W11P145

Rethinking Density

Prioritising the Density of Elephant & Castle’s Minority Ethnic Businesses Policy Guidance and Design Implementation

Plan Making Studio BPLN0005 Dr Michael Short Helen Carter 13011090

The Brief

My Site

The Brief is to explore the theme of density within a London opportunity area. Opportunity areas are sites earmarked for development by the Greater London Authority (GLA), often at higher density. Taking the research of our chosen area, we then needed to produce a masterplan for the area, either from a design or policy perspective.

I wanted to add complexity to the term ‘density’, specifically focusing on the benefits of keeping Minority Ethnic Businesses (MEBs) located in high density. As such, I will focus on the Elephant & Castle shopping Centre and surrounding areas, which hosts a high density of MEBs . I will take a policy focused approach and look at how this may be implemented in design.

London planning policy emphasises the need for higher built density (Mayor of London, 2016). In the most recent draft of the London Plan, maximum allowances for built density have been removed, with the belief that building at higher density will solve housing shortages and is beneficial for the environment by preventing urban sprawl (Greater London Authority, 2017, Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2019, pp.36-37 and Burton, 2000, pp.1969). If density limits are removed from the future London Plan, I argue that a more complex and multi-disciplinary understanding of density needs to be put into policy if we are to avoid, as Azra Churchman argues, falling into the trap of emphasising ‘form rather than substance’ (Churchman, 1999, pp.393).

1

The Issue The Elephant & Castle Supplementary Planning Document (EC SPD) emphasises an increase in density for the site to ‘1,100 habitable rooms per hectare’ (Greater London Authority, 2017, pp.10 and Southwark Council, 2012). However, I felt that ‘density’ was used as a justification for prioritising the building of unaffordable high-rise flats and high-priced shopping outlets.

This process is threatening the displacement of existing Minority Ethnic Businesses (MEBs) and residential population to the suburbs of London - what Kate Hulse terms the ‘suburbanisation of disadvantage’ (Hulse & Reynolds, 2018, pp.1657).

This increases problems of sprawl and community displacement (Ibid.). Ironically, the prevention of sprawl is often cited as a reason why higher density building is more environmentally sustainable (Neuman, 2005).

I argue that Southwark Council has made a connection ‘between density and high-rise housing’ (Churchman, 1999, pp.392), with density and housing quotas used as a justification for building higher rise, high cost residential developments in Elephant & Castle (Southwark Council, 2012, pp.56-59). In Elephant & Castle ‘density...is perceived as a means to some end’ (Churchman, 1999, pp.393), the ‘end’ being that housing quotas are met, but with little consideration of who this development is for and whether it serves the existing community.

Similar to Mike Raco’s observation of Latin American SMEs in Seven Sisters, I argue that Southwark Council has allowed the ‘prioritization of residential property development as both the means and the end of local regeneration projects’, at the expense of SMEs (Raco & de Souza , 2018, pp.146). In the shopping Centre regeneration 979 residential units will be added to an area previously used by SMEs (Southwark Council, 2016). This reflects wider trends in UK planning, where councils, in the context of austerity, are increasingly reliant on Section 106 agreements with global developers, such as Delancey, to fund social infrastructure and services (Raco & de Souza, 2018). As Raco argues, this ‘high demand for housing is putting pressure on the affordability and supply of commercial spaces for SMEs’, subsidies for SMEs consequently being cut (Ibid., pp.153 and pp.149). In Elephant & Castle it is the MEBs in the shopping Centre who are paying the price.

Figure 1: Focus area of study

Much of this area, however, is within the Southwark Council’s ‘Action Area’, earmarked for development (Southwark Council, 2020 {See Figure 2}). As such, MEBs are increasingly pressured to relocate - dispersing their high-density concentration.

My Interpretation of Density Taking inspiration from Churchman’s work, I attempt to bring ‘complexity’ back into the term density (Churchman, 1999).

Churchman argues that the ‘interrelationships between variables and factors must be addressed in research on density’ (Ibid., pp. 407). That is, we must look at the social implications of building at higher density - in this instance the social implication explored is the displacement of MEBs due to higher density, mixed-use development on the site of the shopping Centre.

I attempt to find a smarter definition of density, which does not look at the number of dwellings in an area, but rather focuses on density through a socio-economic lens. I define density as the amount of MEBs within a particular space. In Elephant & Castle, this is the density of Latin American businesses operating in the central shopping area. I argue that adding this new understanding of density to existing definitions will help us plan for development in Elephant & Castle that does not simply use density as ‘a means to some end’ (Churchman, 1999, pp.393), where that ‘end’ is ill defined and often not to the benefit of existing communities. But rather enables us to mitigate against the negative effects of development, such as MEBs displacement to the outskirts of London, thereby creating a more socially and environmentally sustainable place.

Figure 2: Data taken from Southwark Council’s Adopted Planning Policies Map (Southwark Council, 2020).

The Opportunity Area

Area Quotas

2

The Elephant & Castle opportunity area is located just south of the Thames river in Zone 1. The area stretches over 4 wards of East Walworth, Newington, Cathedrals and Chaucer (Southwark Council, 2012 {See Figure 3}).

Historically this area was known as the gateway to central London (Ibid., pp.15). The area is well connected with two tube stations, a mainline train station, as well as numerous bus routes. There are two universities in the OA – London College of Communications (LCC) and Southbank University. Encouraged by the presence of LCC, the area is host to numerous creative businesses, which Southwark council wants to enhance, making the area a creative cluster to help boost the local economy (Southwark Council, 2012).

Priorities of the E&C SPD

1) A vibrant shopping and town Centre, making it an ‘attractive central London destination’ (Southwark Council, 2012, pp.25) 2) Provide more homes in the area (Ibid., pp.28) 3) Improving transport hubs (Ibid., pp.28) 4) Enhance the area’s creative potential (Ibid., pp.22,34 and 42)

Indicative Employment Capacity: 5,000 (Mayor of London, 2020)

Minimum New Homes: 5,000

(Mayor of London, 2020)

Policy on Density: 650-1,100 Habitable Rooms per Hectare

(Southwark Council, 2012)

The Location

In terms of the first priority, Southwark Council want to achieve this in the following ways: Bringing new ‘anchor tenants’ to the area to improve its catchment (Ibid., pp.30) Create a sense of place as the ‘southern gateway to central London’ (Ibid., pp.29) Bringing more ‘tall buildings in the opportunity area...will help signal its regeneration’ (Ibid., pp.56)

E&C SPD Policies on Community Uses In the SPD, Southwark council acknowledge that the ‘main strength of the Centre is the particular concentration of Latin-American businesses’ (Ibid., pp.30). They also recognize the importance of having a high-density network of MEBs, stating ‘community uses tend to work well when they are located close to one another’ (Ibid., pp.44). However, as we will see with the proposed development by Delancey, limited efforts have been made to keep these MEBs together, and policies for relocation of MEBs do not prioritise keeping them in high density to one another (Southwark Council , 2017).

Southwark Plan Policies on Density and Community Policy 4.1 has a positive view of density, stating that ‘increasing density, especially in central London and around transport nodes, is a key requirement for the sustainable use of land’, as it ‘reduc(es) the need to travel’ and avoids urban sprawl (Southwark Council, 2013, pp.45-46 and 52).

Figure 3: Data taken from EC SPD (Southwark Council, 2019, pp. 8)

Southwark Council do state how providing affordable housing enables ‘balanced communities’ to thrive (Ibid, pp.63). However, E&C is not highlighted in their Strategic Cultural Area plan, suggesting the council are not prioritising the Latin American cultural hub in E&C (Southwark Council, 2020 {See Figure 4}).

NPPF Policies on Communities

Developments should: ‘not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion’ (Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2019, pp.27) ‘Guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs’ (Ibid.)

‘Ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernize, and are retained for the benefit of the community’ (Ibid.).

Make ‘provision for clusters or networks of knowledge...in suitably accessible locations’ (Ibid., pp.23).

The policies I propose, which emphasize maintaining the area’s high-density network of MEBs, would abide by the NPPF, as well play homage to the EC SPD (Ibid., 2019 and Southwark Council, 2012).

Figure 4: Data takenfrom Southwark Council’s Adopted Planning Policies Map (Southwark Council, 2020).

The Community Demographic

Minority Ethnic Numbers

3

As stated previously one of the main benefits of the area is the ‘concentration of Latin American businesses’ (Southwark Council, 2012, pp. 30). These MEBs serve a Latin American minority that populate the area – 8.9% of the population of Southwark are of Latin American descent (Román-Velázquez & Hill, 2016). In the whole of Southwark, 46% of residents are from a Minority Ethnic background (Southwark Council, 2018).

(Latin Elephant, 2016)

41% of Latin American MEBs are run by women

69% of MEBs in Elephant & Castle are run by the Latin American community

(Latin Elephant, 2016)

(Latin Elephant, 2016)

Density of Latin American MEBs

6 2

Newington Butts

What’s more, MEBs contribute an enormous amount to the UK economy. They employ on average 1.16 million people in the UK and contribute between £25 and £35 billion to the UK economy (Román-Velázquez & Hill, 2016, pp.10 and King, et al., 2018, pp.10). However, rising property prices and rents continue to put MEBs at risk. This problem is exacerbated in Elephant and Castle by Southwark’s policy of introducing more tall buildings to the area, mostly at market rent (Southwark Council, 2012, pp.5659). Currently, for example, Southwark council have only secured affordable rent for around 20% of the existing MEBs in the area (Latin Elephant, 2020).

12

Clusters and Knowledge Pools

12

6

By making our understanding of density more complex, going further than looking at the numerical quantity of dwellings in a place to look at the quantity of MEBs in an area, we can create policies for increased density that discourage displacement, and therefore urban sprawl. In order to do this, however, we must understand the benefits of clustering for MEBs, and how clustering takes place.

7

5 22 Latin American Businesses

3 Figure 5: Showing current Latin American MEB cluster (Latin Elephant, 2016, pp.16)

3

ad

Railway Line

Walw ort hR o

Adrian Kuah defines clusters as ‘a geographical agglomeration of competing and related industries’ (Kuah, 2002, pp.208). Leandro Sepulveda argues that there are 3 types of MEB clusters in London; 1) ‘Agglomerations or clusters of ethnic enterprise’; 2) ‘New businesses development around established shopping and street markets’; 3) ‘Home based enterprise activity’ (Sepulveda, 2011). The Elephant & Castle Latin American MEB hub fits into the first definition as a ‘cluster of ethnic enterprise’ (Sepulveda, 2011).

The term cluster is usually applied to specialized industries, such as tech and creative industries (Kuah, 2002). I would argue, along with Julia King, that MEBs are specialist industry, as they offer a steppingstone into employment (King et al., 2018, pp.10 and Román-Velázquez, 2017, pp.1-2). Therefore, the advantages of creating high density of MEBs should be recognized.

Elephant Road

What’s more, Latin American migrants face employment in precarious, low skilled jobs – in London 55% are employed in low-skilled jobs (Román-Velázquez & Hill, 2016, pp.14).

Self-employment in MEBs provides an attractive alternative for many migrants. As such, we must prioritise the retention of MEB clusters as they enable a particular minority group to enter employment, offering economic independence.

8.9% of the population of Southwark are of Latin American ethnicity

Railwa y Line

In the wider Southwark area, SMEs make up around 99% of businesses (Southwark Council, 2012). Within the Opportunity Area there are around 130 Latin American MEBs, of which 41% are run by women (Román-Velázquez & Hill, 2016, pp.18). These MEBs provide a crucial source of employment for women minority ethnics. The clustering effect offers these women a support network to run their businesses for, as Cynthia Forson argues, women-run businesses often need ‘longer incubation periods’ to get running (Forson, 2006, pp.418).

14 50m

Number of Latin American Businesses present Road outline

Figure 6: Showing density of Latin American MEBs (Latin Elephant, 2016, pp.16)

The Formation of MEB Clusters

Costs and Benefits for High Density MEBs 4

The Elephant & Castle cluster works as it is in ‘close proximity’ to their target consumers, creating a ‘symbiotic relationship between entrepreneurs and the ethnic markets they serve’ (Sepulveda, 2011). However, the benefits are not confined to the Latin American community alone. In fact, through sourcing products from suppliers, both at the national and international level, the MEBs are able to ‘generate demands for goods and services across different scales’ (Ibid.)

As Caroline Chapain argues, however, cluster theory does not sufficiently recognize how social relationships create high density clusters (Chapain & Comunian, 2010). In her paper on creative industries in Birmingham and Gateshead, she argues that to cultivate knowledge pools you need sites of encounter where networks and social relations can flourish (Ibid.). As such, to understand how the high density of Latin American MEBs formed, you need to look beyond the economic and towards the social infrastructure. MEB clusters have developed in Elephant & Castle as Southwark is seen as a ‘reception area’ for new migrants (Sepulveda, 2011). When arriving, migrants seek out others who speak their language to gain advice about housing, as well as the UK’s entrepreneurial processes (Ibid.). These channels of advice create a ‘soft’ social infrastructure that ‘foster(s) economic development’ (Chapain & Comunian, 2010).

These relationships are not created overnight, in fact ‘trustful relationships cannot be immediately born, but are the result of continuous interactions’ (Chapain & Comunian, 2010). In Elephant & Castle the spatial cluster of MEBs has been growing since the 1990s, when members of the Latin American community rented spaces in the run-down shopping mall, slowly seeing the area’s revival (Román-Velázquez & Hill, 2016, pp.16). As time is needed for a high density MEB network to form, policies should protect MEB clusters so that long-standing relationships are maintained.

Demand Side

Customer Proximity Reduced Consumer Search Costs

Benefits

Information Externalities (Actions of one MEB ‘influence the opportunities and choices of another as a by product’ {Nakamura, 1993, pp.4})

Reputation

Costs

Conjestion and Competition in Output Markets

Supply Side

Knowledge Spillovers (Especially English Language Skills {Sepulveda, 2011}) Specialised Labour Infrastructure Benefits Information Externalities Conjestion and Competition in Input Markets - Property and Labour (Competition for property to be reduced by my proposed policies POL1.0 and POL1.1)

Figure 7: Cost benefit analysis of being located in high density for MEBs (data taken from Kuah, 2002, pp.211).

Latin American MEBs and the Creative Cluster

The Importance of Proximity Proximity of MEBs to one another is important for fostering social networks, which in turn helps to boost the local economy (Kuah, 2002). Proximity helps to ‘improve communications and relationships with suppliers’ as well as helping ‘knowledge spillovers’ (Ibid., pp.212). ‘Knowledge accumulated by one firm would help’ skills to ‘evolve in other firms’ (Ibid.). This is especially true for MEBs, as often English language skills will and help from others to break down language barriers is needed to carry out business (Sepulveda, 2011).

The greatest advantage of proximity and high density, however, are the ‘personal contact networks’ and ‘linkages’ (Kuah, 2002, pp.206 and 224) made between businesses. As Kuah argues, ‘the presence of clusters suggests that much of competitive advantage lies outside a given company or even outside of its industry, residing instead in the locations of its business units in the form of externalities and linkages’ (Kuah, 2002, pp.224).

How Clusters Facilitate the Local Economy High densities of migrant and ethnic economies are crucial to the local economy as they provide ‘economic and social anchor for comparatively low-entry retail and service activities’, enabling marginalized groups, like migrant women, to get into higher paid jobs (King et al., 2018, pp.10). They offer a steppingstone up the employment ladder, helping to stimulate the local economy.

What’s more, the cluster of Latin American MEBs helps facilitate another cluster in the area – one which Southwark council is keen to promote – the creative industries (Southwark Council, 2012 {See Figure 8}). As Chapain argues, networks and social infrastructure are crucial for encouraging the growth of a creative knowledge pool (Chapain & Comunian, 2010). Sites of interaction, such as cafes and restaurants, are needed for long-standing, trusted relationships to flourish (Ibid., 2010). By helping the MEB Latin American cluster to grow, we are providing more spaces of encounter for the creative industry. For example, students from the LCC have been active in Latin Elephant’s campaign to get a relocation package for the Latin American traders, even producing short films and photography exhibitions (Scott Burgoyne , 2019). In this way, the campaign has also served as a temporary site of encounter, helping to facilitate the area’s creative cluster.

Figure 8: Depicting Latin American MEB cluster and local creative industries (Creative businesses located by the author {Latin Elephant, 2016 and Google Maps, 2020})

Proposed Development

5

Delancey’s Vision

Other redevelopment projects in Elephant & Castle have already affected the MEBs. The old Heygate Estate has now been replaced by a high-density mixed-use development. The developer, Lendlease, have only delivered 92 social rent units out of the 2,869 built (35% Campaign , 2020). In the documentary Why Do Elephants Keep Developing, many traders stated that due to the Heygate’s demolition they have lost customers, negatively impacting their business (Scott Burgoyne, 2019).

Southwark Council approved Delancey’s plans for redevelopment of the shopping Centre in 2018 (35% Campaign, 2018). The site is to be demolished and rebuilt to provide a mixed-use development of higher density, providing housing and location for the new LCC campus, as well as retail space (Greater London Authority, 2017). The development’s residential density is ‘at the upper end of the London Plan density matrix…circa 1,100 habitable rooms per hectare’ (Ibid., pp.10). In total, the development will provide an additional 979 residential units to the area, built up to 35 stories high (35% Campaign, 2020 and Southwark Council, 2016).

eet Str

Figure 10: Below Ground Level (Latin Elephant, 2020)

d

eet Str

e gat Hey

d

Road outline

Community Response

Figure 11: Ground Level (Latin Elephant, 2020)

Proposed Relocation Density

Proposed affordable rent retail space for MEBs as of April 2019

d

New Ken tR

oad

te yga He

eet Str

Roa d

Road outline

oad

Elephant Roa

Newington Butts

d

eet Str

d

Roa

Road outline

te yga He

New Ken tR

orth Walw

Existing Location of Shopping Mall MEBs

oad

Elephant Roa

Newington Butts

New Ken tR

th wor Wal

The non-for-profit, Latin Elephant, have worked on securing more relocation spaces for traders, with the hope that a ‘Latin Quarter’ could be a feasible alternative (Román-Velázquez & Hill, 2016). In conjunction with the LSE, they argue that ‘the relocation plan should consider the value of how businesses and services work as clusters not simply as single entities’ (King et al., 2018, pp.13). These MEBs are valuable to the community and economy precisely because of their density – the relationships made between businesses being crucial to their survival and ‘any strategy developed should focus on strengthening the collective identity’ (The Bartlett Development Planning Unit and Latin Elephant, 2016, pp.20). Therefore, relocating them in a dispersed manner does not abide by NPPF policy that all development should ‘guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs’ (Ministry for Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2019, pp.27).

Existing Location of Shopping Mall MEBs

Roa

te yga He

Elephant Roa

d

Newington Butts

oad

d Roa

Road outline

New Ken tR

oad

th wor Wal

Existing Location of Shopping Mall MEBs

New Ken tR

th wor Wal

Although Southwark Council recognizes the importance of the cluster of Latin American businesses as a ‘main strength’ (Southwark Council, 2012, pp.30), processes of relocation do not emphasise the need for these MEBs to remain in high density (Southwark Council, 2017). In fact, in their Equalities Analysis, Southwark council state that traders have resources to relocate ‘in their sites across London’ (Ibid., pp.4).

Whilst there has been some attempt to keep them together, through provision of affordable retail units at Peronet House, this is not the top priority for relocation.

Existing MEB Density

Elephant Roa

Relocation for the over 130 MEBs who trade in and around the shopping Centre is to be funded using Section 106 agreement with Delancey. To date £634,700 has been secured for processes of relocation, alongside the employment of external consultant, Tree Shepherd (Latin Elephant, 2019 and Southwark Council, 2017). However, this has failed to provide certainty for the MEBs, with only 35 of them having confirmed relocation space (Latin Elephant, 2020). These confirmed relocation sites are dispersed throughout the Opportunity Area (Latin Elephant, 2020).

Figure 9: Delancey’s planned redevelopment for the Shopping centre (Delancey, 2020).

Newington Butts

The Proposed Relocation Package

Figure 12: First Floor (Latin Elephant, 2020)

Figure 13: Showing proposed relocation after Delancey’s development (Latin Elephant, 2020).

Policy of Relocation At present, preserving the ‘density’ of MEBs is not emphasized in relocation policies. Rather, where possible Southwark tries to relocate businesses within the borough, but often this is not realized (Southwark Council, 2017). As of 2019, only 35 independent traders out of 130 were offered relocation alternatives (Latin Elephant, 2020).

What’s more, the relocation compensation includes providing these MEBs with an external consultant, Tree Shepherd (Southwark Council, 2017). Sepulveda argues that MEBs are often reluctant to make use of official government agencies, either because they are unsure of their migrant rights, or because of language barriers (Sepulveda, 2011). The compensation offered by Southwark Council and Delancey, therefore, does not take into consideration how the current business community operates, and therefore falls into the category that Sepulveda defines as ‘policy led rather than evidence based’ (Sepulveda, 2011).

Delancey has promised 411 Square meters for traders. This is about 10% of what currently traders have at 4,005 square meters (King et al., 2018).

Policy Proposal

6

Levels of Policy As of present there is no policy on relocation within the NPPF. In fact, the term ‘relocation’ is only mentioned once in relation to climate change (NPPF, 2019, pp.44). I propose to add POL.1.0 at the NPPF level.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2019)

1.0 Purpose The purpose of this policy is to provide a relocation package for MEBs that prioritizes preserving the existing density of MEBs within any site they are relocated to. This policy puts onus on developers to provide adequate monetary relocation compensation to MEBs via Section 106, as well as on the Council to fully explore spatial opportunities for the preservation of MEB density.

London Plan 2016 New Version due 2020

2.0 Definitions Density Alongside density as being the number of dwellings and units in a particular area, density in this instance signifies quantity of a certain type of unit in a given area. With regards to this policy it is the density of affordable retail space let by MEBs. MEBs MEBs is shorthand for Minority Ethnic Businesses, that is any business run by a member of a minority ethnic group, either first generation migrants, or members of the diaspora.

Southwark Local Plan 2007 New Plan to be Adopted 2020

POL 1.0 i) The policy obliges all planned development in areas with a high density MEB network to find an alternative site that preserves existing density. This is to ensure that the economic and social benefits of clustering, such as knowledge spillovers and linkages between businesses, are retained. ii)

The policy applies to any development proposed in an area with an existing high density of MEBs.

Elephant & Castle 2012 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Opportunity Area Framework (OAF)

iii) Onus is on the developer to provide financial compensation to any MEBs that are displaced as a cause of development. The compensation must be enough to guarantee all MEBs on the existing site relocation to a site that preserves MEB density. iv) It is the responsibility of the council to research the needs of the existing MEB cluster before relocating them, and to find a site that will meet their density needs. v) Research must be carried out to assess how MEBs interact with institutional organizations. This is to ensure that any compensation, in the form of external consultants, will be useful to MEBs.

Each policy tier must adhere to the policy level above it

Housing quotas are set at the national level

Policy on Density The case at Elephant & Castle shows precisely why we need a more developed and complex understanding of density when looking at new development. The proposed development by Delancey increases, numerically, the number of dwellings on the site to ‘1,100 habitable rooms per hectare’ (Greater London Authority , 2017, pp.10). If we are trying to move towards higher densities because it avoids sprawl and benefits the sustainability of our communities, surely Delancey’s plans should be celebrated? However, the development is dispersing MEBs, and with it the local economic benefits of having them located close together (Latin Elephant, 2020).

Purely looking at the number of dwellings or business spaces in an area, without looking at what type of business and dwellings leads to the very problems building at higher density was meant to solve. By not emphasizing the types of dwelling or business space in our density calculations, we are often left with high density mono-tenure towers that are mostly sold at market rent, increasingly as financial assets (Hulse & Reynolds, 2018). This leads to house prices and retail rents skyrocketing, forcing existing communities out to the suburbs and encouraging urban sprawl (Ibid. and Raco & de Souza, 2018).

Rather, if we were to have policies on density which required a certain density of, say, affordable workspace in a given area, then we could protect clusters of MEBs, who benefit from working in close proximity to one another. With Sadiq Khan removing the upper limits on density in the new London Plan, it is crucial that we have a definition of density that supports existing communities, rather than encouraging their displacement to the outskirts of the city (Greater London Authority, 2017). Density for density’s sake serves no one.

Levels of Policy In the NPPF density policies refer to ‘appropriate densities’ to achieve housing targets. Definitions of density are vague - the aim being to ‘optimise the use of land’ (2019, pp. 37). I propose to add my policy at the NPPF level, making the existing policy on density more specific and complex, so that it can filter down to other policy levels.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2019)

Policy Proposal 2 1.0 Purpose The aim of this policy is to provide a more complex definition of density, from one that looks at density as the number of units in a given area, to one that also looks at the type of units in a given area. This change in definition obliges any new development to not only comply with existing unit density thresholds, but also to ensure that any existing density of tenure in the area is matched in the new development. For example, if currently there is a density of affordable retail rent space of 6 units per hectare, this density is to be kept in the new development.

This new policy complies with the EC SPD 9, which emphasises the importance of locating ‘local facilities together so that the services required by the community’ like ‘community space are provided in accessible locations in a way in which different facilities can complement and support each other’ (Southwark Council, 2012, pp.43). Southwark Council therefore recognize that ‘community uses tend to work well when they are located close to one another’ (Ibid., pp.44). This creates opportunities to share spaces and facilities’ makes them ‘more convenient’ and ‘helps make them more viable’ (Ibid.).

London Plan 2016 New Version due 2020

Southwark Local Plan 2007 New Plan to be Adopted 2020

POL 1.1 i) The policy obliges all new development to comply, both with existing density thresholds, as well as retain existing density of different types of tenure in any new development. This is especially true of affordable office and retail space, as density of MEBs delivers benefits such as knowledge spillovers. ii)

Elephant & Castle 2012 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Opportunity Area Framework (OAF)

Onus is on the developer to comply with these new density requirements in any planned development.

iii) Onus is on the planning inspector to ensure that existing density of affordable office, business and retail tenures are kept in the new development. Planning permission should only be granted given these requirements are met. iv) If the development is proposing a complete change of use, then developers and the council are required to follow guidance from Policy 1.0 on relocation that preserves existing density of affordable tenures in the relocation site.

Each policy tier must adhere to the policy level above it

7

Policy 1.1 in design

Designs for flexible workspace for MEB clusters

I have taken influence from designs of retail units used by Latin American MEBs in Elephant & Castle to visualize what policy 1.1 might look like in practice. Many arches along Elephant Road are classified as one unit, whilst they are host to multiple MEBs. The arches are ‘divided up and let under licence agreement to other small retailers’ (Román-Velázquez & Hill, 2016, pp.33). This model is flexible for BME communities, as the contracts are short term and have ‘cheap rent’, offering ‘minimal risk to the migrant entrepreneur’ (Ibid.). Latin Elephant classifies this model as ‘Tienda’, or ‘unit of multiple units’ (Ibid, pp.33)

8

1

2

This format is both high density in terms of units per hectare, as well as the density of a single type of tenure – in this case affordable workspace. However, this is currently not recognized by Southwark council, as it is classified as only one retail unit (Latin Elephant, 2020).

I propose to make this design more formal by a) classifying the area as numerous units, so that the high density of affordable retail tenure is recognised (in accordance with POL.1.1), and b) promoting the use of these flexible retail spaces in areas where a development is displacing a MEB cluster (in accordane with POL 1.0).

Figure 15: Entrance to clustered workspace showing movable flooring to facilitate easy movement between units.

1

2

2 3

4 Figure 14: Variety of retail space sizes are shown. Sizes can be altered using movable wall structure.

1

Movable Walls

The retail workspace will be fitted with movable walls to be flexible to tenants needs. For example, as a business grows ‘they are easily able to upscale’ (Ibid, pp16) by removing a wall. This also works vice versa for smaller MEBs, who may prefer a smaller space at reduced rent.

Rent is affordable and based on square footage occupied. The ‘Tienda’ model ‘operates as a natural business incubator’ (Ibid, pp.33) due the space’s flexibility.

2

Figure 16: Side on view of retail space shows the high density of the design, both in terms of units per hectare and units of affordable retail space.

Movable Flooring

An optional corridor will be provided for the upper floor. This gives tenants flexibility if they want to have a wider unit (see figure 15). The corridor provides ease of movement between the MEBs, helping to facilitate the cluster. On the reverse, it also allows the flexibility of having more clearly demarcated businesses, if the MEB requires privacy for customers, for example a salon (see figure 14).

3

Opportunities for Negotiation

The design’s flexibility means MEBs have to negotiate the space between themselves (what size rental space they want etc.). This helps to create the networks and linkages needed for the cluster to grow.

4

Improved Signage

Although not depicted on the design, I propose better signage on the entrance to buildings, including translations into English (Ibid.).

Possible Sites

Mapping the Sites

9

I have chosen sites based on their viability and whether they already home Latin American MEBs (see Figure 16).

Viability options: Peronet House and Castle Square are affordable workspaces provided by Southwark Council and Delancey respectively (Latin Elephant, 2020). These options are economically viable and located close to the existing cluster.

Options with existing MEB clusters: The Elephant Road arches are Latin Elephant’s preferred relocation site. The arches already host Latin American MEBs and have shown to be suitable for the ‘Tienda’ model (Román-Velázquez & Hill, 2016). I have also added the East Street Market option as it already hosts various MEBs and could offer the flexibility needed for the ‘Tienda’ model.

Conclusion Density has often been understood as the number of units in a given space (Boyko & Cooper, 2011). It has been assumed by the likes of the new urbanist movement that density is beneficial for the environment as is avoids sprawl and therefore reliance on transport for commuting (Neuman, 2005). However, when looking at Elephant & Castle we see that the new development has an optimal level of density in numerical terms (Greater London Authority, 2017). The development, led by Delancey, is increasing the built density of the area, adding 979 housing, offices and shopping space at 1,100 habitable rooms per hectare (Ibid.). In theory this should be beneficial for the environment, bringing people closer to where they work and shop and vice versa.

Figure 17: Possible locations for ‘Tienda’ model

Just looking at density in terms of numerical values is problematic. In Elephant & Castle numerical density has been prioritized above the density of affordable retail space for MEBs. The shopping Centre and surrounding areas are home to a high density MEB network of a majority Latin American descent. If we understand density to be this high concentration of MEBs in a given place, then the new development in Elephant & Castle actually disrupts the density of the area.

High density is often misunderstood as high-rise buildings (Churchman, 1999). In the EC SPD, Southwark council claims that it wants to introduce more high-rise in the area to signal it as the ‘gateway’ to central London (Southwark Council, 2012). These high-rise residentials are increasingly being bought up as financial assets and are left vacant (Raco & de Souza, 2018., pp.149). Financialization of property has led to increasing house prices, and rents for retail and office spaces (Ibid., pp.153 and Hulse & Reynolds, 2018). Due to this drive towards high density, many existing communities are therefore being priced out of the area and are being forced into the suburbs of London, encouraging sprawl (Hulse & Reynolds, 2018). In Elephant and Castle this is happening to MEBs who benefit from being located in close proximity to one another.

The Elephant Road ‘Latin Quarter’ Latin Elephant put forward Elephant Road for the relocation of Latin American MEBs, where they could cluster in high density. They proposed making clearer signage for each unit to improve wayfinding for non Latin American customers (Román-Velázquez & Hill, 2016, pp.33). Delancey and Southwark have not adopted this proposal. Nonetheless it shows how high MEB densities work in design. My model of a flexible workspace can be adapted and put into different areas, such as Castle Square.

I proposed, therefore, to look beyond the traditional view of density, to one that focuses on the density of a type of tenure in a given area as seen in POL 1.0 and POL1.1. In Elephant & Castle, this was the density of affordable retail and business rental units. By preserving the density of units available for MEBs we can ensure that the positive benefits of clustering are retained, both for the local economy, and for the MEBs themselves.

The question then remains - can a reconceptualization of density alter processes of development and displacement?

Figure 18: Birdseye view of Elephant Road option (Román-Velázquez & Hill, 2016, Appendix)

Figure 19: Showing improved frontage and signage on Elephant Road (Ibid.)

Bibliography 35% Campaign , 2020. Elephant Park - final phase, final windfall for Lendlease. [Online] Available at: http://35percent.org/2020-02-21-heygate-final-chapter-and-chance-for-southwark-to-redeem-itself/ [Accessed 6 May 2020].

35% Campaign, 2018. E&C Shopping Centre - Delancey stumbles after Mayor's approval. [Online] Available at: http://35percent.org/2018-12-16-mayor-approves-shopping-centre/ [Accessed 5 May 2020].

Boyko, C. T. & Cooper, R., 2011. Clarifying and re-conceptualising density. Amsterdam/ London: Elsevier.

Burton, E., 2000. The Compact City: Just or Just Compact? A Preliminary Analysis. Urban Studies, 37(11), pp. 1969-2001.

Chapain, C. & Comunian, R., 2010. Enabling and Inhibiting the Creative Economy: The Role of Local and Regional Dimensions in England. Regional Studies , 44(6), pp. 717-734.

Delancey, 2020. Elephant & Castle Town Centre Regeneration. [Online] Available at: http://elephantandcastletowncentre.co.uk/ [Accessed 15 May 2020].

Churchman, A., 1999. Distangling the Concept of Density. Journal of Planning Literature, 13(4), pp. 389-411.

Forson, C., 2006. The Strategic Framework for Women's Enterprise: BME women at the margins. Equal Opportunities International, 25(6), pp. 418-432.

Google Maps, 2020. Elephant & Castle. [Online] Available at: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Elephant+and+Castle,+London/@51.4941454,-0.1025139,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x487604a23d99f27f:0x1a4907e34b872655!8 m2!3d51.4959129!4d-0.1004748 [Accessed 12 May 2020].

Greater London Authority , 2017. Mayor rips up old planning rules to get London building. [Online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-rips-up-old-planningrules [Accessed 10 May 2020].

Greater London Authority , 2017. Planning Report D&P/3654/01: Elephant and Castle shopping centre and London College of Communication site in the London Borough of Southwark: planning application no. 16/AP/4458, London: Greater London Authority.

Hulse, K. & Reynolds, M., 2018. Investification: Financialisation of housing markets and persistance of suburban socio-economic disadvantage. Urban Studies, 55(8), pp. 1655-1671.

King, J. et al., 2018. Socio-Economic Value at the Elephant and Castle , London: LSE and Loughborough University.

Kuah, A. T. H., 2002. Cluster Theory and Practice: Advantages for the Small Business Locating in a Vibrant Cluster. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 4(3), pp. 206-228.

Latin Elephant , 2019. Community Gains at EC. [Online] Available at: https://latinelephant.org/community-gains-at-ec/ [Accessed 7 May 2020].

Latin Elephant, 2020. Map of Businesses. [Online] Available at: https://latinelephant.org/519-2/ [Accessed 4 April 2020].

London Borough of Southwark, 2017. Elephant & Castle Town Centre: Detailed Planning Application. Draft Local Business Support & Relocation Strategy. [Online] Available at: planbuild.southwark.gov.uk › documents [Accessed 17 March 2020].

Mayor of London , 2016. The London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for London Consolidated with Alterations Since 2011, London: London Gov. Mayor of London, 2020. Elephant & Castle Opportunity Area. [Online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-london-plan/ opportunity-areas/opportunity-areas/elephant-castle [Accessed 2 April 2020].

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2019. National Planning Policy Framework, London : UK Government .

Nakamura , L. I., 1993. Information Externalities: Why Lending May Sometimes Need a Jump Start. Business Review: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, January/Feburary , p.314.

Neuman, M., 2005. The Compact City Fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(1), pp. 11-26.

Raco, M. & de Souza , T. M., 2018. Urban development, small business communities and the entrepreneurialisation of English local government. The Town Planning Review, 89(2), pp.

145-165.

Román-Velázquez, P., 2017. Latin Elephant’s Feedback to New Southwark Plan Preferred Options Consultation, London: Latin Elephant.

Román-Velázquez, P. & Hill, N., 2016. Latin Elephant: The Case for London’s Latin Quarter: Retention, Growth and Sustainability, London: Latin Elephant.

Scott Burgoyne , E., 2019. Why Do Elephants Keep Developing?. [Online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ2M6_vQo2s [Accessed 24 March 2020].

Sepulveda, L., 2011. Population superdiversity and new migrant enterprise: The case of London. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal, 23(7-8).

Southwark Council , 2013. Saved Southwark Plan Policies , London : Southwark Council.

Southwark Council, 2012. Elephant and Castle: Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF), London: Southwark Council.

Southwark Council , 2016. Planning - Application Summary. [Online] Available at: https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications-old/applicationDetails. do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9569810 [Accessed 18 March 2020].

Southwark Council , 2017. Elephant & Castle Shopping Centre Equalities Analysis and Mitigation Projects. [Online] Available at: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s68297/Report%20Elephant%20and%20Castle%20Shopping%20Centre%20Equalities%20Analysis%20and%20 Mitigation%20Projects.pdf [Accessed 3 April 2020].

Southwark Council , 2020. Adopted Planning Policies Map. [Online] Available at: https://geo.southwark.gov.uk/connect/analyst/mobile/#/main?mapcfg=Southwark%20Adopted%20Planning%20Policies%20Map [Accessed 10 May 2020].

Southwark Council, 2018. Southwark Profile. [Online] Available at: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/health-and-wellbeing/public-health/health-andwellbeing-in-southwark-jsna/southwark-profile [Accessed 10 May 2020].

The Bartlett Development Planning Unit and Latin Elephant, 2016. Participatory workshop in the context of the Elephant and Castle Town Centre Regeneration Plan, London : UCL.