Alternative Development Options for London’s

Growth

Duncan BowieLSE 17th March 2014

The Challenges

Tenure changes since 1961

Poverty by tenure

Overcrowding

Homelessness

Rough Sleeping

New estimates of London’s housing

requirements• ONS population: 8.204m in 2011 to 9.371m in 2021. increase of 1.167m or 116,700 pa

• TCPA/ Holmans: 1,128,000 housing units required over 20 years ( 501,000 social; 627,000 market = 56,400 pa )

• London Councils: 809,000 homes needed to 2021 to meet projected and backlog need = 101,500 pa

• GLA: (London Plan revisions)49,000 pa 2015-2036 BUT 62,000 pa in first ten years 2015-2026

London’s Housing

Development Outputs

Where we now are• Net housing completions in 2011/12 was 28,324 of

which 21,179 were net conventional supply ( ie excluding non self contained bedspaces and vacants returning to use)

• Affordable housing at 38% of total – 13,627 social rent and 10,867 other submarket homes over last three years – 2011/12 saw increase in social rent and fall in other sub market completions

• Planning consents fallen from 80,000 in 2007/8 to about 44,000 units a year to 2010/11 but increased to 78,000 in 2012 ( including 2,400 net conversions and 3,900 net change of use)

• Backlog of units consented but not started up fallen from 126,000 at April 2010 to 93,000 at April 2011 – most in East London. New homes under construction up from 67,000 to 101,000.

Net London housing completions

2011/12 target = 32,210

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Conventional other Total

Target

2001

2002

2003/4

2004/5

2005/5

2006/7

New target

2007/8

2008/9

2009/10

2010/11

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Conventional other Total

Target

2001

2002

2003/4

2004/5

2005/5

2006/7

New target

2007/8

2008/9

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

Affordable Housing related to Target

The development pipeline: Consents

Planning consents (dwellings)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

The development pipeline 2

not started/under construction

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

The affordability crisis• House prices now climbing again –

average London houseprice is £544,000 – above the January 2008 peak

• Average deposit for first time buyer was £59,221 – with Help to Buy, 5% mortgage requirement = £26,000

• Household income of £146,000 needed to borrow £518,000

Densities by region

London development densities. Completions since 1995; Permissions

since 2004/5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

LONDON

Completions 1995-98

Completions 2001-4

Completions 2006/7

Completions 2007/8

Completions 2008/9

Completions 2009/10

Completions 2010/11

Completions 2011/12

Permissions 2004/5

Permissions 2005/6

Permissions 2006/7

Permissions 2007/8

Permissions 2008/9

Permissions 2009/10

Permissions 2010/11

Permissions 2011/12

Variation of development densities across London:

1995/98

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Completions 1995-98

Barking and Dagenham

Barnet

Bexley

Brent

Bromley

Camden

City of London

Croydon

Ealing

Enfield

Greenwich

Hackney

Hammersmith and Fulham

Harngey

Harrow

Havering

Hillingdon

Hounslow

Islington

Kensington and Chelsea

Kingston upon Thames

Lambeth

Lewisham

Merton

Newham

Redbridge

Richmond upon Thames

Southwark

Sutton

Tower Hamlets

Waltham Forest

Wandsworth

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Completions 1995-98

Barking and Dagenham

Barnet

Bexley

Brent

Bromley

Camden

City of London

Croydon

Ealing

Enfield

Greenwich

Hackney

Hammersmith and Fulham

Harngey

Harrow

Havering

HillingdonHounslow

Islington

Kensington and Chelsea

Kingston upon Thames

Lambeth

Lewisham

Merton

Newham

Redbridge

Richmond upon Thames

Southwark

Sutton

Tower Hamlets

Waltham Forest

Wandsworth

Westminster

LONDON

Density variations 2011/12

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Permissions 2011/12

Barking and Dagenham

Barnet

Bexley

Brent

Bromley

Camden

City of London

Croydon

Ealing

Enfield

Greenwich

Hackney

Hammersmith and Fulham

Harngey

Harrow

Havering

HillingdonHounslow

Islington

Kensington and Chelsea

Kingston upon Thames

Lambeth

Lewisham

Merton

Newham

Redbridge

Richmond upon Thames

Southwark

Sutton

Tower Hamlets

Waltham Forest

Wandsworth

Westminster

LONDON

Densities and Sustainable Residential Quality

• Planning consents since Plan adopted 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10

Above range 62% 65% 60% 55% 53% 56%Within range 31% 28% 36% 40% 41% 39%Below range 8% 7% 4% 5% 7% 6%

• 2010/11 2011/12 Average over 8 years;Above 58% 55% 58% (60.8%-55.5%)Within 37% 40% 36% (33.8%-39.2%) Below 5% 5% 6% (6%-5.8%)

Housing mix: What is needed(GLA 2009 Housing Market

Assessment)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Social Rent Intermediate Market Total

1 Bedroom

2 Bedrooms

3 Bedrooms

4+ Bedrooms

Bedroom size mix: 2011/12 completions

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Social Rent Intermediate Market Total

1B

2B

3B

4B+

TOT

London House-prices since 1995

The overall record• Failure to achieve numerical targets• Failure to provide enough affordable homes• Failure to provide enough family homes• Failure to stabilise housing market• Failure to hold down land costs• Failure of the Sustainable Residential

Quality policy• Failure to ensure effective use of existing

and new housing stock – increase in overcrowding and increase in under-occupation

• Failure to stop increased displacement of low and middle income households and social polarisation

Government policies and London

• Continuity between New Labour and Coalition; between Livingstone and Johnson regimes

• Change in affordable housing definitions in National Planning Policy Framework and London Plan

• Impact of benefit cuts on social polarisation – lower income households being driven out of central London

• Mayor has limited influence on countering national policy or mitigating these impacts

• The absence of any national spatial plan and the failure of central government to recognise the relationship between infrastructure investment and the spatial distribution of residential and employment growth

• The non existence of a planning framework for the metropolitan London region

The London Plan Review• Estimate of housing requirements too low

• Estimate of capacity of 42,000 homes a year dependent on high density development in Opportunity Areas

• The push for higher density on sites of 5 hectares or with capacity for 500 homes

• The conflict with the Mayor’s housing covenant proposals on funding some homes at ‘capped rents’

• The importance of reinstating the social rent target

• The failure to base policy on evidence- viability should not be the key driver of planning policy

• Higher density and potential for higher rents/ higher values pushes up land value

Constraints

Constraint 1: The Flood Plain

Constraint 2. Open Space

Constraint 3: The Green Belt

Constraint 4: Access to Public Transport

Constraint 5: Existing Neighbourhood Character

Constraint 6: Protecting employment sites

Constraint 7: The boundary of London within the metropolitan

region

Alternative Development

Options

The list of options (not mutually exclusive)

• Hyperdense development in city centre and city fringes

• Hyperdense development in Opportunity Areas• Higher densities in suburban town centres• Suburban intensification• Planned Urban extensions• A new programme of garden cities within the

green belt• A new programme of garden cities or garden

towns beyond the green belt• Residential dispersal to other parts of UK (without

employment dispersal)• Residential dispersal to other parts of UK

supported by a regional economic policy and planned relocation of employment

The wrong options

• Hyperdense development in all opportunity areas and town centres – outputs wont match needs ( and many units will go to international property investment market)

• Dispersal to rest of UK without employment growth/relocation

• New ‘ garden cities’ of private houses with no local jobs and poor public transport : only fit for well off commuters

The remaining options• Can we reconstruct a regional job growth

strategy to support population dispersal ?• Do we encourage dispersal of the

economically inactive population – the old and unemployed (or unemployable) to cheaper areas of the country to create capacity for Londoners who are economically active and to cut benefit bills ?

• Please note I am not advocating this radical form of social engineering though elements of both New Labour and Coalition governments have done !

3 options left: Garden cities

• Preconditions for delivering major new settlements as garden cities – can these be delivered:

• Jobs• Public transport• Affordable homes for a range of income

groups• Social infrastructure• Is this deliverable in current funding

context ?• Is the concept of self financing garden cities

still realisable ?

2 options left: Suburban intensification

• Incremental intensification – from 20 dwellings per hectare to 50-75

• Mix of houses and low rise flats• Mix of tenures• Using existing transport and social

infrastructure• Infill development and grabbing the

larger gardens• Can we achieve significant increased

housing output without destroying suburbia ?

Outputs from suburban intensification

• Infill development in larger gardens in London could produce 423,000-1,057,000 homes at densities of 30-75 dwellings per hectare

• Developing ‘excess’ suburban open space would provide 2.5 to 6.4 million new homes at densities of 30-75 dwellings per hectare

• Even greater potential from intensification/urban extensions to home counties urban areas ?

The last option• Urban extensions in the London

fringe and around Home Counties centres

• Not all the green belt is green• Considering all components of

sustainability• The Aylesbury Vale and Banstead

and Reigate cases

Planners must plan for the future

• Heads in the sand is not an option• Malthusianism is not a solution• Constraining housing growth does not stop

population growth or employment related migration to London

• Employment growth and residential growth without housing provision has serious negative consequences – for people and for London’s future

• Is a return to metropolitan regional planning possible ?

• A return to SERPLAN or a more formal metropolitan regional planning authority ?