HALLSVILLE QUARTER PHASE 1

CASE STUDY
 OVERVIEW
Hallsville Quarter is located in the
London Borough of Newham (LBN) and is
of strategic importance due to its close
proximity to Canning Town station and a
PTAL rating of 6. The site measures 5.96
hectares and is adjacent to Newham Way
and Silvertown Way; busy A roads that
previously created poor permeability, car
dominance and disconnected the area
from the existing town centre and
transport connections (LBN, 2008).
In 2001, Canning Town consisted of 75%
social housing, with a significant portion
of owner occupied households purchased by sitting tenants through the Right to
Buy. The area also had a significant level of crime and anti-social behaviour. In 2007,
a strategic masterplan was published by LBN outlining the proposed
redevelopment of Canning Town and Custom House, which designated this site for
mixed-use development. This was adopted in the LBN Supplementary Planning
Document (SPD) (2008) for the area, which emphasised the key aim of densifying
and diversifying the housing stock; providing more intermediate and private
market housing, whilst retaining the amount of social housing. This diversification
was designated through the ‘Mixed Communities Initiative’, introduced by central
government to increase social mobility and reduce crime rates (DCLG, 2010).
The Hallsville Quarter is a large element of this redevelopment scheme and will be
constructed over five distinct phases. This case study focuses primarily on Phase 1,
which was completed in 2015. The consecutive phases remain uncompleted, with
Phase 2 nearing completion and Phase 3 granted planning permission in 2018.
VISION
The overall vision for Hallsville Quarter is to provide ‘a brand new neighbourhood in
the heart of Canning Town’ with a new town centre, including a hotel, cinema and
public squares. The key elements of the Phase 1 masterplan proposed:
• A 7,500 sqm Morrisons supermarket with provision of 400 parking spaces
• Additional retail space with active frontages
• 179 new homes, including family homes and 40% affordable homes
• Secure underground parking and secure cycle parking
• A 6,500m2 shared private garden
• An energy centre to generate heat supply for entire masterplan site
• Improvement of area beneath Newham Way overpass
• Improved connection to Canning Town station
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Prior to the redevelopment, the site mainly consisted of low-rise and low-density social
housing. CPOs were issued and the site was decanted and demolished in 2008.
Following public consultation on development proposals, Bouygues were selected as
the preferred developer due to their consideration of connections to the surrounding
area and retail opportunities. In 2009, LBN entered an exclusivity agreement with
Bouygues and collaborated on the pre-application stages (LBN, 2009). LBN retained
freehold possession of the site, giving leasehold possession to Bouygues, with
anticipated sub-leases to tenants and investors (Urban Design London (UDL), 2015).
AECOM provided initial support on the masterplan and Haworth and Tompkin was
selected as the architect. One Housing was selected as the housing association for the
affordable tenures
PLANNING PROCESS
In December 2010, pre-application advice was provided by the GLA regarding energy
and access. An application for planning permission was submitted on 10th May 2011
for Phase 1, as well as the masterplan for the entire quarter. However, this proposal was
rejected as it was considered not compliant with the London Plan. This was largely due
to its proposal of an insufficient provision of affordable housing and housing mix. The
plan was revised and resubmitted with a proposed increase in the provision of
affordable housing and a detailed breakdown of housing mix and family homes. On 1st
February 2012, the proposal received planning permission.
Over 11,000 letters regarding the development proposal were distributed across
Canning Town and advertised in the ‘Newham Recorder’ - a local newspaper. However,
only three objections were received. The opposition concerned transportation
changes, noise disturbance and continuing refurbishment but these were considered
not to raise significant material considerations to the development. Arguably, this is a
low level of objection to such a large and potentially controversial development. This is
perhaps due to the vacancy of the site, with the decanting and demolition occurring
much earlier in 2008.
Overall, the proposed development for Phase 1 was quite promising. The revised
proposal was compliant with many of the key policies detailed in the 2011 London Plan
and outlined in the SPD, which thus ensured success securing planning permission. The
policy compliance of the completed development is detailed later in this document.
Furthermore, the planning applications for subsequent phases have been written in
accordance with the subsequent 2016 London Plan. The 2008 SPD remains unrevised.

VIABILITY AND SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
The planning permission included a Section 106 agreement with Bouygues, which enforced
that Phase 1 must deliver a minimum of 40% affordable housing. There were also additional
requirements, including a £775,000 contribution to the improvement of local bus services, four
‘car club’ parking spaces for use by residents of the first phase development, a £4,080,000
contribution towards a local health facility, as well as contributions towards monitoring of air
quality, highway works on A13 and the expansion of parking zones in Canning Town (LBN,
2012b). These contributions ensured that the redevelopment benefited the local area and
diminished the impact of residential densification.
It is important to highlight that a later letter, written in March 2015, states that it is not
financially viable to provide any housing for affordable rent in Phase 2, which comprises of 349
homes. Moreover, there is also a substantial decrease in the provision of family homes across
Phases 2 and 3. This demonstrates that, despite the promising contributions of Phase 1, the
subsequent phases appear to be more exclusive.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The 2007 draft masterplan and the SPD both invited the local community to engage with the
plans, with suggested methodologies including workshops, meetings and design groups.
However, there is limited documentation of these activities. The developer’s proposals were
also publicly exhibited during the bidding stage. A residents charter for the masterplan
programme was also established. This included a ‘right to return’, a ‘home loss payment’ and a
‘disturbance payment’. CPOs were issued at full market value for the property plus 10% (LBN,
Initial masterplan for Hallsville Quarter.
Images submitted in planning report
PDU/2586/01. Phase 1 site outlined in red
[outlines added].
2011). However, a government regeneration review highlighted that
demolition temporarily added additional pressure on an already strained
waiting list for social housing in Newham (DCLG, 2011).
An emotive statement from a former resident, documented by the London
Tenants Association, claimed that ‘most of the original residents […] now
live outside the area’; highlighting that the redevelopment significantly
altered the existing community. Moreover, the long duration of the
development meant that residents who returned were displaced for 7
years and other relocated elsewhere and community engagement
diminished. Furthermore, in 2011, government austerity cuts decreased
the budget for the Newham Tenants Federation and relocated this
responsibility to the council’s housing department, which marginalises the
important narrative of the local community (Duman, 2014).
During the demolition period, ‘The Place’ was established; a temporary
building offering public services, including an employment training centre,
‘safer neighbourhoods team’ and a café for local residents to connect
(TGDC, 2008). During the transition phase between demolition and
redevelopment, the site was occupied with ‘meanwhile’ uses; enabling
residents to participate in projects, including the ‘Town Centre Design
Group’, which met with Bouygues’ design team (UDL, 2015). However,
contrasting narratives recount a ‘composting pile’ of architectural rubble,
highlighting that these ‘meanwhile’ uses were nonetheless juxtaposed with
a degree of dereliction.
 POLICY COMPLIANCE
This case study compares the development to the most recent London Plan, which is currently subject to public consultation. Whilst the Phase 1 planning application was
required to comply with the 2011 Plan, it is interesting to see how it retains compliance in relation to current requirements.
London Plan (LP) (2017)
Affordable H7 - seeks to maximise ‘genuinely’
Housing affordable housing.
Tenure Mix H7 - seeks 35% market housing, 18%
intermediate and 47% low-cost rent.
Family H12 - seeks sufficient housing choice
Housing (3+ with family housing as strategic priority. be 3 bedroom suitable for families.
bedroom)
Accessibility / D5 - seeks 10% of new residential
Lifetime development to be wheelchair
Homes accessible.
Space D4 - provides table outlining minimum
Standards internal and external space standards
on all new residential units.
Heritage HC 1 - development must understand,
conserve and enhance heritage assets
and local character.
Transport T6.1 - restrictions on parking provision
and Parking with 25% of parking for electric vehicle
charging.
T5 - seeks secure cycle parking.
Play Space S4 - refers to SPG, which designates
minimum of 10sqm per child, within
specific proximity depending on age.
Sustainable SI2 - minimum of 35% reduction in
Development CO2 and compliance with Level 4 of
Code for Sustainable Homes.
Newham Core Strategy (2012)
H2 6.123 - states that developments of 10+
units should provide 35-50% affordable
housing.
H2 6.123 - seeks a mix of (maximum) 65%
market housing and (minimum) 35%
affordable housing split evenly between
social rent and intermediate.
H1 6.111 - seeks that 39% of new units must
H1 6.111 - new development must comply
with Lifetime Homes standard; 10% must be
wheelchair accessible.
H1 6.111 - seeks minimum internal space
standards in line with the LP.
SP5 6.50 - protect, conserve and enhance
local character and both designated and
informally recognised heritage assets.
INF2 6.217 - provision of necessary vehicle
parking, balanced with provision of cycle
parking.
INF6 6.257 - contribution to provision of play
space within 150m of new residential
development.
SC1 6.148 - new development must be in line Complied with Level 4 of Code for Sustainable Homes.
with Level 4 of Code for Sustainable Homes. Provision of on-site energy centre providing heating and hot
water.
Hallsville Quarter - Phase 1 (2015)
Provided 40% affordable housing, which achieves the Core
Strategy aim but could perhaps have been slightly higher
considering the scale of development.
Achieved 60% market housing, 11% intermediate and 29%
social rent. This ratio between intermediate and social rent is
not compliant with 50:50 split. Achieves tenure blind external
appearance but with different interior standards.
63% of new units were of suitable size for family homes, with
78% of these being affordable rent. This is significantly higher
than the Core Strategy suggests.
Complied with Lifetime Homes criteria. 10% of new units are
wheelchair accessible.
Meets minimum interior space standards and is compliant
with London Housing Design Guide (2010). Provided a
6,500m2 shared garden, which includes allotments.
The building heights are up to 11 storeys which, prior to
subsequent phases, appears quite imposing in contrast to
preexisting low-level and density housing.
50 secure car parking spaces at basement level and approx
200 outside spaces, which appears excessive and does not
promote other modes of transport. Electric charging sites do
not appear to be provided. Good provision of cycle parking.
Included an attractive on-site play area appropriate for
children aged 0-11. Appropriate space for 11-15 year olds
within 800m distance.
TIMELINE STAKEHOLDERS

Timeline illustrating the evolution of Phase 1 Multiple stakeholders were involved in the development, each
development in relation to relevant policies and with varying levels of interest and power.
policy shifts.

The local community arguably had the least influence over the
development process. Returning families were without a
permanent home for 7 years and the existing community was
significantly altered. Residents benefited from a good provision of
affordable homes, tenure blindness and quality interior design.

Bouygues were required to comply with multiple policies and

revise original plans. They were required to make significant
contributions through an S106 agreement. Management of
private stock has since been devolved to Mountain Capital, who
have procured high prices on the properties.

LBN have achieved many goals in relation to the overall

masterplan for Newham. The lack of affordable homes in
consecutive phases is disappointing and is a missed opportunity
considering LBN retain freehold ownership of the land.

EVALUATION
Overall, the development of Hallsville Quarter Phase 1 has made a mostly positive
contribution to the area. It has achieved a strong quality of design; providing a
mixture of 1,2 and 3 bedroom apartments and 2-4 storey townhouses, all with
balconies or terraced gardens and access to allotments and communal gardens.
This extensive provision of outdoor space is impressive for urban development of
such high-density.
The development has demonstrated comprehensive policy compliance following
the initial planning rejection and there have not been any transformative
alterations to the section 106 agreement. The meanwhile uses of the site provided
community activities and engagement, which was especially important as the site
was vacant for so long.
In relation to the wider borough masterplan, it has contributed to the provision of
green spaces, a cycle network and improved connectivity to the surrounding area.
It has also offered a good provision of affordable and family homes, which is of high
demand in the borough. However, the provision of intermediate housing should
have been more, which seems a missed opportunity considering the initial close
partnership between LBN and Bouyges. Arguably, this is problematic for existing
households who are not qualifiable for affordable housing and are unable to access
the limited intermediate housing. Consequently, this is likely to force these
households to relocate.
Reviews of the Mixed Communities Initiative highlight the difficulty in maintaining
community engagement for such prolonged durations (DCLG, 2011), which is
evident in the documentation of this development. Similarly, Tunstall and Lupton
(2010) demonstrate the importance of achieving integration and interaction between
residents of different tenures on mixed-community developments. Despite the tenure-
blindness of Phase 1, the aforementioned disappointing inability to provide affordable
housing on subsequent phases may impact the overall tenure-blindness of the
development and problematise how ‘mixed’ the final neighbourhood will be.
Furthermore, the vision of a ‘brand new neighbourhood’ conceals the previous
disruption, displacement and fracturing of the original community.
KEY TRANSFERABLE LESSONS
This case study highlights the importance of continuous community engagement
throughout the entire (often lengthy) process to ensure the inclusion of contrasting
stakeholder perspectives and narratives. It also shows the importance of managing the
disruption to local communities and residents.
The development demonstrates that the contribution of affordable and intermediate
housing across all phases of development is vital to ensure wider access to the housing
stock and create ‘mixed’ communities. It also highlights that S106 contributions ensure
that the development contributes to the wider community and mitigates the negative
impacts on the wider area. These policy contributions are thus useful instruments to
ensure that development satisfies the local authority’s strategic vision for the wider
area.
The ‘meanwhile’ uses for this site were successful and highlight the importance of
continuing on-site activity to deter unwanted activities whilst providing space for
important community engagement activities. The final outcome also exemplifies and
highlights the importance of a high standard of internal and external design, including
tenure-blindness. Additionally, it also demonstrates that large-scale development
should be mixed-use to ensure viable and comprehensive neighbourhoods.
REFERENCES

Bouygues UK. (2014). Hallsville Quarter Reaches Significant Construction Milestone. [Online]. Available from: https://bouygues-uk.com/hallsville-quarter-reaches-significant-
construction-milestone/. [Accessed 30 January, 2019].

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). (2010). Evaluation of the Mixed Communities Initiative Demonstration Projects. [Online]. London. Available from:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6360/1775216.pdf. [Accessed 30 January, 2019].

DCLG. (n.d.). Baseline Case Study: Canning Town, Newham. [Online]. Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
download;jsessionid=3A9C912ECF3607F7A874A118173BD5E3?doi=10.1.1.406.2104&rep=rep1&type=pdf. [Accessed 30 January, 2019].

DCLG. (2011). Regeneration: Sixth Report of Session 2010–12. [Online]. Available from: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1GVVWUx2xSU-qMOHS_ZhlNTIaZBb-jLMh.
[Accessed 30 January, 2019].

Duman, A. (2014). Meanwhile… In Newham…: Travels in the Arc of Opportunity. [Online]. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/10074832/
Meanwhile...in_Newham..._Travels_in_the_Arc_of_Opportunity. [Accessed 30 January, 2019].

Hallsville Quarter. (n.d.). [Online]. Available from: https://hallsvillequarter.co.uk/. [Accessed 30 January, 2019].

Haworth Tompkins. (2015). Hallsville Quarter, 2015: Mixed-use Regeneration Project in Canning Town. [Online]. Available from: http://www.haworthtompkins.com/work/hallsville-
quarter. [Accessed 22 January 2019].

Greater London Authority. (2010). London Housing Design Guide: Interim Edition. [Online]. London: London Development Agency. Available from: https://www.london.gov.uk/
sites/default/files/interim_london_housing_design_guide.pdf. [Accessed 21 January 2019].

Greater London Authority. (2011). Planning Report: PDU/2586/01. [Online]. https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/PAWS/media_id_170681/

areas_7_and_1c_canning_town_report.pdf. [Accessed 26 January 2019].

Greater London Authority. (2012). Planning Report: PDU/2586/02. [Online]. Available from: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/PAWS/media_id_170624/
areas_7_and_1c_canning_town_report.pdf. [Accessed 21 January 2019].

Greater London Authority. (2017). The London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London: Draft for Public Consultation. [Online]. London: City Hall. Available from:
file:///Users/Grace/Downloads/01.%20New_london_plan_december_2017.pdf. [Accessed 21 January 2019].

Link City. (n.d). London, Canning Town, Hallsville Quarter. [Online]. Available from: https://linkcity-uk.com/projects/regeneration/hallsville-quarter-canning-town/. [Accessed 30
January 2019].

Link City. (n.d). London, Canning Town, Hallsville Quarter, Phase 1. [Online]. Available from: https://linkcity-uk.com/projects/regeneration&residential/hallsville-quarter-phase-1/.
[Accessed 22 January 2019].

London Borough of Newham. (2007). Regeneration Project: Canning Town and Custom House - Masterplan Consultation. [Online]. London. Available from: https://
www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Environment%20and%20planning/CanningTownCustomHouseRegenMasterplanConsultation.pdf. [Accessed 26 January 2019].
REFERENCES

London Borough of Newham. (2008). Canning Town and Custom House: Supplementary Planning Document. [Online]. London. Available from: https://www.newham.gov.uk/
Documents/Environment%20and%20planning/CanningTownCustomHouseAdoptedSPD2008%5B1%5D.pdf. [Accessed 26 January 2019].

London Borough of Newham. (2009). Cabinet Agenda. [Online]. London. Available from: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/Journals/1/Files/2009/6/26/Newham%20Council
%20Reports.pdf. [Accessed 26 January 2019].

London Borough of Newham. (2011). Canning Town & Custom House Regeneration Programme: Residents’ Charter. [Online]. Available from: https://www.newham.gov.uk/
Documents/Environment%20and%20planning/CanningTownandCustomHouseRegenerationProgrammeResidentsCharter.pdf. [Accessed 30 January, 2019].

London Borough of Newham. (2012). Newham 2027: Newham’s Local Plan - The Core Strategy. [Online]. London. Available from: https://www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/
Environment%20and%20planning/CoreStrategy2004-13.pdf. [Accessed 21 January 2019].

London Borough of Newham. (2012). S106 Area 7 Final Signed Version. [Online]. Available from: https://pa.newham.gov.uk/online-applications/files/
7A1CCC90E3666DD961FC8036EBDDEACE/pdf/11_00662_LTGDC-S106_Area_7_FINAL_SIGNED_VERSION-122090.pdf. [Accessed 30 January, 2019].

London Tenants Federation. (2017). Holding onto the Homes We Have Now and Why. [Online]. Available from: http://www.londontenants.org/publications/other/Holding
%20onto%20what%20we%20have%20(LTF)%20FF%20.pdf. [Accessed 30 January, 2019].

London Thames Gateway Development Corporation. (2008). Annual Report & Accounts 2007/08: Financial Accounts for the Year Ended 31 March 2008. [Online]. London: House of
Commons. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/248463/0857.pdf. [Accessed 30 January, 2019].

Mountain Capital. (2017). Hallsville Quarter: Canning Town. [Online]. Available from: https://mountaincapital.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Hallesville-Quarter-
brochure.pdf. [Accessed 30 January, 2019].

Newham Recorder. (2015). Canning Town Families Return to Site of Former Homes. [Online]. Available from: https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/canning-
town-families-return-to-site-of-former-homes-1-4204080. [Accessed 30 January, 2019].

Tunstall, R. and Lupton, R. (2010). Mixed Communities: Evidence Review. [online]. London: DCLG. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7606/1775206.pdf. [Accessed 30 January 2019].

Urban Design London. (2015). Estate Regeneration Sourcebook. [Online]. Available from: file:///Users/Grace/Downloads/Estate-Regen-Sourcebook-Web-Version.pdf. [Accessed
21 January 2019].