Storm clouds lift from Doon Street

Regeneration & Renewal, 5 September 2008

Doon Street: community organisation is proposing a £200 million scheme

After Team GB's haul of gold medals in Beijing and with the countdown to London's Olympic Games now starting in earnest, the push to build a swimming pool on a brownfield site in central London might, at first glance, look like a shoo-in.

Development trust and social enterprise Coin Street Community Builders (CSCB) is proposing to build a £200 million mixed-use scheme, combining a public swimming pool and leisure centre, 329 flats, office space, a new square and three dance studios, on London's South Bank.

However, the Doon Street scheme's absence of affordable housing has raised the ire of community groups and commentators. Throw a 43-storey tower into the mix and a bumpy passage through the planning process was perhaps inevitable. And, after Lambeth Council approved the plans last summer, the development application was called in for a public inquiry last September.

The site, currently housing a car park and temporary office facilities, is located on some of the most valuable land in Europe. A short stroll from the Thames, Doon Street's distinguished neighbours include the National Theatre and the Royal Festival Hall.

And therein lies the problem. Conservationists, notably English Heritage, have attacked the scheme's 144-metre tower, claiming it would ruin London's skyline and overwhelm neighbouring buildings. Earlier this year, an independent planning inspector rejected the scheme, claiming that the "delicate balance between landscape and buildings would be seriously damaged by the appearance of the Doon Street tower".

It's not just the tower that has drawn criticism; CSCB's decision to sell all 329 flats on the private market led to claims that the trust has forgotten its community-based roots.

Michael Ball, director of the Waterloo Community Development Group, says the CSCB's original Coin Street site was acquired with the aim of providing affordable housing, and that need still stands today. Ball says the group's consultation with local residents revealed near-unanimous opposition to the scheme, primarily because it fails to offer social housing. "The reason there was such animosity towards the scheme was that people thought this site was fought for by the community and now CSCB have gone down a different track."

But the Government has now overridden the dissenting voices. Last month, the scheme secured full planning consent. Communities secretary Hazel Blears declined the planning inspector's decision, claiming that the scheme would bring "substantial" benefits for the community.

Unsurprisingly, CSCB's chief executive, Iain Tuckett, says: "We're delighted that Blears, like the Greater London Authority and Lambeth Council, has backed it. It gives us the opportunity to produce what I think is a scheme of which London will be very proud."

Tuckett rejects criticisms of the scheme, citing a survey commissioned by CSCB in 1999 in which local residents identified leisure facilities as the biggest priority for the community. And, he points out, meeting this demand is no mean feat; swimming pools are notorious for their ability to suck funders dry.

According to CSCB's own figures, capital costs for the leisure centre and pool are £25 million, but a further £412,000 annually is required in ongoing revenue costs. Subsidising the pool by selling flats on the private market was the only feasible option, Tuckett insists. "We initially looked at including some intermediate housing, but when it became apparent we would have to generate this level of cross-subsidy we knew it was impossible to incorporate social housing."

Chris Bailey, regeneration manager at Westway Development Trust, believes an equivalent developer-backed scheme would not have attracted such criticism. "I think the additional scrutiny this scheme has been given is symptomatic of the pressures the sector faces," he says. "People shouldn't say it's wrong for a trust to build a £200 million scheme that generates commercial income."

Indeed, Bailey says other community-led organisations should take inspiration from the scheme. "You could argue that Doon Street will be a turning point for the sector once it's built. It should enhance confidence in community-led organisations."

Tuckett acknowledges that, even with successful schemes such as the Oxo Tower development under its belt, Doon Street marks a step-change for CSCB. "We would never have attempted this at the start. The reality is you have to have a track record, enough experience (and) confidence and to have recruited staff with the right capabilities. You have to have evolved quite a long way before you can attempt something on this scale."

Steve Wyler, director at the Development Trust Association, sees Doon Street as indicative of a trend among community-led enterprises to think big. "It's part of a direction the highest-performing members of the community sector are moving in."

Bailey agrees. If local authorities and other parties were willing to take a punt on transferring assets or making finance available to smaller community-led organisations, the sector would be much more likely to thrive, he says. "There should be no reason why social enterprises shouldn't have large assets under their control. If you don't give the community sector the chance to handle big schemes we will never get the experience."

For his part Tuckett is confident that Doon Street's enviable location will do much to shield CSCB from the threat of a UK recession. "We do have to look at the viability of the scheme in the current market. But our view is that in this particular location values are holding up well," he says. "It is a very attractive place to work and live."