## London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 11, 2013-14

march 2015
london plan 2011 implementation framework

## Copyright

GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY
March 2015 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen's Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 
minicom 020 7983 4458 Crown Copyright All rights reserved. GLA 10032216 (2015) Front cover photo: Eleanor Ward/GLA Copies of this document are available from http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning /researchreports/monitoring-london-plan Updated May 2015 to add figures on long term vacant properties returning to use to KPI 4 and Table 3.1 as these were not available at the time of initial publication. The data in Table HPM1 was also corrected.

## London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 11, 2013-14

march 2015

## Contents

| executive summary	                                                                                 | 		    | 	    | 	    |   1 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|----|----|-----|
| chapter one introduction                                                        |    |    |    |   6 |
| Scope and purpose of the AMR                                                    |    |    |    |   7 |
| The London Development Database                                                 |    |    |    |   8 |
| The London Plan and its Implementation                                          |    |    | 9  |     |
| Further Alterations to the London Plan                                          |    |    |    |   9 |
| chapter two perfoRmance against kpi targets                                     | 10 |    |    |     |
| KPI 1 Maximise the proportion of development taking place on previously         |    |    |    |     |
| developed land                                                                  |    |    |    |  11 |
| KPI 2 Optimise the density of residential development                           |    |    |    |  14 |
| KPI 3 Minimise the loss of open space                                           |    |    |    |  16 |
| KPI 4 Increase the supply of new homes                                          |    |    |    |  19 |
| KPI 5 An increased supply of affordable homes                                   |    |    |    |  21 |
| KPI 6 Reducing health inequalities                                              |    |    |    |  25 |
| KPI 7 Sustaining economic activity                                              |    |    |    |  26 |
| KPI 8 Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market | 27 |    |    |     |
| KPI 9 Ensure that there is sufficient employment land available                 |    |    | 30 |     |
| KPI 10 Employment in outer London                                               |    |    |    |  31 |
| KPI 11 Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from              |    |    |    |     |
| disadvantage in the employment market                                           |    |    |    |  32 |
| KPI 12 Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services    | 34 |    |    |     |
| KPI 13 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable     |    |    |    |     |
| modal split for journeys (public /private transport modal split)                |    |    | 36 |     |
| KPI 14 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable     |    |    |    |     |
| modal split for journeys (zero traffic growth)                                  |    |    |    |  37 |
| KPI 15 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable     |    |    |    |     |
| modal split for journeys (increased bicycle modal share)                        |    |    |    |  39 |
| KPI 16 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable     |    |    |    |     |
| modal split for journeys (increased passenger and freight transport on the      |    |    |    |     |
| Blue Ribbon Network                                                             |    |    |    |  40 |
| KPI 17 Increase in the number of jobs located in areas of high PTAL values      | 42 |    |    |     |
| KPI 18 Protection of biodiversity habitat                                       |    |    |    |  43 |
| KPI 19 Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted and elimination        |    |    |    |     |
| of waste to landfill by 2031                                                    |    |    |    |  45 |
| KPI 20 Reduce carbon dioxide emissions through new development                  |    |    | 47 |     |
| KPI 21 Increase in energy generated from renewable sources                      |    |    |    |  49 |
| KPI 22 Increase in urban greening                                               |    |    |    |  50 |
| KPI 23 Improve London's Blue Ribbon Network                                     |    |    |    |  51 |
| KPI 24 Protecting and improving London's heritage and public realm              |    | 53 |    |     |
chapter three Additional performance measures and statistics	
		
                55
Housing and Design	
		
	
	
56
Environment and Transport	
		
	
          99
Planning	
		
	
        106
chapter four other contextual data sources	 		
	
      120
chapter five conclusions and looking ahead	
		
	
      124

## Executive Summary

i	
This Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 
provides information about progress being made in implementing the policies and addressing the objectives of the London Plan (published in July 2011), by showing how London is performing against 24 indicators identified in Chapter 8 of the Plan. Although this is the eleventh AMR 
published by the Mayor, it is the fourth using the KPIs in the 2011 London Plan.
ii	
Chapter 2 provides greater detail on each 
of the 24 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and the table below summarises progress against each of these KPIs. The KPIs are not policies; they have been chosen as yardsticks to show the direction of travel in implementing the London Plan, and the extent of change, to help monitor progress and identify areas where policy changes may need to be considered.
iii	
The London Plan sets six strategic 
objectives to be delivered by its detailed policies. These are that London should be:  
Objective 1- A city that meets the challenges of economic and population growth, Objective 2- An internationally competitive and successful city, Objective 3- A city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods, Objective 4- A city that delights the senses, Objective 5- A city that becomes a world leader in improving the environment, Objective 6- A city where it is easy, safe and convenient for everyone to access jobs, opportunities and facilities. 

iv	
Different KPIs contribute to measuring the 
performance of the London Plan against these six objectives; 

Objective 1 - KPIs 1,2,4,5,6,12,14 Objective 2 - KPIs 2,7,8,9,10,12,17,24 Objective 3 - KPIs 2,5,10,11,12,15 Objective 4 - KPIs 1,3,15,19,22,23,24 Objective 5 - KPIs 1,3,18,19,20,21,22,23 Objective 6 - KPIs 1,13,14,15,16,17

v	
Overall, the performance is positive: 17 
KPI targets are met or heading in the right direction. For two of them the baseline data is changing, which creates some uncertainty. Six KPI targets have not been met or are heading the wrong way. For 1 KPI target the performance is mixed. The performance against the individual London Plan Objectives is summarised as follows:

## Objective 1- A City That Meets The Challenges Of Economic And Population Growth

vi	
A very high and above target proportion of 
new residential developments in London have been built on previously developed land in the last year, and densities within the density matrix range have fallen back from the previous year peak. In total 29,382 dwellings were completed in 2013/14  against the 32,210 ten-year average annual target. The gap in life expectancy between the most and least deprived Londoners continues to decrease.

## Objective 2 - An Internationally Competitive And Successful City

vii	
London's employment rate (over 70%) 
has reached its highest annual average 
level since records began in 1992, almost closing the gap with that for the country as a whole. The office pipeline continues to tighten but remains above the benchmark. The proportion of office and all B1 development in locations with high public transport accessibility has risen by over 10%. Whilst the rate of loss of industrial land decreased significantly on the previous year, it still remains considerably above the monitoring target. This trend will be monitored closely.

## Objective 3- A City Of Diverse, Strong, Secure And Accessible Neighbourhoods

viii	 Employment specifically in Outer London 
has increased by 3% on the previous year. The gap in lone parent income support between London and England and Wales as a whole has almost closed. The increase in pupil/ teacher ratios in London as a whole has stopped, with more boroughs seeing a reduction than in the previous year. Net affordable housing completions (28% of conventional completions in 2013/14) remain below the numeric target with the three-year average affordable homes share down by 3% on the previous year.

## Objective 4- A City That Delights The Senses

ix	
The proportion of designated heritage 
assets at risk has remained largely unchanged. Improved monitoring arrangements have been put in place for river restoration activities. Significantly more designated open space (20 ha) has been lost than in the previous year, but it should be noted that although the creation of new open space, potentially even as part of the same development is not recorded. For example the proposed loss at 
the Landfill site in Sutton (7.6 ha) relates to the reclamation of 90 ha of protected open space from the current landfill use to a genuine open space use, although these consents have reduced the amount of open space that will ultimately be reclaimed. In terms of cycling, growth in journey stages by bicycle has slowed over the last few years.

## Objective 5- A City That Becomes A World Leader In Improving The Environment

x	
Both waste recycling rates and landfilling 
continue to go into the targeted direction of travel. Carbon dioxide emissions savings are above target and there has been an increase in renewable energy generation. The area of green roofs in the CAZ has been assessed in more detail and increased by at least 75% since 2007. There has been a loss of over 15 ha of protected habitat in terms of development approvals, but completions on protected habitat sites are down on the previous year.

## Objective 6- A City Where It Is Easy, Safe And Convenient For Everyone To Access Jobs, Opportunities And Facilities

xi	
Public transport use continues to grow 
annually, while private car use and road traffic across the whole of London continue to decline. The proportion of B1 development in locations with high public transport accessibility has risen by over 10%. In terms of the use of London's waterways, freight transport on the Thames is up by 27% on the previous year. More comprehensive and accurate monitoring arrangements have been put in place for passenger transport.

## Table 1.1 Kpi Performance Overview

| KPI target                             |
|----------------------------------------|
| 1                                      |
| Maintain at least 96 per cent of       |
| new residential development to be      |
| on previously developed land           |
| +                                      |
| Both approvals and completions above   |
| target and up on previous year         |
| 2                                      |
| Over 95 per cent of development        |
| to comply with the housing density     |
| location and the density matrix        |
| -                                      |
| 3                                      |
| No net loss of open space              |
| designated for protection in LDFs      |
| due to new development                 |
| -                                      |
| 4                                      |
| Average completions of a minimum       |
| of 32,210 net additional homes per     |
| year                                   |
| -                                      |
| 9% below  target                       |
| 5                                      |
| Completion of 13,200 net               |
| additional affordable homes per        |
| year                                   |
| -                                      |
| 6                                      |
| Reduction in the difference in life    |
| expectancy between those living in     |
| the most and least deprived areas      |
| of London (split by gender)            |
| +                                      |
| Difference has shrunk                  |
| 7                                      |
| Increase in the proportion of          |
| working age London residents in        |
| employment 2011-2031                   |
| +                                      |
| 8                                      |
| Stock of office permissions to be at   |
| least three times the average rate of  |
| starts over the previous three years   |
| +                                      |
| 9                                      |
| Release of industrial land to be       |
| in line with benchmarks in the         |
| Industry SPG                           |
| -                                      |
| 10                                     |
| Growth in total employment in          |
| Outer London                           |
| +                                      |
| Total employment in Outer London       |
| increased by 3% on previous year       |
| 11                                     |
| Reduce employment rate gap             |
| between BAME groups and the            |
| white population; and reduce           |
| the gap between lone parents           |
| on income support in London vs         |
| England & Wales average                |
| 12                                     |
| Reduce the average class size in       |
| primary schools                        |
| +                                      |
| 13                                     |
| Use of public transport per head       |
| grows faster than use of private car   |
| per head                               |
| +                                      |
| 14                                     |
| Zero car traffic growth for London     |
| as a whole                             |
| +                                      |
| Annual decrease in road traffic for    |
| London as a whole continues            |
| 15                                     |
| Increase in share of all trips by      |
| bicycle from 2 per cent in 2009 to 5   |
| per cent by 2026                       |
| +                                      |
| Continued, but only very slight,       |
| increase in journey stages by bicycle  |
| Below target and fall of proportion    |
| within density matrix range from       |
| previous year's peak                   |
| Loss of 20 ha, significantly up on     |
| previous year, but new open space not  |
| recorded                               |
| Below numeric target. Three-year       |
| average affordable homes share of      |
| overall conventional housing provision |
| down by 3% on previous year            |
| Increase by 1.2% on previous year and  |
| continuing reduction in gap between    |
| London and the rest of the UK          |
| Stock of office permissions continues  |
| to tighten but still remains six times |
| the average rate of starts             |
| Continuing reduction in loss of        |
| industrial land, but still 68% above   |
| target                                 |
| +                                      |
| Little change in BAME gap in recent    |
| years; gap in lone parent income       |
| support almost closed                  |
| Rise in class sizes stopped and        |
| reduction in more boroughs than in     |
| previous year                          |
| Public transport use continues to      |
| grow annually, and private care use    |
| continues to decline                   |

## Table 1.1 Kpi Performance Overview

| KPI target                            | comment                          |
|---------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| 16                                    |                                  |
| A 50% increase in passengers and      |                                  |
| freight traffic transported on the    |                                  |
| Blue Ribbon Network from 2011-        |                                  |
| 2021                                  |                                  |
| ?/+                                   |                                  |
| Passenger numbers on Thames -         |                                  |
| change of baseline; 27% increase in   |                                  |
| freight on previous year              |                                  |
| 17                                    |                                  |
| Maintain at least 50 per cent of B1   |                                  |
| development in PTAL zones 5-6         |                                  |
| +                                     |                                  |
| With 62% well above benchmark and     |                                  |
| 13% increase on previous year         |                                  |
| 18                                    |                                  |
| No net loss of Sites of Importance    |                                  |
| for Nature Conservation.              |                                  |
| -                                     |                                  |
| 19                                    |                                  |
| At least 45 per cent of waste         |                                  |
| recycled/composted by 2015 and        |                                  |
| 0 per cent of biodegradable or        |                                  |
| recyclable waste to landfill by 2031  |                                  |
| +                                     |                                  |
| 20                                    |                                  |
| Annual average percentage carbon      |                                  |
| dioxide emissions savings for         |                                  |
| strategic development proposals       |                                  |
| progressing towards zero carbon in    |                                  |
| residential developments by 2016      |                                  |
| and in all developments by 2019       |                                  |
| 21                                    |                                  |
| Production of 8550 GWh of energy      |                                  |
| from renewable sources by 2026        |                                  |
| +                                     |                                  |
| Generation increased by over 6% on    |                                  |
| previous year                         |                                  |
| 22                                    |                                  |
| Increase in total area of green roofs |                                  |
| in the CAZ.                           |                                  |
| +                                     |                                  |
| Increase of at least 75% since 2007   |                                  |
| 23                                    |                                  |
| Restore 15km of rivers and streams    |                                  |
| 2009-2015 with an additional 10km     |                                  |
| by 2020                               |                                  |
| ?/+                                   |                                  |
| 24                                    |                                  |
| Reduction in proportion of            |                                  |
| designated heritage assets at risk    |                                  |
| as a percentage of the total number   |                                  |
| of designated heritage assets in      |                                  |
| London.                               |                                  |
| +/-                                   |                                  |
|                                       | Assets at risk largely unchanged |
15.3 ha loss to approved development, significantly up on previous year, but completions on SINC down; new designations not recorded Both rates going into targeted direction of travel, but change only very slight in recent years
+
11% above 25% carbon dioxide emissions savings target (2010-2013) Additional restoration, but significantly less than in recent years, although under-reporting likely

## Chapter One Introduction Scope And Purpose Of The Amr

1.1	 This is the eleventh London Plan Annual 
Monitoring Report (AMR 10). Section 346 of the Greater London Authority (GLA) Act 1999 places a duty on the Mayor to monitor implementation of his Spatial Development Strategy (the London Plan) and collect data about issues relevant to its preparation, review, alteration, replacement or implementation. The AMR is the central document in the monitoring process and in assessing the effectiveness of the London Plan. It is important for keeping the London Plan under review and as evidence for plan preparation.

1.2	 While this is the eleventh AMR published 
by the Mayor, it is the forth that uses the six strategic objectives and the suite of 24 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) introduced in the London Plan published in July 2011. These indicators are intended to be a mixture of those carried forward from the previous London Plan (to help ensure some comparability over time) and new/ amended ones (reflecting new or changed policies, or changes in the availability of data). What has not changed is the importance the Mayor places' in effective monitoring. The London Plan is founded on a "plan-monitor-manage" approach to policy-making, ensuring that strategic planning policies are evidence-based, effective, and changed when necessary.
1.3	 The AMR does not attempt to measure 
and monitor each Plan policy, as this would not recognize the complexity of planning decisions based on a range of different policies. It could also be unduly resource intensive and would raise considerable challenges in setting meaningful indicators 
for which reliable data would be available. However, these documents together do give a detailed picture of how London is changing, and of the significant contribution the planning system is making to meeting these changes.

1.4	 	
At the core of this AMR are the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) set out in Policy 8.4 (A) and Table 8.1 of the London Plan (see chapter 2 of this document for detailed analysis of the performance of each KPI). However, it should be recognised that a wide range of factors outside the sphere of influence of the London Plan influence the KPIs. The inclusion of additional relevant performance measures and statistics helps to paint a broader picture of London's performance (see chapter 3). Whilst recognising longer-term trends where available, the focus of the monitoring in this AMR is on the year 2013/14.
1.5	 Paragraph 8.18 of the London Plan 
clarifies that the target for each indicator should be regarded as a benchmark, showing the direction and scale of change. These targets contribute to measuring the performance of the objectives set out in Policy 1.1 and paragraph 1.53 of the London Plan but do not represent additional policy in themselves.
1.6	 This report draws on a range of 
data sources, but the GLA's London Development Database (LDD) is of central importance (see further details about LDD in the following section). The LDD is a "live" system monitoring planning permissions and completions. It provides good quality, comprehensive data for the GLA, London boroughs and others involved in planning for London. In addition to the 
LDD, this report draws on details provided by the GLA's Intelligence Unit, the GLA's Transport and Environment Team, Transport for London (TfL), English Heritage, the Environment Agency and the Port of London Authority.

## The London Development Database

1.7	 The London Development Database (LDD) 
is the key data source for monitoring planning approvals and completions in London. Data is entered by each of the 33 London boroughs, although the London Legacy Development Corporation has agreed to enter the data for its area. The GLA provides the software and carries out a co-ordinating, consistency and quality management role. The Database monitors each planning permission from approval through to completion or expiry. Its strength lies in the ability to manipulate data in order to produce a diverse range of reports. The data can also be exported to GIS systems to give a further level of spatial analysis. The value of the LDD is dependent on work done by the boroughs to provide the required data, and the Mayor would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those concerned in supporting this invaluable resource.
1.8	 It should be noted that some boroughs use 
the London Development Database as a data source for their own AMRs, and all are 
expected to compare the data they publish with the data they have entered into LDD. This should ensure a level of consistency between data on housing, open space etc which is published in both the borough and GLA AMRs. However, some differences in the figures do occur. This can in part be attributed to LDD being a live system, 
which is continually updated and adjusted to reflect the best information available. There are also occasional differences in the way completions are allocated to particular years, which may cause discrepancies between borough and GLA AMR data.

1.9	 As a result of the 2013 review of the 
Information Scheme (the legal document that sets out the roles and responsibilities of the Mayor and the London Boroughs in relation to LDD), Class J Prior Approvals which permit changes of use from office to residential use without the need for a full planning permission are now included in the scope of the scheme. Other forms of consent that can lead to a change in residential units (including other forms of prior approval and Certificates of Proposed Lawful Development) are currently submitted on a voluntary basis so are not included in the data in our AMR. A formal consultation to bring them within the scope of the scheme is currently underway.
1.10	The LDD system itself has remained 
fundamentally unchanged since it was first developed in 2004, with changes being made incrementally as required. A substantial project to modernise the IT infrastructure that supports the database is nearing completion. Once this is finished, the LDD Management Team, which comprises representatives from the GLA and a number of London boroughs, will look closely at the system and decide if any further changes are required. Discussions so far have not identified any major changes that need to be made, although we are looking to introduce a new method to measure the length of time between an initial planning permission being granted and the final scheme reaching completion.
1.11	A new version of the LDD public page, 
which can be found at http://www. london.gov.uk/webmaps/ldd/ went live in December 2014. The new version adds thematic maps based on the data published in the last AMR, as well as improvements to the way the permission data is displayed and the facility to load additional spatial layers from the London Plan. The thematic maps will be updated following the publication of each successive AMR.

## The London Plan And Its Implementation

1.12		
The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital. It forms part of the statutory development plan for Greater London. London boroughs' local plans need to be in general conformity with the London Plan, and its policies guide decisions on planning applications by councils and the Mayor.
1.13		
At the centre of the Mayor's approach to 
implementation of the London Plan is a suite of documents that together make up a London Planning Implementation Framework. The keystone of this approach is an Implementation Plan, which sets out the overall approach to London Plan policy implementation. It provides details of how each of the 121 policies in the London Plan will be delivered and contains detailed information about London's infrastructure needs to help inform policy development and implementation by the Mayor, boroughs and others. The published first edition was published in January 2013 and is available at http://www.london.gov.uk/
publication/implementation-plan. It will be updated regularly. 

1.14		
The Implementation Framework also includes:
•		
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG),
•		
Opportunity Area/Intensification Area Frameworks, Implementation guides 
•	This Annual Monitoring Report.
1.15	The key distinction between the 
Implementation Plan and the AMR is that the latter is looking predominately at past performance to identify trends, whilst the Implementation Plan is focusing on current and future actions to facilitate policy implementation and performance improvements. Linking KPIs and implementation actions directly may not be helpful as they serve different purposes and operate at different levels of detail. Together, however, they provide an important overview of the way London is changing, and of the way planning policies are used, and can be in the future, to influence and respond to these changes.

## Further Alterations To The London Plan

1.16	In March 2015 the Mayor published his 
Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) now called 2015 London Plan, rolling the London Plan forward to 2036, particularly to address key housing and employment issues emerging from an analysis of the most recent census data. The Further Alterations propose minor changes to four KPI targets that reflect changes elsewhere in the Plan. These are KPIs 4, 5, 19 and 21. Next year's AMR will be based on the 2015 London Plan and the amended set of KPIs.

## Chapter Two Performance Against Key Performance Indicator Targets Key Performance Indicator 1

Maximise the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land Target: Maintain at least 96 % of new residential development to be on previously developed land

2.1	 This KPI looks at the proportion of 
residential planning permissions on previously developed land. The figures are shown both by number of units and by site area, although the number of units is considered to be the key measure. The percentages are arrived at by looking for a net loss of greenfield open space on the permission. The area of greenfield land that will be lost is then compared to the proposed residential site area to produce a percentage that is applied to the proposed units. Where both residential and non-residential uses are proposed, the greenfield area is divided proportionately between the two uses.
2.2	 98.4% of units approved during 2013/14 
are on brownfield land, above the Mayor's 96% target and an improvement on the 98.2 figure for 2012/13. Only three boroughs; Havering, Barking and Dagenham and Hounslow; are significantly below the 96% target. Barking and Dagenham and Havering are both below the benchmark for the second year in a row, however the loss of greenfield in Barking and Dagenham is solely down to the submission of details for the extant permission for the development of Lymington Fields which was first granted in 2009. This site was also responsible for the borough missing the target in 2012/13. Havering's 65.1% is comprised of a 
number of small schemes on greenfield sites in addition to 242 units on parkland and sports pitches off Gooshays Drive, Harold Hill. The greenfield development in Hounslow is the redevelopment of the Heston Leisure Centre and surrounding lands. In addition to new residential units, the scheme will deliver new indoor and outdoor leisure facilities.

2.3	 The proportion of units completed on 
brownfield land stands at 97%, above the benchmark and an improvement on the 95.7% reported in AMR10. The largest 
schemes to reach completion are both in Merton, 169 units on Brenley Playing Fields and 118 units on the site of Rowan High School.

Year
% of development approved 
on previously developed land
by units
by site area
by units
by site area
2006/07
98.6
98
97.2
96.5
2007/08
97.3
96.7
96.6
94.8
2008/09
98.1
96.6
98.9
98.1
2009/10
97.3
96.8
98.8
97.9
2010/11
96.8
95.3
97.1
95.7
2011/12
99
97.4
97.6
95.0
2012/13
98.2
97.8
95.7
95.3
2013/14
98.4
97.2
97
96.6

Source: London Development Database

% of development completed 
on previously developed land
borough
% of development 
approved on previously developed land
by units
by site area
by units
by site area
Barking and Dagenham
84.2%
81.5%
84.2%
81.5%
Barnet
95.2%
95.8%
95.2%
95.8%
Bexley
100%
100%
100%
100%
Brent
99.4%
98.8%
99.4%
98.8%
Bromley
100%
100%
100%
100%
Camden
99.9%
100%
99.9%
100%
City of London
100%
100%
100%
100%
Croydon
98.5%
96.3%
98.5%
96.3%
Ealing
99.9%
99.8%
99.9%
99.8%
Enfield
99.3%
97%
99.3%
97%
Greenwich
95.7%
96.3%
95.7%
96.3%
Hackney
99.3%
99.7%
99.3%
99.7%
Hammersmith and Fulham
100%
100%
100%
100%
Haringey
100%
100%
100%
100%
Harrow
98.2%
98.2%
98.2%
98.2%
Havering
64.2%
67.9%
64.2%
67.9%
Hillingdon
100%
100%
100%
100%
Hounslow
91.2%
91.6%
91.2%
91.6%
Islington
100%
100%
100%
100%
Kensington and Chelsea
97.7%
98.2%
97.7%
98.2%
Kingston upon Thames
97.6%
97.7%
97.6%
97.7%
Lambeth
100%
100%
100%
100%
Lewisham
100%
100%
100%
100%
Merton
94.4%
96.3%
94.4%
96.3%
Newham
99.8%
99.6%
99.8%
99.6%
Redbridge
99.8%
98.7%
99.8%
98.7%
Richmond upon Thames
98.9%
98.4%
98.9%
98.4%
Southwark
99.7%
99.8%
99.7%
99.8%
Sutton
99.7%
99.3%
99.7%
99.3%
Tower Hamlets
99.9%
99.7%
99.9%
99.7%
Waltham Forest
100%
100%
100%
100%
Wandsworth
100%
100%
100%
100%
Westminster
100%
100%
100%
100%
London
98.4%
97.2%
97%
96.6%

Source: London Development Database

% of development completed on previously developed land

Optimise the density of residential development Target: Over 95 % of development to comply with the housing density location and the density matrix (London Plan Table 3.2)

2.4	 The tables below compare the residential 
density achieved for each scheme against the optimal density range set out in the Sustainable Residential Quality (SRQ) matrix in the London Plan, taking into account both the site's Public Transport 

matrix - all schemes
|                                                         | financial year                   | % of units approvals   |
|---------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------|
| within range                                            | above range                      | below range            |
| 2006/07                                                 | 36%                              | 60%                    |
| 2007/08                                                 | 40%                              | 55%                    |
| 2008/09                                                 | 41%                              | 53%                    |
| 2009/10                                                 | 39%                              | 56%                    |
| 2010/11                                                 | 37%                              | 58%                    |
| 2011/12                                                 | 40%                              | 55%                    |
| 2012/13                                                 | 58%                              | 37%                    |
| 2013/14                                                 | 43%                              | 50%                    |
| Table 2.4 Residential approvals compared to the density |                                  |                        |
| matrix - schemes of 15 units or more                    |                                  |                        |
| financial year                                          | % of units approvals schemes 15+ |                        |
| within range                                            | above range                      | below range            |
| 2006/07                                                 | 30%                              | 69%                    |
| 2007/08                                                 | 36%                              | 63%                    |
| 2008/09                                                 | 36%                              | 62%                    |
| 2009/10                                                 | 35%                              | 63%                    |
| 2010/11                                                 | 31%                              | 68%                    |
| 2011/12                                                 | 37%                              | 60%                    |
| 2012/13                                                 | 59%                              | 39%                    |
| 2013/14                                                 | 40%                              | 56%                    |

Source: London Development Database Accessibility Level (PTAL) and its setting as defined in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. All units in residential approvals for which a site area could be calculated are included. Class J prior approvals for changes of use from office to residential have been included wherever possible. Density is the result of dividing the total number of units (gross) by the residential site area. In mixed use schemes, the area allocated to non-residential uses and to open space is subtracted from the total site area to give the residential site area. The percentages refer to units not schemes.

2.5	 Compliance within the density matrix for 
approvals during 2013/14 stands at 43%, down on the previous year but still better than has been achieved in the six years prior to 2012/13. 40% compliance in schemes of 15 units or more is also below the previous year's peak but again better than the six before that.
2.6	 The proportion within the range has been 
squeezed by schemes above the range but also by an increase in those below, even in more central areas. 5% of all unit approvals in inner London boroughs are below the desired range. This compares to 10% in outer London boroughs. It might be expected that the introduction of the Class J prior approvals for changes of use from office to residential in May 2013 would have an impact on the figures, but they appear to share a similar pattern to all approvals with 42% of these falling within the appropriate range. For the prior approvals with more units though, 61% of schemes with 15 units or more have a density above the desired range.
2.7	 Land in London is a scarce resource and 
building costs in London are high. It is important that land is used appropriately and that schemes are designed to suit the local circumstances, but also that they are deliverable. The Mayor will continue to work with boroughs to ensure that schemes are designed at a density that is both appropriate and viable.

## Key Performance Indicator 3 Minimise The Loss Of Open Space

Target: No net loss of open space designated for protection in LDFs due to new development

2.8	 The performance monitoring for this 
KPI target focuses more specifically on designated open space rather than open space overall. 
2.9	 Tables 2.5 and 2.6 are based on the 
changes in open space as a result of planning permissions. It is important to note that designation of new open space for protection is not done through the planning permission process, and is therefore not recorded by the LDD. Reprovision within the planning permission is taken into account but no positive numbers are recorded meaning a loss is inevitable. We are working with partners Greenspace Information for Greater London to see if gains can be identified and included in future editions of the AMR. The types of 
protection are Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Local Open Spaces. These are different from the designations for nature conservation recorded in KPI 18. The definition of open space used is based on that found in the now withdrawn PPG 17 and does not include private residential gardens.
2.10	Table 2.5 shows the overall loss of 
protected open space approved during 2013/14, was just under 20 hectares. This is a very large increase on the previous financial year where the figure was less than 0.6 ha. The number of approvals on protected open space has also risen sharply from four to 29. Two proposed 
development sites account for over 12 ha alone - Beddington Farmlands Landfill Site and Lake Farm Country Park. It is worth noting that the proposed loss at the Landfill site in Sutton (7.6 ha) relates to the reclamation of 90 ha of protected open space from the current landfill use to a genuine open space use, although these consents have reduced the amount of open space that will ultimately be reclaimed.

2.11	There have been 23 schemes completed 
on protected open space over the same period, amounting to 6.98 ha in total. This represents a slight increase of 0.5ha on the previous year. The majority of protected open space lost in 2013/14 was MOL (5.8ha). Athough the biggest recorded loss of MOL was in Merton on the Rowan Park 
site, where 217 residential units were built. the development also proposed a 2.5 ha park.

Borough Name
Borough Reference
Barnet
B/00354/13
Local Open Spaces
0.391
Bexley
13/01616/FULM
Metropolitan Open Land
0.041
Brent
131501
Local Open Spaces
0.071
Brent
132490
Local Open Spaces
0.224
Bromley
13/02593/FULL1
Green Belt
0.034
Camden
2013/1889/P
Metropolitan Open Land
0.075
Camden
2013/1969/P
Other Designated Protection
0.008
Croydon
13/00891/P
Other Designated Protection
0.119
Ealing
P/2012/0708
Local Open Spaces
0.679
Enfield
P13-01332LBE
Metropolitan Open Land
0.022
Greenwich
12/1168
Local Open Spaces
0.255
Greenwich
13/0117
Local Open Spaces
0.000
Greenwich
13/0161
Other Designated Protection
0.050
Greenwich
13/0364
Local Open Spaces
0.026
Havering
P0995/12
Green Belt
0.130
Havering
P1451/10
Local Open Spaces
0.082
Hillingdon
68911/ APP/2012/2983
Hounslow
00798/Q/S4
Local Open Spaces
2.440
Hounslow
01187/A/S10
Local Open Spaces
0.670
Hounslow
01270/G/P1
Green Belt
0.857
Kingston upon Thames
13/16542/FUL
Metropolitan Open Land
0.188
Merton
13/P0692
Other Designated Protection
0.178
Richmond upon Thames
13/2826/FUL
Metropolitan Open Land
0.086
Sutton
C2013/67958
Green Belt
0.017
Sutton
D2005/54794
Metropolitan Open Land
0.283
Sutton
D2011/64908
Metropolitan Open Land
0.300
Sutton
D2012/66220
Metropolitan Open Land
7.000
Sutton
D2013/67938
Metropolitan Open Land
0.060
Wandsworth
2012/0758
Metropolitan Open Land
0.009
London (Gross hectares):
19.795

Source: London Development Database

Protection 
Designation
Area of Open 
Space (HA)
Green Belt
5.500
| Borough Name             | Borough        |
|--------------------------|----------------|
| Reference                |                |
| Brent                    | 093104         |
| Bromley                  | 09/01715/FULL1 |
| Bromley                  | 09/02881/DET   |
| Bromley                  | 10/00504/      |
| EXTEND                   |                |
| Bromley                  | 10/03407/FULL1 |
| Bromley                  | 11/00994/FULL1 |
| Croydon                  | 11/00768/P     |
| Croydon                  | 11/01068/P     |
| Croydon                  | 12/00174/P     |
| Croydon                  | 12/00198/P     |
| Ealing                   | P/2010/1894    |
| Ealing                   | P/2012/1991    |
| Enfield                  | P12-00244PLA   |
| Enfield                  | P12-00245PLA   |
| Enfield                  | P12-01762PLA   |
| Hammersmith and Fulham   | 2009/00758/FR3 |
| Hounslow                 | 00092/J/P1     |
| Hounslow                 | 00132/A/P12    |
| Islington                | P060898        |
| Kingston upon Thames     | 10/14545/FUL   |
| Merton                   | 11/P1509       |
| Richmond upon Thames     | 08/4383/FUL    |
| Sutton                   | C2011/63884    |
| London (Gross Hectares): |                |

Source: London Development Database

Protection 
Designation
Area of Open 
Space (HA)
Metropolitan Open Land
0.133

Increase supply of new homes Target: Average completion of a minimum of 
32,210 net additional homes per year.

2.12	This target comprises three elements:
•	conventional completions of selfcontained houses and flats,
•	the non-conventional supply of student 
bedrooms and non self-contained accommodation in hostels and houses in multiple occupation
•	long-term empty properties returning to use. The first two are taken from the London Development Database, the third uses Council Tax data published by CLG. The components of this 32,210 total at borough level can be found in Annex 4 of the London Plan.

2.13	Net conventional completions stand at 
23,986, representing 80% of the 29,830 target in the 2011 London Plan. The total net completions of non-self-contained accommodation units are 4.339, or 265% of the 1,634 target. This is the second year in a row in which completions of nonself-contained accommodation are well in excess of the relevant benchmark. This net increase is entirely down to the delivery of new student accommodation as there has been a net decrease in sui generis (SG) bedrooms. Approximately 60% of these have been replaced by a smaller number of self-contained residential units. Of the remainder, the majority have provided new bedrooms in hostels or halls of residence. This can therefore be 
seen as the replacement of sub-standard accommodation. Together the conventional and non-conventional supply amount to 28,325 completions, 90% of the 31,464 combined benchmark.

2.14	The final element of the 32,210 monitoring 
benchmark in the 2011 London Plan is for 749 empty homes to return to use each year. This is measured using the Government's housing live table 615 and taking the net change in the number of long term empty properties (longer than 6 months). The data covers the period to October each year so does not align to the reporting period in the AMR, but 
represents the best source of information available. In the reporting period covered by this AMR 1,057 long term vacant homes were returned to use.
2.15	These are long-term benchmarks and 
individual years will vary over the development cycle. The development industry is showing signs that it is recovering from the impacts of the economic downturn. With scheme starts containing over 40,000 residential units recorded on the LDD during 2013/14, the highest level since 2007, and capacity for over 240,000 homes in the pipeline (up from 215,000 in the previous year), there is considerable potential for the delivery of an increased number of newhomes in the coming years. The revised population projections and increased housing delivery benchmarks set out in the recently published London Plan 2015 show that the need for additional housing is more pressing than ever.

| Net                    | Net    |
|------------------------|--------|
| Borough                |        |
| conv                   | non-   |
| conv                   |        |
| Barking and Dagenham   | 868    |
| Barnet                 | 1,009  |
| Bexley                 | 528    |
| Brent                  | 680    |
| Bromley                | 605    |
| Camden                 | 475    |
| City of London         | 429    |
| Croydon                | 1,298  |
| Ealing                 | 769    |
| Enfield                | 512    |
| Greenwich              | 1,282  |
| Hackney                | 1,120  |
| Hammersmith and Fulham | 542    |
| Haringey               | 454    |
| Harrow                 | 301    |
| Havering               | 156    |
| Hillingdon             | 559    |
| Hounslow               | 835    |
| Islington              | 1,244  |
| Kensington and Chelsea | 234    |
| Kingston upon Thames   | 261    |
| Lambeth                | 1,256  |
| Lewisham               | 753    |
| Merton                 | 440    |
| Newham                 | 1,971  |
| Redbridge              | 258    |
| Richmond upon Thames   | 364    |
| Southwark              | 1,651  |
| Sutton                 | 340    |
| Tower Hamlets          | 684    |
| Waltham Forest         | 392    |
| Wandsworth             | 1,186  |
| Westminster            | 530    |
| London                 | 23,986 |

Sources: London Development Database Vacants back in use - GOV.UK Housing Live Table 615; https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-datasets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants

Total
London Plan target
% of 
target
longterm empty homes returning to use*

An increased supply of affordable homes Target: Completion of 13,200 net additional affordable homes per year

2.16	This KPI measures the completion of 
affordable units as granted in planning permissions recorded on the London Development Database (LDD). It is a net figure for conventional completions of new homes with unit losses deducted from the total. The tenure of the completed units is as set out in the s106 legal agreement. It does not attempt to measure acquisitions of units by Housing Associations or 
transfers of stock post completion.
2.17	During 2013/14 a net total of 6,592 
affordable units were completed. This represents a decrease from 7,773 the previous year (revised upwards from the figure of 7,539 published in last year's AMR).
2.18	While the supply of affordable housing 
decreased in the last year, the total level of conventional completions increased. The share of affordable housing has therefore fallen from 35% (revised from 34%) to 27.5%.
2.19	Net affordable housing output can vary 
considerably from year to year, particularly at a local level. Therefore it is more meaningful to test individual borough performance against a longer term average. Table 2.8 shows average affordable housing output as a proportion of overall conventional housing provision over the three years to 2013/14. During this period affordable housing output averaged 34% 
of total provision, down 3% on the 37% reported in the last AMR.

2.20	Figure 2.1 shows the three-year average 
performance of individual boroughs relative to this London-wide average of 34%. Over the three years, Barking and Dagenham have reported the highest percentage of affordable housing. At 54% they are the 
only borough to exceeded 50% of total provision.
2.21	The lowest proportion, as in the previous 
year, was recorded in the City of London (5%), followed by Redbridge (10%) and Westminster (12%).
2.22	The amount of affordable housing 
delivered through the planning system has been adversely affected by the recession. During this period it has proved necessary for developers to renegotiate s106 agreements drawn up before the economic crisis to make schemes viable and ensure they are delivered. This process has led to a decline in the amount of affordable housing in both absolute and percentage terms over the last two years. It remains to be seen whether the quantity of affordable homes delivered through the planning system will increase as the economy recovers.
2.23	As noted in previous AMRs, the London 
Housing Strategy (LHS) investment target for affordable housing should not be confused with the affordable housing target set out in the London Plan. The LHS investment target is measured in gross terms and includes both new build and acquisitions, but the London Plan target is measured in terms of net conventional supply: that is, supply from new developments or conversions, adjusted to take account of demolitions and other losses. The LHS investment figure is therefore generally higher than the planning target. Monitoring achievement of the London Plan target is based on output from the London Development Database, and this definition should be used for calculating affordable housing targets for development planning purposes. Monitoring achievement of the LHS investment targets uses the more broadly based figures provided by DCLG.

2013/14
borough
Total net conventional 
affordable completions
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Total
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Total
Barking and Dagenham
113
243
588
944
30%
48%
68%
49%
Barnet
441
408
274
1,123
35%
29%
27%
30%
Bexley
165
30
166
361
55%
7%
31%
31%
Brent
412
224
243
879
74%
34%
36%
48%
Bromley
214
142
92
448
36%
20%
15%
24%
Camden
62
299
201
562
17%
53%
42%
37%
City of London
0
0
24
24
0%
0%
6%
6%
Croydon
362
415
179
956
51%
46%
14%
37%
Ealing
333
301
220
854
47%
30%
29%
35%
Enfield
79
243
164
486
26%
44%
32%
34%
Greenwich
416
87
679
1,182
27%
41%
53%
40%
Hackney
430
575
451
1,456
37%
46%
40%
41%
Hammersmith & Fulham
80
107
90
277
16%
24%
17%
19%
Haringey
316
352
150
818
46%
58%
33%
46%
Harrow
251
310
33
594
51%
43%
11%
35%
Havering
177
122
57
356
45%
46%
37%
43%
Hillingdon
343
387
45
775
34%
26%
8%
23%
Hounslow
319
49
79
447
54%
21%
9%
28%
Islington
489
315
401
1,205
41%
30%
32%
35%
Kensington & Chelsea
19
4
164
187
16%
7%
70%
31%
Kingston upon Thames
81
38
84
203
30%
19%
32%
27%
Lambeth
348
269
444
1,061
41%
42%
35%
40%
Lewisham
469
592
152
1,213
39%
33%
20%
31%
Merton
69
196
138
403
15%
43%
31%
30%
Newham
412
305
503
1,220
53%
30%
26%
36%
Redbridge
54
52
2
108
10%
20%
1%
10%
Richmond upon Thames
79
167
109
355
36%
34%
30%
33%
Southwark
593
462
433
1,488
55%
43%
26%
41%
Sutton
235
103
49
387
40%
44%
14%
33%
Tower Hamlets
714
274
104
1,092
62%
26%
15%
35%
Waltham Forest
358
269
3
630
72%
57%
1%
43%
Wandsworth
269
308
224
801
27%
34%
19%
26%
Westminster
71
125
47
243
9%
21%
9%
13%
London
8,773
7,773
6,592 23,138
39%
35%
28%
34%

Source: London Development Database

Affordable as % of total net 
conventional supply

Reducing health inequalities Target: Reduction in the difference in life expectancy between those living in the most and least deprived areas of London (shown separately for men and women)

2.24	Figures on life expectancy at birth are 
produced at ward level based on mortalities over a ten year period. The London Plan's regeneration areas (policy 2.14) are identified as the 20% most deprived Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs), which are not 
directly comparable with ward boundaries. As a proxy measure the 20% most deprived wards in London were identified using calculations from the LSOA based Indices 

20% of wards, by sex
year
Male
Female
2004-2008
2009-2013
2004-2008
2009-2013
Most deprived 20% wards
75.2
77.5
80.7
82.8
Least deprived 20% wards
80.4
82.2
84.2
85.8
London average
77.7
79.7
82.2
83.8
Difference - most deprived to least deprived
5.2
4.6
3.5
3.0
Difference - most deprived to London average
2.5
2.1
1.5
1.0

Figures may not sum due to rounding Source: GLA using ONS mortality data (vital stats) and ONS mid-year population estimates of Multiple Deprivation 2010. The figures for each deprivation quintile summarised in the table are simple averages of the published figures.

2.25	When comparing the figures for 2004-08 
and 2009-13 (see table 2.9), the difference in the life expectancy at birth in the most deprived wards has shrunk at a slightly faster rate compared to both the London average and the least deprived wards. The gap between top and bottom quintile for males has reduced from 5.2 to 4.6 years, while the gap for women has reduced from 3.5 years to 3.0 years. Due to the methods used to calculate this as explained above, a degree of variability would be expected, so a comparison of the figures for the two time periods needs to be treated with some caution.  
Sustaining economic activity Target: Increase in the proportion of working age London residents in employment 2011– 2031

2.26	Table 2.10 shows that London saw a rise in 
its employment rate# during 2013 as the economy continued its recovery following a downturn between 2009 and 2011. This has taken London's employment rate to its highest annual average level at any time since records began for London in 1992. 

Year
London workingage residents in 
employment
London residents of 
working age
2004
3,448,300
5,050,000
68.3
72.4
-4.1
2005
3,490,100
5,118,900
68.2
72.5
-4.3
2006
3,538,000
5,178,900
68.3
72.4
-4.1
2007
3,600,000
5,224,100
68.9
72.4
-3.5
2008
3,662,400
5,269,000
69.5
72.1
-2.6
2009
3,639,300
5,318,900
68.4
70.5
-2.1
2010
3,639,200
5,349,900
68.0
70.1
-2.1
2011
3,669,400
5,395,000
68.0
70.0
-2.0
2012
3,737,300
5,424,600
68.9
70.6
-1.7
2013
3,828,500
5,458,700
70.1
71.3
-1.2

 # This includes self-employment Source: Annual Population Survey

2.27	Historically the rate of engagement in 
economic activity for London residents has been below that for the country as a whole. However as Table 2.10 shows, the gap has shrunk steadily between 2005 and 2013, from 4.3 percentage points to just 1.2 percentage points - a reduction in the gap of over 70 % and the narrowest annual average gap at any time since records began for London in 1992.

employment rate %# London 
UK 
Difference 

Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market Target: Stock of office permissions to be at least three times the average rate of starts over the previous three years

2.28	In this edition of AMR we continue to use 
data from both EGi London Offices and the London Development Database (LDD). According to the EGi data, the ratio of permissions to average three years starts in Central London at end-2014 was 5.9:1 (table 2.11). In the most recent set of comparable figures for the two databases, for 2013, the ratio of permissions to starts was 7.1:1 according to EGi and 4.5:1 according to LDD.  Although it can be noted that the EGi and LDD ratios are down from their peaks in 2011 and 2010 respectively, both measures remain ahead of the target of 3:1. The trend should, however, continue to be monitored closely.
2.29	Final permissions and starts data from 
LDD for 2014 are not yet available, hence the absence of a ratio for that year. The variation in the ratios can be accounted for by the different definitions used in 
the datasets1. It is known that the EGi 
database provides a more comprehensive coverage than LDD and, in particular, contains a much greater amount of data on the refurbishment market. 

## Starts And Completions

2.30	Based on EGi data, Figure 2.2 illustrates 
starts of 488,561 sqm2 for 2014. The 2014 
figure is slightly lower than the 502,620 sqm achieved in 2013, but similar to the 
ten year average of 485,973 sqm. However, it is somewhat below the 1985-2014 average of 576,025 sqm but similar to the three year average for starts over the period 2012-2014 with 578,763 sqm.

2.31	The five largest starts were all in the City 
or City Fringe. These were at: Principal Place, E1 (56,092 sqm); Angel Court, EC2 (33,897 sqm); Fore Street, London Wall, EC2 (28,744 sqm); New Street, EC4 (25,672 sqm) and 26-28 Mitre Square, EC3 (25,353 sqm). Beyond the City, the largest schemes were in Rathbone Place, WI (20,067 sqm) and Haymarket, W1 (18,580 sqm). The largest start in E14 was at Orchard Place (4,339sqm).
2.32	Unimplemented office permissions at 
year end 2014 totalled 3,390,534 sqm according to the EGi data (compared to 3,716, 078 sqm at the end of 2013). These compare to a  even higher ten year average of 3,871,963 sqm.
2.33	The data shows renewed activity in the 
Docklands (compared to the level of starts in 2013) and a number of very large schemes. The three largest schemes are at: Wood Wharf, E14 (297,500 sqm); North Quay, E14 (222,036 sqm) and Battersea Power Station, SW8 (157,777 sqm). These are followed by 49 Leadenhall Street, EC3 (105,033 sqm), and Heron Quays, E14 (103,886). These five schemes together account for 26% of the consented space at the end of 2014.
2.34	The mean size of unimplemented 
permissions was highest in Tower Hamlets, at 14,791 sqm; followed by the City at 11,423 sqm, and Westminster, at 3,555 sqm.

year average starts in Central London#
year
EGi
LDD
2004
11.9:1
6.4:1
2005
8.1:1
7.4:1
2006
8.3:1
8.7:1
2007
6.3:1
4.7:1
2008
7.5:1
4.1:1
2009
10.0:1
7.0:1
2010
13.0:1
11.6:1
2011
13.5:1
8.0:1
2012
8.3:1
3.9:1
2013
7.1:1
4.5:1
2014
5.9:1
N/A

# Central London is defined here as Camden, City of London, City of Westminster, Hackney, Hammersmith 
& Fulham, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth. Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices, London Development Database Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices

## Overview Of Office Market

2.35	During 2014, the central London office 
market continued its recovery from the Financial Crisis.  The occupational markets and investment markets were both strong. Overall, central London take-up levels exceeded those of 2013 and were ahead of pre-Crisis levels. As a result, vacancy levels 
across central London have fallen over the past year, to less than 7%, with the lowest availability being recorded in the West End. 
 
Knight Frank recorded availability in the West End at just 4.5% during Q3 20143. 
2.36	Falling vacancy has also signalled rising 
rents. In the latter part of 2014, King's Cross reported two leasing deals at £70 sq ft and £80 sq ft - levels which exceed prime rents in the City. In the West End, the oil company Trafigura was reported to have signed a deal at £150 sq ft - a record for the market.
2.37	In the City, while banking has been 
relatively quiet in leasing terms, the insurance sector has been active. Both new towers in Leadenhall Street and Fenchurch Street have been letting well. There is also firm evidence that the occupier base of the City is becoming more diverse with more technology and creative businesses operating from there. For example, while Finance & Insurance employment shrank by 9% since 2010, Professional & Technical grew by 12% and Information & Communications grew by 29%4. 
2.38	There has also been a sharp increase in 
serviced offices and co-working spaces. Total serviced office space in the City doubled between 2000 and 2014 with 60% of the centres opening since 2008. 5The 
trend illustrates the importance of the SME 
market in particular to the area.

2.39	Occupier mobility also continued. For 
example, in the advertising sector, Ogilvy & Mather decided to move from Canary Wharf to Southbank, at Sea Containers House; Havas Worldwide is moving to King's Cross and Omnicom has committed to a 370,000 sq ft sublet from RBS at Bankside, also on the Southbank. The growing attraction of central London to tech companies was also underscored during 2014 with a number of signature deals. For example, Amazon has pre-leased over 400,000 sq ft at Brookfield's Principal Place development in Shoreditch.
2.40	Meanwhile interest in purchasing 'trophy' 
buildings, particularly among overseas buyers has intensified. Yields have fallen significantly, and the levels of purchasing is increasingly influenced by diminishing availability.
2.41	The impact of Permitted Development 
Rights (PDR) continues apace. A growing amount of central London office stock is also being lost to residential use (albeit that the Central Activities Zone, Tech City and North of the Isle of Dogs are currently exempt from PDR). The growing pressure for residential conversions is illustrated by the recent purchase of New Scotland Yard by Abu Dhabi Financial Group, with the intention of converting the building into apartments. The GLA will continue to monitor the impact of PDR through the London Development Database.

Ensure that there is sufficient employment land available Target: Release of industrial land to be in line with benchmarks in the Industrial capacity SPG

2.42	Table 2.12 shows an estimated total of 
61.6 hectares of industrial land recorded in planning approvals for transfer to other uses in 2013/14. Almost half (46%) of the area approved for transfer is in East London and a further 25% in West London. The largest individual site transfers in planning approvals include The Old Vinyl Factory, Blyth Road in Hillingdon (just over 5 hectares) and Five Oaks Lane in Redbridge, Lionel Road in Hounslow, the Tower Bridge Business Complex, Clements Road in Southwark and the Ram Brewery site in Wandsworth (each 3-4 hectares). Over 

Subregion
Annual average 
release 
2001-2006
Annual average 
release 
2006-2011
Release in 
planning   
approvals 
2011/12
Central
6
5
9.4
6.0
7.3
2.3
East
57
54
38.6
29.2
28.3
19.4
North
2
2
1.5
6.5
3.6
3.4
South
11
4
31.7
5.1
6.7
4.4
West
10
18
35.1
25.7
15.6
7.2
London
86
83
116.3
72.5
61.6
36.7

Source: London Development Database, the 2015 London Plan and SPG Land for Industry and Transport. Figures include release of land currently in industrial use and in mixed industrial/non-industrial use sites 
94% of the approvals involve transfers of less than one hectare of industrial land.

2.43	Compared with 2011/12 and 2012/13 the 
level of planning approvals for industrial land release in 2013/14 is significantly lower but still 68% above the annual benchmark in the London Plan and the 2012 Land for Industry and Transport SPG. The target is exceeded in all sub-regions and, in absolute terms, most significantly in East London. The annual average rates of release in 2001-2006 and 2006-2011 are included as additional context.    

Release in 
planning approvals 
2012/13
Release in 
planning approvals 
2013/14
LP/SPG annual benchmark 
2011-2031

## Key Performance Indicator 10 Employment In Outer London

Target: Growth in total Employment in Outer London

2.44	In 15 outer boroughs the number of 
employee jobs has grown; in the remaining 4 outer boroughs the number of such jobs has fallen. Since 1984, the growth in the number of employee jobs in Outer London has not been as large as in Inner London (12.3 % compared to 27.3 %). London overall experienced an increase in the number of employee jobs of 21.1 %.
2.45	The changes in employee jobs numbers 
for individual boroughs have varied significantly. Nine Outer London boroughs achieved over 15 % growth in the number of employee jobs since 1984, whereas four saw a reduction in employee jobs. 

2004-2013
Year
Outer London
London
% in Outer London
2004
1,918,000
4,565,000
42%
2005
1,937,000
4,667,000
42%
2006
1,963,000
4,717,000
42%
2007
1,945,000
4,772,000
41%
2008
1,986,000
4,910,000
40%
2009
1,924,000
4,808,000
40%
2010
1,923,000
4,803,000
40%
2011
1,911,000
4,879,000
39%
2012
1,998,000
5,088,000
39%
2013
2,047,000
5,249,000
39%

Source: Office for National Statistics; GLA Economics calculations Note: Estimates of employee jobs by borough are calculated by applying borough shares of total London employee jobs from the ONS Business Register and Employment Survey to the London total employee jobs component of ONS Workforce Jobs (WFJ). Self-employed jobs are calculated by applying estimates of borough shares of London's total self-employed jobs from the Annual Population Survey data to the London total self-employed jobs component of WFJ. Employee and self-employed jobs are then added together for an estimate of total employment. 

The Mayor set up the Outer London Commission to investigate how Outer London can best realise its potential to contribute to the London economy. The Commission's recommendations made a major contribution to the London Plan's new policies for outer London.

2.46	Table 2.13 shows the total number of jobs, 
including self-employed, from 2004 to 2013. In 2011 the total number of jobs in Outer London had fallen by 75,000 from its 2008 peak. However by 2013 it had recovered strongly, increasing by 136,000 between 2011 and 2013, or by 7.1 %. This represents a weaker rise than in both inner London (8.0 %) and London overall (7.6 %).
Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market Target: Reduce the employment rate gap between Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups and the white population and reduce the gap between lone parents on income support in London vs the average for England & Wales

2.47	Table 2.14 shows that employment rates 
for White and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups continue to increase. The gap between employment rates for White vs BAME Londoners has broadly followed a downward trend, although there has been little change in recent years. In 2004, the gap was 16.6 percentage points and the downward trend reduced this to 13.2 percentage points by 2010. However, in 2011 the gap increased to 14.6 percentage points before falling again to 14.0 percentage points in 2012 and was 14.1 in 2013. Over the whole nine-year period the gap has reduced by 2.5 percentage points.
2.48	London Plan Policy 4.12 supports strategic 
development proposals which encourage employers to recruit local people and sustain their employment, and the provision of skills development, training opportunities and affordable spaces to start a business. The GLA has also been encouraging employers to recruit local people, in particular in the deprived areas of London where a large number of BAME Londoners live and sustain employment.
2.49	Table 2.15 shows that in terms of income 
support for lone parents with dependent children has continued to fall. In London it fell by eight percentage points between 2012 and 2013 compared with four points in England and Wales overall. Since 2004 the gap has fallen from eight to one percentage point, after a peak in 2006 at thirteen percentage points.
2.50	It should be noted that since the 
introduction of the Employment Support Allowance (ESA) in 2008, lone parents with health issues who were previously claiming Income Support, now claim ESA. This has to be considered when comparing different years for the 'Lone Parents on Income Support' series. However it does not affect the comparison of data between London and England and Wales.

BY CALENDAR YEAR
Year
All Persons
White Groups
BAME Groups
Employment rate gap
in employment
rate %
rate %
in employment
2004
3,448,300
68.3
2,532,100
73.5
908,300
56.9
16.6
2005
3,490,100
68.2
2,517,500
73.6
967,300
57.3
16.3
2006
3,538,000
68.3
2,503,700
73.8
1,026,800
57.9
15.9
2007
3,600,000
68.9
2,500,500
73.9
1,095,500
59.7
14.2
2008
3,662,400
69.5
2,542,700
74.7
1,115,500
60.0
14.7
2009
3,639,300
68.4
2,541,800
73.9
1,091,100
58.4
15.5
2010
3,639,200
68.0
2,476,400
72.8
1,155,500
59.6
13.2
2011
3,669,400
68.0
2,459,700
73.5
1,203,400
58.9
14.6
2012
3,737,300
68.9
2,494,100
74.2
1,239,700
60.2
14.0
2013
3,828,500
70.1
2,560,100
75.5
1,264,900
61.4
14.1

Source: Annual Population Survey Note that due to changes in the ethnicity questions on the Annual Population Survey during 2011 these estimates cannot be reliably viewed as a timeseries. They can, however, be used to estimate the relative levels of economic activity of different ethnic groups. 

| London         | England and Wales   |
|----------------|---------------------|
| Annual         |                     |
| Report         | difference          |
| families on IS |                     |
| as % of        |                     |
| lone parent    |                     |
| families       |                     |
| #              |                     |
| lone           |                     |
| parent         |                     |
| families       |                     |
| on IS          |                     |
| 2004           | 165,120             |
| 2005           | 163,620             |
| 2006           | 162,770             |
| 2007           | 160,450             |
| 2008           | 152,520             |
| 2009           | 141,720             |
| 2010           | 129,100             |
| 2011           | 109,200             |
| 2012           | 102,590             |
| 2013           | 83,050              |

Source: DWP's Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study extracted from NOMIS #Lone parent families with dependent children only

in employment
rate %
White/  BAME
as % of 
lone parent 
families#

Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services Target: Reduce the average class sizes in primary schools

2.51	Between 2008 and 2014 the average class 
size across London has increased, with a few exceptions in some boroughs in certain years. Between 2013 and 2014 overall class size remain unchanged. 13 boroughs saw a reduction in average class size compared to 10 boroughs the previous year, 5 staying the same and 15 boroughs increasing in average class size. The trend across the whole of England has been on the up with average class sizes currently just under 27.
2.52	The main drivers of increasing class sizes 
in London are demographic (primarily reduced migration out of London to other parts of the UK), resulting in an increased number of primary school children, as well as the pressure on London's primary schools to reduce costs. It is unclear if the recent change in migration patterns driven by the economic downturn is structural or temporary with previous trends resuming. This is something that will be monitored closely.
2.53	The building of new schools is likely to 
continue to counter this upwards trend. In 2013, a further 27 new Free Schools were set up in London. London Plan Policy 3.18 promotes further improvements by strengthening the importance of education provision, encouraging the establishment of new schools (new build, expansion of existing or change of use to educational purposes) and opportunities to enable 
local people and communities to do the same. The draft Social Infrastructure SPG, published for consultation in March 2014 suggests additional ways to link the provision of schools with housing growth through co-located and multi-use facilities.

Borough
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Barking & Dagenham
26.9
27.2
27.5
27.9
27.9
28.3
28.0
Barnet
27.5
27.6
27.9
28.1
28
28.2
28.4
Bexley
27.3
27.8
28
28.2
28.3
28.5
28.4
Brent
28
27.8
28.1
28.5
28.6
28.7
28.9
Bromley
27.2
27.7
27.8
28.1
28.3
28.4
28.3
Camden
26.9
26.6
27.1
27.1
27.5
27.5
27.6
City
24.8
24.7
25.9
25.9
24.7
25.9
25.9
Croydon
27.6
27.7
27.9
28.1
28.2
28.2
28.2
Ealing
27.5
27.2
27.7
27.8
28
28.3
28.0
Enfield
28.3
28.6
28.2
28.7
28.8
28.8
28.7
Greenwich
26.2
26.2
26.5
26.9
27
27.1
27.4
Hackney
25.8
25.8
26.1
26.3
26.3
26.2
26.8
Hammersmith & Fulham
25.8
26.2
26.4
26.1
26.8
26.1
26.1
Haringey
27.5
27.5
27.6
28
27.9
28.2
28.0
Harrow
26.1
26.9
26.7
28
28.5
28.8
29.8
Havering
27
27.4
27.8
28
28.2
28.6
28.4
Hillingdon
26.5
27.2
27.4
27.4
27.5
27.9
28.0
Hounslow
27.2
27.4
27.8
28.2
28.4
28.4
28.1
Islington
25.5
25.5
25.3
26.2
26.4
26.3
26.6
Kensington & Chelsea
26
25.7
26.2
26.8
27
26.7
26.7
Kingston
27.1
27.1
27.7
27.6
27.5
27.7
27.6
Lambeth
25.8
25.6
25.7
26
26.3
26.6
26.3
Lewisham
25.9
26.3
26.3
26.8
26.9
27.2
27.4
Merton
26.7
27
27.1
27.5
27.9
27.7
27.8
Newham
26.8
27
27.4
27.8
28.1
27.9
26.6
Redbridge
29.2
29.1
29
29.5
29.6
29.1
29.3
Richmond
26.5
26.9
27.4
28
27.9
28.2
28.5
Southwark
24.6
24.6
24.8
25.3
25.8
26.3
26.4
Sutton
27.9
27.7
27.9
28.2
28.5
28.7
28.8
Tower Hamlets
26.3
26.3
26.9
27.3
27.7
27.6
27.7
Waltham Forest
28
28.1
28.5
28
28.5
28.2
28.4
Wandsworth
25.5
25.3
25.9
25.6
26.3
25.9
25.8
Westminster
25.8
25.4
26.3
26.7
26.6
26.0
25.6
London
26.8
27
27.2
27.6
27.7
27.8
27.8

Source: Department for Education

Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys Target: Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of the private car per head

2.54	The indices in Table 2.17 are derived from 
the time series of journey stages per head compiled for Travel in London Report 7 (TfL Planning December 2014). This includes all travel to, from or within Greater London, including travel by commuters and visitors. For consistency the population estimates include in-commuters and visitors (derived from the Labour Force Survey and the International Passenger Survey respectively, courtesy of ONS).

|   Year |   Public transport index |   Private transport index |
|--------|--------------------------|---------------------------|
|   2001 |                    100   |                     100   |
|   2002 |                    103.1 |                      99.5 |
|   2003 |                    108.1 |                      97.1 |
|   2004 |                    113.8 |                      95.1 |
|   2005 |                    112   |                      92.6 |
|   2006 |                    114.7 |                      92   |
|   2007 |                    124.4 |                      90.9 |
|   2008 |                    128.2 |                      86.4 |
|   2009 |                    127.5 |                      85.6 |
|   2010 |                    127.8 |                      84.8 |
|   2011 |                    131.2 |                      82.8 |
|   2012 |                    133.6 |                      80.7 |
|   2013 |                    134.2 |                      78.8 |

Source: Transport for London

2.55		
Total daily journey stages in 2013 were 30.6 million, up from 30.2 million in 2012, and 5.0 million higher than in 2001. Of these stages, 33% were by private transport, and 45% by public transport. Since 2001, use of public transport per head has grown by over 34%, and increased slightly by 0.6% in the latest year. In contrast, private transport use per head has decreased by over 21% since 2001, and is down almost 2% in the latest year. In line with the target, public transport use per head continues to grow while private transport continues to fall year on year.
Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys Target: Zero car traffic growth for London as a whole

2.56	Table 2.18 shows that road traffic volumes 
continued to fall in the latest year for London as a whole, down by 0.3% between 2012 and 2013, and 10.7% since 2001. In 2013, traffic volumes fell in Inner London by 2.0%, while traffic in Outer London grew slightly by 0.4%. Traffic levels in Inner London are over 17% lower than in 2001, whereas in Outer London, traffic levels are over 7% lower than 2001. So despite a very slight upwards trend in Outer London since 2011, for the longer term London as a whole, the trend in car traffic is declining rather than growing across all parts of London.
2.57	For London to continue to make progress 
in reducing its reliance on the private car, considerable investment is required in public transport, such as the £15 billion investment in Crossrail. For further details on developer contributions to Crossrail and the use of CIL receipts please see the Environment and Transport section of chapter 3.

Year
2001
2002
2003
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
All roads:
Greater London
32.26 32.14 31.95 31.59 31.38 31.49 31.16 30.27 30.07 29.70 29.10
28.90 28.82
Inner London 
(excl City and 
Westminster)
8.98 8.90
8.84 8.66 8.51 8.52 8.58 8.29 8.19 8.05 7.82
7.57 7.42
Outer London
22.04 22.03 21.92 21.72 21.66 21.76 21.42 20.90 20.83 20.63 20.28
20.35 20.43
All roads index 
(2001=100)
All roads 
index 
(2001=100)
Greater London 
100.0
99.6
99.0 97.9 97.3 97.6 96.6 93.8 93.2 92.1 90.2
89.6 89.3
Inner London 
(excl City and 
Westminster)
100.0
99.2
98.4
96.4 94.8 94.9 95.5 92.3 91.2 89.6 87.1
84.2 82.6
Outer London
100.0
99.9
99.5
98.6 98.3 98.7 97.2 94.8 94.5 93.6 92.0
92.3 92.7

Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys Target: Increase the share of all trips by bicycle from 2 % in 2009 to 5 % by 2026

2.58	Table 2.19 shows that in 2013 in absolute 
terms around 0.59 million journey stages were made by bicycle in Greater London on an average day, an increase of 83% compared to 2001 and 0.5% more than in the most recent year (2012 to 2013). Table 2.19 also shows that almost 2% of all journeys in Greater London on an average day were made by bicycle, an increase of 53% compared to 2001. 

Year
Daily Cycle stages (millions)
2001
0.320
1.2
2002
0.323
1.2
2003
0.370
1.4
2004
0.380
1.4
2005
0.415
1.6
2006
0.466
1.7
2007
0.467
1.6
2008
0.489
1.7
2009
0.514
1.8
2010
0.544
1.9
2011
0.572
1.9
2012
0.582
1.9
2013
0.585
1.9

Source: TfL Planning, Travel in London Report 7, tables 2.3 and 3.4

2.59	Growth will need to strengthen again to 
meet the Mayor's objective to see a cycling revolution by achieving the target for a 5% cycle mode share by 2026. The London Plan includes a range of policies to help achieve this objective, such as support for the Cycle Superhighway network and the London cycle hire scheme as well as standards for cycle parking and facilities for cyclists in new development. 

Cycle mode share 
(percentage)

Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys Target: A 50% increase in passengers and freight transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2011-2021

2.60	Table 2.20 includes figures for passenger 
journeys on all river boat  services on the Thames - those boarding at TfL London River Services (LRS) piers and non-LRS piers and also Woolwich Ferry Passengers. This explains the reason for the 102% increase on 2012/13 figures as previously the Woolwich Ferry and services operating from independent piers were excluded from the figures. The new system uses an electronic method of counting to give a clearer reflection of the total number of passenger journeys on the Thames. This will become the new monitoring baseline.
2.61	Table 2.20 shows that the number of 
passengers on the Thames increased until 2010. After the small decline in 2010/11 
and 2012/11, numbers rose by 0.5 % in 2012/13 and by over 100% in the latest year, as explained above. A figure for LRS-only piers that allows a comparison to the previous year is unfortunately not available.
2.62	In April 2012, a new extension to London 
Eye Millennium Pier was installed creating additional capacity at the pier.
2.63	The achievement of the KPI target still 
requires considerable further investment, as detailed in the Mayor of London and Transport for London's River Action Plan. The plan has already helped deliver an 
enhanced Putney to Blackfriars River Bus service with faster journey times and more frequent River Bus services on this route. Plans to deliver better information at London's piers has begun with the introduction of real time boat arrival information, called iBoat.

2.64	Work is currently underway to extend 
existing piers, build new piers and better better integrate river services into the wider transport network. A new pier at Plantation Wharf is due to open in 2015. 
2.65	 Table 2.21 deals with cargo carried by 
river. A significant proportion of the freight transported on the River Thames in the capital is aggregates for the construction industry.
2.66	The overall figure is a combination of both 
the interport trade (handled at terminals in Greater London that either enters or leaves the Port of London across the seaward limits) such as sea dredged aggregates or sugar and intraport trade (handled at terminals in Greater London that has its origin or destination within the Port of London or within the seaward limits). Both elements of the total saw an increase in 2013 accounting to a total increase of 27%. A principal driver of the increase in interport trade was aggregates, with a large increase in particular at terminals in Greenwich (up almost 11%). In terms of intraport trade, material from both the Lea Tunnel and Crossrail schemes resulted in an increase in the volume of construction, excavation and demolition waste (CE&DW) transported on the river from Greater London of almost 140% in 2013. However, increases were also seen in transhipped aggregates (33%) and containerised waste (11%) to the Belvedere Energy for Waste (EfW) facility. .

| Year                    | Number of passengers   | % change on previous year   |
|-------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------|
| April 2000 - March 2001 | 1 573 830              | -                           |
| April 2001 - March 2002 | 1,739,236              | + 10.5                      |
| April 2002 - March 2003 | 2 030 300              | + 16.7                      |
| April 2003 - March 2004 | 2,113,800              | + 4.1                       |
| April 2004 - March 2005 | 2,343,276              | + 10.9                      |
| April 2005 - March 2006 | 2,374,400              | + 1.3                       |
| April 2006 - March 2007 | 2,746,692              | + 15.7                      |
| April 2007 - March 2008 | 3,078,100              | + 12.1                      |
| April 2008 - March 2009 | 3,892,693              | + 26.5                      |
| April 2009 - March 2010 | 4,188,530              | + 7.6                       |
| April 2010 - March 2011 | 4,142,226              | - 1.1                       |
| April 2011 - March 2012 | 4,136,200              | - 0.1                       |
| April 2012 - March 2013 | 4,160,500              | + 0.5                       |
| April 2013 - March 2014 | 8,411,200              | +102.2                      |

Source: TfL London Rivers Services

| Year   | Tonnes of cargo    | % change on previous    |
|--------|--------------------|-------------------------|
| year   |                    |                         |
| 2001   | 10,757,000         | -                       |
| 2002   | 9,806,000          | + 9%                    |
| 2003   | 9,236,000          | + 6%                    |
| 2004   | 8,743,000          | - 5%                    |
| 2005   | 9,288,000          | + 6%                    |
| 2006   | 9,337,000          | + 0.5%                  |
| 2007   | 8,642,000          | - 7%                    |
| 2008   | 9,312,000          | + 8%                    |
| 2009   | 8,146,000          | - 13%                   |
| 2010   | 7,754,000          | - 5%                    |
| 2011   | 9,022,000          | + 16%                   |
| 2012   | 8,715,000          | -3%                     |
| 2013   | 11,087,000         | + 27%                   |

	 Source: Port of London Authority

Increase in the number of jobs located in areas of high PTAL values Target: Maintain at least 50 % of B1 
development in PTAL zones 5-6

2.67	This indicator aims to show that highdensity employment generators such as offices are mainly located in areas with good access to public transport - defined as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 5 or 6 - 6 being the highest, 0 the lowest. The floorspaces are gross, i.e. they do not subtract associated losses. The data is taken from the London Development Database (LDD) which has a threshold for data submission of 1,000m2 for B1 uses so schemes proposing less than this are not recorded.
2.68	62% of all B1 floorspace approved during 
2013/14 is located in areas with good public transport accessibility, well above the benchmark target of 50% and 13% 

|                  | PTAL level   | all B1          | offices (B1a)   |
|------------------|--------------|-----------------|-----------------|
| floorspace (m2)  | %            | floorspace (m2) | %               |
| 5 or 6           | 709,363      | 62              | 696,254         |
| 4 or less        | 438,648      | 38              | 267,880         |
| Total floorspace | 1,148,011    | 964,134         |                 |

Source: London Development Database above the previous year's figure. When just offices are considered, the figure rises to 72% up 10% on the previous year. These figures reflect the location of the proposed floorspace. From roughly 515,000m2 of B1 floorspace granted outside the Central Activities Zone (CAZ), less than 15% is in an area of high PTAL. Of 340,000m2 of offices outside CAZ, 21.5% is in an area of high PTAL. This compares to 100% in the highly accessible CAZ area.

2.69	As noted above, the figures are based on 
gross approvals. Overall approvals during 2013/14 would result in a net loss of both B1 and B1a office floorspace for the second year in a row. Perhaps surprisingly the loss of office is also mostly (75%) in areas with a high PTAL score.

## Key Performance Indicator 18 Protection Of Biodiversity Habitat

Target: No net loss of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs)

2.70	Tables 2.23 and 2.24 are based on the 
changes in SINCs as a result of planning permissions and completions. Designation of new SINCs is not done through the planning permission process. Re-provision within the permission is taken into account but no positive numbers are recorded meaning a loss is inevitable. The London Development Database records the following conservation designations:
•	Statutory Site of Special Scientific Interest, •		
Site of Metropolitan Importance,
•		
Site of Borough Grade I Importance
•		
Site of Borough Grade II Importance
•		
Site of Local Importance
2.71	Open Space designations such as Green 
Belt, MOL and Local Open Space are addressed in KPI 3.
2.72	Table 2.23 shows 17 approvals on SINCs 
in 2013/14, 12 more than the previous financial year. The total area covers 15.3 Ha, up from 0.87 Ha in the previous year. The largest losses are on the Beddington Farmlands Landfill Site and Lake Farm Country Park both mentioned in KPI 3.
2.73	Table 2.24 shows 6 completions on SINC 
sites, one more than in the previous year. The largest completion on a SINC was in Brent where 21 homes were built on a site 
of Borough Grade 2 Importance located within a churchyard. The total net loss of SINCS was 0.895 Ha, down 0.45 Ha on last year.

| Nature Conservation Type           | Borough Name                       | Borough                            |
|------------------------------------|------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Reference                          |                                    |                                    |
| Bexley                             | 08/11096/FULM                      | Site of Metropolitan Importance    |
| Brent                              | 122995                             | Site of Metropolitan Importance    |
| Brent                              | 131501                             | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance |
| Camden                             | 2013/1889/P                        | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance |
| Ealing                             | P/2012/0708                        | Site of Local Importance           |
| Ealing                             | P/2013/5324                        | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance |
| Havering                           | P0151/13                           | Site of Metropolitan Importance    |
| Havering                           | P1451/10                           | Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance |
| Hillingdon                         |                                    |                                    |
| 68911/                             |                                    |                                    |
| APP/2012/2983                      |                                    |                                    |
| Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance | 5.500                              |                                    |
| Kensington and                     |                                    |                                    |
| Chelsea                            |                                    |                                    |
| PP/11/01937                        | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance | 0.565                              |
| Kensington and                     |                                    |                                    |
| Chelsea                            |                                    |                                    |
| PP/13/03968                        | Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance | 0.635                              |
| Kingston upon                      |                                    |                                    |
| Thames                             |                                    |                                    |
| 13/16542/FUL                       | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance | 0.188                              |
| Merton                             | 13/P0692                           | Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance |
| Sutton                             | D2005/54794                        | Site of Metropolitan Importance    |
| Sutton                             | D2011/64908                        | Site of Metropolitan Importance    |
| Sutton                             | D2012/66220                        | Site of Metropolitan Importance    |
| Wandsworth                         | 2012/0758                          | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance |
| London (Net                        |                                    |                                    |
| hectares):                         |                                    |                                    |
|                                    | Sum:                               | 15.310                             |

Source: London Development Database

| Nature Conservation Type                | Borough Name                    | Borough                            |
|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Reference                               |                                 |                                    |
| Brent                                   | 093104                          | Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance |
| Hammersmith and                         |                                 |                                    |
| Fulham                                  |                                 |                                    |
| 2009/00758/FR3 Site of Local Importance | 0.102                           |                                    |
| Hounslow                                | 00132/A/P12                     | Site of Metropolitan Importance    |
| Islington                               | P060898                         | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance |
| Richmond upon Thames 08/4383/FUL        | Site of Metropolitan Importance | 0.293                              |
| Sutton                                  | C2011/63884                     | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance |
| london (Net hectares):                  | Sum:                            | 0.895                              |

Source: London Development Database

Area of 
Open Space (Ha)
Area of Open Space (Ha)

Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted and elimination of waste to landfill by 2031
Target: At least 45 % of waste recycled/
composted by 2015 and 0 % of biodegradable or recyclable waste to landfill by 2031

2.74	Table 2.25 shows that the total amount 
of local authority collected waste has continued to decline - by about 800,000 tonnes between 2002/03 and 2013/14 and by over 60,000 tonnes during the last year alone. 
2.75	It also shows that London's recycling 
rate for local authority collected waste has increased steadily over the previous ten years, reaching 30 % in 2012 and remaining there over the past two years. There is still some way to go towards reaching the 45% target that has been set for 2016. London has a lower household recycling rate than any other region in England, in part because it has a relatively high number of flats and less garden waste. 
2.76	The amount of local authority collected 
waste sent to landfill has gone down by over 1 % last year, after over 5 % in the year before and the amount has more than halved since 2007/8 to under 25 % with the majority being diverted to incineration with energy recovery.

tonnes)
2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
Total~
4,446
4,342 4,370
4,223
4,235 4,154 3,975 3,862 3,797 3,648 3,576
 3,640
Landfill
3,163
3,021
2,856
2,692
2,404 2,209 1,946 1,882 1,696 1,116
911
 889 
(%)
71.0%
70.0%
65.4%
63.7%
56.8% 53.2% 49.0% 48.7% 44.7% 30.6% 25.5% 24.4%
Incineration 
with EfW
872
826
869 767 929 919 912 803 896
1,303 1,462
 1,525 
(%)
20.0%
19.0% 19.9%
18.2%
21.9% 22.1% 22.9% 20.8% 23.6% 35.7% 40.9% 41.9%
Incineration 
without 
EfW
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
 0 
(%)
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Recycled/
composted
410
494 643 763 844 925 994
1,060 1,076 1,105 1,088
 1,110 
(%)
9.0%
11.0%
14.7%
18.1%
19.9% 22.3% 25.0% 27.4% 28.3% 30.3% 30.4% 30.5%
Other#
0 0 0 0
59
101 123 117 130 124 115
 116 
(%)
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.4% 2.4% 3.1% 3.0% 3.4% 3.4% 3.2% 3.2%

# Other includes material which is sent for Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and that disposed through other treatment processess.

~ Total may exceed the sum of rows above; this is accounted for by incineration without energy from waste, which does not exceed 500 tonnes of ondon's local authority collected waste since 2005/06.

Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2013/14, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/env18-local-authority-collected-waste-annualresults-tables

Reduce carbon dioxide emissions through new development Target: Annual average percentage carbon dioxide emissions savings for strategic development proposals progressing towards zero carbon in residential developments by 2016 and all developments by 2019

2.77	Policy 5.2 of the London Plan published 
in July 2011 sets out a stepped approach to reaching the Government's zero carbon targets - see Tables 2.26 and 2.27 below.
2.78	An analysis6 of the energy assessments 
submitted alongside Stage II planning applications determined by the Mayor between 1 January and 31 December 2013 was undertaken by the GLA in 2014 to establish the projected carbon dioxide savings secured from these schemes. The report reflects a full year of applications assessed against the Mayor's energy hierarchy and carbon dioxide targets set out in London Plan Policy 5.2. The assessment was made against the 2010 Part L Building Regulations and showed an approximate 36 % reduction in regulated7 
carbon dioxide emissions beyond the minimum requirements of the 2010 building regulations. This is 11% above the 25 % target. The 40 % target for 2013- 16 was applied to applications received at Stage I from 1 October 2013. Only one application to which the 40 % target applies was determined at Stage II in 2013, and is included in this analysis, but this target will become more relevant in future AMRs.
2.79	Although the number of applications 
determined by the Mayor at Stage II was slightly up from 2012 (174 compared to 171), the quantum of development was less. Overall, applications determined by the Mayor in 2013 included 43,178 dwellings, 12,701 fewer dwellings and 
0.9million m2 less floorspace than in 
2012. The amount of non-domestic development remained stable at 2.3 million m2 of floorspace approved. The number of smaller schemes is reflected in the total savings achieved and commitments to installation of infrastructure and technologies.

2.80	Of each of the elements of the energy 
hierarchy, combined heat and power (CHP) produced the largest carbon dioxide savings. It accounted for 21 % of all projected carbon dioxide savings secured in 2013. Approximately 41,000 dwellings (more than 95 % of those proposed) were proposed to be connected to heat networks.
2.81	Nine % of the projected savings were 
due to energy efficiency - a higher figure than in 2011 and 2012, indicating greater investment in the 'fabric first' approach. Renewable energy technologies accounted for approximately six % of the overall savings. The most popular renewable energy technology installed was photovoltaic (PV) panel arrays, with developers committing to the installation of over 71,000m2 of PV panels.
2.82	The carbon dioxide savings from 
developments where CHP is unsuitable were substantially less than those with CHP. As such, developments unable to obtain energy from CHP are less likely to meet the carbon dioxide reduction targets set out in the London Plan.
2.83	Boroughs are being encouraged to set up 
carbon dioxide off-setting funds in line with Policy 5.2 to further reduce carbon dioxide across London. The Mayor's Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Guidance was published in April 2014. This provides the 
boroughs with further guidance on what to consider when setting up an off-set fund.

reduction targets for residential buildings
Year
improvement on 2010 Building 
Regulations
2010-2013
25 per cent
2013-2016
40 per cent
2016-2031
zero carbon

Source: London Plan 2011

reduction targets for non-domestic buildings
| Year        | improvement on 2010 Building    |
|-------------|---------------------------------|
| Regulations |                                 |
| 2010-2013   | 25 per cent                     |
| 2013-2016   | 40 per cent                     |
| 2016-2019   | as per Building Regulations     |
| 2019-2031   | zero carbon                     |

Source: London Plan 2011
Increase in energy generated from renewable sources.

Target: Production of 85508 GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2026 

2.84	This renewable energy generation target 
has been developed using data in the Mayor's Decentralised Energy Capacity Studies9 which marked out the role 
renewables could play in our future energy mix by 2026. The renewable energy generation figure includes the potential energy production from various electricity and heat supply technologies, including: photovoltaics, wind, hydro, biomass and energy from waste; as well as solar thermal, ground and air and water source heat pumps.

GENERATION IN LONDON 
Electricity: 2011-2013 Year
bio-mass
landfill gas
Capacity 
(MW)/ (GWh)
wind 
and wave
2011#
Total (MW)
0
3.7
0.3
20.6
165.7
25.0
215.3
Total (GWh)
0
8.0
1.7
49.9
558.7
7.0
625.3
2012#
Total (MW)
0
4.4
0.3
23.4
167.0
42.3 42.3
237.5
Total (GWh)
0
10.9
1.3
46
679.7
34.2
772.1
2013#
Total (MW)
0
4.4
0.3
23.4
169.5
49.1
246.8
Total (GWh)
0
11.5
2.3
60.2
706.3
39.7
820.1

# Updated July 2014 Source: Regional Statistics 2003-2013: Installed Capacity, Department of Energy and Climate Change, 

2.85	The most authoritative datasets for energy 
generated in London from renewable energy sources are provided by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). Table 2.28 shows the generation of electricity from renewables in London for 2011-2013. Generation has been increasing by 6.2% to over 820 GWh but is well below the 2026 target. In addition, through the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) and Renewable Heat Premium Payments (RHPP)10, the following 
renewable heat installations have been achieved:
•	9.8MW of installed capacity installed 
through the non-domestic RHI; 
•	0.7MW of installed capacity from heat 
pumps and biomass, through the RHPP in domestic dwellings; 
•	A total of 181 domestic accredited 
installations from domestic RHI11. 

sewage 
gas
bioenergy
photovoltaics total

## Key Performance Indicator 22 Increase In Urban Greening

Target: Increase total area of green roofs in the CAZ

2.86	In 2014 the GLA, working with the Green 
Roof Consultancy, mapped all known green roofs in the CAZ that were visible on aerial imagery taken in the summer of 2013. A total of 678 green roofs covering an area of over 175,000m2 (17.5 ha) were found. The map is published here: https://www. london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/ greening-london/urban-greening/ greening-roofs-and-walls/green-roof-map  
It provides a more accurate estimate of total green roof area in central London than the estimates included in the previous AMR, which have relied on random sampling. The latest estimates confirm previously identified trends of increasing green roof area since 2007, when the total was less than 10 ha. The total of 17.5ha still represents an underestimate of green roof cover. Through the website linked above the GLA is asking installers or purchasers of green roofs to inform the GLA of any green roofs that may have been missed, or that have been installed since the summer of 2013, to update our map accordingly.
Improve London's Blue Ribbon Network Target: Restore 15km of rivers and streams* 
2009 - 2015 and an additional 10km by 2020 (*defined as main river by the Environment Agency - includes larger streams and rivers but can also include smaller watercourses of local significance)

2.87	Restoration is defined as a measure that 
results in a significant increase in diversity of hydromorphological features and or improved floodplain connectivity and the restoration of river function through essential physical or biological processes, including flooding, sediment transport and the facilitation of species movement.
2.88	The Rivers and Streams Habitat Action 
Plan Steering Group, co-ordinating the implementation of this aspect of London's Biodiversity Action Plan and managed by the Environment Agency, recommends that projects have post project appraisals. For the steering group to enable a project to be assessed as restoration, the following assessments can be made.
•	River Habitat Survey (undertaking pre and 
post project surveys are good practice).
•	Urban River Survey (undertaking pre and 
post project surveys are good practice).
•	Pre and post fixed point photography.
2.89	The time of restoration of a habitat is 
defined as the point at which the necessary construction works have been carried out on the ground to the extent that the habitat is likely to develop without further construction work. For schemes that are phased over several years, an estimate of 
the length gained is made for each year ensuring that there is no double counting. In order to verify that habitats have been created and conditions secured, scheme details need to be submitted to the Rivers & Streams HAP Steering Group. Once the outputs have been verified then the scheme can be reported and placed on Biodiversity Action Reporting system.

2.90	Table 2.29 shows consistent restoration 
of 1.5 km p/a and above each year since 2007, except for the last year. This may have been caused by the changed reporting process for river restoration schemes in 2014/15. Project delivery is now reported directly to the River Restoration Centre through the 'Restore' 
database. This makes reporting simpler and improves the access to project details. However, it is likely that there has been under-reporting for the year 2014/15. To improve reporting,  a River Restoration Group has been established that will review and promote the new process. Over 12.5 km restoration in total (more than 2 km per year) since 2008 still represents progress towards the 2015 target of 15 km. 
2.91	There is uncertainty associated with the 
additional 10 km target. However, the All London Green Grid and River Basin Management Plan should facilitate further achievements. It should be noted that the London Biodiversity Action Plan includes, alongside this KPI, a target for maintenance and enhancement reflected in London Plan Policy 7.19 (Table 7.3). 

Table 2.29 River restoration London 2000 to 2014
Year
restoration (metres)
cumulative restoration (metres)
2000
680
680
2001
150
830
2002
600
1,430
2003
2,300
3,730
2004
500
4,230
2005
0
4,320
2006
100
4,330
2007
5,100
9,430
2008
2,000
11,430
2009
1,500
12,930
2010
1,808 
14,738
2011
3,519
18,257
2012
3,000
21,257
2013
2,395
23,652
2014
330
23,982

Source: Rivers and Streams Habitat Action Plan Steering Group and the London Catchment Partnership

Protecting and improving London's heritage and public realm Target: Reduction in the proportion of designated heritage assets at risk as a percentage of the total number of designated heritage assets in London

2.92	The target includes all designated heritage 
assets, including World Heritage Sites, listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens and registered battlefields. Despite the pressures on development, Table 2.30 shows that the number of designated assets in London has increased from last year's. There are  24 new listed 

2011
2012
2013
2014
number % at 
number % at 
risk
World Heritage Sites*
4
0
4
0
4
0 4
0
Listed Buildings#
18,745 2.53%
18,854
2.8%
18,872
2.7% 18,896
3%
Conservation Areas
1000
6.4%
949
6.8%
1,009
6.3% 1017
6.3%**
Schedule Monuments
154 22.7%
154 22.7%
155 20.6% 156
19.87%
Registered Parks and Gardens
149 5.40%
150
8%
150
7.3% 150
7.3%
Registered Battlefield
1
0
1
0
1
0 1
0%

*designated by UNESCO
# does not include Places of Worship **there are a total of 1017 Conservation Areas in London, the figure given for the number of conservation areas at risk is based on the number of LPAs who responded to the Conservation Area at Risk survey (953), not the total number of Conservation Areas given above Source: English Heritage buildings, eight new conservation areas and one more scheduled monument in London.

2.93	 In terms of designated assets at risk, 
between 2013 and 2014 there was an increase of 0.3% of listed buildings at risk; a decrease of 0.73% of scheduled monuments at risk; and for all other designed assets the situation remained the same in terms of both their number and their condition as in the previous year. For detail on individual designated assets, please visit http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/caring/heritage-at-risk/. English Heritage also provides a summary document with the number and condition of all designated assets and has produced a Heritage at Risk 2014 summary for London.

|      | number % at    | number % at    |
|------|----------------|----------------|
| risk | risk           | risk           |

## Endnotes

1 EGi data for permissions are based on 
planning committee decisions which are a precursor to discussion on the content of S106 agreements, whereas LDD waits for a decision letter to be issued which does not happen until the legal agreement has been signed. LDD data has a minimum threshold of 1,000 sqm gross, whereas the threshold in EGi data is 500 sq m gross. LDD data exclude refurbishments where the existing building is already in office use, which are included by EGi. In addition EGi data for starts are based on observed construction of new or refurbished space, whereas LDD records whether work is started in a legal sense, so can include demolition works as starts where these, in effect, activate the permission. Over the period 2004-2011, the office floorspace permissions recorded by LDD are typically 60-70% of the floorspace recorded by EGi. The LDD figure provides a useful measure of the store of permissions available to facilitate the immediate responsiveness of developers to changes in demand, whereas the EGi figure gives a broader measure of activity by developers in the office market (accepting that some of the permissions in that dataset may never come to fruition).
2  All figures sited are sqm net internal area 3  Knight Frank Central London Quarterly Q3 
2014
4 Office for National Statistics (2014) Inter 
Department Business Register, Number of Businesses (Local Units) by Broad Industry Group
5 Ramidus (2014) Serviced Offices and Agile 
Occupiers in the City of London.  
6 Energy Planning. Monitoring the 
implementation of London Plan energy policies in 2012. GLA. 2013
7  The carbon dioxide emissions controlled 
by Building Regulations such as emissions generated from hot water, space heating, cooling and fans. 
10 Target not specified in London Plan. It has 
been included since AMR 8. 
11 https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/
environment/tackling-climate-change/ energy-supply 
12 https://www.gov.uk/government/
statistical-data-sets/rhi-and-rhppdeployment-data-january-2013 
13 DECC do not publish installed capacity 
figures achieved through domestic RHI installations. 

## Additional Performance Measures And Statistics Housing And Design Housing Provision Annual Monitor 2013/14 Introduction

3.1	 This report provides further detail on 
housing provision in London, adding to that provided in the tables in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report. It is based on data provided by London boroughs to the London Development Database (LDD). The LDD was established by the GLA in 2004 with the support of government and the London Local Authorities and is widely regarded as the most authoritative source of information on housing provision in London.
3.2	 This section deals with housing provision 
as defined for the purpose of monitoring the London Plan: that is, net conventional supply from new build, conversions of existing residential buildings or changes of use. The statistics are based on the details of planning applications approved by the London boroughs. LDD records all Full and Outline permissions that propose a loss or a gain of residential units. Variations to these, whether through details / reserved matters consents, s73 Minor Material Amendments or formal Variations to s106 
agreements, are also recorded. Changes of use from office to residential via the prior approval process are also included following their introduction on 30th May 2013. Note that the streamlined prior approvals process means that applicants do not need to submit full details of their proposed scheme so it is not always possible for the local authority to fill in all of the details normally recorded on LDD. These gaps in the data can lead to totals 
not matching across tables in this report. Prior approvals from retail to residential are not currently being recorded on LDD so do not contribute to these figures. Temporary permissions are excluded.

3.3	  The Mayor's London Housing Strategy sets 
out a separate and distinctly defined target for affordable housing delivery, comprising the gross number of affordable homes delivered through conventional supply or acquisitions of existing properties. The Affordable Housing Monitor covers affordable housing delivery according to this latter definition.
3.4	 Although some individual schemes are 
referenced in this report, it is intended to give a brief overview to the London situation. More detailed information at a local level can be found in borough AMRs.

## Key Statistics And Findings

a	 There were 23,986 net conventional 
housing completions in London in 2013/14. 
b	 Taking into account net supply of 4,339 
non-self-contained units, total housing provision excluding long-term vacant properties returning to use was 29,382. This amounts to 91% of the benchmark for completions in the London Plan 2011.
c	 New build accounted for 85% of net 
conventional supply in 2013/14, conversions 5% and changes of use 10%.
d	 Over the last three years net conventional 
affordable housing completions through planning permissions amounted to 23,148 homes. Social rented units make up 60% of affordable completions over this period, 
intermediate housing just over 36% and affordable rent just over 3%.

e	 Across all tenures, gross conventional 
housing supply was dominated by one or two bedroom homes. 36% of homes completed during 2013/14 had one bedroom, 42% had two bedrooms and 22% had three bedrooms or more, down slightly from 23% in 2012/13.
f	 29% of gross affordable housing 
completions in 2013/14 comprised homes with three or more bedrooms, including 7% with four bedrooms or more.
g	 15% of net units approved and 20% of net 
units in schemes started during 2013/14 are affordable housing.
h	 As of 31 March 2014, the net housing 
pipeline consisted of over 240,900 homes. 54% of these are in schemes that had not yet started.
i	 The average density of new housing 
approvals in 2013/14 was 137 dwellings per hectare (dph), and the average density of completions was 118 dph.

## Completions

3.5	 Total housing provision in the London Plan 
consists of three elements: conventional housing supply, non-self-contained bed spaces, and long-term empty homes returning to use, often referred to as 'Vacants'. KPI 5 in chapter 2 and Tables HPM1 and HPM2 show housing provision at borough level.
3.6	 Net conventional completions for 2013/14 
are 23,986. This is the highest total for four years, but still below the peak of over 
29,500 in 2008/09.

3.7	 The non-self-contained element of the 
benchmark is comprised of bedrooms in student halls of residence, hostels and houses in multiple occupation. The net total of 4,339 is the highest since the LDD was established in 2004.
3.8	 The figures for the change in long-term 
empty homes are taken from statistics published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, based on council tax returns from local authorities. The change is calculated from the number of vacant dwellings as at October each year so does not correspond with the reporting period of 1st April to 31st March for the LDD-sourced data, but it remains the best source of net change available.
3.9	 Figure 3.1 shows the separate elements of 
total housing provision for the last seven years. As noted above, data on the third element of the total, vacants, is not yet available. Based on just conventional and non-conventional supply, completions have risen sharply since last year. It is not known at this stage whether vacants will be a positive or negative figure, but it is likely that the total will remain well above that for the previous year.
3.10	In 2013/2014 a total of 27,537 homes 
have been completed, with 3,551 lost or replaced to give the net total of 23,986 (see Table HPM1). Areas where large-scale estate redevelopment is taking place can show high gross but low net supply, but this does not appear to have been a major issue for any boroughs this year.
3.11	There are three types of conventional 
housing supply recorded in the LDD; new 
Source: Conventional and non-conventional supply - London Development Database Vacants back in use - GOV.UK Housing Live Table 615; https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-datasets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants

2004/5 2005/6
2006/7 2007/8 2008/9
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
Conventional
25,300
25,084 27,226 28,215 29,534 24,732 19,185 21,988 21,923 23,986
Non-
Conventional
4,164
449
2,973 1,284 2,408 1,426 1,922 1,491 2,653 4,339
Vacants back 
in use
2,519
-61
3,608
287
-398
2,223 4,882 5,670 2,018
 1,057
Total
31,983 25,483
33,955 31,230 32,996 30,185 27,596 30,400 26,600 29,382

build (including extensions), conversions (changes to the number of units in properties already in residential use) and changes of use (for example gains from industrial or commercial uses and losses to non-C3 uses). Table HPM2 shows gross and net conventional supply by type for each borough. Across London, new build accounted for 85% of net conventional supply in 2013/14 (it was 87% in 2012/13), conversions 5% and changes of use 10%.

3.12	New builds account for more than half 
of all net gains in every single borough, the lowest proportion being found in Hammersmith and Fulham and Harrow, both at 57%. By contrast both Barking and Dagenham and Greenwich gained 98% of their new units from new build and Kensington and Chelsea saw a net loss from the other development types so have a net % in excess of 100. In gross terms the figure for Kensington and Chelsea is much lower at 74%. The gross London average is 80%. Conversions led to a net loss of units in three boroughs, Westminster (-52 units), Kensington and Chelsea (-42) and Richmond upon Thames (-21), most likely through buildings being de-converted from flats back to houses. Hammersmith and Fulham (146) and Lambeth (144) gained the most units through residential conversions. It is worth noting that conversion of flats to a house is not defined as development in the legislation that governs planning and may be done without planning permission. They are sometimes recorded on certificates of proposed lawful development and the London boroughs are currently being consulted on whether these should be recorded on LDD. This should improve the accuracy of figures on de-conversions in 
future years. Changes of use accounted for 10% of net completions in net terms and 9% gross. The introduction of permitted development rights for changes of use from office to residential in May 2013 had very little impact on completions during 2013/14, but it is anticipated that the percentage may rise in the coming years as the large volume of consents across London start to be implemented (see table HPM 15).

3.13	The average density of new housing 
completions in London (shown in Table HPM14) was 118 dwellings per hectare (dph), an slight decrease on the previous year's figure of 120. As would be expected the lowest densities are found in the outer London boroughs. The density of completions in Havering was just 30dph and in Bromley it was 32dph. The City of London has the highest density at 808dph. Tower Hamlets and Newham delivered at the next highest densities, 316 and 242 dph respectively.
3.14	Table 3.2 shows the split of total gross 
conventional completions in 2013/14 across London as a whole by tenure and number of bedrooms. The figures are presented in gross terms as the number of bedrooms was not recorded on LDD for homes lost or replaced, however boroughs are now recording it on a voluntary basis so net data may become available in future AMRs. One and two-bed properties make up the majority of supply, accounting for 36% and 42% of the total respectively. However the profile of supply varies with tenure. Homes with 3 bedrooms or more make up 38% of social rented supply, compared to 9% for intermediate homes and 20% of market homes. The proportion for all tenures is 22%. These figures are 
very similar to those reported in AMR10. The biggest change is for affordable rented properties where 50% of approximately 500 units have three bedrooms or more.

3.15	Table HMP6 shows the gross conventional 
supply of affordable housing by borough and number of bedrooms. Barking and Dagenham has delivered the most affordable family housing, completing 351 homes with 3 bedrooms or more. This represents 60% of their affordable completions. None of the 24 affordable units completed in the City of London are family housing.
3.16	Total net affordable housing supply in 
2013/14 was 6,618, down from 7,773 2012/13. Affordable units represent 27.5% of all net completions during this year, this is also down on the previous year's figure of 35%. Table HPM4 shows total net conventional affordable supply by borough over the last three years, both in numeric terms and as a proportion of total supply. In the last year the highest proportions of affordable housing supply were found 

Table 3.2 Gross conventional housing Completions by tenure and 
number of bedrooms 2013/14
dwellings
1 bed
2 beds
3 beds
4+ beds
Total
Social Rented
1,166
1,641
1,259
448
4,514
Intermediate
1,171
1,135
208
19
2,533
Affordable Rent
147
113
178
82
520
Market
7,314
8,625
2,835
1,222
19,996
All Tenure
9798
11514
4480
1771
27,563
as a % of total
1 bed
2 bed
3 bed
4+ bed
Total
Social Rented
26%
36%
28%
10%
100%
Intermediate
46%
45%
8%
1%
100%
Affordable Rent
28%
22%
34%
16%
100%
Market
37%
43%
14%
6%
100%
All Tenure
36%
42%
16%
6%
100%

Source: London Development Database in Kensington and Chelsea (70%) and Barking and Dagenham (68%). Barking and Dagenham have the highest three year average at 54%

3.17	Table HPM3 breaks down net conventional 
affordable supply in the last three years into social rented, intermediate and Affordable Rent. Over the three-year period net conventional affordable housing supply amounted to 23,164 homes, with social rented units accounting for 60% of these and intermediate products 36%. Affordable rent units are starting to appear in completions, accounting for just over 3%.

## Approvals

3.18	Annual approvals include all units in 
planning permissions that are granted during the year unless they are superseded by a revision to the scheme within the same year. Many of the permissions granted will be for renewals of existing permissions, revisions to previously approved schemes or provide details of 

2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

the phasing of outline permissions. For this reason approvals cannot simply be added together to give a cumulative total, however they are comparable year on year. Table 3.3 shows the trend in net approvals at London level since 2004/05, while Table HPM7 breaks down 2013/14 approvals by tenure and Table HPM8 by bedrooms.

3.19	Approvals have bounced back since 
the significant dip in 2012/13 which followed the introduction of London's Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) at the end of 2011/12. The total of 55,407 is slightly below the average across the time series. The borough to approve the highest number of units is Hammersmith and Fulham thanks largely to the outline application for the redevelopment at Earls Court that proposes a net gain of 4,887 units. The next biggest scheme in terms of net units is another outline application for The Warren in Greenwich that proposes 2,032 units. Details of the units proposed for this scheme are vague and will be firmed up in subsequent applications. The outline permission or the redevelopment of the South Acton Estate was also approved in this year which proposes an initial 2,350 units to replace 1,851 existing homes.
3.20	In terms of tenure, 85% of approved units 
are for market sale or rent, leaving 15% as affordable units, broken down as 7% intermediate, 4% Affordable Rent and 5% social rented. It should be noted that the tenure of approved units can change before completion, for example as the result of negotiations between developers and planning authorities or by subsequent transfer of units to a housing association.
3.21	The average density of new housing 
approvals shown in Table HPM 13 is 137 dph, an increase on last year's 127 dph. This is still significantly lower than the figure of over 165 dph for 2011/12. As ever there is wide variation between boroughs. The highest densities are in the City of London (431 dph) and Tower Hamlets (430 dph). The lowest is in Bromley which is just 29 dph, kept low by schemes for replacement dwellings on large sites that drag down the average.
3.22	Excluding the office to residential prior 
approvals, the density of approvals stands at 132 dph.

## Starts

3.23	In the LDD a 'start' is the point at which 
a planning permission can no longer lapse due to the acknowledgement of a legal start on site. This can be triggered by demolition of existing buildings or preparatory digging, and does not mean the start of physical construction work on an individual building. Annual starts include all units in planning permissions that are started during the year unless they are superseded by a revision to the scheme within the same year. Many of the permissions started will be for revisions to previously approved schemes or provide details of the phasing of outline permissions that have been started in previous years. As with approvals, starts can't simply be added together to give a cumulative total. They are however comparable year on year.
3.24	Table HPM9 shows net conventional 
housing 'starts' by tenure. LDD records 40,192 starts, a big increase on the 26,764 in the previous year. The low total in the 
previous year contradicted anecdotal evidence at the time that the construction sector was showing signs of recovery, so the relatively high level of starts recorded this year is welcome evidence the anticipated recovery has begun. The healthy number of units in the pipeline discussed below shows that the lack of new starts is not necessarily a major cause for concern. In terms of tenure, 20% of net starts in 2013/14 were affordable housing. The breakdown by tenure is affected by a number of large net losses of social rented housing as boroughs continue to redevelop existing estates, the replacement units being for intermediate or affordable rent. Consequently social rented units account for 1% of net starts, despite being the biggest single tenure in gross terms.

3.25	The majority of the units recorded as starts 
are 1 and 2 bed units, with properties of 3 bedrooms or more making up 24% of starts (see HPM10).

## The Pipeline Of New Homes

3.26	The 'pipeline' of housing supply comprises 
homes which have been granted planning permission but are not yet completed, and can be broken down into homes that are 'not started' and those that are 'under construction'. It is important to bear in mind the definition of a start above, the under construction pipeline shows the capacity in schemes on which some work has started but should not be used to infer that work has begun on all the dwellings in those schemes. The annual flow of planning approvals for new homes adds to the pipeline, while units are removed when they are either completed, superseded by a new scheme or pass their lapse date without a start being made.
3.27	Table 3.4 shows the net pipeline as at the 
end of each financial year (31st March) at London level since 2004/05. The number of units in the pipeline continues to rise, now topping 240,000 units, meaning there is capacity within the planning system to deliver over 7½ years of supply at the target level in the 2011 London Plan and more than 5½ years at the higher target in the London Plan 2015.
3.28	Table HPM11 shows the planning pipeline 
as of 31 March 2013. At the end of the 
year there were just under 130,000 units (net) which have been granted planning permission but on which construction had not started, as well as over 110,000 units (net) in schemes under construction. This is a big jump on the position at the same time in the previous year. The boroughs with the largest pipeline are mainly concentrated in the East, long viewed as the part of London with the most potential to accommodate growth. Greenwich has a net pipeline of nearly 25,000 units, nearly 14,600 of which are in schemes that are classified as under construction. Newham's pipeline has grown to over 23,600, of which 5,700 are under construction. Tower Hamlets also have over 23,000 units in the pipeline of which over 10,000 are under construction. Further West, Wandsworth has a total net pipeline of nearly 18,000 units. At the other end of the scale, the City of London have a total pipeline of under 1,000 units.
3.29	HPM 12 shows the gross conventional 
pipeline by number of bedrooms. 22% of units for which the information is available will provide 3 bedrooms or more.

## Gypsy And Traveller Sites

3.30	Since 1st April 2009 the LDD has been 
recording the loss and gain of gypsy and traveller pitches. During 2013/14 no permissions relating to pitches for gypsies and travellers were either approved or completed. There are no permissions relating to gypsy and traveller pitches in the pipeline.

| Borough Name         | Lost   | Gained   | Net    |
|----------------------|--------|----------|--------|
| Barking and          |        |          |        |
| Dagenham             |        |          |        |
| 3                    | 871    | 868      | 1,041  |
| Barnet               | 130    | 1,139    | 1,009  |
| Bexley               | 17     | 545      | 528    |
| Brent                | 107    | 787      | 680    |
| Bromley              | 67     | 672      | 605    |
| Camden               | 129    | 604      | 475    |
| City of London       | 18     | 447      | 429    |
| Croydon              | 124    | 1,422    | 1,298  |
| Ealing               | 274    | 1,043    | 769    |
| Enfield              | 200    | 712      | 512    |
| Greenwich            | 39     | 1,321    | 1,282  |
| Hackney              | 104    | 1,224    | 1,120  |
| Hammersmith and      |        |          |        |
| Fulham               |        |          |        |
| 107                  | 649    | 542      | 564    |
| Haringey             | 107    | 561      | 454    |
| Harrow               | 54     | 355      | 301    |
| Havering             | 17     | 173      | 156    |
| Hillingdon           | 27     | 586      | 559    |
| Hounslow             | 165    | 1,000    | 835    |
| Islington            | 144    | 1,388    | 1,244  |
| Kensington and       |        |          |        |
| Chelsea              |        |          |        |
| 164                  | 398    | 234      | 530    |
| Kingston upon Thames | 40     | 301      | 261    |
| Lambeth              | 204    | 1,460    | 1,256  |
| Lewisham             | 90     | 843      | 753    |
| Merton               | 72     | 512      | 440    |
| Newham               | 73     | 2,044    | 1,971  |
| Redbridge            | 48     | 306      | 258    |
| Richmond upon        |        |          |        |
| Thames               |        |          |        |
| 88                   | 452    | 364      | 210    |
| Southwark            | 76     | 1,727    | 1,651  |
| Sutton               | 38     | 378      | 340    |
| Tower Hamlets        | 10     | 694      | 684    |
| Waltham Forest       | 351    | 743      | 392    |
| Wandsworth           | 141    | 1,327    | 1,186  |
| Westminster          | 323    | 853      | 530    |
| London               | 3,551  | 27,537   | 23,986 |

Source: London Development Database

London Plan 2011 benchmark
Supply as % of benchmark
Hackney
22
933
911
79
154
75
3
137 134 104
1,224 1,120
Croydon
30
1,110
1,080
78
211 133
16
101
85
124
1,422 1,298
Ealing
157
650
493 112 171
59
5
222 217 274
1,043
769
Enfield
153
535 382
32 63 31 15
114
99
200 712 512
Greenwich
32
1,286
1,254
7
16
9 0
19 19 39
1,321 1,282
City of London
14
353 339
4
16 12
0
78 78 18
447 429
Camden
71
437 366
55 58
3 3
109 106 129 604 475
Barnet
64
943
879
66
135
69
0
61 61
130
1,139 1,009
Bexley
9
478
469
8
28 20
0
39 39 17
545 528
Brent
28
679 651
77 80
3 2
28 26
107 787 680
Bromley
50
559
509
17 44 27
0
69 69 67
672 605
Barking and 
Dagenham
0
851 851
3 6 3 0
14 14
3
871 868
Borough 
Name
Lost
Gained Net
Lost
Gained Net
Lost
Gained Net
Lost
Gained Net
New Build
Conversion
Change of use
Total
Redbridge
12
207
195
29 63 34
7
36 29 48
306 258
Merton
41
437 396
30 44 14
1
31 30 72
512 440
Newham
11
1,899
1,888
55
111
56
7
34 27 73
2,044 1,971
Lambeth
65
1,070
1,005
135 279 144
4
111 107 204
1,460 1,256
Lewisham
42
697
655
40 81 41
8
65 57 90
843 753
Kingston upon 
Thames
28
226
198
12 22 10
0
53 53 40
301 261
Hounslow
115
842 727
45 88 43
5
70 65
165
1,000
835
Islington
87
1,138
1,051
52
151
99
5
99 94
144
1,388 1,244
Kensington and 
Chelsea
39
294 255 113
71
-42
12 33 21
164 398 234
Havering
13
159
146
4
10
6 0 4 4
17
173 156
Hillingdon
17
544
527
9
22 13
1
20 19 27
586 559
Harrow
13
184 171
41 98 57
0
73 73 54
355 301
Haringey
10
285
275
94
187
93
3
89 86
107 561 454
Hammersmith 
and Fulham
23
330 307
83
229 146
1
90 89
107 649 542

Source: London Development Database

Southwark
34
1,579
1,545
37 64 27
5
84 79 76
1,727 1,651
Sutton
10
263
253
25 67 42
3
48 45 38
378 340
Tower Hamlets
6
652 646
4
12
8 0
30 30 10
694 684
Waltham Forest
291
591
300
60
128
68
0
24 24
351 743 392
Wandsworth
41
1,102
1,061
95
120
25
5
105 100 141
1,327 1,186
Westminster
99
407
308 196 144
-52
28
302 274 323 853 530
London
1643
22085
20442
1767 3022
1,255
141
2430
2,289
3551
27537
23,986
Richmond upon 
Thames
16
365
349
70 49
-21
2
38 36 88
452 364
Borough 
Name
Lost
Gained Net
Lost
Gained Net
Lost
Gained Net
Lost
Gained Net
New Build
Conversion
Change of use
Total
Rent
Total
Social 
Rent
Int.
Aff. 
Rent
Social 
Rent
Int.
Aff. 
Rent
2011/12
2012/13 2013/14
Social 
Rent
Int.
Aff. 
Borough Name
Table HPM 3: Net conventional affordable housing completions by tenure 2010/11 to 2013/14 
Barking and Dagenham
-36
149
0
167
76
0
370
17
201 944
Barnet
303 138
0
285 123
0
223
43
8
1123
Bexley
126
39
0
17 12
0
99 47 20
360
Brent
268 144
0
174
50
0
151
92
0
879
Bromley
204
10
0
129
13
0
62 30
0
448
Camden
37
25
0
194 105
0
159
29 13
562
City of London
0 0 0 0 0 0
24
0 0
24
Croydon
308
54
0
255
98 62 57 59 63
956
Ealing
264
69
0
168 132
0
98
115
7
853
Enfield
55
24
0
106 137
0
123
41
0
486
Greenwich
257 159
0
74 13
0
450 217
12
1182
Hackney
247 183
0
378 184
13
305 146
0
1456
Hammersmith and Fulham
0
80
0 5
102
0
-11
101
0
277
Haringey
62
254
0
204 148
0
68 82
0
818
Harrow
62
189
0
187
95 28 10 23
0
594
Havering
154
23
0
90 32
0
51
1 5
356
Hillingdon
253
90
0
258 129
0
22 23
0
775
Hounslow
222
97
0
28 21
0
20 59
0
447
Islington
295 194
0
137 178
0
160 241
0
1205
Kensington and Chelsea
19
0 0 0 0 4
143
21
0
187
Kingston upon Thames
56
25
0
29
9 0
48 23 13
203
Lambeth
217 131
0
174
95
0
334
97 13
1061
Lewisham
272 197
0
257 265
70
103
49
0
1213
Merton
31
38
0
98 98
0
50 74 14
403
Newham
261 135
16 64
160
81
334 169
0
1220
Redbridge
20
34
0
44
8 0 1 1 0
108
Richmond upon Thames
44
35
0
118
49
0
81 28
0
355
Southwark
459 134
0
300 162
0
239 160
34
1488
Sutton
159
76
0
70 33
0
17
5
27
387
Rent
Total
Social 
Rent
Int.
Aff. 
Rent
Social 
Rent
Int.
Aff. 
Rent
Rent
Int.
Aff. 
2011/12
2012/13 2013/14
Social 
Source: London Development Database
Borough Name
Tower Hamlets
547 167
0
172 102
0
73 31
0
1092
Waltham Forest
299
59
0
125 144
0
-234
147
90
630
Wandsworth
128 141
0
199 109
0
62
175
0
814
Westminster
31
40
0
97 28
0 9
37
0
242
London
5624
3133
16
4603 2910
258
3701 2383
520
23,148
net conventional supply, 2011/12 to 2013/14
borough
Total net conventional 
affordable completions
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Barking and Dagenham
113
243
588
30
48
68
Barnet
441
408
274
35
29
27
Bexley
165
29
166
55
7
31
Brent
412
224
243
74
34
36
Bromley
214
142
92
36
20
15
Camden
62
299
201
17
53
42
City of London
0
0
24
0
0
6
Croydon
362
415
179
51
46
14
Ealing
333
300
220
47
30
29
Enfield
79
243
164
26
44
32
Greenwich
416
87
679
27
41
53
Hackney
430
575
451
37
46
40
Hammersmith and Fulham
80
107
90
16
24
17
Haringey
316
352
150
46
58
33
Harrow
251
310
33
51
43
11
Havering
177
122
57
45
46
37
Hillingdon
343
387
45
34
26
8
Hounslow
319
49
79
54
21
9
Islington
489
315
401
41
30
32
Kensington and Chelsea
19
4
164
16
7
70
Kingston upon Thames
81
38
84
30
19
32
Lambeth
348
269
444
41
42
35
Lewisham
469
592
152
39
33
20
Merton
69
196
138
15
43
31
Newham
412
305
503
53
30
26
Redbridge
54
52
2
10
20
1
Richmond upon Thames
79
167
109
36
34
30
Southwark
593
462
433
55
43
26
Sutton
235
103
49
40
44
14
Tower Hamlets
714
274
104
62
26
15
Waltham Forest
358
269
3
72
57
1
Wandsworth
269
308
237
27
34
20
Westminster
71
125
46
9
21
9
London
8,773
7,771
6,604
39
35
28

Source: London Development Database

Affordable as % of net 
conventional supply
borough
Number of Bedrooms 1
2
3
4+
% 3+
Barking and Dagenham
251
160
337
123
53%
Barnet
398
530
145
66
19%
Bexley
186
211
103
45
27%
Brent
259
333
136
59
25%
Bromley
104
333
151
84
35%
Camden
224
249
103
28
22%
City of London
301
119
21
6
6%
Croydon
534
760
84
44
9%
Ealing
316
563
115
49
16%
Enfield
260
315
102
35
19%
Greenwich
384
661
230
46
21%
Hackney
452
498
206
68
22%
Hammersmith and Fulham
355
211
62
21
13%
Haringey
280
190
59
32
16%
Harrow
140
140
50
25
21%
Havering
15
56
70
32
59%
Hillingdon
111
213
220
42
45%
Hounslow
441
411
108
40
15%
Islington
652
583
100
53
11%
Kensington and Chelsea
143
87
133
35
42%
Kingston upon Thames
108
116
52
25
26%
Lambeth
506
517
342
95
30%
Lewisham
290
418
110
25
16%
Merton
221
182
45
64
21%
Newham
539
972
400
133
26%
Redbridge
123
119
26
38
21%
Richmond upon Thames
155
188
55
54
24%
Southwark
683
667
313
64
22%
Sutton
110
87
118
63
48%
Tower Hamlets
198
432
61
3
9%
Waltham Forest
286
311
80
66
20%
Wandsworth
466
602
121
138
20%
Westminster
307
280
197
69
31%
London
9798
11514
4455
1770
23%

Source: London Development Database

completions by number of bedrooms 2013/14
borough
Number of Bedrooms 1
2
3
4+
% 3+
Barking and Dagenham
170
67
272
79
60%
Barnet
100
99
74
18
32%
Bexley
38
56
49
23
43%
Brent
54
101
61
27
36%
Bromley
4
60
27
1
30%
Camden
90
70
33
8
20%
City of London
20
4
0
0
0%
Croydon
56
99
15
10
14%
Ealing
99
180
41
16
17%
Enfield
120
147
31
9
13%
Greenwich
224
348
105
2
16%
Hackney
148
181
89
43
29%
Hammersmith and Fulham
59
32
27
0
23%
Haringey
84
37
17
12
19%
Harrow
12
16
5
0
15%
Havering
8
9
22
18
70%
Hillingdon
14
21
9
2
24%
Hounslow
86
66
18
2
12%
Islington
224
198
35
24
12%
Kensington and Chelsea
93
13
59
3
37%
Kingston upon Thames
19
29
31
5
43%
Lambeth
132
153
163
36
41%
Lewisham
40
108
29
17
24%
Merton
82
27
15
39
33%
Newham
99
218
110
76
37%
Redbridge
1
0
0
1
50%
Richmond upon Thames
36
52
21
1
20%
Southwark
109
183
127
35
36%
Sutton
16
12
24
0
46%
Tower Hamlets
19
61
24
0
23%
Waltham Forest
68
123
56
37
33%
Wandsworth
127
85
15
0
7%
Westminster
33
34
16
4
23%
London
2484
2889
1620
548
29%

Source: London Development Database

Rent Rent
Int.
Aff. 
Rent
Market Social 
Rent
Int.
Aff. 
Rent
Market Social 
Rent
Int.
Aff. 
Existing
proposed
net
Net % 
affordable
Market Social 
Barking and 
Dagenham
78
150
0 0
550 159
23
106 472
9
23
106
23%
Table HPM 7:  Conventional approvals by tenure FY2013/14
Borough 
Name
Barnet
298
374
0 0
2,319
299
60 10
2,021
-75
60 10
-0%
Bexley
18
141
0 0
453 236
70
0
435
95 70
0
28%
Brent
104
0 0 0
1,234
151 101
57
1,130
151 101
57
21%
Bromley
94
0
46
0
575
5 4
10
481
5
-42
10
-6%
Camden
244
106
0 0
1,245
182
37
0
1,001
76 37
0
10%
City of London
3 0 0 0
506
0 0 0
503
0 0 0
0%
Croydon
109
16
0 0
2,961
95
104 227
2,852
79
104 227
13%
Ealing
676
1,802
45
0
2,657 1,227
457
23
1,981
-575
412
23
-8%
Enfield
131
117
0 0
989
31
217
191
858
-86
217 191
27%
Greenwich
66
81
0 0
2,558
442 406 127
2,492
361 406 127
26%
Hackney
261
9 0 0
1,857
164 222
43
1,596
155 222
43
21%
Hammersmith 
and Fulham
346
615
0 0
5,914 1,211
300
31
5,568
596 300
31
14%
Haringey
124
0 0 0
551
6
20
4
427
6
20
4
7%
Harrow
75
0 0 0
1,405
28
0 0
1,330
28
0 0
2%
Havering
29
0 0 0
617
8
38
180
588
8
38
180
28%
Hillingdon
57 32
0 0
1,276
89
8
49
1,219
57
8
49
9%
Hounslow
23
9 0 0
1,253
239 154
79
1,230
230 154
79
27%
Islington
72
23
0 0
471 108
32
0
399
85 32
0
27%
Kensington 
and Chelsea
259
11
0 0
1,454
76 79 12
1,195
65 79 12
12%
Kingston upon 
Thames
49 36
1 0
362
41
0 1
313
5
-1
1
2%
Lambeth
154
251
0 0
2,431
270 191
359
2,277
19
191 359
20%
Lewisham
48
0 0
46
798
27
0
68
750
27
0
22
6%
Merton
53
0 0 0
439
44
0 0
386
44
0 0
10%
Newham
75
0 0 0
1,623
195 221 130
1,548
195 221 130
26%
Redbridge
78
38
0 0
750 198
24
1
672 160
24
1
22%
Rent Rent
Int.
Aff. 
Rent
Market Social 
Rent
Int.
Aff. 
Rent
Market Social 
Rent
Int.
Aff. 
Existing
proposed
net
Net % 
affordable
Market Social 
Source: London Development Database
Table HPM 7:  Conventional approvals by tenure FY2013/14
Borough 
Name
Richmond 
upon Thames
157
10
1 0
841
77 16
0
684
67 15
0
11%
Southwark
93
314
0 0
3,409
577 307
15
3,316
263 307
15
15%
Sutton
34 76
0 0
1,439
4
34
13
1,405
-72
34 13
-2%
Tower Hamlets
46
189
0 0
2,690
654 308
160
2,644
465 308 160
26%
Waltham 
Forest
59
0 0 0
1,195
0
199 377
1,136
0
199 377
34%
Wandsworth
202
39
0 0
2,107
86
101
1
1,905
47
101
1
7%
Westminster
555
2 0 0
2,675
44
118
39
2,120
42
118
39
9%
London
4,670
4,441
93 46
51520
6973 3851 2313
46850
2532 3758 2267
15%
|                        |        |        | borough   | Number of Bedrooms   |
|------------------------|--------|--------|-----------|----------------------|
| 1                      | 2      | 3      | 4+        | % 3+                 |
| Barking and Dagenham   | 209    | 325    | 167       | 137                  |
| Barnet                 | 817    | 1,017  | 551       | 283                  |
| Bexley                 | 194    | 378    | 138       | 49                   |
| Brent                  | 490    | 616    | 283       | 154                  |
| Bromley                | 140    | 245    | 95        | 114                  |
| Camden                 | 497    | 577    | 287       | 102                  |
| City of London         | 259    | 198    | 35        | 14                   |
| Croydon                | 1,617  | 1,363  | 328       | 79                   |
| Ealing                 | 1,465  | 1,873  | 852       | 174                  |
| Enfield                | 512    | 493    | 275       | 143                  |
| Greenwich              | 1,609  | 1,469  | 423       | 32                   |
| Hackney                | 1,013  | 888    | 403       | 84                   |
| Hammersmith and        |        |        |           |                      |
| Fulham                 |        |        |           |                      |
| 3,476                  | 2,261  | 1,308  | 411       | 23%                  |
| Haringey               | 239    | 218    | 74        | 47                   |
| Harrow                 | 615    | 618    | 116       | 84                   |
| Havering               | 103    | 389    | 213       | 124                  |
| Hillingdon             | 634    | 610    | 101       | 77                   |
| Hounslow               | 818    | 677    | 162       | 68                   |
| Islington              | 251    | 241    | 90        | 29                   |
| Kensington and Chelsea | 516    | 472    | 330       | 234                  |
| Kingston upon Thames   | 177    | 137    | 38        | 52                   |
| Lambeth                | 1,307  | 1,305  | 456       | 180                  |
| Lewisham               | 392    | 381    | 91        | 28                   |
| Merton                 | 274    | 126    | 38        | 45                   |
| Newham                 | 716    | 892    | 475       | 86                   |
| Redbridge              | 374    | 421    | 137       | 41                   |
| Richmond upon Thames   | 382    | 381    | 70        | 103                  |
| Southwark              | 1,534  | 1,892  | 786       | 96                   |
| Sutton                 | 597    | 725    | 118       | 49                   |
| Tower Hamlets          | 1,583  | 1,421  | 650       | 152                  |
| Waltham Forest         | 646    | 785    | 299       | 41                   |
| Wandsworth             | 842    | 929    | 365       | 156                  |
| Westminster            | 819    | 1,011  | 815       | 229                  |
| London                 | 25,117 | 25,334 | 10,569    | 3,697                |

Source: London Development Database

Rent Rent
Int.
Aff. 
Rent
Market Social 
Rent
Int.
Aff. 
Rent
Market Social 
Rent
Int.
Aff. 
Existing
Proposed
Net
% aff
Borough 
Name
Market Social 
Table HPM 9: Conventional starts by tenure FY2013/14 
Barking and 
Dagenham
13
275
0 0
575 189
92
113 562
-86
92
113
17%
Barnet
85
0 0 0
663
54 24
0
578
54 24
0
12%
Bexley
35
602
0 0
691
7
168 408 656
-595
168 408
-3%
Brent
62 32
0 0
4,089
853 833 125
4,027
821 833 125
31%
Bromley
51
0 0 0
179
5 8
10
128
5 8
10
15%
Camden
105 193
0 0
1,176
357 142
14
1,071
164 142
14
23%
City of 
London
4 0 0 0
100
0 0 0
96
0 0 0
0%
Croydon
93 13
0 0
1,158
157 147 506
1,065
144 147 506
43%
Ealing
550
1,686
0 0
1,966 1,081
399
43
1,416
-605
399
43
-13%
Enfield
54 63
0 0
520
40
105
26
466
-23
105
26
19%
Greenwich
9 2 0 0
1,677
260 169
63
1,668
258 169
63
23%
Hackney
102 125
0 0
605 109
41 23
503
-16
41 23
9%
Hammersmith 
and Fulham
138
32
0 0
2,074
22
519
49
1,936
-10
519
49
22%
Haringey
116
0 0 0
608
32
155 139 492
32
155 139
40%
Harrow
62 64
0 0
958
11 21
0
896
-53
21
0
-4%
Havering
11 45
0 0
441 156
60
114 430 111
60
114
40%
Hillingdon
22
1 0 0
242
0
12
0
220
-1
12
0
5%
Hounslow
70 64
0 0
1,178
286 264
96
1,108
222 264
96
34%
Islington
58 40
0 0
806 204
89
0
748 164
89
0
25%
Kensington 
and Chelsea
197
3 0 0
661 120
55
5
464 117
55
5
28%
Kingston 
upon Thames
27
0 0 0
163
22
0 0
136
22
0 0
14%
Lambeth
166
61
0 0
1,969
149 197 151
1,803
88
197 151
19%
Lewisham
48 67
0 0
1,471
327 177
35
1,423
260 177
35
25%
Merton
53 47
0 0
316
74
0
14
263
27
0
14
13%
Rent Rent
Int.
Aff. 
Rent
Market Social 
Rent
Int.
Aff. 
Rent
Market Social 
Rent
Int.
Aff. 
Existing
Proposed
Net
% aff
Borough 
Name
Market Social 
Table HPM 9: Conventional starts by tenure FY2013/14 
Newham
86
0 0 0
2,026
67
226 127
1,940
67
226 127
18%
Redbridge
66 37
0 0
198 108
4 1
132
71
4 1
37%
Richmond 
upon Thames
80 10
0 0
200
16
0 0
120
6 0 0
5%
Southwark
148
1,544
0 0
3,486
552 531
76
3,338
-992
531
76
-13%
Sutton
47 20
0 0
229
45
3 0
182
25
3 0
13%
Tower 
Hamlets
6
14
0 0
350
79 24 66
344
65 24 66
31%
Waltham 
Forest
50
0 0 0
735
28
139 262 685
28
139 262
39%
Wandsworth
134
41 39
0
1,688
121 283 137
1,554
80
244 137
23%
Westminster
278
6 0 0
1,814
123 173
15
1,536
117 173
15
17%
London
3,026 5,087
39
0
35012
5654 5060 2618
31986
567
5021 2618
20%
Source: London Development Database
borough
Number of Bedrooms
|                        | 1      | 2      | 3     | 4+    | % 3+   |
|------------------------|--------|--------|-------|-------|--------|
| Barking and Dagenham   | 322    | 426    | 191   | 30    | 23%    |
| Barnet                 | 220    | 308    | 130   | 83    | 29%    |
| Bexley                 | 205    | 626    | 238   | 205   | 35%    |
| Brent                  | 1,961  | 2,585  | 1,204 | 150   | 23%    |
| Bromley                | 33     | 81     | 52    | 36    | 44%    |
| Camden                 | 583    | 764    | 273   | 69    | 20%    |
| City of London         | 26     | 45     | 15    | 14    | 29%    |
| Croydon                | 770    | 953    | 160   | 85    | 12%    |
| Ealing                 | 1,112  | 1,432  | 789   | 156   | 27%    |
| Enfield                | 157    | 263    | 184   | 87    | 39%    |
| Greenwich              | 1,299  | 616    | 225   | 29    | 12%    |
| Hackney                | 323    | 274    | 124   | 57    | 23%    |
| Hammersmith and Fulham | 1,049  | 1,175  | 333   | 107   | 17%    |
| Haringey               | 346    | 397    | 134   | 57    | 20%    |
| Harrow                 | 289    | 544    | 137   | 20    | 16%    |
| Havering               | 111    | 375    | 223   | 62    | 37%    |
| Hillingdon             | 86     | 128    | 18    | 22    | 16%    |
| Hounslow               | 530    | 752    | 445   | 97    | 30%    |
| Islington              | 409    | 482    | 163   | 45    | 19%    |
| Kensington and Chelsea | 259    | 298    | 199   | 85    | 34%    |
| Kingston upon Thames   | 90     | 49     | 17    | 29    | 25%    |
| Lambeth                | 922    | 1,073  | 349   | 122   | 19%    |
| Lewisham               | 626    | 1,047  | 293   | 44    | 17%    |
| Merton                 | 156    | 156    | 46    | 46    | 23%    |
| Newham                 | 978    | 741    | 634   | 93    | 30%    |
| Redbridge              | 110    | 89     | 77    | 35    | 36%    |
| Richmond upon Thames   | 98     | 59     | 18    | 41    | 27%    |
| Southwark              | 1,191  | 1,871  | 1,233 | 350   | 34%    |
| Sutton                 | 103    | 100    | 49    | 25    | 27%    |
| Tower Hamlets          | 199    | 252    | 58    | 10    | 13%    |
| Waltham Forest         | 310    | 573    | 214   | 67    | 24%    |
| Wandsworth             | 671    | 1,174  | 270   | 114   | 17%    |
| Westminster            | 697    | 707    | 599   | 122   | 34%    |
| London                 | 16,241 | 20,415 | 9,094 | 2,594 | 24%    |

Source: London Development Database

Not Started
Under construction
Total pipeline
Table HPM 11: Conventional pipeline as at 31/03/2014 
Borough Name
Existing Gross
Net
Existing Gross
Net
Existing Gross
Net
Barking and Dagenham
230
2295 2065
602
11832 11230
832
14127 13295
Barnet
1152
13092 11940
2302 6644 4342 3454
19736 16282
Bexley
166
1064
898 651
1901 1250
817
2965 2148
Brent
405
1876 1471
105
6855 6750
510
8731 8221
Bromley
303
1498 1195
320 979 659 623
2477 1854
Camden
517
1901 1384
618
3686 3068 1135 5587 4452
City of London
5
595 590
3
378 375
8
973 965
Croydon
180
4791 4611
75
2892 2817
255
7683 7428
Ealing
461
5322 4861 3197 5070 1873 3658
10392
6734
Enfield
235
1609 1374
102 753 651 337
2362 2025
Greenwich
233
10436 10203
1942
16594 14652
2175
27030 24855
Hackney
692
3706 3014 2224 6342 4118 2916
10048
7132
Hammersmith and 
Fulham
916
8672 7756
127
4329 4202 1043
13001 11958
Haringey
150
2368 2218
94
1115 1021
244
3483 3239
Harrow
139
2951 2812
398
1241
843 537
4192 3655
Havering
469
2001 1532
336
2277 1941
805
4278 3473
Hillingdon
153
1989 1836
84
2683 2599
237
4672 4435
Hounslow
46
1774 1728
163
2447 2284
209
4221 4012
Islington
98
1389 1291
358
2627 2269
456
4016 3560
Kensington and Chelsea
228
2089 1861
892
3139 2247 1120 5228 4108
Kingston upon Thames
121 523 402
25
663 638 146
1186 1040
Lambeth
554
3134 2580 1926 5734 3808 2480 8868 6388
Lewisham
891
6507 5616
108
3424 3316
999
9931 8932
Merton
95
564 469 194 855 661 289
1419 1130
Newham
99
18021 17922
286
5999 5713
385
24020 23635
Redbridge
81
923 842
93
543 450 174
1466 1292
Richmond upon Thames
168
1072
904 110 404 294 278
1476 1198
Southwark
440
5026 4586 1923 8205 6282 2363
13231 10868
Not Started
Under construction
Total pipeline
Source: London Development Database
Table HPM 11: Conventional pipeline as at 31/03/2014 
Borough Name
Existing Gross
Net
Existing Gross
Net
Existing Gross
Net
Sutton
142
2515 2373
683 666
-17
825
3181 2356
Tower Hamlets
1069
13664 12595
1197
11361 10164
2266
25025 22759
Waltham Forest
66
2257 2191
26
1231 1205
92
3488 3396
Wandsworth
195
11532 11337
554
6786 6232
749
18318 17569
Westminster
715
3394 2679
429
4339 3910 1144 7733 6589
London
11414
140550 129136
22147
133994 111847
33561
274544
240,983
borough
Number of Bedrooms
|                        |     1 |      2 |     3 | 4+    | % 3+   |
|------------------------|-------|--------|-------|-------|--------|
| Barking and Dagenham   |  2334 |   6459 |  3856 | 1478  | 38%    |
| Barnet                 |  5632 |   8297 |  2776 | 1208  | 22%    |
| Bexley                 |   631 |   1575 |   488 | 271   | 26%    |
| Brent                  |  2931 |   3824 |  1615 | 361   | 23%    |
| Bromley                |   630 |   1129 |   349 | 369   | 29%    |
| Camden                 |  1989 |   2203 |   944 | 450   | 25%    |
| City of London         |   465 |    397 |    72 | 39    | 11%    |
| Croydon                |  3423 |   3403 |   659 | 198   | 11%    |
| Ealing                 |  3079 |   4560 |  2118 | 635   | 26%    |
| Enfield                |   675 |    863 |   544 | 275   | 35%    |
| Greenwich              | 10376 |  10729 |  4661 | 494   | 20%    |
| Hackney                |  3649 |   3624 |  2127 | 648   | 28%    |
| Hammersmith and        |       |        |       |       |        |
| Fulham                 |       |        |       |       |        |
| 5509                   |  4696 |   2150 |   646 | 22%   |        |
| Haringey               |  1961 |   1021 |   321 | 165   | 14%    |
| Harrow                 |  1322 |   1864 |   568 | 438   | 24%    |
| Havering               |  1131 |   1924 |   836 | 373   | 28%    |
| Hillingdon             |  1462 |   2005 |   615 | 590   | 26%    |
| Hounslow               |  1518 |   1705 |   823 | 175   | 24%    |
| Islington              |  1707 |   1706 |   464 | 139   | 15%    |
| Kensington and Chelsea |  1653 |   1950 |  1049 | 507   | 31%    |
| Kingston upon Thames   |   466 |    466 |   135 | 119   | 21%    |
| Lambeth                |  3137 |   4113 |  1244 | 371   | 18%    |
| Lewisham               |  3490 |   4951 |  1142 | 347   | 15%    |
| Merton                 |   605 |    459 |   162 | 193   | 25%    |
| Newham                 |  5986 |   7292 |  3295 | 638   | 23%    |
| Redbridge              |   643 |    563 |   175 | 85    | 18%    |
| Richmond upon Thames   |   580 |    615 |   118 | 163   | 19%    |
| Southwark              |  4360 |   5659 |  2641 | 571   | 24%    |
| Sutton                 |  1087 |   1444 |   474 | 175   | 20%    |
| Tower Hamlets          | 10620 |   9271 |  4013 | 1113  | 20%    |
| Waltham Forest         |  1093 |   1650 |   603 | 142   | 21%    |
| Wandsworth             |  5365 |   9113 |  2942 | 895   | 21%    |
| Westminster            |  2155 |   2710 |  2299 | 567   | 37%    |
| London                 | 91664 | 112240 | 46278 | 14838 | 23%    |

Source: London Development Database Note: The table excludes units where the bedroom data is not known.

Table HPM 13: Density of residential approvals by borough (dph)
Borough
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Barking and Dagenham
80
130
273
126
67
71
Barnet
112
102
100
70
65
71
Bexley
110
83
80
101
64
77
Brent
133
182
185
146
134
147
Bromley
36
49
52
35
40
29
Camden
136
140
140
181
188
128
City of London
329
235
457
469
452
431
Croydon
131
97
141
167
102
165
Ealing
162
153
144
112
103
120
Enfield
65
72
61
61
91
75
Greenwich
211
145
337
239
233
222
Hackney
200
244
206
235
189
242
Hammersmith and Fulham
187
300
180
243
218
390
Haringey
96
107
116
214
156
105
Harrow
62
83
62
84
91
61
Havering
55
99
121
53
53
46
Hillingdon
91
39
57
70
60
55
Hounslow
159
61
75
124
67
137
Islington
243
271
293
285
193
199
Kensington and Chelsea
132
193
225
192
170
144
Kingston upon Thames
75
64
64
50
33
58
Lambeth
130
195
183
168
226
214
Lewisham
166
229
133
230
128
137
Merton
80
69
65
75
51
78
Newham
368
266
398
465
127
149
Redbridge
87
373
158
108
71
99
Richmond upon Thames
58
46
106
71
51
89
Southwark
334
230
224
208
372
283
Sutton
101
58
57
106
56
146
Tower Hamlets
303
362
318
487
224
430
Waltham Forest
132
121
111
144
128
140
Wandsworth
168
142
206
290
194
162
Westminster
155
199
206
219
196
177
London
138
153
136
165
127
137

Source: London Development Database dph = dwellings per hectare

Table HPM 14: Density of residential completions by borough (dph)
Borough
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Barking and Dagenham
139
238
111
50
166
152
Barnet
98
64
84
80
101
87
Bexley
76
81
65
70
98
62
Brent
145
150
156
141
134
130
Bromley
35
30
49
46
48
32
Camden
229
187
196
119
194
180
City of London
505
500
306
857
376
808
Croydon
98
121
101
75
82
77
Ealing
159
110
112
103
101
121
Enfield
68
61
86
59
73
98
Greenwich
122
110
239
217
99
104
Hackney
223
245
198
223
223
237
Hammersmith and Fulham
207
209
232
283
157
235
Haringey
159
108
106
118
106
110
Harrow
71
116
79
60
93
83
Havering
71
72
53
63
50
30
Hillingdon
60
94
44
25
96
56
Hounslow
119
184
94
78
51
115
Islington
285
199
187
297
207
214
Kensington and Chelsea
173
126
194
153
157
112
Kingston upon Thames
49
45
52
90
68
54
Lambeth
172
157
290
167
158
192
Lewisham
136
188
164
160
140
174
Merton
47
67
101
78
132
96
Newham
267
240
216
166
253
242
Redbridge
110
100
217
173
84
84
Richmond upon Thames
83
71
53
59
89
98
Southwark
220
226
373
213
164
190
Sutton
88
66
66
79
97
50
Tower Hamlets
313
354
363
284
258
316
Waltham Forest
131
118
169
125
133
114
Wandsworth
172
165
104
125
149
112
Westminster
274
260
142
195
208
216
London
127
136
130
111
120
118

Source: London Development Database dph = dwellings per hectare

Table HPM 15: class j prior approvals by number of bedrooms 2013/14
Borough
number of bedrooms
Percentage
1
2
3
4+
% 1
% 2
% 3+
Barking and Dagenham
25
24
0
0
51%
49%
0%
Barnet
348
220
58
2
55%
35%
10%
Bexley
0
3
0
0
0%
100%
0%
Brent
101
128
13
1
42%
53%
6%
Bromley
44
87
3
1
33%
64%
3%
Camden
137
82
20
17
54%
32%
14%
City of London
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Croydon
800
447
16
0
63%
35%
1%
Ealing
81
24
7
0
72%
21%
6%
Enfield
180
32
6
0
83%
15%
3%
Greenwich
7
4
0
0
64%
36%
0%
Hackney
15
2
1
0
83%
11%
6%
Hammersmith and Fulham
81
56
12
3
53%
37%
10%
Haringey
43
23
4
0
61%
33%
6%
Harrow
355
234
5
0
60%
39%
1%
Havering
5
3
0
0
63%
38%
0%
Hillingdon
161
66
6
0
69%
28%
3%
Hounslow
406
137
12
1
73%
25%
2%
Islington
47
25
10
2
56%
30%
14%
Kensington and Chelsea
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Kingston upon Thames
139
94
5
0
58%
39%
2%
Lambeth
155
93
4
9
59%
36%
5%
Lewisham
68
73
2
0
48%
51%
1%
Merton
201
62
5
0
75%
23%
2%
Newham
13
3
0
0
81%
19%
0%
Redbridge
101
56
0
0
64%
36%
0%
Richmond upon Thames
254
179
21
7
55%
39%
6%
Southwark
71
16
2
0
80%
18%
2%
Sutton
227
200
6
0
52%
46%
1%
Tower Hamlets
36
14
7
0
63%
25%
12%
Waltham Forest
73
30
0
0
71%
29%
0%
Wandsworth
170
90
13
0
62%
33%
5%
Westminster
6
0
0
0
100%
0%
0%
London
4,350
2,507
238
43
61%
35%
4%

Source: London Development Database

## Affordable Housing Delivery Monitor

3.31	The measure of affordable housing 
delivery used in the Mayor's London Housing Strategy is very different from the measure of housing provision used in the London Plan. Affordable housing delivery is measured in gross terms and includes acquisitions of existing private sector homes for use as affordable housing. Therefore it is typically higher in any given year than the net provision of affordable housing in planning terms reported in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report and the Housing Provision Monitor.
3.32	The data source for monitoring affordable 
housing delivery targets is the set of statistics on affordable housing supply published by the Department for 
Communities and Local Government2. 
DCLG no longer publish regional statistics but have provided the GLA with updated figures at London level.

3.33	These statistics are compiled from a range 
of sources. The vast majority of delivery in London in recent years has been funded by the Homes and Communities Agency and the Greater London Authority, but the statistics also include units provided without any public funding and a number of assisted purchases. 
3.34	Table AHM2 shows affordable housing 
delivery in London by type in the four years 2010/11 to 2013/14. Over this period a total of 49,150 affordable homes were delivered, of which 28,900 were social rented housing, 17,580 were intermediate housing and 2,660 were for affordable rent. 
3.35	Figure 3.2 shows the trend in total 
affordable housing delivery in London since 1991/92. Delivery peaked at 17,150 in 1995/96, fell to 8,270 in 2000/01 and rose again to a new peak of 17,220 in 2011/12 before falling again to 8,701 in 2013/14 and 9,210 in 2013/14.
3.36	Table AHM3 shows delivery of social 
rent, affordable rent and intermediate housing by London borough in 2013/14. The borough with the highest affordable housing delivery by this definition in 2013/14 was Newham with 1,350, followed by Tower Hamlets (880) and Greenwich (640). As with conventional 
supply, there was again very wide variation between boroughs in terms of both total delivery and the split between social rent, affordable rent and intermediate housing.

## Intermediate Housing

3.37	Paragraph 3.62 of the 2015 London 
Plan sets out the income thresholds for intermediate housing and states that these will be updated on an annual basis in the London Plan Annual Monitoring Reports. 
The thresholds are therefore to be updated as follows. Intermediate provision is submarket housing, where costs, including service charges, are above target rents for social rented housing, but where costs, including service charges, are affordable by households on incomes of less than £71,000. This figure has been up-dated from the London Plan (2011) figure of £61,400 on the basis of the latest data (from 2014) on lower quartile house prices in London, and is an increase from the figure of £66,000 in AMR 10.
3.38	In his 2011 replacement London Plan, 
the Mayor set out a higher intermediate 
housing income threshold of £74,000 for households with dependents, in order to reflect the higher cost of both developing and buying family-sized homes in London. This figure was derived by uprating the upper income threshold in the Plan (£61,400) by 20%. The upper threshold for intermediate family housing can therefore be updated by adding 20% to the general threshold of £71,000 and rounding for a figure of £85,000. Intermediate housing can include shared ownership, sub-market rent provision (including the new affordable rent product) and market provision, including key worker provision, where this affordability criterion is met and where provision is appropriate to meeting identified requirements.

3.39	For dwellings to be considered affordable, 
annual housing costs, including mortgage (assuming reasonable interest rates and deposit requirements), rent and service charge, should be no greater than 40% of net household income, based on the household income limits set out above. Further guidance will be provided in the forthcoming Housing SPG.
3.40	Local planning authorities should seek to 
ensure that intermediate provision provides for households with a range of incomes below the upper limit, and provides a range of dwelling types in terms of a mix of unit sizes (measured by number of bedrooms), and that average housing costs, including service charges, to households for whom intermediate housing is provided are affordable by households on annual incomes of £46,250 pa (i.e. the midpoint of the range between £21,500 (updated from AMR 10 in line with RPI) and £71,000). On this basis, average housing costs, including service charges, would 
be about £1,079 a month or £249 a week (housing costs at 40% of net income, net income being assumed to be 70% of gross income). This figure could be used for monitoring purposes.

3.41	These intermediate income caps £71,000 
for most households increased to £85,000 for families accessing family sided (3 bed or more accommodation) are also applied by the GLA to determine eligibility for GLA funded intermediate products.

## Local Affordable Housing Policies

3.42	The National Planning Policy Framework 
(March 2012) in paragraph 50 requires boroughs, which have identified a need for affordable housing, to set out policies for meeting this need. London Plan Policy 3.11 states that targets should be consistent with the overall strategic target of at least 13,200 (17,000 in 2015 London Plan) affordable homes in London p.a. Boroughs are free to set targets in absolute or percentage terms, the London Plan sets out a range of issues boroughs should consider (capacity, viability, balanced communities etc). Table AHM1 shows adopted borough affordable housing policies.

| BOROUGH                    | BOROUGH POLICY    |
|----------------------------|-------------------|
| TARGET IN 2010             |                   |
| BOROUGH                    |                   |
| POLICY                     |                   |
| TARGET                     |                   |
| % (OR                      |                   |
| PRACTICE)                  |                   |
| AS AT 2002                 |                   |
| Barking &                  |                   |
| Dagenham                   |                   |
| None                       |                   |
| None, use London           |                   |
| Plan                       |                   |
| Use London Plan Policy     | n/a               |
| Barnet                     | 30                |
| Bexley                     | 25                |
| 50% and a minimum of 35%   |                   |
| of units to be affordable  |                   |
| housing (Feb 2012)         |                   |
| n/a                        |                   |
| Brent                      | 30-50             |
| Bromley                    | 20                |
| Camden                     |                   |
| 50                         |                   |
| Proposed                   |                   |
| 50% for >50                |                   |
| dwellings,                 |                   |
| 10-50% for  >10            |                   |
| (or 1,000sqm) <50          |                   |
| dwellings                  |                   |
| City of                    |                   |
| London                     |                   |
| None                       |                   |
| None, use London           |                   |
| Plan                       |                   |
| 30% on-site; 60% off-site  |                   |
| (Jan 2015)                 | n/a               |
| Croydon                    | 40                |
| Ealing                     | 50                |
| Enfield                    | 25                |
| Greenwich                  | 35                |
| 35% minimum onsite for 10  |                   |
| or more homes or sites 0.5 |                   |
| ha or more (July 2014)     |                   |
| n/a                        |                   |
| Hackney                    | 25                |
| Hammersmith                |                   |
| & Fulham                   |                   |
| 65                         | 50%               |
| Haringey                   | 30                |
| 50% Affordable             |                   |
| Harrow                     | 30                |
| Havering                   | None              |
| Hillingdon                 | 25                |
| Hounslow                   | 50                |
| Islington                  | 25                |
| Kensington &               |                   |
| Chelsea                    |                   |
| 33                         |                   |
| Min of 200 units per       |                   |
| an from 2011/12            |                   |
| with site specific         |                   |
| policy of 50%              |                   |
| affordable by floor        |                   |
| area                       |                   |
| ADOPTED BOROUGH            |                   |
| POLICY TARGET              |                   |
| AS AT DECEMBER             |                   |
| 2014  (NUMERICAL /         |                   |
| PERCENTAGE)                |                   |
| EMERGING                   |                   |
| BOROUGH                    |                   |
| POLICY                     |                   |
| TARGET                     |                   |
| 50% for >50 dwellings,     |                   |
| 10-50% for <50 dwellings   |                   |
| (Nov 2010)                 |                   |
| 50% for ≥ 30               |                   |
| dwellings,                 |                   |
| 10-50% in 2%               |                   |
| increments for             |                   |
| each additional            |                   |
| dwelling                   |                   |
| between 10 (or             |                   |
| 1,000sqm) and              |                   |
| 30 dwellings.              |                   |
| Housing on site (March     |                   |
| 2013)                      |                   |
| 40%                        |                   |
| 50% (Dec 2010) or          |                   |
| "maximum reasonable        |                   |
| amount"                    |                   |
| n/a                        |                   |
| BOROUGH                     | BOROUGH POLICY    |
|-----------------------------|-------------------|
| TARGET IN 2010              |                   |
| BOROUGH                     |                   |
| POLICY                      |                   |
| TARGET                      |                   |
| % (OR                       |                   |
| PRACTICE)                   |                   |
| AS AT 2002                  |                   |
| Kingston                    |                   |
| upon Thames                 |                   |
| 50                          | 35%               |
| Lambeth                     | 35-50             |
| 40% (50% with               |                   |
| grant)                      |                   |
| 40% (50% with grant) (Jan   |                   |
| 2011)                       |                   |
| 50% when                    |                   |
| public subsidy,             |                   |
| 40% without                 |                   |
| Lewisham                    |                   |
| An element                  |                   |
| 35%                         | 50% (June 2011)   |
| London                      |                   |
| Legacy                      |                   |
| Development                 |                   |
| Corporation                 |                   |
| Merton                      | 30                |
| Newham                      | 25                |
| Redbridge                   | 25                |
| Richmond                    |                   |
| upon Thames                 |                   |
| 50                          | 50%               |
| reasonable (2011)           |                   |
| n/a                         |                   |
| Southwark                   | 25                |
| 50% overall (40%            |                   |
| in CAZ, 35% in E&C          |                   |
| and suburban zones)         |                   |
| Sutton                      | 25                |
| Tower                       |                   |
| Hamlets                     |                   |
| 50% overall, 35-50%         |                   |
| on individual sites         |                   |
| 50% overall (2010) Equates  |                   |
| to approx. 1,965 units      |                   |
| annually (London Plan       |                   |
| target)                     |                   |
| Adopted                     |                   |
| UDP 1998                    |                   |
| = 25%                       |                   |
| Interim                     |                   |
| Planning                    |                   |
| Guidance -                  |                   |
| 35-50%                      |                   |
| Waltham                     |                   |
| Forest                      |                   |
| 40                          | 50%               |
| To provide at least 50%     |                   |
| (5,700 homes) of homes      |                   |
| as affordable over the plan |                   |
| period                      |                   |
| n/a                         |                   |
| Wandsworth                  | None              |
| Min 373 units per an        |                   |
| (to be reviewed on          |                   |
| adoption of the LP)         |                   |
| Currently being             |                   |
| reviewed (on                |                   |
| individual sites            |                   |
| at least 33%)               |                   |
| Westminster                 | -                 |
ADOPTED BOROUGH POLICY TARGET AS AT DECEMBER 2014  (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE)
EMERGING BOROUGH POLICY TARGET
Maximising 
with 35% 
target 
Maximum 
reasonable 
amount
Currently being 
reviewed
8,558 (equates to 35% 
borough-wide but varies 
locally) (April 2011) 
On individual sites a 
proportion of at least 
33% of homes should be 
affordable (Oct 2010)
| 2010/11                                                                | 2011/12   | 2012/13   | 2013/14   | Total   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|---------|
| Table AHM 2: Affordable housing delivery in London by type, 2010/11 to |           |           |           |         |
| 2013/14                                                                |           |           |           |         |
| Affordable housing delivery                                            |           |           |           |         |
| type                                                                   |           |           |           |         |
| Social Rent, of which:                                                 | 8,890     | 11,370    | 5,060     | 3,580   |
| GLA (new build)                                                        | 5,810     | 9,070     | 4,470     | 2,960   |
| GLA (acquisitions)                                                     | 2,080     | 810       | 160       | 80      |
| Affordable Housing Guarantees                                          | 50        | 50        |           |         |
| HCA or GLA Schemes                                                     | 230       | 420       | 0         | 40      |
| Local authorities                                                      | 510       | 600       | 120       | 150     |
| of which HCA grant funded (new                                         |           |           |           |         |
| build)                                                                 |           |           |           |         |
| 260                                                                    | 500       | 100       | 110       | 970     |
| Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total                               | 150       | 220       | 100       | 90      |
| of which, reported on IMS/PCS                                          | 90        | 80        | 50        | 30      |
| Private Finance Initiative                                             | 120       | 160       | 90        | 0       |
| Permanent Affordable Traveller Pitches                                 | 0         | 20        | 0         | 0       |
| Other                                                                  | 90        | 120       | 210       | 420     |
| Affordable Rent, of which:                                             | 130       | 280       | 2,250     | 2,660   |
| GLA (new build)                                                        | 90        | 200       | 1,390     | 1,680   |
| GLA (acquisitions)                                                     | 50        | 80        | 380       | 510     |
| Affordable Housing Guarantees                                          | 50        | 50        |           |         |
| Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total                               | 0         | 0         | 20        | 20      |
| of which, reported on IMS/PCS                                          | 0         | 0         | 20        | 20      |
| Permanent Affordable Traveller Pitches                                 | 10        | 10        |           |         |
| Local authorities                                                      | 0         | 380       | 380       |         |
| Other                                                                  | 10        | 20        | 30        |         |
| Intermediate Affordable Housing                                        | 5,120     | 5,710     | 3,360     | 3,390   |
| Intermediate Rent, of which:                                           | 1,350     | 890       | 380       | 490     |
| GLA (new build)                                                        | 1,210     | 760       | 330       | 440     |
| GLA (acquisitions)                                                     | 140       | 30        | 10        | 0       |
| Other                                                                  | .         | 110       | 40        | 50      |
| Affordable Home Ownership, of                                          |           |           |           |         |
| which:                                                                 |           |           |           |         |
| 3,770                                                                  | 4,820     | 2,980     | 2,900     | 14,470  |
| GLA (new build)                                                        | 2,790     | 4,190     | 2,580     | 2,290   |
| of which, FirstBuy                                                     | 290       | 600       | 20        | 910     |
| GLA (acquisitions)                                                     | 80        | 100       | 30        | 90      |
| Affordable Housing Guarantees                                          | 190       |           |           |         |
| Other Homes and Communities Agency                                     |           |           |           |         |
| Schemes                                                                |           |           |           |         |
| 20                                                                     | 0         | 20        |           |         |
| Local authorities                                                      | 10        | 10        | 20        | 40      |
| Section 106 (nil grant) new build -                                    |           |           |           |         |
| total                                                                  |           |           |           |         |
| 300                                                                    | 210       | 250       | 190       | 950     |
| of which, reported on IMS/PCS                                          | 260       | 100       | 120       | 190     |
| Assisted Purchase Schemes                                              | 610       | 280       | 110       | 120     |
| Other                                                                  | 20        | 0         | 0         | 20      |
| All affordable                                                         | 14,010    | 17,220    | 8,710     | 9,210   |

See DCLG live table 1000 and statistical release for full notes and definitions. Figures for some previous years have been revised.

Table AHM 3: Affordable delivery in London by tenure, 2013/14
Borough
Social rent
Affordable Rent
Barking and Dagenham
120
360
20
500
Barnet
170
90
130
390
Bexley
20
20
50
90
Brent
40
130
110
280
Bromley
10
30
20
60
Camden
130
40
40
210
City of London
20
0
0
20
Croydon
0
230
120
350
Ealing
70
100
130
300
Enfield
0
60
60
130
Greenwich
370
90
190
640
Hackney
360
60
130
550
Hammersmith and Fulham
40
10
140
180
Haringey
40
30
80
150
Harrow
30
20
30
70
Havering
10
180
80
260
Hillingdon
0
100
30
120
Hounslow
60
60
160
270
Islington
140
0
180
330
Kensington and Chelsea
110
0
10
130
Kingston upon Thames
0
60
40
90
Lambeth
120
60
70
260
Lewisham
120
50
70
240
Merton
80
20
30
120
Newham
700
20
640
1,350
Redbridge
0
0
10
10
Richmond upon Thames
0
40
10
50
Southwark
260
70
220
560
Sutton
30
20
30
90
Tower Hamlets
440
190
260
880
Waltham Forest
0
110
80
190
Wandsworth
40
10
200
260
Westminster
50
10
40
100
London
3,580
2,250
3,390
9,210

Source: DCLG

Intermediate
Total

## Achieving An Inclusive Environment

3.43	The LDD has been collecting data on 
Lifetime and Wheelchair Accessible Homes on all approvals since 2008. More details of the standard can be found at http:// www.lifetimehomes.org.uk/index.php. The standards for Wheelchair Housing are contained in the Accessible London 
SPG which can be found at https:// www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/ publications/accessible-london-achievingan-inclusive-environment. The figures in the table are 'gross' approvals and calculated at scheme level. so units may be counted twice where a scheme is revised and approved within the same year. Percentages are shown rather than absolute numbers to avoid confusion as total units will be higher than total approvals in the Housing Monitor.
3.44	Although developers should seek 100% 
compliance with Lifetime Homes standards for all development types, there are often practical difficulties that can arise when seeking to modify existing buildings through conversion or change of use. Separate totals are therefore shown for all schemes and for new build schemes for which 100% compliance is a more achievable goal.
3.45	The data in Table 3.5 shows that 
compliance with Lifetime Homes standards on all approvals is 75%, down from 85% in 2012/13. The total rises to 93% for new builds. 8.0% of all homes, and 10.2% of new builds are designed to be wheelchair accessible, or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users.
3.46	Despite these standards now being 
accepted as the norm in London, the achievement of London Plan targets of 100% Lifetime Homes and 10% Wheelchair Homes remains out of reach in terms of all units. One of the key reasons is that several boroughs only require compliance on schemes above a certain size, often ten units or more, even on new build schemes. The inclusion of applications for change of use from office to residential via permitted development has also affected the level of compliance for non-new build schemes. The streamlined application process does not require applicants to provide details of compliance with these standards or permit local authorities to require it. In the absence of better information, these Class J prior approvals have been assumed to not comply. If these consents are excluded, the % compliance is comparable with the previous year.

Accessible Homes standards for Residential units approved during FY2013/14
Borough Name
% Lifetime homes, all 
units
% Wheel- Chair Homes, all units
Barking and Dagenham
91.6
8.0
99.9
8.5
Barnet
61.8
5.6
92.5
8.5
Bexley
82.3
14.1
91.8
15.7
Brent
75.0
13.6
98.1
17.6
Bromley
17.4
1.1
21.1
2.3
Camden
55.7
5.4
95.5
9.2
City of London
87.2
8.1
99.7
9.9
Croydon
44.6
7.2
86.3
13.6
Ealing
92.5
9.0
97.6
9.6
Enfield
79.4
8.7
98.7
10.9
Greenwich
98.9
10.0
99.9
10.2
Hackney
69.5
8.5
87.0
10.4
Hammersmith and Fulham
90.8
9.4
93.8
10.6
Haringey
39.9
1.7
78.8
4.4
Harrow
53.5
8.0
97.7
14.0
Havering
66.4
13.2
69.4
14.3
Hillingdon
82.8
8.6
99.5
10.9
Hounslow
52.8
7.0
82.6
11.3
Islington
58.8
4.9
96.6
8.1
Kensington and Chelsea
81.0
11.5
91.7
12.9
Kingston upon Thames
30.9
4.2
100.0
14.8
Lambeth
74.0
6.9
92.8
8.4
Lewisham
69.2
5.5
93.9
7.5
Merton
34.6
1.2
98.7
3.9
Newham
91.7
8.7
97.4
9.3
Redbridge
79.9
5.5
95.2
7.3
Richmond upon Thames
29.3
1.0
82.7
3.2
Southwark
91.0
8.8
97.1
9.4
Sutton
55.2
9.1
91.2
18.0
Tower Hamlets
94.1
9.5
97.7
10.0
Waltham Forest
82.0
6.9
96.1
8.2
Wandsworth
65.0
7.2
87.3
9.0
Westminster
42.0
4.4
75.6
7.4
London
74.7
8.0
93.2
10.2

	
	Source: London Development Database

% Lifetime homes, new build
% WHeelchair homes, new build

## Environment And Transport Ptal Map

3.47	In several important areas of planning 
policy (dealing, for example, with housing density and parking provision), the London Plan uses public transport accessibility levels (PTALs). The 2014 PTAL map (map 
6) is the current version for the time covered by this monitoring report and is the one used to calculate compliance with the density matrix. Extracts are available from TfL.

## Crossrail Funding

3.48	For London to continue to make progress 
in reducing its reliance on the private car, considerable investment in public transport is required. Crossrail is a £15bn investment travelling east-west through the heart of London, serving substantial suburban locations. Under the funding agreement with the Government the Mayor is required to raise £600m from developer contributions via both S106 contributions related to the Crossrail funding SPG and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The Mayor's CIL came into effect from April 2012 and it raises funds to contribute to the construction of Crossrail. The CIL is a London-wide charge, applying to most land uses. In April 2013 the Mayor 
published the updated "Use of Planning Obligations in the funding of Crossrail, and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy" SPG. 
3.49	 Table 3.6 shows funding secured for 
Crossrail to date from each funding stream. The CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended) require the Mayor to report on various aspects of how CIL receipts are being spent. This is set out in Table 3.6A. It is not possible to link CIL to a specific type of expenditure as the proceeds are transferred into the Sponsor Funding Account (SFA), 
which then draws on the total to be spent in line with the project's requirements. The amount of CIL 'in hand' is zero, as all of it is transferred to the SFA to fund the Crossrail scheme on a quarterly basis.

Net of CIL administration costs.
| S106    | Year     | CiL    |
|---------|----------|--------|
| 0.24    |          |        |
| 2010/11 | 0        |        |
| 1.43    |          |        |
| 2011/12 | 0        |        |
| 17.20   |          |        |
| 2012/13 | 6.03     |        |
| 13.31   | 2013/14  | 46.20  |
| 8.03    | 2014/15* | 54.75  |
|         | 2015/16  |        |
|         | 2016/17  |        |
|         | 2017/18  |        |
|         | 2018/19  |        |
|         | 2019/20  |        |
| 40.21   | Total    | 106.98 |
| Category                    |   £ |
|-----------------------------|-----|
| Total CIL Expenditure       |     |
| 106,990,843#                |     |
| Amount used to repay        |     |
| borrowing                   |     |
| 0                           |     |
| Amount spent (2014/15)      |     |
| on administration by TfL/   |     |
| GLA (1%)                    |     |
| 580,508#                    |     |
| Amount spent (2014/15)      |     |
| on administration by        |     |
| collecting authorities (4%) |     |
|                             |     |
| 2,290,783#                  |     |
| Amount of CIL 'in-hand'     |   0 |

* figures for 2014/15 are based on actual income up to the end of December 2014. # figures correct to the end of December 2014 Source: Transport for London

## Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations

3.50		
The Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) 
First Review was published in August 2014 and suggests some changes to the recommendations. It now contains 14 recommendations - progress against which is being monitored via the AMR. Table 3.7 provides an overview of progress at Febuary 2015. 

## Table 3.7 Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations

| No.                                            | Recommendation                       |
|------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| 1                                              | All Thames-side planning authorities |
| should consider in their SFRAs and put         |                                      |
| in place Local Plan policies to promote        |                                      |
| the setting back of development from           |                                      |
| the edge of the Thames and tidal               |                                      |
| tributaries to enable sustainable and          |                                      |
| cost effective upgrade of river walls/         |                                      |
| embankments in line with Policy 5.12,          |                                      |
| CFMPs, TE2100 and advice from the              |                                      |
| Environment Agency.                            |                                      |
| 2                                              | The London Boroughs of Richmond,     |
| Kingston, Hounslow and Wandsworth              |                                      |
| should put in place policies to ensure         |                                      |
| alternative responses to managing              |                                      |
| fluvial risk such as flood resilience          |                                      |
| measures (e.g. flood gates) or                 |                                      |
| potentially safeguarding land for              |                                      |
| future flood storage or, on the fluvial        |                                      |
| tributaries, setting back local defences       |                                      |
| or any resilience measures between             |                                      |
| Teddington Lock and Hammersmith                |                                      |
| Bridge in line with TE2100 findings.           |                                      |
| LB Hounslow has a policy in its Local Plan,    |                                      |
| now at examination stage, which supports       |                                      |
| flood resilience, making space for water and   |                                      |
| specifically references to TE2100.             |                                      |
| LBs Richmond, Kingston, and Wandsworth         |                                      |
| have policies in their Local Plans to address  |                                      |
| flood risk management from all sources.        |                                      |
| Wandsworth's policy in particular ensures that |                                      |
| developments take into account the ability     |                                      |
| to implement future improvements to flood      |                                      |
| defences, in accordance with the TE2100        |                                      |
| Plan.                                          |                                      |
| 3                                              | The London Boroughs of Newham        |
| and Greenwich should work with the             |                                      |
| Environment Agency on issues such as           |                                      |
| the potential safeguarding of potential        |                                      |
| land needs around the existing Thames          |                                      |
| Barrier, and the London Borough                |                                      |
| of Bexley should work with the                 |                                      |
| Environment Agency on future flood             |                                      |
| risk management options in line with           |                                      |
| TE2100 findings.                               |                                      |

## Future Monitoring Of Suds

1.51	The potential benefits and feasibility of 
monitoring the implementation of SUDS is being considered for inclusion in future AMRs. This will be explored further in cooperation with the Environment Agency.

Most boroughs are now making reasonable progress in recognising this in either their SFRAs or DPDs.
RB Greenwich has up-to-date Local Plan policies in place to ensure the potential safeguarding of land needs around the existing Thames Barrier. LB Newham and LB Bexley are both working with the Environment Agency to update the 
flood risk policies in their emerging Local Plans, including TE2100 Plan requirements.

## Table 3.7 Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations

| Recommendation                                  |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| No.                                             |
| 4                                               |
| Boroughs at confluences of tributary            |
| rivers with the River Thames should             |
| ensure Flood Risk Assessments                   |
| (FRAs) include an assessment of the             |
| interaction of all forms of flooding, but       |
| fluvial and tidal flood risks in particular.    |
| These are the London Boroughs of                |
| Havering, Barking & Dagenham,                   |
| Newham, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich,               |
| Lewisham, Wandsworth, Hounslow,                 |
| Richmond and Kingston.                          |
| 5                                               |
| Regeneration and redevelopment of               |
| London's fluvial river corridors offer          |
| a crucial opportunity to reduce flood           |
| risk.  SFRAs and policies should focus          |
| on making the most of this opportunity          |
| through appropriate location, layout            |
| and design of development as set out            |
| in the Thames CFMP.  In particular              |
| opportunities should be sought to:              |
| •	Set back  development from the river                                                 |
| edge to enable sustainable and cost             |
| effective flood risk management                 |
| options                                         |
| •	Ensure that developments at residual                                                 |
| flood risk are designed to be flood             |
| compatible and/or flood resilient               |
| •	Maximise the use of open spaces                                                 |
| within developments which have a                |
| residual flood risk to make space for           |
| flood water.                                    |
| 6                                               |
| Developments all across London                  |
| should reduce surface water discharge           |
| in line with the Sustainable Drainage           |
| Hierarchy set out in Policy 5.13 of the         |
| London Plan, the emerging Sustainable           |
| Design and Construction SPG and the             |
| emerging London Sustainable Drainage            |
| Action Plan.                                    |
| 7                                               |
| Thames Water should continue its                |
| programme of addressing foul sewer              |
| flooding.                                       |
| 8                                               |
| The groundwater flood risk in identified        |
| locations (see IPEG map) should be              |
| considered in FRAs and SFRAs to                 |
| ensure that its impacts do not increase.        |
| Tidal influences are generally taken into       |
| account in the SFRA modelling addressing the    |
| interaction of fluvial and tidal flood risk at  |
| confluences.                                    |
| These measures are becoming increasingly        |
| regularly built into SFRAs, local policies,     |
| development frameworks and planning             |
| applications.                                   |
| Since the Sustainable Design and                |
| Construction SPG was updated in 2014            |
| the Environment Agency has seen an              |
| improvement in drainage strategies they have    |
| reviewed. Larger reductions in run-off rates    |
| are being achieved.                             |
| The London Sustainable Drainage Action          |
| Plan will be published later in 2015 and will   |
| focus on retrofitting sustainable drainage to   |
| existing land and buildings.                    |
| Thames Water continues to address localised     |
| sewer flooding problems and has undertaken      |
| the first stage of consultation in respect of a |
| major project in the Hammersmith-Kensington     |
| area known as Counters Creek.                   |
| As SFRAs are reviewed, this is starting to be   |
| included, and is starting to be addressed in    |
| some site specific FRAs as well.                |

## Table 3.7 Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations

| Recommendation                              |
|---------------------------------------------|
| No.                                         |
| 9                                           |
| The reservoir flood risk in identified      |
| locations (see reservoir flood maps)        |
| should be in considered in FRAs and         |
| SFRAs to ensure its impacts do not          |
| increase.                                   |
| 10                                          |
| Detailed flood risk assessments should      |
| be undertaken at an early stage at the      |
| level of individual major development       |
| locations and town centre development       |
| sites, and opportunities to reduce          |
| flood risk should be maximised where        |
| possible.                                   |
| 11                                          |
| Relevant transport authorities and          |
| operators should examine and regularly      |
| review their infrastructure including       |
| their networks, stations, depots,           |
| underpasses and tunnels for potential       |
| flooding locations and flood risk           |
| reduction measures. For large stations      |
| and depots, solutions should be sought      |
| to store or disperse rainwater from         |
| heavy storms.                               |
| 12                                          |
| Emergency service authorities               |
| and operators covering hospitals,           |
| ambulance, fire and police stations         |
| as well as prisons should ensure that       |
| emergency plans in particular for           |
| facilities in flood risk areas are in place |
| and regularly reviewed so that they         |
| can cope in the event of a major flood.     |
| These plans should put in place cover       |
| arrangements through other suitable         |
| facilities.                                 |
| 13                                          |
| Education authorities should ensure         |
| that emergency plans in particular for      |
| facilities in flood risk areas are in place |
| and regularly reviewed so that they         |
| can cope in the event of a major flood.     |
| These plans should put in place cover       |
| arrangements through other suitable         |
| facilities.                                 |
| 14                                          |
| Operators of electricity, gas, water,       |
| sewerage, and waste utility sites should    |
| maintain an up to date assessment of        |
| the flood risk to their installations and,  |
| considering the likely impacts of failure,  |
| establish any necessary protection          |
| measures including secondary flood          |
| defences.                                   |

Source: GLA and Environment Agency

As SFRAs are reviewed, this is starting to be included, and is starting to be addressed in some site specific FRAs as well.
This is generally being achieved and the GLA 
is leading work to promote Integrated Water Management Strategies at major development locations including VNEB and Old Oak 
Common.
London Underground and Transport for London are undertaking a comprehensive review of flood risk to their assets and infrastructure. Other transport authorities will need to be contacted.
Through Drain London the GLA has undertaken work to examine surface water flood risk at hospital and emergency services sites across London. During 2015 Drain London will be examining the risks to prisons and secure health. The London Resilience Forum is also working on these issues.
Through Drain London the GLA has undertaken work to examine surface water flood risk at secondary school sites across London.  
The GLA recognises that it needs to confirm progress with these utility providers.

## Planning Progress With Supplementary Planning Guidance

3.52	The Mayor produces Supplementary 
Planning Guidance (SPG) documents to provide further detail on particular policies in the London Plan. In 2014 the Mayor published the following SPGs:
•	Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive 
Environment SPG (October 2014)
•	The control of dust and emissions during 
construction and demolition SPG (July 2014)
•	Town Centres SPG (July 2014) •	Shaping Neighbourhoods: Character and 
Context SPG (June 2014)
•	London Planning Statement (May 2014) •	Sustainable Design and Construction SPG 
(April 2014)
3.53		
In addition a draft Social Infrastructure SPG (May 2014) was also published. 
3.54		
All complete and draft SPG are available 
on the following website http://www. london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/vision/ supplementary-planning-guidance.

## London Boroughs Policy Consultations

3.55		
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires local planning authorities to produce a Local Plan for their area. In law this is described as the development plan documents (DPDs) adopted under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Current core strategies or other planning policies, which under the regulations would be considered to 
be DPDs, form part of the Local Plan. Several planning authorities in London are currently in the process of reviewing their Local Plans to respond to the changing circumstances in their area.

3.56	All London borough Local Development 
Documents (LDDs), comprising core strategies, DPDs or other LDDs, are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan in accordance with Section 24(1) (b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Under 
the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, Regulation 18 requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to notify the Mayor of the subject of a local plan. This is the Preparation stage. The Mayor will endeavour to provide comments to the LPAs at this stage but is not required to respond to the consultation. 
3.57	Under Regulation 19, before submitting 
the local plan to the Secretary of State, LPAs must make a copy of the proposed submission documents available and must request an opinion from the Mayor as to the general conformity of their local plans (Regulation 21). This is the Publication stage. The Mayor has 6 weeks to respond to the consultation. The Mayor will respond to Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPD) that raise strategic issues only.
3.58		
In order to achieve general conformity of LDDs the Mayor works proactively with the boroughs, commenting on and holding meetings to discuss informal drafts of documents and meetings to discuss the Mayor's response to consultation. Table 3.8 lists policy documents the LPAs worked on in 2013; the Mayor responded to many of them.

Table 3.8 london borough policy documents published in 2014
borough
policy documents
Barking & Dagenham 
Barking and Dagenham Employment Areas Local Development Order Last Orders? Preserving Public Houses (SPD)
Barnet
Contributions to Skills, Training, Employment and Enterprise from new development SPD
Bexley
Community Infrastructure Levy - Submission Bexley's Growth Strategy - emerging vision consultation
Brent
Joint West London Waste Plan Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan
Bromley 
Local Plan draft policies and designations
Camden 
Fitzrovia AAP adopted on 3 March 2014 Euston Area Action Plan submitted on 10 April 2014, adopted 
on 26 January 2015 Amendments to the following Camden Planning Guidance (CPG) documents were published on 3 September 2014: CPG 1 Design
City of London
Draft Local Plan - submission CIL Charging Schedule
Croydon 
Old Town Masterplan SPD
Ealing
Draft West London Waste Plan (DPD) Residential gardens SPD
Enfield
Development Management Document North Circular AAP –Adopted North East Enfield AAP - Submitted
Greenwich
Adopted: Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (July 2014) Woolwich Common Conservation Area - Character Appraisal and Management Strategy (July 2014) Greener Greenwich SPD (Sept 2014) Draft: Draft Charging Schedule - Submission to Secretary of State (Nov 2014) Spray Street Woolwich Masterplan SPD - consultation draft (Nov 2014) Article 4 Directions: Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area - Confirmation of nonimmediate Article 4 Direction (21 May 2014) Greenwich Peninsula (Pier Walk and Mitre Passage) - Notice of non-immediate Article 4 Direction (28 January 2014)
Hackney
Finsbury Park SPD (July 2014) Queen Elizabeth Lordship Neighbourhood Area (November 
2014)
Hammersmith & Fulham
None
Haringey 
CIL Charging Schedule implemented on 1 November 2014 Draft Planning Obligations SPD
Harrow
Draft West London Waste Plan
Havering
None
Table 3.8 london borough policy documents published in 2014
borough
policy documents
Hillingdon 
Draft Local Plan Part 2 Planning Obligations CIL Charging Schedule - adopted 
Hounslow
Draft Local Plan CIL Draft Charging Schedule Draft West London Waste Plan Draft Planning Obligations and CIL SPD
Islington
Finsbury Park SPD Inclusive Design SPD
Kensington & Chelsea
Partial review of core strategy (adopted in 2014):- •	
Conservation and design, 
•	
Basement developments
•	
Miscellaneous Matters, 
Partial review of the Core Strategy •	
Enterprise (Issues and Options)
Notting Hill Gate SPD (second draft) Trellick-Edenham SPD (Draft) Royal Brompton SPD (Draft)
Kingston upon Thames
Draft North Kingston Development Brief (stage 2) Draft Eden Quarter Development Brief SPD
Lambeth
CIL Charging Schedule
Lewisham
DM Policies - Adoption Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan -Adoption 
Planning Obligations
London Legacy Development Corporation
Draft Local Plan- Regulation 19
Merton
Sites and Policies Plan (site allocations and DM policies) - (adopted July 2014) Policies Map - (adopted July 2014)
CIL Charging Schedule - applied April 2014
Morden Station planning brief - adopted March 2014 Estates Local Plan - reg 18 (regeneration of three estates) Planning Obligations SPD - draft for consultation approved.
Newham
None 
Redbridge
Draft Redbridge Local Plan 2015 - 2030 - Preferred Options Report Extension (Alternative Development Strategies) Borough-wide Conservation Area Management Proposals SPD
Richmond upon Thames
Site Allocations Plan pre-publication - additional sites consultation and new educational sites consultation Affordable Housing SPD Planning Obligations SPD 2 Village Plan SPDs - Kew, Whitton and Heathfield Joint West London Waste Plan - consultation on submission Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule
Southwark
Peckham and Nunhead AAP
Draft New Southwark Plan: Issues and Options version Revised draft CIL charging schedule Draft S106/CIL SPD Draft Revised Canada Water AAP
Table 3.8 london borough policy documents published in 2014
borough
policy documents
Sutton
Sutton's Community Infrastructure Levy adopted in 2014
Tower Hamlets
Whitechapel Vision Masterplan SPD
Waltham Forest
Development Management DPD (October 2013) Walthamstow Town Centre Area Action Plan (October 2014) Blackhorse Lane Area Action Plan (February 2015) Local Plan Review: Core Strategy, Development Management 
Policies Document and Site Specific Allocations Document - submitted and 2nd proposed submission 
Wandsworth
Local Views SPD Refuse and Recyclables in Development SPD
Westminster
Revision to Westminster's City Plan - Issues booklets: Design Health, Well-being and Personal Safety Open Space and Green Infrastructure Planning and Pollution Control Public Realm and Advertisements Transport and Movement Food, Drink, Entertainment, Arts & Housing Need, Delivery and Quality Social and Community Uses Westminster's Economy Flood Risk Mayfair & St James's 

Source: London Boroughs/GLA

## Progress With Local Plan Core Strategies

3.59	Table 3.9 provides an overview of London 
borough Core Strategy progress.

borough
Table 3.9 Local plan core strategy progress (position as of January 
2015)
Core Strategy stage 
no. of 
boroughs
Core Strategy Issues and Options yet to be published
0
Have published Core Strategy Policy Options and preferred strategy
2
Bromley
Have published Core Strategy for Submission
0
Core Strategy adopted 
31
Barking and Dagenham (July 2010) Barnet (Sep 2012) Bexley (Feb 2012) Brent (July 2010) Camden (Nov 2010) City of London (Sep 2011) Croydon (April 2013) Ealing (April 2012) Enfield (Jan 2010) Greenwich (July 2014) Hackney (Nov 2010) Hammersmith & Fulham (Oct 2011) Haringey (March 2013) Harrow (Feb 2012) Havering (2008) Hillingdon (Part 1 Nov 2012) Islington (Feb 2011) Kensington & Chelsea (2010) Kingston upon Thames (April 2012) Lambeth (Jan 2011) Lewisham (June 2011) Merton (2011) Newham (Jan 2012) Redbridge (March 2008) Richmond upon Thames (2009) Southwark (April 2011) Sutton (Dec 2009) Tower Hamlets (2010) Waltham Forest (March 2012) Wandsworth (October 2010) Westminster (Nov 2013) (Hounslow progressing to full Local Plan without adopting a Core Strategy)

## Borough

Table 3.9 Local plan core strategy progress (position as of January 
2015)
Core Strategy stage 
no. of 
boroughs
Local Plan being reviewed
16
Barking and Dagenham Bromley Camden - Regulation 18 consultation (Feb 2015) City of London - Publication Croydon Hammersmith & Fulham Haringey Havering Hillingdon Hounslow –Publication Islington Kensington & Chelsea - partial review part Adopted and part Publication stage Lambeth - Publication Lewisham - Publication LLDC - Submitted Redbridge Southwark Sutton Tower Hamlets - Review to be undertaken Wandsworth - Publication Westminster - Adopted and review

Source: ALBPO Local Plan Borough Updates

3.60	Please note that many boroughs are 
progressing other DPDs at the same time as their Core Strategy or have adopted DPDs or site-specific Area Action Plans in advance of it.

## Opportunity Areas And Areas Of Intensification

3.61	Up-to-date details on all Opportunity 
Areas and Areas of Intensification are included in Annex 1 of the London Plan. 
As a result of the 2015 London Plan new Opportunity Areas are being designated in Bromley, Canada Water, Harrow and Wealdstone, Old Kent Road and Old Oak Common. The following three maps provide an overview of the current status and scale of all Opportunity Areas Planning Frameworks (OAPFs), which are facilitating the delivery of the Opportunity Areas. For some Development Infrastructure Funding (DIF) studies are prepared to support the delivery of the infrastructure required.
3.62	 During 2014/15, the GLA adopted OAPFs 
for Euston (the Euston Area Plan) and Southall. Draft Frameworks were published for consultation for City Fringe, London Riverside and Old Oak Park Royal.  A DIF study was published for the Southall OA, another one is being prepared for the Upper Lee Valley to be published later in 
2015.
© Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Ordnance Survey 100032216 GLA

|                                   | REF LOCATION                            | REF LOCATION                  | REF LOCATION                                   |
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
| 1                                 | Bexley Riverside                        | 14 Harrow and Wealdstone      | 27 Old Oak Common                              |
| 2                                 | Bromley                                 | 15 Heathrow                   | 28 Royal Docks and Beckton Waterfront          |
| 3                                 | Canada Water                            | 16 Ilford                     | 29 Southall                                    |
| 4                                 | Charlton Riverside                      | 17 Isle of Dogs               | 30 Thamesmead and Abbey Wood                   |
| 5                                 |                                         |                               |                                                |
| City Fringe/Tech City             | 18 Kensal Canalside                     | 31 Tottenham Court Road       |                                                |
| 6                                 | Colindale/ Burnt Oak                    | 19 King's Cross-St.Pancras    | 32 Upper Lea Valley (including Tottenham Hale) |
| 7                                 | Cricklewood/Brent Cross                 | 20 Lewisham-Catford-New Cross | 33 Vauxhall/Nine Elms/Battersea                |
| 8                                 | Croydon                                 | 21 London Bridge/ Bankside    | 34 Victoria                                    |
| 9                                 | Deptford Creek/ Greenwich Riverside     | 22 London Riverside           | 35 Waterloo                                    |
| 10 Earl's Court / West Kensington | 23 Lower Lea Valley including Stratford | 36 Wembley                    |                                                |
| 11 Elephant and Castle            | 24 Old Kent Road                        | 37 White City                 |                                                |
| 12 Euston                         | 25 Paddington                           | 38 Woolwich                   |                                                |
| 13 Greenwich Peninsula            | 26 Park Royal/Willesden Junction        |                               |                                                |

3.63	To bring about positive change on the 
ground, policies need to be implemented. This is why the role of development management is so crucial. Table 3.10 highlights the ongoing work of the Mayor's Planning Decisions Unit in helping to implement the London Plan. The table below shows a continuing high volume of referrals to the Mayor. This year has seen referrals rise by 4% over 2013. The Mayor has continued to use his strategic powers to call-in applications sparingly. Last year he 'called-in' one scheme (Mount Pleasant sorting office, Islington and Camden). 

Table 3.10  Planning Applications Referred to the Mayor
2000- 2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total 2000-2014
Total
1,871
334
240
258
300
307
359
373
4042
Strategic Call-ins
-
-
2
1
2
1
2
1
9

Source: GLA Planning

## London Planning Awards

3.64		
The Mayor, London First, the Royal Town 
Planning Institute and London Councils jointly organise the privately-sponsored annual London Planning Awards to showcase and celebrate good planning practice in the capital. The 2014/15 Awards Ceremony was held on 03 February 2015. Full details of the winning and commended entries are given in Table 3.11 below:
1: BEST NEW PLACE TO WORK (sponsored by The international Quarter)
WINNER: **Pill Box**, in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Refurbished by Workspace Group PLC, the historical industrial 65,000 square feet warehouse was converted to accommodate 90 new and growing businesses employing over 450 people in total. With generous cycling facilities and located only a few minutes walk from Bethnal Green Station it's easily accessible.  Not only does the development benefit from the facilities in Bethnal Green local town centre,  it also provides an award winning café and restaurant, events space, flexible workspace, meeting rooms and a gym all carefully designed to encourage collaboration and interaction between tenants to help their businesses grow. 2: BEST COMMUNITY LED PROJECT (sponsored by Land Securities)
WINNER: **Shree Swaminarayan Mandir temple**, in the London Borough of Brent. A 
fantastic example of a community led project.  The manifestation of a vision the local Swaminarayan community have nurtured for 25 years.  The temple was funded and built by the local community, and whilst specific to the local Hindu population, the complex also serves the wider community. The multi-function hall is a bookable resource for local schools and residents, and approximately one third of the site provides subsidised work space for local businesses. The opening of the temple was marked by a parade attended by 2000 local people. It achieves BREEAM 'excellent' with rainwater harvesting and solar panels on the roof and is considered one of the first 'eco-temples' in the world.

## Entry Descriptions And Award Citations Taken From The Mayor'S And Sir Edward Lister'S Speeches At The London Planning Awards Ceremony, City Hall 03 February 2015 3: Best Conceptual Project (Sponsored By Berwin Leighton Paisner)

WINNER: **The London Underline**, developed by Gensler in collaboration with PaveGen Systems and Momentum.  The project proposes the innovative re-use of disused tube tunnels as pedestrian walkways.  In particular, Gensler identified the tunnels between Green Park and Charing Cross Road and between Holborn and Aldwych linking strategic pedestrian destinations and significantly alleviating the pressure on footway and public transport between them.  These underground spaces would be activated by stalls and other commercial and cultural uses helping pay for the project, as well as making them safe and attractive.  Power for the network would be generated by kinetic paving systems - making the whole project self-sustaining. 4: BEST NEW PLACE TO LIVE (sponsored by Ballymore)
WINNER: **Vivo & So Stepney**, in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Designed by Levitt Bernstein, for the East Thames Group and Bellway Homes. The scheme transforms the previously poor quality 2.98 Hector site into a traditional permeable and legible street based development, providing 704 good quality flats and private communal spaces.  50% of the homes are affordable and all are larger than the London Plan space standards.  The site is located within walking distance of the local town centre providing access to schools, shops and other social infrastructure. 5: BEST NEW PUBLIC SPACE (sponsored by Hogan Lovells)
WINNER **Clapham Old Town Regeneration Project**. Designed by Urban Movement for the London Borough of Lambeth. The project involved the remodelling of the 1960's gyratory to drastically increase the ratio of footway to carriageway achieving an increase of 35% to 65% in pedestrian space, significantly improving the overall quality of the environment.  Street furniture was rationalised maximising space for pedestrians and minimising visual clutter, crossings were located on key desire lines, and 60 new cycle stands and 102 trees were planted. All this was achieved whilst increasing pedestrian space, reducing traffic speeds and ensuring the funding streams for its long-term management were secured. 6: BEST BUILT PROJECT FIVE YEARS ON (sponsored by GVA)
WINNER **Bow Cross** in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets by Swan Housing Association. 

Originally a deprived estate, isolated from the surrounding community with high crime levels and poor quality environment, Bow Cross has been transformed into a traditional street-based neighbourhood where people want to live. Part redevelopment and partrefurbishment, a new road bridges over the railway infrastructure connecting the area to surrounding neighbourhoods; multi-levelled walkways were removed; and previously underused open spaces consolidated and given stronger sense of ownership. The success of the project is made evident by the large number of residents choosing to stay or return to the area, a doubling of tenant applications, and the success of private sales.

## Edward Lister'S Speeches At The London Planning Awards Ceremony, City Hall 03 February 2015 7: Best Heritage Led Rpoject  (Sponsored By English Heritage)

Tottenham Town Hall in the London Borough of Haringey.  Newlon Housing Trust restored the Grade II Listed Edwardian Town Hall into a sustainably managed local community business centre with affordable housing to the rear around a courtyard. The scheme managed to turn the previously inaccessible Town Hall into a fully DDA compliant  building. 

A close working relationship with English Heritage meant a thorough restoration took place including replacing tiny terrazzo mosaic tiles in the floor of the Town Hall and recreating the original clock tower on the roof of the previously derelict workshops. Demand from small, start-up businesses is strong and all residential properties are fully let. 8: BEST TOWN CENTRE PROJECT (sponsored by Turley Associates)
WINNER **Stockwell Street, Greenwich**. Designed by Heneghan Peng Architects for Deloitte Real Estate and the University of Greenwich. The project exemplifies the type of diversification town centres and high streets need to strive for to secure their future.  Whilst designed and run by the University, the Stockwell Street building brings a large library, exhibition and educational space and other cultural activities to the heart of town centre. Open to the public, the development has created  a significant increase in footfall and vitality to the high street, helping local businesses and creating a truly mixed use town centre. 9: LONDON PLANNING PERSON OF THE YEAR
WINNER **John Turner**, Head of Planning at the Ballymore Group. For his role in negotiating the new pedestrian bridge across the River Lee at Leamouth, connecting Tower Hamlets and Newham; overseeing the submission of major planning applications such as of Bishopsgate Goodsyard, Arrowhead Quay, Brentford Town Centre; and leading on the delivery of major residential developments such as London City island, Embassy gardens, Providence Tower and Royal Wharf.

10. MAYOR'S AWARD FOR PLANNING EXCELLENCE
WINNER Bow Cross
 

## Endnotes

1 See table 615 here http://is.gd/clgstocktables 2See Housing Live Tables: http://is.gd/CLGaffordable

## Chapter Four Other Contextual Data Sources

4.1	 This AMR cannot and does not attempt 
to be comprehensive. There is also a significant amount of relevant data available from both the GLA and other sources. The list of references and links IN TABLE 4.1 should enable anyone researching these subjects access to the most up to date data.
4.2	 A full list of publications from the 
Demography and Policy Analysis Group is 
available via the GLA's website at: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayorassembly/mayor/publications/glaintelligence/demography

## London Datastore

4.3	 The primary source of data and statistics 
held by the GLA is the London Datastore. http://data.london.gov.uk/ which includes data not just from the GLA but also a range of other public sector organisations.

## London Development Database

4.4	 For more information on the London 
Development database Email the LDD Team (lddteam@london.gov.uk). The relaunched LDD public page can be found 

Table 4.1 Updates from the GLA Demography and Policy Analysis Group
Reference Title 01-2013
Children in Poverty 2010 - Jack Ryan
02-2013
The wealth gap in London - Rachel Leeser
04-2013
Cross border mobility of primary school age children in London (2012) - Monica Li
09-2013
Poverty figures for London 2011/12 - Rachel Leeser
11-2013
ONS Mid-2012 Population Estimates - Monica Li
12-2013
Migration Indicators: August 2013 - Monica Li
13-2013
2012 Round Final Ethnic Group Population Projections - Ed Klodawski

at http://www.london.gov.uk/webmaps/ ldd/

## Development And Projects

4.5	 	
More information on the activities of the 
Mayor's Development and Projects unit (Formerly the Planning Decisions Unit) can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/ priorities/planning/strategic-planningapplications

## Gla Economics Reports

4.6	 The latest reports can be found at http://
www.london.gov.uk/priorities/businesseconomy/publications 
4.7	 For the latest news the Mayor's Business 
and Economy section can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/ business-economy
4.8	 The London Sustainable Development 
Commission website is at http://www. londonsdc.org/

## London Energy Partnership

4.9	 	
Full details can be found on the website http://www.lep.org.uk/

## Other London Data Sources Waste

4.10		
The Mayor's Municipal Waste Management Strategy can be found at http://www. london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/ publications/the-mayors-wastemanagement-strategies
4.11		
DEFRA produces statistics on waste and recycling which can be found at: http:// www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/environment/ waste/
4.12	Up to date London specific data is available 
on the Local Authority Waste and Recycling 
Information Portal http://laportal.wrap. org.uk/Login.aspx  

## Minerals (Aggregates)

4.13	Information on the London Aggregates 
Working Party (LAWP), including Annual 
Monitoring Reports, can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/ planning/research-reports/londonaggregates-working-party-0

## Waterways

4.14	The London Rivers Action Plan can be 
found at: http://www.therrc.co.uk/lrap.php

## Transport

4.15		
The latest information on The Mayor's work on transport can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/ transport
4.16	Transport for London performance statistics 

can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/abouttfl/publications/1482.aspx and at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/abouttfl/investorrelations/1458.aspx

4.17		
Details on how PTAL scores are calculated can be found in http://data.london.gov. uk/dataset/public-transport-accessibilitylevels/resource/86bbffe1-8af1-49baac9b-b3eacaf68137
4.18		
A map based PTAL calculator can be found 
at http://www.webptals.org.uk/
4.19		
The Department for Transport provides some useful data on transport at https:// www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ department-for-transport
4.20	London First are monitoring how the 
London boroughs are progressing with the development of their CIL charging schedules http://londonfirst.co.uk/ our-focus/londons-built-environment/ community-infrastructure-levy/

## Health

4.21		
London Health Programmes uses health intelligence to identify health needs of Londoners and to redesign services. http://www.londonhp.nhs.uk/
4.22	London Health Observatory monitors 
health and healthcare in the capital. http://www.lho.org.uk/
4.23	As of April 2013 the LHO became part of 
Public Health England. https://www.gov. uk/government/organisations/publichealth-england

## Government Data Sources

4.24	Government departments have moved 
their websites to a central domain, https:// www.gov.uk/. It is likely that any links to websites outside gov.uk will cease to function in the near future.
4.25	Various data and studies on education 
and skills can be found at the following site: https://www.gov.uk/government/ organisations/department-for-education, which contains a section on Research and 
Statistics.
4.26	Links to a number of national reports 
on education provision can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publica tions?departments%5B%5D=departmentfor-education

## Department Of Environment, Food And Rural Affairs

4.27	Various data and studies on the 
environment can be found at: https:// www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ department-for-environment-food-ruralaffairs

## Department For Communities And Local Government

4.28	The latest information on Government 
policies and publications related to planning can be found at https://www. gov.uk/government/topics/planning-andbuilding.

## Chapter Five

# Conclusions And Looking Ahead

5.1	 This AMR covers a period when at 
national level the National Planning Policy Guidance came into effect to support the National Planning Policy Framework. We are also seeing a range of important reforms to the planning system. In London the new 2015 London Plan has just been published rolling the Plan forward to 2036, particularly within the context of the strong population growth from the 2011 Census. The next AMR will be based 
on this new Plan. In addition, a range of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents were published during 2014.
5.2	 Looking forward, 2015 will see the 
progression of minor alterations to address the Government's Housing Standards Review and Government policy on parking. A number of further SPGs will also be published during 2015, and the first steps towards the preparation of a Full Review of the London Plan are also being made. The AMR, and in particular the LDD underpinning it, is an invaluable source to inform these processes. 
5.3	 The continued exploration of innovative 
new ways to use the planning system to help fund and deliver strategic infrastructure to help ensure that growth and development can proceed sustainably in the capital will also continue to be a priority. This will be facilitated by the emerging high-profile London Infrastructure Plan setting out London's infrastructure needs and explore costs and funding opportunities. The AMR/LDD are also supporting these activities.
5.4	 Robust, evidence-based and effectively 
monitored strategic planning policy for London continues to be vital if the progress shown across many of the indicators in this 
report is to be sustained, and even more so if the areas where further work is needed are to be addressed. This AMR again makes plain that the planning system has much to contribute to Londoners' quality of life - and there is a huge amount of activity at City Hall, in boroughs and neighbourhoods to make sure all opportunities are maximized.