the mayor's outer london commission: report...10 the mayor’s outer london commission report...

1 Ipsummy nosto consequis non er sis acil June 2010

The Mayor’s Outer London Commission:Report

The M

ayor’s OLC

Report

June 2010

The Mayor’s Outer London Commission:Report

June 2010

Greater London Authority June 2010

Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA

www.london.gov.ukenquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458

ISBN 978-1-84781-378-7

Photographs: cover picture © TfL Visual Image Service.

Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk

Printed on Evolution Satin paper: 75 per cent recycled fibre content; 25 per cent virgin fibre, 10 per cent FSC sourced; FSC and NAPM certified.

Contents

Foreword 5

Executive summary 7

1 Introduction 23

Purpose 23Methodology 23-25Terms of reference 26-28

2 Survey 29

Sources 29Historic context 31Demand side 32Supply side 48Demography 57Workforce Housing 76Transport 83Quality of Life 88Future trends 95Stakeholder views 105

3 Analysis 119

Scale and sources of growth 119A new spatial structure for growth? 126Making the most of existing places 131Quality of Life 145Transport 147

4 ‘Plan’ – Recommendations 153

Spatial structures 153Demography and housing 159Economy 161Transport 165Labour market 169Institutional 170Quality of Life 171The Future 174

3

Annexes 175

Annex 1: Commission’s ‘First Thoughts’ paper 175Annex 2: Initial consultation questions 182Annex 3A: Interim employment trends 185Annex 3B: Final employment trends 188Annex 3C: Home Counties Employment 193Annex 4: Economically active population trends 194Annex 5A: Housing trends 195Annex 5B: Net completions for inner and outer London 196Annex 5C: Compliance with the London Plan Housing Density Matrix 197Annex 6A: Health infrastructure benchmarks 198Annex 6B: Social infrastructure maps 200Annex 6C: Borough school roll projections 209Annex 7: Office development trends 212Annex 8: Respondents to the Outer London Commission 214

Dear Mr Mayor

I have pleasure in submitting the final report of the Outer London Commission. It outlines the work we have undertaken and the research and consultation responses on which we have drawn in coming to our conclusions, and then sets out our findings and recommendations.

It is clear that outer London has many strengths and huge potential on which it can build in ensuring it takes its place in supporting the future prosperity of those living and working there and, indeed, of the capital as a whole. Among its key assets are the imagination and hard work of those working on the ground, many of whom we have met during our work.

In submitting this report I would like to thank my fellow Commissioners – and those in the GLA group, who supported them - for all their hard work and commitment in enabling this report to be presented

William McKee Chair, Outer London Commission

Foreword 5

6 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Purpose of the Commission

The Mayor set up the Outer London Commission to:

1 “Identify the extent to which outer London has unrealised potential to contribute to London’s economic success, identify the factors which are holding it back and recommend policies and proposals for the future development of outer London to the Mayor for inclusion in the London Plan and other GLA group strategies and guidance. These should include:• Ways of encouraging employment growth

in outer London. • Ways of identifying, and supporting the

development of economic growth hubs in outer London.

• The role of town centres and town centre based initiatives such as business improvement districts and town centre partnerships.

• The role that heritage and urban design issues might play.

• The links between housing, retail, office based and other types of employment and development in outer London.

• Links between economic success and improving quality of life in outer London, and ways of managing these effectively.

• Infrastructure and other supporting investment required to support economic growth in outer London.

• Methods of funding such infrastructure and investment.

• Identify issues that are presented by the relationship between outer, inner and central London”.

Working arrangements

2 The Commission was composed of 14 individuals with extensive experience in London business, local government, development, planning, design, academic geography, transport and the voluntary sector and chaired by Will McKee CBE. Its secretariat was provided by GLA Group officers.

3 The Commission had a distinctive method of operation, testing propositions iteratively, as they emerged from its work, by calling not just on the expertise of its members and its own research, but also by drawing on and informing work being undertaken at the same time to develop a common evidence base for the Mayor’s Economic Development and Transport strategies and the London Plan. Uniquely, it carried out an extensive programme of consultation with the main stakeholders in the outer London economy through:• a series of ‘meetings in public’ in each of

the different quadrants of the capital; • over 30 ‘one to one’ or small group

meetings, and• a structured ‘call for evidence’.

4 The Commission wishes to place on record its appreciation for all these contributions – they added a new dimension to understanding the ambitions, challenges

Executive summary 7


and experiences of those engaged in realising the potential of outer London.

5 We have sought to collate a robust evidence base to support and develop our conclusions. In reaching our final conclusions and recommendations we have followed the familiar process of survey, analysis and policy-making so readers can follow the steps we have taken in making our recommendations.

Benchmark trends

6 From the outset it was clear that outer London’s potential to contribute to the wider economy could not be measured simply in terms of the number of jobs there. These were of course the key concern of the Commission (both as a focus of its terms of reference, and as they account for over 40 per cent of the capital’s jobs). But other factors were also crucial, not least because outer London is home to 60 per cent of all Londoners, two fifths of whom work outside the area and help give most parts of it a higher economic activity rate than inner London. However, this dependence on commuting, coupled with relatively low local employment growth, has given rise to what was the key concern for many consultees – that outer London has been relegated to a dormitory suburb role, and its local economies neglected, with the thrust of metropolitan policy focused on growth in central London.

7 At least in terms of economic trends, there is some substance to these concerns – on average over the last two economic cycles only 2,800 jobs pa have been generated in outer London compared with 5,100 pa in inner London and 36,000 pa in the ‘home counties’. Moreover, this overarching trend conceals very substantial variation between boroughs and smaller but still significant differences between their performances in different cycles. Over the whole period 1989 – 2007, five outer boroughs were above the pan London average trend, four above the outer London average, one below the average but positive and nine had negative growth.

8 A key task for the Commission was therefore to establish reasonable future employment trends or benchmarks against which it could test measures which might generate higher growth. As well as collating five data sources on the historic trend to inform this process, the Commission also drew on three sets of employment projections. In examining them it was mindful not just of the effects of the recent recession and of the need to relate them to the wider economy, but also of the perception of some consultees that low projections led to low infrastructure investment and so reinforced low growth. Account was also taken of the axiom that in using projections it is better to be broadly right than precisely wrong.

9

9 The projections ranged from a simple extrapolation of the historic trend (2,800 more jobs pa); a somewhat dated triangulation of trend, development capacity and transport accessibility (10,000); a more up-to-date top down forecast (10,500) and the current draft London Plan projection which incorporates trend data anticipating the onset of the recent recession and up-to-date estimates of development capacity and public transport accessibility (6,000 pa).

Sources of future growth

10 In exploring potential sources of growth above trend the Commission found it useful to distinguish conceptually between: • those based on existing sectors

(‘endogenous’ growth) which have contributed to the trends outlined above, but which might have capacity to perform more effectively if constraints on their cumulative performance were addressed, and

• those which for convenience might be termed ‘exogenous’ sources of growth. These might be either strategically significant, largely new activities or existing activities capable of a step change in performance.

New spatial structures

11 The Commission’s brief required it to identify and test new spatial structure

which might help lift outer London’s economy above trend.

The ‘super-hub’ concept 12 The Commission’s brief suggested that

as a working proposition, there might be four ‘super-hubs’, one in each quadrant of outer London, perhaps based on the Heathrow area, Brent Cross/Cricklewood, Croydon and Stratford. The concept was intended to identify centres where proposals for development could complement other business centres by providing the potential to generate a distinct offer of greater than sub regional importance (most existing business centres in outer London are, at best, of only sub-regional significance). In practice we have concluded that to be successful, hubs of this kind would have to support high density business agglomerations or clusters to found the basis of a virtuous circle of public investment (particularly in transport infrastructure) and wider growth. This pointed to office-based activities generating rental values of more than £25-£30/sq ft and on a scale substantially above that anticipated in any of the benchmark employment projections – say double the 300,000-400,000 sq m usually taken as the basis for an office quarter with a distinct mass and identity, with capacity, say, for 50,000 new office jobs.

13 On the face of it such a proposition might not seem implausible – after all, Canary Wharf has gone from virtually zero to over 90,000 new jobs in two decades and the


‘Home Counties’ have recorded an average of 36,000 more jobs pa over two economic cycles.

14 However, closer analysis raised substantial doubts. Most of the office growth projected for the London Plan is expected to come from relatively low value added local services spread across outer London – not the sort of relatively high value jobs required to pay rents justifying strategically significant private office development in a few small areas. While a few parts of outer London have experienced significant office new build in the past, even two hubs of say 600,000 sq m each would approximate to 23 years of historic gross average output across the whole of outer London (and this is on a generous definition of what constitutes growth in office space).

15 Nevertheless, the Commission was mindful that it had to look beyond historic trends to see if there was potential for ‘exogenous’ growth. It therefore examined the applicability of a series of different potential models or proxies for ‘super hubs’ – Heathrow and other outer London centres with a history of significant growth, Canary Wharf in inner London and office centres in the wider south east, as well as modelling the transport implications of the concept. These either did not meet the ‘super-hub’ criteria outlined above or were not realistic propositions in the distinct circumstances of outer London.

16 The Commission was primarily concerned with technical considerations bearing on the economic realism of ’super-hubs’. However, it was also mindful that development proposals on this scale would have to be ‘owned’ by the key stakeholders – the response from boroughs in particular suggested that this was unlikely. Thus, though the testing exercise did not lead to the Commission endorsing the concept, it did provide valuable insight into other parts of its work.

Strategic outer London development centres

17 While the Commission concluded that it could not endorse the idea of ‘super hubs’, the testing exercise did show that there was scope for smaller increments to existing capacity (and improvements to its quality) in some competitive locations with distinct types or scales of activity (or mix of activities). To avoid compromising the viability of capacity in other centres, these would have to be of more than sub-regional importance and with the potential for further development both within the centres themselves and in their hinterlands. This concept could be applied to a wider range of business clusters than the office based ‘super-hubs’, including leisure/tourism, media, logistics, industry, higher/further education and retailing. The Commission recommends that its initial list of these clusters be left open to be refined through the Draft Replacement London Plan preparation process, and

11

we are pleased to see the concept taken forward in the draft Plan’s policy on ‘strategic outer London Development centres’.

Extending into the Green Belt?18 The Commission considered whether

strategic extensions of provision for business activity in to the Green Belt was necessary to realise the economic potential of outer London. We have concluded that as a strategic principle this was unnecessary and wasteful in terms of the use of land and existing infrastructure.

Making the most of existing places

19 As well as exploring new types of business location, the Commission also investigated the performance of existing planning structures and ways in which they could more effectively realise outer London’s potential to contribute to the metropolitan economy. An over-arching theme was the importance of using a ‘star and cluster’ based approach to coordinating development, and within this to ensure that town centres develop as its fundamental building block.

Inter and intra-regional working 20 The Commission was very conscious

that London is part of a much wider city region and of the need for the planning system to address this in a concrete way if outer London is to realise its potential. This is most apparent for transport - as well as the need for strategic coordination

of limited transport capacity, there is particular growth in out-commuting which must be encouraged to move towards public transport. It extends to the wider coordination of land use and transport investment for the benefit of the city region as a whole, as well as to more specific issues like waste management, logistics coordination, more positive use of the Green Belt and establishment of a level playing field for parking policy (in line with government’s regional policy). With some notable exceptions, and while recognising the uncertainty over regional working outside London, cross border arrangements to address these (especially along strategic ‘Corridors’) appear to require rejuvenation.

21 It will be important to ensure that outer London makes the most of the development and regeneration opportunities that may arise from national and regional transport and other infrastructural investment (with projects like Crossrail or High Speed 2, for example). Similarly, the importance of airports will remain a major economic driver for outer London. As already indicated, joint local and strategic working is vital to resolve local environmental and other concerns with wider strategic economic objectives.

22 Within London, it must be recognised that there is no hard and fast dividing line between its inner and outer parts. Irrespective of administrative boundaries


it is essential that for policy purposes boundaries are regarded as permeable. The Commission supports the Mayor’s positive response in the DRLP to its recommendation that, on balance, Newham is more properly considered to be part of inner London.

Sub-regional structures23 The Commission supports the view that

a ‘one size fits all’ structure to coordinate sub-regional activity would not be fit for all economic development purposes. However, it did stress the importance of sustaining an effective sub-regional facility to support and inform the important step down from pan-London policy principles to the geographically specific detail required at local level. It noted the variety in current arrangements and the need to ensure that they remained fit for purpose as well as providing the strong leadership necessary to respond positively to changing circumstances.

Town Centres24 The Commission’s work showed that

60 per cent of employment in outer London took place in its main town centres. Coupled with the other roles of these centres, this supports the view that they should be developed as the single most important set of business locations outside central London; and that the focus here should be on promoting access to a competitive selection of goods and services, foregrounding the use of more environmentally-friendly modes

of transport. The Commission stressed the need for tempering ambitions for local centres with economic realism and recognition of the different roles each centres plays in the broad town centre network. Its recommendations to support this included:• the need for real partnership working,

including possible use of land acquisition powers to assemble sites:

• measures to enhance their quality and offers:

• guidance on a creative approach to mixed use development including increased town centre related residential provision;

• the importance of a sensitive approach to parking policy:

• maintenance of London’s distinct approach to the ‘sequential test’:

• closer integration of the investment priorities and initiatives of the GLA Group and other agencies such as the Homes and Communities Agency, as well as the boroughs and other relevant stakeholders; and,

• the potential to develop emerging results from GLA research on use of the planning system to secure small shop provision so that large new retail developments can contribute to relevant aspects of local town centre renewal.

Opportunity Areas and Areas of Intensification

25 The Commission supports these as mechanisms to bring forward capacity for development in an integrated, sustainable way. The GLA should continue to work

13

with boroughs and other stakeholders to investigate whether the concepts can be extended elsewhere. However, the Commission was concerned at the slow rate of progress in bringing forward some Opportunity/Intensification Area Planning Frameworks.

Industrial Land26 Careful management of strategic and

local industrial capacity remains essential, especially to accommodate the relatively low-value but vital functions which it supports. The Commission has made specific recommendations over policy to secure an adequate quantity of provision as well as the need to place greater emphasis on quality, including improved local road access.

The potential for growth in different economic sectors

27 The Commission identifies four main growth sectors for the outer London economy: office-based work (including the public sector); knowledge-based industries; leisure, tourism and culture; and retail. Each of these will require a particular set of approaches, which we outline below:

Office based sectors28 The Commission recommends a realistic

and proactive approach to office development where increased economic potential can be clearly identified - the focus needs to be on the most competitive

locations for future growth complemented by recognition that structural change in parts of the outer London office market looks set to continue.

29 The Commission’s report provides detailed suggestions on how the release of surplus office provision might be managed, taking into account the continuing need for some lower cost accommodation, the significance of phasing in this process, the importance of an attractive business environment as part of a broader mix of uses, a sensitive approach to car parking and the role of re-positioning and re-branding the most competitive elements of outer London’s office offer. This might be supported by use of the mixed-use ‘swaps’ concept in competitive locations.

‘Knowledge based’, ‘Creative’ and ‘Green sectors’.

30 While many consultees lauded the potential of these sectors it was noted that there did not appear to be a universally agreed definition of the terms (and indeed, some overlap between them). The GLA could usefully address this, linking it as far as possible to the planning process.

31 Looking at these sectors raises the question of whether outer London lacks information and communications technology infrastructure and whether the public sector or effective planning can help address this. Taking this further, there may be scope to encourage home (or near-home) working, with new forms


of infrastructure or locally based business support services (local ICT “hubs” giving SMEs and individual workers access to the kind of sophisticated ICT that they could not economically afford to buy themselves, for example). We have suggested that public libraries or ‘touch down’ centres with provision for meetings, possibly provided by large, centrally based firms, might have a role in this. In addition Boroughs could take a more proactive approach to extending fibre optic cable or WIFI networks to enhance capacity to serve such centres – the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry would be happy to work in partnership to progress this.

32 The GLA group could usefully re-consider if there is a case for public sector intervention to support the provision of innovation parks so that similar, related small or medium-sized businesses can cluster together, and this might require active public intervention.

Public sector33 While recognising central government’s

views on dispersal of its activities, outer London is clearly a cost-effective place for government and other public sector functions, such as health, judicial and education functions of greater than sub- regional importance – and can be promoted as such. This might include building links to existing central London institutions and to local labour markets. The potential here is to use higher

education institutions and hospitals as a focus of regeneration. Putting HE and FE institutions (or satellites of institutions based elsewhere) in outer London has the further benefit of developing the local labour market by helping people to improve their skills and employability.

Leisure and culture34 There is considerable potential for growth

in the spectrum of leisure activities including arts and culture, tourism and local leisure activities. These both make outer London an attractive, ‘liveable’ place for Londoners and offer potential for development of a visitor economy following successful examples such as Kew Gardens. The Commission welcomes strategic support and encouragement to identify more hotel capacity in outer London, especially in and around town centres.

35 The Commission has noted the imbalance between the number of cultural facilities in outer London and the amount of public funding available (most of which in the capital goes to central London). It recommends that this imbalance should be reviewed. This should be complemented by more positive marketing of outer London’s distinct attractions, particularly its leisure and cultural clusters. Local regeneration can be prompted by a more proactive approach to the ‘cultural quarter’ concept.

36 The possibility of large scale commercial leisure, perhaps of international

15

significance could also be explored. At the other end of the scale, we believe there is scope for the rejuvenation of many of outer London’s medium-sized theatres, and extending their use for purposes such as art house cinemas.

37 Some parts of outer London have seen a rapid growth in the night time economy. It is important to remember, though, that areas with a night time economy require effective management and promotion to ensure that they remain attractive and safe, and that potential negative impacts on local residents and businesses are managed effectively.

Retail38 Consumer spending will be a vital

economic driver in outer London, underscoring the importance of retail here. New retail should be focused on town centres and provided in ways that seek to enhance their distinct characteristics – there is no reason why even a centre with a large number of national stores should be a “clone town”, and places with a distinct feel and character are likely to be those that will thrive. At neighbourhood and more local centre level there is scope to integrate new retail provision into larger, predominantly residential developments to support place shaping as well as providing essential services.

39 The Commission believes that efficient management of town centres is vital- particularly when combined with targeted

investment and regeneration of particular centres. The London Development Agency has a particular role to play both in helping support the extension of models like Business Improvement Districts and more directly through supporting site assembly. Transport issues need to be given particular emphasis, especially encouraging access to and within centres by walking and cycling.

40 There is a need to understand and build upon the distinctive character and role of different types of centre, ranging from the Metropolitan centres, with their particular transport needs, through to smaller District and Neighbourhood centres. Each has an important part to play, and maintaining the kind of network that has been one of outer London’s real strengths will require careful and realistic planning. The tools that could be used to achieve this include policies to encourage a diverse and vibrant retail mix across centres, such as supporting the provision of affordable shop units, and promoting street markets to enhance vitality of town centres. Greater encouragement of walking and cycling as more environmentally sound and healthier means of getting into and going around town centres is also essential

The Outer London labour market

Skills41 In terms of school-age education, outer

London out performs inner London - its residents have higher rates of employment


and lower rates of worklessness than inner London residents. It has more economically active people than that inner London – partly because it has a large, albeit slowly growing, employment base of its own, and partly because it is home to many Londoners who work elsewhere, especially in inner London.

42 To build on this success, it is vital that the distinctive skills needs of outer London are addressed. Public sector investment in skills is targeted on need not geography, and this tends to result in broad-brush approaches tackling broad-based areas of need. Outer London should not be overlooked. The Commission recommends that the LDA should adopt an approach to commissioning training and skills provision which will provide further opportunities for locally driven responses while delivering strategic outcomes.

Transport and outer London

43 Transport is a huge issue for outer London. Before summarising the Commissions considerations for different issues, it agreed some general principles to inform its detailed recommendations:

44 Most importantly, the Commission has taken seriously the need to ensure that what it says about transport is realistic – public sector resources are tight and likely to be tighter. Investment in transport infrastructure will require a strong business case. For outer London this

will mean considering the extent of the benefit it will bring whether in transport terms (such as travel time savings) or in the development it can support. These judgements will have to be informed by the distribution and density of population, jobs and development. Having entered these caveats, the Commission considers it is essential that investment in transport infrastructure specific to outer London, its unique character and distinctive needs is not neglected. Outer London does benefit from pan-London and radial improvements, however, and these should not be seen as polar opposites locked in a zero-sum game.

45 These considerations were weighed by the Commission in considering the case made by a number of stakeholders for a high-speed, contiguous orbital transport system. It concluded that a “star and cluster” model (see Figure 1) offers a more effective and practical model to meet the needs of the constellation of centres and employment locations characterising outer London. Orbital movement around London can also be facilitated by developing and improving strategic interchanges and ensuring the most is made of existing links.

17

46 Moving from these general principles, the Commission has considered the role of different modes of transport:• Rail is proportionately more important

in outer London than for other parts of the capital, especially in south London where there is less tube coverage. Particularly given the shortage of resources, the Commission recommends that there should be an emphasis on making the current system operate more effectively, including improving connectivity and interchange with other transport services like buses and cycling. The welcome move towards viewing rail services as an integrated network in ticketing, timetabling, service levels, information provision and promotion should be extended to those parts of the system which are still not covered. The Commission recommends that further improvements should be made

to the quality of stations, including improvements to make travellers feel more secure, improved information for travellers and more effective coordination with other modes. There is also a case for medium-scale investment – such as providing new strategic interchanges or improving existing ones – which can give significant benefits for relatively modest investment.

• Buses will continue to be a vital component of public transport in outer London and need to be better integrated with other modes such that passengers can make whole journeys by public transport. Buses and coaches can be used to improve orbital connectivity in outer London, and the Commission suggests consideration of things like express services and strategic coach hubs that can facilitate this. Better service information and marketing are also recommended.

• Ticketing: stakeholders also raised the question of fare affordability, which is widely seen as a particular issue for outer London. The Commission would like to see a review of ticketing measures – such as development of the Oyster concept to provide an outer London travelcard – to address this.

• Cycling and walking are key Mayoral policy priorities, The Commission shares his enthusiasm, and recommends that opportunities to increase them as ways of getting around outer London are identified and taken up. These support other Commission recommendations

Figure 1: “Star and cluster” approach using existing links and improved strategic interchanges shown in orange


dealing with things like ensuring a liveable public realm and easy access to local services. There is particular potential to encourage cycling and walking to and in town centres, which will have health and environmental as well as transport and health benefits and should be promoted as modes of choice. There is a particular case for leadership by boroughs in developing cycle hubs and promoting cycling. The Commission supports a combination of incentives and investment to encourage these sustainable modes, and to give a real choice not to use private cars.

• The car is likely to remain a key mode for many trips in outer London, however. The Commission recommends more effective road management and cross-borough work to address congestion. These should include ways of improving freight transport and servicing and reducing the need for “school runs”. It also supports speeding up the process for approval of highway projects. There is scope to reduce local traffic through better integration of land use and transport planning, especially in relation to local retail centres, and for some local enhancements to road capacity to address particular congestion problems. Alongside these steps, the Commission considers there is a role for demand management measures, potentially including road user charging in the longer term. Consideration should also be given to more effective ways of managing road works.

Car parking policy in outer London should be developed on an individual and local basis – a “one size fits all” approach is not appropriate to such a diverse area. A balance must be struck between promoting new development and preventing excessive parking provision which can discourage sustainable modes and increase congestion.

The Commission suggests a flexible approach. It recognises the point made by many developers that the lack of onsite parking for office developments in outer London puts them at a disadvantage compared with centres outside London. There is also a case for liberalisation in town centres in need of regeneration. The Commission therefore recommends a selective review of parking policies. It also supports park and ride schemes where these will reduce congestion and journey times and promotion of car sharing and car clubs.

• Freight: Increases in the density of commercial activity across London, including outer London, will require logistics premises to support the associated demand in freight and servicing vehicles. This may include the need for consolidation centres, but the case for them still needs to be understood further. In addition to managing congestion at key locations in outer London, increasing the role of rail and river in freight movements will relieve some of the pressures on the road network. However, it is essential to take realistic account of the primary role of

19

road transport in sustaining London’s industrial and other business locations so that they can realise their potential contribution to the wider metropolitan economy.

Outer London as a place to live

47 The Commission is clear that economic issues cannot and should not be considered in a vacuum, and throughout its work it has taken account of the range of likely benefits of a more polycentric approach to development, while avoiding simplistic links between population growth and job creation. It makes clear the importance of “place-shaping” and ensuring new development fits in with local needs and heritage, so places are attractive to live in as well as work in. This will require encouragement of mixed use development and support for local capacity-building, high quality design and appropriate development densities.

48 While it is important to encourage affordable family housing, there is also a need to accommodate the needs of smaller households. All housing should be of high quality; the Commission also recommends that a closer look should be taken at the links between housing density, accessibility and parking provision – all things that form the sense of place and neighbourhood and can help make better places to live.

49 As its ‘pure’ economic recommendations above make clear, the Commission was conscious that improving housing provision to meet local needs and to support the wider London economy does not mean relegating outer London to a ‘dormitory’ role – an important concern for some of its respondents. Indeed, increased housing provision can, coincidentally increase local jobs. One element in this would be a more consistent approach to implementation of housing density policy. Emerging density policy appears to place greater emphasis on respecting local context by responding sensitively to different local circumstance. This should enable boroughs to enhance capacity in appropriate locations such as town centres, while supporting lower density development in neighbourhoods served less well by public transport. High quality design is an essential complement to this. It is clear that housing policy cannot focus solely on numbers, and the Commission stresses the importance of looking at how new homes should be planned for, built and supported with the social and other infrastructure which new and existing neighbourhoods need if they are to be sustainable.

50 Ensuring development of sustainable communities is likely to require new delivery models. There may be particular scope for community-based initiatives. It will also be vital to make sure mayoral strategies and their implementation are


carefully coordinated to ensure public investment secures the maximum benefit.

Quality of life

51 Maintaining and improving the quality of life for those living and working in outer London is vital to realising its potential contributions to London as a whole. While the Commission’s recommendations support more development, it is also clear that it is important to ensure growth can be harnessed and influenced to help improve the quality of places in outer London, and the quality of life for those living there. In practice, this means taking a neighbourhood-based approach to promote and support local functions. As already mentioned, it strongly supported application of the concept of “place-making” and reinforcing the importance of town centres. It also supported the idea of “lifetime neighbourhoods” – those meeting the needs of residents at all stages of their lives.

52 The Commission would agree with its many respondents concerns over the need to secure appropriate local social infrastructure (such as schools and healthcare), to give greater attention to London’s “green suburbs” and to enhance the semi-public realm and to ensure its maintenance. As part of this, it supports a general presumption against development of back gardens where this is a problem, and continued and vigorous protection of the open spaces so vital to

preservation of the quality of life in outer London. The Commission recommends that further work on these issues should be undertaken at strategic level, including updating of the Mayor’s “Toolkit for Tomorrow’s Suburbs”. There is a particular need to develop new ways of enabling greater community identity and cohesion to help foster a sense of ownership and empowerment in taking decisions about growth and development.

53 The Commission noted the historic justifications for targeting resources on inner London because of the concentration of problems of deprivation there. It considered that if a more fine-grained approach is taken, more localised concentrations of chronic deprivation could be identified in outer London and that there might be benefit for the capital in considering the reallocation of some (but by no means all) social and local renewal to realise the potential of those who are still disadvantaged, but not to the extent of those in the most acute need. It also disagreed with the view that the lack of national funding programmes and of strong market drivers means that strategic measures to address outer London’s social and physical infrastructure needs would be difficult. The Commission recognises that financial constraints limit the potential for major infrastructure investment, but this does not mean that it is not needed in some places, nor that innovative solutions cannot be found to address some of these constraints.

21 21

The governance of change

54 The Commission recognises that the London Development Agency (LDA) and Transport for London (TfL) are now working to make outer London a higher spatial priority in their investment strategies and plans. To support this, the LDA in particular should encourage local partnerships by, for example, facilitating land assembly, helping create capacity for town centre management and identifying distinct outer London skills needs.

55 The Commission supports streamlining of the development process in order to reduce the time spent on the planning permission process and speed up the production of local development frameworks. It supports boroughs retaining part of the national non-domestic rates paid by businesses in their area, and allowing them to borrow against future Council Tax income. There is also room for changes to national government practice – in speeding up the identification and disposal of surplus public land, for example.

The future

56 This report marks the end of the Commission’s formal task. In looking back over its work, it reflects on the huge and increasing diversity of outer London, and the many talented people it has in its businesses, voluntary organisations, communities and boroughs. It highlights

some areas where further work should be done – aspects of quality of life, institutional arrangements (especially in terms of cross-boundary working), what climate change might mean for the area and, in particular, the resources available to help it realise its economic potential and the scope to make London’s ‘spatial strategy’ more effective in coordinating investment beyond its traditional land use, transport and environmental areas of concern. There are also some specific issues for further research, like the definition of ‘knowledge-based’ and ‘green’ industries.

57 In conclusion, the Commission suggests that consideration be given to maintaining a forum for outer London to advise on implementation of the recommendations in this report and, perhaps separately, to provide the basis for occasional, high level engagement with key stakeholders in the outer London economy to identify and assess emerging challenges and opportunities.

1.1 The Outer London Commission (OLC) was formally established by the Mayor of London in February 2009 as a small, highly experienced and focused group, to advise how outer London can play its full part in the city’s economic success. In short, its task was to see how outer London could be given “a shot in the arm”, redressing what has been seen as an imbalance in the attention given to outer London and refocusing attention on a part of the capital that plays so important a role in the life of our city.

Overall purpose of the report

1.2 This is the Commission’s final report. It:• Examines the extent to which outer

London has potential to contribute to the economic success of London as a whole

• Identifies the factors which are holding it back from doing so, and

• Makes recommendations on policies and mechanisms to enable to enable it to play its full part in London’s future success.

The report addresses the fundamental reasons for establishing the Commission in the first place – to identify the capacity to grow the outer London economy in a sustainable way, removing barriers to growth for competitive, established sectors and to attract new ones; explore the potential contribution of a few large “growth hubs”; secure the wider rejuvenation of outer London’s town centres and other business locations; improve outer London’s quality of life,

business and residential environments; examine the relationship between population, housing and economic growth and the infrastructure necessary to support this.

Methodology

1.3 The Commission has taken pains to ensure its discussions, conclusions and recommendations are based on credible and robust evidence. Starting from a ‘First Thoughts’ paper based on initially available information, the Commission set out to establish a base line data set showing as far as possible economic performance and other trends over two business cycles. It has gratefully used past research and studies (including that prepared for the GLA by Robin Thompson) and has commissioned new work where needed. It has also engaged in the evolution of the joint evidence base developed by the GLA Group to support the draft replacement London Plan and the Mayor’s draft Economic Development and Transport strategies.

1.4 The Commission was clear from the outset that the experiences, views and ideas of those who have engaged with outer London and its issues over the years would be an essential resource on which it would need to draw. With this in mind the second step it took was an extensive series of consultation meetings with outer London boroughs, business groups, civic amenity societies

1: Introduction 23


and others to address the aspirations of outer London and the priorities for policy intervention. The starting point for this was responses to a set of written questions published on the Commission’s website (see Annex 2). In addition to the provision of written questions, there were more than thirty meetings of one to one/ small group discussions with stakeholders and ‘meetings in public’ in the quadrants of outer London. Figure 1.1 shows the locations of the public meetings:

1.5 The next stage was to draw on the evidence and views the Commission had gathered to consider the spatial opportunities for outer London growth, taking particular account of the likely levels of investment in transport and accessibility.

1.6 Finally, the Commission reached its conclusions and made recommendations. As requested in its terms of reference, it prepared an interim report in June 2009 to help inform the draft replacement London Plan and other mayoral strategies issued

Figure 1.1: Locations of OLC public meetings.

25

for consultation in October. This interim report and evidence submitted to the Commission can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/olc/docs/interim-conclusions.pdf.

1.7 This is our final report, which draws our conclusions and recommendations together, and shows how these have been developed, and the evidence on which they are based. This process has broadly followed the “survey – analysis – plan” approach familiar to town planners in drawing up strategic policy.

1.8 The period over which this work was carried out is shown in Figure 1.2. This also shows the relationship between the

Commission’s work, and the processes for revising the London Plan and the Mayor’s Economic Development and Transport strategies:

The Commission

1.9 The Commission was chaired by William McKee CBE, who has extensive experience in both the public and private sectors. Its membership comprised representatives from diverse backgrounds including business, boroughs, architecture and design, developers and the voluntary sector:

Chair: William McKee CBE Sir Terry Farrell, Adviser on architecture and

civic design

Figure 1.2: The work of the Commission: a timeline


Colin Stanbridge, London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Cllr Mike Fisher, LB Croydon (nominated by London Councils)

Cllr Clyde Loakes, LB Waltham Forest (nominated by London Councils)

Cllr Serge Lourie, LB Richmond-upon-Thames (nominated by London Councils)

Robert Heskett, Land Securities Tony Pidgley, Berkeley Group Nigel Keen, John Lewis Partnership Peter Eversden, London Forum of Amenity

and Civic Societies Corinne Swain, Arup Professor Ian Gordon, London School of

Economics Peter Rogers/Peter Bishop, London

Development Agency Peter Hendy/Michele Dix, Transport for

London Secretariat: John Lett, Rob Coward, Hannah

Phillips (GLA), Peter Wright (TfL).

Terms of Reference

1.10 The Mayor set the Commission the following terms of reference:

“Identify the extent to which outer London has unrealised potential to contribute to London’s economic success, identify the factors which are holding it back and recommend policies and proposals for the future development of outer London to the Mayor for inclusion in the London Plan and other GLA group strategies and guidance. These should include:

• Ways of encouraging employment growth in outer London.

• Ways of identifying, and supporting the development of economic growth hubs in outer London.

• The role of town centres and town centre based initiatives such as business improvement districts and town centre partnerships.

• The role that heritage and urban design issues might play.

• The links between housing, retail, office based and other types of employment and development in outer London.

• Links between economic success and improving quality of life in outer London, and ways of managing these effectively.

• Infrastructure and other supporting investment required to support economic growth in outer London.

• Methods of funding such infrastructure and investment.

• Identify issues that are presented by the relationship between outer, inner and central London.

1.11 The Commission was also requested to make general and place specific recommendations about implementing the policies and initiatives, including:• Improving the current arrangements for

sub- regional working.• Encouraging more effective joint action

by boroughs, the GLA Group, other public sector agencies and the private and not- for- profit sectors.

• Ways to make public, private and third sector partnerships to secure investment

27

and development in outer London more effective.

• Establishing more effective communication with neighbouring regions to secure coordinated economic

development of outer London and neighbouring parts of the wider metropolitan area.

Definition of Outer London:

The definition of outer London used by the OLC was based on that used by the GLA in the initial preparation of the London Plan . It includes the following boroughs: Barking & Dagenham, Barnet, Bexley, Brent, Bromley, Croydon, Ealing, Enfield, Haringey, Harrow, Havering, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kingston upon Thames, Merton, Newham, Redbridge, Richmond upon Thames, Sutton and Waltham Forest.

Compared to the GLA definition of outer London the ONS definition includes Greenwich but excludes Newham and Haringey. It should be noted that following the consultation undertaken by the OLC, in particular representation by Newham regarding the dominant characteristics of the borough, the definition of outer London changed to reclassify Newham as part of inner London (see Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.3 Definition of outer London (as amended)


This report

1.12 Following the “survey – analysis – plan” approach, this report is divided into sections as outlined below:

Chapter 2: ”Survey” summarises key parts of the evidence gathered by the Commission and taken into account in its work. It briefly outlines the historic background to the development of the outer London economy and highlights elements of the Commission’s evidence base relating to its size and importance, its role in the wider London economy, its structure and geography. It also sets out information about outer London’s workforce and its resources of land and investment

Chapter 3: “Analysis” draws on the evidence in the previous chapter to develop recommendations and proposals. It examines:• The possible scale of economic growth in

outer London• The kinds of economic sectors that might

support growth in the area• The case for a hub-based approach to

policy• Ways of making the existing economic

geography of outer London – town centres, strategic industrial locations, Opportunity/Intensification Areas etc. work better to support growth in outer London

• The importance of quality of life and environmental quality issues

• The question of linkages with neighbouring regions outside London and the “outer metropolitan area”

• Transport issues that will have to be addressed. : Existing policy approaches and drivers of economic success, including the historic approach of the London Plan and development of London, the current economic recession, additional analysis for transport and land use options and economic viability.

Chapter 4: “Plan”/Recommendations – sets out our final conclusions and recommendations:

This is followed by a list of key references used in preparing the report, together with a series of Annexes providing further information.

2: Survey

Introduction

2.1 This chapter of the report seeks to briefly summarise the evidence which the Commission gathered or had access to. With such a complex and broad ranging array of material there is no single, simple methodology for presenting it. The pragmatic response has been to briefly describe the main sources of information used and then, to set the scene, sketch a potted history of outer London. This is followed by largely statistical outlines of the key issues considered by the Commission, broken down broadly by those which are ‘demand side’ (output, employment, businesses) and ‘supply side’ (population and workforce). In the world of planning (rather than economics) there can be considerable overlap between the two, but the distinction has been made to help the reader. This is complemented by sections on housing, transport, and ‘quality of life’ and, by way of synthesis, one which explores possible future trends in the outer London economy and another summarising what key stakeholders thought of its economic past and see for its future.

Sources

2.2 The Commission was able to draw, and reach its own conclusions, on a wealth of published studies on London, some dealing with London as a whole but touching, sometimes in depth, on outer London e.g. Jerry White’s opus on London

29

in the 20th century1; others dealing with outer London as a geographic entity2 and some dealing with specific themes3. Also important were broader studies, such as thematic analysis, for example that by Sir Peter Hall and Cathy Pain on ‘polycentricity’4 and that by the Solutions team5 on sustainable development. The work of the ‘London Group’6 of academics was particularly illuminating.

2.3 Of more immediate interest were the reports by Robin Thompson7 and the London Assembly8 prepared to inform the 2008 edition of the Plan. These showed what had previously been addressed in this context (the Commission had no wish to reinvent the research wheel), and also what had not, or perhaps more pertinently, not in the way in which the Commission’s brief was cast.

2.4 Where the Commission was able to add a new dimension was in engaging with the key stakeholders in the London economy to find out what they thought were the key opportunities and challenges it faced and how they might be addressed (see Chapter 1 of this report for methodology). The contributors to this process are noted in Annex 8 and their responses briefly summarised below. These, and, the evidence they submitted to the Commission, are available on the Commission’s website9.


2.5 The Commission sought to assess these views, and its own, through independent analysis. This work was undertaken in an iterative way, initially testing the propositions in its ‘First Thoughts’ paper10. This is set out in full as an annex to the present report because it shows ‘where the Commission was coming from’ when it began its work.

2.6 As it progressed the Commission sought to make the most effective use of integrated material being prepared to inform the draft Transport and Economic Development Strategies as well as the London Plan. Thus the Commission was able to influence and benefit from the results of large scale ‘number crunching’ exercises assessing long term trends in London’s demography and economy as well as testing different approaches to transport investment.

2.7 However, it began its work by first evaluating the demographic, economic and investment assumptions which had underpinned the 2008 Plan, and moving on to assessment of emerging analysis, such as then new historic employment trends prepared by Cambridge Econometrics, Oxford Economics and Business Strategies Limited (Annex 3A) before exploring what were to become the 2009 London Plan base trends and projections11 (Annex 3B). These are summarised in iterations of the Joint Strategies Evidence base12.

2.8 GLA Economics13 and the LDA14 prepared a series of statistical analyses of some of the individual issues and areas identified by the Commission. They are raised below, together with the results of relevant ‘one-off’ studies, such as the London Office Policy Review15 (which included a bespoke analysis of the outer London and Metropolitan Area office markets); the London Town Centres Health Check and retail need study16, the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment/Housing Capacity Study17 and borough level sectoral refinements to the 2009 Plan’s economic projections18. The Commission also reconsidered some of the evidence which underpinned the 2008 London Plan19. It was fortunate in being able to draw on the expertise of one of its members involved in preparing the most recent edition of the City of London’s annual ‘London’s Place in the UK Economy’ report20, which includes a separate section on outer London.

2.9 In taking account of such a range of sources covering a long period, the Commission encountered a range of definitional issues, not least geographical. As far as possible, it conducted its analysis on the basis of the area of outer London defined in its brief (see Figure 1.1) – which inter alia contributed to its recommendation that Newham was more appropriately defined as an inner London borough (see Figure 1.3). Where this was not possible, the definitions used are noted in the text/footnotes.

31

Outer London: historic context

2.10 Outer London is a mixture of old and new. The capital’s outward growth embraced ancient towns and villages – the first written record mentioning Croydon is an Anglo Saxon will dating from 962 and parts of Ealing have been occupied for at least 700 years. But other areas and much of the area’s “connective tissue” is much more recent – most of suburban north west London was built in the years between the world wars, and photographs of the areas from the early thirties around new Underground stations in places like Edgware show small rural villages unrecognisable today. The term “connective tissue” is an apposite one; London’s outward surge followed improvements in public transport and the construction of new infrastructure which made it possible to work in central London while living in places with many of the conveniences of urban living and the quality of life of more rural areas.

2.11 The administrative County of London established in 1889 covered the area roughly encompassed by Travelcard zones 1 and 2. The continuously built-up area extended a little further out into the areas around the docks to the east, Hackney and Hampstead to the north and Herne Hill to the south. Cheap workmen’s rail fares helped the city spread to the north and east from the 1860s. The consolidation of previously privately-owned and competing tram networks

by the London County Council between 1896 and 1906, and provision of services by local authorities like East Ham helped support further expansion. These are the suburbs marked by terraces of Victorian and Edwardian houses in places like Brixton, Tottenham and West Ham.

2.12 The greatest expansion, though, came in the period between the two world wars. This was when what is now north-west London was developed, seeing huge population growth (north-west Middlesex grew by 800,000 in this period) supported by new rail lines and services. Perhaps the best known example of this is the Metropolitan Railway, which established a development subsidiary to build houses in places like Harrow and Pinner.

2.13 The 1930s saw a range of new industries move to outer London where larger sites with easy access to the large and growing markets of the London area – for example Fords in Dagenham in the 1920s and Hoover building its iconic works on the Western Avenue. Outer London was not only a place where more and more people lived, but also a place where many worked and made things. By the 1950s, for example, Fords were producing around a quarter of a million vehicles each year at Dagenham and London as a whole accommodated a quarter of the country’s manufacturing jobs, most in outer London. Particularly after the second world war, outer London experienced substantial growth in office based jobs, providing


‘back offices’ for central London’s business and financial services, administrative and headquarters functions for firms which wanted a London location without central London costs, central government administrative functions, and some specialist activities such pharmaceuticals and the emerging IT sector.

2.14 Manufacturing in London started to decline in the early 1970s. In 1971, there were over a million manufacturing jobs in the capital, many of them in outer London. There are now 224,000, with the prospect of further decline to 89,000 by 203121. The large factories in outer London closed as production was moved to other parts of the United Kingdom where larger, cheaper sites were available – or out of the country altogether. Exacerbated by technological and organisational change and government dispersal policy, a similar process also affected some of outer London’s large post-war office occupiers.

2.15 However, at the same time new, more locally based jobs were being created in the service sectors like retail, leisure, personal and business services and the creative industries, especially to meet the local needs of an increasingly affluent population. The result is a hugely variegated one, with some parts of the area still coping with the consequences of the first shift to a post-industrial economy or with the first set of post-industrial changes as large scale office occupation contracted in the 1980s and 1990s, while

others have seen traditional strengths in services reinforced and built upon as sectors change and new ones come forward. The remainder of this chapter seeks to map this variety.

Outer London economy: demand side

How big is the outer London economy?

Output2.16 In workplace output terms, outer London

accounted for a third (32.6% – £83,064 million) of London’s £254,621 million economy in 200722. While this was little more than half (54%) of that of the ‘home counties’ as a whole (Essex, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Kent), its was substantially larger than any individual county e.g. Beds & Herts £36,310 million, Essex £28,349 million, Surrey £26,992 million, Kent £26,519 million). The outer West &North West ONS London sub-region accounted for 47 per cent of the outer London total, with the outer East & North East contributing a further 27 per cent and outer South 26 per cent.

2.17 Between 1995 and 2007, outer London’s workplace based output grew at a significantly slower rate (86%) than that of inner London (138%), with the outer E & NE (72%) and outer S (76%) growing more slowly than outer W and NW (101%). This rate of growth was also slower than that recorded for the ‘home counties’ as

33

a whole (103%), and at individual county level only Buckinghamshire had a slower growth rate (79%).

2.18 It must be borne in mind that these are workplace not residence based measures of output. The high levels of out-commuting by outer London residents to inner London and, to a lesser extent, to the ‘home counties’ (see below) create a rather different pattern. A rough proxy for this distribution is provided by that

Figure 2.1 Gross average weekly household income 2007/8

for average resident household income in Figure 2.1, which shows the boroughs towards the west of outer London as part of a more extensive distribution of wealthier districts across the western parts of the Outer Metropolitan Area, and conversely, the less affluent eastern boroughs as part of a similarly characterised area beyond London’s boundaries, especially towards the south east. However, as more detailed analysis later in this report demonstrates, as an


indication of the incomes of different types of household, this broad brush impression can be misleading: a finer appreciation shows a much more complex picture.

Employment2.19 In workplace employment terms, Annex 3B

shows that outer London accounted for two fifths (42% – 1.97 million) of London’s 4.67 million jobs in 2007. This was more than half (60%) of that of the ‘home counties’ as a whole (Essex, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Kent), and was substantially larger than any individual county e.g. Kent 635,000, Essex 625,000, Surrey 506,000, Berkshire, 462,000)

2.20 Over time, employment growth in outer London has been relatively slow, but steady. This is in contrast to the more boom-to-bust cycle that characterises employment in inner London. In fact, employment has been largely steady across outer London for several decades, although employment growth over the two last economic cycles has been lower in outer London than in London as a whole.

2.21 Peak to peak across two economic cycles (1989 – 2001 and 2001 – 2007) outer London employment grew by an average 0.14 per cent pa or 2,800 pa, compared with 0.46 per cent pa in inner London23 (5,100 pa) and 1.23 per cent pa (36,000 pa) in the ‘home counties’. More recently growth has been slower, with outer London employment growing by 0.17 per cent or

3,200 pa 1989 – 2001 and 0.10 per cent pa (1,900 pa) 2001 – 2007. This compares with 0.49 per cent pa (5,300 pa) in inner London 1989 –2001 and 0.41 per cent pa (4,600 pa) 2001 – 2007, and in the ‘home counties’ respectively 1.71 per cent pa (50,000 pa) and 0.28 per cent pa (9,000 pa) over the same periods24. See Annex 3C for the ‘home counties’ employment figures 1989-2007.

How is employment growth distributed?

2.22 Figures 2.2 and 2.3 and Annex 3B show that over the two cycles spanning 1989 – 2007, outer London employment growth was far from homogeneous. At borough level:• Five outer boroughs exceeded the pan-

London total average growth for the period (8.9%) and the inner London average (8.6%): LB Hillingdon (50.6%); LB Richmond (41.0%); LB Barnet (18.4%); LB Haringey (13.5%) and LB Bromley (12.9%).

Of the remainder• Four boroughs were above the outer

London average (2.6%): LB Kingston (8.5%); LB Merton (7.4%); Redbridge (6.4%) and LB Harrow (6.3%).

• One borough was below the outer London average but had positive growth: LB Sutton (1.1%); and

• Nine outer boroughs had negative growth: LB Havering (-0.2%); LB Ealing (-4.9%); LB Bexley (-6.2%); LB Enfield (-6.4%); LB Brent (-11.0%); LB Croydon (-13.8%); LB Waltham Forest (-14.0%); LB Hounslow (-16.2%) and LB Barking & Dagenham (-27.1%).

35

2.23 Analysis of annual average change in employment in Figures 2.2 and 2.3 shows that for outer London as a whole there was a slight difference in employment growth rates between the cycles, 0.17 per cent pa 1989-2001, compared to 0.10 per cent pa 2001-2007, compared to the inner London respective averages of 0.46 per cent pa and 0.36 per cent pa respectively.

2.24 In outer London, the pattern at borough level however reveals significant variations. Five boroughs in outer west and south London (Harrow, Hillingdon, Kingston, Merton and Richmond) experienced positive average annual employment growth across both cycles. Employment growth rates were particularly strong across the two cycles 1989-2001 and 2001-2007 in Hillingdon (3% pa and 0.9% pa respectively) and Richmond

Figure 2.2 Average annual change in employment over economic cycles 1989-2001 and 2001 – 2007Source: Roger Tym & Partners, 2010


(2% pa and 1.8% pa respectively). Four boroughs (Barnet, Havering, Redbridge and Sutton) experienced positive annual average employment growth 1989-2001 but negative annual average employment growth in 2001-2007. Three boroughs (Bromley, Ealing and Haringey) experienced negative annual average employment growth 1989-2001 but strong positive annual average employment growth in 2001-2007. Seven boroughs (Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Brent, Croydon, Enfield, Hounslow and Waltham Forest) experienced negative average annual employment growth across both cycles.

2.25 Figures 2.2 and 2.3 highlight this variation in employment growth. To some extent the variation in growth rates reflects the state of industries located in different boroughs. As noted below, some industries are concentrated in small geographies. Barking & Dagenham has historically been an area associated with manufacturing, an industry that has been in decline for decades, whereas employment in Richmond is much more heavily concentrated in finance and other service industries. These industries have been growing rapidly in the last three decades.

2.26 Figures 2.4a and 2.4b show that Borough level analysis can distort appreciation of the distribution of growth. A finer grained approach to London’s economic

Figure 2.3 Average annual % change in employment over economic cycles

37

Figure 2.4a London’s Economic Geography

Figure 2.4b London’s Economic Geography: shares of employment in key economic activities 2002Source: Annual Business Inquiry, GLA Economics. Based on ONS definition of outer London


geography highlights what GLA Economics25 call the ‘pillars’ of the outer London economy focused on Heathrow and Croydon, together with ‘corridors’ of development that offer potential for employment growth and ‘wider urban areas’.

2.27 Sectors shown in Figure 2.4b make up around 60 per cent of total employment in outer London (sectors including construction, hotels and parts of the public sector were not included in the analysis).

2.28 Heathrow is notably dominated by passenger transport, freight and storage activities, reflecting the position of the airport in the local economy. As a result, the area has very small shares of employment in local activities and in schools and hospitals – employment that can be viewed as serving the needs of the local community.

In comparison the outer urban areas generally have larger shares of employees engaged in local activities and in schools and hospitals (further details on this below).

2.29 Also of note are relatively large shares of Croydon’s and south eastern London’s employment in financial services. Amongst outer London areas, creative jobs are most predominant in the western and south western zones and wholesale activities provide large shares of employment in the western wedge. The data shows

that the Thames Gateway area of outer London was most reliant on traditional manufacturing activities as of 2002.

2.30 The 2007 Annual Business Inquiry shows that the two largest outer London areas of employment in absolute terms are Croydon (with 92,000 employees) and Heathrow and its immediate surrounds (with 91,000 employees). To put this in context, the City of London (which is, in terms of land mass, less than a sixth of the size of Croydon) accounts for over 300,000 employees (or just under a seventh of all the jobs in outer London). Other Outer Metropolitan centres (as defined in the London Plan) with large clusters of employment include Uxbridge (around 35,000 employees), Bromley (27,000 employees) and Kingston (23,000 employees). Most other Metropolitan and Major centres in outer London have fewer than 20,000 employee jobs.

To test this distribution further, GLA Economics have undertaken more detailed spatial analysis:

Employment in outer London town centres

2.31 Employment density in outer London is far lower than in central London and so much of the geographic variation in density within outer London is hidden if it is examined as part of employment density across London as a whole (Figure 2.6). Figure 2.5 below therefore examines employment density in outer London only and so uses a scale that explicitly shows

39

the finer variation in employment across outer London. If employment in outer London was only located in town centres this map would show a number of darker patches that correspond to town centres. But it does not. There are many areas of employment that are outside town centres and sometimes the number of people working here is quite substantial. In total, around 60 per cent of outer London

employees work in town centres and about 40 per cent work outside these centres.

2.32 Places where people work outside centres include industrial parks like Park Royal, the Thameside sites in East London, and sites in Enfield. Or they are smaller industrial sites, such as in New Addington. They include hospitals, for example in Bromley Common, or universities, like in Coombe Hill. And around Heathrow airport there

Figure 2.5: Employment density in outer London by Middle Supper Output Area. Town Centres are shaded in red and blue. Source: GLA Economics


are a number of industrial sites and office parks. Office parks are not uncommon in West London.

Method2.33 This analysis was conducted using

data from the Annual Business Inquiry at Middle Supper Output Area. This geography was used because there are over 900 MSOA, about 50 per cent more than wards. This helped increase the granularity of the analysis. MSOAs that contain any part of a town centre, including those that merely share a border, were assumed to be part of a town centre to allow for any instances where town centre boundaries follow retail patterns rather than class B uses as defined by DCLG (PPS4). All employment within these MSOAs was aggregated and assumed as ‘town centre’ employment. Any employment in the other MSOAs was not defined as town centre employment. This analysis did not attempt to estimate employment in individual town centres.

2.34 This is an important point for the Commission and perhaps one which runs counter to the perceptions of some of its consultees. Employment in outer London is not concentrated in a few small areas, but is actually spread widely across the region, with generally more people working in the western half. The Metropolitan Town Centres make up only a small amount of total employment but are significantly clusters relative to their surroundings. Together with the Major and

District centres, the 119 town centres in outer London account for around 60 per cent of employment in outer London. The remaining 40 per cent is located outside these town centres, in industrial areas, business parks or in smaller local centres.

2.35 Employment in the town centres varies as much as across outer London as a whole. For example: • Much of the employment in Croydon

is split across three broad economic sectors. Financial and business services currently employ around 27,000. Public administration, education and health activities provide 25,000 jobs and the broad distribution, hotels and restaurants sector employs a further 21,000.

• In Uxbridge, public administration, education and health services account for around 10,500 jobs. The other largest sources of employment are the distribution, hotels and restaurants sector (just over 9,000 jobs) and business services (7,000 jobs).

• In Bromley, financial and business services accounts for 11,000 employees, with around half of these jobs in financial services. Distribution, hotels and restaurants account for almost 6,000 and only slightly less are in public administration, education and health.

• Finally, in Kingston, retail and wholesale is the largest sector of employment, providing around 7,000 jobs. Other economic activities in this area are public administration, education and health with

41

7,000 jobs and business services with around 4,000 jobs.

The GLA is advised to examine the types of work occurring in out of centre as well as these town centre locations and if possible to explore their relative growth rates.

What are the key clusters of economic activity in outer London?

2.36 While it is useful to examine the composition of employment in outer London this only compares areas against areas. It is also worthwhile to consider the location of employment within specific industries. By examining the location of specific industries it is possible to identify industrial clusters where significant numbers of employees within the industry are located. Some sectors benefit more than others by being located near to one another. These clusters may then continue to attract the same type of industry. Other sectors tend to locate together in areas where there is a natural advantage to them. For example, businesses moving large amounts of goods between cities may locate near a motorway because of the transport infrastructure usually, rather than because they benefit from being near one another.

2.37 It is possible to identify sectors that are significantly located within outer London. So even though employment in these may be small – causing the activity to ‘disappear’ when looking at borough-level

data – a substantial proportion of it may be located there, as an sector cluster.

2.38 Data from the annual business inquiry shows that clusters of employees exist in outer London in a number of sectors. These range from manufacturing to insurance activities.26

2.39 West London is home to a number of industrial clusters, particularly in what is known as the ‘western wedge’ from Heathrow to central London. These include many ‘creative’ industries, including:• Motion picture, video and television

programme production, sound recording and music publishing activities;

• Programming and broadcasting activities; and

• Advertising and market research.

There are also a number of west London centres where Scientific Research and Development is concentrated.

2.40 It was noted above that many more people are employed in financial services in Croydon than in other parts of outer London. This is largely because of a significant cluster of insurance and reinsurance activities and a smaller cluster exists in nearby Bromley.

2.41 Notable clusters in manufacturing and warehousing employment exist elsewhere in outer London, particularly near transport infrastructure. Manufacturing is most prominent near Heathrow, Park


Royal and in the Upper Lea Valley. Warehousing follows a similar pattern, with additional clusters near London City Airport, Croydon and along the Thames in East London. The Commission was mindful that employment is only one measure of economic activity. It did, for example, identify functionally important clusters of manufacturing related activity elsewhere e.g. at Biggin Hill and in south Kingston. The GLA and more local stakeholders could usefully work together to identify

other such functionally important clusters, including those in other sectors such as leisure and culture.

How does outer London relate to the wider metropolitan economy?

2.42 Within London as a whole the accessibility and agglomeration advantages make the Central Activities Zone the prime location for businesses and there is very high competition for space there. Indeed it is this competition for limited space that

Figure 2.6 Employment density in LondonSource: Annual Business Inquiry 2007

43

drives up land values and acts, alongside congestion and other diseconomies of spatial concentration, as a check on further concentration27. As in most cities, land prices are highest in the centre and generally decline with distance from the centre, reflecting the appeal of central locations when compared to peripheral ones. Firms that benefit most from agglomeration are most willing and able to pay for offices in central London and so the most productive jobs are located in the centre. This is reflected in both productivity and wages earned28, as well as employment densities (see Figure 2.6)

2.43 Where agglomeration benefits do not amount to enough to compensate for higher rents, for instance in activities that are more space intensive, firms locate elsewhere, either in outer London or other towns and cities in the wider region. By and large (but not exclusively) these

businesses tend to be suppliers to other businesses, often those in the centre, and businesses serving local communities. The types of business that might provide a more supportive role to other businesses include those involved in catering, cleaning, logistics and security. To this end the proportion of jobs associated with serving the population (like retail or health and education for example) and jobs in what might be referred to as ‘support business services’ is higher in outer London than in inner London. As a result, the composition of the economy in the outer boroughs more closely resembles that of the rest of Great Britain than inner London, as shown in Figure 2.7. Health and education account for 18 per cent of jobs in outer London and 23 per cent of employment is in retail and leisure. This compares to only 11 and 20 per cent, respectively, of jobs in inner London. Businesses providing supplies or services

Figure 2.7 Industrial structures: comparative geographySource: Annual Business Inquiry, 2007


to other businesses make up the third largest component of outer London’s labour market.

2.44 The analysis above underscores the importance of local services, both public and private, in driving the outer London economy. Figure 2.8 shows the shares of total employment in local activities and in schools and hospitals in the economic geography zones in outer London.

The Northern, Eastern and South Eastern outer urban areas typically have the highest proportions of their total employees in either local activities or schools and hospitals (around 25 per cent). Proportions of employees in schools and hospitals in Western and South Western areas are slightly lower in comparison.

Figure 2.8: Shares of total employment in local activities and in schools and hospitals, GLA Economics geography zones (see Figure 2.6) 2002Source: Annual Business Inquiry, GLA Economics. Based on ONS definition of outer London

45

2.45 Croydon and the outer areas of the remaining four corridors have shares of jobs in local activities and in schools and hospitals between 13 per cent and 18 per cent. These comparatively lower shares reflect greater levels of employment in other economic activities as shown in Figure 2.5.

What are the distinct features associated with outer London businesses and other employers?

2.46 The nature of economic activity in outer London boroughs can also be gauged from the composition of firms in those boroughs. Figure 2.9 shows the proportions of firms in broad sectors defined by the ONS inter departmental business register (IDBR) for outer London boroughs.

Figure 2.9: IDBR VAT registered enterprises by industry, outer London boroughs, 2007Source: DMAG Focus on London borough statistics, ONS. Based on ONS definition of outer London


2.47 Figure 2.9 shows that proportions of construction firms are highest in Havering (24.6 per cent) and Bexley (22.4 per cent). Meanwhile, Richmond upon Thames has the highest share of firms in the property and business services sector (49.9 per cent) followed by Barnet (45.1 per cent), Kingston upon Thames, Harrow and Merton.

2.48 IDBR data also shows the prevalence of small firms in the outer boroughs. Figure 2.10 here is restricted to micro firms (those with less than 10 employees) because employment in these firms is

most likely to be located close to their places of registration in outer boroughs (unlike employment in larger firms). Figure 2.10 shows that the largest number of micro firms are located in Barnet, Ealing and Richmond. Of all the outer boroughs the fewest number of firms with less than 10 employees are located in Barking and Dagenham.

2.49 Figure 2.11 shows the break down of private businesses by broad industrial category in each of the outer London boroughs and makes clear the variation in employment type between the different

Figure 2.10: IDBR VAT registered enterprises by employment size band, outer London boroughs, 2007Source: DMAG Focus on London borough statistics, ONS. Based on ONS definition of outer London

47

Figure 2.11: Business units in outer London by broad industrial groupSource: Annual Business Inquiry, 2007

boroughs, though even this masks very local differences. This analysis looks only at business units and so overstates the size of the private sector in outer London as public bodies like schools, hospitals and borough councils tend to employ large numbers of people.


Outer London economy: supply side issues

What are the key demographic issues relevant to the Commission?

Historic trends2.50 While outer London currently contains

42 per cent of the capital’s jobs it is home to 60 per cent of its 7.6 million residents. The historic demographic trends underpinning the present population/employment structure have a fundamental bearing on the issues and perceptions which the Commission was asked to address.

2.51 Figure 2.12 shows how outer London’s historic role in accommodating the city’s population has changed. While London’s overall population declined from WWII until the mid 1980’s, this contraction was concentrated in inner London, with outer London experiencing a mix of modest expansion or relatively lower rates of decline. The mid 80s was a cathartic time for London in demographic as well as political and economic terms. London’s population began to stabilise and then expand but this process was focused on inner London, with generally lower rates of growth in outer London. As with employment growth, Table 2.1 shows that the pattern of population change was by no means even, with: • no boroughs growing at the same or

a higher rate than the inner London average (19.1%),

• eight boroughs growing above the outer London average (8.7%) – Hounslow 17.6%, Merton 17.3%, Haringey 16.3%, Redbridge 15.6%, Kingston upon Thames 15.5%, Richmond upon Thames 13.0%, Brent 12.1% and Enfield 11.0%,

and • eleven boroughs growing below the outer

London average – Barnet 10.3%, Barking & Dagenham 8.9%, Hillingdon 8.3%, Ealing 8.2%, Sutton 8.1%, Croydon 6.2%, Harrow 5.7%, Waltham Forest 4.5%, Bromley 1.2%, Bexley 0.6% and Havering -3.8%.

2.52 The factors underpinning this pattern of change are complex and have implications for the economy of the wider city as well as that of outer London itself. On the one hand, the 2001 Census1 showed that compared with inner London, outer London is still relatively strongly characterised by indicators of ‘familism’ and social stability. It has relatively fewer single person households, more economically active residents as well as those over retirement age, less over-crowding, better health and higher educational attainment (see below).

2.53 However, outer London is changing. There is already a well established trend for migration of families and older people from outer London, especially to the home counties (from which the economically active may return to London to work). Conversely, the historic exodus of inner Londoners to outer looks set to continue,

49

Figure 2.12: Annual population change: inner, outer and Greater London: 1971-2008

Figure 2.13 Change in high socio-economic group (Social Occupation Class 1-3) 1991 – 2001


perhaps partially offset in the future by reverse migration of younger outer Londoners seeking more urban lifestyles closer to the centre. Figure 2.13 shows that the ethnic composition of outer London is also changing with particular growth in west, north and parts of east and south outer London. So too is its social status, with downward or static trends among the higher socio economic groups across most boroughs (Figure 2.14).

Projected trends2.54 Like London as a whole, Tables 2.1 and 2.2

show that the outer suburbs are projected to experience a substantial increase in both population and households in the period up to 2031. Outer London’s population is expected to grow by 520,000 to over 5.1 million. On an annualised basis, this is significantly higher (23,000 pa) than that recorded in the previous 23 years (16,000 pa), but much lower than that projected for inner London (32,000 pa). Figure 2.15 shows this projected growth between 2011

Figure 2.14 Percentage change in ethnic minority population 1991 - 2001

51

and 2031on a ward by ward basis. The projected increase in household numbers (17.6%) is expected to be significantly less than in other parts of London, but will still produce a challenging increment of 330,000.

2.55 This is partly because the tendency towards small households will be slightly more pronounced here than in the rest of the capital. In the period to 2031, one person households are expected to comprise a greater component of growth in outer

London (78%) than inner (59%) as the suburbs undergo some of the demographic changes which characterised inner London in earlier decades. While the numbers of married couples are expected to decline, numbers of co-habiting couples, lone parents and ‘other adult’ households are expected to increase.

Nevertheless, relative to inner London, growth in the younger age groups is expected to be less and in the older groups greater.

Table 2.1: Outer London Population Change: 1985 – 2031

1985 2008 2031 % growth 1985-2008 % growth 2008-2031

Barking and Dagenham 157.9 171.9 237.6 8.9 38.2

Barnet 294.7 324.9 414.5 10.3 27.6

Bexley 217.3 218.5 225.8 0.6 3.3

Brent 246.3 276.1 310.1 12.1 12.3

Bromley 296.9 300.5 315.4 1.2 4.9

Croydon 317.2 336.8 379.4 6.2 12.6

Ealing 290.5 314.3 347.4 8.2 10.5

Enfield 262.6 291.5 308.3 11.0 5.8

Haringey 201.2 234.0 273.8 16.3 17.0

Harrow 205.6 217.3 211.8 5.7 -2.5

Havering 238.5 229.4 272.2 -3.8 18.7

Hillingdon 232.6 251.9 280.1 8.3 11.2

Hounslow 195.6 230.0 254.0 17.6 10.5

Kingston upon Thames 132.5 153.1 165.8 15.5 8.3

Merton 166.7 195.6 200.7 17.3 2.6

Redbridge 217.9 252.0 285.0 15.6 13.1

Richmond upon Thames 162.4 183.6 195.3 13.0 6.4

Sutton 170.6 184.4 186.3 8.1 1.0

Waltham Forest 216.1 225.8 249.0 4.5 10.3

Inner London 2544.0 3030.6 3756.2 19.1 23.9

Outer London 4223.1 4591.5 5112.5 8.7 11.3

Greater London 6767.1 7622.2 8868.7 12.6 16.4


Table 2.2: Outer London Household Change: 2008- 2031

2008 2031 % growth 2008-2031

Barking & Dagenham 71.5 103.9 45.3

Barnet 132.7 180.2 35.8

Bexley 92.1 99.3 7.8

Brent 106.0 129.8 22.4

Bromley 130.8 143.9 10.0

Croydon 145.2 176.4 21.5

Ealing 123.2 142.8 15.9

Enfield 117.6 130.0 10.6

Haringey 97.2 115.3 18.6

Harrow 85.0 93.9 10.4

Havering 95.6 121.9 27.5

Hillingdon 102.1 119.2 16.7

Hounslow 90.8 103.4 13.9

Kingston upon Thames 64.5 72.9 13.0

Merton 83.0 90.8 9.4

Redbridge 97.8 116.0 18.6

Richmond upon Thames 79.7 85.6 7.4

Sutton 79.9 85.4 6.8

Waltham Forest 94.1 111.4 18.4

Inner London 1345.3 1775.4 32.0

Outer London 1888.9 2221.9 17.6

Greater London 3234.2 3997.3 23.6

53

2.56 These projections are based on recent trends and national assumptions in mortality and fertility, together with migration largely determined by housing development. While susceptible to policy, social and technology changes e.g. in terms of migration, social cohesion or medicine, and subject to continuous monitoring, they at present look deepset and are considered to provide a robust basis for planning London’s future.

Figure 2.15: Ward Level Population Change: 2011-31

Age2.57 The age of the resident population has

particular implications for the economic concerns of the Commission, including the way these relate to quality of life through infrastructure provision. In 2006 outer London as a whole had larger shares of its population in the 45-64 and 65 and over age cohorts compared with inner London, although these shares were still lower than those for the wider UK (Table 2.3). Outer London also had slightly higher shares of residents 15 or under than inner London.


However there was a significantly lower share of 25-44 year olds in outer London as a whole compared with inner London (almost a 10 per cent differential).

2.58 Comparing outer London boroughs, Havering had the largest share of its resident population in the 65+ age group

(17.5 per cent), followed by Bromley (16.7 per cent) and Bexley (15.9 per cent). Meanwhile the highest shares of population 15 or under were in Barking and Dagenham (23.8 per cent), Redbridge (21.4 per cent) and Waltham Forest (21.0 per cent).

Table 2.3: Resident Population mid-2006 by age groups

Percentages 0-15 16-24 25-44 45-64 65+

Barking & Dagenham 23.8% 12.5% 30.8% 20.1% 12.8%

Barnet 20.2% 10.8% 32.9% 22.2% 13.8%

Bexley 20.2% 11.2% 28.2% 24.4% 15.9%

Brent 18.7% 12.5% 36.8% 20.3% 11.7%

Bromley 19.7% 9.7% 29.4% 24.6% 16.7%

Croydon 20.8% 11.5% 31.7% 23.2% 12.8%

Ealing 18.8% 11.7% 37.4% 20.8% 11.3%

Enfield 20.9% 11.7% 31.9% 22.3% 13.3%

Greenwich 20.8% 12.5% 34.5% 20.3% 11.9%

Harrow 19.5% 11.7% 31.2% 23.5% 14.2%

Havering 19.1% 11.0% 26.6% 25.8% 17.5%

Hillingdon 20.5% 13.3% 30.5% 22.3% 13.5%

Hounslow 19.5% 12.3% 36.2% 21.0% 10.9%

Kingston upon Thames 18.0% 13.1% 34.3% 22.3% 12.2%

Merton 18.3% 10.5% 38.6% 20.6% 12.0%

Redbridge 21.4% 11.7% 31.4% 22.5% 12.9%

Richmond upon Thames 19.4% 9.0% 34.8% 24.1% 12.7%

Sutton 20.0% 10.4% 32.4% 23.2% 14.0%

Waltham Forest 21.0% 12.2% 36.1% 19.8% 10.9%

Inner London 18.0% 12.5% 42.2% 17.8% 9.5%

Outer London 20.0% 11.5% 32.9% 22.3% 13.3%

London 19.2% 11.9% 36.6% 20.5% 11.8%

United Kingdom 19.0% 11.9% 28.3% 24.7% 16.0%

Source: DMAG Focus on London 2008, ONS; Based on ONS definition of outer London

55

Density2.59 Also of relevance to the Commission is

the density of outer London’s population which affects not just the nature of market areas but also bears on the economics of infrastructure provision. Table 2.4 shows population densities for outer London boroughs and inner London (based on ONS definitions) in 2006. The most densely populated outer boroughs were

Brent (6,277 per km2), Waltham Forest (5,712 per km2) and Ealing (5,517 per km2).

The sparsest populations were in the outer boroughs of Bromley (1,992 per km2), Havering (2,025 per km2) and Hillingdon (2,161 per km2). Population density in outer London as a whole was almost a third of that recorded for inner London.

Table 2.4: Population density, mid-2006

Area (Km2) Population (thousands) Density (Pop/km2)

Barking & Dagenham 36 165.7 4,591

Barnet 87 328.6 3,788

Bexley 61 221.6 3,659

Brent 43 271.4 6,277

Bromley 150 299.1 1,992

Croydon 87 337.0 3,895

Ealing 56 306.4 5,517

Enfield 81 285.3 3,529

Greenwich 47 222.6 4,702

Harrow 50 214.6 4,251

Havering 112 227.3 2,025

Hillingdon 116 250.0 2,161

Hounslow 56 218.6 3,904

Kingston upon Thames 37 155.9 4,186

Merton 38 197.7 5,257

Redbridge 56 251.9 4,466

Richmond upon Thames 57 179.5 3,127

Sutton 44 184.4 4,206

Waltham Forest 39 221.7 5,712

Inner London 319 2,972.9 9,311

Outer London 1253 4,539.4 3,624

London 1572 7,512.4 4,779

Source: DMAG Focus on London 2008, ONS Based on ONS definition of outer London


Population ‘churn’2.60 Population turnover or ‘churn’ is also of

relevance to the Commission. Turnover is measured as the population inflow plus outflow excluding within-borough moves. Flows include both migration within the UK and international flows (Figure 2.16).

2.61 Highest turnover rates amongst the outer boroughs are in those to the south and west of London, namely Merton, Kingston upon Thames, Richmond upon Thames, Hounslow, Ealing and Brent. The lowest

rates of population churn over the 2001-2006 period were in the outer London boroughs of Sutton, Bromley, Bexley and Havering.

Figure 2.16 Average population turn over rates 2001 - 2006

57

What are the characteristics of the outer London workforce?

2.62 The relationship between numbers of residents and the numbers of jobs in outer London bears on the Commission’s remit. GLA Economics have assessed this using 2001 employment and population density data2. Results displayed in Figure 2.17 show wards where the ratio of employment to population density is greater than unity.

2.63 While areas with the highest ratios of employment to population density are focused in the centre of London, reflecting an agglomeration of business activities in the centre and commuting to central areas, the blue wards coinciding with Metropolitan town centres and other major employment foci e.g. Heathrow also have high ratios.

Despite having lower accessibility these outer London areas maintain high relative levels of employment, presumably sustained to a greater extent by the local resident populations.

Figure 2.17: Areas of London with employment to population density ratio > 1


2.64 When the population: employment relationship is presented at borough level (Table 2.4), Hillingdon (including its airport related employment) emerges with the highest ratio, with slightly more than 4 jobs for every 3 residents. Kingston is the only other outer borough where the number of jobs exceeds the resident population.

2.65 Boroughs with the lowest jobs density ratios are Waltham Forest (0.55), Barking and Dagenham (0.57) and Redbridge (0.58). These low ratios are likely to reflect both commuting and workless individuals living in the borough (both of which are covered by analysis below).

Table 2.4: Jobs density in outer London boroughs, working age, 2006

Barking and Dagenham 0.57

Barnet 0.82

Bexley 0.63

Brent 0.72

Bromley 0.80

Croydon 0.78

Ealing 0.76

Enfield 0.67

Greenwich 0.63

Harrow 0.74

Havering 0.74

Hillingdon 1.37

Hounslow 0.98

Kingston upon Thames 1.03

Merton 0.71

Redbridge 0.58

Richmond upon Thames 0.88

Sutton 0.69

Waltham Forest 0.55

Greater London 1.02

United Kingdom 0.88

Source: ONS Based on ONS definition of outer London

59

2.66 Whilst residents outnumber jobs in all but a small number of outer London areas namely Heathrow and outer town centres Figure 2.18, showing absolute flows of workers, indicates that the majority of those who do work in outer London are also residents of outer London boroughs.

2.67 Figure 2.19 shows proportions of working residents that are employed outside of boroughs in which they live, and the proportions of each borough’s

workers that live outside that borough’s boundaries.

2.68 The top section of the chart shows that in inner London boroughs receive large shares of workers from other areas (typically 70-90 per cent of the total workforce). In contrast, outer London Boroughs tend to be more “self contained” in so far as more of their local workforce is made up of local residents. However, even outer London boroughs depend

Figure 2.18: Flows of workers within, into and out of London


significantly on non-resident workers – 39 per cent of Croydon’s workers do not live in the borough, 50 per cent in Kingston. Hillingdon (not shown on this chart) sourced 63 per cent of its workers from outside of the borough. According to 2001 data Hillingdon was also the only borough in which less than half of working residents did not work outside of the borough boundary (reflecting employment opportunities offered by Heathrow).

2.69 Aside from commuting to work, residents also travel for leisure and other purposes. Data from TfL’s London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS) breaks down trips by purpose that are taken within and between outer London, inner London and central London. Results are shown in Table 2.5.

2.70 Table 2.5 shows that the largest total number of trips per day are taken within outer London (ONS definition used by

Figure 2.19: Fluidity of workforce by boroughSource: Census 2001.

61

TfL). The majority of these trips are taken for shopping or leisure purposes.

2.71 Around half of all trips between outer and central London are for commuting purposes. In comparison a lower share of trips between inner and outer London areas are for commuting, the largest share being for leisure purposes.

2.72 Additional data from the LTDS indicates that of all outer London boroughs (ONS definition) residents of Kingston upon Thames make the greatest number of trips per day on a per person basis, followed by those in Richmond upon Thames, Barnet and Bromley. Total distance travelled per person per day is highest for Bromley followed by Kingston, Havering and Richmond.

Table 2.5: Trip purpose shares by origin-destination areas 2007/2008

Trips per day (thousand)

Trip purpose

Commuting Other work EducationShopping/ personal business

Leisure Other

Within central London 742 20% 8% 2% 32% 32% 6%

Within inner London 4,478 11% 5% 9% 35% 26% 14%

Between central and inner London

1,247 33% 11% 7% 23% 20% 6%

Within outer London 8,757 12% 4% 9% 34% 25% 16%

Between central and outer London

719 51% 15% 3% 11% 17% 3%

Between inner and outer London

1,779 22% 11% 6% 20% 31% 9%

Between Greater London and rest of GB

690 16% 17% 3% 17% 40% 7%

All areas 18,410 16% 6% 8% 31% 26% 13%

Source: TfL London Travel Demand Survey 2007/08 Based on ONS definition of outer London


2.73 The patterns of commuting for work and leisure shown in Figures 2.17 and 2.18 and Table 2.5 reflect the concentrations and occupational makeup of jobs in outer London and central areas. Residents of outer London boroughs commonly commute to work in agglomerated business and financial services in the CBD, leading to higher overall employment densities in the centre. Employment data in Figure 2.203 illustrate these patterns of employment in outer and inner London using a range of expenditure-based

sectors. This categorisation differs from traditional industrial classification in that it aims to understand the role products and services play in the economy rather than simply categorising the output created. So, for instance, instead of classifying bars and catering as part of ‘hotels and restaurants’ they are split into ‘consumers spending their money’ (bars) and ‘support business services’ (catering).

2.74 In contrast to inner London, commerce in the outer London boroughs (with the

Figure 2.20: Employment in inner and outer London, expenditure-based sectors, 2005

63

exception of Heathrow) has proportionally greater focus on leisure, shopping and local activities required by local residents.

Qualifications 2.75 School achievement provides a foundation

for Londoners to succeed in the region’s labour market, which employs a greater proportion of highly skilled people than other parts of the UK. Outer London has a 78 per cent participation in post 16 education compared to 70 per cent in inner London and 71 per cent in England.

2.76 Figure 2.21 compares outer London (ONS definition) with inner London, London as a whole and England in terms of the average points score of candidates achieving Level 3 qualifications (A level or equivalent). The chart shows that the average score in outer London is higher than in inner London and just below the England average.

2.77 Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) data for 2006/07 show a similar out-performance of outer London

Figure 2.21: Average point score by candidates achieving GCE/VCE A/AS and key skills at Level 3 qualification


over inner London in GCSE results, with the percentage of outer London pupils achieving 5+ GCSEs with A*-C grades higher than the England average.

2.78 It is also possible to compare the performance of pupils across outer London boroughs. This is done in Figure 2.22, a chart modified from a previous GLA Economics report to focus on outer London areas (ONS definition of outer London used)4.

2.79 Figure 2.22 shows that attainment at GCSE level is better than the London average across the majority of outer London boroughs with the top performing outer borough being Sutton in which 63.1 per cent of pupils achieved 5+ GCSEs with A*–C grades including English and Maths. Only three outer London boroughs posted weaker attainment than the inner London average, Waltham Forest (38.6 per cent), Barking and Dagenham (37.7 per cent) and Greenwich (31.4 per cent).

Figure 2.22: GCSE (5+ A*–C) attainment including English and Maths by London Borough 2005/06 (%)

65

2.80 Many pupils attend schools that are not maintained by the borough in which they live, commuting to other boroughs or outside of Greater London. This may reflect relative attractiveness or scarcity of schools relative to where a pupil lives or the ability of a pupil to travel. Table 2.6 provides details of the movements of secondary school pupils across boroughs and London’s boundaries. Figures are for pupils attending maintained mainstream secondary schools, City Technology Colleges and Academies (not including those attending independent schools).

2.81 The table shows that some outer London boroughs are net importers of secondary school pupils relative to numbers of pupils in residence and other boroughs are net exporters of pupils. Overall the number of pupils attending secondary schools in outer London boroughs (ONS definition) is approximately 2,400 less than the number of pupils residing in those boroughs. The turnover ratio is a measure of the fluidity of pupils in the boroughs – the sum of inflows and outflows divided by resident pupils in the borough. Richmond and Sutton are the boroughs with the highest

Table 2.6: Destinations of secondary school pupils, outer London boroughs, 2007

Pupils residing in borough

Outflows of pupils Inflows of pupils

Net difference1

Pupils attending schools in borough

Turnover ratio2

to other boroughs

to outside of London

from other boroughs

from outside of London

Richmond upon Thames 5,809 1,400 205 2,666 108 1,169 6,978 0.75

Sutton 10,934 2,105 865 4,187 887 2,104 13,038 0.74

Kingston upon Thames 6,929 1,594 550 2,013 582 451 7,380 0.68

Hounslow 12,448 2,887 1,047 3,726 186 -22 12,426 0.63

Merton 8,689 2,857 96 2,051 137 -765 7,924 0.59

Barnet 15,625 3,115 479 4,040 315 761 16,386 0.51

Brent 14,493 3,769 74 3,180 334 -329 14,164 0.51

Greenwich 13,187 3,778 112 2,744 47 -1,099 12,088 0.51

Bexley 14,699 2,054 604 3,810 633 1,785 16,484 0.48

Croydon 19,807 4,648 956 3,536 323 -1,745 18,062 0.48

Harrow 10,700 2,962 584 1,295 113 -2,138 8,562 0.46

Bromley 16,228 2,555 656 3,888 276 953 17,181 0.45

Havering 14,881 1,800 1,107 2,336 909 338 15,219 0.41

Redbridge 15,975 2,240 945 2,428 578 -179 15,796 0.39

Hillingdon 15,149 2,278 953 2,107 510 -614 14,535 0.39

Ealing 15,473 3,417 207 1,804 32 -1,788 13,685 0.35

Enfield 17,928 2,373 442 2,902 324 411 18,339 0.34

Barking and Dagenham 11,505 1,821 43 1,042 83 -739 10,766 0.26

Waltham Forest 13,970 1,656 142 774 64 -960 13,010 0.19

Outer London 254,429 49,309 10,067 50,529 6,441 -2,406 252,023 0.46

Inner London 124,131 35,336 436 30,273 219 -5,280 118,851 0.53

Total London 378,560 84,645 10,503 80,802 6,660 -7,686 370,874 0.48

1 Positive figure indicates borough is a net importer of pupils. Negative figure indicates borough is a net exporter of pupils2 Turnover ratio is the sum of inflows plus outlows of pupils divided by number of pupils residing in the boroughSource: DMAG Focus on London 2008, DCSF Based on ONS definition of outer London


turnover of pupils and are also the biggest importers of pupils.

2.82 Table 2.6 does not include pupils attending independent schools. For 2007 DCSF data shows that the most pupils attending independent schools were in the boroughs of Richmond (3,529), Croydon (3,000), and Barnet (2,388). The fewest attendants of independent schools were in Bexley, Barking and Dagenham, and Havering.

How extensive is worklessness and poverty in outer London?

2.83 Worklessness and poverty are both influenced by whether people are supplying or wanting to supply their labour to produce goods and services – that is those in the population who are economically active. Economic activity rates for the outer London boroughs, London as a whole and England and Wales are shown in Figure 2.23.

2.84 The chart shows that in 11 of the outer London boroughs economic activity rates are above the average rate for England

Figure 2.23: Economic activity rates, working age, 2006

67

Figure 2.24: Employment and unemployment rates in London boroughs, 2005Source: GLA DMAG Borough


and Wales and the average outer London activity rate (77%) is above that of inner London (75%). However, Annex 4 shows that in broad terms, growth in the economically active population (10,900 persons pa 1991 – 2008) has outstripped historic employment growth (2,800 jobs pa 1989 – 2007) and is projected to do so in the future (average economically active population growth 2008 – 2031 is expected to be 8,900 pa while employment growth 2007 - 2031 is projected to be 6,000 pa). To set this in a wider perspective, the economically active population of London as a whole is projected to increase by an average of 26,000 people pa while employment in London is projected to increase by 32,000 pa 2007 – 20315.

2.85 This provides a fuller context for concerns expressed to the Commission over the perceived ‘decline’ of the outer London economy – while it is widely recognised that locally based employment is not growing as fast as in inner London (see above), this is not always balanced by an appreciation that local residents of working age are more likely to be in employment, partly because two fifths of them commute elsewhere. Thus policy must recognise the importance of commuting to outer London residents as well as the need to generate additional local employment.

2.86 However, it must also be borne in mind that in a number of outer boroughs

clustered together in north eastern London there are far lower rates of economic activity – notably Newham (65.0 per cent), Barking and Dagenham (70.2 per cent) and Redbridge (71.5 per cent).

2.87 Employment and unemployment rates are displayed in Figure 2.24. The maps show a clear pattern with high employment and low unemployment rates in outermost boroughs to the South West, South East and East of London. There are mixed rates of employment and unemployment in the North and North West outer boroughs.

Barking and Dagenham and Newham are the outer boroughs that suffer the lowest employment and highest unemployment rates. According to latest ONS data for 2007, the unemployment rate in Newham stood at 11.3 per cent.

Poverty Indicators2.88 Boroughs with the highest rates of

worklessness are also, not surprisingly, those with the greatest incidence of poverty and low income households.

2.89 Taking firstly the income distribution, Figure 2.25 shows for outer London boroughs the shares of households receiving incomes in four bands ranging from less than £15,000 to £60,000 or more.

2.90 The data are equivalised, meaning that incomes are adjusted to reflect household

69

size, taking into account both the greater income needs of larger families and economies of scale achieved when people live together. The data relates to household income from earnings and benefits but does not include outgoings such as tax payments and housing costs.

2.91 Boroughs with the highest shares of households with incomes of under £15,000 are Newham and Barking & Dagenham (around one-quarter of households in both boroughs). These are also the only two outer boroughs where proportions of residents with incomes

of less than £30,000 are greater than the corresponding proportion for Great Britain (59 per cent).

2.92 The outer boroughs with the greatest proportions of residents with incomes of above £60,000 are Richmond (26 per cent), Kingston (20 per cent), and Bromley (18 per cent).

2.93 Aside from income thresholds, which can be considered an absolute measure of poverty, benefits data offer a useful source of information about the degrees of poverty and low incomes across

Figure 2.25: Household income distribution, equivalised, % of households, 2008Source: DMAG from 2008 PayCheck dataset. Outer and inner London distributions based on ONS definitions


the outer London boroughs. Table 2.7 shows, for outer London boroughs (ONS definition), people of working age and children in families on key benefits including jobseekers allowance, incapacity

Table 2.7: People of working age and children in families on key benefits

People of working age on key benefits, November 2007

Children in families on key benefits, August 2007

Claimant rate (%) Rank in Great Britain Claimant rate (%) Rank in Great Britain

Barking and Dagenham 20.4 32 33.3 14

Greenwich 17.8 73 32.5 17

Waltham Forest 16.9 86 33.2 15

Enfield 16.2 99 30.1 27

Brent 15.6 111 32.6 16

Ealing 13.4 164 27.7 38

Croydon 13.3 166 23.0 82

Redbridge 13.0 172 23.6 78

Hounslow 12.8 181 27.0 39

Hillingdon 11.9 216 22.4 92

Havering 11.7 221 16.5 183

Barnet 11.3 235 18.8 140

Bexley 11.3 236 14.8 213

Harrow 11.0 245 17.5 167

Bromley 10.3 267 15.8 190

Sutton 9.8 285 14.4 224

Merton 8.7 318 20.3 118

Kingston upon Thames 7.1 369 10.8 300

Richmond upon Thames 6.9 380 8.6 350

Outer London 12.7 - 22.8 -

Inner London 15.6 - 35.7 -

Greater London 14.0 - 27.5 -

Great Britain 13.9 - 19.1 -

Source: DMAG Borough Poverty Indicators from DWP Based on ONS definition of outer LondonNotes: Rates are calculated as a percentage of all those of working age and aged 0-18 years respectively from the ONS 2007 mid-year population estimates. Rankings are out of 408 Local Authorities in Great Britain where 1 is the highest rate.

benefit, disability allowances, income support and working and child tax credits.

2.94 The table shows that in outer London (ONS definition) the highest proportions of both working age population and

71

children in families on key benefits are in the borough of Barking and Dagenham. In close proximity and also scoring poorly on these benefits indicators is Waltham Forest (ranked second-worst overall in outer London based on the ONS definition in terms of children in families on key benefits).

2.95 Not included in the table is Newham due to the borough not being in the ONS outer London definition of outer London used by this dataset. Child poverty is especially acute in Newham, with 41 per cent of children in families on key benefits (ranked fourth out of all Local Authorities in Great Britain).

2.96 For all of the outer London boroughs the proportions of children in families on key benefits ranks higher out of all Local Authorities in Great Britain than the proportions of all people on key benefits. This reflects a greater extent of child poverty in London compared with the rest of the country. However, claimant rates in outer London boroughs are significantly lower than those in inner London – the gap between the two areas being particularly marked for children in families on key benefits.

What is distinct about outer London’s incomes and lifestyles?

2.97 Household incomes and expenditures, to be considered below, in part reflect the types of households in which individuals in the outer boroughs live. Figure 2.26 shows

the proportions of different types of households in the outer London boroughs (ONS definition) and in inner London and England for comparison.

2.98 Outer London as a whole has lower proportions of one-person households (32 per cent) and households formed of two or more unrelated adults (9 per cent) compared with inner London (for which the proportions in these categories are 40 per cent and 14 per cent respectively). In contrast there is a markedly greater proportion of married couple households in outer London (42 per cent) compared with inner London (24 per cent).

2.99 Comparing outer London boroughs with one another, the largest proportions of married couple households are in Harrow and Havering (making up 51 per cent of households in both boroughs). The highest proportions of households formed of two or more unrelated adults are Brent (14 per cent) and Ealing (12 per cent).

2.100 The greatest proportions of lone-parent households in outer London boroughs are in Barking and Dagenham (13 per cent), Greenwich (13 per cent), Waltham Forest (11 per cent) and Brent (11 per cent). These are the only outer London boroughs with proportions of lone-parent households above the proportion for inner London boroughs combined (ONS definition).


2.101 Household income distribution in the outer London boroughs has been analysed previously above. Also of interest are average incomes and earnings in the outer London boroughs and comparisons with inner London. Figure 2.27 maps median average equivalised household incomes and median average weekly pay for individuals.

2.102 The outer boroughs with the lowest average equivalised household incomes are Newham (£23,600), Barking and Dagenham (£23,900), and Brent (£26,600). These same three boroughs are also those with individuals on the lowest average weekly pay (Newham with

£449, Brent with £475, and Barking and Dagenham with £494).

2.103 The highest average incomes and levels of weekly pay in outer London are in the boroughs of Richmond upon Thames and Kingston upon Thames.

2.104 Occupations are a key driver of incomes and earnings. Evidence of this for outer London is the occupational mix in boroughs with the highest and lowest average household incomes and earnings.

2.105 Outer boroughs with the top three average household incomes are also those with residents on the highest average weekly pay (Richmond upon Thames, Kingston

Figure 2.26: Households by type, outer London boroughs, 2004

73

Figure 2.27: Median equivalised household income (2008) and median weekly pay (2007)


upon Thames and Bromley). And three boroughs with lowest average household incomes are also those with lowest average weekly pay levels (Newham, Barking and Dagenham, and Brent). For these two groups of boroughs, Figure 2.28 shows proportions of residents in different occupational groups from all those in employment. Also shown for comparison are the occupational shares in all outer London and inner London boroughs.

2.106 In the boroughs with lowest household incomes and earnings there is a spread of residents working across the major occupational groups, with over a quarter of people employed in what can be termed low skill jobs; elementary occupations, process, plant and machine operatives, and sales and customer service occupations. Just over 40 per cent of working residents in these boroughs are employed in one of the high skill categories; managers and senior officials, professional occupations, and associate professional & technical occupations.

2.107 In contrast, greater proportions of workers living in boroughs with the highest incomes and earnings are employed in the high skill occupations – likely to be in higher-end business and financial services agglomerated centrally and thought of as specialist areas for London. Only 13 per cent of workers living in these boroughs are employed in the aforementioned low skill occupations.

2.108 The occupational mix of residents living in outer boroughs with the highest incomes and earnings is closer to that of inner London. The occupational mix in boroughs with the lowest incomes and earnings is more akin to that of outer London as a whole, but with higher shares of residents employed in low skill occupations.

2.109 Geographically, this provides a finer grained appreciation of the broad differences in income distribution shown in Figure 2.1, which outlined a greater concentration of wealthier outer London households towards the south west and, with some exceptions, a greater concentration of the less well-off towards the east.

75

Figure 2.28: Occupational shares in boroughs with the top three and bottom three average household incomes and earnings, 2007


What is distinct about housing in outer London?

2.110 By way of context for the Commission’s work, it should be noted that the characteristics of London’s housing market are distinct from elsewhere in the country. Greater London has the highest average house prices of any UK region and a greater proportion of London’s housing stock is social (public) housing compared with the rest of England.

2.111 Of particular relevance to the Commission are those features of housing in outer London that differ from those in inner London and the wider south east. Also of significance are differences in housing market conditions between outer London boroughs.

2.112 Table 2.8 shows total numbers of dwellings and percentages of private and public (social) housing in outer London boroughs and, for comparison, inner London, Greater London, the South East, the East of England and England as a whole. Private housing is that which is owner occupied or private rented. The table also shows the percentages of private and public dwellings in each area that are deemed unfit.

2.113 Outer London provides 61 per cent of London’s total dwelling stock. The tenure mix here is noticeably different from that of inner London, where a much greater proportion of housing is ‘affordable’. At

17.7 per cent the proportion of public sector dwellings in outer London is almost half that in inner London (34.9 per cent). The tenure mix in outer London is closer to those in the South East and Eastern regions and England as a whole.

2.114 Outer London boroughs with the highest proportions of affordable housing are Barking and Dagenham (32.4 per cent), Newham (30.7 per cent) and Haringey (29.6 per cent). These three boroughs along with Brent provide over 30 per cent of outer London’s total affordable housing supply. Figure 2.29 is a map showing the geography of social housing throughout London. Outer boroughs with the highest shares of private housing are Redbridge (90.7 per cent), Harrow (89.3 per cent) and Kingston upon Thames (88.5 per cent).

2.115 The proportions of unfit housing in outer London are lower than those in inner London but higher than shares recorded in the wider south east. Of outer London boroughs, Newham and Brent have particularly high shares of unfit dwellings in the private sector and the greatest shares of unfit public housing are in Barking and Dagenham and Harrow.

77

Table 2.8: Dwelling stock by tenure and condition, 2006

Total Dwelling Stock % Private Sector % Public Sector

% Unfit Private Sector

% Unfit Public Sector

Barking and Dagenham 69,137 67.6 32.4 4.8 5.0

Barnet 134,105 86.4 13.6 5.6 0.9

Bexley 93,773 87.4 12.6 3.5 0.0

Brent 105,424 75.7 24.3 15.3 0.2

Bromley 131,834 88.3 11.7 3.1 4.6

Croydon 139,366 83.3 16.7 8.3 1.0

Ealing 122,484 80.0 20.0 0.9 1.7

Enfield 117,446 84.5 15.5 3.8 0.8

Haringey 98,838 70.4 29.6 9.8 4.5

Harrow 83,567 89.3 10.7 3.9 8.9

Havering 96,904 86.0 14.0 3.9 2.7

Hillingdon 101,593 82.3 17.7 5.7 0.8

Hounslow 90,964 77.7 22.3 3.5 0.1

Kingston upon Thames 62,982 88.5 11.5 4.4 0.0

Merton 80,403 86.4 13.6 5.7 2.4

Newham 98,169 69.3 30.7 15.2 3.2

Redbridge 96,638 90.7 9.3 5.9 0.0

Richmond upon Thames 79,949 88.0 12.0 5.0 0.4

Sutton 77,734 84.7 15.3 4.2 0.0

Waltham Forest 95,026 78.2 21.8 5.8 3.3

Outer London 1,976,336 82.3 17.7 5.8 2.1

Inner London 1,239,656 65.1 34.9 7.1 4.7

Greater London 3,215,992 75.7 24.3 6.2 3.6

South East 3,535,792 85.6 14.4 3.7 0.9

East of England 2,421,804 83.7 16.3 3.9 0.5

England 22,085,741 81.5 18.5 4.8 2.5

Source: GLA DMAG 2009 London Borough Stat-pack Based on GLA definition of outer London

2.116 Over the past 20 years London’s population has been rising which, together with declining average household size, has led to increased demand for housing. The result has been a rise in both the price

and stock of housing, with these trends expected to continue in the medium to long term. This follows economic theory. There are many things that affect price and dwelling numbers but increasing


household numbers is one of the most fundamental of them. This can be inferred from the market assessments and NHPAU reports.

2.117 Annex 5B shows that until the early 90’s, outer London housing output was consistently above that of inner London, but since then, with few exceptions, it has been below, usually by a significant margin. However, this headline conceals considerable local variation. Figure 2.30 shows net conventional housing

completions over time in outer London sub-regions (left hand axis) and inner London for comparison (right hand axis)1.

2.118 Housing supply in the outer South East (Bexley and Bromley) has been in general decline since the late 1980s, although picked up somewhat since 2003. Completions in the outer North, outer South West and outer West all fell during the 1990s but have risen since the start of the current decade, with the sharpest rate of growth in this period in the outer South

Figure 2.29: Proportions of households living in social housing by ward, 2001

79

West. Housing supply in the outer North East rose strongly from 1999 to 2002 but has rather plateaued since then.

2.119 Housing output is partly a function of the density of development. However, simply raising densities across the board is not a solution to increasing output, much less sustaining the distinct qualities of suburban London. High housing densities in inappropriate locations were an important concern for many of the respondents to the Commission, especially

when they resulted in development which is out of scale and character with the residential heartlands. Thus, while average density of new development in outer London is less than half that in inner London3 (Figure 2.31), 50 per cent of output is still above the range for a particular location which might be expected from London Plan density policy (compared with 56 per cent in inner London – Annex 5C). The policy itself4, based on ‘Sustainable Residential Quality’ (SRQ) principles originally

Figure 2.30: Net conventional housing completions, 3 year moving averages2


developed by the boroughs themselves, appears reasonable (subject to some minor modifications – see below). The problem would seems to be much more in its implementation, with the ‘SRQ’ matrix being interpreted mechanistically and not enough attention being paid to the need to respect local context and to take proper account of public transport accessibility. Annex 5C also shows that even taking this into account, the policy does not seem to be being interpreted consistently across outer London. Though it is intended to provide flexibility to respond to different local circumstances, the character of outer London would not appear to vary so much as to justify one outer borough having an average new development density of 35 dwellings/ha5 (implying significant output below the national 30 dwellings/ha minimum benchmark), while densities in most outer boroughs are at least double this.

2.120 The Commission recognises that implementing the policy more effectively will require a more complex decision making process and will place pressure on Development Control resources – however, this is essential to deliver the ‘Sustainable Residential Quality’ outcomes originally anticipated. It should be backed by refinements to the 2008 Plan which place greater emphasis on optimising rather than maximising output by taking proper account of local context and access to public transport, and by measures to ensure that in higher density development

in particular, new homes are of a high standard.

2.121 According to data from the Land Registry, average house prices rose in every outer London borough in every year from 1997 to 2007. It is of interest to examine the magnitude of house price increases across different outer London boroughs during the residential property boom.

2.122 Figure 2.32 shows percentage increases in average house prices in the latest two five-year periods for which data is available (1997 to 2002 and 2002 to 2007). Data is shown for the outer London boroughs (ONS definition), outer and inner London and the East and South East regions for comparison.

2.123 The chart shows that across all areas growth in house prices was sharper in the period 1997-2002 compared with 2002-2007. During the 1997-2002 period prices in outer London underwent a sharper percentage increase (96 per cent) than those in inner London (90 per cent), the wider South East (90 per cent) and East (89 per cent) regions, and the whole of England and Wales (74 per cent). The sharpest rises in outer London occurred in Waltham Forest, Brent and Redbridge.

2.124 From 2002-2007 the percentage increase in average prices in outer London (50 per cent) was slightly less marked than that in inner London (53 per cent), the East of England (53 per cent), and England

81 Figure 2.31: Density of residential development by borough

Approvals Completions

Inner London 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07

Camden 136 116 227 227 141 106

City of London 330 1,263 525 505 558 423

Greenwich 136 246 161 123 148 170

Hackney 201 240 275 236 183 266

Hammersmith and Fulham 187 227 160 197 143 116

Islington 259 256 319 288 235 226

Kensington and Chelsea 138 164 170 147 164 135

Lambeth 127 216 203 173 163 141

Lewisham 163 173 142 137 123 109

Newham 366 347 269 261 293 163

Southwark 321 277 285 229 263 268

Tower Hamlets 311 481 348 312 299 248

Wandsworth 171 151 154 172 135 169

Westminster 154 254 160 261 207 259

213 274 208 215 181 189

Approvals Completions

Outer London 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07

Barking and Dagenham 80 146 165 144 125 95

Barnet 113 79 78 115 66 66

Bexley 99 51 87 75 48 44

Brent 133 149 199 150 106 113

Bromley 36 49 44 35 54 54

Croydon 130 106 115 98 72 78

Ealing 160 113 121 162 140 195

Enfield 66 82 52 70 95 75

Haringey 114 173 136 163 138 175

Harrow 59 90 111 71 79 93

Havering 55 41 60 72 63 55

Hillingdon 91 69 85 60 54 49

Hounslow 164 95 156 120 102 120

Kingston upon Thames 77 60 45 59 115 86

Merton 74 94 64 46 96 93

Redbridge 87 116 150 114 132 126

Richmond upon Thames 58 60 83 82 58 74

Sutton 92 118 70 89 53 60

Waltham Forest 119 128 130 132 125 140

90 96 87 85 83 87

All boroughs 136 151 129 130 118 123

Note: Figures are based on gross residential units in schemes for which a site area is available


and Wales (59 per cent). However, outer London’s increase was again sharper than that in the South East (47 per cent). The sharpest increases in outer London between 2002 and 2007 were in Barking and Dagenham, Waltham Forest and Merton.

2.125 In 2007 (i.e. close to the peak of the recent housing boom) the average house price in outer London was £301,000 compared with £440,000 in inner London (ONS definitions). Average prices in outer London boroughs varied widely from £512,000 in Richmond to £193,000 in Barking and Dagenham. The ranks of outer

Figure 2.32 Percentage changes in average house prices, 1997 to 2002 and 2002 to 2007

boroughs in terms of their average house prices changed little over the last ten years with a few notable exceptions. Average prices in Brent and Redbridge were the tenth and thirteenth most expensive in outer London respectively in 1997. By 2007 Brent was the sixth most expensive borough and Redbridge the tenth most expensive borough.

83

What are the distinct features of transport in outer London?

2.126 Information already presented covers commuting aspects of transport. Figure 2.33 shows the main mode shares of trips taken for all purposes within outer London and to inner and outside of London. Also shown on the map are total numbers of trips in millions. The ‘private’ mode represents car or other automobile journeys.

2.127 The main mode shares displayed on the map indicate that of trips taken within outer London over half were taken by car and around a third were walking or cycling trips. Car journeys represented an even larger share of trips between outer boroughs and outside of London (around 80 per cent).

2.128 In contrast, public transport was used for around 80 per cent of all trips between outer and central London, with the remainder of journeys between the two areas by car.

Figure 2.33: Number and main mode share of residents’ trips (all purposes) within and between central, inner and outer London, 2001


2.129 Between outer and inner London car journeys were again the most widely used form of transport, representing slightly more than half of all trips. The vast majority of non-car trips between outer and inner London were taken by public transport.

2.130 Data gathered by TfL also allows closer inspection of modes of travel to work from and to outer London areas (and inner London). This information is shown in Table 2.9.

Table 2.9: Main mode of travel to work, Autumn 2006

Source: ONS Labour Force Survey from TfL 2007 London Travel Report Based on ONS definition of outer London

Table 2.10: Travel times to work by main mode, Autumn 20062

1 Includes modes not listed (e.g. taxi). 2 Comparisons with earlier years results (reported in previous editions) are subject to sampling error and should be treated cautiously.Source: ONS Labour Force Survey from TfL 2007 London Travel Report Based on ONS definition of outer London

85

Almost half of all journeys to work by residents of outer London (ONS definition) are by car, reflecting a large proportion of work commutes that are within outer London (see Table 2.5). The three principal modes of public transport (bus, rail and underground) are used by approximately equal shares of outer London residents to get to work.

2.131 Travel to work times, shown by main modes of transport in Table 2.10, are significantly shorter for workers in outer London compared with inner London

commutes. Shorter journeys are likely to be taken by those that live and work in outer London and outer areas contain lower employment densities compared with central London, meaning that congestion is not as great.

2.132 As shown above car journeys make up a significant proportion of all trips taken by residents of outer London. It is therefore of interest to examine which outer boroughs contain the most car traffic, and to compare boroughs of different sizes it

Figure 2.34: Estimated traffic flow densities, flows for all motor vehicles (million kilometres) per sq km


is useful to look at traffic flows per square kilometre of area.

2.133 Figure 2.34 shows firstly that traffic flow density is much lower in outer London compared with inner London. It also shows which outer boroughs receive the highest and lowest traffic flow densities, with densities likely to reflect traffic volume and the location of major thoroughfares and motorways (M4 and M11 for example).

2.134 Without accounting for area, outer London contains higher absolute flows of traffic compared with inner London. Total absolute traffic (vehicle kilometres) over

time in the two areas is shown in Figure 2.35. Traffic has increased steadily in outer London from just over 21 billion vehicle kilometres in 1993 to just under 23 billion vehicle kilometres in 1999, and has since remained at about the same level. Traffic in inner London increased from 1993 to 1999, and has since fallen.

2.135 Freight and servicing vehicles make up an important component of the trips undertaken across London by road, rail and river. Despite the large number of rail freight movements along the corridors to the north, west and east of London, road freight makes up 89 per cent of freight by tonnage and furthermore it is expected

Figure 2.35: Change in traffic flows 1993-2007, outer and inner London, flows for all motor vehicles (million kilometres)

87

to grow to meet the demands from London and the rest of the country. Figure 2.36 shows HGV freight flows across London. Within the M25 freight flows are high predominantly on radial routes through outer London, as well as along the orbital north circular road. Across London, freight accounts for 17 per cent of kms travelled. A 10 per cent increase in freight mileage would be more than all bus mileage in London. Commercial vehicles, such as those used for deliveries and waste collection, facilitate the day to

day activities taking place in London. The number of vans (LGVs) is forecast to grow by 30 per cent between 2008 and 2031 with some growth in HGV activity.

Figure 2.36: HGV freight flows across London


Quality of Life

2.136 Outer London scores strongly on most statistical indicators of life and environmental quality. However, as Thompson1 noted, opinion polls suggest that while around four fifths of outer London residents are satisfied with their neighbourhood as a place to live, polls also indicate that residents have some specific concerns, with crime, the local street environment and anti-social behaviour coming at the top of factors that they regarded as needing improvement2.

Crime2.137 Crime is cited as the main cause of concern

for residents. While rates are higher than for the country as a whole, they are lower in outer London, and historically have been falling faster, than in inner London. Table 2.11 shows rates for particular types of crime. Newham and some other outer boroughs with significant ‘inner London’ characteristics, tend to have higher levels of crime, but this is by no means universal – Ealing, for example, experiences motor vehicle and burglary offences above the inner London average.

2.138 Rates of the four categories of crime shown in the table are consistently low in the borough of Sutton. Richmond has some of the lowest rates in outer London with the exception of burglary offences (which are approximately average). Kingston has one of the three lowest outer London rates in three of the crimes listed but is middle ranked for violence against persons.

Open space2.139 Access to open space is relatively good.

Every outer London borough has more open space per capita than any inner borough3. The Mayor’s Green Capital Report also indicated that most of London’s important biodiversity is in the outer boroughs. Almost all of London’s Natura 2000 sites, designated under European Union directives, are in outer London. All but four of London’s 38 Sites of Special Scientific Interest are in the outer London boroughs, along with the majority of Sites of Metropolitan Importance, much of its Metropolitan Open Land, many of its allotments and all of its Green Belt. Figure 2.37 illustrates London’s strategic open space network. Figure 2.38 shows the number of allotment sites per 10,000 people for London.

Atmospheric emissions2.140 Figure 2.39 suggests that carbon

emissions per resident are generally higher in outer London and especially in the boroughs on London’s boundary. This may be linked to relatively higher private vehicle usage (see paragraph 2.105).

2.141 The two main pollutants of concern for Greater London are particulate matter (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Ambient air quality in outer London tends to be better than in central and inner London apart from in the vicinity of Heathrow or very busy roads.

89 Table 2.11 Crime rates in outer London boroughs

Motor vehicle offences per 1,000 population

Robbery offences per 1,000 population

Violence against persons per 1,000 population

Burglary offences per 1,000 households

Barking and Dagenham 20.0 4.7 32.1 16.7

Barnet 19.3 3.8 19.6 20.7

Bexley 12.8 2.2 19.9 13.3

Brent 18.0 8.8 30.8 22.4

Bromley 16.2 3.0 18.4 16.4

Croydon 13.2 5.4 22.8 16.1

Ealing 21.5 6.6 26.0 25.2

Enfield 15.3 5.2 18.8 21.0

Haringey 22.3 9.0 30.9 28.2

Harrow 13.2 4.1 14.3 18.8

Havering 18.7 2.0 18.5 11.7

Hillingdon 18.2 3.5 25.2 18.1

Hounslow 19.9 4.0 30.3 20.8

Kingston upon Thames 8.4 2.2 21.3 9.8

Merton 11.9 3.3 19.1 12.2

Newham 28.2 10.1 34.0 27.3

Redbridge 18.0 5.4 16.1 22.6

Richmond upon Thames 10.6 2.5 12.8 17.2

Sutton 13.2 2.3 17.8 8.7

Waltham Forest 21.6 10.8 30.8 20.4

Outer London 17.3 5.1 23.0 18.9

Inner London 20.7 7.9 32.9 21.4

Greater London 18.5 6.1 26.6 19.8

England and Wales 13.5 1.8 19.7 13.5

Source: Home Office Based on GLA definition of outer London

Figure 2.37: London’s Strategic Open Space Network


Figure 2.38: Number of Allotment Sites per 10,000 people

Figure 2.39 Carbon Dioxide Emissions per Capita

91

Figure 2.40 PM10

annual average concentrations (mg/m3) 2008

Figure 2.41 NO2

annual average concentrations (mg/m3) 2008


2.142 Figure 2.40 shows that the vast majority of London already meets the EU Limit Value for the annual mean PM10 in 2008 (shaded blue, green, yellow and orange). Figure 2.41 shows that there are areas throughout Greater London that exceed the NO2 annual mean EU limit value (shaded yellow and red in Figure 2.41). The Mayor recently published his draft Air Quality Strategy for public consultation that includes London wide and central London focused initiatives to reduce emissions of these harmful pollutants and thus improve the health of Londoners.

2.143 Ambient air quality in outer London tends to be better than in central and inner London apart from in the vicinity of Heathrow or very busy roads, although the Government’s health based air quality objectives are unlikely to be met in at least part of every London borough. Ambient noise maps show a similar picture with outer London tending to be less noisy than central and inner. This is largely due to less noise from the transport network. Household recycling rates are higher in outer London at 23.5 per cent, compared to 17.9 per cent in inner London.

Housing quality2.144 The Commission noted that the 2008

London Plan was prepared before the ‘place shaping’ agenda had been fully set. There is now extensive advice on this for different types of locality, not least town centres and residential neighbourhoods. It can make a key contribution to enhancing

the quality of life for outer Londoners and should be reflected in the replacement Plan for implementation in light of local circumstances, playing to the strengths of local places – one suggestion was that it could help lead to the ‘rediscovery of London’s lost towns’ (Figure 2.42) to provide stronger foci and sense of place for established as well as new communities. This would complement the more sensitive approach to housing density and quality required to support increased housing output outlined in para 2.119

Social Infrastructure2.145 While outer London anticipates lower

growth than inner London, this growth will still be substantial: 890,000 more people, 330,000 more households and 140,000 more jobs up to 2031. To support this, and maintain quality of life for existing residents, more social infrastructure is required, especially in terms of health and education facilities. Historically, coordination of this function has sometimes been problematic. This is due to a range of factors, including the tendency for national education investment to take a short term perspective; fragmentation between the commissioners and providers of health services (and the distribution of infrastructure which underpins this process); the weight accorded to borough based Community Strategies, and the relatively isolated role of the Strategic Health Authority. For the longer term the

93

Plan would appear to have scope to take a more proactive part in coordination of social infrastructure provision.

2.146 For the interim, to inform this process, the Commission has engaged in work to provide strategic gross provision benchmarks to help local stakeholders assess their net need for different types of social infrastructure in light of existing provision. Annex 6a, developed by

the Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU) shows potential gross demand for additional health infrastructure arising from an increase in population generated from future housing supply. These broad requirements take into account an expected shift in activity from acute to primary and community care settings, but do not address the capacity of current health services and facilities. Annex 6b sets out projected education/school

Figure 2.42: London’s ‘lost towns’ Source: Farrells


age populations to enable boroughs to test whether they have made provision to meet future education requirements in LDFs. Interpretation of parts of these tables should be informed by the associated TfL maps showing access to facilities. Consideration should be given to extending use of this material in a more formal planning context, for example through Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Broader Quality of Life issues2.147 The Commission’s economic remit, and

thus its approach to quality of life issues, differed from Robin Thompson’s brief for his work4 on the 2008 Plan, which had a stronger social emphasis. However, from the evidence it has considered the Commission would agree with him that “on most indicators, outer London is healthier, wealthier and greener than inner London and indeed most urban areas in the UK. Its residents like living there, although some are voicing some concerns with the quality of the local environment”.

2.148 The Commission noted his view “This may, to an extent, reflect ‘private wealth and public squalor’. As the quality of the private domestic environment grows, dissatisfaction is focused on the relatively poor quality of the external environment as manifested by poor paving, graffiti, abandoned vehicles, anti-social and criminal behaviour and the like”.

2.149 The Commission also noted his observation that “some polls suggest that outer London residents identify far more strongly with their local area than with London as a whole. Phenomena such as traffic congestion, high housing costs and more intensive development may give residents the feeling that inner city characteristics are intruding into the traditional suburban styles of living. To this could be added a sense of a “slide” in the perceived status and position of outer London as the outer Metropolitan economy out-performs it and the inner London regeneration powers on”.

2.150 In considering quality of life issues, the Commission would agree with Thompson that “this presents policy makers with difficult issues. The changes that are occurring in the economy and demography have deep rooted structural causes such as de- industrialisation, concentration of global finance and business growth sectors in the centre city and the growing popularity of inner city living with young professional people. These structural changes are by no means unique to London. They can be seen in, for example, New York and England’s next two largest cities, Birmingham and Manchester. They can only be managed by long-term strategies that address the deep-seated nature of some of these trends”.

95

Statistically, what are outer London’s long term economic prospects?

General trends2.151 Despite the lengthy recession, it is likely

that long-term economic growth will return. At the time of writing it was expected that London would emerge from recession either at the end of 2009 or the first half of 2010. GLA Economics then forecast that GVA growth would be –3.5 per cent in 2009 and –0.2 per cent in 2010. On an annual basis it was the thought that GVA growth might not resume until 2011, at 1.5 per cent. Employment normally lags output and so it was expected that the number of people working in London might decline through 2011. The then latest forecast is summarized in Table 2.12 below.

2.152 While London has performed better than the rest of the UK during this recession, it is expected that in the recovery London’s growth will lag that of the rest of the

country, if only because it has not fallen as far. An unknown factor that may have a strong influence on London’s economy is change to the regulation of the financial services sector. Since this does not normally occur after typical recessions it may affect historical patterns. Though this sector is concentrated in central London and employs a relatively small number of people, it is an integral part of the larger economy. But experience over time suggests economic growth after the recession may be above trend.

2.153 The same reasons that have made London a desirable place for business in the past remain so today. The recession has not changed London’s strategic position in the global economy – an important consideration for outer London. Table 3.1 illustrates the factors that are considered important to businesses, emphasising that London scores highly with a variety of factors.

Table 2.12: Economic forecasts for London (2009-2011)

Annual growth rates (per cent) 2008 2009 2010 2011

London GVA (constant 2003 £ billion) 1.4 -3.5 -0.2 1.5

Consensus (average of independent forecasts) -3.6 -0.4 2.1

London civilian workforce jobs 0.7 -3.4 -2.3 -0.6

Consensus (average of independent forecasts) -3.6 -2.1 -0.1

London household spending (constant 2003 £ billion) 2.8 -3.0 -1.9 0.5

Consensus (average of independent forecasts) -3.5 -0.6 1.3

London household income (constant 2003 £ billion) 3.1 -2.3 0.6 1.7

Memo: Projected UK RPI (Inflation rate) Projected UK CPI (Inflation rate)

-1.1 1.7

1.81.6

2.21.4

Sources: GLA Economics’ Autumn 2009 forecast and consensus calculated by GLA Economics.


2.154 GLA Economics projects that by 2031 London’s economy will add 775,000 jobs over 2007 levels (Annex 3). Of these around 140,000 will be in outer London, which equates to some 6,000 new jobs per year. On these trends conventional manufacturing employment looks set to continue to decline, by 224,000 jobs across London and by 2031 may be only a marginal employer. In contrast financial and business services are expected to grow by 360,000 while the hotels and restaurants industry is projected to add 235,000 jobs1 – the latter sectors are

a key consideration for outer London because they are less closely associated with central London. Within outer London, office based employment is projected to increase by 70,000 2007 – 2031, broadly defined industrial type jobs are expected to decline by 94,000 and ‘other’ (mainly local service based) jobs to expand by 167,000 (see Annex 3B).

Future office demand in outer London2.155 As a result of structural change in its

historic occupier base (see above), office based development and employment in

Figure 2.43 Average annual completions of office floor space (gross sqm) 2000/01 to 2008/09

97

much of outer London have not been closely related over at least two economic cycles. This is partly because office based employment growth (see Annex 3A) has not been sufficiently ‘value added’ to justify strategically significant new office development across outer London (Annex 7). To be viable such development typically required rentals of more than £25/£28 per sq ft in historically ‘normal’ economic conditions (and more realistically £30 sq ft)2. While these rents have been achieved in a relatively few, attractive locations (mainly in west London), demand to sustain them has not been sufficiently widespread to lead to extensive, structural rejuvenation of the outer London office stock. Figure 2.43 (and more specifically Annex 7) shows that with some notable exceptions there has been relatively little office development in much of outer London over the last economic cycle. The series of London Office Policy Reviews for the GLA and London Planning Advisory Committee suggest that this inactivity also covered the previous cycle 1989 – 2001.

2.156 This position has been exacerbated by the scale of the existing stock (7.1 mll sq m or 25 per cent of the London total), most of which is available at significantly lower rents than those required to support new development. In some cases, these rents may not even be enough to justify investment for modernisation, or retention of the space in office use when faced with competition for scarce land resources from higher

value development, especially housing. In addition, nearby parts of the wider southeast (the Outer Metropolitan Area – OMA), especially towards the west, have offered competitive advantage to potential occupiers (Figure 2.44), providing modern new space at around the same rental threshold as might apply in outer London but with lower other business costs, especially those generated by labour market related factors. Such OMA locations do not incur the wider costs of trying to do business in an extensive and densely urbanised area while still garnering some of the agglomeration benefits arising from proximity to it. It is arguable that such new office development as has been proposed within London but outside CAZ/Canary Wharf, has been following a similar pattern – in strategic terms little is planned to come forward in town centres; most is at best in edge of centre locations and much is out of centre3.

2.157 The mismatch between office employment and development prospects was central to the work of the Commission (see next ‘Analysis’ section of this report). It is now also recognised by the Draft Replacement London Plan, which strongly qualifies application of conventional worker floorspace density assumptions to office employment projections when coming to a view on future office floorspace demand in the distinct circumstances of outer London. Thus, while the draft Plan does provide consistent, pan-London monitoring benchmarks produced on


an employment/density basis, it makes clear that in outer London in particular these should be qualified by other market indicators e.g. development trends, density, rents, take-up, vacancy.

2.158 While acknowledging the limitations of working just on an employment/density basis, the 2009 London Office Policy Review (LOPR09)4 showed that it could on this basis suggest demand for some 5.3 million sq.m of office floorspace across London over the period 2007-2031. Of

this total demand, some 940,000 sq.m (18%) was attributed to outer London. Figure 2.45 illustrates the geographical distribution of this projected demand for office floorspace in outer London at borough level, and compares it with floorspace in the planning pipeline (including offices under construction or with planning permission).

2.159 Relative to other parts of outer London, the strongest demand for offices is anticipated in the West (notably

Figure 2.44 Office Floorspace 2008 London & Outer Metropolitan Area

99

Hillingdon, Hounslow and Brent) and parts of outer North London (Barnet). The supply-demand balance in Figure 2.45 shows however that identified capacity exceeds forecast demand in nine outer London boroughs and most notably in Croydon, Havering, Barking & Dagenham and Barnet. Whilst this supply-demand analysis can be useful when considering potential approaches to office development, the review warns against using this data too prescriptively.

2.160 LOPR09 illustrates the great variability in the attractiveness and success of outer London office markets and supports the concept of focussing demand on the most viable and competitive business locations. The study considered the potential growth prospects of outer London centres based upon a range of factors including current and prospective levels of economic activity, clustering advantages, diversity of offer, impact of infrastructure improvements and strategic site availability. The consultants

Figure 2.45: Employment density based projected demand for office floorspace (gross) in outer London boroughs 2007-2031 and identified capacity, sq.m.


considered that there may be a case for encouraging office-led development in the next economic cycle at Park Royal, Chiswick, Brentford, Hounslow, Heathrow perimeter, Uxbridge, Stockley Park, Croydon and Wimbledon (see Figure 2.46). The assessment identified a case for office-led mixed use development in a number of other centres in outer London including Barking, Bexleyheath, Romford, Wembley, Ealing, Southall, Feltham, Bromley, Kingston, Surbiton, Richmond, Twickenham, Sutton and Brent Cross.

2.161 As the Commission was sitting, the consultants also examined the relative performance of outer London (OL) and the Outer Metropolitan Area (OMA), between 2003 and 2007, according to a number of economic performance measures. They found that the simple perception that OL is ‘under-performing’ OMA to be misleading. Rather, it has changed structurally over the last twenty years due to a range of factors including the degradation of central London salary weightings and the effects of ‘new technology’ on traditional central London

Figure 2.46 Outer London Office Development Guidelines (DRLP Annex 2)

101

‘back office’ functions, resulting in a major reduction in the ‘relocation’ market – the residual of this market may now well go overseas. Perhaps counter-intuitively, the consultants’ assessment of performance measures suggested that there was no clear pattern of out-performance by OMA. In addition to its labour market and lower land cost advantages, the consultants found there were was some evidence that OMA performed better on quality of environment measures – a potential lesson for outer London. The consultants also noted that liberal parking regimes might offer advantage in some circumstances, but qualified this by noting that one of outer London’s most successful business parks (Chiswick Park) is firmly embedded in its urban environment. They concluded that “the fundamental issue of competition between east and west is probably the much more significant issue and strategic challenge (than between OL and OMA).

Future industry/warehousing demand in outer London

2.162 Together, the outer London boroughs in 2006 contained an estimated 4,000 hectares in industrial, warehousing and related uses such as waste management and utilities. This represents some 73 per cent of the London total5. Over 450 hectares of industrial land in outer London was identified as vacant or 11.3 per cent of the total, compared to the inner London vacancy rate of 16.5 per cent.

2.163 Like office demand in outer London, that for industrial capacity is complex. While traditional metal based manufacturing, particularly on a large scale, looks set to continue its well documented decline, other types of occupier may have a more positive future. These range from small scale providers of ‘services for the service sector’, through larger scale industrial type services such as waste management, to the complex logistics networks essential to provide goods for a post industrial city. What most have in common is a need for relatively cheap land protected through the planning system. Though ‘top end’ industrial rents of slightly more than £15 sq ft (but more usually £10 - £12) may compete with some other commercial functions, in most economic circumstances they are challenged by a substantial margin (a factor of five or more) by residential land values. At the other end of the scale, it is environmentally desirable and economically necessary for those firms which need to compete from a £5 sq ft (or less) rent base to remain in London to provide it with their specialist services. While it is essential to be more realistic in accommodating the needs of commercial vehicles, further growth in ‘white van’ traffic (already the main source of commercial traffic growth) should not be exacerbated by forcing these firms to relocate beyond London. Thus, when coming to a view on using the planning system to accommodate business activities which ‘need to be in London’, account should be taken not just of issues


associated with economic linkages/supply chains, but also indirect environmental and transport capacity costs, as well as to providing more positively for the efficient movement of commercial vehicles on the road system.

2.164 Based upon a strategic assessment of supply and demand for industrial uses, London Plan SPG indicates that the outer London boroughs where the supply-demand balance for industrial land is tightest include Croydon, Sutton, Merton, Bromley, Richmond, Kingston and Hounslow. In Bexley, Havering and Barking & Dagenham the supply-demand balance is less restrictive, but a managed approach to industrial land reconfiguration and transfer to other uses will be essential. Strategic and local employment land reviews will continue to play a key role in assessing the quality of sites and identifying opportunities to enhance the attractiveness and competitiveness for industrial type activities.

The Commission’s views are informing an LDA review of industrial land in London, the results of which are anticipated in June 2010.

Other services including retail and leisure

2.165 In 2006, estimated consumer expenditure on comparison goods retail in the outer London boroughs stood at £13.9bn and was projected to rise to £38.3bn in 2031, an increase of 176 per cent, compared to the London average of 190 per cent.

Estimated household expenditure on convenience goods retail in the outer London boroughs in 2006 stood at £7.2bn and was projected to rise to £10bn in 2031, an increase of 39 per cent, compared to the London average of 46 per cent. Household spending on leisure in outer London was also expected to rise from a base of £31.6bn in 2006 to over £42.3bn in 2031. The outer London borough distribution of growth in household convenience, comparison goods retail and leisure spend 2006-2031 is set out in Figure 2.47.

2.166 Taking into account growth in commuter and tourist spending, retailers making more efficient use of existing space and new forms of retailing like buying on line, London has a ‘net additional’ need for 1.3-2.2 million sq.m comparison goods retail floorspace by 2031. About 40 per cent of this need is identified in outer London (excluding Newham), or 50 per cent if Newham is included. Figure 2.48 illustrates estimated comparison goods retail floorspace in the planning pipeline and how the additional demand to 2031 is distributed across the outer London boroughs. The largest comparison goods retail developments in the pipeline in outer London are listed in Table 2.12 with schemes over 35,000sqm at Brent Cross/Cricklewood, Kingston, Bromley and Croydon town centres. Definitions of outer London including Newham would raise the pipeline figure significantly, with around

103

Figure 2.47 Growth in household convenience and comparison goods retail and leisure spend, outer London boroughs 2006-2031 (£m). Source: Experian Business Strategies, 2009

Figure 2.48 Comparison Goods Retail Floorspace in the Planning Pipeline and Net Additional Need to 2031, sqm.


112,000sqm comparison goods retail under construction at Stratford City.

2.167 Identification of capacity to accommodate growth in retail and leisure is a key issue in outer London and the recent London-wide Town Centre Health Check provided an indication of town centres where such capacity might exist, such as at Croydon, Kingston, Woolwich, Wembley, Ealing and Ilford. The Health Check report noted however, that evidence of capacity was limited, and that it will be important to identify such capacity in more local retail and leisure assessments within and on the edges of town centres where appropriate.

Table 2.12 Comparison Goods Retail Floorspace in the Planning Pipeline in outer London (largest schemes at 2009)

Borough Site Name Additional Comparison Retail Floorspace (sqm)

Barnet Brent Cross Cricklewood 60,776

Kingston upon Thames Eden Walk Shopping Centre, Eden Walk 50,000

Bromley Bromley Town Centre 38,000

Croydon Park Place, Park Street 36,707

Bexley B & Q Plc Sidcup, Sidcup-By-Pass 30,261

Enfield Edmonton Green Shopping Centre & Adjacent, The Broadway

17,472

Ealing Arcadia Centre, The Broadway 16,360

Haringey Tottenham Hale Retail Park, Broad Lane 15,863

Brent Oriental City, 399 Edgware Road 14,677

Hounslow Blenheim Centre, Key Site One (Phase 2), High St. 13,266

Source: Experian Business Strategies, 2009

105

Stakeholders views: summary

2.168 From the outset, the Commission has sought to gather a range of views on past and possible future directions for the outer London economy, which could both complement and inform its own investigations. To facilitate this, the Commission set out a series of questions under three broad themes: Economy, Transport, and Quality of Life, and invited stakeholders to respond to these and add their own additional comments. As well as acting as an invitation for written comments, the questions were used as a basis for discussion at the public meetings held by the Commission. The questions invited respondents to, for example, identify present and previous barriers to economic development, suggest ways of overcoming these and comment on possible configurations for development. There was scope to identify generic issues as well as matters specific to a particular area or stakeholder, and the questions acted as a useful stimulus to the debate. The full list of initial questions is reproduced in Annex 2.

2.169 Responses were welcomed from any quarter, and we were pleased to see a range of respondents: London boroughs, partnerships, developers, business groups and other government bodies. There were 52 written responses in total, and a list of respondents is given in Annex 8. As described in Chapter 1, the Commission held six public meetings, which are listed in the table above:

Table 2.13: Public meetings held by the OLC

Location London region Date

1 City Hall Central 3 February 2009

2 Haringey Civic Centre

North 18 March 2009

3 Kingston Guildhall

South 15 April 2009

4 Romford Town Hall

East 13 May 2009

5 Ealing Town Hall

West 17 June 2009

6 City Hall Central 7 July 2009

2.170 This section of the report identifies commonly-raised issues and is not intended to be a comprehensive description of all the matters covered in the responses – almost all the respondents described the conditions, needs and aspirations of their particular borough or sub-region. Copies of all written responses are available online at the OLC website. The Commission was heartened by the enthusiasm and commitment which respondents showed in their vision for outer London.

Economy2.171 In response to one of our first questions,

there was some consensus on what have been the historic barriers to development in outer London. One was the legacy of the industries with which outer London has often been strongly associated and which now either have been in long-term decline, face competition from locations outside London, or both. These include manufacturing and heavy industry,


back office functions and ‘traditional’ waste management, as well as logistics, distribution and retail. There is sometimes a perception that, even as these sectors have declined, ‘this is what outer London does’, and an apparent reluctance to re-evaluate this.

Additionally, many of the jobs in these sectors are low-paid, and the relative affordability of commuting into higher-value jobs in central London, or to towns beyond the Capital, has contributed to slower growth in outer London. It was noted that outer London competes much more with the Outer Metropolitan Area (OMA) than with inner London. In particular, the retail sector in town centres and on the high street has had to compete with bigger, more attractive out-of-town locations, which are well connected both for public transport and, more importantly, the private car. Consider, for example, the competition from Bluewater in Kent or Lakeside in Essex for shopping (all that parking space!) or Reading for modern offices. As office-based jobs have moved out, the office stock available, and its quality, has declined. Furthermore, the higher value of residential development in outer London means that available land is often diverted from business and office sectors to housing.

2.172 Respondents identified a need, then, to “re-brand” and reinvent outer London as part of our quest to secure future economic growth. Some suggested that there needed to be active ‘marketing’ of

outer London or particular locations within it.

Some respondents noted that the planning regime can act as an inhibitor to investment. They noted the many bodies involved in local development and the need to align expectations and aspirations in order to give a clear message about the future of the areas to attract and reassure investors. Similarly, any plans proposed by the Commission must have regard to existing policies and frameworks put in place by local responsible bodies (eg through Local Development Frameworks). There was also a call to release land, especially public sector land, for development. It was suggested that the existing London Plan has enabled central London to dominate the economy of London by focusing new growth in this area, a pattern reinforced by good radial transport links, and the assumption that while outer London is a desirable place to live, the centre is where the jobs are.

2.173 Related to this, many respondents highlighted that there is a highly-skilled workforce living in outer London, but that, with notable exceptions, many commute to the centre or outside London for work. There are pockets of outer London where the potential or existing workforce has lower skill levels, and worklessness is a problem. Local jobs may often be lower-paid, and the cost of commuting can be a barrier, as can the lack of affordable childcare. Most identified the positive effects of local further and

107

higher education institutions, and the relatively low number of universities in outer London. Not only can education serve to upskill the local workforce, but it can help to attract innovative and high-tech employers to the area, and benefits both research and the economy. Other institutions, such as specialist hospitals or large public sector organisations, can also act as a ‘magnet’ for related industries. Similarly, it was suggested that some central government functions could be relocated to outer London. One means of revitalising some locations, then, could be to site a new HE or FE institution there, or re-locate public sector institutions from central London.

In the London economy, the demand for work requiring low skills and/or qualifications has shrunk greatly and will continue to [do so] University of East London

2.174 Respondents also suggested that there needed to be business support for small to medium enterprises and recognition that much economic activity was now micro-, often home-based businesses. There could be better support for them via, for example, office support centres in towns, with cheap and flexible services and rents.

Respondents said that future employment sectors needed to be high-value, and with a long future life. These include knowledge-based and creative industries, innovative technology (for example pharmaceuticals), and ‘green’

sectors. Also highlighted was the need to reinvent some of outer London’s historical roles to reflect the needs of the 21st century, and in particular to respond to concerns about the environment and climate change. Waste management would continue to be an important sector, but should continue to re-focus on recycling and enhanced energy recovery and alternatives to landfill. Distribution and logistics would also remain a key part of the outer London economy; again with potential to make these more environmentally beneficial, for example by freight consolidation. A couple of respondents said that decentralised energy provision should be part of the area’s future; as could leisure and tourism. Naturally, many respondents outlined in some detail the particular strengths and opportunities for economic development in their area.

2.175 There was a strong consensus, though, that growth should be based upon a diverse base of sectors and with a range of employers, to mitigate the impacts of future economic downturns. In the past, it was suggested, there has been too much concentration on a few areas, such as financial and business services. Spreading the growth over a wider base would help to ensure the economic resilience of London as a whole. The London Plan, and the other strategies, need to support this.

2.176 As stated earlier, views about the potential for ‘growth hubs’ identified


in the Commission’s initial questions were mixed. Many noted that Croydon and Stratford had already developed as economic centres with good transport links, and that there were already plans in place to enhance these, meaning that plans for new growth hubs would be superfluous. More importantly, though, respondents stated clearly that the overall effect of the Commission’s work should be to benefit the London economy as a whole. Any growth hubs must benefit their surrounding area, and fit in with existing and potential growth areas. In particular, it was felt that growth must not be to the detriment of town and district centres or attempt to create centres where none would naturally exist. There could be a risk of re-creating the central/outer London economic and transport dichotomy within outer London, if hubs were to grow at the expense of the wider region.

2.177 Some suggested that a more natural pattern would be growth ‘ribbons’ or corridors, which would reflect and enhance current residential, travel and employment configurations. Industries already cluster in different parts of outer London – creative industries in White City, say, or support for the Olympics around Stratford – and these should be enabled to grow. Future development should similarly be around ‘anchors’ of natural growth, allowing similar and related businesses to benefit from co-location. Whatever the configuration, growth should be ‘organic’

and build on existing strengths rather than start from scratch.

2.178 It was also suggested that the definition of outer London should be permeable, and that the Commission should take into account the strong inter-dependencies between inner and outer boroughs in the Capital, as well as London’s place in the wider South East. One of our respondents sums this up particularly well:

There should be an elastic definition of outer London reflecting economic characteristics, opportunities and needs rather than the traditional planning based designation.... Thames Gateway London Partnership

2.179 There was significant debate around the definition of outer London. At the start of its work, and in accordance with the general definitions uses, the Commission included the London Borough of Newham as an outer London borough. In the borough’s response to the consultation, its Mayor, Sir Robin Wales, stated that the borough had long contested this designation and set out reasons for its re-definition as an inner London borough. In subsequent discussion and analysis, the Commission used this designation, and similarly in the development of the three Mayoral Strategies, Newham was considered an inner London Borough. However, in our work we have recognised that some places in “inner” London (perhaps Stratford in particular) are closely

109

linked with more outer areas – and have the potential to support their future development.

Transport2.180 There is, of course, a strong association

between economic growth and increased car use, and respondents stated that areas identified for future economic growth must offer sustainable transport alternatives. Otherwise, growth in outer areas would most likely increase car use. Also, capacity on the road network is constrained, and while traffic management measures have a role to play, it is not feasible or desirable to accommodate increased demand for travel simply by increasing car use. There were concerns about traffic emissions and the wider adverse health impacts of car reliance: for example, children not getting enough exercise because they are driven to school rather than walking or cycling locally.

2.181 Traffic congestion was perceived as probably the most significant problem, with an adverse impact on both economic performance and local quality of life. Respondents suggested a range of measures to address this issue, ranging from workplace parking levy, increases in public transport capacity through to encouraging more walking and cycling. Some respondents wanted to see more consideration of park and ride facilities and others drew attention to the real-time traffic management measures that have been successful in central London.

Also mentioned were co-ordinated signal timings and the potential removal or shutdown of some signals.

[T]he underperformance [of outer London]... can be attributed in part to two interlinked factors: rising levels of congestion and skill deficiencies. BAA Heathrow

2.182 That said, it would not be feasible to provide public transport links to all destinations in outer London and that the car would remain important for many, although opportunities to enable and promote the use of public transport, walking and cycling, should be maximised. Several respondents said that there should be a package of measures to reduce car travel; for a few this included road user or parking charges. More generally, it was felt to be important to offer attractive alternatives. It was noted that many families retained a car for non-work trips that would be difficult to make by public transport. Overall, there was a clear message that the car would remain important in outer London, and planning should recognise this.

2.183 Smarter Travel programmes cropped up often as a success story. TfL has, with boroughs, run programmes in Sutton and, more recently, Richmond upon Thames. The scheme uses a range of measures – personal, school and workplace travel planning, promotion of car clubs and car-


sharing – to encourage people to choose public transport, walking and cycling. The success of Smarter Travel in shifting car users to more sustainable modes was cited by many respondents and there was enthusiasm for the programme being available more widely. Also, it is important to ‘lock in’ the benefits of the scheme, otherwise suppressed demand will reclaim the road capacity. Some respondents said that schools and hospitals, in particular, would benefit from enhanced travel planning.

2.184 However, the potential transport (and environment) benefits of greater employment growth in outer London were welcomed: enabling people to work and access key services closer to home would reduce the amount of overall travel as well as enabling people to choose more sustainable modes. Obviously, it’s easier to walk or cycle to work if your office is in your local town centre. But also crucial to people making this choice is a pleasant and safe environment, in which people feel confident to walk, cycle or use public transport. Some respondents reiterated the benefits of mixed-use development and the added value of having, for example, education and health services in the same location.

New employment generating development needs to be based on principles of reducing the need to travel (through provision of local employment opportunities and encouraging home working) and through ensuring new opportunities further from home are accessible by public transport. LB Richmond upon Thames

2.185 It was recognised that additional resources for transport are limited. In this context, respondents were keen that existing services and infrastructure were fully utilised, for example by increasing service frequencies and passenger capacity. Respondents suggested that cycling routes should be concentrated around town centres rather than attempting overall coverage. There is also potential to get greater value from transport services via ‘reverse commuting’, as outer London’s role as an employment destination grows. Under this scenario, residents would travel from home in one outer London location to another (spreading the load on public transport on the roads), rather than everyone taking a similar route to the centre.

2.186 In the short to medium term, additional public transport is most likely to come from buses and transits and several highlighted the need to make buses more reliable and attractive. This could include bus priority measures on the roads. Other relatively inexpensive measures to encourage the use of public transport,

111

like better information provision, were also identified. Furthermore, well-placed, user-friendly interchanges could help to squeeze the most value from the existing network. Being able to access up-to-date and understandable travel information is also seen as key. It was noted that in some instances, people use the car simply because they are put off by having to make connections and join up different timetables.

2.187 There was also a call to look at the provision of cross-boundary bus and other transport services (covering London and non-London services), since outer London residents do not, of course, only travel within the Capital. All transport services need to be co-ordinated in order to make them easier and more attractive to use; and to squeeze maximum benefit from the existing systems.

2.188 Respondents gave detailed proposals and suggestions for particular transport improvements in their area. While it’s not appropriate to list these here, we can pull out some key messages. In general, it was felt that there should be links to, from, and within town and district centres, and historically deprived areas should be enabled to access public transport to get to work. Also important was orbital connectivity, and links between the ‘spokes’ of the town centre hubs. There were various suggestions for extending Underground, DLR and Tramlink lines, as well as increasing services on the rail

network. A few identified the need to electrify parts of the network; others emphasised the need for additional river crossings. Trams were identified as an attractive alternative to car use in some parts of London.

2.189 Public transport costs are perceived as higher in outer London, potentially putting off users. Fares between destinations in outer London needed to be affordable in order to have a mobile labour market; and the price of public transport needs to compare favourably to the cost of running a car. There was a suggestion for an ‘outer London travelcard’ to make it cheaper to travel within this area. Some respondents suggested that the Mayor’s lack of control over National Rail is an inhibitor to fully integrated and affordable services in outer London, where there is heavier dependence on this mode. This is an issue which the Mayor is partly addressing through the integration of Oyster ticketing on National Rail services.

2.190 Respondents recognised that there would be a need for greater residential density in order to justify public transport investment, although many hoped that this could be achieved without compromising quality. There were examples of how this could be achieved, by strong urban design standards and green spaces, for example. There was an overarching concern that the suburbs remain an attractive place to live as well as work. Further to this, respondents noted


that outer London residents not only need transport provision for employment, they also need it to access education, leisure and social/family events.

Outer London will become a more attractive place to work if employment centres are easily accessible by public transport. Therefore increased traffic congestion and pollution need not be an inevitable consequence of employment growth if planned correctly. Some of the proceeds of economic growth need to be reinvested into the PT system to ensure this virtuous circle is maintained. LB Barking & Dagenham

Quality of Life2.191 Overwhelmingly, respondents were clear

that increased economic activity in outer London should not be at the expense of retaining the different local characteristics of each area and the many advantages it offers to residents. While the Commission has, of necessity, had to talk about ‘outer London’ as a generality, we’ve always been mindful that this definition contains hundreds of unique locations, each with their own particular heritage and features.

The fantastic attraction to London is its diversity. One size does not fit all and we should, therefore, endeavour to give flexibility in our recommendations Tony Pidgley, OL Commissioner

2.192 In addition, development must be sustainable (in all the senses of that word) and have regard to its environmental impacts, particularly in terms of mitigating the extent of future climate change and adapting to its consequences. Many people make a choice to live in outer London because it is less intensively developed and offers a pleasant and attractive place to live, particularly for families. If development is not mindful of these considerations, there is a risk that those who can, will choose to leave London altogether. However, there was support for having more ‘self-contained’ centres in outer London, where people do not need to travel long distances for work or shopping.

2.193 There was a clear message regarding the need to support and revitalise town and district centres, which may have become rundown and are less attractive and accessible as shopping destinations compared with out-of-town alternatives. Several noted that town centres need to have a mix of quality jobs, shops and services in order to remain viable. They are also important for social cohesion, allowing people to access services nearer to home. Co-location of key services, like health and education, can bring benefits in terms of reduced need to travel and enhanced accessibility. It is also important to be able to access cultural and leisure facilities near to home, avoiding the need to travel to the West End or out-of-town leisure parks. In fact, many of these

113

facilities already exist, we just need to be more aware of them and give them the support they deserve.

It is essential that good quality social infrastructure is provided to support existing and future needs. Healthy, well-educated and skilled citizens will have a competitive advantage in the labour market. These facilities should be co-located and provided at the heart of the communities they serve in order to minimise the need for travel LB Barking & Dagenham

2.194 The issue of the night-time economy in town centres was widely discussed: some felt it was important to encourage this to avoid centres becoming deserted at night. But this was accompanied by a concern that there were measures to prevent crime and anti-social behaviour at night. Fear of crime, as well as actual crime rates, is a key concern of residents.

2.195 Housing was often raised as an important issue, and this relates to the matter of residential intensification as well as issues of affordability. It was noted that the housing stock in suburban London was ageing. Several said that there was a need to re-focus development away from one or two-bedroom flats towards bigger homes where families could settle. With caveats regarding quality and space, intensification was acknowledged as a way forward. But housing is not the whole story. Respondents noted that it was

vital to provide an increasing residential population with the right health and education services, some of which (for example primary education) are already struggling to meet demand.

We have a duty to ensure that local people share in any wealth generated in the area, that jobs are available to the many that they receive the skills training and good quality housing which they need to improve their living standards LB Newham

2.196 Respondents strongly identified a need to improve the urban realm, particularly in town centres. There was a variety of suggestions for achieving this, including de-cluttering streets, shared space, and green spaces. Since traffic affects the quality of the environment, there were suggestions for traffic calming and, from some, limitation: 20 mph zones, priority measures for cyclists and public transport, and shared space schemes. These could also help to promote walking and cycling as well as attracting new, high-value employment to town centres. Traffic congestion was said to have a strongly negative impact on quality of life in outer London.

2.197 Development needs to be respectful of the heritage and natural characteristics of the area. The existing features of the area – for example waterside space – should be maximised. Again, this recalls the ‘organic’


growth that respondents talked about with regard to the economy of outer London.

Access to green spaces was seen as very important and many said that the Green Belt must remain sacrosanct.

115

Chapter 2 footnotes

Survey1 White J. London in the 20th century. Vintage,

2008

2 e.g. Saint A. London’s suburbs. Merrell Holberton, English Heritage, 1999

3 e.g. Buck Nick, Gordon I. Turbulence and Sedimentation in the London Labour Market, in Gary Bridge , Sophie Watson, A Companion to the City, Blackwell Publishers, 2003

4 Hall P, Pain K. The Polycentric Metropolis: Learning from Mega-city Regions in Europe, 2006

5 Solutions – Sustainability Of Land Use and Transport In outer Neighbourhoods, 2008. See http://www.suburbansolutions.ac.uk/

6 LSE London group – see http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/researchHome.aspx

7 Mayor of London. outer London: Issues for the London Plan. GLA 2007

8 London Assembly Planning and Spatial Development Committee. Semi-Detached: Reconnecting London’s Suburbs. GLA 2007

9 OLC. The Mayor’s outer London Commission Interim Conclusions July 2009 http://www.london.gov.uk/olc/questions/interim-conclusions.jsp.

10 OLC Initial Questions for the Commission – see: http://www.london.gov.uk/olc/questions/initial-questions.jsp

11 the final iteration of which is: Roger Tym & Partners. GLA Employment Time Series. Technical Report. GLA, 2010

12 GLA. Economic Evidence Base GLA, October 2009 http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/economic-evidence-base-october-2009-version.

13 outer London Commission, GLA Economics. Working Paper 34: outer London - Economic Data and Statistics, GLA, March 2009 http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/working-paper-34-outer-london-%E2%80%93-economic-data-and-statistics

14 Innovacion, LDA. Working Paper: Understanding the economy of outer London- Early Thoughts. LDA, 2009

Innovacion, LDA. Working Paper to Support the outer London Commission. Economic Profile of Key Locations in outer London. LDA, 2009

Innovacion, LDA. Working Paper to Support the outer London Commission. Sources of Endogenous Growth in outer London. A Case Study of South West London. LDA, 2009

Innovacion, LDA. Working Paper. Heathrow – International Gateway and Cluster of Transport Services. LDA, 2009

Innovacion/LDA. Working Paper to Support the outer London Commission. Data on key Locations in outer London (Potential Criteria for Hubs). LDA, 2009.

LDA, Innovacion. Working Paper. Economic Profile of Bexley. LDA, 2009

15 Ramidus Consulting, Roger Tym & Partners. London Office Policy Review, GLA, 2009

16 Mayor of London, 2009 London Town Centre Health Check Analysis Report, GLA 2009; Mayor of London: Consumer Expenditure and Comparison Goods Retail Floorspace Need in London, GLA 2009


17 Mayor of London. The London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and Housing Capacity Study 2009, GLA, 2009

18 Roger Tym & Partners. London Employment Time Series, GLA, 2010

19 GLA Economics. More residents, more jobs? The relationship between population, employment and accessibility in London. GLA, 2005.

Batty M. More residents, more jobs. The relationship between population, employment and accessibility in London. A review of the report from GLA Economics. GLA, 2007

URS. Industrial Land Release Benchmarks. GLA, 2007

20 Ian Gordon, Tony Travers and Christine Whitehead, with Kathleen Scanlon: London’s Place in the UK Economy 2009-10, City of London, 2009

21 Annex 3B

22 ONS. Regional, sub-regional and local gross value added. ONS Statistical Bulletin, 2009 (workplace based).

23 Excluding CAZ and the Isle of Dogs

24 Note that the data for the ‘home counties’ includes the relevant unitary authorities and comes from three sources (Census of Employment (1987-2001), Annual Employment Survey (1991-1998) and ABI (1998-2007). Comparability of these datasets over time is imperfect so the figures should be treated with caution.

25 GLA Economics. Our London, Our Future. Planning for London’s Growth II. GLA, 2005

26 This analysis was conducted using 2008 ABI data with the new industrial classification

system introduced in 2007 (SIC 2007). This new classification breaks up the previous ‘Business Services’ classification into a number of component industries. It also removed publishing from the manufacturing class.

27 Krugman P, What’s new about the new economic geography?, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol 14, No.2.

28 The Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2009: median gross earnings for all residents in London was £28,100; £30,000 for inner London residents and £27,000 for outer London residents. For only full-time employees the median across London is £31,900, with £33,400 in inner London and£31,200 in outer.

Outer London economy1 GLA DMAG. 2001 Census Ward Atlas of London.

Vols 1 & 2. GLA, 2006

2 More residents, more jobs? The relationship between population, employment and accessibility in London, GLA Economics, January 2005.

3 GLA Economics Working Paper 25: An expenditure-based approach to employment sectors in London, November 2007.

4 Chart originally presented for all London boroughs in ‘Globalisation, Skills and Employment: The London Story’, GLA Economics, October 2007.

5 Annex 3B

117

Housing in outer London1 Boroughs contained in outer areas of the sub

regions are as follows; outer North East includes Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Newham, Redbridge and Waltham Forest; outer North includes Barnet, Enfield and Haringey; outer South East includes Bexley and Bromley; outer West includes Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow; outer South West includes Croydon, Kingston, Merton, Richmond and Sutton.

2 Data from 2003-04 was collected using a different method and is therefore not strictly comparable with data from previous years.

3 Mayor of London. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 6. GLA, 2010

4 Mayor of London. The London Plan Consolidated with |Alterations since 2004, Policy 3A.3. GLA, 2008.

5 Mayor of London. Annual Monitoring Report 2010 op cit

Transport in outer London1 Includes modes not listed (e.g. taxi).

2 Comparisons with earlier years results (reported in previous editions) are subject to sampling error and should be treated cautiously.

Quality of life1 Thompson R. 2007 op cit

2 MORI. Dystopian Suburbia. Mori, 2006

IPSOS MORI. Annual London Survey 2006. Final Topline Results. GLA, 2006

3 ODPM. Generalised Land Use Database. ODPM, 2006

4 Thompson R. Outer London: issues for the London Plan. GLA, 2007

Long term economic prospects1 The full projections are detailed in “Working

Paper 38: Employment projections for London by sector and trend-based projections by borough”, GLA Economics, Nov 2009.

2 Ramidus, Roger Tym & Partners 2009 op cit

3 Ramidus, Roger Tym & partners 2009 op cit


5 URS Industrial Land Release Benchmarks 2007

3: Analysis

3.1 This chapter draws on the evidence in the previous chapter to develop recommendations and proposals. It examines:

• The possible scale of economic growth in outer London

• The kinds of economic sectors that might support growth in the area

• The case for a hub-based approach to policy

• Ways of making the existing economic geography of outer London – town centres, strategic industrial locations, Opportunity/Intensification Areas etc. work better to support growth in outer London

• The importance of quality of life and environmental quality issues

• The question of linkages with neighbouring regions outside London and the “Outer Metropolitan Area”

• Transport issues that will have to be addressed.

Potential scale and sources of growth

3.2 The European Cities Monitor published annually by Cushman and Wakefield, Healey and Baker identifies and ranks the factors considered to be attractive to businesses when deciding where to locate. These are:• Availability of qualified staff• Easy access to markets• Quality of telecommunications• External transport links• Cost of staff• Climate for doing business• Language spoken• Office space – value for money• Internal transport• Availability of space• Quality of life• Freedom from pollution

3.3 They use these criteria to ask businesses to rank European cities as places to locate their activities. As Table 3.1 shows, London has consistently scored highly against most of these, performing poorly relative to other cities only against cost of staff, value for money office space and freedom from pollution:

119


Table 3.1: London’s performance against factors attractive to business

2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 Leader

Availability of qualified staff 1 1 1 1 London

Easy access to markets 1 1 1 1 London

Quality of telecommunications 1 1 1 1 London

External transport links 1 1 1 1 London

Cost of staff 22 16 25 29 Warsaw

Climate for doing business 6 5 2 5 Dublin

Language spoken 1 1 1 1 London

Office space - value for money 24 29 18 24 Leeds

Internal transport 2 1 1 1 London

Availability of office space 3 1 2 5 Berlin

Quality of life 13 7 11 14 Barcelona

Freedom from pollution 27 26 29 27 Oslo

3.4 London as a whole scores well. In some of the areas where it does less well, outer London is likely to be able to demonstrate strengths. Wage levels tend to be lower than in central London; office rents are also lower. Much of outer London also enjoys a high quality of life, including lower pollution levels in most parts. If these are combined with the benefits the area gains from being part of London, there is clearly much to play for.

3.5 Drawing on the employment projections provided for us by GLA Economics, projections from a number of independent forecasters and the information provided to us by stakeholders, we consider there are four possible growth scenarios for outer London, and we have applied these as sensitivity tests in considering our recommendations (Table 3.2). In using them we have been guided by

the principle of it being “better to be broadly right than precisely wrong” – a useful axiom when considering any projection. We were also mindful that we were interpreting these figures not as statisticians (though we did of course want them to be as ‘right’ as possible) but as an aid to formulating planning policy (in which it is prudent to make provision which enables rather than constrains growth). In addition we were conscious that these projections are subsets of those for London as a whole and thus subject to wider debate: not just as to whether they were constraining outer London’s growth (a concern among some of the Commission’s respondents), but also whether they were part of a broader view that, historically at least, some projections for London as a whole might have erred towards the economically optimistic.

121

Table 3.2 : Possible scenarios for employment growth in outer London

Scenario 1 Continuation of 1989-2007 historic trends could result in an average of 2,800 more jobs, made up of 4,800 more ‘office’ jobs pa, 5,400 more ‘other’ jobs’ and a loss of 7,400 ‘industrial’ jobs pa.

a static view of how employment might change, taking no account of the changing future importance of different sectors

Scenario 2 2008 London Plan projection based on a triangulation of now dated historic trends = 10,000 more jobs pa, made up of 8,600 more ‘office’ jobs pa, 3,400 more ‘other ‘ jobs and a loss of 1,700 ‘industrial’ jobs pa

assumes London will grow in line with national trend and takes account of changing relationships between different sectors but does not reflect the most up-to-date information on economic trends

Scenario 3 Oxford Economics Forecast =10,500 more jobs pa

a more up-to-date, top-down, macro-economic view but does not reflect local infrastructure investment and development capacity. Sectoral information not available.

Scenario 4 New Draft London Plan projection based on a triangulation of new employment, development capacity and public transport data = 6,000 pa, made up of 2,900 more ‘office’ jobs pa, 7,300 more ‘other’ jobs and a loss of 4,000 ‘industrial’ jobs pa.

assumes London will grow in line with national trend and incorporates data which takes account of the onset of the recent recession.

Note: these figures are only broadly indicative due to rounding and because definitions vary.

Where could growth come from? We have concluded that there are two fundamental sources for future growth.

3.6 The first is endogenous growth, based on existing sectors and sources of employment. These, of course, have contributed to the underlying trends examined earlier in this report, but there may be scope for them to perform more effectively if constraints on their performance, competitiveness and growth

that exist in outer London were addressed. These sources include:• Office-based private sector activities• Retail• Leisure/tourism• Local/central government• Other public sector activity, such as

health, community safety etc• Industry and logistics• Creative industries• Other sectors, such as construction.


3.7 Some growth from these sources can be expected from increased residential population, increasing demand for goods and services locally. Peer group reviewed work1 for the 2008 London Plan suggested that every extra 1000 population might generate 230 more local jobs.

3.8 The second is exogenous growth. This means either wholly new sources of employment on a strategically significant scale or step changes in the scale or nature of existing sources which might be possible if constraints on outer London’s competitive position can be addressed. These might include:• Central government functions (along the

lines of the Home Office’s operations in Croydon)

• Other governmental and related functions (European Union agencies, for example)

• National or regional level health or community safety facilities

• Sources arising from, or supported by, new national or regional transport infrastructure, such as Crossrail or a High Speed rail terminus

• Environmental industries• Attracting back “back office” and other

kinds of employment that have moved in recent years from outer London to the surrounding Outer Metropolitan Area.

3.9 More generally, in considering both exogenous and endogenous sources of growth, we have been alive to the need to be realistic about what might be possible,

and to avoid making undue reliance on multiplier effects or double counting.

3.10 The Commission considered at some length whether it would be realistic to include new, large scale, commercial office occupiers in the above list as a distinct element of potential exogenous expansion. Clearly, it would be desirable to attract these back to outer London as a source of sustainable growth. Paragraph 3.4 above shows that outer London may be able to offer them competitive advantage, and from the representations made to the Commission, there are certainly strong local ambitions to support this. In addition, major office proposals at Chiswick Park, Stockley Park, Park Royal, Brent Cross and Croydon suggest that the development sector has not discounted the possibility. However, with some notable exceptions the tendency over the last two economic cycles (at least) has been for such firms to leave rather than migrate to outer London. This suggests that while there may not be sufficiently robust evidence to justify a change of policy to make specific strategic provision across outer London as a whole for such occupiers, this does not mean that local stakeholders should not continue to work to develop their competitive advantages to attract them to viable locations. The targeted approach to management of the office stock and its selective renewal set out in paragraphs 2.155 to 2.160 should support this, as well as making provision for other types of occupier.

123

3.11 We particularly want to highlight two possible sources of growth. The first, which is likely to be mainly exogenous, is based on those activities associated with the environmental sectors. One the one hand, there is a view that, at least for the manufacturing component of green industries: “why should they come to a relatively high cost location like outer London when they can find lower cost bases, and possibly subsidy, in other places?” However, on the other hand, outer London is well-positioned to play a leading role in the research and development of ‘green industries’, perhaps building on the progress London is making to be the global market leader in carbon finance and its strengths in areas associated with low carbon activity and research. It is a global centre with very high levels of investment in new technology. London is well placed to develop expertise in sectors that are able to respond to the growing market opportunities in the areas of climate change mitigation and adaptation; outer London would be well suited to contribute to such development, for example associated with the decarbonisation of the residential property sector (including both the 3.1 million existing homes in London and the 33,000 pa planned for the future). The draft replacement London Plan requires a significant proportion of London’s energy to be supplied by decentralised energy by 2025; this will provide a market opportunity in London that the ‘Prospectus for London, the Low Carbon Capital’ report

of March 2009 estimates could generate over 800 jobs per year.

3.12 Outer London, with its proximity to the environmentally oriented finance and business services in the centre, its range of sites and workspaces and access to a skilled workforce, could be well placed to benefit from job creation and investment in the area as the capital shifts to a low carbon economy.

3.13 The second potential source of growth is the public sector which has both exogenous and endogenous components. While the Commission was mindful of government policy to relocate its administrative functions away from London, it did note that locating government, health and higher/further education functions of greater than sub regional significance in outer London would bring many benefits, including links to existing central London institutions and local labour markets, lower costs, skilled labour force and relatively good communications. Higher education institutions and hospitals in outer London (see figures 3.1 and 3.2) have a potential beyond the direct employment they bring as focii of regeneration, both because of the direct employment they bring, the scope for helping employees gain experience and skills (the “skills escalator effect, particularly marked in the Health Service), the indirect benefits they bring to local economies and the scope for harnessing “spill over” effects in encouraging emerging sectors. In the next section, we take this line of thought


Figure 3.1: Higher/ Further Education institutions as a focus of regeneration

Figure 3.2: Hospitals as a focus of regeneration

125

further in examining whether it is possible to attract or support exogenous growth in particular places.

3.14 While there is understandable scepticism about the historic effectiveness of the public sector looking at economic sectors in this way (or ‘picking winners’), the Commission was also conscious that this is what the private sector tries to do all the time. A pragmatic partnership of public and private stakeholders might be more effective in realising synergies between sectors than the top down interventions of the 1960’s and 1970’s.

3.15 The Mayor’s London Plan is a spatial development strategy. That is, it can coordinate all the investment and other interventions that affect the locational decisions businesses make. We can make sure that there are sufficient workspaces in the right places and with the right environment, supported by the transport, information/communications and other infrastructure and easily accessible by a workforce that has been provided with the skills and training support it needs. We can also make sure that policy does not disadvantage development inside the Greater London boundary as compared with that outside (in car parking policy, for example). Getting this spatial development framework right means ensuring the right mix of mutually supportive planning, transport and economic development policies Londonwide and locally, and coordinating the investment and operations

of the GLA Group as a whole, boroughs and the whole range of public, private and voluntary sectors with a part to play in the success of places in outer London.

3.16 For the future, the Mayor may wish to explore how the London Plan can help make a step change in the effectiveness of private and public investment coordination. So far the Plan does not appear to have fully flexed its institutional muscles as a ‘spatial strategy’, instead staying close to the planners’ traditional comfort zone of land use, transport and the environment. The Commission has suggested incremental extensions to this to provide more specific coverage of social infrastructure. Potentially it could perhaps go much further, providing a strategic context to add value to the Total Place and Total Capital concepts which have recently been tested at borough level, and extending the ‘localness agenda’ to embrace the city region. A start might be made by investigating how it might improve services and drive savings by adding a strategic dimension to delivery of the ‘health agenda’, and exploring how this can contribute to achievement of the Mayor’s wider objectives. For example, could it help to coordinate more effectively the infrastructure needed to support integration of strategic and local health and complementary service delivery, possibly between boroughs or across wider areas of London, linked to Opportunity Area or town centre renewal initiatives?


A new spatial structure for growth?

3.17 As a key part of our terms of reference, we were asked to consider the concept of economic growth hubs in outer London and the contribution a concept of this kind could have in helping outer London to reach its full economic potential. We also examined the related question – raised by many of those we spoke to - of whether and how more polycentric growth should be encouraged, with a view to informing the development of the revision to the London Plan, and subsequent strategies.

Polycentric development:Polycentric development, as defined by Hague & Kirk, 2003 (ODPM) is a spatial and functional form of development in which there are many centres and not just one large city that dominates all the others. Polycentric development helps to encourage increased competitiveness, cohesion and regional balance, equality of access to infrastructure and knowledge and sustainable development, and is a concept promoted, for example, in the European Spatial Development Perspective.

3.18 The Commission asked for views on the concept of ‘super hubs’ or ‘growth hubs’ - places that could form the focus of, and catalyst for, more general above-trend growth in outer London. It started with four broad locations identified as potential growth hubs: Stratford, Croydon, Brent Cross/Cricklewood and Heathrow (one

in each quadrant of outer London) as a basis for this discussion. At the same time, it was made clear that the Commission had an open mind on this issue, and that other options would also be considered. Any future land-use options would of course need to be examined in the light of economic viability, transport interventions and projections of employment and population growth.

3.19 This question probably caused more controversy than any other of the issues we considered. Fears were expressed that identified hubs would receive the bulk of transport and other investment at the expense of other parts of outer London, and that they would see the most of any additional growth. As set out below, it also became clear from our consideration of past and likely future trends in the outer London office market that it was very unlikely that there would be sufficient high ‘added value’ private office demand to support the scale of growth hubs of this kind would require.

3.20 Thus, as part of its initial work the Commission considered just what a ‘super-hub’ might comprise. The Commission’s brief and its early consultations and analyses suggested that in terms of core functions, ‘super-hubs’ should have a wider than sub regional ‘reach’; that these functions should be capable of being accommodated at high enough densities to justify public transport investment (to create a virtuous, self reinforcing circle of

127

public investment and wider growth); and that they should generate sufficient value to justify private development investment. This pointed to office based functions capable of generating rental values of more than about £27 sq ft (in the same general order as those in nearby parts of the Outer Metropolitan Area and indeed in much of provincial Britain), backed by substantial high value residential development and an attractive range of supporting services.

3.21 To generate the desired step change in employment over and above historic or currently projected trends, the scale of such office development would have to be significantly greater than that anticipated in the emerging London Plan. As an initial proposition for testing, it was suggested that in broad brush terms this might entail development at, say, twice the scale of that usually considered necessary to generate its own mass and identity as a strategically significant office quarter - say, double the 300,000 – 400,000 sq m which in the past has been considered for such quarters at Brent Cross or Earls Court. At average London Plan densities this would provide capacity for at least 50,000 office workers. Variants on this model suggested that even if densities were reduced from 12 sq m person to 18 sq m (which would have implications for development viability) and applied to the smallest office ‘super-hub’ option (600,000 sq m), this would still create capacity for over 30,000 more office workers.

3.22 The 50,000 employment growth from this variant of the ‘super-hub’ model is equivalent to more than a third of the Draft London Plan’s projected employment growth for all sectors across outer London (Table 3.2 Scenario 4) i.e. if successful, a ‘super-hub’ would certainly achieve the desired ‘step change’ in employment opportunities. On this basis, it might absorb much of the office employment growth projected for the whole of outer London under Scenario 4, about half that projected under Scenario 1 and a quarter of that expected under Scenario 2.

3.23 The Commission also considered other models for the ‘super hub’ concept. For example, was it useful to use the Heathrow area as a proxy? This accommodates 90,000 jobs, and while specific growth data was not available, the Commission was mindful that Hillingdon, in which much of this activity is concentrated, has had by far the greatest employment growth of any outer borough (68,000 more jobs 1989 – 2007). Though Heathrow does have a distinct core set of airport related activities (stemming in part from very substantial public investment), geographically these are quite dispersed, most are not office based (Annex 3B) and arguably they do not form the tightly focused nexus which might be characterised as a ‘super-hub’. More importantly, the area is quite unique – realistically it is doubtful whether it could be used as a model for replication elsewhere in London.


3.24 However, dispersed areas of growth, sometimes clustered around pockets of more intense activity, do exist elsewhere in London. The employment density maps in Chapter 2 provide a static picture of these, and the borough level tables in Annex 3B provide a broad brush impression of the scale of their growth. Richmond (27,000 job growth 1989 – 2007) and Barnet (21,000) are the most graphic examples. In terms of scale, doubling their historic performance would apparently put them in the same league as the notional ‘super-hub’ described above, but much of this

growth was not office based and was generated by a fairly dispersed geographic structure, with all that that implies for transport investment.

3.25 The Commission also considered whether office hubs in the Outer Metropolitan Area could serve as models – after all, OMA as a whole had grown by 36,000 jobs pa across two economic cycles while outer London had managed only 2,800, and the OMA office market is a more realistic comparator for outer London ‘super-hubs’ than that of inner London. But the employment growth

Figure: 3.3: Office based employment 2007

129

headline across the ‘Home Counties’ belies the scale of office growth in each of its own ‘hubs’. The nearest proxy to a ‘super-hub’ there is Reading, with some 30,000 office jobs and nearby Wokingham with some 22,000 jobs. Wokingham grew by 850 jobs pa across two cycles, and growth in Reading was erratic but, on average, negative i.e. very different to the 2,500 jobs pa required over 20 years to reach a 50,000 target for a London ‘super-hub’. Moreover, a significant part of this area’s office economy is based on a set of more dispersed, car based spatial structures than the dense, public transport based configuration posited for the distinct circumstances of London. Other OMA centres outlined in Figure 3.3 do not have even half the level of office employment suggested for a London ‘super-hub’ – only Bracknell has more than 15,000 jobs. Moreover, as independent consultants for the London Office Policy Review 2009 concluded, “when looking at office-based employment specifically, the performance of OMA centres is marginally stronger (than those in outer London) but …. the range of growth rates across the two types of centres precluded any definitive and over-arching conclusions”.

3.26 It was tempting to use Canary Wharf as an exemplar of a successful London ‘super-hub’. Early phases of development there provided capacity for some 50,000 workers which have now grown to more than 90,000, with development capacity to exceed 200,000 jobs. As with some of the

other models, this development required substantial public subsidy from a range of sources, including very significant rail infrastructure. Thus, from this perspective, the scale of the ‘super-hub’ concept outlined above does not appear immodest. However, it is misleading because Canary Wharf serves a very different market from that which might be attracted to outer London. Historic prime rents there have been in the order of £40 sq ft i.e. roughly the same as central London’s ‘Mid Town’, not far above those sometimes achieved in parts of Hammersmith but well above those in the Outer Metropolitan Area which serves a market more analogous to that which might be created in outer London.

3.27 These of course are not wholly valid comparators, not least because much of the projected employment growth in outer London is likely to be essentially ‘low value added’ while the new exogenous growth required for a ‘super-hub’ would represent a ‘step change’ to a new ‘high value added’ type necessary to justify the development investment. Nor do they address concerns as to the balance of probabilities of outer London attracting such exogenous employment on this scale, or recognize differences in the markets served by other office locations. However, they do provide a context for understanding what a ‘super-hub’ might entail, and, not least in light of other evidence submitted to the Commission, beg questions as to the realism of


predicating a major change in London Plan policy on the basis of such development. While this testing of the ‘super-hub’ concept did not lead to its endorsement, it did provide useful lessons for the wider work of Commission.

3.28 We also considered whether substantial planned extensions of existing urban areas, perhaps based on release of Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land, would be a viable way forward. We came to the conclusion that this would be unnecessary and wasteful in terms of the use of land and existing infrastructure. There is very considerable capacity for development and a good deal of “sunk” investment in buildings and infrastructure within the existing urban envelope. There is not, therefore, the justification for large-scale release for development of land which we accept is extremely important for a range of policy reasons and to quality of life.

3.29 Informed by the Survey results showing that while 60 per cent of outer London’s

employment is concentrated in its main town centres, 40 per cent is more dispersed, the Commission instead came to the conclusion that a more clearly nuanced approach would be more constructive – one that made clear that it was based on smaller nodes or clusters of activities of greater than sub-regional importance which could be developed either by building on existing strengths or the capacity to attract new activities not found elsewhere, and which recognised the potential of a wider range of places. This was the origin of the “strategic outer London development centre” which we propose in this report.

3.30 The London Plan should draw on this list, and our work more generally, to identify specific locations in outer London with specialist strengths, existing (“endogenous”) or potential (“exogenous”). Other centres could be added as necessary (the Commission’s table is not intended to be exhaustive or preclude other configurations). We

Table 3.3: Potential locations for ‘strategic outer London development centres’ and their strategic functions

Strategic function(s) Sites

Leisure/tourism Wembley; and parts of Greenwich; Richmond; Hillingdon; Wandle Valley

Media (also food-related) White City; Park Royal

Logistics Parts of Bexley; B&D; Havering; Hillingdon0; Hounslow

Other transport Hillingdon; Royal Docks-City airport; Biggin Hill

Office Croydon; Stratford

Higher/Further Education Uxbridge; Kingston; Greenwich and possibly Croydon; Stratford; Romford

Industry Upper Lee Valley; Bexley Riverside

Retail Brent Cross

131

hope to see a commitment to developing these and other centres, with a focus on both the business environment and the public realm. This should include ways of attracting investment for infrastructure, and measures to help Londoners to access employment.

3.31 To avoid any misunderstanding, recommendations for outer London development centres are intended to mean existing town centres and other centres of growth, and not the 4 ‘growth’ or ‘super’ hubs originally envisaged. The meaning has broadened and, could include different classifications, including relatively small district and neighbourhood centres as well as non- town centre locations such as Strategic Industrial Locations identified in the London Plan. The planning guidance and proposals would, of course, need to be adapted for different classifications as appropriate.

Making the most of existing places

3.32 Considerable attention has been given to new kinds of places that could be embodied in spatial policy. Many of those we spoke to quite rightly pointed to the need to make the most of existing spatial structures identified in the London plan and elsewhere, and particularly town centres. We strongly agree with these points. Any new spatial designations should complement and not replace or endanger the success of existing places and centres. We briefly consider some of the key spatial designations relevant to outer London, and flag their potential for both kind of economic growth we identified earlier.

Town centres3.33 Though outer London’s larger town

centres already support 60 per cent of its employment there are other reasons why the draft replacement London Plan should identify them as the most important spatial designation outside the Central Activities Zone to provide the main foci for commercial development, new retail and housing. We support the development of London’s town centres to provide a constellation of the most important business locations beyond the centre, providing the basis for transport and other linkages binding outer London together and providing a source of future strength. Doing this means ensuring that all of those concerned with particular centres work together to ensure each provides a


competitive choice of goods and services, that they are accessible increasingly by sustainable modes of transport, that each contains a range of locations suitable to support growth and development and that barriers to development are addressed.

3.34 There is also a need for targeted regeneration action coordinated by all the agencies involved, including those involved in site assembly and making better use of under-developed town centre sites. We believe that increasing

the number and density of housing in town centres is increasingly important to ensuring their success, and this needs to be a particular regeneration objective. Consideration should be given to addressing the needs of groups and individuals who may particularly enjoy the ‘buzz’ of town centres such as students, or some types of smaller households, perhaps even including some older people. Area Action Plans as part of borough LDFs will be an important part of this process. These can provide a framework for more

Figure 3.4: London’s Town Centre Network

133

specific work to improve the public realm of streets and spaces, possibly as part of initiatives to enhance civic pride and quality of life such as local variants of the London Festival of Architecture.

Opportunity and Intensification Areas These are London Plan designations:

3.35 Opportunity Areas are London’s principal opportunities for accommodating large-scale development to provide substantial numbers of new employment and housing (typically more than 5,000 jobs and/or 2,500 homes) with a mixed and intensive use of land and assisted by good public transport accessibility.

Intensification Areas are places with significant potential for increases in residential, employment and other uses through development of sites at higher densities with more mixed and intensive use but at a level below that which can be achieved in Opportunity Areas.

3.36 We support the principles behind these designations, which we note have stood the test of time since the first publication of the London Plan. We also support the identification of new areas of these kinds in outer London. However, based on what we were told we do think there is a need for greater coordination of investment in them by the Homes and Communities Agency, the London Development Agency and other organisations. There is also a need to improve their social and environmental infrastructures to help establish and sustain their attractiveness as places to live and work.

Industrial land/clusters3.37 It is important that London retains

and then makes the most of the land resources it has for industrial purposes in order to secure the capital’s capacity to accommodate activities that are relatively low value, but which play an essential part in maintaining the city’s metabolism

Figure 3.5: Opportunity and Intensification Areas


– manufacturing and maintenance, waste management and recycling, wholesale and logistics and the range of support activities a service economy relies upon. These sectors are often important to outer London’s economy and to providing a range of employment opportunities there.

The debate about these places all too often begins and ends with the question of quantity; we believe that more attention should be given to ways of improving their quality. In particular, there is a need to look at their physical

accessibility, both for workers and for freight.

Growth and coordination corridors3.38 The London Plan recognises two

nationally-designated growth corridors (the Thames Gateway and the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough Corridor) and three corridors connecting London with the wider city region (the Western Wedge, Wandle Valley and London-Luton-Bedford corridor). We agree with those who suggested to us that

Figure 3.6: Distribution of industrial land within and outside Strategic Industrial Locations in London

135

the full potential of these corridors has not been realised. There is clearly a need for more active work and coordination by authorities on either side of the Greater London boundary on a range of issues, but perhaps particularly on transport. Delivering this means putting practical joint planning arrangements in place for each corridor, and focussing on the opportunities providing the most potential – the nodes within each of the corridors, rather than the spaces between. The West London Partnership provided a particularly

illuminating illustration of how this might be approached in refining the ‘Western Wedge’ concept.

London’s sub-regions 3.39 The draft replacement London Plan sets

out a new sub-regional structure and a more flexible approach to sub-regional working which enables the formation of partnerships across borough boundaries according to the nature of the issue under consideration.

Figure 3.7: London’s growth corridors Source: GLA


Figure 3.8: London’s sub- regions

3.40 We welcome the approach taken to sub regional coordination in the draft Plan. It will allow the sound foundation of work carried out by established sub-regional partnerships to be built upon and developed, providing a valuable link between the London-wide and the local. This could be taken further by looking at ways in which working at a sub-regional level can add value in delivering services and ensuring the kind of coordinated, targeted regeneration activity we have identified as being essential.

Regional/national/international linkages

3.41 The London Plan rightly makes much of London’s place as part of Europe’s urban framework and the United Kingdom’s network of core cities. We have had to be mindful of this wider context in considering our recommendations and to the contribution that policies on this wider scale will have for outer London. For example, there is the scope for maximising the benefits from national transport infrastructure investment like High Speed

137

Figure 3.9: London’s cultural facilities

Rail. Access to international transport links is an important factor in businesses’ locational decisions, and airports will remain an important economic driver in outer London (particularly perhaps in west and south London – see Figure 3.7).

3.42 Addressing these and similar issues in ways that support growth while not putting quality of life, environmental and other objectives at risk requires close working by all the agencies concerned at strategic and local level, within London and across regional boundaries. This reinforces the need to develop arrangements for this kind of joint work mentioned earlier.

Cultural quarters and areas3.43 Outer London already has a range of

high quality leisure, arts, culture and tourism facilities. We believe there is considerable scope to build on this, both to make the most of what already exists, and to identify the opportunities for new

facilities. In doing so, we have noted that most of the funding for cultural facilities and activities goes to central London – even though one third of the approximately 3,500 cultural facilities in the capital are in outer London. There is clearly a case for funding bodies to rethink this.

3.44 We believe there are things that should be done more locally and immediately to make the most of these sectors in outer London. First, there is a need for more effective marketing of the area’s cultural assets, particularly where these fall within identifiable clusters. This may mean joint marketing efforts by groups of authorities or agencies on a cross-boundary basis.

3.45 There is scope for taking a more proactive approach to management of areas of cultural importance, and we commend the concept of “cultural quarters” – places able to accommodate new arts,


cultural and leisure activities and which can be managed so they contribute more effectively to regeneration – identified in the London Plan. This could be used as the basis for exploring the potential for very large scale commercial leisure facilities able to provide a regional, national or international scale offer (as has been done at Wembley, or at North Greenwich with the 02 Centre). At the other end of the scale, consideration could be given to rejuvenation of medium-sized theatres and other facilities.

3.46 Allied to this is the need for effective management of the night time economy, which can on the one hand help support the vitality of town centres, but can also make them unpleasant places to be. This means looking at ways of broadening the range of night-time activities and linking them to cultural facilities and other leisure uses, as well as ensuring effective cross-agency working.

Mixed use development3.47 The Commission noted that mixed use

development can play an important part in:• shaping places; • securing a more efficient and sustainable

use of outer London’s scarce stock of development capacity;

• enabling different land uses to be accommodated on the same site or in the same neighbourhood; and

• reducing the need to travel between different activities (such as living and working or shopping and healthcare).

3.48 However, if promoted simply as a blanket ‘good thing’, it can also raise tensions with other planning objectives, not least when it is used as a ‘back-door’ to replacing lower value but still functionally important activities hitherto protected by the planning system. Its application must be tailored to local circumstances.

3.49 The London Plan already provides support for mixed use development in different types of location: some policies promote and manage mixed use development in particular areas (2A.5 Opportunity Areas, 2A.6 Intensification Areas, 2A.8 Town Centres, 2A.9 The Suburbs, 5G.3 CAZ) and some in relation to particular uses (3A.2 housing targets, 3A.10 affordable housing, 3B.3 offices, 2A.10 and 3B.4 industry). Others support it generically (notably 2A.1 sustainability criteria and 4B.1 design principles for a compact city – see below).

3.50 The Commission considered that, within the context of its terms of reference, further guidance is required on implementation of these general policies to ensure that the concept delivers what is expected of it and does not have unintended consequences. This bears particularly on mixed use redevelopment which involves housing – at strategic level the highest value use in outer London, and one which, while meeting an essential need and potentially contributing to suburban renewal, can also compromise wider planning objectives. It therefore suggests that when developing guidance

139

on implementation of mixed use policy consideration be given to the approaches outlined below for development which entails:• conversion/redevelopment of surplus

offices • town centre redevelopment• industrial land

Mixed use development and the changing outer London office market

3.51 As already noted, the office market beyond central London is subject to a complex combination of factors which, over the long term, look likely to reduce strategically significant office investment. Of particular importance are declining demand from historically important large scale occupiers, such as ‘back offices’ to serve CAZ businesses and central government or for commercial headquarters and administrative activities which in the past sought a London but not a central London location. Against this decline must be set strategic and local initiatives to re-invent and re-brand some of these areas as attractive and competitive business locations, as well as to retain existing occupiers. In addition, population expansion is likely to generate new demand for local business services and justify retention of some lower cost office space. However, overall, while locally based office employment beyond central London is projected to expand substantially its ‘added value’ may not be sufficient to prompt strategically significant new office development across

outer London or to generate investment to maintain and improve the quality of all the existing office stock.

3.52 The Commission noted that the London Plan anticipates that housing-led, mixed use re-development could play a major part in helping to consolidate and modernise part of the office stock beyond central London while at the same time adding significantly to housing capacity. A downturn in the office market, accelerating release of surplus office capacity, coupled with new opportunities for significant investment in affordable homes (see London Housing Strategy) may provide particular opportunities for such mixed use renewal. However, to ensure that the viability of existing office occupiers and investment is not compromised this must be approached sensitively through local strategies tailored to local circumstances. General principles which these strategies could usefully take into account include:• Recognising that unlike mixed use

development in central London, which is mainly office-led, in the remainder of London retail, leisure and, in particular, housing are usually higher value uses and are likely to be the main drivers of change.

• Depending on local and strategic circumstances (see below), the higher values associated with these can also provide scope for partial renewal of the office stock which should be in line with the locational and other requirements,


including coordinated conversion of surplus offices to residential (or to other uses).

• Phasing of the office renewal/replacement process will be critical to ensure that the viability of existing office occupiers and investment is not compromised – given the importance of managing change in the outer London economy, housing objectives should generally be a consequence of economic concerns when developing office consolidation strategies in this regard.

3.53 This phasing should take into account the capacity of the existing stock for interim renewal to accommodate new office occupiers e.g. sub division to accommodate small firms – this may delay residential led mixed use redevelopment of some sites.

Because much office space outside central London is in or around town centres, local initiatives to manage office capacity could usefully be integrated into wider town centre strategies. Mixed use, housing-led, partial renewal of the office stock can help achieve the objectives of these.

3.54 Boroughs are strongly advised to take a broader than local perspective in analysing their office markets (and as the context for subsequently realising potential housing capacity). Office locations outside town centres should be considered (including the environmental as well as the economic sustainability of these) as should trends in

the overall office market beyond central London. The Commission noted that to help provide a wider picture, the GLA publishes strategic reviews of the office market across London2 which suggested categorising significant office locations beyond CAZ and Canary Wharf according to whether:• speculative office development could

be promoted, possibly in the context of some loss of less attractive capacity;

• some office provision could be promoted as part of wider residential/other use led schemes in the context of more significant loss of less attractive office capacity; or

• they are unsuitable for/there is no strategic case for encouraging office development.

3.55 The Commission welcomes the DRLP (Annex 2) proposal to take forward a categorisation along the lines of the above recommendation and summarised in Figure 2.43. In view of the changing nature of the office market beyond central London, it is particularly important that borough analyses of their office markets (and their approach to housing led mixed use renewal) is in the context of the ‘Plan, Monitor and Manage’ approach proposed in the London Plan (paragraph 3.150). To inform the scope for housing-led mixed use development, as well as for office renewal, it will be important to test and revise the above categorisations for individual centres. This should inform any guidance on Town Centres and the

141

GLA Town Centres Healthcheck, as well as further revision of the London Plan.

3.56 Significant office renewal and new office development should be consolidated in the most competitive locations where a market can be developed for existing and new occupiers. In several of the different types of location identified in the London Plan (paragraph 3.148), mixed use development with a strong residential component could play an important part in the office renewal process. These types of location include:• strategic office centres, currently

Croydon and Stratford, and elsewhere if justified by demand;

• town centre based office quarters;• locally oriented, town centre based office

provision, which can be consolidated effectively to meet local needs, or where necessary changed to other uses; and

• existing linear office developments such as the ‘Golden Mile’.

3.57 Other types of location for suburban office renewal identified in the Plan are likely to be less suitable for a mixed use, residential led approach: • mid-urban business parks such as that

developed at Chiswick;• conventional business parks beyond the

urban area, such as those at Stockley Park and Bedfont Lakes, which should become more sustainable in transport terms; and

• innovation parks ranging from urban incubator units to more spacious provision.

3.58 Mixed use conversion of surplus office buildings, especially to residential, can pose particular challenges. Schemes can vary significantly and in some circumstances, while the intent of internal space, sound insulation and energy efficiency standards must be maintained, an imaginative approach to their application may be required. Housing led conversions and surplus office site re-development must also be set in the context of the supply of local amenities, services and social and environmental infrastructure. In areas deficient in these, DPDs should ensure that some of the development capacity represented by surplus offices addresses such needs. This may require sensitive planning and entail partnership action to facilitate comprehensive, or at least partial, area renewal.

3.59 The physical configuration of some surplus office buildings may make them unsuitable for the provision of on-site affordable housing for some client groups, though this should not exclude them from affordable housing policy requirements (including off site or cash in lieu contributions where this provides more appropriate housing than on site provision).


Mixed use development and town centres

3.60 Outer London’s strategically recognised (Figure 3.4), and many more locally designated, town centres will be the primary geographical focus for most of its 520,000 new residents expected to 2031, and for much of the £38 billion growth in outer London household expenditure projected to be spent on comparison goods by 2031 (see paragraph 2.165). These trends will help drive substantial mixed use development. Housing is expected to form an important part of this development, capitalising on the accessibility of town centres which also underpins their capacity for higher density development. Housing can also complement other town centre activities - physically in terms of utilising air space above commercial uses, functionally in terms of adding to their vitality and viability and perceptually by strengthening the ‘sense of place’ and quality of life which they provide for local communities.

3.61 As the main nodes on London’s public transport network, town centres typically have higher ‘PTAL’ scores, capable of sustaining housing densities up to 400 units per hectare or more depending on dwelling size. Opportunities for play and other amenity spaces tend to be more constrained in town centres than elsewhere so a lower proportion of family homes may be appropriate in these locations. A combination of smaller homes and good public transport accessibility

reduces the need for car parking provision and provides scope to move towards ‘zero’ provision, further increasing housing capacity (Policy 3C.24 and Annex 4). Higher densities also enhance the viability of car sharing schemes.

3.62 A real commitment to partnership working, backed where necessary by the Mayor, will be needed to realise this potential. This may include innovative approaches to land assembly, possibly using the compulsory purchase process, perhaps with LDA support. A range of partners including boroughs and the LDA have explored how a design led approach to development in and around medium sized and smaller town centres3 can increase housing capacity there. This work suggests design and development principles to secure high quality, high density development as well as providing illustrations of ways to balance the need for homes of different sizes.

3.63 In some circumstances, implementation of mixed use policy will require flexible application of affordable housing policy providing this flexibility does not compromise achievement of the broad strategic objective to maximise provision. It is noted that the Mayor’s new Interim Housing SPG4 recognises the need for a more flexible approach to the balance between social housing and intermediate housing.

143

Mixed use development and surplus industrial land

3.64 Historically, surplus industrial land has been a key source of new housing capacity. By 2006 the stock of industrial land had fallen to an estimated 5,500 hectares, a reduction of 440 hectares since 2001. London’s manufacturing sector is projected to continue to contract and new industrial type activities are expected to make more effective use of existing industrial land, freeing up surplus industrial capacity for other uses, especially housing. However, it is essential that the process of industrial land release is managed sensitively so that provision is still made for essential industrial functions, especially logistics, waste and transport, emerging new sectors such as green industries and the myriad small industrial type firms which rely on the planning system to protect affordable business space. The introduction of new uses, including housing, to industrial areas should not compromise continuing industrial activities there.

3.65 The Commission notes that the London Plan states that “there is scope for an annual net release of 41 ha (of industrial land) 2006 – 2026, mainly in parts of North East and South East London. This should go to other priority uses, notably housing and social infrastructure a higher level of release is appropriate in the early part of the plan period (48 ha per annum 2006 – 2016)”. This release should be undertaken on a selective and carefully

managed and monitored basis to ensure that the needs of the full range of bona fide industrial type occupiers are taken into account, including transport, logistics and, in particular, waste.

3.66 In line with PPS3, PPS4 and government guidance on employment land reviews5, policies and decisions to retain business land, including that for industry, must be justified by realistic demand assessments. The Industrial Capacity SPG6 sets out quantified industrial land release monitoring benchmarks for individual boroughs in North East and South East London and more general release/retention guidance for all boroughs (the Commission notes that the Mayor proposes to include this guidance within the body of the DRLP). For the period 2006 – 2026, annualised benchmarks to monitor release (including for housing) at sub regional level are:

North 9 hectares per year

North East 18 hectares per year

South East 7 ha per year

South West 3 ha per year

West 3 ha per year

3.67 It is anticipated that, outside east London, subject to demand and other assessment criteria, most industrial land releases to housing should come from smaller industrial sites. The main reservoir of industrial capacity will continue to be protected as Strategic Industrial Locations


(SILs) and where formally designated, as Locally Significant Industrial Sites.

3.68 Among SILs, especially in east London, there will still be some scope for strategically coordinated intensification, consolidation, locational substitution and/or mixed use development which will yield capacity for other uses, especially housing. Where significant land is to be released from SILs, notably in parts of East London, this should be managed through individual planning frameworks and coordinated

through the successor to Sub Regional Implementation/Development Frameworks (the proposed Implementation Plan). Smaller scale releases from SILs should not compromise the integrity and viability of the remainder of the SIL. These are typically small parts of SILs which are sequestered from the main body of the Location by a road or railway, often close to a town centre. Boroughs are advised to draw on the criteria to manage the release of these and other small sites are set out in the SPG.

Figure 3.10 Strategic Industrial Locations

145

Quality of Life/Environmental Issues

3.69 Although our focus has primarily been on outer London’s economic development, it was clear to us from the start that we could not ignore the things that make much of it somewhere that is pleasant to live and work. These are the reasons why outer London has a skilled resident workforce. They are why the people who support local shops and businesses choose to live there. They are why many businesses decide to locate there. The quality of life that is enjoyed in much of outer London is crucial for its economic success – and that of London as a whole.

3.70 We believe that development need not detract from what is one of the key strengths of the area. Making sure this happens depends on our taking the concepts of “place making” and, on occasion “place shielding”, and realising them on the ground - applying the best of contemporary design and building standards, and tailoring them to local circumstances. This means taking a neighbourhood-based approach to design and development, taking local context into account in ways that address strategic policy objectives while also enabling local needs to be met. To be effective in a city like London, with a growing and changing population means taking account of the needs of people at all stages of their lives and enabling them to make the most of the places where they live. We strongly endorse the concept of

“Lifetime Neighbourhoods”, and are glad to see it has been taken up in the draft replacement London Plan.

3.71 This approach to ensuring strong and sustainable (in all senses of that term) neighbourhoods also means we have to be more proactive in identifying the range of social infrastructure (everything from schools, clinics and hospitals through cultural and leisure facilities through to prisons) that are needed for civilised urban living. We think there may be value in the London Plan giving more guidance on identifying appropriate levels of social infrastructure in particular places, perhaps by providing benchmarks linked to particular levels of development and growth– we have suggested some of these, together with illustrations of relative accessibility to some types of facility, in Annexes 6A and 6 B, but these could be extended e.g. to cover libraries and facilities for the elderly.

3.72 One way of taking these principles and translating them into action might be through providing more strategic advice and guidance. The GLA has published “Tomorrow’s Suburbs”, a toolkit for sustainable suburban development to support the London Plan. We think this could be refined and updated, informed by our research, findings and recommendations. In particular, it should set out approaches to help engender greater community ownership, cohesion and choices – all things that are integral to


the creation of the kind of neighbourhood we think will help support delivery of the kinds of growth we want to see.

3.73 Civic groups report developers ‘cherry pick’ profitable parts of development areas without making commensurate contributions needs to provide the social infrastructure required to secure quality of life in the areas as a whole. They have also suggested a ‘shopping list’ of the sorts of cumulatively important small scale measures which quality of life policies should cover including:• Manning of stations in the evenings• Designing out crime• Eliminating street clutter and improving

the public realm• Maintaining visible Police presence• Reducing gang culture and associated

violence• Providing good special needs education• Encouraging apprenticeships for young

people• Providing leisure facilities for both young

and elderly people• Dealing with worklessness in certain

groups• Achieving community cohesion• Developing borough outreach and

engagement of communities• Ensuring local democratic decision making• Introducing an effective third party right

of appeal• Improving capacity and reliability of

public transport and user information• Realigning bus routes for effective usage

• Positioning bus stops for ease of interchange

• Improving Dial-a-Ride• Maintaining street trees and open spaces

to acceptable standards• Protecting local shops• Developing loyalty purchase schemes• Eliminating graffiti, flyposting and

dumping• Encouraging development of live/work

units and serviced offices• Supporting street markets, farmers’

markets and food growing• Providing community and business

meeting space, including asset transfer• Protecting heritage and conservation

areas• Managing the night time economy• Reducing air pollution• Managing noise problems• Preventing more front garden parking

3.74 All these approaches are, we believe, important if we are to be able to make sure that growth in outer London is to go ahead in ways that enhance the quality of living in outer London. This is essential if growth is to be acceptable in the first place, and then effective in supporting outer London’s success. They must be backed by a consistent and rigorous approach not just to timely translation of strategic policy to the local level (slippage in LDF preparation timetables is reported to be common) but also in its implementation – civic groups report that all too often they find that the policies which are in place to secure quality of life

147

are not accorded appropriate weight in planning decisions.

3.75 So far, we have focussed on new development and growth. We must not forget the huge contribution of the suburban heartlands – the places between town centres that give the area its unique feel and character. These places are important to outer London’s success as well, and we should nurture and support the capital’s “green suburbs”, which are one of the city’s key assets. It is important that policy supports the public and semi-public realm in this area – the green and open spaces provided by parks, sports clubs, playing fields and gardens. These have a value that goes beyond protecting pleasant places – they are important to the quality of life, health and well-being of all Londoners and, perhaps at a more mundane level, are a vital part of the outer London “offer” to investors and developers. We welcome the strong support for protection of these spaces in the draft replacement London Plan, its support for local presumptions against development of back gardens and the proposal to extend the “green grid” approach to ensuring a coordinated network of green and open space beyond east London.

Transport issues

3.76 It was clear from the outset that one of the key considerations in assessing the feasibility of growth in outer London, let alone ‘growth hubs’, was the transport demand and associated capacity required to facilitate it. Our consideration of the issue was supported by scenario testing of the effects of different patterns of spatial development carried out as part of the development of the draft London Plan and Mayors Transport Strategy by Transport for London. .

3.77 Two principal scenarios were considered: • Scenario A, with the focus of

employment growth in central London with population growth largely in inner and East London (as per the February 2008 edition of the London Plan) – in other words, a continuation of existing trends

• Scenario B, a more dispersed growth, with higher levels of growth in outer London, centred on the four ‘strategic outer London development centres’ 1

3.78 Each of these basic scenarios, and a number of variations on them, were tested against the possible transport interventions required to support their sustainable development. In addition to the four potential hubs, a further scenario considering the 11 “metropolitan” outer London town centres identified in the current version of the London Plan, was also tested. These 3 main scenarios, then,


were examined against the following scenarios of transport intervention:• TfL Business Plan (to 2017/18) and

funded rail schemes as defined by HLOS7 • With a dedicated orbital link

predominantly in outer London• With further interventions

3.79 Figure 3.11 illustrates the matrix of land-use planning options and transport interventions modelled as part of the evidence base for the OLC report and the Mayoral strategies.

3.80 Different configurations within each of these 3 main transport interventions

Figure 3.11: Matrix of land-use and transport changes modelled

149

were also relevant. For example, in supporting outer London development centres, possible transport interventions could include maximising the use of proposed cross-London strategic links (eg Crossrail); developing ‘chordal’ links between inner London and outer London centres via direct services or interchanges; and improving radial connections into centres, which would then connect up to form orbital links. Figure 3.12 illustrates these models and was also presented in the Statement of Intent for the Mayor’s Transport Strategy issued for consultation with the London Assembly and functional bodies.

3.81 Furthermore, the transport modelling indicated that a new dedicated, segregated orbital link in outer London would not be viable, due to the lack of sufficient potential patronage. However, it would be important to provide other, enhanced orbital connections in some parts of London where demand is higher. These could be achieved, for example, by making better use of interchanges and joining up existing links. We believe that doing this in a way that focuses on links to, and between, centres in outer London (what we have termed a “star and cluster” approach, and presented in the recommendations) will result in a denser network of interchanges and orbital services that will enable investment to be concentrated where it will have the most effect.

Congestion3.82 The transport modelling indicated that

without changes to public transport capacity and connectivity, growth in outer London would lead to more road congestion with associated increases in CO2 emissions. This result is largely accounted for by the relatively high dependence on private car journeys in outer London (50% of all resident trips are currently made by car). In this respect, outer London is much more similar to other UK metropolitan centres than it is to inner and central London, where public transport has a much greater share.

3.83 We have to act to prevent development and growth in outer London simply adding to road congestion and the problems of traffic emissions and the wider adverse

Figure 3.12: Possible configurations for connecting development centres in outer London through enhanced orbital connections.


health impacts of car reliance: for example, children not getting enough exercise because they are driven to school rather than walking or cycling locally. Congestion will also adversely affect quality of life for residents and for those driving. Unsurprisingly, this was an issue that was raised with us extensively in our discussions with stakeholders.

3.84 It would not, of course, be feasible to provide public transport links to all destinations in outer London. The car is likely to remain important for many, although opportunities to enable and promote the use of public transport, walking and cycling, should obviously be maximised. This is the situation that those devising strategic policies for outer London will have to face.

We have identified four areas to which attention should be given:

3.85 Rail services (both those provided by Transport for London and National Rail). These have a proportionately greater significance for outer London compared to inner and central parts of the Capital. Particularly in south outer London, there is less Tube coverage and more public transport journeys use National Rail or TfL Overground services. With this in mind, and an awareness that there is unlikely to be significant funding for new infrastructure available in the short-term, we think there is considerable scope to make the current system operate more

effectively. This should include a focus on improved connectivity and interchange between rail and other services such as buses and cycling. We welcome the integration of Oyster cards into the NR network and the continued promotion of the system as an overall network – after all, passengers are more concerned with completing their journey than who provides the service.

3.86 Buses will continue to be a vital component of public transport in outer London, but integration with other services is crucial. Allowing passengers to complete the whole journey by public transport where possible, either through improved services, information or marketing.

3.87 Cycling and walking we share the mayor’s enthusiasm for ensuring a revolution in cycling, and believe it is important that opportunities to increase cycling in outer London are identified and taken up. This links to emphasis we have put on a liveable public realm and easy access to local services. We particularly see potential to encourage cycling and walking to and within town centres. This in part needs to be facilitated through improvements in land use planning, which has the potential to encourage or discourage the take up of walking and cycling in outer London, e.g. out of town centre developments lead to an increase in car travel. There are of course additional health benefits of promoting active modes

151

like cycling and walking, and these must be promoted as modes of choice. They are also cheap and have minimal negative environmental impacts. There is a role for local authorities to take a lead in outer London, developing cycle hubs in and promoting local cycling.

3.88 Demand management given the likelihood that outer London is likely to continue its reliance on the car, more effective management of the road network is crucial to ensure that congestion does not act as a barrier to economic growth

Car parking3.89 Car parking policy in outer London needs

to be developed on an individual and local basis- a “one size fits all” approach is not appropriate here. Our view is that a balance needs to be struck between promoting new development (which is good for the economy) and preventing excessive car parking provision (that can discourage cycling, walking and public transport). Adopting a flexible approach to car parking in outer London is required so that a level of accessibility is maintained whilst being consistent with the overall balance of the transport system at the local level.

3.90 We have heard that developers often view the lack of onsite car parking for offices in outer London as a disincentive to develop offices here, and this is not desirable from an economic point of view. We also know that parking policies in outer London

can often put them at a disadvantage compared to centres outside London. In town centres where regeneration is needed, there may be justification for some liberalisation.

Freight3.91 With road freight currently comprising

nearly 90 per cent of London’s freight by tonnage, it is clear that managing the demands and impacts of road freight are an essential part of the package of delivering growth in outer London. Whilst the key driver of growth in freight is likely to be the significant population growth over the next ten years and beyond, it is the various functions associated with this growth that will lead to an increased demand for goods and essential materials. This will require significant freight and servicing activity across London and towards the east, for example in construction. If the potential of outer London’s business locations to contribute more effectively to that of the capital as a whole, it will also need realistic and locally sensitive acknowledgement of the transport requirements of road based freight.


Chapter 3 footnotes

Analysis1 GLA Economics. More residents, more jobs. The

relationship between population, employment and accessibility in London. GLA, 2005


3 Urhahn Urban Design, Urban Progress Studio, GVA Grimley. Housing Intensification in seven south London town centres. LDA, 2009

Urhahn Urban Design, CBRE. TEN: town centre enhancement in north London. LDA, GOL 2007

4 Mayor of London. Interim Revised Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance. GLA, 2010

5 ODPM. Employment Land Reviews Guidance Note. ODPM, 2004

6 Mayor of London. Industrial Capacity Supplementary Planning Guidance. GLA, 2008

7 High Level Output Statement – the programme for investment on the national rail network

4: ‘Plan’– Recommendations

This chapter sets out our recommendations, drawing on the evidence presented in chapter 2 and the analysis in chapter 3. They are presented here.

Spatial structures: The approach to promoting regeneration and employment growth in outer London: recommendations for strategic approaches

4.1 In this section we make seven recommendations about the spatially-based policies that should be pursued with regard to strategic ways of encouraging outer London’s development. They address particularly those parts of our terms of reference dealing with the question of economic growth hubs and the role of town centres, but our conclusions on these points have also been influenced by the evidence and discussion in earlier sections dealing with issues like:• demography and housing; • the potential for growth in different

economic sectors; • transport;• the labour market • institutional and legislative changes/

initiatives• quality of life

Spatial Structures4.2 The spatial structure of a city can have

a large influence on its regeneration and growth potential. We considered a variety of new spatial structures with a view to ascertaining which could best help to

realise the economic potential of outer London. Listed below are some examples of the options we looked at:

4.3 The definition of outer London: many outer London boroughs have ‘inner characteristics’ and vice versa (and some parts of the Outer Metropolitan Area are very similar to outer London). It is therefore important that for policy purposes the boundaries of outer London are considered to be ‘permeable’ so boroughs are not constrained by administrative boundaries in drawing on the Commission’s conclusions if these are relevant in addressing the needs and challenges of local neighbourhoods.

4.4 ‘Super- hubs’ – the original proposition tested by the Commission was that these could be based on a very large scale expansion of a few already successful business locations to develop their ‘greater than sub-regional offer’. It was thought that a benefit of these might be their potential to provide further agglomeration economies and so justify the substantial investment required to support them. However, it was soon realised that if the concept was to be widely ‘owned’ by boroughs, even if the potential growth to sustain them might come forward in the future they would need to be developed without having a negative impact on existing business locations. This possible spatial structure was rejected by the OLC, as the potential particularly for private office demand on this scale is doubtful

153


and there was also strong opposition from numerous stakeholders because it would compromise the prospects of other business locations within sub regions.

4.5 Substantial Green Belt/ Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) based urban extensions (including the potential to use farms and other open land)- this spatial structure was rejected by the OLC in principle. There is already significant development capacity and potential to for intensification to make more effective use of transport infrastructure within the urban area, and this should be our first port of call. However, it may be possible to explore this option if there is no net loss of Green Belt/MOL as a result of development.

4.6 Strategic Outer London Development Centres – this idea as a potential spatial structure is supported as a more realistic and feasible type of hub. It is more suited to accommodating the scale and nature of growth likely to occur and to minimise the necessity of travel whilst complementing existing structures. Some locations were recommended as potential areas for growth and influence beyond the areas within which they are located; for example, Wembley, Greenwich and Richmond as sites for leisure and tourism; White City for Media and Industry in Upper Lee Valley and Bexley Riverside. There is further information on locations and specialisation given in Chapter 3, section 5 of this report.

4.7 Reconfiguration of linkages between existing business locations – a particular focus here was with growth corridors in east and west London, making more effective use of transport linkages, enhancing agglomeration economies and support specialisms. Our view is to support this potential spatial structure as a more realistic and feasible structure which accommodates the scale and nature of growth expected to come forward, whilst making appropriate use of existing transport facilities and available future transport investment. It also emphasises the relationship between growth areas within London and those at the corridors beyond London.

4.8 Having considered these and other options, we reached a general conclusion that we should ensure the best use should be made of outer London’s existing spatial structures, building on (and in some cases developing) its current strengths, and making the most of the investment that has already been made there.

4.9 This approach leads us to recommend that the development of outer London should be modelled on a “star and cluster” approach. This would make specific use of the existing town centre network whilst recognising other important business locations. It is also likely to be the most sustainable and cost-effective approach to transport infrastructure investment. There are many variants within this broad approach: Figure 4.1

155

illustrates schematically one which reflects the perception of a ‘Central Activities Zone-centric’ structure for London (the ‘centripetal city’); one which represents London as a ‘city of villages’ (the ‘polycentric city’; and one which seeks to marry ambitions for greater local growth in outer London with a realistic appreciation of outer London residents’ dependence on access to the opportunities of the metropolitan labour market as a whole (the model which seemed most plausible to the Commission). These are refined further in Figure 4.2.

4.10 Ways of refining the existing spatial structures listed in the London Plan to more effectively support this structure are listed below. As can be seen, the list includes ‘pure’ spatial structures (like town centres) and instances where development is clustered around, or stimulated by significant economic institutions (like an airport or a university).

4.11 Town Centres: While the Commission was mindful that two fifths of outer London’s employment was not in its main town centres, it supports the Mayors view that these centres should be the

Figure 4.1: Some variants on the ‘star and cluster’ structure


single most important set of business locations outside central London; and that the focus here should be on promoting access to a competitive selection of goods and services, foregrounding the use of more environmentally-friendly modes of transport. The Commission was impressed by the ambitions of stakeholders for their town centres and would only caution that aspirations should be tempered with realism – there may be scope to secure a step change in the performance of some by enhancing their specialist functions of wider than sub regional significance, but for most it will be a matter of playing to their existing strengths in serving their existing and future local communities – there is substantial potential growth in their consumer expenditure bases. Bringing forward capacity to accommodate this in an already built up area will inevitably be a sensitive process, requiring real partnership working and imaginative measures to enhance their quality and offers, especially improving their public realm to create a more attractive and competitive business environment and to develop a stronger and more appealing sense of place and focus for local communities; possible use of the CPO process for site assembly; a creative approach to mixed use development; a sensitive approach to parking policy; and maintenance of London’s distinct approach to the ‘sequential test’, with in-centre development continuing to be the first choice, but a more liberal approach to edge of centre development

than in the rest of the country. Conversely, inappropriate out-of-centre development should be resisted rigorously. Increased town centre related higher density, high quality residential provision can play a key part in town centre rejuvenation, coincidentally reducing pressure on established, predominantly residential neighbourhoods to meet housing needs. This approach should inform the policies, investment priorities and initiatives of the GLA Group and other agencies such as the Homes and Communities Agency, as well as the boroughs and other relevant stakeholders. The Commission noted that GLA research on use of the planning system to secure small shop provision could have wider implications to contribute to different aspects of town centre renewal providing they does not conflict with competition legislation. This could usefully be taken forward through Supplementary Planning Guidance.

4.12 Opportunity Areas and Areas of Intensification: We consider these spatial designations do continue to fulfil a valuable role in identifying those areas with the greatest potential for development. Indeed, we believe there is scope for designation of new areas, and we welcome the fact that the draft replacement London Plan has, for example, proposed a new area for intensification at Harrow and Wealdstone. Within these structures, the social and environmental infrastructure typically needs to be improved so as to enhance

157

their attractiveness as places to live and work. Given the success of some Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks in identifying and helping to bring forward development capacity, the Commission is concerned at the slow rate of progress in progressing some of these Frameworks.

4.13 Industrial Land: The reservoir of strategically important industrial land in the London Plan provides secure capacity for low- value but vital functions. Implementation of historic industrial capacity policy raises two sets of issues concerned with quantity and quality of provision. While the principles of the methodology underlying the policy for managing London’s diminishing stock of land and its changing occupier base appear to be sound, release rates seem, for the most part, to be significantly above the relevant benchmarks. The Commission notes that hitherto, this process has been coordinated through SPG and therefore supports the greater weight given to management mechanisms by including them within the body of the London Plan. There is also a need to put greater emphasis on the quality of these sites (this will help ensure the debate about quantity deals with the fundamental issues). Within this, particular attention needs to be given to local road access. The economic role of farms within outer London should also be given further attention, to ensure the benefits they could bring to the outer London economy – and the wellbeing of the capital as a whole – are maximised.

4.14 Growth/Coordination Corridors: The potential of these have not been realised. Experience shows that this is not likely to be redressed without more active joint work and coordination across the Greater London boundary, bringing in local, sub-regional and regional actors on either side. Comparison of ideas for taking forward the Croydon – Gatwick and West London Corridors suggest that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is not likely to be appropriate. This work now needs to be taken forward more vigorously – early signs (in relation to the London-Luton-Bedford corridor for example), are encouraging. But there is clear scope for more, and we would urge the Mayor to work with agencies in the wider metropolitan area to see how this agenda can be taken forward most effectively. There is a particular need for joint work of this kind on transport issues.

4.15 Sub regions: We welcome the more flexible approach to sub-regional working that has been taken in the draft replacement London Plan. The sheer variety of outer London is a theme that runs through this report, and in view of that, a rigid sub regional framework is clearly unlikely to be relevant or helpful in delivering the objectives we describe here. There is a need for work at a level below the citywide; a key aspect here is to build on established partnerships which are vital for creating linkages between London and local areas and a revision of implementation plans to coordinate funding and other initiatives such as cross


border working. We also believe there is scope to consider how working at this level can complement work and service delivery at the regional and local levels, providing scope for cost efficiencies and adding value.

4.16 Regional/National/International linkages: Particularly given the likely shortage of public resources in the next decade, it will be important to ensure that outer London makes the most

of the development and regeneration opportunities that may arise from national and regional transport and other infrastructural investment (with projects like Crossrail or High Speed 2, for example). Similarly, the importance of airports will remain a major economic driver for outer London. As we have already indicated, joint local and strategic working is vital to resolve local environmental and other concerns with wider strategic economic objectives.

Recommendation 1- Spatial Structures:

a) We recommend that outer London’s existing spatial structure should be developed as necessary to support its future development and regeneration. The development of outer London should be modelled on a “star and cluster” structure focused on the existing town centre network. We support the concept of strategic outer London development centres where these will accommodate sufficiently the scale and nature of growth likely to occur.

b) We endorse the opportunity/intensification area designations in the London Plan, and recommend that the process of preparing planning frameworks for them should be accelerated and that opportunities for designation of new areas should be considered.

c) We recommend greater weight be given to policy managing outer London’s diminishing stock of industrial land and suggest that more attention should be given to ways of determining its future and improving its quality and accessibility to ensure it can make a real contribution to outer London’s success.

d) We recommend that more attention is given to ensuring effective cross-boundary work on issues like realising the potential of growth and coordination corridors and transport.

e) We recommend that the Mayor, boroughs and other agencies work together to develop sub-regional working arrangements, in particular to identify opportunities to improve cost-effectiveness and add value in service delivery at this level, including through Multi Area Agreements.

f) We recommend that everyone concerned with planning for outer London works together to identify, and then realise, opportunities for development and regeneration arising from national, regional and local transport and other infrastructure investment

159

Demography and Housing

4.17 Economic growth cannot be considered in a vacuum, and in looking at outer London’s economic potential we were always mindful of the likely knock-on effects of more polycentric development. With this in mind, we consider that it is important to avoid making simplistic links between population growth and job creation – it is essential that growth is sensitive to the quality of the local neighbourhoods. We would like to see much stronger emphasis on ‘place shaping’ and on ensuring that development fits in with local needs and heritage, so that places are attractive to live in as well as work in. To this end, we advocate mixed use developments and capacity building at a local level coupled with high quality urban design and appropriate density of development in accordance with London Plan policies.

4.18 In terms of housing, we would draw attention to the need for both affordable family housing and responding to the needs of smaller households. At the same time there will be more younger and older Londoners; there is also likely to be a move towards more one- or two-person households. Housing provision needs to reflect these trends. Whatever its tenure type, housing should be of high quality.

4.19 We would also recommend a closer look at the link between housing density, accessibility and parking provision. All of

these elements form the sense of place and neighbourhood and can help to make better places to live. For example, there might be less need for parking spaces if neighbours could car-share, which could also have benefits in terms of public realm, air quality and a sense of community. We also recognise that some respondents perceive housing density to be an issue in its own right. While the 2008 London Plan policy does require some refinements to make clear the importance of respecting local context and of the need for effective coordination with public transport accessibility, in essence the policy does have the flexibility to respond to the different types of neighbourhood found across outer London. It does however need to be complemented by a stronger commitment to quality, both within the home and in the neighbourhood – this is particularly important for higher density developments. With over 60 per cent of developments above the density thresholds for particular types of location, there does appear to have been a real problem with policy implementation - those proposing and controlling development must take into account the range of factors which bear on optimising housing output and not just use density matrix mechanistically but to secure Sustainable Residential Quality – what the boroughs who authored the concept originally intended.

4.20 Again, policy cannot simply focus on numbers. Particularly if new homes are


to be provided in ways that respect the quality of existing neighbourhoods, and make a contribution to improving the quality of life of existing as well as new residents, attention will have to be given to looking at how new homes should be planned for, built and supported with the social and other infrastructure new neighbourhoods need if they are to be sustainable. Annexes to this report provide potential benchmarks to inform this, possibly through Supplementary Planning Guidance. We recommend that further consideration also be given to

ways of improving the quality of new homes and of the public realm in which they sit (looking at questions such as the pooling of section 106 contributions for investment). This is likely to require new delivery models, and we believe that there may be particular scope for community-based initiatives and models. It will also be extremely important to ensure that mayoral strategies and their implementation are carefully coordinated to ensure that GLA Group and Homes and Communities Agency investment can secure the maximum benefit.

Recommendation 2- Demography and Housing:

We strongly urge that simplistic links should not be made between population growth and job creation. There are other factors which need to be considered such as the concept of ‘place shaping’ and provision of adequate and affordable housing.

In planning for new homes it will be important to bear in mind the changing patterns of demand – the need for more family homes, meeting the particular needs of more young and older Londoners and the growth in smaller households. Quality should be given far greater emphasis.

We recommend that attention be given to the way in which new homes are planned for, built and supported. In particular, we believe that community- based initiatives can help to create sustainable neighbourhoods. It will also be important to ensure better coordination across mayoral strategies and the GLA Group to ensure that its investment and programmes, and those of the Homes and Communities Agency, secure the maximum benefit.

161

The potential for growth in different economic sectors

4.21 We have identified four main growth sectors for the outer London economy: office-based work (including the public sector); knowledge-based industries; leisure, tourism and culture; and retail. Each of these will require a particular set of approaches, which we will outline below.

4.22 For offices, we recommend a realistic and proactive approach to development where there is scope to increase economic potential - the focus needs to be on the most competitive locations for future growth complemented by recognition that structural change in parts of the outer London office market looks set to continue. We have provided more detailed suggestions on how the release of surplus office provision might be managed, taking into account the continuing need for some lower cost accommodation, the significance of phasing in this process, the importance of an attractive business environment as part of a broader mix of uses, a sensitive approach to car parking and the role of re-positioning and re-branding the most competitive elements of outer London’s office offer. We have been mindful that some (but not all) of the relatively few recent proposals for office development in London beyond CAZ/Canary Wharf have come forward in out-of-centre, or at best, edge of centre locations. With this in mind, we note that, while local and environmental concerns are important,

so are the strategic economic needs of the sub-region and the London economy as a whole and each of these aspects should be weighed carefully – in considering them, particular attention should be paid to maximising public transport use. Further use of tools like mixed-use ‘swaps’ in competitive locations; allowing developers to negotiate with local authorities so that they can provide more or less office space as appropriate in any particular development would help support the kind of focus on the most competitive locations for future growth.

4.23 We have heard much about the potential of “knowledge-based industries”. The problem with this term is that there is no universally-agreed definition, and we feel that the debate around the contribution that could be made by the kind of economic sector commonly brought under this heading would be greatly advanced if such a definition could be developed and adopted. We consider that there is scope to develop the various activities which are based on knowledge, the media and creative-based work, including aspects of what has become known as the environmental or “green collar” sectors (concepts which also suffer from imprecise definition, and to which our earlier recommendations equally apply). Looking at these sectors raises the urgent question of whether outer London lacks information and communications technology infrastructure and whether the public sector or effective planning can help address this is also required. Taking this


further, there may be scope to encourage home (or near-home) working, with new forms of infrastructure or locally-based business support services (local ICT “hubs” giving SMEs and individual workers access to the kind of sophisticated ICT that they could not economically afford to buy themselves). It has been suggested that public libraries or ‘out offices’ for large, centrally based firms might have a role in this. It has also been suggested that Boroughs could take a more proactive approach to extending fibre optic cable to enhance capacity to serve such centres – the LCCI would be happy to work in partnership to progress this.

4.24 There may be a case for public sector intervention to support the provision of innovation parks so that similar, related small or medium-sized businesses can cluster together in a distinct, attractive business environment, and this might require active public intervention. These need to be considered carefully and on a case-by-case basis, to see if there is a suitable market for their services, and we would recommend that there is active brand management of any such centres. We know from past experience that without ongoing interest in such centres, they can easily become moribund and unattractive, and we recognise that funding specialist buildings can pose particular challenges.

4.25 Outer London should also be promoted as a cost-effective place for government

and other public sector functions, such as health, judicial and education functions of greater than sub- regional importance, whilst including links to existing central London institutions and to local labour markets. The potential here is to use higher education institutions and hospitals as a focus of regeneration. Putting HE and FE institutions (or satellites of institutions based elsewhere) in outer London has the further benefit of developing the local labour market by helping people to improve their skills and employability.

4.26 In our view, there is considerable potential for growth in the leisure and retail sectors, both of which have an important role to play in outer London. In the first category we need to consider a wide range of activities, including arts and culture, tourism and local leisure activities. These both make outer London an attractive, ‘liveable’ place for Londoners, as well as offering potential for a visitor economy – and are usually cheaper than in central London.

4.27 We have been struck by the imbalance between the number of cultural facilities in outer London (some 3,500) and the amount of public funding available (most of which in the capital goes to central London). We think this imbalance should be reviewed. We recognise that this is not something that is likely to change quickly, however, and we recommend a more positive marketing of outer London’s distinct attractions, particularly where

163

clustering occurs, as it does in several town centres. The Strategic Cultural Areas already identify the strategically most important clusters but there is scope to realise the potential of others, possibly by branding and marketing them as grouped attractions. More local regeneration can be prompted in outer London through a more proactive approach to the ‘cultural quarter’ concept (which supports coordinated approaches to planning for and managing important clusters of cultural assets and related uses); these can also provide inputs to more effective strategic and local coordination and marketing of attractions in outer London.

4.28 The possibility of large scale commercial leisure with possible international significance could also be explored. At the other end of the scale, we believe there is scope for the rejuvenation of many of outer London’s medium-sized theatres, and their use for purposes such as art house cinemas.

4.29 Some parts of outer London have seen a rapid growth in the night time economy. It is important to remember, though, that areas with a night time economy require effective management and promotion to ensure that they remain attractive and safe, and that potential negative impacts on local residents and businesses are managed effectively.

4.30 Consumer spending will be a vital economic driver in outer London, and this

underscores the future importance of retail here. New retail should be focused on town centres and should be provided in ways that seek to preserve their distinct characteristics – there is no reason why even a centre with a large number of national stores should be a “clone town”, and places with a distinct feel and character are likely to be those that will thrive. At neighbourhood and more local centre level there is scope to integrate new retail provision into larger, predominantly residential developments to support place shaping as well as providing essential services.

4.31 We believe the evidence is clear that efficient management of town centres is vital- particularly when combined with targeted investment and regeneration of particular centres (and the London Development Agency has a particular role to play both in helping support the extension of models like Business Improvement Districts and more directly through supporting site assembly). Transport issues need to be given particular emphasis, especially encouraging access to and within centres by walking and cycling.

4.32 There is a need to understand and build upon the distinctive character and role of different types of centre, ranging from the Metropolitan centres, with their particular transport needs, through to smaller District and Neighbourhood centres. Each has an important role to play, and maintaining the kind of network that has been one of outer London’s real strengths will require careful


and realistic planning. Consideration should be given as to how they can become more distinct destinations not just for retailing but also for business, leisure, civic, social and wider functions, complemented by environmental improvements which play to their particular strengths and characters. The tools that could be used to achieve this include policies to encourage a diverse and vibrant retail mix across centres, such as encouraging the provision of affordable shop units, and promoting street markets to enhance vitality of town centres. Greater encouragement of walking as a more environmentally sound and healthier means

of getting into and going around town centres is also an essential aspect of this development. Safety considerations are a key part of this.

4.33 A strong, vibrant and diverse retail sector is a key component of successful and effective town centres. It will help to attract other employment, which will in turn help drive retail footfall. When managed well, a lively retail and leisure sector in Metropolitan town centres can contribute to the vitality and viability of the whole area and complement the more local offer of smaller centres.

Recommendation 3- Economy:a) We recommend that particular attention

should be given to four key employment sectors in outer London:• office-based employment and

“knowledge industries”• the public sector• leisure arts and culture• retail

b) There should be a focus on the most competitive locations for future growth in the office-based sectors and some development should be allowed where increased economic potential exists. There is a need for an agreed definition of “knowledge industries”, and there may be a case for public sector support for science/innovation parks. More widely, attention should be given to the extent of ICT infrastructure in outer London and to

the scope of new business support services to support home or near-home working. Outer London should be promoted as a cost-effective place for the public sector to do business.

More attention should be given to the role of leisure, culture and arts in outer London – and to the funding they receive. The effective marketing of cultural assets in outer London and a more positive approach to the ‘cultural quarter’ concept should be adopted. Opportunities to attract large-scale leisure uses, and to rejuvenate medium-sized theatres should be pursued.

A vibrant and diverse retail sector in a range of centres should be encouraged in outer London. There is a need for effective town centre management to complement investment and improvement

165

Transport

4.34 Transport is a huge issue for outer London. We will summarise our considerations for different aspects in turn: rail (including both TfL and NR-provided services); cycling and walking; buses and the role of private car transport and parking policy. Before doing this, however, there are some general principles we have agreed upon which inform our detailed recommendations.

4.35 Most importantly, we have taken seriously the need to ensure that our recommendations have to be realistic. This is especially important at a time when public resources are tight, with the prospect of matters becoming tighter over the next few years. With this in mind, we have recognised that Transport for London cannot (and should not) commit investment without a strong business case. In outer London this will mean consideration of issues including the extent of benefits that investment will bring (such as how much time will be saved by how many people) or the size of the development and regeneration dividend. These assessments will in turn be affected by the sale, massing, distribution and density of different parts of the area. We have also had to bear in mind that TfL have to plan across the city-region as a whole.

4.36 That said, it is essential that investment specific to outer London, its unique

character and distinctive needs is not neglected. We recognise, however, that outer London benefits from pan-London and radial improvements, and that these should not be seen as polar opposites locked in a zero-sum game (see Figure 4.2).

4.37 These are the considerations that have led us to accept that a high-speed, contiguous orbital public transport system is unlikely to address outer London’s needs, and that our variant on the “star and cluster” model offers a more effective and practical approach to meet the needs of the constellation of centres and employment locations outlined in this report. We recommend that in addition to making the most of existing links, strategic interchanges are used to both relieve pressure on central London and facilitate more orbital movements in outer London (see Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2 : “Star and cluster” structure enhancing existing links and strategic interchanges (yellow)


4.38 Rail has a proportionately greater significance for outer London compared to inner and central parts of the Capital. Particularly in south outer London, there is less Tube coverage and more public transport journeys use National Rail or TfL Overground services. With this in mind, and taking account of the likely shortage of funding for new infrastructure available in the short-term, we recommend that there is an emphasis placed on making the current system operate more effectively. This should include a focus on improved connectivity and interchange between rail and other services such as buses and cycling. We welcome the integration of Oyster cards into the National Rail network and the new emphasis on promotion of the system as an overall network – after all, passengers are more concerned with completing their journey than who provides the service. This must be extended to those parts of the system which are still not covered. We would still like to see more improvements made to the quality of stations, which can at present be variable. This should include improvements which help travellers feel more secure, such as better lighting and security in and around stations, improved information (not just in terms of timetabling but also of using the suburban rail system more effectively as an integrated network), and more effective coordination with other modes including buses and cycling.

4.39 There is a case for medium-scale investment (such as upgrading/building strategic interchanges (see above) which can provide significant benefits for relatively modest levels of investment. We also need to ensure there is the scope for further new infrastructure in the future by considering whether unused rail alignments and infrastructure can be safeguarded.

4.40 Buses will continue to be a vital component of public transport in outer London. As we have already said, there must be a better integration with rail services so that passengers can complete the whole journey by public transport. Both buses and coaches could be used to improve orbital connectivity in outer London, including the possible provision of coaches or express services where there is sufficient demand. We would like to see the opportunity for strategic coach hubs investigated further. Some people are put off using buses by uncertainty about timetables and reliability, and we would like to see measures to address this, such as better information provision and marketing of the services available. TfL has explored the initial suggestion that there may be scope for more limited stop and express service bus services – while these cannot be justified in its own budget, other providers may wish to develop their potential.

4.41 The Mayor has made very plain his enthusiasm for cycling and walking. We

167

share this and particularly advocate that opportunities to increase cycling and walking in outer London are identified and taken up. There are clear synergies between this and our advocacy for a liveable public realm and easy access to local services, and we think that these more healthy and sustainable modes are brought within the mainstream of transport and spatial planning and so not seen as “nice to have” add-ons. We particularly see potential to encourage cycling and walking to and within town centres. There are of course additional health benefits of promoting active modes like cycling and walking, and these must be promoted as modes of choice. They are also cheap and have minimal negative environmental impacts. There is a role for local authorities to take a lead in outer London, developing cycle hubs in and promoting local cycling. We would like to see a combination of incentives and investment to encourage these sustainable modes and give people a real choice not to use their cars. We have noted the success of Smarter Travel programmes in Richmond and Sutton and hope that these can be used more widely.

4.42 That said, we do recognise that within outer London the car is likely to remain a key mode for many trips. Given this fact, we would like to see more effective road management and collaboration between local authorities to address congestion pressures on our roads. This should include measures to improve

the efficiency of freight and servicing movements, as well as those which will reduce the need for ‘school runs’. We would also like to see the approvals process for highways projects where appropriate speeded up. There is an opportunity to reduce local traffic by having more local retail centres (which, as we have seen, have other benefits), and more use of freight consolidation centres. There would seem to be to be scope for some local enhancements to road capacity to address particular points of congestion - and which should not compromise the overall thrust of the emerging Transport Strategy. Alongside this, we do see a role for some demand management measures, potentially including road user charging in the longer term. Naturally this would need much greater consideration, especially with regard to local circumstances, than we are able to provide here. However we would like to note in principle our support for a consideration of such measures. These could take a very wide range of forms. Consideration should also be given to a more effective way of managing road works, especially those occasioned by utility providers.

4.43 Car parking policy in outer London needs to be developed on an individual and local basis – a “one size fits all” approach is not appropriate here. Our view is that a balance needs to be struck between promoting new development (which is good for the economy) and preventing excessive car parking provision (that can


discourage cycling, walking and public transport and increase congestion). Adopting a flexible approach to car parking in outer London is required so that a level of accessibility is maintained whilst being consistent with the overall balance of the transport system at the local level.

4.44 We know that some of our respondents often view the lack of onsite car parking for offices in outer London as a disincentive to develop offices here, and this is not desirable from an economic point of view. We also know that parking policies in outer London can often put them at a disadvantage compared to centres outside London. In town centres where regeneration is needed, there may be justification for some liberalisation. There is a case for selective review of parking policies, which in cases outside London may necessitate central government involvement. We reiterate that a balance needs to be achieved so that development is encouraged

without prompting unacceptable levels of congestion and pollution.

4.45 The use of Park and Ride schemes in outer London is supported where it can be shown they will lead to overall reductions in congestion and journey times. We would also ask TfL and the boroughs to examine the capacity to incentivise lower CO2 emitting vehicles, and also promote car sharing and car clubs.

4.46 Increases in the density of commercial activity across London, including outer London, will require logistics premises to support the associated demand in freight and servicing vehicles. This may include the need for consolidation centres, but the case for them still needs to be understood further. In addition to managing congestion at key locations in outer London, increasing the role of rail and river in freight movements will relieve some of the pressures on the road network. However, it is essential to take realistic account of the primary role of

Recommendation 4- Transport:We do not consider that a single, high-speed orbital public transport system is likely to address outer London’s needs. Rather we support a “hub and spoke” approach.

Improved connectivity and interchange and better integration between bus and rail services is needed, in order to enable orbital and local travel in outer London.

Better marketing and information relating to public transport should be accompanied by active encouragement of cycling and walking, especially to and within town centres.

For cars, we advocate both more effective road traffic management and a consideration of demand management measures. There is a case for selective review of local parking policies.

169

road transport in sustaining London’s industrial and other business locations so that they can realise their potential contributions to the wider metropolitan economy.

4.47 Finally, the question of fare affordability cropped up throughout our discussions. There is a view that travel in outer London, necessitating as it often does considerable distance and ‘changing’ of services and modes, is disproportionately expensive. We would like to see an exploration of ticketing measures, for instance based on Oyster type products, to address this.

London’s Labour Market

4.48 Over the past thirty years or so, many Londoners have prospered. At the same time, too many have not. The reasons for this disparity and its persistence have much to do with how different groups and individuals fare in the labour market. London as a whole faces the challenge of ensuring its workforce has the necessary skills to participate fully in the economy and enjoy its success, particularly as the economy continues to change towards one based on services demanding higher skill levels.

4.49 There is already a firm foundation in outer London for this. In terms of school-age education, outer London out performs inner London; outer London residents have higher rates of employment and lower rates of worklessness than inner London residents. Additionally, younger, higher-skilled workers from the rest of the UK and abroad are attracted to live and work in London. One of the often forgotten facts about the outer London labour market is that it contains significantly more economically active people than that in inner London – partly because it has a large, albeit slowly growing employment base of its own, and partly because it is home to many Londoners who work elsewhere, especially in inner London.


4.50 To build on this success, it is vital that the distinctive skills needs of outer London are addressed. Public sector investment in skills is targeted on need not geography, and this tends to result in broad-brush approaches tackling broad-based areas of need. Outer London should not be overlooked - to give an example, even though Crossrail is essentially an inner London scheme, we would anticipate that it would draw its skilled workers from across London. We recommend that the LDA should adopt an approach to commissioning training and skills provision which will provide further opportunities for locally driven responses to the delivery of strategic outcomes.

Institutional Changes

4.51 It will be more than apparent by now that we recommend that the London Development Agency (LDA) and TfL give greater recognition to outer London as a spatial priority.

4.52 The LDA in particular should provide support for local partnerships by, for example, working to facilitate land assembly, helping to create capacity for town centre management and identifying distinct outer London skill needs. It will also have a role in supporting the Mayor in leading inter-regional discussions and working.

4.53 Some of the initiatives we would like to see would require a legislative change. We would like to see a streamlining of the development process to reduce the time spent on the planning permissions process and to speed up the production of local development frameworks. Boroughs should be able to retain part of the revenue from the national non-domestic rates paid by businesses in their areas, and consideration should be given to permitting local authorities to borrow against future Council tax income. There is also scope for changes to government practice – in speeding up the identification and disposal of surplus public land, for example.

Recommendation 5- Labour Market:

Ensure appropriate skills are attained by London’s workforce for successful involvement in the economy. The LDA’s commissioning should take account of the distinctive skills needs of outer London’s people and economy, and should focus on ensuring that there are opportunities for locally driven responses to the delivery of strategic outcomes.

171

Recommendation 6- Institutional:

The recognition of outer London as a spatial priority is essential. Support for local partnerships working to facilitate land assembly, town centre management and outer London skill needs is required. Streamlining of planning permissions and other processes should be explored, with the case made for appropriate changes to legislation.

Quality of Life

4.54 As we have seen, maintaining and improving the quality of life available to those living and working in outer London is a vital consideration for its overall success. In fact, a sound approach to the quality of life here will improve the whole of London and the south east more generally. This report advocates further development in outer London, and we recognise how important it is to ensure growth can be harnessed and influenced in ways that improve the quality of places in outer London and the quality of life of those living there.

4.55 Taking a practical approach to these issues ties back to many of the questions discussed earlier with regard to outer London’s spatial structure. We consider that a neighbourhood- based approach is essential to promote and support local functions. The London Plan needs to support and enable this local approach; its role here is to facilitate local development happening in line with local needs while recognising that, cumulatively, this development contributes to the strategic needs of the whole city region. Part of this is ensuring there is sufficient access to services across the various centres of outer London.

4.56 Our interim report recommended that the London Plan should place greater emphasis on the concept of ‘place making’ as well as on town centres being the focus


for neighbourhoods and the importance of ‘life time neighbourhoods’ that can meet the needs of a population growing at either end of the age range. We are glad to see that the Mayor has responded to these in the draft replacement London Plan.

4.57 Of course, a balance needs to be struck between providing appropriate local social infrastructure (e.g. schools, healthcare – see proposed benchmarks in Annex 6A and 6B) whilst accommodating the necessary economic growth. An emphasis should be placed on London’s ‘Green Suburbs’ whilst enhancing the semi-public realm and securing its maintenance. There must be a general presumption against back garden development where this is a problem and the continued and vigorous protection of open spaces in order to preserve the quality of life in outer London.

4.58 There is room for further work on these issues at a strategic level. The previous Mayor issued a “Toolkit for Tomorrow’s Suburbs” to support the London Plan. This was well-received, and we think it would be worthwhile to produce an updated version reflecting changes since 2004 and the approaches we have recommended in this report. In particular, there is a need to develop thinking on ways of enabling greater community identity and cohesion as a first step in encouraging a sense of ownership and empowerment in taking decisions about growth and development.

This will require borough implementation of national policy to facilitate and encourage public participation.

4.59 In Chapter 2, the Commission noted how it found itself in agreement with many of Robin Thompson’s views on the importance of quality of life in outer London1, which informed the 2008 London Plan. Where the Commission would have some reservations with him is in fully accepting the status quo over the distribution of historic investment to address deprivation in London because “inner London still has far more people and places with more serious problems than those of outer London. This is reflected in national (and European) policy and funding, which is strongly oriented towards inner cities.”

4.60 In response, the Commission would note firstly that a more fine grained approach to identifying neighbourhood deprivation shows that it is much more dispersed than the ‘blockier’ methodology use in the 2008 Plan, which concealed some chronic, if more localised concentrations of deprivation in outer London. Secondly, and partly as a reflection of the Commission’s wider remit to enable outer London to realize its potential contribution to London as a whole, it would question the orthodoxy of placing such a high priority on focusing social/community regeneration funding in the areas with the most acute need (which for the most part, it is acknowledged, lie in inner London).

173

Instead, it would ask whether there may be benefit for the capital in reconsidering the re-allocation of some (but by no means all) social and local renewal to realize the potential of those who are still disadvantaged but not to the extent of those in most acute need. This is perhaps a philosophical question for the LDA and its emerging Economic Development Strategy.

4.61 As Thompson notes, “many of the problems relating to the social and physical infrastructure of outer London require ‘soft’ measures such as re-skilling and the regular improvement and maintenance of the very local environment …. They need detailed, local, day to day attention spread over very wide areas, which will generally need to be done at the local rather than the strategic level …... there are real challenges in funding development and infrastructure in outer London, where national programs such as the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund are generally not available and where some market drivers (other than residential) are weak and where most local authorities may have less access to networks of developers and funding bodies.”

4.62 Where the Commission perhaps disagrees with Thompson is in his views on more directly realising the potential of the outer London economy and his suggestion that this potential is “not readily addressed by big infrastructure measures or by targeting priority areas”. As is clear from

the preceding sections of this report, the Commission recognizes that financial constraints do of course limit the potential for major infrastructure investment, but that does not mean that in some areas it is not required, nor that innovative solutions cannot be found to address some of these constraints.

Recommendation 7- Quality of Life:

A good quality of life is vital to both outer London’s residents and its businesses. We recommend a neighbourhood based approach to help strike a balance between social infrastructure provisions and necessary growth, retaining an emphasis on ‘place making’ and ‘life time neighbourhoods’.


The Future

4.63 While this report marks the end of the formal task the Mayor gave us, our work has left us with a number of overwhelming impressions. Outer London is hugely diverse, and is becoming ever more so. It has seen huge changes over the past century, and again this looks set to continue. It is fortunate in having very many talented people in its local authorities, businesses, voluntary organisations and communities who have a wealth of experience and ideas about how their area can make its full contribution to London’s success and in doing so improve the prosperity and well-being of those living and working there.

4.64 Against this background, a report of this kind can only be a partial view at a particular point in time. We are conscious that while we have addressed the core economic issues identified in our terms of reference, there are others which bear on them which merit further investigation. Among these, aspects of quality of life, institutional arrangements (especially in terms of cross border working), what climate change may mean for outer London and, in particular, the resources available to help realise its economic potential, and the way London’s spatial strategy could add value beyond its conventional land use remit by more effectively coordinating these to develop relevant aspects of ‘localness agenda’ at the city region level. There are also

some more specific economic points which require further analysis, especially the definition of ‘knowledge based’ and ‘green’ industries.

4.65 We have deliberately made the report action-oriented, dealing with questions of implementation as well as ideas and policy proposals. We believe the Mayor was right to set the Commission up, to bring a focus on outer London that was missing before. For the same reasons, there is room for the continued existence of a forum for outer London to advise on the implementation of the recommendations in this report, and, perhaps separately, to provide the basis for high level engagement with the key stakeholders in the outer London economy to identify emerging strategic challenges and opportunities.

We have enjoyed the process of research and consultation that have led to this report, and commend our recommendations to the Mayor – and to London.

Chapter 4 footnotes

Quality of life1 Thompson R. outer London: issues for the London

Plan. GLA, 2007

Annexes

Annex 1: Commission’s First Thoughts Paper Outer London: realising its potential

First thoughts

Background 1. While employment in London as a whole

rose by 6 per cent between the cyclical peaks of 1989 and 2001 (and by 3% between 2001 and 2007), employment in outer London rose by only 1 per cent 1989 – 2001 and by 2 per cent between 2001 and 2007. In the counties surrounding Outer London, employment grew by 11 per cent 1989-2001 and by 4 per cent 2001-20071.

2. Outer London is far from homogeneous and this general trend conceals significant local variations. Some outer boroughs recorded strongly positive employment growth, especially between 1989 and 2001: Hillingdon’s employment increased by 39 per cent or 54,000, Richmond grew by 26 per cent (17,000) and Barnet by 17 per cent (20,000). Against these must be set significant declines in the 1989-2001 period for Barking (-21 % or -15,000), Waltham Forest (-13%, -11,000), Croydon (-10%, -17,000) and Hounslow and Brent each -9 per cent and -15,000 and -12,000 respectively. More substantively, Figure 1 shows that below these headline boroughs is a raft of others with lower levels of decline or, at best, only modest growth.

3. There are local as well as broad strategic reasons why many areas of the outer London economy have been at best little more that economically static. These reasons are further complicated by the current macro economic downturn, which will affect the whole of the UK and could bear particularly hard on the London’s service dominated economy.

4. Long term employment projections over 20 years, extending beyond this, and probably other recessions, suggest that the number of jobs in outer London might grow by 11 per cent if account is taken of significant (albeit often unfunded and therefore hypothetical) public transport investment and substantial identified development capacity. This is a marked improvement on historic trends but does not compare well with 21 per cent in central London and 32 per cent in the rest of inner London. Though the projections suggest growth may take place in all outer Boroughs to 2026, the rate of growth in a significant number is not expected to be substantial: 3 per cent over two decades respectively in Sutton and Kingston, 4 per cent in Croydon and 5 - 6 per cent in Bromley, Enfield and Richmond.

5. Most of outer London’s employment growth over the next 20 years is expected to be in office based sectors (+170,000) and to a lesser extent ‘other’ sectors (+68,000) while industrial type activities are expected to continue to decline (-35,000). However, when examined in

175


greater detail and locally, the picture is much more complex. The overall decline in ‘industrial’ employment jobs masks a significant contraction in manufacturing and an expansion in logistics. The Commission should bear in mind that while headline net figures may suggest little or no change in local economies there can in fact be significant changes going on between sectors, and there is some evidence to suggest that such changes can lead to future net growth.

6. The Outer London Commission will of course take into account current

recessionary factors. However, its core task is to identify and address longer term structural challenges which have led to what appears to be a fundamental imbalance in London’s economic geography outlined above.

7. It is anticipated that after considering the LDA’s statistical profile of outer London (see Item on this Agenda) the Commission may need more detailed economic assessments e.g. what kinds of office jobs (financial services, public sector, etc) are forecast to grow. What is the overall public sector/private sector split? Has

Figure 1: Employment levels by year, outer London boroughs.

177

any attempt been made to assess ‘new’ employment opportunities such as green and creative industries etc? Is the growth of employment opportunity constrained by any factors (skill sets, lack of cluster development, infrastructure deficits etc). Some of this material is to hand within the GLA and some is in the process of preparation (retail needs assessment, town centres healthchecks, London Office Policy Review, Housing Capacity Study). The Commission would like to express its appreciation for the work the LDA has already done and also to flag that future contributions will add significantly to its effectiveness in addressing the Mayor’s objectives.

Is there a problem? 8. As a first step, an independent Commission

must ask itself whether this apparent geographical imbalance really matters in economic terms. There is a view that it may not. Such a view is predicated on the wider geographical context of outer London. It is part of the wider South East, a city region of 21 million people accounting for two fifths of overall national output and much of its net growth. Closer to home it has improving links and access to the main growth areas of the 4.5 million job London economy which over the long term is generally expected to grow at least at national trend (2.5% GDP). Outer London also has a substantial employment base of its own (almost 2 million jobs or two fifths of the London total) and while it has not expanded to a significant degree in the

past, one model suggests that it might do so in the future.

9. Given this economically positive context there is a view that the main thrust of policy for outer London should be to play to its core, modern strength as an attractive place to live, uniquely located to access the main motor of the UK economy. Moreover, enhancing this core strength, especially by increasing housing provision, will of itself lead to local growth in demand for goods, and more importantly, services, approximating perhaps to 230 more local jobs for every extra 1000 residents.

10. Such a view might also hold that attempts to intervene further to secure additional locally based economic growth might compromise the thrust of such a core policy by moving resources away from key priorities: much needed environmental improvements, expanding housing output including affordable housing and forging better links to more competitive areas within London.

11. There are some telling points in the above arguments but they do not represent a full, much less a particularly positive, vision of the economic roles outer London could or should play in London and the wider South East to achieve the Mayor’s and government objectives. These are that outer London is not just a dormitory and it should: • optimise its contribution to the regional

economy,


• ensure that this economic contribution complements broader objectives e.g. minimising the need to travel, and

• better meet local aspirations in terms of choice of local employment opportunities.

12. More generally, elimination of the imbalance must matter, because if we can raise the growth rates to the London average or the OMA average then the whole economy must grow. This particular aspiration underpins, for example, Government’s justification for the Thames Gateway initiative. There is also a strong argument that fostering economic growth and residential enhancement are not mutually exclusive.

Towards a new vision for the outer London economy

13. As a basis for discussion at the first meeting of the Commission, it is suggested that consideration be given to developing a vision for the outer London economy which more effectively addresses the Mayor and government’s objectives than one which is based predominantly on residential led regeneration.

14. This vision could be predicated on the proposition that recommendations on the future of any area (including outer London and/or its constituent parts) must start by ensuring that the area is ‘economically sound’. It is suggested that this means that it needs to satisfy the following: • Employment, both existing and proposed,

should have a long term future and

reasonably expect to be still there in twenty years.

• Employment which is mainly based on the willingness of the private sector to invest, while recognising that in many parts of outer London the public sector is and will continue to be the single most important employer.

• A workforce with the skills and training to take advantage of the employment opportunities, or, in the case of new or expanding opportunities, capable of being trained to take the jobs

• Employment that is physically accessible – it does not even have to be in the area itself, it can be in central or inner London or even outside the London boundary. What matters is that jobs are easy to get to, offer the prospect of getting people off benefits and into the work culture and, within the bounds of economic realism, are located to meet local aspirations and broader policy objectives e.g. reducing CO2 emissions.

Does quality of life have a role in outer London’s economic regeneration?

15. It is also suggested that economic regeneration cannot be separated from local quality of life and quality of the environment. One of the historic virtues of many London suburbs lay in their sense of community and place. Economic rejuvenation must be part of wider place-making and community regeneration around facilities and services required to meet the changing needs of outer London – schools, hospitals, cinemas –

179

and high quality of the public realm, not least open spaces. If this is accepted, one of the roles of the Commission could be to press for more and better local social infrastructure, possibly forming part of a wider ‘Civic Hub’. It is also suggested that while adequately supported residential development can be an agent for regeneration, there may be a premium on fitting the size and quality of housing supply, existing and new, to the demographics of an area. The Commission should also recognise that all parts of outer London do not live up to its image as an attractive leafy suburb – some parts require urgent environmental improvement both for business and residents.

‘Big bang’ or more incremental approach?

16. It must also be recognised that locally based economic changes will not happen over-night. A central thrust of an economic vision for outer London must include the promotion of marginal local changes complemented by measures to ensure that more of the incomes earned in central London or in the Outer Metropolitan Area (OMA) are retained and spent on goods and services in outer London and so attract more business investment, starting a virtuous cycle.

17. A further question for the Commission could be whether it should be trying to look forward beyond the end of the next London Plan period (20 years) and identify a longer term strategy of which the aims

for the first period are identified in more detail. The longer term proposals could include major infrastructure provision which will take at least 20 years to complete – a not unlikely timeframe given the gestation periods of Crossrail and Thameslink.

Promoting growth 18. It is suggested that the Commission should

not take a doctrinaire (e.g. ‘interventionist’ v ‘just leave it to the market’) approach to rejuvenation but instead be more pragmatic. While supporting a regeneration philosophy that, for the long term, is predicated on the primacy of the private sector, the Commission might consider whether the public sector in the short to medium term can have a valid incentivising role for key sectors which may have a competitive advantage in a particular locality. For the purposes of discussion, it is suggested that in different parts of outer London these sectors might include: • ‘Creative’ industries • ‘Knowledge based’ activities • ‘Green industries’, energy efficiency etc • Servicing the service industries • Logistics • The public sector, international, national

or local.

19. An early task for the Commission might be to define just what these activities are e.g. what do ‘knowledge based’ activities include: any sector which requires a high degree of skill; a fusion between higher education and other sectors through


research and the labour market, possibly with ‘seed corn’ public sector infrastructure investment to support science parks; or something wider e.g. finding out whether outer London is competitively disadvantaged in terms of IT infrastructure like fibre cable or local ‘hubs’?

The existing economic structure 20. It is also suggested that as well as

identifying relatively new growth sectors, the Commission should explore how to make sectors which are already well represented more competitive. This will not be a clear cut exercise because employment is more evenly distributed across sectors than in other parts of London. It is suggested that, after considering the LDA statistical report, the Commission comes to a view as to whether further sectoral analysis is required and whether this is most usefully portrayed ‘peak to peak’.

In and out of centre development: a false dichotomy?

21. 8 per cent of outer London’s employment is in comparison retailing and 10 per cent in leisure related activities. Historically, both were strongly concentrated in town centres but became more dispersed with development of out of centre locations. While London tends to have less out-of-centre development than the rest of the country it is nevertheless still significant.

22. The Mayor has made clear his commitment to a ‘town centres first’ policy. Addressing

the unique circumstances of London, the London Plan is more rigorous than national policy both in resisting inappropriate out-of centre development and in encouraging partners to work together proactively to identify and bring forward development capacity in or on the edge of town centres. It also notes that there is already significant out of centre capacity on which partners should work to ensure that it becomes more sustainable in terms of public transport access and, in appropriate locations, evolves into functionally balanced town centres.

23. It is suggested that the Commission could provide useful guidance on implementing these complementary policies in the context of its broader economic remit and the Mayor’s town centre strategy. In light of the importance of car based trips in outer London it could investigate how parking policy bears on the vitality and viability of town centres relative to out of town, and indeed out of London, development.

Orbital movement 24. It is suggested that while there is a strong

local demand to revitalise public transport in outer London, an elaborate strategic orbital system may not be justifiable per se. The Commission could usefully investigate whether a more realistic way of meeting demand for movement could be a system of hubs on the strong radial routes with spokes linking neighbouring centres and communities.

181

Does outer London need a new regeneration geography?

25. The London Plan already sets out a flexible and relatively sophisticated geographical structure to guide investment across London, including outer London. However, there is concern that this may not be making the most effective use of scarce regeneration resources. It could usefully be supplemented by enhancing the competitive strengths of a small number of key hubs, development of which will benefit outer London as a whole, especially if backed by

complementary initiatives for smaller centres (see elsewhere in this paper).

26. It is suggested that the Commission explore the hub concept, focusing mainly but not entirely on elements of the town centre network. Possible criteria for identifying such hubs as being of sub regional or greater significance could include those set out in Figure 2. This seeks to test the criteria against a number of possible hubs using as a benchmark the established global hubs of the City and Westminster.

Figure 2: Possible criteria to define hubs of sub regional or greater significance

Criteria City West End Stratford Croydon Heathrow area

Brent Cross

Wembley Kingston

Sub regional+ historic growth

Y Y N N Y Y N Y

Sub regional+ scale Y Y (UC) Y Y Y Y Y

Sub regional+ accessibility

Y Y Y Y Y ? Y N

Sub regional+ retail function

Y Y Y (UC) Y N Y Y (P) Y

Sub regional+ office clusters

Y Y Y (P) Y Y? Y (P) N N

Sub regional+ academia

Y Y N? N Y N N Y

Sub regional+ health

Y Y N N Y N N N

Sub regional+ culture

Y Y Y? Y N N N N

Sub regional+ leisure

Y Y Y (UC) N? N N Y Y?

Sub regional+ heritage/ tourism

Y Y Y? N N N Y ?

Sub regional+ govt Y Y N Y N N N Y

Strategic commercial capacity

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N


Annex 2: Initial Consultation Questions

Economic(1) Why has outer London growth in

employment lagged behind that of inner and central London and that of the South East?

(2) What factors have contributed to the uneven performance of economic sectors and geographic areas in outer London? Why have some economic sectors prospered and others declined? Why have some areas done better and others worse?

(3) Overall, what are the main barriers to economic and employment growth in outer London and what factors need to be addressed to allow the region to fulfil its economic potential? In particular, what investments are needed (particularly transport, both private/public, and education/skills and business support) to best ensure employment growth to 2031 either in existing or new sectors?

(4) Which of the current employment sectors in outer London will be thriving in 2031 and will any new sectors have emerged by then? Should we be actively encouraging particular sectors or focusing more on barriers that could be holding back growth in outer London?

(5) The Commission’s ‘First Thoughts’ paper outlines some ideas on the form ‘superhubs’ might take and

possible locations. Do you consider the development of 4 or 5 super-hubs in outer London would enhance the outer London’s overall employment growth potential? What form do you think they might take? What role could mixed use development have there?

(6) Which super-hub locations would you consider best meet the aim to improve outer London’s economic performance and why? What can be done to ensure that the super hubs are sufficiently attractive to business that businesses would want to base their operations there? What is required to ensure that a sufficient employment base is created for a super hub; in particular, could growth be achievable with or without infrastructure improvements (specify the infrastructure improvements needed)?

(7) If super-hubs are created, what role would you envisage for other town centres and other business locations/hubs (eg Park Royal) in outer London and how can those roles be enhanced alongside the creation of super-hubs?

(8) What do you consider would be the optimal balance of employment opportunity for outer London between local opportunities, those in central or inner London, or those outside London in nearby growth corridors? What are the implications for these other areas?

183

Quality of Life(9) In absolute and relative terms (compared

with central and inner London and the South East) how has the residential environment changed (good or bad) in outer London over the last 25 years and how has this affected its attractiveness as a place to live, work and do business.

(10) What improvements would bring about the greatest improvements to the quality of life for outer London residents, workers and businesses? How would these bear on the economic objectives of the Commission?

(11) How could super hubs affect the quality of life in outer London for residents, workers and businesses?

(12) How important is the provision of local social infrastructure to the quality of living in outer London? (schools, health or other specific infrastructure). How does this bear on the economic objectives of the Commission?

(13) What are the factors that give your or other districts in outer London a sense of place and community ownership? How will these bear on the economic objectives of the Commission?

(14) What improvements would you like to see in the quality of the public realm eg open space quality and provision? How will these bear on the economic objectives of the Commission?

Transport(15) How would you make the super-hubs

you have indicated more generally accessible to residents and workers from across London and outside? What is an acceptable balance between public transport and provision for cars? Will this vary in different parts of outer London eg in the Thames Gateway relative to West London?

(16) What approach should be taken to traffic management including car parking, congestion and pollution and the bearing these have on climate change? How could this bear specifically on super-hubs, and more generally across outer London if employment growth rose above historic trends and travel patterns changed as outer London became a more attractive place to work?

(17) Where traffic demand exceeds capacity in outer London, what tools would be most effective for smoothing traffic around town centres (and managing crowding) in addition to or where there is not scope for infrastructure improvements?

(18) Extensive radial public transport networks already exist to town centres and some super-hubs, what needs to change to make them the modes of choice?

(19) The development of super-hubs is likely to require public transport improvements to make them more accessible. That in turn is likely to need residential densities to be


optimised around and within the super-hubs to justify the necessary transport investment. Is this trade-off acceptable to secure better public transport access and employment growth and is there a particular, economically viable, balance to be struck between residential intensification, transport investment and employment growth?

(20) Do super-hubs need to evolve into ‘hub and spoke’ networks serving the neighbouring areas to make the most of opportunities for local residents? How could a hub and spoke network service the more geographically extensive labour markets required to support super-hubs (and provide accessible opportunities to more workers within and outside London)? If these networks are road based systems, should options for further demand management be considered?

(21) More generally, what are the key destinations/services which people in outer London want access to?

(22) How important is the provision of local transport infrastructure to the quality of living in outer London? How does this bear on the economy of outer London?

185 A

nnex

3A

: Out

er L

ondo

n C

omm

issi

on I

nter

im E

mpl

oym

ent

Pro

ject

ions

: Cam

brid

ge E

cono

met

rics

, Oxf

ord

Econ

omic

s, B

usin

ess

Stra

tegi

es L

td

Oxf

ord

Econ

omic

sEx

peri

an B

usin

ess

Stra

tegi

es

1989

to

2001

2001

to

2007

1989

to

2007

1989

to

2001

2001

to

2006

1989

to

2006

‘000

s%

‘000

s%

‘000

s%

‘000

s%

‘000

s%

‘000

s%

Cam

den

Inne

r28

.50

11.0

8%10

.56

3.70

%39

.06

15.1

9%39

.29

15.6

6%-8

.78

-3.0

3%30

.51

12.1

6%

City

of

Lond

onIn

ner

6.99

2.18

%7.

962.

44%

14.9

54.

67%

23.3

0 7.

02%

-22.

43

-6.3

2%0.

87

0.26

%

Gre

enw

ich

Inne

r-5

.82

-7.5

7%8.

0211

.29%

2.20

2.87

%-5

.24

-6.6

7%7.

37

10.0

6%2.

13

2.71

%

H&

FIn

ner

23.3

623

.57%

5.40

4.41

%28

.76

29.0

1%28

.01

30.5

3%11

.36

9.49

%39

.37

42.9

2%

Hac

kney

Inne

r13

.16

14.1

9%-1

2.85

-12.

13%

0.32

0.34

%4.

18

4.46

%-6

.18

-6.3

1%-2

.00

-2.1

3%

Islin

gton

Inne

r21

.04

14.2

4%38

.24

22.6

6%59

.28

40.1

4%32

.82

23.0

7%5.

21

2.98

%38

.03

26.7

3%

Kens

ingt

on a

nd C

hels

eaIn

ner

20.1

516

.40%

-20.

39-1

4.26

%-0

.24

-0.1

9%24

.96

21.2

5%-1

2.62

-8

.86%

12.3

4 10

.51%

Lam

beth

Inne

r-1

5.74

-10.

84%

8.94

6.91

%-6

.80

-4.6

9%-8

.03

-5.7

3%4.

93

3.73

%-3

.10

-2.2

1%

Lew

isha

mIn

ner

3.99

5.60

%3.

414.

54%

7.40

10.3

9%1.

14

1.58

%2.

66

3.63

%3.

80

5.27

%

Sout

hwar

kIn

ner

17.9

911

.29%

5.86

3.31

%23

.85

14.9

7%15

.58

9.23

%17

.68

9.59

%33

.26

19.7

0%

Tow

er H

amle

tsIn

ner

40.7

331

.91%

59.6

735

.45%

100.

4078

.67%

40.6

6 33

.28%

39.6

8 24

.36%

80.3

4 65

.75%

Wan

dsw

orth

Inne

r3.

302.

79%

5.92

4.88

%9.

217.

81%

7.56

6.

68%

5.69

4.

72%

13.2

6 11

.71%

Wes

tmin

ster

Inne

r30

.00

5.21

%19

.97

3.30

%49

.97

8.69

%39

.67

6.81

%-8

.84

-1.4

2%30

.83

5.30

%

187.

648.

11%

140.

715.

63%

328.

3614

.20%

243.

91

10.5

8%35

.72

1.40

%27

9.63

12

.13%

Bar

king

and

Dag

enha

mO

uter

-12.

13-1

8.26

%-2

.28

-4.2

0%-1

4.41

-2

1.69

%-1

3.41

-1

9.20

%-4

.18

-7.4

1%-1

7.59

-2

5.19

%

Bar

net

Out

er17

.68

15.3

1%-1

.49

-1.1

2%16

.19

14.0

2%22

.69

20.3

4%-0

.11

-0.0

8%22

.58

20.2

4%

Bex

ley

Out

er3.

294.

49%

0.39

0.51

%3.

685.

02%

-4.7

7 -5

.98%

0.14

0.

19%

-4.6

3 -5

.80%

Bre

ntO

uter

-6.3

3-5

.22%

-5.8

7-5

.11%

-12.

20

-10.

06%

-9.0

6 -7

.32%

-2.9

5 -2

.57%

-12.

00

-9.7

1%

Bro

mle

yO

uter

5.35

4.87

%25

.62

22.2

6%30

.96

28.2

2%0.

68

0.59

%7.

51

6.45

%8.

19

7.08

%

Croy

don

Out

er-9

.82

-5.9

1%-3

.71

-2.3

7%-1

3.52

-8.1

4%-1

5.01

-8

.69%

-8.9

2 -5

.65%

-23.

93

-13.

85%

Ealin

gO

uter

-11.

35-7

.97%

6.79

5.18

%-4

.56

-3.2

0%-1

1.55

-7

.97%

4.51

3.

38%

-7.0

4 -4

.86%

Enfie

ldO

uter

-2.7

3-2

.45%

-1.1

3-1

.04%

-3.8

7-3

.46%

-2.8

6 -2

.45%

-3.5

9 -3

.15%

-6.4

6 -5

.52%

Har

inge

yO

uter

-4.3

6-5

.67%

4.83

6.65

%0.

470.

61%

-3.7

2 -5

.01%

10.0

6 14

.28%

6.34

8.

55%

186 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportO

xfor

d Ec

onom

ics

Expe

rian

Bus

ines

s St

rate

gies

1989

to

2001

2001

to

2007

1989

to

2007

1989

to

2001

2001

to

2006

1989

to

2006

‘000

s%

‘000

s%

‘000

s%

‘000

s%

‘000

s%

‘000

s%

Hill

ingd

onO

uter

26.5

916

.59%

18.3

09.

79%

44.8

928

.00%

57.2

9 42

.27%

11.1

1 5.

76%

68.4

0 50

.48%

Hou

nslo

wO

uter

23.6

118

.81%

-19.

65-1

3.18

%3.

963.

16%

-10.

40

-6.5

3%-1

7.72

-1

1.91

%-2

8.12

-1

7.66

%

Kin

gsto

n up

on T

ham

esO

uter

1.72

2.17

%4.

185.

17%

5.89

7.45

%2.

58

3.22

%2.

07

2.50

%4.

65

5.81

%

Mer

ton

Out

er11

.64

16.6

2%-2

.85

-3.5

0%8.

7812

.54%

4.79

6.

33%

-1.2

7 -1

.57%

3.53

4.

66%

New

ham

Out

er6.

739.

31%

3.71

4.69

%10

.44

14.4

3%0.

91

1.20

%9.

87

12.9

0%10

.77

14.2

5%

Red

brid

geO

uter

9.89

14.0

8%1.

672.

08%

11.5

516

.45%

9.65

13

.45%

-5.7

1 -7

.01%

3.94

5.

49%

Ric

hmon

d up

on T

ham

esO

uter

13.3

019

.11%

1.62

1.95

%14

.91

21.4

3%16

.28

24.5

8%9.

36

11.3

4%25

.64

38.7

0%

Sutt

onO

uter

-1.3

5-1

.79%

-1.4

6-1

.97%

-2.8

1-3

.72%

2.65

3.

68%

-1.9

2 -2

.58%

0.73

1.

01%

Wal

tham

For

est

Out

er-8

.22

-10.

87%

2.18

3.23

%-6

.05

-8.0

0%-1

0.03

-1

2.61

%4.

04

5.81

%-5

.99

-7.5

3%

71.0

73.

66%

25.5

61.

27%

96.6

34.

97%

43.0

6 2.

17%

18.7

9 0.

93%

61.8

6 3.

11%

Cent

ral L

ondo

n To

tal

108.

926.

31%

71.1

43.

87%

180.

0710

.43%

167.

59

9.67

%-2

4.85

-1

.31%

142.

73

8.23

%

East

Lon

don

Tota

l54

.09

6.66

%59

.31

6.85

%11

3.40

13.9

7%27

.04

3.27

%50

.43

5.90

%77

.47

9.36

%

Nor

th L

ondo

n To

tal

10.5

93.

48%

2.20

0.70

%12

.79

4.20

%16

.11

5.32

%6.

35

1.99

%22

.47

7.42

%

Sout

h Lo

ndon

Tot

al24

.13

3.51

%29

.30

4.11

%53

.43

7.77

%19

.54

2.81

%12

.52

1.75

%32

.06

4.61

%

Wes

t Lo

ndon

Tot

al60

.99

8.41

%4.

310.

55%

65.3

09.

00%

56.6

9 7.

74%

10.0

6 1.

28%

66.7

5 9.

12%

Lond

on T

otal

258.

726.

08%

166.

27-3

.68%

424.

999.

98%

286.

97

6.69

%54

.51

1.19

%34

1.49

7.

96%

187 Volterra

1989 to 2001 2001 to 2007 1989 to 2007

‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s %

Camden Inner 38.69 15.79% 1.02 0.36% 39.71 16.21%

City of London Inner 30.09 9.71% 5.98 1.76% 36.06 11.63%

Greenwich Inner -4.71 -6.06% 7.36 10.07% 2.65 3.41%

H&F Inner 26.65 28.28% 10.56 8.74% 37.21 39.49%

Hackney Inner 12.74 14.25% -8.31 -8.14% 4.42 4.95%

Islington Inner 26.25 18.96% 31.77 19.29% 58.02 41.91%

Kensington and Chelsea Inner 25.20 21.14% -24.46 -16.94% 0.74 0.62%

Lambeth Inner -18.15 -12.42% 8.54 6.68% -9.61 -6.58%

Lewisham Inner 3.94 5.45% -0.65 -0.86% 3.29 4.55%

Southwark Inner 22.69 12.88% 19.16 9.64% 41.86 23.77%

Tower Hamlets Inner 47.12 40.20% 45.46 27.67% 92.58 79.00%

Wandsworth Inner 9.57 8.60% 7.22 5.98% 16.79 15.10%

Westminster Inner 46.15 8.32% -18.49 -3.08% 27.66 4.99%

266.22 11.82% 85.17 3.38% 351.39 15.61%

Barking and Dagenham Outer -6.58 -10.87% -1.49 -2.75% -8.07 -13.32%

Barnet Outer 17.26 14.68% -1.38 -1.02% 15.88 13.51%

Bexley Outer 3.30 4.53% -1.97 -2.59% 1.33 1.82%

Brent Outer -4.29 -3.55% -8.01 -6.88% -12.30 -10.18%

Bromley Outer 7.40 7.02% 21.03 18.65% 28.42 26.97%

Croydon Outer -3.82 -2.39% -7.36 -4.72% -11.18 -7.00%

Ealing Outer -5.35 -3.89% 4.45 3.36% -0.90 -0.66%

Enfield Outer -1.78 -1.58% -5.67 -5.12% -7.45 -6.62%

Haringey Outer -0.73 -0.96% 4.90 6.47% 4.17 5.46%

Harrow Outer 11.80 17.15% 1.06 1.31% 12.86 18.68%

Havering Outer 8.62 11.20% -5.08 -5.93% 3.54 4.60%

Hillingdon Outer 31.49 20.46% 13.08 7.05% 44.56 28.96%

Hounslow Outer 22.44 17.34% -19.48 -12.83% 2.96 2.28%

Kingston upon Thames Outer 3.26 4.16% 3.32 4.06% 6.58 8.40%

Merton Outer 11.01 15.15% -6.30 -7.54% 4.70 6.47%

Newham Outer 4.76 6.28% 0.41 0.51% 5.17 6.82%

Redbridge Outer 9.67 13.80% 0.93 1.17% 10.60 15.13%

Richmond upon Thames Outer 12.59 17.57% 2.11 2.50% 14.69 20.52%

Sutton Outer 1.09 1.56% -0.44 -0.62% 0.65 0.94%

Waltham Forest Outer -7.08 -9.17% -2.97 -4.23% -10.05 -13.02%

115.03 6.03% -8.87 -0.44% 106.17 5.56%

Central London Total 170.92 10.12% 23.53 1.26% 194.45 11.51%

East London Total 71.76 9.08% 33.70 3.91% 105.46 13.35%

North London Total 14.75 4.81% -2.15 -0.67% 12.60 4.11%

South London Total 41.09 6.14% 19.58 2.76% 60.66 9.07%

West London Total 82.73 11.74% 1.65 0.21% 84.38 11.97%

London Total 381.25 9.17% 76.30 1.68% 457.55 11.00%

188 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportA

nnex

3 B

: His

tori

c an

d pr

ojec

ted

empl

oym

ent

in o

uter

Lon

don

boro

ughs

Bor

ough

1989

2001

2006

2007

1989

-200

7 A

nnua

l %20

1120

1620

2120

2620

3120

07-2

031

Ann

ual %

Bar

king

and

Dag

enha

m70

,100

55,9

0052

,100

51,1

00-1

.74%

51,4

0051

,800

52,5

0053

,700

56,2

000.

40%

Bar

net

112,

800

136,

600

134,

400

133,

600

0.94

%13

6,20

014

0,10

013

8,90

014

4,70

014

9,80

00.

48%

Bex

ley

80,1

0076

,200

75,0

0075

,100

-0.3

6%73

,600

74,1

0073

,000

76,5

0079

,000

0.21

%

Bre

nt12

4,20

011

4,10

011

1,70

011

0,50

0-0

.65%

112,

000

115,

700

115,

200

118,

900

123,

800

0.47

%

Bro

mle

y11

6,00

011

5,90

012

4,10

013

0,90

00.

67%

129,

100

128,

900

127,

500

132,

300

137,

300

0.20

%

Croy

don

173,

700

159,

100

150,

500

149,

700

-0.8

2%14

6,30

014

5,20

014

4,00

014

8,80

015

5,00

00.

15%

Ealin

g14

6,00

013

3,00

013

7,30

013

8,90

0-0

.28%

137,

200

138,

100

143,

000

147,

800

153,

900

0.43

%

Enfie

ld11

7,00

011

4,90

011

0,60

010

9,60

0-0

.36%

108,

900

110,

700

113,

100

117,

800

120,

600

0.40

%

Har

inge

y74

,600

70,3

0082

,000

84,6

000.

70%

86,7

0089

,300

91,5

0095

,100

97,8

000.

61%

Har

row

77,3

0079

,800

83,0

0082

,200

0.34

%81

,700

83,3

0082

,300

85,8

0088

,400

0.30

%

Hav

erin

g85

,000

87,1

0090

,800

84,8

00-0

.01%

82,7

0082

,200

83,3

0086

,800

89,4

000.

22%

Hill

ingd

on13

4,80

019

2,30

020

3,40

020

3,10

02.

30%

200,

700

202,

000

201,

600

209,

800

217,

400

0.28

%

Hou

nslo

w15

9,60

014

7,40

013

2,00

013

3,80

0-0

.97%

130,

100

128,

900

128,

600

133,

300

138,

300

0.14

%

Kin

gsto

n80

,100

83,5

0085

,500

86,9

000.

45%

84,7

0083

,300

83,3

0085

,800

89,4

000.

12%

Mer

ton

75,7

0080

,600

80,3

0081

,300

0.40

%82

,700

83,3

0084

,300

85,8

0087

,400

0.30

%

Red

brid

ge71

,700

80,3

0075

,400

76,3

000.

35%

73,6

0073

,100

75,1

0078

,500

81,1

000.

25%

Ric

hmon

d U

pon

Tham

es65

,400

82,8

0092

,500

92,2

001.

93%

89,8

0088

,300

87,4

0090

,900

94,6

000.

11%

Sutt

on72

,000

75,3

0072

,900

72,8

000.

06%

71,6

0072

,100

71,0

0074

,400

77,0

000.

23%

Wal

tham

For

est

79,6

0069

,200

73,5

0068

,500

-0.8

3%67

,600

67,0

0067

,900

70,3

0072

,800

0.25

%

Out

er L

ondo

n1,

915,

800

1,95

4,40

01,

966,

900

1,96

5,90

00.

14%

1,94

6,80

01,

957,

500

1,96

3,60

02,

037,

000

2,10

9,20

00.

29%

CAZ

incl

IOD

1,31

3,60

01,

504,

500

1,52

9,10

01,

555,

100

0.94

%1,

653,

900

1,75

0,80

01,

845,

600

1,89

6,40

01,

952,

700

0.95

%

Inne

r (ex

cl C

AZ/

IoD

) 1,

063,

000

1,12

7,00

01,

135,

900

1,15

5,10

00.

46%

1,19

6,60

01,

244,

900

1,30

5,00

01,

346,

800

1,39

0,00

00.

77%

Tota

l4,

292,

400

4,58

6,00

04,

631,

800

4,67

6,10

00.

48%

4,79

7,30

04,

953,

200

5,11

4,10

05,

280,

300

5,45

1,90

00.

64%

189 H

isto

ric

and

proj

ecte

d em

ploy

men

t in

out

er L

ondo

n bo

roug

hs b

y br

oad

econ

omic

sec

tor

Bor

ough

/Sec

tor

1989

2001

2006

2007

1989

-200

7 A

nnua

l %20

1120

1620

2120

2620

3120

07-2

031

Ann

ual %

Bar

king

& D

agen

ham

70,1

00

55,9

00

52,1

00

51,1

00

-1.7

4%51

,400

51

,800

5

2,50

0 53

,700

56

,200

0.

40%

Offi

ce

5,10

0 5,

900

5,40

0 5,

400

0.32

%5,

700

6,00

0 6

,200

6,

600

7,00

0 1.

09%

Indu

stria

l 32

,200

21,

000

1

7,00

0

17,

200

-3.4

2%16

,200

15

,100

14

,200

13

,500

13,

200

-1.1

0%

Oth

er

32,

800

2

8,90

0

29,

600

2

8,40

0 -0

.80%

29,5

00

30,7

00

32,

000

3

3,60

0

36,

000

0.99

%

Bar

net

112,

800

13

6,60

0

134,

400

13

3,60

0 0.

94%

136,

200

140,

100

138,

900

14

4,70

0 1

49,8

00

0.48

%

Offi

ce

21,

800

3

3,30

0

35,

400

3

4,10

0 2.

52%

35,5

00

37,

300

37,

400

3

9,50

0

40,

900

0.76

%

Indu

stria

l 1

8,10

0

16,

700

1

4,60

0

16,

700

-0.4

5%15

,900

1

5,00

0 1

3,70

0

13,

100

1

2,50

0 -1

.20%

Oth

er

72,

900

8

6,70

0

84,

500

8

2,70

0 0.

70%

84,8

00

87,

800

87,

700

9

2,10

0

96,

400

0.64

%

Bex

ley

80,

100

76,2

00

75,0

00

75,1

00

-0.3

6% 7

3,60

0 7

4,10

0 7

3,00

0

76,

500

79,

000

0.21

%

Offi

ce

12,

100

1

1,70

0

10,

000

9

,400

-1

.39%

9,4

00

9,8

00

9,9

00

1

0,60

0

11,

000

0.66

%

Indu

stria

l 2

3,40

0

18,

200

1

6,80

0

18,

100

-1.4

2% 1

6,60

0 1

5,50

0 1

4,20

0

13,

900

1

3,50

0 -1

.21%

Oth

er

44,

600

4

6,30

0

48,

200

4

7,60

0 0.

36%

47,5

00

48,

800

48,

900

5

2,00

0

54,

500

0.57

%

Bre

nt12

4,20

0

114,

100

11

1,70

0

110,

500

-0.6

5%11

2,00

0 1

15,7

00

115

,200

118,

900

123,

800

0.47

%

Offi

ce

18,

900

2

0,40

0

20,

600

1

9,90

0 0.

29%

20,

900

22,

500

23,

000

2

4,40

0

25,

800

1.09

%

Indu

stria

l 4

0,00

0

33,

200

2

7,60

0

29,

500

-1.6

8% 2

8,00

0 2

6,70

0 2

4,70

0

23,

700

2

3,20

0 -1

.00%

Oth

er

65,

300

6

0,60

0

63,

500

6

1,00

0 -0

.38%

63,

000

66,

500

67,

500

7

0,70

0

74,

800

0.85

%

Bro

mle

y 1

16,0

00

11

5,90

0

124,

100

13

0,90

0 0.

67%

129

,100

1

28,9

00

127

,500

132,

300

137

,300

0.

20%

Offi

ce

30,

200

2

7,40

0

25,

200

2

7,40

0 -0

.54%

27,2

00

27,

500

27,

300

2

8,60

0

29,

700

0.34

%

Indu

stria

l 1

7,60

0

16,

800

1

6,10

0

16,

300

-0.4

3% 1

4,90

0 1

3,60

0 1

2,40

0

11,

800

1

1,30

0 -1

.51%

Oth

er

68,

200

7

1,70

0

82,

800

8

7,20

0 1.

37%

87,

000

87,

900

87,

900

9

1,90

0

96,

300

0.41

%

Cro

ydon

173

,700

159,

100

15

0,50

0

149,

700

-0.8

2% 1

46,3

00

145

,200

1

44,0

00

14

8,80

0 1

55,0

00

0.15

%

Offi

ce

42,

800

4

1,60

0

44,

700

4

4,00

0 0.

15%

42,

900

42,

600

42,0

00

4

3,40

0

44,

900

0.08

%

Indu

stria

l 3

5,90

0

24,

900

1

9,90

0

20,

000

-3.2

0% 1

8,50

0 1

7,30

0 1

6,20

0

15,

800

1

5,60

0 -1

.03%

Oth

er

94,

900

9

2,60

0

85,

800

8

5,70

0 -0

.56%

84,

800

85,

300

85,

800

8

9,60

0

94,

400

0.40

%

190 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportB

orou

gh/S

ecto

r19

8920

0120

0620

0719

89-2

007

Ann

ual %

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2007

-203

1 A

nnua

l %

Ealin

g 1

46,0

00

13

3,00

0

137,

300

13

8,90

0 -0

.28%

137

,200

1

38,1

00

143

,000

147,

800

153

,900

0.

43%

Offi

ce

24,

400

2

8,50

0

31,

700

3

0,80

0 1.

30%

31,

600

33,

200

35,4

00

3

7,50

0

39,

700

1.06

%

Indu

stria

l 42

,700

31,

900

3

2,50

0

34,

900

-1.1

1% 3

1,80

0 2

8,90

0 2

7,20

0

25,

500

2

4,20

0 -1

.51%

Oth

er

78,

900

7

2,60

0

73,

100

7

3,20

0 -0

.42%

73,8

00

7

6,00

0

80,

500

8

4,80

0

90,

100

0.87

%

Enfi

eld

117,

000

11

4,90

0

110,

600

10

9,60

0 -0

.36%

108,

900

11

0,70

0 11

3,10

0

117,

800

12

0,60

0 0.

40%

Offi

ce

18,

900

1

9,50

0

19,

300

1

9,10

0 0.

06%

19,3

00

2

0,00

0

20,

600

2

1,70

0

22,

300

0.65

%

Indu

stria

l 3

9,90

0

28,

000

2

2,30

0

22,

300

-3.1

8%20

,800

19,

400

1

8,40

0

17,

800

1

6,90

0 -1

.15%

Oth

er

58,

200

6

7,40

0

69,

100

6

8,10

0 0.

88%

68,9

00

7

1,30

0

74,

100

7

8,30

0

81,

400

0.75

%

Har

inge

y74

,600

70

,300

8

2,00

0 84

,600

0.

70%

86,7

00

89,3

00

91,5

00

9

5,10

0

97,

800

0.61

%

Offi

ce

10,

000

1

3,20

0

14,

800

1

6,80

0 2.

92%

17,7

00

1

8,60

0

19,

300

2

0,30

0

20,

900

0.91

%

Indu

stria

l 1

9,10

0

13,

400

1

4,10

0

14,

400

-1.5

6%13

,600

12,

600

1

1,80

0

11,

200

1

0,70

0 -1

.23%

Oth

er

45,

500

4

3,80

0

53,

100

5

3,40

0 0.

89%

55,5

00

5

8,10

0

60,

400

6

3,50

0

66,

200

0.90

%

Har

row

77,3

00

79,8

00

83

,000

82

,200

0.

34%

81,7

00

83,3

00

82,3

00

8

5,80

0

88,

400

0.30

%

Offi

ce

17,

900

2

1,20

0

21,

500

2

0,20

0 0.

67%

20,4

00

2

1,20

0

21,

200

2

2,30

0

23,

000

0.54

%

Indu

stria

l 1

4,90

0

13,

900

1

1,50

0

11,

700

-1.3

3%10

,800

10,

100

9

,300

9,1

00

8

,800

-1

.18%

Oth

er

44,

600

4

4,70

0

50,

100

5

0,40

0 0.

68%

50,5

00

5

1,90

0

51,

800

5

4,40

0

56,

600

0.48

%

Hav

erin

g85

,000

8

7,10

0

90,8

00

84,8

00

-0.0

1%82

,700

82

,200

83

,300

86,

800

8

9,40

0 0.

22%

Offi

ce

9,3

00

1

2,40

0

11,

600

1

0,00

0 0.

40%

9,90

0

10,

100

1

0,40

0

11,

100

1

1,50

0 0.

58%

Indu

stria

l 2

1,40

0

17,

900

1

8,40

0

18,

600

-0.7

8%17

,000

15,

700

1

4,80

0

14,

300

1

3,70

0 -1

.27%

Oth

er

54,

300

5

6,80

0

60,

900

5

6,30

0 0.

20%

55,8

00

5

6,40

0

58,

100

6

1,40

0

64,

200

0.55

%

Hill

ingd

on13

4,80

0

192,

300

20

3,40

0

203,

100

2.30

%20

0,70

0

202,

000

201,

600

20

9,80

0

217,

400

0.28

%

Offi

ce

17,0

00

3

3,90

0

37,

300

3

8,40

0 4.

63%

39,5

00

4

1,50

0

42,

800

4

5,90

0

48,

400

0.97

%

Indu

stria

l 2

9,90

0

33,

300

3

2,20

0

32,

800

0.52

%30

,500

28,

500

2

6,50

0

25,

700

2

4,90

0 -1

.14%

Oth

er

87,

900

12

5,00

0

133,

900

13

1,90

0 2.

28%

13

0,70

0

132,

000

13

2,30

0

138,

200

14

4,00

0 0.

37%

Hou

nslo

w15

9,60

0

147,

400

13

2,00

0

133,

800

-0.9

7%13

0,10

0

128,

900

128,

600

13

3,30

0

138,

300

0.14

%

Offi

ce

23,

100

4

3,20

0

36,

000

3

7,20

0 2.

68%

37,8

00

3

9,40

0

40,

900

4

4,20

0

47,

400

1.01

%

Indu

stria

l 4

7,40

0

31,

000

2

5,50

0

27,

200

-3.0

4%24

,900

22,

900

2

1,20

0

20,

400

1

9,60

0 -1

.36%

Oth

er

89,

100

7

3,20

0

70,

500

6

9,40

0 -1

.38%

67,4

00

6

6,70

0

66,

500

6

8,80

0

71,

300

0.11

%

191 B

orou

gh/S

ecto

r19

8920

0120

0620

0719

89-2

007

Ann

ual %

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2007

-203

1 A

nnua

l %

Kin

gsto

n80

,100

83

,500

85,5

00

86,9

00

0.45

%84

,700

83

,300

83

,300

85,

800

8

9,40

0 0.

12%

Offi

ce

21,

200

2

2,40

0

20,

600

2

0,10

0 -0

.30%

19,8

00

1

9,50

0

19,

600

2

0,20

0

20,

900

0.16

%

Indu

stria

l 1

5,00

0

13,

100

1

1,10

0

11,

700

-1.3

7%10

,600

9,5

00

8

,700

8,2

00

7

,900

-1

.62%

Oth

er

43,

900

4

8,00

0

53,

900

5

5,10

0 1.

27%

54,4

00

5

4,20

0

55,

100

5

7,40

0

60,

600

0.40

%

Mer

ton

75,7

00

80,6

00

80

,300

81

,300

0.

40%

82,7

00

83,3

00

84,3

00

8

5,80

0

87,

400

0.30

%

Offi

ce

8,7

00

1

5,70

0

18,

900

1

9,20

0 4.

50%

2

0,10

0

20,

900

2

1,60

0

22,

300

2

2,80

0 0.

72%

Indu

stria

l

26,

200

1

9,50

0

16,

000

1

7,40

0 -2

.25%

1

6,40

0

14,

900

1

3,70

0

12,

700

1

1,80

0 -1

.61%

Oth

er

40,

800

4

5,40

0

45,

300

4

4,70

0 0.

51%

4

6,20

0

47,

500

4

9,00

0

50,

800

5

2,80

0 0.

70%

Red

brid

ge

71,

700

80,

300

7

5,40

0 7

6,30

0 0.

35%

7

3,60

0

73,

100

7

5,10

0

78,

500

8

1,10

0 0.

25%

Offi

ce

1

2,80

0

18,

200

1

4,10

0

13,

700

0.38

%

13,

400

1

3,60

0

14,

100

1

4,90

0

15,

500

0.52

%

Indu

stria

l

15,

500

1

1,60

0

10,

100

1

0,70

0 -2

.04%

9

,600

8,8

00

8

,300

8,0

00

7

,600

-1

.42%

Oth

er

4

3,40

0

50,

400

5

1,20

0

51,

900

1.00

%

50,

600

5

0,70

0

52,

700

5

5,60

0

58,

100

0.47

%

Ric

hmon

d U

pon

Tha

mes

6

5,40

0

82,

800

9

2,50

0

92,

200

1.93

%

89,

800

8

8,30

0

87,

400

9

0,90

0

94,

600

0.11

%

Offi

ce

1

7,60

0

27,

900

3

2,20

0

32,

400

3.45

%

31,

900

3

1,80

0

31,

500

3

2,70

0

33,

700

0.16

%

Indu

stria

l

10,

100

9

,600

8,6

00

8

,900

-0

.70%

7

,900

7,1

00

6

,400

6,1

00

5

,900

-1

.70%

Oth

er

3

7,70

0

45,

400

5

1,70

0

50,

900

1.68

%

49,

900

4

9,50

0

49,

500

5

2,10

0

55,

100

0.33

%

Sutt

on

72,

000

7

5,30

0

72,

900

7

2,80

0 0.

06%

7

1,60

0

72,

100

7

1,00

0

74,

400

7

7,00

0 0.

23%

Offi

ce

1

7,70

0

16,

900

1

7,10

0

16,

100

-0.5

2%

15,

900

1

6,20

0

15,

900

1

6,70

0

17,

200

0.28

%

Indu

stria

l

13,

100

1

4,60

0

11,

900

1

1,60

0 -0

.67%

1

0,70

0

10,

000

9

,200

9,0

00

8

,700

-1

.19%

Oth

er

4

1,30

0

43,

800

4

3,90

0

45,

100

0.49

%

44,

900

4

5,90

0

45,

900

4

8,70

0

51,

100

0.52

%

Wal

tham

For

est

7

9,60

0

69,

200

7

3,50

0

68,

500

-0.8

3%

67,

600

6

7,00

0

67,

900

7

0,30

0

72,

800

0.25

%

Offi

ce

7

,400

9,0

00

9

,600

8,7

00

0.90

%

8,9

00

9

,100

9,3

00

9

,800

10,

300

0.71

%

Indu

stria

l

23,

700

1

7,60

0

14,

600

1

3,50

0 -3

.08%

1

2,40

0

11,

200

1

0,50

0

10,

000

9

,600

-1

.41%

Oth

er

4

8,60

0

42,

600

4

9,30

0

46,

300

-0.2

7%

46,

400

4

6,70

0

48,

000

5

0,40

0

52,

900

0.56

%

192 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportB

orou

gh/S

ecto

r19

8920

0120

0620

0719

89-2

007

Ann

ual %

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2007

-203

1 A

nnua

l %

Out

er L

ondo

n 1

,915

,800

1

,954

,400

1

,966

,900

1

,965

,900

0.

14%

1,9

46,8

00

1,9

57,5

00

1,9

63,6

00

2,0

37,0

00

2,1

09,2

00

0.29

%

Offi

ce

33

6,90

0

422,

300

42

6,00

0

423,

100

1.27

%

427,

900

44

0,70

0

448,

400

47

2,80

0

492,

700

0.64

%

Indu

stria

l

486,

100

38

6,20

0

340,

700

35

3,40

0 -1

.76%

32

7,10

0

302,

800

28

1,40

0

269,

700

25

9,80

0 -1

.27%

Oth

er

1,0

92,7

00

1,1

45,9

00

1,2

00,2

00

1,1

89,4

00

0.47

% 1

,191

,700

1

,214

,000

1

,233

,800

1

,294

,500

1

,356

,700

0.

55%

CA

Z in

cl I

OD

1,3

13,6

00

1,5

04,5

00

1,5

29,1

00

1,5

55,1

00

0.94

% 1

,653

,900

1

,750

,800

1

,845

,600

1

,896

,400

1

,952

,700

0.

95%

Offi

ce

66

8,70

0

840,

600

86

1,90

0

882,

200

1.55

%

947,

400

1,0

11,0

00

1,0

68,0

00

1,0

96,9

00

1,1

22,9

00

1.01

%

Indu

stria

l

140,

300

10

2,10

0

88,

800

8

8,00

0 -2

.56%

8

6,50

0

84,

300

8

2,90

0

79,

000

7

6,80

0 -0

.57%

Oth

er

50

4,60

0

561,

900

57

8,40

0

584,

800

0.82

%

620,

000

65

5,50

0

694,

700

72

0,60

0

753,

000

1.06

%

Inne

r (e

xcl.

CA

Z/I

oD)

1,0

63,0

00

1,1

27,0

00

1,1

35,9

00

1,1

55,1

00

0.46

% 1

,196

,600

1

,244

,900

1

,305

,000

1

,346

,800

1

,390

,000

0.

77%

Offi

ce

20

4,70

0

292,

900

29

4,50

0

311,

600

2.36

%

324,

500

34

0,70

0

360,

200

37

4,30

0

386,

500

0.90

%

Indu

stria

l

178,

800

15

8,50

0

133,

100

13

5,40

0 -1

.53%

13

2,90

0

127,

900

12

4,10

0

119,

200

11

4,20

0 -0

.71%

Oth

er

67

9,60

0

675,

600

70

8,30

0

708,

100

0.23

%

739,

200

77

6,30

0

820,

600

85

3,20

0

889,

200

0.95

%

Gre

ater

Lon

don

4,2

92,4

00

4,5

86,0

00

4,6

31,8

00

4,6

76,1

00

0.48

% 4

,797

,300

4

,953

,200

5

,114

,100

5

,280

,300

5

,451

,900

0.

64%

Offi

ce

1,2

10,3

00

1,5

55,8

00

1,5

82,3

00

1,6

16,9

00

1.62

% 1

,699

,900

1

,792

,300

1

,876

,600

1

,944

,000

2

,002

,100

0.

89%

Indu

stria

l

805,

200

64

6,70

0

562,

600

57

6,80

0 -1

.84%

54

6,50

0

515,

100

48

8,40

0

467,

900

45

0,90

0 -1

.02%

Oth

er

2,2

76,9

00

2,3

83,5

00

2,4

86,9

00

2,4

82,4

00

0.48

% 2

,551

,000

2

,645

,800

2

,749

,100

2

,868

,300

2

,998

,900

0.

79%

Sour

ce: R

oger

Tym

& P

artn

ers,

201

0. P

roje

ctio

ns a

re c

onsi

sten

t with

dra

ft re

plac

emen

t Lon

don

Plan

(20

09)

193 A

nnex

3C

: Hom

e C

ount

ies

Empl

oym

ent

1989

-200

7H

ome

Cou

nty

Gro

ups

1989

2001

2007

1989

-200

7 G

row

th19

89-2

007

Gro

wth

av

erag

e pa

1989

-200

7 %

Gro

wth

1989

-200

7 %

ann

ual

ave

grow

th

1989

-200

1 G

row

th19

89-2

001

Gro

wth

av

erag

e pa

1989

-200

1 %

Gro

wth

1989

-200

1 %

ann

ual

ave

grow

th

2001

-200

7 G

row

th20

01-2

007

Gro

wth

av

erag

e pa

2001

-200

7 %

Gro

wth

2001

-200

7 %

ann

ual

ave

grow

th

Bed

ford

shire

304,

172

355,

502

377,

033

72,8

614,

048

24.0

%1.

20%

51,3

304,

278

16.9

%1.

31%

21,5

313,

589

6.1%

0.98

%

Ber

kshi

re34

4,84

346

4,22

946

2,16

311

7,32

06,

518

34.0

%1.

64%

119,

386

9,94

934

.6%

2.51

%-2

,066

-344

-0.4

%-0

.07%

Buc

king

ham

shire

173,

380

215,

151

203,

209

29,8

291,

657

17.2

%0.

89%

41,7

713,

481

24.1

%1.

82%

-11,

942

-1,9

90-5

.6%

-0.9

5%

Esse

x50

6,96

858

8,34

662

5,30

411

8,33

66,

574

23.3

%1.

17%

81,3

786,

782

16.1

%1.

25%

36,9

586,

160

6.3%

1.02

%

Her

tfor

dshi

re39

3,54

350

4,46

049

1,52

597

,982

5,44

324

.9%

1.24

%11

0,91

79,

243

28.2

%2.

09%

-12,

935

-2,1

56-2

.6%

-0.4

3%

Kent

524,

935

610,

560

634,

574

109,

639

6,09

120

.9%

1.06

%85

,625

7,13

516

.3%

1.27

%24

,014

4,00

23.

9%0.

65%

Surr

ey40

0,58

950

6,54

550

6,42

210

5,83

35,

880

26.4

%1.

31%

105,

956

8,83

026

.5%

1.97

%-1

23-2

10.

0%0.

00%

2,64

8,43

03,

244,

793

3,30

0,23

065

1,80

036

,211

24.6

%1.

23%

596,

363

49,6

9722

.5%

1.71

%55

,437

9,24

01.

7%0.

28%

Not

e th

at th

e da

ta fo

r the

‘hom

e co

untie

s’ in

clud

es th

e re

leva

nt u

nita

ry a

utho

ritie

s an

d co

mes

from

thre

e so

urce

s (C

ensu

s of

Em

ploy

men

t (19

87-2

001)

, Ann

ual E

mpl

oym

ent S

urve

y (1

991-

1998

) an

d A

BI (

1998

-200

7). C

ompa

rabi

lity

of th

ese

data

sets

ove

r tim

e is

impe

rfec

t so

the

figur

es s

houl

d be

trea

ted

with

cau

tion.

194 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportAnnex 4: Economically Active Population 1991 to 2031 Table A: Projected Resident Labour Force

1991 2008 2031

City of London 3.5 5.8 8.4

Camden 97.1 109.4 128.0

Greenwich 101.4 113.0 161.8

Hackney 87.7 106.0 136.7

Hammersmith & Fulham 87.7 100.8 112.1

Islington 89.5 107.0 129.8

Kensington & Chelsea 79.8 90.1 103.4

Lambeth 137.1 162.9 185.6

Lewisham 124.0 143.2 170.2

Newham 97.5 117.0 171.6

Southwark 114.6 143.4 191.2

Tower Hamlets 73.0 109.9 166.8

Wandsworth 148.9 171.0 198.8

Westminster 101.3 119.0 133.0

Barking & Dagenham 71.9 79.1 112.6

Barnet 147.9 165.5 207.0

Bexley 111.8 112.7 115.9

Brent 124.7 136.6 147.9

Bromley 150.2 155.2 144.8

Croydon 166.8 173.7 189.1

Ealing 149.0 163.1 176.1

Enfield 131.5 143.2 140.5

Haringey 108.7 122.2 146.5

Harrow 103.1 113.8 113.6

Havering 115.7 117.8 142.5

Hillingdon 124.2 131.1 144.1

Hounslow 107.7 121.0 128.9

Kingston upon Thames 72.3 83.8 87.7

Merton 90.1 105.1 104.5

Redbridge 110.5 122.5 140.3

Richmond upon Thames 89.1 100.3 104.1

Sutton 88.5 99.7 96.8

Waltham Forest 109.4 111.5 119.1

London Plan Inner 1343.1 1598.6 1997.4

London Plan Outer 2172.9 2357.8 2562.1

GREATER LONDON 3516.2 3956.5 4559.5

Source: GLA 2009 Round Demographic Projections: London Plan

195 A

nnex

5A

: Hou

sing

Tre

nds

Net

App

rova

ls f

or I

nner

and

Out

er L

ondo

n 19

87-2

008

Inne

r19

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

0720

08To

tal

Cam

den

1,22

11,

147

814

479

520

774

820

1,18

669

772

855

864

055

783

051

744

744

695

71,

191

3,05

770

354

518

,834

City

293

016

212

312

55

1423

432

234

596

476

349

456

547

3881

105

160

143

7237

95,

434

Gre

enw

ich

301

489

792

727

569

569

531

334

172

3,79

083

11,

984

1,66

71,

000

1,11

12,

017

1,16

811

,213

1,41

45,

929

5,29

12,

815

44,7

14

Hac

kney

1,17

01,

304

1,00

885

359

275

51,

006

1,06

397

077

31,

184

956

1,10

41,

410

1,01

51,

452

1,00

52,

903

3,09

12,

525

1,61

81,

302

29,0

59

H &

F66

246

858

816

516

427

650

123

623

935

635

526

621

31,

897

9952

248

065

71,

475

874

1,23

153

112

,255

Islin

gton

67

819

547

828

625

453

869

356

867

61,

471

1,43

21,

676

1,29

71,

657

871

3,31

91,

368

1,41

12,

245

2,07

22,

241

1,73

727

,163

K &

C64

267

654

222

759

622

424

185

064

561

075

046

486

51,

897

9952

229

347

732

274

341

351

312

,611

Lam

beth

1,

037

1,07

164

011

61,

063

851

822

734

1,13

02,

155

791

402

915

1,16

980

879

985

21,

891

1,66

43,

880

3,41

02,

560

28,7

60

Lew

isha

m

1,84

02,

158

1,79

31,

200

950

1,40

392

71,

097

766

747

479

495

440

562

421

927

980

1,54

91,

296

1,36

51,

482

1,85

724

,734

New

ham

70

762

240

075

462

125

159

277

942

459

997

864

139

798

072

61,

138

751

2,00

06,

149

1,62

912

,340

5,83

839

,316

Sout

hwar

k 1,

652

2,42

01,

615

1,42

91,

146

1,25

42,

076

1,21

71,

708

1,54

41,

775

1,21

51,

543

1,68

11,

278

2,58

12,

362

2,75

23,

111

3,50

03,

231

2,93

544

,025

T H

amle

ts

667

667

667

667

667

3,47

13,

472

3,47

21,

568

3,38

74,

315

1,81

52,

226

2,38

02,

224

2,06

22,

460

4,27

46,

283

4,41

09,

560

6,43

967

,153

Wan

dsw

orth

1,48

51,

417

1,66

21,

375

746

1,10

51,

307

709

538

1,31

22,

687

1,20

583

91,

756

2,38

83,

073

1,35

12,

068

2,82

13,

359

1,60

82,

455

37,2

66

Wes

tmin

ster

1,77

02,

148

1,26

993

952

964

352

999

090

91,

617

1,92

21,

865

1,90

192

01,

177

1,04

691

21,

721

1,24

71,

332

1,83

090

628

,122

Tota

l14

,125

14,7

8212

,430

9,34

08,

542

12,1

1913

,531

13,4

6910

,764

19,4

3419

,021

14,3

8714

,458

18,7

0412

,781

19,9

4314

,509

33,9

7832

,469

34,8

1845

,030

30,8

1241

9,44

6

Out

er19

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

0720

08T o

tal

B &

D

368

743

500

352

666

552

211

181

835

544

1,00

528

274

727

769

957

31,

384

841

974

507

11,5

3023

524

,006

Bar

net

1,85

02,

070

1,75

682

51,

154

1,03

61,

185

924

707

877

1,23

195

441

287

165

21,

239

1,30

81,

321

3,86

01,

846

3,59

33,

039

32,7

10

Bex

ley

1,05

01,

203

944

419

541

875

775

642

8577

048

136

681

147

718

615

423

322

253

616

21,

073

488

12,4

93

Bre

nt

1,08

81,

263

844

949

943

870

800

369

493

-544

572

1,05

765

451

196

362

81,

238

5,43

91,

043

1,47

91,

960

933

23,5

52

Bro

mle

y 1,

193

1,17

668

442

357

584

649

453

050

237

199

331

131

740

279

357

61,

083

1,37

61,

003

1,56

82,

122

1,43

818

,776

Croy

don

2,08

82,

789

2,80

81,

795

1,07

197

21,

391

812

544

831

402

598

447

734

763

1,00

11,

414

1,41

22,

273

2,78

73,

384

2,64

232

,958

Ealin

g 90

374

857

066

895

072

788

835

526

163

144

844

941

461

734

435

486

91,

761

1,24

11,

084

1,09

993

316

,314

Enfie

ld

745

1,50

01,

913

1,71

380

62,

679

914

610

472

975

1,13

887

31,

128

1,37

341

556

064

71,

255

1,14

487

11,

373

1,04

924

,153

Har

inge

y 63

648

053

129

058

138

168

994

460

823

913

711

222

435

242

91,

283

844

976

1,33

465

51,

774

794

14,2

93

Har

row

61

449

269

743

532

313

412

773

9833

338

747

221

039

888

356

965

61,

000

974

1,01

81,

682

256

11,8

31

Hav

erin

g 84

01,

039

769

2,25

935

148

951

826

723

014

513

538

960

862

927

656

964

175

41,

676

1,09

466

460

914

,951

Hill

ingd

on

1,29

765

549

753

134

542

384

651

034

855

370

648

738

946

374

658

230

558

295

72,

253

2,24

91,

821

17,5

45

Hou

nslo

w

612

1,00

956

443

144

343

41,

200

814

378

518

428

284

671

1,01

31,

002

1,49

81,

033

1,17

21,

202

1,73

976

252

717

,734

Kin

gsto

n 53

943

420

590

227

760

438

272

603

624

203

711

429

349

1,02

043

040

859

842

440

636

170

910

,240

Mer

ton

1,20

91,

806

566

497

549

480

421

578

386

492

410

431

428

831

622

698

484

847

1,24

773

073

462

315

,069

Red

brid

ge

1,08

669

11,

209

674

407

999

670

605

310

317

313

584

1,26

128

61,

286

1,22

51,

539

2,07

01,

516

1,98

570

327

220

,008

Ric

hmon

d 54

866

970

431

257

237

731

429

321

942

649

434

522

268

11,

171

1,14

260

141

445

461

837

557

111

,522

Sutt

on

966

1,94

71,

770

591

403

608

575

710

548

262

467

626

189

231

485

260

761

814

533

872

882

535

15,0

35

W F

ores

t 99

992

497

245

959

235

863

858

1-2

5776

211

018

5-4

815

836

730

151

283

079

090

61,

214

753

12,1

06

Tota

l18

,631

21,6

3818

,503

13,7

1311

,499

14,0

0013

,094

10,0

707,

370

9,12

610

,060

9,51

69,

513

10,6

5313

,102

13,6

4215

,960

23,6

8423

,181

22,5

8037

,534

18,2

2734

5,29

6

Lond

on

Tota

l32

,756

36,4

2030

,933

23,0

5320

,041

26,1

1926

,625

23,5

3918

,134

28,5

6029

,081

23,9

0323

,971

29,3

5725

,883

33,5

8530

,469

57,6

6255

,650

57,3

9882

,564

49,0

3976

4,74

2

N.B

. est

imat

es a

re h

ighl

ight

ed in

whi

te


nnex

5B

: Net

Com

plet

ions

for

Inn

er a

nd O

uter

Lon

don

1987

-200

8In

ner

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Tota

l

Cam

den

1,09

91,

033

733

432

468

697

738

1,06

762

765

650

266

450

137

121

542

828

328

550

466

156

573

113

,260

City

2

242

181

93

645

136

229

222

458

298

106

272

186

-26

4837

7511

82,

269

Gre

enw

ich

484

210

578

165

193

425

425

425

425

425

365

744

651

786

212

1,59

31,

893

893

3,18

91,

445

1,04

885

417

,428

Hac

kney

1,

053

1,17

490

776

853

380

080

080

080

080

01,

067

860

994

855

609

1,31

982

597

199

71,

038

1,64

01,

733

21,3

43

H &

F

582

744

797

204

143

120

165

313

393

428

215

193

171

220

100

179

310

822

361

445

715

623

8,24

3

Islin

gton

44

210

521

313

319

447

366

453

841

961

21,

154

907

957

823

1,38

061

41,

251

727

924

1,40

61,

856

2,25

318

,045

K &

C

482

508

407

171

447

106

181

638

484

460

563

348

649

220

100

179

452

239

244

236

200

135

7,44

9

Lam

beth

1,

037

1,07

257

610

795

71,

024

1,02

41,

025

1,02

51,

025

543

1,05

982

470

983

329

656

71,

358

842

1,36

294

91,

135

19,3

49

Lew

isha

m

584

1,29

51,

173

606

1,42

879

71,

028

901

742

1,31

61,

292

758

508

470

470

722

778

979

864

546

709

909

18,8

75

New

ham

48

71,

356

1,35

61,

041

726

726

726

999

712

702

419

697

488

1,27

81,

220

1,51

21,

446

1,41

744

61,

134

814

1,48

221

,184

Sout

hwar

k 1,

487

2,17

81,

454

1,28

675

946

71,

001

1,47

21,

101

1,16

41,

168

1,44

686

184

492

51,

001

834

1,47

61,

126

2,14

81,

101

1,14

526

,444

T H

amle

ts

667

667

667

2,10

197

32,

777

2,77

72,

778

1,25

42,

710

3,45

31,

633

2,00

32,

574

1,70

81,

630

1,10

82,

191

1,33

73,

153

2,62

52,

221

43,0

07

Wan

dsw

orth

307

490

442

364

650

297

548

667

788

486

653

729

1,07

384

262

474

176

81,

777

1,28

21,

350

1,09

51,

033

17,0

06

Wes

tmin

ster

1,05

795

770

395

752

337

428

831

373

569

81,

083

1,37

01,

555

1,05

491

147

41,

286

827

635

1,19

971

267

218

,383

Tota

l9,

770

11,8

1310

,008

8,35

37,

995

9,09

210

,368

11,9

429,

550

11,6

1812

,706

11,6

3011

,693

11,3

449,

413

10,9

6011

,987

13,9

3612

,799

16,1

6014

,104

15,0

4425

2,28

5

Out

er19

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

0720

08T o

tal

B &

D

129

258

366

467

478

196

331

318

125

374

551

660

818

332

637

466

348

713

280

644

592

476

9,55

9

Bar

net

1,49

91,

484

972

1,18

61,

188

1,55

31,

477

1,51

21,

512

581

915

717

535

1,03

871

527

745

092

693

677

675

199

521

,995

Bex

ley

358

361

1,02

655

11,

162

348

460

508

425

470

209

386

116

883

109

137

149

788

177

124

294

319

9,36

0

Bre

nt

774

894

1,28

294

247

31,

070

671

473

1,05

228

637

340

225

772

240

341

51,

009

-163

1,06

01,

067

1,11

294

915

,523

Bro

mle

y 1,

479

1,68

21,

173

1,03

063

641

71,

050

521

345

505

248

442

200

356

535

488

437

1,19

666

594

377

450

715

,629

Croy

don

1,17

01,

691

1,36

990

473

441

644

21,

152

852

389

703

379

326

227

491

472

592

562

769

970

1,10

61,

453

17,1

69

Ealin

g 2,

510

311

243

315

142

7565

467

332

398

279

329

159

118

188

527

606

491

830

1,01

81,

730

831

12,1

53

Enfie

ld

1,13

41,

223

562

457

1,58

51,

189

471

1,17

383

855

949

383

833

764

61,

377

730

720

766

121

665

1,14

142

717

,452

Har

inge

y 57

243

247

826

152

334

362

084

954

726

917

720

628

723

385

243

307

939

544

568

962

740

10,1

85

Har

row

49

940

141

932

232

733

323

731

814

812

216

127

999

4130

919

934

676

562

830

050

757

87,

338

Hav

erin

g 41

034

440

837

434

028

245

939

630

630

911

221

030

414

837

531

339

665

439

662

673

063

98,

531

Hill

ingd

on

1,52

694

11,

044

538

587

185

292

512

868

701

257

454

206

622

355

317

265

259

665

358

424

724

12,1

00

Hou

nslo

w

300

623

515

958

349

281

507

375

1,40

11,

030

979

643

378

487

399

9785

01,

114

714

1,30

71,

114

1,14

615

,567

Kin

gsto

n 23

857

930

031

519

213

514

337

631

971

472

632

928

042

845

627

243

533

055

729

041

530

58,

134

Mer

ton

726

1,08

334

029

833

027

925

234

729

737

313

221

813

417

721

848

219

933

169

647

472

725

68,

369

Red

brid

ge

994

940

606

632

378

497

533

961

584

353

382

446

9924

456

043

822

91,

239

1,05

51,

086

675

418

13,3

49

Ric

hmon

d 27

834

943

435

721

936

020

425

738

730

490

479

552

473

162

349

209

534

445

780

369

399

7,99

0

Sutt

on

366

934

695

692

459

736

390

639

568

652

447

319

208

243

172

208

337

570

662

154

387

764

10,6

02

W F

ores

t 57

81,

057

728

237

428

370

503

235

112

780

-97

558

143

736

548

7514

115

766

546

597

869

710

,094

Tota

l15

,540

15,5

8712

,960

10,8

3610

,530

9,06

59,

696

10,9

8911

,018

9,16

97,

137

8,29

45,

438

8,15

48,

094

6,50

58,

025

12,1

7111

,865

12,6

1514

,788

12,6

2323

1,09

9

Lond

on

Tota

l25

,310

27,4

0022

,968

19,1

8918

,525

18,1

5720

,064

22,9

3120

,568

20,7

8719

,843

19,9

2417

,131

19,4

9817

,507

17,4

6520

,012

26,1

0724

,664

28,7

7528

,892

27,6

6748

3,38

4

N.B

. est

imat

es a

re h

ighl

ight

ed in

whi

te. T

he c

ompl

etio

n fig

ures

for 2

002/

03 a

re ta

ken

from

OD

PM re

turn

s no

t est

imat

ed b

y th

e G

LA

197 Annex 5C: Compliance with the London Plan Housing Density Matrix (Percentage of Gross Residential Units Approved) 2008/2009

All Units Schemes of 15 units or more

Inner Within Above Below Within Above Below

Camden 43% 39% 18% 38% 49% 14%

City of London 67% 31% 2% 100% 0% 0%

Greenwich 57% 41% 2% 57% 43% 0%

Hackney 65% 27% 9% 70% 25% 5%

Hammersmith and Fulham 57% 33% 10% 44% 56% 0%

Islington 22% 67% 11% 12% 79% 9%

Kensington and Chelsea 65% 13% 22% 83% 0% 17%

Lambeth 82% 14% 4% 86% 14% 0%

Lewisham 53% 39% 7% 53% 42% 5%

Newham 7% 93% 0% 4% 96% 0%

Southwark 31% 67% 3% 26% 73% 1%

Tower Hamlets 30% 69% 2% 29% 70% 1%

Wandsworth 38% 56% 6% 29% 71% 0%

Westminster 36% 38% 26% 11% 50% 39%

Inner London 38% 56% 5% 35% 63% 2%

All Units Schemes of 15 units or more

Outer Within Above Below Within Above Below

Barking and Dagenham 47% 52% 1% 47% 53% 0%

Barnet 14% 81% 6% 5% 93% 1%

Bexley 32% 62% 6% 13% 87% 0%

Brent 62% 31% 8% 64% 36% 0%

Bromley 54% 13% 33% 69% 11% 20%

Croydon 40% 52% 8% 28% 72% 0%

Ealing 31% 62% 7% 0% 100% 0%

Enfield 76% 17% 7% 95% 5% 0%

Haringey 53% 39% 8% 47% 53% 0%

Harrow 73% 10% 17% 100% 0% 0%

Havering 40% 43% 17% 34% 66% 0%

Hillingdon 45% 51% 4% 43% 57% 0%

Hounslow 47% 52% 2% 46% 54% 0%

Kingston upon Thames 78% 9% 13% 100% 0% 0%

Merton 42% 44% 15% 34% 58% 8%

Redbridge 49% 39% 12% 40% 60% 0%

Richmond upon Thames 59% 32% 9% 77% 23% 0%

Sutton 17% 74% 9% 0% 98% 2%

Waltham Forest 62% 34% 4% 61% 39% 0%

Outer London 42% 50% 8% 35% 64% 1%

All boroughs 40% 54% 6% 35% 63% 2%

Note: Figures are based on gross residential units in schemes for which a site area is available


nnex

6A

: The

bro

ad r

equi

rem

ents

for

fut

ure

heal

th in

fras

truc

ture

by

boro

ugh

from

the

tot

al e

stim

ated

hou

sing

cap

acit

y.

Bor

ough

Pop

In

crea

se

2011

-203

1 (L

ow)1

Pop

In

crea

se

2011

-203

1 (H

igh)

Acu

te

elec

tive

sp

ace

m2

(Low

)

Acu

te

elec

tive

sp

ace

m2

(Hig

h)

Acu

te n

on

elec

tive

sp

ace

m2

(Low

)

Acu

te n

on

elec

tive

sp

ace

m2

(Hig

h)

Acu

te

dayc

are

spac

e m

2 (L

ow)

Acu

te

dayc

are

spac

e m

2 (H

igh)

Men

tal

heal

th

beds

pace

m

2 (L

ow)

Men

tal

heal

th

beds

pace

m

2 (H

igh)

No

of G

Ps

(Low

)N

o of

GP

s (H

igh)

Pri

mar

y &

co

mm

unit

y ca

re s

pace

(L

ow)

Pri

mar

y &

co

mm

unit

y ca

re s

pace

(H

igh)

Out

er L

ondo

n

Bar

king

&D

agen

ham

3960

057

600

245

360

1530

2240

125

185

225

325

2232

6380

9305

Bar

net

6678

092

580

395

555

1470

2055

230

320

1250

1730

3751

9095

1264

0

Bex

ley

9175

1229

570

100

325

440

4055

205

275

57

1470

1980

Bre

nt33

260

4898

031

045

595

514

1012

518

572

010

5018

2750

1573

90

Bro

mle

y17

150

2211

018

023

562

080

585

110

355

455

912

2825

3660

Croy

don

3564

549

225

245

340

1210

1680

130

185

680

935

2027

5545

7665

Ealin

g24

765

3602

520

030

084

012

4011

517

033

548

014

2039

1557

30

Enfie

ld16

730

2227

090

115

395

525

6080

510

680

912

2305

3065

Har

inge

y22

345

3302

014

521

068

510

1595

145

1090

1585

1218

3370

4985

Har

row

1012

514

190

6595

240

340

4055

230

325

68

1410

1995

Hav

erin

g31

215

4580

025

037

515

5023

4013

520

515

523

017

2556

6584

20

Hill

ingd

on20

790

2646

019

024

063

080

585

105

285

360

1215

3180

4050

Hou

nslo

w13

045

1922

090

135

430

645

4570

165

240

711

2010

2975

Kin

gsto

n up

on T

ham

es11

115

1377

512

015

040

050

040

5027

034

06

818

1522

55

Mer

ton

5400

1227

035

8517

540

020

4510

524

03

783

018

85

New

ham

7324

011

0440

475

725

2315

3500

260

395

1885

2845

4161

1108

016

750

Red

brid

ge21

515

2898

014

019

081

511

1585

115

180

245

1216

3465

4700

Ric

hmon

d up

on T

ham

es60

7084

8560

8517

525

020

2514

520

53

591

012

85

Sutt

on52

7077

7040

6017

527

020

3010

015

03

481

512

25

Wal

tham

For

est

2166

530

565

150

210

760

1080

9012

519

527

512

1734

1548

40

Tota

l 48

4900

6920

6034

9550

2015

695

2265

518

4526

5590

8512

970

270

383

7451

510

6800

199

Bor

ough

Pop

In

crea

se

2011

-203

1 (L

ow)1

Pop

In

crea

se

2011

-203

1 (H

igh)

Acu

te

elec

tive

sp

ace

m2

(Low

)

Acu

te

elec

tive

sp

ace

m2

(Hig

h)

Acu

te n

on

elec

tive

sp

ace

m2

(Low

)

Acu

te n

on

elec

tive

sp

ace

m2

(Hig

h)

Acu

te

dayc

are

spac

e m

2 (L

ow)

Acu

te

dayc

are

spac

e m

2 (H

igh)

Men

tal

heal

th

beds

pace

m

2 (L

ow)

Men

tal

heal

th

beds

pace

m

2 (H

igh)

No

of G

Ps

(Low

)N

o of

GP

s (H

igh)

Pri

mar

y &

co

mm

unit

y ca

re s

pace

(L

ow)

Pri

mar

y &

co

mm

unit

y ca

re s

pace

(H

igh)

Inne

r Lo

ndon

Cam

den

1846

026

375

125

175

615

885

7010

598

514

0510

1528

5540

90

City

of

Lond

on26

0035

0025

3510

511

510

1514

519

01

251

554

5

Gre

enw

ich

7052

510

1740

575

840

2420

3495

310

450

2020

2890

3956

1117

516

140

Hac

kney

3587

049

425

315

440

1065

1475

110

155

1935

2655

2027

5405

7470

Ham

mer

smith

&

Fulh

am16

325

2605

010

517

055

590

555

9022

535

59

1425

2540

65

Islin

gton

3113

042

525

210

290

1090

1500

130

180

1885

2570

1724

4905

6720

Kens

ingt

on &

Che

lsea

1668

521

630

165

215

410

535

6075

915

1190

912

2415

3135

Lam

beth

3503

051

250

230

340

1145

1685

130

190

1190

1740

1928

5370

7870

Lew

isha

m31

395

4417

522

531

510

6015

0014

520

510

6514

8517

2449

1569

35

Sout

hwar

k58

270

8240

037

052

518

3526

0021

029

513

8519

4532

4688

0012

460

Tow

er H

amle

ts86

380

1339

7044

569

531

9550

0025

540

032

4549

9548

7413

565

2112

0

Wan

dsw

orth

3428

047

850

325

470

1045

1490

115

165

740

1040

1927

5250

7400

Wes

tmin

ster

2252

529

730

200

265

600

795

8011

074

598

012

1633

1043

75

Tota

l45

9475

6606

2033

1547

7515

140

2198

016

8024

3516

480

2344

025

236

571

005

1023

25

Sour

ce: T

he L

ondo

n St

rate

gic

Hou

sing

Lan

d Av

aila

bilit

y A

sses

smen

t and

Hou

sing

Cap

acity

Stu

dy (

SHLA

A/

HCS

) an

d th

e H

UD

U M

odel

.


Annex 6B: Social Infrastructure Maps

PTAL and ATOS combined

201

Primary School Roll projections

Secondary School Roll Projections


Tertiary School Roll Projections

203

Inner North East London Polysystem Hubs with Population Projection

North Central London Polysystem Hubs with Population Projection


North West London Polysystem Hubs with Population Projection

Outer North East London Polysystem Hubs with Population Projection

205

South West London Polysystem Hubs with Population Projection

South East London Polysystem Hubs with Population Projection


All Social Infrastructure Maps Further Education

All Social Infrastructure Maps GPs

207

All Social Infrastructure Maps Primary Schools

Social Infrastructure Maps Food Shopping


Social Infrastructure Maps Secondary Schools

209 A

nnex

6C

: Bor

ough

Sch

ool R

oll P

roje

ctio

ns A

ges

4-10

Dis

tric

t20

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

1020

1120

1220

1320

1420

1520

1620

1720

18

Bar

king

and

Dag

enha

m16

,401

16,3

3816

,651

16,7

9717

,071

17,6

9218

,487

19,5

8120

,640

21,7

0422

,759

23,7

1524

,433

24,9

68B

arne

t23

,803

23,6

4123

,715

23,8

1123

,996

24,4

4324

,924

25,0

8326

,070

27,2

0328

,133

28,9

4029

,484

29,7

94B

exle

y19

,506

19,4

4119

,208

19,0

1319

,038

19,1

7219

,196

19,5

0219

,942

20,4

8520

,944

21,3

3721

,622

21,9

21B

rent

20,6

1620

,815

21,1

4721

,281

21,6

6522

,031

22,5

9523

,126

23,7

6824

,319

24,6

3324

,919

25,1

6725

,204

Bro

mle

y23

,683

23,4

8823

,280

23,0

4022

,963

22,9

9823

,156

23,4

8423

,930

24,4

0524

,742

25,0

2125

,291

25,4

81Ca

mde

n10

,313

10,2

4910

,329

10,2

0210

,323

10,4

7510

,577

10,7

4110

,867

11,0

3511

,188

11,3

0811

,408

11,5

15Ci

ty o

f Lo

ndon

200

205

202

208

211

216

220

222

224

224

228

228

226

228

Croy

don

27,5

9727

,335

27,2

3826

,883

26,9

3027

,164

27,4

4428

,032

28,8

8129

,802

30,5

7331

,185

31,7

2732

,228

Ealin

g23

,339

23,3

0323

,886

23,8

8224

,191

24,6

3025

,237

25,9

7726

,768

27,3

8327

,820

28,1

0328

,190

28,1

50En

field

25,0

5725

,134

25,4

6325

,582

25,7

4926

,223

26,8

7627

,609

28,4

1529

,111

29,5

5629

,862

29,9

3429

,891

Gre

enw

ich

18,5

1918

,632

18,7

3418

,585

18,7

1019

,124

19,6

9820

,463

21,4

3322

,468

23,4

6024

,336

24,9

2725

,360

Hac

kney

15,9

1815

,912

15,8

7115

,606

15,5

4715

,602

15,6

7415

,829

15,9

2516

,132

16,2

4116

,367

16,4

3016

,433

Ham

mer

smith

and

Ful

ham

8,62

98,

543

8,62

78,

536

8,52

98,

626

8,73

08,

806

8,90

49,

031

9,17

29,

299

9,39

29,

441

Har

inge

y19

,465

19,4

8019

,513

19,2

7819

,259

19,2

8019

,433

19,7

9020

,226

20,6

3321

,008

21,3

3221

,680

22,0

08H

arro

w16

,649

16,6

2916

,747

16,6

8216

,762

16,9

7717

,203

17,5

2517

,992

18,4

4818

,833

19,1

8719

,484

19,6

89H

aver

ing

18,9

3618

,575

18,3

3718

,274

18,1

7418

,213

18,2

5718

,449

18,7

3619

,179

19,5

3819

,938

20,2

8520

,648

Hill

ingd

on21

,243

21,2

0421

,338

21,3

7121

,582

21,6

8721

,973

22,3

5222

,830

23,3

0823

,706

24,0

5824

,410

24,5

64H

ouns

low

16,7

7616

,753

16,9

5916

,895

17,0

2417

,419

17,7

8618

,355

18,9

6219

,541

20,0

6420

,436

20,6

7820

,823

Islin

gton

13,0

6812

,909

12,7

0112

,482

12,3

3612

,290

12,2

5812

,286

12,3

3612

,381

12,3

7512

,345

12,3

1312

,339

Kens

ingt

on a

nd C

hels

ea6,

435

6,39

86,

454

6,28

76,

224

6,14

46,

158

6,16

36,

168

6,18

76,

218

6,25

66,

308

6,33

5K

ings

ton

upon

Tha

mes

10,4

3910

,504

10,5

1910

,402

10,5

3510

,704

10,9

2811

,255

11,6

1812

,037

12,3

7612

,596

12,7

3512

,848

Lam

beth

17,7

2217

,837

17,9

9318

,045

18,3

1218

,560

18,8

7219

,103

19,3

4919

,617

19,7

7719

,856

19,9

6419

,963

Lew

isha

m19

,694

19,6

6919

,633

19,6

1019

,758

20,1

6520

,906

21,5

7222

,430

23,2

7424

,019

24,6

6825

,197

25,4

65M

erto

n12

,481

12,6

6012

,767

12,8

0212

,956

13,2

2113

,561

14,0

7314

,621

15,1

0715

,527

15,8

0715

,974

16,0

22N

ewha

m26

,940

26,8

1727

,120

27,0

1727

,125

27,4

6727

,971

28,6

8229

,651

30,6

6631

,515

32,3

5933

,059

33,5

40R

edbr

idge

21,4

4821

,559

21,9

1522

,170

22,5

9023

,290

24,2

2225

,322

26,5

4427

,622

28,3

8129

,099

29,6

5129

,881

Ric

hmon

d up

on T

ham

es11

,928

12,1

6812

,297

12,4

4412

,696

12,8

4013

,008

13,3

7213

,739

14,1

5314

,419

14,6

9314

,942

15,1

12So

uthw

ark

20,6

9620

,469

20,2

9719

,929

19,8

2719

,963

20,2

3520

,671

21,1

9821

,849

22,5

0123

,033

23,4

8723

,920

Sutt

on13

,680

13,4

4813

,384

13,3

1513

,237

13,3

0713

,463

13,7

9514

,181

14,6

1514

,965

15,2

9415

,479

15,6

25To

wer

Ham

lets

19,5

0119

,619

19,8

8319

,870

19,9

9920

,117

20,4

5520

,843

21,1

7821

,541

21,8

9922

,250

22,6

5922

,982

Wal

tham

For

est

19,0

3119

,200

19,4

1919

,664

20,0

7820

,632

21,2

8222

,098

22,9

8623

,796

24,3

3424

,753

25,0

6625

,220

Wan

dsw

orth

15,3

5315

,382

15,5

3915

,447

15,6

0815

,895

16,2

4616

,803

17,2

8217

,790

18,1

9718

,541

18,8

7318

,985

Wes

tmin

ster

9,83

99,

859

9,99

79,

844

9,86

89,

960

10,1

5910

,276

10,4

1410

,567

10,7

4610

,895

11,0

3111

,081

TOTA

L56

4,90

556

4,17

556

7,16

356

5,25

456

8,87

357

6,52

758

7,19

060

1,24

061

8,20

863

5,61

364

9,84

766

2,01

667

1,50

667

7,66

4


nnex

6C

: Bor

ough

Sch

ool R

oll P

roje

ctio

ns A

ges

11-1

5D

istr

ict

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Bar

king

and

Dag

enha

m10

,720

10,9

0810

,990

10,7

9310

,878

10,8

1510

,646

10,5

1810

,499

10,5

7410

,782

11,1

3311

,656

12,1

91B

arne

t16

,853

16,7

7116

,879

16,7

0916

,639

16,6

2916

,545

16,6

0216

,582

16,7

3017

,248

17,7

7318

,332

19,0

03B

exle

y16

,625

16,5

4016

,689

16,4

9816

,401

16,2

3716

,038

15,7

3115

,398

15,1

2515

,010

14,9

0214

,934

15,0

39B

rent

13,5

0513

,709

14,2

1314

,148

14,1

6414

,236

14,3

0214

,556

14,6

9414

,763

15,0

0815

,260

15,4

3815

,815

Bro

mle

y17

,992

17,8

9717

,783

17,4

7717

,321

17,0

7816

,909

16,7

3316

,574

16,3

0716

,230

16,2

1716

,278

16,4

68Ca

mde

n7,

349

7,41

37,

531

7,45

77,

439

7,44

47,

447

7,52

77,

682

7,85

18,

040

8,25

48,

457

8,62

0Ci

ty o

f Lo

ndon

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Croy

don

18,9

9618

,840

18,9

5918

,482

18,2

0918

,058

17,8

4517

,824

17,9

4118

,080

18,2

6518

,421

18,6

8918

,941

Ealin

g13

,544

13,7

5614

,112

14,1

2614

,235

14,3

5014

,351

14,4

8414

,613

14,6

6014

,701

14,7

7814

,967

15,2

60En

field

18,6

6918

,677

18,6

9418

,467

18,4

3018

,419

18,3

3518

,345

18,2

2918

,010

18,0

0318

,107

18,4

3318

,865

Gre

enw

ich

12,7

1212

,437

12,4

3311

,902

11,6

3111

,421

11,2

7511

,211

11,1

9111

,185

11,2

6511

,499

11,9

4612

,555

Hac

kney

6,98

66,

946

6,98

67,

098

7,32

27,

392

7,54

27,

579

7,62

17,

751

7,98

28,

203

8,49

58,

791

Ham

mer

smith

and

Ful

ham

5,73

65,

546

5,59

35,

411

5,31

55,

241

5,26

75,

336

5,39

35,

442

5,54

85,

653

5,76

05,

852

Har

inge

y10

,803

10,8

8711

,190

11,0

4511

,098

11,1

1211

,135

11,3

0211

,569

11,8

4912

,170

12,4

6812

,683

12,8

86H

arro

w10

,834

10,8

5010

,930

10,7

2010

,683

10,6

6410

,615

10,6

2610

,611

10,5

3010

,575

10,6

5810

,782

11,0

78H

aver

ing

15,4

0415

,460

15,5

5015

,395

15,4

3115

,410

15,3

4915

,202

14,9

9114

,718

14,6

0714

,526

14,6

3914

,807

Hill

ingd

on15

,045

15,0

9915

,171

15,0

2914

,952

15,0

7315

,027

15,0

0414

,951

14,7

9414

,685

14,7

5314

,918

15,2

64H

ouns

low

13,4

1613

,266

13,4

9013

,291

13,3

8213

,425

13,5

5113

,675

13,8

7813

,904

13,9

9214

,120

14,4

1314

,853

Islin

gton

7,66

67,

717

7,78

47,

634

7,67

57,

657

7,66

07,

757

7,73

57,

695

7,76

37,

864

8,00

18,

192

Kens

ingt

on a

nd C

hels

ea3,

032

3,00

43,

019

2,95

62,

957

2,94

92,

911

2,88

32,

856

2,83

52,

833

2,87

72,

913

2,96

2K

ings

ton

upon

Tha

mes

7,49

07,

412

7,42

87,

366

7,33

77,

360

7,39

47,

409

7,42

17,

412

7,45

27,

551

7,69

47,

899

Lam

beth

7,49

67,

708

8,11

28,

303

8,68

38,

900

9,11

49,

321

9,34

89,

376

9,54

19,

765

9,91

910

,166

Lew

isha

m11

,445

11,3

7011

,518

11,2

0511

,341

11,4

0111

,471

11,5

4911

,505

11,4

5311

,597

11,8

9212

,211

12,7

94M

erto

n7,

933

7,93

77,

965

7,83

67,

874

7,90

17,

928

7,99

28,

062

8,05

68,

119

8,28

28,

513

8,82

6N

ewha

m17

,484

17,6

2317

,915

17,6

6617

,818

17,7

7817

,855

17,8

8917

,805

17,7

0617

,886

18,0

5118

,352

18,8

60R

edbr

idge

15,8

8116

,037

16,3

5216

,210

16,3

1316

,312

16,3

9016

,442

16,4

5516

,442

16,7

9317

,127

17,5

4318

,180

Ric

hmon

d up

on T

ham

es7,

299

7,16

37,

185

6,92

46,

762

6,73

06,

784

6,77

56,

849

6,89

96,

966

6,99

97,

076

7,18

2So

uthw

ark

12,1

3912

,231

12,3

4812

,098

11,9

5511

,746

11,5

2911

,354

11,2

9311

,190

11,2

6011

,521

11,8

7312

,290

Sutt

on12

,802

12,9

4513

,151

13,1

0513

,241

13,3

2113

,211

13,0

9112

,944

12,6

2712

,495

12,4

8812

,608

12,8

26To

wer

Ham

lets

12,7

4312

,932

13,2

1712

,813

12,8

8013

,029

13,0

4912

,964

13,0

8913

,247

13,5

4414

,008

14,4

2814

,864

Wal

tham

For

est

13,3

3013

,324

13,3

7612

,971

12,9

5312

,798

12,7

1012

,889

12,9

7312

,998

13,1

5813

,366

13,5

8813

,931

Wan

dsw

orth

9,54

39,

518

9,71

39,

459

9,35

89,

209

9,21

19,

167

9,18

99,

138

9,28

69,

388

9,54

19,

812

Wes

tmin

ster

7,11

06,

988

7,07

26,

942

7,06

57,

085

7,06

37,

075

7,06

67,

000

7,02

47,

111

7,13

37,

248

TOTA

L37

8,58

237

8,91

138

3,34

837

7,53

637

7,74

237

7,18

037

6,45

937

6,81

237

7,00

737

6,34

737

9,82

838

5,01

539

2,21

340

2,32

0

211 A

nnex

6C

: Bor

ough

Sch

ool R

oll P

roje

ctio

ns A

ges

16-1

9D

istr

ict

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Bar

king

and

Dag

enha

m1,

650

1,72

31,

847

1,92

81,

958

1,94

91,

966

1,91

51,

907

1,93

51,

934

1,92

51,

908

1,93

5B

arne

t4,

061

4,07

44,

304

4,30

94,

258

4,21

34,

233

4,28

04,

280

4,35

74,

446

4,53

54,

628

4,60

0B

exle

y2,

663

2,86

42,

994

3,11

93,

095

3,02

63,

016

2,97

92,

908

2,81

82,

734

2,72

72,

732

2,67

4B

rent

3,59

53,

642

3,67

83,

721

3,79

63,

825

3,82

23,

798

3,79

43,

878

3,91

33,

872

3,87

13,

855

Bro

mle

y4,

436

4,58

24,

681

4,75

44,

740

4,70

44,

647

4,57

74,

518

4,50

84,

462

4,40

44,

347

4,29

2Ca

mde

n2,

438

2,53

62,

604

2,60

42,

627

2,60

22,

596

2,56

72,

530

2,53

02,

565

2,59

22,

620

2,65

1Ci

ty o

f Lo

ndon

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Croy

don

1,72

61,

742

1,92

42,

385

2,59

12,

543

2,48

72,

461

2,43

82,

466

2,50

92,

551

2,56

72,

549

Ealin

g2,

308

2,28

32,

307

2,40

82,

488

2,51

72,

550

2,51

02,

478

2,50

62,

532

2,53

32,

507

2,46

4En

field

3,46

73,

467

3,70

23,

596

3,60

63,

601

3,52

73,

452

3,45

23,

498

3,48

63,

427

3,37

63,

358

Gre

enw

ich

2,51

72,

723

2,89

03,

003

3,01

52,

961

2,90

12,

857

2,83

82,

876

2,92

92,

981

3,05

53,

115

Hac

kney

475

457

534

599

617

631

641

660

671

671

668

671

671

669

Ham

mer

smith

and

Ful

ham

1,25

11,

238

1,23

81,

247

1,28

91,

262

1,21

71,

216

1,23

51,

259

1,28

41,

327

1,37

11,

383

Har

inge

y1,

340

1,49

81,

809

2,21

72,

614

2,73

72,

739

2,69

42,

673

2,72

02,

764

2,80

92,

852

2,86

5H

arro

w25

3334

1527

2626

2525

2625

2525

24H

aver

ing

1,15

91,

148

1,15

21,

196

1,17

91,

161

1,16

21,

153

1,13

21,

111

1,08

51,

081

1,05

51,

012

Hill

ingd

on3,

016

3,19

03,

369

3,38

53,

481

3,39

33,

355

3,30

83,

259

3,29

23,

338

3,31

73,

287

3,24

2H

ouns

low

3,25

73,

319

3,34

73,

284

3,30

33,

291

3,28

33,

268

3,26

53,

378

3,43

33,

481

3,47

73,

406

Islin

gton

317

341

323

340

329

327

329

324

332

339

337

336

339

340

Kens

ingt

on a

nd C

hels

ea48

850

950

949

049

049

049

650

952

953

553

453

654

255

5K

ings

ton

upon

Tha

mes

2,10

62,

167

2,29

72,

315

2,32

42,

305

2,25

42,

253

2,27

72,

299

2,31

62,

337

2,33

92,

296

Lam

beth

603

702

723

829

828

816

823

823

839

848

829

808

791

765

Lew

isha

m1,

651

1,70

51,

984

1,91

51,

842

1,81

71,

778

1,78

21,

802

1,84

01,

852

1,85

11,

881

1,88

8M

erto

n63

268

267

362

466

967

066

465

664

866

567

065

664

363

7N

ewha

m94

466

770

374

570

769

969

768

970

471

470

670

070

169

5R

edbr

idge

4,48

34,

607

4,78

85,

018

5,17

15,

140

5,07

75,

035

5,03

55,

066

4,99

04,

894

4,85

94,

819

Ric

hmon

d up

on T

ham

es15

215

78

88

88

910

1010

10So

uthw

ark

644

764

845

776

784

783

775

768

760

768

776

782

796

808

Sutt

on3,

185

3,21

63,

303

3,36

13,

368

3,36

23,

397

3,39

23,

333

3,31

43,

262

3,17

03,

146

3,09

1To

wer

Ham

lets

1,47

31,

444

1,50

51,

672

1,68

61,

633

1,61

11,

647

1,65

61,

699

1,71

81,

714

1,73

31,

774

Wal

tham

For

est

700

748

768

844

853

844

851

826

814

833

848

846

843

839

Wan

dsw

orth

1,84

91,

966

2,01

31,

999

1,99

61,

988

1,95

71,

946

1,94

51,

993

1,99

92,

024

2,04

62,

047

Wes

tmin

ster

1,49

11,

414

1,44

21,

542

1,52

81,

535

1,56

51,

596

1,62

51,

654

1,63

31,

597

1,61

61,

626

TOTA

L59

,965

61,4

5364

,305

66,2

4767

,267

66,8

5966

,450

65,9

7465

,710

66,4

0566

,587

66,5

1966

,634

66,2

84


nnex

7: O

ffice

Dev

elop

men

t Tr

ends

Tot

al C

ompl

eted

Offi

ce F

loor

spac

e fo

r In

ner

and

Out

er L

ondo

n (F

inan

cial

Yea

rs 2

000

to 2

008)

(G

ross

SQ

M)

Inne

r Lo

ndon

FY20

00FY

2001

FY20

02FY

2003

FY20

04FY

2005

FY20

06FY

2007

FY20

08To

tal

Cam

den

016

6,40

14,

774

17,4

3657

,823

4,46

91,

338

26,4

0018

,289

296,

930

City

of

Lond

on44

7,36

723

7,39

618

8,52

542

5,93

732

3,99

532

,507

18,6

3323

6,53

937

5,20

02,

286,

099

Gre

enw

ich

05,

215

00

4,11

91,

958

00

1,76

313

,055

Hac

kney

4,04

12,

635

5,22

777

,555

33,9

5812

,438

7,85

28,

275

37,1

8318

9,16

4

Ham

mer

smith

and

Ful

ham

3,59

011

,385

017

,048

44,1

663,

484

2,34

10

082

,014

Islin

gton

6,61

821

,043

64,3

2131

,922

6,42

617

,326

24,1

7814

,348

43,7

2122

9,90

3

Kens

ingt

on a

nd C

hels

ea1,

167

02,

462

16,0

355,

477

1,02

56,

400

4,12

110

,568

47,2

55

Lam

beth

00

01,

820

14,0

780

20,3

554,

250

4,30

444

,807

Lew

isha

m0

1,49

90

24,7

800

03,

659

00

29,9

38

New

ham

10,0

003,

500

5,45

70

03,

302

26,4

003,

716

052

,375

Sout

hwar

k26

,089

10,7

5216

,719

110,

389

11,9

328,

192

106,

237

7,31

014

9,89

744

7,51

7

Tow

er H

amle

ts12

,541

30,9

239,

623

24,9

5827

,817

109,

118

5,10

412

,189

17,5

9624

9,86

9

Wan

dsw

orth

7,46

20

011

,350

5,85

16,

742

5,51

111

,274

2,93

951

,129

Wes

tmin

ster

121,

945

61,8

0213

5,97

312

6,79

426

1,47

416

,149

119,

228

99,4

2033

,681

976,

466

Tota

l64

0,82

055

2,55

143

3,08

188

6,02

479

7,11

621

6,71

034

7,23

642

7,84

269

5,14

14,

996,

521

213 O

uter

Lon

don

FY20

00FY

2001

FY20

02FY

2003

FY20

04FY

2005

FY20

06FY

2007

FY20

08To

tal

Bar

king

and

Dag

enha

m0

2,64

00

00

07,

345

01,

200

11,1

85

Bar

net

011

,218

15,4

720

10,7

203,

024

1,00

80

041

,442

Bex

ley

1,38

40

01,

860

01,

770

4,13

30

09,

147

Bre

nt1,

000

02,

480

790

8,78

010

,290

1,16

44,

570

4,60

333

,677

Bro

mle

y1,

068

00

10,6

000

1,46

70

1,04

00

14,1

75

Croy

don

05,

274

2,75

60

00

00

5,55

413

,584

Ealin

g1,

858

02,

323

12,0

7710

,693

03,

340

5,74

912

,410

48,4

50

Enfie

ld0

6,32

30

00

00

3,08

81,

668

11,0

79

Har

inge

y0

00

00

00

01,

372

1,37

2

Har

row

01,

485

02,

347

00

00

03,

832

Hav

erin

g0

2,23

01,

040

13,3

850

00

00

16,6

55

Hill

ingd

on7,

646

22,0

8713

,133

1,40

41,

734

1,33

09,

362

1,12

94,

916

62,7

41

Hou

nslo

w74

,460

3,25

312

,080

9,28

50

2,04

235

,562

3,16

55,

038

144,

885

Kin

gsto

n up

on T

ham

es0

00

00

00

00

0

Mer

ton

3,32

90

2,50

01,

004

12,9

923,

561

1,84

00

1,34

426

,570

Red

brid

ge1,

425

00

00

00

00

1,42

5

Ric

hmon

d up

on T

ham

es3,

260

1,11

56,

203

5,75

42,

797

2,24

20

04,

269

25,6

40

Sutt

on0

02,

000

00

00

01,

200

3,20

0

Wal

tham

For

est

1,01

20

00

00

00

01,

012

Tota

l96

,442

55,6

2559

,987

58,5

0647

,716

25,7

2663

,754

18,7

4143

,574

470,

071

Lond

on T

otal

737,

262

608,

176

493,

068

944,

530

844,

832

242,

436

410,

990

446,

583

738,

715

5,46

6,59

2


Arup

BAA Heathrow

Berkeley Group (AW Pidgley)

Campaign for Better Transport, London Cycling Campaign and Living Streets

City of London

Colin Buchanan & Partners

Daniel Nolan-Neylan (member of public)

East London Line Group

Hillingdon Motorists Forum

Land Securities

London Borough of Sutton

London Assembly Liberal Democrat Group

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham

London Borough of Barnet

London Borough of Bexley

London Borough of Bromley

London Borough of Croydon

London Borough of Enfield

London Borough of Greenwich

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

London Borough of Havering

London Borough of Lewisham

London Borough of Merton

London Borough of Newham

London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

London Councils

London First

The London Primary Care Trusts

London South East Business

London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC)

London TravelWatch

Motorcycle Industry Association

North London Strategic Alliance (NLSA)

Peter Eversden (member of public)

Places for People

Quintain Estates

Regional Airports Ltd

RICS London (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors)

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

South East England Regional Partnership Board (formerly SEERA)

South London Partnership & South London Business

Surrey County Council

Sustrans

Thames Gateway London Partnership (TGLP)

The Theatres Trust

Transport for London

Travelodge

University of East London

West London Alliance

West London Business

Westfield Shoppingtowns Ltd (WSL)

White City Landowners with the support of London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (submitted by Jones Lang LaSalle)

Annex 8: Respondents to the Outer London Commission Formal (written) responses were received from the following (52 respondents):

215

Annex footnotes

Background1 Counties are currently the smallest areas

surrounding Outer London for which robust time series employment data are available. The employment data are sourced from the Experian Business Strategies Regional Planning Service (RPS) and are not official GLA long-run employment data which are currently being updated.

Other formats and languagesFor a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:

Public Liaison UnitGreater London Authority Telephone 020 7983 4100City Hall Minicom 020 7983 4458The Queen’s Walk www.london.gov.ukMore London London SE1 2AA

You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.

If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above.

Chinese Hindi

Vietnamese Bengali

Greek Urdu

Turkish Arabic

Punjabi Gujarati

MoL/June10/MR D&P/GLA1510

1 Ipsummy nosto consequis non er sis acil

The M

ayor’s OLC

Report

June 2010

the mayor's outer london commission: report...10 the mayor’s outer london commission report...

Documents