| |
(Note: This Monograph has been reproduced
by kind permission of the Commission for the New Towns now known as English
Partnerships. It is published for general interest and research purposes
only and may not be reproduced for other purposes except with the permission
of English Partnerships who now hold the copyright of LDDC publications)
Top of Page
Foreword
For the communities of London Docklands, the closure
of the upper docks between 1967 and 1981 was traumatic. Local people were
faced with uncertainty and change as traditional port-related activities
vanished, jobs declined and physical decay became increasingly obvious.
Many families moved away.
Government, both central and local, understood the necessity
for action but, for a variety of reasons, there was all too little progress.
The passing years produced facts, figures, ideas and plans, which raised
local expectations of better times ahead. But the prospect remained as
far off as ever and the area continued to decline. Local people felt increasingly
bitter, even betrayed.
Not surprisingly, the creation of the London Docklands
Development Corporation in July 1981 was largely met by the Docklands
communities with scepticism, suspicion, hostility and even outright opposition,
not least by local, mainly Labour, politicians. They regarded the Corporation
as an intrusive, non elected government body, a most unwelcome Conservative-created
cuckoo in their highly traditional nest.
This monograph describes the Corporation's efforts to
transform the local quality of life and to establish an increasingly positive
relationship with the separate local communities and the many different
groups. During the 17 years, the LDDC did much to improve education, training,
health facilities and the physical environment, which, as time passed,
has undoubtedly brought benefits to the original inhabitants, helped change
the largely negative outlook and created greater optimism as the area
and the enlarged communities look to the Millennium and beyond.
Judy Hillman
March 1998
Top of Page
Introduction
People make a place. They build, live, work and play
there and imbue the buildings, streets, nooks and crannies with their
spirit. Places and events also make people. The people and communities
of London Docklands historically have endured times both mean and great
- the excitement of tall ships arriving from unknown corners of the world,
depression and grinding poverty in pre-war years, the worst Second World
War bombing of any British civilian target, industrial contraction, dock
strikes, the closures of the docks from 1967 and finally stagnant dereliction.
 After years of
proposals, plans and very little action, the London Docklands Development
Corporation (LDDC) was established by Government in 1981 to achieve the
area's physical, economic and social regeneration. To begin with the Corporation
concentrated its energy and resources on the basic tasks of land reclamation,
the installation of access roads and services, persuading private investors
and developers to build new homes, offices and workshops in the area and
making the case for the new Docklands Light Railway (DLR). Such an approach
was a total break with the past, in which the local councils and the Greater
London Council (GLC) had sought to tackle housing and unemployment problems
with the construction of further public housing and by seeking manufacturing
jobs. Even if there had been finance for large-scale public housebuilding,
social housing en masse would have done little to raise the economic profile
of the area. In addition, traditional manufacturing companies had for
years been going out of business or choosing to move to green field sites.
The LDDC's new approach at times did not make for comfortable
relations with the local communities. Nor did the Government's emphasis
on Docklands' metropolitan, regional and national role as Londoners tend
to see their individual neighbourhoods as home towns or villages not serving
the city at large.
To the inward looking, somewhat parochial, communities,
the LDDC arrived on the scene almost as a foreign colonial administration,
dispatched by central Government to transform a dying area into a normal
vital part of the capital city. While the Corporation could reclaim and
sell land and provide the necessary new infrastructure, day-to-day responsibility
for services which directly affected local people including housing, education,
health and social services, remained the statutory responsibility of the
local authorities and other agencies.
The regeneration of Docklands, with a substantial new
business community and twice the original population, was carried out
in the early days in the face of strong local opposition and continuing
criticism from politically active and articulate local groups. But perhaps
this was inevitable. People were resentful at, and depressed by, the loss
of their historic industry and livelihood and weary of unfulfilled promises
of new housing and jobs.
In the early 1980s, the LDDC played a minimal community
role, expecting that the existing residents would benefit from an improved
physical environment and healthier economy while other needs would be
looked after by the local councils and other responsible bodies.
Top of Page
However, the local councils, fiercely opposed to the
LDDC, tended to concentrate their efforts outside Docklands, which after
all housed only 7% of the population of the three boroughs on one quarter
of the land. But standards were so poor in education, housing, open space
and community facilities that, when the LDDC met with success in attracting
the construction of new houses for sale and new offices, particularly
the beacon of Canary Wharf, the contrast was highlighted. Although many
of the original 39,400 inhabitants did buy affordable new homes and found
new jobs, many more could not and did not.
As cracks between new and old, rich and poor, private
homes and council estates, well-paid working commuters and unemployed
and unemployable became increasingly obvious, community groups made their
case for a share in the better life in the media and Parliament. Other
activists, possibly more interested in the national political struggle
and the defeat of Margaret Thatcher, then Prime Minister, also campaigned
with reports, demonstrations and well-placed parliamentary questions.
However, awareness of the problems was shifting policy
inside Government and the LDDC, even before the all-party House of Commons
Employment Select and the Public Accounts Committees probed Urban Development
Corporations (UDCs) and published strong recommendations for change in
1988 and 1989. One year earlier, in 1987, the Conservatives were elected
to a third term of office. In Docklands, this victory confirmed the LDDC's
continuing existence and began to clear the air in its dealings with the
local councils, which now increasingly sought to win the maximum investment
for their communities in return for co-operation.
In 1987 the LDDC's Corporate Plan emphasised: "Education,
training, community health care, community facilities and recreation are
the principal activities for which corporate programmes need to be more
reliable and effective. In doing so, the Corporation needs to act as an
initiator, enabler and in the last resort as a provider, drawing together
the resources that are available from other public bodies, the voluntary
sector and private sector. The Corporation is pleased and proud to be
in the position that the proceeds from its success in the marketing of
land in Docklands are now becoming available to help support such schemes
and is accordingly reviewing its social and community activities. "
That year, the LDDC and Newham also signed the Memorandum
of Agreement, under which the Council gave its support for large scale
development and infrastructure proposals for the Royal Docks and the LDDC
agreed to help fund an extensive training and community programme.
A deal was agreed with Tower Hamlet, in 1988, and formally
signed in 1989, for mutually agreed social, economic and community regeneration
projects in exchange for co-operation over the Limehouse Link and other
Corporation highway schemes in the borough.
Top of Page
However, it was the publication of the House of Commons
Select Committee Report an the employment effects of UDCs, under the chairmanship
of Ron Leighton, a Newham MP, which brought the need for a change of heart
to the top of the political agenda.
"It is not good for the
health of a community for the original inhabitants of an area to see others
benefiting, as they see it, at their expense while they suffer from increased
road traffic congestion, higher house prices and associated ills. Nor
is it just," the report stated. "UDCs
cannot be regarded as a success if buildings and land are regenerated
but the local community are bypassed and do not benefit from regeneration."
UDCs, it recommended, should give priority to good relations
with local authorities and local communities.
Nicholas Ridley, then Secretary of State for the Environment,
was convinced. By the end of the year, the LDDC had appointed a new high-profile
Director of Community Services, Elizabeth Filkin, in charge of improving
local authority and community relations backed by a three year £100 million
budget to spend on housing, health, education and training. This investment
in projects, which contributed to long-term community regeneration, at
last created the basis of constructive working relationships between the
LDDC and the local authorities.
The community team grew to nearly 50 people with a programme
of education and training projects, health centre provision and social
service ambitions. In 1989, the property boom, which had created the financial
leeway for this major community programme, however collapsed almost overnight,
as did the income from selling land. Corporation resources were already
stretched, in part because of forecasts of the costs of building the Limehouse
Link and other highway schemes. In addition there was concern in Whitehall
that the LDDC was increasingly behaving like a local authority, even launching
into drugs education and ethnic minorities programmes.
In 1990, funding and the Corporation's remit were reined
in. The LDDC was required to concentrate on those community projects which
related to the Newham Memorandum of Agreement and the Tower Hamlets Accord,
along with those which directly contributed to strategic regeneration,
could make a real difference to the future and were outside the responsibility
of other bodies.
Although the emphasis shifted, work undertaken in the
1990s saw major changes in community amenities with the refurbishment
of nearly 8,000 homes on older council estates, the construction of new
social housing in substantial numbers, the construction of new and improved
health and community centres, the opening of major further education facilities
in Tower Hamlets and Newham, plans for a new university campus in the
Royal Docks and the introduction of a number of programmes, including
computers into schools, to help local children take better advantage of
the more skilled job opportunities increasingly on offer.
The visible changes and the altered atmosphere did not
mean that the LDDC enjoyed constant praise instead of blame, However,
by 1998, among most critics, there was at least grudging acceptance, even
respect, if not for the process, at least for the outcome.
Top of Page
Getting on with Local People
Although the eight and a half square miles designated
as London Docklands shared a common history and purpose and, by 1981,
the same deprivation, dereliction and need, the communities bordering
the Thames had little in common or little contact, one with each other.
In reality, Bermondsey Riverside and Rotherhithe in Southwark, Wapping,
Limehouse, Poplar and the Isle of Dogs in Tower Hamlets and Silvertown,
North Woolwich and Beckton in Newham were all separate. In addition, because
of the lack of public transport links and the former focus of a single
major local industry - the port - they were isolated from normal London
life.
The population had been shrinking fast as individuals
and families left the East End to find a better future. In the 20 years
up to 1981, there had been a net loss of about 100,000 people from Southwark,
60,000 from Tower Hamlets and 55,000 from Newham. When the LDDC was set
up, the designated Urban Development Area (UDA) had a population of just
39,400 about 9,300 in Southwark, 9,700 in Newham and 20,700 in Tower Hamlets.
These people, living in the nine communities, formed only a small segment
of the populations of the three boroughs as a whole - some 212 000 in
Southwark, 209,500 in Newham and 143,000 in Tower Hamlets.
 Within
Docklands, 95% lived in rented, mostly council, housing. Nearly two-thirds
of the 14,700 households had no car. The proportion of semi skilled and
unskilled workers was much higher than the rest of London - 36% compared
with 11 % in the capital as a whole. The reverse was the case with respect
to people with professional and similar qualifications. Male unemployment
was estimated at more than 20% following a loss of some 8,500 jobs in
the five years, leading up to 1981. The local authorities' housing allocation
policies, including those of the GLC, had done little for the area, with
the result that a number of older blocks had degenerated into 'sink' estates.
Fewer people of ethnic origins had settled in the Docklands communities
than the boroughs as a whole, which contain strong concentrations of ethnic
minorities, particularly Bangladeshi in Tower Hamlets, Indian and Pakistani
in Newham and black Caribbean and African in both Newham and Southwark.
In Newham as a whole ethnic minorities make up 42% of the population,
in Tower Hamlets 36%.
There were no cinemas, only a few drab shopping parades.
Community life centred in large part on the churches, community centres,
pubs, of which there were a great number, and schools. The area's obvious
needs for district shopping centres including entertainment, open space,
playing fields and river access were highlighted in both the Travers Morgan
Report of 1973 commissioned by Government and the London Docklands Strategic
Plan of 1976 prepared by the Docklands Joint Committee (DJC).
From the outset, the LDDC set up its offices in the middle
of the Isle of Dogs. Although that choice gave the right message in terms
of on-the-spot communication and the importance of the Isle of Dogs Enterprise
Zone - designated for 10 years on 26th April 1982 - it was not particularly
accessible to the other Docklands communities or, for that matter, staff.
After nine months, the Corporation employed only 69 people
whose task it was, working with consultants, to organise the acquisition,
reclamation, servicing and sale of land to developers and to sell the
idea of a new city on the east side of London Although the Chief Executive
of the time, Reg Ward, and Deputy Chairman, Rob (later Lord) Mellish,
who was the MP for Bermondsey and former labour Chief Whip, both frequently
attended meetings with community representatives, attention focused in
the main on the achievement of maximum change - infrastructure, perception
and the attraction of private sector investment before the next General
Election in 1983. In the event the Conservatives were returned to power.
A labour victory would almost certainly have led to the LDDC's abolition.
The Corporation's statutory remit was to achieve the
physical, economic and social regeneration of Docklands by bringing land
and buildings into effective use, encouraging the development of existing
and new industry and commerce, creating an attractive environment and
ensuring that housing and social facilities were available to encourage
people to live and work in the area. Achieving this objective was bound
to disrupt the lives of residents as bulldozers, trucks, diggers and concrete
mixers moved in to build the new Docklands.
Top of Page
The LDDC was not a housing authority, education authority,
health authority or training body and had no responsibility for social
services, all of which powers remained with the local councils and other
public sector organisations. Since housing and education were firmly in
the control of Labour-run Councils, totally opposed to the new venture,
they were unlikely to put themselves out to provide the necessary ingredients
to achieve integrated regeneration. Nevertheless, given the initial low-key
aspirations for development, the Corporation expected local people to
benefit quickly from the arrival of supermarkets, long since normal by
most Londoners' standards, a more attractive environment, even if designed
to attract investment, and major improvements to public transport, which
would open up the area and provide access to work opportunities across
the whole of the London labour market. In addition, some people might
hope at least for new local jobs and perhaps buy into the initially inexpensive
housing for sale.
It was inevitable that the needs of local people could
not be given a low priority for long, given a basically democratic society,
British sense of fair play and the location of Docklands so near to the
centre of the capital city.
The Corporation's draft business plan, prepared by Coopers
& Lybrand, in 1980 had stated:
"The UDC will be operating within
an urban environment, which is presently administered by strong all-purpose
London boroughs. An extended use of public consultation procedures,, the
deprivation; the limitations of existing programmes; the creation of the
UDC itself; all these factors have prompted the creation of a network
of community and protest groups. Whereas new towns expenditure on social
development is largely housing oriented, and devoted to settling in new
tenants, in Docklands the needs of the various communities must become
an essential cornerstone of policy. The existing network must be sustained
and help given to expand it. The various groups must be closely involved
in implementing schemes and encouraged to become agents in the regeneration
task. The skills within the groups need to be harnessed to aid the UDC.
The existing financial and secretarial support to the Docklands Forum
and JDAG (Joint Docklands Action Group) represents a minimum level."
For local residents, the situation was frustrating and
the LDDC became for many people the organisation they loved to hate. Given
the bitterly fought passage of the LDDC Area and Constitution Order through
the House of Lords in 1981, community activists were unlikely to greet
the new organisation as anything but the puppet of the Conservative Government,
the political enemy. On the other hand, many wanted to be involved and
wanted success. But their horizons tended to be parochial, not metropolitan,
let alone national or international.
Top of Page
The situation was complicated by the existence of hard
core political activists whose motives were not specifically local and
who used Docklands and the issues which arose during the course of development
as useful campaign ammunition. While local community groups naturally
wanted to improve their lives and benefit from, not be overwhelmed by,
change, the hard left, in particular JDAG and its allies in the GLC, fought
the changing economy and created an impression of total local opposition.
The Docklands Forum meanwhile, a collection of local interest groups,
which had been seen as the potential focus for consultation, continued
to fight old battles against a Corporation which could do no right.
Yet the LDDC was doing right by some local people who
found backing for small projects which directly benefited their daily
lives. Within a year of its arrival, the LDDC took over responsibility
for awarding grants to help voluntary organisations and set up local groups
within the three boroughs to select and put forward potential candidates
for cash.
It was also trying to get to grips with consultation
and community relations more generally. Planning proposals did cause difficulties.
In the Isle of Dogs Enterprise Zone, planning consent was deemed granted
for schemes which satisfied certain conditions. However, many developers
wanted the certainty of approval, not simply for their own proposals but
those of neighbours. Since speedy handling was essential to make things
happen and alter the development climate, the Corporation set a two week
consultation period. With little experience of planning local people found
this difficult. In 1986, the LDDC's planning committee, until then held
in private, was opened to members of the public.
The LDDC tried other forms of consultation. For example,
the idea of building an inner city airport on a quay between two of the
Royal Docks was bound to be controversial and a MORI survey was commissioned
to test people's attitudes to such an unusual form of development. Although
opposition was well publicised and included the GLC, it emerged that support
locally was about two to one in favour. Other surveys were undertaken
elsewhere to build up information about needs, lifestyle and expectations.
The LDDC frequently held public meetings about development
proposals and sometimes made changes as a result. In Shadwell Basin, Wapping,
for example, a housing scheme was altered to ensure that new building
did not interfere with the water's use for sailing. Similarly local concern
that a proposed new road through Wapping would become a rat run was convincing
and brought the scheme to a halt. When the London Borough of Southwark
decided to ban all co-operation and communications with the LDDC, the
Corporation set up a local liaison group of community representatives,
which met monthly and made continued progress possible.
Top of Page
 Early
in 1983, the LDDC appointed its first Community Liaison Officer, John
Fenner. There were about 600 organisations in Docklands and, during his
first year, he attended about 1,000 meetings. The Corporation had been
producing a typescript newsletter and that Spring launched "Docklands
News", a monthly newspaper, which reported on developments and other
news and views from the area and continued to be distributed free to every
household and business within the area over the 17 years. A few months
later, the Docklands Business Research and Information Centre (DOBRIC)
was set up to provide advice for new and existing firms, to build up links
with local educational institutions and to create a business club to bring
together members of the business community.
In this early period, the LDDC became involved in the
conversion of a former missionary school into a major community centre
for the Barkantine Estate on the Isle of Dogs with youth club, snooker
room, stage, a room for under fives and facilities for crafts, hairdressing
and computer training contributing funding of £465,000. The creation of
community centres came within its policy goals and this was only the first
of a number of similar ventures across the whole of Docklands.
The introduction of Corporation area offices in the Surrey
Docks, Royal Docks and Wapping, with facilities for local groups, led
to a major improvement in community relations across Docklands. This move
in 1985 greatly increased contact and reduced tension on both sides, as
local people found that the organisation employed ordinary people like
themselves, and members of the staff learnt of problems, aspirations and
views at first hand. The teams stayed in place until 1991 when, as part
of the restructuring to meet the evolving demands of the regeneration
programme, they were closed down and staff brought back to the centre
on the Isle of Dogs.
Following the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement
with Newham, a consultative group of local people was set up in the Royal
Docks with four area teams, which met monthly and then came together every
three months for a joint meeting chaired by a former local councillor,
Bill Dunlop. In Southwark, the LDDC went to monthly meetings of local
councillors and community leaders and would answer any question provided
there was prior notice. Lord Cocks, the LDDC's Deputy Chairman appointed
in 1988, attended a forum twice a year. Regular meetings were also held
in Wapping. No such system was established in the Isle of Dogs, in part
because of the existence of two competing groups - the Association of
Island Communities (AIC) and the South Poplar and Limehouse Action for
Secure Housing (SPLASH).
From the early 1990s relations continued to improve with
occasional hiccups including onslaughts by the Docklands Forum and, as
late as 1995, the Churches Standing Committee for London Docklands. But
by then the LDDC had long been actively investing in training, education,
schools, housing and health and had become sufficiently confident of the
balance of investment in community as well as physical and economic infrastructure
to fight its corner and then shake hands. The process of dedesignation
also helped the local communities to appreciate the special status and
improvements conferred by being part of a development area as the LDDC
progressively handed on its regeneration responsibilities, from 1994 onwards.
Local organisations then had to compete for funds across their borough
and even London as a whole instead of being able to turn to the alternating
stepmother/fairy-godmother at the LDDC.
Top of Page
The Local Councils - Antagonism and Cooperation
Relations with the three local authorities equally needed
time, hard knocks, pragmatism and a greater understanding of the late
twentieth century facts of economic life before rivalry settled into reasonable
co-operation. Their intense opposition to the creation of the LDDC made
teamwork and equanimity, if not positive friendship, difficult. Hostility
was so public, political attitudes so diametrically and dramatically at
odds, rhetoric and emotions so heightened, that it was impossible for
local politicians not to continue with the arguments, above all about
democratic accountability. What the local authorities most resented was
being stripped of their development control powers and that an outside
agency was being given the resources they had wanted to regenerate the
area in ways they might not, and certainly to begin with, did not, like.
They did not expect the Government to change its mind
and abandon the concept of a UDC in Docklands, but they did want to maximise
their influence. As the 1980 House of Lords Select Committee report stated:
"If a UDC is to be a success,
it is essential that it establishes and maintains good relations with
the local authorities and their officers and avails itself of their advice
and expertise. The Code of Consultation ... should ensure that this is
so."
 Initially,
however, there was some co-operation. The Labour leaders of the three
councils were appointed in a personal capacity to the LDDC's board of
11, which also included local labour MP Bob Mellish as Deputy Chairman.
Under the Chairmanship of Nigel Broackes - the Chairman of Trafalgar House
- four were then active labour politicians. Most of the other members
were not overtly political and included Hugh Wilson, the former Chief
Executive of the DJC, and Wyndham Thomas, the former Chief Executive of
Peterborough Development Corporation and Dennis Stevenson as board member
with specific responsibility for community issues. The local authorities
seconded members of staff to the LDDC and others applied and were appointed
to jobs. Work was also sub contracted out to the councils on a fee basis.
Theoretically these moves made it look as if the system
could work harmoniously. But such optimism took no account of a national
political situation which might see the abolition of the LDDC in less
than two years should labour return to power. For the Corporation, there
was every reason to show results across the board. For non-supporters,
there was every reason to hope that what they saw as a Government imposed
agency would vanish almost as quickly as it arrived and that Docklands
could revert to comfortable tradition.
However, changes were taking place in London labour politics
with a younger urban left wing cadre preparing to do battle with, and
oust, the old guard. At the London borough elections in 1982, the rout
in Southwark was almost complete. Bob Mellish, whom they had earlier tried
to remove from his constituency, was no longer acceptable in the new local
labour circles. The local party, as pledged in its manifesto, now refused
to recognise the LDDC as a legitimate body and non-cooperation became
official policy, complete with a ban on officer level contact. The agreements,
which the Council had signed just before the election involving the rehousing
of local tenants from the dreadful Downtown blocks in Surrey Docks and
their sale for refurbishment or demolition, was declared null and void.
The Leader, Cllr John O'Grady, was voted out of office, although he continued
to remain a Council and LDDC Board member (until the end of 1984) and
chaired the Southwark liaison group of community representatives when
it was set up to provide an alternative forum with residents. Local councillors
fully expected a Labour victory in the 1983 General Election and the subsequent
abolition of the LDDC. They were wrong on both counts. But it took until
the third Conservative General Election victory for Southwark Council
to work with the LDDC to achieve as much as possible for the benefit of
its local communities.
Top of Page
The new left wing was not so strong in the other two
boroughs but the Leader of Tower Hamlets, Cllr Paul Beasley, moved on
to become Deputy Mayor in 1984 and Newham's leader, Cllr Jack Hart, retired
but also retained his place on the LDDC Board. Both stayed on the board
until 1986 at which point all three boroughs were refusing to accept the
Environment Secretary's invitation to suggest replacements.
In 1985, the Government appointed a Camden Councillor,
John Mills, as Lord Mellish's successor. Well known and respected in London
and national Labour local government politics, John Mills, the new Deputy
Chairman, acted as go-between initiating more open discussions with Southwark
and Newham. The LDDC by then was involved in a number of training initiatives
but the Government was beginning to realise that community improvement
was essential to successful inner-city regeneration and could not simply
be left to chance and the sticky co operation of the local councils and
relevant outside public bodies. As sales of land produced a solid income
stream, the LDDC started planning a community investment programme. The
local authorities could see that co-operation might enable the achievement
of their own goals.
In late 1985, with the leverage of additional resources
and a possible profit share, the LDDC had persuaded Southwark to participate
once again without recourse to law in the Downtown project. Two years
later, in 1987, the LDDC and Newham signed the Memorandum of Agreement.
Again two years later, it was the turn of Tower Hamlets with the Social
Accord, by which time John Mills had been replaced by Lord Cocks, another
Deputy Chairman with strong Labour credentials. Both were toughly negotiated
deals and both promised large amounts of money for investment in agreed
community and social programmes. Regardless of party politics, the LDDC
and local authorities were at last working together for Docklands and
the local communities.
By 1987, the LDDC needed active co-operation from the
local authorities for the construction of the new roads, on which the
area's future success depended. The proposed development of Canary Wharf
as a major business and financial office centre on the Isle of Dogs would
pitch the area's economic prospects into a totally different league. Although
the DLR was under construction and had helped trigger investment beyond
anyone's expectations, it could not be expected to cope with the projected
workforce of up to 50,000 people at Canary Wharf alone.
In the 1987 Memorandum of Agreement with Newham, the
borough agreed the LDDC's highway schemes and its development framework
for the Royal Docks. In return the LDDC agreed to support the provision
of social housing, the joint provision of training facilities to help
local people win 25 per cent of new local jobs and a package of new facilities
to serve local residents, existing and new. The Corporation was to canvas
local views on proposed community projects and planning applications and
gave Newham a stake in future development to help pay for services for
the rising population. Other plans included encouraging contractors to
use local firms for sub contracting and the provision of childcare for
people on training schemes. Schemes included environmental improvements
to council estates, parks and gardens, a number of school projects, the
refurbishment of a library, a permanent water sports centre in the Royal
Victoria Dock and premises for a riding school for disabled people. Longer-term
schemes focused on health provision, emergency services, sports and leisure,
a library, the arts, parks, play, better bus services and a wide range
of education and social services facilities.
Top of Page
While the Memorandum was a political agreement, the Accord
with Tower Hamlets, agreed in 1988 and signed in 1989, was a legally binding
contract. Negotiated with the Liberal Democrats, who had won control from
Labour in May 1986, the Accord was basically designed to smooth the planning
processes and necessary land acquisition for and construction of the Limehouse
Link and highways schemes in the borough, which formed an essential ingredient
for the completion of Canary Wharf and other new developments planned
and under construction in the area.
In return for the Council's support for the LDDC's highway
schemes, the Corporation agreed to provide new housing and to assist in
housing refurbishment for Council tenants to a far greater extent than
the housing lost as a direct result of the road schemes. Construction
of the Limehouse Link directly affected 169 homes, largely at St Vincents
Estate and the Barley Mow Estate. Under the Accord, the LDDC rehoused
people from an additional 296 properties and a number of families who
were found to be sharing their homes. In total, 556 households were rehoused.
Most of the families were offered new housing association homes, mainly
on the Isle of Dogs. A number opted for refurbished Council properties.
The legal document guaranteed an investment of £35 million
on agreed economic, social, education and training projects. The biggest
single item was an LDDC contribution of almost £10 million towards the
new Tower Hamlets College at Poplar, while at the other end of the education
ladder two new primary schools were built on the Isle of Dogs and in Wapping,
further schools refurbished and improved and new "Early Years Units"
or nursery classrooms provided. Employment and training initiatives included
the Robin Hood Training Centre in Poplar, providing a wide range of courses
to suit individual trainees (£325,000).
Other substantial sums went into the refurbishment of
housing estates, including a £3 million project refurbishing nearly 700
homes on five estates in Limehouse and South Poplar, More than £2.5 million
was spent on improvements to shopping precincts and £3.6 million on enhancing
public services with new and upgraded health centres, drug education projects
and schemes to help carers, the elderly and people with mental health
problems. Recreation and sports facilities were improved. For example,
a £320,000 multi-sports complex at George Green Secondary School on the
Isle of Dogs was funded and Millwall One O'Clock Club was moved from an
old tractor store into a purpose built centre with £656,000 from the Social
Accord. Four community centres were built or improved, St Paul's Church
on the Isle of Dogs was converted into a multi-purpose arts venue, The
Space, (£325,000) and £1.79 million spent on environmental improvements
along Poplar High Street. A redundant Wapping Primary School, St Peter's,
was given a new lease of life as a thriving community centre with £935,000
from the Accord.
Top of Page
Relations with Newham tended to be most constructive,
those with Tower Hamlets most rocky. In Tower Hamlets, the delegation
by the Liberal Democrats, of power to local town halls, which in the Docklands
area were both still under Labour control, did not make co-operation any
easier. However, the Accord put relations on a more formal basis with
regular meetings between Board and Council members as well as officers
on special projects. Both sides could veto projects. But even in Tower
Hamlets, the working climate improved when the Council began to lock forward
to the Corporation handing back its responsibilities on the Isle of Dogs
and taking control of the new business district including Canary Wharf.
In 1988 the LDDC appointed a new Director of Community
Services, Elizabeth Filkin. In 1990 the LDDC and the boroughs finally
agreed the Code of Consultation, which was required by the 1980 Act but
which, although a version had been drafted by the LDDC within the prescribed
year, had been rejected by the local authorities. The three councils were
now to be involved in the preparation of the annual Corporate Plan and
the LDDC promised it would reflect their views, provided they were compatible
with its own objectives and priorities as agreed with the Department of
the Environment and its Secretary of State. The Code also laid down the
requirement for regular meetings with each local authority, which in Tower
Hamlets and Newham concentrated on the development and management of the
two special agreements.
By the end of 1991, a member from each of the three boroughs
was serving on the Board for the first time since 1984. Cllr Jonathon
Matthews had represented Tower Hamlets from 1987 until 1990, replaced
by Cllr Janet Ludlow and then Cllr Rajan Uddin Jalal in 1994 until the
Corporation completed its remit in Tower Hamlets in 1997. Newham's Deputy
Leader, Cllr Conor McAuley represented the borough from 1991 until the
end of March 1998 and John McTernan, Southwark, until the end of 1996
when the LDDC handed on the last of its responsibilities in the borough.
By the early 1990s it became necessary to start talking
about the orderly phased handover of areas to each borough starting with
Bermondsey Riverside in 1994 and Beckton in 1995.
"Relations between the
LDDC and local councils are cordial, co-operation between us smooth and
agreement on our joint objectives mutual, so that incoming investors are
unlikely to notice the change," noted the LDDC Chairman, Sir
Michael Pickard, in the LDDC's 1992/93 Annual Report and Accounts. There
is no way that could have been said in the early years.
Top of Page
Training, Education and Health
The Challenge
In addition to social housing, which is covered in a
separate publication,
training, education and health were all areas for which the LDDC had no
direct responsibility but where major improvements were necessary to meet
the growing needs of the population and to raise existing low standards
for the indigenous Docklands communities.
The need for training was obvious. Unemployment was high.
In 1981 there were 3,533 unemployed residents out of an economically active
population of 19,788 (17.8%). Local people had grown up in an area which
valued muscle more highly than brain. Children completed their education,
as far as it went, at 16 and the younger generation, as well as the early
retired, were totally unequipped for the opportunities emerging in the
skilled and service sector industries moving into Docklands. Many could
not easily read or write, and therefore many could not begin to take advantage
of training. It was essential to change attitudes, expectations and results
so that the next generation at least could play its part and share in
the benefits of the new Docklands by obtaining some of the new more skilled
jobs.
In 1988, school staying on rates were 25% and 26% in
the boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets r espectively
and as low as 12% in Southwark. This compared with 33% in inner London
as a whole. Figures for examination results in 1987 were also well below
par. As recently as 1995, only 20% of pupils at one Docklands comprehensive
school achieved GCSE grades of A to C compared with a national average
of 40%. At that time nearly 40% of 11-year olds entering the school had
major problems with reading, writing, spelling and numeracy. Yet just
on three-quarters of the pupils came from an English-speaking background.
The health record was little better with perinatal mortality
rates in all three boroughs above Greater London levels and death rates
in Newham and Southwark also higher than the London average. Many doctors
worked on their own from surgeries located in rundown premises.
Obviously the area's all-round regeneration could not
be successful if education and health facilities did not match the standards
set by new housing and expected by new residents. Unlike development on
greenfield sites, education in Docklands was starting with a very dirty
slate and most of the people who had been living in the local communities
had little choice.
Top of Page
Physical regeneration can be slow, frequently controversial
and often subject to the hazards of the unforeseen. But given time and
money, even the most awkward projects can be completed. The delivery of
better services is not so easy. While it is possible to provide a new
building or improved facilities, the final quality of, for example, the
teaching and in turn the learning rests with people, their abilities,
beliefs and aspirations.
Apart from this general challenge and its potential for
levering resources, the LDDC had no overriding basis for action. Responsibility
for education, training and health remained, as in other parts of the
country, with the relevant local authorities and statutory organisations.
These, in turn, were undergoing major changes of direction in the mid
to late 1980s. The Manpower Services Commission (MSC) gave way to the
wider-based Training and Education Councils (TECs). The Inner London Education
Authority (ILEA), responsible for Southwark and Tower Hamlets, was abolished
in 1990 and the two boroughs became independent education authorities,
as had been the case already in Newham as an outer London borough. Similarly
the health service underwent major reorganisation with a new focus on
primary care from local doctors and dentists instead of from hospitals.
Nor did it make things easier that the UDA boundaries were totally artificial.
Families might well send children to schools or register at medical practices
outside the officially designated area and people living outside equally
might send their children to schools or choose a doctor within.
 Working
with these organisations required co operation and co-ordination which
did not always exist and there were departmental difficulties in Whitehall.
The MSC initially, for example, saw no need for a special focus on Docklands.
The ILEA did not believe the LDDC's population forecast growth figures
and refused to contemplate the need for a new secondary school and therefore
the allocation of land on the Isle of Dogs. Government approvals for capital
expenditures on, for example, schools and health centres, were based on
census derived statistics. While these "lagging indicators"
- the last census was in 1981 - might be appropriate for the general UK
situation where rises and falls in population levels were gradual, they
were totally inappropriate in a rapidly changing area like Docklands.
Over the last 17 years the population of the UDA has more than doubled
from 39,400 to 83,000 and the age and class structure has also radically
changed over a short period.
Training, education and health all fell outside the responsibility
of the Department of Environment and other departments had different priorities,
which did not focus on Docklands. Eventually an inter-departmental committee
was set up, serviced by the LDDC, which at least made relevant civil servants
aware of the need to think about capital and revenue implications, even
if it did not result in the team effort, focus and immediate financial
allocation desired. For the Corporation, such bureaucratic shackles and
reliance on other organisations were frustrating. Action depended on the
availability of funding and Government approval.
Although the LDDC was expected to contribute to facilities
to match the population increase, capital investment, for example in education,
had largely to concentrate on improvements outside mainstream Government
spending and to focus on items such as halls or sports pitches, which
could also be used for local community purposes, or facilities for the
under-fives. The LDDC could also tackle gaps where the education authorities
had no obligation, for example, in the forward thinking and popular introduction
of computers into local schools, which resulted in Docklands having the
highest ratio of machines to pupils in the country .
However, this early strategic approach to strengthen
the existing communities and attract new residents through a policy of
encouragement and selective support of facilities which were the responsibility
of statutory bodies and councils was not going to do the job.
"This substantial population
needs new schools, improved health facilities, opportunities for sport
and recreation and social and meeting places. Statutory agencies are slow
to respond to this demand," the 1986 Corporate Plan said of
the changes taking place in the Surrey Docks"
In 1988, under growing pressure from the original communities,
constant media attention, parliamentary criticism and ministerial appreciation
of the limitations of physical and economic regeneration, the LDDC's remit
was strengthened.
Top of Page
Training Provision
From the LDDC's early days, it was obvious that the new
East End economy was going to be very different from the old. The Telegraph,
Guardian and Financial Times newspaper printing works were quickly attracted
to the Enterprise Zone, as were skilled workshops and small offices. Even
before Docklands was seen as an adjunct to the City of London with space
for the new financial dealing floors, it was plain that future jobs were
most likely to occur in the service sector including media and information
technology.
Few people in the existing communities had the necessary
skills for office work and, although construction, maintenance and servicing
were possibly more relevant to those unemployed, these jobs too required
training and skills, which many local people did not have.
The LDDC was well aware of the need for training but
only acquired the necessary powers to take action towards the end of 1983.
Early efforts included backing (£1.3 million) for an information technology
centre (ITEC), which was opened in 1984 at lndescon Court on the Isle
of Dogs with places for 35 people to train in computer and electronic
skills. Although sponsored by the LDDC, its management board included
representatives from the local trades council and community association.
A training coordinator was appointed and grants were awarded to help workshops
in Tower Hamlets and Newham train school leavers and also to establish
Island Community Enterprise, an Isle of Dogs venture to organise local
groups to bid for maintenance contracts. The ITEC was followed by the
creation in 1986 of an organisation called Skillnet, which provided advice
about training schemes of all kinds, careers counselling and access to
computer facilities. At one time, it had a base in all three boroughs.
Top of Page
As business moved into Docklands, pressure increased
within the local communities for more jobs for local people. This was
in fact a curiously parochial plea, harking back to an era when men walked
to work, not the London of today in which, with its comprehensive public
transport network, people no longer expect to live and work in the same
corner of the city. Once the DLR opened in 1987, the area was no longer
cut off and an important barrier to job seeking across the whole of the
London labour market had been broken. However, when the new London City
Airport announced its intention to employ local people where possible,
many applicants, it emerged, did not have what are somewhat euphemistically
described as the basic skills. They had been through school but could
not adequately read, write or do simple mathematics. There was a similar
problem with some applicants for training. At that time, such shortcomings
in the education system, particularly of British inner cities, were only
beginning to come to light.
As a result, the LDDC provided funds for special preliminary
courses to help adults to catch up on their lack of schooling. Access
centres were set up jointly to provide training in these basics and information
technology. The
LDDC also backed an increasing number and range of training places, amounting
finally to some 13,000 a year at the peak. As catering had become a growth
industry, the Corporation, with Southwark Council and others supported
The Butlers Wharf Chef School (£263,000) on condition that there would
be a quota of local trainees. Funds were also provided for a technical
training centre at the Half Moon Young People's Theatre in Tower Hamlets.
As part of the deal for Canary Wharf, the developers promised a minimum
of 2,000 jobs for local people and made a substantial contribution to
set up a new training centre for construction workers in the former Poplar
swimming baths with an LDDC contribution of £1.1 million. A number of
local people did take advantage of this opportunity and later worked on
the development site.
Other initiatives included a customised training programme
to equip local people for known jobs in shops, buses, marketing, administration,
sales, hotel, catering and as traffic wardens. The LDDC also contributed
to the provision of three specialised disabled training facilities and
childcare to free parents for training or jobs and helped launch a scheme,
known as Brainpower, to help Docklands residents of all ages, and regardless
of previous formal qualifications, to embark on further education or university
courses.
Despite a positive galaxy of schemes, apathy or ignorance
continued and, following concern about take-up, the LDDC set up a computerised
database of all Docklands post-school training and education with terminals
in supermarkets as well as job centres. In addition "On Course",
a training newspaper, was launched and delivered to every household in
the area with "Docklands News".
For all the efforts, it is difficult to judge success
but undoubtedly individuals have benefited and local unemployment rates
have fallen from 17.8% in 1981 to 7.9% in September 1997 - 3,170 unemployed
residents out of an estimated economically active population of 40,077.
Top of Page
Education
While training efforts were aimed at solving immediate
problems, the LDDC was concerned about the future and the need to raise
the standards and expectations of today's and tomorrow's children and
parents. Working with the local education authorities, the three boroughs,
capital investment by the Corporation has resulted in better facilities
for pupils and the creation of new and improved facilities which can be
used by parents and older members of the community, such as main halls,
meeting rooms and sports pitches. Other financial help has gone towards
providing education for the under-fives and schemes that will generally
improve daily school life including refurbishment and environmental improvements.
 Funding
of more that £6.1 million was contributed towards 12 new primary schools
across Docklands including the first new primary school for 20 years on
the isle of Dogs at Arnhem Wharf and two new schools to be built in Newham
at Winsor Park and at West Silvertown Urban Village. Another £5.2 million
went into the Royal Docks Community School in Beckton, currently under
construction and the first secondary school in Newham to be built south
of the A13. A further £3.5 million funded a new secondary school in Rotherhithe
- Bacon's City Technology College. In addition, £2.2 million was spent
on extensions to ten primary and secondary schools including new or improved
under-fives facilities. Childcare centres were also funded including Poplar
Play Nursery (£298,000) and Limehouse Arches (£185,000). The Corporation
funded major improvements in further education buildings to encourage
young people, who had balked at the idea of school, to cross the threshold.
There are now new further education provisions in each of the three boroughs,
funded by the LDDC: an extension to Tower Hamlets College in Poplar High
Street (£10 million contributed); £1.5 million to help set up Newham 6th
Form College; £1.46 million for Newham College of Further Education's
third campus in the Royal Docks and £439,000 for the Surrey Quays annex
to Southwark College.
A £4 million investment enabled the introduction, in
successive phases, of computer-aided learning into 48 primary schools
and four special needs schools. The Corporation provided the networked
computers, software and the necessary teacher training. As a result, Docklands
could boast the highest computer to pupil ratio in the country and thousands
of children have become computer literate.
In the mid-1990s, computers were again provided as a
teaching tool as part of the two-year Docklands Learning Acceleration
Project, which was promoted by the National Literacy Association and funded
mainly by the LDDC. Designed to help small children learn their three
Rs, the scheme involved the provision of 120 school-based multi-media
computers in 15 schools together with 500 palmtops. The schools were contracted
to put seven year olds on the computer for 20 minutes a day and then send
them home with palmtops for further practice. Of the 15 schools, the pupils
of only one were reading at national average rates at the start of the
project. After the first year seven were and after two years, ten.
Other initiatives included the provision of additional
scientific equipment in a number of primary schools; information about
new opportunities and careers being created in Docklands; the provision
of minibuses; assistance in placing volunteer teachers in local business;
information technology to maintain teacher and school records and the
creation of two new urban learning centres for student teachers in Poplar
and London Bridge aimed at giving student teachers experience of working
in the inner city.
Top of Page
Perhaps the most important venture in the long term for
the area is the creation of a new university campus in the Royal Docks
by the University of East London. Under construction and scheduled to
open in 1999, the first £40 million phase to accommodate 3,000 students
will transform local educational horizons. Built on a 25 acre (10 ha.)
site on the north side of Royal Albert Dock, the campus will include purpose
built teaching and research facilities, halls of residence, recreational
facilities and ancilliary business and retail units. On completion, the
full 562,000 sq.ft (55,000 sq.m.) development will accommodate up to 7,500
students and 1,000 staff. The campus will also include the Thames Gateway
Technology Centre which has received £7.8 million from the Government's
Single Regeneration Budget.
In addition to its academic functions, the Centre will provide a full
range of services for new and existing companies in East London. These
will include training and demonstration facilities, business start-up
space and consultancy, a technology resource centre, an industrial design
centre and research and development services. The LDDC has contributed
£5 million to the project.
The rate of children now staying on at school for further
education has doubled since the mid-1980s. In Tower Hamlets, for example,
the percentage of pupils gaining five or more GCSEs at A - C grade has
increased from 8.3% in 1989 to 21.7% in 1995, while rising expectations
have resulted in post-16 staying on rates nearly doubling in the same
period to over 70%. In addition, a number of initiatives for which pilot
projects were evolved, including the improvement of basic skills of children
and grown-ups, have now become part of the national agenda.
Through its funding of buildings and projects, the LDDC
tried to raise the appeal of schools and education and provide programmes
relevant to the changes taking place in the area and in the country at
large. In the long term, as more people come to value a good education,
this public investment in education could turn out to be an extremely
important legacy of the LDDC's work in the regeneration of the East End.
Top of Page
 Health
The improvement of health facilities had to follow demand
in terms of the new population and the need for facilities which better
matched the quality of new housing and commercial development.
The initial programme was low key. In the 1980s, the
LDDC contributed a small amount of funding to projects which the health
authorities had started on before 1981, with money from the Docklands
Urban Programme funding set aside for Docklands by the Department of the
Environment and channelled to the local authorities and other agencies
in consultation with the Docklands Joint Committee (DJC). This included
the landscaping of a new health centre at Tollgate Road in Beckton (£60,000),
landscaping and a new car park at West Beckton Health Centre (£176,000),
local dental services, the provision of a hospital scanner, care for the
mentally ill, transport and a pilot study in computer networking for health
visitors. In the 1990s, following the shift of emphasis towards community
investment, the situation was transformed.  Working
with the regional and district health authorities plus the family practitioner
committees, a joint health review was agreed which identified gaps, established
targets, including numbers of doctors and nurses, and then proceeded to
fill them.
While health authorities normally react to demand as
population numbers rise, in Docklands they were faced with an exceptionally
fast-moving situation. Admittedly they had to cope with a backlog of need
across a much wider area. However, the LDDC's life and therefore its access
to resources was time limited. Partly as a result of the inter-departmental
committee, the authorities began to understand the need for co-ordination
and immediate action.
The LDDC contributed consultancy, land and project money
to the refurbishment and extension of six existing health centres and
the construction of five new ones two on the Isle of Dogs, one in Poplar
and two in the Royals. Island Health on the isle of Dogs replaced premises
previously rented in the nearby ASDA Superstore. Costing £1.65 million,
the health centre was built by a charitable trust with an LDDC contribution
of £525,000. The centre has space for up to 70 permanent and visiting
professionals including a local practice of up to seven doctors, a dental
surgery, training rooms and 18 community health staff.  The
Docklands Medical Centre was built in response to the dramatic population
increase in the southwest corner of the Isle of Dogs. Built by the GP
practice at a total cost of £445,000 on an LDDC site with £272,000 from
the Corporation - it also accommodates a dental surgery and community
health staff.
Top of Page
Newby Place in Poplar, which is smaller, was also going
to be a trust but eventually a special company was set up to complete
the development. It has space for a practice of three doctors, associated
district nurses, health visitors and other community health staff. The
£1.4 million centre replaced South Poplar Health Centre which had been
based in temporary buildings for many years and benefited from LDDC funds
of £430,000.
The John Dixon Health Clinic in Bermondsey was modernised
with an LDDC contribution of £85,000 and the Albion Health Centre in the
Surrey Docks extended allowing the practice to expand from three to five
doctors (£150,000). Gill Street Health Centre in Limehouse was also expanded
with LDDC funding (£280,000) while in Wapping the Corporation wholly funded
a £448,000 refurbishment of the Wapping Health Centre.
In the Royal Docks, the £2.2 million Royals Medical Centre
opened at the end of 1997 to serve the newly established residential area
of East Beckton with a £683,000 contribution from the LDDC, while a 20-year-old
health centre in North Woolwich, at Kennard Street, had a major refurbishment
with £185,000 from the LDDC and £30,000 was allocated for healthcare facilities
at West Silvertown Urban Village.
 In
addition, the LDDC funded specialist medical equipment, computers and
software for local doctors and dentists; improvements to surgeries including
disabled access; a mobile chiropody unit; a £250,000 contribution to MIND's
new mental health resource centre in Poplar; a centre for the Tower Hamlets
drugs team, which is outside the area; and a special drugs initiative
on the Isle of Dogs. New children's day centres were provided in Wapping
(£1.2 million), Beckton (£669,000) and North Woolwich (£863,000). Funds
were also made available to support carers of disabled people and for
a telephone alarm system linked to elderly people. In all, the LDDC contributed
some £4.8 million to improving health facilities in the area and a further
£3.2 million on social care.
As a result of the LDDC, each of the Docklands areas
has a new or upgraded centre which integrates GP and community health
services in modern flexible premises able to respond to local needs well
into the next century.
Over its 17 years, the Corporation spent just over 7%
of its total budget on community infrastructure and activities. Of this
£120 million, about half was invested in education and training and the
balance on health and other community activities.
Top of Page
Community Lifeblood
Encouraging Local Organisations
Over the 17 years, the LDDC acted as godparent to hundreds
of local community and voluntary initiatives right across Docklands. Although
choices had to be made and worthy applications lost out, the funding of
voluntary groups was one area which was immediately welcome and helped
a remarkable range of organisations with small projects and running costs.
 A
selection may give some idea of the flavour and local importance. The
initial list in 1983 awarded about £166,000 in the Docklands area of each
borough and made 86 grants including grants for a day centre for the terminally
ill, a riding school, facilities for a hospital league of friends, drop-in
clubs for the elderly, football changing room facilities, community facilities
in a mosque and churches, water sports clubs, the performance of children's
plays, an urban farm, canteen and offices over existing workshops, a week
in the countryside for 1,000 school children and running costs for a minibus.
By 1989, the budget had risen to more than double plus £250,000 for 10
special social development awards to encourage new ideas for improving
the quality of Docklands life and £25,000 for the development of the arts.
The special awards included a community launderette and a training centre
cafe. By 1997, more than 450 community and voluntary groups had received
money from the LDDC.
In its first year, the LDDC discovered it was unable
to fund such special Docklands Urban Programme projects without changes
to the Government's grant memorandum. There were constraints - not more
than 1% of the LDDC's total budget along with a five-year limit on revenue
funding, which was later reduced to three years. The idea was to encourage
groups to develop other more permanent funding sources. To try to ensure
the money was spent on ideas and organisations which appealed to the local
communities, the Corporation set up the Community Support Programme. Advisory
groups were established in the three boroughs. Known as the 'Little Eggs',
these put forward their choice of applicants for consideration by the
LDDC, nicknamed the 'Big Egg'.
The organisations in Newham and Tower Hamlets were broadly
similar, with representatives from the local community, the Council, the
GLC (until its demise) and, when relevant, health and education authorities.
As Southwark had by then decided to ignore the LDDC, a special group was
established with a greater number of local community representatives including
tenants associations. Grants were normally 75%, the balance coming from
the local boroughs and, until 1990, the ILEA in Southwark and Tower Hamlets.
From the mid 1980's the Little Egg scheme in Newham Docklands
was run jointly with the borough, with the Council administering the programme
and contributing 25% of all grants made through the scheme. It came to
be known as the Docklands Joint Funding Programme and forms the basis
of an ongoing programme in Beckton, to be extended to the Royal Docks
area after March 1998, as a joint venture between the Council and the
Royal Docks Trust (London), endowed by the LDDC.
Top of Page
Community Trusts
Because of continued pressure on local government spending
and the need to find permanent new resources to keep such worthwhile projects
alive after the LDDC departed from the Docklands scene, the Corporation
encouraged the establishment of community trusts. If these could attract
substantial endowments, the communities would be assured of regular support.
The first attempt, the East End Community Trust, covered too wide an area
and was seen, with three board members as its first trustees, as an LDDC
offshoot. This trust was therefore wound down from 1988 in favour of a
series of more locally based trusts, the first two being set up as companies
limited by guarantee, but with charitable status, in Wapping and the Isle
of Dogs. News International contributed the initial endowment fund of
£3 million for the St Katharine and Shadwell Trust, which has a wide range
of community purposes including the support of voluntary groups and projects
for disabled people, training, culture and leisure. Its trustees include
representatives from business, local residents, Tower Hamlets and the
LDDC. In 1990 the Isle of Dogs Community Foundation was set up with cash
from developers including a major injection of £595,000 from East India
Dock developers, NCC.
At that time, the LDDC was not in a position simply to
hand over the large endowments necessary to create a reasonable income
stream for the communities to support projects, which, in any event, were
still able to apply for financial help under the Little Egg scheme.
However the gradual dedesignation of Docklands created
an opportunity. Before the Beckton area of the Royals was handed on to
Newham at the end of 1995, the LDDC and the borough paid for the commissioning,
by members of the local consultative group, of a report into continuing
gaps in the economic, social and community infrastructure. On the dedesignation
of Beckton, the council would receive parcels of new public realm, together
with the ongoing maintenance responsibility. Following negotiations about
the terms under which it would accept this liability, the LDDC and Newham
agreed a capital value on the revenue implications. This sum - £3.89 million
- the LDDC subsequently spent on the new East Beckton District Centre
including library and sports hall, the need for which had been highlighted
in the consultant's report. The Corporation also gave £1.2 million to
establish the Royal Docks (London) Trust. As part of the dedesignation
package agreed with the council for the Royal Docks the LDDC contributed
a further £300,000 to the new district centre and an additional £1.5 million
to the trust along with a number of lands used for community purposes.
A similar exercise was carried out in the Isle of Dogs
with a report paid for by the LDDC and commissioned by the Association
of Island Communities and South Poplar and Limehouse Action for Secure
Housing.  Although
its assessment suggested the need for an endowment of at least £4.3 million,
or £6.45 million taking inflation into account, the deal with Tower Hamlets
took a different course. The final figure agreed for the Isle of Dogs
Community Foundation was £2.04 million including the transfer of two freeholds.
The agreement also involved a joint £1 million LDDC/Tower Hamlets programme
for continuing community financial support for three years. Around the
same time a further £450,000 was pledged by Canary Wharf Ltd and Morgan
Stanley and Co to the Community Foundation over a five year period.
The three trusts cover six wards in Newham and Tower
Hamlets. Southwark did not wish to have a special endowment trust restricted
to a relatively small part of the borough. As part of the dedesignation
package agreed with Tower Hamlets for the handover of Wapping and Limehouse
in January 1997, the Corporation contributed £440,000 for local capital
projects. With the final handover in the Royals, the six former Docklands
areas on the north side of the Thames had total endowments of £10 million,
the income from which will continue to support community activities of
all kinds in the future. Very few other areas of the country, let alone
London, have similar community trusts.
Top of Page
Improving the Environment
Parks, Restoration and Ecology
Mass tree planting, clean, restored buildings, new green
open space and access to the riverside and the former docks-the water
parks have made a vast difference to living in Docklands. Although local
communities may now take such change for granted, in 1981 people across
Docklands had daily to withstand the depressing effect of dereliction,
deserted rotting buildings and forbidding stretches of corrugated iron.
The docks were private property, mostly concealed behind high brick walls.
industry and buildings lined much of the river also preventing public
access. Taken together with the injection of new transport infrastructure,
major shopping centres, and leisure and cultural opportunities, these
changes have transformed the local quality of life.
Apart from the early decision to retain the remaining
docks, which had major implications in terms of development, ambience
and recreation, the LDDC concentrated first on aspects of the environment
which could give an impression of action and make the area, especially
gateway sites, more attractive to investors. About 10,000 trees were planted
in the first year. Within four years, the total reached 60,000, in eight
years 100,000 and after 15 years more than 160,000.
Money was allocated to clean up historic landmarks including
the Hawksmoor churches of St. George's in Wapping and St. Anne's, Limehouse.
Other churches and churchyards followed. in the Royals, St. Mark's was
restored after a disastrous fire in 1981. The Corporation paid for the
engineering to reclaim a gas industry spoil heap to create the Beckton
Alps, part of which then became an artificial ski slope funded by the
private sector and Government grant.
 |
 |
 |
| St Anne's Limehouse, one of many historic churches in Docklands
to benefit from LDDC funding |
King Edward VII Memorial Park, Wapping |
Lavender Pond, Surrey Docks |
In Southwark, development spoil was used to create Stave
Hill, a small but important mound and new viewing point in the middle
of a new ecology park, complete with butterfly sanctuary and wind turbine
and managed by the Trust for Urban Ecology. In addition the trust manages
Lavender Pond, Docklands' first ecology park, also in Southwark which
received £278,000. A third ecology park was created by the LDDC at Bow
Creek north of the river with £2.5 million funding and the LDDC encouraged
a bird sanctuary in the East India Dock Basin. As well as improving and
restoring existing open space and creating new parks, the LDDC staged
a landscape competition for creating a new 23 acre (9 ha.) park at the
Thames Barrier at a cost of £9.3 million, jointly funded with English
Partnerships. Due for completion in 2000 this will be owned and managed
by Newham. The LDDC was also able to provide matching funding for the
successful Heritage Lottery Fund bids to restore Island Gardens overlooking
the historic Greenwich world heritage site and to complete the All Saints
Churchyard restoration. Importantly, many local parks were upgraded along
with new local facilities for the area's young people including £200,000
for Pearson Park in the Surrey Docks; £1.3 million for Ropemaker's Field,
Limehouse; £463,000 for Wapping Gardens; £640,000 for St. Andrew's Playspace
on the Isle of Dogs and £1.1 million for Beckton District Park.
Top of Page
Centre for Water Sports
The creation of as much riverside access as possible,
and the decision to keep the docks were crucially important, not simply
in providing new open space and a unique urban setting but in the retention
of historic links and the area's special sense of place. Treatment of
the docks and basins varied but the majority are accessible to the public
and have been landscaped with the necessary paved promenades, seating,
lighting and chain fence or rails. The historic cranes, which today act
as a reminder of the industrial origin of these formal manmade tracts
of water, were nearly sold for scrap. Instead the LDDC's application for
their acquisition and restoration became an early test of the Department
of the Environment's interpretation of its financial regime, which insisted
on economic justification for any expenditure.
 |
 |
 |
| Shadwell Basin, Wapping |
Dragonboating at the Docklands sailing Centre, Millwall Dock |
Greenland Dock, Surrey Docks |
The 417 acres (170 ha.) of docks also provided an opportunity
for major new water sports facilities, such as sailing, canoeing, rowing
and dragonboat racing, all of which have become increasingly popular.
While fishing was already well established in the area, water sports were
confined to Shadwell Basin in Wapping and virtually unknown elsewhere.
The LDDC invested heavily in the development of facilities including the
Docklands Sailing and Watersports Centre on the Outer Millwall Dock (£1.3
million) on the Isle of Dogs; Surrey Docks Watersports Centre (£1.2 million);
the Docklands Watersports Club in the King George V Dock (£800,000); and
Shadwell Basin Watersports Centre (£506,000). Most are now run by trusts.
 The
retention of the water as an amenity was not always easy. Once the Enterprise
Zone began to attract major investment, water as well as land acquired
development value and buildings were allowed to jut into sections of the
West India Docks, most particularly at Canary Wharf, which expanded on
either side to leave narrow stretches of water. in the Royal Albert Dock,
an international standard rowing course and regatta centre is being built
with Sports Lottery Funding of £8.9 million and an LDDC and English Partnerships
contribution of £7.2 million on major site infrastructure, including the
widening of the dock at the eastern end to accommodate the 2000 metre
course.
During the late 1980s, the LDDC set up and administered
a short-term water development fund to help promote events and activities.
Outside organisations and sponsors were encouraged to take part in the
hope that at least some events would become permanent and self-financing.
As time passed, the harbourmaster assumed responsibility for the co-ordination
of events, together with the Docklands Water Development Group, a forum
for water users which met on a quarterly basis under the LDDC's aegis.
Dragonboat racing has become very popular and attracts company boats.
Although water quality in the docks is almost always up to European standards
in all respects except clarity, swimming is discouraged because of the
literally breath-taking danger of body contact with the intensely cold
water which lies close to the deceptively warm surface, together with
the great depth and murkiness of the waters.
 Given
the uncertainty of sufficient financial support following the departure
of the LDDC, which provided help with equipment, sponsorship and staff,
the individual centres need to become more commercial, generating income
from their buildings and charging realistic prices to those who can afford
to pay. They also need to attract a more London-wide clientele to fulfil
their potential. As the LDDC's final water strategy stated:
"This will inevitably change
the nature of the centres but is the key to their long-term future at
a time when continued local authority funding, certainly at current levels,
cannot be guaranteed".
The management of the docks and water has passed to a
number of different organisations: a private non profit making company,
the Royal Docks Management Authority (RoDMA), in the Royals; British Waterways
in the Isle of Dogs and Limehouse; and the London Borough of Southwark
in the case of Greenland and South Docks. The Shadwell Basin Project is
responsible for day-to-day management of the water with funding for maintenance
protected by a charity.
Top of Page
Conclusion
The regeneration of London's Docklands has highlighted
the difficulties of development and change within any area of a city with
established communities. To win their support can require endless talk,
time and expense, even if the problems of securing genuine representation
of local opinion can be solved. Too many groups have highly active and
articulate self-appointed leaders, who may speak well but not necessarily
for the silent majority.
Given the warring history of Docklands against dock employers
and then the Conservative Government, it is uncertain that such public
support could have been easily won. Although the docks had served London
on a national and international basis, it was difficult for local people
to accept the need for new development to serve an equal but different
international and national role instead of simply serving their individual
needs for jobs and a better quality of life.
In an ideal situation, a reasonable balance of community
investment would have proceeded simultaneously with the attraction of
private investment into housing and business and public funding of new
transport infrastructure. But the task of turning the area around was
enormous, the economy given higher priority, the amount of Government
money restricted and the LDDC team small. Over time and with the availability
of additional finance for community investment, attitudes changed and
teamwork prevailed with the local authorities and other public organisations.
Of course, more could have been done and it is possible to criticise individual
ventures. And there is still a lot to do. But that is the nature of every
enterprise and a great deal was achieved.
By the end of its regeneration remit, the LDDC provided
the means for widescale improvements to the lives of the original 40,000-strong
communities. In the 1990s, progress became obvious with schools, colleges,
social housing, parks and play areas and all around the area on the ground.
It is not surprising if the brickbats continued instead of bouquets. Local
people were shrewd enough to realise that continual pressure right up
until the end might secure additional benefit. As a result, the area has
won far more public investment than other parts of the boroughs. There
is also now much greater understanding of the future world of work and
the need, little appreciated in the 1980s, for a local economy linked
to the global economy and for the cultivation of brain instead of muscle
power.
The MORI opinion poll of local people commissioned by
the LDDC at the end of 1997 showed that over two-thirds of people involved
in the survey thought the LDDC had done a good job and that the prospects
for the area were good. Surrey Docks residents remained the most optimistic
about the area while 69% of those living on the Isle of Dogs were positive
about future prospects, compared to 58% in a 1996 MORI survey. Only 53%
of Royal Docks residents thought prospects were good. But then the Royals
kept on seeing promised developments fail to materialise because recession
struck and the development timescale for such a large area, even within
a pulsing capital city, was too tight. The Isle of Dogs was always the
focus of most discontent and had to cope with the pressure of an Fnterprise
Zone and continuing large scale construction within its midst.
Overall, however, the local Docklands communities have
again shown courage in the face of great events. They now have the basis
to become a special but normal part of London, to take advantage of changes
to date and continue to improve the quality of life for future generations.
Top of Page
Appendix
Bermondsey Riverside |
Project |
Grant |
Project |
Grant |
| St Peter's Youth Centre |
£46,000 |
Bede House |
£150,000 |
| Beormund Centre |
£250,000 |
John Dixon Health Centre |
£85,000 |
| Play Area, Dickens Estate |
£72,000 |
Cherry Gardens |
£329,000 |
| Edward Ill's Manor House |
£700,000 |
St Michael's R.C. Primary School |
£34,000 |
| Riverside Primary School |
£35,000 |
Butlers Wharf Chef School |
£263,000 |
| St Joseph's R.C. Primary School |
£75,000 |
|
|
| Top of Page |
Wapping |
Project |
Grant |
Project |
Grant |
| St Peter's Church |
£70,000 |
St Patrick's Church |
£122,000 |
| Wapping Community Group
& Tenants Social Club |
£253,000 |
St Paul's C. of E. Church
& Crypt |
£400,000 |
| St Peter's Community,
Education & Arts Centre |
£953,000 |
Wapping Health Centre |
£448,000 |
| Wapping Family Centre |
£1.2 million |
Helling Street Play
area |
£31,000 |
| Playgroup Chandler Street |
£35,000 |
Waterside Gardens Riverside |
£45,000 |
| Wapping Sports Centre
All Weather Pitch |
£55,000 |
John 0rwell Sports Centre |
£59,000 |
| Wapping Green |
£60,000 |
Brussels Wharf |
£95,000 |
| Waterside Gardens |
£100,000 |
Prospect Wharf |
£100,000 |
| Wapping Pierhead |
£158,000 |
St John's Churchyard |
£177,000 |
| Stephen & Matilda
Environmental Play Area |
£214,000 |
King Edward VIl Memorial
Park |
£267,000 |
| St George's Baths |
£283,000 |
Tower Bridge Wharf |
£310,000 |
| Shadwell Pierhead |
£370,000 |
Wapping Gardens |
£463,000 |
| Shadwell Basin Watemports
Centre |
£506,000 |
Wapping Wood |
£772,000 |
| Shadwell Basin Environmental
Area |
£1.3 million |
Western Dock Canal |
£1 million |
| St Patrick's R.C. Junior
School |
£62,000 |
Community Crypt Including
Nursery |
£130,000 |
| Ensign Youth Club |
£189,000 |
Stephen & Matilda
Day Nursery |
£200,000 |
| Bluegate Fields School |
£278,000 |
St Peter's C. of E.
Primary School |
£292,000 |
| Hermitage Primary School |
£356,000 |
Wapping Youth Club |
£366,000 |
| Top of Page |
|
|
|
Limehouse |
|
|
|
Project |
Grant |
Project |
Grant |
| Barleymow Tenants Room |
£40,000 |
St Vincent's Tenants Meeting Rooms |
£40,000 |
| Limehouse Library |
£98,000 |
Barleymow Veteran Club |
£203,000 |
| St Anne's C.of E. Church and Crypt |
£1.4 million |
Gill Street Health Centre |
£280,000 |
| St Anne's Churchyard/The Mitre Gardens |
£26,000 |
Play Area Barleymow Estate |
£40,000 |
| Play Area St Vincent's |
£96,000 |
Riverside Walkway |
£500,000 |
| Ropemaker's Field |
£1.3 million |
Cyril Jackson Primary School |
£22,000 |
| Cyril Jackson Primary School (New Annexe) |
£185,000 |
Limehouse Arches Day Nursery |
£185,000 |
| Wapping Training |
£637,000 |
Limehouse Youth Club |
£1.4 million |
| Top of Page |
|
|
|
Surrey
Docks |
|
|
|
Project |
Grant |
Project |
Grant |
| Rotherhithe Civic Centre |
£6,000 |
Time and Talent Association |
£112,000 |
| Dockland Settlement |
£188,000 |
Holy Trinity Church |
£224,000 |
| Surrey Docks Health Centre |
£117,000 |
Albion Health Centre |
£150,000 |
| Brunel Road Play Area |
£23,000 |
Russia Dock Woodland |
£60,000 |
| Surrey Docks Stadium |
£86,000 |
Pearson Park |
£200,000 |
| Lavender Pond Nature Park |
£278,000 |
Barnard's Wharf walkway |
£332,000 |
| Stave Hill Ecology Park |
£485,000 |
Surrey Docks Farm |
£355,000 |
| Seven Islands Leisure Centre |
£374,000 |
Canada Water Ecology & Windmill |
£982,000 |
| Surrey Docks Watersports Centre |
£1.2 million |
Albion Primary School |
£13,000 |
| Peter Hills Primary School |
£77,000 |
Bacon's College |
£3.5 million |
| Bacon's VI Form Extension |
£200,000 |
Mari Training |
£223,000 |
| Jarvis Construction Training |
£223,000 |
St John's R.C. Primary School |
£256,000 |
| Redriff Primary school |
£277,000 |
Surrey Docks Play Association |
£405,000 |
| Southwark College Surrey Docks |
£439,000 |
Skillnet Training |
£480,000 |
| Alfred Salter Primary School |
£500,000 |
|
|
| Top of Page |
|
|
|
Isle
of Dogs |
|
|
|
Project |
Grant |
Project |
Grant |
| Millwall Park |
£66,000 |
Sir John McDougall Gardens |
£216,000 |
| Timber Whames Play Area Grant |
£100,000 |
River/Dockside Walk |
£1.5 million |
Docklands Sailing & Watersports
Centre |
£1.3 million |
George Green Sports Centre |
£19,000 |
| Island Swimming Baths & Arts Centre |
£101,000 |
St Johns Park |
£534,000 |
| Castalia Square (St Johns Estate) |
£475,000 |
Barkantine Shops |
£563,000 |
| Millwall One O'clock Club |
£660,000 |
Barkantine Hall |
£62,000 |
| Alpha Grove Community Centre |
£465,000 |
Dockland Settlement |
£81,000 |
| George Green School Pitch |
£320,000 |
Island History Trust |
£47,000 |
| Island House/Island Advice |
£111,000 |
Samuda Centre |
£408,000 |
| Mudchute Farm |
£1.21 million |
Cedar Centre |
£194,000 |
| Scouts Accommodation | |
