![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
When London won the bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic games in 2005 it heralded a new moment in games making where it was claimed that the hosting of a mega event would be galvanized to create an inclusive legacy. Affordable Housing was a key dimension of this legacy. This article seeks to interrogate four key policy assumptions that underpinned the strategy for delivering affordable housing associated with the Growth Dependent Planning Paradigm. Firstly, that rising land values would create the potential to capture value for public good. Secondly, that S106 agreements (Planning gain) introduced in the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act would capture this value. Thirdly, that state and market would work in a symbiotic relationship reconciling private profit with public good and fourthly, that governance of planning should be overseen by an appointed rather than elected body. This article interrogates these assumptions through a longitudinal analysis of planning applications between 2000 and 2017. It argues that this policy framework has been relatively ineffective in levering public good. The findings are relevant for those interested in planning gain, value capture, urban regeneration and the potential for mega-events to achieve broader social objectives.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the London Legacy Development Corporation for their support with this research and the planning committee members and officers who gave up their time to be interviewed. I would also like to thank the following for their help including Mark Adams, Kate Bernstock, Phil Cohen, Juliet Davis, Zena Hassan, Debbie Humphry and Gary Tindall. I would particularly like to thank Gavin Poynter for his inciteful support and mentoring across this extensive study period. Finally I would like to thank the University of West London.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Penny Bernstock is Head of Education and Society at the University of West London. She was previously Head of Sociology and Social Policy and Reader in Urban Regeneration at the University of East London. She has published extensively on affordable housing, urban regeneration, the legacy of London 2012 and community care implementation. She is Co-Chair of TELCO (The East London Communities Organisation) Olympic legacy committee.
Notes
1 Cohen and Watt, London 2012 and the Post-Olympics City: A Hollow Legacy? London: Palgrave Macmillan.
2 See, for example, COHRE, “Fairplay for Housing Rights”; Shin, “Life in the Shadow of Mega Events”; Suzuki et al. “The right to Adequate Housing.”
3 Bernstock, “Olympic Housing”; Kennelly, “Olympic Exclusions.”
4 Watt and Bernstock, “Housing for Whom.”
5 Gillespie, Hardy, Watt, “Austerity urbanism and Olympic Counter-Legacies.”
6 Watt, “Gendering the Right to Housing in the City.”
7 Watt and Bernstock, “Legacy for Whom?”
8 Sagoe, “Planning.”
9 Davis, “Futurescapes of Urban Regeneration.”
10 Brownill, O Hara, “From Planning to Opportunism.”
11 For a full discussion, see Rydin, “The Future of Planning.”
12 Davis, “Futurescapes of Urban Regeneration.”
13 Rydin, The Future of Planning.
14 Page 64, Crisp et al., “Regeneration and Poverty.”
15 See, for example, Crosby et al., “Fit for planning.”
16 See, for example, Mayor of London, “The London Plan”, (2004), (2017), Kate Barker, “Housing Policy an Overview.”
17 Monk et al., “Delivering affordable housing through Section 106.”
18 Bowie, “Politics, Planning, and Homes in a World City.”
19 Bernstock, “Homing in on housing” Monk et al., Delivering Affordable Housing.
20 See, for example, Crosby et al., “Fit for Planning”; Grayston, “Slipping Through the Loophole.”
21 Brownil et al., “Rethinking Planning Obligations.”
22 Brownil et al., Rethinking Planning Obligations.
23 Crosby et al., “Fit for Planning.”
24 Bernstock, Olympic Housing.
25 London Legacy Development Corporation Website, “Our Story, The Legacy Company.”
26 London Legacy Development Corporation, “Chief Executive's Report to the Board.”
27 London Legacy Development Corporation, “Our Story, The legacy Company.”
28 Bernstock, “Olympic Housing”, Watt and Bernstock, “Legacy for Whom?”
29 Sagoe, “Technologies of Mobilising Consensus.”
30 Mayor of London, “Homes for Londoners, Affordable housing and Viability.”
31 Chairman of LLDC cited in “building online.”
32 Interview Senior Manager One, London Legacy Development Corporation.
33 Stephens et al., UK Housing Review, 47.
34 Coe, “It's ludicrous to claim the Olympics will lead to evic5ons and poverty.”
35 London Legacy Development Corporation, “Annual Monitoring Report”, (2014), (2018).
36 Mayor of London, “Homes for Londoners, Affordable housing and Viability.”
37 Bernstock, “London Olympics Has Brought Regeneration at a Price Locals Cannot Afford.”
38 London Borough of Newham, “Facts and Figures.”
39 Triathlon, “Tenant Profiling, East Village.”
40 Bernstock, Olympic Housing, 139–67.
41 BNP Paribas “Community Infrastructure Levy Viability Study.”
42 London Legacy Development Corporation, “Planning Obligations.”
43 Bernstock, Olympic Housing.
44 Senior Manager One, London Legacy Development Corporation.
45 Planning Committee Member One, London Legacy Development Corporation.
46 Planning Committee Member Two, London Legacy Development Corporation.
47 Planning Commitee Member Three, London Legacy Development Corporation.
48 Ibid.
49 Planning Committee Member Two, London Legacy Development Corporation.
50 Senior Manager One, London Legacy Development Corporation.
51 London Legacy Development Corporation “Plot N06, East Village.”
52 Bernstock, Olympic Housing.
53 Notes from LLDC Planning Committee (May 2017).
54 Notes from LLDC Planning Committee (May 2017)
55 Watt and Bernstock, “Legacy for Whom?”, 99.
56 Notes from LLDC Planning Committee (May 2017).
57 Ibid.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid.
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
62 London Legacy Development Corporation, “Stratford Waterfront.”
63 London Legacy Development Corporation, “Bow Goods Yard East”, 2017.
64 Mayor of London, London Legacy Development Corporation.
65 London Legacy Development Corporation, “The Collective”, 2017.
66 Discussion at London Legacy Development Planning Committee, June 2017.
67 Senior Manager Two, London legacy Development Corporation.
68 Planning Committee Member Four, London Legacy Development Corporation.
69 Senior Manager Two, London legacy Development Corporation.
70 Planning Committee Member One, London Legacy Development Corporation.
71 Planning Committee Member Two, London Legacy Development Corporation.
72 Crook et al., Planning Gain.
73 Para 10.36, London Legacy Development Corporation, “Cherry Park”, 2017.
74 Planning Committee Member Two, London Legacy Development Corporation.
75 Senior Manager Two, London Legacy Development Corporation.
76 Planning Committee Member Two, London Legacy Development Corporation.
77 Planning Committee Member One, London Legacy Development Corporation.
78 Planning Committee Member Two, London Legacy Development Corporation.
79 Planning Committee Member One, London Legacy Development Corporation.
80 Planning Commitee Member Four, ibid.
81 Discussion at London Legacy Development Committee Planning Commitee, Chobham Farm, 2017.
82 Rydin, The Future of Planning.