Issuu

Public transport infrastructure and social exclusion in London: What correlations can we find between transport infrastructure and levels of poverty and deprivation in the capital?

Luke Ian Philip Richards 14060019

Research 2: Dissertation

Table of Contents

Abstract

Introduction

What is social exclusion & how do we define it?

Research Methodology & Literature Review

Case Study One: The London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Case Study Two: Barking Riverside

Conclusions

Bibliography & References

Abstract This paper is a review of the relationship between public transport infrastructure and levels of poverty, deprivation and social exclusion within two of the most deprived boroughs in London, Tower Hamlets and Barking and Dagenham. It will start by outlining the basic principles of social exclusion and deprivation, how it is measured by local authorities and the government and the ways in which social exclusion can be linked to, or caused by, the condition, presence or absence of public transport infrastructure within the given area. It will then critically analyse and review two different areas of London which were determined by prior research into local levels of deprivation and social exclusion - Tower Hamlets and Barking Riverside. By using government statistics, personal accounts and a variety of mappings and urban planning tools, the paper will review the connection between the levels of deprivation and exclusion the region is suffering from and the integration of public transport infrastructure in the area to determine whether or not the infrastructure has any positive or negative effects on the particular area.

Word Count: 10,365 words 10,997 including image captions

Introduction London is at the heart of seemingly everything nowadays. It’s England’s largest city, both in size and population, and it with its iconic skyline (1) is the beating heart of this proud country. Or is it? For a number of years now there has been a growing unrest at ‘Londoncentricity’, a term which has been used more and more for bashing political and economic policies in the UK in recent years. Many outside of London seem to think that London’s prosperity has been at the expense of the rest of the country. “London gets everything”, they say. One article reads, “Britain’s capital city is becoming a spoiled brat” (Jenkins, 2015), claiming that the city simply “gets whatever it wants”.

(1) The London Skyline as viewed from an apartment in Rotherhithe.

Elements of what Jenkins writes are true, but London is not without its faults. For the so-called “richest and most exciting city on Earth” (Jenkins, 2015), it has an awfully high percentage of its population living in poverty. London’s Poverty Profile, published in 2017, states that “the proportion of Londoners living in poverty after housing costs are taken into account has fallen from 29% to 27% over the last six years” (New Policy Institute, 2017). For contrast, the national average (at the time of writing) for poverty was 21%. According to the English Indices of Deprivation 2019, two of the most deprived Local Authorities in England are in London.

A lot of discontent and finger pointing comes from ma jor infrastructure projects that are deemed too ‘London-centric’, but that are paid for by the UK taxpayer. HS2 is one of the largest of these schemes in modern history, estimated to cost “£106.6bn” (Oakervee, 2020) according to latest reports by British civil engineer Douglas Oakervee. Many claims have been made that HS2 will improve connections across the country, and that it will re-unite the North with the South, connecting to Northern Powerhouse Rail and unite the entire country, a point that the current UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson seems to be hammering home. However, many fingers are pointed at its excessive cost and the fact that this is, fundamentally, a ‘London-centric’ venture (2). The New Economics Foundation wrote, “The problem with HS2, however, is that it is the product of an economy in crisis, an economy desperately trying to unhook itself from London-centricity and all its malcontents, but actually compounding the problem by starting the project in London.” (Pendleton, et al., 2019)

(2) High Speed 2 (HS2) Route Map (High Speed Two, 2020)

The aim of this paper is to uncover the deep-seated and intrinsic relationship between existing and proposed transport infrastructure and the levels of social exclusion, poverty and deprivation in a given area. The paper will outline the definition of social exclusion, how we measure it, how we can connect it to transport infrastructure and key literature used in the research. It will then draw conclusions from two key case studies – one existing and one proposed – in the shape of Tower Hamlets and Barking Riverside; which are two of London’s most deprived boroughs.

What is social exclusion & how do we define it? Defining social exclusion is a big problem, and it is one which seems to have no specific right or wrong answer. In 2000, the UK Government (more specifically, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; known at the time as the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and later the Department for Communities and Local Government) published the English Indices of Deprivation 2000, the first publication of its kind in which they assessed the levels of poverty and deprivation in every local authority in the United Kingdom. From this initial report, the government has since issued updated versions in 2004, 2007, 2010, 2015 and most recently in September 2019. In these reports, the government outlined the 7 ma jor factors that contribute to a local authority’s overall deprivation ‘rank’ (3): There are 7 domains of deprivation, which combine to create the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD2019):

(3) The 7 domains of deprivation, as set out in the English Indices of Deprivation. (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019)

1. Income (22.5%) This domain “measures the proportion of the population experiencing deprivation relating to low income.” (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019). This is one of the most immediately obvious factors of poverty, which is defined as “a lack of economic resources” (Marlier & Atkinson, 2010). If an area collectively has low income, then it is likely that the house prices will be lower, and subsequently, living standards will be lower too. This index can also be sub-categorised into two supplementary indices: a.

Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) “This measures the proportion of all children aged 0 to 15 living in income deprived families” (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019).

b. Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI) “This measures the proportion of those aged 60+ who experience income deprivation” (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019). 2.

Employment (22.5%) The employment factor “measures the proportion of the working age population in an area involuntarily excluded from the labour market.” (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019). The key word for this measure is ‘involuntarily’, in that those that are voluntarily unemployed do not count towards this study, only those that are deprived of the opportunity for employment through outside factors. We will discuss more on these factors later on in the study.

Education (13.5%) According to the English Indices of Deprivation 2019, this “measures the lack of attainment and skills in the local population” (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019). A lack of education will reduce the likelihood of successful employment, but lack of educational facilities cannot always be in a young person’s control, particularly if they are experiencing poverty from other factors.

Health (13.5%) This section “measures the risk of premature death and impairment of quality of life through poor physical or mental health” (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019).

Crime (9.3%) This domain “measures the risk of personal and material victimisation at local level” (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019). Studies have shown that in areas of lower income, crime is typically higher. A 2018 study by Civitas found that members of households earning under £10,000 per annum experience “62% more personal crime – and 73% more violent crime” (Cuthbertson, 2018)

Barriers to Housing & Services (9.3%) This section “measures the physical and financial accessibility of housing and local services” (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019).

Living Environment (9.3%) The final section “measures the quality of both the ‘indoor’ and ‘outdoor’ local environment” (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019).

It is evident that across these 7 factors, the UK Government are analysing poverty and deprivation from a number of angles. However, these factors are chosen because they are easily quantifiable, either by statistics or by facts and figures. What they have neglected to consider, however, is the concept of social exclusion. Social exclusion is defined by Marlier & Atkinson as: “the involuntary exclusion of individuals and groups from political, economic and social processes, preventing their full participation in the society in which they live.” (Marlier & Atkinson, 2010) Burchardt et al. defines a socially excluded individual as: “an individual is socially excluded if (a) he or she is geographically resident in a society but (b) for reasons beyond his or her control he or she cannot participate in the normal activities of citizens in that society and (c) he or she would like to so participate.” (Burchardt, et al., 1999) The theme of involuntary exclusion is crucial, as it outlines the idea that a person or persons are being deprived of something against their will, whether it be by political, social or economic means. Another key word in Burchardt et al.’s definition is geographically. The idea that these people might be excluded from society by being geographically distant or incapable of travelling to facilities is an area which all of the works referenced so far seem to have neglected to consider. This is where the work of Andrew Church, Martin Frost and Karen Sullivan comes in.

In 2000, Church et al. produced a paper titled “Transport and Social Exclusion in London”. Up until this point, very few studies had linked social exclusion and transportation infrastructure. It was one of the first papers to “propose a conceptual framework which links the two” (Church, et al., 2000). As a part of their conceptual framework, they identified seven of their own categories into which we can group factors of social exclusion; which are as follows: 1.

Physical Exclusion Physical exclusion pertains to barriers created by the built environment and transport systems. This will include people who are excluded from using transport infrastructure because of “physical and psychological difficulties” (Church, et al., 2000). Physical exclusion from transport systems means that the isolated people will be more heavily reliant on cars, which they may not be able to afford, or be shut off from the network completely, leading to exclusion from local facilities and neighbouring areas. This often affects “small children, older people, those with impaired mobility, hearing or vision, non-English speakers and those with learning difficulties” (Imrie, 1996, as cited by Church et al., 2000). From this, we can begin to see real-world objects and architectural elements that can physically exclude people from the transport systems, such as lack of wheelchair/disabled access points, lack of station staff to aid those with vision or hearing impairments, etc.

Geographical Exclusion The text cites “poor transport provision” and the “resulting inaccessibility” as “factors which contribute to urban social exclusion and deprivation” (Church, et al., 2000). If someone is unable to access facilities which are far away, then they are deprived of that opportunity. Many people on low incomes cannot afford to drive, and so rely heavily on public transport, the connections and routes of which are beyond their control. According to Church et al., Grieco (1994) wrote that “in East London, more isolated communities have local labour market information networks, and that regeneration and new transport initiatives can open up these areas to labour market competition that is problematic for local residents” (Church, et al., 2000). Their counter-argument, however, is that “such situations are increasingly rare in London where complex economic and social conditions mean that most individuals are unlikely to be able to carry out all their activities within their immediate local area” (Church, et al., 2000).

Exclusion from Facilities “Residents in areas with high levels of social exclusion often lack access to good shopping, financial, leisure, health and education facilities because of time and income constraints in the use of transport services and the ‘flight’ of some of these facilities from problem areas” (Church, et al., 2000). In recent years, there has been a growing trend of ‘out of centre facilities’, such as Bluewater Shopping Centre in Dartford, London - an incredibly popular shopping destination that is difficult to access by public transportation, even today. It isn’t just shopping facilities that people can be isolated from, however. Many children across deprived areas of the UK find themselves excluded from good educational facilities. The Education Act of 1980 gave parents a greater choice of schools to which they could send their children, which meant that in turn, “the average distance that children travel to school, and their propensity to use motorised modes have both increased” (Church, et al., 2000). Church goes on to write, “these [monetary and temporal] costs are likely to be particularly onerous for poorer people and people without access to a car, and where costs cannot be met may result in reduced opportunity and choice.” (Church, et al., 2000). The issues begin to arise with exclusion from facilities when people are stranded without the necessary facilities to survive. One of London’s most remote areas, Barking Riverside, is a prime example of exclusion from facilities, with no cafés, pubs or doctors. We will investigate Barking Riverside later on in this paper.

Economic Exclusion Economic exclusion involves the lack of employment opportunity to residents of areas experiencing social exclusion. Lack of connection via public transport infrastructure can “limit the geographical extent of job search and on work travel patterns” (Church, et al., 2000). Most people cannot afford to travel across London daily, especially given the amount of time it takes due to congestion and traffic, and the ever-increasing ticket prices of the privatised rail networks.

Time-based Exclusion Temporal poverty is another crucial issue that affects many individuals. Travelling by public transport, on average, will take a longer amount of time to complete the same journey that driving to the same destination would. People can struggle to make commitments (be it employment, recreational, educational or otherwise) because of a lack of time relating to the need to travel. “The problems of arranging childcare were often linked to the need to travel” (Church, et al., 2000). For

those with children, who have to arrange for a carer, this can be an additional challenge, which will often incur extra monetary costs as well. 6.

Fear-based Exclusion Fear of a specific area can also be a form of exclusion. Public spaces that are dimly lit or are well-known for crime are typically avoided, and this can have knock-on effects to the ways that public transport infrastructure and public spaces are used. “The nature of individual ‘fear’ in public spaces varies markedly according to social characteristics, especially gender” (Church, et al., 2000).

Space Exclusion According to Church et al., “contemporary security and space management strategies often discourage certain socially excluded individuals from using public transport spaces” (Church, et al., 2000). The transport infrastructure authorities need to look at ways of reducing fear and increasing accessibility to vulnerable people through “design, surveillance and management of public transport spaces” (Church, et al., 2000).

These seven categories are crucial for understanding social exclusion, and they form a coherent set of factors when considered as a collective rather than as separate components. “A loss of local facilities, geographical exclusion, will generate a need for travel to alternative facilities which may in turn require a problematic reorganisation of household commitments leading to time-based exclusion.” (Church, et al., 2000) Church et al.’s work also references a set of key definitions set out by Merseytravel in their Community Links Strategy of 1998. They defined “indicators of social sustainability” (Merseytravel, 1998) as shown in (4):

(4) Merseytravel Indicators of Social Sustainability (Merseytravel, 1998) as cited in (Church et al., 2000)

Regarding point 5, all buses within London are fully wheelchair accessible, and all newly built stations are wheelchair accessible from train to street level, with many older stations being retrofitted with step-free access. Regarding point 6, all London Buses are free for under 18s who possess a child Oyster travelcard and attend a school within London, and for over 65s who possess a Freedom Pass. Freedom Passes work on buses, trams, London Underground and Overground services, and most National Rail services. Child Oyster cards (known as Zip cards) offer varying rates depending on age range, but all offer free bus and tram travel. Transport for London also offer a Jobcentre Plus Travel Discount card for the unemployed who are claiming Income Support, Jobseekers Allowance or Universal Credit, but no such discount for employed workers who are struggling financially that do not claim benefits. Transport for London stopped accepting cash payments on buses as of 6th July 2014, meaning only Oyster card and contactless card payments are accepted. With these indicators, we can begin to quantitatively assess an area by benchmarking it against these criteria. The important next steps are to discover which areas are key examples where there is a distinct correlation between a lack (or an abundance) of transport infrastructure in a given area and a high level of or considerable change in levels of poverty, social exclusion and deprivation.

Research Methodology & Literature Review

Summary measures help describe relative deprivation at a higher geographical scale. Local authority level summaries are used here to help illustrate three of the most widely used summary measures, their differences and outcomes. Further breakdowns and rankings by the full range of summary measures can be found in the accompanying online tables and technical documentation. Table 3.2 of the Technical Report provides a more detailed summary of each.

Averagedefinition Rank – this measure summarises the average levelexclusion of deprivation as across an how With (Rank this of) clearer of what we define social and area, based on the population weighted ranks of all the neighbourhoods within it. For example, we can measure it in a real-world context, we can begin to identify aallclear LSOAsmethodology in a local authority,for whether deprived not soto deprived, contribute to this summary research thishighly paper, andorhow correlate between transport measure. Overall, highly deprived areas and less-deprived areas will tend to average out in the infrastructure and levels of deprivation in any given area. To make these overall rank, so an area that is more uniformly deprived will tend to rank higher on this measure connections, paper measures. plans to analyse the presence of public transport compared to this other summary infrastructure (or lack thereof) in particularly troubled areas of London and determine connection its existence non-existence and (Rank of)the Average Score - this between measure summarises the averageor level of deprivation across an the based on the scores of all the neighbourhoods contained within.by Scores calculated by levelsarea, of poverty and deprivation being experienced theare residents of the taking the population weighted average of the combined scores for the neighbourhoods in a larger area. In a sense, we are comparing social exclusion with what we can call This measure also covers the whole area including both deprived and less-deprived socialarea. isolation, the act of being isolated by a lack of suitable public transport neighbourhoods. The main difference from the average rank measure is that more deprived infrastructure. neighbourhoods tend to have more ‘extreme’ scores than ranks, so highly deprived areas will not tend to average out in the same way as when using ranks. With scores, highly polarised authorities

In order totodetermine areas of London focus areas, it is will tend score higher on which the average score measure than on should the averagebe rank. important to gain an insight into what is perceived as a “deprived area”. Proportion Indices of LSOAs in deprived 10 per cent nationally summarises the The English ofmost Deprivation, published by– this themeasure Ministry of Housing, proportion of neighbourhoods in a larger area that are in the most deprived 10 per cent of Communities and Local Government (2019) is a crucial resource, as it neighbourhoods in the country. As such, this measure is only focused on illustrating the number of statistically analyses every local authority in England, and ranks them neighbourhoods within a larger area which are the most deprived in England. However, according to the primary indices above. this document, it neighbourhoods just 7 outside the 10 per cent most outlined deprived are not includedIn as part of this measure, outlines theareas, topsuch 10 “Most local authorities based Rank”to (Ministry so large as local deprived authorities or local enterprise partnerships, may on not appear be so deprived relative to others if they contain zero or few of the most deprived neighbourhoods in the of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019), as shown in (5): country.

Most deprived local authorities based on Rank 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Blackpool Manchester Knowsley Liverpool Barking and Dagenham Birmingham Hackney Sandwell Kingston upon Hull Nottingham

Most deprived local authorities based on Score 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Blackpool Knowsley Liverpool Kingston upon Hull Middlesbrough Manchester Birmingham Burnley Blackburn with Darwen Hartlepool

Most deprived local authorities based on the Proportion of LSOAs in the most deprived 10% nationally

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Middlesbrough Liverpool Knowsley Kingston upon Hull Manchester Blackpool Birmingham Burnley Blackburn with Darwen Hartlepool

(5) Most deprived local authorities, based on three Indices ofdifferent Deprivation 2019differentials - Statistical Release 11 The English (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019)

The “rank” is the “average level of deprivation across as area, based on the population weighted ranks of all the neighbourhoods within it” (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019). In essence, “an area that is more uniformly deprived will tend to rank higher on this measure” (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019).

From this information, two key focus areas within the Greater London boundary can be identified: Barking and Dagenham and Hackney. It is possible to cross reference these against a list of current Transport for London planned projects, found on their website (Transport for London, 2020); and only Barking and Dagenham has any upcoming projects relating to public transport infrastructure – an extension to the London Overground system extending to Barking Riverside. Barking Riverside is among the most socially isolated areas in London, with one reporter saying, “Barking Riverside has a decent case for the title of the most isolated place to live in London” (Burrows, 2015). As an example of a transport infrastructure targeting an There have been more visible changes further down the ranking. For example, areas such as area of severe deprivation, Barking Riverside shall become one of the two Walsall, Wirral, South Tyneside and Redcar and Cleveland have become relatively more deprived compared to the IMD2015. Areas as Wolverhampton, case studies insuch this paper.Leicester, Tower Hamlets and Sandwell have become relatively less deprived, given their presence in the most deprived 32 local authority districts according to the IMD2015 but their absence from the list according to the IMD2019. Chart 4: The most deprived local authority districts according to the IMD2015 and the IMD2019 - local authorities are ranked on the proportion of neighbourhoods in the most deprived 10 per cent nationally

Note: table based on 2019 local authority configurations. For the IMD2015, which has recast 2015 data to 2019 local authority boundaries, Stoke-on-Trent and Hastings are equally ranked (13th). For IMD2019, North East Lincolnshire and Hastings (17th) are equally ranked.

(6) Chart showing the relative change in deprivation from the IMD2015. (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019)

16 The English Indices of Deprivation 2019 - Statistical Release

Upon delving deeper into the English Indices of Deprivation report, it became apparent from (6) that another of London’s boroughs has made a drastic improvement in the overall deprivation rankings; Tower Hamlets. According to the Indices of Deprivation 2015, (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2015) “Tower Hamlets is ranked 24th on this measure according to the 2015 Index, but was ranked 7th most deprived based on the 2010 Index (and 3rd most deprived based on both the 2004 Index and 2007 Index).” In the 2019 Index, Tower Hamlets is ranked 175th. (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019, p. 20).

Having been ranked 3rd in 2007, 24th in 2015 and 175th in 2019, Tower Hamlets has seen considerable improvement in its relative deprivation ranking, meaning one of two things. Tower Hamlets has either drastically improved itself to the point where it is considerably less deprived than it was in 2015, or all of the other local authorities in England have become more deprived than Tower Hamlets, which seems unlikely. There are no reasons given for Tower

Hamlets’ drastic and sudden improvement within the document, however, but many attribute it to a variety of factors such as the London 2012 Olympic Games, or the continuing regeneration of Canary Wharf; however; Tower Hamlets remains one of the most deprived local authorities in the IDACI and IDAOPI indices, which measure income deprivation affecting children and older people respectively. Tower Hamlets ranks 14th in the IDACI index with 26.6% of children living in income deprived households; and 1st in the IDAOPI index, with 43.9% of older people living in income deprived households. This contradiction, in which Tower Hamlets is simultaneously one of the most and least deprived areas in England; along with its overall continued improvement and large-scale regeneration projects and continual transport infrastructure improvements, makes Tower Hamlets a suitable candidate for the second case study this research paper will study. In order to initiate research into these two areas, it is important that we utilise the tools made available to us from the relevant authorities, primarily those from Transport for London themselves. TfL make two planning tools publicly available on their WebCAT website – the Web-based Connectivity Assessment Toolkit. (7) Example PTAL mapping, showing the varying connectivity levels across London (Transport for London, 2020)

(8) Example TIM mapping, showing the distance you can travel in a given duration (Transport for London, 2020)

These two tools are: 1. PTAL (Public Transport Access Levels) which “assesses connectivity (level of access) to the transport network, combining walk time to the public transport network with service wait times” (Transport for London, n.d.). Example shown in (7).

2. TIM (Time Mapping Analysis) which “assesses connectivity through the transport network or, in other words, how far a traveller can go expressed as a series of travel time catchments” (Transport for London, n.d.). Example shown in (8).

These tools are useful for this research for many reasons. Firstly, they allow us to analyse how well connected a certain area is in relation to other areas across London, by assigning a relative PTAL ranking to a specific area, from 0 (worst) to 6b (best). For context, Barking Riverside is a rank 0 on the PTAL rating, and Canary Wharf (at the heart of Tower Hamlets) has a rank of 6a. Secondly, they allow us to measure the potential temporal exclusion of a specific area by allowing us to measure the time it takes to commute to, for example, nearby facilities or areas which contain a lot of employment opportunities. It is also important to consider key literature and reports key sources, as well as these useful government-supplied tools. In addition to reports such as the English Indices of Deprivation, there are also reports such as the Buchanan Report and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy which provide key insight into the policies and strategies that are in place (Mayor of London, 2018) & (Buchanan, 1963). An interesting point about the Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2018 is the way they identify opportunity areas and reinforce the importance of public transport infrastructure as a tool to develop and regenerate particular areas of London. Two of the key areas the report focuses on are the Isle of Dogs, a key part of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets; and Outer East London, including Barking Riverside. It categorises these areas as “Focus Areas: where transport is the enabler of significant change to an area” (Mayor of London, 2018, p. 246). This report helps to justify the decision to choose Tower Hamlets and Barking Riverside as the two case studies for this research.

Case Study One: The London Borough of Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets has historically been an area of low income and high poverty. Until the early 1990s, it was home to the West India Docks (11), which was closed in 1980 (12). As we can see from the historical mappings, the Canary Wharf development is a relatively new intervention to the site, with One Canada Square opening in 1991 (13). To support this new regeneration, Transport for London invested £77m in 1987 to open the Docklands Light Railway, which originally ran from Island Gardens on the Isle of Dogs to Tower Gateway and Stratford (9). It served as the only connection from the Canary Wharf regeneration to Central London, eventually extending to Bank in 1991, Beckton in 1994, Lewisham in 1999, Woolwich Arsenal in 2009. and Stratford International in 2011. (10)

(9) Original Docklands Light Railway Route Map, 1987 (Railway Matters, 2017) Docklands Light Railway

DLR routes

Drive the DLR tfl.gov.uk/dlr

Be a train driver for the day on the driverless Docklands Light Railway. Grab the front seat a enjoy the view. While you’re at it, tweet us a picture @londondlr #DLR30.

Destination DLR

30 things to do via the Docklands Light Railway

Search TfL Journey Planner to plan your journey

All information co time of print – Jul

*Service and network charges may apply. See tfl.gov.uk/terms for details.

(10) 30th Anniversary Docklands Light Railway Route Map, 2017 (Transport for London, 2017)

But how has the Docklands Light Railway contributed to the growth and improvement in deprivation rank in Tower Hamlets? Tower Hamlets Council has broken up the data from the English Indices of Deprivation 2015 into a series of maps, indicating the levels of poverty within each ward within the borough. From the first of these mappings, the areas with the most problems are highlighted, and Lansbury and Mile End seem to be the worst afflicted in terms of overall deprivation (14). It seems as though a ma jority of the wards have relatively low levels of overall deprivation, particularly Canary Wharf.

(11) 1970 Map of Tower Hamlets (Landmark Information Group, 2020)

(12) 1990 Map of Tower Hamlets (Landmark Information Group, 2020)

(13) 2020 Map of Tower Hamlets (Landmark Information Group, 2020)

However, further analysis reveals other maps of the area for each of the main included theat LSOA English of Deprivation, as listed earlier. Map 1 showsfactors the geographic distribution of relative in deprivation level acrossIndices the borough. The most deprived areas – which fall into the most deprived 5 per cent of areas When council studied IDACI IDAOPI indices, (children and older nationally – are the mainly clustered in the East of the borough inthe the Lansbury and Mileand End area. The least deprived areas in the borough are in the Isle of Dogs and the riverside people living in economically deprived households), it becomes clear that areas of St. Katharine’s Dock and Wapping. Tower Hamlets has deprivation Map 1: Index of Multiple Deprivation 2015:severe LSOAs in Tower Hamlets by national issues. According to the 2015 release, percentiles. (Tower Hamlets | Council, 2015), 39.3% of children within the borough are living in income deprived households (14 & 15), compared with 26.6% as of 2019 (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019). Deprivation in Tower Hamlets | Analysis of the 2015 Indices of Deprivation

Deprivation in Tower Hamlets Analysis of the 2015 Indices of Deprivation

Map 1 shows the geographic distribution of relative deprivation at LSOA level across the borough. The most deprived areas – which fall into the most deprived 5 per cent of areas nationally – are mainly clustered in the East of the borough in the Lansbury and Mile End area. The least deprived areas in the borough are in the Isle of Dogs and the riverside areas of St. Katharine’s Dock and Wapping.

Map 1: Index of Multiple Deprivation 2015: LSOAs in Tower Hamlets by national percentiles.

Source: DCLG, Indices of Deprivation 2015

(14) Geographic distribution of Source: DCLG, Indices of Deprivation 2015 relative deprivation Page 9 (Tower Hamlets Council, 2015)

(15) Percentage of children in income deprived households (Tower Hamlets Council, 2015)

Despite the fact that Page 9 Tower Hamlets itself is generally not very deprived (14), the above mapping (15) shows the true extent of child poverty within the borough. This data suggests that there are, on average, more children per deprived household in Tower Hamlets than in other areas within England, meaning bigger families with more children per household. Having more children to take care of will usually lead to time-based exclusion, as the parents struggle to find the time to look after children and commute to work, especially given that the employment deprivation statistics for Tower Hamlets place it above the national average (13.8% of the population experiences employment deprivation compared to 11.8% across England) (Tower Hamlets Council, 2015).

(16) Income deprivation affecting children, London Boroughs (Tower Hamlets Council, 2015)

(17) Income deprivation affecting older people, London Boroughs (Tower Hamlets Council, 2015)

When we compare this data to PTAL (18) and TIM (19) mappings for the region, we can see that the region has a wide range of PTAL ratings, all the way from zone 2 to zone 6a. In spite of its proximity to Canary Wharf and the Docklands Light Railway, there are regions of Tower Hamlets that have very poor connections via public transport, such as Mudchute and Millwall, that have a very low rating. TIM mappings show us that the 45-minute radius for commuting to work covers a ma jority of Central London, given the Docklands Light Railway’s connection to Bank and Tower Gateway and the Jubilee line connections to London Bridge and Waterloo via London Underground.

(18) PTAL Map of Tower Hamlets (Transport for London, 2020)

(19) TIM Map of Tower Hamlets (Transport for London, 2020)

From this, it becomes clear what the primary issues are within Tower Hamlets. While Canary Wharf is and remains a ma jor epicentre for jobs and employment in London, it is largely inaccessible for a ma jority of the residents in the area, due to their skillsets being inappropriate for the jobs. Workers in the region typically have to then travel further afield to reach suitable jobs, which therefore leads to time-based exclusion with longer commuter times. In fact, only “one-tenth of the people working in Canary Wharf are residents of the borough” (Martinson, 2018).

Church et al. wrote, “regeneration and new transport initiatives can open up these areas to labour market competition that is problematic for local residents” (Church, et al., 2000) and Canary Wharf is potentially the perfect example of this. A previously suffering area of East London that underwent a huge redevelopment in the early 90s, that ended up gentrifying the area to the point that its own residents are unsuitable for the kind of jobs that Canary Wharf offers. According to the Tower Hamlets Strategic Plan 2019-22, “21% of households have no adult in employment”, and “19% of residents earn below the London Living Wage” (Tower Hamlets Council, 2019). In the Tower Hamlets Borough Profile, published 2018, it was found that “48,700 children in Tower Hamlets lived in families reliant on either Working Tax Credit and/or Child Tax Credit.” (Tower Hamlets Council, 2018). It was also found that 60% of the families receiving tax credit support were in-work families, proving the point that for a large number of workers in Tower Hamlets, there are not appropriate jobs for their skill levels. This is also reflected in the Tower Hamlets Strategic Plan (Tower Hamlets Council, 2018), which also claims that 23% of household rely on housing benefits to pay rent, and yet seems to brag that its house prices are double the national average (averaging at £421,131) CRIME HEALTH AND SOCIAL prove ENVIRONM and POVERTY that 42%AND of houses are privately rented (20). These statistics WORKLESSNESS CARE there is a large lack of affordable housing for residents within the borough3rdtohighest CO 33,633 crimes reported own,10th and must rely on housing benefits to pay the3,252 high rentinprices they are emitter in Lon in 2018-19 most deprived Children need closing the gap local authority in England charged because of the sky-high property prices in the borough.

Key Challenges

4 in 10 households live

790 racist and religious hate crimes - highest in London

(2018-19) followed by

below the poverty line

Key Challenges About Tower Hamlets

boroughs

42% of Year 6 children overweight or obese

Only 24.3% of

Barnet 785 and Strategic Plan 2019-22. The green banners waste (20) Excerpts from the Tower Hamlets are is recycle Camden 737) promoting positive statistics and the blue negative. 21% of households have 6th lowest disability-free (Tower Hamlets Council, 2018) 40% of all resid no adult in employment life expectancy rates

POVERTY AND POPULATION 19% residents earn below WORKLESSNESS the London Living Wage

CRIME HOUSING EDUCATION 33,633 crimes reported 28,500 orof 23% 64.3% pupils achieve

308,000 people live in

10th deprived Atmost 32.5% Tower(2018) Hamlets Tower Hamlets

localhad authority in England the highest child poverty rates in England 4 in 10 households live One of fastest growing below the poverty line

populations in England: expected to reach 21%365,200 of households have by 2027 - 15 new no adult in employment residents per day (2018)

19% residents earn below

46% of of the population are aged 20-39 (2018)

the London Living Wage

At 32.5% Tower Hamlets largest to thechild hadHome the highest poverty rates in England Bangladeshi

Older population set toprice be Average house in 2018-19 households rely on 3,252 Children in need fastest growing age passes in Maths/English is double the group: national housing benefit to pay 39%average increase expected at level 9-4 (broadly (£421,131 vs. rentand religious hate 790their racist equivalent to the previous 5 GCSEsby 2028 £244,597) (2019) crimes - highest in London 42% of Year 6 children at grades A* - C measure) (2018) (2018-19) followed by 18,808 on housing waiting overweight or obese 52,820 (42%) of all Barnet and list785 - 3rd highest in London homes are now privately 137 different languages Camden 737) (Dec 2018) 6th lowest disability-free rented (2018)

spoken in schools (2018)

35,110 additional homes

1 needed in 2 adults (47.5%) are by 2029 HOUSING hold higher level qualifications (2017) 28,500 or 23% households rely on

housing benefit to pay

their rent

population in the country who

ECONOMY

on housing waiting comprise 1 in 3 residents (2018) 18,808 3rd highest economic

4 in 10 residents were born outside the UK (2018)

in London (61.9 men; 62.3

HEALTH AND SOCIAL women) HOUSING CARE

list - 3rd highest in London ouput in the UK (2018) (Dec 2018)

16,925 businesses and 35,110 additional homes 291,000 jobs (2018) are needed by 2029

life expectancy rates in London (61.9 men; 62.3 women)

TRANSPORT

Older population set to be Well connected fastest growing age group:31 stations and 39% increase expected by 2028 46 bus routes

224km of road, 358km of footways and 53km of

cycle networks Over 216,232

in areas that exc

annual PLAC air pollu ENVIRONMEN

for Nitrogen Dio

3rd highest Over CO212 emitter inopen London sp closing the gap on o boroughs

22 art 6 muse Only 24.3% of hous

TO LE waste T is recycled (Q

Over 1,0

and 58 40% of all residents

in areas that(2019) exceed annual air pollution t for Nitrogen3Dioxide city f

Tower Hamlets Stra

The 2013 report by the Tower Hamlets Fairness Commission found that “a fifth of households have an annual income of under £15,000, wheras [sic] the average salary of people who work in the borough is £78,000” and that “no other part of the country contains such an astonishing gap between rich and poor” (Tower Hamlets Fairness Commission, 2013). The report’s supporting evidence packs support this, claiming that: “less than one fifth of jobs in the borough are taken by residents, many of whom work in low-paid employment. It is important to remember that employment in the borough is dominated by highly-paid work in Canary Wharf that is largely inaccessible to all but a small section of the borough’s residents.” (Tower Hamlets Fairness Commission, 2013)

(21) Geographical distribution of median household income (£) in Tower Hamlets (Tower Hamlets Council, 2018)

This is evidenced in the above chart (21), which shows the stark contrast in average household income geographically. “The higher household incomes are concentrated overwhelmingly around Canary Wharf and the City Fringe” (Tower Hamlets Fairness Commission, 2013). What we can gleam from this is that the jobs Canary Wharf offers are: 1. unsuitable for the people in the immediate vicinity who would benefit most from them. They are experiencing exclusion via barriers to employment but it is important to note that this is not because of a lack of public transport infrastructure, rather a lack of suitable employment opportunities which the regeneration at Canary Wharf has caused.

2. only serving to increase the poverty gap in Tower Hamlets. Canary Wharf employs 120,000 people alone, the biggest single centre of employment in the UK” (Martinson, 2018), and many (if not all) of these jobs are highly lucrative, leading to a higher average salary for the borough, which seems to distract from the real problems that Tower Hamlets has. Canary Wharf is now the primary focus of all of the upcoming transport infrastructure, which causes the rest of the borough to be neglected. Access to Jobs Table 14 - Do you agree or disagree that the hosting of the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games in East London has increased the number of jobs available to local residents?

Total Sample size Agree Neither agree not disagree Disagree Don't know Definitely agree Tend to agree Neither agree not disagree Tend to disagree Definitely disagree Don't know

1320

Barking and Dagenham 233

Borough Greenwich

Hackney

Newham

Tower Hamlets

Waltham Forest

208

194

231

223

231

45%

32%

36%

43%

64%

51%

42%

13%

16%

14%

17%

11%

12%

10%

28% 13%

42% 9%

32% 17%

23% 17%

17% 8%

25% 12%

34% 14%

11% 34%

9% 23%

9% 28%

4% 40%

26% 38%

10% 41%

10% 32%

13%

16%

14%

17%

11%

12%

10%

16% 12% 13%

22% 20% 9%

15% 17% 17%

13% 10% 17%

10% 7% 8%

15% 11% 12%

21% 12% 14%

(22) Question from the Olympic and Paralympic Host Borough Survey (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2012)

Another area of study by which Tower Hamlets can be studied is the London 2012 Olympics. In a 2012 survey by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; entitled the Olympic and Paralympic Host Borough Survey 2012; 49% of 1,320 people across 6 host boroughs believed that the Olympic Games would increase transport congestion in the boroughs, and 40% believed it would put increased pressures on housing. (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2012). Specifically, within Tower Hamlets, 51% of 223 people surveyed believed that hosting the Games has increased the number of jobs available to local residents (22), but the question remains just how many of those jobs were available once the Olympics had concluded. 13

This will have provided additional appropriate employment at the time for residents not skilled enough for jobs at Canary Wharf and the infrastructure created for the Olympic Games still remains – including the Docklands Light Railway extension to Stratford International and the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, and the London Stadium, now occupied by West Ham United Football Club – and these all provide additional employment opportunities.

This will have aided Tower Hamlets in its regeneration by counteracting the employment exclusion outlined above, offering suitable jobs to residents who are suited for them. This helps to negate issues like time-based exclusion, by providing local jobs, but these kind of labour-intensive and retail-oriented

jobs often have lower salaries, and those employed will not be eligible for housing benefits, which can create other issues such as income deprivation, perhaps leading to the high levels of child poverty in the borough. However, while the Olympic Games provided a large amount of new infrastructure, it did not radically overhaul the transport infrastructure in the area, and the only transport infrastructure introduced for the games was the Canning Town to Stratford International Docklands Light Railway extension, which is not even located within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. NEW HOMES AND JOBS

255

FIGURE 48: TRANSPORT PROPOSALS FOR HOMES AND JOBS IN INNER EAST LONDON AND THE ISLE OF DOGS

Whitechapel

Star Lane

Stepney Green

Whitechapel

Canning Tow n

Riv er Le a

Barbican Moorgate

St Pauls

Liverpool Street

Bank

Fenchurch Street

Cannon Street Mansion House

Monument

Central Activities Zone North of Isle of Dogs area Tower London Opportunity Areas Bridge City Whitechapel

Aldgate East

London Bridge Elizabeth line/station (under construction)

Canning Town

Langdon Park Limehouse

Aldgate

Custom House

Po p l a r Tower Gateway

Shadwell

All Saints

Westferry

Blackwall

Poplar Tower Hill

Wa p p i n g Wapping

West India Quay Canary Canary Wharf Wharf Canary Wharf

Doubletree Docklands Nelson Dock

St Katherine

Heron Quays

Rotherhithe

River pier

East India Dock Basin

Emirates Royal Docks Royal Victoria Dock

North Greenwich West Silvertown

Emirates Greenwich Peninsula

West India Docks

Ro t h e r h i t h e South Quay

Canada Water

Borough Proposed new ferry route & pier

Royal Victoria

East India

S i l ve r tow n

North Greenwich

Proposed new river pier Proposed Silvertown Tunnel Proposed Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf foot/cycle bridge

Bermondsey

Surrey Quays

Isle of Dogs

Mudchute

Jubilee line

Island Gardens

All other Underground lines on

Proposed New Bermondsey London Overground station

South Bermondsey

Masthouse Terrace Greenwich Foot Tunnel

New Bermondsey

Docklands Light Railway

Cutty Sark

Emirates Air Line Road

D e p t fo rd

Greenwich

Back

Westcombe Park Maze Hill

G re e n w i ch 0

Road tunnel Existing or planned cycle routes

Crossharbour

Greenland

Proposed Bakerloo line extension Elephant & Castle Old Kent National railRoad 1

London Overground

Bermondsey

Deptford

Greenwich

½ mile 500 metres

(23) Transport Proposals for Homes and Jobs in Inner East London and the Isle of Dogs (Mayor of London, 2018)

The Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2018 highlights the Isle of Dogs as an “opportunity area” (23). It states: “significant growth is expected across Inner East London to 2041, with the potential to deliver more than 100,000 new homes and 170,000 new jobs.” (Mayor of London, 2018). With this, however, comes congestion and overcrowding. To overcome this, they are proposing to integrate the Elizabeth Line through the heart of Canary Wharf, further consolidating its status as a “global employment hub”, and potentially further isolating the rest of Tower Hamlets from its employment opportunities. According to the strategy document, “current proposals include DLR fleet replacement and improved services, Jubilee line upgrade, and an improved bus and cycle network” (Mayor of London, 2018). It seems as though the focus here is on reducing congestion, and in order to accomplish this, they require “a focus on behaviour change that enables and encourages people to choose to walk and cycle for short and medium-length journeys” (Mayor of London, 2018).

NEW HOMES AND JOBS

241

(24) Visual of the proposed Canada Water to Active Canary Wharf pedestrian & cycle bridge homes in the area. Walking and cycling travel and public transport In central and inner London, new Proposal 94 crossings could help to support Good crossings will be the first choice for crossings for people walking and cycling The Mayor, through TfL, will promote (Mayor of London, 2018) Growth and encourage more active further bridges and tunnels as they can help to connect local communities new walking, cycling and public and encourage healthier lifestyles. A new walking and cycling crossing between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf would give thousands of people a direct link between Canada Water and Canary Wharf, and support jobs and new

travel in other parts of London, and the Mayor will encourage their development where they are supported and led by the boroughs affected and where local funding is available.

support healthy, sustainable living, and because public transport crossings in particular have the unique potential to unlock housing and jobs growth.

transport river crossings where such infrastructure would accord with the policies and proposals of this strategy.

This will require further infrastructure than improvements to public transport and bigger trains on the Docklands Light Railway – this will require cycle paths, pedestrianised routes and additional links to bridge the River Thames. As seen on the diagram above, there is a proposal to connect Rotherhithe and Canada Water to Canary Wharf via a pedestrian- and cycle-friendly bridge (24), which will alleviate congestion on the Jubilee line between Canary Wharf and Canada Water stations, as well as provide an extra alternative for those making short distance journeys who would otherwise have to cross the river somewhere else, such as via Jubilee line or via DLR. Back

Despite these advancements, these plans only seem to serve in improving the already commercialised and gentrified Canary Wharf, making it the second business district of London and further consolidating its position as a “global employment hub” (Mayor of London, 2018). They do not outline any future proposals to bring suitable jobs to the rest of Tower Hamlets, completely neglecting some of its more deprived wards such as Lansbury and Mile End, instead choosing to regenerate Canary Wharf yet again with the introduction of the Elizabeth Line (or Crossrail), nor does it outline any proposal which actively targets these troubled areas, which concludes one of two things, either: 1. The governing bodies do not make any connection between these infrastructure improvements and the surrounding areas, instead choosing to focus their attentions on Canary Wharf; 2. There isn’t the space or capacity to introduce new connections or transport infrastructure into the aforementioned areas, perhaps due to the difficulties in adding bridges and tunnels through built-up areas.

How then, can the levels of poverty within Tower Hamlets be reduced? The evidence pack for the Tower Hamlets Fairness Commission Report in 2013 states that in 2009 “the borough launched its first child poverty strategy, and various indicators of poverty show we have had success in mitigating the impact of poverty as well as tackling the underlying causes and drivers of poverty” (Tower Hamlets Fairness Commission, 2013). They accomplished this by focussing on four key themes:

Removing barriers to work • “supporting parents who are job-ready or close to jobreadiness to find work” • “providing high quality childcare options” (Tower Hamlets Fairness Commission, 2013)

Developing pathways to success • “create more accessible local and supported work or volunteering opportunities” • “supporting parents with disabilities and poor mental health into sustainable work options” (Tower Hamlets Fairness Commission, 2013)

Breaking the cycle of poverty • “personalised strategies to prevent young people from becoming not in employment, education or training” (Tower Hamlets Fairness Commission, 2013)

Mitigating the effects of poverty • “opening up cultural, sporting and leisure opportunities to those who would not normally access them” • “improving access to health services and health promotion opportunities” • “making the greatest use of the borough’s green spaces” (Tower Hamlets Fairness Commission, 2013)

The results of this strategy were seen in a “substantial improvement in GCSE attainment, reducing the proportion of young people not in education, employment or training, and an impressive reduction in teenage pregnancy rates” (Tower Hamlets Fairness Commission, 2013). These results may be useful in combating the high levels of poverty among the young people in Tower Hamlets but play no part in assisting with the poverty of the elderly and older people. Alisdair Rae, a professor of urban studies and planning at the University of Sheffield, said in an article by Butler and Parry (2019) that “there is no way that every person contributing to Tower Hamlets being one of the most deprived boroughs in the past has disappeared” (Butler & Parry, 2019). These measures are also helpful for fighting poverty but have seemingly no connection whatsoever to the transport infrastructure or the ongoing redevelopments within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

(25) Cranes dominate the skyline of the Docklands in 1990. (Sherbell 1992)

What then, if it exists, is the correlation between Tower Hamlets’ meteoric rise up the deprivation ranking and the masses of transport infrastructure projects that have been constructed in the borough? The ongoing and longrunning developments at Canary Wharf have contributed massively to the overall regeneration of the area, by introducing employment opportunities to an area which previously had nothing going for it once the West India Docks closed down in 1980. However, while this regeneration has brought jobs and capital to the area, increasing land value and making Tower Hamlets a more “fashionable” place to live, it has not come without its negative effects.

In a personal account of living in Tower Hamlets, written by journalist Jane Martinson, she writes “for a surprising number of people living there, Canary Wharf appears just as impenetrable as the docks were when I was a child” (Martinson, 2018), despite Canary Wharf currently being “accessible to the public for the first time since 1800” (Brown, 2017). She recalls living in the Isle of Dogs in the 1980s and remembers the pre-development transport infrastructure, claiming it could take “as little as 15 minutes or three times as long to get to my Saturday jobs in Poplar because of the way the bridge system played havoc with the roads” (Martinson, 2018). She claims that the regeneration was helpful to her personally, as it helped her to attain “lucrative work as a temp in some of the office buildings sprouting up” (Martinson, 2018). She goes on to mention that now, only “one-tenth of the people working in Canary Wharf are residents of the borough” (Martinson, 2018). This personal account supports the argument of employment-based exclusion within the borough of Tower Hamlets, and she goes on to interview residents of the Isle of Dogs, who gave some of the following quotes:

“I walked around the whole of Canary Wharf with my daughter, giving out CVs… never heard another word. So imagine how we feel. When you think of all what we’ve put up with [sic] and our kids can’t even get anything. I don’t think you’re bitter, I don’t think that’s the right word, but you just feel walked over” Jill Skeels, a resident of 48 years, cited by (Martinson, 2018) “People who live round the edge don’t all feel as though it’s their space to go into and it feels quite smart and City and businesslike” Reverend Nick Holtam, formerly of a church in Millwall. “The people in this area feel that no matter what they do, it’s a plan that they ain’t part of. We are in the path of a runaway train.” Rich Gerrard, ex-docker, cited by (Martinson, 2018)

Martinson goes on to write that “the biggest barrier to those wanting a job in Canary Wharf is education.” (Martinson, 2018). Only one 11-18 school exists on the Isle of Dogs, George Green’s School. While educationally, the school sits above the national average, “76% of George Green’s pupils qualify for free school meals – far higher than the national average of 30% despite being two bus stops away from London’s financial capital”. (Martinson, 2018). Housing, however, is the primary issue here. “In 1981, 82% of all homes in Tower Hamlets belonged to the council; just 12% did 30 years later” (Martinson, 2018). The regeneration and gentrification at Canary Wharf has seen a huge

influx of privately owned and rented properties. Martinson interviewed a then 14-year old Josh Holmes, who “lives with his grandparents, single mum, aunt, uncle and two young cousins in a three-bedroom house” (Martinson, 2018). Many of his complaints mention that the housing is “for the rich” and that no-one in his family will ever be able to afford to live in them. As with many modern residential development schemes, developers must “commit to 35% social housing to get more or less automatic planning permission” (Martinson, 2018), but many schemes often have some level of segregation, whether it be intentional or not. Many will create separate buildings for affordable housing, physically separating the rich from the poor, and many will use lower specifications internally to save on the overall project cost, as property developers will not profit from the sales of these affordable homes to the local authority. Rich Gerrard said to Martinson, “In a way, the London Docklands Development Corporation was set up basically as a bunch of estate agents, so their ma jor concern about people and communities isn’t inbuilt into their structure [as it would be with] a local authority” (Martinson, 2018).

(26) Children building towers out of crates while the newly built Canary Wharf dominates the skyline, illustrating the poverty gap at the time (Baker, 1991)

So then, in spite of everything – the redevelopment, the gentrification, the elite business district which is the UK’s “biggest single centre of employment in the UK” (Martinson, 2018) – Canary Wharf has only led to worsened conditions for everyone who has been socially excluded from the development (26). For those on the island, poverty and deprivation only seems to have been made worse, but Canary Wharf’s glistening ivory towers and its extravagant riches seem to mask the real problems. The Indices of Deprivation see mass improvement in Tower Hamlets because of the glitz and glamour that the Canary Wharf development brings to the area, but in the words of Martinson, “it’s as though the shadows cast by these feats of engineering have left such dark spaces that nobody saw what was happening inside” (Martinson, 2018). The Docklands Light Railway, the Jubilee Line and the future Canary Wharf Elizabeth Line station all serve Canary Wharf, to make the development as profitable and lucrative as it

physically can be; and do not help the surrounding population in a ma jor enough way to argue that the so-called “regeneration” of Tower Hamlets has anything to do with transport infrastructure. Perhaps with the Elizabeth Line and future regeneration projects in Tower Hamlets we will see some kind of genuine improvement, and not a further reinforcement of Canary Wharf as London’s new financial district.

Elizabeth line

(27) The Elizabeth Line proposes to connect Canary Wharf with Reading & Central London (Crossrail Ltd, 2020)

One thing that can be argued, however, is that with or without Canary Wharf, the extensive transport infrastructure that has been introduced, such as the Docklands Light Railway, the Jubilee Line and the proposed Elizabeth Line (27); has and will continue to improve the connectivity of Tower Hamlets. This not only allows people to commute to Canary Wharf, which by itself contains over 120,000 jobs; but also allows those within Tower Hamlets who do have suitable employment elsewhere to commute far more quickly and easily than they could have 30 years ago. It just remains to be seen how much further Canary Wharf will expand and how long it will take before it engulfs the remaining residents of the Isle of Dogs, labelled by Transport for London as an “opportunity area” (Mayor of London, 2018).

Case Study Two: Barking Riverside

(28) Barking Riverside Masterplan, with London Overground extension visible (L&Q, 2020)

From a look into the past, we now look to the future. Barking Riverside is a new brownfield redevelopment scheme on the former site of the old Barking Power Station, designed by architects and urban planners Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands (28). Previously described as a contender for the “most isolated place to live in London” (Burrows, 2015), some 1,800 people live in the area, where “there’s nowhere to sit and have coffee, no pub, no police station, no youth club, no football pitch” (Burrows, 2015). Despite its close proximity to the town centres of Barking and Dagenham, it is almost impossible to access these areas. Barking Riverside is served by three bus routes – EL1, EL2 and EL3. These buses go as far as Ilford, Becontree and Little Heath, respectively, and the EL2 also connects to Dagenham Dock. While these buses establish a direct connection to the nearby London Underground, Overground and National Rail stations, they do not provide a direct link to Central London, or any other ma jor area of employment. This means that a ma jority of the residents that are in work are forced to drive to work, which could be the cause of monetary and time-based exclusion. Driving is expensive, coupled

with the lack of suitable alternatives, and so costs associated with driving, such as petrol, MOT, road tax and congestion charges, can add up and cause financial strain on those suffering. Add to this the possibility of getting stuck in traffic, which as Yvette Thomas (chair of the resident’s association) is quoted by Burrows: “to get a pint of milk on a morning could take an hour in the car because of traffic” (Burrows, 2015); and there is a clear case study here of social exclusion by isolation – the complete lack of transport infrastructure has led to Barking Riverside becoming socially isolated from the surrounding towns. Worsening this scenario is the physical barriers (29) that seclude and isolate Barking Riverside. Surrounded by the River Thames to the south, its tributary, the River Roding, to the west, rail infrastructure passing from (but not stopping between) Dagenham to Barking and the “traffic-clogged” (Burrows, 2015) A13 to the north, and industrial areas to the east; connecting Barking Riverside to the adjacent areas has become a challenge. The presence of industrial warehouses and factories along the train line makes building a commuter station impossible, without serious changes and disruption to the existing infrastructure, which serves passenger trains and cargo trains simultaneously.

Industrial Area Passenger Railway River Thames & River Roding A13

(29) Map of Barking Riverside showing physical barriers (Landmark Information Group, 2020)

(30) PTAL Map of Barking Riverside (Transport for London, 2020)

The physical and geographical exclusion caused by these barriers can be seen in the PTAL and TIM mappings of the area. All of the Barking Riverside area is in PTAL zones 0, 1a or 1b – the worst rankings possible (30). They are only served by three bus routes, which do not stray far from the area, only running as far as Dagenham and Ilford.

(31) TIM Map of Barking Riverside, showing 15 minute intervals (Transport for London, 2020)

(32) TIM Map of Barking Riverside, zoomed out from (31) (Transport for London, 2020)

(33) TIM Map of Barking Riverside, showing 5 minute intervals (Transport for London, 2020)

As seen in the TIM mappings, from the centre of Barking Riverside you can only travel as far as the A13 in less than 15 minutes by public transport (31). In 15 – 30 minutes you can reach the edge of Barking Riverside and Barking Town Centre, but nothing else. A 30 – 45-minute span can only take you as far as Dagenham or Ilford. The yellow region, which denotes journey times of 45 – 60 minutes, only just reaches the City of London, the rest of Central London (even Stratford) takes over an hour. To merely cross the river to Thamesmead takes between 90 and 105 minutes, a testament to the severe lack of transport connectivity within the area (32). By changing the parameters (33), we can see all of the locations accessible from Barking Riverside in under 50 minutes – the radius does not even touch Central London – in fact, it does not even reach Stratford or Tower Hamlets. By comparison, the travel radius from Barking Town Centre can reach Central London in 30-45 minutes. Barking station is 15 minutes away on the bus or a 55-minute walk. Figure 2: DLR Dagenham Dock extension and transport connections

January 2008

Stratford International CTRL

Stratford

Central Jubilee CrossRail Great Eastern

Stratford High Street

Abbey R oad

West Ham

Jubilee District Hammersmith &City

C2C

Star Lane

Bank

Beckton Jubilee

Ca nning Town

Tower Gateway

Royal Victoria Thames Wharf

CrossRail

Custom House for ExCeL

ELT

Pri nce Regent

Ro yal Alber t

Beckton Park

C yprus

Gallions Reach

Beckton Rive rside

C2C

ELT

Creekmout h Barking Ri ve rside

ELT

Goresbrook

Dagenham Dock

(possible future station)

West Silvertow n

Pontoon Dock

London City Airport

King George V

TH AMES GWT

Woolwich Arsenal South Eastern Trains

(34) DLR Dagenham Dock extension and transport connections (Transport for London, 2008)

So how then, are Transport for London planning to connect this “island” (as Yvette Thomas would put it (Burrows, 2015)) to Barking, Dagenham, and the rest of London? In 2003, it was first announced that the Docklands Light Railway would be extended east from its line terminating at Beckton to serve Barking Riverside and eventually terminate at Dagenham Dock (34). It was later revealed in 2009 by the Mayor of London at the time, Boris Johnson, in a response to a question on the London Assembly Questions to the Mayor website that “the scheme has no funding within the current TfL Business Plan” (Johnson, 2009), and that the project was cancelled. At a reported “estimated capital cost of c£700m” (Transport for London, 2015), the Docklands Light Railway extension would have been prohibitively expensive, and so, alternative proposals were explored.

Eventually, after public consultations, Transport for London decided on an extension to the London Overground Gospel Oak to Barking Line (known colloquially as the GOBLIN). This extension would extend the Overground line beyond its current terminus at Barking station and continue along the existing rail infrastructure (mentioned above), before continuing along a new viaduct and a new terminus station at the heart of the Barking Riverside redevelopment (35). It also contains the provision for an additional station at the bridge at Renwick Road.

(35) London Overground extension to Barking Riverside (Transport for London, 2015)

So why, then, is the Barking Riverside redevelopment so dependent on the introduction of transport infrastructure? Barking and Dagenham’s planning permission states that “no more than 1,500 residential units are permitted before a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) powers to build and operate a rail or light rail extension is granted” (Transport for London, 2015) and the nearest London Underground station to Barking Riverside is a “brisk 40-minute walk past River Road, passing factories, wreckers’ yards, and lorry-hoovering depots spewing acrid air” (Burrows, 2015). It also states that “no more than 4,000 residential units are permitted before the railway is operational” (Transport for London, 2015). The redevelopment proposes to build up to “10,800 homes of varying sizes and styles” (L&Q, 2020), and will also propose “65,000 square metres of commercial floor space, including shops, restaurants, cafes, community, leisure and healthcare facilities, and seven new schools” (L&Q, 2020). In order to accomplish this, it is evident that the planning permission is heavily reliant on some form of transport infrastructure, specifically rail infrastructure. L&Q, the housing association leading the project, are also proposing new bus and river transport links, but this does not suffice.

The scheme has been split into four phases, Phase 1 provides 1,400 residential units so as not to break the rules set out by the planning permission, as well as a “new primary school, nursery, community centre, pharmacy, convenience store, multi-faith spaces and café” (L&Q, 2020). Phases 2, 3 & 4, however, are highly dependent on the opening and operation of the London Overground extension. In the Autumn Report 2014, presented to Parliament by then Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, it was outlined that: “Principal heads of terms have been agreed between Barking Riverside Limited, the Mayor of London and government for a loan of £55 million to support the extension of the London Overground to Barking Riverside to unlock the delivery of 11,000 homes” (HM Treasury, 2014) This loan provides a much-needed bonus to the Barking Riverside development, as Burrows had previously described it as an “ambitious yet stalled plan to create a new London suburb” (Burrows, 2015). With work underway at the time of writing to build the new infrastructure (36), and an estimated completion date of December 2021, it is clear that there is a very strong relationship between the introduction of transport infrastructure and the potential regeneration of a new area. We have seen this before with the Canary Wharf development, but is Barking Riverside another example of gentrification and, ultimately, social isolation waiting to happen?

(36) Current progress of the London Overground extension to Barking Riverside (IanVisits, 2020)

This is debatable. Until the Barking Riverside development is built and occupied, it will not become clear whether the area becomes gentrified or not. The most common way for gentrification to occur is by replacing local businesses and residents with more affluent ones. While it is impossible to say whether the new residents within Barking Riverside will be more affluent than those currently living there, it can be said with some degree of certainty that the businesses coming into the area will not be replacing those currently occupying Barking Riverside. This is because there is only one – and according to Burrows (2015), “the opening of a Morrisons Local was cause for celebration”. The Morrisons Local opened in January 2015 but was rebranded to a My Local (37) the same year. The My Local company went into administration 9 months later, their shops began to close. According to journalist Tim Burrows, who interviewed mother-of-two Khushnood Ahmed, “the shop is a Harrods for us” (Burrows, 2015), and Ahmed also said to another journalist, Phoebe Cooke, that “that shop is very important to the area” (Cooke, 2016). Fortunately for the residents of Barking Riverside, even though the My Local store shut, there is a new store run by Nisa, to continue to provide the residents with one solitary store to purchase important groceries.

(37) The only shop in Barking Riverside - and it’s not even a supermarket (Cooke, 2016)

One shop providing 1,400 homes, plus those built in the 1990s during the initial Barking Reach development is a damning indictment of the negligence that Barking Riverside has been subject to – “a victim of austerity, evaporating political will and sluggish planning negotiations” (Burrows, 2015). Barking Riverside is a victim of social exclusion through almost all of the possible varieties thereupon. It is physically excluded and isolated from the surrounding areas by existing industrial and unusable rail infrastructure, and the physical lack of infrastructure directly serving the area. It is economically excluded by a lack of local employment opportunities within the area and excluded from facilities by the extreme lack of anything. There are no leisure, social

or health facilities, and “the doctor’s surgery will only open when there are 10,000 people living there” (Burrows, 2015). Finally, it is suffering from geographical exclusion by not having appropriate transport connectivity. “Studies in both Britain and Europe have cited peripherality, poor transport provision and resulting inaccessibility as factors which contribute to urban social exclusion and deprivation” (Church, et al., 2000). Barking Riverside is a prime example of a socially excluded area, and a prime example of how the introduction of transport infrastructure can combat social exclusion and social isolation.

(38) Barriers to Housing and Services Domain (Leeser, 2019)

How does the current state of affairs at Barking Riverside reflect in social exclusion and deprivation rankings? In the English Indices of Deprivation (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019), Barking and Dagenham was the 5th most deprived local authorities based on rank. It was also found that 19.4% of the population of Barking and Dagenham’s population were living in income deprived households. Like Tower Hamlets, Barking and Dagenham also ranked highly on the Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI), with 26.1% of older people in the borough living in income deprived households, in spite of the fact that the borough has the “8th lowest proportion in London” (London Borough of Barking & Dagenham, 2018) of over 65s, with a figure of 19,796 out of a population of 210,711. This indicates a severe lack of provision of care or financial assistance for the older people within the borough, potentially caused by physical and economic exclusion. The borough also ranks in the top 5% most deprived for the barriers to housing and services domain, as seen in (38). While Barking Riverside only contributes to a small area of the overall borough, it is important to consider the deprivation statistics still.

(39) 1870 Map of Barking Riverside (Landmark Information Group, 2020)

(40) 1930 Map of Barking Riverside (Landmark Information Group, 2020)

(41) 1960 Map of Barking Riverside (Landmark Information Group, 2020)

(42) 1970 Map of Barking Riverside (Landmark Information Group, 2020)

(43) 1990 Map of Barking Riverside (Landmark Information Group, 2020)

(44) 2020 Map of Barking Riverside (Landmark Information Group, 2020)

So how did Barking Riverside wind up in its current state? Historical mappings of the area only seem to record its land use back to the 1870s, but L&Q claim that in the late 1700s it was a “small fishing village and popular tourist destination” (L&Q, 2020). It then became a rubbish tip, unclaimed land that was essentially a landfill, filled with chemical plants, factories and guano works in the 19th century (39). In 1925, Barking Power Station was built (40), and the riverside area became even more entrenched in the industrial zone of East London, accompanying the chemical plants and Beckton Sewage Treatment Works to the west. According to L&Q, “the site was chosen for easy delivery of coal from the Thames and by rail, as well as the abundant water supply and space on the site for expansion” (L&Q, 2020). The power plant was decommissioned in 1981 and demolished (43). The site was still owned by National Power, until “it was sold to Bellway Homes, who obtained a grant to reclaim the land” (Colenutt, 2020). They built 900 private residential units between 1995 and 2000 (44) and received criticism for “the lack of affordable housing, schools and community facilities” (Colenutt, 2020). One of Bellway Homes’ buildings, Samuel Garside House, caught fire in 2019 (45), due to flammable timber cladding on balconies spreading the fire up one side of the building, destroying 20 flats in the process.

(45) Bellway Homes’ Samuel Garside House, Barking Riverside, caught fire in 2019. (SaKuKrish, 2019)

The subsequent masterplan of 6,000 homes was heavily reliant on the Docklands Light Railway extension, which was cancelled in 2009. L&Q, London and Quadrant then bought the site from Bellway Homes, who were able to move out “after having made huge profits subsidised by Homes England, and having borne very little of the liabilities (or transport infrastructure costs) for Barking Riverside” (Colenutt, 2020). L&Q then developed the proposal for Barking Riverside with Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands that we see today, dubbed “Barcelona-on-Thames”, heavily reliant on the integration of the London Overground network. The Overground station has been delayed by its own issues, such as existing industrial infrastructure that was not on

any previous site plans or surveys, including “the discovery of “uncharted utilities” including a Thames Water pipe and telecoms cabling” (Horgan, 2019) and the requirement of “extensive land clearance and remediation to make the area suitable for residential development” (Bourn, 2007). So with 10,800 homes on the horizon, and the “potential for 50,000 homes” (Colenutt, 2020), Barking Riverside “presents a ma jor opportunity to tackle the housing crisis in the borough” (Colenutt, 2020). It appears there is a genuine attempt to resolve a serious community issues, even if local residents aren’t privy to the key decisions. The so-called “Community Interest Company” (L&Q, 2020) supposedly “initially placed no local residents on the company board”, according to (Colenutt, 2020). What’s more, there is an explicit reference to the importance of transport infrastructure to the scheme in the fact that the scheme is not permitted to continue construction until a local rail station is built. Unlike the gentrification of Canary Wharf, whereby additional improvements were made which cast the surrounding areas and local residents into its shadow; Barking Riverside seems to be a proverbial blank canvas, a clean slate with which to provide thousands of additional homes - “up to 50% of these homes will be affordable” (L&Q, 2020), although the National Audit Office places this figure at 41% (Bourn, 2007). The transport infrastructure, in the shape of the London Overground extension, proves central to this entire regeneration project, as it was for Canary Wharf in the 1990s with the introduction of the Docklands Light Railway in 1987. This is an opportunity for transport infrastructure to make up for almost 30 years of negligence and regenerate an area that has been in desperate need of upheaval in recent years. With “29,000 people” (L&Q, 2020) estimated to move into the scheme and “16,000 new jobs” (Transport for London, n.d.) across the London Riverside Opportunity Area, it is yet to be seen whether this is going to be a newly gentrified hotspot for East London or a genuine community effort that enriches the lives of the rich and the poor equally.

Conclusions From the two case studies explored in this paper, it is clear that at the heart of a functioning town, residential development, business district or city is functioning, effective and well-connected public transport infrastructure. The importance of this is unparalleled, as without it, an area becomes almost useless. As seen with Tower Hamlets, the previous docklands relied on the canals and quays to function, and the road networks were ever-changing and unsuitable. Martinson (2018) recalls living on the island in her youth, and “each holiday [at university] brought a new road network to negotiate and a new building site to discuss” as the Canary Wharf development was beginning. In the 1980s, there was only one bus route serving the Isle of Dogs, the 277, which Martinson claims “could take as little as 15 minutes or three times as long to get to my Saturday jobs in Poplar” (Martinson, 2018). With the introduction of the Docklands Light Railway in 1987, however, came change. The Canary Wharf regeneration (46) was enabled by the introduction of such transport infrastructure, as a new commercial and financial district would not have been allowed to be built without the appropriate connections for commuters to ma jor conurbations and the City of London itself. In fact, we can draw many correlations between the old Isle of Dogs and presentday Barking Riverside. Both were originally used for industrial land and repurposed, with extremely poor initial transport connectivity. Regeneration in both had occurred slowly but was not able to fully realise its potential until appropriate provision of transport infrastructure had been introduced. Transport infrastructure has always been, and remains to this day, the beating heart of urban regeneration and town planning.

(46) Canary Wharf & The Isle of Dogs as viewed from an apartment in Rotherhithe

The idea that a lack of transport infrastructure is directly responsible for high levels of social exclusion and isolation is noteworthy, a physical lack of infrastructure is responsible for exclusion from facilities, physical exclusion, geographical exclusion, financial and time-based exclusion (due to a heavier reliance on cars) and many others forms of exclusion mentioned earlier in this paper. But the introduction of said transport infrastructure is not a ‘magic wand’ or a ‘cure-all’. As seen with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, the Canary Wharf development did not magically cure the rest of the borough. Problems still exist, and Tower Hamlets has severe deprivation issues, in spite of its perceived improvements in the English Indices of Deprivation rankings. The gentrification and ongoing redevelopment of Canary Wharf only seems to cast shadows on the problems the borough has, at least from a statistical standpoint. The inclusion of the Elizabeth Line (also known as Crossrail) to Canary Wharf will only serve in further consolidating the area as a new haven of business and finance, a metropolis in its own right. What is important is the policies and the masterplans that are generated and centred around these new stations and transport infrastructure. Barking Riverside has a chance to become a new community that does not segregate or gentrify the working-class citizens, that does not discriminate against those in social housing or those who are unemployed. However, money talks, and as is all too common with large-scale residential schemes, private investors will build private houses for rent at extortionate prices and minimise the amount (and the quality) of social, affordable housing. We can only hope that Barking Riverside, and any future redevelopment schemes in Transport for London’s identified ‘Opportunity Areas’ do not follow suit.

Bibliography & References Baker, R., 1991. Boys stacking crates while playing. Getty Images. [Online image] Available at: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/boysstacking-crates-while-playing-news-photo/527422320 [Accessed 02 May 2020] Bourn, J., 2007. The Thames Gateway: Laying the Foundations, London: National Audit Office. Buchanan, C., 1963. Traffic in Towns: The specially shortened version of the Buchanan Report. 2nd ed. Slough: Penguin Books Ltd. Burchardt, T., Le Grand, J. & Piachaud, D., 1999. ‘Social Exclusion in Britain 1991-1995.’ Social Policy & Administration, 33(3), pp. 227-244. Burrows, T., 2015. ‘No cafe, no pub, no doctor in London’s most isolated suburb.’ The Guardian. [Online] 17th August. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/17/no-cafe-pubdoctor-londons-most-isolated-suburb-barking-riverside [Accessed 01 Feburary 2020]. Butler, P. & Parry, C., 2019. ‘Wealthy incomers ‘changing profile of London’s most deprived areas’.’ The Guardian. [Online] 26th September. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/26/wealthyincomers-changing-profile-of-londons-most-deprived-areas [Accessed 28 January 2020]. Church, A., Frost, M. & Sullivan, K., 2000. ‘Transport and social exclusion in London.’ Transport Policy, Volume 7, pp. 195-205. Colenutt, B., 2020. The Property Lobby: The Hidden Reality Behind the Housing Crisis. 1st ed. Bristol: Policy Press. Cooke, P., 2016. ‘Barking residents reassured as My Local faces closure.’ Barking and Dagenham Post. [Online] 30th June. Available at: https://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/barkingresidents-reassured-as-my-local-faces-closure-1-4597329 [Accessed 26 April 2020].

Crossrail Ltd, 2020. Elizabeth Line Route Map. [Online] Available at https://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/maps/route-map [Accessed 02 May 2020]

Cuthbertson, P., 2018. Poverty and Crime: Why a new war on criminals would help the poor most, London: Civitas. Department for Communities and Local Government, 2015. The English Indices of Deprivation 2015. [Online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/465791/English_Indices_of_ Deprivation_2015_-_Statistical_Release.pdf [Accessed 06 April 2020]. Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2012. Olympic and Paralympic Host Borough Survey, s.l.: Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Evening Standard, 2014. ‘Boris Johnson calls for creation of new ‘garden suburb’ in Barking and Dagenham.’ Evening Standard. [Online] 13th February. Available at: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/borisjohnson-calls-for-creation-of-new-garden-suburb-in-barking-anddagenham-9125436.html [Accessed 25 April 2020]. Grieco, M., 1994. The Impact of Transport Investment Projects upon the Inner City: A Literature Review. 1 ed. Aldershot: Averbury Publishing Company. High Speed Two Ltd, 2019. What is HS2?. [Online] Available at: https://www.hs2.org.uk/what-is-hs2/ [Accessed 28 April 2020]. HM Treasury, 2014. Autumn Statement 2014, London: Williams Lea Group. Horgan, R., 2019. ‘Buried utilities threaten to delay TfL’s Barking Riverside Extension.’ New Civil Engineer. [Online] 12th December. Available at: https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/buried-utilitiesthreaten-to-delay-tfls-barking-riverside-extension-12-12-2019/ [Accessed 26 April 2020]. IanVisits, 2020. London’s newest train station - Barking Riverside. [Online] 14th January. Available at: https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2020/01/14/londons-newesttrain-station-barking-riverside/ [Accessed 26 April 2020]. Imrie, R., 1996. Disability and the City: International Perspectives. 1 ed. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd. Jenkins, S., 2015. ‘London must stop sucking cash from the rest of Britain.’ The Guardian. [Online] 23rd December. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/23/ london-stop-sucking-up-cash-britain [Accessed 17 March 2020].

Johnson, B., 2009. Answer for DLR extension to Dagenham Dock. [Online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2009/3398 [Accessed 25 April 2020]. L&Q, 2020. Barking Riverside: About the Development. [Online] Available at: https://barkingriverside.london/about-the-development/ [Accessed 26 April 2020]. L&Q, 2020. Barking Riverside: About Us. [Online] Available at: https://barkingriverside.london/explore-east-london-propertydevelopment/about-us/ [Accessed 26 April 2020]. L&Q, 2020. Barking Riverside: Community. [Online] Available at: https://barkingriverside.london/live-at-barking-riverside/ community/ [Accessed 26 April 2020]. L&Q, 2020. Barking Riverside: History. [Online] Available at: https://barkingriverside.london/history/ [Accessed 26 April 2020]. L&Q, 2020. Barking Riverside: Vision [Online] Available at: https://barkingriverside.london/vision/ [Accessed 02 May 2020] Landmark Information Group Limited, 2020. Digimap. [Online] Available at: https://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/map/historic [Accessed 26 April 2020]. Leeser, R., 2019. Indices of Deprivation 2019 Initial Analysis. [Online] Available at: https://data.london.gov.uk/blog/indices-of-deprivation-2019initial-analysis/ [Accessed 02 May 2020]. London Borough of Barking & Dagenham, 2018. No one left behind: Corporate Plan 2018-2022, London: London Borough of Barking & Dagenham. Marlier, E. & Atkinson, A. B., 2010. ‘Indicators of Poverty and Social Exclusion in a Global Context.’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(2), pp. 285-304. Martinson, J., 2018. ‘Canary Wharf: life in the shadow of the towers.’ The Guardian. [Online] 8th April. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/08/ canary-wharf-life-in-the-shadow-of-the-towers [Accessed 24 April 2020]. Mayor of London, 2018. Mayor’s Transport Strategy, London: Greater London Authority.

Merseytravel, 1998. Community Links Strategy, Liverpool: Merseytravel

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019. The English Indices of Deprivation 2019. [Online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/835115/IoD2019_Statistical_Release. pdf [Accessed 28 January 2020]. New Policy Institute, 2017. London’s Poverty Profile, London: Trust for London. Oakervee, D., 2020. Oakervee Review of HS2, London: Department for Transport. Pendleton, A., Salveson, P. & Kiberd, E., 2019. A Rail Network for Everyone: Probing HS2 and its Alternatives, London: New Economics Foundation. Railway Matters, 2017. 30 Years of Docklands Light Railway (DLR) - New Trains to Come. [Online] Available at: https://twsmedia.co.uk/2017/11/24/30-years-of-docklands-lightrailway-dlr-new-trains-to-come/ [Accessed 28 April 2020]. SaKuKrish (@sakukrish), 09 June 2019. ‘Fire at Barking river side @LondonFire need help’. [Twitter] [Online] Available at: https://twitter.com/sakukrish/status/1137732832560898048 [Accessed 02 May 2020] Sherbell, S., 1992. Cranes tower over the construction site at Canary Wharf, East London. Getty Images. [Online image] Available at: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/cranestower-over-the-construction-site-at-canary-wharf-news-photo/612572084 [Accessed 28 April 2020] Tower Hamlets Council, 2015. Deprivation in Tower Hamlets: Analysis of the 2015 Indices of Deprivation data, London: Corporate Strategy and Equality Service. Tower Hamlets Council, 2018. Borough Profile, London: Tower Hamlets Council. Tower Hamlets Council, 2019. Tower Hamlets Strategic Plan 2019-22. [Online] Available at: https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/Strategy-andperformance/TH_Strategic_Plan.pdf [Accessed 28 January 2020]. Tower Hamlets Fairness Commission, 2013. Is Tower Hamlets rich or poor? Part I: Poverty, income and employment evidence pack, London: Tower Hamlets Fairness Commission. Tower Hamlets Fairness Commission, 2013. Tower Hamlets: Time to Act, London: Tower Hamlets Fairness Commission.

Transport for London, 2008. DLR Extension to Dagenham Dock - TWA Application, London: Transport for London. Transport for London, 2015. London Overground extension to Barking Riverside: Autumn 2014 Public Consultation Report. [Online] Available at: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/gobe/user_ uploads/barking-riverside-2014-consultation-report--v3-.pdf-1 [Accessed 26 April 2020]. Transport for London, 2017. Destination DLR - 30 things to do via the Docklands Light Railway. [Leaflet] London: Transport for London Transport for London, 2019. Barking Riverside extension. [Online] Available at: https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-andprojects/barking-riverside-extension [Accessed 26 April 2020]. Transport for London, 2020. Improvements & projects. [Online] Available at: https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-andprojects/ [Accessed 06 April 2020]. Transport for London, 2020. WebCAT planning tool. [Online] Available at: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/ planning-with-webcat/webcat [Accessed 08 February 2020].