How successful has the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) been in improving the social, economic and environmental conditions of the London Docklands?

In the 19th century, the London Docklands were the busiest in the world, at the centre of the mighty British Empire. Hundreds of ships would call here to load and unload their cargoes before setting off for the colonies. Right into the early part of the 20th century, the docks provided employment for thousands of dockers. But by the 1950s the Docklands had fallen in to what was to be a terminal decline, a result of greater overseas competition and out-dated port facilities. The docks were simply not large enough to cope with the trend for larger and larger ships.

By the 1970s, the Docklands were virtually derelict. Large companies like Tate & Lyle and Unilever, who had provided some alternative employment in the area, ‘rationalised‘ and laid off their workers. Unemployment was far above the London average and living conditions in many parts poor. Out-migration occurred, leading to further declines in services.

In 1981, Margaret Thatcher‘s Conservative government set up a new body with far-reaching powers - the London Docklands Development Corporation. The LDDC, the largest of 14 urban development corporations around Britain had three main tasks:
1 to reduce the physical decay in the Docklands and improve the environment by restoring derelict land and buildings, cleaning up the docks and creating areas of open space.
2 to improve the economic conditions by attracting new businesses and improving transport systems to and within the area.
3 to improve social conditions by creating new housing and recreational amenities, as well as shopping facilities.
The Conservatives envisaged a ‘trickle-down‘ approach. By improving physical and economic conditions, they intended improvements to ‘trickle-down‘ to social conditions.

The LDDC had extensive powers to purchase and sell land compulsorily, as well as ‘vesting‘ (transfer of land from the local authorities). By 1990 it was receiving £300m each year from land sales and central government.

However, the Conservatives wanted the regeneration to be largely funded by private finance. The idea was that each pound of public money would ‘lever‘ up to £5 of private money. The LDDC used various incentives to attract businesses. Planning permission was relaxed and the Isle of Dogs was designated an Enterprise Zone. This meant property companies in the area avoided paying tax on their investment - £2 billion was given indirectly in this way.

So what were the effects of these changes? The LDDC‘s publications naturally contain all manner of impressive statistics. Physical and environmental regeneration: 2.3 million m2 of new floor space; the brand new Docklands Light Railway; the Jubilee Line extension; Canary Wharf, one of the tallest buildings in Europe; 30,000 new houses. Economic regeneration: from 27,000 jobs in 1981 to 80,000 in 1999; many companies relocated to the area, especially in the finance, retailing, leisure and journalism sectors.

However, do these statistics oft trumpeted by the LDDC tell the whole story? The major criticism of the LDDC was that it wasn‘t in touch with the needs of the ‘real‘ EastEnders, the original residents. In particular, around half of the new houses built were expensive luxury flats, beyond the means of ‘ordinary people‘. The LDDC often over-ruled local authorities causing much resentment.

In addition, many of the ‘new‘ jobs were in fact relocations from other parts of London - around 60 to 75%. A typical example was the movement of many national newspapers from their traditional Fleet Street locations to the Docklands. This was coupled with job losses due to mechanisation and computerisation.

In fact, a study in 1998 came to the conclusion that only 20% of the jobs of the jobs created in the Docklands were due to LDDC policy. The rest were due to the way in which businesses and markets were already changing. In particular, the 1980s and 90s saw a move towards decentralization. It was no longer so necessary to be right in the centre of London. Sites like the Docklands had financial advantages. One financial commentator remarked: ‘These companies have no reason to come to the Docklands other than the fact they can have a huge financial beano at the Government‘s expense.‘

Much of the criticism of the LDDC is levelled at its failure to bring about social change. Put simply, the trickle-down approach didn‘t work. Yes, the Docklands were regenerated physically and economically, but not socially, and especially not for the lower social classes. This is well illustrated by unemployment figures. In 1980, the overall unemployment rate was 28%. Today it is 7%, an impressive reduction. But if we consider only people living in council housing in 1980, the figure rises from 28% to 32%. So do the people of Docklands think the LDDC has been a success? A 1996 survey found that in fact 28% said the LDDC had made no difference to their standard of living in the past 12-15 years, and 22% said life had actually got worse. So in fact at least half of the population did not reap any benefits from the millions poured in.

Many of the LDDC‘s pet projects have also run into trouble. The recession of the early 1990‘s led to large parts of the Canary Wharf building being unoccupied, with builders Olympia & York going bankrupt. The flagship Tobacco Wharf shopping outlet now lies empty and desolate: the specialist shops there did not cater for the people in the surrounding area. The DLR is empty much of the day but cannot cope with demand at peak times as people commute in and out.

Since 1997 the Labour government has taken a different approach to urban regeneration. The urban development corporations were wound up in 1998 and the emphasis is now on ‘social inclusion‘ and ‘neighbourhood renewal‘. Instead of using a trickle-down approach, the New Labour policies address social issues first - in theory. The focus is now on a much larger area, the ‘Thames Gateway‘, extending 40 miles from London to Barking, Tilbury, Maidstone and Kent. The Thames Gateway Initiative plans to build 80,000 new houses in a new ‘linear city‘. Also key to the plan is that the infrastructure will be prepared before other building work takes place. A new approach, but will it work? Only time and hindsight will tell.

Bringing the story up to date, the Millennium Dome and its associated developments have brought the Docklands back into the public eye. The Dome employs hundreds of ‘yellow-coats‘ and other staff: jobs that are not highly skilled or specialised and so are suitable for some of the people living in the more deprived areas of the Docklands without many job skills. One problem however is that the Millennium Experience at the Dome lasts for only one year. What then for these people? The competing bids for use of the Dome after 2000 may not have local employment prospects as their number one priority.

‘Has the LDDC been a success or a failure?‘ A very simple question but no simple answer. There is no doubt that walking through the Docklands today is a more pleasurable experience than it would have been had the regeneration not taken place. The DLR and Jubilee Line make travelling round the ‘new Docklands‘ quick and easy. It is unarguable that the LDDC brought back economic activity to the part of London - but at what price? In many ways the LDDC only exacerbated the differences between rich and poor, luxury flats and council housing, the haves and the have-nots.

If there is a lesson to be learnt from the Docklands story it is that throwing money, public or private, at a problem doesn‘t make it go away. The LDDC‘s ‘dictatorial‘ stance did not meet with favour with the local populace, and a regeneration programme that alienates the local populace can surely not be a good thing.