# London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 9, 2011-12

MARCH 2013
LONDON PLAN 2011 IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK

## Copyright

GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY March 2013 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 (2013) Front cover photo: Eleanor Ward/GLA Copies of this document are available from http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning

## London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 9, 2011-12 Contents

| EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	                                                                                             | 		    | 	    | 	    |   1 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|----|----|-----|
| CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION                                                                    |    |    |    |   7 |
| Scope and purpose of the AMR                                                                |    |    |    |   8 |
| The London Development Database                                                             |    |    |    |   9 |
| The London Plan and its Implementation Framework                                            |    |    | 10 |     |
| Changes to KPIs                                                                             |    |    |    |  10 |
| CHAPTER TWO PERFORMANCE AGAINST KPI TARGETS                                                 | 13 |    |    |     |
| KPI 1 Maximise the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land  14  |    |    |    |     |
| KPI 2 Optimise the density of residential development                                       |    |    |    |  17 |
| KPI 3 Minimise the loss of open space                                                       |    |    |    |  19 |
| KPI 4 Increase the supply of new homes                                                      |    |    |    |  23 |
| KPI 5 An increased supply of affordable homes                                               |    |    |    |  26 |
| KPI 6 Reducing health inequalities                                                          |    |    |    |  30 |
| KPI 7 Sustaining economic activity                                                          |    |    |    |  31 |
| KPI 8 Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market             |    | 32 |    |     |
| KPI 9 Ensure that there is sufficient employment land available                             |    |    |    |  35 |
| KPI 10 Employment in outer London                                                           |    |    |    |  37 |
| KPI 11 Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the      |    |    |    |     |
| employment market                                                                           |    |    |    |  39 |
| KPI 12 Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services                |    | 41 |    |     |
| KPI 13 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for |    |    |    |     |
| journeys (public /private transport modal split)                                            |    |    |    |  42 |
| KPI 14 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for |    |    |    |     |
| journeys (zero traffic growth)                                                              |    |    |    |  43 |
| KPI 15 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for |    |    |    |     |
| journeys (increased bicycle modal share)                                                    |    |    |    |  46 |
| 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)             | 47 |    |    |     |
| KPI 17 Increase in the number of jobs located in areas of high PTAL values                  |    | 50 |    |     |
| KPI 18 Protection of biodiversity habitat                                                   |    |    |    | 51  |
| KPI 19 Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted and elimination of waste           |    |    |    |     |
| to landfill by 2031                                                                         |    |    |    | 53  |
| KPI 20 Reduce carbon dioxide emissions through new development                              |    |    | 55 |     |
| KPI 21 Increase in energy generated from renewable sources	                                                                    | 		   | 	     | 	     |   57  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|---|-----|-----|-------|
| KPI 22 Increase in urban greening                                  |   |     |     |   58  |
| KPI 23 Improve London's Blue Ribbon Network                        |   |     |     |   59  |
| KPI 24 Protecting and improving London's heritage and public realm |   | 61  |     |       |
| CHAPTER THREE OTHER RELEVANT PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND              |   |     |     |       |
| STATISTICS                                                         |   | 65  |     |       |
| Housing and Design                                                 |   |     |     |    66 |
| Environment and Transport                                          |   |     | 116 |       |
| Planning Decisions                                                 |   |     | 118 |       |
| CHAPTER FOUR OTHER CONTEXTUAL DATA SOURCES                         |   | 121 |     |       |
| CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND LOOKING AHEAD                         |   |     | 127 |       |

## Executive Summary Executive Summary

i.	
This Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 
provides information about the progress being made in implementing the objectives and policies of the London Plan (published in July 2011), by showing how London is doing against 24 indicators identified in Chapter 8 of the Plan. Although this the ninth AMR published by the Mayor, it is the second monitoring the new London Plan.
ii.	
Chapter 2 provides greater detail on each 
of the 24 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), 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, performance is improving. This year 
20 KPIs are showing that targets have been met or are heading in the right direction, while 3 have not been met or are heading the wrong way. This is an improvement over AMR 8 where 18 KPIs were positive and 5 were negative. Data problems still surround KPI 22 (Green roof coverage in the Central Activities Zone) and when the Mayor consults on further alterations to the London Plan, the merit or otherwise of trying to measure this KPI will need to be assessed as part of the review of the KPIs.
Objective 1- A city that meets the challenges of economic and population growth

vi.	
The measures that constitute Objective 
1 are positive. The fractional increase in pupil/teacher ratios is outweighed by 
the ongoing decline in traffic growth and the welcome decline in the gap in life expectancy between the most and least deprived Londoners. Housing completions, both affordable and market, are on the rise after difficult recent years, these developments are being built to appropriate densities and increasingly on brownfield land. Objective 2 - An internationally competitive and successful city

vii.	 The picture for Objective 2 is slightly more 
mixed. In addition to the increase in pupil/ teacher ratios, there has been a small increase in the number of listed buildings at risk, the result of a detailed survey of cemeteries. The increasing rate of loss of industrial land may require the Mayor to re-examine industrial land policy in further alterations to the London Plan, as London does need to retain some industrial land for a variety of uses. On a more positive note, development densities are acceptable, employment - both across London and in Outer London - rose, the office pipeline is healthy, and office development continues in locations with high public transport accessibility. Objective 3- A city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods

viii.	 The position for Objective 3 is positive. The 
marginal increase in pupil/teacher ratios reflects a wider national trend but there has been an 10% increase in affordable housing completions, more employment in Outer London, reductions in long-standing differences between both BAME and white employment rates and for lone parents on income support. On an issue close the Mayor's own heart, cycling trips are up. 

Objective 4- A city that delights the senses 

ix.	
Again, the measures for Objective 4 are 
overwhelming positive. More development on brownfield land, a decreasing loss of open space, more cycling, more recycling, and river restoration on track. These outweigh the small increase in buildings at risk. The reluctance of manufacturers to provide data on green roofs is frustrating as it is thought, but cannot be proved, that this KPI is also positive - we will have to consider how this can be assessed effectively in future.
Objective 5- A city that becomes a world leader in improving the environment

x.	
The picture here is similar to Objective 4. 
More brownfield development, decreasing rates of loss of open space and sites for nature conservation, less waste going to landfill, carbon dioxide emissions savings above target, more renewable energy production, river restoration on track. The problems with data on green roofs have been addressed above.
Objective 6- A city where it is easy, safe and convenient for everyone to access jobs, opportunities and facilities 

xi.	
Another successful Objective. More 
brownfield development, more public transport use, declining car use, more cycling, more use of the river for freight than in previous years, office development continuing to locate in areas with high public transport accessibility.

## Table 1.1 Kpi Performance Overview

| KPI TARGET                               | COMMENT                                    |
|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
| Maintain at least 96 per cent of new     |                                            |
| 1                                        | residential development to be on           |
| previously developed land                |                                            |
| Over 95 per cent of development          |                                            |
| 2                                        | to comply with the housing density         |
| location and the density matrix          |                                            |
| No net loss of open space                |                                            |
| 3                                        | designated for protection in LDFs          |
| due to new development                   |                                            |
| Average completions of a minimum         |                                            |
| 4                                        | of 32,210 net additional homes per         |
| year                                     |                                            |
| 5                                        | Completion of 13,200 net additional        |
| affordable homes per year                |                                            |
| Reduction in the difference in life      |                                            |
| 6                                        | expectancy between those living in         |
| the most and least deprived areas of     |                                            |
| London (split by gender)                 |                                            |
| Increase in the proportion of working    |                                            |
| 7                                        | age London residents in employment         |
| 2011-2031                                |                                            |
| Stock of office permissions to be at     |                                            |
| 8                                        | least three times the average rate of      |
| starts over the previous three years     |                                            |
| Release of industrial land to be in      |                                            |
| 9                                        | line with benchmarks in the Industry       |
| SPG                                      |                                            |
| 10                                       | Growth in total employment in Outer        |
| London                                   |                                            |
| Reduce employment rate gap               |                                            |
| 11                                       |                                            |
| 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                          |                                            |
| +                                        |                                            |
| Increase on previous years               |                                            |
| +                                        |                                            |
| 95 per cent target now met.              |                                            |
| +                                        |                                            |
| Rate of loss continues to fall           |                                            |
| +                                        |                                            |
| Below target but completions rose again  |                                            |
| +                                        |                                            |
| Below target but 10% increase in         |                                            |
| completions over last year               |                                            |
| +                                        |                                            |
| Differences continue to reduce.          |                                            |
| Proportion static but number of          |                                            |
| +                                        |                                            |
| residents in employment grew by 30,200   |                                            |
| in a year.                               |                                            |
| Stock of permissions eight times above   |                                            |
| rate.                                    |                                            |
| +                                        |                                            |
| _                                        | Increasing rate of loss of industrial land |
| +                                        |                                            |
| Absolute employment in Outer London      |                                            |
| grew                                     |                                            |
| +                                        |                                            |
| Differences continue to reduce.          |                                            |
| -                                        |                                            |
| In line with national trends, small      |                                            |
| increase in class size (0.1 of a pupil). |                                            |

## Table 1.1 Kpi Performance Overview

| KPI TARGET                            | COMMENT                                 |
|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| Use of public transport per head      |                                         |
| 13                                    | grows faster than use of private car    |
| per head                              |                                         |
| 14                                    | Zero car traffic growth for London as   |
| a whole                               |                                         |
| Increase in share of all trips by     |                                         |
| 15                                    | bicycle from 2 per cent in 2009 to 5    |
| per cent by 2026                      |                                         |
| A 50% increase in passengers and      |                                         |
| 16                                    | freight traffic transported on the Blue |
| Ribbon Network from 2011-2021         |                                         |
| 17                                    | Maintain at least 50 per cent of B1     |
| development in PTAL zones 5-6         |                                         |
| 18                                    | No net loss of SINCs                    |
| +                                     |                                         |
| Decrease in rate of loss.             |                                         |
| At least 45 per cent of waste         |                                         |
| 19                                    | recycled/composted by 2015 and          |
| 0 per cent of biodegradable or        |                                         |
| recyclable waste to landfill by 2031  |                                         |
| Annual average percentage carbon      |                                         |
| 20                                    |                                         |
| 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        |                                         |
| 22                                    | Increase in total area of green roofs   |
| in the CAZ.                           |                                         |
| Restore 15km of rivers and streams    |                                         |
| 23                                    | 2009-2015 with an additional 10km       |
| by 2020                               |                                         |
| Reduction in proportion of            |                                         |
| 24                                    | designated heritage assets at risk as   |
| a percentage of the total number of   |                                         |
| designated heritage assets in London. |                                         |
Public transport use continues to grow 
+
annually, private car use continues to decline.
+
Annual decrease in road traffic 
continues
An extra 30,000 cycling trips added in 
one year.
+ +
16% increase in freight in last year.
+
Over 60% achieved
+
Recycling now over 30% and increasing, 
14% reduction in landfilling in last year.
+
8% above target.
+
8% Increase in production from 
renewable resources
N/A
Issues with data provision still 
unresolved
Over 8 km now restored and on track to 
meet 15km by 2015.
+
Small rise (less than 0.5%) in number 
-
at risk and still less than 3% of all listed buildings.

## Chapter One Introduction Introduction Scope And Purpose Of The Amr

1.1	 	
This is the ninth London Plan Annual 
Monitoring Report (AMR 9). Section 346 of the Greater London Authority (GLA) Act 1999 places a duty on the Mayor to monitor implementation of the Mayor's 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 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 ninth AMR published by 
the Mayor, it is the second that supports the new London Plan published in July 2011. This introduced six new strategic objectives, and a new suite of 24 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to monitor delivery. 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 London Plan introduces a different 
approach to policy implementation, of which this AMR forms a part. Alongside this document, the Mayor has produced 
an Implementation Plan giving details of how each of the 121 policies in the London Plan will be delivered, and containing detailed information about London's infrastructure needs to help inform policy development and implementation by the Mayor, boroughs and others. 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 immense 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 2011/12. 
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 local planning authorities and the GLA provides 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 various specific 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 by the boroughs to provide the required data, and the Mayor would 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 onto 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	 No changes were made to the monitoring 
system for the year 2012/3 and it is not proposed to make any changes for the year 2013/4. Despite the lack of changes to the formal Information Scheme made under the GLA Act, it has been a busy year in terms of development of the LDD system. The LDD includes an in-built mapping tool to facilitate the checking of addresses and grid references and also for the capture of site boundary polygons for large sites. The work to upgrade the database has been successfully completed and a new version of the database with a first deployment of the new maps is currently undergoing testing. It is hoped that the new version will be available for use in the boroughs before the end of March 2013, speeding up the process of viewing the maps and capturing the site polygons for borough staff.

1.10	The changes to the maps open up a range 
of new possibilities and it is hoped will lead to the delivery of a wide range of benefits. The first development of note is the re-launch of the LDD public page (http://www.london.gov.uk/webmaps/ ldd/) that now offers the public a much improved interface with which to identify the planning permissions in their area. Further developments are planned and will be reported on in future AMRs. In addition, the new mapping tool has been designed to be transferrable to other systems and is being further developed to meet the needs of the update of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) database, which is also being developed by the London Plan team.

## The New London Plan And Its Implementation Framework

1.11	The new London Plan (http://www.
london.gov.uk/publication/londonplan) was published in July 2011 replacing the London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2004) published in February 2008. 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 to 2031. 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.

1.12	At its centre of the Mayor's new 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. The published first edition is available at http://www.london.gov.uk/
publication/implementation-plan 

1.13	The Implementation Framework also 
includes:
•	Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), •	Opportunity Area/Intensification Area 
Frameworks, 
•	Implementation guides •	This Annual Monitoring Report.
1.14		
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.

## Changes To Kpis

1.15		
In response to the adoption of the London 
Plan (July 2011) the KPIs have been revised to reflect the new priorities of the London Plan. AMR 8 sets out, in detail, how the KPIs have changed. 

## Chapter Two Performance Against Key Performance Indicator Targets 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 per cent of new residential development to be on previously developed land

2.1	 Approvals by units increased to their 

YEAR
% OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND BY UNITS
BY SITE AREA
BY UNITS
BY SITE AREA
2004/05
98.1
97.3
2005/06
97.8
97.1
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
99.0
97.4
97.6
95.0

highest level, above both the Mayor's 96% target and the national 60% target. This improvement was the result of only 4 boroughs - Bromley, Havering, Merton and Redbridge approving below the 96% target. The low completions figure for Barking & Dagenham is the result of the implementation of a 2007 permission, so does not represent a 'new' loss of greenfield land. 

% OF DEVELOPMENT COMPLETED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND
% UNIT 
COMPLETIONS
% UNIT 
APPROVALS
% UNIT 
COMPLETIONS
% UNIT 
APPROVALS
% UNIT 
COMPLETIONS
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
% UNIT 
APPROVALS
TABLE 2.2  DEVELOPMENT ON BROWNFIELD LAND BY BOROUGH
BOROUGH
Barking and 
Barnet
99.9
100.0 100.0
99.6
98
100
Bexley
43.5 94.0
100.0 100.0
100 100
Brent
98.0 94.7
100.0
82.0
100
97
Bromley
77.9 93.8 50.7 78.6
95 98
Camden
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100 100
City of London
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100 100
Croydon
99.2 99.9 95.5
100.0
100
97
Ealing
100.0 100.0
99.9
100.0
100 100
Dagenham
88.0
100.0 100.0 100.0
100
28
Enfield
96.1
100.0
99.6 77.3
100
99
Greenwich
93.0
100.0 100.0
99.8
100 100
Hackney
98.2 99.9 98.7
100.0
100 100
Hammersmith and 
Haringey
99.9
100.0
96.3
100.0
100 100
Harrow
99.6 97.5 90.7
100.0
99
100
Havering
99.7
100.0
93.5 30.6
82
100
Hillingdon
98.9 96.2 91.4
100.0
96 93
Hounslow
97.9
100.0 100.0 100.0
98
100
Islington
94.5
100.0
99.9 97.9
98
100
Kensington and 
Kingston upon 
Lambeth
100.0
99.9 97.9
100.0
100 100
Fulham
99.1
100.0 100.0 100.0
100 100
Chelsea
100.0
99.5
100.0 100.0
100 100
Thames
100.0 100.0
99.8
100.0
100 100
% UNIT 
COMPLETIONS
% UNIT 
APPROVALS
% UNIT 
COMPLETIONS
% UNIT 
APPROVALS
% UNIT 
COMPLETIONS
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
% UNIT 
APPROVALS
BOROUGH
Lewisham
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100 100
Merton
92.1 99.6 58.5
100.0
86 86
Newham
99.7 96.9
100.0 100.0
100
98
Redbridge
100.0
84.3
100.0 100.0
95
100
Richmond upon 
Southwark
93.9 99.5
100.0
98.5
100
98
Sutton
96.6
100.0 100.0
93.7
100
97
Tower Hamlets
100.0
99.9 99.6 98.2
100 100
Waltham Forest
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100 100
Thames
95.3
100.0
89.5
100.0
100 100
Source: London Development Database
Wandsworth
98.8
100.0
99.4
100.0
100 100
Westminster
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100 100
London
97.3 98.8 96.8 97.1
99 98

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

2.2	 The tables above compare residential 
densities achieved for each scheme against both the sites Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) and its setting as defined in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. For both all schemes and larger schemes there has been an increase in the percentage within range. Land in London is a scarce resource, the low figures for developments below range are a welcome indicator that land is not being used inefficiently. The tables above are based on all residential approvals for which 

MATRIX - ALL SCHEMES
% OF UNITS APPROVALS
FINANCIAL YEAR
WITHIN RANGE
ABOVE RANGE
BELOW RANGE
2006/07
36%
60%
4%
2007/08
40%
55%
5%
2008/09
41%
53%
7%
2009/10
39%
56%
6%
2010/11
37%
58%
5%
2011/12
40%
55%
5%

Source: London Development Database a site area could be calculated. Density is the result of dividing the total number of units by the total residential site area. The percentages refer to units not schemes.

## Matrix - Schemes Of 15 Units Or More

% OF UNITS APPROVALS SCHEMES 15+
FINANCIAL YEAR
WITHIN RANGE
ABOVE RANGE
BELOW RANGE
2006/07
30%
69%
1%
2007/08
36%
63%
2%
2008/09
36%
62%
2%
2009/10
35%
63%
2%
2010/11
31%
68%
1%
2011/12
37%
60%
3%

Source: London Development Database

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

2.3	 The table below shows the overall loss 
in protected open space was just under 8 Ha, below the previous figure of 11Ha and less than half the 17ha in 2009/10. Overall, there was a net loss of 1.049 Ha when the net gain in approvals (6.8)  is compared with the net loss (-7.85) in completions. The two largest losses that were approved were in Bromley for outdoor sports facilities and in Havering for the redevelopment of surplus playing fields. The large loss completed in Bexley was for a school.
2.4	 The types of open space protection 
recorded on LDD 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 was based on that found in PPG 17 but does not include private residential gardens.

NET LOSS 
OR GAIN 
(HA)
PROPOSED 
OPEN SPACE 
(HA)*
EXISTING OPEN 
SPACE (HA)
NET LOSS OR 
GAIN (HA)
PROPOSED 
OPEN SPACE 
(HA)*
APPROVALS
COMPLETIONS
EXISTING 
OPEN SPACE 
(HA)
PERMISSION IN 2011/12
BOROUGH
Barking and Dagenham
0.048 0.673 0.625 7.060 0.434
-6.626
Barnet
1.271
0
-1.271
0 0 0
Bexley
0.322
0
-0.322
9.932
0
-9.932
Brent
0.164 1.290 1.126 0.849 0.077
-0.772
Bromley
7.726
0
-7.726
0.398
0
-0.398
Camden
0
0.257 0.257
0 0 0
City of London
0
0.050 0.050
0 0 0
Croydon
1.429 2.245 0.816 0.689
0
-0.689
Ealing
0.062 0.254 0.192
0 0 0
Enfield
1.320 0.335
-0.985
0.150
0
-0.150
Greenwich
2.516 2.806 0.290 0.091 5.675 5.584
Hackney
0.113 1.489 1.376 0.353 0.493 0.140
Hammersmith and Fulham
0.059 0.850 0.791
0 0 0
Haringey
0.372 0.792 0.420 0.045 1.783 1.738
Harrow
0.852 0.706
-0.146
0 0 0
NET LOSS 
OR GAIN 
(HA)
PROPOSED 
OPEN SPACE 
(HA)*
EXISTING OPEN 
SPACE (HA)
NET LOSS OR 
GAIN (HA)
PROPOSED 
OPEN SPACE 
(HA)*
APPROVALS
COMPLETIONS
EXISTING 
OPEN SPACE 
(HA)
PERMISSION IN 2011/12
BOROUGH
Havering
10.653
4.825
-5.828
0 0 0
Hillingdon
1.556
0
-1.556
0.733
0
-0.733
Hounslow
4.201 1.974
-2.227
0.131 5.500 5.369
Islington
1.996 2.009 0.013 0.083
0
-0.083
Kensington and Chelsea
0 0 0 0 0 0
Kingston upon Thames
0.022
0
-0.022
0.265 0.265
0
Lambeth
0.299 0.269
-0.030
0 0 0
Lewisham
0.208 1.656 1.448
0
0.037 0.037
Merton
4.619 2.775
-1.844
0.713
0
-0.713
Newham
3.983
19.523 15.540
1.066 0.329
-0.737
Redbridge
0.569
0
-0.569
0 0 0
Richmond upon Thames
0.170
0
-0.170
0 0 0
Southwark
0
0.438 0.438 0.241 0.867 0.626
Sutton
0
0.870 0.870 0.371
0
-0.371
Tower Hamlets
0
0.623 0.623
0 0 0
NET LOSS 
OR GAIN 
(HA)
PROPOSED 
OPEN SPACE 
(HA)*
EXISTING OPEN 
SPACE (HA)
NET LOSS OR 
GAIN (HA)
PROPOSED 
OPEN SPACE 
(HA)*
APPROVALS
COMPLETIONS
EXISTING 
OPEN SPACE 
(HA)
PERMISSION IN 2011/12
BOROUGH
Waltham Forest
0 0 0
0.461
0
-0.461
Wandsworth
0.288 4.126 3.838
0 0 0
Westminster
0
0.784 0.784 0.150 0.471 0.321
London Total
44.818 51.619
6.801
23.781 15.931
-7.850
Source: London Development Database

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

2.5	 An increase in overall supply has 
been seen, comprised of increases in conventional supply (+2188) and an increase in vacant coming back into use (+788), but we have seen a decrease in the numbers of self contained units being delivered (-372). Total output is still below the benchmark but these are long-term benchmarks and individual years will vary over the development cycle. Given the general economic outlook and the restrictions of mortgage availability a below benchmark result was to be expected.  With capacity for almost 200,000 homes in the pipeline (198,600), the London planning system can support a major expansion in housing output, making a vital contribution not only to meeting housing needs but also to economic regeneration.

BOROUGH
NET CONVEN- TIONAL
TEMPORARY PP ENDED
Barking and 
393
0
0
12
405
1,065
Dagenham
Barnet
1,073
0
7
173
1,253
2,255
Bexley
203
1
16
295
515
335
Brent
560
0
-34
306
832
1,065
Bromley
581
0
-11
19
589
500
Camden
376
0
-277
112
211
665
City of London
18
0
0
89
107
110
Croydon
688
-3
-1
-41
643
1,330
Ealing
683
0
-30
281
934
890
Enfield
297
0
-4
293
586
560
Greenwich
1,323
0
-234
850
1,939
2,595
Hackney
1,002
0
471
874
2,347
1,160
Hammersmith and 
461
0
-6
10
465
615
Fulham
Haringey
818
0
637
-179
1,276
820
Harrow
424
1
3
44
472
350
Havering
100
0
0
48
148
970
Hillingdon
989
0
-20
228
1,197
425
Hounslow
590
0
54
2
646
470
Islington
1,230
0
193
326
1,749
1,170
Kensington and 
120
-3
-29
-108
-20
585
Chelsea
Kingston upon 
228
0
-113
407
522
375
Thames
Lambeth
850
0
-26
279
1,103
1,195
TOTAL	
NET NON- CONVEN- TIONAL SUPPLY
VACANTS RETURNING TO USE
LONDON PLAN TARGET
BOROUGH
NET CONVEN- TIONAL
TEMPORARY PP ENDED
Lewisham
1,189
0
20
198
1,407
1,105
Merton
439
0
18
41
498
320
Newham
909
0
-34
270
1,145
2,500
Redbridge
526
0
18
144
688
760
Richmond upon 
206
0
0
-25
181
245
Thames
Southwark
1,084
0
396
328
1,808
2,005
Sutton
587
0
0
-20
567
210
Tower Hamlets
903
0
0
133
1,036
2,885
Waltham Forest
498
0
-12
66
552
760
Wandsworth
981
0
425
17
1,423
1,145
Westminster
850
0
52
198
1,100
770
London
21,179
-4
1,479
5,670
28,324
32,210

Sources: Conventional and non-self contained supply from the London Development Database, Long term vacants from CLG Housing Live Tables 615 which summarise Council Tax records supplied by Local Authorities

NET NON- CONVEN- TIONAL SUPPLY
VACANTS RETURNING TO USE
TOTAL	
LONDON PLAN TARGET

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

2.6	 Table 2.7 shows that in net terms there 
were 8,087 conventional completions of new affordable homes in London in 2011/12. This figure represents an increase of 10% from 7,319 in 2010/11 (revised upwards from the figure of 6,867 published in last year's AMR). The supply of both affordable and market housing increased in the last year, with affordable homes representing 38% of total net conventional completions in 2011/12, very slightly down from the (revised) figure of 39% in 2010/11. 
2.7	 Because local affordable housing output 
can vary considerably from year to year, it is more meaningful to test individual borough performance against a longer term average. Table 2.7 shows average affordable housing output as a proportion of overall conventional housing provision over the three years to 2011/12. During this period affordable housing output averaged 38% of total provision, a proportion which varied little from year to year.  Figure 2.1 shows three-year average performance of individual boroughs relative to this London-wide average. Over the three years, affordable housing exceeded 50% of total provision in three boroughs: Brent (57%), Havering (57%) and Hounslow (55%). The lowest proportion was in the City of London (1%), followed by Merton (14%) and Kensington and Chelsea (17%).

2.8	 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 includes 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 (see section 3 - Housing Provision in London 2011/12 to this AMR).

2.9	 Over 1,200 more units were completed in 
2011/2 over the previous year, a welcome boost in affordable provision against challenging economic circumstances. Affordable provision is partially related to the overall housing supply (many units comes via S106 agreements on larger schemes) so the second part of the table relates affordable provision to overall supply.  Yet again, affordable supply appears to be holding steady at around the 37%-38% mark of all housing.

AFFORDABLE AS % OF TOTAL NET 
CONVENTIONAL SUPPLY
TOTAL NET CONVENTIONAL AFFORDABLE 
COMPLETIONS
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
TOTAL
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
TOTAL
HOUSING PROVISION OVER THE THREE YEARS TO 2011/12
BOROUGH
Barking and Dagenham
24
143 113 280
12% 42% 29% 30%
Barnet
136 224 319 679
18% 30% 30% 27%
Bexley
239 154
30
423
68% 52% 15% 50%
Brent
414 184 414
1,012
51% 47% 74% 57%
Bromley
223 248 203 674
40% 33% 35% 36%
Camden
216 142
66
424
51% 26% 18% 32%
City of London
0 2
0 
2
0% 2% 0% 1%
Croydon
728 396 362
1,486
52% 35% 53% 46%
Ealing
229
73
325 627
53% 27% 48% 45%
Enfield
30
220
79
329
11% 48% 27% 32%
Greenwich
141 787 370
1,298
26% 69% 28% 43%
Hackney
621 350 403
1,374
37% 40% 40% 38%
Hammersmith & Fulham
441 196
80
717
50% 38% 17% 39%
Haringey
281
89
381 751
47% 21% 47% 41%
Harrow
209 167 153 529
40% 38% 36% 38%
Havering
288
89 34
411
67% 47% 34% 57%
Hillingdon
189 175 322 686
31% 58% 33% 36%
AFFORDABLE AS % OF TOTAL NET 
CONVENTIONAL SUPPLY
TOTAL NET CONVENTIONAL AFFORDABLE 
COMPLETIONS
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
TOTAL
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
TOTAL
HOUSING PROVISION OVER THE THREE YEARS TO 2011/12
BOROUGH
Hounslow
381 349 319
1,049
59% 52% 54% 55%
Islington
456
-66
458 848
31%
-14%
37% 27%
Kensington & Chelsea
22 61 19
102
7%
36% 16% 17%
Kingston upon Thames
30 65 81
176
21% 43% 36% 34%
Lambeth
417 744 348
1,509
36% 56% 41% 45%
Lewisham
168 339 467 974
22% 47% 39% 36%
Merton
49 48 60
157
15% 13% 14% 14%
Newham
712 390 429
1,531
48% 46% 47% 47%
Redbridge
175 111
54
340
18% 32% 10% 19%
Richmond upon Thames
76 45 75
196
36% 14% 36% 27%
Southwark
710 562 598
1,870
52% 40% 55% 48%
Sutton
-15
222 235 442
-7%
67% 40% 39%
Tower Hamlets
864 301 593
1,758
30% 23% 66% 35%
Waltham Forest
-130
248 358 476
-84%
58% 72% 44%
Wandsworth
479 109 268 856
31% 23% 27% 29%
Westminster
385 152
71
608
56% 20%
8%
27%
London
9,188 7,319 8,087
24,594
37% 39% 38% 38%
Barking and Dagenham
Barnet
Bexley
Brent
Bromley
Camden
City of London
Croydon
Ealing
Enfield
Greenwich
Hackney
Hammersmith and Fulham
Haringey
Harrow
Havering
Hillingdon
Hounslow
Islington
Kensington and Chelsea
Kingston upon Thames
Lambeth
Lewisham
Merton
Newham
Redbridge
Richmond upon Thames
Southwark
Sutton
Tower Hamlets
Waltham Forest
Wandsworth
Westminster

## Key Performance Indicator 6 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)

2.10	Figures on life expectancy at birth are 
produced at ward level by London Health Programmes (NHS) based on mortalities over a five year period. The London Plan's regeneration areas (Policy 2.14) are identified as the 20% most deprived Lower Super Output Areas, 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
| MALE                          | FEMALE   |
|-------------------------------|----------|
| YEAR                          |          |
| 2001-2005                     | 2006-10  |
| Most deprived 20% wards       | 74.1     |
| Least deprived 20% wards      | 79.1     |
| London average                | 76.4     |
| Difference - most deprived to | 5.0      |
| least deprived                |          |
| Difference - most deprived    | 2.3      |
| to London                     |          |

of Multiple Deprivation 2010. The figures for each deprivation quintile summarised in the table are simple averages of the published figures. 

2.11		
When comparing the figures for 2001-05 
and 2006-10, the difference in the life expectancy at birth in the most deprived wards has improved at a 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 5.0 year to 4.7 years, while the gap for women has reduced from 3.2 years to 2.4 years. Due to the methods used to calculate this, a degree of variability would be expected, so a comparison of the figures for the two dates needs to be treated with some caution

## Key Performance Indicator 7 Sustaining Economic Activity

Target: Increase in the proportion of working age London residents in employment 2011–2031

2.12	Table 2.9 shows that London saw a steady 
increase in its employment rate1  between 2005 and 2008. However, the economic downturn led to a sudden drop in the employment rate in 2009 that took it back 

YEAR
YEAR
LONDON RESIDENTS OF WORKING AGE
LONDON WORKING-AGE RESIDENTS IN EMPLOYMENT
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

 Source: Annual Population Survey to 2006 levels, and another slight drop in 2010 which took it below 2005 levels. In 2011 the rate levelled off and remained unchanged from 2010 at 68.0 per cent.

2.13	Historically there have been low levels of 
economic activity among London residents relative to that of the country as a whole. However, when compared with the UK average, the gap in rates has fallen steadily between 2005 and 2011, changing from 4.3 percentage points, to just 2.0 points, meaning the gap has more than halved

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

2.14	In this edition of the Annual Monitoring 
Report we continue to utilise 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 at end-2012 was 8.3:1.  In the most recent set of comparable figures for the two databases, for 2011, the ratio of permissions to starts was 13.5:1 according to EGi and 8:1 according to LDD.  Both are comfortably in excess of the target of 3:1, although the former is sharply down on recent years thanks to an acceleration in development starts in 2012.  Final permissions and starts data from LDD for 2012 are not yet available, hence the absence of a ratio for 2012. The variation in the ratio can be accounted for by the different definitions used in the datasets2. 
2.15	2012 saw the volume of construction starts 
jump, more than doubling to 745,107 sq m net from 331,000 sq m net in 2011 - this is by far the largest increase in starts since 1998.  The average level of annual starts since 1985 has been just under 582,000 sq m net and this is the first time starts have exceeded the average since 2007. It is worth noting that almost 200,000 sq m net of these starts are accounted for by just three schemes - The Bloomberg Centre, EC4 (81,741 sq m net); 5 Broadgate, EC2 (65,032 sq m net) and 25 Churchill Place, E14 (50,324 sq m net) - highlight that even large headline figures can be skewed by a small number of developments. Another significant single building start - at King's Cross, NW1 adds 31,590 sq m, while another four starts at King's Cross add a further 47,000 sq m net.  This is the overwhelming bulk of construction starts in Camden. 

2.16	Elsewhere, the City of London accounted 
for 253,000 sq m (33%) of starts, with Camden (110,300 sq m) and Westminster (108,000 sq m) each accounting for 14% of starts.  Tower Hamlets, thanks largely to Churchill Court, accounted for 9.6% of starts. Of these starts 30% (225,000 sq m net) were pre-let, a figure which rises to 45% in the City of London (114,000 sq m net).  In Camden 42% (46,100 sq m net) was pre-let (this excludes the large pre-sale to Google, which only completed in 2013). Overall this suggests that large schemes will still only get under way off the back of a significant pre-let.  Southwark, with 18,300 sq m net of 62,100 sq m pre-let is similarly risk averse.  Of the major markets only in Westminster, with 16% pre-let does there seem to be a real developer appetite for speculative risk.  Only the smaller markets have, proportionally, higher speculative elements.

2.17	Turning to the permission pipeline, it 
remains substantially stable, at 3.8 million sq m, a level that has held since 2010, according to EGi.  Indeed it has rarely been below this level since the turn of the century. By far the largest consent was for Wood Wharf in Tower Hamlets, at 363,387 sq m net.  Elizabeth House, York Road SE1 is second largest at 74,300 sq m net, which will deliver a 40,000 sq m net addition to stock.  One notable addition to the stock of consents is Embassy Gardens 
(including the South Bank Business Park) at Nine Elms, with just under 40,000 sq m net permitted, a notable development in the light of discussion of mega schemes in LOPR 2012. Unsurprisingly, Wood Wharf again pushes Tower Hamlets to the top of the "outstanding consents" table with 1.2 million sq m net, with the City of London second with 887,000 sq m net.

2.18	Of note is that the average size of consent 
in Tower Hamlets is 33,300 sq m (in 36 schemes) while in the City, despite several very large buildings, the average size is just under 15,000 sq m net (in 60 schemes). Only Wandsworth (15,100 sq m net) has an average size of about 10,000 sq m, thanks to Embassy Gardens.  Despite King's Cross, the average development size 

YEAR AVERAGE STARTS IN CENTRAL LONDON3 
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
N/A

Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices, London Development Database of 8,800 sq m net in Camden reflects the overwhelming small-scale of development in that borough.

2.19	In the occupational market, total 
availability in Central London stood at 1.44 million sq m - an availability ratio of 6.1%. But despite a late rally, which saw quarterly take-up rise 21%, annual take up was 13% down on 2011 at 880,000 sq m, well below the 15-year average of 1.41 million sq m4.   Despite this sluggish performance, rents have remained stable at £55 per sq ft (£592 per sq m) in the City and Midtown, and have actually seen modest growth in the supply-constrained West End, to £97.50 per sq ft (£1,049 per sq m) from £95 per sq ft (£1,022 per sq m) in 2011.

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

2.20	Table 2.11 shows an estimated total of 
116ha of industrial land was released to other uses in 2011/12. The figure includes release of land currently in industrial use and in mixed industrial/non-industrial use sites. 
2.21	Table 2.11 shows that industrial land 
release in 2011/12 was three times the annual benchmark in the 2012 Land for Industry and Transport SPG. The benchmark was exceeded in all sub-regions except for North London. The rate of release in 2011/12 exceeded the annual average rates of release in 2001-2006 and 2006-2011. 

SUB- REGION
ACTUAL RELEASE 2011/12
ANNUAL AVERAGE RELEASE 2001-2006
ANNUAL AVERAGE RELEASE 2006-2011
Central
6
5
9.4
--
2.3
East
57
54
38.6
--
19.4
North
2
2
1.5
--
3.4
South
11
4
31.7
--
4.4
West
10
18
35.1
--
7.2
London
86
83
116.3
41.0
36.7

Source: London Development Database

LONDON PLAN ANNUAL BENCHMARK 2006-2026
2012 SPG ANNUAL BENCHMARK 2011-2031

## Key Performance Outer Key Performance Indicator 10 Employment In Outer London

Target: Growth in total Employment in Outer London

2.22	Though there are local exceptions, 
employment in many outer boroughs has been static or declining over two economic cycles. Over the period 1989-2011 (both years being cycle peaks), growth in the number of employees in Outer London fell well short of that in Inner London (2.6 per cent vs 18.3 per cent). London overall saw the number of employees grow by 12 per cent. Overall, the changes in employment for individual boroughs have been very diverse - six outer boroughs (out of 19) achieved employment growth of 14 per cent or more in the 1989-2011 period, 

TABLE 2.12 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF JOBS IN OUTER LONDON, 2000- 2010 YEAR
OUTER LONDON
LONDON
% IN OUTER LONDON
2000
1,978,000
4,618,000
43%
2001
1,948,000
4,580,000
43%
2002
1,911,000
4,491,000
43%
2003
1,949,000
4,554,000
43%
2004
1,977,000
4,613,000
43%
2005
1,989,000
4,706,000
42%
2006
1,948,000
4,615,000
42%
2007
1,964,000
4,728,000
42%
2008
1,970,000
4,799,000
41%
2009
1,900,000
4,739,000
40%
2010
1,923,000
4,772,000
40%

Source: Office for National Statistics whereas eight boroughs had a reduction in jobs. Caution must be applied when using these figures since they exclude those in self-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 and the Commission's recommendations made a major contribution to the London Plan's new policies for Outer London.

2.23	This is a new KPI. It relates to KPI 7, but 
focusing on employment in Outer London. Table 2.12 shows the total number of jobs, including self-employed, from 2000 to 2010. The total number of jobs in Outer London fell by 66,000 from a peak in 2005 to 2010. However, between 2009 and 2010, there was an increase of 23,000 jobs, or 1.2 per cent, which was higher than the growth in London overall at 0.7 per cent.
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

2.24	Table 2.13 shows that the gap between 
employment rates for White and BAME Londoners has broadly followed a downward trend. In 2004, the gap was 16.6 percentage points, which then fell to 13.2 percentage points in 2010. However, in 2011 the gap increased to 14.6 percentage points. Over the seven-year period the gap has reduced by 2.0 percentage points. 

2.25	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. This approach - which builds on earlier Plan policy - has contributed to this generally positive trend. The GLA has also been encouraging employers to recruit local people, in particular in deprived areas of London where a large number of BAME Londoners live and sustain employment. Initiatives such as the Construction Employer Accord and the GLA's Supplier Skills project should also be mentioned. The latter supports TfL contractors in promoting employment and skills.
2.26	Table 2.14 shows that in terms of income 
support for lone parents over a 10- year period the gap between London and England & Wales has reduced by 7 percentage points. However, it should be noted that since the introduction of the Employment Support Allowance (ESA), lone parents with health issues, who were previously claiming Income Support, now claim ESA. The 2010 and 2011 figures were revised accordingly. This has to be considered when comparing different years. However, this does not affect the comparison of London vs England and Wales' data for each year.

CALENDAR YEAR
| ALL PERSONS                      | WHITE GROUPS   |   BAME GROUPS |
|----------------------------------|----------------|---------------|
| YEAR                             |                |               |
| RATE %                           |                |               |
| IN                               |                |               |
| EMPLOY-                          |                |               |
| MENT                             |                |               |
| IN                               |                |               |
| EMPLOY-                          |                |               |
| MENT                             |                |               |
| 2004                             | 3,448,300      |          68.3 |
| 2005                             | 3,490,100      |          68.2 |
| 2006                             | 3,538,000      |          68.3 |
| 2007                             | 3,600,000      |          68.9 |
| 2008                             | 3,662,400      |          69.5 |
| 2009                             | 3,639,300      |          68.4 |
| 2010                             | 3,639,200      |          68   |
| 2011                             | 3,669,400      |          68   |
| Source: Annual Population Survey |                |               |
| LONDON      | ENGLAND AND WALES   |
|-------------|---------------------|
| ANNUAL      |                     |
| REPORT      |                     |
| LONE PARENT |                     |
| FAMILIES ON |                     |
| IS          |                     |
| AS % OF     |                     |
| LONE PARENT |                     |
| FAMILIES    |                     |
| 2004        | 165,120             |
| 2005        | 163,620             |
| 2006        | 162,770             |
| 2007        | 160,450             |
| 2008        | 152,520             |
| 2009        | 141,720             |
| 2010        | 129,100             |
| 2011        | 109,200             |
EMPLOY- MENT RATE GAP WHITE/ BAME
RATE %
RATE %
IN EMPLOY- MENT
DIFFERENCE IN 
AS % OF LONE PARENT FAMILIES
LONE PARENT FAMILIES ON IS

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

2.27	The average class size has increased in all 
London boroughs since 2005, except in Islington where the 2012 figure is the same as that in 2005. However, between 2011 and 2012 the experience is more positive, with average class size decreasing in 14 London boroughs, although still increasing in 17, with 2 unchanged - see the table below. The main influences on increasing class sizes 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 is down to current economic circumstances as there is some emerging evidence to suggest previous migration trends will resume. This is something that will be monitored closely.
2.28	The recent reduction in class sizes in some 
boroughs are likely to be reinforced by the creation of new schools - 28 Free Schools have now been set up in London. London Plan Policy 3.18 should help to support this trend 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.

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

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

2.29	The indices in Table 2.16 are derived from 
the time series of journey stages per head compiled for Travel in London Report 5 (TfL Planning December 2012). 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 

| YEAR   |   PUBLIC TRANSPORT  |
|--------|---------------------|
| INDEX  |                     |
| 2001   |               100   |
| 2002   |               103   |
| 2003   |               107.7 |
| 2004   |               112.3 |
| 2005   |               110.5 |
| 2006   |               113.6 |
| 2007   |               123.6 |
| 2008   |               127.2 |
| 2009   |               126.8 |
| 2010   |               127.3 |
| 2011   |               131.4 |

Source: Transport for London Survey respectively, courtesy of ONS). It should be noted that the figures have been revised compared to previous AMRs. 

2.30	Total daily journey stages in 2011 were 
29.9 million, up from 29.3 million in 2010, and 4.3 million higher than in 2001. Of these stages, 34% were by private transport, and 43% by public transport. Since 2001, use of public transport per head has grown by over 30%, and increased by over 3% in the latest year. In contrast, private transport use per head has decreased by 17% since 2001, and is down almost 2% in the latest year. In line with the target, public transport use per head continues to grow at a faster rate than private transport, which continues to fall year on year.

PRIVATE TRANSPORT INDEX

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

2.31	Table 2.17 shows that road traffic volumes 
continued to fall in the latest year, down by 2% between 2010 and 2011, and 9.8% since 2001. In 2011, traffic volumes fell in both Inner and Outer London, down by 2.8% and 1.7% respectively. Traffic levels in Inner London are almost 13% lower than in 2001. In Outer London, traffic levels are 8% lower than 2001. With regards to the target, car traffic is declining rather than growing across all sectors of London.
2.32	For London to continue to make progress 
in reducing its reliance on the private car requires considerable investment in public transport.  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 £300m from S106 contributions and £300m from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CiL).  In July 2010 the Mayor adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail setting out the charges for specific land uses in specific locations. In April 2012 the Mayor's CiL, to raise funds to contribute to the construction of Crossrail, came into effect. The CiL is a London-wide charge, applying to most land uses.  The table below shows progress to date towards the £300m target for both funding streams. The CiL Regulations 2010 require the Mayor 
to report on various aspects of how CiL receipts are being spent. This is set out in Table 2.18A below. 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. 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.

All roads 
index 
(2001=100)
YEAR
2001 2002
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
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
Inner London (excl City 
Outer London
22.04 22.03 21.92 21.72 21.66 21.76 21.42 20.90 20.83 20.63 20.28
All roads index 
Greater London 
100.0
99.6 99.0 97.9 97.3 97.6 96.6 93.8 93.2 92.1 90.2
Inner London (excl City 
Outer London
100.0
99.9 99.5 98.6 98.3 98.7 97.2 94.8 94.5 93.6 92.0
and Westminster)
8.98 8.90 8.84 8.66 8.51 8.52 8.58 8.29 8.19 8.05 7.82
(2001=100)
and Westminster)
100.0
99.2 98.4 96.4 94.8 94.9 95.5 92.3 91.2 89.6 87.1
CROSSRAIL (£M)
S106
YEAR
CIL
0.24
2011
1.14
2012
16.01
2013*
2.67
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
17.39
Total
2.67
300
Agreed Total
300
| CATEGORY                | £           |
|-------------------------|-------------|
| Total CiL Expenditure   | 2,638,531   |
| Amount used to repay    | 0           |
| borrowing               |             |
| Amount spent on         | 26,652 (1%) |
| administration          |             |
| Amount of CiL 'in-hand' | 0           |

Source: Transport for London

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 per cent in 2009 to 5 per cent by 2026

2.33	Table 2.19 shows that in 2011 almost 2% 
of all journeys in Greater London on an average day were made by bicycle, an increase of 53% compared to 2001 and 3% more in the most recent year (2010 to 2011). Around 0.57 million journey stages were made by bicycle in Greater London on an average day, an increase of 79% 

MODE SHARES, 2000 TO 2011
| YEAR         |   DAILY CYCLE  |
|--------------|----------------|
| STAGES       |                |
| (MILLIONS)   |                |
| CYCLE MODE   |                |
| SHARE        |                |
| (PERCENTAGE) |                |
| 2001         |           0.32 |
| 2002         |           0.32 |
| 2003         |           0.37 |
| 2004         |           0.38 |
| 2005         |           0.41 |
| 2006         |           0.47 |
| 2007         |           0.47 |
| 2008         |           0.49 |
| 2009         |           0.51 |
| 2010         |           0.54 |
| 2011         |           0.57 |

Source: TfL Planning, Travel in London Report 5, tables 2.3 and 3.5
compared to 2001 and 5% more in the most recent year (2010 to 2011).

2.34	If growth is sustained at this rate, London 
will remain on track to meet the Mayor's objective to see a cycling revolution, with a target for a 5% cycle mode share by 2026. The new London Plan includes a range of policies to help support achievement of this objective, such as support for the Cycle Superhighway network and the London cycle hire scheme and standards for cycle parking and facilities for cyclists in new development. Transport for London is carrying out a comprehensive review of cycle parking standards; the first results of this work have informed early alterations to the 2011 London Plan.
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

2.35	For passenger transport, Table 2.20 
includes figures for passenger journeys on boat operators using TfL London River Services piers and the Thames Clipper Savoy (London Eye from November 2007) to Woolwich Arsenal service. These exclude a number of other services working from independent piers. Figures also include passengers on river tours and charter boats. Ticket sales count both single and return tickets as one journey on all services except Thames Clippers.
2.36	Table 2.20 shows that the number of 
passengers on the Thames increased until 2010. Despite the small decline in 2011 and 2012, the amount of passengers over the baseline situation in 2001 has still increased by 163%. Following the events of 7 July 2005, passenger numbers on leisure services fell significantly, but subsequently recovered to previous levels. Passenger numbers on the riverbus services have shown significant growth since July 2005. In November 2007, Thames Clippers' riverbus service was expanded to run between Waterloo (BA London Eye) and the O2 at a 10-20-minute frequency throughout the day and every 30 minutes in the late evening. Strong growth in riverbus and leisure services continued in 2008/9 due to the relative weakness of the pound attracting visitors to London and a successful programme of events at the O2 
boosting Thames Clippers' patronage.

2.37	In October 2011, a new pier was opened 
at St George Wharf, Vauxhall - and the Thames Clippers service extended further west. In April 2012, a new extension to London Eye Millennium Pier was installed creating additional capacity at the pier. Through the Mayor's River Concordat Group, a number of improvements have been made to support the development of river passenger services including: a new extension to Tower Pier, a new roof installed on Greenwich Pier, the introduction of Oyster Pay As You Go, enhanced signage to piers and new mapping and customer information. The recent very slight overall fall is due to a decrease in river tours whilst the riverbus and charters continue to grow. The slight dip is linked to the impact of the economic downturn; over the long-term, growth is expected to continue. 

2.38	The Mayor of London and Transport 
for London are developing a new River Action Plan in order to increase passenger numbers on the river. The Action Plan has been launched in February 2013 and will include the provision of improved facilities such as new and extended piers and further integration of river services into the wider transport network. It should also be noted that the figures do not include the Woolwich Ferry, which accounts annually for over an additional two million passenger journeys.

YEAR
NUMBER OF PASSENGERS
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

Source: TfL London Rivers Services

3.39	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.  This trade is influenced by economic conditions, although 2011 saw increased volumes due to demand from Thames Water's Lea Tunnel and Crossrail projects.  Volumes of spoil moved on the Thames as a result of the Lea Tunnel in particular but also from riverside development schemes also increased substantially and the PLA remains optimistic that these major construction schemes, together with the Thames Tideway Tunnel and other major schemes, will have a positive effect on short and medium term prospects. This is 

% CHANGE ON PREVIOUS YEAR
also reflected in the water freight demand forecast published as part of the current review of safeguarded wharves.  Sufficient wharf capacity is essential to allow freight trade on the Thames to grow.

## Greater London

YEAR
TONNES OF CARGO 
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% 

	 Source: Port of London Authority

% CHANGE ON PREVIOUS YEAR

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

2.40	This indicator aims to show that high-
density employment generators such as offices are mainly located in areas 

|                  |                 |    | ALL B1          | OFFICES (B1A)   |
|------------------|-----------------|----|-----------------|-----------------|
| PTAL LEVEL       | FLOORSPACE (M2) | %  | FLOORSPACE (M2) | %               |
| 5 or 6           | 1,590,381       | 61 | 1,574,331       | 64              |
| 4 or less        | 1,020,895       | 39 | 879,186         | 36              |
| Total floorspace | 2,611,276       |    | 2,453,517       |                 |
|                  |                 |     | ALL B1          | OFFICES (B1A)   |
|------------------|-----------------|-----|-----------------|-----------------|
| PTAL LEVEL       | FLOORSPACE (M2) | %   | FLOORSPACE (M2) | %               |
| 5 or 6           | 1,590,381       | 74% | 1,574,331       | 79%             |
| 4 or less        | 555,895         | 26% | 414,186         | 21%             |
| Total floorspace | 2,146,276       |     | 1,988,517       |                 |

Source: London Development Database Note: 2011 saw the granting of 10/90641/EXTODA which consolidates the elements of the previously approved redevelopment of the Olympic site for which details have not yet been submitted. Given the size of the site, the centroid used to measure the PTAL of the site is located a long way from the edge of the site and therefore in an area of low PTAL. As this gives little indication of where the new office space will be located and it is restating office space approved in previous years, it is useful to restate the figures excluding this permission.

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.  When the Olympic site is omitted the results are an improvement on last year with the figure for all B1 rising from 64% to 74% and the figure for B1a Offices rising from 73% to 79%. 

## Key Performance Indicator 18 Protection Of Biodiversity Habitat

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

2.41	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
2.42	Table 2.24 records all permissions granted 
in 2011/2 which include areas with any conservation designations. Open Space designations such as Green Belt, MOL and Local Open Space are addressed in KPI 3. The table shows 4 approvals and a reduction in the amount of protected area at risk of loss to development to less than 1 Ha this year.

BOROUGH
PERMISSION REFERENCE
PROTECTED AREA AFFECTED BY DEV (HA)
Greenwich
11/1765
2.460
Hammersmith 
& Fulham
2010/03560/FUL
0.059
Haringey
HGY/2011/1166
0.299
Lewisham
09/72245
0.002
Total Area 
2.820
0.960
(Gross hectares):
Source: London Development Database
COMMENT
NET LOSS OF CONSER- VATION SITES (HA)
Formation of an equestrian 
0.600
centre within MOL designated for conservation as a site of borough Grade 1 Importance will see a net loss of open space but will provide an appropriate use for the site.
Residential development on 
0.059
small part of the Kensal Green Railway Embankment Site of Borough Grade 1 importance for nature conservation.
New free school will lead to 
0.299
an area of MOL designated as a site of local importance for nature conservation changing designation but more space will be available for public access.
Loss of a small area of SMI 
0.002
considered acceptable due to lack of significant vegetation and proximity to railway station which already interrupts the green corridor. S106 payment of £25,000.

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

2.43	Table 2.25 shows that the total amount 
of local authority collected waste has continued to decline, decreasing by 4 per cent since 2010/11. It also shows that London's recycling rate for local authority collected waste has increased steadily over the previous ten years, reaching 30 per cent in 2011/12. The amount of local authority collected waste sent to landfill has reduced by 34 per cent with the majority being diverted to incineration with energy recovery. Household waste accounts for the greatest proportion of local authority collected waste. London's household recycling rate also increased to 34% in 2011/12, although London has a lower household recycling rate than any other region in England, in part because it has a relatively high number of flats.

LONDON
2000/01
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04
2004/05 2005/06
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
TONNES)
METHOD
Landfill
3,207 3,244 3,163 3,021 2,856 2,692 2,404
2,209
1,946 1,882 1,696 1,116
(percentage)
72.0% 73.0% 71.0% 70.0% 65.4% 63.7% 56.8%
53.2%
49.0% 48.7% 44.7% 30.6%
Incineration 
(percentage)
20.0% 19.0% 20.0% 19.0% 19.9% 18.2% 21.9%
22.1%
22.9% 20.8% 23.6% 35.7%
Incineration 
(percentage)
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
with EfW
886 842 872 826 869 767 929 919 912 803 896
1,303
without EfW
1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2012, http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/2011-12-ANNUAL-publication_WITHOUTLINKS_
v0.2.xls 
Recycled/
(percentage)
8.0% 8.0% 9.0%
11.0% 14.7% 18.1% 19.9%
22.3%
25.0% 27.4% 28.3% 30.3%
Other5
0 0 0 0 0 0
59
101 123 117 130 124
(percentage)
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4%
2.4%
3.1% 3.0% 3.4% 3.4%
Total6
4,438 4,438 4,446 4,342 4,370 4,223 4,235
4,154
3,975 3,862 3,797 3,648
composted
344 351 410 494 643 763 844 925 994
1,060 1,076 1,105

Reduce carbon dioxide emissions through new development Target: Annual average percentage carbon dioxide emissions savings for strategic developments proposals 

2.44	Policy 5.2 of the London Plan published 
in July 2011 sets out a stepped approach to reaching the zero carbon targets - see Tables 2.26 and 2.27.
2.45	An analysis of the energy assessment 
evaluations relating to Stage II planning applications determined by the Mayor between 1 January and 31 December 2011 was undertaken by the GLA in 2012 to establish the projected carbon dioxide savings secured from these schemes7 . The assessment was made against the 2006 Building Regulations and showed an approximate 50 per cent reduction in regulated8 carbon dioxide emissions beyond the minimum requirements of 2006 building regulations. However, this Indicator reflects the revised Building Regulations which came into force on 6th April 2010. The 2010 Regulations require a 25 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions relative to the 2006 regulations. Therefore the total regulated carbon dioxide savings in 2010 over and above a baseline of a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development are approximately 33 per cent.
2.46	Combined Heat and Power (CHP) produces 
the biggest carbon dioxide savings of each of the elements of the energy hierarchy9. It accounted for 50 per cent of all the projected carbon dioxide savings secured in 2011. Well over a third of the projected 
savings were due to energy efficiency. Renewables accounted for 10 per cent of the overall savings10. The carbon dioxide savings from developments where CHP is unsuitable are substantially less than those with CHP. As such, developments unable to obtain energy from CHP are more likely to exceed the carbon dioxide reduction targets in the London Plan. 

## 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

## Reduction Targets For Non-Domestic Buildings

| YEAR        | IMPROVEMENT ON 2010 BUILDING    |
|-------------|---------------------------------|
| REGULATIONS |                                 |
| 2010-2013   | 25 per cent                     |
| 2013-2016   | 40 per cent                     |
| 2016-2031   | as per Building Regulations     |
| 2019-2031   | zero carbon                     |

Increase in energy generated from renewable sources.

Target: Production of 85509 GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2026 (target has been developed in accordance with a Regional Renewable Energy Assessment)

2.47	This renewable energy generation figure 
has been developed using data in the Decentralised Energy Capacity Study Phase 2: Deployment Potential11. The renewable energy generation figure includes potential 

CAPACITY (MW)
BIO-MASS
LANDFILL GAS
PHOTO- VOLTAICS
Total (MW)
101.1
20.8
14.85
3.6
8.23
14.8
162.4
Total (GWh)
701
173
20.4
2.3
14.5
17.9
929

Source: Decentralised energy capacity study Phase 1: Technical assessment (pg11)12
energy production from photovoltaics, solar water heating, ground source heat pumps, air source heat pumps and wind, hydro, biomass and energy from waste technologies. Unfortunately, there was an error in last year's AMR. Total Capacity was stated as 173 MW it should have been 144.4 MW but the Gigawatt per hour figure of 858 was correct. This year has seen a 12% increase in MW capacity up to 162.4MW, due to increasing use of biomass and uptake of photovoltaics leading to an 8% increase in Gigawatts per hour to 929. 

WIND
HEAT PUMPS
TOTAL
SOLAR WATER HEATING

## Key Performance Indicator 22 Increase In Urban Greening

Target: Increase total area of green roofs in the CAZ

2.48	Green roofs have been identified as a 
suitable indicator for urban greening. Between 2004 and 2008 approximately 50,000m2 of green roofs were added per year across Greater London, with around 10,000m2 per year in the CAZ alone. More recent data obtained from manufacturers shows that the total area of green roofs in London is continuing to increase. We are working with manufacturers to obtain more complete information on the total area of green roof installations between 2009 and 2012.
2.49	However, we are also developing other 
tools to monitor green roof cover in London (and specifically the CAZ) to complement the manufacturers' data. We are creating a central database of green roof locations managed by Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL), who now collate green roof data for a number of boroughs. The GLA is also developing a mapping tool to enable boroughs, the private sector and members of the public to easily record the location and size of known green roofs. This information will then be forwarded to GiGL. Finally, we will trial a method of analysing aerial photographs of the CAZ to estimate changes in green roof cover over time. The baseline year for this will be 2010. 

## Key Performance Indicator 23 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)

2.50	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.
2.51	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.
2.52	2.52 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.

2.53	The following Table 2.29 shows consistent 
restoration of 1.5 km p/a and above each year since 2007. 2012 represents the third largest restoration figure recorded. With over 2.3 km p/a since the 2008 base year this represents satisfactory progress towards meeting the 2015 target of 15 km, and this is without for example the restoration of the Lee as part of the Olympic Park. There is greater 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 restoration targets for maintenance and enhancement13 - reflected in London Plan Policy 7.19 (Table 7.3).

|   YEAR |   RESTORATION (METRES) |   CUMULATIVE RESTORATION (METRES) |
|--------|------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|   2000 |                    680 |                               680 |
|   2001 |                    150 |                               830 |
|   2002 |                    600 |                              1430 |
|   2003 |                   2300 |                              3730 |
|   2004 |                    500 |                              4230 |
|   2005 |                      0 |                              4320 |
|   2006 |                    100 |                              4330 |
|   2007 |                   5100 |                              9430 |
|   2008 |                   2000 |                             11430 |
|   2009 |                   1500 |                             12930 |
|   2010 |                  1808  |                             14738 |
|   2011 |                   3519 |                             18257 |
|   2012 |                   3000 |                             21257 |

Source: Rivers and Streams Habitat Action Plan Steering Group

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

2.54	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 109 new listed buildings, 10 new conservation areas and one more registered park in London.
2.55	In terms of designated assets at risk, the 
situation between 2011 and 2012 has remained the same or there has been an increase of at risk assets. For listed buildings, 525 were at risk in 2012, 48 more than the previous year. 115 have been added, the majority as a result of a survey of listed structures in cemeteries and churchyards. For conservation areas, the proportion of areas at risk increased slightly and a total of 65 sites of the total surveyed areas (949 out of the total 1010) are considered to be at risk. As for Registered Parks and Gardens, the number of sites at risk has seen a decrease from 14 to 12 sites on 2011 register giving this year's total of 8% (2 sites were removed from the 2011 register for positive reasons). The sites that remain at risk tend to be the more intractable ones where solutions are taking longer to implement. For World Heritage Sites, scheduled 
monuments and the one registered battlefield (at Barnet) the situation is unchanged in terms of both their number and their condition. 

2.56	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 also produced a Heritage at Risk 2012 summary for London.

| 2010                   | 2011   | 2012   |
|------------------------|--------|--------|
| NUMBER                 | % AT   |        |
| RISK                   |        |        |
| World Heritage Sites   | 4      | 0      |
| Listed Buildings       | 18,618 | 2.65%  |
| Conservation Areas     | 988    | 8.10%  |
| Schedule Monuments     | 155    | 25.80% |
| Registered Parks and   | 149    | 5.40%  |
| Gardens                |        |        |
| Registered Battlefield | 1      | 0      |

Source: English Heritage

| NUMBER   | % AT    |
|----------|---------|
| RISK     |         |
| NUMBER   | % AT    |
| RISK     |         |

## Endnotes

1 This includes self-employment. 2 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 has a minimum threshold of 1,000 sq m gross, whereas the threshold in EGi data is 500 sq m gross.  While LDD data exclude refurbishments where the existing building is already in office use, these 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). 3  Central London defined here as Camden, City of London, City of Westminster, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth. 4 DTZ Research Property Times Central London Q4 2012 5 'Other' includes material which is sent for Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT), mixed municipal waste sent for Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and that disposed through other treatment processes 6 '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 London's local authority collected waste since 2005/06 7 See Energy Planning. Monitoring the Impact of London Plan Energy Policies in 2010, GLA, 2011 - http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Monitoring%20the%20impact%20of%20the%20 London%20Plan%20Policies%20in%202010.pdf 8 The carbon dioxide emissions controlled by Building Regulations such as emissions generated from hot water, space heating, cooling and fans 9 Be lean: use less energy, 2. Be clean: supply energy efficiently, 3. Be green: use renewable energy 10 These figures are based on 2006 Building Regulations - as set out in the Energy Monitoring report 11 http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/DE%20Study%20Phase%202%20report%20 -%20Deployment%20potential.pdf 12 Technical report: http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/DE%20Study%20Phase%20 1%20report%20-%20Technical%20assessment.pdf 13 Includes instream habitat enhancement, channel-narrowing, removal of weirs or barriers, establishment of buffer zones through riparian fencing or tree planting, and wetland creation within 10 metres of the channel.

## Chapter Three Additional Performance Measures And Statistics Additional Performance Measures And Statistics Housing And Design Housing Provision Annual Monitor 2011/12 Introduction

3.1	 This report provides further detail on 
housing provision in London in addition to the tables in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report. It is based largely on data provided by London boroughs to the London Development Database (LDD) maintained by the GLA. The LDD was established with government support and is widely regarded as the most authoritative source of information on housing provision in London.

3.2	 The majority of this section deals with 
housing provision 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 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 final part of this section covers affordable housing delivery according to this latter definition.

Key points 

a	 There were 21,179 net conventional 
housing completions in London in 2011/12. 
b	 Taking into account net supply of 1,479 
non self-contained units and a fall of 5,670 in the number of long-term empty homes, total housing provision was 28,324.
c	 New build accounted for 81% of net 
conventional supply in 2011/12, conversions 7% and changes of use 12%.
d	 Over the last three years net conventional 
affordable housing supply amounted to 24,594 homes, with social rented accounting for 56% of supply and intermediate housing 44%.
e	 Across all tenures, gross conventional 
housing supply was dominated by one or two bedroom homes, with 24% having three bedrooms or more, an increase from 20% in 2010/11 and 18% in 2009/10.
f	 32% of affordable housing supply in 
2011/12 comprised homes with three or more bedrooms. 
g	 19% of net approvals and 22% of net 
starts in 2011/12 were for affordable housing, a reduction from 25% and 31% in 2010/11.
h	 As of 31 March 2011, the net housing 
pipeline consisted of 198,593 homes.
i	 The average density of new housing 
completions in 2011/12 was 117 dwellings per hectare (dph), and the average density of approvals was 162 dph.

3.3	 Total housing provision in the London Plan 
consists of three elements: conventional housing supply, non self-contained bedspaces, and long-term vacant homes returning to use. KPI 5 in the main body of the report shows housing provision at borough level (see also HPM1 and HPM2).
3.4	 Figure 3.1 below shows the separate 
elements of total housing provision for the last five years. While net conventional supply has fallen significantly, this was partly offset in 2011/12 by a large fall in the number of homes empty for more than six months.

 Source: London Development Database; GOV.UK Table 615 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants

3.5	 The figures for the decrease 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 authorities1. This data source replaces figures taken from local authority Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix (HSSA) returns. Like in the 2010/2011 AMR, this data covers all tenures; before 2010/11 data was only available for private units. 

## Gypsy And Traveller Sites

3.6	 Since 1st April 2009 the LDD has been 
recording the loss and gain of gypsy and traveller pitches. During 2011/12 one temporary permission was granted (in LB Havering) for three pitches for a specific family. 

## Conventional Supply

3.7	 As stated above, conventional housing 
supply comprises the bulk of total housing provision in London. Net conventional housing supply in London since 2004/05 is shown in Table 3.1 below 
3.8	 Net conventional supply takes account of 
dwellings lost or replaced. In 2011/2012 there was a gross conventional supply of 24,803 homes, with 3,624 lost or replaced (see Table HPM2). Areas where large-scale estate redevelopment is taking place can show high gross but low net supply: for example, Lambeth had a gross supply of 1131 homes but 281 homes were lost or replaced, for a net supply of 850.

3.9	 There are three types of conventional 
housing supply recorded in the LDD: new build (including extensions), conversions (changes to the number of units in properties already in residential use) and changes of use (for example, from industrial or commercial uses). Table HPM2 shows gross and net conventional 

| 2004/05   | 2005/06   | 2006/07   | 2007/08   | 2008/09   | 2009/10   | 2010/11   | 2011/12   |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| 26,649    | 25,096    | 27,232    | 28,233    | 29,468    | 24,836    | 18,991    | 21,179    |

supply by type for each borough. Across London, new build accounted for 81% of net conventional supply in 2011/12, conversions 7% and changes of use 12%. The mix varied between boroughs with City of London, Camden and Kensington and Chelsea seeing significant net gains from change of use (100%, 70% and 58% respectively).  

3.10	The average density of new housing 
completions in London was 117 dwellings per hectare in 2011/12 (Table HPM14), a reduction from the previous years, in fact the last time average densities were 117 dph was in 2007. Average densities varied widely at borough level, from 25 dwellings per hectare in Hillingdon to 857 in City of London. Analysis of the density data also shows that only 80% of maximum density capacity is being delivered. However, as London Plan policy is now seeking to optimise housing density this is not necessarily a policy failure.

## Affordable Housing Supply

3.11	Total net affordable housing supply in 
2011/12 was 8,087, which is an increase in absolute terms from 2010/11 but a slightly lower proportion of total supply (38% compared to 39%). Table HPM4 shows total net conventional affordable supply by borough over the last three years, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of total supply. In the last year the highest proportions of affordable housing supply were found in Brent, (74%), and Waltham Forest (72%) and the lowest in the City of London (0%) and Westminster (8%). 

3.12	Table HPM3 breaks down net conventional 
affordable supply in the last three years into social rented and intermediate supply. Over the three-year period net conventional affordable housing supply amounted to 24,594 homes, with social rented (56%) and intermediate (44%) housing. This split varied widely between boroughs, with social rented housing accounting for only 16% of affordable supply in Barking and Dagenham but 84% in Kensington and Chelsea and 82% Kingston upon Thames. In 2011/12 there was a reduction in the proportion of intermediate homes being delivered, with 36% of affordable homes being intermediate, when previous years have 

BEDROOMS 2011/12
| DWELLINGS       | 1 BED   | 2 BEDS   | 3 BEDS   | 4+ BEDS   | TOTAL   |
|-----------------|---------|----------|----------|-----------|---------|
| Social          | 1,270   | 2,354    | 1,911    | 764       | 6,299   |
| Intermediate    | 1,270   | 1,322    | 252      | 42        | 2,886   |
| Market          | 6,264   | 6,279    | 1,978    | 1,097     | 15,618  |
| Total           | 8,804   | 9,955    | 4,141    | 1,903     | 24,803  |
| AS A % OF TOTAL | 1 BED   | 2 BED    | 3 BED    | 4+ BED    | TOTAL   |
| Social          | 20%     | 37%      | 30%      | 12%       | 100%    |
| Intermediate    | 44%     | 46%      | 9%       | 1%        | 100%    |
| Market          | 40%     | 40%      | 13%      | 7%        | 100%    |
| Total           | 35%     | 40%      | 17%      | 8%        | 100%    |

Source: London Development Database seen a more equitable split between the tenures.

## Size Mix Of New Supply

3.13	Table 3.2 below shows the split of total 
gross conventional supply across London as a whole by tenure and number of bedrooms (the figures are presented in gross terms as the number of bedrooms is not always readily available for homes lost or replaced). The profile of new social housing supply is quite different from that of intermediate or market supply: 42% of social rented supply comprises homes with three or more bedrooms, compared to 10% for intermediate homes and 20% of market homes. Across all tenures 24% of new supply had three bedrooms or more.
3.14	Table HMP 6 shows the gross conventional 
supply of affordable housing (i.e. 
comprising both social rented and intermediate housing) by borough and number of bedrooms. The highest proportion of homes with three or more bedrooms was found in Havering with 94%, however, that is based on a low overall total. The four boroughs with the largest absolute supply of affordable homes with three bedrooms or more were Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest.

3.15	The 'pipeline' of anticipated future housing 
supply comprises homes which have been granted planning permission but not yet completed, and can be broken down into homes under construction and those for which construction has not yet started. It should be noted here that in the LDD a 'start' is strictly speaking the point at which a planning permission can no longer lapse, due to the borough acknowledging a legal start (such as demolition of existing homes), as opposed to the start of physical construction work on site. Thus, the data shows the capacity of 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.

3.16	The annual flow of planning approvals for 
new homes adds to the pipeline. Table 3.3 below shows the trend in net approvals at London level since 2003/04, while Table HPM7 breaks down 2011/12 net approvals 

TABLE 3.3  NET CONVENTIONAL HOUSING APPROVALS IN LONDON, 2004/05 TO 2011/12
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
55,466
53,003
57,822
80,445
47,375
45,595
47,980
77,715 
Source: London Development Database

by tenure and Table HPM8 by type. The table shows that approvals have increased significantly since in 2011/12, with the number of approvals almost reaching the 2007/08 pre credit crunch peak. 

3.17	At London level 19% of net approvals 
in 2011/12 were for affordable housing, of which 43% were social rented, 11% affordable rented and 47% intermediate. 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) and some approvals may ultimately not be built out.

3.18	The average density of new housing 
approvals was 162 dwellings per hectare (Table HPM13), significantly higher than the density for completions. In contrast to the completions trend, the average density in 2011/12 was above that of 2010/11. As with completions, average density of approvals in 2011/12 varied widely by borough - from 34 dwellings per hectare in Bromley to 382 in Newham and 464 in the City of London.
3.19	 Table HPM9 shows net conventional 
housing 'starts' by tenure and Table HPM10 by type. 22% of net starts in 2011/12 were affordable housing, compared to 19% of approvals and 38% of completions. New build comprised 93% of 
approvals and 87% starts in 2011/12.

3.20	Finally, Table HPM11 shows the planning 
pipeline as of 31 March 2012, comprising units approved but not started and those under construction. The net housing pipeline contained approximately 106,000 homes not started and 92,000 under construction, for a total pipeline of 198,000 homes. At borough level, the pipeline was largest in a handful of 'Thames Gateway' boroughs: Greenwich had the largest total (23,200), followed by Tower Hamlets, Newham, Wandsworth, Barking and Dagenham. Two boroughs (Greenwich and Tower Hamlets) accounted for just under a quarter third of the London total. At the other end of the scale, three boroughs (the City of London, Kingston upon Thames and Richmond upon Thames) accounted for a total pipeline of just 3,428 homes between them.

|                      |     | BOROUGH NAME   | EXISTING   | PROPOSED   | NET   |
|----------------------|-----|----------------|------------|------------|-------|
| Barking and          | 264 | 657            | 393        | 1,041      | 38%   |
| Dagenham             |     |                |            |            |       |
| Barnet               | 117 | 1,190          | 1,073      | 2,048      | 52%   |
| Bexley               |  19 | 222            | 203        | 337        | 60%   |
| Brent                | 187 | 747            | 560        | 975        | 57%   |
| Bromley              |  73 | 654            | 581        | 501        | 116%  |
| Camden               | 117 | 493            | 376        | 500        | 75%   |
| City of London       |   0 | 18             | 18         | 81         | 22%   |
| Croydon              | 109 | 797            | 688        | 1,221      | 56%   |
| Ealing               | 128 | 811            | 683        | 843        | 81%   |
| Enfield              |  68 | 365            | 297        | 530        | 56%   |
| Greenwich            | 125 | 1,448          | 1,323      | 2,429      | 54%   |
| Hackney              | 232 | 1,234          | 1,002      | 1,124      | 89%   |
| Hammersmith and      |  46 | 507            | 461        | 564        | 82%   |
| Fulham               |     |                |            |            |       |
| Haringey             | 247 | 1,065          | 818        | 792        | 103%  |
| Harrow               |  47 | 471            | 424        | 349        | 121%  |
| Havering             |  44 | 144            | 100        | 972        | 10%   |
| Hillingdon           |  41 | 1,030          | 989        | 375        | 264%  |
| Hounslow             |  68 | 658            | 590        | 453        | 130%  |
| Islington            | 103 | 1,333          | 1,230      | 922        | 133%  |
| Kensington and       | 107 | 227            | 120        | 530        | 23%   |
| Chelsea              |     |                |            |            |       |
| Kingston upon Thames |  45 | 273            | 228        | 329        | 69%   |
| Lambeth              | 281 | 1,131          | 850        | 1,142      | 74%   |
| Lewisham             | 172 | 1,361          | 1,189      | 1,088      | 109%  |
| Merton               |  62 | 501            | 439        | 318        | 138%  |
| LONDON               |     |                |            |            |       |
| PLAN 2011            |     |                |            |            |       |
| BENCHMARK            |     |                |            |            |       |
| SUPPLY               |     |                |            |            |       |
| AS % OF              |     |                |            |            |       |
| BENCHMARK            |     |                |            |            |       |

## Table Hmp1 Net Conventional Completions 2011/12

|                |       | BOROUGH NAME   | EXISTING   | PROPOSED   | NET   |
|----------------|-------|----------------|------------|------------|-------|
| Newham         | 58    | 967            | 909        | 2,499      | 36%   |
| Redbridge      | 56    | 582            | 526        | 748        | 70%   |
| Richmond upon  | 71    | 277            | 206        | 210        | 98%   |
| Thames         |       |                |            |            |       |
| Southwark      | 114   | 1,198          | 1,084      | 1,877      | 58%   |
| Sutton         | 57    | 644            | 587        | 211        | 278%  |
| Tower Hamlets  | 51    | 954            | 903        | 2,462      | 37%   |
| Waltham Forest | 131   | 629            | 498        | 688        | 72%   |
| Wandsworth     | 157   | 1,138          | 981        | 1,081      | 91%   |
| Westminster    | 227   | 1,077          | 850        | 594        | 143%  |
| London         | 3,624 | 24,803         | 21,179     | 29,834     | 71%   |

Source: London Development Database

LONDON PLAN 2011 BENCHMARK
SUPPLY AS % OF BENCHMARK
NEW BUILD
CONVERSION
CHANGE OF USE
TOTAL

## Table Hpm 2: Net Conventional Completions By Development Type 2011/12

BOROUGH 
NAME
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
Barking and 
Barnet
1,018
44
974 159
69 90 13
4 9
1,190
117
1,073
Bexley
157
6
151
21 10 11 44
3
41
222
19
203
Brent
665 154 511
44 27 17 38
6
32
747 187 560
Bromley
530
39
491
69 23 46 55 11 44
654
73
581
Camden
138
6
132
90
108
-18
265
3
262 493 117 376
Dagenham
539 257 282
9 4 5
109
3
106 657 264 393
City of London
0 0 0 0 0 0
18
0
18 18
0
18
Croydon
577
56
521 147
48 99 73
5
68
797 109 688
Ealing
554
15
539 158 111
47 99
2
97
811 128 683
Enfield
272
18
254
62 30 32 31 20 11
365
68
297
Greenwich
1,355
89
1,266
73 31 42 20
5
15
1,448
125
1,323
Hackney
1,027
123 904 137
66 71 70 43 27
1,234
232
1,002
Hammersmith 
Haringey
832 147 685 186
95 91 47
5
42
1,065
247 818
Harrow
343
13
330
71 31 40 57
3
54
471
47
424
Havering
134
41 93
9 2 7 1 1 0
144
44
100
Hillingdon
966
24
942
45 13 32 19
4
15
1,030
41
989
and Fulham
353
0
353 110
44 66 44
2
42
507
46
461
NEW BUILD
CONVERSION
CHANGE OF USE
TOTAL
BOROUGH 
NAME
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
Hounslow
502
19
483
63 41 22 93
8
85
658
68
590
Islington
848
1
847 207
88
119 278
14
264
1,333
103
1,230
Kensington 
Kingston upon 
Lambeth
696
73
623 336 203 133
99
5
94
1,131
281 850
Lewisham
1,076
89
987 222
76
146
63
7
55
1,360
172
1,189
and Chelsea
76 23 53 55 58
-3
96 26 70
227 107 120
Thames
188
13
175
44 30 14 41
2
39
273
45
228
Merton
426
28
398
41 28 13 34
6
28
501
62
439
Newham
836
4
832
72 42 30 59 12 47
967
58
909
Redbridge
466
7
459
94 44 50 22
5
17
582
56
526
Richmond 
Southwark
940
13
927 142
90 52
116
11
105
1,198
114
1,084
Sutton
440
36
404
37 18 19
167
3
164 644
57
587
Tower Hamlets
889
43
846
21
7
14 44
1
43
954
51
903
Waltham Forest
471
78
393
95 51 44 63
2
61
629 131 498
Wandsworth
845
37
808 147 114
33
146
6
140
1,138
157 981
Westminster
394
47
347 264 147 117 419
33
386
1,077
227 850
London
18,741
1,567
17,174
3,279 1,786 1,493 2,783
271
2,511
24,802
3,624
21,179
upon Thames
188
24
164
49 37 12 40 10 30
277
71
206
RENTED
INT
TOTAL
RENTED
INT
TOTAL
SOCIAL 
RENTED
INT
TOTAL
SOCIAL 
FY2009
FY2010 FY2011
BOROUGH NAME
SOCIAL 
Barking and Dagenham
-2
26 24 60 83
143
-14
127 113
Barnet
113
23
136 202
22
224 188 131 319
Bexley
160
79
239 125
29
154
27
3
30
Brent
241 173 414
-31
215 184 270 144 414
Bromley
120 103 223 201
47
248 193
10
203
Camden
111 105 216 110
32
142
41 25 66
2011/12 
City of London
0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0
Croydon
420 308 728 258 138 396 308
54
362
Ealing
90
139 229
48 25 73
256
69
325
Enfield
24
6
30 85
135 220
55 24 79
Greenwich
-15
156 141 432 355 787 211 159 370
Hackney
342 279 621 197 153 350 232 171 403
Hammersmith and 
Haringey
154 127 281
65 24 89
110 271 381
Harrow
129
80
209 108
59
167 134
19
153
Havering
34
254 288
75 14 89 14 20 34
Fulham
148 293 441
17
179 196
 
80 80
RENTED
INT
TOTAL
RENTED
INT
TOTAL
SOCIAL 
RENTED
INT
TOTAL
SOCIAL 
FY2009
FY2010 FY2011
BOROUGH NAME
SOCIAL 
Hillingdon
127
62
189 145
30
175 238
84
322
Hounslow
215 166 381
63
286 349 222
97
319
Islington
410
46
456
-69
3
-66
264 194 458
Kensington and Chelsea
18
4
22 49 12 61 19
0
19
Kingston upon Thames
30
0
30 59
6
65 56 25 81
Lambeth
265 152 417 423 321 744 217 131 348
Lewisham
87 81
168 239 100 339 270 197 467
2011/12 
Merton
30 19 49 20 28 48 22 38 60
Newham
227 485 712 133 257 390 291 138 429
Redbridge
91 84
175
73 38
111
20 34 54
Richmond upon Thames
65 11 76 37
8
45 40 35 75
Southwark
426 284 710 147 415 562 464 134 598
Sutton
-35
20
-15
148
74
222 159
76
235
Tower Hamlets
497 367 864 177 124 301 452 141 593
Waltham Forest
-139
9
-130
78
170 248 299
59
358
Wandsworth
25
454 479
6
103 109 127 141 268
Westminster
312
73
385 109
43
152
31 40 71
London
4,720 4,468 9,188 3,791 3,528 7,319 5,216 2,871 8,087
NET CONVENTIONAL SUPPLY, 2009/10 TO 2011/12
TOTAL NET CONVENTIONAL AFFORDABLE COMPLETIONS FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Barking and Dagenham
24
143
113
12%
42%
29%
Barnet
136
224
319
18%
30%
30%
Bexley
239
154
30
68%
52%
15%
Brent
414
184
414
51%
47%
74%
Bromley
223
248
203
40%
33%
35%
Camden
216
142
66
51%
26%
18%
City of London
0
2
0
0%
2%
0%
Croydon
728
396
362
52%
35%
53%
Ealing
229
73
325
53%
27%
48%
Enfield
30
220
79
11%
48%
27%
Greenwich
141
787
370
26%
69%
28%
Hackney
621
350
403
37%
40%
40%
Hammersmith and 
441
196
80
50%
38%
17%
Fulham
Haringey
281
89
381
47%
21%
47%
Harrow
209
167
153
40%
38%
36%
Havering
288
89
34
67%
47%
34%
Hillingdon
189
175
322
31%
58%
33%
Hounslow
381
349
319
59%
52%
54%
Islington
456
-66
458
31%
-14%
37%
Kensington and Chelsea
22
61
19
7%
36%
16%
Kingston upon Thames
30
65
81
21%
43%
36%
Lambeth
417
744
348
36%
56%
41%
Lewisham
168
339
467
22%
47%
39%
AFFORDABLE AS % OF NET CONVENTIONAL SUPPLY
NET CONVENTIONAL SUPPLY, 2009/10 TO 2011/12
TOTAL NET CONVENTIONAL AFFORDABLE COMPLETIONS FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Merton
49
48
60
15%
13%
14%
Newham
712
390
429
48%
46%
47%
Redbridge
175
111
54
18%
32%
10%
Richmond upon Thames
76
45
75
36%
14%
36%
Southwark
710
562
598
52%
40%
55%
Sutton
-15
222
235
-7%
67%
40%
Tower Hamlets
864
301
593
30%
23%
66%
Waltham Forest
-130
248
358
-84%
58%
72%
Wandsworth
479
109
268
31%
23%
27%
Westminster
385
152
71
56%
20%
8%
London
9,188
7,319
8,087
37%
39%
38%

Source: London Development Database

AFFORDABLE AS % OF NET CONVENTIONAL SUPPLY
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 2011/12
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 1
2
3
4+
% 3+
Barking and Dagenham
101
252
221
83
46%
Barnet
398
576
186
30
18%
Bexley
47
109
36
30
30%
Brent
208
318
176
45
30%
Bromley
144
298
135
77
32%
Camden
199
174
87
33
24%
City of London
18
0
0
0
0%
Croydon
228
343
132
94
28%
Ealing
287
330
154
40
24%
Enfield
100
152
90
23
31%
Greenwich
535
592
268
53
22%
Hackney
465
429
232
108
28%
Hammersmith and 
329
152
17
9
5%
Fulham
Haringey
436
421
136
72
20%
Harrow
116
211
84
60
31%
Havering
42
25
38
39
53%
Hillingdon
226
381
246
177
41%
Hounslow
168
310
131
49
27%
Islington
585
533
149
66
16%
Kensington and Chelsea
95
85
29
18
21%
Kingston upon Thames
88
134
32
19
19%
Lambeth
503
470
116
42
14%
Lewisham
682
454
184
41
17%
Merton
184
205
48
64
22%
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 2011/12
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 1
2
3
4+
% 3+
Newham
359
426
133
49
19%
Redbridge
219
318
29
16
8%
Richmond upon Thames
122
85
32
38
25%
Southwark
387
526
223
62
24%
Sutton
195
273
94
82
27%
Tower Hamlets
334
325
178
117
31%
Waltham Forest
179
240
133
77
33%
Wandsworth
403
501
113
121
21%
Westminster
422
307
279
69
32%
London Total
8,804
9,955
4,141
1,903
24%

Source: London Development Database

COMPLETIONS BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 2011/12
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 1
2
3
4+
% 3+
Barking and Dagenham
39
118
137
53
55%
Barnet
91
157
77
1
24%
Bexley
5
9
10
7
55%
Brent
115
256
148
36
33%
Bromley
37
109
53
4
28%
Camden
50
40
32
3
28%
City of London
0
0
0
0
0%
Croydon
82
157
81
53
36%
Ealing
75
134
113
4
36%
Enfield
15
31
29
4
42%
Greenwich
79
135
127
31
42%
Hackney
180
198
120
68
33%
Hammersmith and 
78
1
1
0
1%
Fulham
Haringey
158
224
61
37
20%
Harrow
28
28
56
42
64%
Havering
0
2
18
14
94%
Hillingdon
70
132
80
41
37%
Hounslow
85
160
73
14
26%
Islington
136
204
80
42
26%
Kensington and Chelsea
5
18
0
0
0%
Kingston upon Thames
21
44
16
0
20%
Lambeth
201
147
52
17
17%
Lewisham
209
191
130
23
28%
Merton
24
22
12
2
23%
COMPLETIONS BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 2011/12
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 1
2
3
4+
% 3+
Newham
105
166
112
48
37%
Redbridge
17
32
3
2
9%
Richmond upon Thames
19
43
16
1
22%
Southwark
133
297
175
32
32%
Sutton
58
141
60
8
25%
Tower Hamlets
189
185
136
113
40%
Waltham Forest
71
172
121
73
44%
Wandsworth
118
112
27
25
18%
Westminster
47
11
7
8
21%
London
2,540
3,676
2,163
806
32%

Source: London Development Database

RENT
MARKET
RENTED
INT
AFF 
RENT
MARKET
SOCIAL 
RENTED
INT
AFF 
RENT
MARKET
SOCIAL 
EXISTING
PROPOSED
NET
RENTED
INT
AFF 
TABLE HPM7  CONVENTIONAL APPROVALS BY TENURE FY2011/12
BOROUGH NAME
SOCIAL 
Barking and 
Barnet
0 0 0
256
41 20 50
1,370
41 20 50
1,114
Bexley
0 0 0
25 23 41 13
459
23 41 13
434
Brent
110
0 0
77
364 200
0
2,438
254 200
0
2,361
Bromley
113
0 0
134
61 50
0
1,173
-52
50
0
1,039
Camden
0 0 0
258 235
93
0
1,034
235
93
0
776
City of London
0 0 0
11
0 0 0
477
0 0 0
466
Dagenham
314
0 0
12
380
19
0
408
66 19
0
396
Croydon
48
0 0
120 283 138
17
2,304
235 138
17
2,184
Ealing
0
22
0
151
68
119
19
786
68 97 19
635
Enfield
63
0 0
33 46 44
0
428
-17
44
0
395
Greenwich
22
0 0
94
1,416
682 306
5,471 1,394
682 306
5,377
Hackney
338 359
0
218 703 477
13
2,536
365 118
13
2,318
Hammersmith and 
Haringey
0 0 0
136
72 69 96
1,627
72 69 96
1,491
Harrow
1 0 0
68 18 35 42
582
17 35 42
514
Havering
0 0 0
46
224
89 48
1,683
224
89 48
1,637
Hillingdon
5 1 0
83
153 132
12
1,739
148 131
12
1,656
Fulham
32
0 0
113
36
916 123
4,305
4
916 123
4,192
RENT
MARKET
RENTED
INT
AFF 
RENT
MARKET
SOCIAL 
RENTED
INT
AFF 
RENT
MARKET
SOCIAL 
EXISTING
PROPOSED
NET
RENTED
INT
AFF 
TABLE HPM7  CONVENTIONAL APPROVALS BY TENURE FY2011/12
BOROUGH NAME
SOCIAL 
Hounslow
42
0 0
68
245 237
39
1,641
203 237
39
1,573
Islington
230
0 0
164 394
53
0
1,107
164
53
0
943
Kensington and 
Kingston upon Thames
1 0 0
67
7
14
6
310
6
14
6
243
Lambeth
448
0 0
139 419 138
12
1,028
-29
138
12
889
Lewisham
193
0 0
172 436 577 137
5,553
243 577 137
5,381
Merton
110
0 0
89
197
68 38
641
87 68 38
552
Chelsea
0 0 0
165 190
45
4
801 190
45
4
636
Newham
11
0 0
45
1,118 1,112
246
6,607 1,107 1,112
246
6,562
Redbridge
3 0 0
61 31 23
0
784
28 23
0
723
Richmond upon 
Southwark
437
4 0
96
192 164
28
2,189
-245
160
28
2,093
Sutton
88
0 0
46
276 123
0
1,010
188 123
0
964
Tower Hamlets
83
0 0
168 514 297
58
2,867
431 297
58
2,699
Waltham Forest
144
0 0
68 78
135
41
683
-66
135
41
615
Wandsworth
0 0 0
199 619 967 203
8,948
619 967 203
8,749
Westminster
28
0 0
535 427 279
40
3,281
399 279
40
2,746
Sum:
2,865
386
0
4,052
9303 7366 1591
66753
6438 6980 1591
62701
Thames
1 0 0
133
37 10
0
486
36 10
0
353
NEW BUILD
CONVERSION
CHANGE OF USE
TOTAL	
Barking and 
TABLE HPM 8: CONVENTIONAL APPROVALS BY DEVELOPMENT TYPE AS AT 31/03/2012
BOROUGH NAME
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
Barnet
1,059
119 940
287
123 160 135
14
121
1,481
256
1,225
Bexley
439
8
431
30 15 15 67
2
65
536
25
511
Brent
2,836
127
2,709
89 57 32 77
3
74
3,002
187
2,815
Bromley
981 198 783
117
44 73
186
5
181
1,284
247
1,037
Camden
845
77
768
171
167
4
346
14
332
1,362
258
1,104
City of London
232
0
232
8 8 0
237
3
234 477
11
466
Dagenham
776 316 460
19
9
10 12
1
11
807 326 481
Croydon
2,385
88
2,297
214
74
140 143
6
137
2,742
168
2,574
Ealing
725
35
690
175
129
46 92
9
83
992 173 819
Enfield
477
86
391
23
9
14 18
1
17
518
96
422
Greenwich
7,732
33
7,699
97 75 22 46
8
38
7,875
116
7,759
Hackney
3,479
814
2,665
137
93 44
113
8
105
3,729
915
2,814
Hammersmith and 
Haringey
1,583
12
1,571
219
120
99 62
4
58
1,864
136
1,728
Harrow
552
28
524
70 38 32 55
3
52
677
69
608
Havering
1,977
30
1,947
38 16 22 29
0
29
2,044
46
1,998
Hillingdon
1,910
50
1,860
69 36 33 57
3
54
2,036
89
1,947
Fulham
5,071
53
5,018
185
88 97
124
4
120
5,380
145
5,235
NEW BUILD
CONVERSION
CHANGE OF USE
TOTAL	
Hounslow
2,018
69
1,949
62 37 25 82
4
78
2,162
110
2,052
TABLE HPM 8: CONVENTIONAL APPROVALS BY DEVELOPMENT TYPE AS AT 31/03/2012
BOROUGH NAME
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
Islington
1,190
274 916
227
115 112 137
5
132
1,554
394
1,160
Kensington and 
Kingston upon Thames
224
25
199
29 27
2
84 16 68
337
68
269
Lambeth
1,269
408 861
240
176
64 88
3
85
1,597
587
1,010
Lewisham
6,385
276
6,109
232
84
148
86
5
81
6,703
365
6,338
Merton
662 163 499
51 32 19
231
4
227 944 199 745
Newham
8,938
29
8,909
58 24 34 87
3
84
9,083
56
9,027
Chelsea
890
26
864
55 79
-24
95 60 35
1,040
165 875
Redbridge
741
29
712
61 33 28 36
2
34
838
64
774
Richmond upon 
Southwark
2,181
474
1,707
110
61 49
282
2
280
2,573
537
2,036
Sutton
1,187
105
1,082
61 29 32
161
0
161
1,409
134
1,275
Tower Hamlets
3,589
166
3,423
50 23 27 97 62 35
3,736
251
3,485
Waltham Forest
763 165 598
71 41 30
103
6
97
937 212 725
Wandsworth
10,247
50
10,197
190
146
44
300
3
297
10,737
199
10,538
Westminster
3,374
249
3,125
188
289
-101
465
25
440
4,027
563
3,464
Year Total:
77,116
4,627
72,489
3,693
2,375 1,314 4,207
299
3,908
85,016
7,301
77,715
Thames
399
45
354
60 78
-18
74 11 63
533 134 399
RENT
MARKET
RENTED
INT
AFF 
RENT
MARKET
SOCIAL 
RENTED
INT
AFF 
RENT
MARKET
SOCIAL 
EXISTING
PROPOSED
NET
SOCIAL 
RENTED
INT
AFF 
TABLE HPM 9: CONVENTIONAL STARTS BY TENURE FY2011/12 
% AFF
BOROUGH 
NAME
Barking and 
Barnet
17
0 0
71 35
0 0
392
18
0 0
321
5%
Bexley
0 0 0
15 32 40 13
360
32 40 13
345
20%
Brent
48
0 0
74
201
81
0
471 153
81
0
397
37%
Bromley
9 0 0
72 57 13
0
430
48 13
0
358
15%
Camden
20
0 0
105
215
62
0
416 195
62
0
311
45%
City of 
Dagenham
0 0 0 7
165
0 0
128 165
0 0
121
58%
London
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
32
0 0 0
32
0%
Croydon
0 0 0
101
167
67
8
578 167
67
8
477
34%
Ealing
463
0 0
167
329
41
0
843
-134
41
0
676
-16%
Enfield
0 0 0
38 12
4 0
248
12
4 0
210
7%
Greenwich
4 0 0
84
118
101
0
444 114 101
0
360
37%
Hackney
1,995
0 0
102
1,409
543
0
3,030
-586
543
0
2,928
-1%
Hammersmith 
Haringey
0 0 0
131
34 21
0
294
34 21
0
163
25%
Harrow
1 0 0
82 63 38 28
498
62 38 28
416
24%
Havering
0 0 0
45
337
137
0
1,248
337 137
0
1,203
28%
Hillingdon
0 0 0
35 94 33
0
992
94 33
0
957
12%
and Fulham
0 0 0
58
0
213
0
850
0
213
0
792
21%
RENT
MARKET
RENTED
INT
AFF 
RENT
MARKET
SOCIAL 
RENTED
INT
AFF 
RENT
MARKET
SOCIAL 
EXISTING
PROPOSED
NET
SOCIAL 
RENTED
INT
AFF 
TABLE HPM 9: CONVENTIONAL STARTS BY TENURE FY2011/12 
% AFF
BOROUGH 
NAME
Hounslow
34
0 0
48
132
38
0
439
98 38
0
391
26%
Islington
229
0 0
136
473
133
0
986 244 133
0
850
31%
Kensington 
Kingston 
Lambeth
0 0 0
99
168
123
0
492 168 123
0
393
43%
Lewisham
10
0 0
87
170
122
0
1,181
160 122
0
1,094
20%
Merton
63
0 0
73
100
59 24
384
37 59 24
311
28%
Newham
2 0 0
41 77 26
0
312
75 26
0
271
27%
and Chelsea
538
0 0
177
580
50
0
676
42 50
0
499
16%
upon Thames
0 0 0
30 25 14 13
221
25 14 13
191
21%
Redbridge
3 0 0
20 58
0 0
226
55
0 0
206
21%
Richmond 
Southwark
110
0 0
111
258
90
0
1,357
148
90
0
1,246
16%
Sutton
8 0 0
27 79 23
0
114
71 23
0
87
52%
Tower 
Waltham 
Wandsworth
0 0 0
189
133
316
0
2,085
133 316
0
1,896
19%
Westminster
1 0 0
216
121
87
0
563 120
87
0
347
37%
Year Total:
3,762
0 0
2,627
6,321
2,790
125
21,851
2,559 2,790
125
19,224
22%
upon Thames
1 0 0
93 87 23
0
428
86 23
0
335
25%
Hamlets
59
0 0
44
248
130
32
698 189 130
32
654
35%
Forest
147
0 0
49
344
162
7
435 197 162
7
386
49%
NEW BUILD
CONVERSION
CHANGE OF USE
TOTAL	
TABLE HPM10 CONVENTIONAL STARTS BY DEVELOPMENT TYPE 2011/12
BOROUGH NAME
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
Barking and 
Barnet
302
45
257 115
42 73 10
1 9
427
88
339
Bexley
377
3
374
22 10 12 46
2
44
445
15
430
Brent
660
69
591
53 48
5
40
5
35
753 122 631
Bromley
383
56
327
62 25 37 55
0
55
500
81
419
Camden
507
83
424
59 42 17
127
0
127 693 125 568
City of London
0 0 0 0 0 0
32
0
32 32
0
32
Dagenham
281
0
281
12
5 7 0 2
-2
293
7
286
Croydon
594
37
557 159
58
101
67
6
61
820 101 719
Ealing
866 552 314 138
78 60
209
0
209
1,213
630 583
Enfield
213
15
198
39 21 18 12
2
10
264
38
226
Greenwich
565
38
527
64 50 14 34
0
34
663
88
575
Hackney
4,819 2,034 2,785
113
59 54 50
4
46
4,982 2,097 2,885
Hammersmith and 
Haringey
165
38
127 148
91 57 36
2
34
349 131 218
Harrow
480
49
431
73 32 41 74
2
72
627
83
544
Havering
1,707
41
1,666
6 3 3 9 1 8
1,722
45
1,677
Hillingdon
1,067
20
1,047
28 11 17 24
4
20
1,119
35
1,084
Fulham
869
5
864 123
52 71 71
1
70
1,063
58
1,005
NEW BUILD
CONVERSION
CHANGE OF USE
TOTAL	
TABLE HPM10 CONVENTIONAL STARTS BY DEVELOPMENT TYPE 2011/12
BOROUGH NAME
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
Hounslow
532
46
486
46 33 13 31
3
28
609
82
527
Islington
1,299
275
1,024
178
87 91
115
3
112
1,592
365
1,227
Kensington and 
Kingston upon Thames
212
11
201
24 18
6
37
1
36
273
30
243
Lambeth
560
9
551 168
87 81 55
3
52
783
99
684
Lewisham
1,137
13
1,124
232
77
155 104
7
97
1,473
97
1,376
Merton
464 100 364
42 34
8
61
2
59
567 136 431
Newham
312
0
312
71 31 40 32 12 20
415
43
372
Chelsea
1,148
567 581
89
118
-29
69 30 39
1,306
715 591
Redbridge
230
2
228
46 21 25
8 0 8
284
23
261
Richmond upon 
Southwark
1,504
136
1,368
113
78 35 88
7
81
1,705
221
1,484
Sutton
153
15
138
27 11 16 36
9
27
216
35
181
Tower Hamlets
1,055
96
959
20
7
13 33
0
33
1,108
103
1,005
Waltham Forest
798 154 644
78 39 39 72
3
69
948 196 752
Wandsworth
2,292
53
2,239
165 132
33 77
4
73
2,534
189
2,345
Westminster
343
48
295 125 138
-13
303
31
272 771 217 554
London
26,256
4,658
21,598
2,685 1,577 1,108 2,146
154
1,992
31,087
6,389
24,698
Thames
362
48
314
47 39
8
129
7
122 538
94
444
NOT STARTED
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL PIPELINE
BOROUGH NAME
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
TABLE HPM11: CONVENTIONAL PIPELINE AS AT 31/03/2012 
Barking and Dagenham
732 329 403
12,197
6
12,191 12,929
335
12,594
Barnet
4,815 1,049 3,766 5,525 2,251 3,274
10,340
3,300 7,040
Bexley
801
29
772
1,066
33
1,033 1,867
62
1,805
Brent
7,404
291
7,113 1,708
337
1,371 9,112
628
8,484
Bromley
1,739
293
1,446 1,742
327
1,415 3,481
620
2,861
Camden
1,904
524
1,380 2,628
456
2,172 4,532
980
3,552
City of London
525
13
512 416
14
402 941
27
914
Croydon
4,708
240
4,468 2,424
85
2,339 7,132
325
6,807
Ealing
4,610
241
4,369 2,846 1,048 1,798 7,456 1,289 6,167
Enfield
694 142 552
1,183
204 979
1,877
346
1,531
Greenwich
8,415
91
8,324
16,851
1,975
14,876 25,266
2,066
23,200
Hackney
4,268
589
3,679 6,210 2,636 3,574
10,478
3,225 7,253
Hammersmith and 
Haringey
2,073
101
1,972 1,182
95
1,087 3,255
196
3,059
Harrow
1,841
159
1,682 1,545
548 997
3,386
707
2,679
Havering
3,179
515
2,664 2,140
151
1,989 5,319
666
4,653
Hillingdon
2,242
127
2,115 2,935
80
2,855 5,177
207
4,970
Fulham
5,016
171
4,845 1,179
50
1,129 6,195
221
5,974
NOT STARTED
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL PIPELINE
BOROUGH NAME
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
TABLE HPM11: CONVENTIONAL PIPELINE AS AT 31/03/2012 
Hounslow
1,897
112
1,785 1,521
152
1,369 3,418
264
3,154
Islington
2,301
119
2,182 3,451
680
2,771 5,752
799
4,953
Kensington and Chelsea
1,253
264 989
2,397
738
1,659 3,650 1,002 2,648
Kingston upon Thames
621 112 509 668
35
633
1,289
147
1,142
Lambeth
3,080
901
2,179 4,215 1,255 2,960 7,295 2,156 5,139
Lewisham
8,141
943
7,198 2,847
168
2,679
10,988
1,111 9,877
Merton
897 157 740
1,171
155
1,016 2,068
312
1,756
Newham
10,438
164
10,274
5,166
248
4,918
15,604
412
15,192
Redbridge
1,188
65
1,123
409
30
379
1,597
95
1,502
Richmond upon Thames
648 145 503 982 113 869
1,630
258
1,372
Southwark
3,872
522
3,350 3,421
331
3,090 7,293
853
6,440
Sutton
1,417
157
1,260
833 299 534
2,250
456
1,794
Tower Hamlets
9,838
827
9,011
11,860
730
11,130 21,698
1,557
20,141
Waltham Forest
925 205 720 980 184 796
1,905
389
1,516
Wandsworth
10,426
186
10,240
3,549
157
3,392
13,975
343
13,632
Westminster
4,647
641
4,006 1,065
279 786
5,712
920
4,792
London
116,555
10,424
106,131 108,312
15,850 92,462
224,867
26,274
198,593
NEW BUILD
CONVERSION
CHANGE OF USE
TOTAL	
TABLE HPM 12: NET CONVENTIONAL PIPELINE BY DEVELOPMENT TYPE AS AT 31/03/2012  
BOROUGH NAME
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
Barking and 
Barnet
9,656 3,038 6,618
498 240 258 186
22
164
10,340
3,300 7,040
Bexley
1,726
29
1,697
51 25 26 90
8
82
1,867
62
1,805
Brent
8,868
511
8,357
149 111
38 95
6
89
9,112
628
8,484
Bromley
2,949
508
2,441
232 101 131 300
11
289
3,481
620
2,861
Camden
3,363
334
3,029
534 597
-63
635
49
582
4,532
980
3,552
City of London
593
17
576
19
9
10
329
1
328 941
27
914
Dagenham
12,809
318
12,491
31 15 16 89
2
87
12,929
335
12,594
Croydon
6,470
162
6,308
405 142 263 257
21
236
7,132
325
6,807
Ealing
6,683 1,058 5,625
324 207 117 449
24
425
7,456 1,289 6,167
Enfield
1,563
267
1,296
148
73 75
166
6
160
1,877
346
1,531
Greenwich
24,825
1,988
22,837
88 62 26
353
16
337
25,266
2,066
23,200
Hackney
10,016
3,050 6,966
289 165 124 173
10
163
10,478
3,225 7,253
Hammersmith and 
Haringey
2,690
38
2,652
271 155 116 294
3
291
3,255
196
3,059
Harrow
3,131
617
2,514
161
78 83 94 12 82
3,386
707
2,679
Havering
5,078
608
4,470
120
51 69
121
7
114
5,319
666
4,653
Hillingdon
4,951
140
4,811
128
58 70 98
9
89
5,177
207
4,970
Hounslow
3,208
206
3,002
93 50 43
117
8
109
3,418
264
3,154
Fulham
5,669
70
5,599
275 144 131 251
7
244
6,195
221
5,974
NEW BUILD
CONVERSION
CHANGE OF USE
TOTAL	
TABLE HPM 12: NET CONVENTIONAL PIPELINE BY DEVELOPMENT TYPE AS AT 31/03/2012  
BOROUGH NAME
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
GROSS
EXISTING
NET
Islington
5,019
612
4,407
313 179 134 420
8
412
5,752
799
4,953
Kensington and 
Kingston upon Thames
1,069
65
1,004
88 64 24
132
18
114
1,289
147
1,142
Lambeth
6,795 1,943 4,852
345 205 140 155
8
147
7,295 2,156 5,139
Lewisham
10,449
961
9,488
287 138 149 252
12
240
10,988
1,111 9,877
Merton
1,666
208
1,458
115
86 29
287
18
269
2,068
312
1,756
Newham
15,401
351
15,050
40 22 18
163
39
124
15,604
412
15,192
Chelsea
3,227
607
2,620
225 337
-112
198
58
140
3,650 1,002 2,648
Redbridge
1,452
35
1,417
90 51 39 55
9
46
1,597
95
1,502
Richmond upon 
Southwark
6,750
751
5,999
200
94
106 343
8
335
7,293
853
6,440
Sutton
1,989
392
1,597
88 41 47
173
23
150
2,250
456
1,794
Tower Hamlets
21,204
1,024
20,180
230 403
-173
264 130 134
21,698
1,557
20,141
Waltham Forest
1,600
325
1,275
114
57 57
191
7
184
1,905
389
1,516
Wandsworth
13,252
118
13,134
335 217 118 388
8
380
13,975
343
13,632
Westminster
4,658
458
4,200
276 398
-122
778
64
714
5,712
920
4,792
London
210,013
20,912
189,101
6,742 4,719 2,023 8,112
643
7,465
224,867
26,274
198,593
Thames
1,234
103
1,131
180 144
36
216
11
205
1,630
258
1,372
| BOROUGH                |   FY2006 |   FY2007 |   FY2008 |   FY2009 |   FY2010 |   FY2011 |
|------------------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| Barking and Dagenham   |      165 |      146 |       80 |      116 |       51 |      130 |
| Barnet                 |       78 |       83 |      112 |      100 |       94 |       49 |
| Bexley                 |       94 |       51 |      110 |       85 |       79 |       96 |
| Brent                  |      199 |      149 |      133 |      182 |      185 |      146 |
| Bromley                |       44 |       49 |       36 |       49 |       56 |       34 |
| Camden                 |      227 |      113 |      136 |      140 |      140 |      180 |
| City of London         |      523 |     1263 |      330 |      213 |      457 |      464 |
| Croydon                |      115 |      106 |      131 |       97 |      140 |      156 |
| Ealing                 |      121 |      115 |      162 |      153 |      144 |      110 |
| Enfield                |       52 |       81 |       65 |       71 |       61 |       61 |
| Greenwich              |      161 |      248 |      211 |      143 |      337 |      246 |
| Hackney                |      275 |      239 |      200 |      244 |      206 |      226 |
| Hammersmith and        |      160 |      224 |      187 |      301 |      181 |      250 |
| Fulham                 |          |          |          |          |          |          |
| Haringey               |      136 |      173 |       96 |      107 |      118 |      212 |
| Harrow                 |      101 |       90 |       62 |       84 |       62 |       84 |
| Havering               |       60 |       41 |       55 |       99 |      121 |       49 |
| Hillingdon             |       85 |       68 |       91 |       39 |       57 |       76 |
| Hounslow               |      156 |       95 |      159 |       61 |       75 |      130 |
| Islington              |      319 |      255 |      243 |      271 |      312 |      285 |
| Kensington and Chelsea |      170 |      163 |      132 |      193 |      231 |      182 |
| Kingston upon Thames   |       45 |       61 |       75 |       64 |       64 |       50 |
| Lambeth                |      203 |      214 |      130 |      190 |      183 |      159 |
| Lewisham               |      146 |      172 |      166 |      229 |      123 |      230 |
| Merton                 |       64 |       95 |       80 |       69 |       63 |       75 |
| Newham                 |      269 |      390 |      368 |      300 |      398 |      382 |
| Redbridge              |      151 |      116 |       87 |      373 |      160 |      101 |
| Richmond upon Thames   |       83 |       60 |       58 |       47 |      108 |       69 |
| Southwark      |   285 |   277 |   334 |   230 |   224 |   210 |
|----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| Sutton         |    70 |   117 |   101 |    58 |    57 |   106 |
| Tower Hamlets  |   318 |   447 |   310 |   373 |   318 |   347 |
| Waltham Forest |   130 |   129 |   132 |   121 |   111 |   133 |
| Wandsworth     |   156 |   151 |   173 |   143 |   206 |   290 |
| Westminster    |   158 |   256 |   153 |   199 |   206 |   217 |
| London         |   129 |   146 |   138 |   152 |   140 |   162 |

Source: London Development Database

| BOROUGH                |   FY2006 |   FY2007 |   FY2008 |   FY2009 |   FY2010 |   FY2011 |
|------------------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| Barking and Dagenham   |       95 |      123 |      139 |      238 |      111 |       50 |
| Barnet                 |       65 |       62 |      100 |       63 |       80 |      125 |
| Bexley                 |       44 |       48 |       76 |       81 |       65 |       63 |
| Brent                  |      113 |      106 |      144 |      150 |      156 |      141 |
| Bromley                |       54 |       55 |       35 |       37 |       54 |       46 |
| Camden                 |      106 |      141 |      231 |      192 |      198 |      133 |
| City of London         |      454 |      558 |      505 |      500 |      316 |      857 |
| Croydon                |       77 |       72 |       98 |      104 |      102 |       76 |
| Ealing                 |      195 |      136 |      159 |      110 |      114 |      100 |
| Enfield                |       75 |       92 |       68 |       61 |       86 |       59 |
| Greenwich              |      170 |      138 |      122 |      111 |      239 |      194 |
| Hackney                |      266 |      183 |      223 |      246 |      200 |      223 |
| Hammersmith and        |      116 |      143 |      207 |      208 |      232 |      284 |
| Fulham                 |          |          |          |          |          |          |
| Haringey               |      161 |      138 |      159 |      111 |      113 |      124 |
| Harrow                 |       93 |       79 |       71 |      116 |       79 |       59 |
| Havering               |       55 |       63 |       71 |       92 |       56 |       46 |
| Hillingdon             |       49 |       54 |       60 |       94 |       44 |       25 |
| Hounslow               |      120 |      102 |      120 |      184 |       94 |      111 |
| Islington              |      244 |      236 |      285 |      200 |      187 |      298 |
| Kensington and Chelsea |      135 |      167 |      173 |      127 |      194 |      153 |
| Kingston upon Thames   |       85 |      115 |       50 |       45 |       51 |       88 |
| Lambeth                |      141 |      163 |      172 |      155 |      290 |      167 |
| Lewisham               |      109 |      124 |      136 |      188 |      164 |      158 |
| Merton                 |       92 |       96 |       47 |       67 |      101 |       77 |
| Newham                 |      163 |      292 |      267 |      240 |      215 |      170 |
| Redbridge              |      124 |      122 |      110 |      100 |      217 |      171 |
| Richmond upon Thames   |       74 |       58 |       82 |       71 |       53 |       58 |
| Southwark      |   264 |   254 |   220 |   227 |   358 |   214 |
|----------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| Sutton         |    60 |    53 |    88 |    66 |    66 |    79 |
| Tower Hamlets  |   248 |   298 |   313 |   356 |   373 |   273 |
| Waltham Forest |   139 |   125 |   131 |   118 |   169 |   124 |
| Wandsworth     |   169 |   135 |   172 |   182 |   104 |   129 |
| Westminster    |   259 |   206 |   269 |   258 |   139 |   192 |
| London         |   123 |   117 |   128 |   139 |   134 |   117 |

Source: London Development Database

## Affordable Housing Delivery Monitor

3.21	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. It is therefore typically considerably 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.

3.22	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 have recently ceased publishing any regional statistics but have provided the GLA with updated figures at London level. 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 Mayor, but the statistics also include units provided without any public funding and a number of assisted purchases. 

3.23	Table AHM1 below shows affordable 
housing delivery in London by type in the four years 2008/09 to 2011/12. Over this period a total of 57,880 affordable homes were delivered, of which 33,660 were social housing, 24,110 intermediate housing and 130 were affordable rent (for which a borough breakdown is not available). The chart below shows the trend in total affordable housing delivery in London 
since 1991/92. Delivery peaked at just over 17,000 in 1995/96, fell to 8,270 in 2000/01 and rose again to a new peak of 17,240 in 2011/12. 

3.24	Table AHM2 shows delivery of social 
and intermediate housing by London borough in 2011/12 (note, DCLG have not published a local authority breakdown of affordable rent completions in 2011/12). The borough with the highest affordable housing delivery by this definition in 2011/12 was Tower Hamlets with 1,800, followed by Hackney and Lewisham. As with conventional supply, there was again very wide variation between boroughs in terms of both total delivery and the split between social and intermediate housing.

3.25	This section relates to Policy 3.10 of 
the 2011 London Plan and updates the affordability thresholds as at February 2013. The London Plan defines affordable housing as housing provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market, and which should:
•	meet the needs of eligible households 
including availability at a cost low enough for them to afford, determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices
•	include provisions for the homes to remain 
at an affordable price for future eligible households, or
•	if these restrictions are lifted, for the 
subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.
3.26	The early minor alteration to the London 
Plan published for consultation and examined in public in November 2011 will seek, inter alia, to modify Policy 
3.10 to include the government's new 'affordable rent' product within the definition of affordable housing, alongside the existing categories of social rented and intermediate housing in accordance with revisions made by the Government to national policy through the National Planning Policy Framework.

## Intermediate Housing

3.27	Paragraph 3.62 of the 2011 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 £66,000 . This rounded figure has been updated from the London Plan (2011) figure of £61,400 on the basis of the latest data (as of February 2013) on lower quartile house prices in London, and is an increase from the figure of £64,300 in AMR 7.

3.28	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 £66,0003 and rounding for a figure of £80,000. Intermediate housing can include shared ownership, 

2011/12
| 2008/09                                      | 2009/10   | 2010/11   | 2011/12   | TOTAL   | AFFORDABLE HOUSING DELIVERY    |
|----------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|---------|--------------------------------|
| TYPE                                         |           |           |           |         |                                |
| Social Rent, of which:                       | 6,310     | 7,060     | 8,890     | 11,400  | 33,660                         |
| Homes and Communities Agency (new            | 4,140     | 5,300     | 5,810     | 9,070   | 24,320                         |
| build)                                       |           |           |           |         |                                |
| Homes and Communities Agency                 | 1,760     | 1,400     | 2,080     | 800     | 6,040                          |
| (acquisitions)                               |           |           |           |         |                                |
| Other Homes and Communities                  | 170       | 60        | 230       | 420     | 880                            |
| Agency Schemes                               |           |           |           |         |                                |
| Local authorities                            | 10        | 0         | 510       | 610     | 1,130                          |
| of which HCA grant funded (new               | 0         | 0         | 260       | 500     | 760                            |
| build)                                       |           |           |           |         |                                |
| Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total 180 | 300       | 150       | 220       | 850     |                                |
| of which, reported on IMS                    | 60        | 240       | 90        | 80      | 470                            |
| Private Finance Initiative                   | 40        | 0         | 110       | 210     | 360                            |
| Other                                        | 0         | 0         | 0         | 90      | 90                             |
| Affordable Rent, of which:                   | 0         | 0         | 0         | 130     | 130                            |
| Homes and Communities Agency (new            | 0         | 0         | 0         | 90      | 90                             |
| build)                                       |           |           |           |         |                                |
| Homes and Communities Agency                 | 0         | 0         | 0         | 50      | 50                             |
| (acquisitions)                               |           |           |           |         |                                |
| Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total     | 0         | 0         | 0         | 0       | 0                              |
| of which, reported on IMS                    | 0         | 0         | 0         | 0       | 0                              |
| Intermediate Affordable Housing              | 6,770     | 6,510     | 5,120     | 5,710   | 24,110                         |
| Intermediate Rent, of which:                 | 470       | 810       | 1,350     | 940     | 3,570                          |
| Homes and Communities Agency (new            | 460       | 740       | 1,210     | 760     | 3,170                          |
| build)                                       |           |           |           |         |                                |
| Homes and Communities Agency                 | 10        | 70        | 140       | 70      | 290                            |
| (acquisitions)                               |           |           |           |         |                                |
| Other                                        | 0         | 0         | 0         | 110     | 110                            |
| Low Cost Home Ownership, of                  | 6,300     | 5,700     | 3,770     | 4,780   | 20,550                         |
| which:                                       |           |           |           |         |                                |
TABLE AHM 1: AFFORDABLE HOUSING DELIVERY IN LONDON BY TYPE, 2008/9 TO 2011/12
Homes and Communities Agency (new 
3,800 
3,240 
 2,790 
4,190 
14,020 
build)
of which Firstbuy
0 
0 
0 
290 
290 
Homes and Communities Agency 
1,280 
1,460 
 80 
50 
2,870 
(acquisitions)
Other Homes and Communities 
0 
0 
0 
20 
20 
Agency Schemes
Local authorities
0 
0 
0 
10 
10 
Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total
 400 
470 
300 
210 
1,380 
of which, reported on IMS
260 
320 
260 
100 
940 
Assisted Purchase Schemes
820 
530 
610 
280 
2,240 
Other
0 
0 
0 
20 
20 
All affordable
13,070 
13,560 
14,010 
17,240 
57,880 

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

| BOROUGH                |   SOCIAL |   INTERMEDIATE | TOTAL*   |
|------------------------|----------|----------------|----------|
| Barking and Dagenham   |      250 |            120 | 370      |
| Barnet                 |      480 |            180 | 660      |
| Bexley                 |      220 |            140 | 350      |
| Brent                  |      690 |            170 | 850      |
| Bromley                |      250 |            110 | 390      |
| Camden                 |      200 |             30 | 230      |
| City of London         |        0 |              0 | 0        |
| Croydon                |      490 |             80 | 580      |
| Ealing                 |      430 |            230 | 670      |
| Enfield                |      530 |            360 | 890      |
| Greenwich              |      240 |            240 | 490      |
| Hackney                |      610 |            410 | 1,020    |
| Hammersmith and Fulham |       70 |            140 | 210      |
| Haringey               |      200 |            280 | 480      |
| Harrow                 |      210 |            190 | 400      |
| Havering               |      290 |            110 | 460      |
| Hillingdon             |      360 |            290 | 640      |
| Hounslow               |      170 |            160 | 330      |
| Islington              |      560 |            330 | 890      |
| Kensington and Chelsea |       60 |              0 | 60       |
| Kingston upon Thames   |       80 |             40 | 110      |
| Lambeth                |      510 |            170 | 680      |
| Lewisham               |      590 |            300 | 900      |
| Merton                 |      270 |            210 | 470      |
| Newham                 |      510 |            290 | 810      |
| Redbridge              |       20 |              0 | 30       |
| Richmond upon Thames   |      160 |             80 | 240      |
| Southwark      | 600    | 160   | 760    |
|----------------|--------|-------|--------|
| Sutton         | 200    | 60    | 260    |
| Tower Hamlets  | 1,430  | 370   | 1,800  |
| Waltham Forest | 440    | 200   | 630    |
| Wandsworth     | 220    | 190   | 420    |
| Westminster    | 110    | 80    | 180    |
| London         | 11,400 | 5,710 | 17,240 |

*Includes Affordable Rent. Source: DCLG
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.

3.29	For the criterion that provision is affordable 
to be met, the purchase price must be no greater than 3.5 times the household income limit specified above (i.e. no greater than £230,000 when rounded), or (for products where a rent is paid) the annual housing costs, including rent and service charge, should be no greater than 40% of net household income. (This is to reflect a different level of disposable income, relative to lower income households dependent on social housing). In the case of two or multiple income households, lenders will generally lend at lower multipliers in relation to incomes of household members other than the highest income earner, and consequently market access will generally be more restricted for such households.

3.30	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 £43,300 pa (i.e. the midpoint of the range between £20,600 (updated from AMR 8 in line with RPI) and £66,000). On this basis, average housing costs, including service charges, would be about £1,010 a month or £233 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.
3.31	These intermediate income caps - £66,000 
for most households, increased to £80,000 for families accessing family sized (3 bed or more) accommodation - are also applied by the GLA to determine eligibility for GLA 

BOROUGH
BOROUGH POLICY TARGET (OR PRACTICE) AS AT 2002
ADOPTED BOROUGH POLICY TARGET AS AT DECEMBER 2012 (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE)
Barking & Dagenham
25%
50% (August 2010)
n/a
Barnet
30%
30% (50% in AAP 
areas)
Bexley
25%
50% borough wide 
with 35% minimum on individual schemes.
Brent
30-50%
50%
n/a
Bromley
20%
35%
35%
Camden
50% proposed
50% for >50 dwellings, 
10-50% for <50 dwellings
City of London
None
30%
n/a
Croydon
40%
35% borough wide 
target
Ealing
50%
50%
n/a
Enfield
25%
40%
n/a
Greenwich
35%
35% minimum (50% 
on greenfield/readily developable former employment land)
Hackney
25%
50% (60/40 split)
n/a.
Hammersmith & Fulham
65% proposed
40%
n/a
Haringey
30%
50%/410 u/pa
n/a
Harrow
30%
40% /140u/pa.
n/a
Havering
None
50% (2008)
n/a
Hillingdon
25%
Maximum reasonable 
amount 45% on high density schemes.35% on others.
EMERGING BOROUGH POLICY TARGET DECEMBER 2012 (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE) - N/A IF RECENTLY ADOPTED
n/a n/a n/a n/a 35% n/a
BOROUGH
BOROUGH POLICY TARGET (OR PRACTICE) AS AT 2002
ADOPTED BOROUGH POLICY TARGET AS AT DECEMBER 2012 (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE)
Hounslow
50%
445 u/pa (50%)
445u/pa (50%)
Islington
25%
50%
n/a
Kensington & Chelsea
33%
Minimum of 200 
units per annum from 2011/12 (borough wide target) with a site specific policy of 50% affordable by floor area
Kingston upon Thames
50%
50%
n/a
Lambeth
35-50%
40% (50% with grant)
n/a
Lewisham
30%
35%
n/a
Merton
30%
40% (with 60:40 split)
n/a
Newham
25%
50% overall (35-50% 
on individual sites)
Redbridge
25%
50% (2008)
Maximum reasonable 
Richmond upon Thames
40%
50%
n/a
Southwark
25%
8,558 (equates to 
35% borough-wide but varies locally)
Sutton
25%
50%
n/a
Tower Hamlets
25-33%
50% overall, 35%-
50% on individual sites subject to viability
Waltham Forest
40%
To provide at least 
50% (5,700 homes) of homes as affordable over the plan period. 60/40 split.
EMERGING BOROUGH POLICY TARGET DECEMBER 2012 (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE) - N/A IF RECENTLY ADOPTED
n/a n/a
amount
n/a n/a n/a
BOROUGH
BOROUGH POLICY TARGET (OR PRACTICE) AS AT 2002
ADOPTED BOROUGH POLICY TARGET AS AT DECEMBER 2012 (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE)
Minimum 373 units 
Wandsworth
None
annum (3,725 borough wide target over 10 years). Site specific policy of the max reasonable amount with a minimum target of 33% on each site
50% overall, 35%-
Westminster
50% on individual sites subject to viability

funded intermediate housing products.

3.32	 The London Variations to the Affordable 
Housing Capital Funding Guide will be updated to reflect these new figures and all partners receiving funding from the GLA to deliver intermediate products should thus apply these new income caps.

3.33	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 affordable homes in London p.a. Boroughs are free to set targets in absolute or percentage terms, 

EMERGING BOROUGH POLICY TARGET DECEMBER 2012 (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE) - N/A IF RECENTLY ADOPTED
n/a 30%

the London Plan sets out a range of issues boroughs should consider (capacity, viability, balanced communities etc).  Table 3.4 shows adopted borough affordable housing policies.

## Achieving An Inclusive Environment

3.34		
The data in Table 3.5 shows an 
improvement over AMR 8. The total number of Lifetime Homes built has risen from 28,556 (64% of all new builds) to 74,430 (87% of all new builds). There is also a welcome increase in the number of wheelchair accessible units, more than doubling, from 3,299 (7%) last year up to 7,940 (9%) this year. 

TABLE 3.5: COMPLIANCE WITH LIFETIME HOMES AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE HOMES STANDARDS FOR ALL SCHEMES DURING FY2011
BOROUGH NAME
LIFETIME HOMES TOTAL
PROPOSED TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS
Barking and Dagenham
807
787
97.5
88
10.9
Barnet
1,487
692
46.5
36
2.4
Bexley
560
381
68.0
52
9.3
Brent
3,002
2,821
94.0
263
8.8
Bromley
1,284
546
42.5
55
4.3
Camden
1,362
852
62.6
157
11.5
City of London
477
433
90.8
53
11.1
Croydon
2,744
2,353
85.8
219
8.0
Ealing
992
822
82.9
64
6.5
Enfield
519
436
84.0
51
9.8
Greenwich
7,875
7,786
98.9
822
10.4
Hackney
3,729
3,596
96.4
379
10.2

3.35		
The LDD has been collected data on 
Lifetime and Wheelchair Accessible Homes since 2008. The figures in the table are 'gross' and calculated at scheme level. So units may be counted twice where a scheme is revised and approved within the same year. LDD counts new build, extension, changes of use and conversions. Although developers should seek 100% compliance with Lifetime Homes standards, there are often practical difficulties that can arise when seeking to modify existing buildings through conversion or change of use. 

% LIFETIME TOTAL
WHEELCHAIR ACC HOMES TOTAL
% WHEELCHAIR TOTAL
HOMES STANDARDS FOR ALL SCHEMES DURING FY2011
BOROUGH NAME
LIFETIME HOMES TOTAL
PROPOSED TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS
Hammersmith and 
5,381
5,032
93.5
377
7.0
Fulham
Haringey
2,066
1,908
92.4
43
2.1
Harrow
677
621
91.7
64
9.5
Havering
2,132
855
40.1
195
9.1
Hillingdon
2,036
1,998
98.1
220
10.8
Hounslow
2,162
1,238
57.3
128
5.9
Islington
1,554
1,176
75.7
126
8.1
Kensington and 
1,040
848
81.5
91
8.8
Chelsea
Kingston upon Thames
339
212
62.5
16
4.7
Lambeth
1,602
1,220
76.2
127
7.9
Lewisham
6,699
6,223
92.9
709
10.6
Merton
944
545
57.7
116
12.3
Newham
9,083
8,962
98.7
1,246
13.7
Redbridge
843
828
98.2
11
1.3
Richmond upon 
533
277
52.0
25
4.7
Thames
Southwark
2,573
2,137
83.1
200
7.8
Sutton
1,409
1,162
82.5
189
13.4
Tower Hamlets
3,736
3,454
92.5
348
9.3
Waltham Forest
937
749
79.9
60
6.4
Wandsworth
10,737
10,160
94.6
1,038
9.7
Westminster
4,027
3,320
82.4
372
9.2
Total:
85,348
74,430
87.2
7,940
9.3
% LIFETIME TOTAL
WHEELCHAIR ACC HOMES TOTAL
% WHEELCHAIR TOTAL

## Environment And Transport Ptal Map

3.36	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). At examination in public of the London Plan (EiP), questions were raised about how developers and others can make sure they are working on the basis of the most recent PTALs, given that they change as public transport services change. The Mayor's representatives agreed at the EiP that the definitive PTAL map (see figure 3.3) would be published in the AMR. The 2011 PTAL map has been included here as it 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.

## Planning Decisions

3.37	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 3.5 below 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 2% over 2011. The Mayor has continued to use his strategic powers to call-in applications sparingly. Last year he 'called-in' less than 1% of referable applications and 2012 has seen a similar low level. The 1 'call in' this year was the London Fruit and Wool Exchange in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

2000- 2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
TOTAL 2000-2012
Total
1,871
334
240
258
300
307
3310
Strategic 
-
-
2
1
2
1
6
Call-ins

## Endnotes

1 See table 615 here http://is.gd/clgstocktables 

2See Housing Live Tables: http://is.gd/CLGaffordable

## Chapter Four Other Contextual Data Sources 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 below 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 from previous years is available via the GLA's website at: http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runslondon/mayor/publications/society/factsand-figures

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

## Planning Decisions Unit

4.5	 	
More information on the activities of the 
Mayor's 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/gla-economicspublications-2009-todate, and http:// www.london.gov.uk/gla-economicspublications 
4.7	 For the latest news the Mayor's Business 
and Economy section can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/landing-page/ 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/publication/londonswasted-resource-mayors-municipal-wastemanagement-strategy
4.11		
DEFRA produces statistics on waste and 
recycling which can be found at: http:// www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/environment/ waste/

## Table 4.1 Briefings From The Gla Demography And Policy Analysis Group

REFERENCE BRIEFING NAME
2012-01
Claimant Count Model 2012: Technical Note - Richard Walker
2012-02
London Assembly Constituency Profiles 2012 - Gareth Piggott
2012-03
MDIT Briefing note - Richard Fairchild
2012-04
Education Outcomes for Children in Care - David Ewens
UPDATES FROM THE GLA DEMOGRAPHY AND POLICY ANALYSIS GROUP
REFERENCE TITLE
01-2012
Ward Level Summary Measures of Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Social Exclusion Team
02-2012
Income Deprivation Affecting Children and Older People Social Exclusion Team 
03-2012
Dangerous Dogs Update - Strategic Crime Analysis 
04-2012
2012 London Crime: A National Picture (12 month rolling) - Strategic Crime Analysis 
05-2012
2012 London Crime: A National Picture (12 month rolling) - Strategic Crime Analysis 
06-2012
2011 Census Update: Online completion in London - Demography Team
07-2012
Ethnic Group Population Projections: 2011 rounded - SHLAA Demography Team
08-2012
London Crime: A National Picture (12 month rolling) - Strategic Crime Analysis 
09-2012
Births by birthplace of Mother: - 2010 Demography Team
10-2012
Unemployment in London - Social Exclusion Team
11-2012
Poverty Figures for London: 2010/11 - Social Exclusion Team
12-2012
Improvements in Estimating Migration - Demography Team

## 4.12	More Up To Date London Specific Data

is available on the Capital Waste Facts website 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/london-aggregates-workingparty 

## 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/documents/PTAL-methodology.pdf
4.18		
A map based PTAL calculator can be found 
at http://webpid.elgin.gov.uk/.
4.19		
The Department for Transport provides 
some useful data on transport at http:// www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics

## Health

4.20		
London Health Programmes uses health 
intelligence to identify health needs of Londoners and to redesign services. http://www.londonhp.nhs.uk/
4.21	London Health Observatory monitors 
health and healthcare in the capital. http://www.lho.org.uk/
4.22	As of April 2013 the LHO will become part 
of Public Health England. https://www. gov.uk/government/organisations/publichealth-england

## Government Data Sources

4.23	Government departments are in the 
process of moving 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.
4.24	Various data and studies on education 
and skills can be found at the following site: http://www.education.gov.uk/, which contains a section on Research and Statistics.

4.25	Links to a number of national reports 
on education provision can be found at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/ Publications-and-research

## Department Of Environment, Food And Rural Affairs

4.26	Various data and studies on the 
environment can be found on the DEFRA site http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/

## Department For Communities And Local Government

4.27	The latest information on Government 
policies and publications related to planning can be found at https://www. gov.uk/government/topics/planningand-building. CLG publishes a number of statistics relating to planning at https:// www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ department-for-communities-and-localgovernment/about/statistics

## Chapter Five Conclusions And Looking Ahead Conclusions And Looking Ahead

5.1	 This AMR covers a period when at national 
level, wide-ranging proposals to change the planning system based on the new National Planning Policy Framework were being implemented. In London it saw the implementation of the Mayor's Community Infrastructure Levy and the publication of a wide range of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents as part of a new approach to planning policy implementation, of which this AMR forms an important part. At the same time, London has seen continued population growth at a time of serious economic downturn and constrained public resources. 
5.2	 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.
5.3	 Looking forward, next year will see the 
progression of the Revised Early Minor Alterations to the Plan to take account of the National Planning Policy Framework, changes to national policy on affordable housing and other developments. 2013 will also mark the start of Further Alterations to the London Plan to roll the Plan forward to 2036, particularly with the strong population growth recorded by early data from the 2011 census in mind. 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 be a priority. It will be backed up by a strengthened system of infrastructure planning underpinned by the first London Plan Implementation Plan. A number of further SPGs will also be published.

5.4	 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 these opportunities are maximised.