Accommodating London’s
Growth: The Compact City and
Beyond
Duncan Bowie
London/China seminar
20.4.16
Lord Meath’s Green Girdle (1901)
Raymond Unwin 1929 and
1933
Abercrombie County of
London Plan 1943
Abercrombie: Greater
London Plan: 1944
Abercrombie’s 1944 Greater London
Plan
 Assumed industrial dispersal, and little pop growth in
50 km city region
 Decentralise from congested inner to outer
 Adequate Open Space standards meant 600,000
overspill from London County Council area plus
400,000 more from outer London
 Avoid urban sprawl with strong Greenbelt, beyond
normal commuting range
 400,000 to 8 New Towns, 20-35 km from London
 600,000 to Expanded Towns 50-60km away
 No regional admin structure: LCC, shires and districts
but a strong role for government and New Towns
Commission
 Local interests made Expanded Towns initially
problematic
London Planning Advisory Committee
Strategic Framework 1994
2004 London Plan
Context: The Functional Urban
Region
Context: The 2003 Growth Areas
Context: Commuting
The compact city assumption
 Assumption since 2004 London Plan that
London can meet all its future needs within
existing London boundary
 London needs at least 62,000 more homes a
year over next 20 years; South East region
needs at least 40,000 homes a year
 For next 10 years, London capacity target of
42,000 per annum leaves a deficit of 20,000
homes a year relative to projected demand
 Compact City assumption no longer tenable
 Resistance to increased housing provision in
Greater South East – the metropolitan city
region
Population growth 2001-2011
Existing spatial polarisation of
tenure
Spatial distribution of
houseprices
Spatial distribution of house price
changes
Most new homes are being
provided in central London
Few new affordable homes in outer
London
Overcrowding growing in West and
Northeast London
Hollowing out of inner West London
The affordability crisis
 House prices now climbing again –
average London house-price is
£544,000 – above the January 2008
peak
 Household income of £146,000
needed to borrow £518,000 or with
Help to Buy 20% equity loan
£116,575 to borrow £408,000
Spatial Impact of policy changes
 Abandonment of growth areas with development
depending on local consent. Strong resistance to
new housing development in most suburban
boroughs and Home Counties. Neighbourhood
Planning generally not helping. Duty to Cooperate
between local authorities not working.
 No central government funding for social rented
housing so collapse of social rented housing
programme, especially in higher cost/value areas
 Planning policy changes make it very difficult for
boroughs to use planning gain agreements to fund
social rented homes – though some off site deals in
central London.
 Welfare benefit cuts forcing lower income
households out of higher value areas and increasing
spatial social polarisation – to be cut from £26,000
pa to £23,000 (and to £20,000 pa beyond London ?)
Housing benefit households moving
to Outer London (and beyond)
Most of London becoming
unaffordable for private tenants
The 2015 London Plan
 Estimate of housing requirements too low
 New capacity based target 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
 Densification of suburban town centres
could produce 7,000 more homes a year
 Home Counties districts resist pressure to
contribute to London supply deficit
 Higher density and potential for higher
rents/ higher values pushes up land value
and housing costs
London Plan Opportunity Areas
Impact of recent policy changes
 The Housing and Planning Bill:
 Starter Homes initiative – focus on
sites not currently allocated for
housing – ie employment sites;
Homes on market for under £450,000
considered affordable and not
requiring to contribute to
s106(planning obligations) or
Community infrastructure Levy
Housing Zones map
Development Constraint 1: The
Flood Plain
Development Constraint 2. Open
Space
Development Constraint 3:
Access to Public Transport
Development Constraint 4:
Existing Neighbourhood Character
Development Constraint 5:
Protecting employment sites
Development Constraint 6: The
Green Belt
Alternative development 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 expensive private
houses with no local jobs and poor public
transport : only suitable for well off
commuters
Preconditions for major new
settlements
 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 ?
Dispersal across the Greater
SouthEast
 Potential for medium densities, mix of built
forms, mix of tenures and mix of levels of
affordability
 Need to ensure access to jobs in London
(travel cost issues) and in Home Counties
centres
 Dilemma 1: land is cheap in areas which are
economically weak/ and or isolated, while more
expensive in economically strong centres
 Dilemma 2: within or beyond the Green Belt ?
The further away from London, the greater the
travel costs to central London.
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 ?
Potential outputs from
suburban intensification
 Infill development in larger gardens
in London could produce 423,0001,057,000 homes at densities of 3075 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 best option ?
 Urban extensions in the London fringe and
around Home Counties centres
 Use browner sites within green belt
 Considering all components of sustainability
 Land is relatively cheap making low density
family size affordable housing possible
 Possibility of houses as well as flats
 Access to jobs and social infrastructure is
critical – so link development to transport
corridors
London Infrastructure Plan: Current
development plans
London Infrastructure Plan: Focus
on areas with good public transport
London Infrastructure Plan:
Densification of town centres
NLP Option 1
NLP Option 2
Using radial transport links
(TfL)
Undeveloped sites near stations
From Green Girdle to Green Wedges
Orbital Rail and Crossrail
Connecting to rest of UK
A Proposed Regional Planning Framework (AECOM)
Impact of Governance Structures
 No national spatial plan
 Abolition of Regional Planning outside
London by Coalition Government
 Failure of 2011 Localism Act ‘Duty to
Cooperate’
 No consistent assessment of housing need
and development capacity across the
London metropolitan region
Outcomes
 Cross boundary policy conflicts:
housing; employment; retail
provision; parking’ waste
management
 No linkage between spatial planning
decisions and infrastructure
investment decisions at national or
metropolitan regional level
Conclusions
 Significant failure in metropolitan region
planning
 Need for agreement on spatial planning
across metropolitan city region including
criteria for selection of locations for major
new developments
 Need for new governance structures
 A new metropolitan region planning body is
essential
 Public sector needs to take leadership