Housebuilder Media
Responding to Barker Conference
23 February 2006
Housing and Planning: The Way Forward
Professor Sir Peter Hall
Professor of Planning and Regeneration
Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning, University College London
Senior Research Fellow, Young Foundation
I.
Preamble
In considering this issue recently, I began by thinking that the problem depends on where one is.
The cover from a recent ODPM publication summarises it all in one map, since it is probably the
nearest thing that we have to the missing national spatial strategy for England, with the three major
growth corridors in the south, plus the expansion of Ashford, as well as the pathfinders in the north,
located along the M62 corridor between Liverpool and Hull, which have recently become somewhat
contentious.
II.
National Issues
1.
South/North Housing Supply
As everyone here knows, the problem in the south is that not enough new homes are being built,
which is the point of Barker nationally. Another recent fact that emerged from the ODPM’s
statistics is that we are building a lot more flats – in my view, too many – and too few houses and,
again, as we all know, there is an infrastructure problem, in that, if we do not have the
infrastructure, we may not have the housing. In the north, the problem is almost that there are too
many homes, of the wrong sort: there are hundreds of thousands of bylaw homes, built between
1870 and 1914, many of which are, or at least argued to be, obsolescent, although there is an
emerging argument about that in the public prints. Certainly, there too, we are building a lot of flats
– and perhaps too many – and too few family homes; once again, there is an infrastructure problem
associated with the need to provide new links as a basis for the regeneration of the brownfield areas
in the cities.
2.
South-East England
a.
A ‘mega-city’ region
If we take this contrast, recent research carried out by the Young Foundation, which is going to be
published in a few months, demonstrates that south-east England – not the official South-East
Region, but a wider area, extending to 100 miles from central London – is, essentially, now a vast
Responding to Barker Conference
Householder Media
‘mega-city’ region, comprising no less than 51 functional urban regions: substantial cities or towns,
and their commuting and service fields around them. The reality is that this is a multi-centred urban
structure. It certainly depends on London, and the London functional region has half the population
and employment of the wider region; however, to a large degree, places outside of London are
self-contained. The further away from London, the more self-contained they are.
b.
A truly polycentric region
The proportion of people who live and work in the same functional region rises to as high as 85%
beyond 40 miles from London, which, for us, is a very important conclusion, since it means that
this region is truly polycentric. Some people commute to London, and the commuting map from
the 2001 census shows strong flows, even from quite considerable distances, where train services
are good; e.g. from Milton Keynes or Swindon.
c.
Criss-cross flows
However, equally important are the criss-cross flows that do not go towards London, but which join
other functional regions. If we draw a north south line through central London, 30 of these regions
lie to the west but only 18 to the east. What is also evident is that the 30 to the west are far more
criss-cross interconnected than the 18 to the east. Part of the reason is the River Thames, but the
fact is that we now have a very interesting pattern of a highly interconnected and highly networked
region to the west of London, and a far less connected, still more London-dependent region to the
east of London, which comes not only from the facts of physical geography, but, for example, from
the 19th century history of the way in which railways were built and operated.
d.
Allow the London effect to reach the Midlands
It may be heresy, but I would suggest that, rather than trying to build self-contained new towns, as
we did 50 to 60 years ago, the right way to grow this region may be to accept what is happening:
that there will be some long-distance commuting to London, particularly if there are good transport
links, allowing these separate units to grow and grow and allowing the London effect to push
northwards, into the Midlands, which, I assume, somewhat implicitly, is the ODPM’s aim in its
sustainable communities strategy of 2003.
e.
Growth corridors
These growth corridors are very big indeed; the Milton Keynes and South Midlands corridor
reaches as far as Corby, 82 miles from London, the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough
(M11) corridor about 76 miles away, the Thames Gateway about 50 miles away, and Ashford about
60 miles and only 35 minutes away, once domestic services on the Channel Tunnel rail link begin
operating in 2009.
f.
ODPM objective to push growth eastwards and northwards
If we look at the region in terms of a clock, there really is no strategy for the areas between 11.00am
and 5.00pm; the criss-cross, highly-interconnected western sector has no clear strategic framework.
Indeed, the fairly explicit objective is to push growth, as far as possible, eastwards and northwards,
which will not be sufficient.
23 February 2006
2
Responding to Barker Conference
g.
Householder Media
No proper strategic framework
We are also still some way from developing a proper strategic framework for these growth areas.
We have a very good one, in my view, for Milton Keynes and the South Midlands, and one has
been promised by David Miliband for the Thames Gateway, but we should recall that the strategy
that we have is now 11 years old, so we certainly need an update. In terms of the M11 corridor, a
public examination is underway in Letchworth, which is making the strategy for that corridor
almost ‘on the hoof’, since they are the only people who will end up with one. It is rather an
extraordinary way of producing a framework for such a large, complex and quite contentious
sub-region.
h.
Huge infrastructure gap
There is a huge infrastructure gap, even in the growth areas, where the regional planning bodies for
the south-east and east of England are saying to Government that, while they are being promised
infrastructure, there is a huge gap and that, if they are not given all of the infrastructure that they ask
for, they cannot provide the housing, with the result that they are reneging on the housing totals
proposed by Government. At this juncture, I would have to pose a question as to whether the
regional planning bodies are playing completely fairly, or whether this is not becoming somewhat
of a political game, particularly as we are moving towards the May local government elections,
which are going to be fairly fraught, since they will be viewed as a vote of confidence or no
confidence in the Government.
3.
The North
a.
‘Pathfinder row’
In the north, the situation is different: we have the great ‘pathfinder row’, which has been rumbling
ever since, in particular, Charles Clover of the Daily Telegraph started making this is leitmotif last
summer and riling John Prescott. There is a point here, raised by Save Britain’s Heritage, which
consists of photographs of beautiful housing that is, apparently, proposed for demolition, in places
like Liverpool, Darwen – where some houses have been saved – and Burnley. The publication
argues that it is wrong that the housing associations are being given perverse incentives to tear
down perfectly good housing, instead of refurbishing it, which is exacerbated by the fact that the
Treasury cannot – or will not – level the playing field in terms of VAT on rehabilitation versus no
VAT on new build.
b.
A glut of apartments; a need for family-friendly housing
There is, however, another issue in the north, which is emerging very clearly, apparently as the
result of some good work by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), which is doing a lot of
work on cities and publicising it very effectively in its frequent reports. In its report of three weeks
ago, it argued that we had, in effect, overbuilt small apartments in core cities such as Manchester,
Liverpool and Leeds – all of which are very proud of what they have done and present statistics on
the huge increase in city-centre population – while all the evidence suggests that there will soon be
a glut of this type of housing, that it is catering for a niche market, and that there will be a need for
family-friendly housing in the middle ring of these cities.
23 February 2006
3
Responding to Barker Conference
c.
Householder Media
Provision of social infrastructure
Tom Bloxham of Urban Splash echoed that in the preface to the IPPR report; the problem is, as he
has said, is that it is not a question of, say, Manchester deciding to build family housing in east
Manchester, but of putting in the schools and other social infrastructure that will stop families,
when they have families, from moving to Cheshire instead. This is related, in turn, to the fact that,
in the north-west, in particular, the official policy laid down by the Government Office has been
that it has stopped greenfield development over the last three years, although they now seem to be
reneging on this slightly.
It may be possible to force the development back into the middle and outer rings of those cities, but
it will be necessary to provide not only physical infrastructure, such as the £260 Manchester
Metrolink extensions, or the tram systems in Liverpool and Leeds – the DfT has turned down one
after another of these schemes, which the cities see as vital for the regeneration of the middle and
outer rings – but also the social infrastructure, and particularly schools. Middle-class parents with
children of school age will not send them to schools where they will be beaten up or turned into
drug addicts by the age of seven, but will move out to the ‘nice’ schools in the shire counties, where
they can also ride their ponies. Unless something is done in this respect, there will be a problem.
d.
Minimum densities
This is highlighted by the latest ODPM figures. I analysed these numbers a few months ago in the
Town and Country Planning magazine. The urban task force has been reconstituted and we
reported just before Christmas. I had to become the odd person out and sign a small minority
report, because I felt that they were going overboard with their conclusions that we ought to raise
the brownfield percentage to something like 75% of all new development nationally, as well as
minimum densities, from 30% to 40-45%. The task force report of 1999 has been much more
successful than we ever dreamt would be possible. We argued then for 60% brownfield and a
minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare in the south; what we now have is 68% brownfield, and the
indications are that that number was over 70% in 2005. In addition, while the number of total
completions has gone up, it has not gone up by enough – we are only at 9%. This is a product of a
one-third increase in brownfield completions and a 20% decrease in greenfield, and I just cannot
help feeling that that is not quite right.
4.
Region-by-Region Change
a.
Completions
In terms of region-by-region change, the same pattern repeats itself, but there have been spectacular
declines in greenfield, particularly in the north-west, because of the ban by the Government Office,
compensated only by a weaker increase in brownfield. Therefore, in the north-west, there is no
change in the number of completions between 1999 and 2004, which is slightly doubtful: there is an
8% decrease in the north-east, with some quite disturbing reductions in completions everywhere
north of Watford Gap. The success story is London, where there have been a huge number of
completions, often at quite high densities, associated with opportunities in the Docklands and the
Thames Gateway. However, the story there is of huge numbers of flats.
b.
Houses and flats
The story in terms of houses and flats is one of an extraordinary switchover: a shift from 84%
houses in 1999 to only 66%, or a rise in flats from 13% to 34% in only five years. Some of the
23 February 2006
4
Responding to Barker Conference
Householder Media
shifts in individual regions are equally spectacularly, with a doubling in the proportion of flats or, in
the case of Yorkshire and Humber, a quadrupling, from a very low number in 1999 to nearly a third
of the total in 2004.
III.
Sociodemographic Shifts
1.
Major Growth in One-Person Households
Since many of you in the audience are responsible for much of this building, you will know what is
happening, and it is undoubtedly true that the major growth is in one-person households. One
might, then, say that one-person households, typically, are students, young professionals, ‘empty
nesters’, widows and widowers, and the growing proportion of ‘single, never marry’s’ – particularly
career women – which is perhaps the biggest single sociodemographic shift that we have seen in
this country in the past 30 years. Despite this, there is a question as to whether these proportions
can be right, because the vast majority of new homes not bought by new households, but by old
households changing homes, and the total does not appear to be correct.
2.
Avoidance of Greenfield Usage
Another argument supporting this big shift to brownfield, and the associated shift to apartments, has
been that we should save land and, in particular, that we should avoid using greenfield. I have to
say that I would question this argument, since we have to ask what we are saving this land for. The
remarkable fact is that some 5% of England, and around 8.5% of the greater south-east, rising to
more than 11% in some southern counties, is an EU set-aside, growing weeds. We could develop
that kind of greenfield tomorrow, if we wanted to, because these estimates are far in excess of
anything in the Barker Report of what we need by way of housing land.
3.
Choice of Access by Public Transport or Car
Of course, the real point is that that is a bad argument; a good argument, which we have all
accepted, at least since the original urban task force report of 1999, is that we should be giving
people choice of access to public amenities, shops and schools, which is better done at reasonable
densities, by public transport or by car. We should concentrate growth, as far as possible, where
there is public transport, particularly around transport interchanges, where we could afford to raise
densities.
4.
Evidence of Public Needs
…not very original, but simply restating rather sound old principles. However, the evidence about
what people in this country want is crystal clear:

Alan Hooper, in his study Home Alone, proved that, of single-person households, only 10%
want a flat and 33% would not even consider one.

Even a report for the CPRE by Tony Champion showed that the great preference of most people
in this country is to live in or near the countryside.
23 February 2006
5
Responding to Barker Conference

Householder Media
A study by two other researchers found that city-dwellers were the least satisfied of anyone with
their environment, and that country-dwellers were the most satisfied, with suburbanites in the
middle.
The conclusion has to be that we English hate cities. It is not quite as simplistic as that, but if we
look at the latest results, over half the population want to live in a detached house, 22% prefer a
bungalow, 14% a semi-detached house, and 7% a terraced house. The detached house is the most
popular choice, regardless of social status or ethnicity. Furthermore, period properties – or homes
with period property styles – proved to be the most desirable style.
5.
Housing Density
a.
Growth in one-person households
It may be possible to square this circle in some ways. 77% of the growth of households over the
next 20 years will be one-person householders, and about one-third will be ‘single, never marry’s’.
These single households will demand more space per person, because they will all want a separate
home with separate bathrooms, spare rooms, workspaces etc.
b.
Achievement of potential gains
As we increase the densities of developments, once we reach 30 dwellings per hectare, which is
what was recommended in the original task force report and accepted by Government, we can
achieve 60% of possible gains; once we reach 40 dwellings per hectare, where the majority of
development can still be single-family homes, we can achieve 70% of potential gains. The biggest
gains of all, therefore, come from increasing densities to at least 30, and perhaps even to 40 in
certain areas, and this is what should be sound policy, combined with pyramids of density, as was
done in Stockholm over 50 years ago. However, we will not achieve the same person densities as
before, because so many of us are living alone or in two-person households. The relation between
housing and people density, therefore, has changed.
c.
Garden city densities
The figures of 60% and 70% potential gains from densities of 30 and 40 dwellings per hectare can
be compared with others that show the sorts of densities that have been achieved. It is interesting
that so-called ‘garden city’ densities, as preached by Ebenezer Howard some 100 years ago, were
far higher than we tend to think, at 45 dwellings per hectare. The garden cities and suburbs that we
built had densities of 30 per hectare. Equally importantly, the minimum density for a bus service is
estimated at 25, and that for a tram service is 60, which provides us with important planning
parameters.
d.
Densities to support public transport systems
The conclusion that we draw from this evidence is that we need to achieve these kinds of densities
to support a public transport system, and that much of what we did in the 1990s was built in such a
way that it could not be effectively serviced by public transport. If we reach 30 or 35 dwellings per
hectare, built in the right way, around public transport, rising to even 60 per hectare, with a much
higher proportion of apartments around rail or light rail stations, some quite good results can be
achieved. The urban task force report is an illustration of how this can be done, with an example
being, as I said earlier, Stockholm’s 1952 General Plan, whereby new satellite towns, such as
23 February 2006
6
Responding to Barker Conference
Householder Media
Vällingby, were built to modestly high densities, with apartments located around shops and the
underground station.
e.
Traditional communities
If we insist on our ‘perverse’ enthusiasm for traditional kinds of housing, we can build
developments of detached houses close to public transport links and local amenities. This kind of
traditional housing is a sustainable as many of the alternatives, which involve a lot of high-rise
building.
IV.
Future Strategies
1.
Clusters of Development
Beyond the boundaries of London and other cities, however, we should be developing clusters of
development, particularly around train stations, or bus or light rail termini, which is what Colin
Ward and I proposed eight years in Sociable Cities for a fictional place called the City of Mercia.
We have something similar to the City of Mercia in the shape of the Milton Keynes and South
Midlands strategy, which clusters much of the development in reasonably big towns of 100,000 to
300,000 inhabitants, such as Milton Keynes, Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. I think that this
is a very reasonable way of developing: it allows for housing of reasonable densities and of the kind
that people like and are willing to buy, with a strong emphasis on good public transport, including
radial fast-rail links to London if required. If it is argued that this is unsustainable, since people are
encouraged to commute long distances, then the argument is that it may be simply a pipe dream to
believe that one can build self-contained new towns, and that one ought to be expanding towns such
as these, accepting that some people will commute, that most will live and work in the same place,
and that some commuters will eventually find local work.
2.
Reinforce the Polycentric Structure of South-East England
We ought, therefore, to be reinforcing the polycentric structure of south-east England, particularly
by encouraging orbital as well as rail links. Three years ago, the ODPM placed an emphasis on the
orbital link between Oxford and Cambridge, which is an example of how such an orbital system of
rail and express bus can be developed up to 50 miles away from London, without too much
expense. The south-east regional spatial strategy, which is about to go to public examination,
proposes exactly this kind of approach, but it is unclear as to whether the DfT are really interested
in it; in fact, they have declared themselves to be officially uninterested in it, which goes to
illustrates that the DfT are not ‘part of the plot’.
3.
Grow the South into the North
a.
Improve longer-distance connections
Another strategy, which may sound a little whimsical, may be to grow the south into the north, by
improving the longer-distance connections and, in particular, because we all know that we are
facing increasing congestion on the motorway network, by developing parallel, high-quality,
high-speed connections, such as the new Virgin Pendolino.
23 February 2006
7
Responding to Barker Conference
b.
Householder Media
‘Shrinkage’ of the country
We already find that the system of railways that we have connects most of our large provincial
cities to London in about two hours; in some cases, this will further improve. For example,
Manchester will be less than two hours from London by 2008, and Preston – over 200 miles from
London – will be two and a quarter hours away. These are quite sensational ‘shrinkages’ of the
country, and if we were to then build a truly high-speed, French-style line, as is now being
advocated by Greengauge, we could further shrink the distances between the south and the north,
encouraging more and more growth to locate farther and farther from London, along these lines.
V.
Infrastructure Gap
1.
PGS
a.
Tackling NIMBYism
However, there is an infrastructure gap. The Roger Tym report for the south-east and east of
England regional planning bodies shows the huge scale of this estimated gap in terms of all kinds of
physical and social infrastructure. There is a general feeling that this still exists and that we need to
find new ways of filling that gap. It remains unclear whether the PGS could solve the infrastructure
deficit, or whether there is some other way of doing it. Without that, the NIMBY factor will only
worsen. The Government has taken a rather bold step of shifting strategic planning from the
counties to the regional planning bodies, although they, themselves, have been exhibiting some
signs of NIMBYism in the last nine months. Although we would all support David Miliband’s
latest campaign to return power to the people in the localities, that can only the exacerbate the
problem because, in the south of England, the localities will often by highly anti-growth.
b.
Alternatives to the PGS
The final question I have is whether we are going to see a PGS, given the increasing opposition to
it, particularly by the development industry, and the threat of strike action until the Conservatives
win the next general election and do away with it, or whether we will see other mechanisms,
including adjustments to the existing section 106, as an alternative. English Partnerships has
scored some notable successes in places such as Milton Keynes and Bedford in achieving local
agreements, using existing powers.
c.
Allocation of proceeds
There is also, however, a question of how much of these proceeds – whether section 106, some kind
of tariff, or PGS – goes to the immediate localities, and how much should be taken to support
regional infrastructure, such as major new rail connections, connecting places anywhere up
120 miles from London with the capital.
VI.
Conclusion
There is a need for better integration between the ODPM and the DfT. So many particular schemes,
such as a south-east Orbirail, the Manchester Metrolink and other light rail schemes to revive
northern cities, are in abeyance, because they are not on the DfT’s programme. It appears that,
somehow, we have failed to bring together these two areas of bureaucracy, which until six years
ago, were part of the same Department, and there is a question of whether we need to reunite their
23 February 2006
8
Responding to Barker Conference
Householder Media
planning functions in order to create greater coherence around the provision of the necessary
infrastructure to support development.
Questions and Answers
Jane Gardner, Director, Smith Stuart Reynolds
The figures that you gave of various densities included not only dwellings, per persons per hectare.
Do you think that the time has come where we should be using bed spaces per hectare?
Prof Sir Peter Hall
I think that it would be helpful to use both, if it did not prove to be confusing. The problem is that
large Victorian or Edwardian houses, when they were built, contained six to eight people, on
average. Now, they may contain only two people, in some cases, once children have left home and
parents have decided to stay where they are. If the house is then divided, as many are, it may be
carved up into three or four very small apartments, each of which contains only one person, leaving
us with a total of, at best, three or four people in that unit. The relationship between housing and
people densities has, therefore, fundamentally altered, which presents a problem in having as many
people as possible living in cities, close to shops and schools, as there were 100 years ago.
John Stewart
You talked about the number of apartments being built in inner-city areas; do you think it is
possible to offer, in those same areas, the things in life that families seek, and which they now find
only by leaving those areas?
Prof Sir Peter Hall
I do not think that that is possible in exactly those areas, because these new apartments are,
generally, clustered quite tightly around the city centres. The paradox is that we have a bizarre
situation in many cities: one comes out of the train station and sees a lot of new construction, but if
one turns the corner, one walks into areas of wasteland within 10 minutes. The reassuring point is
that nearly every British city has a good inner or middle area: in Manchester, it is the southern area
that extends past the universities to Fallowfields and Didsbury; in Birmingham, it is Edgbaston; in
Newcastle, it is Jesmond; and, in Leeds, it is Headingley. In each case, a traditional Victorian
suburb survives and works well, so we already have a model for how to do it, which we would only
have to imitate. However, we would have to provide the social infrastructure to make it acceptable
to the people who have choice and who would, otherwise, simply move to the neighbouring shire
county.
This Full Transcript was produced by Ubiqus Reporting (+44 (0) 20 7269 0370)
23 February 2006
9