Mixed-use ‘regeneration’ of employment land in the post-industrial city: challenges and realities in London

Abstract

This article explores the relationships between land use policy, property and economic development, with a focus on the changing attitudes towards employment land in postindustrial cities. Drawing on case study data from two London local authorities, it finds that planning authorities are moving away from protecting employment land to actively promoting the mixed use redevelopment of employment sites, even when there are thriving businesses on these sites and a shortage of supply of employment premises and land, relative to demand. We examine the drivers for changing policy including the national and regional policy contexts, housing targets, the influence of austerity measures, rise of Neighbourhood Planning and changing conceptions of regeneration and the role of housing therein. The article highlights the complex task faced by local planners and the tensions involved in simultaneously finding sites for housing, fostering economic development, and promoting mixed use redevelopment in planning policy and decisions. We find that changes in policy are fuelling speculation for housing development on sites occupied by viable businesses, supporting rather than responding to deindustrialization. This is leading to a gap between aspirations for delivering mixed use environments on hitherto employment sites and realities on the ground.

Urban development, small business communities and the entrepreneurialisation of English local government

“…In contemporary cities, particularly those that act as centres for property investment such as London, markets no longer offer the range and quality of appropriate sites for SMEs and those that they do occupy are being re-valued and re-assessed as sites for housing development and 'sustainable community-building'. Recent reforms have compelled local authorities to identify industrial sites that can be converted into spaces for new housing under specific land 'release' programmes (see Ferm and Jones, 2016). Permitted Development Rights that define land-uses as 'residential' or 'commercial' have been made more flexible and can now be changed by land-owners, allowing them to convert commercial locations into sites for more lucrative residential development (Smith, 2017).…”

Maintenir l’espace de production de petite taille en ville : le cas des entreprises de construction bruxelloises (1965-2016)

“…La disparition de cet espace de production de petite taille fait partie d'un processus continu de désindustrialisation dû à l'intensification de dynamiques immobilières [Ferm et Jones, 2016, 2017. La triple combinaison du besoin d'habitat dû à la croissance de la population [Ibsa, 2020 ;Dessouroux et al, 2016], de la nécessité croissante de revenus communaux provenant d'impôts sur la propriété et le travail [Kesteloot, 2013] et d'un marché immobilier fortement normalisé et compétitif [Van Criekingen, 2010], fait que les fonctions de production sont systématiquement négligées par rapport aux fonctions de résidence.…”

Multiple land use planning for living places and investments spaces

“…A traditional way to address spatial conflicts between different land uses is to use zoning to separate them. Alternatively, some specific areas have mixed-land use designations to foster lively neighbourhoods and benefits for both businesses and residents (Ferm & Jones, 2016). However, mixed land uses can also create inconveniences or even nuisance, not only directly, but also indirectly, for example due to increased traffic.…”

“…However, mixed land uses can also create inconveniences or even nuisance, not only directly, but also indirectly, for example due to increased traffic. Mixed use may also result in solutions in which suboptimal outcomes are created, resulting in vacancies (Grant, 2002;Ferm & Jones, 2016).…”