avatar GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY Public Administration
  • Location: LONDON 
  • Founded:
  • Website:

Pages

  • Page 1

    London Plan Annual Monitoring Report London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 4 February 2008


  • Page 2


  • Page 3

    Contents Page Executive Summary 3 Scope and Purpose 3 Overview 5 Progress against the London Plan’s Six Objectives 8 Progress on the Sub Regional Implementation Frameworks 12 Progress on Supplementary Planning Guidance, Best Practice Guidance 13 and other Mayoral Strategies Progress on Major Development Locations 14 Summary of Mayoral Planning Activity 15 London Development Database 19 London Planning Awards 2007 20 Update on Inter Regional Issues 20 London Plan Alterations 20 Review of Mayoral Powers 21 Looking to the Future 21 Appendix 1 Key Performance Indicators 22 Appendix 2 Contextual Indicators 53 Appendix 3 London Planning Awards 55 Appendix 4 Progress on Opportunity Areas/ 56 Areas for Intensification Appendix 5 National Regional Planning Guidance Indicators 59 Appendix 6 Mayoral Activity on Development Plans 61 Appendix 7 Affordability thresholds for social/intermediate housing 64 Appendix 8 Housing Provision in London 2006/7 Annual monitor 66 Index of Data Tables Table 1 Summary of Progress on Key Performance Indicators 5 Table 2 List of London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance 13 Table 3 List of London Plan Best Practice Guidance 13 Table 4 List of Mayoral Strategies 14 Table 5 Planning Applications referred to the Mayor 16 Table 6 Progress with borough Core Strategy DPDs 19 Appendix 1 Table 7 Percentage of development on previously developed land within London 22 Table 8 Percentage of development on previously developed land within London 23 (by borough) Table 9 Density of residential development by borough 24 Table 10 Density of Development in relation to SRQ Matrix 25 Table 11 Changes in open space due to new development 26 Table 12 Borough Progress on Open Space Audits 27 London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 1


  • Page 4

    Table 13 Number of housing completions by borough 28 Table 14 Housing completion trends 29 Table 15 Residential Planning Approvals 29 Table 16 Affordable Housing Out Turn 31 Table 17 Affordable Housing Delivery 32 Table 18 Borough Affordable housing completions chart 33 Table 19 Affordable housing policy by borough 34 Table 20 Workers in London 2001 35 Table 21 London Out Commuting 1990-2001 35 Table 22 London Out Commuting 2001-2006 35 Table 23 Ratio of Office planning permissions to 3 year completions 37 Table 24 Age specific unemployment rates for White and BME groups 38 Table 25 Lone parents on Income Support as % of all lone parent families 39 Table 26 Public and private transport indexes 40 Table 27 Passengers on the River Thames 41 Table 28 Cargo trade on the River Thames 42 Table 29 Employment Floorspace by PTAL zone 43 Table 30 Changes in protected habitat due to new development 44 Table 31 London’s Household waste recycling rate 1996/97 – 2005/06 45 Table 32 London waste authority household recycling rates 46 Table 33 Regional Household recycling rates 47 Table 34 Total Municipal Waste in London 47 Table 35 Indicative land demand for waste management and recycling 48 Table 36 London CO2 Emissions 1990-2003 49 Table 37 Progress of Boroughs preparing Strategic Flood Risk Appraisals 50 Table 38 Proportion of Listed Buildings at risk in London 51 London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 2


  • Page 5

    Executive Summary 1. 2007 has been a landmark year for planning in London. Important steps have been made in implementing the policies of the London Plan and many of the plan’s Key Performance Indicators in Appendix 1 show positive trends. 2. The Further Alterations to the London Plan were subject to an Examination in Public and were published in February 2008 and known as the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004). 3. In terms of development, there has been continued investment in housing across the city since the last AMR was published. The original housing target has been exceeded by a substantial margin, with over 31,000 additional units delivered in 2006/7. This is particularly important as it demonstrated the deliverability of the new housing target of 30,500 units which applies from April 2007. 4. There has been progress on several major development schemes anticipated in the London Plan. Work has continued apace planning for the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics with the granting of outline planning permission and the subsequent pursuance of details. Outline planning permission was also granted for Kings Cross. 5. There has been progress on two major transport projects that underpin the London Plan. Crossrail and Thameslink both got the go ahead from Government in 2007. Other important schemes realised real progress too with the opening of the CTRL to St Pancras and construction work on the East London Line. Scope and Purpose 6. This is the fourth Annual Monitoring Report (AMR4). The AMR is the central component of the statutory monitoring process required to assess the effectiveness of the London Plan. It takes account of national monitoring indicators, as well as those set out in the plan and others which illuminate more specific challenges for London. 7. As with previous AMRs, AMR4 assesses the overall performance of the plan relative to key issues and trends reported during 2007. The figures in the Appendices generally relate to the period April 2006-March 2007, although in some cases it is only previous years’ data that are available. The report draws on many data sources, but of particular importance is the London Development Database. Where possible a time series of data is given to help show trends. The Appendices also note that there are some areas where proxy data have to be used, where data are not up to date or not available at all. 8. The experience gained in preparing the previous 3 AMRs has led to some changes in the Key Performance Indicators for the London Plan. These will not be reported on until AMR5 in February 2009 and have recently been published in the revised London Plan (Feb 2008). The notable changes are the alteration of the housing target to 30,500 dwellings per annum with effect from April 2007, the addition of 2 Indicators on Health, one on childcare and one on education and the tweaking of a number of sustainability related Indicators to reflect new environmental targets. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 3


  • Page 6

    9. The scope of the Annual Monitoring Report is outlined in chapter 6B of the London Plan. In line with this, it has been drafted to reflect the overall policy direction of the plan and does not attempt to measure and monitor each of its policies individually. The AMR will continue to be useful in keeping the London Plan under review and up to date. 10. This London Plan Annual Monitoring Report should not be confused with either the Mayor’s Annual Report or the State of the Environment Report. 11. The Mayor’s Annual Report is required by the GLA Act 1999. The sixth report was published in May 2007 covering the period 2006/07 and describes the Mayor and GLA’s objectives and targets, performance in the sixth year of operation, how well the Authority has engaged with Londoners in setting these objectives and how it will review and improve its operation to deliver best value to Londoners. The report is available on the website www.london.gov.uk 12. The State of the Environment Report is also required by the GLA Act 1999 and must be produced every 4 years. The first Report was published in May 2003 and is available on the website. In 2007 the second State of the Environment Report was published, it is available at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/soereport.jsp and reports progress on many aspects of London’s environment. The State of Environment Report is a valuable source of detailed environmental data covering 36 specific indicators. There is some limited overlap with some of the key performance indicators detailed in Appendix 1 of this report. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 4


  • Page 7

    Overview 13. A simplified assessment of the plan’s performance against its 25 Key Performance Indicators (KPI) is given in Table 1 below. A fuller description of the indicators is given in Appendix 1. Table 1 Summary Progress against Key Performance Indicators KPI Progress Comment 1 Increasing the proportion of development Ahead of target and an increased on last taking place on previously developed land. A minimum five per cent improvement over each five-year period. + year. 2 Increasing the density of residential Ahead of target and an increased on last development. Over 95 per cent of development to comply with the housing density location and SRQ matrix + year 3 Protection of open space. A gain of 5ha of open space through No net loss of open space designated for protection in UDPs due to new development. = developments in protected areas but a lack of information on unprotected sites 4 An increased supply of new homes. At least Another increase in completions to 137% 23 000 units per year. + of target. 5 An increased supply of affordable homes. Up 20% on last year to completion of 9200 Completion of 50 per cent of new homes as affordable homes each year 2004–2016. = units, which is below the 50% target but takes into account other policy objectives. 6 Net increase in the proportion of London Only reliably reported through the census. residents working in London = 7 Ensure that there is sufficient development Current ratio is 4.8 x completion rate, capacity in the office market + although notable that this is almost half of last year’s rate. 8 Direction of economic and population growth Significant progress in some Opportunity to follow the indicative sub-regional allocations and fulfill the priority to east London + Areas over the past year. 9 Age specific unemployment rates for BME Improvement in absolute terms but gap is groups to be no higher than for the white population by 2016, 50 per cent reduction of the difference by 2011 - widening. Target unlikely to be met as it represents broad social aim 10 Percentage of lone parents dependant on Improvement in absolute terms but gap is income support to be no higher than the UK average by 2016, 50 per cent reduction of the difference by 2011. - widening. Target unlikely to be met as it represents broad social aim 11 Improvements in performance against all Generally positive trends with around 75% agreed floor targets. + of targets representing improvements 12 Use of public transport per head grows Target being comfortably achieved as faster than use of the private car per head + public transport use has grown and private transport use has reduced 13 From 2001-2011, 15 per cent reduction in Overall decline of 5% use of private traffic in the congestion charging zone, zero traffic growth in inner London, and traffic + vehicles since 2001. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 5


  • Page 8

    growth in outer London reduced to no more than 5 per cent. 14 A five per cent increase in passengers and Passenger services are significantly up freight transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2001-2011 = while freight cargo is down but showing signs of increasing again. 15 50 per cent increase in public transport On target with existing and planned capacity between 2001 – 2021, with interim increases to reflect Table 6A.2. + investment in public transport. 16 Regular assessment of the adequacy of Being done progressively as major transport capacity to support development in opportunity and intensification areas. + development sites progress. 17 Increase in the number of jobs located in Generally positive trend although analysed areas with high PTAL values + using surrogate data. 18 No net loss of designated Sites of Slight losses in designated sites Importance for Nature Conservation over the plan period. - 19 Increase in household waste recycled or 2005 targets still be missed by 13 composted At least 25 per cent by 2005. At least 30 per cent by 2010. - boroughs. At least 33 per cent by 2015 20 Achievement of quantified requirement for Achievement of facilities yet to be fully waste treatment facilities = tested. 21 75% (16 million tonnes) of London’s waste Dependent on KPI 20. treated or disposed of within London by 2010 = 22 Reduce emissions to 23 per cent below 9% reduction by 2003 gives a reasonably 1990 levels by 2016. = optimistic chance of meeting 23% target by 2016 23 Production of 945GWh of energy from Lack of reliable data making assessment renewable sources by 2010 including at least six large wind turbines = difficult. 24 No net loss of functional flood plain. No known development on floodplain + although data is not supported by robust evidence 25 Reduction in the proportion of buildings at Steady if slight improvements on 2004 risk as a percentage of the total number of listed buildings in London. + levels. Figures were re-calculated this year by English Heritage. + Indicator showing positive trend - Indicator showing negative trend = Indicator showing neutral trend (may be lacking data) London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 6


  • Page 9

    14. The London Plan was first published in February 2004. It has been re-published on 19th February 2008 with consolidated alterations since 2004. Its policies are becoming better understood by all stakeholders and are increasingly reflected in the quality, nature and scale of new development across London. However, there is still some way to go before the strategic direction of development in London is in proper ‘general conformity’ with the plan’s policies. For example, changes to the planning system introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 were intended to ensure that the old Unitary Development Plans (some of which have been in place for more than 10 years) would be re-written within 3 years. However, many boroughs have encountered delays in producing their Development Plan Documents and this is slowing down the translation of strategic policy into local policy documents. 15. Nevertheless the tables contained within Appendix 1 of this report demonstrate that many of the key monitoring targets for the London Plan are being met. In particular the delivery of new housing has continued to be significantly above historic pre-London Plan levels at over 31 000 units in 2006/7. This is particularly significant as it demonstrates the ability to achieve the target of 30,500 which the amended London Plan sets and which will be monitored against from April 2007 and will be reported in AMR5. 16. The London Plan also has a vital role in co-ordinating and securing the necessary infrastructure to support London’s growth. This infrastructure covers transport, utilities, education, health and social facilities. The Mayor has sought to engage with the providers of these facilities to ensure that their plans complement the statutory, over-arching framework provided by the London Plan. While there is still work to be done in this area, especially in terms of social infrastructure, there is an increasing level of integration between strategic planning and infrastructure delivery. These issues will be explored further in a series of Sub regional Implementation Frameworks to be published during 2008/9. 17. Outline planning permission has been granted for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012. Whilst this leaves a large amount of detailed planning work to be resolved over the next year, it marks a major stage in the progress toward hosting the events. Up to date progress can be checked on the Olympic Delivery Authority website http://www.london2012.com/index.php and the London Development Agency Website http://www.lda.gov.uk/server/show/nav.00100h003 18. 2007 has seen major progress in keeping the London Plan up to date. The Further Alterations to the London Plan were subject to an Examination in Public during June and July 2007. The EIP Panel report was been received and the amended London Plan, which also includes the Early Alterations was published in February 2008. A new web based version of the Plan’s policies is also available http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan . The Mayor intends to keep the London Plan under review and has indicated his willingness to carry out further alterations when necessary. 19. There has been major progress on some of the key transport projects which underpin London’s sustainable growth. The Government has confirmed the go ahead for two major rail projects within London, Crossrail and Thameslink. The construction of the East London Line upgrade and extension is progressing toward the opening of the first phase in 2010. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 7


  • Page 10

    20. In terms of housing provision, the new target of 30,500 has applied since April 2007. AMR 5 will report on progress against that target. The 2006-7 monitoring figure of 31,432 dwellings represents a major advance in housing delivery and a level of delivery which will need to be maintained over future years in order to continue to meet London Plan targets. Private sector house prices have continued to grow above the general rate of inflation over the year although there have been variations and some slight decreases in prices reported in certain markets. Further integration of housing and planning activity will be supported by the Mayor’s new housing powers and his new Housing Strategy. Progress against the London Plan’s Six Objectives Objective 1 To accommodate London’s growth within its boundaries without encroaching on open spaces. 21. The London Plan is clear that development should make the most efficient use of land, be focused on already used land and should not encroach upon parks, Green Belt, designated open spaces and other environmental assets such as rivers and canals. 22. The London Development Database figures indicate that of the housing development permitted in 2006/7, the vast majority, 98% of all units, were permitted on previously developed land. This year’s AMR also contains reliable figures on completions, this shows 97% being delivered on previously developed land. These figures put London far ahead of all other UK regions and well above the national 60% target (see Tables 7 & 8 in Appendix 1 for more detailed breakdown). 23. Densities for planning permissions across London have increased again in 2006/7 to 137 units/hectare. For the first time this year there is also a reliable figure for completions. This shows a slight, but expected lag behind permissions with a figure of 127 dwellings/hectare. The trend here is steadily upward, although a small number of boroughs with already low densities have recorded a reduction. Objective 2 To make London a better city for people to live in. 24. The provision of an adequate supply of new homes, particularly affordable homes, is a central plank of the London Plan. The Housing Capacity Study 2004 was a key input to the Early Alterations of the London Plan and provided an authoritative basis for increasing the annual target from 23,000 to 30,500 from April 2007. Performance against this higher target will be reported from AMR5 in February 2008. It is recognised that this target is a challenging one but 2006/7 delivery of 31,432 homes demonstrates that it is achievable. There continues to be a generous pipeline of planning approvals to support further growth, with over 59,000 more units granted permission in 2006/7. 25. This monitoring is suggesting that the London Plan policy is working in increasing housing provision. It will need to remain the focus of attention in order to continue this level of provision and continue to meet the 30,500 target. It is notable that any significant slow down in the housing market is likely to have the effect of increasing the number of vacant properties, thereby reducing the available homes. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 8


  • Page 11

    26. Of the 28,737 new homes constructed 9,209 units were affordable. This is an increase of 20% compared to the previous year and represents 34% of new build. The effective operation of planning policy, together with the public subsidy available through the Housing Corporation has maintained this level of affordable housing provision. London Plan policies are progressing delivery in the right direction but a continued focus on affordable housing is required to move closer to the Mayor’s target of 50% of overall provision. The updating of the affordability thresholds for social and intermediate housing is given in Appendix 7. 27. In 2007 the Government formally passed responsibility to the Mayor for drawing up a statutory housing strategy for London and setting the broad direction of public housing investment across the city. The Mayor's Draft Housing Strategy, http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/housing/strategy/index.jsp published for initial consultation in September 2007, includes a Strategic Housing Investment Plan which will deliver 50,000 affordable homes over the 2008-11 spending period and align the funding priorities of major public sector investors in London. The Mayor will also chair the London board of the new Homes and Communities Agency, ensuring a stronger and more coherent approach to supporting new housing and renewal in London. Appendix 8 of this year’s AMR contains the Housing Provision in London Annual Monitor, which was previously published as a separate document Objective 3 To make London a more prosperous city. 28. London’s economy has continued its’ recent strong growth and grew at an annualised rate of 4.6 per cent in Q3 2007 (Experian Business Strategies). This was faster than the growth rate of the UK economy as a whole at 3.2 per cent (Experian Business Strategies). Particularly strong growth was seen in the financial and business services sectors. However, the credit crunch and recent financial market uncertainty will slow this strong growth rate down. 2008 is expected to see slower growth than 2007, with the downside risks associated with a possible recession in the US. Objective 4 To promote social inclusion and tackle deprivation and Discrimination 29. An important aspect of the London Plan is its broad focus on issues wider than land use. The Key Performance Indicators under this objective aim to ensure that the gap between disadvantaged groups and the rest of London is narrowed. This is a challenging aim but one that is essential to ensure a sustainable future for a diverse city. The positive news is that the indicators such as the proportion of single parents on income support and unemployment rates amongst BME communities are coming down. The disappointing news is that these rates are also coming down in the baseline communities, rest of GB and white population respectively, therefore the gap, ie the inequality is continuing or even widening. 30. It is encouraging that the “floor targets” measured by government for the most deprived boroughs show improvement in many areas. It is notable that the levels of employment have not gone up in several boroughs and whilst there is a limit to the direct influence that the London Plan can have on this, the Mayor is seeking further powers in relation to the Learning and Skills Councils within London. 31. During 2007 the Mayor published Planning for Equality and Diversity in London Supplementary Planning Guidance http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/spg-planning-for-diversity.jsp, Health Issues in Planning Best Practice Guidance http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/bpg- health.jsp and Wheelchair Accessible Housing BPG http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/bpg- wheelchair-acc-housing.jsp London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 9


  • Page 12

    32. The establishment of a Children and Young People’s Unit at the GLA has provided a strategic resource to identify the needs of children and young people within London. The Mayor has included affordable childcare as one of his priorities for S106 agreements. Objective 5 To improve London’s accessibility. 33. 2007 has been a year of major progress toward implementing many of the large scale public transport projects that the Mayor advocates, these are briefly set out below. There has also been a continued trend of increased use of public transport both in absolute terms and in relation to use of the private car. In particular there has been a continued fall in the number of vehicles on the London’s roads. Since 2001 there has been a drop of 5% in private vehicle use against a 15% increase in public transport across London. There has been steady progress on the major transport projects in London as set out below. 34. Crossrail – The Bill has entered the House of Lords committee stage and is on course for Royal Assent in summer 2008. A major step forward occurred in October 2007 when the Prime Minister announced that the funding package had been agreed. Construction work is expected to begin in 2010 and be completed in 2017. 35. East London Line – Construction work has continued on the first phase between Dalston Junction and, via a short connection at New Cross Gate, Crystal Palace and West Croydon. This work is still on target for completion in June 2010 with the further extension of services to Highbury and Islington to be commenced in February 2011. Phase two will extend the line west to Clapham Junction via a new spur from Surrey Quays to Queens Road Peckham. The line will form part of the London Overground network. 36. DLR and extensions – 2007 has seen considerable progress on DLR upgrades with the opening of a new station at Langdon Park and the completion of tunneling work for the Woolwich Arsenal extension, this is expected to open in February 2009. The extension of the DLR to Stratford International station is on course for completion in mid 2010 and the preferred route for the Dagenham Dock extension has been finalized. 37. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link project opened on time in November 2007. The renovation and extension of St Pancras station has been very well received and all Eurostar International services now use this station. The domestic services using the route to access North Kent are expected to commence in 2009. Services are planned to be altered during the Olympic and Paralympic Games to provide extra capacity to Stratford, this will be known as the Javelin service. 38. Thameslink– Funding for the Thameslink project was announced in summer 2007 and construction work has begun on stations outside London. The major construction works at Blackfriars, Farrringdon and Borough Viaduct will begin in January 2009 and the major re- modelling of the tracks to the east of London Bridge will commence in late 2012. The scheme is expected to be complete by 2015 but in the interim will offer major capacity increases prior to the 2012 Olympics. 39. Thames Gateway Bridge – In July 2007 the Government announced that it wishes to hear more evidence of the implications of the scheme and will re-open the Public Inquiry. A date for the reopening of the public inquiry has not yet been set, but TfL estimates this will be in Spring 2009. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 10


  • Page 13

    40. Tram and light transit schemes –The East London Transit project between Ilford and Dagenham via Barking town centre is due to open in Autumn 2009. The Greenwich Waterfront Transit scheme is proposed to be operational from Autumn 2011, this will run between North Greenwich and Abbey Wood, via Woolwich and Thamesmead. The two services will form the Thames Gateway Transit as they would be linked by the proposed Thames Gateway Bridge. In November 2007 £100 million was allocated from the Community Infrastructure Fund to invest in 13 local transport schemes. Given the positive decision on Crossrail and the benefits that it brings for public transport in west London, a decision on the West London Tram is being put on hold. TfL and the local boroughs will work together to address the problem of improving public transport on the Uxbridge Road, via an effective bus-based solution rather than a tram. TfL have completed consultation on the Cross River Tram. Objective 6 To make London a more attractive, well-designed and green city 41. The London Plan contains policies to ensure that London’s development is sustainable. This is of fundamental importance to achieving the Mayor’s Vision. It includes promoting excellence in urban design, protection of biodiversity and open spaces, improving air quality, minimising noise and other pollution, promoting sustainable waste handling and minimising the use of resources. The Further Alterations to the London Plan, published in February 2008, have reinforced many of these policy areas and set a clear agenda both for reducing CO2 emissions and for addressing the inevitable climate change impacts that London will face. 42. The Mayor together with Richard Rogers, his Chief Advisor on Architecture and Urbanism, launched the 100 public spaces programme in July 2002. These will be delivered through a programme of partnership projects over the coming years. 5 projects have now been completed, and a further 40 announced. All 100 projects will be announced by 2012. Details of the Mayor’s 100 Public Spaces Programme are available at: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/auu/publications.jsp#100ps 43. The Government announced the go ahead for the Thames Tideway Sewer project in March 2007. This £2bn project will be delivered in two phases. A planning application for the first phase is expected in Spring 2008 and completion of the final project is programmed for 2020. 44. The Low Emission Zone was introduced in February 2008. It covers virtually all of London and affects commercial vehicles. Further details can be found at www.tfl.gov.uk/lezlondon 45. The Mayor is also preparing a Climate Change Adaptation Strategy which will be a first for a world city . It sets out to address the inevitable impacts that Climate Change will have on London and policies and actions to ensure that London can continue to successfully function. It will be published for public consultation in the summer of 2008. 46. The Mayor is working to improve opportunities to enjoy contact with nature in the Areas of Deficiency in access to nature. Habitat enhancement work is progressing on 16 sites spread across London; when these projects are completed the Areas of Deficiency in access to nature will be reduced by 5 sq km and some 200 000 Londoners will have improved access to nature. Some of the projects, such as two river restoration projects, are long-term in nature. When they reach fruition the Areas of Deficiency will be decreased still further. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 11


  • Page 14

    Progress on the Sub Regional Implementation Frameworks (SRIF) 47. The Examination in Public Panel Report endorsed the Mayor’s proposal to alter sub regional implementation of the London Plan. Therefore the Mayor and GLA family are now working to the new sub regional boundaries as set out below. 48. A key element of this work is to develop a SRIF for each of the 5 sub regions. The SRIFs will be more implementation focused than their predecessor Sub Regional Development Frameworks and will contain tables of actions aimed at assisting in the delivery of London Plan targets. SRIFs will also replace the LDA’s Sub Regional Economic Development Frameworks. Timetable for SRIF production Informal discussions/data gathering January – June 2008 Draft SRIF for consultation July – Sept 2008 Final SRIF documents on website Early 2009 Regular updates On going – on line Figure 1 New London sub- regions London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 12


  • Page 15

    Progress on Supplementary Planning Guidance, Best Practice Guidance and other Mayoral Strategies. 49. Following the publication of the London Plan, the Mayor has been producing a series of Supplementary Planning Guidance (Table 2) and Best Practice Guidance (Table 3) notes to inform implementation of strategic policy. The Mayor has also produced a number of other Strategies which cover important themes for London’s future, see Table 4 below. With the publication of the consolidated London Plan in February 2008, it can be expected that more of the other Mayoral Strategies will be reviewed to take account of relevant spatial changes.. 50. Though slower than originally anticipated, progress through 2007-8 has been good with 5 SPGs and 3 BPGs being published in their final form. An updated position is given below. In addition TfL are due to publish a Technical note on Travel Plans and Design For London will publish Urban Design Principles and Public Realm Strategy Table 2 List of London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance Title Consultation Final Document draft Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment July 03 April 04 Housing Provision (inc Affordable Housing) Dec 04 Nov 05 Sustainable Design and Construction March 05 May 06 Land for Transport Functions May 06 March 07 View Management Framework April 05 July 07 Planning for Equality and Diversity in London Dec 06 Oct 07 East London Green Grid Framework Nov 06, Aug 07 Feb 08 Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Oct 06 March 08 Informal Recreation Industrial Capacity (second draft) Oct 07 2008 Renewable Energy Summer 08 2008/9 Town Centres, Retail and Leisure Summer 08 2008/9 Note specific months indicate definite publication dates, generic dates indicate anticipated publication dates. Table 3 List of London Plan Best Practice Guidance Best Practice Guidance Consultation Final Title draft Document Guide to preparing Open Space Strategies June 03 March 04 Safeguarded Wharves on the River Thames Jan 05 Implementation Report Development Plan Policies for biodiversity Oct 04 Nov 05 Tomorrow’s Suburbs Feb 05 June 06 Control of dust & emission from construction and Nov 06 demolition Managing the night time economy June 06 March 07 Health issues in Planning June 06 June 07 Wheelchair Accessible Housing Sept 07 Improving Access to Nature Implementation Report Mar 07 Feb 08 Regional Sports Facilities 2008 2008/9 Note specific months indicate definite publication dates, generic dates indicate anticipated publication dates. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 13


  • Page 16

    Table 4 List of Mayoral Strategies Mayoral Strategies Final Title Document Rough Sleepers – From Street to Stability March 01 Transport – Mayor’s Transport Strategy July 01 Economic – Success Through Diversity July 01 1st Review - Sustaining Success Jan 05 Domestic Violence – 1 in 4 Nov 01 2nd London Domestic Violence Strategy Nov 05 Alcohol/Drugs – Alcohol and Drugs in London Jan 02 Biodiversity – Connecting with London’s Nature July 02 Air Quality – Cleaning London’s Air Sept 02 Municipal Waste – Rethinking Rubbish in London Aug 03 Review of Municipal Waste Strategy – (draft) Summer 08 Childcare – Towards Affordable Good Quality Childcare For All Nov 03 Children and Young People – Making London Better for all Children Jan 04 and Young People Spatial Development – The London Plan Feb 04 Revised London Plan Feb 08 Energy – Green Light to Clean Power Feb 04 Ambient Noise – Sounder City March 04 Culture – London Cultural Capital April 04 Food Strategy Healthy and Sustainable Food for London May 06 London Tourism Vision May 06 Older People’s Strategy - Valuing Older People Sept 06 Annual Report & Action Plan Sept 07 Business Waste Management Strategy (draft) Feb 08 Climate Change Adaptation Strategy 2008 Water Strategy (draft) 2008 Regular updates can be viewed on www.london.gov.uk Progress on Major Developments 51. Appendix 4 contains a summary of progress on implementing development for each of the Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification identified in the London Plan, as amended in February 2008. In many cases development has progressed, with existing planning permissions being implemented. In many cases existing masterplans or frameworks are being re-visited in light of the London Plan policies and sites are being examined to determine if they can be used more effectively. In a minority of cases, area development frameworks are yet to begin in earnest. 52. During 2007 there has been a great deal of planning work to deliver the Olympic and Paralympic Games, see the Olympic Delivery Authority for more details: http://www.london2012.com/en/. Planning permission was granted in August 2007 for three planning applications covering: • Site Preparation • Olympic Facilities and their Legacy transformation • Olympic Village (part) and Legacy residential use of Clays Lane Estate Since then work has continued on more detailed design and the discharging of numerous conditions. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 14


  • Page 17

    53. Outline Planning permission has been granted for development on the railway lands north of Kings Cross station. This will see the development of a large area that has been in limbo for some 40 years and will end a cycle of decline and blight that has affected a wider area. The Kings Cross Masterplan won the Mayor’s Planning Award for 2007. Planning permission is also being sought for the redevelopment of Brent Cross-Cricklewood in an imaginative scheme that would transform this out of centre shopping mall into a London Plan compliant town centre. This scheme won the London Planning Awards Best Conceptual Project category in 2007. 54. Growth Area Funding (GAF) has been announced for the 5 London boroughs (Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Redbridge, Waltham Forest) within the London Stansted Cambridge Peterborough growth corridor. Summary of Mayoral Planning Activity 55. Under the terms of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000, the Mayor must be consulted on “strategic“ planning applications (“Strategic” is defined in the Order). The Mayor can comment on the merits or otherwise of particular applications and has the power to direct a borough to refuse planning permission. The Mayor does not have the power to direct a borough to grant planning permission. The Mayor is consulted at the same time the application is submitted to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and will issue his initial views (Stage 1). If the LPA are minded to grant planning permission, it must give the Mayor 14 days to decide whether or not to direct refusal of that application; this is known as his final decision (Stage 2). 56. Table 5 below shows that the number of strategic planning referrals has increased significantly, by 30% during 2007. This increase to 341 applications is in contrast to a roughly consistent pattern over the past 4 years. In many cases several decisions may be made in relation to one particular site. The reasons for this include re-submission of a planning application, duplicate planning applications, applications covering more than one borough or applications that return to the Mayor for his final decision. 57. From April 2008 the Mayor will assume new planning powers. Theses will enable the Mayor to determine strategic planning applications as well as direct boroughs to refuse applications as is currently the case. The threshold limits for the scale of development constituting a referable planning application are also being altered. The new Mayoral powers are expected to add around 35 additional referable planning applications per year, on current trends. Further detail on the implementation of these powers will be given in AMR5 in February 2009. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 15


  • Page 18

    Table 5 Planning Applications Referred to the Mayor Borough 2000 - 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total 2003 City 43 14 15 16 20 108 Barking & Dagenham 28 5 3 4 11 51 Barnet 6 9 4 1 8 28 Bexley 11 3 7 6 8 35 Brent 23 5 3 3 3 37 Bromley 38 10 6 6 3 63 Camden 7 4 4 6 7 28 Croydon 32 8 9 6 13 68 Ealing 39 6 6 2 8 61 Enfield 14 12 6 3 4 39 Greenwich 29 10 13 12 28 92 Hackney 26 8 4 10 7 55 Hammersmith & Fulham 22 13 4 7 8 54 Haringey 3 4 6 3 4 20 Harrow 5 3 4 4 5 21 Havering 25 3 10 7 2 47 Hillingdon 46 13 13 12 15 99 Hounslow 20 8 7 7 7 49 Islington 5 11 5 5 13 39 Kensington & Chelsea 8 1 1 2 6 18 Kingston upon Thames 10 6 3 0 4 23 Lambeth 28 7 9 13 7 64 Lewisham 14 2 10 4 9 39 Merton 21 6 5 3 3 38 Newham 28 19 27 19 28 121 Redbridge 8 2 0 4 1 15 Richmond uponThames 15 4 5 3 4 31 Southwark 53 18 11 21 13 116 Sutton 7 2 2 3 7 21 Tower Hamlets 61 31 37 36 41 206 Waltham Forest 8 4 3 4 0 19 Wandsworth 19 6 9 14 11 59 Westminster 29 16 14 15 33 107 Totals 731 273 265 261 341 1871 Note: shading is only to ease reading across the table Source GLA PDU 64 Following Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 all local authorities are now required to produce a local development framework. The local development framework is a portfolio of local development documents, comprising development plan documents, which are subject to three stages of statutory consultation and an independent examination into the ‘soundness’ of the plan and supplementary planning documents, which are subject to one statutory round of consultation and no examination. 65 Every London borough produced an original local development scheme by April 2005, which set out the range of local development documents that would make up the boroughs Local London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 16


  • Page 19

    Development Framework and a timescale for producing these. Twenty six boroughs submitted revised local development schemes during 2007. Although it is not a statutory requirement for boroughs to consult the Mayor on draft revisions to the local development scheme most boroughs have done so, which is welcomed. Where necessary the Mayor has made comments to the Government Office for London. 66 All London borough local development documents are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan in accordance with Section 24(1)(b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Boroughs are required to consult the Mayor at each statutory stage in the process of preparation of development plan documents. They are also required to formally request the Mayor’s opinion on general conformity at the same time as the document is submitted to the Secretary of State for examination. 67 Boroughs are also required to consult the Mayor on supplementary planning documents to the extent that the council thinks he is affected by the document. The Mayor has indicated to boroughs the types of documents he wishes to be consulted on (affordable housing, transport, planning obligations, sustainable development, environmental protection and climate change, waste and planning briefs for sites which could result in referable applications). During 2007 the Mayor responded to 36 SPG consultations. 68 Appendix 6 summarizes all the development plan related consultations that the Mayor has responded to in 2007. 69 In order to achieve general conformity of UDPs and local development documents the Mayor has worked proactively with the boroughs, commenting on and holding meetings to discuss informal drafts of documents and meeting to discuss the Mayor’s response to consultation. 70 At the start of 2008 three boroughs (Lambeth, Southwark and Westminster) were still working towards adoption of a replacement UDP. The Mayor responded to two consultations on further modifications (one of which was a Modification proposed to address a Direction requested by the Mayor and issued by the Secretary of State and the other in response to objections made by the Mayor and Government Office). These UDPs have now been adopted. 71 Councils with UDPs adopted before September 2004 had to submit requests to the Secretary of State to extend the life of UDP policy, which otherwise would have automatically expired on the 27 September 2007. All twenty-one boroughs in this situation sought to save at least some of their policies. The Mayor was concerned that in some cases boroughs were seeking to save policies that were not in general conformity with the London Plan and therefore made representations to the Secretary of State (via the Government Office). In key areas such as affordable housing, density, safeguarding wharves, sustainable development, lifetime homes and wheelchair housing, tall buildings, waste, renewable energy, energy efficiency and parking standards, the Government Directed that policies should not be saved, in line with the Mayor’s representations, thus deleting out of date policies that were not in general conformity with the London Plan. 72 There are nine boroughs who have yet to reach issues and options stage for their Core Strategy. However, they are all boroughs with a recently adopted UDP and/or are producing other DPDs in advance of the Core Strategy. Two boroughs (Tower Hamlets and Islington) have been directed by the Secretary of State to withdraw their core strategies after Submission stage (at the boroughs request) and will therefore have to begin the process again. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 17


  • Page 20

    73 In 2007 the Mayor responded to nineteen issues and options documents (including eight core strategies) and nineteen preferred options consultations (including eight core strategies). GLA officers have also responded to informal drafts of documents in a number of instances. The Mayor gave an opinion of general conformity on thirteen DPDs from five boroughs, Havering, Redbridge, Islington, Hounslow and Brent. Of these, 3 DPDs were in general conformity, the others were not. He also made a number of other representations based on the other tests of soundness. 74 As a result of representations submitted by the Mayor and the Government Office for London to the Islington Core Strategy an exploratory meeting was held by the Inspector, prior to the commencement of the hearing sessions of the examination, to enable the Council to understand the risks of the document being found unsound. The Mayor concluded that the DPD was not in general conformity with the London Plan in respect of a number of matters including the need to include the London Plan housing target for the borough. GLA officers participated in the exploratory meeting, following which the Inspector concluded the issue of the housing numbers was a potential ‘show stopper’ and that the Council should seriously consider whether to continue and only if very convincing arguments based on existing evidence could be made. As a result of this Islington decided to ask the Secretary of State to direct the Council to withdraw the DPD, which has now been done. 75 Hearing sessions for examinations into Havering’s Core Strategy and Development Policies DPD and Site allocations DPD and Redbridge’s Core Strategy were held in July 2007. The GLA participated in all of these except that for Havering’s Site Allocations DPD. 76 The Inspector examining Havering’s Core Strategy and Development Policies DPD has published her interim report, which covers just the Core Strategy. In that she concludes that the core strategy is in general conformity with the London Plan except in respect of matters relating to the level of affordable housing and waste management/sites. The Inspector has made recommendations, including the inclusion of a 50% affordable housing target, which will bring the document into general conformity, which the Mayor supports. The final report, which will include her conclusions and recommendations relating to the development policies part of the DPD, is expected to be published in early 2008. 77 The Inspector for the Redbridge Core Strategy has concluded that the housing target must be changed to include a commitment to the London Plan housing requirement of 9050 units to 2017. As the Core Strategy can meet this target for the first 5 years, but not beyond there needs to be a commitment to review housing provision in 5 years and to meet any future London Plan requirement. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 18


  • Page 21

    Table 6 – Progress with Core Strategy Development Plan Documents Core Strategy Stage No. of Boroughs boroughs Core Strategy Issues and Options yet 9 Barnet 1, 2 to be published Bromley 1, 2 Croydon2 Greenwich2 Haringey2 Kingston upon Thames 1 Lambeth2 Southwark 1,2 Waltham Forest2 Have published Core Strategy Issues 10 Camden 2 and Options Bexley Ealing Enfield Hackney Harrow Hounslow1 Kensington & Chelsea Sutton Westminster2 Have published Core Strategy 9 Barking & Dagenham Preferred Options Corporation of London Hammersmith & Fulham Hillingdon Lewisham Merton Newham Richmond upon Thames Wandsworth Core Strategy Submitted to 5 Brent Secretary of State Havering Islington 3 Redbridge Tower Hamlets3 1 Are progressing other development plan documents in advance of the Core Strategy (which have reached at least Issues and Options stage). 2 Recently adopted UDP (in 2006/07) 3 Subsequently Withdrawn following a Direction from the Secretary of State Note: Most boroughs are progressing other DPDs at the same time as their Core Strategy London Development Database 58. The London Development Database is the key data source for monitoring planning permissions and completions in London. Data is entered by each of the 33 local planning authorities and the GLA provides a co-ordinating, consistency and quality management role. The database monitors each planning permission through to completion or expiry. Its strength lies in the ability to London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 19


  • Page 22

    manipulate data in order to produce various specific reports. The data can also be exported to GIS systems to give a further level of spatial analysis. 59. The Annual Monitoring Report will continue to focus on the key data sets that are needed to monitor the overall performance of the London Plan. In addition specific reports can be generated relating to particular projects, research or issues that arise. Boroughs are also able to adapt parts of the system for borough specific monitoring requirements as well as providing a consistent monitoring approach across all 33 London boroughs. This AMR has utilised more data on completions than previous years and this gives a useful comparison between planning permissions and completions. London Planning Awards 2007 60. The Mayor, London First and the Royal Town Planning Institute run the annual London Planning Awards scheme to showcase good planning practice in London. This is aimed at both the projects and the people behind the projects. 2007 was the fifth year that the Awards have been run and introduced two new categories; Excellence in Affordable Housing Delivery and Best New Public Space. The list of the winners is given in Appendix 3. Entry forms for the 2008 London Planning Awards will be available around June 2008 with a deadline for submissions of around the middle of August 2008. Update on inter regional issues. 61. The Advisory Forum on Regional Planning for London, the South East and the East of England (the Inter-Regional Forum) meets three times a year to consider significant cross regional issues. Nicky Gavron, London Assembly Member and Deputy Mayor, is Forum Chair on the Mayor's behalf through to the end of 2008. In 2007 the Forum considered the following topics: developing markets for recyclates, climate change, and demographic and economic projections. Work commissioned by the Forum on approaches to growth across the three regions is currently underway and will report in the Spring of 2008. 62. The London Plan underscores the importance of London’s links to other parts of the UK and particularly to the two adjoining regions of East of England and South East England. All three EiP Panel Reports have now called for a comprehensive review of regional planning across the three regions and in 2008 the Forum will be considering how to take this forward London Plan Alterations 63. The London Plan has been through two Alterations processes, known as the Early Alterations and the Further Alterations. Both were limited in the areas that they covered and both have been subject to Examination in Public. The London Plan has been reprinted in February 2008 consolidating the two sets of changes into one document together with the parts of the London Plan which have remained un-changed. http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan 64. The Mayor has made it clear that he intends to keep the London Plan up to date and is prepared to consider further round of alterations should the need arise. The AMRs are an important element in this process. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 20


  • Page 23

    Review of Mayoral Powers 65. The GLA Act 2007 was published in October 2007 and gives the Mayor additional powers, principally in relation to Planning, housing, health and climate change. With regard to planning, the key change is that the Mayor (from 6th April 2008) will have the power to take over the role of the planning authority for strategic planning applications, ie he can determine applications positively in addition to his current power of directing refusal. 66. The detailed working of the GLA Act will be resolved in the replacement of Circular 1/2000 and the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order, both of which were out for consultation by Government until February 2008 see link for details http://www.gos.gov.uk/gol/Planning/624901/?a=42496 Looking to the Future 67. London Plan continues to provide the clear, authoritative strategic policy directions necessary to coordinate the spatial development of London. It has been a major material consideration in many high profile planning decisions, as well as informing those on more local proposals, which cumulatively are of strategic importance. It is coordinating the new suite of borough Development Plan Documents to address strategic objectives as well as more local concerns. It also provides the framework for long term development and investment in London’s infrastructure. 68. The alterations to the London Plan that were published in February 2008 indicate the Mayor’s keen intent to keep the London Plan up to date. 2008 will be a year of significant change with the introduction of the new Mayoral powers and the implementation of the altered London Plan. 69. AMR 5 will report on the updated Key Performance Indicators that are being published in the London Plan 2008. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 21


  • Page 24

    Annual Monitoring Report Appendix 1 – Key Performance Indicators The London Plan set out 25 Key Performance Indicators. These are intended to enable monitoring of the overall thrust of the London Plan’s suite of policies rather than to identify the impact of single policies. The Key Performance Indicators are reported below under the most relevant of the London Plan’s six objectives. Objective 1 to accommodate London’s growth within its boundaries without encroaching on open spaces Key Performance Indicator 1 Increasing the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land. Target A minimum five per cent improvement over each five-year period. Table 7 Percentage of development on previously developed land within London Year % of development approved on % of development completed on previously previously developed land within developed land within London London By site area By no. of units By site area By no. of units 2000 89% ODPM 2001 90% ODPM 2002 90% ODPM 2003 94% ODPM 2004 96% LDD 2005 95.8% LDD 2006 96.6% LDD 98% 95.4% 96.9% Sources: ODPM - all completed development LDD - residential planning permissions granted during financial years Performance against this target is an improvement over last year. Table 8 below gives more detailed analysis and shows that 23 boroughs are achieving over 99% of planning approvals and 18 boroughs 100% of residential unit completions on previously developed land. Of the units completed on Greenfield sites, the majority came from a small number of larger exceptional schemes. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 22


  • Page 25

    Table 8 Percentage of development on previously developed land within London Borough ODPM figs % LDD figs % By site area By units 2001- 2004 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2006/7 approved completed City 100 100 100 100.0 100.0 Barking & Dagenham 80 52 86.2 99.4 47.6 Barnet 91 99.6 97.6 98.7 98.6 Bexley 82 79.9 91.8 100.0 90.7 Brent 84 91.2 91.0 95.7 98.2 Bromley 91 96.7 97.8 90.8 96.7 Camden 92 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 Croydon 98 98.2 100.0 99.9 100.0 Ealing 81 100 93.0 100.0 100.0 Enfield 89 100 99.7 96.4 100.0 Greenwich 92 99.4 95.2 100.0 100.0 Hackney 99 100 96.9 100.0 88.7 Ham & Fulham 99 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 Haringey 100 99.1 100.0 98.8 100.0 Harrow 83 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 Havering 94 95.1 98.3 99.9 97.3 Hillingdon 90 100 80.8 72.7 100.0 Hounslow 90 99.7 80.0 99.9 100.0 Islington 99 100 97.5 99.7 98.2 Kensington & Chelsea 96 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 Kingston u Thames 93 96.0 100.0 100.0 95.8 Lambeth 91 100 99.6 100.0 100.0 Lewisham 98 100 97.6 99.3 100.0 Merton 100 99.2 100.0 100.0 98.9 Newham 75 99.9 98.3 99.6 100.0 Redbridge 96 79.6 86.5 90.8 100.0 Richmond u Thames 97 80.9 95.7 100.0 95.0 Southwark 96 100 99.1 99.8 100.0 Sutton 98 99.8 99.2 92.5 94.6 Tower Hamlets 97 92.8 91.9 97.8 95.1 Waltham Forest 89 100 100.0 99.2 95.9 Wandsworth 100 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 City of Westminster 100 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 London 93 96.0 95.8 98.0 96.9 Sources: ODPM - annual average of all development on previously developed land LDD - residential planning permissions granted on previously developed land during financial years. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 23


  • Page 26

    Key Performance Indicator 2 Increasing the density of residential development Target Over 95 per cent of development to comply with the housing density location and SRQ matrix Table 9 Density of Residential development by borough Borough Average density planning units/hectare Average Average permissions Completions density density 1999- 2001- 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2006-7 2002 2004 City 245 960 586 363 498 338 Barking & Dag 43 70 82 123 203 110 Barnet 43 54 70 113 94 67 Bexley 30 32 75 55 95 47 Brent 47 71 107 163 200 103 Bromley 28 31 69 33 43 40 Camden 92 77 169 155 297 399 Croydon 41 47 85 82 114 81 Ealing 68 63 100 177 123 213 Enfield 41 48 85 86 51 78 Greenwich 43 48 120 102 161 143 Hackney 88 103 200 255 253 243 Ham & Fulham 68 71 175 196 166 125 Haringey 72 84 139 116 135 179 Harrow 30 53 93 73 113 78 Havering 39 46 73 95 59 63 Hillingdon 37 46 60 48 86 49 Hounslow 53 69 82 105 154 113 Islington 99 93 194 380 321 161 Ken & Chelsea 93 120 138 203 168 138 Kingston u Thames 39 54 88 98 45 85 Lambeth 82 102 152 183 201 146 Lewisham 55 81 127 168 149 118 Merton 51 65 100 111 78 104 Newham 64 97 173 261 275 170 Redbridge 30 60 129 135 150 126 Rich u Thames 48 58 99 93 81 73 Southwark 88 102 225 248 287 254 Sutton 43 49 83 60 65 78 Tower Hamlets 113 138 299 483 409 236 Waltham Forest 38 44 129 127 129 142 Wandsworth 65 93 128 138 183 135 Westminster 116 144 202 263 154 306 LONDON 59 64 125 131 137 127 Sources: cols 2-3 ODPM, cols 4-7 LDD London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 24


  • Page 27

    On a London wide basis densities are increasing and helping to contribute to a sustainable use of land. Bromley continues to grant planning permission at the lowest densities in London. Three boroughs, Enfield, Havering and Kingston have recorded a substantial drop in the density of permissions towards an unacceptably low level. It will be important in AMR5 to examine these boroughs to determine whether this is a one off drop or a worrying trend. In terms of the Key Performance Indicator 2 the London Plan is having the intended effect in encouraging more efficient use of land. Analysis of 2006/7 planning permissions show that 50% were within the relevant density ranges. However, for the larger developments (over 15 units) this drops and there is an increase in the proportion of developments that are above the range. This trend is to be expected given that this would exclude the smaller developments which achieve lower densities. Table 10 Density of developments in relation to SRQ range 2006/7 2006/7 Financial Year 2004/05 2005/06 over 15 units all units Within Range 31% 28% 39% 50% Above range 62% 65% 58% 32% Below Range 8% 7% 3% 18% Source: LDD Figures don’t total 100% due to rounding Key Performance Indicator 3 Protection of open space Target No net loss of open space designated for protection in UDPs due to new development. The figures shown in Table 11 below indicate that through planning permissions that affect protected open space, there has been a net gain of 5ha in 2006/7. Hillingdon and Bromley experienced the highest losses although these boroughs are amongst those where losses have a lower impact. It is important to note that there is no current method of consistently reporting on the un-protected areas of open space that are affected by development. Under PPS17 boroughs are required to audit and assess their open spaces. Table 12 below sets out Borough’s progress with their open space audits as at May 2007. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 25


  • Page 28

    Table 11 Changes in designated open space due to new development or change of use 2006/07 (hectares) Area of open Area of open Net change Borough space lost space gained Barking & Dagenham 0.346 0.000 -0.346 Barnet 1.071 0.258 -0.813 Bexley 0.000 0.000 0.000 Brent 0.560 0.000 -0.560 Bromley 34.129 28.710 -5.419 Camden 0.169 4.980 4.811 Corporation of London 0.000 0.087 0.087 Croydon 0.077 1.590 1.513 Ealing 0.251 0.023 -0.228 Enfield 0.399 0.000 -0.399 Greenwich 0.000 1.454 1.454 Hackney 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hammersmith & Fulham 0.081 1.002 0.921 Haringey 0.270 0.000 -0.270 Harrow 0.000 0.000 0.000 Havering 0.012 0.856 0.844 Hillingdon 17.603 12.918 -4.685 Hounslow 0.024 5.500 5.476 Islington 0.070 0.016 -0.054 Kensington & Chelsea 0.011 0.010 -0.001 Kingston upon Thames 0.317 0.000 -0.317 Lambeth 0.671 3.334 2.663 Lewisham 0.395 0.000 -0.395 Merton 0.000 0.000 0.000 Newham 0.716 0.000 -0.716 Redbridge 4.228 3.063 -1.165 Richmond upon Thames 0.000 0.000 0.000 Southwark 0.403 0.578 0.175 Sutton 1.266 0.506 -0.760 Tower Hamlets 0.371 0.104 -0.267 Waltham Forest 0.042 0.000 -0.042 Wandsworth 0.114 3.422 3.308 Westminster 0.000 0.000 0.000 63.596 68.411 4.815 Source: LDD – all planning relevant permissions * This column only records losses of designated open space. **It is not currently know how much of the additional open space is/will be designated as protected open space. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 26


  • Page 29

    Table 12 Borough Progress on Open Space Audits (as at May 2007) Progress No. Borough Date Completed an Open Space 13 Barking & Dagenham 2003 Strategy Brent 2004 Camden 2006 Croydon 2005 Ealing 2003 Haringey 2006 Lambeth 2004 Lewisham 2005 Merton 2005 Richmond u Thames 2004 Southwark 2006 Tower Hamlets 2006 Westminster 2006 Open Space Strategy 9 City under Preparation Hackney 2006 Harrow 2006 Havering 2005 Newham 2006 Redbridge Sutton 2006 Waltham Forest Wandsworth Other strategy in place 8 Barnet 2004 Bexley 1999 Bromley 1996 Enfield 2006 Greenwich 2005 Hillingdon 2002 Hounslow 2005 K&C 2006 No Open Space Strategy 3 H&F Islington Kingston Objective 2 to make London a better city for people to live in Key Performance Indicator 4 An increased supply of new homes Target Completion of at least 23,000 new homes a year between 2004–2016. With the publication of the Early Alterations to the London Plan in December 2006, this target increased to 30,500 new homes a year 2007-2016. The new target will apply for monitoring purposes on data from April 2007 onwards, which will be reported in AMR5 (Feb 2009). Performance below for 2006/7 is measured against the target of 2004 London Plan (23,000 homes a year) which applied during this period. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 27


  • Page 30

    Table 13 Number of housing completions by borough 2006/7 Target Vacancies (2004 Delivery Non self- returning London (% of Conventional contained to use TOTAL Plan) Target) Barnet 575 4 431 1,010 890 113% Camden 381 -172 32 241 850 28% Enfield 691 -2 7 696 660 105% Hackney 1,186 0 -18 1,168 720 162% Haringey 894 0 274 1,168 970 120% Islington 1,767 -99 193 1,861 900 207% Westminster 963 220 39 1,222 970 126% NORTH SUB-TOTAL 6,457 -49 958 7,366 5,960 124% Barking and Dagenham 530 51 451 1,032 510 202% City of London 29 14 1 44 110 40% Havering 791 0 -433 358 350 102% Newham 878 0 -31 847 890 95% Redbridge 1,017 -50 9 976 540 181% Tower Hamlets 2,370 -46 413 2,737 2,070 132% Waltham Forest 673 -69 -70 534 460 116% NORTH-EAST SUB-TOTAL 6,288 -100 340 6,528 4,930 132% Bexley 241 0 -494 -253 280 -90% Bromley 836 0 92 928 570 163% Greenwich 1,042 -18 176 1,200 800 150% Lewisham 358 0 788 1,146 870 132% Southwark 1,967 197 143 2,307 1,480 156% SOUTH-EAST SUB-TOTAL 4,444 179 705 5,328 4,000 133% Croydon 1,121 20 83 1,224 850 144% Kingston upon Thames 313 8 -83 238 340 70% Lambeth 1,120 -36 -509 575 1,450 40% Merton 426 0 550 976 430 227% Richmond upon Thames 221 -6 -61 154 270 57% Sutton 262 0 140 402 370 109% Wandsworth 1,282 0 -32 1,250 820 152% SOUTH-WEST SUB-TOTAL 4,745 -14 88 4,819 4,530 106% Brent 914 -10 152 1,056 680 155% Ealing 1,325 -76 626 1,875 650 288% Hammersmith and Fulham 623 11 -39 595 400 149% Harrow 706 10 79 795 330 241% Hillingdon 188 588 112 888 440 202% Hounslow 1,437 843 -250 2,030 470 432% Kensington and Chelsea 163 65 -76 152 540 28% WEST SUB-TOTAL 5,356 1,431 604 7,391 3,510 211% TOTAL 27,290 1,447 2,695 31,432 22,930 137% In 2006/7, 31,432 net additional homes were provided; 137% of the 23,000 original London Plan target which applied at the time. This also represents 104% of the London Plan target of 30,500 which London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 28


  • Page 31

    applies from April 2007. Though performance was exceeded in all sub-regions, it was best in West sub-regions at 212% of the original London Plan target. It is worth noting that the LDD counts units demolished as a negative upon completion of an individual planning consent, while the actual units built are counted each year during this period. Housing provision figures in Lewisham and Sutton for the single year 2006/7 incorporate a significant number of demolitions which occurred in previous years. These figures are therefore not representative of single year completions for 2006/7 in these boroughs (especially for affordable housing), More detail is contained in Appendix 8 (Housing Provision Monitor). Table 14 Housing Completion trends Year Total housing unit completions 2002 21,531 2003/4 24,608 2004/5 27,364 2005/6 28,309 2006/7 31,432 Sources: 2002 GLA Annual Housing Provision Monitor (calendar year), 2003-7 London Development Database (LDD) residential completions (financial years). Table 15 Residential planning approvals (no. of dwellings) 2000/1 2001/2 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 North 7,511 6,195 10,630 7,740 12,127 16,502 16,125 North East 6,269 5,589 10,162 8,717 15,434 14,445 8,504 South East 6,860 5,605 8,923 15,872 9,007 5,691 13,195 South West 6,556 7,301 7,926 7,608 9,018 9,191 12,599 West 6,446 6,154 7,450 5,017 14,616 9,443 8,943 TOTAL 33,642 30,844 45,091 44,954 60,202 55,272 59,366 Source: LDD - residential planning permissions. Differences with previously published data are due to continuous updating of LDD system. In 2006/7 a further 59,366 units were added to the pipeline of planning permissions to produce a cumulative pipeline of outstanding permissions for 140,400 dwellings. This positive contribution to housing supply includes a number of large schemes which will take a number of years to build out, but which will add significantly to housing provision in coming years. It should be noted, however, that some planning permissions are not built, or subsequent approvals are given, meaning that these levels of residential developments are not directly transferable into the number of dwellings that are completed. Key Performance Indicator 5 An increased supply of affordable homes Target Completion of 50 per cent of new homes as affordable homes each year 2004–2016. Delivery of the London Plan target is met by new affordable conventional completions. These increased by 20% between 2005/6 and 2006/7 to 9,209 homes or 34% of all conventional completions. Table 16 shows individual borough performance in delivery of affordable housing. However, as mentioned above, the single year data for some boroughs (Lewisham and Sutton in particular) is reduced by inclusion of demolitions relating to Estate Renewal schemes which have occurred across a number of years. The three year average affordable completions provide the most reliable indication of borough performance London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 29


  • Page 32

    in affordable housing delivery. In addition to affordable housing delivery through conventional completions an increased supply of affordable homes is being delivered by the activities of housing associations in purchase and rehabilitation of existing properties (totaling 210 additional affordable homes in 2006/7), Open Market Homebuy and temporary social housing (Table 17). While these are not counted towards the London Plan target they are important in delivering the Mayor’s Housing Strategy. While there are still a range of affordable housing target figures most boroughs now reflect the strategic 50% target for affordable housing provision. A number of boroughs use the London Plan policy, which forms part of the development plan, if their own UDP policies were not saved beyond September 2007. Barking and Dagenham, Lewisham, Bromley and Bexley have the lowest affordable housing targets. The Mayor continues to seek early review of targets through the LDF process of all boroughs not conforming with London Plan policy. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 30


  • Page 33

    Table 16 Affordable Housing Out-turn (three year totals) Total net affordable conventional Affordable as % of total net conventional completions completions (all tenures) 3-year 3-year 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 total 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 average North Barnet 172 308 45 525 18% 40% 8% 23% North Camden 193 178 204 575 34% 29% 54% 36% North Enfield 308 210 223 741 82% 22% 32% 36% North Hackney 269 185 493 947 33% 23% 42% 34% North Haringey 271 450 312 1033 32% 85% 35% 45% North Islington 172 491 534 1197 28% 67% 30% 38% North Westminster 187 365 118 670 35% 29% 12% 24% North Total 1572 2187 1929 5688 33% 38% 30% 34% North East Barking and Dagenham 217 247 167 631 47% 50% 32% 42% North East City of London 83 0 0 83 52% 0% 0% 35% North East Havering 123 85 178 386 27% 27% 23% 25% North East Newham 347 388 420 1155 59% 42% 48% 48% North East Redbridge 230 175 310 715 33% 28% 30% 30% North East Tower Hamlets 314 1126 833 2273 13% 44% 35% 31% North East Waltham Forest 115 206 228 549 29% 42% 34% 35% North East Total 1429 2227 2136 5792 27% 41% 34% 34% South East Bexley 72 58 115 245 36% 60% 48% 46% South East Bromley 107 254 150 511 14% 41% 18% 23% South East Greenwich 354 200 398 952 17% 11% 38% 19% See South East Lewisham* 388 92 -81* 399 77% 10% Note* 22% South East Southwark 527 369 739 1635 33% 32% 38% 35% South East Total 1448 973 1321 3742 28% 21% 30% 26% South West Croydon 551 248 558 1357 83% 37% 50% 55% South West Kingston upon Thames 165 18 66 249 31% 5% 21% 21% South West Lambeth 208 438 220 866 26% 41% 20% 29% South West Merton 100 134 152 386 29% 19% 36% 26% South West Richmond upon Thames 216 91 32 339 37% 10% 14% 20% South West Sutton* 265 58 -123* 200 61% 12% See Note* 17% South West Wandsworth 341 151 240 732 23% 11% 19% 18% South West Total 1846 1138 1145 4129 38% 21% 24% 27% West Brent 266 216 642 1124 73% 21% 70% 49% West Ealing 363 237 622 1222 79% 39% 47% 51% Hammersmith and West Fulham 248 101 458 807 57% 32% 74% 59% West Harrow 89 131 211 431 16% 29% 30% 25% West Hillingdon 126 118 46 290 52% 24% 24% 31% West Hounslow 120 303 635 1058 21% 63% 44% 43% West Kensington and Chelsea 8 65 64 137 3% 31% 39% 21% West Total 1220 1171 2678 5069 42% 33% 50% 43% London 7515 7696 9209 24420 33% 31% 34% 33% Source: LDD (total net conventional completions and affordable completions 2006/7 only) and Housing Corporation (affordable completions 2004-6). * = Note: Single year data for Lewisham and Sutton (2006/7) is affected by LDD counting of demolitions in a single year and completions across multiple years. See Housing Provision Monitor at Appendix 8. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 31


  • Page 34

    Table 17 2006/7 Affordable Housing Delivery New Affordable Housing Stock Net New-Build (Conventional Existing Properties Other Affordable Supply) (purchase/rehab) Housing Open Temporar Market y Social Intermed Intermed Homebu Housing Social iate TOTAL Social iate TOTAL y (rehab) Barnet 8 37 45 0 0 0 10 0 Camden 31 173 204 101 3 104 37 0 Enfield 59 164 223 75 0 75 32 33 North Hackney 370 123 493 27 13 40 32 11 Haringey 79 233 312 5 0 5 24 5 Islington 244 290 534 37 8 45 35 14 Westminster 16 102 118 16 22 38 41 0 North Total 807 1,122 1,929 261 46 307 211 63 Barking and Dagenham 142 25 167 6 0 6 9 0 City of London 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 North East Havering 55 123 178 13 0 13 25 0 Newham 271 149 420 464 3 467 39 0 Redbridge 245 65 310 119 0 119 20 14 Tower Hamlets 394 439 833 3 0 3 34 3 Waltham Forest 89 139 228 39 0 39 21 32 North East 1,196 940 2,136 638 3 641 156 49 Bexley 71 44 115 11 0 11 26 0 South East Bromley 48 102 150 11 1 12 33 0 Greenwich 185 213 398 91 44 135 61 67 Lewisham* 21 -102 -81* 55 5 60 48 53 Southwark 359 380 739 34 0 34 88 34 South East Total 684 637 1,321 202 50 252 256 154 Croydon 132 426 558 27 0 27 49 27 Kingston upon Thames 17 49 66 1 0 1 20 1 South West Lambeth 74 146 220 26 0 26 57 0 Merton 44 108 152 17 0 17 14 4 Richmond upon Thames 19 13 32 0 0 0 6 0 Sutton* 137 -260 -123* 0 0 0 21 0 Wandsworth 206 34 240 4 0 4 49 4 South West Total 629 516 1,145 75 0 75 216 36 Brent 176 466 642 3 0 3 25 0 Ealing 428 194 622 33 155 188 29 0 Hammersmith and Fulham 221 237 458 0 17 17 17 0 West Harrow 223 -12 211 0 0 0 13 0 Hillingdon 3 43 46 0 0 0 24 0 Hounslow 403 232 635 0 0 0 22 0 Kensington and Chelsea 0 64 64 0 2 2 19 0 West Total 1,454 1,224 2,678 36 174 210 149 0 Sources: Conventional Completions from London Development Database, existing properties and other affordable housing information from Housing Corporation. ‘Existing Properties’ refers to purchases of existing homes by housing associations, funded by the Housing Corporation. It includes a small number of units already owned by housing associations but being funded for repairs. * = Single year data for Lewisham and Sutton (2006/7) is affected by LDD counting of demolitions in a single year and completions across multiple years. See Housing Provision Monitor at Appendix 8. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 32


  • Page 35

    Ha m m er sm ith an d Fu 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% lh a Cr m oy do n Ea lin g Br en Ne t wh am Be xle Ba Ha y rk rin in g Ho gey an un d Da slow ge nh a Isl m in gt o Ca n m de n Ci ty Enfi of eld W L alt on ha do m n Fo So res ut t hw ar k To Hac we kn rH y e am Hi lets London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 llin g Re don db rid La ge m be t M h er to Ha n ve rin g Ha W rro es tm w in ste r Ba rn Br t e Ki ng o s L mle Ke ton ewi y ns u s ha in po m Ri gto n T * ch n ha m on and mes d C up he on lse Th a a Table 18 Borough Affordable Housing Completions (2004/5-2006/7 average) Gr mes ee W n w an ich ds wo rt Su h tto n* London-wide Average 33


  • Page 36

    Table 19 Affordable housing policy by borough (ranked by average affordable housing out turn 2003/4-2006/7) Borough Borough Policy Borough policy target as at January Out-turn Target (or 2008 2004/5 to practice) as at 2006/7 2002 Hammersmith & Fulham 65% proposed 65% 59% Enfield 25% LP* 36% Haringey 30% 50% 45% Sutton 25% LP* 17% City None LP* 35% Barking & Dagenham 25% LP* 42% Waltham Forest 40% 50% 35% Lewisham 30% 35% 22% Ealing 50% 50% 51% Croydon 40% 40% (50% on large sites) 55% Hackney 25% 50% 34% Islington 25% 50% (interim guidance note) 38% Lambeth 35-50% 40% (50% with grant) 29% Hillingdon 25% LP* 31% Hounslow 50% LP* 43% Newham 25% LP* 48% Southwark 25% 50% 35% Bromley 20% 35% 23% Redbridge 25% LP* (50% revised core strategy 30% policy consultation) Camden 50% proposed 50% 36% Brent 30-50% 50% 49% Tower Hamlets 25-33% LP* 31% Merton 30% LP* 26% Kensington & Chelsea 33% LP* 21% Barnet 30% 50% 23% Richmond u Thames 40% 40% 20% Harrow 30% LP* 25% Westminster 50% (30% in CAZ) 24% Havering None LP* (50% revised core strategy 25% policy consultation) Greenwich 35% 35% (50% on large sites) 19% Kingston u Thames 50% 50% (starting point) 21% Bexley 25% 35% 46% Wandsworth None LP* (33% proposed) 18% LP* = Borough using London Plan Strategic Target (50% across London), usually when UDP policies were not saved beyond September 2007. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 34


  • Page 37

    Objective 3 to make London a more prosperous city Key Performance Indicator 6 Increasing sustainability and social inclusion by increasing the proportion of London residents working in jobs in London over the plan period. Target Net increase in the proportion of London residents working in London. Comprehensive statistics relating to this target are available through the census and are given in the table below. This data is only collected every 10 years. It shows a small percentage increase in the proportion of London workers who live within London against absolute net increases in those working both within and outside London. Table 20 Workers in London 2001 Total workers Living in Living outside % of workers London London living in London 1991 3,349,350 2, 676,620 672,730 79.9% 2001 3,805,655 3,083,116 722,539 81% Table 22 Londoners Out-commuting 1991-2001 Workers out % change in commuting out commuting 1991 149,820 - 2001 236,018 57.5% increase Source: 1991, 2001 Census Table 23 Londoners Out-commuting 2001-2006 Workers out Yearly % commuting change in out commuting 2000 257 000 - 2001 254 000 -1.5% 2002 264 000 +4.0% 2003 285 000 +8.0% 2004 275 000 -3.6% 2005 281 000 +2.5% 2006 331 000 +17.5% 2007 321,000 -3.0% Total change 2000-2007 +24.7 Source: Labour Force Survey - note this data is based on a sample survey rather than full census survey. (see London Travel Report 2007 table 7.2.2) Although out commuting remains a relatively small proportion of the total London resident workforce, there has been a marked 25%) increase since 2000 in the number of people out-commuting. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 35


  • Page 38

    Key Performance Indicator 7 Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market Target Stock of office planning permissions to be at least three times the average rate of starts over the previous three years. Ratio of permission to average three years starts at end 2007 = 4.8 : 1 In terms of aggregate volume of permissions, the planning pipeline is being maintained at a level above the minimum ratio of 3:1. The ratio has steadily reduced since the end of 2004, consistent with a higher level of starts during the current office construction cycle, with 2.1 million sq metres commenced in three years. Starts in 2007, at 0.89 million sq metres, were the highest in central London since 2001, in spite of the emergence of the ‘credit crunch’ in the second half of the year whose impact is more likely to be felt in 2008 and possibly 2009. By volume, starts were concentrated in the City where around 80% of construction was speculative, and there was a return to construction at Canary Wharf, but this was largely pre-let driven. Starts in the West End continued to be lower than in the City in spite of rents being at twice City levels, but developments in the West End tend to be sub-10,000 sq metres. The impact of the ‘credit crunch’ on both the raising of development finance and both current and expected future demand from financial and related occupiers is likely to produce a reduction in starts in 2008. The high rate of starts contributed to a reduction in the volume of permissions in central London from 4.2 million sq m at the end of 2006 to 3.4 million sq m in 2007. This reduction had an impact on the ratio of permissions to starts. The level of potential office supply across London and its sub-markets will continue to be closely monitored, but the volume of permissions is likely to increase in 2008 relative to the market’s expectation of a reduction in construction starts. Office starts and year-end permissions, 1985-2007 6 5 m sq m net 4 3 2 1 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Starts Permissions @ Year End Source: EGi London Offices, CCR, Ramidus Consulting London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 36


  • Page 39

    Table 23 Ratio of planning permission to 3 year average starts Year Ratio of planning permission to 3 year average starts 2003 6.4:1 2004 12:1 2005 8:1 2006 8.4:1 2007 4.8:1 Source: Chippendale Commercial Research, 2007 Key Performance Indicator 8 Direction of economic and population growth to follow the indicative sub-regional allocations and fulfill the priority to east London Target Development in Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification for each sub-region measured against the Chapter 5 indicative figures in the London Plan. Significant progress has been made in progressing development at several of the London Plan Opportunity Areas. Kings Cross has received outline planning permission within LB Camden and is progressing toward an appeal on the Islington part of the site. The scheme also won the Mayor’s Planning Award at the 2007 London Planning Awards. Brent Cross/Cricklewood, is progressing towards a planning application during 2008 following adoption of a UDP chapter with LB Barnet, this scheme won the Best Conceptual Project at the 2007 London Planning Awards. Rapid progress is being made with developments in and around the Lower Lea Valley in relation to the Olympics and other development projects. More detailed progress on each Opportunity Area and Area for Intensification will be reported through the SRIFs in summer 2008. Objective 4 to promote social inclusion and tackle deprivation and discrimination Key Performance Indicator 9 Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market Target Age specific unemployment rates for black and minority ethnic groups to be no higher than for the white population by 2016, 50 per cent reduction of the difference by 2011. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 37


  • Page 40

    Table 24 Age specific unemployment 1 rates for White and BAME groups, Greater London, 2006 All persons White groups BAME groups Ratio Unemp- Unemp- Unemp- BAME loyed Rate (%) loyed Rate (%) loyed Rate (%) /White All working age 285,000 7.8 135,000 5.4 149,000 13.2 2.5 Age 16-24 94,000 18.5 50,000 15.0 44,000 25.1 1.7 Age 25-44 134,000 6.6 55,000 4.1 79,000 11.8 2.9 Age 45-59/64 57,000 5.1 31,000 3.7 26,000 9.2 2.5 Source: Annual Population Survey 2006 Notes: The APS is a sample survey, so all estimates are subject to a degree of sampling variability. Londoners from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups are more than twice as likely as those from White groups to be unemployed. The gap in rates persists within different age groups and data are not significantly different to rates in previous AMRs. Analysis of longer term trend data (1985-2006) suggests the gap in unemployment rates between White and BAME groups has persisted over time despite falls in the general level of unemployment. As the data are estimates, and subject to a considerable degree of sampling variability, it is difficult to come to firm conclusions about progress in the short term. Data will need to be monitored in the longer term in order to assess progress on this challenging indicator. While data presented here relate to aggregations of minority ethnic groups, it is fully recognised that within the BAME population there is huge variation in unemployment rates. 2001 Census data shows that rates ranged from 5.9 per cent for Indian Londoners up to 20.5 per cent among Bangladeshi Londoners. Rates were also high for Black Londoners (12.3-17.6 per cent). 1 The definition of unemployment used here is the ILO measure (International Labour Organisation) which relates to people not in work, who had actively looked for work in the last four weeks and who were available to start work in the next two weeks. Rates express the number unemployed as a proportion of the labour force (ie the economically active population). London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 38


  • Page 41

    Unemployment rate (%) Ratio of rates persons working age BAME:WHITE 25 3.0 Rate (%): White groups Rate (%): BAME groups 2.5 20 Ratio BAME: White rate (3 year moving average) 2.0 15 1.5 10 1.0 5 0.5 0 0.0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Source: Office for National Statistics, Labour Force Survey & Annual Population Survey Unemployment rates by ethnicity, Greater London 1985-2005 Key Performance Indicator 10 Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market Target Percentage of lone parents dependant on income support to be no higher than the UK average by 2016, 50 per cent reduction of the difference by 2011. Table 25 Lone parents on Income Support as % of all lone parent families Greater London Great Britain Difference in Lone parents As % Lone parents percentage families of lone parent Families As % of lone points Quarter on IS families on IS parent families (London-GB) May 2001 183,300 64.5 997,500 56.3 8.2 May 2002 181,200 62.4 972,500 53.3 9.1 May 2003 182,400 61.4 970,100 51.9 9.6 May 2004 180,000 59.1 924,000 48.7 10.4 May 2005 177,900 56.8 887,900 45.9 10.9 May 2006 178,700 55.7 869,700 44.1 11.5 May 2007 175,700 53.9 855,800 42.9 11.0 London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 39


  • Page 42

    Sources: GLA calculations based on data from Department of Work and Pensions; (Department of) Communities & Local Government and the General Register Office for Scotland. Lone parent families in London are more likely to be dependant on Income Support relative to the national average. Since 2001, the proportion of lone parent families on Income Support has reduced in both London and GB 2, but the gap between the two has remained wide. Key Performance Indicator 11 Improving performance against Neighbourhood Renewal floor targets as a co-ordinated approach to tackling deprivation Target Improvements in performance against all agreed floor targets. There are now 15 separate “floor targets” which assess how the most deprived local authorities in England are performing on fundamental quality of life factors. The floor targets cover education attainment, crime, health and employment rates. There are 21 London boroughs out of the 91 local authorities that are covered by the targets. The relevant boroughs are Barking and Dagenham, Barnet, Brent, Camden, Croydon, Ealing, Enfield, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Haringey, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth, and Westminster. Data is usually given up to 2006/7 and the full range of results can be viewed at http://www.fti.neighbourhood.gov.uk/page.asp?id=5 In summary 75% of the 15 floor targets show an improvement from on the previous year across the 21 boroughs. The targets relating to education, health, housing and overall crime generally show an improvement. Burglary and Robbery rates are very mixed with around half the boroughs showing increases and employment levels in half of the boroughs have dropped. Objective 5 to improve London’s accessibility Key Performance Indicator 12 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys Target Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of the private car per head. Table 26 Public and private transport indexes Year Public Transport index Private Transport Index 2001 100.0 100.0 2002 102.6 100.1 2003 108.6 99.8 2004 112.7 98.1 2005 112.1 96.5 2006 114.9 95.1 Note: figures adjusted from previous AMRs due to revisions to population data but the overall picture remains similar. Source: Transport for London 2 GB has been used as the national comparator as data were not available for the UK. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 40


  • Page 43

    The numbers of journeys are taken from the time series compiled for the 2006 London Travel Report. This includes all journeys to, from or within Greater London, including travel by commuters and visitors. For consistency the population estimates include in-commuters and visitors (derived from the Labour Force Survey and the International Passenger Survey, respectively). The results show a 15% increase in public transport journeys per head between 2001 and 2006, compared with a 5% decrease in car journeys per head. 2006 saw a continuing drop in the use of the car and an increase in the use of public transport, following a dip in 2005 that has been put down to the impact of the London bombings in July 2005. Key Performance Indicator 13 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys Target From 2001-2011, 15 per cent reduction in traffic in the congestion charging zone, zero traffic growth in inner London, and traffic growth in outer London reduced to no more than 5 per cent. London Plan Policy 3C.16 - ‘Tackling congestion and reducing traffic’ - sets out targets for reductions in weekday traffic growth for different areas of London. Monitoring by Transport for London within the area of the Congestion Charging Zone has shown that levels of traffic (for vehicles of four or more wheels) fell by 15 per cent between 2002 and 2003 and continued to decline to a level of up to 20% below 2002 by 2005. Available indicators of traffic circulating within the charging zone for 2006 again suggest broadly stable or slightly declining traffic levels compared with the previous year. The average level of traffic (vehicles with four or more wheels) entering the charging zone during charging hours was almost unchanged between 2005 and 2006, which represented an overall reduction of 21% compared to pre-charging levels in 2002. Estimates from DfT's National Traffic Census indicate that, in Inner London (outside Central London), annual traffic on major roads increased by 3% between 2005 and 2006 reversing the declines of the previous 5 years. However, traffic was still 4% lower in 2006 than in 2001. In Outer London, traffic levels on major roads showed no net change between 2001 and 2006. Key Performance Indicator 14 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys Target A five per cent increase in passengers and freight transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2001-2011. Table 27 Passengers on the River Thames Year Number of Passengers1 % increase on previous year April 2000 – March 2001 1 573 830 - April 2001 – March 2002 2 011 736 28% April 2002 – March 2003 2 030 385 1% April 2003 – March 2004 2 123 820 4.6% April 2004 – March 2005 2,343,280 10.3% April 2005 – March 2006 2,373,350 1% April 2006 - March 2007 2,746,700 15.7% Source: TfL London River Services London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 41


  • Page 44

    Note 1 Figures are for passenger journeys on boat operators using TfL London River Services Piers and the Thames Clippers Savoy to Woolwich Arsenal service. This excludes a number of other services working from independent piers. Figures also include passengers on charter boats. Ticket sales count both single and return tickets as one journey on all services except Thames Clippers which are passenger journeys. The table shows that the number of passengers on the Thames is steadily increasing over the baseline situation in 2001. Following the events of 7 July 2005, passenger numbers on tourist services fell significantly, but have now recovered to previous levels. Passenger numbers on the riverbus services have shown significant growth since July 2005. In November 2007, Thames Clippers riverbus service was expanded to run between Waterloo (BA London Eye) and the O2 at a 15 minute frequency throughout the day and every 30 minutes in the late evening. It is anticipated that the number of passengers carried on the Thames will continue to show strong growth. Table 28 Cargo trade on the River Thames Year Tonnes of Cargo % increase on previous year 2001 10 757 000 - 2002 9 806 000 9% decrease 2003 9 236 000 6% decrease 2004 8 743 000 5% decrease 2005 9,288,000 6% increase 2006 9,337,000 0.5% increase Source: Port of London Authority. The Table shows a marginal increase in the amount of cargo handled within the London part of the Port of London during 2006. This still means that there has been a net decrease of 13.2% overall from the baseline year of 2001. Given this figure this indicator will be particularly important to monitor whether there is a reversal of recent trends. This is significant in the context of the number of major construction projects over the coming years which have the potential to utilize the river for bulk cargo transport, for example the Olympics, Crossrail and the Thames Tideway sewer. Key Performance Indicator 15 Increase in public transport capacity Target 50 per cent increase in public transport capacity between 2001 – 2021, with interim increases to reflect Table 6A.2. The London Plan aims for a 5% increase in public transport capacity between 2001 and 2006. This interim target has been achieved with a 6% increase in capacity, giving a good indication that the longer term 50% target can be met. Clearly this will be dependent upon some major infrastructure programmes such as Crossrail, Thameslink and East London Line. 2007 saw major advances toward the delivery of each of those projects. The increases in public transport capacity were delivered to meet the 6% increase so far include substantial increases in bus capacity, seventh carriage for Jubilee line trains, increased capacity on the Waterloo & City line the opening of the DLR branch to London City Airport and additional peak rail services on the Gospel Oak to Barking Line, West London Line and North London Line. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 42


  • Page 45

    Key Performance Indicator 16 Increase in public transport capacity Target Regular assessment of the adequacy of transport capacity to support development in opportunity and intensification areas. An initial assessment of the adequacy of public transport capacity at each of the Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification was carried out to inform the sub-regional development frameworks (SRDFs), published in 2005. Summary details of infrastructure provision for the opportunity and intensification areas can be found in Annex 2 of the relevant final SRDF, published in May 2006. This work will be updated in 2008 with the publication of the Sub Regional Implementation Plans to replace SRDFs. Key Performance Indicator 17 Increase in the number of jobs located in areas with high PTAL values Target GLA and TfL will investigate the practicality of monitoring growth of jobs in high PTAL areas compared to low PTAL areas by the time of publication of the second Annual Monitoring Report. Using land use classes as a rough proxy for employment densities, the London Development Database has been used in combination with a GIS system to generate a matrix of types of employment development permitted within three groupings of public transport accessibility. The results are shown in the table below. B1 uses, which include office development are heavily focused within the more accessible areas (PTAL zones 5 and 6) whereas B2 and B8 uses are much less prevalent in such locations. This is in line with the general trend of providing such uses in the more appropriate and sustainable locations. Likewise, the majority of B2 and B8 uses are being provided in the locations with the lowest public transport accessibility (PTAL zones 0 and 2). This is because a key requirement for such developments is often access to the national motorway network and/or strategic rail/port freight facilities. It is notable that some 17% of B1 uses are located in the lowest PTAL zones but it must be remembered that B1 uses also include light industry and research/development uses which may well seek edge or out of centre locations. A comparison with previous years data indicates that last year there was a similar focus of B1 uses in high PTAL zones, and an increase on the 2004/5 data. Table 29 Employment floorspace permitted by PTAL zone 2006/7 data Accessibility Employment floorspace by land use class 2006/7 2 (PTAL Group) B1 m B1 % B2m2 B2 % B8 m2 B8% Low (0 to 2) 114,519 17.3% 51,378 79.8% 97,459 78.4% Medium (3 to 4) 57,936 8.7% 6,906 10.7% 18,960 15.2% High (5 to 6) 488,498 73.9% 6,068 9.4% 7,827 6.3% Totals 660,953 100% 63,352 100% 124,246 100% London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 43


  • Page 46

    2005/6 Accessibility Employment floorspace by land use class 2005/6 (PTAL Group) B1 m2 B1 % B2m2 B2 % B8 m2 B8% Low (0 to 2) 221,231 15.6 179,073 92.8 322,280 86.1 Medium (3 to 4) 99,669 7.0 10,700 5.5 23,193 6.2 High (5 to 6) 1,098,795 77.4 3,179 1.6 28,852 7.7 Totals 1,419,695 100 192,952 100 374,325 100 2004/5 Accessibility Employment floorspace by land use class 2004/5 (PTAL Group) B1 m2 B1 % B2 m2 B2 % B8 m2 B8 % Low (0-2) 829 402 39.55 168 283 88.83 208 938 90.44 Med (3-4) 183 336 8.74 17 828 9.41 16 335 7.07 High (5-6) 1 084 480 51.71 3325 1.76 5760 2.49 Totals 2 097 218 100% 189 436 100% 231 033 100% Source LDD Notes PTAL – Public Transport Accessibility Level B1 - Offices, light industry, research and development uses. B2 – General Industrial uses B8 – Storage and distribution uses including warehouses. The table relates to total permissions including new build, extensions and change of use. Objective 6 to make London a more attractive, well-designed and green city Key Performance Indicator 18 Protection of biodiversity habitat Target No net loss of designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation over the plan period. Table 30 Changes in protected habitat due to new development Borough Protected Comment Net Change (ha) area affected by dev (ha) Barking & Dagenham 0.258 Lost to school -0.258 development Barnet 0.290 Lost to residential -0.290 and sports development Bromley 20.78 COU to cemetery 0 Lambeth 0.014 Lost to residential -0.014 Redbridge 1.000 Cycle circuit 0 development not affecting Sutton 0.760 Lost to residential -0.760 Total -1.322 Source: London Development Database London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 44


  • Page 47

    Several relatively small net losses have been recorded during 2006/7. The most notable loss relates to a residential development in LB Sutton. By way of mitigation this development is due to implement improvements to surrounding habitats. The Mayor has recently published a Implementation report on improving Access to Nature. Many of the improvements arise from upgrades to existing habitats to enhance their value rather than necessarily increasing their size. Key Performance Indicator 19 Increase in household waste recycled or composted Target At least 25 per cent by 2005. At least 30 per cent by 2010. (will be 35% from April 2007 following Early Alterations) At least 33 per cent by 2015. (will be 45% from April 2007 following Early Alterations) The targets for this indicator has changed as a result of the publication of the London Plan Early Alterations in December 2006 and will be monitored against from April 2007 and will be reported against in AMR5. London's household recycling rate for 2006/7 was 22.9%. This represents a continuation of the increase that has been seen over the past few years. However, the target is a considerable way below the 25% target for 2005 and as Table 34 shows London now has a lower recycling rate than any other English Region. This is particularly disappointing as London was close to the average rate only a few years ago. Furthermore the recently published Further Alterations to the London Plan step up the targets for 2010 and 2015 in line with the Mayor’s Municipal Waste Strategy. The Government is also seeking to alter the recycling targets nationally and is proposing a 50% target by 2020 through its Consultation on the Review of England’s Waste Strategy 2006. In 2006/7 some 13 London Boroughs are still missing their targets for 2005. Some boroughs such as Croydon, Hounslow and Hammersmith & Fulham are still missing those expired targets by a substantial margin. Table 31 London’s Household waste recycling rate 1996/97 – 2005/06 Year Household Recycling Rate (%) 1996/97 6.1 1997/98 7.0 1998/99 7.6 1999/2000 9.0 2000/1 9.0 2001/2 9.4 2002/3 10.9 2003/4 13.3 2004/5 17.6 2005/6 20.7 2006/7 22.9 Source: DEFRA http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/wastats/archive/mwb200607.xls - 'Table 5'!A1 London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 45


  • Page 48

    Table 32 London waste authority household recycling rates Waste authority 2002-3 2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2005-6 2006-7 (%) (%) (%) (%) Target* (%) Barking & Dagenham 2.2 6.7 14.0 16.6 18 21.08 Barnet 12.1 16.7 19.9 27.47 27 29.47 Bexley 22.0 20.6 30.7 37.71 30 40.00 Brent 6.6 8.5 14.0 20.01 18 21.52 Bromley 15.4 20.1 23.3 27.25 21 31.85 Camden 16.1 19.1 25.2 27.14 30 28.05 City of London 14.5 19.0 14.3 18.1 18 28.19 Croydon 13.1 14.1 13.0 16.17 30 20.11 Ealing 10.6 11.7 15.2 19.28 30 24.92 Enfield 11.7 15.6 23.6 27.29 27 29.64 Greenwich 9.4 12.0 19.0 21.66 18 23.61 Hackney 2.6 6.9 12.2 16.21 18 19.57 Hammersmith & Fulham 8.5 15.3 19.6 21.49 24 23.63 Haringey 4.4 8.8 14.3 19.23 18 24.72 Harrow 9.4 13.1 18.8 26.7 24 27.70 Havering 6.7 9.6 15.5 17.81 27 20.43 Hillingdon 19.5 23.9 27.2 27.7 21 30.64 Hounslow 15.1 15.7 17.4 19.25 30 19.62 Islington 5.8 8.1 11.0 18.29 18 23.50 Kensington & Chelsea 7.9 16.4 18.1 19.94 30 24.28 Kingston-u-Thames 19.1 18.5 18.3 23.97 30 23.90 Lambeth 10.9 10.5 16.5 22.15 21 23.10 Lewisham 7.3 8.4 10.2 12.2 18 15.75 Merton 15.0 14.8 20.3 22.59 27 25.05 Newham 4.2 5.5 6.2 10.13 18 13.53 Redbridge 10.0 12.3 15.5 17.34 21 18.60 Richmond-u-Thames 20.5 22.0 23.8 28.59 30 31.71 Southwark 4.7 7.1 10.8 14.96 18 18.46 Sutton 19.3 25.5 27.9 29.07 30 30.26 Tower Hamlets 3.4 5.1 7.4 8.85 18 11.75 Waltham Forest 10.2 11.8 18.1 21.85 18 27.51 Wandsworth 10.5 17.5 17.2 20.96 24 22.87 Westminster 11.5 13.2 15.3 18.29 18 20.38 East London Waste 6.1 8.0 12.5 15.25 18 18.37 Authority North London Waste 9.6 20.89 18 23.09 Disposal Authority 12.7 18.3 West London Waste 13.9 17.0 20.1 24.59 27 27.53 Authority Western Riverside 11.5 14.8 17.6 22.03 24 23.68 Waste Authority Notes: Shading indicates boroughs still missing the 2005/6 Target in 2006/7 * Best Value Monitoring Target Source: Defra http://www.capitalwastefacts.com/LondonData/Targetsandperformance/tabid/59/Default.aspx London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 46


  • Page 49

    Table 33 Regional household recycling rates 2000/01 to 2005/06 (percentage) Region 2000/ 2001/ 2002/ 2003/ 2004/ 2005/ 2006/7 01 02 03 04 05 06 North East 4.1 5.2 6.6 12.2 15.4 21.1 26.4 North West 7.5 9.2 11.3 14.2 19.2 23.8 28.9 Yorkshire & 7.3 8.9 11.2 14.5 18.6 21.8 26.9 Humber East Midlands 13.1 13.7 15.1 19.3 26.3 31.8 35.6 West Midlands 9.1 10.2 13.0 15.7 19.9 25.1 28.6 East 15.2 17.4 19.4 23.4 29.8 34.1 38.3 London 9.0 9.3 10.9 13.3 17.6 20.7 22.9 South East 16.4 17.7 19.6 22.8 26.1 29.2 33.1 South West 14.9 16.6 18.6 21.4 26.6 31.4 37.2 England 11.2 12.5 14.5 17.8 22.5 26.7 30.9 Source: DEFRA http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/wastats/archive/mwb200607.xls - 'Table 5'!A1 Table 34 Total Municipal Waste in London Household waste from: 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05r 2005/06 2006/07 Regular household collection 2,231 2,262 2,216 2,201 2,081 2,112 2,111 Other household sources 336 310 298 274 306 277 256 Civic amenity sites 520 519 497 411 328 250 246 Household recycling 304 317 367 445 581 687 776 Total household 3,390 3,408 3,379 3,331 3,297 3,326 3,390 Non household sources (excl. recycling) 1,008 996 1,024 962 1,011 810 761 Non household recycling 40 33 43 49 62 76 67 Total municipal waste 4,438 4,438 4,446 4,342 4,370 4,213 4,218 Source: DEFRA http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/wastats/archive/mwb200607.xls#'Table 3 '!A1 London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 47


  • Page 50

    Key Performance Indicator 20 Increase in household waste recycled or composted Target Achievement of quantified requirement for waste treatment facilities (once established in SRDFs). Following the publication of the Recycling and Recovery facilities Sites investigation in London report in July 2005, the table below sets out the area of land required within each borough to manage waste over coming years. Progress against these indicative figures will be monitored in the SRIFs. Table 35 Indicative land demand for waste management and recycling Borough 2006-2011 2011-2016 2016-2021 2006-2021 Barnet 2 2 2 6 Camden 2 2 1 5 Enfield 0 0 0 0 Hackney 0 0 1 1 Haringey 1 2 1 4 Islington 2 2 1 5 Westminster 0 2 1 3 North sub-region 7 10 7 24 Barking and Dagenham 8 4 3 15 City of London 1 1 0 2 Havering 0 0 2 2 Newham 9 4 2 15 Redbridge 3 2 1 6 Tower Hamlets 6 3 2 11 Waltham Forest 0 1 1 2 North East sub-region 27 15 11 53 Bexley 0 0 2 2 Bromley 0 6 2 8 Greenwich 1 7 2 10 Lewisham 0 0 0 0 Southwark 0 6 2 8 South East sub-region 1 19 8 28 Croydon 6 2 1 9 Kingston-upon-Thames 4 1 1 6 Lambeth 5 2 1 8 Merton 4 2 1 7 Richmond-upon-Thames 4 2 1 7 Sutton 1 1 1 3 Wandsworth 7 2 2 11 South West sub-region 31 12 8 51 Brent 4 2 1 7 Ealing 8 3 2 13 Hammersmith and Fulham 6 2 1 9 Harrow 4 1 1 6 Hillingdon 4 2 2 8 Hounslow 6 2 2 10 Kensington and Chelsea 4 1 1 6 West sub-region 36 13 10 59 London 102 69 44 215 Note: Figures based on assumption that there is no net loss of existing waste management capacity in accordance with London Plan Annual Monitoring Report #4 February 2008 48

  • View More

Get the full picture and Receive alerts on lawsuits, news articles, publications and more!