alternative development options for london’s growth duncan bowie lse 17 th march 2014
DESCRIPTION
Alternative Development Options for London’s Growth Duncan Bowie LSE 17 th March 2014. The Challenges. Tenure changes since 1961. Poverty by tenure. Overcrowding. Homelessness. Rough Sleeping. New estimates of London’s housing requirements. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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 ?