Planning matters

Our award winning blog gives a fresh perspective on the latest trends in planning and development.

Gentrification – is a change in mind-set needed?
Gentrification is a divisive term that can make communities either shudder or jump for joy. The phrase was coined by Ruth Glass in 1964 while studying the movement of people in Islington, London. She described how many urban areas of London had changed, as ordinary run-down mews and terraced housing were turned into housing for the rich. A key part of her findings was noting that “once this process of ‘gentrification’ starts in a district it goes on rapidly until all or most of the original working class occupiers are displaced and the whole social character of the district is changed”. It was these final points that were repeated in later definitions and became key indicators that successfully generalised the broad process of gentrification – original resident displacement and loss of an area’s culture. A modern definition (2009) from the Dictionary of Human Geography does not include these indicators, simply describing gentrification as “middle class settlement in renovated or redeveloped properties in older, inner-city districts formally occupied by a lower-income population” (pg 273-274). Fast forward to 2018 and gentrification is seen by many, especially in the public domain, as a wholly negative process. This is due to its association with the undesirable consequences (mentioned above) of displacing residents originally associated with the area that is gentrifying and in doing so destroying the community culture built by those residents. While there is much evidence to suggest that these negative effects do occur (a recent example of this that attracted large quantities of media attention was the displacement of residents from the Heygate Estate, Elephant and Castle, during its regeneration), I do not believe it represents the whole story. Planning is all about balancing competing interests, and therefore while there are negative aspects of gentrification, it also can be, has been, and is a force for good – it’s about ensuring the positive aspects are understood by the community and decision-makers. Urban regeneration on the other hand is the attempt to address industrial and manufacturing decline by both improving the physical structure, and, more importantly and elusively, the economy of those areas. When comparing gentrification to the process of regeneration one realises how closely related they are. Broadly speaking, gentrification differs due to its association with the displacement of people, but they both attempt to make areas better, whether that is physically, socially, educationally…the list could go on! Gentrification is like regeneration’s forgotten older brother, the word has been tainted and instead, regeneration has been the buzz word of politicians and professionals in the property and construction industries in more recent years. Because of this shift, it might be assumed that gentrification is a type of regeneration when in fact I would argue that it’s the other way around. The negative connotations associated with gentrification stem from the widely accepted viewpoint that it is a niche process. Too many times gentrification is labelled as having occurred only when ‘creatives’ move to affordable but unattractive areas, slowly attracting ‘hipsters’ who in turn open new amenities in the area which in themselves attract wider attention, until eventually the area is in a state of increasing property prices, which then attracts developers. The middle classes come to buy and rent, compounding the now unaffordable property and rental prices, leading to the original community (including the creatives) being forced to move out and a potential loss of culture occurring. While this is somewhat a caricature of the process, many believe this to be what gentrification is, when in fact it is simply only one facet. I would debate that there are at least three main types of gentrification: Singular residential displacement – this process is the most similar to what is described above. It is often seen to be the most natural type of process. However, at the start of the process, residential displacement could be minimal because incoming migrants to the area may be occupying buildings and property that previously lay vacant and therefore no displacement occurs. State-led gentrification – Occurs with help from Government in kick-starting gentrification in a chosen area, building or entity and it is often promoted under the banner of regeneration. Types of initiatives within this group consist of the regeneration of universities, government buildings, hospitals, infrastructure and/or housing estates. These schemes almost always consist of partnerships or joint ventures between public bodies and private entities. Industrial regeneration – the replacement of industry and jobs with redevelopment – usually for residential use and development. While it is clear that regeneration and gentrification are similar, I believe that a change in mind-set is needed, in order for the latter to be seen more kindly and for the positives it produces to become more widely realised and discussed. It is inevitable that gentrification will always look to start afresh, moving from one area to the next, which is why it is not a process that we should be resisting. Like regeneration, it should be encouraged (with better solutions found for its negative consequences) as simply being just one process in the ever-evolving city. To finish, and as noted by the Mayor in his foreword to the Draft London Plan 2017, over many decades, London has evolved to create the built environment we see today. Love it or hate it, gentrification has had a profound impact on how and where we live, work, study and socialise with one another; and I for one hope it continues.   Image credit: Christopher Hilton / Geograph Project

CONTINUE READING

The draft London Plan: conserving heritage policy
Here we provide a bite-sized review of the draft London Plan’s ‘heritage conservation and growth’ policy (HC1) which will guide future heritage planning in the capital. The strategic aim of the current London Plan (in Policy 7.8, Heritage assets and archaeology and Policy 7.9, Heritage-led regeneration) is the identification of heritage assets and the historic environment, so that ‘the desirability of sustaining and enhancing their significance and of utilising their positive role in place shaping can be taken into account’. The supporting text emphasises the need to preserve London’s unique character through the protection and adaptive reuse of heritage assets and their settings (para. 7.31). Paragraph 7.31B goes on to state that when considering re-use or refurbishment:‘…a balanced approach should be taken, weighing the extent of the mitigation of climate change involved against potential harm to the heritage asset or its setting’. Given that London has four World Heritage Sites, over 1,000 conservation areas, almost 19,000 listed buildings, over 150 registered parks and gardens, and more than 150 scheduled monuments - plus one battlefield in Barnet - many development projects will affect the historic environment in one way or another. This list of all of the capital’s heritage assets is set out in the supporting text of both the current and the draft London Plan. The new draft Plan’s policy HC1 Heritage Conservation and Growth would replace existing policies 7.8 and 7.9. The strategic thrust of the new draft policy remains similar to current policy. It states that the London Boroughs’ plans and strategies should demonstrate a clear understanding of the historic environment; councils should then use this knowledge ‘to inform the effective integration of London’s heritage in regenerative change’, by ‘setting out a clear vision’ that recognises and embeds the role of heritage in place-making. Draft policy HC1 is however more detailed, lengthier and – at times – unnecessarily repetitive. In terms of one aspect, it represents an important shift in approach: HC1 indicates that ‘innovative and creative contextual architectural responses’ should be devised at plan making stages in Borough strategies but fails to explain exactly how. The draft policy raises the following considerations: Development plans and strategies integrating heritage assets and their settings in regenerative change through ‘innovative and creative contextual architectural responses’, in a way that contributes to their significance and sense of place, could be seen as ‘a good thing’ by prospective applicants seeking to respond to context through conserving significance and appreciating setting in the design process; According to the draft policy, the cumulative impacts of incremental development should be ‘actively managed’. This generally already occurs anyway, through gaining an understanding of how the significance and/ or setting of an asset can be affected by development (taking into account existing/recent effects and committed development too); and Heritage considerations are encouraged to be ‘integrated’ at an early stage - since the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the requirement for a ‘Statement of Significance’ to be submitted with planning applications this has also usually, but not always, happened. In short, development should identify, value, conserve, restore, re-use and incorporate heritage assets, where appropriate. The requirement for boroughs to give undesignated heritage assets of archaeological interest equivalent weight as to a scheduled monument (i.e. as a designated heritage asset) is consistent with the NPPF (para. 139). However, the draft Plan’s supporting text does not always reflect key NPPF policy; for example, substantial harm should be exceptional and less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal (NPPF paragraphs 132 and 134). While most of the draft Plan is consistent with the NPPF, this point illustrates how certain elements are not. In summary, additional detail has been added in to the draft London Plan that has resulted in a less streamlined and less concise draft heritage policy, without necessarily adding a great deal to the core principles set out in statute and national policy. While the draft Plan introduces caveats to avoid unnecessary repetition of national policies (para 0.0.6), a more explicit reference to how the NPPF (i.e. paras 132 and 134) can be implemented in London, in tandem with the Plan, would be of significant benefit to working professionals. The Mayor’s vision very much encompasses the idea that London’s heritage assets should contribute to ‘Good Growth’. Unlike the current Plan, this is one of the two new ‘pillars’ of the draft London Plan. However, the draft heritage policy is written in a less easily digestible form than the current London Plan’s policies. This may be addressed through the consultation process and before publication of the final document, to ensure this valuable heritage policy remains a robust method of protecting and conserving London’s historic environment. For advice on developments which affect the historic environment please contact the Lichfields’ Heritage Team. Further Lichfields’ analysis of the draft London Plan and its implications can be found here. 

CONTINUE READING