deteriorating estates such as Cressingham Gardens. Well-designed estates such as these are assets to the community and valued by London as a whole, as seen with walking tours of the estate conducted by the Twentieth Century Society (C20) on thier look at notable London architecture and design. Using local talent to preserve local assets in Tulse Hill could be a win-win for the ward.
3.3.4. Barclays Cycle Hire In December of 2013 London’s Barclays Cycle Hire network was expanded into South West London. This expansion included segments of central Lambeth. While the expansion failed to reach Tulse Hill, there now exist cycle stations within a mile of Tulse Hill located at Stockwell. Also located in Stockwell is Cycle Superhighway 7 (Merton to City). As well, to the north of Tulse Hill, construction will being on Cycle Superhighway 5 (Victoria to New Cross) in July 2014. Cycling infrastructure thus exists in reasonably close proximity to Tulse Hill. Once completed, these routes can be promoted as key assets for the Tulse Hill community. The area should campaign, as citizens in Brixton have done, to attain Cycle Hire stations in future waves of the schemes expansion. They would serve as a healthy alternative to getting around the area and city, and open up Brockwell Park to more visitors and passers-by.
51
52
4. SYNTHESIZED RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMPARATIVE EXAMPLES
4.1. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION AND CAPITALIZING ON NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSETS
Based on the broad, multidimensional analysis presented in this report, we advance five recommendations for action that would allow Tulse Hill and interested parties to fully capitalize on its neighbourhood assets. These five recommendations include calls to: 1. Promote Tulse Hill through transparent, visible and positive communication and press; 2. Develop central, accessible community facilities; 3. Engage youth through innovative, sustainable, and relevant programming; 4. Explore economic partnerships with neighbouring areas; 5. Cultivate and celebrate Tulse Hill’s strong residential identity. These recommendations should not be viewed in isolation from each other—as the following sections will demonstrate, each action step builds upon the previous to foster greater community pride, strength, and resilience.
4.1.1. Promoting Tulse Hill through Transparent, Visible, and Positive Communication and Press As a result of its relatively high crime rates and persistent deprivation, Tulse Hill has received negative attention in the press in recent years. The statistical analysis in this report reveals that, in actuality, crime in Tulse Hill—while still problematic—is not occurring at rates higher than much of the borough. We believe that the imbalance of negative press about Tulse Hill has led to an unfair stigmatisation of the area. To counter this, the council and Tulse Hill community groups can actively work to promote a more positive image of the area that shows its many assets. Tulse Hill has very little presence on Lambeth Council’s web page and is rarely discussed as a distinct entity in council publications. Instead, it has most recently been linked to bigger, neighbouring areas like West Norwood. While this may be practically justified due to Tulse Hill’s size, a greater visible presence in council materials could positively impact 53
the area. It would indicate a local interest and investment in the area, and mitigate other press that seems to suggest stagnancy or neglect. The Tulse Hill Forum is a great asset and testament to increasing levels of community engagement and investment. This, too, should be better promoted. Its web presence could be improved, and resources could be devoted to physically advertising the forum to residents in Tulse Hill. Herne Hill’s forum, for example, has an easily accessible web presence. Perhaps Tulse Hill’s forum group could network with their neighbours and learn strategies for better forum promotion. Undeniably, members of Lambeth Council are invested in Tulse Hill. This interest should be communicated to Tulse Hill residents in a transparent, highly visible way. Existing community organising initiatives have, we have found, actually limited direct council engagement with residents. The philosophy of local organising is, in many cases, one of indirect empowerment. While we respect the principle that organisers themselves should not be a liaison between residents and the council and that residents should be empowered agents of change, the council can actively seek resident input, participation, and consultation. We suggest some mechanism of routine, sustainable, and accountable engagement that can promote better relationships of mutual benefit between the council and Tulse Hill. Finally, community groups should have avenues and resources to actively publicize positive news about the area. A local newspaper, newsletter, or circular could help a) counteract area stigma, b) encourage development of important writing and communication skills for local residents, and c) foster greater community pride and identity. Furthermore, visible and transparent communication about existing community initiatives in Tulse Hill could increase awareness among groups that are currently working in isolation. As resources are often limited for local groups, a greater facilitation of dialogue can hopefully foster partnerships and alliances within the neighbourhood to achieve common goals.
4.1.2. Developing Central, Accessible Community Facilities Promoting Tulse Hill’s assets and positive image could be greatly aided by the development of central, accessible community facilities. The creation of a high-quality central facility would offer a physical space around which greater community identity and press could be centred. Currently, residents have expressed frustration that community centres exist only within the estates, restricting available space for neighbourhood-wide events and collaboration. Previous asset 54
mapping initiatives have revealed that while residents do often turn to individuals or services on their estates for support, they also frequently have to travel outside of the ward. Many Tulse Hill residents, furthermore, do not live on estates. The desire for local gathering space—modeled after the successful community centre at High Trees—is highly evident. A central Tulse Hill community centre could improve community identity by offering a focal point for community services and local social life. It could house the numerous yet currently disparate community programmes in Tulse Hill, as well as be the physical home of the Tulse Hill forum. Our research has revealed an interest in and need for library and IT facilities, and this centre could house these services for community use.
4.1.3. Engaging Youth Through Innovative, Sustainable, and Relevant Programming Intrinsically tied to the creation of central, accessible community facilities are the opportunities they would create for greater youth engagement. The presence of gangs is an evident challenge for youth living on some estates in Tulse Hill. Relatively high rates of unemployment, income deprivation, and educational deprivation put many Tulse Hill youth at risk for achieving fulfilling, long-term jobs. Amidst a context of persistent economic deprivation, youth may feel additionally disengaged and discouraged. The Tulse Hill Safer Neighbourhoods Team identifies antisocial behaviour among youth as a key priority, stemming likely from the lack of other, alternative engaging activities. Numerous past and current initiatives seek to address the need for youth engagement in Tulse Hill. These programmes should be supported and encouraged to work together to provide the most relevant and sustainable youth programming. Further research should be carried out to identify the types of programming that may be most successful and relevant for Tulse Hill youth. This engagement could additionally capitalise on Tulse Hill’s geographical assets, being located in proximity to major borough commercial centres and areas that will soon be undergoing regeneration. Our ‘Wider Initiatives’ section discussed the potential of expanding the Build-It Tulse Hill programme. This is an example of how joined-up thinking can promote strategic goals for the area and achieve greater youth engagement. Youth engagement can build social capital among young residents in Tulse Hill and can help cultivate essential employable skills. Our qualitative research has revealed a strong inclination among many Tulse Hill youth to leave the area when they grow up and if they attain 55
enough to overcome barriers to exit. Engaging youth could not only lay the foundation for long-term employment and social success but could also foster connections to the area that may promote a more sustainable, invested community.
4.1.4. Exploring Economic Partnerships with Neighbouring Areas Brixton, Streatham, and West Norwood are all identified by Lambeth strategic plans as areas of economic intensification. They are all easily accessible from Tulse Hill, and therefore offer a key opportunity for spillover benefits and improvement of economic deprivation trends in the area. Central to the Brixton SPD is a detailed economic strategy. Crucially, this economic strategy includes an emphasis on encouraging local employment, using economic growth to facilitate skills development and training, and fostering innovative partnerships between the community and the private sector. Tulse Hill should engage with Brixton and seek to benefit from this tenet of its development strategy. Likewise, as West Norwood and Streatham further develop their economic development strategies, a dialogue should be started to include the population of Tulse Hill in these local employment and training initiatives. Beyond engaging Tulse Hill residents in the economic development of surrounding areas, new community facilities could allow for training, apprenticeship programs, and local employment initiatives to occur ‘in-house.’ The ‘Economic Analysis’ section of this report revealed a relatively large sector of highly skilled residents in Tulse Hill living alongside a large unemployed population. An initiative could theoretically be designed to capitalise on the assets of highly-skilled residents and channel this into opportunities for community members who are struggling to find employment because of skills gaps.
4.1.5. Cultivating and Celebrating Tulse Hill’s Strong Residential Identity The four recommendations explored thus far seek to enhance the assets Tulse Hill demonstrates as a unique, desirable residential neighbourhood. We believe based on our geographical, economic, ethnographic, and community analysis that Tulse Hill should cultivate and celebrate its residential identity rather than transitioning to a strategy predicated on new commercial or retail development. While the regeneration of the Tulse Hill station area could see positive spillover effects for the residents of Tulse Hill, we believe it is an asset that the area is quiet, ‘peaceful’, and green. Its residential nature should be celebrated and promoted. 56
Clearly defined community facilities that offer a wide-range of programming that engages residents and families can provide foci for Tulse Hill that commercial centres might offer for other areas. Previous asset mapping projects reveal that residents value the tranquility and residential atmosphere of Tulse Hill, feeling its proximity to commercial centres like Brixton, Streatham, and West Norwood compensate for the lack of services located directly within the ward. We would recommend a continued commitment to promoting community activity of a residential scale in the Tulse Hill area—like neighbourhood markets, fayres, classes, and training programmes—that engage and mobilise residents and improve neighbourhood identity. There is a strong existing appreciation for the ‘greenness’ of Tulse Hill and the aesthetic appeal of much of the area. Even on estates identified as candidates for regeneration, like Cressingham Gardens, the built environment is regarded as a strong, unique asset of the area. Walking tours conducted by the Twentieth Century Society (C20) revealed a deep appreciation for Cressingham’s unique architectural integrity. Because of this, community groups, including the Save Cressingham Gardens group, are concerned that regeneration will involve demolition and a loss of this important residential identity. Our recommendations for expanding the ‘Build-it Tulse Hill’ programme and investing in renovation-over-demolition strategies offers another example of a joined-up solution to multople threats. Using local talent to preserve local assets in Tulse Hill could be a win-win for the ward.
57
4.2. COMPARATOR STUDIES AND RELEVANT LESSONS The above recommendations offer suggestions for how Tulse Hill’s assets can best be enhanced to improve quality of life for its residents, promote community sustainability, and combat persistent deprivation. Thanks to its geographic position and existing assets, there is great potential for Tulse Hill to reverse its legacy of deprivation and flourish as a unique, vibrant residential neighbourhood. It is important to note that regeneration of neighbourhoods near burgeoning commercial centres can, without careful planning, lead to gentrification. We turn now to a comparator study from neighbouring Southwark borough to explore this threat.
4.2.1. Comparator Case of Nunhead, Peckham Located near Tulse Hill in South London is the ward of Nunhead in Southwark (see situation map on the side). It is one of five wards in the district of Peckham. According to recent census data, the two wards are demographically, socially, and geographically similar. Like Tulse Hill, Nunhead is primarily a residential ward with close proximity to commercial town centres in neighbouring wards, specifically Peckham’s Rye Lane. The ward has a high amount of park space that connects it to neighbouring wards, similar to Brockwell Park in Tulse Hill. Further, Nunhead enjoys good bus and Overground linkages to the rest of London. Despite these assets however, the area has a historically bad reputation due to high crime levels and perceptions of the area not being safe. From 2001 to 2012 the average house price in Nunhead rose by £140,035. Adjusted for inflation this amount rises to £190,031. The increase in property values coupled with shifts in demographic makeup, incomes and education levels point to gentrification. This process has been subtly encouraged in Nunhead and Peckham as new planning policy requires more new-build housing to be private rather than publicly owned. Further, local borough level policy has largely neglected the area in favour of focusing on commercial town centres to draw in corporate investment
4.2.2. Lessons for Tulse Hill As seen in Nunhead and Peckham as a whole, the introduction of London Overground in 2012 has made the area more accessible to downtown London and thus more attractive to retailers and richer 58
Situation map - Nunhead, Peckham, London
Peckham
Nunhead
Pictures of Nunhead - Top: the Ivy House, bought by the community under the new localism act, restored, and saved from demolition (http://transpont.blogspot. ca/2012/04/save-ivy-house. html) - Bottom: view from Peckham Rye Common
households. If Brixton is to get its desired Overground stop in the near future similar effects will likely be felt in the area that could spillover to Tulse Hill, creating upward pressure on property values and making the area more expensive. Additionally, borough level planning policy in Southwark has promoted private housing development over more affordable options. Lambeth’s new plan remains to be finalised, but the Nunhead example draws attention to the impact that borough strategic planning can have on less expensive residential areas that lie near areas highlighted for extensive development. Finally, the Nunhead case reveals how gentrification can be an unstoppable ‘spillover effect’ in residential areas near centres of commercial intensification. We believe that the reason this process may seem unstoppable lies in the dearth of attention paid to promoting, protecting, and developing the unique assets of less noticed residential neighbourhoods. Although this report advises against unnecessary commercial intensification in Tulse Hill, it equally argues for an intensification of Tulse Hill’s numerous neighbourhood assets-its diversity, activism, greenness, and built heritage. Accomplishing this requires an awareness of neighbourhood trends, transparent and frequent communication with the community, a promotion of community organising and activism, and a commitment to an assetbased model of regeneration.
WARD
Table comparing the key data of Tulse Hill and Nunhead (London Data Store 2014 Ward Profile)
Population
TULSE HILL
NUNHEAD
16,000 (2013)
13,620 (2011)
BAME %
52.6
55.5
% Born outside of UK 2011
38.6
39
325875
340000
% HH Owned 2011
29.2
30.8
% HH Social Rented 2011
43.2
47.4
Open Space %
16,6
20.1
4.4
4.5
Crime rate (2012/13)
73.5
84.5
Employment rate
68.1
61.7
Deprivation rank of avg. score (2010)
132
93
% with Level 4 qualifications and above
42.7
34.8
Mean House Price £ 2011
TfL Accessibility (PTAL)(2012)
59
4.2.3. A Success Story: Lorraine (Berne, Switzerland) Lorraine, a once deprived inner city neighbourhood in Berne, Switzerland, is situated close to the city’s central station. Over the past 25 years, Lorraine’s appearance has significantly changed as it has experienced the arrival of middle-class residents. Despite this change, Lorraine has successfully managed to benefit from regeneration without displacing already present residents and compromising the strong identity of the neighbourhood. The area has countered detrimental socio-spatial trends such as growing space consumption and out of context development by shaping regeneration to local needs and existing assets. In summary, this high quality, multicultural, and diversified neighbourhood is a regeneration success story because: >> The municipality took charge of much of the area’s decaying real estate, facilitating the creation of self-governed housing associations. >> A responsive, consultative, and transparent local authority fostered strong relationships with the existing community and allowed residents to exercise choice and input easily concerning the developments and infrastructures they preferred. >> The local authority acknowledges that maintaining this diverse and thriving community needs to be a long-term priority, and that positive change--however impressive--is not impervious to political and economic changes.
60
Situation map - Lorraine, Bern, Switzerland
Lorraine
Pictures of Lorraine, Bern from top to bottom: Lorraine community gathering (zeitpunct.ch), Lorraine’s swimming pool (bern.com), green housing district (wok-lorraine.ch)
5. CONCLUSION
This report has synthesised existing and new quantitative and qualitative research on the Tulse Hill area. In combining historical, geographical, economic, statistical, and ethnographic data in one comprehensive document, it has allowed for a fuller picture to be established of the neighbourhood’s major assets, challenges, and opportunities. These are summarised in a synthetic table (see next page). This complex matrix of strengths, threats, and potential points for improvement is embodied within our simple, yet interconnected, selection of five key recommendations: 1. To promote Tulse Hill through transparent, visible and positive communication and press 2. To develop central, accessible community facilities 3. To engage youth through innovative, sustainable, and relevant programming 4. To explore economic partnerships with neighbouring areas 5. To cultivate and celebrate Tulse Hill’s strong residential identity We hope that this in-depth body of research and analysis can foster a dialogue about strategies for improving quality of life and counteracting persistent deprivation in Tulse Hill. It can be used to inform future debates about the area, to spark innovative and creative solutions to challenges in the neighbourhood, and to highlight the numerous assets that should inspire optimism about Tulse Hill’s future.
61
ASSETS
CHALLENGES
Green space and domestic garden cover
Relatively steep elevation gains can limit mobility and accessibility of some residents and create transport challenges
Diverse and aesthetically pleasing built environment
A demolition-focused regeneration programme could lead to tension with Regenerate estates with involvement of existing existing populations and compromise some populations to capitalise on valued local assets of the built environment assets of the area
Well-connected with good transport links
Improved, faster transport could encourage the gentrification of the area, as seen in Nunhead, Southwark
A young, diverse, and educated population reporting healthy living.
Overall high deprivation, but not Promoting and consolidating educational and labour geographically even: the northernmost part market outcomes for young people. Consolidating of the area is one of the most deprived in the outdoors and indoors environments. ward, and is part of a larger crime cluster.
Geography and Built Environment
Statistical indicators
Resilience of the economy and business activity is in line High unemployment level compared to with the borough average in Lambeth times of economic shocks Economy
OPPORTUNITIES
Diversity of retail activities in the border of West Norwood; Potential for further economic development of the station area
Current vacant and long-term unlet commercial units; Risk of redevelopment that is non-contextual with the neighbourhood and further removes it from the ‘Tulse Hill’ community (as it is currently outside of political boundaries)
Enhance identity as a ideally located, peaceful, desirable residential neighbourhood
Promote public realm on borders with key commercial and mixed use areas (Brixton, Streatham, West Norwood)
Provide training and support to the unemployed and cooperate with Brixton, Streatham and West Norwood in terms of local employment
Improve the area near West Norwood to attract more investors and consumers, while encouraging services and retail that are desired by existing community; seek local employment in new commercial development, following example of Brixton SPD
Diverse, active, and engaged Relatively high perception of crime; Lack of community; Community clear identity for Tulse Hill; Concern about Community recognises and values local disengaged youth assets
Create physical and virtual spaces to promote community cohesion and identity (community centres, newsletters, events, etc.); Promote and improve the transparency and visibility of the Forum; Engage youth through relevant programming; Promote dialogue and collaboration across community groups and initiatives
Intense attention paid to Tulse Hill is not considered as a substantial development to areas on the entity in the plans; Appears neglected and borders of the ward: Brixton, may compromise its unique identity Streatham, West Norwood
Take advantage of Brixton’s, Streatham’s and Norwood’s developments to foster employment in Tulse Hill; Promote Tulse Hill in its own right as a unique residential space with specific, non-commercial assets that complement neighbouring commercial centres
Policy and Initiatives New policies encourage community empowerment, emphasis on local context, and devloution of power
62
Barrier to participation; Transparency Build trust and encourage ‘joined-up’ initiatives that between council and community may be combine expertise of the Council and social capital of the hard to achieve; Community level-local policy community; Foster feelings of mutual respect by seeking management (i.e. neighbourhood plans, compromise and creative solutions (e.g. Cressingham ‘right to bid’, etc.) requires ample resources Gardens regeneration strategy) and capital
SOURCES
Allies and Morrison & Urban Practitioners (2013). Draft Brixton SPD. Beard, M. (2013). Boris bike scheme makes tracks south and west as it grows 50%. London Evening Standard. (http://www.standard.co.uk/ news/london/boris-bike-scheme-makes-tracks-south-and-west-as-itgrows-50-9002311.html) Communities and Local Government Committee (2010). Beyond Decent Homes. (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm200910/cmselect/cmcomloc/60/6002.htm) Coyte, S. (2014). Tulse Hill Report. Cressingham Gardens Tenants and Residents Association (2013). Regeneration Newsletter – April 2013. DCLG (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. Department of Energy & Climate Change (2010). Warm Homes, Greener Homes – A strategy for Household Energy Management. Department of Energy & Climate Change (2014). The Green Deal: guide to the Green Deal Home Improvement Fund. (https://www.gov. uk/government/publications/the-green-deal-guide-to-the-greendeal-home-improvement-fund) Elevation Map (2014). (http://elevationmap.net/12b-christchurchroad-london-sw2-3ey-uk) Generalised Land Use Database (2007). GLA (2011). The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. GLA (2011). Indices of multiple deprivation. (http://data.london.gov. uk/datastore/package/indices-deprivation-2010) GLA (2014). LSOA atlas. (http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/lsoa-atlas) GLA (2014). Ward Profiles. (http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/ward-profiles-and-atlas) Hamnett, C. (2003). Gentrification and the Middle-class Remaking of Inner London, 1961-2001. Urban Studies. House of Commons (2010). General Election 2010. Preliminary Analysis. Labour (2014). Bring the Bikes to Brixton. (http://www.campaignengineroom.org.uk/bikes2brixton) 63
Lambeth Living (2014). Improving homes – the Lambeth Housing Standard. (http://www.lambethliving.org.uk/lhs) Lambeth Planning (2014). Tulse Hill Hotel Planning Application. (http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=N4W1OTBO67000) Lees, L. (2007). Gentrification and Social Mixing: Towards an Inclusive Urban Renaissance? Urban Studies. London Borough of Lambeth (2007). Unitary Development Plan. London Borough of Lambeth (2011). Core Strategy. London Borough of Lambeth (2012). Estate Regeneration Programme: Strategic Delivery Approach. London Borough of Lambeth (2013). Brixton SPD. London Borough of Lambeth (2013). Draft Local Plan. London Borough of Lambeth (2013). Election results for Tulse Hill (http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=105&RPID=25499332) London Borough of Lambeth (2014). Election results by party. Local Government Elections 2014. (http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/ mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=25&RPID=25499332) London Borough of Southwark (2012). Peckham and Nunhead Area Action Plan. London Youth (n.d.). Build-it programme launches. (http://www. londonyouth.org.uk/about-us/news/build-it-programme-launches) Metropolitan Police (2013). Tulse Hill Priorities and Promises. ( National Federation of ALMOs (2013). NFA core values and services. (http://www.almos.org.uk/nfa_core_values) NHS and Lambeth (2010). Community Health and Wellbeing Ward Profile, Tulse Hill Ward. ONS (2009) UK Standard Industrial Classification of Economic Activities 2007 (SIC 2007): Structure and explanatory notes. ONS (2014). Neighbourhood Statistics (http://www.neighbourhood. statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/) Sheppard, F. H. W. (1956). Survey of London: volume 26: Lambeth: Southern area. Southwark Notes, London Tenants Federation, Loretta Lees and Just space (2014). Staying Put: An Anti-Gentrification Handbook for Council Estates in London Stienen, A., Blumer, D. (2009). The equitable regeneration of Berne, in Porter, L., Shaw,K., Whose Urban Renaissance? The Dream Project (2012). (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPTVp493VRY). The Localism Act (2011). 64
Thompson, M. (2013). C20 Society calls for South London estate to be listed. Architects’ Journal. (http://singleaspect.org.uk/web/C20%20 Society%20calls%20for%20South%20London%20estate%20to%20 be%20listed%20%20%20News%20%20%20Architects%20Journal. html) Tulse Hill Community Organisers (2014). COOrganisers, Interview. Tulse Hill Forum (2012). Constitution of Tulse Hill Forum. Twentieth Century Society (2013). Press Release: Twentieth Century Society backs Cressingham Gardens listing bid. (http://www.c20society.org.uk/news/press-release-twentieth-century-society-backs-cressingham-gardens-listing-bid/) Voices of Tulse Hill (2013). Social Life, ‘What do you love?’ Survey Zoopla (2014). Heat Map of Property Prices (http://www.zoopla.co.uk/ heatmaps/)
65
66