|
(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
The development of London Docklands has generated huge
interest from around the world. Large numbers of planners and politicians
from continental Europe, North America and the Far East have visited the
Urban Development Area over the last 16 years eager to find out how the
area's transformation has been achieved. Curiously, although much has
been written in the United Kingdom about the planning of London Docklands,
enquiries and visits to the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC)
by British planners and academics have been remarkably few. This monograph
sets out to record the approach adopted by the LDDC to plan the regeneration
of its area.
Opinions have varied considerably but the successful
completion of the LDDC's remit from Government to secure the regeneration
of the abandoned area of the docks is there for all to see. There may
well have been other ways in which the regeneration of the area could
have been secured but it is certain that the strategy advocated by some
in the 1970's, had it been possible for it to be implemented, would have
perpetuated rather than solved the problems of East London. Policies to
dramatically increase the amount of social housing, which then represented
a disproportionately high percentage of the existing stock compared with
other parts of London, would surely have placed added pressures on the
resources of the local authorities already straining under the existing
burden. Similarly the objective to maintain a low wage economy by only
supporting initiatives which would provide unskilled and semi-skilled
jobs would have excluded the possibility of providing the wider range
of employment opportunities that are now available.
In the last 16 years Docklands has been transformed.
It is accessible and provides a range of housing and employment opportunities
at least as wide as any other part of London. However, the dramatic pace
of change that has occurred since 1981 has inevitably had its impact on
the lives of the people of Docklands and the concerns that some have expressed
about the new developments are understandable. It is probably too early
to reach any final conclusions as to the success of the LDDC's work as
the completion of the area's renaissance will take another decade. Docklands
needs to mature and adjust to accommodate the evolving needs of the people
that now live and work there.
A comprehensive architectural review of London Docklands
has been prepared by Elizabeth Williamson in the Buildings of England
series initiated by Nicholas Pevsner. The book will complement this monograph
and is due for publication in February 1998.
What ever else the LDDC has achieved the area is now
well and truly in the mainstream of metropolitan life and well placed
to benefit from the capital's future development.
LDDC November 1997
Top of Page
Introduction - In the Beginning
The Docklands inherited by the London Docklands Development
Corporation (LDDC) in 1981 was isolated both physically and emotionally
from the rest of London. It was not only difficult to get to, as the roads
were poor and public transport to the area was virtually non existent,
but few people in the rest of London thought that the area was worth visiting
anyway. Long standing local residents relate stories of London taxi cabs
refusing fares to the Docklands area. Residents on the Wapping Estate
would apparently ask taxies to take them to Wapping police station believing
that drivers would be less inclined to refuse passengers apparently with
police business. Docklands was beset by overwhelming problems of social
deprivation, poor housing and bleak prospects for education and employment
in a physical context of dereliction and decay. No one but a few visionary
pioneers who, like the LDDC, saw the tremendous potential of Docklands
and moved here to commence the process of regeneration, saw the area as
having any value.
The official attitude to the character of Docklands
was that there were few buildings of any quality there. Many of the l9th
century warehouses were allowed to be demolished after the docks closed.
The docks themselves were being filled in and the local authorities based
their vision of the future on a patch work of more council housing (95%
of all housing in Docklands was already rented, mostly by the local authorities)
and industry, both to be publicly financed.
Although the local planning authority for development
control, the LDDC is not the statutory plan making authority for the Urban
Development Area (UDA) and never has been. After the creation of the LDDC
the responsibility for plan making remained with the three Docklands Boroughs
of Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Newham. However in 1981 the only up to
date plan for the UDA was the Beckton District Plan, adopted by Newham
in 1980. The Tower Hamlets Borough Plan was adopted in 1986 and it was
not until 1995 when Southwark's Unitary
Development Plan (UDP) was adopted that an up to date
plan was available for the UDA south of the river. The Newham UDP came
into force in June 1997 but prior to then the statutory plan for the Royal
Docks area was the Greater London Development Plan adopted in 1976.
Until its demise in 1986 the Greater London Council
(GLC) was responsible for the planning and construction of all major roads
within the Metropolis. Their plans included a comprehensive network of
new roads (including the roads that now make up the Docklands Highways)
to provide access to, through and within Docklands. However vacillation
and procrastination meant that the majority of the GLC's schemes never
got beyond the drawing board.
The post-war period in Britain saw the emergence of
a wide range of innovative policies for repairing and modernising the
country following the ravages of war. The comprehensive redevelopment
of large areas of our inner cities was matched by a national programme
of New Town construction on green field sites. However by the late 1960's
politicians and the general public were questioning many of the underlying
principles of these policies. The destruction of residential areas to
make way for new blocks of flats was abandoned to be replaced by policies
of repair and refurbishment. General Improvement Areas (GlAs) were designated
and generous grants were made available for housing upgrading and repairs.
The success of the New Towns was being questioned. They were taking longer
to complete than the 20 years originally planned and often the shops and
amenities offered were inadequate. New Towns were disliked by many of
their inhabitants who often commuted to the major conurbations from whence
they had come for both work and recreation. The concept of Comprehensive
Development Areas (CDAs), which saw the destruction of established town
centres and residential districts and their replacement by anonymous and
universally hated blocks of flats, office buildings and shopping centres
which were both expensive to build and to manage, was abandoned. The policy
was replaced by the concept of Conservation Areas which was introduced
to protect the historic parts of our cities and towns. During the 1970's
a more sensitive, incremental approach to planning emerged with the abandonment
of comprehensive redevelopment plans for such significant areas as Piccadilly
Circus and Covent Garden and their replacement by conservation based schemes.
But how could such an approach be valid for Docklands where officials
saw nothing worth conserving?
 During
the 1970's there was considerable debate about what to do with the Docklands.
The traditional land use based plans produced by Travers Morgan, consultants
to the GLC, had been rejected. The area was clearly in decline but the
local authorities wanted to try to halt the closure of the docks by modernisation
and improving access. But even the Royal Group of Docks, the most modern
on the Thames above Tilbury, finally proved inefficient and unable to
cope with containerised freight and the increasingly larger ships used
in international shipping. The Port of London Authority saw the abandoned
docks as a liability and proceeded to fill them in as they closed, so
creating even more vacant and derelict land.
In 1981 when the LDDC came into being there was no consensus
about what should be done. The Docklands Strategic Plan produced by the
Docklands Joint Committee and the GIC identified land for new housing
and employment uses but there was no indication of how its proposals would
(or could) ever be implemented. It was impossible to determine the quantum
of development that could be realistically achieved and therefore difficult
to assess the area's transport infrastructure needs. Indeed it would have
been impossible to demonstrate the necessity of major new roads and railways
at public inquiries or in Parliament without any credible development
proposals to substantiate the demand.
Top of Page
London Docklands Development Corporation
The traditional approach to inner city reconstruction
was clearly inappropriate for Docklands. Apart from doubts about the ability
of Comprehensive Development Areas (CDA) to satisfactorarily deal with
urban renewal Docklands was significantly larger than any CDA previously
undertaken and too diverse and complex an area for such a simplistic strategy.
A new approach was necessary.
The approach adopted by the LDDC and set out in its
Annual Report 1981-82 published in June 1982, was radically different
from that being promoted by the local authorities or indeed the recommendations
of Travers Morgan. Essentially the LDDC's approach was to enhance and
conserve what was best about the area, to promote and build on its many
qualities and, by improving transport, make it easier to get to. The strategy
needed to be flexible and provide scope for enterprise and initiative.
The LDDC prepared a series of planning framework Strategies which elaborated
this strategy, one for each of the principal development areas within
the UDA based on the existing districts and communities. They sought to
promote the opportunities of Docklands to investors and developers, consult
and seek comments on the LDDC's ideas from the people that already lived
and worked in the area and advise the Boroughs of the LDDC's intentions
for incorporation into their statutory plans.
These framework documents demonstrated the potential
of Docklands by opening up development possibilities rather than closing
down options. Most importantly the strategies provided a framework for
regeneration with sufficient flexibility to allow for the changing economic
and social demands that would certainly arise during the period of regeneration
of such a large area. Ironically the frameworks were criticised as being
"plans" therefore outside of the LDDC's remit.
 The
case for infrastructure improvements had to be argued incrementally as
the development potential of Docklands was realised. The LDDC was keen
to redevelop the "brown field' sites of Docklands for a diverse range
of uses. This would draw development pressure for new houses away from
London's green belt repopulating the inner city for the first time since
the war. Commercial development, particularly the large open floor areas
required by international companies, could readily be accommodated on
the large empty sites available in Docklands so relieving pressure on
the City and the West End and the historic heart of London. This strategy
promoted a sustainable outcome as people would be able to live and work
in the same area so reducing the need for long distance commuting. The
mix of residential and commercial uses would also enhance the viability
of the shops, restaurants and other amenities the LDDC wished to encourage.
However to achieve this the image of the area as a remote
and desolate part of London had to be changed. The priority was public
transport. Initially a bus service was provided between Mile End and the
Isle of Dogs and then the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) was commissioned.
At the same time, to coincide with the designation of the Isle of Dogs
Enterprise Zone (EZ), the "red brick" EZ roads were built to
provide access to the first commercial development sites there. These
initiatives provided the impetus for the first wave of investment which
eventually culminated in the proposals for Canary Wharf. These in turn
provided the justification, not only for the Docklands Highways and the
extension of the Docklands Light Railway to Bank but for the Jubilee line
Extension as well.
Top of Page
Development Planning Strategy
The Government's remit to the LDDC was to harness private
enterprise. There was a belief that the 'market' would provide the solution
to the problem that had eluded the public sector. There was however no
"market" in Docklands as the private sector had consistently
shunned investment in the area. This meant that the LDDC's initial inclination
was to create a "market" and encourage and welcome any new development.
There was also a concern that the LDDC would be unable to argue for quality
design as to do so would risk frightening off developers. Slowly, however,
the credibility of Docklands was established and the ability to argue
successfully for higher standards of design increased.
 London
Docklands is not a discrete area with a single unified identity. It is
large and extremely complex. The development context varies considerably
across the 22 sq. km. which make up the UDA. The fine urban grain based
on medieval development focused in the areas of London Bridge City, the
Bermondsey Riverside and Wapping and Limehouse contrast dramatically with
the vast areas of land and water which make up the Royal Docks. Keen to
create a development of interest and diversity based around the concept
of city districts, the planning policies of the LDDC have sought to build
on the intrinsic character of each development area and so avoid the anonymity
that would result from the creation of a single uniform development across
the whole area. In addition by focusing on the development of a series
of discrete districts based where possible on the existing communities
the LDDC was able to propose policies which recognised the particular
concerns of the locality. In 1985, once the broad strategy for regeneration
had been established local LDDC offices were set up to forge closer links
with residents, community groups and businesses as specific development
proposals were brought forward for consideration and implementation.
The LDDC also recognised that the regeneration of such
a large area would take at least two decades during which time many changes
- political, social and economic - would occur. The advance of technology
would, as well have its impact on the desires and aspirations of both
business and residential communities. A flexible and incremental approach
to the planning strategy for the area was therefore essential, with each
stage testing the development that had occurred to date and searched for
new solutions as needs dictated and circumstances changed.
The development process needed to accommodate not only
the diversity of land uses that one would expect to find in any mature
city district but also to set that in the context of an extended period
of time. The process accepted the changes that would arise during the
course of development and welcomed those changes as a positive contribution
to viable development. This was in contrast to more traditional development
planning techniques which view change as unwelcome and unforeseen pressure
which could undermine the purity of the original concept and, indeed,
invalidate it. The usual land use development planning approach which
seeks to chart more than twenty years of development from the viewpoint
of a single moment in time would not have been appropriate. The LDDC's
approach was to combine flexibility, diversity and intensity within an
infrastructure framework which would provide access to and within the
area as a model for long term regeneration.
The development strategy for the regeneration of London
Docklands, set out in the LDDC's Annual Report 1981-82, comprised a number
of key priorities which were developed over subsequent years:
Top of Page
Heritage and Conservation
The architectural heritage of Docklands had, to a great
extent, been ignored during the 1960's and 1970's. Many fine buildings
were lost, notably at St Katharine Docks, the London Docks in Wapping
and the West India Docks on the Isle of Dogs where buildings dating from
the early and mid-19th century were demolished with hardly a second thought.
Plans for the development of Docklands, prepared prior to the creation
of the LDDC, generally ignored or at best made only passing reference
to the area's architectural heritage, viewing future development options
primarily in terms of redevelopment. This followed the tradition of post-war
inner city planning and the promotion of Comprehensive Development Areas
which entailed the wholesale redevelopment of town centres and residential
areas - the "clean sheet' approach.
This policy, which had developed from the reconstruction
and slum clearance programmes of the post-war era, ignored any reference
to context or continuity and sought to impose alien development upon large
parts of our inner cities. The error of this policy was realised in the
late 1960's and new legislation introduced concerning planning, conservation
and housing, which recognised the importance of conservation and improvement
as opposed to wholesale redevelopment. The dated planning policies, however,
lived on through the 1970's in the various proposals prepared for Docklands,
finally to be reversed by the LDDC which sought to cherish the area's
unique heritage of historic buildings and build upon it.
One of the first actions of the LDDC was to formally
invite the Department of the Environment to reappraise the historic buildings
of Docklands. This was completed in 1982 and 116 buildings were added
to the statutory list of Buildings of Architectural and Historic Interest.
In parallel with this the LDDC set about an assessment of the area's historic
character and eight new conservation areas were designated, with a further
five previously existing conservation areas extended, between 1981 and
1991.
Top of Page
The River and the Docks
The earlier plans for the redevelopment of London Docklands
not only ignored the area's architectural heritage but saw the enclosed
areas of the docks as a problem and as a liability. Proposals, therefore,
included their in-filling in order to create even more land for development,
a policy which is difficult to imagine now, given the amount of vacant
and derelict land in the area at that time. The potential of the river
was virtually ignored as well.
The docks and the Thames are most powerful symbols of
the area's heritage and a unique visual and recreational amenity. It is
the docks in particular that distinguishes the area from any other part
of London and were therefore seen by the LDDC as a major asset to be saved,
enhanced and promoted.
 Soon
after it came into existence in 1981 the LDDC decided to halt the in-filling
of the docks and, whilst recognising that new development might include
building into the docks, the policy was established that wholesale in-filling
would no longer be tolerated. The waters of the docks would be retained
as an integral part of the area's regeneration. This policy was symptomatic
of the LDDC's general approach, which was to recognise the positive qualities
of Docklands and to engender a positive attitude towards the area. The
LDDC sought to recreate a pride in the area previously dismissed as London's
backyard where there was nothing of any quality.
While the potential of the river to provide an attractive
setting for new development was acknowledged its value to London was virtually
ignored. The policy of driving continuous riverside access along its banks,
hastened the demise of commercial wharfs their use being incompatible
with safe public access. The LDDC initially resisted the loss of viable
wharfs. However following a public inquiry to consider an appeal against
a refusal for the change of use, to residential, of a commercial wharf
on the west side of the Isle of Dogs the Department of the Environment's
inspector granted approval (Sufferance Wharf granted on appeal May 1985).
This precedent was to have a significant impact on the way in which similar
sites were to develop.
Top of Page
The Transport Network
The closure of the Docks highlighted the area's inaccessibility
from the rest of London. Although on the door-step of the City of London,
the area was perceived to be and actually was very difficult to get to.
The improvement of public transport became the LDDC's first priority.
Bus routes connecting the area with London Underground and mainline stations
were introduced with subsidies from the LDDC. This was followed by the
promotion of the Docklands Light Railway, opened in 1987, between Tower
Hill, Island Gardens and Stratford which provided the initial impetus
for the regeneration of the Isle of Dogs Enterprise Zone. Subsequently
the line was extended to serve Bank to the west and Beckton to the east
and construction is now underway on the link to Lewisham via Greenwich
for completion in January 2000.
Major improvements for vehicular access to and within
Docklands was universally accepted as a priority. Even the GLC acknowledged
that for the area to undergo successful economic regeneration, major improvements
by way of new road building was essential. Whilst the GLC never got as
far as building them, the Docklands Highways which were opened in May
1993 effectively achieved what the GLC had sought - a series of major
linked roads dramatically improving access to and within Docklands as
originally conceived in the mid-1970's. In surveying the area, the alignments
chosen for the roads were inevitable. For the most part they avoided built-up
areas, being routed through vacant and derelict land and in the one location
where a road through an already established residential area was necessary,
in Limehouse, the road was built underground. Finally the Jubilee Line
Extension due to open in 1998 will provide London Docklands with the public
transport and road infrastructure to match the City and West End.
Top of Page
The Enterprise Zone
It was a key part of Government and LDDC policy to create
jobs by encouraging private investment into an area which had not benefited
from such investment for many decades. The Enterprise Zone (EZ) was intended
to draw investment into Docklands away from London's more prosperous areas.
It was recognised that special measures had to be taken if funds then
being attracted to green field developments, to the New Towns and to the
prosperous provincial towns of south east England were to be diverted
to the East End. The Isle of Dogs Enterprise Zone was designated in April
1982 and lasted for ten years. There were no planning controls (with minor
exceptions), rates (property taxes) were paid by Government and capital
investments could be written off against a company's tax liability. Whilst
the EZ got off to a slow start, the achievements over that ten year period,
including the first phase of Canary Wharf, were, by any standards, exceptional.
 Despite
the lack of normal planning control the LDDC inherited much of the vacant
land within the EZ and could therefore use its land ownership powers in
directing development. Gordon Cullen was commissioned to assess the Isle
of Dogs and together with the LDDC prepared design guidelines for the
area. It was this guide together with development briefs for individual
sites that the LDDC used to encourage and direct investment. At the outset
is was virtually impossible to get any private investment but slowly,
as the perception of the area started to change and as access and public
transport improved, tentative developments were proposed. The first phase
of regeneration on the Isle of Dogs that can be seen in Millharbour and
Mastmaker Road was the result. The success of this and the start of construction
of the DLR prompted the second phase of development along Marsh Wall at
South Quay in the mid-1980's by which time the proposals for Canary Wharf
were emerging.
Top of Page
Industry and Employment
By 1981 the economic decline of the docks had impacted
upon the whole of the area's economy. While many firms had survived and,
indeed, survive today, others operated on a marginal existence and soon
succumbed to the inevitable. While the LDDC was keen that existing firms
should not be forced out, many benefited from the sale of freehold and
leasehold properties and were able to relocate to better serviced sites
elsewhere. It was important to keep as many jobs in the area as possible
and the LDDC promoted a large (50 acres) new industrial park just north
of the UDA at Cody Road which was well serviced and allowed Docklands
firms which wanted to relocate to stay in the East End. However, bit by
bit the traditional industrial base of the area declined. The one significant
industrial area remaining, on the riverside in Silvertown, despite both
public and private investment over the years, and significant investment
by a number of businesses, continues to lose jobs over all.
The LDDC was keen to widen the employment opportunities
available in the area. In addition to the new jobs being brought into
Docklands through commercial developments mainly centred on the Isle of
Dogs, London Bridge City and the western part of Wapping, providing professional
and clerical jobs, the LDDC also encouraged and supported industrial relocation
into the area notably, newspaper printing and communications to underpin
and diversify the area's economy. This was supported by the LDDC's education
and training initiatives entered in to with the local authorities, businesses
and developers.
Top of Page
Housing
Before 1981 the major house builders concentrated their
development activities beyond the inner city in the suburbs, beyond the
green belt and in the provinces. With the encouragement of Government
and the LDDC they took a very tentative step into the Metropolis and commenced
building houses for sale in Beckton in mid 1981. To the surprise of many,
and the relief of the builders and the LDDC, the houses were an instant
success. With the further encouragement of the LDDC this led the house
builders to test the market in what were perceived to be more difficult
areas, the Surrey Docks, the Isle of Dogs and finally Wapping. Such was
the success of these ventures that the house builders were encouraged
to stay and acquire their own sites for development so maintaining the
momentum of regeneration. House builders on LDDC land had to give priority
to local residents and insure that initially 40% of new housing was affordable
to people on average wages.
More than 21,600 homes have been built over the last
16 years which have dramatically increased the diversity of tenure of
the stock available. Prior to 1981, to "move up" you had to
'move out" and the  economically
active and financially prosperous families and individuals left the area.
The choice of housing in Docklands was a council flat or a council flat!
Now more than 43% of the housing stock is in owner occupation
as well as a sizeable portion managed by Housing Associations. On sites
previously owned by the LDDC, priority was given to tenants of the Docklands
boroughs to buy new homes at affordable prices (more than 50% of people
moving into Docklands since 1981 have relocated from elsewhere in Newham,
Southwark and Tower Hamlets). The vacated council properties have been
re-let to families on the councils' waiting lists. Additionally, the LDDC
has funded the refurbishment of a large part of the existing local authority
owned housing stock most in need, investing £43 million to improve
8,000 units.
The vacant l9th century warehouses of Bermondsey, Wapping
and the Isle of Dogs have played an important role in the repopulation
of Docklands and provided beneficial uses for redundant buildings. Pioneering
initiatives, particularly in Limehouse, showed the potential of these
fine buildings but early developments were not universally successful.
Then, through the LDDC's introduction of the major house builders to the
older areas of Docklands, the momentum gathered pace and 'warehouse conversions"
entered the vocabulary of fashionable estate agents.
Top of Page
The Creation of Viable Communities
To support these key strategies priority has been given
to community development with an emphasis on education and training. New
schools and colleges have been built and a university campus is being
planned. Facilities for training and education have been enhanced and
funding for new initiatives has been given. The fruits of this investment
are now beginning to emerge with the staying on rate for pupils in Tower
Hamlets after the age of 16 leaping from 39% to 70% between 1989 and 1993.
 The
LDDC's objective was the regeneration of the half dozen or so city districts
which make up the UDA. As well as jobs, housing and schools, these areas
needed shops, health care, recreation and cultural amenities. Each of
the key development areas of Docklands now has a new shopping centre opened
in the last 15 years; in addition a brand new hypermarket, serving a large
part of East London, opened in Beckton in 1993.
About 12% of the developed part of the UDA is public
open space including a comprehensive network of walkways providing more
than 24km (15 miles) of waterside access. In addition the retained docks
and canals make up a further 13% of the UDA. More than 150,000 trees have
been planted as part of the Corporation's continuing programme of landscape
works. The LDDC has developed water sports and recreation centres in Wapping,
on the Isle of Dogs, in the Surrey Docks and in the Royal Docks. Health
centres have been built or expanded and there has been an active programme
of public arts sponsorship. There are urban farms in the Surrey Docks,
on the Isle of Dogs (Mudchute) and at Beckton, the latter two areas having
large newly built riding schools and stables as well.
Top of Page
Consultation and Participation
Much has been written about the extent to which regeneration
in Docklands has benefited the original residents and arguments will continue
as to whether if carried out differently the result would have been better.
We will never know the answer to this. What we do know however is that
the physical and social infrastructure now in Docklands matches any in
London. In seeing through the programme we have striven to ensure that
improvements were not just imposed but that they reflected the expressed
wishes of the people of Docklands. To insure that local people had good
access to the IDDC, local offices were set up during the critical period
from 1985 to 1991 when much of the detailed planning and development work
was carried out at a local level. This access by the local people often
showed that there was a difference of opinion between the local residents
as to the best course of action. As a result of the consultation carried
out by LDDC planners road schemes have been altered or scrapped and developments
have been completely redesigned in response to local concerns. The  refurbishment
of housing estates by the LDDC has been prioritised by the local authorities
and carried out to the wishes of the residents. The LDDC has established
and maintained liaison with residents' and community groups during this
process to maximise the opportunities for them to benefit. Clinics, community
centres, schools and colleges, nurseries, creches and youth clubs have
been built with funding from the LDDC. In addition training and employment
initiatives have been developed by the LDDC in partnership with the local
authorities and local businesses.
With the exception of the Isle of Dogs Enterprise Zone
which affected about 11 % of the area of Docklands between 1982 and 1992
the Town and Country Planning Acts apply to the Urban Development Area
as they do to the rest of the country. The LDDC agreed a code of consultation
with the three Docklands boroughs originally allowing two weeks to comment
on planning applications. In 1989 this was increased to three weeks for
Tower Hamlets and extended to Southwark and Newham in 1991. In addition
public notices in local newspapers, site notices and letters to nearby
residents and businesses are used to publicise planning applications.
All objections are considered thoroughly and frequently result in changes
being made to submitted schemes. The LDDC is subject to the scrutiny of
the local Government Ombudsman. Despite the number of often large and
complex planning applications processed by the LDDC, only once has the
Ombudsman found grounds for criticism; and then not concerning approval
of an office block or private housing development but a new local health
centre.
Top of Page
Urban Design
Having established the credibility of the Docklands
as a viable, even desirable district of London, the LDDC were able to
impose increasingly higher design standards. While it was always important
to strike a balance between a theoretical architectural "ideal"
and the developer's "bottom line', as the pace of development gathered
momentum, investors began to realise the added value that design and quality
of specification could yield.
The LDDC's aim is the creation of coherent and diverse
yet distinct and identifiable districts similar to those which constitute
other metropolitan areas. This is achieved through the preparation of
development frameworks, design briefs and a positive approach to development
control. The design of a clearly defined public realm is critically important
to our comprehension of the city; it helps orientation, creates a "sense
of place" and greatly assists our enjoyment of cities. It is important
that spaces are designed to create a focus or to enable a "change
of pace" from the hectic activity adjoining a railway station to
the quiet solitude of a city park or square for example.
The single characteristic which is common to all established
city areas is that they have achieved a level of complexity which makes
them interesting and enlightening places to be. To a great extent such
complexity can only be established over time, as the city absorbs the
diverse characteristics of its citizens and adapts to their changing desires
and aspirations. In remaining open to different development possibilities
the LDDC has sought to create an environment where such complexity can
grow. However, in the regeneration of large areas of vacant land order
rather than chaos is essential. This can be assisted by ensuring that
by planning and design, the buildings and the spaces created recognise
their context. The positive aspects of the area's character should be
acknowledged and enhanced, thus avoiding anonymity. Orientation is provided
by the introduction or protection of landmarks, and the creation of a
hierarchy of routes and spaces within an overall landscape strategy. The
ordering of space and its definition by buildings, landscape and other
such devices becomes a key objective.
A continuity and harmony of scale and the controlled
use of materials become the means by which a civilised cityscape is achieved.
The LDDC has sought to ensure that frontages at street level contribute
interest, particularly in predominantly commercial districts where as
far as possible blank facades are avoided.
The LDDC considers that the context is the starting
point. An understanding of the constraints and opportunities has a fundamental
bearing on the design solution; the site configuration, ownership, boundaries,
street layout, open spaces, adjoining buildings and the site's orientation,
all must be considered. The assessment starts with what and who is there
and not with a vacuum; design solutions must address the relevant community
and social issues. In some instances, however, little or no context exists
or that which does is inappropriate for whatever reason. In those circumstances
the development of a public realm, the streets and spaces, become the
starting point.
Continuity is essential in the regeneration of such
a large and complex area; development must enable evolution so that lessons
that have been learnt can be applied and built upon. The encouragement
of 'cohesion" and the ambition for betterment seem critical.
Diversity is a vital ingredient of well established
urban areas both in terms of land uses and building types. Whilst it is
important that amenity is protected, the LDDC has fostered the development
of different land uses and allowed their interrelationship to develop.
However, at the same time, the context should not impose constraints on
the planners' views over the avoidance of historic pastiche, thereby resulting
in loss of diversity in building forms.
Top of Page
Accessibility should be both spatially and visually
continuous and, above all, well ordered. Orientation is a result of this.
Landmarks and spatial hierarchies reinforce systems rather than create
them. A coherent system is also a safe one. Accessibility is critically
important not merely in terms of providing public and private transport
but also in recognising the differing needs of the citizens, who should
feel part of their neighbourhood.
Intensity of development distinguishes the city from
the suburb. Town planning legislation and theory has sought to reduce
the densities at which residential and commercial development is allowed.
While this has enabled the worst consequences of over crowding and "town
cramming" to be avoided, such policies have resulted in the creation
of waste space in the city and the dilution of urban character. Land is
becoming increasingly scarce and it is essential that the land use of
our cities is optimised. As a consequence of increasing the intensity
of urban development we have the opportunity to enhance the prospects
for locally based shops, restaurants and recreational facilities which
can serve larger populations, reduce the necessity of journeys by car
and improve the viability of public transport.
Flexibility is important to ensure that cities are able
to accommodate new uses and its buildings and spaces can be physically
adapted to meet new demands, supported by flexible planning and control
policies. Such flexibility contributes to the continuous evolution of
the city while minimising interruption and disturbance.
Much of Docklands is dominated by areas of water. The
scale of these spaces, both river and docks, creates a conflict between
the fronts and backs of buildings. The scale of development and the continuity
of the design vocabulary and materials can assist in overcoming this.
Lighting, advertising and signage can make a positive contribution to
both our understanding and enjoyment of urban areas but control and order
within the given context is essential if confusion and chaos is to be
avoided. There exists a frontage (a quasi street) on the docksides of
equal importance to the actual streetscape. Architects have encountered
difficulties on these sites between docks and roads in adequately addressing
both "frontages". As a result car parking wastelands sometimes
adjoining the road in order that a quasi "street frontage" is
created on the quayside. Elsewhere, car parking has been located under
buildings, which has led to dead frontages at ground level on both street
and quay relieved only by ventilation grilles. One of the special features
of Docklands urban design must therefore be the recognition that both
the street and the quaysides have to be better understood and given equal
respect by designers.
These issues were the subject of a particular study
in the development framework plans prepared in the 1980's for the Royal
Docks. The work which sought to learn from the early developments on the
isle of Dogs, around the Millwall and West India Docks, formed the basis
of the infrastructure built by the LDDC to support the subsequent development.
The high quality landscape and transport infrastructure in the Royal Docks
underlined the LDDC's commitment to securing the best possible standards
in the new development it sought to attract there.
Top of Page
Design Guidelines
To assist and inform people wanting to make planning
applications the LDDC has published a series of design guidelines. These
provide a unified approach to a series of key issues and are applicable
across the whole of the UDA. The topics were selected on the basis of
the frequency of enquiries received and the appropriateness of a design
guideline document to communicate the LDDC's advice. The first publication
produced provided a check list for architects designing for access and
mobility to and within buildings. Subsequent publications provided guidance
to householders on altering and extending their homes in order to protect
the character of their neighbourhood; to retailers on shopfront design
to co-ordinate and avoid clutter and unsightly street frontages; and to
advertising agents on signage and advertising which gives clear guidance
as to when advertising hoardings may be acceptable and when they are not.
The series was completed by guidelines devoted to two key areas of urban
design -landscape and waterfront design.
Top of Page
Landscape
Whilst the character of new development in Docklands
has reinforced the area's urban context, the diversification of land uses
has been encouraged, providing a mix of uses across the area, locating
commercial, industrial and residential developments in close proximity
to each other. The strategy for Docklands is focused on the communities
that exist there and is set out in the development frameworks prepared
by the LDDC for each of the major development areas within the UDA. An
important component in the LDDC's land use strategy has been open space.
Approximately 13 per cent of the area of London Docklands is water. The
12 per cent of the land area that is open space, includes a network of
waterside walkways which apart from creating safe routes within the UDA
enable the full amenity of the Thames and the docks to be appreciated.
 As
noted earlier, in 1981 Docklands was dominated by derelict and vacant
land and enclosed water areas which remained after the closure of the
docks in East London, through the 1960's and 1970's. Many of the buildings
associated with the docks had been demolished at the time of their closure
and many of the housing areas redeveloped during the 1950's and 1960's
featured high rise blocks of flats. The UDA was largely devoid of environmental
quality and visual coherence. Even the remaining areas of the docks and
riverside wharfs were inaccessible and the remnants of nineteenth century
buildings were largely abandoned and neglected.
The LDDC sought to provide the infrastructure and create
an environment in which investment would be encouraged. While the LDDC
acquired or inherited much of the vacated land, the majority of building
would be undertaken by private investors. The task of the LDDC's landscape
strategy was, therefore, twofold. Firstly, it had to significantly enhance
the environmental quality of Docklands by landscaping, the refurbishment
of key buildings and other environmental improvements. Secondly, the creation
of new parks, the enhancement of existing open spaces and the creation
of pedestrian and cycle routes to provide access principally to the river
and the docks for the first time took priority.
The importance of environmental quality is fundamental
to the successful regeneration of Docklands. Whilst inevitably some of
the new development has fallen short of the architectural standard of
the best of Docklands' new buildings, the landscaping has achieved a consistently
good quality. The LDDC has maintained a policy, originally set out in
1982, of securing high quality landscaping, both in the infrastructure
work it has carried out and in demanding that landscaping is given proper
and detailed consideration as part of all planning applications. This
is a unique aspect of the LDDC's approach to regeneration.
Top of Page
While the development of Canary Wharf had the single
most significant impact on the regeneration of Docklands across the board,
it had a particularly crucial role in establishing standards of landscape
quality. The design, specification, construction and maintenance of the
public realm at Canary Wharf is unmatched by any commercial development
in this country and it has lent considerable support for the initiatives
of the LDDC to promote a high standard of landscape design throughout
Docklands. The object of the LDDC's landscape strategy was to co-ordinate
and unify the design of the UDA. It sought to provide physical and visual
linkages within and across the area. One of the dominant visual characteristics
of Docklands in 1981 was panoramic views across vacant land. In recognising
that many of these vistas would be obscured with the development of the
area, the LDDC sought to identify key vistas to existing landmarks and
explore new opportunities for the creation of new landmarks which would
provide visual links and assist orientation as new development proceeded.
The landscape strategy sought to maximise the importance
of the Thames to Docklands by establishing links to it and along its banks
and by protecting or creating visual links from one side of the river
to the other. View corridors were established focused on key buildings
including the church towers of St. George in the East, St. Anne's Limehouse,
All Saints Poplar and St. Mark's Silvertown. Tower Bridge, Stave Hill
in the Surrey Docks and the Beckton Alps are also important landmarks
and aid orientation. The single most dominant landmark in Docklands is
of course the Canary Wharf tower which provides visual links and orientation
with the whole of the UDA both north and south of the river and beyond
and gives an identity to Docklands. The landscape strategy also identifies
a number of local landmarks which provide a focus and identity to individual
communities. The tower of St. John's in Wapping is a good example of such
a landmark.
The landscaping infrastructure created the context in
which new development would be designed. As the LDDC believed that the
successful regeneration of the area would be dependent upon the achievement
of quality in design, it sought to raise standards in its infrastructure
works that would give the lead to the development that followed. Furthermore
a strong landscape infrastructure would assist in achieving the coherence
that the area previously lacked.
All open space should have a recognisable purpose, clearly
defined in the landscape design. The landscape can contribute positively
to the social, communal and commercial life of Docklands by establishing
an attractive and healthy living and working environment which caters
for an appropriate and relevant range of outdoor activities. Provision
might be made, for example, for the varying requirements of different
age groups ranging from noisy play for the very young to contemplative
sitting for the elderly.
Docklands' existing parks, churchyards and other open
spaces have been supplemented by a number of new public gardens laid out
by the LDDC. These include Kings Wharf and Rectory Gardens in Limehouse,
Cherry Gardens in Bermondsey and Millwall Dock Old Entrance, St John's
Park, and Deards on the Isle of Dogs. In addition a number of temporary
open spaces have been made permanent notably Wapping Green and a new park
for the East End is being laid out in Silvertown by the river at the Thames
Barrier.
Although in many cases the existing parks had quality
and character, they generally needed substantial improvement. The LDDC
has promoted refurbishment of a number of parks with the aim to provide
a balanced range of facilities to cater for as many sections of the community
as possible. Where these uses are not compatible with each other they
must be accommodated separately. In Wapping, for example, several local
parks have been refurbished with this principle in mind. St Johns Churchyard
has been designed as a quiet secluded open space where people can sit
and relax; Wapping Gardens provides a range of facilities for young children
and their parents, and Waterside Gardens includes generous seating to
take advantage of the riverside location.
Further east the LDDC based its development framework
for the Royal Docks on a comprehensive landscape infrastructure. Built
during the late 1980's and early 1990's the parks, landscaped corridors
and dock  side areas
provided a high quality context for the area's principal development sites.
The emphasis on quality reinforced the view that to optimise the potential
of the huge sites adjoining the Royal Victoria and the Royal Albert Docks
the highest standards of development should be sought.
Docklands is largely urban and it is appropriate that
the landscape should reflect and strengthen this character. Emphasis is
placed on hard landscape, using good quality materials which are carefully
and robustly detailed. It is of paramount importance that the public realm
initially achieves a consistent identity through the use of related materials
and site furniture, so that adjacent sites are compatible with each other.
The LDDC therefore established a preferred vocabulary of materials and
details to guide rather than to be prescriptive. The LDDC produced "Landscape
Design Guidelines" to assist developers and their designers in the
preparation of schemes which respect the special characteristics of Docklands.
The LDDC recognises the aesthetic and physical value
of planting. Due to the largely urban character of Docklands, the opportunities
for extensive soft landscape treatment are relatively few and need to
be maximised. Within the urban context, however, there are many opportunities
for planting which can be extensively used to structure and furnish the
area.
Top of Page
Ecology
The LDDC promotes ecological parks such as those at
Stave Hill in the Surrey Docks and on the Blackwall Peninsula on the River
Lea and at East India Dock Basin. It also promotes and encourages the
planting of native species to create areas of woodland where the opportunity
arises, principally on road verges and embankments. In general, it is
important that the urban character of Docklands is recognised, although
'Rus in Urbe' is encouraged where a softer approach is justified. Parts
of Surrey Docks and Beckton, where development is of comparatively low
density, are appropriate for this treatment.
The LDDC is opposed to the use of tropical hardwoods
from non-renewable resources and to the exploitation of wetlands for peat
extraction. Developers are urged to use hardwoods only from sustainable
sources and to use substitutes for peat in horticultural works. Where
possible, the use of home-grown timber is encouraged.
Top of Page
Water and the Waterside
Docklands is defined and dominated by water; it forms
the most important landscape element. The LDDC has a policy for the provision
of public access to the water's edge wherever possible and is establishing
comprehensive pedestrian networks through dockside and riverside landscape
projects. Sites which front the water are generally expected to be accessible
to the public and to respect the range of waterside materials and details
established by the LDDC. It is policy that dock and river related artefacts
should be retained wherever feasible and incorporated into the landscape.
The LDDC has always been committed to opening up the
waterside to the public, so that everyone can enjoy this tremendous asset.
In 1981 only about 2.55 km (1.6 miles) of public access to the waterside
was available in Docklands. This had increased to 28 km (17.5 miles) by
mid 1997. Much experience has been gained about the design of the waterside
in terms of landscape, built form and design for safety in discussion
with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. This collective
experience is reflected in the guidelines which will help to ensure a
waterside environment of the highest quality throughout Docklands.
Notwithstanding its policy on public access to the waterside,
the LDDC is aware that such access is not compatible with many commercial
uses of wharves. The policy is thus implemented only in areas not used
for industrial purposes, where public access would be unsafe, and is not
intended to frustrate or otherwise blight such uses.
Top of Page
Development Frameworks
The area covered by the UDA includes a number of quite
distinct and established districts. In recognition of this the LDDC has
adopted a policy of preparing separate strategies for each of the principal
development areas within the UDA. A total of 15 development strategies
have been prepared for areas such as Limehouse, Wapping, the Surrey Docks,
Greenland and South Docks, Hay's Wharf (London Bridge City), Leamouth
and for the Royal Docks, using both external consultants and in-house
staff. These, unlike many earlier Docklands studies, developed from the
basis of what was there. These development strategies elaborate the LDDC's
strategic objectives and are aimed at creating distinct communities based
upon the area's historic and geographical characteristics. The remaining
buildings of quality have been recognised and cherished. For example,
grants have been provided for the refurbishment of Hawksmoor's two magnificent
churches, St. George-in-the-East and St. Anne's, for the Grade 1 building
in Western Dock known as the Skin Floor (Tobacco Dock) and for many more.
New Conservation Areas have been designated.
 The
fundamental planning policies for Docklands were set out in the LDDC's
198/82 Annual Report which indicated opportunities for new housing developments
and employment and the major highways and rail infrastructure necessary
to serve the area. The LDDC's plan included, of course, the Enterprise
Zone which inevitably, as was the intention, attracted new businesses.
While this area represented only 11 % of the UDA, such has been its dramatic
success, that it has drawn most of the attention. During its designation
the LDDC responded flexibly, within the spirit of the Enterprise Zone
scheme and regeneration goals, to the major opportunities offered by developments
such as Canary Wharf.
The LDDC's aim to create districts of individual character
has been achieved by adopting a flexible and responsive attitude to development
opportunities over the more than 20 year projected timescale for the regeneration
of Docklands. This approach is crucial to accommodate the changes which
will necessarily occur over such a period of time as the area develops.
When they were prepared Area Development Frameworks
were widely publicised locally and public exhibitions mounted to explain
the LDDC's ideas. They had three main functions:
(i) to inform people who live and work in the area that
the LDDC has considered the future development and completion of the area
in a comprehensive manner, and to provide an opportunity for those with
an interest to comment on the LDDC's strategy;
(ii) to inform future investors, both developers and
people who are considering moving to the area, of the LDDC's aspirations
for the area; thus providing assurance and continuity.
(iii) to provide a clear statement of the LDDC's policies
for the regeneration of the area as a comprehensive and coherent input
into the statutory planning process which remained the responsibility
of the borough councils.
Frameworks were used by the LDDC to promote regeneration
and were not proscriptive. They sought to raise the profile of the area
concerned and generate investment interest by illustrating possibilities
rather than making precise proposals. The frameworks provided broad development
guidelines which may, where appropriate, be followed up with urban design
studies and development briefs for specific areas and individual sites.
At this stage the conc erns
expressed during the consultation process were addressed and ideas put
forward by local residents and businesses considered.
The guidelines and objectives built upon the established
character of the area represented by major buildings, landscapes and street
patterns.
Landowners, whose sites are specifically referred to
within the document, were notified that the Framework was being prepared
and provided with the extract specific to their ownership prior to publication.
Comments, when received, were therefore incorporated as necessary.
List of Development Frameworks (Separate Page)
Top of Page
Design Studies
The regeneration of such a large and diverse urban area,
significant parts of which are already settled, required a sensitive approach.
A large number of sites in Docklands exist within established or emerging
residential and commercial areas where the LDDC has sought to consolidate
and enhance the area's visual  quality.
New building is necessary to mend and extend the existing urban grain,
much of which had been destroyed by wartime bombing and subsequent comprehensive
redevelopment during the two decades from 1945. More than fifty detailed
studies have been carried out to establish the opportunities for development
and environmental enhancement for specific areas within the UDA.
Circumstances vary considerably, and whereas some infill
sites need to be developed to reinforce building lines and will be constrained
by the height and massing of adjoining properties, other sites offer the
opportunity to be developed to provide focus and orIentation. This does
not normally mean that excessive levels of development are supported in
such locations, but that the site offers the opportunity for a distinct
design solution, for example to acknowledge an important gateway or to
create a local landmark. The LDDC has sought to ensure that where such
opportunities arise new development enhances its setting and can be properly
integrated with adjoining, existing and future developments. Urban design
studies were required to be prepared prior to detailed building design
commencing to confirm and justify the site's suitability for a particular
design approach. These studies explore opportunities for the creation
or enhancement of the public realm within and in the proximity of the
development site, as well as establishing clear architectural guidelines.
List of Design Studies (Maps and Tables
Page)
Top of Page
Architecture
The successful long-term regeneration of Docklands must
include an emphasis on the achievement of a high standard of design in
all development projects. This is easier where the LDDC's commissioned
work directly or where it is the landowner, but applies to all development.
It required the LDDC to take every opportunity to create a culture in
which design was see to be an important ingredient in the overall regeneration
strategy.
 The
decline of East London's economy which accompanied the closure of the
docks contributed to the image of the area as being neglected and down
at heel. Although the area contained many fine buildings, the area was
dismissed as lacking in any quality at all. By the mid1960s, large areas
of 19th century housing had been cleared as part of the Government's slum
clearance programme which was accompanied by the development of large
new public housing estates often designed around tower blocks and universally
providing flats in place of the houses with gardens that they replaced.
It is true that the houses that were demolished lacked many of the basic
amenities that modern housing should provide but similar housing elsewhere
in London, particularly to the west, was not destroyed and in fact now
has been upgraded with improved and modern amenities to provide extremely
desirable accommodation much sought after by London's wealthier residents.
In a similar way the major buildings of the East End
including the huge l9th century warehouse buildings of the dockyard areas
were dismissed by historians and the architectural establishment of not
having any quality or being of any importance. As a consequence and regrettably
many fine ranges of warehouses were lost during the 1960s and 1970s.
It was against this background that the task of regeneration
given to the LDDC must be seen. Not only had the area been dismissed as
one of virtually irreversible economic decline, it was also viewed of
having nothing of quality within it. As a result many potential investors
and indeed the existing local authorities, set their sights extremely
low when considering appropriate design standards for new development
in the area. By contrast the LDDC took the view that if permanent regeneration
was to be achieved design and environmental standards would need to be
raised to compete with those established elsewhere in the capital. Indeed,
it is the LDDC's aim to surpass those design standards and to achieve
a degree of excellence which set the area apart from neighbouring and
competing districts.
It must be remembered, however, that such aspirations
had to be balanced against the need to firstly establish and then maintain
the momentum of development. Design quality is not the only criteria against
which proposals need to be judged and the LDDC's wider objectives to secure
social, economic and physical regeneration had to be considered as well.
The LDDC therefore had to set new design standards and
encourage, and sometimes force, investors to meet them. There are three
ways in which the LDDC was able to achieve this:
Top of Page
Direct Commissions
Although it was Government policy that the majority
of new development within the UDA would be funded by private investment,
the LDDC was charged with the task of creating a physical environment
which would create the right setting to encourage such investment. This
involved the construction of transport and community infrastructure where
the LDDC as the commissioning body could appoint the best architects and
designers. For example, Richard Rogers, John Outram and Nicholas Grimshaw,
have all been commissioned by the LDDC to design pumping stations. Other
public buildings including nursery schools, district administrative buildings,
watersports centres and youth clubs have been built by the LDDC to the
designs of a number of eminent architects, including Tchaik Chassay, Kit
Allsop and Michael Squire.
A good example of the importance that quality design
has played in the regeneration of London Docklands is the programme of
design commissions that was arranged by the LDDC for a series of seven
bridges to improve pedestrian linkages within the Docklands area.
Top of Page
Development Agreements
Although the LDDC did not own all of the land within
the UDA, a substantial part of the former dock estate and other lands
held in public ownership were vested in the LDDC. While it was not intended
that much of this land would be developed by the LDDC directly, the LDDC
was able to determine the terms of its disposal. By this process the LDDC
could ensure that the design intentions of a prospective developer were
acceptable and then, through a legal agreement, require them to build
the approved scheme within a fixed period of time.
Much of the land so disposed of has been developed for
residential use and it has been a priority of the LDDC to encourage private
house building in the area previously dominated by local authority housing.
To achieve this two hurdles had to be overcome. Firstly, before 1981 very
few of Britain's major house builders had built in the inner city. Their
reputations had been established by development on green field sites or
in and around new or expanding provincial towns. Secondly, they did not
normally employ the services of architects, relying upon their own in-house
teams of building designers. The LDDC therefore had to demonstrate not
only the commercial advantages of developing houses for sale within Docklands
but also the importance of achieving an appropriate quality of design.
This was done by the LDDC directly commissioning outline designs for some
of its key sites from leading firms of architects, including MacCormack,
Jamieson & Prichard, Darbourne & Dark and Jeremy Dixon. These
schemes set the standard which the LDDC encouraged the house builders
to follow.
 Whilst
the LDDC is obliged to achieve market value in the sale of its land it
does, as well, consider the quality of the scheme design in its assessment.
The normal process of site disposal therefore is to seek competitive submissions
from a number of house builders for each of its sites.
Those submissions are then assessed on the basis of
a financial bid and design quality. If satisfactory designs are accompanied
by acceptable financial bids, the way is clear to enter into a development
agreement with that company. If, however, a high financial bid is accompanied
by a poor architectural scheme the LDDC has the option of either retendering
the site or requiring the developer to provide a new design which may
result in a different architect being appointed.
Top of Page
Development Control
While the responsibilities of preparing statutory plans
for the Docklands area remains with the local authorities, the function
of development control is administered by the LDDC. This means that all
building proposals requiring planning consent within the UDA have to be
submitted to and approved by the LDDC. These controls are no different
from those of any other local planning authority elsewhere in the country
and the ability of the LDDC to dictate design standards is limited. They
do however provide an essential control over the general quality of development
being promoted within Docklands. In addition the planning  frameworks
for the main development areas and the design guides provide information
and guidance to developers and their architects. Through discussion and
encouragement the LDDC is able to persuade developers to improve the quality
of their design submissions. This task became easier as time passed as
not only did developers understand the design requirements of the LDDC
but they could also see the success of other schemes already completed
and the added value that good design achieves. An appreciation of the
importance of design can also be seen in the way in which the LDDC encouraged
the protection and enhancement of its most important buildings and districts.
Furthermore, the LDDC does not believe that the protection and refurbishment
of buildings should be confined only to those of historic and architectural
value. A large part of the area's stock of public housing had lacked proper
management and maintenance. The LDDC therefore established programmes
with the three Dockland's Boroughs, the owners of that housing, to undertake
refurbishment of the estates on a prioritised basis. While these works
concentrated on the refurbishment of the buildings and the enhancement
of their setting through improved landscaping, the objective has also
been to make buildings more efficient. Poor standards of heat insulation
were common in the existing stock of council flats. The priority has been
to substantially improve this through refurbishment. Average fuel savings
of up to 25% have been achieved. The significance of this level of savings
to people on low incomes is, of course, much greater than for middle income
or wealthier families. Additionally, through discussions with the local
authorities and tenants organisations, improvement to estate management
has also been secured.
 As
has been noted the Isle of Dogs Enterprise Zone which was set up in 1982
and lasted for 10 years was a special case. Normal planning controls were
lifted, therefore the LDDC as the local planning authority had very limited
control over design quality. There were some limited exceptions where
"Enterprise Zone Consent' was required. "Sensitive Sub-Zones'
were established around the perimeter of the area to protect the amenity
of adjoining residential areas and "Highway Safeguarding Zones"
were identified to enable road improvements to proceed. "Bad neighbour"
uses required permission as did buildings more than 120 feet (36.6m) high.
These controls were rather modest and where it was not the landowner the
LDDC had to rely on its powers of persuasion to convince developers of
the advantages of good design.
Top of Page
Urban Design Advisory Group
In order to underline the importance the LDDC attaches
to securing good quality design, a panel of eminent architects and other
designers with an interest in the urban environment were appointed to
advise the LDDC on design matters. The Group meet on a regular basis throughout
the year to consider key projects at critical stages in their design development.
In addition, members of the panel are co-opted to advise on major schemes
such as the West Silvertown Urban Village and the Exhibition Centre at
Royal Victoria Dock. Members of the Group also participate in the assessment
of the LDDC's design competitions. Major schemes on prominent sites are
also considered for reference to the Royal Fine Art Commission with which
the LDDC has established a good working relationship. However, unlike
the Urban Design Advisory Group, the Commission provides more formal advice
on matters of design. The LDDC therefore sees the roles of these two Groups
as being complementary to each other with the Advisory Group providing
guidance on general design matters and preliminary advice to developers
and their architects while the Royal Fine Art Commission focuses on schemes
of regional significance offering formal advice to the LDDC during the
process of consultation which follows submission of a planning application.
Top of Page
Conservation
The regeneration of London Docklands was initiated primarily
for economic and social reasons but it created a unique opportunity to
conserve the architectural heritage of a large part of London's East End,
to invigorate the historic urban fabric with new activity, and to enhance
the character and appearance of those areas of special architectural interest.
The area had been devastated by neglect and by the demolition of many
of the buildings which had served the docks and wharfs of the Port of
London. The buildings that survived represented an enormous task if they
were to be saved for posterity as a record of the 'Greatest Port in the
World".
From the outset the LDDC took the view that the surviving
areas of architectural and historic interest should be preserved and integrated
into the massive programme of investment so as to contribute to the permanent
regeneration of the area and to provide a continuing link between the
past and the future. It was not always easy to convince the owners of
derelict buildings that their property must be preserved. However, through
a combination of grants and legal agreements resulting from planning permissions
granted for conversion and change of use, the LDDC has ensured that the
vast majority of Docklands' surviving historic buildings have been saved.
The designation of conservation areas has ensured a stable planning environment
and allowed landowners and developers to have confidence and reasonable
certainty of the status of their land or buildings. Equally important,
they have provided an assurance to the public and to the local communities
that such areas will be protected and that appropriate environmental improvements
will be undertaken.
As well as large tracts of derelict land and water the
LDDC also inherited a significant number of listed buildings including
the massive Grade I listed Georgian warehouses on the north quay of the
West India Docks. More than £20 million was invested in a major
programme of works to secure the structural stability of these buildings
and to protect them from further decay until new beneficial uses could
be found.
All of the 18 conservation areas in London Docklands
contain groups of buildings and associated landscape and waterscape of
architectural, historic and environmental interest. Six of the designated
areas have been classified as being of national significance, having been
identified by the Government as being of .outstanding' architectural or
historic interest. Much of the older areas in Docklands such as Wapping,
Limehouse, Bermondsey and Rotherhithe are in fact protected by being included
within conservation areas. Thus the regeneration which has taken place
in those areas has been conservation led.
The designation of conservation areas has provided the
means of retaining the character of the historic areas and of ensuring
that new buildings within those areas respect their surroundings. However,
the fact that an area within Docklands has been designated as a conservation
area does not mean that changes have not been permitted. It does however
mean that the area's special character has been recognised and that any
proposals for new buildings or the demolition of non-listed buildings
must comply with environmental objectives. New buildings and alterations
and extensions to existing buildings within Docklands' conservation areas
have had to be of a high standard of design and have to make a positive
contribution to the architectural character of the area. They need not
necessarily be designed as pastiche, though that may sometimes be appropriate.
On the contrary the interest and vitality which modern architecture can
contribute is often welcomed. Far from being discouraged, there have been
many cases where new buildings have been encouraged as a means of filling
gaps in street frontages, completing the enclosure of urban spaces and
helping to eradicate dereliction.
Existing buildings which are not in themselves 'listed'
or individually protected often contribute to the overall character and
environment of Docklands' conservation areas. The LDDC has accepted that
protection of such buildings is most important and as the local planning
authority is able to ensure that such buildings are not demolished. The
LDDC is able to help with repairs to unlisted buildings within conservation
areas by offering grants. Additionally the LDDC has carried out environmental
improvements in conservation areas such as landscaping and the enhancement
of roads.
The conservation of Docklands' architectural heritage
has been accepted as a key part of the LDDC's regeneration strategy. It
has been seen as playing a major constructive role in its regeneration
policies and programmes. The preservation and enhancement of the conservation
areas has ensured that the regeneration process has been woven into the
existing urban fabric to enrich the architectural heritage for future
generations.
List of Conservation Areas (Maps
and Tables Page)
Top of Page
Conclusion
Since 1981 and as a result of the LDDC's success the population of London Docklands has increased from 39,400
to more than 80,000 and the number of jobs has risen from 27,200 to 72,000.
21,600 new dwellings have been built and 2.3 million sq. meters of new
commercial buildings have been completed, allowing the number of businesses
to increase from 1,000 to 2,450. Public investment of £1.799 billion
has generated £6.5 billion of private investment. However the regeneration
of Docklands is far from complete. Despite the massive improvement that
can be witnessed to date it will take a generation for the full potential
of the area to be realised and all of the dereliction and decay eliminated.
 The
successful regeneration of a large urban area such as Docklands not only
requires substantial levels of public and private investment, improved
education and training and employment prospects, it also requires an improved
environmental quality. The achievement of high standards of design is
intended to result in residents and workers taking greater pride in their
neighbourhood. If an area is dismissed as second rate, warranting only
poor design standards, this will have a negative impact on other aspects
of community life. The challenge of regeneration has been to raise the
aspirations of the community as well as its expectations.
As a result of the development of the LDDC's design
strategies, projects within the UDA have received more than 90 awards
for planning and design.
The LDDC has sought to create diversity in terms of
development uses and opportunities not just for people and companies moving
into the area but for the indigenous residential population and business
communities as well. Massive investment has been attracted and this has
been to the benefit of local residents as well with improved housing,
shops, education and leisure services in addition to better employment
prospects and improved access within Docklands and to the rest of London.
In the regeneration of London Docklands we have seen
the historic imbalance between east and west London begin to be reversed.
For the first time in a hundred years investment by the public sector
in the East End has generated an even larger investment of private capital.
Diverse and sustainable districts have been created around the historic
Docklands communities which enable people to live and work in the same
area. The substantial numbers of new houses built has relieved pressure
for residential development in London's Green Belt and the LDDC has been
instrumental in encouraging private house builders into the inner city.
In addition Docklands has been able to accommodate the large footplate
buildings required by many international businesses today. Such buildings
would have been totally unacceptable in London's historic core of the
City and West End. More than this, the success of London Docklands has
provided the springboard for the regeneration of the Thames Gateway which
will maximise the region's opportunities for benefiting from its proximity
to Continental Europe. For the first time in a thousand years of London's
history the East End has become the right side of London
Top of Page
Acknowledgements
This document is the third in a series of monograph
hs written to record the work of the London Docklands
Development Corporation as it approaches the conclusion of its responsibilities
in March 1998. The series was originally proposed by Eric Sorensen, whilst
Chief Executive of the Corporation.
The monograph was written by Howard Sheppard, Director
of City Design and Planning from 1991 until 1997, who offers particular
thanks to Eric Sorensen, William Jack, the Chairman of the Corporation's
Planning Committee and Vicki Blyth, Head of Media and PR and colleagues
from within the City Design and Planning Team including Andrew Dick, Maurice
Peakin and Peter Wright for their help and support.
The particulars of this document are provided as a general
guide, and neither the author nor the LDDC accepts liability for errors
or omissions.
Top of Page
Other
Monographs in this
series, all published in 1997/98, are as follows
Top of Page
Completion Booklets
Top of Page
Annual Reports and Accounts
As with most organisations the Annual Reports and Accounts of the LDDDC are a good source of chronological information about the work of the Corporation and how it spent its money. Altogether these reports contain more than 1000 pages of information. These have been scanned and reproduced as zip files on our Annual Reports and Accounts page
Top of Page |
