Poor doors, busy roads, and little sunlight: How affordable housing gets the brunt end 

The second article in a four-part series examining social housing in Poplar, reveals how new housing developments are failing to be ‘tenure blind’ and locating affordable housing in less desirable locations.

The first article in this series exploring social housing in Poplar saw how post-war social housing was built with a utopian vision. Despite the often complex reality, developments were dedicated to social housing and architects were committed to delivering the best designs for those living there. 

Nowadays, the system is different. The law mandates that private developments must include a certain percentage of affordable or social housing and developers choose where to locate the social housing within each development.

An analysis of five housing developments approved in Tower Hamlets between 2018 and 2023, and one currently in the pre-planning stage, has shown how affordable housing has been located. 

At the bottom of high rises, alongside main roads, and in areas with reduced sunlight.

Some private developers continue to use separate entrances for affordable housing, known as poor doors.

In the worst case, they build affordable housing in locations alongside DLR tracks or main roads, raising concerns about the health of residents due to air and noise pollution.

Mufeedah Bustin, Councillor for Island Gardens, has said that this situation where social housing is built in less desirable locations and separate from privately sold housing is ‘not uncommon.’

‘We’ve seen that repeatedly where social housing tends to be in the area furthest away from the parks and open spaces, the areas most likely to be in shadow or darkness, and the areas that are more open to noise. Next to the DLR, next to a busy road.’

One example is The Ailsa Wharf development on a patch of land between the A12 and the River Lea. Tower Hamlets approved the 952-home development in October 2023. It consists of three towers over 20 stories high and several low-rise blocks.

Developers built three towers on one side of the development, affording desirable views over the River Lea. All these homes are for private sale. A low-rise block along the A12 on the other side of the site would be completely affordable housing. Meanwhile, they placed intermediate rent units across the development.

At the October 2023 Strategic Development Planning Meeting Councillors raised concerns about noise and air pollution for the affordable housing block along the A12. They were also concerned about how the nought-to-five-year-old play area would be located alongside the busy A12.

Despite these concerns, five members approved the plan, while three opposed it.

When contacted for comment, designers Broadway Malyan said: ‘The layout of the building is carefully designed with the lift cores and stairs positioned facing the A12 and minimising the habitable rooms on the A12 side. The residential units in the block will incorporate mechanical ventilation and it has been technically assessed and confirmed it is acceptable in terms of noise and air quality standards.’

They added that the play park ‘is set away from the A12 and is well-screened by trees and planting’.

None of the other developers or designers behind developments discussed in this article responded to requests for comment.

In April 2023 a similar situation occurred regarding a 169-home development in Poplar. It will be built alongside the DLR tracks between the Blackwall and East India stations. 

At the planning meeting, Councillors raised concerns about how all the affordable housing in the three-block development would be located closest to the DLR tracks.

Despite this, the development was also approved.

In other developments, affordable housing has been built with the lowest levels of sunlight. 

At the Skylines development on the Isle of Dogs, there are plans to build three residential towers providing 579 new houses. The tallest 48-storey tower contains private housing. The smallest tower, at 26 storeys, would be for affordable rented accommodation. Finally, the middle tower at 27 stories would contain intermediate rent housing.

Intermediate rent is counted as affordable housing. You pay a lower level of rent than on the private market. However, it still can be as high as 80% of market rent. 

Comments on the planning application noted the two towers with affordable and intermittent rent had units that ‘received particularly poor daylight within the living places’. Developers have since changed the plans improving levels of daylight. However, even after changes the level of sunlight was slightly below the target levels set out for London.

Westferry Printworks is another new development that has grouped affordable housing separately at a less desirable location. Developers have not yet applied for the full planning application from Tower Hamlets Council. Westferry Printworks is currently at the pre-planning stage.

Located overlooking Millwall Outer Docks, developers have been planning a development at Westferry Printworks for many years. The Conservative Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick personally approved it in 2020. This was despite the government planning inspector advising against the development’s approval.

The planning approval was overturned a year later. Jenrick himself admitted there was ‘apparent bias’ in his approval of the scheme.

Now, a new application is underway. Developers will build 1,368 homes and a new secondary school in the proposed scheme. 

A new road bisects the development, cutting it into two.

The majority of the affordable housing along with the secondary school and a multi-use game area will be built as low-rise blocks to the north of the road. 

On the other side of the road, along the riverfront, four private high-rise towers would be built. They would be accompanied by two new parks. 

It is not yet clear if the Council will approve this development. Some of the specific details of the site are unknown, such as an assessment of sunlight levels for the housing.

Even without these details, this development fits the pattern of affordable housing split off and built in less desirable locations. Meanwhile, private housing is in the most desirable locations.

All these developments seem to contradict the Greater London Authority’s advice to encourage tenure integration or tenure blind developments. This means that a development’s private and affordable tenures should be as similar as possible with no differences between them. 

The June 2023 Housing Design Standard was explicit: ‘Developments should be tenure blind. There should be no perceptible difference in the quality of the design or materials used when housing different tenures. ‘Poor doors’ and gated forms of development are unacceptable.’

This guidance isn’t new. The 2016 Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance encourages the integration of different types of tenures.

Developers describe the Bellamy Close & Byng Street development near Canary Wharf as tenure blind. There should be no differences between social and private housing. 

It would consist of one 32-floor tower, several smaller individual houses, and one small block. Upon completion, it will offer around 200 new homes.

However, affordable housing will be situated in the small block and individual houses around the tower. The first 10 levels of the tower will be affordable as well. The next 22 levels above, with better views and light, will be privately sold. Future affordable housing residents of the Bellemy Close & Byng Street development will be using the same lift as private residents but their homes will not be beyond the tenth floor.

Supposedly tenure blind, but top-floor apartments would be reserved for private buyers. 

Walk down Marsh Wall to the other end of Canary Wharf, and the almost complete 225 Marsh Wall development (One Thames Quay) is even worse. There can be no claims of tenure blind development. Here a ‘rich door’ and a ‘poor door’ split private and affordable housing residents into different entrances.

Tower Hamlets Council originally approved the tower as a 48-floor structure. An updated application in 2022 to increase its height to 56 floors was rejected. However, in April 2024 the UK’s conservative government overturned Tower Hamlet’s decision. 

According to the planning application, the first 10 floors would be affordable housing and the next five intermediate. The remaining 40 floors are for private housing. 

The planning application clearly states ‘The residential entrances between market and affordable tenures are proposed to be separate’.

Building plans also clearly show a separate entrance and lift for affordable housing residents only. It would be smaller than the entrance for private residents and open onto the main road. 

The private residents’ entrance has more space, an attached private lounge with a concierge, and leads onto a green landscaped area away from the road. 

Private residents would also have significantly larger and better-equipped community spaces.

The first and second-floor community spaces would be accessible to all residents. It includes play spaces for 0-5-year-olds, 5-11-year-olds, and a teenager games room. Further community spaces on the 53rd floor and roof terraces are reserved for private residents.

The planning application states ‘The communal amenity space accessible to all residents is proposed on first and second floors, and on Level 53 accessible to lift cores serving the private units.’

An advert for a 37th floor £633,000 one-bedroom apartment says residents can ‘experience a life of unparalleled luxury with exclusive access to an array of private lifestyle amenities including landscaped gardens, gym, bowling alley and sky lounge.’

Poplar HARCA, Poplar’s largest housing association, are offering affordable housing at 225 Marsh Wall. When asked for comment a spokesperson said: ‘Although Poplar HARCA wasn’t involved with the building design or tenure, we’re pleased to confirm that One Thames Quay will reduce housing need in Tower Hamlets. We will be letting 41 affordable homes for rent to local families on the housing list here.’

Mufeedah Bustin, Councilor for Island Gardens, isn’t expecting extravagant amenities for social housing but does believe there needs to be improvements in the social housing we are building.

For her, when thinking about affordable housing the key question is ‘Is it somewhere I can call a home?’ where she would be happy to live.

In many cases, affordable housing does not meet that requirement.

Unlike previously when large quantities of social housing was built directly by the government, our modern system has handed control of social housing development to private developers.

The difference is stark. Whereas historical developments in Poplar started from the premise of what would be best for the people living there, current developments are governed by market prices and profit. As this investigation reveals, it’s all too easy to demote social housing at the expense of the poor.

Requirements for tenure blind developments are skirted or ignored. Poor doors are known about and widely condemned yet developers are still designing these into their buildings.

The past has shown that we can aspire to better social housing so what would it take to secure this for the future?

A return to mass social housing building funded by the government or local authorities is one commonly suggested solution. Another, more unique, is the increase of co-operative housing developments. The people who live in the building are those who manage and are responsible for it.

In Mufeedah Bustin’s opinion, the solution is at the planning policy level. ‘There is a huge demand for affordable and social housing and given that demand it’s easy to approve schemes that deliver the number but don’t deliver a suitable standard of living.’

‘I would like to see changes to planning and housing laws that require social and affordable housing that would be comparable to private developments in terms of location and quality.’

‘We struggle with planning policy that really delivers social housing.’

Tenure-blind developments ensure that all homes, whether for sale or rent, affordable or market-rate, are indistinguishable in design and quality. If private developers fail to achieve this, perhaps we should make guidelines mandatory to require adherence to higher standards of fairness and equality in housing.

As Bustin says, the question must be ‘Is it somewhere I can call a home?’ When the answer starts being yes, we will be building social housing we can be proud of in Poplar.

Read the first part of this series here: Streets in the sky: The utopian dreams of Poplar’s social housing