Lea Bridge East by Jody Liu

LEA BRIDGE EAST

University College London The Bartlett School of Planning BENVGUR4 Case Studies in Preparing Regeneration Projects Final Report Lachlan Anderson-Frank Laura Dodds-Hebron Abigail Levner Jody Liu Marta Zaccaganini

cover image: aerial view of Lea Bridge Station in 1947 taken from Simmons Aerofilms Ltd

1. Introduction............................................................7

Part 1. Analysis

2. Critical Analysis....................................................13 2.1 Location & History.........................................13 2.2 Natural Environment………………….......15 2.3 Accessibility.....................................................16 2.4 Socioeconomic Dimensions.........................18 2.5 Planning Context............................................19 3. SWOT Analysis.....................................................24

CONTENTS

Part 2. Strategy 4. Vision.....................................................................26 5. Key Objectives.......................................................27 6. Interventions.........................................................30 6.1 Pilot Projects...................................................30 6.2 Meeting Community Needs.........................31 6.3 Mixing Uses....................................................32 6.4 Preserving Heritage.......................................34 6.5 Arches Refurbishment...................................35 6.6 Open & Green Spaces....................................36 6.7 New Connections...........................................37 7. Outputs..................................................................38

Part 3. Implementation 8. Key Stakeholders...................................................42 9. Delivery Vehicle and Governance......................44 10. Phased Development.........................................46 11. Financial Viability..............................................49 12. Funding Sources.................................................51 13. Evaluation & Monitoring..................................52 14. Risks & Mitigations............................................54

Part 4. Conclusion 15. Bibliography........................................................58 16. List of figures and tables....................................64 17. Appendix.............................................................65 photo by: Jody Liu

borough map taken from Google, graphics by Jody Liu

1. Introduction

Executive Summary Lea Bridge East is an exciting and innovative regeneration project tackling the complex challenge of maintaining industrial land and jobs, whilst meeting housing and social infrastructure needs in an up-and-coming area of east London. Located on the western edge of the London Borough of Waltham Forest, facing Hackney across the Lea Bridge marshes, and adjacent to the newly reopened Lea Bridge station, the eleven hectare plot is enviably located. Primarily used for industrial purposes, whilst the site is an important hub for small businesses and local employment opportunities, it is underutilised and unsightly. With sharply rising house prices in the surrounding area, a rising population and developers starting to move into surrounding plots, the Lea Bridge East project is a timely intervention that gives careful consideration to the needs of current and future residents, as well as those in the vicinity.

photo by Jody Liu

The four key objectives of the project are to: • Maintain or increase industrial jobs whilst meeting housing needs, setting precedent for how industry and residents can share space harmoniously and beneficially. • Create a vibrant and comfortable place to live that reflects the diversity of the area and provides new community infrastructure for Lea Bridge residents. • Knit the site into the surrounding area, establishing an ease of movement to, from and through the space. • Maintain the industrial character of the area while improving the quality of the built environment.

Creating over 5,000 new jobs and 1,732 homes; maintaining 70,000 square meters of industrial space; establishing new pedestrian and cycle routes; creating a new GP hub, pre-school, residential care home for the elderly; and integrating unique retail and cultural spaces, whilst upgrading the green spaces and the canal - the small site will be bursting with life. Delivered over a six year period, at a cost of £475 million, the project will be managed by a Special Purpose Vehicle led by Waltham Forest Council. Funding will primarily come from the developer, alongside small grants from funding bodies such as the NHS, National Lottery, Arts Council and the Education Funding Agency for specific on-site projects. With the local authority benefitting from contributions to their housing, employment and infrastructure targets; developers being set to make a 20% profit margin; and local residents recieving improved access to services and pleasant outdoor spaces - the scheme is set to be a popular showcase for mixed-use regeneration of industrial areas.

Part 1. Analysis

photo by Jody Liu

2. Critical Analysis 2.1 Location & History Location The eleven-hectare industrial site sits on the edge of the Waltham Forest borough, near the border of Hackney, and is severed into north (Rigg Approach) and south (Lammas Way) sections by the busy Lea Bridge Road. It is bordered to the west by the River Lee Flood Relief Channel and Hackney Marshes parkland and to the east by a rail track parallel to Orient Way. These features leave the site fragmented and inaccessible to pedestrians.

The mid-1800s brought many developments: after the station opened, the existing bridge over the track was built, raising street level 10 metres, to the pub’s first floor (Hidden London, n.d.). Filter beds were installed in the nearby marshes to meet the water needs of London’s growing population. Substantial terraced housing was built along Lea Bridge Road, raised to the higher road level to mitigate flooding. Behind these houses along the railway tracks, a shanty town developed, served by a mission church established to aid the poor. The area surrounding the site began to industrialise, and the nearby gasworks were built (ibid.).

While the site and Lea Bridge area remain largely in a state of decline, surrounding areas like Clapton, Walthamstow, Leyton and Stratford have experienced intense change from regeneration efforts and gentrification, leading to drastically increased land values. History The history of the site has been shaped by its geographical setting within the Lea River Valley, which is prone to flooding (Environment Agency, 2013). This ever-present risk has historically influenced the site’s land use, and is the most likely reason that the area is today industrial rather than residential. The modern installation of the flood relief channel has partially mitigated this risk. map showing site surroundings, taken from Google maps

The site was undeveloped marshland until 1840, when Lea Bridge Road station was built on the line connecting Stratford to Broxbourne (Powell, 1973). At this time, the area featured just one enterprise: the Greyhound Pub, constructed one year before the railway’s opening in an anticipation of customers the station would bring (ibid.). The pub remains on the site but is not in use.

Figure 1: aerial view of station, 1952. Source: Simmons Aerofilms Ltd.

The late-1800s to early-1900s saw the construction of more suburban housing and standardised streets to the south, serviced by a school and Carnegie Library (Grade II Listed) on Lea Bridge Road. By 1930, the shantytown was demolished and replaced by a stadium for dog-racing, then football (Leabridge.org, n.d.). Beyond the site, industrial and residential uses had developed side-by-side, with terraced housing closely integrated with factories including a bottle factory, gasworks, cast stone, upholstery and metal work. The site’s southern section was occupied only by playing fields.

In 1941, 8 bombs fell in the area, requiring the pub to be rebuilt (ibid.) As part of the post-war construction boom, in 1947 the River Lee Flood Relief Channel began construction, reaching the site in the 1960s. The stadium was demolished, opening the site to new industries: warehouses and factories specializing in shirts, fish products, furniture, wood products, and more opened up into the 1970s, with many of the buildings remaining today. In the 1980s and 1990s, terraced housing along Lea Bridge road was demolished while the Greyhound Pub and Lea Bridge Station closed due to falling demand (figure 2) (Leabridge.org, n.d.). Orient road was built for HGVs to access the nearby Argall Industrial Estate.

2.2 Natural Environment Flood Risk Flooding from the lower River Lea threatens the site and southwestern portions of the borough beyond. Figure 3 indicates flood risks in and around the site area with zone 3b indicating the most vulnerable areas, with 5% probability of flooding (Cook 2016) (London Borough of Waltham Forest, 2014: 5). The site (figure 3, site boundary drawn in red) is designated flood risk zone 2 south of Lea Bridge Road; zone 3a along the railway tracks, along the Flood Relief Channel’s southern half, and portions of the site’s north section; and zone 3b along the Relief Channel’s northern half. Much of the northern half of the site are not at risk of flooding. Despite the risk rating, there has been little to no surface flooding in the site over the last 200 years (London Borough of Waltham Forest, 2014: 8). Figure 3: flood risk zones in Lea Valley area. Source: Cook, 2016

Air Quality The borough is an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for NO2 and particulate matter (PM10). At high concentrations, these inflame airways, trigger asthma, deteriorate the respiratory system, reduce life expectancy by 7-8 months, and cause 4,300 deaths annually in London (Greater London Authority, 2012: 12-3).

Figure 2: Lea Bridge station on its last day of operation in 1985. Source: Richard Allen, 2016.

Figure 4: NO2 levels in Lower Lea region. Source: GLA, 2012.

Lea Bridge Road, from Orient Way (the site’s eastern boundary) to Avondale Road (figure 4), features high levels of air pollution, mainly from buses (39%) and HGVs (heavy goods vehicles) (26%). (Greater London Authority, 2012: 9). The intervention will support alternative forms of transportation as fewer cars means decreased emissions that contribute to climate change; reduced urban heat island effect; improved air quality; fewer collisions, enhanced walkability, and reduced noise pollution (Greater London Authority, 2012: 20).

2.3 Accessibility According to the public transport accessibility level (PTAL) index (figure 5), the site has medium level accessibility rankings. PTAL rankings have recently increased from a low score following the reopening of Lea Bridge station and the addition of bus stops outside the station (PTAL: 2017).

Figure 5: newly opened Lea Bridge Station, 2016. Source: Geoff Marshall, 2016

Train Lea Bridge station is located on Argall Way, at the junction of Lea Bridge Road and Orient Way. It reopened in May 2016, following a 31 year closure (figure 5). The station is located on the Lea Valley Line between Stratford and Tottenham Hale. There are two trains per hour in each direction. Transport for London (TfL) estimates that there will be 352,000 entries and exits annually by 2031, approximately 1,000 per day (Brown, Evening Standard, 2016). So far usage has exceeded predictions. Alternatively, Leyton Underground station is located 1.8 miles south-east of Lea Bridge station, at the end of Leyton High Road.

Car In 2011, the average rate of car ownership per household was 0.5, versus the London average of 0.8 (Waltham Forest Statistics, 2017). Car usage is reportedly falling following the ‘mini-Holland’ cycling scheme introduced in 2016 (Cracknell in the Waltham Forest Echo, 2016). In 2015, Waltham Forest was rated the third worst outer London borough for parking provision at new-build housing developments. A Greater London Authority (GLA) report shows 0.42 off-street parking spaces per new home, versus the outer London average of 0.73. This can be interpreted as a shift away from car-oriented development and a nod to the mayor’s Healthy Streets agenda that encourages Londoners to use cars less and walk, cycle and use public transport more (Glanvill in East London Guardian, 2015) Pedestrian The area has continuous pavements of sufficient width, however walking in the area is not a pleasant experience. Residents with disabilities, or young children in pushchairs face difficulties with the area’s foot bridges, which lack wheeled-access ramps. The number of bridges crossing the rail tracks and canals and the number of crossing points on Lea Bridge Road are low. Additional cross points would increase the area’s legibility and safety. 68 pedestrians were injured on Lea Bridge Road from 2009 - 2013 (Waltham Forest, 2013). One pedestrian was killed on the Lea Bridge Road/Orient Way crossing in early 2017 (Waltham Forest ECHO, 2017).

Figure 6: PTAL index map. Source: TfL, 2017.

Bicycle Designated cycle lanes along Orient Way and Lea Bridge Road accommodate 1,500 cyclists daily. In 2011, 15.9% of ward residents travelled to work by bicycle - well above the London average of 4%. However, 173 cyclists were injured on Lea Bridge Road from 2009 - 2013, including one fatality. A £33 million ‘mini-Holland’ scheme to improve cycle and pedestrian routes along Lea Bridge Road will be completed by 2017. The scheme has provoked several protests from residents and business owners unhappy about construction-related road closures (Hill in The Guardian, 2015) Bus Buses servicing the Lea Bridge station area are the 48 (London Bridge to Walthamstow Central), 55 (Oxford Circus to Leyton), and 56 (St Bartholomew’s Hospital to Whipps Cross). Night busses include the N38 (Walthamstow Central to Victoria) and N55 (Oxford Circus to Woodford Wells). Resident interviews demonstrate satisfaction with northsouth bus routes but a desire for increased east-west services.

2.4 Socioeconomic Dimensions

Demographics Due to its industrial nature, there are no residents living on the site. However, demographics of the surrounding community show that the area’s population is highly diverse, relatively young, and suffers high levels of deprivation.

Service, 2017) which brings hope for a safer and more secure area. As a low-density industrial area, the site itself has much lower crime rate. The redevelopment of the site has the potential to increase crime on the site through heightened activity and density. A focus on increasing employment and safety-conscious design should be prioritised in the intervention.

Typology The area contains various typologies, from modest Victorian homes to taller modern builds. A style unique to Waltham Forest is the Warner Half House - two flats within a terraced house, each with its own front door and rear garden. Other styles include: Edwardian terraced housing, a cousin of the Victorian style that employs bold gables and external porches; larger inter-war, semi-detached houses with short terraces and curved bay windows; and post-war council estates in large rectangular blocks. To the north-east of the site is Argall Business Park, developed in the 1940s and characterized by 1930s cinema art deco and 1940s post-war modernist styles (London Borough of Waltham Forest, 2009). The site features two-storey, double-pitched roof warehouses and two-to four-storey commercial buildings. Underutilised open storage areas are scattered throughout the premises, presenting opportunities for densification and development.

Figure 6: employment the ward. Source: London Datastore.

The indices in figure 6 are reflected in the ward’s median household income (£28,378) which is lower than the borough (£30,900) and London (£33,800) average (London Datastore, 2015). The ward is also in the lowest density ranking (London Datastore, 2015). Considering the relative deprivation, income and employment indices, residents are clearly less well-off than surrounding areas, limiting the viability of a retail-oriented intervention. These indices make a strong case for prioritising employment and social infrastructure within the intervention. The ward is distinctive in its large Pakistani population (18%) and proportion of minority residents (69%) versus the borough average (55%) (London Datastore, 2015). Across Waltham Forest, fertility rates are much higher (102.6) versus London (64) and England (62.4) (London Datastore, 2013). Residential interventions should offer various sizes and typologies to accommodate the borough’s diversity. Crime Rates Lea Bridge ward has some of the highest crime rates, ranking 144 of 684 London wards for most crimes in 2014/15. Two thousand crimes were committed in 2015/2016. However, crime has decreased since 2010, falling 9.6% from 2015-2016 (Metropolitan Police 18

Figure 7: top 5 crimes committed in the ward. Source: Metropolitan Police Service. Graphic by: Abigail Levner.

Local Economy Annual growth rate for businesses in Waltham Forest is 12%, which is higher than the London (7%) and England (3%) averages. 93% of businesses in the borough are micro-businesses (<10 employees), 6% are small businesses (10-49 employees), and only 1% employ 50+ people. Lea Bridge Ward is an important source of employment. In 2009, the ward had the second highest number of jobs (4,900) in the borough. This was 9.2% of all jobs in the borough, with only 6.1% of the borough’s residents. The ward has one third of the borough’s manufacturing jobs. There are 68+ businesses operating on the site — mainly light industry and distribution. Most are micro and small businesses, supplying shops and showrooms off-site. The businesses are diverse, but there are several trends: • food importation and distribution; • custom furniture design and home building; • automotive rentals and repairs While the area appears in decline, site businesses are thriving and providing vital services to central London. Careful consideration should be given to minimize disruption and, if possible, support these businesses.

Although there are no listed buildings within the site, there are several locally listed buildings nearby: Sybourn Infants / Lea Bridge School, Parish Church of Emmanuel, a former Woolworth’s Building, and Lea Bridge Library (Lea Bridge Heritage, 2012). There are four site buildings notable for their quality and industrial aesthetic value: • Greyhound Pub (91 Lea Bridge Road) • Union Veneers Ltd. (14 Rigg Approach) • 12 Rigg Approach • Lea Bridge Road Arches See section 7 for proposals for these structures.

2.5 Planning Context Social and Community Infrastructure As can be seen in figure 9 some educational, leisure, and religion resources are available in the broader area however due to the site’s industrial nature, there is no social infrastructure on-site, which could prove problematic if new residents were to be brought to the area. Education and Childcare Of the four nearby primary schools, Sybourn Primary School is closest, 0.6 miles away. The 670-person school serves pupils ages 3-11 and includes a daycare and nursery serving ages 0-3. Student population reflects local diversity, with pupils from 27 ethnicities speaking over 30 languages. 80.9% of pupils do not speak English as their first language (versus the national average of 20%). Other nearby educational infrastructure includes two childcare centres and Lammas School, a combined secondary school and sixth form college. Open Space and Leisure The site is close to several green spaces: Lee Valley Regional Park, Leyton Jubilee Park, Leyton Marshes, and numerous allotments. These places support leisure and activity, but could benefit from maintenance and upgrades. Lee Valley Regional Park sits directly west of the site and contains a riding centre, ice rinks, and water reservoirs. Community Infrastructure Other resources include various religious centres (reflecting the area’s multi-faith population), two GP surgeries, two sports halls, and the Active Youth Foundation (AYF). AYF started in 2003 as a response to the growth of gangs within the borough, and offers a safe space and activities for youths ages 12 - 24.

Figure 8: view of Greyhound Pub. Source: Ewan Munro, 2012.

Planning Policy Planning History The planning history of the site is a story of ‘almosts’. In 2009 a consultation on the future of the area in advance of the station’s reopening proposed no changes to the site itself (LBWF, 2009a). Furthermore, issues identified through the consultation, including traffic levels and the character of Lea Bridge Road (ibid.), continue to plague the site.

Housing Type According to the 2011 census, there were 5,633 household spaces in Lea Bridge ward. 66% of these are flats, maisonettes or apartments, 25.6% terraced houses, 5% semi-detached houses, and 2% detached. A small number of modern developments exist in the south of the borough and to the west in Hackney (Waltham Forest, Ward Data 2017). Tenure In 2011, 35% of residents lived in private rented accommodation (50% increase since 2001 and above the London average of 25%), 32% lived in rented social housing, and 30% owned their houses. Property ownership is falling - today, 46% of homes are owner-occupied, down from 59% in 2001. (Waltham Forest Ward Data, 2017). Affordability House prices in the area are rising rapidly. They have increased 74% from £244,400 in 2013 to £424,700 in 2016 (UK House Price Index, ONS). This is partially attributed to rapid population increases (19% between 2003 and 2013) which make Waltham Forest one of the fastest growing boroughs (Waltham Forest Ward Data, 2017). The intervention should contribute to the much needed supply of affordable housing.

Figure 9: map of social infrastructure Source: London Borough of Waltham Forest

Social housing The Council recently resumed management of their housing stock, previously managed by Ascham Homes until November 2015. Waltham Forest’s supply of Council and affordable homes has diminished since 1980 with the introduction of Right To Buy, which sold off 6,175 homes. Today, 10,320 Council-owned homes remain (Waltham Forest Council Watch, 2016) Homelessness Homelessness has increased significantly in London over the last 5 years. This is mirrored in Waltham Forest. In the past year, the number of households placed in temporary accommodation rose 23%, indicating increased trauma for people affected and financial pressure on the Council (Waltham Forest Ward Data, 2017).

As part of the planning and regeneration surrounding the London Olympics, a Northern Olympic Fringe Area Action Plan was drafted in 2011 but never adopted. The plan deemed Rigg Approach unsightly and in need of upgrading, but suggested it remain employment land because landowners were not interested in regeneration (LBWF, 2011). Shortly thereafter, the 2012 North London Waste Plan proposed redeveloping the northern site for waste purposes, but this was abandoned due to complicated ownership (24 landowners) (LBWF, 2012). The 2012 Local Plan defined Lea Bridge Gateway as a key growth area, but the site was overlooked (ibid.). Waltham Forest’s 2016-2020 Economic Growth Strategy states that the primary infrastructure priority is to “capitalise on the development opportunities afforded by the reopening of Lea Bridge Station,” and proposes 2,500 homes in the Lea Bridge area by 2020 (of a total 12,000 borough-wide) (LBWF, 2016d). Waltham Forest Core Strategy The 2016 Lea Valley Eastside Vision (Waltham Forest, 2016b) covers three key areas: Lea Bridge, Church Road, and Leyton. In Lea Bridge, 1,200 homes and 200,000 sqm of retained and new nonresidential space are proposed. Near the site, a new local centre with retail and health facilities, and additional access points to Lee Valley Regional Park are also put forward. This preliminary vision has undergone a first consultation and will influence Waltham Forest’s next Local Plan, paving the way for the area’s regeneration and potential de-designation as a Strategic Industrial Location.

Meanwhile, according to interviews at the community ward forum (Ahmad, M. 2017, personal communication, 18 January), the future of major nearby sites such as the Ice Rink and Thames Water Depot remain controversial developments, both having been marked as ‘regeneration opportunities’ with uncertain futures. There is strong public objection towards the potential loss of park land. London Plan 2016 Lea Bridge sits within an Opportunity Area (1,400 ha) with the capacity to provide 50,000 jobs and 32,000 homes (Mayor of London, 2016). However, because the area will require substantial public investment or intervention, it receives priority in the Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) and Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy. Opportunity Area 23, which focuses on Stratford and the Upper/Lower Lee Valley areas, will seek to enhance amenities at Lee Valley Regional Park and Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. The area is deemed the ‘most important single strategic regeneration initiative for London’ due to its location linking two nationally important growth corridors: LondonStansted-Cambridge-Peterborough to the north, and London Thames Gateway to the east. It has also been identified as a ‘potential strategic outer London development centre’ for leisure, tourism, arts, culture and sport, with a rich mix of employment, housing, and open spaces. The release of appropriate industrial sites for mixed use development is encouraged by the Olympic Legacy SPG (Policy 2.4), while retaining key industrial land (GLA, 2016c) .

Figure 10: map showing the OA23 boundary in red and the Hackney-Waltham Forest boundary in black. Source: GLA. 21

Strategic Industrial Land Designation One in ten jobs in London is industrial (GLA, 2016b). Strategic Industrial Location (SIL) designation is a mechanism to protect this vital sector from higher value land uses. Nevertheless, since 2001, industrial land loss has occurred at double the GLA benchmark for ‘managed release’ (Ferm & Jones, 2016). The entire site, with the exception of the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), is designated as SIL, meaning development should be opposed by the planning authority unless it: • involves industrial activities; • is workspace for SMEs or emerging industrial sectors; • is small-scale ‘walk to’ services for industrial occupiers (e.g. a cafe or creche); • is part of a coordinated process of consolidation (opportunity areas or a borough development plan document). These exceptions leave room for planning permission to be granted on the site, however this would nullify the SIL designation and mean that the industrial area would likely be quickly converted to the highest land value - residential. There are no effective mechanisms within the UK legislative and planning system to manipulate land values within mixed-use contexts (Ferm, 2014). Careful consideration and innovation are needed to protect industry and employment while making better use of the site.

Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) MOL is a designation within London that offers the same level of protection as the Green Belt. The designation protects areas of landscape, recreation, nature conservation, and scientific interest which are strategically important (CPRE, 2014). The south west corner of the site is MOL, surrounding and including the Waterworks centre. While there is strong opposition to loss of MOL (Ahmad, M. 2017, personal communication, 18 January), other cases suggest that redesignation is possible if the proposal offers significant benefit to the community (CPRE, 2014).

Current Developments In 2016, an application at nearby 97 Lea Bridge Road was approved for a mixed-use development of 300 residential units and 2000 m2 of nonresidential space. This marks the area’s first major transformation in response to the station’s reopening, paving the way for future transit oriented development. Whether 97 Lea Bridge Road was the catalyst or symptom of changing attitudes towards the area is uncertain.

Figure 11: 97 Lea Bridge proposal rendering Source: Pollard Thomas Ewards Architects

Figure 12: map showing planning considerations

Landownership

Business Improvement District (BID)

Land ownership in the area is very fragmented, reflecting the varying age of buildings and the variety of uses. Waltham Forest council has ownership of two properties to the North of Lea Bridge Road and the roadway arches, which are currently leased to various occupiers. The tenure of the other properties is a mixture of freehold and leasehold. This complexity, including a total of 24 landowners on the north half of the site (LBWF, 2012), is perhaps one of the primary reasons for the site’s lack of development so far. To the south of Lea Bridge Road, the industrial developments are more cohesive, falling into approximately three plots including a historic former furniture works and two newer industrial developments. Also to the South of Lea Bridge Road is the Waterworks Centre, which is currently owned by the Lea Valley Regional Park Authority. Any development of this site will require a sensitive approach to negotiating with the LVRPA, given that this is one of their flagship public facilities.

The Argall BID, in place for two terms since 2007, includes the north site around Rigg Approach. The BID designation expires and is up for consultation again in June 2017, providing the opportunity for an alternative proposal. According to the BID manager (Asad, J. 2017, personal communication, 19 January), Argall BID is opposed to residential development on industrial land due to the threat it poses to businesses. However, the BID favours improvements to the built environment, infrastructure and accessibility. GLA (2013) guidance recommends BID bodies be seen as ‘a valuable resource offering insights’ into the area and be heard at planning committees.

*see appendix 1 for a map showing boundary details for further planning consideration

The findings from the site analysis underpin the vision for Lea Bridge Regeneration, seeking to maximise the site’s strengths and opportunities while overcoming weaknesses and managing potential threats. Threats • Opposition from the BID and local community • Complexity of landownership • Loss of jobs and industry in favour of residential land use

Part 2. Strategy

Strengths • Significant employment, including many SMEs • Space for industry • Close proximity to green spaces and leisure facilities

Figure 13: map visulisation of SWOT analysis graphics by: Jody Liu

Opportunities • Rising property prices • Open space and low density use • Improved accessibility through public transport and cycling infrastructure

Weaknesses • Lack of housing provision despite high demand • Poor physical and design quality • Impermeable

3. SWOT analysis

photo by Laura Dodds-Hebron

4. Vision

5. Key Objectives Lea Bridge East Regeneration aims to: 1. Maintain or increase industrial jobs whilst meeting housing needs, setting precedent for how industry and residents can share space harmoniously and beneficially. 2. Create a vibrant and comfortable place to live that reflects the diversity of the area and provides new community infrastructure for Lea Bridge residents. 3. Knit the site into the surrounding area, establishing an ease of movement to, from and through the space. 4. Maintain the industrial character of the area while improving the quality of the built environment.

industrial / residential mixed use development

The interventions section will address these objectives and include case studies for inspiration. combined nursery / care home canalside improvement

*see appendix 4 for land use map

flexible use preschool / community centre space

new build

retained and renovated buildings

Figure 14: masterplan accompanied by project precedents graphics by: Jody Liu

Figure 15: visualisation of mixed-use, industry / residential building graphics by: Jody Liu

Figure 16: visualisation of mixed-use, industry / residential building, evening view graphics by: Jody Liu

6. Interventions Objective • Create a vibrant and comfortable place to live that reflects the diversity of the area and provides new community infrastructure for Lea Bridge residents through engaging the community in participation and consultation. Rationale The site is already closed off in many ways to outsiders. Construction in the area will only increase this feeling. A physical venue can act as a hub for engagement around the development and consultation, as well as give the BID a new home. A pilot project has the potential to show the community that change is coming while building relationships and trust between local businesses, residents, developers and the council. Proposal In advance of the development, an Urban-Activator Project will be used as a form of trust-building. The pylons adjacent to the site with be exchanged

6.1 Pilot Projects

for sculptural pylons acting as a landmark for the redevelopment embracing the industrial character while presenting a new future for the area. The sculptures will signal to residents that change is afoot and hopefully entice them to find out more. A semipermanent hub, based in the former Greyhound Pub, will give those curious a place to visit, informing them of development plans and providing a space for discussion. The hub will be staffed by members of stakeholder groups, including the development team and local council. The pub is adjacent to the train station on Lea Bridge Road and although the pub is currently in private ownership, it could be listed as an asset of community value and then repurchased. Funding has been allocated to support the purchase and refurbishment of the building, which, following the consultation stage, will be revived as a community space and pub. This will service new residents and station travelers who currently have to wait 30 minutes between trains.

Objective • Create a vibrant and comfortable place to live that reflects the diversity of the area and provides new community infrastructure for Lea Bridge residents. • Knit the site into the surrounding area, establishing an ease of movement to, from and through the space. Rationale A clear demand can be seen for social infrastructure in Lea Bridge. The growing population has diverse unmet needs, notably for varied tenure housing, children’s services and health services. Furthermore, the added population to the site will create additional demand for public services. The strong public benefit proposed through the delivery of a variety of social infrastructure has the potential to outweigh the loss of MOL in the eyes of residents. Finally, the inclusion of social infrastructure will draw people to the site, ensuring it does not become a dead end bedroom community but is well integrated with the surrounding neighbourhood. Proposal Located in the south west section of the site, the underused Waterworks building will be renovated

6.2 Meeting Community Needs

Fig 18. The Mount, in Seattle, is a nursing home which provides childcare to 125 zero-to-five-year olds, five days a week. The Intergenerational Learning Centre looks to counterbalance loneliness and boredom , improving the health of the elderly residents. Source: Jansen, 2016.

into a more flexible space extending its use. A renovation would create the potential for use for events, performances, classes or as a shared workspace. Beside the renovated building, the parking lot will be halved in size, providing area for a co-located health hub, assisted living homes and a nursery/creche. By co-locating these three facilities, they can support each other as the young and elderly have specific health needs. Furthermore, promising results have been shown from involving the elderly in childcare, as it gives the older generation a purpose while accommodating intergenerational learning. These facilities would take advantage of the serene location and marshland views of Lea Valley Park, maximizing the location’s use by community members.

Fig 16. Strand East in Stratford used a Helix to signal the beginning of the site’s redevelopment, with a display in Dane’s Yard pub and cafe for members of the public to learn more about development plans. Souce: Vastint, 2016

Fig 17. The White House on Becontree Estate in Dagenham was renovated providing a new public space for art and social activity. Source: Create London, 2016 30

Fig 19. Bourne Mills Care Home utilises creative design to lengthen independent living with minimal assistance and to improve quality of life, while taking advantage of the surrounding parkland. Source: Reformat, 2015 31

6.3 Mixing Uses Objective • Maintain or increase industrial jobs whilst meeting housing needs, setting precedent for how industry and residents can share space harmoniously and beneficially. • Maintain the industrial character of the area while improving the quality of the built environment. Rationale Judging from surrounding developments (like neighbouring 97 Lea Bridge Road), it is only a matter of time before property values rise to the point that it becomes worthwhile for developers to assemble the land and redevelop the site. Being in an opportunity area, the SIL designation could easily be overturned in favour of residential development which would also offer the highest returns. Intervention is needed to prevent the loss of the industrial land, which plays such a vital role in terms of employment and in London’s economy, as well as to ensure that redevelopment meets the diverse needs of the community. While it has been thought that the noxious qualities of industry are incompatible with living, bold design and technology can be employed to overcome these factors, resulting in a more diverse neighbourhood. The Design Group (2014: 2) asserts that: “There is an opportunity to move away from the rooted practice to design [industrial] sectors out of our towns and cities. Let’s make them visible again and stop housing them in anonymous sheds. Let’s re-appropriate industrial estates and districts through raising the quality of their design and maintenance. As a result, local communities could have a better understanding of how their local economy is formed and develop a sense of ownership. Let’s celebrate manufacturing industry again.”

Figure 20-21: graphic representations of how design principles can ensure quality of life is maintained Source: Beunderman et al., 2016

Proposal The scheme will take a bold approach to the challenge of maintaining urban industrial land while tackling housing shortages by implementing building and site level mixture of uses. The 70,000 sqm floorspace of industry on site will be maintained while adding 1,732 mixed tenancy homes, 12,000 sqm of new or improved public realm and social infrastructure. Industrial uses and residential uses will innovatively be brought under one roof through: higher floors; flexibly-designed spaces; controlling resident’s view away from industry; providing high quality public realm; and minimising environmental disruption through dual air ventilation, mediation spaces, insulation and triple glazing (Beunderman et al., 2016). Higher building costs have been budgeted to account for the integration of these principles.

design principles

Cars are somewhat inevitable with industry, but can be reduced and hidden to improve the public realm for residents. Built and integrated parking solutions, as well as separate access routes for industry and pedestrians have been integrated into the proposal to increase land-use efficiency (leaving space for more densely built plots) and to allow for public space improvements. Furthermore, inviting car- and vansharing schemes like Zipvan could minimize the number of vehicles on site.

*see appendix 2 and 3 for details regarding loss of industrial land in Waltham Forest, and appendix 3 on housing density calculations

Fig 22. Case study: Industry City in Brooklyn combines workshop space, residential and commercial uses, and has rented out over 2 million square feet of space in the last two years. It also boasts amenities like bike parking, food halls, courtyards, wifi, a gym and communal spaces, providing a lifestyle Source: Industry City, 2015 32

6.4 Preserving Heritage Objective • Maintain the industrial character of the area while improving the quality of the built environment Rationale The area surrounding the site features few designated heritage assets, despite its rich and interesting industrial history. To honor and conserve built elements of this heritage in the face of future development, we recommend the listing and/or conservation of several site structures. Proposal Rather than demolishing them, the following four site buildings will be maintained and refitted for modern use, due to their quality and industrial aesthetic value:

6.5 Arches Refurbishment • Greyhound Pub (91 Lea Bridge Road): the public house opened in 1839 and closed in 1997, with upper floor converted to flats in 2003. With the building facing Lea Bridge Road, we envision it as part of our urban activator hub allowing residents and others to engage with the redevelopment by visiting the building (see page 30 for more). • Union Veneers Ltd. (14 Rigg Approach): twostorey brick warehouse with tall, large windows • 12 Rigg Approach: two-storey brick warehouse with tall, large windows and three garage doors • Lea Bridge Road Arches: constructed as part of the original Lea Bridge Station in 1843. There are 15 arches underneath Lea Bridge Road, with 12 currently used for light industrial purposes. Opening up the arches present an opportunity for an alternative route below Lea Bridge Road, and allows for use as leisure / commercial spaces (see following page for more). The Greyhound Pub and Lea Bridge Road arches are recommended for listing as heritage assets.

Figure 23. Rigg Approach - east side Figure 24. Rigg Approach - west side Source: Abigail Levner

Figure 25 (above). reimagined Lammas Arches Source: Abigail Levner Figure 26. Case study: refurbished arches under Hoxton Station Source: Hoxton Arches

Objective • Create a vibrant and comfortable place to live that reflects the diversity of the area and provides new community infrastructure for Lea Bridge residents • Knit the site into the surrounding area, establishing an ease of movement to, from and through the space • To maintain the industrial character of the area while improving the quality of the built environment Rationale Aside from occasional events at the Lea Bridge Library, the area lacks cultural venues and a vibrant leisure and recreation corridor. The arches beneath Lea Bridge Road are underutilized, unique spaces with industrial character and the potential to inspire interaction among the area’s diverse residents and to host vibrant businesses. The arches development would increase density while, linking the northern and southern site. Lammas Arches’ centrality to the site will encourage walking amongst residents, and their proximity to the train station makes them accessible to people across London. Proposal To maximize on a unique yet underutilized space, the 15 arches beneath Lea Bridge Road will be

refitted for leisure, retail, and event purposes, creating 180 sqm of unique social and cultural space. Refurbishment will be in keeping with the area’s industrial character (think exposed brick and distressed features) and units will be leased to local residents, SMEs, and organizations. providing economic and job opportunities in the site. Larger arches will function as versatile public or third spaces that accommodate large groups and a range of activity, such as an art gallery, performance venue, and food and drink establishment. Some of these units will be available for hire for community and private events. Smaller arches will function as a news agent, grocery, boutiques, and single-occupant creative workshops where makers can display and sell their products. One arch will become a passageway that links the north and south sites, easing movement through the site, increasing access to the station, and letting people avoid heavy traffic and pollution on Lea Bridge Road. Increased footfall and a continuous, vibrant mix of people will contribute to the site’s vitality and safety, and will build a sense of ownership for these spaces (Jacobs 1961, Jacobs and Lees 2013).

6.6 Open & Green Spaces Objective • Create a vibrant and comfortable place to live that reflects the diversity of the area and provides new community infrastructure for Lea Bridge residents. • Knit the site into the surrounding area, establishing an ease of movement to, from and through the space. Rationale Much of the ‘open’ space on site is industrial, brownfield space; while the canal is currently uninviting. Because the development will bring in a diverse groups residents - across all ages and backgrounds - the improved public realm will provide vital spaces for playing and social interactions. Additionally, the canal side and enhanced variety of plants will increase biodiversity while employing soft-engineering to mitigate flooding risks from heavy rainfalls.

Figure 27. Map of green / open spaces in new development Source: Jody Liu

public square

Proposal In order to beautify and improve the public realm of the site, the redevelopment will improve and create green space.

6.7 New Connections

The area along the canal will benefit from a new foot and cycle path. Residents and local schoolchildren will be involved in creating artwork for canalside murals, bringing playfulness and colour to the concrete canal. Landscaping and provision of street furniture will transform the canalside into an inviting area for visitors of all ages. Additionally, the new bridge over the canal will connect the development with the expansive Lea Valley Regional Park. The space behind the visitor centre will further serve as a piazza, where outdoor events can take place. The multi-purpose space can host cultural events, fairs, and concerts for locals to enjoy. The enclosed courtyard and grounds surrounding the nursing home / creche will provide a semipublic green space where young children and the elderly can enjoy the outdoors with their caretakers and visitors. And semi-private courtyards surrounded by buildings will provide further public realm making a liveable environment and improving the views for residents.

semi-public space

public space

pedestrian / cycle routes

Objective • Knit the site into the surrounding area, establishing an ease of movement to, from and through the space Rationale With the reopening of Lea Bridge station, and key bus routes along Lea Bridge Road, the site has the potential to be extremely attractive to future residents needing connections to the rest of London. With the station entrance currently oriented on the other side of the site, and without safe crossing points to bus stops, enhancing connectivity to local transport is vital. Within the site connectivity is poor. The site is split in two by the main road running through it. There are two existing dead end roads which are congested with vehicles and parked cars and where the pavements are not continuous. Furthermore, the site is fenced and there is limited access to the wider area and the neighbouring marshland. The two bridges that do exist are not pushchair or wheelchair friendly. Proposal A new entrance to the station directly from the site, and a new road crossing across Lea Bridge Road will provide quick and easy access to local transport links.

car routes

Figure 28. Map of access routes around / throughout the new development Source: Jody Liu

Pedestrian and cycling routes will be created on site, and linked to those in the wider area with two new bridges, and the upgrade of the two existing bridges along the canal, and the construction of two under road passageways - one along the towpath and another under the arches. Cycle parking areas will be installed within the residential and commercial areas. A new tow path will be build along the far side of the canal. The towpath will not only connect the residential areas to the marshes, but will also bring vibrancy to the area with increased footfall. Emphasis will be on pedestrian access and use of public transport rather than private vehicle usage meaning that no new vehicle access roads will be created, but pre-existing roads will be upgraded with pavements, and underground parking spaces will be created to minimise on site vehicle visibility and maximise use of above ground space.

7. Outputs

• Over 5,000 jobs created • 1,732 mixed tenancy homes constructed • 70,000 square metres of industrial space maintained at affordable rates • A new station entrance, new road crossing and 4 new or improved footbridges • A new canalside path into the marshes and upgraded parkland • A new GP hub, a pre-school, a re-opened pub, refurbished community space and retail arches *see appendix 2 for graphs relating to indsustrial land loss in Waltham Forest Category

Unit type

Residential (including retirement) Residential - market

793

apartments

Residential - affordable

483

apartments

Residential - social

322

apartments

Commerical - industry and jobs Commerical - market

100

units

Commercial - affordable

150

units

Temporary jobs created

4,240

jobs

Permanent jobs created

1,162

jobs

841

jobs

BID supported

Jobs protected

Retail - supermarket and archway shops Retail - supermarket Retail - arches refurb

units

Social infrastrucutre Pub refurbed

units

Places at pre-school

100

children

GP surgery capacity

14,000

residents

Accessibility Bridges constructed or upgraded

units

Canalside pedestrian road

3,072

sqm

Road upgrade

5,887

sqm

Tow path construction

2,355

sqm

access point

Green space upgrade

12,000

sqm

Canal upgrade including murals

14,292

sqm

units

New station entrance Public space

Landmark pylons

Figure 29. Output table Souce: Marta Zaccaggini

Part 3. Implementation

photo by Laura Dodds-Hebron

8. Key Stakeholders Stakeholders have been mapped in terms of their role in the project, with potential conflicts indicated so these can be incorporated into the risk register and mitigated.

Arts Charity

Lea Valley Regional Park Authority

Housing Association Local Residents

Argall Business Improvement District

Workspace Providor

ACTORS Officers

Pilot Developer

Private Housing Developer

Councillors

Care Home Developer

London Borough of Waltham Forest Special Purpose Vehicle

END GOAL

Pilot Project

Development Hub

CPO

BID/council: CPO process aggravates BID

Care Home

Waltham Forest CCG (NHS)

GP Surgery

BID/developer: leaseholders oppose development plans, resisting the release of land to developer

Housing

NHS/developer: specification and timing of GP clinic Residents/council: opposition to employment and industrial use rather than housing

Council/developer: lack of affordable housing rejected

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS

Workspace

Council/developer: rent costs too high for light industrial use Charity/Providor: conflict over tennant selection Developer/council: developer does not deliver correct specification

Developer/insurers: flood risk becomes obstacle

Potential Conflicts • BID & existing businesses vs. Developer: BID and current free/leaseholders oppose development plans, resisting the release of land to developer • BID & existing businesses vs. Council: Council CPOs privately-owned land, aggravating the current tenants and freeholders • BID vs. new businesses: with the introduction of new workspace and potential increased rents, new businesses may surpass the minimum threshold for inclusion in the BID and be automatically drawn in. On the other hand, the introduction of new businesses may throw off the balance of for/against BID businesses, and vote against the BID. This means the BID will rally for higher rents that force inclusion into the BID but will also need to campaign new businesses to join them. • Local residents vs. Council: Resident opposition to council designation of site for primarily employment and industrial use rather than housing • Developers vs. Policy Makers: Politicians lack prioritisation of maintaining industrial land use • Businesses vs. Developer: Rent costs could be too high for light industrial use • Local residents vs. Council: Resident opposition to conversion of MOL to GP (even though its is currently a parking lot) • Developers vs. Insurance Companies: Insurance denied due to flood risk • Residents vs. Developer and Council: opposition to increased traffic in the area caused by population increase

Residents/developer: opposition to increased traffic in the area caused by population increase

figure 30. actors map Source: Lachlan Anderson-Frank

The delivery model for Lea Bridge East Regeneration is three-pronged: a special purpose vehicle for governance, a priority employment zone designation and devolving management of the industrial space to the BID. Governance Model: New Housing Special Purpose Vehicle Multiple partnerships and contracts will be established between a new council special purpose vehicle (SPV) called Housing Waltham Forest (HWF), managed by the council’s regeneration and finance departments, along with the developers. This will be a private company owned by the council as sole shareholder, able to borrow at favourable rates but not subject to EU procurement rules (OJEU) or Right to Buy. The establishment of HWF is based off the 2016 recommendation by Waltham Forest’s Budget Scrutiny Committee to: “Explore further the potential of using the Housing SPV as the Council’s trading company; considering not only a more ambitious approach to acquiring land, developing, owning, and managing housing and other property assets but also opportunities to enter into wider commercial acquisitions which could both support the council’s growth strategy and support the funding of future service provision.” (Waltham Forest, 2016: 5) SPV Case Study: Brick by Brick (Croydon SPV) Following on from other councils, Croydon has established its own development company, Brick by Brick, which is private and independent from the council but whose sole shareholder is the council themselves. This special purpose vehicle will deliver 1,000 homes across the borough by 2019, about half for affordable rent and half for private sale, on land transferred to it at no cost by the Croydon council. This process serves councils by: keeping value contained within the borough; preventing profit loss to the private sector; and giving councils more control over the building process, including planning, consultation and design (Croydon Council).

9. Delivery Vehicle & Governance Policy Tool: New Priority Employment Zones (PEZ) While Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL) are preferable for industrial uses such as waste management, manufacturing, storage and distribution (B8) and more, identified growth locations with regeneration potential, such as Lea Bridge, may undergo alternative planning that better optimizes the area. To balance employment space and industrial land - rapidly being lost in London - with residential uses that quench the housing shortage, a priority employment zone will be established to protect business, industrial, and warehouse activities and provide negotiation capacity and leverage with developers to deliver employment floorspace. This policy tool is based on Policy 17 of Hackney’s Priority Employment Areas strategy, Business (B1) and Non-residential (D1) Institutions will be prioritized. Residential will be allowed under the condition that it does not detract from industrial and employment uses (Hackney Council). “Soon London will have no more businesses like Amazon or Etsy because they won’t have any room to make or store anything.” - Colliers International, on the importance of industrial land in inner London PEZ Case study: Hackney Priority Employment Areas The Hackney Unitary Development Plan established Defined Employment Areas (DEAs) to protect existing and encourage new development that supports employment, while avoiding the introduction of residential development that would undermine those aims (Policy E2). However, the 2006 Hackney Employment Growth Options Study Final Report (Atkins) determined that these protective policies (E2, E5, and E6, now defunct) were ineffective, resulting in significant loss of

employment land and premises to housing in DEAs. Aiming to provide recommendations for the Local Development Framework (LDF), the study suggested that where employment space was not secured on-site, contributions be pooled to provide it elsewhere through new build or refurbishment - a suggestion ultimately included in the 2010 LDF Core Strategy (now Local Plan). However, this is no longer possible due to restrictions on Section 106 pooling by Government. figure 31. Build Studios in Waterloo

Partnership: BID Managed Employment Space As an established network with a strong track record of taking leadership in the area, the BID is an invaluable resource. By involving them in the both the development process and management of the workspace afterwards, many of the potential conflicts can be avoided and businesses are much more likely to have their needs and interests represented. Before and during the development process, the BID will act as a conduit, engaging the businesses in the design process and representing them at the steering group. The BID will work with businesses to formulate a plan for both decanting from the premises and inhabiting the new workspace, feeding into the overall phasing for the development. The BID can also explore the potential for clustering businesses; for example the many bespoke furniture and home building businesses on site may want to be co-located in order to host open days for customers. Once built, the BID will become responsible for managing the workspace and supporting the industrial community. The BID will establish a workspace model that supports existing businesses on the estate and which is driven by their input, allowing them to expand rather than be forced out of the area. This workspace will catalyse innovation in the area, creating space for both new startups and existing businesses. In addition, they will provide a training programme which seeks to tackle the ward’s above average rates of unemployment and help to grow existing businesses. The annual programme

will provide free training to Lea Bridge ward residents, helping them gain the skills needed to work in existing businesses operating within the site, providing those businesses with skilled local labor. In order to support the BID in these responsibilities, a £2million grant has been allocated from the budget. BID Case Study: WeAreWaterloo / Build Studios Build Studios was established by the We Are Waterloo BID as a separate limited company to provide space for built environment start ups. A 353 sqm space was given on a 50 year rent free lease to the BID as part of the Section 106 agreement for the redevelopment of 203 Westminister Bridge Road. Membership in the workspace includes a ‘give back’ clause that creates opportunities for Corporate Social Responsibility and school outreach. “Build Studios will provide affordable office space for young companies in the built environment sector... The BID will relocate to the studios before the end of the year to create a more public facing office, events space and meeting rooms. We also hope to involve local firms in developing the business support and social value programmes” - We are Waterloo

Activity

10. Phased Development

• Phase Two (2019 - 2021) will see the development of the northern section of the site into an exemplary mixed-use scheme. The site will be redesignated as a Priority Employment Zone, and land will be purchased or transferred to the Housing Waltham Forest body. Demolition, land preparation and construction of the residential, industrial and retail space in the northern site will be completed, alongside the new pedestrian and cycle paths. • Phase Three (2022 - 2024) will see the completion of the southern section of the site including the care home units, the GP surgery and the pre-school. The greenspace to the very south of the site will be upgraded.

Securing of public and private funding Stakeholder engagement and community consultation PHASE 1

Developer selection process Master plan finalisation and detailed plan development Trust projects - Pylon construction and refurbishment of pub New station access

Development will be implemented over a seven year period in four distinct phases. • Phase One (2018) will focus on start up activities and trust building projects including the establishment of the governance body to guide the future of the site, community consultation in the newly refurbished Greyhound pub, and the securing of public and private funds.

Land assembly (CPO if needed) Demolition and land preparation - northern site PHASE 2

Construction of residential, commercial and retail units - northern section Construction or refurb of roads, pedestrian paths and station entrance - northern section Canal and tow path upgrade and construction Demolition and land preparation - southern site

PHASE 3

Construction of residential retirement units - southern section Construction of GP surgery and pre-school, Waterworks refurb Upgrade of greenspace - southern site

PHASE 4

Consideration of southern industrial section for development

figure 32. provisional phasing schedule and acocmpnaying map

• Phase Four (2025) will see the completion of the 11 hectare plot. A assessment will then be carried out to consider the development potential of the southern industrial area depending on the market at that time.

11. Financial Viability The scheme is projected to cost over £475 million in total, the majority (63%) of which are development costs for the major infrastructure for the site. The developer’s profit is at an estimated twenty percent.

Income is drawn from the sale of residential, commercial and retail space. Sales values are estimated in accordance with nearby development using the comparative method.

Category Land Total expenditure

476,797,273

Total income

593,600,000

Total profit

116,802,727

Development costs

20%

figure 33. total expected value and revenue of the scheme

The scheme will be funded using a loan to finance each stage of construction. The cost of interest and fees to completion, as well as professional fees for services such as architects, surveyors, and marketing are estimated at 12% of the development costs approximately £36 million each. £1 million GPB will be set aside as a grant for the BID, as will a further £1m for an employment training scheme for local residents to gain employability through on-site skills development (see section 9 above). A 7% contingency margin is accounted for to cover unforeseen expenditures as identified in the risk analysis (section 13).

% of total expenditure

Total cost 7,109,550

1.49%

302,530,284

63.45%

Demolition costs

7,750,000

1.63%

Planning Obligation Fees (CIL)

7,867,600

1.65%

36,303,634

7.61%

Professional Fees (12% of dev costs) Interest on build costs etc, and fees to completion (12% of dev costs)

36,303,634

7.61%

Contingeny - incl CPO contingency (7% of dev costs)

15,126,514

3.17%

Developers profit (20% of dev costs)

60,506,057

12.69%

Social infrastructure - fit out, equipment and running costs

1,300,000

0.27%

BID development contribution

1,000,000

0.21%

Employment - training and skills incentives

1,000,000

0.21%

Total expenditure

476,797,273

figure 33. a breakdown of estimated expenditure

Category

Item

Sale price per m2

Quantity m2

Total sale cost

Residential

Affordable sale

4,900

21,000 102,900,000

Residential

Market sale

7,000

42,000 294,000,000

Residential

Social sale

2,800

14,000

39,200,000

Commercial

Affordable sale

2,800

15,000

42,000,000

Commercial

Market sale

4,000

10,000

40,000,000

Retail

Market sale

5,000

1,000

5,000,000

Residential - retirement home

Market sale

6,000

7,500

45,000,000

Residential - retirement home

Affordable sale

4,200

4,500

18,900,000

Residential - retirement home

Social sale

2,200

3,000

Total income

6,600,000 593,600,000

figure 34. a breakdown of expected income

figure 35. site development by infrastructure category

12. Funding Sources In addition to developer financing, several projects will leverage funding from public and charitable agencies. These opportunities are uncertain, meaning they can be estimated at a high, low or medium contribution levels (figure 36). The midrange has been used to reflect the most realistic outcome. Some funds involve creative partnerships and programmes. Developer – profit making & Section 106 The developer will provide almost 99% of financing, supporting land, demolition, and construction costs, plus section 106 contributions. This high financial risk justifies the developer’s high profit margin.

Funding Source

Low Estimate

Developer - profit making Developer - Section 106

£307,905,550

Big Lottery Fund The Reaching Communities England fund provides grants for voluntary/community groups seeking to create sustainable place-based change, strengthen community relationships, and tackle social problems. In partnership with a community stakeholder, such as Waltham Forest Civic Society or Lea Valley Federation, funding will support the refurbishment of the Greyhound Pub (see section 6.1 for more) (Big Lottery Fund, 2017). Arts Council of England: A Large Capital Grant will be secured in partnership with a National Portfolio Organisation (NPO), who will advise outfitting of affordable work-live space for creative professionals. This aligns with the Arts Council’s mission to help organizations become more innovative and sustainable by having the right buildings and equipment to deliver their work (Arts Council England, 2016).

Target

High Estimate

£307,905,550 £307,905,550

£8,184,284

NHS: Estates and Technology Transformation Fund

£23,000

£700,000

£1,300,000

Big Lottery Fund: Reaching Communities England

£10,000

£200,000

£500,000

Arts Council of England: Large Capital Grant

£500,000

£200,000

£5,000,000

Education Funding Agency: Early Years Capital Fund

£200,000

£400,000

TOTALS

£316,822,834

Source of funding Developer - profit making

Total cost

% of total

307,905,550

97.01%

Developer - Section 106

8,184,284

2.58%

NHS - regeneration fund

700,000

0.22%

Big lottery fund

200,000

0.06%

Arts Council of England

200,000

0.06%

Education funding agency

200,000

0.06%

Total

317,389,834

figure 37. Percentage of contribution, by funding source

NHS NHS has committed to investing an additional £2.4 billion annually into GP services by 2020-1 and distributing capital investments totaling £900 million over the next five years (NHS England, 2016: 10). Their Estates and Technology Transformation Fund supports the construction of new health centers that increase patient intake, provide a greater range of health services under one roof, and provide housing for health staff. The funding is available and the need is there, supporting the inclusion of a GP practice within the development (figure 37) (NHS, 2017).

Education Funding Agency The Early Years Capital Fund supports childcare provision for 3- and 4-yearolds through the construction of newbuild nurseries or building conversions. An application will be submitted in partnership with an eligible provider (private/voluntary nursery, primary school, childminders), who will operate the space (Education Funding Agency, 2016).

£317,189,834 £322,789,834

figure 36. a breakdown of funding sources

For example, evaluations could be conducted by distributing paper surveys outside a busy local supermarket, in-person or phone interviews, focus groups at community centers, observational and participant-observational studies and more. To aid in evaluation and monitoring, a steering committee of site residents, business owners, community leaders, and local elected representatives will be assembled.

13. Evaluation & Monitoring Due to the long-term nature of regeneration schemes, their multi-dimensional impact, the number of stakeholders involved, and external factors, success can be difficult to measure (Ennis and Douglass, 2011: 5). In other words, correlation does not equal causation. So how do we evaluate the impact of the development? Drawing from the framework implemented by the UK’s Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills (BIS), the evaluation will follow a “consistent logic chain” that links objectives to measurable inputs and outputs. Using the BIS model will also contribute to collective, standardized knowledge and facilitate comparison between schemes and correlation between inputs and outputs. (Ennis and Douglass, 2011: 7) Evaluation may focus on summative and formative evaluations: • Summative evaluation assesses the kind of impact, especially in comparison with initial expectations or with what may have happened organically • Formative evaluation focuses on the context of a situation and asks how, why, and under what conditions an intervention failed or succeeded In addition to monitoring and evaluating objectives, we will also conduct goals-free evaluation, which assesses unintended but actualized outcomes and impacts - whether positive or negative. (Government Social Research Unit, 2007: 1:3-6)

Once data is compiled, it will be evaluated against our objectives using various success indicators. This will illuminate the development’s social, economic, and built environmental value and contribution. Figure 40 breaks down each objective into its own line item, showing planned inputs, expected outputs, and success indicators.

figure 38. Evaluation implementation avenues Source: Abigail Levner

Evaluation methods: To gather the broadest spread of information, a range of evaluation methods will be implemented. This includes: • Surveys & questionnaires • Interviews • Community forums & boards • Demographics • Observation and surveillance These methods will be implemented via (figure 38): • Print • Interpersonal communication • Digital communication (email, social media)

figure 39. Locations of evaluation activity and data collection Source: Abigail Levner

figure 40. Evaluation grid of social, economic, and built environment objectives Source: Abigail Levner 53

14. Risks & Mitigations The risks of the project can be categorised into the following: • economic/market fluctuations • social changes • environmental risks • project coordination Using the risk matrix (see appendix 4), they are rated according to likelihood of occurrence and the severity of the consequences. The analysis showed several mediumto-high risks related to funding changes and coordination difficulties. The risks have implications on the feasibility and viability of the project, as they could lead to delays or increased costs. The risks and consequences have been considered to propose appropriate mitigation strategies, listed in figure 41:

RISK

CONSEQUENCES

RISK RATING

MITIGATION STRATEGY

Real estate market cycle (economic downturn)

There are multiple consequences included with this risk, with the most significant being a reduction in house price values. Additionally, if the supply of housing were to exceed demand, the increased vacancy rate would reduce the expected rental income, leaving the scheme financially unviable.

Major

Low

An incremental approach to development of site can respond to changing market conditions. The diversified land use strategy caters to a range of needs within the London market (housing, industry, and housing for the elderly). This strategy ensures the premises will be occupied by various clients, guaranteeing income for the developers. To transfer risk, units are secured by selling off plan.

Unlikely

Increase in interest rate

If the interest rate of the loan were to exceed our calculation, our profits would decrease and financial recovery would occur later than expected. Delayed returns due to high upfront project costs could cause later phases to be delayed / deferred.

Possible

Moderate

Medium

This would lead to a delay or prevention of project Unsuccessful funding, such as inability from starting. Stakeholders could lose interest or leave to attract investors the project. All these forces would make the proposal less feasible.

Unlikely

Major

Low

Phasing of construction within the development, starting with residential / industrial projects to ensure profit returns. Public and community infrastructure will start in the later phase. In addition, a built in budgeted profit margin of 20% should attract investors.

Due to the lower topography of our area and the impermeable asphalt covering the majority of our site, there is a risk of surface water flooding. This risk is further increased by the intensification of the built environment and projected climate change.

Unlikely

Major

Medium

Proposed increase in green spaces and green roofs, along with soft-engineering on our site, will lower this risk. Insurance during construction and operation can mitigate the associated financial risks.

Flooding

LIKELIHOOD

SEVERITY

Interest rates are calculated above the current rate to allow for a slight increase. In addition a 5% contingency has been built into the budget to cover any unforeseen expenses or rate increases.

General resistance from public

Public / residents mounting opposition to stop development

Likely

Insignificant

Low

By engaging with the community for both the spatial design and developer obligations, public concerns are considered in site planning. Feedback from public consultations have already been integrated into the planning, including a GP surgery and pre-school. Additionally, communication strategies to increase transparency of the development process allow for open conversation between the developer and the community. Our last strategy will mediate public resistance through improving local conditions: upgrading public spaces and accessibility, along with offering local training and employment.

Public opposition to building on Metropolitan Open Land

Public / residents mounting opposition to stop development

Likely

Insignificant

Low

Currently, the underused WaterWorks Centre and a large parking lot sits on the MOL. We are proposing the refurbishment of the centre into a multi-use community space + preschool, and the addition of a GP / care home. Lastly, we are ‘reclaiming’ and restoring parts of the parking lot as floodplain for flood mitigation. The increase in green space will improve the current conditions of the MOL.

Opposition from Business Improvement District

BID mounting protests to stop development

Possible

Moderate

Medium

Our plan proposes partnerships with existing businesses and industries to encourage them to stay in the area. For example, we are proposing the BID to manage workspaces. The spaces will be rented at the current rate for the next five years.

Fragmented landownership

Inability to retain development control over the site would lead to delays or prevent the project from starting.

Possible

Major

High

We plan to offer partnerships and revenue sharing with existing landowners and businesses, making development more attractive. Compulsory Purchase Orders powers will be invoked when needed.

Development pressures

In the past few years, London has faced a unprecedented loss in Strategic Industrial Land (SIL), further highlighting the need for industrial land within the city. With the new station opening and proposed developments in the area, there is significant pressure for residential housing on the site.

Possible

Moderate

Medium

The proposed development is mixed use, with redesignation of SIL as Priority Employment Zone. Industrial space will be preserved and expanded, at the same time integrating residential housing into the site. Rent control for industrial / commercial units is proposed for the five years after completion of the development.

Lack of coordination among stakeholders

The scale of the project and number of stakeholders involved, each with their own interests, presents complexities in coordination. Lack of coordination leads to project delays, which could incur additional costs and cause conflicts.

Likely

Moderate

High

The proposed Special Purpose Vehicle created for this project will manage communication among stakeholders. Regular meetings / updates, along with constant progress monitoring, act as effective strategies for coordination.

figure 40. table showing risks and mitigations

Part 4. Conclusion Overall, growing development pressures pose the risk of uncoordinated development, which would lead to the loss on vital employment and industry in Lea Bridge. A bold intervention is needed to preserve industrial space while providing muchneeded housing and providing social benefit to the diverse and growing Lea Bridge community. The Lea Bridge East proposal capitalises on high land values to viably deliver truly affordable workspace, a diverse range of residential tenures and vital social infrastructure. Stakeholders and risks are thoroughly considered to propose a progressive way of managing the development during and after construction. Innovative design principles are employed to combine thriving industry with a vibrant, comfortable place to live. Lea Bridge East Regeneration puts forward a viable way of creating a well-connected, lively quarter where industry meets lifestyle.

photo by Jody Liu

15. Bibliography Allen, Richard. Lea Bridge 5-7-85 (Last Day). 2016. Web. Accessed 12 May 2017. Arts Council England (2016). Capital: Large Grants. Available online at: www.artscouncil.org. uk/capital-large-grants. Accessed 10 May 2017. Beunderman et al. (2016). Industry in the city: A report to London Development Agency and Greater London Authority. Available online at: http://www.dmau.com/files/Industry-in-the-city. pdf Accessed 10 May 2017. Big Lottery Fund (2017). Reaching Communities England. Available online at: www. biglotteryfund.org.uk/prog_reaching_communities. Accessed 10 May 2017. BNP Paribas Real Estate (2013) Waltham Forest CIL Viability Study. Available online at: https:// branding.walthamforest.gov.uk/.../waltham-forest-cil-viability-report25jan13.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017. Brown, J. (2016) Lea Bridge station to reopen after 31 years to benefit 352,000 passengers a year, Evening Standard. Available online at: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/lea-bridgestation-to-reopen-after-31-years-to-benefit-352000-passengers-a-year-a3247006.html. Accessed 10 May 2017. Bull, J. (2013). The Life, Death and Rebirth of Lea Bridge Station. Reconnections: London Transport and Beyond. Available online at: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/leabridge-lives-again/. Accessed 10 May 2017. Campaign to Protect Rural England (2014). London’s Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land: Time for Renewal. Available online at: http://www.cprelondon.org.uk/resources/item/2240london-green-belt-time-for-renewal Accessed January 24 2017.

EGI (2017). Building Reports for Lea Bridge Road. Available online at: https://www.egi.co.uk/ Property/SearchResults.aspx. Accessed 10 May 2017. Ennis, N. and Douglass, G. (2011) Culture and Regeneration – What evidence is there of a link and how can it be measured? Working Paper 48, GLA Economics, London: Greater London Authority Environment Agency (2013). Managing flood risk in the Lower Lee catchment, today and in the future. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/288611/Managing_flood_risk_in_the_Lower_Lee_catchment_3131d9.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017. Ferm, J. and Jones, E. (2016). Mixed use ‘regeneration’ of employment land in the post industrial city: challenges and realities in London. European Planning Studies. 24:10, 1913-1936 Ferm, J. (2014). Delivering affordable workspace: Perspectives of developers and workspace providers in London. Progress in Planning. 93. pp.1-49 Glanville, N. (2015) Six in 10 homes built in Waltham Forest since 2011 do not have a car parking space. East London and West Essex Guardian. Available online at: http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/12970962.Waltham_Forest_third_worst_for_parking_ at_new_development. Accessed 10 May 2017. Greater London Authority (2012). Air Quality In Waltham Forest: A Guide For Public Health Professionals. Available online at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/air_quality_for_ public_health_professionals_-_lb_waltham_forest.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017.

Cook, D. (2016). Flood Zones – What you need to know. Available online at: www.ambiental. co.uk/flood-zones/. Accessed 10 May 2017.

Greater London Authority (2013) Upper Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework. Available online at:https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-londonplan/opportunity-areas/opportunity-areas/upper-lee-valley. Accessed 10 May 2017.

Contemporist (2015). It’s rare to see industrial spaces combined with residential, but this new mixed-use building has done it. Available online at: http://www.contemporist.com/its-rare-tosee-industrial-spaces-combined-with-residential-but-this-new-mixed-use-building-has-doneit/. Accessed 25 January 2017.

Greater London Authority (2015). Met police recorded offences rates ward. London Datastore. Available online at: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/crime-rates-metropolitan-police-areaward. Accessed 10 May 2017.

Costar (2017). Lea Bridge Road Building Reports. Available online at:https://gateway.costar. com/Login/?sAuthMsg=1. Accessed 10 May 2017.

Greater London Authority (2016a) Economic Evidence Base for London. Available online at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/chapter4-economic-evidence-base-2016.pdf Accessed 10 May 2017.

Cracknell, M (2016). Praise for ‘Mini Holland’ as car use falls. Waltham Forest Echo. Available online at: http://walthamforestecho.co.uk/praise-for-mini-holland-as-car-use-falls. Accessed 10 May 2017. Create London (2016). The White House: A new public space for art and social activity on the Becontree Estate in Dagenham. Available online: http://createlondon.org/event/the-whitehouse/ Accessed 12 May 2017. Department for Communities and Local Government (2015) Land value estimates for policy appraisal. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/land-valueestimates-for-policy-appraisal. Accessed 10 May 2017. Design Council (n.d.) Designing out Out Crime. Available online at: www.designcouncil.org.uk/ resources/case-study/design-out-crime. Accessed 10 May 2017.

Education Funding Agency (2016). Early years capital funding. Available online at: https://www. gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-capital-funding-call-for-expressions-of-interest. Accessed 10 May 2017.

Greater London Authority (2016b) Industrial Land Review. Available online at: https://www. london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/opdc_ilr_draft_new_cover.pdf Accessed 10 May 2017. Greater London Authority (2016c). Olympic Legacy Supplementary Planning Guidance. Available online at: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-londonplan/supplementary-planning-guidance/olympic-legacy Accessed 10 May 2017. Harding, E. (2007). Towards Lifetime Neighbourhoods: Designing sustainable communities for all. Department for Communities and Local Government. Available online at: www. lifetimehomes.org.uk/data/files/Lifetime_Neighbourhoods/towards_lifetime_neighbourhoods_ ilc_discussion_paper.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017. Hill, D. (2015), Waltham Forest ‘mini-Holland’ row: politics, protests and house prices https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2015/nov/07/waltham-forest-miniholland-row-politics-protests-and-house-prices. Accessed 10 May 2017. 59

Hoxton Arches (n.d.). About Hoxton Arches. Available online at: http://www.hoxtonarches. com/ Accessed 10 May 2017. Industry City (2017). Industry City. Available online at : https://industrycity.com/ Accessed 25 January 2017. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great american cities. Vintage books. ISBN-13: 9780679741954 Jacobs, J. and Lees, L. (2013). Defensible space on the move: revisiting the urban geography of Alice Coleman. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol 37, no. 5, N/A, pp. 1559-1583. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2427.12047 Jansen, T., (2016). The nursery inside a nursing home. The Atlantic. Available online: https:// www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/01/the-preschool-inside-a-nursing-home/424827/ Accessed12 May 2017. Leabridge.org (n.d.). The Story of Lea Bridge. Available online at: http://www.leabridge.org.uk/ index.html . Accessed 10 May 2017. “Listed Buildings | The View From The Bridge”. Leabridge.org.uk. N.p., 2017. Web. Accessed 13 May 2017. London Borough of Waltham Forest. Waltham Forest Characterisation Study Part Four. London: N.p., 2009. Print. London Borough of Croydon. (2016) Developing New Homes in Croydon. Available online at: https://www.croydon.gov.uk/planningandregeneration/regeneration/brick-by-brick-small-sitesprogramme/brick-by-brick. Accessed 10 May 2017.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (2016a) Generating savings and income opportunities Report of the Budget Scrutiny Committee. Available online at: democracy.walthamforest.gov. uk/documents/s52445/5.1%20-%20Appendix%201%20-%20Generating%20savings%20and%20 income%20opportunities%20report%20of%20the%20Budget%20Scrutiny%20Commi.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017. London Borough of Waltham Forest (2016b) Lea Valley EastSide Vision. Available online at: https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/content/leyton-and-lea-bridge-lea-valley-eastsideconsultation Accessed 10 May 2017. London Borough of Waltham Forest (2016c) Local Plan Evidence Base - Authority Monitoring Report. Available online at: https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/node/2110 Accessed 10 May 2017. London Borough of Waltham Forest (2016d) Economic Growth Strategy 2016-2020. Available online at: https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/content/our-economic-growth-strategy. Accessed 10 May 2017. London Datastore (2013) Lower Layer Super Output Area Atlas http://londondatastore-upload. s3.amazonaws.com/instant-atlas/lsoa-atlas1/atlas.html Accessed 8 May 2017. London Datastore (2015) Ward Profiles. http://londondatastore-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/ instant-atlas/ward-profiles-html/atlas.html. Accessed 8 May 2017. Mayor of London (2016). The London Plan. Available online at: https://www.london.gov.uk/ sites/default/files/the_london_plan_2016_jan_2017_fix.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017.

London Borough of Hackney (2015) Appendix A. https://www.hackney.gov.uk/Assets/ Documents/Hackney-CS-EIP-Final-Report-Appendix-A-Councils-changes.doc. Accessed 10 May 2017.

Marshall, G. (2016). A First Look At London’s Newest Railway Station. The Londonist. Available online at: http://londonist.com/2016/05/london-s-newest-railway-station Accessed 10 May 2017.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (2006) Unitary Development Plan: Chapter 2. Available online at: http://www.esrcartography.co.uk/lbwf/chapter2.html#INB1. Accessed 10 May 2017.

Metropolitan Police Service (n.d.). Crime Statistics. Available online at: https://www.police.uk/ metropolitan/E05000603/crime/+02djW8/stats/ Accessed 10 May 2017.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (2009a) Lea Bridge Options and Consultations Report. Available online at:http://democracy.walthamforest.gov.uk/documents/s10061/6.%20 Appendix%20B_Lea%20Bridge%20Consultation%20report.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017.

Metropolitan Police Service (2017). Crime Map. Available online at: https://www.police.uk/ metropolitan/E05000603/crime. Accessed 10 May 2017.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (2009b) Employment Land Study. Available online at:https://branding.walthamforest.gov.uk/.../ke61-wf-employment-land-study2009.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017. London Borough of Waltham Forest (2011) Northern Olympic Fringe Area Action Plan. Available online at: https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/content/northern-olympic-fringe-areaaction-plan . Accessed 10 May 2017. London Borough of Waltham Forest (2012) Core Strategy. Available online at: https://branding.walthamforest.gov.uk/Documents/adopted-core-strategy.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017. London Borough of Waltham Forest (2014a). Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. http:// democracy.walthamforest.gov.uk/documents/s43739/Flood%20Strategy%20Final%20Draft%20 Cover%202.pdf Accessed 10 May 2017

London Borough of Waltham Forest (2015) Cabinet Report. Available online at: http:// democracy.walthamforest.gov.uk/documents/g3942/Public%20reports%20pack%2023rdFeb-2016%2014.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=10. Accessed 10 May 2017.

Munro, Ewan. Greyhound Pub, E10. 2012. Web .Accessed 13 May 2017. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (2015). The Built Environment An Assessment Tool and Manual. Available online at: https://www.cdc.gov/ nccdphp/dch/built-environment-assessment/pdfs/builtenvironment-v3.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017. NHS (2017). Estates and Technology Transformation Fund. Available online at: https://www. england.nhs.uk/gp/gpfv/infrastructure/estates-technology. Accessed 10 May 2017. NHS England (2016). GENERAL PRACTICE: FORWARD VIEW. Available online at: https:// www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/gpfv.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017. Powell, W. R. (1973). ‘Leyton: Introduction’, in A History of the County of Essex: Volume 6, ed. pp. 174-184. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol6/pp174-184. Accessed 10 May 2017.

PTAL (2017) Access level PTAL. Available online at: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planningand-construction/planning-with-webcat/webcat?Input=Lea%20Bridge%20Road%2C%20 London%2C%20United%20Kingdom&locationId=EidMZWEgQ nJpZGdlIFJvYWQsIExvbmRvbiwgVW5pdGVkIEtpbmdkb20&scenario=2021%20 %28Forecast%29&type=Ptal. Accessed 10 May 2017. Reformat Architects (2015). Bourne Mill Care Home. Available at: http://re-format.co.uk/carehome-at-bourne-mill/. Accessed 12 May 2017. Santer, H. (2016). New workspace for built environment practices. We are Waterloo. Available online at: http://wearewaterloo.co.uk/news/new-workspace-built-environment-practices Accesses 12 May 2017. Simmons Aerofilms Ltd. An Aerial View Of Lea Bridge Station Seen From The North In June 1952. 2017. Web. Accessed 12 May 2017. SROI Network (2012). A guide to Social Return on Investment. London: The SROI Network. Available online at: http://www.socialvalueuk.org/app/uploads/2016/03/The%20Guide%20 to%20Social%20Return%20on%20Investment%202015.pdf Accessed 10 May 2017. TG Escapes (n.d.) Nursery Buildings. Available online at: https://www.tgescapes.co.uk/ education-nursery-buildings. Accessed 10 May 2017. Transport for London (2017). Mini-Hollands. Available online at: https://tfl.gov.uk/travelinformation/improvements-and-projects/cycle-mini-hollands. Accessed 10 May 2017. Vastint (2017). Strand East, London. Available online at: http://vastint.eu/projects/strand-east/ Accessed 12 May 2017. Waltham Forest CCG (n.d.) Primary Care. Available online at: www.walthamforestccg.nhs.uk/ ourwork/primary-care.htm. Accessed 10 May 2017. Waltham Forest Council Watch (2016). Councillor Peter Herrington, Mayor 2016-2017 elected as new Mayor of Waltham Forest. Available online at: http://www.wfcw.org/council/index.html. Accessed 10 May 2017. Waltham Forest ECHO (2017) Man dies after being hit by lorry on Lea Bridge Road in Leyton. Available online at: http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/15097765.UPDATE__Man_dies_after_being_hit_by_ lorry/. Accessed 10 May 2017.

16. List of Figures

Appendix 1.

Fig 1. Aerial view of Lea Bridge Station, c. 1952 Fig 2. Lea Bridge station on its last day of operation, 1985 Fig 3. Flood risk zones in Lea Valley area Fig 4. NO2 levels in Lower Lea region Fig 5. Newly opened Lea Bridge Station, 2016 Fig 6. PTAL index map Fig 7. Top 5 crimes in Lea Bridge ward Fig 8. Photo of Greyhound Pub, 2012 Fig 9. Map of social infrastructure in area Fig 10. Map of Opportunity Area 21 Fig 11. Rendering of 97 Lea Bridge proposal Fig 12. Map of Argall BID Fig 13. SWOT analysis map Fig 14. Masterplan with project precedents Fig 15. Visualisation of new buildings Fig 16. Visualisation of new buildings, evening Fig 16. The Helix, Strand East, Stratford Fig 17. The White House on Becontree Estate, Dagenham Fig 18. The Mount nursing & child care facilities, Seattle Fig 19. Bourne Mills Care Home Fig 20-21. Design principles graphics on mixing industry in the city Fig 22. Industry City, Brooklyn, New York Fig 23. Rigg Approach - east side Fig 24. Rigg Approach - west side Fig 25. Lammas Arches, reimagined Fig 26. Hoxton Station arches Fig 27. Map of green / open spaces in new development Fig 28. Map of access routes in new development Fig 29. Output table Fig 30. Actors map, shown with potential conflicts Fig 31. Build Studios logo Fig 32. Provisional phasing schedule Fig 33. Table showing expected value and revenue of scheme Fig 34. Table showing breakdown of expected expenditure Fig 35. Graph showing site development by infrastructure category Fig 36. Table showing funding sources Fig 37. Percentage of contribution, by funding source Fig 38. Evaluation implementation avenues Fig 39. Locations of evaluation activity Fig 40. Evaluation grids for social, economic, and built environment objectives Fig 41. Table of risks and mitigations

Appendix 3.

Appendix 2.

adapted from lecture on risk by Prof. Nikos Karadimitrious, 2017

land use map

mixed industrial / residential

community use

retail

industrial

residential

Appendix 4.

photo by Laura Dodds-Hebron