3
Hawley Wharf Developement
Summative Essay for “Cities, Politics and Citizenship” Jorge Martín Sainz de los Terreros April 2012 Task The aim of this project is to explore a question raised by your reading (and discussions) on this course in the context of London. Ideally, your project should be a vehicle for linking theory or ideas to an appropriate empirical example. It should help develop your research skills, and also increase your understanding of political processes in the city in which you are currently working. Examples of the sorts of issues you might want to investigate might be: the politics of a particular policy initiative or sector in a specified London locale; the involvement of local residents in urban redevelopment initiatives, such as that around Kings’ Cross-St. Pancras or those on the South Bank; the impact of a particular social movement or pressure group on the urban political agenda; the role of local party organisations in London’s governance structure; business involvement in a local initiative of interest; citizen attitudes to city (or borough) politics; politics and/ or policy relating to specific features in the built environment; neighbourhood conflict over development proposals. Depending on where you live in the city while studying here, you may find something in your neighbourhood to ask some appropriate questions about. Lenth 2000 words
Jorge Martín Sainz de los Terreros September 2012 Master in City Design and Social Science 2011-2012 London School of Economics and Political Science All images are the author’s own unless otherwise stated. Copyright (c) 2012 Jorge Martín Sainz de los Terreros. This work is licenced under Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial - No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. To see a copy of this license, refer to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
Hawley Wharf Developement
Hawley Wharf Developement This essay is an attempt to explain the different relationships established by different actors in a local planning decision-making case in Camden Borough. The case study is the Hawley Wharf Project, in Camden Town, an proposal for an intervention to develop a highly valuable land. The complexity of the relationships among the different stakeholders, and the way accountability is performed to their respective constituencies, demonstrate that abstract and closed preconceptions of categories such as state, market and civil society hinder the understanding of specific cases. To address local governance processes it is necessary to understand the processes of hybridation of those spheres (state, market and civil society) and analyse their relationships and interdependencies. From the perspective of complex and multiple membership, I will try to depict how are they enacted in a local political realm. The Hawley Wharf Development is an interesting scheme that has been developed during the past three and a half years in Camden Town, in the centre of the Borough of Camden. The project is a proposal for the development of one site in the Camden Market, in front of the Regent’s Canal, called Hawley Wharf. There, the Camden Canal Market was placed, owned by a retail company called Stanley Sidings Ltd. Stanley Sidings Ltd, who also owns part of the Stable Market (in the other side of the Chalk Farm Road), wanted to develop the site since long time ago. They joined a Chesterfield Partners (a real-estate company) and, in a peaceful manner, began to buy the different plots in the area - affected with a very fragmented ownership.
Site location. Source: Google Maps.
1
Hawley Wharf Developement
In 2008, a fire set in the building of the Camden Canal Market and burnt it down. Once the fire was over, the Council realised that the building was built without permission, and therefore, asked the owner to present a proposal for a development if they want to develop something there. In the meanwhile, the owner set a provisional market in the site, in order not to lose rent. Even if the market was illegal, the council, according to Dan Carrier (interview April 2012), decided not to go to court –as representing a great amount of money - and made a deal with the developers to hurry up with the proposal for the site. The initial idea for the project involved four different areas, and was meant to be a mixed use proposal including housing, a market area, offices and working spaces, bars and restaurants as well as open public areas. The target user was both resident and local users, as well as tourists and occasional visitors. For the latter, the market area was conceived as a ‘high-end’ design, similar to Borough market. In general, during a planning process, council planning officials, when planning permission is requested, would work closely with developer’s architects to reach a common ground. Once they reach a consensus, they would agree to write a positive report to be submitted to a planning committee – formed by elected councillors – who would proceed to approve the project. This has been usually the way of proceeding regarding planning permissions in the UK for many years. As a consecuence, this way blocked the possibilities for neighbourhood engament in decision-making processes. During the 80’s and 90’s, according to Burns, ‘the formal committee structure remained unchanged and there was no effective route for neighbourhood decision-making to affect council policy.’ (2000, p.964). Nowadays, the complexity of local democracy goes beyond formal political structures.
Ground Flooor Masterplan Source: Camden Lock Village. Available: http://camdenlockvillage. com
2
Hawley Wharf Developement
Image of the proposal. Source: http://camdenlockvillage.com/
In the case of Hawley Wharf, the council, even if controlled by councillors, representing their respective ward constituencies, responded to the planning issues as usual, through their planning officials, non-elected member of the local authority. Apart from this approach, a parallel process took place, and here is where the complexity of the political arrangements began, as different actors got involved. The council put a lot of effort in the participation of different stakeholders from the beginning of the process. To do so, the Hawley Wharf Working Group (HWWG) was formed, including different actors: • Residents associations. • Traders associations. • Professional individuals (including independent architects and planners) • Institutions and organisations, such as Regent’s Canal Conservation Area Committee • The three ward councillors: Patricia Callaghan, labourist; Christopher Naylor, liberal democrat; and Matthew Sanders, liberal democrat; and • The developers: Stanley Sidings and Chesterfields. The group was formed to facilitate the communications among all the stakeholders, and mainly as a channel to inform the developers about the opinion and views of the local people. For this reason, the HWWG has been seen by the residents as more representative of their own concerns than the council official position. As so, the HWWG was ‘understood’ as the ‘legitimate’ representative of the citizens rather that the council itself. In addition to that, the position taken by the ward councillors in the group has been influenced more by the people they represented, than by their respective partisan positions (Carrier, interview April 2012). Jessop (2000) discuses the complexity of
3
Hawley Wharf Developement
the relationships between partnerships and partisanship positions, suggesting that decisions in those terms could be related to the different levels governance. In this line, partnership would be more related to ‘interpersonal’ relationships and partisanship more in the ‘interorganisational’ level of relationships (Jessop 2000). This understanding of the councillors as individuals advocating for their constituencies wills means a shift in the perception of them as ‘unrepresentative’ (Burns 2000, p. 963). The question of accountability raises when considering to who are councillors are more accountable, and how this sense of legitimacy of the process is seen by the different constituencies. I would suggest that local political actors have to deal with different and multiple accountabilities in relation to the levels of governance regarding their different memberships. Also, the HWWG could be understood in this context as a hybridation of the local democracy. It depicts an attempt to organise a parallel representative body linked to the community where state, market and civil society is represented. Meyer describes how local authorities and institutions have become more and more linked to civil society and ‘how local government encourage the formation of these hybrid groups’ (2009, p.145). The understanding of the state, the market and the civil society as interrelated spheres, or ‘complex hybrids’ as also named them Latour, complicates the analysis, but moves away from the ‘more convenient but wrong abstractions’ (Latour, cited in Storper 1998). Back to the case, from 2008, the group held a series of meetings to follow the different proposals from the developers. The group responded to them through reports that the developers had to respect in order to gain their support. The group requirements included: • Provision 50% affordable housing, as it was considered priority number one for the council, • Heritage conservation concerns, • Control in the proportion, shape and bulk of the buildings in relation to the surrounding area, • Commitment for proposal of a use plan including small workshops and local shops and amenities, such as butchers and bakers, and so on. After one and a half years of meetings, the developers’ architects collected the HWWG demands and keep on working on their own. At this stage, the council drew up the Strategic Framework for the site and began a parallel relationship with the developers. The developers presented to them a series of proposals that steadily where shaped to match the council official interests. During two years, a series of consultations (requested by the council) were held by the developers to inform the community of the different steps of the development process of the project (consultations without any relationship with the HWWG). In one moment of the process, the council introduced a primary school in the scheme as part of the negotiations based on the Section 106 Agreement. The developers accepted the proposal in exchange for building less affordable housing than expected (at the end they proposed no more that 8% when the official requirement is 50%). The deal was seen as a win-win situation, and with the support of several departments, including Education and Development, the council planning officials considered the plan could go to the committee for the final revision. 4
Hawley Wharf Developement
In November 2011, the developers presented a final plan including the requirements from the council. Once presented, the project was assessed by different institutions and bodies, among others the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), English Heritage, Regent’s Canal Conservation Area Committee, with different responses, but mainly concerns. After reviewing the project, also the HWWG presented a document responding the project with several allegations, considering they have been set aside from the process of the project. As a reaction to that disregard, another group decided to take the lead in the opposition of the development, considering that the HWWG was ‘too official’ and rather than ‘having been working with the developers, they should have told the developers what to do’ (Carrier 23 April 2012). The Hawley Wharf Action Work (HWAG) developed an alternative proposal, offering it to the developers to take it into account. The developers rejected it, as they were confident to have the support from the officials, and therefore the council. In March 2012, the planning committee met to deliver whether or not the plan should be approved. In the meeting there are 14 councillors. They listen to the different views from different actors, including: • The developers and their architects • The department of Education • The department of Planning • Patricia Callaghan, Christopher Naylor and Matthew Sanders, the Camden Town Ward councillors. • Paul Whitney, architect, on behalf of the HWAG. • And several other opinions Out of the 14 councillors, 2 didn’t participated in the voting, as they were involved in some way or another - e.g. Matthew Sanders, who was part of both the HWWG and the HWAG. The rest of the councillors voted and the final result was 7 against and 5 for. The planning committee decided not to accept the proposal and rejected the plan. The developer had to reconsider the proposal taking into account the new suggestions from the different parties involved. However, there was still a final chapter. The plan rejection of the plan had to go to the GLA planning commission, to be accepted or overturned. This planning commission is again composed by planners, architects, professionals, and technicians which, understanding the limitations of local councillors of considering the city’s broader picture, have to assess boroughs on important decisions when they have an affection beyond their boundaries. Here, the developers could have had another chance for their project. A threat that the developer could have access to those other scales, and the possible partnerships involved, triggered a reaction from the local Camden News Journal with a headline saying: ‘Boris could overturn wharf plan decision’ (Carrier 2012a). Even if the partnership relationships of the developers did not worked in one level, that did not mean they could not work in the other. As Jessop puts it, ‘as both governance and government mechanisms exists on different scales […] success at one scale may well 5
Hawley Wharf Developement
Actual site.
Proposal 2009. Source: http://www.chelsfield.com/
Proposal 2012. Source: http://camdenlockvillage.com/
6
Hawley Wharf Developement
depend on what occurs on other scales’ (2000, p.19). The journalists understood the treat… To conclude I would like to subscribe the idea that local governance can’t be abstracted in preconceived categories and groups. Rather, when talking about local democracy, great complexity is introduced. The case of Matthew Sanders could help to exemplify the complexity of accountability in this case: a Liberal Democrat elected in the Camden Town and Primrose Hill ward to be a councillor in the Camden Borough, and being a member of the Hawley Wharf Working Group and Hawley Wharf Action group, and also part of the planning committee of the council that have to decide the future of the Hawley Wharf Area. Too many memberships for one person?
Bibliography and references Burns, D. (2000) ‘Can Local Democracy Survive Governance?’, Urban Studies, 37(5-6), 963974. Carrier, D. (2011a) ‘Hawley Wharf redevelopment - Stanley Sidings say 900 jobs will be created’, Camden New Journal, 3 November, available: http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2011/ nov/property-news-hawley-wharf-redevelopment-stanley-sidings-say-900-jobs-will-be-created [accessed 23 April 2012]. Carrier, D. (2011b) ‘Is Kentish Town South tube station set to reopen?’, Islington Tribune, 5 May, available: http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2011/may/kentish-town-south-tube-stationset-reopen [accessed 23 April 2012]. Carrier, D. (2011c) ‘Look what’s in store for Camden Lock’, Camden New Journal, 23 June, available: http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2011/jun/look-what%E2%80%99s-storecamden-lock [accessed 23 April 2012]. Carrier, D. (2011d) ‘Views of residents sought - Hawley Wharf Action Group plan to raise awareness of multi-million pound development’, Camden New Journal, 14 July, available: http:// www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2011/jul/views-residents-sought-hawley-wharf-actiongroup-plan-raise-awareness-multi-million-po [accessed 23 April 2012]. Carrier, D. (2012a) ‘Boris could overturn wharf plan decision’, Camden New Journal, 19 April, 11. Carrier, D. (2012b) ‘Developer: We did all we could… do they really want a project here?’, Camden New Journal, 22 March, 6. Carrier, D. (2012c) ‘Future face of Hawley Wharf to be decided‘, Camden New Journal, 15 March, available: http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2012/mar/future-face-hawleywharf-be-decided [accessed 23 April 2012]. Carrier, D. (2012c) ‘Hawley Wharf redevelopment: HWWG reveal proposals to rival ‘characterless’ council designs‘, Camden New Journal, 26 January, available: http://www.camdennewjournal. com/news/2012/jan/hawley-wharf-redevelopment-hwwg-reveal-proposals-rival-characterlesscouncil-designs [accessed 23 April 2012]. Carrier, D. (2012e) ‘Sunk: Vision of a ‘high-end’ market by canal fails to respect its heritage’, Camden New Journal, 22 March, 6-7. Carrier, D. (2012f ) ‘‘We need more social housing instead.’ - Hawley Wharf Working Group (HWWG) oppose plans for new primary school’, Camden New Journal, 9 February, available: 7
Hawley Wharf Developement
http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2012/feb/we-need-more-social-housing-insteadhawley-wharf-working-group-hwwg-oppose-plans-new-p [accessed 23 April 2012]. Davies, C. and Revill, J. and Smith, D. (2008) ‘London landmark goes up in flames’, The observer, 10 February, available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/10/london.camden. fire?INTCMP=SRCH [accessed 23 April 2012]. Hawley Wharf Working Group (2011) Planning Applications in respect of Camden Lock Village (Hawley Wharf ), Planning Submission Representations, available: http://www.camdennewjournal. com/news/2011/jun/look-what%E2%80%99s-store-camden-lock [accessed 23 April 2012]. Camden Council (2009) Hawley Wharf Area Planning Framework, Supplementary Planning Document. London. available: http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/environment/planningand-built-environment/two/planning-policy/supplementary-planning-documents/planningframeworks-and-briefs/hawley-wharf-area-planning-framework.en;jsessionid=0A6F44B2A878B A3635708499E9A139C1 [accessed 23 April 2012]. Jessop, B. (2000) ‘Governance Failure.’ in Gerry Stoker (ed) The New Politics of British Local Governance, Houndmills [England]: Macmillan, pp.11-32. Keilthy, P. (2008a) ‘Developers buy £17m of canalside properties’, Camden New Journal, 13 November, available: http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2011/jun/lookwhat%E2%80%99s-store-camden-lock [accessed 23 April 2012]. Keilthy, P. (2008b) ‘Developer’s heart transplant bid’, Camden New Journal, 15 October, available:http://www.thecnj.com/camden/2009/101509/news101509_06.html [accessed 23 April 2012]. Meyer, M, (2009) “Chapter 6” from Bagnasco, A and Gales, P Le, Cities in Contemporary Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.131-152 Osborne (2011) ‘Camden residents claim regeneration will make market a Disneyland’, London Evening Standard, 10 October, available: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/camden-residentsclaim-regeneration-will-make-market-a-disneyland-6451834.html [accessed 23 April 2012]. Storper, M, (1998) “Civil Society: three ways into a problem” from Friedman, J and Douglass, M, Cities for Citizens: planning and the rise of civil society in a global age, New York: J. Wiley, pp.239-246.
8