Alternative Development
Options for London’s Growth
Duncan Bowie
th
LSE 17 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
35000
35000
30000
Target
30000
2001
25000
Target
2002
25000
20012003/4
20000
2002
2004/5
2003/4
20000
2005/5
2004/5
15000
2006/7
2005/5
15000
New target
2006/7
New2007/8
target
10000
10000
2007/8
2008/9
2008/9
2009/10
5000
5000
2009/10
2010/11
2010/11
2011/12
00
Conventional
Conventional
-5000
-5000
other
other
Total
Total
Affordable Housing related to
Target
The development pipeline: Consents
90000
90000
Planning consents (dwellings)
80000
90000
80000
80000
70000
70000
70000
60000
60000
60000
50000
50000
50000
40000
40000
40000
30000
20000
30000
30000
10000
20
08
/9
20
09
/1
0
20
07
/8
20
06
/7
20
05
/6
20
04
/5
20
03
/4
20
02
/3
20
01
/2
10000
10000
0
20
00
/1
20000
20000
00
2004/5 2005/6
2005/6 2006/7
2006/7 2007/8
2007/82008/9
2008/9
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
The development pipeline 2
not started/under construction
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
20
11
/1
2
20
09
/1
0
20
08
/9
20
07
/8
20
06
/7
20
05
/6
20
04
/5
20
03
/4
20
02
/3
20
01
/2
20
00
/1
0
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
180
Completions 1995-98
Completions 2001-4
160
Completions 2006/7
Completions 2007/8
140
Completions 2008/9
Completions 2009/10
120
Completions 2010/11
Completions 2011/12
100
80
Permissions 2004/5
Permissions 2005/6
60
Permissions 2006/7
Permissions 2007/8
40
Permissions 2008/9
Permissions 2009/10
20
Permissions 2010/11
Permissions 2011/12
0
LONDON
Variation of development densities
across London: 1995/98
Barking and Dagenham
Barking
Barnet and Dagenham
120
120
Barnet
Bexley
Bexley
Brent
Brent
Bromley
Bromley
Camden
100
100
Camden
City of London
City
of London
Croydon
Croydon
Ealing
Ealing
Enfield
Enfield
Greenwich
80
80
Greenwich
Hackney
Hackney
Hammersmith and Fulham
Hammersmith
and Fulham
Harngey
Harngey
Harrow
60
60
Harrow
Havering
Havering
Hillingdon
Hounslow
Hillingdon
Islington
Hounslow
40
Kensington and Chelsea
Islington
40
Kingston upon
Thames
Kensington
and Chelsea
Lambethupon Thames
Kingston
Lewisham
Lambeth
M erton
Lewisham
20
MNewham
erton
20
Redbridge
Newham
Richmond upon Thames
Redbridge
Southwark
Richmond
upon Thames
0
0
Sutton
Southwark
Completions 1995-98
Tower Hamlets
Sutton
Completions 1995-98
Waltham
Forest
Tower
Hamlets
Wandsworth
Waltham
Forest
Westminster
Wandsworth
Density variations 2011/12
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
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
Hillingdon
Hounslow
Islington
Kensington and Chelsea
Kingston upon Thames
Lambeth
Lewisham
M erton
Newham
Redbridge
Richmond upon Thames
Southwark
Sutton
Tower Hamlets
Waltham Forest
Wandsworth
Westminster
Densities and Sustainable
Residential Quality
•
Planning consents since Plan adopted
2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8
2008/9 2009/10
Above range
Within range
Below range
53%
41%
7%
•
Above
Within
Below
62%
31%
8%
2010/11
58%
37%
5%
65%
28%
7%
2011/12
55%
40%
5%
60%
36%
4%
55%
40%
5%
56%
39%
6%
Average over 8 years;
58% (60.8%-55.5%)
36% (33.8%-39.2%)
6% (6%-5.8%)
Housing mix: What is needed
(GLA 2009 Housing Market
Assessment)
70%
60%
50%
1 Bedroom
40%
2 Bedrooms
30%
3 Bedrooms
4+ Bedrooms
20%
10%
0%
Social Rent Intermediate
Market
Total
Bedroom size mix: 2011/12
completions
30000
25000
20000
1B
2B
15000
3B
4B+
TOT
10000
5000
0
Social Rent
Intermediate
Market
Total
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 underoccupation
• 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 evidenceviability 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 423,0001,057,000 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 3075 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 ?