a local legacy for hackney wick and fish island

A Local Legacy for

Hackney Wick and Fish Island By Fringe Benefits, an agency specialising in ensuring regeneration benefits the existing community.

Consultants:

Selina Hotwani, Sangbae Lee, Anri Makino, Lucinda Turner & Emma Vandore.

Contents

1. Introduction

1-1: Vision Statement

1-2: Executive Summary

1-3: The Area

2. Context

2-1: Land use

2-2: Heritages and conservation areas

2-3: The Olympic Legacy

3. Analysis

3-1: SWOT Analysis

3-2: Transport

3-3: Housing

3-4: Environment

3-5: Social issues

3-6: Economy

3-7: Education

3-8: Planning policies

4. Masterplan

4-1: Guiding principles

4-2: Masterplan

5. Projects

5-1: Project1- IBC

5-2: Project2- Station hub & main street

5-3: Project3- Car-lite development

5-4: Project4- Gateways & Connections

5-5: Project5- Housing & work;live units

6. Implementation

6-1: Delivery mechanisms

6-2: Funding

6-3: Phasing

6-4: Formal monitoring

6-5: Conclusion

6-6: Bibliography

Hackney Wick & Fish Island Regeneration GROUP06: Emma Vandore, Lucinda Turner, Selina Hotwani, Sangbae Lee & Anri Makino

Vision Statement

Vision Statement 1-1-1

“We want to ensure that London’s 2012 Olympic Games bequeaths a local legacy to the Hackney Wick and Fish Island (HWFI) community. That

means not only harnessing the new opportunities, but also valuing what is already there.

“Our vision for the area as it undergoes the Olympic changes concerns both place-making and economic diversity. HWFI is one of the most

deprived communities in London, and we want to make sure that local people are not priced out as the area gets richer. We also want to focus

attention on the physical place because where people live influences their life quality and life chances.

“We will therefore improve the physical environment of HWFI and build better connections to the surrounding area. We will also ensure that housing

remains affordable for long-term residents and for the newer artist community. And we will offer training courses to access the new jobs that are

being created as well as helping existing industries manage the changes that are happening in the area. We will also adapt our transport strategy to

ensure that car use does not escalate as the area gets richer. We will achieve this by giving local residents a greater voice in the decisions that

affect them.”


Executive Summary

/Preamble

Executive Summary/ Preamble 1-2-1

From Hackney Wick station you can see the Olympic stadium. The skyline is dotted with Olympic cranes.

Yet as close as they are, many residents don’t feel much of a connection to the Olympics, besides the

disruption. Some have already sold out to developers and left. Others are struggling with new traffic

restrictions that they fear may put them out of business. There are a few who battle with the myriad of

different agencies involved to try and make the Olympics work for them, but they feel vulnerable. Attract too

much attention and the landlord might increase the rent on a whim, or the authorities might notice that the

artists don’t have permission to use the loft space for live-work units. Many residents fear they won’t be able

to afford to live in the area for much longer.

It doesn’t need to be like this. HWFI was, in the words of Roger Little, who grew up nearby and has been

doing business in Hackney Wick for fifteen years, a bit of a “dump.” We think that is an exaggeration. It is an

area with real qualities, such as a sense of community, proximity to central London, and an attractive

streetscape. But it was, and still is, a deprived area with room for improvement. So why the hostility?

Too often, multi-million pound mega-projects like the Olympics serve the vested interests of consultants,

developers, large companies and politicians. Hosting the Olympics may bring international prestige, tourism

and infrastructure, but it won’t improve the lives of the poorest in society unless specific steps are taken.

Given that their immediate concern is making sure the Olympic Games happens on time and to budget,

authorities tend to overlook the interests of the local community. So far, the local community has seen

limited benefits from all the Olympic investment: only 12-13 percent of Olympic jobs are going to local people

in the five host boroughs.

"It's seen as the cool place to live now, everyone is coming."

Amy Harrison, 23, a waitress in The Hackney

Pearl cafe, on Prince Edward Rd. She has lived

in a converted warehouse in Hackney Wick

since February. She rents with four people for

£400 month. (Left)

Preamble


Executive Summary

The following document is a proposal for funding for a project designed to ensure HWFI sees real

and lasting benefits from the Olympic Games, prepared by regeneration agency Fringe Benefits.

Given that the legacy of the 2012 games is supposed to be London’s “top priority,”

(http://www.london.gov.uk/blog/why-london-olympics-mean-business), we think the proposals

come cheap. Many of them would eventually be self-funding.

The proposal is based around five projects which together cost up to £71 million.

Project 1: Secure community use for the International Broadcast Centre

Cost: £33.3 million

The main intervention is the planned purchase of the IBC from the Olympic Park Legacy Company for a

community trust. Some of the space will be reserved for community purposes, including start-up

support for small and medium sized enterprises, training services and a social enterprise hub. The rest

will be rented out. The revenues earned can be used to cross-subsidise other ventures elsewhere.

Project 2: A new neighbourhood hub

Cost: £10.5-13.1 million

HWFI lacks a focus. We will develop a new hub around the station. Part of this, involves the

development of a new main street on Prince Edward Road extending down Berkshire Road, connecting

the station with the existing limited retail activity on Felstead Street, and eventually to the waterside .

We plan to buy a shop space which would be an outreach of the community centre, ensuring footfall at

night through evening classes. During the day, better access to the water and a revamped boat house

will provide recreational activities. In the long term, this area might become a relaxed waterside haven,

in contrast to the frenetic shopping activity at nearby Stratford City.

We will improve the visibility of the station with better access. A lift, better signage and lighting would

also improve the station’s legibility. To encourage people to use the train rather than their car, we would

install cycle parking and a bike library.

Project 3: Car Lite Development

Cost: £14.5 million plus £25,000 annual salary

To limit the up-tick in car use that often accompanies greater wealth, Fringe Benefits has a

comprehensive strategy based around the car park that will be purchased from the OPLC. While part of

it will be rented commercially, one third of the spaces will be reserved for residents and a car club. A

part time member of staff, who will also be in charge of the bicycle library, will use the van for deliveries

or collections on the request of members. Bicycles will also be available for residents, who will be

encouraged to leave their cars in the carpark and cycle home.

We would also move the bus station closer to the station for more efficient multi-modal transport.

Project 4: Gateways/ Connections

Cost: £7.2-8.2 million

This project is to reduce the cut-off island like feel of the area by improving connections to key

surrounding destinations. We will also upgrade some of the pedestrian walkways and cycle paths. Project 5: Housing

Cost: £2 million

This final Fringe Benefits project is designed to ensure a better tenure mix and a continued supply of

affordable rented housing, with a focus on live-work units

/Strategy + Funding & Delivery Mechanisms

Executive Summary/ Strategy + Funding Mechanisms 1-2-2

Fringe Benefits will be seeking funding allocations from local authorities and Transport for London

budgets. Given the current economic climate and budget cuts, we have sought to keep this to a

minimum. We will also actively seek grants from organizations such as the Bow Arts Trust and the

European Social Fund. But to ensure the projects are sustainable in the long-term, Fringe

Benefits is proposing the setting up of three community-based mechanisms appropriate to the

scale of each intervention

1: Parish Council In 2008 changes were made to the law, giving Londoners the option of forming community councils, similar to parish and town councils. Community councils are funded by an additional council tax known as a “precept”, which is paid by all those living in the relevant area. If local people voted to establish one, we would recommend keeping this minimal, seeking loans and grants from charitable trusts to supplement this income. It would run the allotments, the boat house and the public realm improvements to main street.

2: Community Interest Company Introduced in 2005, CICs run like regular companies but with special features to ensure they are working for the benefit of the community. They are social enterprises who can raise capital at below market rates due to the ethical investment industry for small scale initiatives. Our CIC would run the car club and the bike library.

3: Community Development Trust This trust would run the IBC and the car park. It would be a land trust, established for the express purpose of furthering the interests of the local community by acquiring and managing land and other assets. They trade on a 'not-for-personal-profit' basis, re-investing surplus back into their community. We plan to fund the initial costs by borrowing the money either from a trust-making body, or if necessary from a bank. Repayment would be guaranteed through a business plan, based on the receipts from renting the space not reserved for community purposes.

To conclude, our aim is simple. We want to ensure that the wealth created by the Olympic

Strategy

Funding & Delivery Mechanisms

http://www.london.gov.uk/blog/why-london-olympics-mean-business


The Area

-

/Introduction

The Area/ Introduction 1-3-1

Area Map

Hackney Wick

Fish Island

Introducing Hackney Wick and Fish Island

Hackney Wick and Fish Island are located in inner east London. The area is small, covering just

135 acres but has distinctive characteristics. The area forms a distinct “island”, bounded by the A12

(East Cross Route and Eastway) and the River Lee Navigation. The two halves are divided by the

Hertford Union Canal and fall into separate boroughs (Hackney Wick is part of Hackney and Fish

Island is part of Tower Hamlets) – but need to be considered together. As one resident described –

they are like the “heart & lungs”.

Location

Introduction


The Area

/History

The Area/ History 1-3-2

While the area is small, it claims some industrial firsts (Fleming 2010):

The world's first plastic was invented by Alexander Parkes and manufactured through the

Parkes Co. between 1866 to 1868.

Atlas Works-based British Perforated Paper Co. invented toilet paper in 1880.

The use of the word „petrol‟ was pioneered in Hackney Wick, by Carless, Capel and Leonard,

who carried on their refining business here for over a hundred years from 1860

Matchbox toys were made at Lesney‟s factories here from 1947 to 1983

More recently, Channel 4‟s Big Breakfast was broadcast from the Lock Keeper‟s Cottage at Fish

Island from 1992 to 2002. There had been rumours that the show‟s founder Bob Geldof would blow

up the cottage on the show‟s final day but computer tricks were instead used to fake its

disappearance.

Eton College began a mission to the area around 1880 (apparently following a visit of the Virgin

Mary to Eton College Chapel) choosing the area as one of the most deprived in London. As well as

building a church, St Mary of Eton with St Augustine and its mission buildings, men from Eton also

founded various sporting activities, including a sports and rowing club.

Around 1900, old Etonian Major Arthur Villiers, a director of Barings Bank bought an area of land to

be used in perpetuity as allotments, a bequest that was to be sadly ended in 2007 when the holders

were evicted to make way for the London 2012 Olympics

Completed in 2003, St Mary‟s Village replaced the 1960s tower blocks of the Trowbridge estate

with a mixed tenure development of houses and flats. A third of homes in Hackney Wick are rented

from a social landlord and another quarter from the council.

The dirty industries of the nineteenth century - waterproofing, bone-crushing, chemical works and

rope walks - were replaced last century by newer industries of food processing, printing, motor

trades, warehousing and distribution.

The industrial base has declined somewhat, leaving commercial space available at competitive

rates. Artists and the creative community have moved in to take advantage of the buildings and

affordable rents and the creative “vibe” of the area.

But there is still industry here. One new resident of the island is Forman and Field, who produce

gourmet foods here, including smoked salmon. The company‟s former factory occupied the precise

site of the new Olympic stadium, now under construction on the other side of the River Lea.

History

http://www.hidden-london.com/saintmarys.html


Land use

/Overview

Land use/ Overview 2-1-1

Mainly residential (social housing) with some community facilities This area is mainly a residential neighborhood, with most accommodation low-rise socially rented or

affordable. There are some community facilities, including St Mary of Eton Church, Gainsborough

Primary School and Hackney Wick Community Centre. Hackney Wick Green is and some of the only

dedicated green spaces in HWFI.

1. Hackney Wick North

Mainly artist studios and live work units. Some small retail outlets. Employment is increasingly in the ‘creative industries’ as more ‘traditional’ industries move out. The area

suffers from poor quality public realm and limited amenities – the main focus is a recently opened

cafe/restaurant at the bottom of Oslo House studios. Hackney Borough Council designated a

conservation area painted with green area in the map just north of the station to safeguard against loss

of heritage buildings and street layout. There is some retail activity on Felstead Street (convenience

stores and hot food cafes) as well as a general store near the station. Access to the canal is possible

from Prince Edward Road, but vision is obscured.

Mixed use, with artists, light industry

Good quality streetscape, with pleasant Victorian brick factory buildings, much of which is covered by a

conservation area. Dace Road (Old Ford) is predominantly an area of employment with industrial units of

printers and light industry and ‘heritage’ buildings mainly occupied by creatives. Over 1,000 visual artists,

designers, small design businesses and arts organisations are based in around 610 studios spread

across 17 studio buildings (muf 2009). There are at least 7 galleries in the area, and also two ‘arts’

festivals. There are work spaces in the established studios at Britannia Works and canal front

apartments at Iron Works and Omega works. The thriving Counter Cafe, proves a focal point for the

community. Additionally, Forman’s restaurant, events space and the recently opened gallery space

provide a mixed consumption offer unavailable elsewhere in HWFI or the immediate area.

We are incorporating part of the Olympic Legacy area in our site The Olympics development borders our site and we are incorporating part of it. We would like to claim a

number of facilities post 2012 for the HWFI community, including the International Broadcasting Centre,

and possibly the multi-use sports venue, in area 3. The Olympic Park offers potential space for facilities

such as allotments. Area 5 will be a new residential neighbourhood in the London 2012 Olympic Games

legacy park. It will include a range of housing set around the waterways, a new marina, primary school

and health facilities.

Industrial use, live-work units and canal-front private residential development. Fish Island South has a similar streetscape to the rest of Fish Island, but the residential use is

characterized by modern, waterfront, private developments. The area houses a number of environmental

industries including waste management. There are also a number of live-work units.

2. Hackney Wick around the station

4. Fish Island below Hertford Canal

3 & 5. Olympic Legacy site

6. Fish Island South


Land use

Land use 2-1-2

Leabank Residential Square

Unused Café located by Hackney Wick Station

Olympic Site

Counter Café on Fish Island

Unused industrial factory on Fish Island


Heritage and conservation areas

Heritage and conservation areas

Heritage and conservation areas 2-2-1

Hackney Wick and Fish Island boasts a strong and

unique character as a result of its historic buildings,

streets and remaining industrial features. These

elements are seen as a significant regeneration

opportunity, providing a unique opportunity to

influence future development proposals and create a

distinctive character for the area that will contrast

and complement the modern developments in

Stratford and the Olympic sites.

The buildings in Hackney Wick and Fish Island are

comparable with those in Shoreditch, where they

have been successfully adapted for reuse by the

creative and cultural industries. They have proved to

be architecturally robust and capable of sustaining

substantial intervention to adapt to new or mixed

uses. A heritage-sensitive approach will be required

across the area for new developments. This will

need to include consideration of the scale and

massing of new buildings, and the choice of

materials. (HWFI regen, LTGRC)

There is currently a large amount of studio space

occupied by creative practitioners such as designers

and artists, as well as galleries. Given the number of

studios and businesses in the area, there is an

opportunity to build on existing assets and grow the

cultural and creative industries. Assets include the

unique scale and clusters of studio buildings, the

typology of the streets, yards and canal frontage.

These elements provide reference points for building

typologies. (HWFI regen, LTGRC)

Source: creative economic growth options, LTG, 2010 Listed Buildings in Wick Conservation Area in Fish Island

There are a number of significant historic buildings that are either listed, or of local interest. Many listed buildings are located within the Hackney

Wick Conservation Area. The qualities that characterise the conservation area include medium rise, mixed-use building, and an industrial aesthetic.

Some of this, for example in the south of Fish Island, could retain an industrial use, while other areas are converted to new uses.


The Olympic legacy

The Olympics offers major, once-in-a-lifetime opportunities for the

area, with new facilities attracting private investment and increased

wealth. However, this development brings with it real threats for the

local community. We have little faith in “trickle-down” if there is no

clear strategy and local focus. While London has sought to

emphasise legacy and to involve local communities through

apprenticeship schemes and outreach programmes, attention has

so far been more focused on delivery to deadline and costs. This is

natural given the inflexible timetable involved of hosting the

Games. But once attention has slipped, the importance of legacy

remains.

Land values are likely to increase significantly: in Barcelona, from

1986 to 1993 residential property values are estimated to have

increased by 250-300 percent (McKay and Plumb, 2001) on the

back of the Olympics. Kavetsos (2009) shows that property prices

in HWFI are likely to increase. Although good news for some

property owners, price increases are likely to have adverse

implications for lower income residents. Unless regeneration of the

area is designed with the existing communities’ interests in mind, it

is likely that inflationary pressures on the price of land and property

will merely displace the poorest people currently residing there

(Ryan-Collins and Sander-Jackson, 2008). For the moment the

credit crunch has reversed the Olympic effect on house prices,

although this is not expected to last. Roger Little, owner of East

London Commercials Ltd which has operated in the area for 15

years, has concerns about the implications for businesses: "I don't

think the money has been spent wisely and they haven't spoken to

business people.... All they want to do is build houses."

The creative community is also feeling the impacts. Artists report

that landlords are refusing to give sufficiently long leases in

anticipation of an Olympics-spurred increase in property prices and

thus their rental income. And rents have been escalating.

In addition, we are keen to ensure that the public money spent on

the Olympics does not go to waste. Athens is not the only Olympic

city to host expensive white elephants, having failed to find a new

use for Olympics facilities. This provides an opportunity: if the

community is sufficiently empowered and motivated, as Olympic

authorities might be glad to bequeath facilities to avoid the

embarrassment of a vacant building.

Main Press Centre

International Broadcast Centre

Multi-use Sports Venue

Legacy Stadium

Olympics Site Map

The Olympic legacy 2-3-1

The International Broadcast

Centre (IBC) and Main Press

Centre (MPC) buildings

The multi-level car park;

A Multi-Use Sports Venue

(MUSV);

Two pedestrian and cycle

bridges across the Lee

Navigation at Gainsborough

School and the end of Wallis

Road;

Three new footbridges linking

the new parkland in Hackney

with the parkland on the east

side of the Old River Lea.

A new bridge at Waterden

Road over the Old River Lea

connecting Stratford and

Hackney Wick;

New road infrastructure east

of the Lee Navigation;

Remediated land;

A combined heat and power

station south across the

railway line;

10.1 hectares of public open

space as part of the new

Olympic Park;

High speed fibre optic

connections within the IBC.


SWOT Analysis

SWOT Analysis 3-1-1

Strengths The area has great strengths, which different residents accord different priorities. There is a strong sense of community,

focussed in Hackney Wick around the community centre at The Old Baths on Eastway and the St Mary of Eton church,

and in Fish Island around several art galleries and live-work complexes where parties are often held at weekends. The

strength of local feeling can be felt online, where a number of blogs attest to the vibrancy of the local community and its

history. The serenity of the River Lea Navigation canal has recently been improved by the Olympic development

authorities who would like one day to see people swimming in the water, and the area is also close to a number of large

open spaces including Victoria Park and Hackney Marsh. Local businesses and industries, such as food manufacturing,

printing, warehousing and car maintenance, are hanging on despite the disruption brought by the Olympics.

Strengths

Weaknesses There are, however, a number of weaknesses to be addressed. The area suffers from a split community between locals

and incomers. It is also cut off from the surrounding area by the noisy, polluting elevated carriageways of the A12. This

is particularly true for Fish Island, which is bound by canals, the A12 and the Northern Outfall Sewer and feels cut off

from the rest of the city. Although the nineteenth century warehouses lend a certain charm to the area, the public realm

is of poor quality and there is no real hub. Many residents lack key skills that would enable them to benefit from the

economic regeneration of the area.

Furthermore, the area falls under the administrative boundaries of different authorities: Tower Hamlets and Hackney.

Concerns within this part of the boroughs have never adequately been addressed as they have never been a priority.

But with the arrival of the Olympic Games, the relative decline of the area is coming under the spotlight. In order to

make these weaknesses into something positive the boroughs will need to work together..

Weaknesses

Threats But the area is also under threat. The disruption of the Olympic development has displaced local businesses, who have

had to cope with traffic disruptions and severance. More recently, many local businesses were complaining about new

parking restrictions. Confusion with having to deal with two authorities has been compounded by the Olympics, as both

areas now fall under the remit of the Olympic Park Development Corporation. Increased affluence also brings with it

new risks, such as high cost housing and increased car use, which threatens the environment.

Private developers have already created units which exclude the locals from accessing the public waterways, and there

is a need for a more joined up approach in planning to ensure that further isolated developments, do not encourage

social exclusion.

Opportunities The building of the Olympic park and related developments – such as Westfield and Stratford City shopping centre –

clearly provide the greatest opportunities for the area in terms of new facilities and employment. However, before the

Olympics, the potential of the area had already been spotted by the artistic community, who bring with them new

energy. The Shoreditch Trust says "Hackney Wick is what Shoreditch was 50 years ago". There are more than 600

studios in the area, twice as many as Dalston (considered an artistic hot-spot), some of which are occupied by

well-known London artists such as Michael Landy. In addition, the Greenways offer pleasant but little known cycle and

walk paths that link Hackney with Beckton. In addition, the wider connections to leisure and recreational grounds like

Victoria Park and employment hubs like Canary Wharf and Stratford are all connected via the water network which

could potentially create employment, character and wider connectivity.

Opportunities

Threats

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/related-90264-shoreditch.do


Analysis: Transport

Overview

Analysis: Transport/ Overview 3-2-1

Hackney Wick Station is only minutes from Stratford by rail on the London

Overground and is about 15 minutes from Highbury & Islington, allowing

interchange with the Victoria Line.

There have been significant quality and capacity improvements incorporating

more frequent services and new and longer trains. Meanwhile, there is access

nearby to the DLR via Pudding Mill Lane. Both Hackney Wick and Pudding

Mill Lane have seen growth in passenger numbers in recent years:

Hackney Wick 2007/8 Pudding Mill 2008/9

Entries 187,591 Boarders 324,000

Exits 185,312 Alighters 358,000

Six regular bus routes stop at various locations within the area serving a

variety of destinations. It takes less than thirty minutes to Canary Wharf and

Liverpool Street by bus.

The area is bounded by the A12 which provides access to the sub regional

strategic road network and particularly areas to the East of London. There are

currently relatively low levels of car ownership (<40 percent of households)

compared to other areas of London

There are several strategic cycling and walking routes such as the Greenway

which provides a green transport route to the Royal Docks in the East and

links to the London Cycle network. The tow path next to the Lee Navigation

provides connections to the south and access to the Hertford Union Canal.

Hackney has the highest level of cycling in London (around 4-5 percent mode

share).

/Overview


Analysis: Transport

/Severance

Masterplan/ Diversity 3-4-3 Analysis: Transport/ 3-2-2

• Severance caused by A12 and rivers / canals described above and creating a better environment for walking and cycling

• Linkage to International Broadcasting Centre and future use of Olympics Park and

access through to Stratford stations and centre and other key access nodes • Integration of the rail station and its accessibility. In the longer term capacity may

need to be increased as demand continues to grow • Heavy reliance on buses and some performance issues (eg route 30 has been

highlighted by London Travelwatch) and lack of integration with rail station

• Restraining car use as development takes place to avoid increasing congestion and pollution and ensure a liveable area – while maintaining vehicle access for local businesses

Fairly good accessibility overall – but some room for improvement

As can be seen, there is fairly good accessibility overall (shown by relatively high Public

Transport Accessibility Levels – left).

Key issues

Severance

In principle, the area is very walkable and cyclable

But road, canal and railway line create barriers, reducing accessibility and ease of movement.

A defining characteristic of the area is its isolation from surrounding communities due to this barrier

effect from the A12, the London Overground line and the Lee Navigation. There are limited crossing

points, meaning that east-west movement across the Lower Lea Valley is difficult. And access to key

destinations such as Victoria Park is constrained This affects the communities living in Hackney

Wick, and is also likely to become more of an issue during and after the Olympic Games as the

number of people wanting to visit or travel through the area increases.

The quality of the waterways and urban realm, alongside illegibility and the impacts of traffic (noise,

ambience, pollution) also reduce the appeal of walking and cycling currently and undermine the sense

of place.

Analysis: Transport/ Severance 3-2-2


Analysis: Housing

Population('04)

Hackney Wick Hackney Inner London London England&Wales

11,027 207,000 2,931,000 7,429,200 53,046,200

Households('01)

Hackney Wick Hackney Inner London London England&Wales

3572 86,042 1,219,859 3,015,997 21,660,475

Households Size

3.08 2.36 2.27 2.38 2.40

Tenure

Hackney('08) London('07) England('07)

Owner occupied 30% 57% 70%

Private rented 23% 20% 13%

RSL rented 23% 9% 8%

Council rented 24% 14% 9%

House Prices('10)

Hackney London England

Detached ￡544,323 ￡596,085 ￡259,546

Semi Detached ￡564,047 ￡346,676 ￡157,397

Terraced ￡435,445 ￡309,091 ￡127,378

Maisonette/Flat ￡303,750 ￡303,346 ￡154,576

All ￡359,679 ￡338,027 ￡166,072

Housing

Analysis: Housing 3-3-1

Housing profile Hackney Wick District has around 11,000 residents. The number of households in Wick is

3572, and the number of households that are fuel poor is 1129, or 31.6 percent. (Hackney

Homes), Hackney Wick has proportionately more lone parent, single person and multi person

households than the averages for both London and England and Wales, and fewer married

couple households both with and without dependent children. (Ward Profile)

Tenure mix More than half of Hackney’s housing is socially rented, a much higher percentage than in

London or nationally. Social housing is dominant in Wick too, accounting for around 61 percent

of tenure. Home ownership is correspondingly lower – less than a third of the borough’s

properties fall into this category.

House prices According to Halifax Estate Agents, property prices per square meter rose by 320 percent

between 1996 and 2006 in Hackney, the biggest rise in London. House prices in the Wick ward

are significantly lower than the Hackney average, with the average price for Hackney was

£361,722. (Land Registry, 2010). Despite the recent downturn in the property market, house

values still remain high in Hackney and out of the reach of many residents.

Informal live:work provision Many artists are living in the warehouses in Fish Island – providing an affordable option for

living and working. This helps support the creative economy in the area. But many of these

units are not officially designated and are under pressure in terms of rent but also potentially

redevelopment.

Hackney is exceeding the current London plan targets for housing delivery.

The AMR 2009/2010 projects that around 4,300 new additional homes of all

tenures will be developed through the renewal of housing estates over the

period 2011-2026. In the next five years, new housing supply includes 2253

dwellings with outstanding permissions to build, and further 1822 dwellings

which are under construction (SA, 2010). It is expected that Hackney will

continue to exceed the London Plan targets for housing delivery, and house

prices will continue to increase and remain above the London average. (SA,

2010)

Source: Office of National Stastistics('01), Mid Year Estimate('04)

Source: Upper- CLG, 2007, Down- Land Registry 2010


Analysis: Environment

Air Quality Hackney has been declared an air quality management area due to levels of Nitrogen Dioxide and Fine Particulates. The council has produced an action plan to improve and monitor air quality in the borough to address the issue, with strategies such as: Traffic control/ Speed, Area, Flow; 20mph zone, parking management Encouraging cycles and walking

In HWFI, because there are a large amount of green spaces, trees should improve air quality. On the other hand, however, the area is bounded by busy roads.

Water Quality The river Lee was previously polluted but a wastewater purifying plant above the river has cleaned up the water. However, an efficient strategy for keeping it clean is required due to the light industry and factories that remain in the area..Another issue is flood hazard. Currently, Hackney Council has offered an alert service for local people.

Analysis: Environment 3-4-1

Air Water


Analysis: Environment

Green Quality There are several large parks in this area and some attractive walking routes (as shown below). However, they are quite difficult for pedestrians to access as they are cut off by the A12 and access could be improved.

.

Other Issues Hazardous waste is also a serious issue with public health and safety concerns. In Hackney, fly-tipping incidents are still high perhaps because of the industrial makeup of the area.. Another factor is the amount of dead space, for example under bridges.

Analysis: Environment 3-4-2

Green Others


Analysis: Social issues

According to the index of Multiple Deprivation, Hackney

Wick scores within the lowest 10 percent most deprived

areas in England (and in the 20 percent most deprived for

crime).

The area is characterised by

Low levels of home ownership

A very young, diverse and transient population

Benefit dependency

Poor, but improving, skills and education

Poverty and Deprivation Hackney is the most deprived Borough in London and 2nd most

deprived out of 354 in England and Wales. Tower Hamlets is the third

most deprived local authority in the country (TH LDF, 2010), although

there are high levels of investment and significant housing and jobs

growth. Hackney and Tower Hamlets’ levels of deprivation may remain

high if investment does not continue to be channeled in economic

recovery and social reform. (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2010)

Crime and Safety There is a distinct correlation between deprived communities and

crime; Hackney and Tower Hamlets are no different, although Hackney

Wick and Fish Island are improving.

Crime levels in the Hackney Wick ward have been falling over the last

few years. Crime is falling faster than anywhere else in London.

Hackney was the first borough in London to achieve the three year

target of a 20 percent reduction in priority crimes. (Delivery

Framework, 2009). It is predicted that crime will continue to fall in

Hackney but remain above the London and national average due to

the levels of poverty and deprivation experienced in the borough. It is

predicted that fear of crime will remain high especially at night.

Demographic conditions Hackney’s population is projected to increase by 15.6 percent by 2026.

In 2008 Hackney had the 3rd highest population density within London,

which means 1.75 times more than the Greater London average of

63.3 of persons per hectare. Wick has 163 hectares with 11,049

people.

Hackney’s social profile reflects one of the youngest and most

ethnically diverse communities in UK. Approximately 27.8% of

Hackney’s residents are under the age of 19. Similarly, Tower Hamlets

has a large young, diverse population. The borough now has the third

largest percentage of 20 – 34 year olds (37%) of all local authorities

and 59% of the population are aged 15-44.(TH LDF, 2010)

Overview

Analysis: Social issues 3-5-1

Population change in Hackney

Poverty and Deprivation in Hackney


Analysis: Economy

Economic profile

Analysis: Economy 3-6-1

Like much of East London, Hackney Wick and Fish Island bear the

hallmarks of the decline of its traditional heavy manufacturing

economic base. The population suffers from higher levels of

unemployment than the average in London, with a lower skill set. The

area is in a state of flux, buffeted by developments in neighbouring

areas, particularly those related to the Olympic Games. Recently,

employment has increased and new businesses are starting up but

this has not led to a marked improvement in joblessness because a

lack of qualifications make it difficult to find work. Several older

businesses have been or are being displaced by the Olympics and

there are a large number of vacant or under-used sites. At the same

time, the area stands to benefit from its proximity to Stratford, where

the largest shopping centre in Europe is being built. It will also be

bequeathed new parkland areas, improved connections and

infrastructure from the Olympic development.

Data on Hackney Wick and Fish Island varies because the areas fall

into two separate boroughs. In Hackney, a greater breadth of detail is

available for the borough as a whole, and more detailed information is

accessible for the smaller ward area which houses Hackney Wick.

What follows is a description of both areas, showing Hackney Wick

and Fish Island have a broadly similar profile. We have therefore relied

on the statistics provided by Hackney when similar information has not

been available from Tower Hamlets, on the assumption that the

findings would be broadly smellier for what is a relatively small area

geographically.

Employment

A 2010 estimate by the London Borough of Hackney (LDF) says the

current level of employment in Hackney Wick and Fish Island is around

1000-1500 people.

Based on 2006 data (LDF), the main industries in Hackney Wick are:

Publishing and Printing

Transport

Food and Beverage

Wholesale

Hackney has identified several growth sectors for the borough (as

identified in the 2010 economic development strategy):

Servicing the city;

Creative and media;

Town centre and visitor economy;

The low carbon economy.

Current initiative to reduce unemployment:

Hackney’s estates-based Ways into Work program has enabled local

people to better access labour markets. Agreements to advertise

Olympic-related jobs in the host boroughs 48 hours before anyone else

has also helped improve local people’s employment chances –

although only 12-13 percent of Olympic jobs are filled by people living

in the five boroughs.

H. Forman & Son, a 100 year old family business

supplying smoked fish

NHS offices

Mr Bagels factory, White Post Lane

Shops of Felstead Street


Analysis: Economy

Masterplan/ Diversity 3-4-2

There is a historic creative community in Hackney Wick and Fish

Island which is flourishing as artists adopt it as a low-cost alternative to

established cultural centres such as Spitalfields or Hoxton. The

‘pioneer’ community is mainly composed of visual arts practitioners,

with some design and media activity. Many printing businesses have

left or are leaving however. Artists report that landlords are refusing to

give sufficiently long leases in anticipation of an Olympics-spurred

increase in property prices – and thus their rental income.

A 2009 study by muf architecture found there are 610 artists’ studios in

the area, a cluster with potential for growth. There are a number of

galleries including Stour Space, Elevator Gallery, and the Schwartz

Gallery. There is recording studio on Stour Road and photographers

studios on Smeed Road. Bangla TV is located in Hackney Wick, near

the station. The largest creative sector employer is Central Books,

employing 40 staff.

The muf study refers to international precedents for intervention to

protect creative industries such as a requirement in Boston and Paris

that certain developments include 15 percent of studios. Supporting

creative activity can lead to wider regeneration benefits through

educational programs and other initiatives such as the Hackney Wick

festival, which brings together artists and the local community. Cultural

organisations in the wider London area including the Barbican have

expressed an interest in developing cultural activities in the area.

Creative industries

Analysis: Economy 3-6-2


Analysis: Economy

The effective regeneration of Hackney Wick is dependent upon a more

flexible interpretation of existing land use policy across some parts of

the area. The London Plan’s Strategic Industrial Location (SIL) and

Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework’s Other

Industrial Area (OIA) planning policies which cover parts of the area

have played a useful role in safeguarding land for industrial and

employment uses. The managed transition of some industrial land to a

broader mix of uses will promote the development of a broader range

of new and flexible workspace that will attract new businesses to the

area.

The 2009 Draft Replacement London Plan proposes changing the

Preferred Industrial Local (PIL) designation of the Strategic Industrial

Location (SIL) designated land to an Industrial Business Park (IBP)

designation which would allow a greater range of commercial use

including research and development uses, light industry and some

office development. An IBP designation would also permit the inclusion

of small scale support services such as convenience shops and cafes.

Hackney Wick Strategic Industrial Location (SIL) could better respond

to the changed circumstances of the Olympic legacy opportunities.

This would balance benefits of the Olympics and legacy for Hackney

residents and for the sub region in terms of the numbers, quality and

accessibility of employment including local arts and cultural industries,

and general gains for amenity.

In areas designated as Other Industrial Areas (OIA), existing industry

capacity should be protected. The introduction of additional uses is

considered to subject to industrial needs and demands being met. This

could be achieved by intensifying land uses and by introducing higher

density development that increases employment and may enable new

uses to be incorporated into any new development. The ‘mix of uses’

distributed appropriately across the area will ensure that activity is

focused to encourage vibrancy in particular areas, providing sufficient

footfall to generate business for retail units and ensure that adjacent

uses are compatible. Land use distribution and mix is also an important

part of the definition of local character, providing greater local intimacy

and opportunities for more diverse smaller-scale uses.

Aanalysis: Economy 3-6-3

Industry

Sitting on the fringe of the Olympics and within walking distance of

Westfield Stratford City, Hackey Wick and Fish Island have the

potential to benefit from the investment opportunities happening

around them. Improvements are also planned for the nearby Hackney

Central and Dalston town centres. Significant public sector investment

in transport infrastructure is designed to make Stratford, which is only a

train stop or twenty minutes-walk away from Hackney Wick station, the

best connected location in Greater London. The Olympic legacy will

bequeath Hackney Wick a media and broadcast centre, a car park, a

multi-use arena as well as public parklands leading to Stratford.

Westfield Stratford City is set to be the largest shopping centre in

Europe. Clusters of creative industries are growing in East London,

creating their own dynamic and a demand for back-office services. The

mayor of London is encouraging a Green Enterprise District, boosted

by the nearby Siemens sustainability centre. There are also housing

developments planned in Hackney Wick, Poplar, Bromley-by-Bow,

Canning Town and Custom House and the Leamouth Peninsula

among others.

The wider regeneration of the area will act as a stimulus to new

businesses and as growth to existing ones. Hackney Wick and Fish

Island are ideally located to take advantage of these improved

prospects. Improved transport connections and public spaces will

make the area a desirable place to live and work. The challenge will be

ensuring that local people and local businesses are not pushed out.

Although some will undoubtedly choose to take advantage of the rise

in property prices to sell up and move on, we want to ensure that the

area retains a mix of affordable and social housing as well as private

developments.

The parklands and waterside offer potential to develop a new tourism

or leisure industry, a contrast to the frenetic shopping activity of nearby

Stratford.

Creative industries

Based on an analysis of the current and

potential economic make-up of the area, we

have identified the following strategic goals:

Strategic goals

Encourage a wider mix of businesses by

encouraging new business start-ups,

particularly in the creative, media and

green industries, whilst retaining

traditional light industry activities

Improve the proportion of Hackney Wick

and Fish Island residents in employment

by enlarging the skill set of local people

Enable employment growth in existing

businesses and improve access of

Hackney Wick and Fish Island residents

to these new jobs

Ensure that Hackney Wick and Fish

Island is a place people want to live, work

and invest in, with affordable life-work

units for the artistic community


Analysis: Education

GCSE Results

Hackney('06) Hackney('09) England('09)

Pupils gaining 5 A-C including English & Maths 36.7% 55.3% 53.5%

Pupils gaining 5 A-C 50.9% 71.1% 75.4%

Qualifications

Qualification level Wick Hackney London England & Wales

No qualification 32.1% 29.0% 23.7% 29.1%

Level 1 10.8% 10.5% 13.0% 16.6%

Level 2 15.5% 13.8% 17.1% 19.4%

Level 3 10.1% 8.6% 9.8% 8.3%

Level 4/5 25.9% 32.9% 31.0% 19.8%

Level unknown 5.5% 5.1% 5.4% 6.9%

Overview

Analysis: Education 3-7-1

The good news is that educational attainment in

Hackney and Tower Hamlets is improving, and

fast: the bad news is that there is still a long way

to go. HWFI has adequate connections to

further education establishments in Stratford,

Greenwich and central London. The problem for

many in this area is getting the qualifications to

access them. There are existing Primary and

Secondary institutions where a focus on local

practical learning and support can be gained to

encourage children to pursue further education.

But current unemployment levels are still high,

and the existing economically active community

must also be supported. Such initiatives have

been undertaken by other boroughs, for

example; Haringey’s Adult Learning Service

(HALS), which offers day, evening and Saturday

courses in business and work skills, creative

skills, languages, health and well-being,

computer skills, and skills for life has been

extremely successful.

Furthermore, with the growing creative clusters

there is a need to provide local people with the

right skills to access jobs within the vicinity as

well as promote entrepreneurial skills to start

new forms of business and new professional

and social networks could also be formed.

Analysis Hackney’s secondary schools provide the most

‘added value’ in England according to recent

Ofsted assessments. This means children in

Hackney schools have improved their

educational levels faster than anywhere in

England. (Delivery Framework, 2009).

The borough has improved considerably across

the key stages to GCSE level, but it still remains

considerably behind comparable London

boroughs. It needs to focus on level 3 and level

4 qualifications to ensure children have better

chances in the London labour market. (Delivery

Framework, 2009).

Currently local trends of poor access to skilled

jobs are anticipated to remain current levels

unless further initiatives and investment is

provided to assist people in obtaining higher

skilled jobs. (SA, 2010). Hackney is involved in

several initiatives including the Academies and

the Primary Capital programmes, and the

reading recovery programme. These, plus a

new focus on diplomas, could improve

employment levels in the future. (Delivery

Framework, 2009). The borough’s Foundation

Learning Tier aims to ensure that learners of

level one and below qualifications are able to

progress to level two.

Hackney and its Wick Ward Hackney is a young borough with an

ethnically diverse population (52 percent

ethnic minority compared to a 42 percent

London average). There has been an

increase in the number of residents holding

higher level qualifications and a decrease in

people with no qualifications. The

employment rate is 68.3 percent, above than

the London average, but improvements in

employment have not led to a similar

reduction in unemployment. Continuing high

levels of benefits claimants shows that

despite increased work in the area, some

people remain trapped in pockets of

joblessness. Getting more people into work

will depend on improving skill sets at all

levels, from the most basic to advanced.

Access to the knowledge intensive growth

industries

being encouraged in the area will depend on

higher level qualifications. The employment

situation in Hackney Wick is worse than in

Hackney generally.

Wick Ward profile 2007: Less than half the population is in

work and levels of disability are high. Source:

http://www.hackney.gov.uk

Source: Upper-DEF, 2009/20, Down- 2001, Census

Compared to Hackney, London,

England and Wales, the number of

residents in Hackney Wick who

have little or no qualifications is

above the average.


Planning policies

Overview

Planning policies 3-8-1

Hackney Wick & Fish Island fall under two different London

borough boundaries, and due to their proximity to the Olympic

Site are also included within the Olympic Park Legacy Company

plans. With three administrative bodies, the creation of a unified

vision is complicated.

The area is subject to planning policy at various different levels,

which is summarised below

Summary The current integrated plan for Hackney Wick and Fish Island

exists, but apart from the creative industries, does not reflect

much on the existing residential community. It is clear that the

Mayor and Government, have steered policies to ensure that the

Olympic Legacy includes the deprived neighbouring boroughs.

On the other hand, our proposals hope to create a local legacy as

well as capitalise from the Olympic Games, economically,

socially and environmentally.

Aims to create an overall

integrated Masterplan for

all the Olympic Boroughs

– which will address

National, Regional and

Local imperatives

HWFI identified as a key Regeneration area

Establish strategic agencies to increase

regional and local links

Promotion of Olympic venues for global and

local visitors

Support media and creative cluster

London Plan

Global and Regional policies

Create sustainable & integrated community

Support digital media and creative cluster

Enhance community environment

Support & preserve existing light industry

LDF & Core Strategy Borough - specific guidance, based on The London Plan

Improve Station hub to create key link

between HW and FI

Develop artist communities and support

existing local and industrial businesses.

AAP Area Specific Guidance

based on above

Olympic Legacy Plan

&

LTGDC


Planning policies

Planning policies 3-8-2

Strategic Connections and Development- Fish Island, Francis,

M, 2010, p.112

The London Plan The Mayor’s London Plan, 2009 set out a new consensual approach to planning, with a view to

link London to its hinterland and to establish vital local links (Johnson, B, 2009, p. 24). One of

these agencies created to achieve this is the Olympic Park Legacy Corporation, which the

Mayor and the Government co-founded to deliver and manage the Olympic Park, including its

immediate neighbours. Policy 2.4 in the London Plan, highlights the importance of promoting the Olympic Park venues

as an international visitor destination ‘for sports, recreation and tourism’ (Johnson, B,2009, p.

35). Furthermore it emphasises the need to support the ‘high quality media and creative

industry cluster at Hackney Wick that would provide premises and opportunities for local and

global businesses…’ (Johnson, B,2009, p. 35). Despite this, Hackney Wick & Fish Island are not considered as being part of the Opportunity

Areas or Area for Intensifications outlined in the plans, but are identified as two of the most

diverse and deprived areas, in need of Regeneration (See map right.)

Local Development Frameworks (LDF) & Core Strategies

The LDF is made up of many Development Plan Documents (DPDs), of which the Core

Strategy is primary. It is used to guide the content of more localised documents like the Area

Action Plans (AAP) (Hodson, J, 2010, p.9). The Core Strategy relates National and Regional

issues to the local level. Hackney and Tower Hamlets have both based their core strategies

on the Mayor’s London Plan guidance. Hackney

Hackney’s core strategy envisages the creation of a new community within Hackney Wick. In

line with The London Plan, Policy 5 specifically identifies Hackney Wick as a place ‘for digital

media and creative industry’ (Hodson, J, 2010, p. 42) but with a view to create a new integrated

and sustainable community.’ It also sets out to enhance connectivity to surrounding key hubs

such as Stratford and Hackney Central, whilst considering strategic industrial and priority

employment designations and Olympic Legacy opportunities (Hodson, J, 2010, p.42). Tower Hamlets

Similarly, Tower Hamlets’ core strategy also refers to enhancing the same key connections,

whilst nurturing the existing creative and light industrial uses to a greater capacity Prior to a collective and integrated Masterplan being developed, the cohesion between Tower

Hamlets and Hackney was quite scarce. Both developed their own Area Action Plans, despite

forming similar proposals. It also shows that there is a need for a larger regeneration body to

create an overall plan.

Map 2.5 Regeneration Areas

(Johnson, B, 2009, London Plan, p.49)

Area Action Plans (AAP) On visiting and interviewing representatives of Tower Hamlets Planning and Regeneration department, it was clear that in 2007 a joint Masterplan between

the two boroughs had been agreed for Hackney Wick and Fish Island. However, Tower Hamlets had difficulty in classifying certain landuses which held the

process up. In the meantime Hackney created their own AAP for Hackney Wick, and as a result Tower Hamlets had to do the same for Fish Island.

The approach does not seem efficient given that both must liaise with the same key stakeholders i.e. London Thames Gateway Development Corporation

(LTGDC), GLA and Homes & Communities Agency (HCA) about similar issues and visions. For instance, Hackney Wick station is potentially a key hub,

prominent in both AAP’s. It has been drawn upon to create a key link between the two boroughs as well as the Lea Valley Canal, which can act as a link with

the Olympic Park too.

Olympic Park Development Legacy (OPDL)

Masterplan To reinforce this inefficiency, Simone Williams from Tower Hamlets,

insinuates that the AAP ‘s for both areas will have to change again,

and it has, because the LTGDC has created an integrated plan. London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) Integrated Plan The LTGDC works closely with the OPLC and the hosting boroughs,

helping to fund and support local growth initiatives, and highlight

underused opportunities. Working alongside Hackney, Tower

Hamlets and Design for London, the LTGDC produced a thorough

analysis and vision.

The vision sets out to develop the creative potential and increase

connections around the area. It also tries to establish links through

the streetscape and services between Hackney Wick and Fish

Island. The overall message is that of local and global cohesion

through the development of existing industries and assurance that

the momentum from the Olympics is taken advantage of to the

fullest. This is the concluding message of the document: “The Time is right to capture the energy, commitment and

opportunities for Hackney Wick and Fish Island, triggered by

the development for the London 2012 Olympic Games, and

deliver the vision for a successful mixed-use employment

location, home to global players and local innovators in the

creative , technology and environmental industries; it is set to

become and exciting new city district for London.” (LTGDC

HWFI regeneration).

The Mayor’s Vision Within the Masterplan, the Mayor aims to emphasise a new planned

approach for the surrounding Olympic boroughs, whilst ensuring the

retention of key industrial land. Mayor Boris Johnson is already

trying to attract investment bids by releasing an unofficial

Masterplan, which aims to enhance Olympic Park connections. This

was unveiled in March 2011, and reported in the Evening

Standard.

Image of the Olympic Park on

completion of the

landscaping (Beard, M, 2001,

Evening Standard)


Masterplan principles

Valuing what’s there:

Sensitivity to the distinctive character of the area

Build on existing opportunities and strengths

Recognise the needs of the different communities and input they can make

Affordability – but once in a lifetime opportunity:

Olympics provides unprecedented opportunities and leverage

But constraints of public spending context

Capitalise on facilities delivered for Olympics and how can be used locally

Prioritise according to opportunities, needs and budget

Enhancing quality of place + connections Clearly not all opportunities can be provided locally so it is vital that good connections are available to ensure people

can access jobs and facilities in other parts of London. A key focus of the strategy is tackling issues of severance and

encouraging increased walking and cycling. We are also developing the green and blue grid in the area – making the

most of the key assets of the waterways and surrounding green spaces. As areas regenerate and grow economically,

there is usually an increase in car use which impacts the liveablility of areas. We are seeking to support growth while

restraining car use. The sense of place will also be enhanced through an improved urban realm and protected

heritage.

Encouraging local diversity & value This is as much about seeking to protect the distinctive elements of the area and managing change as it is about

encouraging change. Hackney Wick and Fish Island fall within one of the most deprived areas in London. Our

proposal is about upskilling residents and opening new opportunities for them in terms of employment to ensure

inward investment and growth. This also involves ensuring access to housing and creating an area which is safe,

livable, workable and ultimately sustainable. Thus within our proposal we want to attract a mix of industries to

encourage diversity. The creative sector can be unreliable as artists tend to move frequently, and thus a reliance on

the creative sector can be high risk.

Public & community intervention, not just market-led:

Ensure local benefits in context of increasing land values

Ensure key assets serve broader community and not just developers

Work with key partners with expertise and experience

Capitalise on new opportunities

Regeneration, rather than merely gentrification:

Protect and enhance social housing

Prevent displacement

Maintain industrial base

Seek to prevent increasing car use


Our interventions were based on the following

principles:

Masterplan principles 4-1-1



Masterplan principles 4-1-2

Success criteria

We have create our own performance indicators in order

to examine whether our own objectives have been met.

Whereas standard Key Performance Indicators tend to

look at the aftermath of a regeneration project, we will be

using the success criteria to tailor the project to its

objectives from the outset.

This box shows the key criteria used to develop the

approach and maintain a focus on the core priorities for

the area


Masterplan

/Overview

Masterplan/ Overview 4-2-1

The proposed masterplan shows how we

have translated our vision into spatial

interventions. The main goal is to ensure

that the Olympic developments benefit

the local community, and a secondary

goal is to minimise displacement and the

negative effects of increased wealth such

as higher car use.

Our main intervention is the purchase of

the International Broadcast Centre for a

Community Trust. Part of the centre will

be reserved for community purposes, and

the rest will be rented out. To encourage

both a feeling of community ownership of

the IBC and a profitable clientele, we will

commission an art installation on the

bridge linking the IBC with Hackney Wick.

The proposed hub is clearly at the heart

of the area, linking the station to retail

services and possible leisure activities by

the waterside through the creation of a

new main street. It will become a

destination in its own right a place where

new and old members of the community

can meet and interact. The masterplan

also creates better links between HWFI

and the surrounding area through the

installation of two bridges, improved

public transport services, and more visible

pedestrian routes to Victoria Park and the

waterside.

Finally, you can see how we will attempt

to limit the main flow of traffic to a main

route through the area. The car park by

the IBC will be the locus of our car club

and bicycle library, which should help

minimize traffic in the rest of the area.


Masterplan

Local diversity

/Diversity


On the following pages, the masterplan has been broken down to outline

the details of how our interventions will work. First, we will show how we

intend to encourage economic and social diversity. The plan includes a

requirement that development around the hub will be mixed use, ensuring a

lively atmosphere. Light industry such as printing will complement the

creative industry located both in galleries and studios and also in the rented

offices of the IBC. Residents and businesses will also benefit from an

enhanced retail and leisure services, both at lunchtime and out of hours.


Masterplan


/Diversity

Current Situation Currently, Hackney Wick is a mainly residential area, most of which is

social housing. There is more economic activity in Fish Island,

comprising both light industry and creative businesses. The two areas

are not well connected, and somewhat cut-off from the surrounding

area. There is no hub for people to gather

Our Proposal By creating a hub around the station at Hackney Wick, we will bring the

two communities together. There will be a requirement that any

development in this area be mixed use, with street level space dedicated

to retail, creative or learning activities. The boat house by the canal will

be upgraded to encourage leisure activities and improved access to the

Olympic site should make the facilities there appear closer. An outreach

of the community centre on main street will be the catalyst for evening

activity, complementing the existing Hackney Pearl café.

Commercial Area Currently, the area around Hackney Wick Station is neglected, with

vacant plots. We want to ensure that it becomes a lively area, which

means development in this area must be mixed use and not strictly

residential.

Enhancement of Main Street The streetscape on our main street will be improved through tree

planting and by improving visibility to the canal.

Public space in Fish Island An amnesty will be given to the artists living and working in the area

so their spaces can be re-classifed correctly as live-work units. New

development in the area should include a requirement for a

percentage of affordable live-work units. In addition improvements

to the public realm will include the creation of a new public space if

and when finances permit .


Masterplan

Masterplan/ Connectivity 4-2-4

/Connectivity

Connectivity This shows how we plan to overcome issues of severance, allowing HWFI

residents to take better advantage of surrounding facilities, whilst limiting

the uptake in traffic we expect to come from increased affluence.

The main principles are the following:

1: Traffic management

2: Easy Access

3. Easy Finding

We have constructed key internal routes for cycling and walking as well as

creating water transport, around the site. The development of key external

connections is also inherent and we have created strategic gateways which

lead to seven destinations outside of the area which provide leisure,

services and employment opportunities for residents within the area.

Strategic gateway

Strategic gateway


Masterplan /

/Connectivity

Masterplan/ Connectivity

4-2-5

Traffic Management We will encourage traffic moving through the area to stick to the red

routes. Residents will also find it just as easy to leave their car at the

car park and cycle home or take advantage of the delivery service

then to drive through the area

Easy Access; Bus & Train We will improve connectivity between rail and bus services by moving

the bus station closer to the rail station. The boat house is also near

the station, and in the future transport boat transport could also link

up to this network

Easy Finding; Gateway/Greenway, Landscape To address severance issues we will improve access points at the

gateways shown above. This both allows HWFI residents to take

advantage of local facilities, and invites outsiders to discover the

delights of HWFI. For example, we will improve access to Victoria park

by way of the canal, avoiding traffic and providing a pleasant walking

environment.

Strategic gateway

Strategic gateway

Project 1: The International Broadcast Centre


Overview

Project1: The International Broadcast Centre 5-1-1

Our main intervention is the planned purchase of the International Broadcast

centre from the Olympic Park Development Corporation. Our plan is to keep the

ground floor office space and some studio space for community purposes,

including start-up support for small and medium sized enterprises, training

services and a social enterprise hub. The studio space and the top four floor

office space will be rented out, providing revenues to pay back the costs of

acquiring the building and running the community services, and in time to

cross-subsidise other ventures elsewhere.

According to the Olympic Park Legacy Company investment prospectus, the IBC

comprises 9,000 square metres of offices over five floors and 53,000 square

metres of studio space, which can be converted for a variety of uses. The offices

are arranged over five floors and are located at the northern end of the building.

They connect directly to the studios, which range in size from 2-4,000 square

metres. There are twelve individual studios on two floors that can all be operated

independently, accessed by delivery vehicles via roller shutter doors. The

building is 275 metres long, 104 metres wide, and 21 metres high.

The IBC building is adjacent to the five-storey press centre, with around 30,000

square metres of prime office space, and a .car park, with capacity for 1200

spaces and a 28 coach drop-off space. The buildings will have world-class

communications infrastructure, intended for clients in the creative industries, film

and broadcast. Other potential uses include education, museum, gallery space

and back-office functions.

The London Evening Standard reported in September 2010 that the £308 million

centre could be demolished after the Games if a buyer was not found. In this

situation, the OPLC might be persuaded to gift it to the local community rather

than face negative publicity, although we understand some funds would need to

be set aside to install central heating and convert it for new uses. Recent reports

suggest we might face competition from Acer who would like to build an indoor

ski resort on the site, but we might be able to sway the argument given the

preference for keeping the existing structure.

2012

2017

Project 1: The International Broadcast Centre


IBC Identity Bridge

‘The Waterfall of Words’ structure erected in Canary Wharf

(Drift Website) The centre will be connected to Hackney Wick via a bridge.

To attract a high-revenue paying clientele to the centre, and to provide a visible and

attractive visual link to the community, we will commission an artistic installation on the

bridge, similar to the Word Waterfall in Canary Wharf (first erected there by the art

organisation Drift). We foresee digital media and creative companies being attracted to

the site. Further possible clients could be sporting companies or companies involved in

back office activities for the City.

Commercial activities

Community services: To help companies who are starting out, we would also offer business support services

including advice, a support network, temporary office space, meeting conference and

training facilities, and videoconference rooms. For companies who choose mainly to

work at home but who would like to use the IBC as an official mailing address and make

use of the above facilities, we could offer PA assistance if there was sufficient demand. It

could also be the locus for new social enterprises who could run community facilities

such as the bike club (see project 3) or the Hackney Wick festival.

Including community Hackney Wick already hosts a number of festivals and art exhibitions. However, whilst it

encourages community integration, it is mainly celebrating the artistic community. We

want to broaden that out so that other groups (be the arts, sciences or IT, employment)

are celebrated in local events or festivals. We hope that the presence of a local body to

set up employment fairs within the area will help to draw awareness of the provision of

new educational and employment services available at the IBC community support

centre. We would like the centre to serve as a meeting place for the creative and digital

industries and the local community. We could provide employment for those who wish to

get involved with training schemes to access the new jobs being created, possibly with

work placement schemes.

The intervention requires the setting up of a

community land trust, which we have called the

Wick Development Trust, the details of which

are laid out in the funding section of this report.

The shortly to be merged Development Trusts

Association said development trusts are

“community owned and led, cultivating

enterprise, developing community assets,

transforming communities for good.” Land trusts

involve setting up a trust to own community

assets which are run in the interests of that

community.

This Wick Development Trust will work along

lines similar to the highly successful Shoreditch

Trust, established in 2000. As the trust earns

money for the community, it is able to fund more

schemes and claims to have delivered over 400

projects, ranging in size from London restaurant

the Healthy Living Centre to the refurbishment

of school playgrounds to lunch provision to

elderly people.

We need to get the IBC up and running before

considering new ventures, which are beyond the

reach of this report. Once the Wick

Development Trust begins making a profit, it

would be up to the HWFI residents to vote for

new projects.

The process used to purchase the IBC and

support and grow the centre to benefit the local

communities has been shown overleaf. The

diagram shows the importance of the IBC bridge

and identity to ensure local people know they

can access it easily, as well as encouraging and

attracting the investment of global and national

industries.

Beijing Main Press Centre

After the Beijing Olympics in 2008 the Main Press Centre was converted into a

convention centre, and the International Broadcasting Center one of its exhibition

halls. Occupying more than 150,000 square metres, the MPC and IBC hosted

20,000 accredited journalists, photographers and broadcasters. The difference

here of course was that the Beijing Media Centre was always designed as a

convention centre. With the ExCel centre nearby, London has no need for another

convention centre. In Athens, part of the media centre is now a shopping mall. Again, with Stratford

only a stone’s throw away, London has no need for a shopping mall in Hackney

Wick.

CASE STUDY

Project1: The International Broadcast Centre 5-1-2

Project 2: Station hub and main street


Overview

Project2: Station hub and main street 5-2-1

Our second project is to create a new neighborhood hub around the

Hackney Wick station with a new village-style main street. This should serve

not only as a local centre, but also as a catalyst for change for the area as a

whole.

Hackney Wick and Fish Island lack basic services and amenities within the site. Our site

visits showed that footfall levels were low.

To bring life to the area, our main priority is to create a hub around the station. It has been

identified in Planning Guidence including Area Action Plans (Hackney & Tower Hamlets) as

well as the LTGDC’s document on the regeneration of Hackney Wick and Fish Island.

Our intention is to create a key underpass link, which connects the two sites together, via

the Railway station, and improve access and visbility. The existing bus station will also be

located near the Station hub alongside cycle parking and the bike library, to promote the use

of more sustainable means of transportation.

Main street We propose the creation of a village-style Main Street. It will encourage new local businesses and

commercial activity. A planning policy to ensure that rents are made affordable for local people will be

put in place to ensure that they are not priced out of the market. In return, they must ensure that they

meet specific health, safety and quality standards set by both the council and the Community Trusts Currently most activity (general store, fish and chip shop) is located on Felstead Street, some distance

from the station. The Hackney Pearl café (named the Best New Cafe in London in the 2010 Time Out

Eating & Drinking Awards) on Prince Edward road, which bends towards the station area, shows the

potential for development. We would encourage more cafes and shops to serve the new and existing

communities through the purchase of a shop space on the corner of Prince Edward road, which would

be an outreach of the community centre – crucially ensuring footfall at night through evening classes.

During the day, better access to the water and a revamped boat house will provide recreational

activities.

Main Street will also be a vital link to the canals as well as to Fish Island and these routes will be

emphasised through tree lined streets. In the long term, this area might become a relaxed waterside

haven, in contrast to the frenetic shopping activity at nearby Stratford City.

Main Street

Boathouse hub

New public Space

in FI

Project 2: Station hub and main street


Tree planting To create a more pleasant streetscape and to improve visibility, we would petition the

GLA to make HWFI a priority area for trees. The Mayor Boris Johnson has committed to

funding new street trees as part of his goal to make London a greener city. The aim is to

plant 100-400 trees per area in 40 'Priority Areas' that the GLA says “would most benefit

from the social, economic and environmental improvements that new street trees

provide.” So far, over 5,000 trees have been planted in 28 of the Priority Areas (in 24

boroughs). In Hackney, Shoreditch and Downs Park areas and in Tower Hamlets the

Bow Common, Bromley-by-Bow, and Stepney areas have all been designated priority

areas.

Trees make London’s streets more pleasant to walk, cycle and sit. Other benefits listed

by the GLA include helping to make streets cooler in summer, increasing privacy in

residential roads and gardens, providing green links between parks and open spaces,

helping to improve air quality and reducing pollution, and absorbing some traffic noise.

Whilst the public realm is a key aspect of improving the lives of residents, it is still hard to

justify the cost compared to that of economic imperatives and therefore, in spite of the

benefits and the added justification of the Olympic Legacy, it is still hard to gain funding

for such schemes.

Community centre annex The community centre annex will link the community facilities at the IBC and the existing

services at the St Mary of Eton Church and Hackney Wick Community Centre. These

include a community hall, healthcare and youth facilities, and a place of worship. We see

the main purpose of the community centre annex as being a catalyst for encouraging hub

activity, particularly in the evening, and creating links with the Fish Island community.

During the day, it could also function as an employment centre. While the function could

vary in time, we intend to purchase the facility because we anticipate a lot of development

in the area, and we think that renting would leave the annex vulnerable to inflated prices.

Community services: To help companies who are starting out, we would also offer business support services

including advice, a support network, temporary office space, meeting conference and

training facilities, and videoconference rooms. For companies who choose mainly to

work at home but who would like to use the IBC as an official mailing address and make

use of the above facilities, we could offer PA assistance if there was sufficient demand. It

could also be the locus for new social enterprises who could run community facilities

such as the bike club (see project 3) or the Hackney Wick festival.

Example: Pier Head, Liverpool The Pier Head (see below) is part of

Liverpool’s World Heritage Site and is a

central riverside location. In 2007 work

commenced to build a canal link to connect

Leed and Liverpool canal. It was extended

by 1.6miles and cost £22million (Wikipedia).

But it encourages boaters and other

recreational activities, drawing people into a

site surrounding by the old and new. Although on a much smaller scale, our

proposal is unlikely to be implemented until

after we enter a more stable economic

climate. In which case, the luxury but highly

beneficial purchase must be put on hold.

Canal inlet A more long term feature we would like to propose is the small extension of the canal

near to the restored boathouse.

Currently, the canal is hidden behind the industrial buildings and narrow streetscape ,

although it lies very close to the Station. It is a hidden gem for the area and is not used to

its full potential. By creating a new boating area surrounded by cafes, galleries and local

shops, small water inlets are an ideal and attractive way to emphasise the waterways

within the site, and lead people in the direction of the canal.

Many new developments around England and Europe use similar features on a variety of

scales. For example in the More London Development, there is a small stream within the

complex of narrow streets which lies between overbearing office blocks, to reinforce the

Thames River which is situated along the other side.

However, this is extremely costly and given the current economic climate, maybe difficult

to find funding for. It will also depend on our plans for the hub creating a vibrant and

active neighbourhood.

Project2: Station hub and main street 5-2-2

New community centre, located

at the ground floor of an existing

residential and office block in

the centre of Main Street.

It is easily accessible to

Hackney Wick residents but

also Fish Island residents, as

the established tree lined routes

provide a direct access to and

from it.

CASE STUDY

Project 3: Car-lite development


Overview

Project3: Car-lite development 5-3-1

An integrated strategy: to limit the increase in car ownership and traffic that usually

accompanies increased affluence.

We have adopted an integrated approach using both “carrots” and “sticks”. The strategy will never

gain acceptance unless there are convenient alternatives to using the car, and we certainly don‟t

want to upset local businesses which need ongoing vehicle access. But it will also not work without

some policies of restraint, such as traffic and parking restrictions. Our approach is based on

“car-lite”, not car-free development. It is about supporting mobility, activity and everyday life as far as

possible.

The strategy works as part of our other proposals, which include new public spaces and a busier

main street. This will ensure benefits - such as enhanced liveability, less pollution, increased

community interaction and play space for children – are maximised. The poorest households (who

don‟t own cars and are most affected by pollution) stand to gain most.

The area has always been a place for innovation and we are keen to build on this tradition. The

strategy could provide a template for other parts of London in the face of significant challenges of

population growth, space constraints, traffic problems and tough CO2 targets.

Our strategy

1. Traffic restrictions

2. Park and walk

3. Community car club and delivery service

4. Community bike library

5. Encouraging walking

6. Mainstreaming cycling

7. Making better use of the waterways

Some of them operate on a

larger scale as well as locally.

But for many, we believe it is

attention to detail (and

specifically addressing local

concerns) that will make our

scheme a success and show

people, practically, the

benefits that can be delivered.

Traffic management We are aiming to maintain key access routes

while restraining traffic across more residential

areas. We thus propose the following traffic

management framework: 1) Key traffic access routes Enable access for industry / business

(parking & access proved to be a major

concern for many existing local businesses)

Good access to strategic road network /

areas beyond

Create local “hierarchy” of roads: key

“strategic” routes eg Chapman Road,

Wansbeck Road, Eastway Bridge 2) Shared space – new main street (Osborne

Road, Berkshire Road, Wallis Road) With pedestrians, buses and cyclists and

limited access for parking and deliveries -

maintain vitality and activity (monitor and

consider full pedestrianisation in future)

Mixed use street with wide pavements; small

number of street parking bays to serve

convenience shops and local facilities

Legibility with trees, improved public realm

Bus stops where people want to go to/from to

ensure accessibility for all

Key link between community facilities on

Eastway & residential areas to the new hub 3) Traffic restrictions – living streets Reduced parking and car access – make use

of space

Increase sense of neighbourhood and

interaction

Link to residents‟ park and walk facility (see

next page)

Challenge what is considered to be anti social behaviour by recognising that streets can be appropriated for play when less cars make this possible

Car-lite



Park and walk The multi-storey car park (1,300 spaces) constructed for

the Olympics provides an opportunity for innovative park

and walk facilities which works as follows:

1. Residents‟ on-street parking would be removed

or significantly reduced, freeing up significant

space on street and reducing traffic through the

residential area.

2. Around 500 of the car park spaces would be set

aside for the residents‟ park and walk facility

3. Residents can walk or cycle home from the car

park. For those with baggage, trolleys will be

provided. During certain hours there will also be

a home delivery service (see next project) as

well as short-term drop off points near homes.

4. The new pedestrian bridge at the IBC as well as

an enhanced Eastway bridge would ensure

effective and safe access to the car park.

5. Space would also be set aside for the car club

and for the bike library maintenance “depot”.

6. The remaining spaces ( around 750) would be

available for rent commercially eg by business

occupiers of the IBC. A second project to construct a car park on the

perimeter of Fish Island - to support a similar scheme for

residents – would be explored in the longer term subject

to costs / feasibility and monitoring of impacts / success

of this project.

Community car club and delivery service To be operated by the Community Transport Company

(see delivery section) The scheme will start relatively small with 8 cars and 1 van

(not brand new, fuel efficient, low CO2, some larger cars for

carrying capacity). Using a model of around 15-30

members per car (although in our area, car use is relatively

lower than some other areas), we would envisage an initial

membership of around 120-240 – but would aim to build

this up over time.

The scheme would use allocated parking spaces in the IBC

car park but also some on street bays (other parking would

be more restricted so there would be space available). The

scheme would also provide a van for self-drive or collection

/ delivery service (using the part time employee who also

runs the car club). Additionally, there would be a central

delivery drop off point for local residents and trolleys from

the park and ride to assist with shopping and heavy goods. Initial costs would be in the region of £170,000 for vehicles

and systems and initial operation there would be ongoing

costs for the administrator / delivery driver. We are

assuming some membership fee (much lower than the

commercial companies) so some of this would be offset but

would also hope that grants could be accessed to support

the scheme.

Small schemes rely on keeping overheads low so the club

would buy-in a web based, simple booking system and link

in to central procurement arrangements designed to assist

schemes and provide a lower entry cost threshold. The framework of the Community Interest Company could

provide access to a mix of community investment, public

support and support from mutual lenders and grant making

bodies. The independent car club sector, which includes

consumer co-operatives and community interest

companies, uses a different business model to commercial

operators and has made progress in locations in Northern

England & Scotland, as well as across Europe and

Canada.

Experience in Iowa City: the Iowa City

Community Bike Project & Library Initially, using a table at the farmers' market to distribute the

bicycles the founder mended, the programme quickly

became popular, attracting both patrons and volunteers

interested in bike repair. Iowa City officials agreed to provide

a location for repair work and non-profit retail operation –

offering an abandoned building for $1 per year for rent. The

programme also gained support and stability by finding a

sponsoring non-profit organisation, Environmental

Advocates. The Bike Library has served the community since 2004.

Numerous used bicycles are donated each week. Volunteer

mechanics attend Repair Nights twice weekly to refurbish

donated bicycles. Other volunteers attend a weekly Salvage

Night to reclaim usable parts from bicycles that cannot be

repaired. With about a dozen volunteers, the Library is able

to provide eight repaired bicycles each week.

Patrons checking out bicycles leave a small deposit, which is

returned when the bike is checked back in. Upon return,

bicycles are given a safety inspection before being loaned

out again. Patrons may choose to keep their bicycles (and

many do). During the check-out period, the Bike Library will

provide repair service for bicycles with no charge for labour. The start-up cost for tools, benches and bicycle stands was

about $3,500. The income from forfeited deposits provides

an income stream for replacement tools and equipment as

needed. Some income is also generated by selling used

parts, donated items such as car racks, panniers and pumps,

and scrap metal. Because operating space is donated by the

City of Iowa City, bicycles and labour are donated, the Bike

Library is self-sustaining on a very small income.

Community Bike Library To be operated by the Community Transport Company. We are proposing a low-tech “bike hire” solution, very

different from the Boris bike model, but more appropriate

to the community and overall approach (eg want to avoid

people having to have credit/debit cards; minimise costs

for users and operator; provide training & participation

opportunities for local people). The Island Bike Library would fix up donated bikes (using

volunteers / local trainees) and offer them on short or

long loan to residents of the area using a library card

system (which requires proof of address and ID). A

small deposit may be required but no fee is charged. As

well as seeking bike donations from members of the

community, the Library would canvass businesses in the

City and Canary Wharf and try to develop partnerships

with some key employers and also environmental /

transport charities or grant making organisations. We would expect some revenue generation activities eg

cycle hire for non-locals along the canal; sale of

renovated bikes and would assume over time that the

bike library may break even. In a worst case scenario,

operating costs would be very low. These schemes can achieve around three uses per day

on some of the bikes as well as longer term use.

Advantages of long-term use include rider familiarity with

the bicycle and a mode of travel that is always nearby

and ready for use. The long-term rental system generally

results in fewer repair costs to the scheme administrator,

as riders are incentivised to obtain minor maintenance in

order to keep the bike in running order during the long

rental period. Experience elsewhere Car clubs encourage a switch to public transport, walking

and cycling and result in at least fifteen cars taken off the

road for each car added to the fleet (estimate from

carclub.org). They also encourage the use of lower carbon,

cleaner vehicles than the cars people give up to join car

clubs. They also bring economic and social benefits, as

members of car clubs can save around £3,500 per year (for

those who drive less than 6,000 miles per year) over the cost

of car ownership. They can also enable occasional access to

cars for households that could otherwise not afford a car. Islington's car club recently won an Environment Award.

Their membership doubled in 2009 to 8,500 members

making it the largest in the UK. There is now one car club

member for every four on-street parking permit holders. In

2009, the number of parking permits issued in Islington

dropped for the first time ever with 1,700 fewer permits being

issued and reduced CO2 emissions from cars by 5%.




Mainstreaming Cycling The provision of better bike infrastructure (key routes and crossings highlighted in the Connections section

and incorporation of cycle parking into new developments and our hub) alongside awareness campaigns

and key partnerships eg with local schools should help deliver a step change in cycling.

We are aiming to get past the existing cycle subculture in the UK and make it mainstream - it is particularly

important in this regard to get women cycling. A recent poll by Sustrans asked women cyclists what would

get them on to bikes and the answer was simple: better infrastructure, more bike lanes.

This also echoes Jan Gehl‟s approach which we would reflect, with good quality infrastructure as critical and

the simple message that it‟s the quickest way from A to B. Alongside the bike library, the Community

Transport Company would also provide a local insurance scheme, working with the police, to reduce the

costs and speed up processes.

Encouraging Walking Our strategy will help promote more walking, through the range of initiatives outlined here and in other

sections of the report. As well as health and environmental benefits, a more walkable neighbourhood

should also be more socially and economically sustainable over time (although in the short term we will

need to work closely with local businesses to alleviate concerns and provide support / respond to issues

through the transitionary period).

After 10 years, the strategy in Melbourne to increase walking has resulted in 275% more cafés, 71%

more people-oriented spaces, with wider, lighter walkways enticing 39% more daytime pedestrian traffic

and 98% more at night.




Copenhagen, Denmark Copenhagen has also actively discouraged car use eg by restricting parking, with

around 2000 car parking spaces for about 2m inhabitants and reduced speeds

and slow zones. Alongside this have been major infrastructure improvements

for pedestrians and cyclists eg crossings; wide cycle lanes (2.5m with parking on

outside).

“Every time we lay out a cycle track lifted above the carriageway, the number of

cyclists in the district increases by 20%”. 34% who work in the city, cycle to their

jobs. More than 70% of people, using bicycles in summer, keep riding them in

winter.

Freiburg, Germany Freiburg has adopted a policy of discouraging cars, with Vauban district

adopting an even greener approach than the city. The results in terms

of changing mode share can be seen below.

Key elements in the strategy include:

1. Policy of mixed land use, with local services (“city of short

distances”)

2. Highly convenient public transportation

3. priority for biking and walking (use of cycle trailers for shopping /

children)

4. Reduced speed limit on many roads to 30kph (c18 mph)

5. 15kph speed limit on a growing number of “home zones” and

“bicycle streets”

6. 120 one-way streets (for vehicular traffic)

7. On-road parking progressively replaced by multi-storey /

underground parking garages (run by a council- owned / social

enterprise company)

8. Vehicles may enter the car-free areas at walking pace for pick-up

and deliveries only

Springhill, UK Near the centre of Stroud in Gloucestershire is the first new-build

cohousing scheme to be completed in the UK. It consists of 34 units,

ranging from one bedroomed flats to five bedrooomed house, with a

three-storey common house with a kitchen where meals are cooked and

served three times a week - other shared meals and community-based

social activities happen there too.

Parking is to one side of the site (limited to 1 per household in the

planning approval) with the rest of the site fully pedestrianised.

Evidence and examples from elsewhere





Making better use of the waterways Hackney Wick and Fish Island have an extra asset which offers further opportunity to

encourage „Car-Lite Development‟ in the area - the waterways. The Lea Valley

Navigation Canal, which separates the area from the Olympic site, is a key link not

just to the surrounding areas like Victoria Park and the Olympics but also further

South towards Bromley by Bow and Canary Wharf.

Mode of Transport The waterways are key arteries for walking and cycling, and upgraded towpaths and

new riverside paths will provide continuous and varied access. But in the long term,

we aim to promote water as a means of transport. The Mayor of London has already

established the Thames Clippers as an attractive transport option.

The Olympic Arc water routes defined by the London Thames Gateway Development

Corporation (LTGDC) provide a framework to develop this potential. The waterways

run from Hackney Wick and Fish Island to Stratford and Bromley by Bow, and we

want to maximise the potential of these over time and integrate them as part of the

community lifestyle.

Freight Navigation is currently possible along the River Lee Navigation and the waterways

south of the North London Line and there are excellent links to the wider London

waterway and national network - from the west via Regents Canal; the Thames via

Limehouse Basin and Bow Locks to upriver destinations of Springfield Marina and

beyond. This presents considerable opportunities in terms of freight movement.

Only c1 percent of domestic freight is transported on canals and rivers, even though

carbon dioxide emissions from coastal/inland shipping are 80 percent lower than for

road haulage (Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee).

The Olympic Development Authority aims for at least 50 percent of construction

material by weight to be delivered by rail and/or water. While there has been less

use made of the waterways than hoped, we are working with the ODA, LDA and

British Waterways to identify opportunities where infrastructure for freight and material

transport could be retained and utilised in legacy.

There are good opportunities and there is strong support from TfL and the Mayor‟s

Transport Strategy for water-borne freight. Two potential wharfs have been

identified, one on the River Lee Navigation and one on the Waterworks River. It is

expected that these would accommodate up to 100 tonne and 350 tonne barges

respectively. The River Lee Navigation would not require significant dredging.


Project 4: Gateways and connections

Project 4: Gateways and connections 5-4-1

Improving Connections and Quality of Place

Project Four focuses on improving the local infrastructure and

legibility of Hackney Wick and Fish Island to ensure good

connections to key places beyond the area and an enhanced

quality of place within the area.

This will help support a better quality of life for local residents and

overcome severance issues - enabling them to access

opportunities outside the area more effectively. We have also

incorporated elements of art through the different project elements

to reinforce a strong sense of place and capitalise on the creative

resources within HWFI.

It focuses on the following interventions:

1. Key connections & infrastructure

2. Maximising the potential of the waterways and boathouse

3. Enhancing the public realm & creating new public space




Key connections: overcoming severance

The area faces issues of severance as a result of the

A12 and the waterways. This creates a sense of

isolation and inhibits access. Better connectivity

between Hackney Wick / Fish Island and the

surrounding area is therefore critical to the success

of the project.

We have identified seven key places nearby (see

left) which provide different facilities and services for

the residents of the area. Connections to these

places are vital. New and enhanced bridges and

infrastructure are costly but overcoming severance is

a key priority for the strategy.

A number of important gateways to the area will

therefore be improved. While some new bridges are

being delivered as part of the Olympics, additional

crossings and upgrades in key locations are still

needed to address severance issues (see left). For

example:

1. 2 new pedestrian / cycle bridges across Lee

Navigation to Olympics Park / IBC

2. upgrade existing pedestrian bridge to green

bridge over the A12 linking Victoria Park to the

corner of Chapman and Wallis / Rothbury Roads

3. upgrade to green bridge over the A12 to replace

the existing bridge at Rothbury Road, linking to

Victoria Park

4. upgraded Eastway Bridge to allow buses to

travel in both directions, allowing flexibility for

improving bus service provision across the area

We have phased the approach given the costs

involved. In some cases an interim solution of a

cable ferry could offer a cheaper and viable

alternative.




Key connections: integrating art and involving the community

As well as enhancing the physical connections themselves, it is important to

improve legibility in and around the area. In doing this, we want to reflect the

creative buzz of the area and integrate art into the plans – and also use the

projects to help support economic activity within the area.

We aim to work with local artists to produce artwork to create legible routes.

The new/improved bridges connecting HWFI to surrounding destinations will

form focal points.

For the seven strategic connections identified on the previous page, we

propose to work with DRIFT to create sculptures and features around the

bridges to act as memorable gateways to/from the area. These will reflect

the destination to which they lead, - for example the Waterfall of Words will

offer news and media through the waterfall leading to the IBC. It is a creative

way to gain information whilst encouraging people to explore beyond. Artists

hoping to design a strategic gateway must ensure that their artwork is themed

to convey the connection between the site and the destination it leads to.

Drift is a non-profit organisation, made up of artists, who use volunteers

through various educational and volunteering schemes to erect public art

around the public realm. Their remit is to give back to the community and

ensure volunteers can participate in creating art. They are commissioned by

various bodies such as Arts Council England, TfL and the GLA (Drift Website,

2010). We hope that local artists will volunteer and participate in this initiative.

The other „local gateways‟ will change every six–twelve months and there will be local

competitions to design the artwork. There will also be a gateway allocated to the local

school for the children to design. The concept is inspired by Trafalgar Square‟s „Fourth

Plinth.‟ Local businesses, artists and community groups will manage this, helping to

build relationships and networks.

Example: “The Fourth Plinth” The Fourth Plinth Commission allows artists from

around the world to compete for the honour of having

their work displayed on the vacant podium. A decision

is part made by the public and part decided by a

panel of „specialist advisors.‟ (Mayor of London,

Fourth Plinth Website)

CASE STUDY




It is also important to think spatially, enhancing and framing landmarks and vistas

that allow residents and visitors to orientate themselves more “naturally”, for

example, through:

Character lighting

Planting that frames views

Concentrating interest at conclusion of vistas / gateways

Key connections: safety

A key aspect of effective connections is ensuring a feeling of safety – lighting is

important in this.

Enhanced lighting will be needed along the key connections, to provide increased

levels of security and illumination where pedestrian footfall will rise and currently

provision is inadequate, particularly the link to the car park / IBC.

We also propose the use of energy reduction systems, but recognise that where

investment has already been made, it would not be value for money to replace

systems. Additionally, lighting can help create a series of visual markers to assist

in orientation and enhance the sense of place within the night-time environment.

In conservation areas, accent lighting may used to pick out features.

Key connections: potential long term improvements

Our key priority is on local connections but in the long term additional strategic transport capacity may be required as

demand grows and to offset the reliance on the bus network. TfL is considering Crossrail 2 – a rail line between

Chelsea and Hackney which could provide access nearby via Homerton. Also for consideration would be a DLR

extension from Hackney Wick to Bow Church providing a link in to the Underground system. This could cost around

£125 million (Gallions reach to Dagenham Dock c £500m for a 6.5km stretch – Hackney Wick to Bow Church is

1.8km) – TfL would be lobbied to fund and deliver the scheme out of their capital budget.



/

Maximising the potential of the waterways

The waterways are a fantastic asset for HWFI and offer significant opportunities to improve local

amenities and quality of place. But they require improvement to maximise their potential.

Amenity & Leisure

The waterways are key arteries for walking and cycling. Our aim is to build on the improvements

being delivered as part of the Olympics with upgraded towpaths and new riverside paths. The

new Prescott lock (pictured below) will stop the tidal flow on the lower Lea - which, on days of

heavy rainfall, carried the overflow from the overloaded sewers through the Olympic site. Over

£20 million has been spent on the lock project which will provide significant benefits to local people

using the waterways.

There is some potential for the waterways to be used as a means of transport, although we see

the greatest potential in recreational use. Local communities currently use the River Lee

Navigation for canoeing and other boating activities. The channel is also well used by canal boats;

in 2007 annual boat usage on the lower section of the Lee Navigation was 139 boats passing

through Bow Locks, and 1102 boats passing through the Hertford Union Canal. Old Ford Locks, at

the southern tip of our area, is a key heritage feature that has the potential to be a hub of activity.

We would promote social enterprises using barges to provide café facilities and bike hire.

Development potential

The improvements to water quality also ensure a “sweeter smell” boosting the desirability and

prices of riverside properties. We would ensure community access is maintained through

planning conditions so that the waterfront is not merely privatised and also retain some key access

points / sites in community trust. Some sites would be used for private development to deliver

investment in the area and enable cross-subsidy; these would be developed “diagnonally” in

blocks so more properties and people can benefit from views.

The boathouse

One of our key interventions is to upgrade the boathouse, which will increase the attraction of

the hub.

The Johnstone Boathouse, home to the Eton Mission Rowing Club, opened in 1885 and is still

in use today. The Boathouse caters for both „serious‟ and „casual‟ rowers, and even has an

indoor rowing facility. However, it is underused and is in need of renovation.

Our vision involves refurbishing the boathouse and ensuring that local people are also utilising

the waterways, for recreational use. In order to do this, we want to promote leisure activities

through discounted rates for local residents. It would also provide new experiences for tourists

and visitors of the Olympic Legacy, thus creating a small local industry with potential to grow.

Ultimately, it could become a hub for buying, selling and maintaining boating equipment, and

enabling the development of complementary businesses such as cafes (in line with Stour

Space‟s proposed development of a terrace and a community waterfront café).




The Public Realm & Quality of Place

The existing Public Realm in HWFI is poor

in many areas. As well as helping

encourage more walking and cycling,

enhancing public spaces should also

foster greater community interaction and

improved quality of life. It is important in

regeneration, because it helps to create a

collective regard for an area which is

usable and safe and enjoyable to live in.

We want local people to access the

waterways and public spaces for their

recreational use. The map below shows

the various community hubs and proposed

public spaces which we hope will draw

people to them. In addition, the green lines

symbolize tree lined routes which highlight

the key community destinations within the

site.

Community Space: A communal space, with soft

landscaping to promote gardening and maintenance,

as part of services provided by the community centre.

Including the canal: A space that involves the water

to enhance the public realm and parade the sites

natural resources

Tree lined streets: Highlights the routes to

destinations which are of public and local interest, in

an attractive way

Residential Square: Provide an attractive inclusive

shared space for surrounding residents which

incorporates the waterways

Boat House: Open it out for local recreational uses and

in turn create a direct route from Main Street to the

docks.

Artist Space: Create sufficient space for artists across

the canal, making use of the inspirational legacy the

Olympics have left behind.




Galleries and artist

studios

Direct link to

Main Street

A A

The Public Realm & Quality of Place…a closer Look at the Fish Island

Public Space

To support the integration of the two halves of the area - Hackney Wick and

Fish Island - we propose to create a new public space in between them.

Not only will this provide a new public space, it will also act as a key walking

and cycling link between Fish Island and Hackney Wick, through the

construction of a treelined route network - linking directly to Main Street (our

new shopping high street).

This space is surrounded by light industry, galleries and work:live units and

the residential streets of Fish Island are nearby. The aim is to encourage

local businesses and residents to mix with artists, as well as emphasise the

connections to surrounding nodes. The canal running through the proposed

public space leads directly to Victoria Park to the West and runs down to the

Olympic Stadium towards the East. It is well placed and should provide a

relaxing space to be enjoyed by all members of the community.

A

A



Project 4: Gateways and connections The Public Realm & Quality of Place: enhancing the green

grid

As well as connecting to parks and amenities around the area,

it is also important to ensure appropriate green spaces within

the area itself and build further on the existing local involvement

in the area and its assets.

Allotments:

The Manor Gardens allotment was situated in the northern part

of the Olympic Park site. This is due to be replaced by a

larger area by 2014. We are proposing an additional area of

allotments at the south-west edge of the Olympics site for

Hackney Wick and Fish Island residents. This will be

negotiated with the Olympic Park legacy Company, with the

support of the two boroughs and linked to the Mayor Of

London's capital growth scheme (part of wider Olympics

programme), that aims for 2,012 new food growing sites across

the capital. It should also be supported by British Waterways

who in early 2009 announced it was turning over unused

canal-side land for use as vegetable-growing allotments

Access to the multi-use sports facility:

We propose to negotiate with the Olympic Park Legacy

company for regular free or low cost access for the local school

and low-income residents.

Social and play space:

Play provision is currently limited and often crudely demarcated

with the effect that it is either perceived to “take over“ sites eg

the green opposite St Mary of Eton or it is “meanly allocated”

within a fenced area. The aim instead is to create play spaces

that are attractive to the wider community - making room for

adults as well as children ensures both stay longer and makes

play space into social space. This will be secured through new

developments via section 106 / planning conditions. Access

to the waterfront will also be maintained and enhanced.

Biodiversity:

Using areas around A12 and railway and waterways. We will

also seek provision of green roofs with new and existing

developments and tree planting within the area (also to help

screen A12 and reduce air pollution in the area).

1) Buxhall Bee Planting workshop

2) A12 Green Infrastructure Project

3) Growing Concerns: social enterprise

nursery / horticultural training

4) Hackney Community Tree Nursery

5) Hackney Marshes User Group

6) Roof garden at Top and Tail Gallery

7) Leabank Square meadow

8) Mabley Green Community meadow

9) Trowbridge Centre Community Garden


Project 5: Housing and work:live units


Housing More than half of Hackney‟s housing is socially rented, a

much higher percentage than in London or nationally.

Social housing is dominant in Wick too, accounting for

around 61 percent of tenure. Home ownership is also low.

The provision of a balanced mix of rented, intermediate and

owner occupied housing is considered crucial for creating

and maintaining sustainable communities. While we are

aiming to increase the social mix in the area, we want to

avoid displacing the existing population. Given the high

level of social housing in the HWFI area, new build should

be focused on private development, creating a greater

tenure mix.

This social housing stock is the key foundation for us to

help maintain social diversity, with lower income

households being able to remain in HWFI. We would

therefore avoid any demolition of existing housing stock –

but given the existing provision, we are not proposing new

social house building, instead the focus is on refurbishment

where needed.

Elsewhere there is evidence of disinvestment in public

housing stock in areas of increasing land value which

creates, in effect, a “state induced rent gap” (Watt 2009) – a

driver for gentrification which we wanted to avoid. It is

also clearly better value for money to make best use of

what is there.

Private development – in line with our design principles -

will be supported. It is estimated that there is capacity for

approximately 620 new households, consisting of different

types of housing. The social housing base allows us the

opportunity to use Section 106 to help deliver adaptable

space, with a focus on work:live units as part of this.

Work:live units A key part of our project is ensuring a supply of affordable

work:live units to support the growth of the creative cluster

„With over 1000 visual artists, designers, small design

businesses and arts organisations,‟ (Fleming, T, 2010, p.14),

hosts of galleries and arts festivals, HWFI is arguably

amongst the largest creative clusters in Europe. In order to

encourage them to stay within Hackney Wick and Fish Island

and participate in the on-going development of the area, we

want to ensure that they are fully supported. But there are

difficulties in retaining artists within an area:

“Creative industries are notoriously difficult to plan

for; they don’t want to be planned for – they will go

wherever they want to.”

Simone Williams – London Borough of Tower

Hamlets

Local artists and the creative community complain about

rising and unaffordable rents. We want to avoid the

“Shoreditch effect” whereby many artists are displaced as

rents increase and the area grows in popularity. We have

therefore made plans to ensure that affordable live-work

units continue to be available. This includes the retention

of existing work:live units and the delivery of new units

through section 106. This way we ensure good supply at

reasonable cost.

Work-live zone: south of the hub and across Fish Island

The aim is to build on the existing core of work:live units

within Fish Island through the interventions outlined below.

The industrial zone also offers opportunities for work:live

units and smaller scale industrial / design space. Costs

should also be lower, next to industrial uses and bounded by

the A12.

To encourage a sense of community and inhibit segregation

between local residents and businesses and the artists, we

are establishing routes which encourage the exploration of

the site, and lead to key communal services and facilities.

The new Public Space described previously will be in the

heart of the new units.

Project5: Housing and work:live units 5-5-1

Project 5: Housing and work:live units


Project5: Housing and work:live units 5-5-2

Amnesty to protect and upgrade existing units

While there are many informal work:live units already

occupied, these are often not formally recognised since

buildings may not be explicitly designated as such.

In other areas, we have seen councils keen to promote the

creative economy and communities building new work:live

units and demolishing existing buildings, driving out

existing informal tenants. This involves significant costs

and the loss of existing creative foundations. We are

keen to avoid the pitfalls of displacing / pricing out /

ignoring the current occupiers.

We are therefore proposing a “work:live unit amnesty” and

grants for current occupiers / landlords to upgrade

buildings to meet regulations (eg electrical/gas safety) with

a covenant about keeping them at affordable rents and

retaining current tenants.

We would anticipate planning / regulatory support from the

local authority and financial support from an organisation

such as Bow Arts Trust (who help deliver live-work units for

artists). The scheme would be run on an application

basis, with an initial target of formalising / delivering

80-100 units.

We estimate it would cost around £10,00-£25,000 per

property - a much cheaper alternative than demolition

and redevelopment which helps maintain the character of

the area and social capital. Standardised “conversion

packs” for internal warehouse adaption would reduce costs

and timescales. The scheme should also help bring

funding into the area (the estimate from Bow Arts Trust is

that live/work artists generate £56,000 of community arts

money each year).

Delivery of additional affordable units through S106

Additional provision would be secured through Section

106, with a policy requiring 35 percent of new

developments to be work:live units. There is already a

relatively high level of social housing in the area, enabling

us to prioritise the work:live units. We would work with a

delivery partner with experience in this field eg ACME,

Space Studios, etc.

Experience elsewhere Initiatives elsewhere (many nearby) demonstrate that much is achievable and there are many experienced partners to work with in delivering schemes.

Other measures to support the creative community

and character of area

Other elements of our strategy include:

Single planning policy framework, application & fee:

OPLC, Hackney & Tower Hamlets joined up behind the

scenes thus addressing the difficulties of edge of

borough locations which have made small social

enterprise projects (eg Stour Space café) very difficult

to progress

Streamline short term / event licensing requirements to

support social enterprise; business opportunities;

social capital (successful experience in Amsterdam,

Berlin)

Discretionary business rate relief for social enterprise

facilities (automatic for charities but some social

enterprises are pre-charitable status / too small and are

relatively large users of space)

Co-housing: some shared facilities, builds on tradition

of shared living in the warehouses

Designation of key buildings for conservation

Design code: limiting to four storeys in key areas

Community Development Trust: buy out landlords of

key buildings / areas of land (borrowing / bonds initially

then over time cross-subsidy from some private

development opportunities / partnerships eg penthouse

flats within broader schemes, as Shoreditch Trust have

done nearby in Hackney)

Affordable housing target

Delivery mechanisms


Key partners

Boroughs (both Hackney and Tower Hamlets):

borrowing capacity

range of programmes eg apprenticeships;

education

key delivery mechanisms eg planning,

highways powers

Olympic Park Legacy Company (and potential

interested parties eg Wellcome Trust):

managing long term use / disposal of assets

and seeking to fulfil legacy commitments

planning powers

lever the best legacy locally and negotiate

transfer of assets (eg IBC, allotment sites)

Transport for London:

c£3 billion annual capital budget

range of programmes eg Local Implementation

Plans (£150-200m per year – our schemes

would qualify under three out of five of the LIP

funding streams), biking boroughs (£4m)

London Thames Gateway Development

Corporation:

power to grant permission for strategic planning

applications and to compulsory purchase land

needed for redevelopment

Olympic arc project covers Hackney Wick and

Fish Island

(£42m for this specific project – also

connections with private investors) Exit strategy:

The applications for funding we are proposing from these bodies are for specific interventions and would not

require continued funding.

Existing delivery mechanisms

Where possible, we will capitalise on existing programmes and work through partnerships with existing organisations.

This will involve piggy-backing on wider initiatives and tapping into associated funding streams. It is important to

recognise that not everything needs to be delivered locally or tailor made for the area – in many cases better value for

money will be secured by enabling local people to access resources / employment opportunities beyond the

immediate vicinity.

There is also a range of other potential partners and funders such as HCA London (public realm budget); London

European Partnership for Transport (key focus for grants

Delivery mechanisms 6-1-1

Delivery mechanisms



There is clearly no point re-inventing the wheel but we believe there are significant gaps that require new delivery mechanisms

and/or organisations. With the area on the edge of two boroughs – and a priority for neither - and with the added complication of

being part of the Olympics legacy area, the strategy risks failing without new structures adapted to the needs of this area. We

envisage creating three new funding bodies. Firstly, a Parish Council to ensure local leadership and governance; secondly a

Community Development Trust to secure and manage the major land and property assets namely the IBC and car park and

undertake development projects for the benefit of the local community; and lastly a Community Interest Company focused on the

very much smaller scale day to day projects and operations (with a core focus on transport) such as the bike library and car club.

Each of the three bodies was chosen because they are best fitted for the purpose they are designed to deliver: the community trust

is capable of handling significant sums of money invested in property and land; the community interest company for small scale

operational projects; and the community council would help overcome the problems of an area straddling different local authority

boundaries.

Exit mechanism:

As all these mechanisms require transferring the management to community organisations, no exit strategy is required.

New delivery mechanisms

Delivery mechanisms


Legal structure Summary: most typical features

Ownership, governance and

constitution

Is it a legal person distinct from those who own and/or run

it?

Can its activities benefit those who own and/or run it?

Assets 'locked in' for community

benefit?

Can it be a charity and get charitable

status tax benefits?

Trust

A way of holding assets so as to separate legal ownership from economic interest.

Assets owned by trustees and managed in interests of beneficiaries on the terms of the trust.

No, which means the trustees are personally liable.

Not usually. Trustees/directors can only benefit if trust, court or Charity Commission give permission.

Yes, if trust established for community benefit.

Yes, if it meets the criteria for being a charity.

Community interest company (CIC)

www.cicregulator.gov.uk

An effective limited company structure for social enterprise with secure 'asset lock' and focus on community benefit.

As for other limited companies, but subject to additional regulation to ensure community benefits.

Yes, members' liability limited to amount unpaid on shares or by guarantee.

Yes, but must benefit the wider community. Can pay limited dividends to private investors and directors can be paid.

Yes, through standard provisions which all CICs must include in their constitutions.

No, but can become a charity if it ceases to be a CIC.

Wick Development Trust


In July 2008 a definition of a Community Land Trust in England was included as an amendment to the Housing and Regeneration Act

2008 (House of Commons 2010: pg 2). This defines a Community Land Trust as “a corporate body which is established for the

express purpose of furthering the social, economic and environmental interests of a local community by acquiring and managing land

and other assets in order to provide a benefit to the local community and to ensure that the assets are not sold or developed except in

a manner which the trust's members think benefits the local community.”

The Wick Development Trust would acquire and manage the IBC and the car park, and eventually possibly other assets too. It

would trade on a 'not-for-personal-profit' basis, re-investing surplus back into the community. The idea, chiming with our main

objective of providing a local legacy for the people of Hackney Wick and Fish Island, would be to create wealth and – crucially – keep

it in the community.

Wick Community Transport

Introduced in 2005, Community Interest Companies are social enterprises that run like regular limited companies but with special

features to ensure they are working for the benefit of the community. They can raise capital at below market rates due to the ethical

investment industry for small scale initiatives. They do not get the tax benefits of a charity, but nor are they bound by the strict

reporting requirements of a charity. The Wick Community Transport company would run the car club and the bike library.

Wick “Parish” Council

In 2008 changes were made to the law, giving Londoners the option of forming community councils, similar to parish and town

councils, with the support of 10 percent of local electors. London Fields in Hackney and Queen’s Park in Westminster are currently

considering such a set-up, which it is claimed will among other things give local people “more influence over the things that matter”

(London Fields website)

Community councils are funded by an additional council tax known as a “precept”, which is paid by all those living in the relevant

area. If local people voted to establish one, we would recommend keeping this minimal, seeking loans and grants from charitable

trusts to supplement this income. It would run the allotments, the boat house and the public realm improvements to Main Street.

Source: www.businesslink.gov.uk/

http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/

Phasing


Phasing

Phasing 6-2-1

The regeneration we are proposing allows HWFI to capitalise

on the legacy of the Olympic Games in a way that brings real

benefits to the local community. With 2012 just around the

corner, we need to make rapid headway to take advantage

of the Olympic developments and so the timescale of the

interventions is relatively short. At the same time, the

changes can be evolutionary once the community has taken

charge of them via the mechanisms we propose. The

phasing chart below also shows projects whose completion

is less dependent on the Olympic timetable. They will be

dependent on the economic climate, which may inhibit some

of the more idealistic interventions we would like to see in the

future.

Key:

Predominantly Local

Diversity Interventions

Predominantly

Connectivity Interventions

Mix of both interventions

Short/ Medium term We have prioritised the interventions which are integral to our

vision. This means, securing the IBC both as a centre for

community development, and as a revenue-generating centre

attracting regional and national business to the high quality

office space. Anticipating increased affluence, our ‘car lite’

activities need to be implemented before people get used to

driving their cars everywhere. Linked to this are the station

improvements; it is crucial that HWFI is easily accessible via

environmentally friendly modes of transport. We also need to

connect Hackney Wick and Fish Island to prevent possible

segregation as new people move into what is a relatively small

community.

Long term There are number of initiatives whose viability will depend on the

economic climate. Upgrading the primary school will be important

for the long term prospects of the community and we expect funds

will be found for this. Improving the streetscape of Fish Island by

providing dedicated public space is something the Community

Trust might take on board if public funds are difficult to find, post

Olympics. We would like to improve access to the canal with the

creation of a water inlet, giving people a sense of moving to

something larger and more exciting. We did not include the cost in

our financing calculations because we want the community to be

involved in the actual design. However, we estimate it will be

around £3 million, based on the cost of the Ashby Canal

restoration (BBC Leicester)


Funding

Project 4 : Gateways / Connections(£7.2-£8.2 m)

Boat House Restoration ￡105K Parish Council/ local authority

then self-funding Budget then self-generating revenue streams

Allotments Negotiated land

Refitted for allotments by volunteers Minimal Parish council Running costs paid by rental income

Public Space(FI) Land donated to public realm ￡1.1m Private Funding S 106

Bridges Two bridges ￡4-5m LTGDC Budget

Project 5: Housing (£2m)

Work-Live Units Requirement for 35% of new build Nil to public Private Developer S106?

Work-Live Units x100 Upgrade to meet official standards £2m Bow Arts Trust Grants

Intervention Description Cost Funding Body Funding Mechanism

Project 1 : International Broadcast Centre (￡33.3m)

IBC Buy from OPLC and refit ￡30m* Community Trust Borrowing/ rental income

Bridge, Waterfall installation Construct bridge, fit art installation ￡3m + 315K Community Trust Borrowing

Project 2 : Station Hub & Main Street(￡10. 5 – 13.1m)

Main Street Public realm improvements ￡ 850K Local authority/ Parish Council Budget

Station Improvement New access to station ￡9.2 –

TfL/ Network Rail Budget 11.8m

Community centre annex Buy 2,000 sq ft centre £450K Local Authority Budget

Tree Planting Along main street and to shield A12 ￡1.2K GLA Mayor’s Fund

Project 3: Car-Lite Development (£14.5m)*Car Club, Cycle Library, to contribute to £250k salary costs for part-time staff

Car Park Buy structure from OPLC. Part rent £7.8m Community Trust Borrowing/ rental income

Car Club* Buy 2nd hand 8 cars, 1 van, set-up costs £170k Community Interest Company Grant/borrowing/membership fees

Cycle Library Set up costs of rental scheme £2.5k then self-funding

Community Interest Company Borrowing/Membership fees/donations

Bus Hub Relocation of bus stands nearer to station £1m TfL TfL

Walk/Cycle Routes Cycle lanes, signage, legibility £5.5m TfL LIP or HCA

Funding 6-3-1


Funding

Project 1: International Broadcast Centre

Purchase / gifting of IBC from OPLC

The Media Centre (consisting of the media/press centre, the International Broadcast Centre and

the car park) was originally estimated to cost £120 million in the Olympics plans. Costs have

increased since then and the current estimate is around £300 million.

We are proposing to purchase only the IBC and car park, not the more expensive media centre

(which would give us more space than we would ideally wish to manage). We would set up a

Wick Development Trust to manage the sale and management of the property. As already

mentioned, a substantial proportion of the building would be rented commercially, helping to

fund the community facilities and also service/repay the borrowing required and support the

operational costs of the Trust. Refit costs would be relatively small given that we would be

largely retaining the use for which the building was designed. The refit for our community

facilities would be deferred until the revenue stream from the commercial leasing of space was

established. The building costs of the IBC and car park could be between £85-155 million

(based on 9,000 square metres of offices over five floors and 53,000 square metres of studio

space and a range of costs per square metre from different comparator construction projects

such as offices, lower rise business park development, multi-storey car parks).

We are not, however, proposing to pay the full costs. Rather, we are seeking to secure the IBC

and car park for up to £40 million combined (£30 million for the IBC). While we recognise the

OPLC is under pressure to recoup investment, we believe that our approach still represents a

clear and arguable case for a number of reasons:

We are proposing to keep the building and its use, and ensure community access, both of

which are stated Olympic objectives. The decision over the legacy of the Olympic Stadium

illustrates this point. The OPLC chose West Ham United and Newham’s proposal to keep the

stadium over a Tottenham Hotspur bid which would have seen the stadium dismantled and a

new building built in its place. The Spurs bid is also reported to have failed in providing

community and flexible access to the stadium. The OPLC is having difficulty attracting potential buyers and the only offer for this building

that has been reported involves the demolition of the whole complex to build an artificial ski

resort. This lends more weight to our community proposal – there are no viable fully

commercial approaches to retain the building. If the OPLC fails to find a suitable buyer, there is a danger of the buildings falling into dis-use

and disrepair. This would result in intense public criticism and would be politically disastrous

– something the government will be keen to avoid following the Millennium Dome debacle

and after Olympic experience elsewhere, most recently Athens.

We therefore believe that offering a reduced purchase price for a community-owned and

operated facility is a viable proposal which will deliver both significant economic and

regeneration benefits as well as a clear community legacy.

In principle it might even be possible that the centre is gifted to the local community, given

Our preferred option is clearly gifting or negotiating the low cost purchase of the facilities. In this way

we would be very confident about the ongoing viability of the Community Development Trust and

manageability of the borrowing/expenditure. However, even in a worst case scenario where

negotiations resulted in a far higher purchase price (between £150-180 million), buying the facility is

still be a viable proposition. We would be able to rent office space for rates comparable to those on

offer in Shoreditch or Stratford. Reserving one fifth of the space for community purposes, would give

us 49,000 square metres to rent in total, with a potential annual income of perhaps £15-35 million.

This estimate is based on the average rental cost between Stratford and Shoreditch supplied by

Flexioffices (a monthly rental income of around £3,000 for a 50 square metre serviced office facility).

The lower spec space and studio space rental levels may be somewhat lower.

If a local authority or a grant making body were willing to offer us an interest free loan for £180 million

over 20 years, the annual repayments would be £9 million. This is clearly not an ideal situation as it

would put more pressure and risk on the project and reduce the income stream for community uses

and other ventures. But it is still eminently viable, leaving ‘wiggle room’ if it took some time to rent

out all the space, for example. This is nevertheless our worst case scenario.

Even the gifting of the facility would require the Wick Development Trust to seek a loan for the refit of

the facilities and initial start-up costs. There are different potential sources for such a loan. The EIB

has tailored its approach to investment loans to allow cities to apply for funding and in 2009 lent

around 10 billion euros for 40 urban projects. The minimum loan is usually 25 million euros and since

the EIB usually only finances 50 percent of total project cost, this implies a minimum project size of 50

million euros. The bank has also extended the scope of its structured finance facility, initially

confined to projects in the transport and environment sectors, to include urban projects. We could

also seek a grant from the European Social Fund, but these European avenues would be likely to

involve more protracted timescales. More likely we would look for a low or zero-interest loan, possibly

from the Big Society Bank, or the local authority.

Recently, the Wellcome Trust has signaled a potential interest in a bid for the Olympics site overall.

We believe that our proposals would chime well with the ethos and approach of the Trust and, if this

option progresses, we would seek to negotiate securing our proposed legacy and these particular

community facilities with them. IBC bridge

We cost the construction of the bridge at £3 million. This is based on costings from the Olympic

Development Authority for other bridges being delivered in the Park. The Community Trust would

finance the additional bridge. IBC art installation

We would commission Drift, a non-profit organization, to create an art work under the bridge.

Voluntary artists help to set up the art works and therefore costs are limited. The cost of buying a 12

metre machine would be £300,000. The cost of installing such a work under a bridge is approx.

£15,000 as Cherry pickers, safety boats, engineers, riggers etc. are needed. Source: Caroline Jones,

Creative Director, Illuminate Productions . It would be financed by the Community Trust.

Funding 6-3-2


Funding Project 2:

Main Street:

The public realm improvements to Prince Edward Road and Berkshire Road – our new Main

Street – would cost about £850,000. This estimate is based on AECOM’s estimates for similar

work in the Hackney Wick 2010 Area Action Plan

( http://www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/Documents/Hackney-Wick-Phase-1-AAP.pdf).

This would be funded by the local authority or parish council budget. Station Improvements:

Our estimate of £9-2-11.8 million is based again on AECOM’s estimates. The LTGDC owns

major land holdings both north (Wallis Yard) and south (White Post Lane in Tower Hamlets) of

the area identified for a north- south connection and new station access. This would be funded

by the TfL budget. Community centre annex

We estimate the costs for the local authority at £450,000 for acquiring 2,000 square feet via

donation or S106 or deposits. It will include four main facilities for community usage (each 500

square feet); a small childrens library, a community service information center, a training center

for young people, and a visitor center/ employment centre. Most of running cost will be

supported by the Dedicated Schools Grant and Learning Skills Grant, but it could eventually be

funded by the IBC revenue. The Grants are found in the Budget Book 2010/2011 of the Hackney

Council, www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/Documents/budget-book-2010-2011.pdf. It would be

financed by the local authority from existing budget streams.

Tree planting

Funding 6-3-3

Cycle library

Start-up costs would be £2,500 per year, after which we expect it to be self-funding. Costings come

from Iowa City Bike Library and other existing schemes (www.bikelibrary.org). It would be run by the

community interest company. Initial funds would come from donations, volunteers and deposits. Bus hub

It will cost £1m to move the bus hub next to the station and for minor reworking of routes / stops. This

costing is based on the Dalston Junction scheme and comes from TfL (www.tfl.gov.uk).

Walk and cycle facilities

Upgrading cycle lanes, paths, improved crossings, urban realm improvements, and signage are

estimated to cost £5.5m.

Key elements include:

main street shared space (costed separately)

Park to park link including upgraded A12, wayfinding, etc crossing £1.6m

Trowbridge Road and surrounds, including junctions, crossings, cycle infrastructure, 20kph zone etc

£0.5m

Wick Road connection – Hackney Wick, Victoria Park etc £0.25m

Eastway road improvements, links to Hackney Marshes etc £400,000 (upgrade of Eastway bridge

programmed in separately for delivery by Hackney Council)

£240,000 eastway junction, etc

Wick Lane (including A12 crossing) and route £1m

Smaller routes eg Cadogan Terrace etc £25-80k (x5) £240k

Roman road route and upgraded crossing £0.6m

Waterway route upgrades £400k

Other Olympic Park routes being provided as part of Olympics programme (eg Greenway etc)

Based on costings of comparable schemes in Hackney Wick AAP

www.hackney.gov.uk/hackney-wick-aap.htm

We would expect these to be funded by the local councils via their Biking Borough and LIP programme

funding streams from TfL (the overall LIP budget is £150-200m per year overall for London boroughs -

this would qualify under 3 out of the 5 LIP streams: Corridors, Neighbourhoods, and Smarter Travel.

There is also £4m available per year for biking hubs. This LIPs funding stream would also support

future maintenance / revenue costs. Additionally, there may be access to the HCA London public

realm budget and the London European Partnership for Transport fund (which has a key focus on

mode shift)

Project 3

Car park

We plan to buy the car park next to the IBC, which comprises 1200 spaces and a 28 coach

drop-off space which we have costed at £7.8 million. This is based on the costs of building

Ipswich Station Multi storey Car park (£2.6 million for 434 spaces) . Reference:

http://www.corusconstruction.com/file_source/StaticFiles/Construction/Library/Steel%20Framed

%20Car%20Parks%20PDF.pdf It will be run, like the IBC, by the Community DevelopmentTrust

(see above for the proposed approach). Car club

We estimate the costs at £170,000 plus the annual £25,000 salary costs of a part-time

administrator to run it. That includes £30,000 for business planning and costs, and £140,000 to

fund acquisition of vehicles and purchase of systems for booking. This is for eight second hand

vehicles and I van. It is based on a co-operative/voluntary scheme model for smaller

communities and independent car club sector costings. The estimates are based on the

following sources: DfT www.dft.gov.uk, Carplus: Association of car clubs

www.carplus.org.uk/car-clubs/, and Developing Car Clubs in Scotland, A Review by the

Transform Scotland Trust June 2010. It would be run by a community interest group who would

be funded through grants and membership fees.

http://www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/Documents/Hackney-Wick-Phase-1-AAP.pdf

http://www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/Documents/budget-book-2010-2011.pdf

http://www.bikelibrary.org/

http://www.hackney.gov.uk/hackney-wick-aap.htm

http://www.corusconstruction.com/file_source/StaticFiles/Construction/Library/Steel%20Framed%20Car%20Parks%20PDF.pdf

http://www.corusconstruction.com/file_source/StaticFiles/Construction/Library/Steel%20Framed%20Car%20Parks%20PDF.pdf

http://www.dft.gov.uk/

http://www.carplus.org.uk/car-clubs/


Funding


Community Trust will be in debt for a while

Government will not profit from the purchase of the IBC for

community use

Rent for office space will be atleast the UK average

Community profits for other projects will initially be low

Short term: New jobs but low paid

Park and Walk Scheme will mean lifestyle change


Congestion on the edge of the site, near car park

Initially, new jobs will be low paid/voluntary work

Requires full community support to run councils and

initiatives

Cost: £10.5 -13.1m

Priced out by larger retail chains

Cost: £7.2-8.2million

Funding non profit art installations

Creative community excludes others in HWFI

Cost: £2million

Informal units may not be able to afford

formalisation

Minimal revenue from affordable work

space

Project 4: Gateways. Connections

Boat House:

We estimate funding of £105,000 for restoration. The Architect and

Quantity Surveyor have calculated that the budget cost for

re-building will be between £350,000, and VAT will account for

about £50,000 of this. It is vital therefore that we get the zero rating

if we can. The cost is due to the piling and foundation work required,

approximately £70,000. Source: Sea Scouts Website, 2006,

Boathouse News,

http://www.1streadingseascoutgroup.org.uk/boathousenews.php

Accessed: 25/04/11 . This would come from the Parish council

budget. This refurbishment would be funded by the Parish Council,

or if it is not set up in time, by the local authority. Eventually the

running costs should be funded from revenue streams.

Allotments:

We would aim to keep costs minimal, using volunteers, negotiation

of section 106. Negotiated land will be ‘refitted’ for allotment by

volunteers. This project will be supported by Parish Council.

Public space in Fish Island:

We estimate this would cost £1.1 million and be funded through

Section 106 provisions.

Bridges:

The cost of two new bridges at the HW-FI link and main street hub

should be around £4-5m based on ODA costings for other bridges

being delivered in the Park (improvements to Eastways bridge are

being delivered by Hackney Council). This would come from the

LTGDC budget under the Olympic arc programme.

Project 5: Affordable housing

Live-work units

Upgrading the live-work units to current standards should cost £2m

for 100 units based on average cost of £10-25k per unit. This is

based on building costs and estimates from similar projects eg

Shoreditch Trust, Bow Arts Trust and would be funded by such a

trust.

Funding 6-3-4

Project 5:

Housing

Project 2

Station Hub

& Main Street

Project 3:

Car Lite Development

Project 4:

Gateways and Connections

Project 1

IBC

Could be included in the purchase of gaining of IBC

Revenues gained from renting spaces

External connection growth; bringing visitors, firms

Unique character, good legibility & public realm

Healthier, active lifestyle for locals

Generation of revenue from external/global firms – rent

Building professional and social networks

Supporting the local growth of SME’s

Include local artists to participate in development of the area

This will help to grow the creative cluster i.e. publishing

Venue Legacy & Local Legacy

Decrease unemployment levels; gain valuable experience

Create a sustainable and active way of living

Inward investment generated from local retail business

Increase footfall and thus revenues

Provision of services, functions and amenities

Training and education facilities to upskill

Clean, safe public realm – renewed perception of HWFI

Support the growth of creative industries

Continuing & changing public art displays

Improved integration between HW and FI

Enhance public realm

Make the waterways functional and

profitable

Minimum 35% work live space

Affordable for local and global

artists

Attract students from nearby

colleges

Create high quality, affordable units


Community Trust will be in debt for a while

Government will not profit from the purchase of the IBC for

community use

Rent for office space will be at least the UK average

Community profits for other projects will initially be low

Short term: New jobs but low paid

Park and Walk Scheme will mean lifestyle change


Congestion on the edge of the site, near car park

Initially, new jobs will be low paid/voluntary work

Requires full community support to run councils

and initiatives

Cost: £10.5 -13.1m

Priced out by larger retail chains

Cost: £7.2-8.2million

Funding non profit art installations

Creative community excludes others in

HWFI

Cost: £2million

Informal units may not be able to

afford formalisation

Minimal revenue from affordable

work space

Cost Benefit Analysis (Costs are shown to the left, benefits to the right)

http://www.1streadingseascoutgroup.org.uk/boathousenews.php


Evaluation and monitoring

Intervention KPI Baseline Outcome Success Criteria

New

Allotments

Delivery of 1.8ha

Take-up of allotments by local

residents

No local allotments

Access to green space

Health benefits (produce and activity)

Community interaction

IBC

Acquisition

Percentage of occupied space

Numbers of local residents using

community space

Number of new SMEs

Revenues earned

Olympics building

with no local use

Local legacy

Inward investment and multiplier effect

supporting local businesses

Increased entrepreneurial culture

Increased social capital

Revenues for community investment

Create local

Main Street

Footfall count

Thriving local businesses Inactive and very low footfall

Safe, busy and attractive environment

Sustainable community (London Plan)

‘Car-lite’

Interventions

Survey of local residents

Cycle mode share

Walk mode share

Air quality

Public space audit

Parking on street minimising

interactive space

40% households without car

Increased community interaction and

liveable streets

Reduced air pollutant emissions

Sustainable development

Innovation and social enterprise

Art

Installations

Number of local artists participating

‘Health’ of creative sector

c1000 artists, many ‘informal’

studios,

Expand the creative industries

Inward investment

Increased sense of place

Boathouse Number of people using the waterways

for recreational use Currently underused by locals

Opening up access to the waterways

Value generation and revenue

Community

Centre

Number of people enrolled in evening

classes

Increase in qualifications and

employment

High unemployment and low

skills based

Up-skilling and reduced unemployment

Access to new opportunities outside of

the HWFI

Enhancing

connections

(bridges,

improved

routes, etc)

ATOS (access to services) levels (TfL)

Footfall levels along key routes

High severance

and low legibility

Increased access to services and

facilities

Improved quality of life

Retention of

social housing

Number of social housing units

Mix of income levels in area Good existing stock

Access to affordable housing for low

income groups

Social mix

Work:live units

35% affordable work/live units in new

development

Size/’health’ of creative sector

Many informal units and

increasing rents

Expand the creative industries

Income generation in area

Inward investment

Mixed community

Public realm

improvements

Public space audit

Survey of local residents

Areas of degraded environment

& little open space in area itself

Integration of communities and space

Safe and attractive environment

Station

improvements

and potential

DLR link

PTAL Currently high reliance on buses,

lower commuting rates

Increased accessibility and access to

wider opportunities

Use of sustainable transport modes

Opportunities for local businesses

Overview Many projects fail because efforts are not made

to work out what the project should achieve

before it is implemented. We don’t want to fall

into this trap. The following diagram shows the

benefits we are expecting from our proposed

interventions - in line with our vision and core

objectives - and how we will assess them.

car-lite

car-lite

car-lite

Sh

ort

er

Te

rm In

terv

en

tio

ns

Lo

ng

er

Te

rm I

nte

rve

nti

on

s

Evaluation and monitoring 6-4-1

Monitoring

Putting in place a monitoring strategy (to be

managed by the Parish Council, with technical

support from the local authorities) should

ensure an ongoing focus on key outcomes. It

will also provide a basis for review of the

different interventions and potential adaptation

– given the fast changing environment, it will

be important to be able to respond to potential

changes, possible unexpected impacts and

new opportunities.

Opportunity Costs

The emphasis on local legacy could inhibit the

growth of private development which would

bring more affluent people and potentially

greater investment into the area. However, a

pure market approach would likely involve the

importation of wealth and exporting of

disadvantage rather than delivering real or

lasting benefits locally. In Fish Island, this type

of gated development has already begun with

some new residential blocks, which are

unaffordable for locals and exclude parts of the

waterways to the public.

It could also be argued that the spaces and

buildings which we propose to use for

allotments and Work-Live Units at affordable

rents, could be better used for higher value

uses. However, our focus is on ensuring a

local legacy and a thriving and sustainable

mixed community. We believe our proposals

strike a balance between supporting economic

growth, enabling private development while

ensuring that local communities are not merely

displaced and making the most of the assets

that the area has for the wider benefit of all.

Our approach is not prescriptive - if there are

other proposals for spaces, which meet with

local requirements and capitalise on

opportunities they will be reviewed.


Evaluation and monitoring

The largest element is not about building something new but about ensuring an on-going use and legacy for the

Olympic buildings that may otherwise be White Elephants

Other interventions are also about retaining existing assets eg social housing, live:work units, which represents

good value for money, and also is positive in environmental terms

While some of the benefits are difficult to quantify or monetise, we are clear that they have value eg high quality

space; continued access to affordable homes – not only in terms of quality of life and social justice but also in

economic terms with access to labour and quality of place important for businesses

We are confident that with such an active community already in HWFI, there will be the necessary community

support and active participation to make the proposals a success

The interventions are sustainable – many are self financing over time and we are establishing viable structures

which can continue to support the programmes being put in place, monitor outcomes and identify new and

further opportunities.

Evaluation and monitoring 6-4-2

Cost:

£33.3 million

Benefits:

Generation of revenue from commercial rent

Multiplier effect within local area

Supporting the local growth of SMEs

Building professional and social networks

Local Legacy

Increased skills; community engagement;

decreased unemployment levels

Risks:

Community Trust will be in debt for a while;

Government will not profit from the purchase

of the IBC or directly recoup investment; More

affluent bodies may buy it and use in a

different way.

Mitigations:

Sound business case for CDT; commercial

expertise within the Trust; emphasis of local

legacy / lobbying; requirement for function to

relate to and benefit our site

Cost:

£10.5 -13.1m

Benefits:

Increased footfall and viability of businesses

Inward investment / opportunities for local

business

Provision of some local services, functions

and amenities

Training and education facilities to upskill

Clean, safe public realm – renewed

perception of HWFI

Integration of the different parts of the area

Added value to the existing character and

culture of the area (eg Hackney Pearl Café,

which employs many local artists)

Risks:

Priced out by corporates; services cater to

only some communities

Mitigations:

Negotiation with landlords for local business

access/space; support for social enterprises;

use of local development

orders/neighbourhood development orders to

shape uses

Cost:

£14.4 million

Benefits:

Create a sustainable and active way of living

Revenues gained from renting car park

spaces commercially

External connections;

Unique character, good legibility & public

realm - attract visitors and firms

Risks:

Scepticism; lifestyle changes for the local

community; business concerns; requires

community support to run; initial small scale

Mitigations:

Enable access to car club / delivery facilities

etc to support daily needs; maintain access

for businesses; engage local businesses and

residents’ groups; demonstrate practical

benefits (eg playspace for children) self

sustaining business model; use income

generated to grow the scheme; relatively high

number of households without car currently;

Cost:

£7.2-8.2million

Benefits:

Improve access to opportunities and services

beyond the area

Increase walkability – cheapest transport

option


Continuing & changing public art displays –

sense of place and interest

Improved integration between HW and FI

Enhanced public realm and quality of life

Open up the waterways for wider use and

social enterprise opportunities

Community spaces and interaction

Risks:

Creative identity excludes others in HWFI;

expenditure on art seen as ‘frivolous’

Mitigations:

Local stakeholders to provide resource and

aid future development / maintenance of

these; involvement of local school etc

Cost:

£2million

Benefits:

Retention of access to affordable housing

Delivery of additional affordable and high

quality work live space

Help retain existing communities and attract

further entrepreneurs


Risks:

Lack of trust in amnesty; viability concerns

from developers; catering to limited sectors

of population

Mitigations:

Engagement with residents and community

groups; work with experienced and

specialised partners; retention of social

housing stock and family units in area;

consider opportunities for adaptable housing

/ other types of provision within particular

developments

Conclusion Our success criteria are extremely important – we are not proposing to intervene just for the sake of it. It is clear that both

physical and social access to facilities, homes and employment are key to our vision and we want to support lifestyle

changes to ensure the long terms sustainability of the area (and London more widely). We have thus geared our

proposals to achieve these aims. We are conscious that in the current economic climate, we will need to phase our

approach with eg more aspirational public realm schemes awaiting the appropriate context.

But for some interventions we cannot afford to wait – the Olympics legacy must be secured before it is too late. While our

proposals have relatively high financial costs, we believe they represent excellent value for money and are deliverable:

car-lite

1

2

3

4

5


Conclusion

Final Word

Conclusion 6-5-1

There was a massive outpouring of national joy when it was announced that London had

won host city status for the 2012 Olympic Games. Enthusiasm soon dissipated, however,

particularly among the people who could have the most to benefit from the changes.

Scepticism about legacy is rife. We think this is because authorities have been so busy

with delivering the Games on time that they have forgotten about the equally detailed

plans needed to ensure a local legacy. Our proposals remedy that. Our delivery

mechanisms are geared to handing over responsibility for the daily running of many of

our interventions to the community who will benefit from them. They are also geared to

allowing the community to gain financially from the Olympic facilities and the anticipated

increase in land values through the Wick Development Trust. The area already boasts

a real sense of identity, but it is a somewhat divided community (between newcomers

and older residents) and it lacks a place for coming together. Our interventions would

change that by creating a hub that serves many purposes. It will bind Hackney Wick and

Fish Island together, and it offers potential for small-scale leisure, retail and business

activity, as well as being a multi-modal transport hub. We hope this will give the

community the momentum its need to take responsibility for the delivery of many of these

proposals which will make HWFI a vibrant, dynamic community attracting investment

from wider afield.

But successful communities are more than just about economic gain and political power:

they are also about meeting the challenge of sustainability. We are anticipating that

greater affluence will mean that an area with one of the lowest rates of car ownership in

London will take to the motorcar, which is exactly the opposite of what successful cities

and communities should be aiming for today. That’s why we have spent so much effort

drawing up detailed proposals for a car-lite community. We think our other proposals will

generate enough goodwill for people to give these initiatives a chance, and once they do

so, we are convinced they will realise that limiting reliance on the motorcar is the best

strategy not only for the community, but also for them as individuals. If we seize the

momentum, we think the people of HWFI will be cheering as loudly during the Games in

2012 as the crowds in Trafalgar Square when this whole process began.


Bibliography Fleming T, 2010, ‘Hackney Wick Fish Island Creative Economy Growth Options Final Report’, http://www.ltgdc.org.uk/pdf/HWFI_TFCC_final_report_21.04.pdf Francis. M, Sept 2010, ‘Core Strategy 2025, Development Plan Documents’, LBTH Hodson. J, 2010, ‘Core Strategy- Hackney Strategic Planning Policies 2010-2025’, LBH Johnson. B, 2009, ‘Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London’ LBH, 2007, ‘A profile of Wick Ward’, : http://www.invest-in-hackney.org/files/uploads/wick-ward-profile.pdf LBH, 2010, ‘Economic Development Strategy for Hackney Consultation Draft’ http://www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/Documents/EDS-consultation-version.pdf LBH, 2010, ‘Economy Borough Profile’, http://www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/Documents/hackney-economy.pdf LBH, 2006, ‘E9 area guide’, http://www.mouseprice.com/area-guide/E9/Hackney LBH, 2010, ‘Hackney Key Facts & Figures’, Strategic Policy & Research Team, http://www.teamhackney.org/facts-and-figures_hackney.pdf LBH, 2010, ‘Hackney Wick Area Action Plan’

LBH, 2010, ‘Local Development Framework’ LBH, 2010, ‘Masterplan Phase 1’, http://www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/Documents/Hackney-Wick-Phase-1-AAP.pdf LBH, 2010, ‘Upturn Support for Individuals’, Employers and Businesses’, http://www.teamhackney.org/upturn_leaflet.pdf LBTH, 2009, ‘Fish Island A Rationale for Regeneration’, Evidence Base, www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/ LBTH, 2010, ‘Fish Island Area Action Plan – Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report’, www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/ LBTH, 2003, ‘Tower Hamlets Air Quality Action Plan’, http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgsl/401-450/413_air_quality/reports.aspx LBTH, 2010, ‘Tower Hamlets statistics on Bow East and Bow West wards’, http://www.onetowerhamlets.net/your_local_area/your_lap/lap_5.aspx Songdo IBD, 2010, ‘Masterplan: Canal Walk, Fact sheet’ TGDC, 2010, ‘Hackney Wick and Fish Island: Vision & Objectives’ TGDC, 2010, ‘Hackney Wick and Fish Island Regeneration: Vision and Objectives’, http://www.ltgdc.org.uk/pdf/HWFI%20Vision_100201_Final_low_res.pdf TGDC, 2010, ‘Planning Obligations Community Benefit Strategy – Revised’, http://www.ltgdc.org.uk/pdf/POCBS%20Revised%20July%202010%20Final.pdf Wiiliams, S, 2011, ‘Face to Face Interview with Simone Williams’,GLA

Bibliography 6-6-1

http://www.ltgdc.org.uk/pdf/HWFI_TFCC_final_report_21.04.pdf

http://www.invest-in-hackney.org/files/uploads/wick-ward-profile.pdf

http://www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/Documents/EDS-consultation-version.pdf

http://www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/Documents/hackney-economy.pdf

http://www.mouseprice.com/area-guide/E9/Hackney

http://www.teamhackney.org/facts-and-figures_hackney.pdf

http://www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/Documents/Hackney-Wick-Phase-1-AAP.pdf

http://www.teamhackney.org/upturn_leaflet.pdf

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=e8939f33-8d7c

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgsl/401-450/413_air_quality/reports.aspx

http://www.ltgdc.org.uk/pdf/HWFI%20Vision_100201_Final_low_res.pdf

http://www.ltgdc.org.uk/pdf/POCBS%20Revised%20July%202010%20Final.pdf


Bibliography

Websites

Parts Addresses

Blogs in HWFI http://hackneywick.blogspot.com/

http://www.formanandfield.com/blog/category/formans-fish-island-2/

Community Centre in HW http://hackneywickcentre.co.uk/

http://www.london.gov.uk/streettrees/

Haringay’s Adult Learning Services: http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/jobs_and_training/hals/whatishals.htm

Community Council http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2011/02/03/plans-afoot-for-london-fields-community-council/

http://londonfieldscouncil.org.uk/?page_id=2

http://www.queensparkforum.org/blog.php/category/campaign-for-queens-park/

http://www.economist.com/node/18184314

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/01/parish-councils-gain-more-powers

Community Interest Company www.cicregulator.gov.uk/

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1077476109&type=RESOURCES

Community Trust http://www.shoreditchtrust.org.uk/

http://www.dta.org.uk/

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/17/contents

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1310666.pdf

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsp-04903.pdf

Drift http://www.drift-london.co.uk/about-us/

Environment Agency http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/103321.aspx

Environment Forum in Hackney, 2007 http://www.clubplan.org/cms/page.asp?org=2673&name=parksandopenspaces

Galleries http://www.elevatorgallery.co.uk/

http://portal.stourspace.co.uk/

http://www.estatesgazette.com/blogs/london-residential-research/2010/02/came-across-this-picture-below.html

Olympic groups http://www.citymayors.com/development/olympics2012-east-london.html

http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/

Bibliography 6-6-2

http://hackneywick.blogspot.com/

http://www.formanandfield.com/blog/category/formans-fish-island-2/

http://hackneywickcentre.co.uk/

http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/jobs_and_training/hals/whatishals.htm

http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2011/02/03/plans-afoot-for-london-fields-community-council/

http://londonfieldscouncil.org.uk/?page_id=2

http://www.queensparkforum.org/blog.php/category/campaign-for-queens-park/

http://www.economist.com/node/18184314

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/01/parish-councils-gain-more-powers

http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1077476109&type=RESOURCES

http://www.shoreditchtrust.org.uk/

http://www.dta.org.uk/

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/17/contents

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1310666.pdf

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsp-04903.pdf

http://www.drift-london.co.uk/about-us/

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/103321.aspx

http://www.clubplan.org/cms/page.asp?org=2673&name=parksandopenspaces

http://www.elevatorgallery.co.uk/

http://portal.stourspace.co.uk/

http://www.estatesgazette.com/blogs/london-residential-research/2010/02/came-across-this-picture-below.html

http://www.citymayors.com/development/olympics2012-east-london.html

http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/


Bibliography http://www.london.gov.uk/blog/why-london-olympics-mean-business

Olympic Trust Legacy Company investment prospectus http://www.legacycompany.co.uk//investment-opportunities/the-venues/press-and-broadcast-centres/

Parkopedia http://en.parkopedia.co.uk/parking/carpark/stratford_multi_storey/e15/stratford/

St Mary of Eton Church and offshoots http://etonmissionrc.webeden.co.uk/

http://www.the59club.org.uk/menu_page.html

The Fourth Plinth http://www.london.gov.uk/fourthplinth/content/about-programme

The Hackney Pearl café http://thehackneypearl.com/timeout-com-and-the-hackney-citizen/

This is London http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23811499-life-on-the-olympic-fringe.do

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23936154-londons-young-artists-designers-and-architects-take-over-the-underground.do

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-olympics/article-23923392-olympic-media-centre-could-become-indoor-skiing-resort.do

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23877155-pound-308m-olympics-media-centre-faces-demolition-after-games.do

Journal: Evening Standard Beard. M, 2011, ‘Boris invites bids for first Olympic Park Neighbourhood’

http://thisborough.towerhamlets.gov.uk/ProfileView.asp?chkCompVal115=chkCompVal&chkCompVal111=chkCompVal&ProfileID=71&ThemeID=40&GeographyID=BE&GeographyTypeID=5&browser=n

n6&FirstPage=Area&CompSet=True&btnPrint.x=10&btnPrint.y=13&btnPrint=+++Print+++

Bibliography 6-6-3

http://www.london.gov.uk/blog/why-london-olympics-mean-business

http://www.legacycompany.co.uk/investment-opportunities/the-venues/press-and-broadcast-centres/

http://en.parkopedia.co.uk/parking/carpark/stratford_multi_storey/e15/stratford/

http://etonmissionrc.webeden.co.uk/

http://www.the59club.org.uk/menu_page.html

http://www.london.gov.uk/fourthplinth/content/about-programme

http://thehackneypearl.com/timeout-com-and-the-hackney-citizen/

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23811499-life-on-the-olympic-fringe.do

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23936154-londons-young-artists-designers-and-architects-take-over-the-underground.do

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-olympics/article-23923392-olympic-media-centre-could-become-indoor-skiing-resort.do

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23877155-pound-308m-olympics-media-centre-faces-demolition-after-games.do

http://thisborough.towerhamlets.gov.uk/ProfileView.asp?chkCompVal115=chkCompVal&chkCompVal111=chkCompVal&ProfileID=71&ThemeID=40&GeographyID=BE&GeographyTypeID=5&browser=nn6&FirstPage=Area&CompSet=True&btnPrint.x=10&btnPrint.y=13&btnPrint=+++Print

http://thisborough.towerhamlets.gov.uk/ProfileView.asp?chkCompVal115=chkCompVal&chkCompVal111=chkCompVal&ProfileID=71&ThemeID=40&GeographyID=BE&GeographyTypeID=5&browser=nn6&FirstPage=Area&CompSet=True&btnPrint.x=10&btnPrint.y=13&btnPrint=+++Print