Beyond the Compact City
Duncan Bowie
LSE London
1 February 2016
John Claudius Loudon 1829
Lord Meath’s Green Girdle (1901)
London Society Development
Plan for Greater London (1913)
Raymond Unwin 1929 and
1933
Abercrombie County of
London Plan 1943
Abercrombie: Greater
London Plan: 1944
Abercrombie’s 1944 Greater London
Plan
 Assumed industrial dispersal, and little pop growth in
50 km city region
 Decentralise from congested inner to outer
 Adequate Open Space standards meant 600,000
overspill from London County Council (LCC) area plus
400,000 more from outer London
 Avoid urban sprawl with strong Greenbelt, beyond
normal commuting range
 400,000 to 8 New Towns, 20-35 km from London
 600,000 to Expanded Towns 50-60km away
 No regional admin structure: LCC, shires and districts
but a strong role for government and New Towns
Commission
 Local interests made Expanded Towns initially
problematic
London Planning Advisory Committee
(LPAC) Strategic Framework 1994
2004 London Plan
Context: The Functional Urban
Region
Context: The 2003 Growth Areas
Context: Commuting
Context: London Commuting
The compact city assumption
 Assumption since 2004 London Plan that
London can meet all its future needs within
existing London boundary
 London needs at least 62,000 more homes a
year over next 20 years; South East region
needs at least 40,000 homes a year
 For next 10 years, London capacity target of
42,000 per annum leaves a deficit of 20,000
homes a year relative to projected demand
 Compact City assumption no longer tenable
 Resistance to increased housing provision in
Greater South East – the metropolitan city
region
Population growth 2001-2011
Existing spatial polarisation of
tenure
Spatial distribution of
houseprices
Spatial distribution of house price
changes
Most new homes are being
provided in central London
Few new affordable homes in outer
London
Overcrowding growing in West and
Northeast London
Hollowing out of inner West London
The affordability crisis
 House prices now climbing again –
average London house-price is
£544,000 – above the January 2008
peak
 Average deposit for first time buyer
was £59,221 – with Help to Buy, 5%
deposit requirement = £27,200
 Household income of £146,000
needed to borrow £518,000 or with
HtB £116,575 to borrow £408,000
Where we now are
 28,325 net completions in 2013/4
 Affordable housing at 34% of total completions in
2013/4 – 4,456 social rent ; 2879 intermediate homes
and 204 ‘affordable’ sub market
 Planning consents fallen from 84,700 in 2011/12 to
64,660 in 2013/4.
 Backlog of units consented but not started up is
129,136 homes (April 2014) ; New homes under
construction - 133,994
 50% approvals in 2013/4 at densities above
appropriate density range
 Council estates being regenerated with reduction in
social rented homes – loss of 8,000 homes in 10 years
 25,790 social rented homes ‘converted’ to higher
rented homes over last three years – now at rents
65%-70% of market rents.
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






Spatial Impact of policy changes
 Abandonment of growth areas with development
depending on local consent. Strong resistance to
new housing development in most suburban
boroughs and Home Counties. Neighbourhood
Planning generally not helping. Duty to Cooperate
between local authorities not working.
 No central government funding for social rented
housing so collapse of social rented housing
programme, especially in higher cost/value areas
 Planning policy changes make it very difficult for
boroughs to use planning gain agreements to fund
social rented homes – though some off site deals in
central London.
 Welfare benefit cuts forcing lower income
households out of higher value areas and increasing
spatial social polarisation – to be cut from £26,000
pa to £23,000 (and to £20,000 pa beyond London ?)
Housing benefit households moving
to Outer London (and beyond)
Most of London becoming
unaffordable for private tenants
The 2015 London Plan
 Estimate of housing requirements too low
 New capacity based target 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
 Densification of suburban town centres
could produce 7,000 more homes a year
 Home Counties districts resist pressure to
contribute to London supply deficit
 Higher density and potential for higher
rents/ higher values pushes up land value
and housing costs
The Inspector and the Minister
respond
 EiP inspector questioned whether London
could meet its requirements within London
 Concern at implications of intensification
 Mayor needs to collaborate with Local
Planning Authorities in wider South East
 Minister responded: No need to re-establish
a metropolitan region planning body
 Minister reinforces Green Belt protection
 Home Counties districts back off from
Green Belt reviews
London Plan Opportunity Areas
Impact of recent policy changes




Permitted development rights
The 10 unit affordable housing threshold
The vacant building credit
The Starter Homes initiative – focus on
sites not currently allocated for housing
– ie employment sites; Homes on
market for under £450,000 considered
affordable and not requiring to
contribute to planning obligations (s106)
or Community Infrastructure Levy.
The Mayor’s Housing Zones
 £400m recyclable 10 year
investment budget for each zone.
£262m already allocated of which
£154m repayable
 Structured framework for focused
engagement
 Planning certainty with planning
performance agreements.
Housing Zones map
Homes targets by 2025









Abbey Wood/ South Thamesmead 1314 (591)
Abbey Wood/Plumstead 1512 (663)
Barking Town Centre 2295 (795)
Clapham Junction 5396 (1596)
Harrow 5294 (1545)
Hounslow 3478 (1391)
New Bermondsey 2372 (237)
Southall 4345 (560)
Tottenham 1956 (560)
6678/ 27962 affordable = 24%
Development Constraint 1: The
Flood Plain
Development Constraint 2. Open
Space
Development Constraint 3:
Access to Public Transport
Development Constraint 4:
Existing Neighbourhood Character
Development Constraint 5:
Protecting employment sites
Development Constraint 6: The
Green Belt
Housing Density Guidance
The London density matrix
Densities and Sustainable
Residential Quality

Planning consents since Plan adopted
2004/5 2005/6 2006/7
Above range
Within range
Below range



Above
Within
Below
62%
31%
8%
10/11 11/12
58%
55%
37%
40%
5%
5%
65%
28%
7%
60%
36%
4%
2007/8
55%
40%
5%
2008/9 2009/10
53%
41%
7%
56%
39%
6%
Average over 8 years
12/13 13/14
58% (60.8%-55.5%) 58% 50%
36% (33.8%-39.2%) 31% 43%
6% (6%- 5.8%)
5%
7%
Density of actual developments
Density and family size homes
100%
90%
80%
70%
6B+
60%
5B
4B
50%
3B
2B
40%
1B
30%
20%
10%
0%
Over 435 dph
240-434 dph
150-239 dph
65-149 dph
30-64 dph
Under 30 dph
Space standards of new housing
500
450
400
350
300
Social
250
Intermediate
Market
200
150
100
50
0
studio
1B
2B
3B
4B
Penthouse
Alternative development 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 expensive private
houses with no local jobs and poor public
transport : only suitable for well off
commuters
Preconditions for major new
settlements
 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 ?
Dispersal across the Greater
SouthEast
 Potential for medium densities, mix of built
forms, mix of tenures and mix of levels of
affordability
 Need to ensure access to jobs in London
(travel cost issues) and in Home Counties
centres
 Dilemma 1: land is cheap in areas which are
economically weak/ and or isolated, while more
expensive in economically strong centres
 Dilemma 2: within or beyond the Green Belt ?
The further away from London, the greater the
travel costs to central London.
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 ?
Potential outputs from
suburban intensification
 Infill development in larger gardens
in London could produce 423,0001,057,000 homes at densities of 3075 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 best option ?
 Urban extensions in the London fringe and
around Home Counties centres
 Use browner sites within green belt
 Considering all components of sustainability
 Land is relatively cheap making low density
family size affordable housing possible
 Possibility of houses as well as flats
 Access to jobs and social infrastructure is
critical – so link development to transport
corridors
London Infrastructure Plan: Current
development plans
London Infrastructure Plan: Focus
on areas with good public transport
London Infrastructure Plan:
Densification of town centres
Nathaniel Lichfield Partnership (NLP)
Option 1
NLP Option 2
Using radial transport links
(Transport for London)
Undeveloped sites near stations
From Green Girdle to Green Wedges
Orbital Rail and Crossrail
Connecting to rest of UK
A Proposed Regional Planning Framework (AECOM)
Impact of Governance Structures
 No national spatial plan
 Abolition of Regional Planning outside
London by Coalition Government
 Failure of Duty Cooperate
 Inadequacy of Mayoral practice in relation
to duty to inform and consult neighbouring
authorities
 No consistent assessment of housing need
and capacity
Outcomes
 Cross boundary policy conflicts:
housing; employment; retail
provision; parking’ waste
management
 No linkage between spatial planning
decisions and infrastructure
investment decisions at national or
metropolitan regional level
Structures for sub regional
planning
 Thee Regional Spatial Strategies and subregional planning frameworks – abolished
2010-2012
 The Local Enterprise Partnerships as
potential strategic planning agencies ?
 Combined authorities – the Manchester city
region example
 The RTPI view of incentivised voluntarism
 TCPA - combined authorities as basis for
sub-regional planning
A new sub-regional planning
framework ?
 Combined authority groupings based on
travel to work areas
 Statutory requirement to produce a subregional plan
 Sub-regional Strategic Housing Market
assessment (SHMA)
 Sub-regional Strategic Housing Land
Availability Assessment (SHLAA)
 LPA level housing and employment targets
 Sub-regional transport, economic, housing,
infrastructure and sustainable development
strategy
 Where LPAs fail to agree, Inspector can
impose
LPA level targets based on evidence base
My proposals for a new metropolitan
regional planning framework
 Local Planning Authorities in metropolitan region need
to have regard to relationship with London
 Mayor and Greater SouthEast need to agree basis for
metropolitan region district level population and
household projections
 Metropolitan region SHMA and SHLAA
 A metropolitan regional planning body;
Statutory or Advisory
Comprise representatives of Mayor and Rest of South
East sub-regional groups
 Serviced by metropolitan region strategic planning
team - a reconstituted SERPLAN
London and South East Regional Planning Conference)?
Conclusions
 Significant failure in metropolitan region
planning
 Need for agreement on spatial planning
across metropolitan city region including
criteria for selection of locations for major
new developments
 Need for new governance structures
 A new metropolitan region planning body is
essential
 Public sector needs to take leadership