Alternative Development Options for London’s Growth Duncan Bowie th LSE 17 March 2014 The Challenges.
Download ReportTranscript Alternative Development Options for London’s Growth Duncan Bowie th LSE 17 March 2014 The Challenges.
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 ?