Planning Policy to Promote or Prevent Gentrification - Essay Example

Should Planning Policy in London Aim to Promote or Prevent Gentrification? Table of Contents Introduction 3 Prevention of Gentrification: 3 The policies such as “Urban Renaissance”, “Urban Regeneration” and “Urban Sustainability” can be firmly related to the endeavour of government towards promoting gentrification process. For example, the regeneration of London Docklands in the Docklands Borough can be viewed as an example supporting gentrification process. In this regard, the Conservative government of Britain in the year 1981 founded special urban development corporations, which was known as ‘London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC)’. 5 The LDDC policies advocated four major criteria which included, ‘increasing the demand for local labour’, ‘reducing local labour-market imperfections, ‘increasing mobility and awareness of job opportunities’, and ‘increasing the skills of local residents through educational or training schemes’. Correspondingly, the LDDC policies formulated by the central government can be identified to promote the gentrification process (Church, 1987). Similarly, the study of Butler and Lees (2006) asserted the prevalence of super-gentrification in ‘inner London neighbourhood of Barnsbury’, which was further in line with the gentrification noticed in New York. Notably, the Abercrombie Plan visualized “the outward movement of London’s population to locations beyond the Green Belt at the cost of a declining inner city population” (Keddie, n.d.). These examples can be viewed as evidences which suggest that London Planning Policy promotes the gentrification process. 5 Balance between two: 5 Conclusion 7 References 7 Introduction The term ‘gentrification’ is one of the most widely debated subject matters in the domain of urban planning. It depicts the transformations in urban design with regard to changes in lifestyle values or economic situations of any particular urban region. The process primarily depicts the idea of providing an increasing share of urban area for wealthier people in order to ensure maximum development of a particular area (Syrett & Sepulved, 2010; (Roberts & Sykes, 2000). This essay will answer the question, as to whether planning policy in London aims to promote or prevent gentrification Prevention of Gentrification: Gentrification in London has resulted in the emergence of widespread challenges. Gentrification in London is argued to have several negative impacts on the lives of urban population. Notably, gentrification is criticised on several grounds. For example, it has been claimed that gentrification results in ‘loss of affordable housing’, ‘under-occupancy and population loss to gentrified areas’, ‘displacement through rent/price increases’, ‘increased cost and changes to local services’ (Ferm, 2013; Atkinson, 2002). The Consultation Process can be related to another example of the planning policy that places hindrances in executing gentrification process. ‘Community Self-Build Housing’ policy can be illustrated as an example, inhibiting the process of gentrification. ‘Custom Build’ on a site at Vandome Close in Custom House in the London Borough of Newham provides evidence regarding how this policy has inhibited the gentrification process. Notably, the policy under the Localism Act, “provides communities a new way to deliver the development they want – be it homes, shops, businesses or facilities–where the benefits of the development will be retained by the community for the community” (Greater London Authority, 2012). Promotion of Gentrification: London is witnessing a significant transformation currently, whereby the old buildings and structures can be treated as hindrances towards maximum development. The study of Butler (2007) affirmed that people usually intend to live in well-built structures that are availed with all the necessities of daily life. In addition, Wandsworth Core Strategy: Policy IS7 states; “it is vital that development proposals fund local improvements to mitigate the impact of development on other facilities as subject to the five tests set out in Circular 05/2005” which can be related to the London Planning Policy promoting gentrification (Nine Elms, 2015). The policies such as “Urban Renaissance”, “Urban Regeneration” and “Urban Sustainability” can be firmly related to the endeavour of government towards promoting gentrification process. For example, the regeneration of London Docklands in the Docklands Borough can be viewed as an example supporting gentrification process. In this regard, the Conservative government of Britain in the year 1981 founded special urban development corporations, which was known as ‘London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC)’. The LDDC policies advocated four major criteria which included, ‘increasing the demand for local labour’, ‘reducing local labour-market imperfections, ‘increasing mobility and awareness of job opportunities’, and ‘increasing the skills of local residents through educational or training schemes’. Correspondingly, the LDDC policies formulated by the central government can be identified to promote the gentrification process (Church, 1987). Similarly, the study of Butler and Lees (2006) asserted the prevalence of super-gentrification in ‘inner London neighbourhood of Barnsbury’, which was further in line with the gentrification noticed in New York. Notably, the Abercrombie Plan visualized “the outward movement of London’s population to locations beyond the Green Belt at the cost of a declining inner city population” (Keddie, n.d.). These examples can be viewed as evidences which suggest that London Planning Policy promotes the gentrification process. Balance between two: The City of London Corporation is primarily responsible for developing plans and policies to attain the developmental goals and visions of the place at large (Royal Geographical Society, n.d.). Correspondingly, it has become vital to execute the gentrification process within the region in an emphatic manner (Porter & Shaw, 2008). The plans designed for the city have constantly advocated a greater need for more households in the city along with developing infrastructure while eradicating poverty at the same time (Lees & Ley, 2008). It is thus crucial to maintain proper balance between the two. In this regard, planning policy in London can be appreciated. For example, “Lambeth Core Strategy Policy S10 requires that planning obligations will be sought to secure the provision of affordable housing and will also be sought to mitigate the direct impact of development, secure its implementation, control phasing where necessary, and to secure and contribute to the delivery of infrastructure made necessary by the development” (Nine Elms, 2015). The planning policy in London can be related to “the new mixed-use master plan for Battersea Power Station”, which involves the alteration of the dilapidated space into a ‘pedestrian and cycle friendly’ area along with extended transport links. The project also involves making available 3500 homes with 15% affordable housing (Johnson, 2009). In addition, another example deciphering the balance in the planning policy in London can be related to ‘mixed communities policy’ executed in London Borough of Bromley. According to this policy, “mixing low income communities with middle income communities would bring everyone ‘up to the standard’ of the middle classes” (London Borough of Bromley, 2015; Imrie, & Lees, 2014.). According to Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS) of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP), planning authorities are required to ensure that the realisation of superior quality design satisfies the assortment of needs. The design should positively lead towards developing places that meet the requirements of all individuals. The policy advocates that the sites need to be optimised capable of sustaining a mix of uses as well as support local facilities (London Borough of Bromley, 2015). It can be stated based on the examples that it is possible for two different classes to live harmoniously by maintaining proper balance in the London planning policy. Conclusion Undoubtedly, gentrification has both positive and negative impacts, yet the effort towards gentrification should not be halted. It is thus crucial for the government to maximize the benefits that can be derived from gentrification while at the same time, negative consequences should be minimised. Conclusively, planning policy in London should not either prevent or promote gentrification, but should strive to maintain proper balance between the two. Maintaining proper balance would facilitate in the holistic development of the city of London. References Atkinson, R., 2002. Does Gentrification help or harm Urban Neighbourhoods? An Assessment of Evidence-base in the context of New Urban Agenda. CNT paper, pp. 2-23. Butler, T. & Lees, L., 2006. Super-gentrification in Barnsbury, London: Globalization and Gentrifying Global Elites at the Neighbourhood Level. Royal Geographical Society, pp. 467-487. Butler, T., 2007. Re-urbanizing London Docklands: Gentrification, Suburbanization or New Urbanism? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 759-781. Church, A., 1987. Urban Regeneration in London Docklands: A Five-Year Policy Review. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 6, pp. 187-208. Davidson, M. & Lees, L., 2005. New-Build `Gentrification and Londons Riverside Enaissance. Environment and Planning, Vol. 37, pp. 1165-1190. Ferm, J., 2013. Delivering Affordable Workspace: Perspectives of Developers and Workspace Providers in London. Progress in Planning, Vol. 93, pp. 1-49. Greater London Authority, 2012. Build Your Own Home -The London Way. Custom Build Showcase. [Online] Available at: http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/archives/Build%20your%20own%20home%20funding%20prospectus.pdf [Accessed January 11, 2014]. Imrie, R. & Lees, L., 2014. Sustainable London. Policy Press. Johnson, B., 2009. Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea. Consultation Draft. [Online] Available at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/Journals/1/Files/2010/2/24/oapf-nine-elms-framework-draft-nov-09-main.pdf [Accessed January 11, 2014]. Keddie, J. No Date. Spatiality in Gentrifying London: The Case of Bermondsey. Spatiality in gentrifying London, pp. 35-47. Lees, L. & Ley, D. 2008. Special Issue of Urban Studies on Gentrification. Sage. London Borough of Bromley, 2015. Interactive UDP. Sustainable Communities. [Online] Available at: http://www.bromley.gov.uk/UDP/written/cpt2.htm [Accessed January 11, 2014]. Nine Elms, 2015. Section 106 & CIL. Chapter 10. [Online] Available at: http://www.nineelmslondon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/chapter-10-Section-106-and-CIL.pdf [Accessed January 11, 2014]. Royal Geographical Society, No Date. Urban Regeneration in East London –‘Geography Explained’ Fact Sheet. Home. [Online] Available at: http://www.rgs.org/NR/rdonlyres/7F628840-98F9-4E52-9BFD-E4CBBDAF1EEB/0/KS3_FactSheet_EastEndregeneration_2.pdf[Accessed January 11, 2014]. Roberts, P. & Sykes, H., 2000. Urban Regeneration: a Handbook. Sage. Syrett, S. & Sepulveda, L., 2010. Realising the Diversity Dividend: Population Diversity and Urban Economic Development. Environment and Planning Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 487-504. Read More