BPLN0088: Development Project: Regeneration

Elizabeth Mullner | Isabella Jones | Nadya Entts | Sebu Pfisztner | Yuki Koshiba Lin

Canada Water:
An Evaluation of the
Regeneration Project
 Canada Water: An Evaluation of the Regeneration Project Word count: 2,750 (10% leeway)

Main Contents
1. Introduction
2. Development Area: Background and Local Context
3. Outlining the Regeneration Plans
3.1 Creating the Action Plan: Who is Governing the Scheme?
3.2 The Action Plan Content: Who is this development for?
4. Examining Planning Debates Within The Development
Part 1: Transport Infrastructure: Can This Area Support the Increase in Population?
Part 2: Balancing Legal Obligations and Housing Targets with Developer Motives
Part 3: The Role of Sustainability in OA’s
5. Conclusions: A Critical Evaluation of London’s Regeneration Dynamics
Reference List
1 - Canada Water: An Evaluation of the Regeneration Project

1. Introduction
This report evaluates the Canada Water regeneration scheme, with reference to the Canada
Water Area Action Plan (APP). The report provides a brief overview of the development area’s
background and local context before discussing the AAP’s policies and vision for the area until
2026, as well as how the scheme aligns with national guidelines such as the London Plan (2021).
It then examines three pressing planning debates: transport infrastructure capacity, affordable
housing and developer motives, and a flawed sustainability narrative. The report concludes by
linking the project to existing academic and policy literature on regeneration and wider London
development dynamics; it addresses the controversy surrounding whether redevelopment should
prioritise the benefit of London as a global city or the welfare of the local area and its residents.

2. Development Area: Background and Local Context

Located on the Rotherhithe peninsula in southeast London (SE16), Canada Water has been
designated as an opportunity area (OA) in the Mayor’s London Plan (2021). The area’s AAP (2015)
encompasses 308 hectares, with Rotherhithe, Surrey Docks, and Bermondsey falling within its
boundaries, which are governed by both the Southwark and Lewisham local authorities. British
Land has committed to developing 53 acres of land over the next 12 years, with approximately
35% of the area being open space.

Currently, approximately 27,000 inhabitants are living in 12,000 dwellings in Surrey Docks and
Rotherhithe wards (AAP, 2015). While the Southwark’s ethnic diversity varies, both wards have
a higher percentage of residents with white ethnic backgrounds, at 63% (Census, 2011). The
general trend indicates that the Rotherhithe area tends to be more deprived, while Surrey
Docks is relatively affluent and situated close to the river, making it an attractive location for
redevelopment investment. Such a trend is prevalent in the area’s urban health index, which
morphs from ‘good’ and ‘neutral’ in Surrey Docks to ‘poor’ in Rotherhithe neighbourhoods.

Figure 1: Canada Water Ethnic composition 2011 (Census 2011)

2 - Canada Water: An Evaluation of the Regeneration Project

Figure 2: Household by Deprivation 2011 (Census 2011)

3. Outlining the Regeneration Plans

3.1 Creating the Action Plan: Who is Governing the Scheme?
The Canada Water Area Action Plan (AAP) was collaboratively written by the London
Borough of Southwark and the Greater London Authority (GLA); the AAP lays out
planning policies and a vision for the area (Figure 3) until 2026. British Land both
owns the site and is overseeing the masterplan creation and development, and it is
likely that they have great influence in the report, however are not listed as an author.
*AustralianSuper, the largest pension fund in Australia, acquired British Land’s 50% ownership
stake in the Canada Water Masterplan for £290 million in 2022; a 50:50 joint venture was formed.

The Canada Water AAP lay strongly in line with policy from the London Plan and NPPF on
providing new retail space and employment through retail-led regeneration, as well as new
housing for London. Additionally, the Canada Water AAP takes into account the Council
Plan 2011-2014 and the Fairer Future principles to provide a long-term vision, spatial strategy,
and strategic policies for delivering sustainable development in the area. Similarly, the
council was required to consult in compliance with legal legislation and the Statement of
Community Involvement during the preparation and establishment of the Canada Water AAP.
From 2014 onwards, British Land has been formally and informally engaging with around
5,000 local community individuals on the masterplan, including through the consultation
process, developing stakeholder connections, and funding socioeconomic studies.
3 - Canada Water: An Evaluation of the Regeneration Project

Figure 3: AAP core area Canada Water (AAP,2015)

Figure 4: Adapted stakeholders interraction model (Adams and Tisdell, 2013)

4 - Canada Water: An Evaluation of the Regeneration Project

3.2 The Action Plan Content: Who is this development for?

The Canada Water AAP proposes to transform the designated area into a “new destination”,
featuring a town centre that would provide 2,000 new jobs. At least 4,500 high-quality new homes
will be largely mixed-use developments, with 1,000 affordable units; the area will also feature a
King’s College London expansion. The Canada Water AAP aims to promote mixed communities
by offering various housing options, including high-quality, affordable housing (Objective H1).
This contributes to the borough-wide housing delivery targets outlined in the Southwark Plan
(2022) since Policy 22 (Affordable Housing) stipulates building at least 1,000 additional affordable
housing units between 2011 and 2026, and the scheme seeks to have a minimum of 25% socially
leased housing and 10% intermediate housing, as the developers suggest; the first homes have
just gone on the market starting at 700k, denoting the area as high end and desirable (Partridge,
2023). The new town centre will have a “high street feel”, with high-quality public realm and
open spaces. The goal is to make the area a desirable place to live, promote healthy lifestyles,
and achieve a high-quality green-blue infrastructure network. The regeneration scheme intends
to meet the highest environmental standards to tackle climate change. Figure 4 illustrates
there are various interconnected relationships between the actors and stakeholders that work
together to acquire the project’s best potential as well as utilise already existing designated
spaces such as Printworks and the TEDI-London science hubs (Hawkins/Brown, 2020)

Figure 5: Spatial representation of objectives Canada Water (APP, 2015)

5 - Canada Water: An Evaluation of the Regeneration Project

4. Examining Planning Debates Within The Development

Part 1: Transport Infrastructure: Can This Area Support the
Increase in Population?
The Canada Water AAP’s (2015) location is equipped with a Tube station, two Overground stations,
and numerous bus stops. While the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) is excellent around
the town centre, it declines rapidly towards the edges of the site, particularly where the new King’s
College campus and social housing are (Southwark Council, 2018). Recently, public transport
provisions increased the capacity of Jubilee Line trains, incorporated East London Overground
stations, and introduced riverboat services that connect various destinations along the Thames.

Public transport overcrowding is a major development issue, with the Jubilee Line and Overground
already operating at peak capacity due to high through-traffic from Canary Wharf and other
destinations, creating concerns about adapting to increased population in this area (Southwark
Council, 2013). Congestion is additionally apparent in the road network, negatively impacting
the area’s air quality, reliability of bus services, and active modes of transportation, as the area
has a high rate of car ownership and on-street parking is a significant issue for pedestrians.

Figure 6: Jubilee Line at its maximum capacity (Express News, 2019)

6 - Canada Water: An Evaluation of the Regeneration Project

To address these challenges, British Land and Arup organised locally-led walks, in which
residents were able to discuss key transportation issues in and around the site. This was
paired with multiple drop-in sessions, open to all in the Surrey Quays Shopping centre,
in which background information on transport, local context and potential improvements
were provided. British Land’s involvement with the community has been ongoing since
2014, fostering stakeholder correspondence, consultation schemes and commissioning
site-specific socioeconomic research (Partridge, 2023). Together with the Southwark
council’s efforts (e.g. the Southwark Conversation 2017) an estimated 8,000 people
have engaged with the ongoing consultation processes (Southwark Council, 2018).

The consultation process sparked a planning debate between prioritising public transportation
or car-based transport. The local community advocates for reduced road capacity and
parking space, while the Masterplan supports active modes of transportation. However, the
development’s scale and number of potential users requires high-capacity transport measures
to be developed even before the project begins. The extent to which this is realised in the
AAP (2015) is arguably not substantial enough to support such an influx into the area, as the
development provides walking and cycling infrastructure but lacks additional rail services,
which already operate at full capacity. Such shortfall may become a significant problem
later, as evidence suggests that planning transport provision after the regeneration process
is disruptive and time-consuming, requiring lengthy construction periods. Small-scale
improvements, such as the DLR, may be costly, and incremental additions may be necessary.

Part 2: Balancing Legal Obligations and Housing Targets

with Developer Motives
The Canada Water AAP’s policies align with Southwark’s development goal to provide 11,000
council houses by 2043, complying with the London Plan and the NPPF (Southward Plan,
2022). Despite its potential, the Canada Water scheme falls short in addressing the need for
affordable housing and promoting mixed communities. The developer pledged to provide at
least 35% affordable housing, according to tenure split regulation; this exceeds the current
viability assessment agreed upon by all involved parties, which considers 11% as the viable
minimum (AAP, 2015). To support this commitment, the GLA has granted £39.1 million,
but achieving financial viability remains a challenge. Unfortunately, the methodologies
for generating a financial viability evaluation are not limited, allowing developers to argue
against sustainability responsibilities in their projects, prolonging current housing tenure
inequalities, and ignoring the need for socially leased and intermediate housing (AAP, 2015).
One concern raised regarding the development is the potential segregation that may arise
due to the location of affordable housing units. According to the Planning Committee Meeting
document, 79 affordable homes will be built on Plot K1 during phase 1 of the regeneration
scheme, while only 8 reduced market rent flats will be provided in the residential skyscraper
on Plot A1 (AAP, 2015). This concentration of affordable housing units in K1 has led to
objections from many, who argue that it goes against the aim of creating mixed and balanced
communities, as outlined in the Core Strategy (AAP, 2015). Objectors also claim that the quality of
accommodation and the location of K1 are inferior to those in A1, which is predominantly private
housing and situated in the prime redevelopment area with good transport links (Figure 3&5).
7 - Canada Water: An Evaluation of the Regeneration Project

This issue contradicts Policy 3.9 (para 3.58) of the Mayor’s London Plan, which stipulates that
“there should be no segregation of London’s population by housing tenure” (The London Plan
2016). Many of those opposing the separation of the affordable units are residents of the recently
developed neighbouring schemes on Quebec Way and they developed the G7 activist organisation
and gathered approximately £27,000 to contest the development in the High Court (Porter 2022).

Figure 7: Aerial photograph of site identifying detailed plots (Planning Commitee

Meeting, 2019)

Figure 8: Massing and disruption of the skyline (Design and Access Statement, 2021).

The Planning Committee Meeting document recognizes that while the separation of affordable
and private housing may be apparent, it should be viewed as part of a larger development. The
development aims to provide at least 700 affordable homes, which could increase to 1,600 and
would necessitate the distribution of affordable homes across a broader area of the Masterplan site
(Planning Committee). Officers are convinced that Plot K1 is a viable and sustainable location for
new houses, particularly for families, because it is near to schools and green areas, and because
both sites are vacant and can be provided without the need to evict or dismantle existing structures.
Additionally, concerns have also arisen regarding building heights. The proposed development
significantly deviates from the original plan designated in the AAP (2015) of 28 flats, now
proposing 79 flats. There has been no thorough evaluation of the potential shading effects on
nearby buildings, nor has there been a complete environmental impact assessment on the
adjacent Local Nature Reserve (Crowd Justice, 2019). Historic England (2018) has stated that
such a development, with seven buildings proposing heights of around 138 m AOD, would have
major negative impacts on the London skyline and decrease the historic significance of the area
(Design and Access Statement, 2021).
8 - Canada Water: An Evaluation of the Regeneration Project

Part 3: The Role of Sustainability in OA’s

“Real London, without compromise. Canada Water. Where blue meets green.” (Canada Water 2023)

The development’s slogan is displayed above, inviting readers to imagine a natural and green
environment. At first glance the development’s catchphrase appears to comply with the
NPPF’s paragraph 14 “presumption towards sustainable development”. However, sustainability
encompasses more than just environmental factors; Canada Water’s ‘environmentally
sustainable’ development appears to be designed primarily to serve as a flagship for others and
to satisfy British Land’s reputation. As a result, it makes key sacrifices in terms of community
well-being and infrastructure.
The most notable contradiction in the proposal concerns the claim that it will be “the UK’s most
sustainable new town centre”, while also utilising retail-led regeneration (Canada Water AAP).
Although retail-led regeneration is in line with government policies aimed at promoting retail, there
is a larger debate on the sustainability of retail practices. A sustainable town centre should focus
on community infrastructure and the promotion of small and local businesses, as recommended
in the RTPI’s post-pandemic literature as the key to community resilience (Vianello and Krabbe,
2021). However, this is not reflected in the AAP; less than 10% of retail space is allocated for SMEs
alone. Additionally, the development only provides two community facilities, a council funded
library and leisure centre, which are to be shared by all residents, as the high-end apartments
nearby deliberately do not offer such amenities. The lack of emphasis on community infrastructure
undermines the claim that the project will be the UK’s most sustainable new town centre.
The development boasts 35% open space, in accordance with Southwark council’s aim to
address health inequality. Nonetheless, the adequacy of this open space for the number of
residents living in the 37-storey towers is not the only concern (see Figure 9). The most vulnerable
members of the community, who are disproportionately affected by health inequality and the
housing crisis, are being placed in the car-free plot K1, which is located far from the town centre
and lacks access to open space (see Figure 7) Moreover, no GP services are offered within
the development. Additionally, a socioeconomic analysis revealed that schooling is not a high
priority in the area, yet the development includes a new school instead of a health or childcare
centre, which would be more beneficial to the community’s sustainability. These individuals
are also affected by poverty cycles, worsened by low-quality retail practices and inadequate
activities; The 35% open space will likely feature private security, similar to King’s Cross, and
strict closing times (Pick and Sirkin, 2010).

Figure 9: 3D model showing the relationship between the building heights

and green space provision (AAP, 2015)
8 - Canada Water: An Evaluation of the Regeneration Project

5. Conclusions: A Critical Evaluation of London’s

Regeneration Dynamics

London’s status as a global city is sustained by a focus on attracting foreign investment,

exemplified here by the 50% sale to Australian Super, developing high-end properties, and
“creating new consumption spaces” (Raco, 2003, p.1869). As portrayed above, this dynamic
benefits the requirements of a global city but may not align with the interests of the local
community. The prioritisation of global competitiveness can dismiss community’s needs, as
evidenced by the near segregation of the K1 affordable housing plot and the disregard for
community facilities; as the development progresses, it may result in the displacement of
existing communities. However, there are many ways in which urban regeneration can benefit
London both as a global city and with regard to local context. As demonstrated, improvements in
transport infrastructure, 35% open space, as well as new retail spaces can benefit the community,
provided they are not ultimately priced out. The development of high-end commercial and
residential properties can also generate jobs and economic opportunities for local residents.
Nonetheless, the aforementioned issues highlight a recurring pattern across London where the
pursuit of increased capital accumulation takes precedence over the broader requirements of
social reproduction, resulting in an unsustainable development dynamic (Raco, 2005; Raco and
Brill, 2022).

It is important to recognize that investors are part of a larger system of provision that aims to
produce consistent income streams to fulfil obligations to pension fund supporters (Raco and
Brill, 2022). Canada Water development utilises many actions in line with government policy,
such as retail led regeneration; however, as a result of those same policies, it leaves the council
and those they serve at a loss. Despite the positive implications made in Canada Water by
section 106 and CIL, which went into effect in 2015 by directing investment into the Canada Water
Library and public realm, as well as transport accessibility, there are still significant issues with
regard to segregation and dislocation from the community’s needs (particularly those located in
the K1), as well as the damage caused by the altered skyline (AAP, 2015; Rotherhithe Community
Council 2010 s106). However, such a relationship with developing the surrounding area and
balancing the effects of redevelopment is yet to be established through s106 after the completion.

The above highlights the need for regeneration projects to balance global and local community
needs, and prioritise social and economic inclusion, environmental sustainability, and cultural
diversity to ensure a sustainable and equitable future for all. Achieving this requires collaboration
and consultation with a diverse range of stakeholders, notably community groups, to ensure that
the demands of all stakeholders are addressed. As this project is still ongoing, its future is not yet
known, nor what the actual outcome of the 106 agreements will be by completion, or if the community
groups campaigning will be successful in making this area more livable for the local community.
9 - Canada Water: An Evaluation of the Regeneration Project

Reference List
Allies and Morrison. (n.d.). Allies and Morrison - Green and blue. [online] Available at: https://www.al-
liesandmorrison.com/projects/canada-water-masterplan

British Land. (2015.). Canada Water Masterplan. [online] Available at: https://www.britishland.com/our-plac-
es/canada-water-masterplan.

Church, A. (1990). Transport and urban regeneration in London Docklands - A victim of success or a failure
to plan?Cities November 1990 p.289-303 Butterworth Heinemann Ltd: London.

CrowdJustice. (2019). Rethink Canada Water Masterplan. [online] Available at: https://www.crowdjustice.
com/case/rethink-canada-water-masterplan/.

David, A. (2012). Shaping places: urban planning, design and development. Routledge.

D. Glover, E. Newton, H. Dale, T. Brown (1959). PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY: DEVELOPMENT OF

TWO DOCK AREAS, For discussion at an Ordinary Meeting on Tuesday, 17 May, 1960, at 5.30 p m . , and
for subsequent written discussion

Ferm, J., Clifford, B., Canelas, P. and Livingstone, N. (2020). Emerging problematics of deregulating the ur-
ban: The case of permitted development in England. Urban Studies, 58(10), p.004209802093696.

Historic England (2018). T&CP (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 & Planning
(Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990; CANADA WATER MASTERPLAN - LAND
BOUNDED BY LOWER ROAD (WEST), REDRIFF ROAD (SOUTH), QUEBEC WAY (EAST), SURREY
QUAYS ROAD AND CANADA WATER DOCK (NORTH), AND SITE AT ROBERTS CLOSE, LONDON;
SE16; Application No. 18/AP/1604

London Borough of Southwark (2021). State of the Borough Report 2022: Southwark’s Joint Strategic Needs
Assessment. [online] London Borough of Southwark, pp.1–53. Available at: https://moderngov.southwark.
gov.uk/documents/s105579/Appendix%201%20-%20State%20of%20the%20Borough%20Report%202022.
pdf.

Mayes, A. (2018). The regeneration of Canada Water. [online] LiFE Residential. Available at: https://liferesi-
dential.co.uk/news/regeneration-canada-water/.

Partridge, J. (2023). Canada Water: first homes for sale in new £5.6bn London neighbourhood. The Guardian.
[online] 1 Mar. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/01/canada-water-new-lon-
don-british-land.

Pick, S. and Sirkin, J. (2010). Breaking the poverty cycle : the human basis for sustainable development. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Raco, M. (2003). Remaking Place and Securitising Space: Urban Regeneration and the Strategies, Tactics and
Practices of Policing in the UK. Urban Studies, 40(9), pp.1869–1887.

Raco, M. and Brill, F. (2022). Governing the development, financing and funding of the London model. In:
London. Agenda Publishing.
9 - Canada Water: An Evaluation of the Regeneration Project

Reference List
Rotherhithe Community Council (2010) “To release section 106 monies to the Canada Water Library pro-
ject to the value of £1,750,000. 8106 Agreements; Neighbourhoods referenced 8106/115990 account 324;
8106/137053 account 452; S 106/115990B account 402” Report

Southwark council (2015). Revised Canada Water Area Action Plan (final version)

Southwark council (2013). Revised Canada Water Area Action Plan

Southwark Council (2018). Canada Water Regeneration Charter. Pp.1–24.

Southwark Council (2019). Open Agenda Planning Committee Meeting

M. Vianello and I. Krabbe (2021). Supporting a global sustainable recovery. [online] Available at: https://
www.rtpi.org.uk/media/9558/urban-planning-after-covid-19-final.pdf.

www.35percent.org. (2022). Canada Water regeneration. [online] Available at: https://www.35percent.org/

canada-water/ [Accessed 24 Mar. 2023].

www.canadawater.co.uk. (n.d.). Canada Water London | Shops, Restaurants & Offices. [online] Available at:
https://www.canadawater.co.uk/ [Accessed 23 Mar. 2023].

Hawkins/Brown (2020). Green light for Temporary Innovation Hub in Canada Water
https://www.hawkinsbrown.com/news/green-light-for-temporary-innovation-hub-in-canada-water/

D. Adams, S. Tisdell (2013). Shaping places: urban planning, design, and development