Housing Prefrences:
MORI for CABE, 2005
• Over half the population want to live in a detached
house
• 22% prefer a bungalow
• 14% a semi-detached house
• 7% a terraced house
• Detached house most popular choice, regardless
of social status or ethnicity
• Period properties (Edwardian, Victorian,
Georgian) most desirable overall: 37%
New Households, New Homes
• 80% one-person
• But only about one-third “single never married”
• Will demand more space per household:
Separate kitchens/bathrooms/loos, Spare
rooms, Work spaces
• Land saving reduces as densities increase:
• 30 dw/ha yields 60% of all potential gains, 40
dw/ha 70 per cent
• So biggest gains from minimising development
below 20 dw/h, not increasing 40 dw/ha+
• So: go for 30-40 dw/ha with variations: higher
close to transport services (Stockholm 1952!)
• But won’t achieve same person densities as
before!
Densification: Effects
Density
Dws./ha.
Net
Land Saved
%
Total
Saving
Land needed to accommodate 400 dwellings
Area required, ha.
Gross
(with local facilities)
%
Cumulative
Land Saved
%
Total
Saving
%
Cumulative
10
40.0
46.3
20
20.0
20.0
50.0
50.0
25.3
21.0
45.4
45.4
30
13.3
6.7
16.7
66.7
17.9
7.4
15.9
61.3
40
10.0
3.3
8.3
75.0
14.3
3.6
7.8
69.1
50
8.0
2.0
5.0
80.0
12.1
2.2
4.8
73.9
60
6.6
1.4
3.5
83.5
10.6
1.5
3.2
77.1
Source: Llewelyn Davies
Density Gradient (Rudlin & Falk)
Source: D Rudlin, N Falk (1999) Building the 21st Century Home
Lessons from Land Use
• Public Transport needs
minimum density:
• Bus: 25 dw/ha
• LRT: 60 dw/ha
• Exceed recent densities
• Big gain from 30-35 dw/ha
• Plus “pyramids” up to 60
dw/ha round rail stations
• Urban Task Force
• Traditional – Stockholm,
1952!
• Or Edwardian suburbs!
Urban Clusters
The Infrastructure Gap
(1) Orbital Connections
• Polycentric structure reinforce
• So: orbital as well and
radial links
• Stressed in SE RSS
• But: where’s the plan?
• DfT not interested
The Infrastructure Gap
(2) Growing the South into the North
The Infrastructure Gap:
Roger Tym Report
Making it happen:
The 2004 Act
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Radical change – biggest for 35 years
Working through at regional strategic level
Still to work through at local level
Planning Gain Supplement
Can it solve the “infrastructure deficit”?
The major issue in solving the housing crisis!
But also: the NIMBY factor – will get worse?
Planning Gain Supplement v. S106
• Planning Gain Supplement (i.e. development land tax)
on windfall gains by developers
• Could vary locally: brownfield v. greefield
• Can it meet the “infrastructure gap”?
• Or are existing mechanisms as effective?
• MK, Bedford…
• So retain “Section 106” as an alternative?
• Local versus regional investment: ‘local gain’ for ‘local
pain’ (retention of PGS; higher proportion of Council Tax
receipts from new housing)
• But problem of regional infrastructure: Bypasses v. new
rail connections…
• Need for better integration ODPM/DfT! SE Orbirail,
Manchester Metrolink, etc, etc…