## London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 10, 2012-13

MARCH 2014
LONDON PLAN 2011 IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK

## Copyright

GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY March 2014 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 (2014) Front cover photo: Eleanor Ward/GLA Copies of this document are available from http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning /researchreports/monitoring-london-plan Updated July 2014 to reflect revised long term empty homes returning to use figures. Amendments have been made to the following pages:  2, 4, 21-22, 60-63 and 88-89.

## London Plan Annual Monitoring

# Report 10, 2012-13

MARCH 2014

## 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                                               |    |   | 10 |     |
| Further Alterations to the London Plan                                               |    |   |    |  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                                               |    |   |    |  21 |
| KPI 5 An increased supply of affordable homes                                        |    |   |    |  23 |
| KPI 6 Reducing health inequalities                                                   |    |   |    |  27 |
| KPI 7 Sustaining economic activity                                                   |    |   |    |  28 |
| KPI 8 Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market      | 29 |   |    |     |
| KPI 9 Ensure that there is sufficient employment land available                      |    |   | 32 |     |
| KPI 10 Employment in outer London                                                    |    |   |    |  33 |
| KPI 11 Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in   |    |   |    |     |
| the employment market                                                                |    |   |    |  35 |
| KPI 12 Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services         | 37 |   |    |     |
| KPI 13 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal    |    |   |    |     |
| split for journeys (public /private transport modal split)                           |    |   |    |  39 |
| KPI 14 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal    |    |   |    |     |
| split for journeys (zero traffic growth)                                             |    |   |    |  40 |
| KPI 15 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal    |    |   |    |     |
| split for journeys (increased bicycle modal share)                                   |    |   |    |  42 |
| 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                                                                              |    |   |    |  43 |
| KPI 17 Increase in the number of jobs located in areas of high PTAL values           | 45 |   |    |     |
| KPI 18 Protection of biodiversity habitat                                            |    |   |    | 46  |
| KPI 19 Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted and elimination of waste to |    |   |    |     |
| landfill by 2031                                                                     |    |   |    | 48  |
| KPI 20 Reduce carbon dioxide emissions through new development                       |    |   | 50 |     |
| KPI 21 Increase in energy generated from renewable sources                           |    |   |    | 52  |
| KPI 22 Increase in urban greening                                                    |    |   |    | 53  |
| KPI 23 Improve London's Blue Ribbon Network                                          |    |   |    | 54  |
CHAPTER THREE ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND STATISTICS	
		
                59
Housing and Design	
		
	
	
60
Environment and Transport	
		
	
        102
Planning	
		
	
        111
CHAPTER FOUR OTHER CONTEXTUAL DATA SOURCES	 		
	
      123
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND LOOKING AHEAD	
		
	
      129

## Executive Summary

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

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

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

v	
Overall, the performance is positive: 14 
KPI targets are met or heading in the right direction, while 5 have not been met or are heading the wrong way. For 5 KPI targets the performance is mixed. The performance against the individual Objectives is summarised as follows: 
Objective 1- A city that meets the challenges of economic and population growth

vi	
A very high proportion of new residential 
developments in London continues to be built on previously developed land and increasingly at appropriate densities within the density matrix range. 26,600 dwellings were completed in 2012/13 against the 32,210 ten year average annual target. The gap in life expectancy between the most and least deprived Londoners continues to decrease.
Objective 2 - An internationally competitive and successful city

vii	
Employment across London showed strong 
growth over the period 2011-2012, with an increase of 196,000 and the overall employment rate increasing as well. The office pipeline remains healthy and B1 
office development continues largely in locations with high public transport accessibility. Whilst the rate of loss of industrial land decreased relative to the previous year, the rate remains above the monitoring benchmark in the London Plan and the Mayor's Land for Industry SPG. This trend will need to be monitored closely. Objective 3- A city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods

viii	 Employment specifically in Outer London 
has increased by 79,000 between 2011 and 2012 and the gap in the employment rate between Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups and the white population has narrowed. Lone parent income support has decreased, although slightly less than outside London. The increase in pupil/ teacher ratios is marginal and reflects a wider national trend. Net affordable housing completions remain below target with the three-year average affordable homes share down by 1% on the previous year. Objective 4- A city that delights the senses 

ix	
There has been a reduction in the 
percentage of designated heritage assets at risk across all categories. Progress with river restoration activities is on target, and there has been little loss of designated open space, under 0.6 ha. In terms of cycling, 10,000 more trips were recorded than in the previous year.
Objective 5- A city that becomes a world leader in improving the environment

x	
Waste recycling rates continue to go up 
and landfilling continues to go down 
significantly. Carbon dioxide emissions savings are above target and there has been an increase in renewable energy output. The area of green roofs in the CAZ has increased significantly over the past few years. There has been little loss of approved sites for nature conservation (0.87 ha) and this is slightly below the figure from the previous year. Objective 6- A city where it is easy, safe and convenient for everyone to access jobs, opportunities and facilities 

xi	
Public transport use continues to grow 
annually, while private car use and road traffic across London continue to decline. Office development largely continues in locations with high public transport accessibility. In terms of the use of London's waterways for transport passengers numbers are up.

## Table 1.1 Kpi Performance Overview

| KPI TARGET                               | COMMENT                                 |
|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| 1                                        |                                         |
| Maintain at least 96 per cent of         |                                         |
| new residential development to be        |                                         |
| on previously developed land             |                                         |
| 2                                        |                                         |
| Over 95 per cent of development          |                                         |
| to comply with the housing density       |                                         |
| location and the density matrix          |                                         |
| 3                                        |                                         |
| No net loss of open space                |                                         |
| designated for protection in LDFs        |                                         |
| due to new development                   |                                         |
| 4                                        |                                         |
| Average completions of a minimum         |                                         |
| of 32,210 net additional homes per       |                                         |
| year                                     |                                         |
| 5                                        |                                         |
| Completion of 13,200 net                 |                                         |
| additional affordable homes per          |                                         |
| year                                     |                                         |
| 6                                        |                                         |
| Reduction in the difference in life      |                                         |
| expectancy between those living in       |                                         |
| the most and least deprived areas        |                                         |
| of London (split by gender)              |                                         |
| 7                                        |                                         |
| Increase in the proportion of            |                                         |
| working age London residents in          |                                         |
| employment 2011-2031                     |                                         |
| 8                                        |                                         |
| Stock of office permissions to be at     |                                         |
| least three times the average rate of    |                                         |
| starts over the previous three years     |                                         |
| 9                                        |                                         |
| Release of industrial land to be         |                                         |
| in line with benchmarks in the           |                                         |
| Industry SPG                             |                                         |
| 10                                       |                                         |
| Growth in total employment in            |                                         |
| Outer London                             |                                         |
| +                                        |                                         |
| Total employment in Outer London         |                                         |
| increased by 4.1% on previous year       |                                         |
| 11                                       |                                         |
| Reduce employment rate gap               |                                         |
| between BAME groups and the              |                                         |
| white population; and reduce             |                                         |
| the gap between lone parents             |                                         |
| on income support in London vs           |                                         |
| England & Wales average                  |                                         |
| 12                                       |                                         |
| Reduce the average class size in         |                                         |
| primary schools                          |                                         |
| -                                        | Continued slight increase in class size |
| 13                                       |                                         |
| Use of public transport per head         |                                         |
| grows faster than use of private car     |                                         |
| per head                                 |                                         |
| 14                                       |                                         |
| Zero car traffic growth for London       |                                         |
| as a whole                               |                                         |
| +                                        |                                         |
| Annual decrease in road traffic for      |                                         |
| London as a whole continues              |                                         |
| 15                                       |                                         |
| Increase in share of all trips by        |                                         |
| bicycle from 2 per cent in 2009 to 5     |                                         |
| per cent by 2026                         |                                         |
| +/-                                      |                                         |
| Approved units 2.2% above target,        |                                         |
| but completions fallen to 0.3% below     |                                         |
| target                                   |                                         |
| +/-                                      |                                         |
| Still below target, but significant      |                                         |
| increase within the density matrix       |                                         |
| range from 40% in previous year to       |                                         |
| 58%                                      |                                         |
| -                                        |                                         |
| Loss recorded, but with under 0.6 ha     |                                         |
| insignificant and new open space not     |                                         |
| recorded                                 |                                         |
| -                                        | 18% below target                        |
| -                                        |                                         |
| Below target. Three-year average         |                                         |
| affordable homes share of overall        |                                         |
| conventional housing provision down      |                                         |
| by 1% on previous year                   |                                         |
| +                                        |                                         |
| Differences reduced very slightly on     |                                         |
| previous year                            |                                         |
| +                                        |                                         |
| Increase of almost 1% on previous year   |                                         |
| and reduction in gap between London      |                                         |
| and the rest of UK                       |                                         |
| +                                        |                                         |
| Stock of permissions seven times         |                                         |
| average rate of starts                   |                                         |
| -                                        |                                         |
| Reduced rate of loss of industrial land, |                                         |
| but still 100% above the benchmark       |                                         |
| +/-                                      |                                         |
| BAME gap down; lone parent income        |                                         |
| support down, but slightly less than     |                                         |
| outside London                           |                                         |
| +                                        |                                         |
| Public transport use continues to grow   |                                         |
| annually, and private car use continues  |                                         |
| to decline                               |                                         |
| +                                        |                                         |
| 10,000 more trips per day than in        |                                         |
| previous year                            |                                         |

## Table 1.1 Kpi Performance Overview

| KPI TARGET                             |
|----------------------------------------|
| 16                                     |
| A 50% increase in passengers and       |
| 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          |
| +/-                                    |
| 1 % below target, but specifically for |
| B1 Office 12 % above the 50% target    |
| 18                                     |
| No net loss of Sites of Importance     |
| for Nature Conservation.               |
| +                                      |
| 19                                     |
| At least 45 per cent of waste          |
| recycled/composted by 2015 and         |
| 0 per cent of biodegradable or         |
| recyclable waste to landfill by 2031   |
| 20                                     |
| Annual average percentage carbon       |
| dioxide emissions savings for          |
| strategic development proposals        |
| progressing towards zero carbon in     |
| residential developments by 2016       |
| and in all developments by 2019        |
| 21                                     |
| Production of 8550 GWh of energy       |
| from renewable sources by 2026         |
| +                                      |
| 22                                     |
| Increase in total area of green roofs  |
| in the CAZ.                            |
| +                                      |
| Increase by 150 % between 2007 and     |
| 2012                                   |
| 23                                     |
| Restore 15km of rivers and streams     |
| 2009-2015 with an additional 10km      |
| by 2020                                |
| 24                                     |
| Reduction in proportion of             |
| designated heritage assets at risk     |
| as a percentage of the total number    |
| of designated heritage assets in       |
| London.                                |

# excludes heat energy generated from renewable sources

+/-
Slight increase in passenger numbers, slight fall in freight numbers 0.87 ha loss to approved development, slightly less than previous year. New designations not recorded. 
+
Recycling over 30 % and continues to increase, landfilling continues to decrease significantly
+
11% above the 25% carbon dioxide emissions savings target (2010 -2013) 25%# increase in output from renewable resources between 2011 and 2012
+
Over 12 km of the 15km restoration target for 2015 achieved
+
Decrease in the percentage of assets at risk

## Chapter One Introduction Scope And Purpose Of The Amr

1.1	 This is the tenth London Plan Annual 
Monitoring Report (AMR 10). Section 346 of the Greater London Authority (GLA) Act 1999 places a duty on the Mayor to monitor implementation of 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 in assessing the effectiveness of the London Plan. It is important for keeping the London Plan under review and as evidence for plan preparation.

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

1.4	 	
At the core of this AMR are the Key 
Performance Indicators (KPIs) set out in Policy 8.4 (A) and Table 8.1 of the London Plan (see chapter 2 of this document for detailed analysis of the performance of each KPI). However, it should be recognised that a wide range of factors outside the sphere of influence of the London Plan influence the KPIs. The inclusion of additional relevant performance measures and statistics helps to paint a broader picture of London's performance (see chapter 3). Whilst recognising longer-term trends where available, the focus of the monitoring in this AMR is on the year 2012/13.
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 into LDD. This should ensure a level of consistency between data on housing, open space etc which is published in both the borough and GLA AMRs. However, some differences in the figures do occur. This can in part be attributed to LDD being a live system, which is continually updated and adjusted to reflect the best information available. There are also occasional differences in the 
way completions are allocated to particular years, which may cause discrepancies between borough and GLA AMR data.

1.9	 2013 saw the first full review of the 
Information Scheme since it was originally agreed in 2003. The primary objective of the review was to clarify the rules regarding the sharing of data, but it coincided with the introduction of Class J Prior Approvals which permit changes of use from office to residential use without the need for a formal planning permission. In order that these could be captured by the system, it was necessary to extend the scope of the scheme to include types of planning consent not previously covered by the scheme. Signed copies of the revised Information Scheme were received from 26 boroughs, four more than the number required to make it binding on all 33 meaning that these prior approvals are now formally part of the scheme.

1.10	The LDD system itself has remained 
fundamentally unchanged since it was first developed in 2004, with changes being made incrementally as required. A substantial project to modernise and future-proof the system is ongoing, the first phase of which was reported in the last AMR. Following borough acceptance of the new Information Scheme, work is underway to allow the system to monitor a range of new permission types. Once this latest update goes live, the focus will return to completing the migration of the database to a more modern server. The LDD Management Team, which comprises representatives from the GLA and a number of London boroughs, will look closely at the system and decide if any further changes are required which can be implemented in tandem with the migration process.

1.11	Phase two of the development of the LDD 
public page, which can be found at http:// www.london.gov.uk/webmaps/ldd/, is now underway with considerable changes planned. The new version is due to launch in the summer of 2014 and the changes will be reported on in the next AMR.

## The London Plan And Its Implementation

1.12		
The London Plan is the overall strategic 
plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital 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.
1.13		
At the 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. It provides details of how each of the 121 policies in the London Plan will be delivered and contains detailed information about London's infrastructure needs to help inform policy development and implementation by the Mayor, boroughs and others. The published first edition was published in January 2013 and is available at http://www.london.gov.uk/ publication/implementation-plan. It will be updated regularly. 
1.14		
The Implementation Framework also 
includes:
•		
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG),
•		
Opportunity Area/Intensification Area 
Frameworks, Implementation guides 
•	This Annual Monitoring Report.
1.15	The key distinction between the 
Implementation Plan and the AMR is that the latter is looking predominately at past performance to identify trends, whilst the Implementation Plan is focusing on current and future actions to facilitate policy implementation and performance improvements. Linking KPIs and implementation actions directly may not be helpful as they serve different purposes and operate at different levels of detail. Together, however, they provide an important overview of the way London is changing, and of the way planning policies are used, and can be in the future, to influence and respond to these changes.

## Further Alterations To The London Plan

1.16	In January 2014 the Mayor published his 
Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) rolling the London Plan forward to 2036, particularly to address key housing and employment issues emerging from an analysis of the most recent census data. The Further Alterations propose minor changes to three KPI targets that reflect changes elsewhere in the Plan. These are KPIs 4, 5 and 19.

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

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

2.1	 This KPI looks at the proportion of 
residential planning permissions on previously developed land. The figures are shown both by number of units and by site area, although the number of units is considered to be the key measure. The percentages are arrived at by looking for a net loss of greenfield open space on the permission. The area of greenfield land that will be lost is then compared to the proposed residential site area to produce a percentage that is applied to the proposed units. Where both residential and non-residential uses are proposed, the greenfield area is divided proportionately between the two uses.

2.2	 98.2% of units approved during 2012/13 
are on brownfield land, slightly down on last year (99%) but above the Mayor's 96% target. Only 4 boroughs; Bexley, Lambeth, Barking and Dagenham and Havering; were below the 96% target. The low percentage in Lambeth is due to a high density scheme in Vauxhall on a traffic island which while not technically 'brownfield' offers little in the way of amenity value. Its total site area is less than a quarter of a hectare, and therefore Lambeth's site area figure is above the 96% target. The only permission on a greenfield site in Barking and Dagenham is a renewal of phase 2 of the Lymington Fields development originally granted 
permission in 2009. The other major schemes approved are at the Howbury Centre site in Bexley and 28 dwellings on the Lamb's Lane Rough in Havering.

2.3	 The proportion of units completed on 
brownfield land stands at 95.7%, also down on last year's 97.6% and largely due to several large schemes reaching completion. The largest of these is phase 1a of the New Hendon Village redevelopment which will include some re-provision of open space in later phases. Other major completions include 161 flats at Perry Street in Bexley, Glenister Garden and Regency Gardens in Hillingdon and the former bowling green site at Williams Lane in Richmond upon Thames.

YEAR
% OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND BY UNITS
BY SITE AREA
BY UNITS
BY SITE AREA
2006/07
98.6
98
97.2
96.5
2007/08
97.3
96.7
96.6
94.8
2008/09
98.1
96.6
98.9
98.1
2009/10
97.3
96.8
98.8
97.9
2010/11
96.8
95.3
97.1
95.7
2011/12
99.0
97.4
97.6
95.0
2012/13
98.2
97.8
95.7
95.3

Source: London Development Database

% OF DEVELOPMENT COMPLETED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND
BOROUGH
% OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND BY UNITS
BY SITE AREA
BY UNITS
BY SITE AREA
Barking and Dagenham
81.0
89.3
100.0
100.0
Barnet
99.9
99.6
70.1
88.9
Bexley
75.3
72.3
66.0
75.1
Brent
97.9
96.3
100.0
100.0
Bromley
100.0
99.8
85.4
90.6
Camden
99.1
96.4
100.0
100.0
City of London
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Croydon
99.2
96.4
99.6
99.7
Ealing
98.8
98.1
99.2
99.1
Enfield
100.0
100.0
95.9
96.3
Greenwich
99.8
99.0
93.7
75.4
Hackney
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Hammersmith and Fulham
99.6
99.3
100.0
100.0
Haringey
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Harrow
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Havering
91.9
92.0
100.0
100.0
Hillingdon
98.4
95.7
89.3
76.9
Hounslow
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Islington
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Kensington and Chelsea
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Kingston upon Thames
97.4
96.7
100.0
100.0
Lambeth
78.9
96.6
100.0
100.0
Lewisham
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Merton
100.0
100.0
93.1
88.9
Newham
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Redbridge
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Richmond upon Thames
100.0
100.0
82.8
88.2
Southwark
99.9
99.9
99.6
99.3
Sutton
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Tower Hamlets
100.0
100.0
99.8
99.5
Waltham Forest
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Wandsworth
100.0
100.0
97.4
96.0
Westminster
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
London
98.2
97.8
95.7
95.3

Source: London Development Database

% OF DEVELOPMENT COMPLETED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND

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)

2.4	 The tables below compare the residential 
density achieved for each scheme against the optimal density range set out in the Sustainable Residential Quality (SRQ) 

|              | FINANCIAL YEAR   | % OF UNITS APPROVALS   |
|--------------|------------------|------------------------|
| WITHIN RANGE | ABOVE RANGE      | BELOW RANGE            |
| 2006/07      | 36%              | 60%                    |
| 2007/08      | 40%              | 55%                    |
| 2008/09      | 41%              | 53%                    |
| 2009/10      | 39%              | 56%                    |
| 2010/11      | 37%              | 58%                    |
| 2011/12      | 40%              | 55%                    |
| 2012/13      | 58%              | 37%                    |

Source: London Development Database

FINANCIAL YEAR
% OF UNITS APPROVALS SCHEMES 15+ 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%
2012/13
59%
39%
2%

Source: London Development Database matrix in the London Plan, taking into account both the site's Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) and its setting as defined in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. All units in residential approvals for which a site area could be calculated are included. Density is the result of dividing the total number of units (gross) by the residential site area. In mixed use schemes, the area allocated to non-residential uses and to open space is subtracted from the total site area to give the residential site area. The percentages refer to units not schemes.

2.5	 There has been a significant improvement 
in the performance against this indicator target, for both all schemes and large schemes (defined as those with 15 proposed units or more). The percentage of units approved during 2012/13 within the range set out in the density matrix is 58%, up from 40% in the previous AMR. For large sites the percentage within the range has risen to 59% compared to 37% the previous year. For all and large schemes the percentages are also well above any year since monitoring began in 2006.
2.6	 Land in London is a scarce resource, so 
the low figures for developments below range are a welcome indicator that land is not being used inefficiently. However the increase in the percentage of units within the range is a welcome development.
Minimise the loss of Open space Target: No net loss of open space designated for protection in LDFs due to new development

2.7	 From this year the performance monitoring 
for this KPI target is focusing more specifically on designated open space rather than open space overall - as previously reported. 
2.8	 Tables 2.5 and 2.6 are based on the 
changes in open space as a result of planning permissions. It is important to note that designation of new open space for protection is not done through the planning permission process, and is therefore not recorded by LDD. Reprovision within the planning permission is taken into account but no positive numbers are recorded meaning a loss is inevitable. We are working with partners Greenspace Information for Greater London to see if gains can be identified and included in future editions of the AMR. The types of protection are Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Local Open Spaces. These are different from the designations for nature conservation recorded in KPI 18. The definition of open space used is based on that found in the now withdrawn PPG 17 and does not include private residential gardens.

2.9	 The table below shows the overall loss of 
protected open space approved during 2012/13 was less than 0.6 hectares. The only significant loss being in Camden where a residential development within a redundant covered reservoir was allowed on appeal on the basis that the site was 
previously developed.

2.10	In terms of completions there have been 
a number of schemes which have been completed on protected open space amounting to 6.5 hectares in total. The biggest loss of green belt is in Enfield where improvements to Tottenham Hotspurs' training base included new indoor facilities. A permission to make existing pitches for travelers in Kingston legal is also recorded as a loss of open space although the open character of the site has not changed. The largest completion on MOL is for a new sports centre in Maysbrooke Park in Barking and Dagenham. The largest loss of a local open space is part of the wider regeneration of the former Grahame Park estate in Barnet where the loss of 1.22 hectares does not take into account re-provision in other phases of the scheme. The total net loss of this schemes open space is anticipated to be less than 0.3 hectares.

BOROUGH NAME
BOROUGH REFERENCE
Bexley
12/00873/FUL
Local Open Spaces
0.003
Bromley
12/00687/FULL1
Metropolitan Open Land
0.030
Camden
2011/0395/P
Local Open Spaces
0.510
Hounslow
00132/A/P12
Metropolitan Open Land
0.047
Total Loss (Gross hectares):  
 
0.590

Source: London Development Database

| BOROUGH NAME         | BOROUGH      |
|----------------------|--------------|
| REFERENCE            |              |
| Enfield              | TP/07/1623   |
| Barnet               | W01731LA/07  |
| Kingston upon Thames | 12/10099/FUL |
| Merton               | 07/P3679     |
| Bromley              | 10/00740/DET |
| Barking and Dagenham | 10/00804/FUL |
| Havering             | P1487/09     |
| Merton               | 06/P0320     |
| Enfield              | TP/09/0667   |
| Redbridge            | 0004/09      |
| Brent                | 100438       |
| Croydon              | 09/01622/P   |
| Croydon              | 09/02227/P   |
| Croydon              | 12/00380/P   |
| Hounslow             | 00600/K/S32  |
| Kingston upon Thames | 10/10154/FUL |
| Southwark            | 09-AP-1031   |
| Ealing               | P/2009/1641  |
| Ealing               | P/2010/3744  |
| Merton               | 08/P0937     |
| Merton               | 06/P0320     |
| Kingston upon Thames | 10/16277/FUL |
| Bexley               | 12/00873/FUL |
|                      |              |
| Hectares):           |              |

Source: London Development Database

PROTECTION DESIGNATION
AREA OF OPEN SPACE (HA)
PROTECTION DESIGNATION
AREA OF OPEN SPACE (HA)

## Key Performance Indicator 4 Increase Supply Of New Homes

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

2.11	This target comprises three elements:
•	conventional completions of selfcontained houses and flats,
•	the non-conventional supply of student 
bedrooms and non self-contained accommodation in hostels and Houses in multiple occupation
•	long-term empty properties returning 
to use. The first two are taken from the London Development Database, the third uses Council Tax data published by CLG.
2.12	Net conventional completions stand at 
21,923, representing 73% of the 29,830 target in the 2011 London Plan. By contrast the total net completions of non-self-contained accommodation are 2,659 units, or 163% of the 1,634 target. The benchmark target in the 2011 London Plan includes 749 empty homes returning to use each year. According to Council Tax records the number of long term empty properties (longer than 6 months) has decreased by 2,018, which represents a net gain of units. The impact on individual boroughs varies widely though. Croydon have recorded a significant drop in empty homes which has boosted their total supply to 149% of their target. By contrast a large increase in the number of empty homes has seriously affected the performance against the benchmark in several boroughs. Most notably Kensington and Chelsea and also Hounslow both record net losses once vacant homes are taken into account. 
2.13	Despite the high delivery of student 
accommodation, which has boosted the non-conventional supply, total output is 76% of the benchmark figure. These are long-term benchmarks and individual years will vary over the development cycle. As the impacts of the economic downturn continue to affect the development industry, a below benchmark result was to be expected. With capacity for over 215,000 homes in the pipeline there is considerable scope for increased development as the economy continues to recover. However as set out in the Further Alterations to the London Plan, revised population projections suggest London's population will rise quicker than anticipated by the 2011 London Plan, the need for additional housing is therefore more pressing than ever.

| NET                  | NET      |
|----------------------|----------|
| BOROUGH              |          |
| CONV                 | NON-CONV |
| Barking and Dagenham | 506      |
| Barnet               | 1,379    |
| Bexley               | 418      |
| Brent                | 662      |
| Bromley              | 698      |
| Camden               | 564      |
| City of London       | 35       |
| Croydon              | 899      |
| Ealing               | 990      |
| Enfield              | 550      |
| Greenwich            | 110      |
| Hackney              | 1,160    |
| 421                  | 11       |
| Fulham               |          |
| Haringey             | 583      |
| Harrow               | 714      |
| Havering             | 237      |
| Hillingdon           | 1,467    |
| Hounslow             | 232      |
| Islington            | 870      |
| 57                   | -49      |
| Chelsea              |          |
| Kingston upon Thames | 203      |
| Lambeth              | 627      |
| Lewisham             | 1,810    |
| Merton               | 477      |
| Newham               | 1013     |
| Redbridge            | 264      |
| 485                  | -6       |
| Thames               |          |
| Southwark            | 1,250    |
| Sutton               | 227      |
| Tower Hamlets        | 997      |
| Waltham Forest       | 468      |
| Wandsworth           | 957      |
| Westminster          | 593      |
| Grand Total          | 21,923   |

Sources: London Development Database, Long term vacants from CLG Housing Live Tables 615 which summarise Council Tax records supplied by Local Authorities.

TOTAL
LONDON PLAN TARGET
% OF TARGET
LONG- TERM EMPTY HOMES RETURNING TO USE

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

2.14	During 2012/13 a total of 7,539 affordable 
units were completed. These are net conventional completions of new homes with unit losses deducted from the total. This represents a decrease from over 8,600 the previous year (revised upwards from the figure of 8,087 published in last year's AMR).
2.15	While the supply of affordable housing 
decreased in the last year, the total level of conventional completions remained relatively stable Therefore, the share of affordable housing has fallen from 39% to 34%.
2.16	 Net affordable housing output can vary 
considerably from year to year, particularly at a local level. Therefore it is more meaningful to test individual borough performance against a longer term average. Table 2.8 shows average affordable housing output as a proportion of overall conventional housing provision over the three years to 2012/13. During this period affordable housing output averaged 37% of total provision, compared to 38% reported in the last AMR.
2.17	Figure 2.1 shows the three-year average 
performance of individual boroughs relative to this London-wide average of 37%. Over the three years, affordable housing exceeded 50% of total provision in two boroughs. In Brent affordable housing comprised 51% of the total provision 
over this period, largely due to a very high figure of 74% in 2011/12 when a number of 100% affordable schemes reached completion. Meanwhile the three year average in Waltham Forest has risen to 63% now that net losses due to the phasing of the completion of the Beaumont Road Estate redevelopment recorded in 2010/11 are no longer considered in the rolling average. The changes illustrate the impact individual schemes and their phasing can have on this figure.

2.18	The lowest proportion, as in the previous 
year, was recorded in the City of London (1%), followed by Westminster (16%) and Redbridge (19%).

2.19	During the economic downturn it was 
necessary to renegotiate affordable housing on a number of sites to ensure viability. It is now increasingly common for legal agreements to link affordable provision to final sales revenues and for units earmarked for private sale to be transferred to housing associations at or after completion, thus making it increasingly difficult to monitor final provision. This caused the significant rise in affordable completions for 2011/12, now 8,611 units compared to the figure of 8,087 reported in the previous AMR. It is not known if this year's total will similarly be revised upwards as additional information comes forward.

2.20	As noted in previous AMRs, the London 
Housing Strategy (LHS) investment target for affordable housing should not be confused with the affordable housing target set out in the London Plan. The LHS investment target is measured in gross terms and includes both new 
build and acquisitions, but the London Plan target is measured in terms of net conventional supply: that is, supply from new developments or conversions, adjusted to take account of demolitions and other losses. The LHS investment figure is therefore generally higher than the planning target. Monitoring achievement of the London Plan target is based on output from the London Development Database, and this definition should be used for calculating affordable housing targets for development planning purposes. Monitoring achievement of the LHS investment targets uses the more broadly based figures provided by DCLG.

OVERALL CONVENTIONAL HOUSING PROVISION OVER THE THREE YEARS TO 2012/13
BOROUGH
TOTAL NET CONVENTIONAL AFFORDABLE COMPLETIONS 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 TOTAL
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 TOTAL
Barking and Dagenham
143
148
243
534
42
30
48
40%
Barnet
228
441
403
1,072
28
35
29
31%
Bexley
154
165
29
348
52
55
7
34%
Brent
184
412
224
820
47
74
34
51%
Bromley
248
214
142
604
33
36
20
29%
Camden
142
62
299
503
26
17
53
34%
City of London
2
0 
0 
2
2
0
0
1%
Croydon
396
362
409
1,167
35
52
45
43%
Ealing
73
333
300
706
27
48
30
36%
Enfield
220
79
243
542
48
26
44
41%
Greenwich
787
370
48
1,205
69
28
44
47%
Hackney
350
403
496
1,249
40
40
43
41%
Hammersmith & Fulham
196
80
107
383
37
17
25
27%
Haringey
89
344
364
797
21
46
62
46%
Harrow
167
192
292
651
37
41
41
40%
Havering
91
129
118
338
39
43
50
44%
Hillingdon
175
343
381
899
58
34
26
33%
Hounslow
349
319
49
717
52
54
21
48%
Islington
-66
459
223
616
-14
37
26
24%
Kensington & Chelsea
61
19
4
84
36
16
7
24%
Kingston upon Thames
65
81
38
184
44
31
19
30%
Lambeth
744
348
269
1,361
56
41
43
48%
Lewisham
339
469
592
1,400
47
39
33
38%
Merton
48
69
196
313
13
15
41
24%
Newham
436
407
305
1,148
49
53
30
43%
Redbridge
111
54
52
217
32
10
20
19%
Richmond upon Thames
45
79
167
291
14
36
34
28%
Southwark
562
593
458
1,613
40
55
37
43%
Sutton
222
235
103
560
67
40
45
49%
Tower Hamlets
315
705
262
1,282
24
63
26
37%
Waltham Forest
248
358
270
876
58
72
58
63%
Wandsworth
109
268
327
704
23
27
34
29%
Westminster
152
71
126
349
20
8
21
16%
London
7,385
8,611
7,539 23,535
38
39
34
37%

Source: London Development Database

AFFORDABLE AS % OF TOTAL NET CONVENTIONAL SUPPLY

Source: London Development DatabaseFigure 2.1 is a bar chart displaying the three year average performance of the London boroughs in producing affordable units against the London average. 
16 of the 33 boroughs are performing above the London average with Waltham Forest well ahead of the others.

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)

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

20% OF WARDS, BY SEX
YEAR
MALE
FEMALE
2002-2006
2007-2011
2002-2006
2007-2011
Most deprived 20% wards
74.4
76.6
80.1
81.9
Least deprived 20% wards
79.5
81.7
83.4
85.3
London average
76.8
78.9
81.5
83.3
5.2
5.1
3.4
3.3
Difference - most deprived to least deprived
2.5
2.3
1.4
1.3
Difference - most deprived to London average

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

2.22	When comparing the figures for 2002-06 
and 2007-11, the difference in the life expectancy at birth in the most deprived wards has improved at a slightly faster rate compared to both the London average and the least deprived wards. The gap between top and bottom quintile for males has reduced from 5.2 years to 5.1 years. While the gap for women has reduced from 3.4 years to 3.3 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

2.23	Table 2.10 shows that London saw a rise 
in its employment rate#  in 2012 as the economy began to recover. This took the employment rate back to 2007 levels, though it was still below the 69.5 per cent peak in 2008. Nevertheless the recovery in the rate from the lows of 2010 and 2011 was strong and took it to above its 2004- 2006 level.

YEAR
YEAR
LONDON WORKING- AGE RESIDENTS IN EMPLOYMENT
LONDON RESIDENTS OF WORKING AGE
2004
3,448,300
5,050,000
68.3
72.4
-4.1
2005
3,490,100
5,118,900
68.2
72.5
-4.3
2006
3,538,000
5,178,900
68.3
72.4
-4.1
2007
3,600,000
5,224,100
68.9
72.4
-3.5
2008
3,662,400
5,269,000
69.5
72.1
-2.6
2009
3,639,300
5,318,900
68.4
70.5
-2.1
2010
3,639,200
5,349,900
68.0
70.1
-2.1
2011
3,669,400
5,395,000
68.0
70.0
-2.0
2012
3,737,300
5,424,600
68.9
70.6
-1.7

 # This includes self-employment Source: Annual Population Survey

2.24	Historically the rate of engagement in 
economic activity for London residents has been below that for the country overall. However as Table 2.10 shows, the gap has fallen steadily between 2005 and 2012, falling from 4.3 percentage points to just 1.7 percentage points - a reduction in the gap of just over 60 per cent. 

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

2.25	In this edition of AMR we continue to use 
data from both EGi London Offices and the London Development Database (LDD). According to the EGi data, the ratio of permissions to average three years starts at end-2013 was 7.1:1 (Figure 1).  In the most recent set of comparable figures for the two databases, for 2012, the ratio of permissions to starts was 8.3:1 according to EGi and 3.9:1 according to LDD, both measures ahead of the target of 3:1.
2.26	Final permissions and starts data from LDD 
for 2013 are not yet available, hence the 

YEAR AVERAGE STARTS IN CENTRAL LONDON#
YEAR
EGI
LDD
2004
11.9:1
6.4:1
2005
8.1:1
7.4:1
2006
8.3:1
8.7:1
2007
6.3:1
4.7:1
2008
7.5:1
4.1:1
2009
10.0:1
7.0:1
2010
13.0:1
11.6:1
2011
13.5:1
8.0:1
2012
8.3:1
3.9:1
2013
7.1:1
N/A

# Central London is defined here as Camden, City of London, City of Westminster, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth. Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices, London Development Database absence of a ratio for 2013.  The variation in the ratios can be accounted for by the different definitions used in the datasets.1

2.27	It is known that the EGi database provides 
a more comprehensive coverage than LDD and, in particular, contains a much greater amount of data on the refurbishment market.  This is a sector that is thought to have grown proportionately in recent years. 
 
It is recommended that some limited work should be undertaken to understand more fully the different results from the two data sets. 
2.28	Starts and permissions - based on EGi data, 
Figure 2.12 demonstrates that 2013 saw starts of just over 500,000 sq m NIA (net internal area), down 23% on 2012 but still higher than the average of the past 10 years (466,847 sq m).  When compared to the very long run, it is somewhat below the 1985-2013 average of 579,000 sq m. The three year average for starts over the period 2011-2013 is 526,318 sq m.

2.29	The largest new starts are the 44,953 
sq m first phase of Nova scheme in Victoria (formerly Victoria Circle), with the next largest starts being 60 Victoria Embankment, EC4 (43,402 sq m) and the new US Embassy at Nine Elms (41,480 sq m).  The City of London accounted for most starts, at 168,773 sq m, (33.6% of the total), of which 35,382 sq m was prelet.  The City also had the highest average start size, at 11,252 sq m. Tower Hamlets was second highest in terms of average size, at 9,447 sq m, folled by Wandsworth being swollen by the Nine Elms scheme to 8,634 sq m.  Despite a very low average scheme size of 4,801 sq m, Westminster's total of 153,628 sq m, still accounted for over 30% of starts.

2.30	Unimplemented office permissions at year 
end 2013 totalled just over 3.7 million sq.m NIA according to the EGi data. The average size of unimplemented consent is highest in Tower Hamlets at 23,333 sq m with the City of London trailing at 14,983 sq m. Lambeth - where less than 1,000 sq m started in 2013 - has an average unimplemented consent size of 10,497 sq m.  Wandsworth's figure is 13,655 sq m. Tower Hamlets and the City of London combined 48% of unimplemented consents but 64% of starts, by aggregate size.

2.31	Office market overview - the central 
London occupational and investment markets were both busy during 2013, providing a confidence boost for the supply market generally.  Take-up improved on the previous year, underpinned by very significant activity in the TMT and Insurance sectors. Vacancy rates have continued their modest fall, with CBRE 
data suggesting availability in central London falling from 1.524m sq m in Q4 2012, to 1.458m sq ft in Q4 20132. Competition in some markets has pushed rents up, with prime space in the West End back up above £100 sq ft.

2.32	After 25 years of stalled attempts, it seems 
that Battersea Power Station is finally to be redeveloped, while another mega scheme, King's Cross is emerging with a plethora of occupiers emerging, including BNP Paribas, Google, Louis Vuitton and PRS for Music.
2.33	Investment, particularly from overseas 
investors, has continued to rise, not only in standing investments (such as at Broadgate and Chiswick Park), but also in development projects (see for example Royal Docks, Wandsworth and Hanover Square).  Tenants are continuing to show footloose tendencies, with signs that the quality of product is now more important than traditional concepts of what is an acceptable location.  See for example, Ogilvy & Mather moving to Sea Containers House on the South Bank.

2.34	The pressure for office-to-resi conversions 
continues apace.  According to H2SO3, since 2001, almost 600,000 sq m of West End offices have been lost to residential use - the equivalent of around 33,000 office workers at a generous density of 18 sq m per worker. Some of this has been displaced to newer locations such as Regent's Place and Paddington, but there may be a case for some research to establish how much, if any, is an actual loss to the area.

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

2.35	Table 2.12 shows an estimated total of 72.5 
hectares of industrial land was recorded in planning approvals for transfer to other uses in 2012/13. More than half of this area of industrial land (38 hectares) was transferred in just four planning approvals in Harrow (Kodak site, Headstone Drive), Newham (Strand East, Sugarhouse Lane), Enfield (9 Morson Road) and Tower Hamlets (Land at Bromley-by-Bow North, Hancock Road, Three Mill Lane).
2.36	Table 2.12 shows that industrial land 
release in 2012/13 planning approvals was 

SUB- REGION
ACTUAL RELEASE 2011/12
ANNUAL AVERAGE RELEASE 2001-2006
ANNUAL AVERAGE RELEASE 2006-2011
Central
6
5
9.4
6.0
--
2.3
East
57
54
38.6
29.2
--
19.4
North
2
2
1.5
6.5
--
3.4
South
11
4
31.7
5.1
--
4.4
West
10
18
35.1
25.7
--
7.2
London
86
83
116.3
72.5
41.0
36.7

Source: London Development Database, London Plan and SPG Land for Industry and Transport. Figures include release of land currently in industrial use and in mixed industrial/non-industrial use sites substantially less than that in 2011/12 but still double the annual benchmark in the 2012 Land for Industry and Transport SPG. In 2012/13 the benchmark was exceeded in all sub-regions and, in absolute terms, most significantly in West London. The rate of release in 2012/13 planning approvals is below the annual average rates of release in 2001-2006 and 2006-2011.   

ACTUAL RELEASE 2012/13
LONDON PLAN ANNUAL BENCHMARK 2006-2026
2012 SPG ANNUAL BENCHMARK 2011-2031

## Key Performance Indicator 10 Employment In Outer London Target: Growth In Total Employment In Outer London

2.37	Though there are local exceptions, the 
number of employee jobs in many outer boroughs has either grown or been relatively static over the past three decades. Nonetheless, since 1984, the growth in the number of employee jobs in Outer London has not been as large as in Inner London (9.5 per cent compared to 22.6 per cent). London overall experienced an increase in the number of employee jobs of 17.2 per cent.
2.38	The changes in employee jobs numbers 
for individual boroughs have varied significantly. Seven Outer London boroughs achieved over 15 per cent growth in the number of employee jobs since 1984, whereas four saw a reduction in employee jobs. The Mayor set up the Outer London Commission to investigate how Outer London can best realise its potential to contribute to the London economy. The Commission's recommendations made a major contribution to the London Plan's new policies for Outer London.
2.39	Table 2.13 shows the total number of jobs, 
including self-employed, from 2004 to 2012. In 2009 the total number of jobs in Outer London fell by 70,000 from its 2008 peak. However, it it has recently started to recover, increasing by 79,000 between 2011 and 2012 or by 4.1 per cent. This is similar to the level of growth in London overall.
2.40	It should be noted that the data used for 
this KPI differs from that used for previous reports, which was taken from the ONS Jobs Density series. The new method is consistent with what is used in GLA Economics' employment projections, which underpin the FALP. However, the historic series presented in Table 2.13 differs slightly from estimates presented in the FALP as they have here been updated to be consistent with revised Workforce Jobs (WFJ) estimates. In December 2013, the ONS revised their historic WFJ estimates3.

2004-2012
YEAR
OUTER LONDON
LONDON
% IN OUTER LONDON
2004
1,927,000
4,579,000
42%
2005
1,942,000
4,678,000
42%
2006
1,974,000
4,734,000
42%
2007
1,955,000
4,785,000
41%
2008
1,993,000
4,925,000
40%
2009
1,923,000
4,813,000
40%
2010
1,923,000
4,804,000
40%
2011
1,911,000
4,875,000
39%
2012
1,990,000
5,071,000
39%

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

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

2.41	Table 2.14 shows that the gap between 
employment rates for White vs Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) Londoners has broadly followed a downward trend and that this was reinforced in the latest year, 2012. In 2004, the gap was 16.6 percentage points and the downward trend took this down to 13.2 percentage points by 2010. However, in 2011 the gap increased to 14.6 percentage points before falling again to 14.0 percentage points in 2012. Over the eight-year period the gap has reduced by 2.6 percentage points.
2.42	London Plan Policy 4.12 supports strategic 
development proposals which encourage employers to recruit local people and sustain their employment, and the provision of skills development, training opportunities and affordable spaces to start a business. The GLA has also been encouraging employers to recruit local people, in particular in deprived areas of London where a large number of BAME Londoners live and sustain employment. Initiatives such as the Construction Employer Accord, the host boroughs employment and skills projects and the GLA's Supplier Skills project also help with the objective. The latter supports TfL 
contractors in promoting employment and skills.

2.43	 Table 2.15 shows that in terms of income 
support for lone parents with dependent children the absolute figure has continued to fall, but by slightly less than outside London, with a 1 percentage point increase in the gap between 2011 and 2012. However, since 2004 the gap has fallen from eight to five percentage points, after a peak in 2006 at thirteen percentage points, after peaking at 13% in 2006. 
2.44	It should be noted that since the 
introduction of the Employment Support Allowance (ESA) in 2008, lone parents with health issues who were previously claiming Income Support, now claim ESA. This has to be considered when comparing different years for the 'Lone Parents on Income Support' series. However it does not affect the comparison of London and England and Wales data for each year.

BY CALENDAR YEAR
YEAR
ALL PERSONS
WHITE GROUPS
BAME GROUPS
EMPLOYMENT RATE GAP
IN EMPLOY- MENT
RATE %
RATE %
IN EMPLOY- MENT
2004
3,448,300
68.3
2,532,100
73.5
908,300
56.9
16.6
2005
3,490,100
68.2
2,517,500
73.6
967,300
57.3
16.3
2006
3,538,000
68.3
2,503,700
73.8
1,026,800
57.9
15.9
2007
3,600,000
68.9
2,500,500
73.9
1,095,500
59.7
14.2
2008
3,662,400
69.5
2,542,700
74.7
1,115,500
60.0
14.7
2009
3,639,300
68.4
2,541,800
73.9
1,091,100
58.4
15.5
2010
3,639,200
68.0
2,476,400
72.8
1,155,500
59.6
13.2
2011
3,669,400
68.0
2,459,700
73.5
1,203,400
58.9
14.6
2012
3,737,300
68.9
2,494,100
74.2
1,239,700
60.2
14.0

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

| LONDON         | ENGLAND AND WALES   |
|----------------|---------------------|
| ANNUAL         |                     |
| REPORT         | DIFFERENCE          |
| FAMILIES ON IS |                     |
| AS % OF        |                     |
| LONE PARENT    |                     |
| FAMILIES       |                     |
| #              |                     |
| LONE           |                     |
| PARENT         |                     |
| FAMILIES       |                     |
| ON IS          |                     |
| 2004           | 165,120             |
| 2005           | 163,620             |
| 2006           | 162,770             |
| 2007           | 160,450             |
| 2008           | 152,520             |
| 2009           | 141,720             |
| 2010           | 129,100             |
| 2011           | 109,200             |
| 2012           | 102,590             |

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

IN EMPLOY- MENT
RATE %
WHITE/  BAME
AS % OF LONE PARENT FAMILIES#

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

2.45	Between 2008 and 2011 the average class 
size across London increased, with a few exceptions in some boroughs in certain years. Between 2012 and 2013 only 10 boroughs saw a reduction in average class size compared to the 14 boroughs the previous year, 2 staying the same and 20 boroughs increasing in average class size. The trend across the whole of England has also been on the up with average class sizes currently just under 27.
2.46	The main drivers of increasing class sizes 
in London are demographic (primarily reduced migration out of London to other parts of the UK), resulting in an increased number of primary school children, as well as the pressure on London's primary schools to reduce costs. It is unclear if the recent change in migration patterns  driven by the economic downturn is structural or temporary with previous trends resuming. This is something that will be monitored closely.
2.47	The building of new schools is likely to 
continue to counter this upwards trend. In 2012, a further 16 new Free Schools were set up in London. London Plan Policy 3.18 promotes further improvements by strengthening the importance of education provision, encouraging the establishment of new schools (new build, expansion of existing or change of use to educational purposes) and opportunities to enable local 
people and communities to do the same.

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

Source: Department for Education

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

2.48	The indices in Table 2.17 are derived from 
the time series of journey stages per head compiled for Travel in London Report 6 (TfL Planning December 2013). This includes all travel to, from or within Greater London, including travel by commuters and visitors. For consistency the population estimates include in-commuters and visitors (derived from the Labour Force Survey and the International Passenger Survey respectively, courtesy of ONS). It should be noted that the figures have been 

TABLE 2.17  PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TRANSPORT INDEXES
YEAR
PUBLIC TRANSPORT INDEX
PRIVATE TRANSPORT INDEX
2001
100.0
100.0
2002
103.1
99.5
2003
108.1
97.1
2004
113.8
95.1
2005
112
92.6
2006
114.7
92.0
2007
124.4
90.9
2008
128.2
86.4
2009
127.5
85.6
2010
127.8
84.8
2011
131.2
82.8
2012
133.6
80.7

Source: Transport for London revised compared to previous AMRs based on revised population data via the 2011 census. 

2.49		
Total daily journey stages in 2012 were 
30.3 million, up from 29.9 million in 2011, and 4.8 million higher than in 2001. Of these stages, 33% were by private transport, and 44% by public transport. Since 2001, use of public transport per head has grown by over 30%, and increased by 2% in the latest year. In contrast, private transport use per head has decreased by 19% since 2001, and is down almost 3% in the latest year. In line with the target, public transport use per head continues to grow while private transport continues to fall year on year.
Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys Target: Zero car traffic growth for London as a whole

2.50	Table 2.18 shows that road traffic volumes 
continued to fall in the latest year, down by 0.7% between 2011 and 2012, and 10.4% since 2001. In 2012, traffic volumes fell in Inner London by 3.2%, while traffic in Outer London grew slightly by 0.3% . Traffic levels in Inner London are almost 16% lower than in 2001. In Outer London, traffic levels are almost 8% lower than 2001. With regards to the target, in terms of the longer term trend car traffic is declining rather than growing across all parts of London.
2.51	For London to continue to make progress 
in reducing its reliance on the private car, considerable investment is required in public transport, such as the £15 billion investment in Crossrail. For further details on developer contributions to Crossrail and the use of CIL receipts please see the Environment and Transport section of chapter 3.

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

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

2.52	Table 2.19 shows that in 2012 almost 2% 
of all journeys in Greater London on an average day were made by bicycle, an increase of 53% compared to 2001. Around 0.58 million journey stages were made by bicycle in Greater London on an average day, an increase of 82% compared to 2001 and 2% more in the most recent year 2011 to 2012).

2.53	If growth is sustained at this rate, London 

YEAR
DAILY CYCLE STAGES (MILLIONS)
2001
0.32
1.2
2002
0.32
1.2
2003
0.37
1.4
2004
0.38
1.4
2005
0.41
1.6
2006
0.47
1.7
2007
0.47
1.6
2008
0.49
1.7
2009
0.51
1.8
2010
0.54
1.9
2011
0.57
1.9
2012
0.58
1.9

Source: TfL Planning, Travel in London Report 6, tables 2.3 and 3.4
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 London Plan includes a range of policies to help achieve this objective, such as support for the Cycle Superhighway network and the London cycle hire scheme as well as standards for cycle parking and facilities for cyclists in new development. Transport for London is carrying out a comprehensive review of cycle parking standards; the first results of this work have informed the Early Minor Alterations of the London Plan (2013), and updated standards are proposed in the draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (2014).

CYCLE MODE SHARE (PERCENTAGE)

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

2.54	Table 2.20 includes figures for passenger 
journeys on boat operators using TfL London River Services piers and the Thames Clipper London Eye to Woolwich Arsenal service. Figures also include passengers on river tours and charter boats. However, they exclude a number of other services working from independent piers as well as the Woolwich Ferry, which accounts annually for over an additional two million passenger journeys. Ticket sales count both single and return tickets as one journey on all services except Thames Clippers.
2.55		
Table 2.20 shows that the number of 
passengers on the Thames increased until 2010. After the small decline in 2010/11 and 2012/11, numbers have gone up by 0.5 % in the latest year and the number of passengers above the baseline level in 2001 has significantly  increased by 163%. 
2.56	In April 2012, a new extension to London 
Eye Millennium Pier was installed creating additional capacity at the pier. 
2.57	The achievement of the KPI  target still 
requires considerable further investment. The Mayor of London and Transport for London launched a new River Action Plan in February 2013 outlining a host of measures to increase passenger journeys on the Thames further. 
2.58	The plan has already helped deliver an 
enhanced Putney to Blackfriars River Bus service with faster journey times and more frequent River Bus services on this route. Plans to deliver better information at London's piers has begun with the introduction of real time boat arrival information, called iBoat. 
2.59	Future plans include increasing capacity 
at existing central London piers, adding new piers to the river services network and further integration of river services into the wider transport network.
2.60	Table 2.21 deals with cargo carried by river. 
A significant proportion of the freight transported on the River Thames in the capital is aggregates for the construction industry. 
2.61	The 3% reduction in 2012 was due to 
supply issues at the Thames Refinery, operated by Tate & Lyle. The inflated cost of raw cane sugar has meant deliveries to the refinery have been reduced. This refinery is one of the larger terminals in the part of the Port of London within Greater London and as such any reduction in supply has an effect on the overall figures. Elsewhere, growth returned to the aggregates sector and intraport trade also grew.

| YEAR                    | NUMBER OF PASSENGERS   | % CHANGE ON PREVIOUS YEAR   |
|-------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------|
| April 2000 - March 2001 | 1 573 830              | -                           |
| April 2001 - March 2002 | 1,739,236              | + 10.5                      |
| April 2002 - March 2003 | 2 030 300              | + 16.7                      |
| April 2003 - March 2004 | 2,113,800              | + 4.1                       |
| April 2004 - March 2005 | 2,343,276              | + 10.9                      |
| April 2005 - March 2006 | 2,374,400              | + 1.3                       |
| April 2006 - March 2007 | 2,746,692              | + 15.7                      |
| April 2007 - March 2008 | 3,078,100              | + 12.1                      |
| April 2008 - March 2009 | 3,892,693              | + 26.5                      |
| April 2009 - March 2010 | 4,188,530              | + 7.6                       |
| April 2010 - March 2011 | 4,142,226              | - 1.1                       |
| April 2011 - March 2012 | 4,136,200              | - 0.1                       |
| April 2012 - March 2013 | 4,160,500              | + 0.5                       |

Source: TfL London Rivers Services

| YEAR   | TONNES OF CARGO    | % CHANGE ON PREVIOUS    |
|--------|--------------------|-------------------------|
| YEAR   |                    |                         |
| 2001   | 10,757,000         | -                       |
| 2002   | 9,806,000          | + 9%                    |
| 2003   | 9,236,000          | + 6%                    |
| 2004   | 8,743,000          | - 5%                    |
| 2005   | 9,288,000          | + 6%                    |
| 2006   | 9,337,000          | + 0.5%                  |
| 2007   | 8,642,000          | - 7%                    |
| 2008   | 9,312,000          | + 8%                    |
| 2009   | 8,146,000          | - 13%                   |
| 2010   | 7,754,000          | - 5%                    |
| 2011   | 9,022,000          | + 16%                   |
| 2012   | 8,715,000          | -3%                     |

	 Source: Port of London Authority

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

2.62	This indicator aims to show that high- 
density employment generators such as offices are mainly located in areas with good access to public transport -  defined as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 5 or 6 - 6 being the highest, 0 the lowest. The floorspaces are gross, i.e. they do not subtract associated losses.

2.63	The amount of B1 floorspace approved 
during the year is relatively small, perhaps as a consequence of the spike in major approvals at the end of 2011/12. As a consequence the revised scheme for the 

|                  | PTAL LEVEL   | ALL B1          | OFFICES (B1A)   |
|------------------|--------------|-----------------|-----------------|
| FLOORSPACE (M2)  | %            | FLOORSPACE (M2) | %               |
| 5 or 6           | 321,169      | 49              | 308,331         |
| 4 or less        | 336,952      | 51              | 190,141         |
| Total floorspace |              |                 |                 |
| 658,121          |              |                 |                 |
| 498,472          |              |                 |                 |

Source: London Development Database BSkyB headquarters in Hounslow has a significant impact on the figures. This proposes nearly 170,000m2 of office and studio floorspace on a large site near Brentford with a low PTAL score. However the principle of intensification of the existing use of the site is set out in Hounslow's Brentford Area Action Plan and the permission includes a large s106 contribution towards improving transport in the area. The PTAL score also does not reflect the shuttle bus service between the railway station and the site operated by the employer. Additionally 36,000m2 of office and light industrial space was granted in the Queen Elizabeth Park. 

2.64	Overall only 49% of B1 floorspace 
approved during 2012/13 is in areas of high PTAL. When looking specifically at office floorspace, the percentage rises to 62. Excluding the 100,000m2 of office space in the BSkyB permission, 78% of the remaining office floorspace is within PTAL zones 5 & 6.

## Key Performance Indicator 18 Protection Of Biodiversity Habitat

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

2.65	The tables opposite are based on the 
changes in SINCs as a result of planning permissions. Designation of new SINCs is not done through the planning permission process. Re-provision within the permission is taken into account but no positive numbers are recorded meaning a loss is inevitable. The London Development Database records the following conservation designations:
•	Statutory Site of Special Scientific Interest, •		
Site of Metropolitan Importance,
•		
Site of Borough Grade I Importance
•		
Site of Borough Grade II Importance
•		
Site of Local Importance
2.66	Open Space designations such as Green 
Belt, MOL and Local Open Space are addressed in KPI 3.
2.67	The table shows five approvals on SINCS 
approved in 2012/13. The total area again amounts to less than 0.6 Ha. It has gone down from 0.96 in the previous year to 0.87 Ha. The largest single loss is the approval of a housing scheme within a covered reservoir in Camden that was granted on appeal, the site being considered as previously developed land by the inspector.
2.68	The largest completion is a phase of 
the redevelopment New Hendon Village (former Grahame Park Estate). The total net loss of this schemes open space is 
anticipated to be less than 0.3 hectares.

NATURE CONSERVATION TYPE AREA OF OPEN 
BOROUGH NAME
BOROUGH REFERENCE
Bexley
12/00873/FUL
Metropolitan Importance
0.003
Brent
122653
Site of Local Importance
0.279
Bromley
12/00687/FULL1
Statutory SSSI
0.030
Camden
2011/0395/P
Borough Grade 2
0.510
Hounslow
00132/A/P12
Site of Local Importance
0.047
Total Loss (Gross hectares):
 
Sum:
0.869

Source: London Development Database

NATURE CONSERVATION TYPE AREA OF OPEN 
BOROUGH NAME
BOROUGH REFERENCE
Barnet
W01731LA/07
Site of Local Importance
1.220
Bexley
12/00873/FUL
Metropolitan Importance
0.003
Kingston upon Thames
10/10154/FUL
Site of Local Importance
0.047
Merton
08/P0937
Borough Grade 2
0.029
Southwark
09-AP-1031
Site of Local Importance
0.043
Total Loss (Gross Hectares):
 
 SUM
1.342

Source: London Development Database

SPACE (HA)
SPACE (HA)

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

2.69	Table 2.25 shows that the total amount 
of local authority collected waste has continued to decline - by about 75,000 tonnes in the latest year. 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 2012, although it is still well below the target. London has a lower household recycling rate than any other region in England, in part because it has a relatively high number of flats. The amount of local authority collected waste sent to landfill has gone down by over 5 per cent last year, after over 14 per cent in the year before and the amount has halved since 2007/8 with the majority being diverted to incineration with energy recovery. 

TONNES)
METHOD
2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
Landfill
3,163
3,021 2,856 2,692 2,404 2,209 1,946 1,882 1,696 1,116
911
(percentage)
71.0%
70.0%
65.4% 63.7% 56.8% 53.2%
49.0%
48.7% 44.7% 30.6% 25.5%
Incineration 
with EfW
872
826 869 767 929 919
912
803 896
1,303 1,462
(percentage)
20.0%
19.0%
19.9% 18.2% 21.9% 22.1%
22.9%
20.8% 23.6% 35.7% 40.9%
Incineration 
without EfW
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
(percentage)
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Recycled/
composted
410
494 643 763 844 925
994
1,060 1,076 1,105 1,088
(percentage)
9.0%
11.0%
14.7% 18.1% 19.9% 22.3%
25.0%
27.4% 28.3% 30.3% 30.4%
Other#
0 0 0 0
59
101
123
117 130 124 115
(percentage)
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 2.4%
3.1%
3.0% 3.4% 3.4% 3.2%
Total6
4,446
4,342 4,370 4,223 4,235 4,154 3,975 3,862 3,797 3,648 3,576

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

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

Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2012, http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/2011-12-ANNUAL-publication_WITHOUTLINKS_v0.2.xls 

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

2.70	Policy 5.2 of the London Plan published 
in July 2011 sets out a stepped approach to reaching the Government's zero carbon targets - see Tables 2.26 and 2.27 opposite.

2.71	An analysis5 of the energy assessments 
submitted alongside Stage II planning applications determined by the Mayor between 1 January and 31 December 2012 was undertaken by the GLA in 2013 to establish the projected carbon dioxide savings secured from these schemes. The report reflects a full year of applications assessed against the Mayor's energy hierarchy and carbon dioxide targets set out in London Plan Policy 5.2. The assessment was made against the 2010 Part L Building Regulations and showed an approximate 36 per cent reduction in regulated6 carbon dioxide emissions beyond the minimum requirements of the 2010 building regulations. This is 11% above the 25% target. The 40% target for 2013-16 began to be applied from October 2013.

2.72	Of each of the elements of the energy 
hierarchy, combined heat and power (CHP) produced the largest carbon dioxide savings. It accounted for 29 per cent of all projected carbon dioxide savings secured 
in 2012. Approximately 53,000 dwellings (nearly 95 per cent of those proposed) were proposed to be connected to heat networks.

2.73	Five per cent of the projected savings were 
due to energy efficiency. Renewable energy technologies accounted for approximately eight per cent of the overall savings. Of the developments that proposed renewable energy technologies, over three quarters planned to install photovoltaic (PV) panel arrays. Developers committed to the installation of approximately 87,000m2 of PV panels.
2.74	The carbon dioxide savings from 
developments where CHP is unsuitable were substantially less than those with CHP. As such, developments unable to obtain energy from CHP are less likely to meet the carbon dioxide reduction targets set out in the London Plan.
2.75	Boroughs are being encouraged to set up 
carbon dioxide off-setting funds in line with Policy 5.2 to further reduce carbon dioxide across London.

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
2016-2019
as per Building Regulations
2019-2031
zero carbon

Source: Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan January 2014

Increase in energy generated from renewable sources.

Target: Production of 85507 GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2026 

2.76	This renewable energy generation target 
has been developed using data in the Mayor's Decentralised Energy Capacity Studies8. The renewable energy generation figure includes potential energy production from photovoltaics, solar water heating, ground source heat pumps, air source heat pumps and wind, hydro, biomass and energy from waste technologies. 

FOR 2010 AND 2011 - ELECTRICITY
YEAR
CAPACITY (MW)
BIO-MASS
LANDFILL GAS
WIND AND WAVE
2011#
Total (MW)
0
3.7
0.3
20.6
151.7
17.5
193.8
Total (GWh)
0
7.9
1.7
45.1
558.7
4.1
617.6
2012~
Total (MW)
0
4.4
0.3
20.6
167.0
39.7
232.1
Total (GWh)
0
10.8
1.3
46
679.7
29.2
767.0

# At 31 December 2011 Source: Energy Trends, September 2012: Renewable electricity in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England in 2011 (tables 2 and 3) ~ At 31 December 2012 Source: Energy Trends, September 2013: Renewable electricity in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England in 2012 (tables 2 and 3). Source: Energy Trends, September 2013: Renewable electricity in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England in 2012 (tables 2 and 3)
Last year's data was taken from the Decentralised energy capacity study Phase 1: Technical assessment (pg11)9. The figures in that study have not updated.

2.77	The best available figures for energy 
generated in London from renewable energy sources are provided by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). The figures provided by DECC do not include heat generated from renewable sources such as solar water heating. Figures may be available in the future if the take up of the renewable heat incentive is published.

SEWAGE GAS
BIO- ENERGY
PHOTO- VOLTAICS TOTAL

## Key Performance Indicator 22 Increase In Urban Greening

Target: Increase total area of green roofs in the CAZ

2.78	Analysis of aerial imagery covering the 
Central Activities Zone shows an increase in green roof cover between a 2007 and a 2012 snapshot. Their comparison, using random sampling points, indicates that green roof cover in this part of central London has increased from less than 10ha in 2007 to around 25ha in 2012, a 150 per cent increase. We will continue to seek additional sources of green roof data to further validate this estimate.
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)

2.79	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.
2.80	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.
2.81	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.

2.82	The following Table 2.29 shows consistent 
restoration of 1.5 km p/a and above each year since 2007. Over 12.2 km restoration in total and 2.4 km p/a since the 2008 base year represents satisfactory progress towards meeting the 2015 target of 15 km. Key restoration schemes reported in 2013 include the restoration of river banks and the removal of weirs on the rivers Beam, Hogsmill and Wandle. 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
1,430
2003
2,300
3,730
2004
500
4,230
2005
0
4,320
2006
100
4,330
2007
5,100
9,430
2008
2,000
11,430
2009
1,500
12,930
2010
1,808 
14,738
2011
3,519
18,257
2012
3,000
21,257
2013
2,395
23,652

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

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

2.83	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 18 new listed buildings, 60 new conservation areas (although only 9 more than in 2011) and one more schedule monument in London.

| 2011                   | 2012   | 2013   |
|------------------------|--------|--------|
| NUMBER                 | % AT   |        |
| RISK                   |        |        |
| World Heritage Sites*  | 4      | 0      |
| Listed Buildings#      | 18,745 | 2.53%  |
| Conservation Areas     | 1000   | 6.40%  |
| Schedule Monuments     | 154    | 22.70% |
| 149                    | 5.40%  | 150    |
| Gardens                |        |        |
| Registered Battlefield | 1      | 0      |

*designated by UNESCO # does not include Places of Worship Source: English Heritage

2.84	In terms of designated assets at risk, 
between 2012 and 2013 for all designed assets there has been a decrease in the percentage of those assets at risk. The largest decrease in the percentage of designated assets at risk show schedule monuments with a 2.1% decrease from the previous year. Conservation areas and registered parks and gardens had the second highest decrease in the percentage of those assets at risk with a 0.5% and 0.6% decrease respectively while the percentage of listed buildings at risk decreased by 0.1%.  For World Heritage Sites and the one registered battlefield at Barnet, the situation is unchanged in terms of both their number and their condition. 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.

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

## Endnotes

1 EGi data for permissions are based on 
planning committee decisions which are a precursor to discussion on the content of S106 agreements, whereas LDD waits for a decision letter to be issued which does not happen until the legal agreement has been signed.  LDD data has a minimum threshold of 1,000 sq m gross, whereas the threshold in EGi data is 500 sq m gross.  LDD data exclude refurbishments where the existing building is already in office use, which are included by EGi.  In addition EGi data for starts are based on observed construction of new or refurbished space, whereas LDD records whether work is started in a legal sense, so can include demolition works as starts where these, in effect, activate the permission.  Over the period 2004-2011, the office floorspace permissions recorded by LDD are typically 60-70% of the floorspace recorded by EGi.  The LDD figure provides a useful measure of the store of permissions available to facilitate the immediate responsiveness of developers to changes in demand, whereas the EGi figure gives a broader measure of activity by developers in the office market (accepting that some of the permissions in that dataset may never come to fruition).

2  CBRE Central London Property Market 
Review Quarter 4 2013
3  H2SO (2013) London West End Office
‐ to‐
Residential Conversion Research Study 2012
4  Further information for the reasons for 
these revisions can be found in 'Revisions to Workforce Jobs' at www.ons.gov.uk/ons/ guide-method/method-quality/specific/ labour-market/articles-and-reports/
revisions-to-workforce-jobs-dec-2013.pdf 

 5  Energy Planning. Monitoring the 
implementation of London Plan energy policies in 2012. GLA. 2013
6  The carbon dioxide emissions controlled 
by Building Regulations such as emissions generated from hot water, space heating, cooling and fans. 
7 Figure has only become available after 
publication of the 2011 London Plan. It has been included since AMR 8. 
8 https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/
environment/tackling-climate-change/ energy-supply 
9 https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/
environment/tackling-climate-change/ energy-supply

## Chapter Three Additional Performance Measures And Statistics Housing And Design Housing Provision Annual Monitor 2012/13 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 on data provided by London boroughs to the London Development Database (LDD) maintained by the GLA. The LDD was established in 2004 with the support of government and the London Local Authorities and is widely regarded as the most authoritative source of information on housing provision in London.

3.2	 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 21,923 net conventional 
housing completions in London in 2012/13. b)	
 Taking into account net supply of 2,659 
non-self-contained units and a drop of 
2,018 in the number of long-term empty homes, total housing provision was 26,600. c) New build accounted for 87% of net conventional supply in 2012/13, conversions 8% and changes of use 5%. d)	
 Over the last three years net conventional affordable housing completions amounted to 23,535 homes. Social rented accounting for 59% of affordable completions and intermediate housing 40%. The final 1% is affordable rent. e)	
 Across all tenures, gross conventional housing supply was dominated by one or two bedroom homes. 36% of completed homes had one bedroom, 41% had two bedrooms and 23% had three bedrooms or more, down slightly from 24% in 2011/12. f)	29% of gross affordable housing completions in 2012/13 comprised homes with three or more bedrooms. g)	
 22% of net approvals and 19% of net starts in 2012/13 were for affordable housing. h)	
 As of 31 March 2013, the net housing pipeline consisted of 216,500 homes. 57% of these are in schemes that had not yet started. i)	The average density of new housing completions in 2012/13 was 120 dwellings per hectare (dph), and the average density of approvals was 126 dph.

3.3	 Total housing provision in the London Plan 
consists of three elements: conventional housing supply, non self-contained bedspaces, and long-term empty homes 
returning to use, often referred to as 'Vacants'. 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 shows the separate elements of 
total housing provision for the last seven years. While overall provision in 2012/13 is lower than the previous year, this is largely due to a decrease to 2,018 compared to 5,670 units returning to use in 2011/12. The number of conventional and nonconventional completions are very similar to those recorded in the year before.
3.5	 The figures for the change in long-term 
empty homes are taken from statistics published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, based on council tax returns from local authorities. This does not correspond with the reporting period of 1st April to 31st March for the LDD-sourced data, but is included as the best source of data on vacants available. The data for 2012/13 has been taken from CLG Table 615.
Source: Conventional and non-conventional supply - London Development Database Vacants - Housing Live Table 615; GOV.UK https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/livetables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants 

2004/5 2005/6 2006/7
2007/8 2008/9
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Source: Conventional and non-conventional supply - London Development Database Vacants - GOV.UK Housing Live Table 615; https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/livetables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants

## Table 3.1 Net Housing Supply In London, 2004/05 To 2012/13

Conventional
25,300 25,084
27,226 28,215 29,534 24,732 19,185
21,988 21,923
Non-
Conventional
4,164
460
3,121
2,728 3,860 3,230 3,529
2,742 2,659
Vacants back in 
use
2,519
-61
3,608
287
-398
2,223 4,882
5,670 2,018
Total
31,983 25,483
33,955 31,230 32,996 30,185 27,596
30,400 26,600

## Conventional Completions

3.6	 As can be seen from Figure 3.1 and Table 
3.1, conventional housing completions represent the bulk of total housing provision in London.
3.7	 Net conventional supply takes account of 
dwellings lost or replaced. In 2012/2013 there was a gross conventional supply of 25,334 homes, with 3,411 lost or replaced (see Table HPM2). Areas where largescale estate redevelopment is taking place can show high gross but low net supply: for example, Brent had a gross supply of 1,067 homes but 405 homes were lost or replaced, for a net supply of 662.

3.8	 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 and losses to non-C3 uses). Table HPM2 shows gross and net conventional supply by type for each borough. Across London, new build accounted for just under 87% of net conventional supply in 2012/13 (up from 81% in 2011/12), conversions 8% and changes of use 5% (down from 12% in 2011/12). The mix varied between boroughs with all completed units in the City of London coming from changes of use. Meanwhile new builds account for 99% of completions in Tower Hamlets. Conversions led to a net loss of units in four boroughs, the most significant of these is Westminster which lost 72 units. By contrast Lewisham gained 161 units through residential conversions.

3.9	 The average density of new housing 
completions in London (shown in Table HPM14 was 120 dwellings per hectare (dph) in 2012/13 (Table HPM14), an increase on the previous year's figure of 111 (revised). As would be expected the lowest densities are found in the outer London boroughs. The density of completions in Bromley was 49dph while the figure for the City of London was 313 dph. Tower Hamlets and Hackney delivered at the next highest densities, 279 and 278 dph respectively.

## Size Mix Of New Supply

3.10	Table 3.2 shows the split of total gross 
conventional completions in 2012/13 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 recorded on LDD for homes lost or replaced). One and twobed properties make up the majority of supply, accounting for 36% and 41% of the total respectively. However the profile of supply varies with tenure; 37% of social rented supply comprises homes with three or more bedrooms, compared to 9% for intermediate homes and 20% of market homes. Across all tenures 23% of new supply had three bedrooms or more.
Table HMP6 shows the gross conventional supply of affordable housing by borough and number of bedrooms. Hackney, with 232, has delivered the most affordable family housing (with 3 bedrooms or more). This represents 45% of their affordable completions. Tower Hamlets have completed 201 which is 65% of total gross affordable completions in the borough, the highest percentage for any borough besides Kensington and Chelsea where three of their four affordable completions are 3-bed flats.

## Affordable Housing Completions

3.11		
Total net affordable housing supply in 
2012/13 was 7,539, down from 8,611 2011/12. Affordable units represent 34% of all net completions during this year, this is also down on the previous year's figure of 39%. Table HPM4 shows total net conventional affordable supply by borough over the last three years, both in numeric terms and as a proportion of total supply. In the last year the highest proportion of affordable housing supply was 62% in Haringey, followed by 58% in Waltham Forest which has the highest three-year average of 63%. The lowest delivery over the last three years is in the City of London (1%) followed by Westminster who have a three year average of 16%.
3.12	Table HPM3 breaks down net conventional 
affordable supply in the last three years into social rented, intermediate and 

NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 2012/13
DWELLINGS
1 BED
2 BEDS
3 BEDS
4+ BEDS
TOTAL
Social Rented
1,306
2,004
1,563
621
5,494
Intermediate
1,246
1,361
207
56
2,870
Affordable Rent
72
70
47
15
204
Market
6,547
6,845
2,314
1,060
16,766
Grand Total
9,171
10,280
4,130
1,752
25,334
AS A % OF TOTAL
1 BED
2 BED
3 BED
4+ BED
TOTAL
Social Rented
24%
36%
28%
11%
100%
Intermediate
43%
47%
7%
2%
100%
Affordable Rent
35%
34%
23%
7%
100%
Market
39%
41%
14%
6%
100%
Total
36%
41%
16%
7%
100%

Source: London Development Database Affordable Rent. Over the three-year period net conventional affordable housing supply amounted to 23,535 homes, with social rented units accounting for just under 59% of these and intermediate products 40%. Affordable rent units are starting to appear in completions, accounting for the remaining 1%. The figures for 2012/13 are very similar with 59% being social rent, 38% intermediate and 3% Affordable Rent.

## Conventional Approvals

3.13	Annual approvals include all units in 
planning permissions that are granted during the year unless they are superseded by a revision to the scheme within the same year. Many of the permissions granted will be for renewals of existing permissions, revisions to previously approved schemes or provide details of the phasing of outline permissions. For this reason approvals cannot simply be added together to give a cumulative total, however they are comparable year on year.
3.14	Table 3.3 shows the trend in net approvals 
at London level since 2004/05, while Table HPM7 breaks down 2012/13 net approvals by tenure and Table HPM8 by type. The table shows that approvals have dropped significantly since 2011/12. Total net approvals of just 38,703 is the lowest total in recent years, but needs to be put into the context of the spike in approvals in 2011/12 prior to the introduction of London's Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the ongoing high capacity within the overall pipeline which is discussed in the following section.

3.15	In terms of tenure, 78% of these units 
are for market sale or rent, leaving 22% as affordable units, broken down as 10% intermediate, 7% Affordable Rent and 5% social rent. It should be noted that the tenure of approved units can change 

2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
54,779
52,998
57,816
80,515
47,254
45,795
57,537
84,704
38,703

Source: London Development Database before completion, for example as the result of negotiations between developers and planning authorities or by subsequent transfer of units to a housing association.

3.16	The average density of new housing 
approvals shown in Table HPM 13 was 126 dph. This is significantly lower than the figure of over 160 dph for 2011/12 and is in line with the finding of KPI 2 that there has been increased compliance with the SRQ density matrix in the last year. As ever there is wide variation between boroughs. The highest density is in the City of London (452 dph) and the lowest is Kingston upon Thames at just 32 dph. It is interesting to note that the density of approvals has been higher than the density on completions every year since 2004.

## Housing Starts

3.17	In the LDD a 'start' is the point at which 

a planning permission can no longer lapse due to the borough acknowledging a legal start on site. This can be triggered by demolition of existing buildings or preparatory digging, and does not mean the start of physical construction work on an individual building. Annual starts include all units in planning permissions that are started during the year unless they are superseded by a revision to the scheme within the same year. Many of the permissions started will be for revisions to previously approved schemes or 

provide details of the phasing of outline permissions that have been started in previous years. As with approvals, starts can't simply be added together to give a cumulative total, however they are comparable year on year.

3.18	Table HPM9 shows net conventional 
housing 'starts' by tenure. LDD records 24,716 starts, below the 28,069 recorded for 2011/12 and well below the 47,216 in 2010/11. The low level seems to contradict anecdotal evidence that the construction sector was showing signs of recovery during this period, but this may be due to the resumption of work on schemes started in previous years which would not show up in LDD starts. The healthy number of units in the pipeline discussed below shows that the lack of new starts is not necessarily a major cause for concern. In terms of tenure, 19% of net starts in 2012/13 were affordable housing, compared to 22% in 2011/12. This suggests a growth in demand for market housing which had been less desirable to build during the recession.

3.19	The majority of the units recorded as starts 
are 1 and 2 bed units, with properties of 3 bedrooms or more making up 25% of starts. This is slightly below the 27% figure for approvals.

TO 2012/13
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
108,818
124,862
142,305
173,464
173,772
173,702
177,782
211,200
216,476

Source: London Development Database

## The Pipeline Of New Homes

3.20	The 'pipeline' of housing supply comprises 
homes which have been granted planning permission but are not yet completed, and can be broken down into homes that are 'not started' and those that are 'under construction'. It is important to bear in mind the definition of a start above, the under construction pipeline shows the capacity in schemes on which some work has started but should not be used to infer that work has begun on all the dwellings in those schemes.
3.21	The annual flow of planning approvals for 
new homes adds to the pipeline, while units are removed when they are either completed, superseded by a new scheme or pass their lapse date without a start being made.
3.22	Table 3.4 below shows the net pipeline 
as at the end of each financial year (31st March) at London level since 2004/05. Despite the low level of approvals, the number of units in the pipeline continues to rise, now topping 215,000 units, meaning there is capacity within the planning system to deliver 7 years of supply at the target level in the 2011 London Plan and more than 5 years at the higher target in the Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan published for consultation in January 2014.

3.23	Table HPM11 shows the planning pipeline 
as of 31 March 2013. At the end of the year there were over 130,000 units (net) which have been granted planning permission but on which construction had not started as well as 93,000 units (net) in schemes under construction. The boroughs with the largest pipeline are mainly concentrated in the East, long viewed as the part of London with the most potential to accommodate growth. At over 23,000 units, Greenwich had the largest total net pipeline, followed by Newham and Tower Hamlets. Newham have the most units recorded as under construction, 17,500. Further West, Wandsworth has a total net pipeline of 17,000 units. At the other end of the scale, both the City of London and Richmond upon Thames had a total pipeline of under 1,000 units.
3.24	HPM 12 shows the gross conventional 
pipeline by number of bedrooms. 23% of units for which the information is available will provide 3 bedrooms or more.

## Gypsy And Traveller Sites

3.25		
Since 1st April 2009 the LDD has been 
recording the loss and gain of gypsy and traveler pitches. During 2012/13 three permissions relating to pitches for gypsies and travelers were approved. Two relate to the continued use of existing sites, one caravan pitch in Bexley and two pitches on former agricultural land in Kingston upon Thames. Bexley have also granted permission for 4 new pitches on an existing site at Willow Walk. In terms of completions, the reconfiguration of existing Swallow Park site in Kingston upon Thames to create three additional pitches is also recorded as complete in this year, as are the seven pitches approved 
during the year giving a total of 10. There are no recorded losses either approved or completed during this year. There are no permissions relating to gypsy and traveler pitches in the pipeline.

| BOROUGH NAME         | LOST   | GAINED   | NET    |
|----------------------|--------|----------|--------|
| Barking and          |        |          |        |
| Dagenham             |        |          |        |
| 6                    | 512    | 506      | 1,041  |
| Barnet               | 104    | 1,483    | 1,379  |
| Bexley               | 27     | 445      | 418    |
| Brent                | 405    | 1,067    | 662    |
| Bromley              | 67     | 765      | 698    |
| Camden               | 182    | 746      | 564    |
| City of London       | 6      | 41       | 35     |
| Croydon              | 80     | 979      | 899    |
| Ealing               | 158    | 1,148    | 990    |
| Enfield              | 36     | 586      | 550    |
| Greenwich            | 17     | 127      | 110    |
| Hackney              | 130    | 1,290    | 1,160  |
| Hammersmith and      |        |          |        |
| Fulham               |        |          |        |
| 68                   | 489    | 421      | 564    |
| Haringey             | 83     | 666      | 583    |
| Harrow               | 132    | 846      | 714    |
| Havering             | 20     | 257      | 237    |
| Hillingdon           | 48     | 1,515    | 1,467  |
| Hounslow             | 19     | 251      | 232    |
| Islington            | 343    | 1,213    | 870    |
| Kensington and       |        |          |        |
| Chelsea              |        |          |        |
| 98                   | 155    | 57       | 530    |
| Kingston upon Thames | 29     | 232      | 203    |
| Lambeth              | 174    | 801      | 627    |
| Lewisham             | 255    | 2,065    | 1,810  |
| Merton               | 26     | 503      | 477    |
| Newham               | 45     | 1,058    | 1,013  |
| Redbridge            | 36     | 300      | 264    |
| Richmond upon        |        |          |        |
| Thames               |        |          |        |
| 87                   | 572    | 485      | 210    |
| Southwark            | 143    | 1,393    | 1,250  |
| Sutton               | 35     | 262      | 227    |
| Tower Hamlets        | 51     | 1,048    | 997    |
| Waltham Forest       | 65     | 533      | 468    |
| Wandsworth           | 124    | 1,081    | 957    |
| Westminster          | 312    | 905      | 593    |
| London               | 3,411  | 25,334   | 21,923 |

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 2012/13
BOROUGH 
NAME
LOST
GAINED NET
LOST
GAINED NET
LOST
GAINED NET
LOST
GAINED NET
Barking and 
Dagenham
0
485
485
1
16 15
5
11
6 6
512 506
Barnet
45
1,307
1,262
2
32 30 57
144
87
104
1,483 1,379
Bexley
9
399
390
6
25 19 12 21
9
27
445 418
Brent
363 993
630
2
24 22 40 50 10
405
1,067
662
Bromley
42
657
615
2
44 42 23 64 41 67
765 698
Camden
87
478
391
3
158 155
92
110
18
182 746 564
City of London
0 0 0 0
39 39
6 2
-4
6
41 35
Croydon
32
762
730
2
102 100
46
115
69 80
979 899
Ealing
57
800
743
6
175 169
95
173
78
158
1,148
990
Enfield
15
521
506
3
15 12 18 50 32 36
586 550
Greenwich
2
83
81
1
21 20 14 23
9
17
127 110
Hackney
91
1,171
1,080
0
40 40 39 79 40
130
1,290 1,160
Hammersmith 
and Fulham
1
297
296
5
78 73 62
114
52 68
489 421
Haringey
13
521
508
1
34 33 69
111
42 83
666 583
Harrow
97
747
650
1
32 31 34 67 33
132 846 714
Havering
17
217
200
0
32 32
3 8 5
20
257 237
Hillingdon
29
1,454
1,425
1
21 20 18 40 22 48
1,515 1,467
Hounslow
9
232
223
1 6 5 9
13
4
19
251 232
Islington
255 942
687
2
102 100
86
169
83
343
1,213
870
Kensington and 
Chelsea
15 34
19
2
61 59 81 60
-21
98
155
57
Kingston upon 
Thames
14
180
166
0
28 28 15 24
9
29
232 203
Lambeth
84
592
508
4
48 44 86
161
75
174 801 627
Lewisham
89
1,582
1,493
7
163 156 159 320 161 255
2,065 1,810
Merton
10
468
458
0
25 25 16 10
-6
26
503 477
Newham
2
843
841
3
116 113
40 99 59 45
1,058 1,013
Redbridge
4
204
200
0
28 28 32 68 36 36
300 264
NEW BUILD
CONVERSION
CHANGE OF USE
TOTAL
Source: London Development Database
TABLE HPM 2: NET CONVENTIONAL COMPLETIONS BY DEVELOPMENT TYPE 2012/13
BOROUGH 
NAME
LOST
GAINED NET
LOST
GAINED NET
LOST
GAINED NET
LOST
GAINED NET
Richmond upon 
Thames
35
481 446
2
28 26 50 63 13 87
572 485
Southwark
101
1,260 1,159
5
50 45 37 83 46
143
1,393 1,250
Sutton
21
204 183
0
21 21 14 37 23 35
262 227
Tower Hamlets
46
1,041
995
1 2 1 4 5 1
51
1,048
997
Waltham Forest
17
369 352
0
55 55 48
109
61 65
533 468
Wandsworth
23
868 845
3
64 61 98
149
51
124
1,081
957
Westminster
60
504 444
42
263 221 210 138
-72
312 905 593
London
1,685
20,696 19,011
108
1,948 1,840 1,618 2,690 1,072 3,411
25,334 21,923
RENT
TOTAL
SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT
SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT
2010/11
2011/12 2012/13
SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
BOROUGH NAME
Barking and Dagenham
60 83
0
-14
162
0
167
76
0
534
Barnet
202
26
0
303 138
0
285 118
0
1,072
Bexley
125
29
0
126
39
0
17 12
0
348
Brent
-31
215
0
268 144
0
174
50
0
820
Bromley
201
47
0
204
10
0
129
13
0
604
Camden
110
32
0
37 25
0
194 105
0
503
City of London
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Croydon
258 138
0
308
54
0
309
92
8
1,167
Ealing
48 25
0
264
69
0
168 132
0
706
Enfield
85
135
0
55 24
0
106 137
0
542
Greenwich
432 355
0
211 159
0
42
6 0
1,205
Hackney
197 153
0
232 171
0
285 198
13
1,249
Hammersmith and Fulham
17
179
0
 
80
0 5
102
0
383
Haringey
65 24
0
73
271
0
204 160
0
797
Harrow
108
59
0
45
147
0
179
85 28
651
Havering
77 14
0
106
23
0
86 32
0
338
Hillingdon
145
30
0
253
90
0
252 129
0
899
Hounslow
63
286
0
222
97
0
28 21
0
717
Islington
-69
3 0
265 194
0
57
166
0
616
Kensington and Chelsea
49 12
0
19
0 0 0 0 4
84
Kingston upon Thames
59
6 0
56 25
0
29
9 0
184
Lambeth
423 321
0
217 131
0
174
95
0
1,361
Lewisham
239 100
0
272 197
0
257 265
70
1,400
Merton
20 28
0
31 38
0
98 98
0
313
Newham
179 257
0
261 130
16 64
160
81
1,148
Redbridge
73 38
0
20 34
0
44
8 0
217
Richmond upon Thames
37
8 0
44 35
0
118
49
0
291
Southwark
147 415
0
459 134
0
295 163
0
1,613
Sutton
148
74
0
159
76
0
70 33
0
560
RENT
TOTAL
SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT
SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT
2010/11
2011/12 2012/13
SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
Source: London Development Database
BOROUGH NAME
Tower Hamlets
191 124
0
538 167
0
160 102
0
1,282
Waltham Forest
78
170
0
299
59
0
162 108
0
876
Wandsworth
6
103
0
127 141
0
209 118
0
704
Westminster
109
43
0
31 40
0
98 28
0
349
London
3,853
3,532
0
5,491 3,104
16
4,465 2,870
204
23,535
NET CONVENTIONAL SUPPLY, 2010/11 TO 2012/13
BOROUGH
TOTAL NET CONVENTIONAL AFFORDABLE COMPLETIONS 2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Barking and Dagenham
143
148
243
42
30
48
Barnet
228
441
403
28
35
29
Bexley
154
165
29
52
55
7
Brent
184
412
224
47
74
34
Bromley
248
214
142
33
36
20
Camden
142
62
299
26
17
53
City of London
2
0
0
2
0
0
Croydon
396
362
409
35
52
45
Ealing
73
333
300
27
48
30
Enfield
220
79
243
48
26
44
Greenwich
787
370
48
69
28
44
Hackney
350
403
496
40
40
43
Hammersmith and Fulham
196
80
107
37
17
25
Haringey
89
344
364
21
46
62
Harrow
167
192
292
37
41
41
Havering
91
129
118
39
43
50
Hillingdon
175
343
381
58
34
26
Hounslow
349
319
49
52
54
21
Islington
-66
459
223
-14
37
26
Kensington and Chelsea
61
19
4
36
16
7
Kingston upon Thames
65
81
38
44
31
19
Lambeth
744
348
269
56
41
43
Lewisham
339
469
592
47
39
33
Merton
48
69
196
13
15
41
Newham
436
407
305
49
53
30
Redbridge
111
54
52
32
10
20
Richmond upon Thames
45
79
167
14
36
34
Southwark
562
593
458
40
55
37
Sutton
222
235
103
67
40
45
Tower Hamlets
315
705
262
24
63
26
Waltham Forest
248
358
270
58
72
58
Wandsworth
109
268
327
23
27
34
Westminster
152
71
126
20
8
21
London
7,385
8,611
7,539
38
39
34

Source: London Development Database

AFFORDABLE AS % OF NET CONVENTIONAL SUPPLY
BEDROOMS 2012/13
BOROUGH
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 1
2
3
4+
% 3+
Barking and Dagenham
131
155
146
80
44%
Barnet
692
473
244
74
21%
Bexley
199
195
37
14
11%
Brent
341
482
178
66
23%
Bromley
248
222
175
120
39%
Camden
289
281
128
48
24%
City of London
23
14
3
1
10%
Croydon
287
461
134
97
24%
Ealing
413
533
169
33
18%
Enfield
234
250
81
21
17%
Greenwich
73
35
18
1
15%
Hackney
444
443
271
132
31%
Hammersmith and Fulham
255
171
40
23
13%
Haringey
271
272
88
35
18%
Harrow
304
415
92
35
15%
Havering
51
77
85
44
50%
Hillingdon
574
574
224
143
24%
Hounslow
55
116
31
49
32%
Islington
411
582
160
60
18%
Kensington and Chelsea
55
38
45
17
40%
Kingston upon Thames
79
97
30
26
24%
Lambeth
290
366
100
45
18%
Lewisham
936
793
254
82
16%
Merton
87
203
119
94
42%
Newham
537
402
96
23
11%
Redbridge
108
99
78
15
31%
Richmond upon Thames
234
220
88
30
21%
Southwark
378
727
224
64
21%
Sutton
68
147
33
14
18%
Tower Hamlets
279
406
294
69
35%
Waltham Forest
219
224
67
23
17%
Wandsworth
307
519
158
97
24%
Westminster
299
288
241
77
35%
London Total
9,171
10,280
4,131
1,752
23%

Source: London Development Database

COMPLETIONS BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 2012/13
BOROUGH
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 1
2
3
4+
% 3+
Barking and Dagenham
44
69
96
34
53%
Barnet
180
125
94
4
24%
Bexley
10
14
6
0
20%
Brent
128
204
127
48
35%
Bromley
53
61
18
10
20%
Camden
165
119
71
22
25%
City of London
0
0
0
0
0%
Croydon
89
198
68
54
30%
Ealing
142
122
78
6
24%
Enfield
106
105
28
4
13%
Greenwich
15
20
13
0
27%
Hackney
138
140
132
100
45%
Hammersmith and Fulham
114
12
0
0
0%
Haringey
131
164
47
22
19%
Harrow
92
186
42
26
20%
Havering
18
36
48
16
54%
Hillingdon
102
164
82
33
30%
Hounslow
14
22
6
7
27%
Islington
105
234
93
40
28%
Kensington and Chelsea
1
0
3
0
75%
Kingston upon Thames
11
11
12
5
44%
Lambeth
103
160
71
31
28%
Lewisham
194
296
101
52
24%
Merton
44
85
37
31
35%
Newham
151
86
54
14
22%
Redbridge
21
10
21
0
40%
Richmond upon Thames
55
66
45
1
28%
Southwark
143
246
112
34
27%
Sutton
7
77
19
0
18%
Tower Hamlets
39
68
139
62
65%
Waltham Forest
77
136
46
21
24%
Wandsworth
102
142
79
5
26%
Westminster
30
57
29
10
31%
London
2,624
3,435
1,817
692
29%

Source: London Development Database

NET % 
AFFOR-
DABLE
RENT RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT
MARKET SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT
MARKET SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
EXISTING
PROPOSED
NET
TABLE HPM 7:  CONVENTIONAL APPROVALS BY TENURE FY2012/13
BOROUGH 
NAME
MARKET SOCIAL 
Barking and 
Dagenham
10
275
0 0
229 252 122
29
219
-23
122
29
37%
Barnet
160
0 0 0
897
22 18
49
737
22 18 49
11%
Bexley
67
562
0 0
812
2
108 275 745
-560
108 275
-31%
Brent
92
317
0 0
658 182
33
68
566
-135
33 68
-6%
Bromley
87
1 0 0
481
18 21
20
394
17 21 20
13%
Camden
262
109
0 0
1,326
250 123
5
1,064
141 123
5
20%
City of London
4 0 0 0
109
0 0 0
105
0 0 0
0%
Croydon
95 10
0 0
1,104
222
50
81
1,009
212
50 81
25%
Ealing
185 208
0 0
795 254
72
30
610
46 72 30
20%
Enfield
36 63
0 0
512
86 62
8
476
23 62
8
16%
Greenwich
62
2 0 0
604 176
68
3
542 174
68
3
31%
Hackney
160 359
0 0
993 415 171
15
833
56
171
15
23%
Hammersmith 
and Fulham
77
8 0 0
642
14
117
18
565
6
117
18
20%
Haringey
138
7 0 0
791
25 46
17
653
18 46 17
11%
Harrow
75 64
0 0
1,346
0
103 143
1,271
-64
103 143
13%
Havering
18
0 0 0
170
94 47
34
152
94 47 34
54%
Hillingdon
63
1 0 0
421
4
12
0
358
3
12
0
4%
Hounslow
46 64
0 0
269
58 39
80
223
-6
39 80
34%
Islington
97 38
0 0
574 124
53
0
477
86 53
0
23%
Kensington 
and Chelsea
212
2 0 0
389
54 46
0
177
52 46
0
36%
Kingston upon 
Thames
49
0 0 0
198
28
8 1
149
28
8 1
20%
Lambeth
164 124
0 0
1,067
189
72
46
903
65 72 46
17%
Lewisham
152
16
0 0
521 230
38
0
369 214
38
0
41%
Merton
63
0 0 0
209
11
2 0
146
11
2 0
8%
Newham
59
0 0 0
6,019
723
1,088
752
5,960
723 1,088
752
30%
NET % 
AFFOR-
DABLE
RENT RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT
MARKET SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT
MARKET SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
EXISTING
PROPOSED
NET
Source: London Development Database
TABLE HPM 7:  CONVENTIONAL APPROVALS BY TENURE FY2012/13
BOROUGH 
NAME
MARKET SOCIAL 
Redbridge
53
1 0 0
285
2 9 0
232
1 9 0
4%
Richmond 
upon Thames
95
0 0 0
162
2 0 0
67
2 0 0
3%
Southwark
100
146
0 0
3,111
527 441
52
3,011
381 441
52
22%
Sutton
48
308
0 0
570
72 66
102
522
-236
66
102
-15%
Tower Hamlets
70
347
0 0
2,230
681 265
225
2,160
334 265 225
28%
Waltham 
Forest
94
4 0 0
910
1
157
202
816
-3
157 202
30%
Wandsworth
280
226
0 0
4,287
269 403
384
4,007
43
403 384
17%
Westminster
366
7 2 0
1,174
60
102
0
808
53
100
0
16%
Sum:
3,539 3,269
2 0
33,865
5,047 3,962 2,639
30,326
1,778 3,960
2,639
22%

* The total for Newham includes 6,809 units in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park granted by the London Legacy Development Corporation under reference 11/90621/OUTODA. While the majority of the units will be in Newham, parts of the site also fall within Tower Hamlets and Hackney.

NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 2012/13
|                        |        |        | BOROUGH   | NUMBER OF BEDROOMS   |
|------------------------|--------|--------|-----------|----------------------|
| 1                      | 2      | 3      | 4+        | % 3+                 |
| Barking and Dagenham   | 192    | 223    | 177       | 40                   |
| Barnet                 | 307    | 424    | 151       | 104                  |
| Bexley                 | 174    | 545    | 284       | 194                  |
| Brent                  | 381    | 416    | 111       | 33                   |
| Bromley                | 142    | 247    | 65        | 86                   |
| Camden                 | 619    | 740    | 223       | 122                  |
| City of London         | 64     | 42     | 2         | 1                    |
| Croydon                | 528    | 714    | 145       | 70                   |
| Ealing                 | 383    | 540    | 157       | 71                   |
| Enfield                | 154    | 239    | 180       | 95                   |
| Greenwich              | 255    | 450    | 124       | 22                   |
| Hackney                | 508    | 611    | 336       | 139                  |
| Hammersmith and        |        |        |           |                      |
| Fulham                 |        |        |           |                      |
| 320                    | 333    | 112    | 26        | 17%                  |
| Haringey               | 319    | 371    | 129       | 60                   |
| Harrow                 | 390    | 658    | 295       | 249                  |
| Havering               | 74     | 108    | 129       | 34                   |
| Hillingdon             | 179    | 160    | 68        | 30                   |
| Hounslow               | 149    | 183    | 79        | 35                   |
| Islington              | 246    | 355    | 118       | 32                   |
| Kensington and Chelsea | 178    | 142    | 114       | 55                   |
| Kingston upon Thames   | 75     | 88     | 15        | 57                   |
| Lambeth                | 524    | 623    | 169       | 58                   |
| Lewisham               | 351    | 280    | 116       | 42                   |
| Merton                 | 94     | 63     | 14        | 51                   |
| Newham                 | 722    | 467    | 508       | 76                   |
| Redbridge              | 131    | 99     | 25        | 41                   |
| Richmond upon Thames   | 54     | 50     | 22        | 38                   |
| Southwark              | 1054   | 1614   | 1115      | 348                  |
| Sutton                 | 205    | 336    | 180       | 89                   |
| Tower Hamlets          | 921    | 1575   | 678       | 227                  |
| Waltham Forest         | 343    | 597    | 236       | 94                   |
| Wandsworth             | 1342   | 2706   | 966       | 329                  |
| Westminster            | 392    | 471    | 339       | 134                  |
| London                 | 11,771 | 16,472 | 7,385     | 3,082                |

Source: London Development Database *This table excludes 6,809 units approved in the outline permission for the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park for which the number of bedrooms is not defined

RENT RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT
MARKET SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT
MARKET SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
EXISTING
PROPOSED
NET
Greenwich
32
0 0 0
828 223 116
12
796 223 116
12
31%
Ealing
114
83
20
0
473
73 33
0
359
-10
13
0
1%
Enfield
30
0 0 0
201
8 6 0
171
8 6 0
8%
Croydon
70
0 0 0
505
99 34 59
435
99 34 59
31%
Camden
82 24
0 0
497
65 22
0
415
41 22
0
13%
City of 
London
9 0 0 0
370
2 0 0
361
2 0 0
1%
Brent
99 94
0 0
762 310
98
0
663 216
98
0
32%
Bromley
62
1 0 0
362
7 5 0
300
6 5 0
4%
Bexley
21
0 0 0
223
8
36
0
202
8
36
0
18%
% AFF
BOROUGH 
NAME
MARKET SOCIAL 
Barking and 
Dagenham
6
314
0 0
140 276
0 0
134
-38
0 0
-40%
Barnet
124
150
0 0
1,118
204
65
8
994
54 65
8
11%
Merton
30
0 0 0
83
0 0 0
53
0 0 0
0%
Lambeth
153 655
0 0
1,111
707 167
12
958
52
167
12
19%
Lewisham
161
15
0 0
819 121
50 97
658 106
50 97
28%
Kingston 
upon Thames
33
0 0 0
268
18 11
2
235
18 11
2
12%
Islington
91
0 0 0
598
74 15
0
507
74 15
0
15%
Kensington 
and Chelsea
236
1 0 0
525
97 62
4
289
96 62
4
36%
Hillingdon
56
1 0 0
1,402
126 112
0
1,346
125 112
0
15%
Hounslow
21 42
0 0
271
39 39 36
250
-3
39 36
22%
Havering
12
0 0 0
406
91 30 11
394
91 30 11
25%
Haringey
52
0 0 0
180
31 29
0
128
31 29
0
32%
Harrow
60
0 0 0
232
9
12
0
172
9
12
0
11%
Hammersmith 
and Fulham
42
20
0 0
1,075
23
257
0
1,033
3
257
0
20%
Hackney
52 27
0 0
622 146
79
0
570 119
79
0
26%
RENT RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT
MARKET SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT
MARKET SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
EXISTING
PROPOSED
NET
Year Total:
2,823
2,313
26
0
22,857
3,961 2,387
673
20,034
1,648 2,361
673
19%
Wandsworth
242 226
0 0
2,741
251 297 173
2,499
25
297 173
17%
Westminster
535
5 2 0
2,781
172 166
0
2,246
167 164
0
13%
Sutton
28
357
0 0
494 103
90 79
466
-254
90 79
-22%
Tower 
Hamlets
106
79
0 0
510 210
51
2
404 131
51
2
31%
Waltham 
Forest
48
144
0 0
197
47 91 12
149
-97
91 12
4%
Southwark
38 64
4 0
1,467
342 171
0
1,429
278 167
0
24%
% AFF
BOROUGH 
NAME
MARKET SOCIAL 
Newham
59 11
0 0
1,085
77
243 166
1,026
66
243 166
32%
Redbridge
31
0 0 0
344
0 0 0
313
0 0 0
0%
Richmond 
upon Thames
88
0 0 0
167
2 0 0
79
2 0 0
2%
Source: London Development Database
BEDROOMS 2012/13
BOROUGH
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
1
2
3
4+
% 3+
Barking and Dagenham
143
87
139
47
45%
Barnet
402
731
201
61
19%
Bexley
87
102
60
18
29%
Brent
369
531
188
82
23%
Bromley
106
132
67
69
36%
Camden
207
215
99
63
28%
City of London
195
149
20
8
8%
Croydon
245
341
64
47
16%
Ealing
186
272
90
31
21%
Enfield
65
71
61
18
37%
Greenwich
645
361
156
17
15%
Hackney
281
348
161
57
26%
Hammersmith and Fulham
685
325
225
120
25%
Haringey
113
80
30
17
20%
Harrow
115
101
11
26
15%
Havering
45
184
208
101
57%
Hillingdon
362
646
341
291
39%
Hounslow
124
197
53
11
17%
Islington
302
274
86
25
16%
Kensington and Chelsea
189
200
185
114
43%
Kingston upon Thames
110
124
49
16
22%
Lambeth
743
805
360
89
22%
Lewisham
497
417
132
41
16%
Merton
33
15
7
28
42%
Newham
524
712
328
7
21%
Redbridge
142
123
40
39
23%
Richmond upon Thames
61
44
26
38
38%
Southwark
719
854
335
72
21%
Sutton
263
303
127
73
26%
Tower Hamlets
271
310
153
39
25%
Waltham Forest
145
152
27
23
14%
Wandsworth
897
1982
464
119
17%
Westminster
873
1170
919
157
34%
London
10,144
12,358
5,412
1,964
25%

Source: London Development Database

NOT STARTED
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL PIPELINE
Greenwich
115
9,365 9,250 1,991
16,198 14,207
2,106
25,563 23,457
Hackney
969
4,290 3,321 2,249 6,102 3,853 3,218
10,392
7,174
Hammersmith and 
Fulham
160
4,060 3,900
51
2,266 2,215
211
6,326 6,115
Croydon
232
4,164 3,932
75
2,236 2,161
307
6,400 6,093
Ealing
365
4,882 4,517 1,114 2,342 1,228 1,479 7,224 5,745
Enfield
123
957 834 195 797 602 318
1,754 1,436
City of London
6
222 216
17
729 712
23
951 928

## Table Hpm 11: Conventional Pipeline As At 31/03/2013

BOROUGH NAME
EXISTING GROSS
NET
EXISTING GROSS
NET
EXISTING GROSS
NET
Barking and Dagenham
293
2,499 2,206
318
11,545 11,227
611
14,044 13,433
Barnet
668
11,437
10,769
2,940 7,390 4,450 3,608
18,827 15,219
Bexley
627
1,340
713
31
1,177 1,146
658
2,517 1,859
Brent
491
7,116 6,625
125
1,809 1,684
616
8,925 8,309
Bromley
260
1,573 1,313
334
1,195
861 594
2,768 2,174
Camden
615
2,425 1,810
403
2,594 2,191 1,018 5,019 4,001
Richmond upon Thames
107 549 442 103 635 532 210
1,184
974
Southwark
649
6,288 5,639
297
3,757 3,460
946
10,045
9,099
Redbridge
84
1,125 1,041
31
447 416 115
1,572 1,457
Lewisham
919
7,656 6,737
86
1,891 1,805 1,005 9,547 8,542
Merton
168 788 620 160 770 610 328
1,558 1,230
Newham
111
17,656
17,545
276
5,315 5,039
387
22,971 22,584
Havering
107
2,421 2,314
299
1,774 1,475
406
4,195 3,789
Hillingdon
118 909 791
89
3,051 2,962
207
3,960 3,753
Hounslow
152
1,922 1,770
195
1,636 1,441
347
3,558 3,211
Islington
136
2,186 2,050
409
2,945 2,536
545
5,131 4,586
Kensington and Chelsea
224
1,020
796 879
2,956 2,077 1,103 3,976 2,873
Kingston upon Thames
109 464 355
31
717 686 140
1,181 1,041
Lambeth
364
2,386 2,022 1,893 5,453 3,560 2,257 7,839 5,582
Harrow
209
2,823 2,614
329 758 429 538
3,581 3,043
Haringey
182
2,857 2,675
59
737 678 241
3,594 3,353
NOT STARTED
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL PIPELINE
Source: London Development Database
Westminster
390
2,495 2,105
506
3,263 2,757
896
5,758 4,862
London
9,967
132,909 122,942
18,203
111,737
93,534 28,170
244,646 216,476
BOROUGH NAME
EXISTING GROSS
NET
EXISTING GROSS
NET
EXISTING GROSS
NET
Sutton
114
1,381 1,267
650 741
91
764
2,122 1,358
Tower Hamlets
647
10,319
9,672 1,234
11,616 10,382
1,881
21,935 20,054
Waltham Forest
95
1,748 1,653
308 809 501 403
2,557 2,154
Wandsworth
158
11,586
11,428
526
6,086 5,560
684
17,672 16,988
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
BOROUGH
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
1
2
3
4+
% 3+
Barking and Dagenham
2,314
6,296
3,974
1,460
39%
Barnet
5,393
8,023
2,516
1,092
21%
Bexley
593
1,261
401
262
26%
Brent
3,053
4,030
1,562
280
21%
Bromley
574
1,307
491
396
32%
Camden
1,806
2,002
804
407
24%
City of London
527
332
60
32
10%
Croydon
2,644
3,089
493
174
10%
Ealing
1,956
3,319
1,408
541
27%
Enfield
465
732
376
181
32%
Greenwich
9,420
10,265
4,583
525
21%
Hackney
3,573
3,765
2,275
779
29%
Hammersmith and Fulham
2,427
2,699
941
259
19%
Haringey
2,185
927
324
158
13%
Harrow
1,058
1,581
532
410
26%
Havering
1,184
1,808
883
320
29%
Hillingdon
987
1,645
744
584
34%
Hounslow
1,143
1,469
783
163
27%
Islington
2,239
2,198
518
176
14%
Kensington and Chelsea
1,226
1,499
924
327
31%
Kingston upon Thames
424
481
157
119
23%
Lambeth
2,674
3,573
1,298
294
20%
Lewisham
3,322
4,751
1,144
330
15%
Merton
625
584
152
195
22%
Newham
5,351
7,049
3,058
704
23%
Redbridge
591
730
145
106
16%
Richmond upon Thames
447
497
121
119
20%
Southwark
3,247
4,139
2,113
546
26%
Sutton
616
831
481
194
32%
Tower Hamlets
9,318
8,051
3,585
976
21%
Waltham Forest
777
1,208
399
173
22%
Wandsworth
5,142
8,948
2,691
891
20%
Westminster
1,629
2,014
1,672
443
37%
London
78,930
101,103
41,608
13,616
23%

Source: London Development Database Note: The table excludes 8,620 units for which the number of bedrooms is not known. The majority of these are in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in Newham (6,809) and the West Hendon Estate in Barnet (1,803). The remaining 8 units are in minor schemes granted prior to 1st April 2004.

TABLE HPM 13: DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL APPROVALS BY BOROUGH (DPH)
BOROUGH
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Barking and Dagenham
146
80
130
273
130
67
Barnet
83
112
100
99
69
61
Bexley
52
110
83
81
101
63
Brent
149
133
182
185
146
134
Bromley
49
36
49
57
35
40
Camden
113
136
140
140
182
170
City of London
1263
329
235
457
462
452
Croydon
106
131
97
141
169
103
Ealing
115
162
153
144
110
103
Enfield
82
65
71
61
61
91
Greenwich
248
211
143
337
240
233
Hackney
238
200
245
206
226
186
224
187
301
180
243
220
Hammersmith and Fulham Haringey
173
96
107
118
214
134
Harrow
90
62
83
62
84
91
Havering
41
55
99
121
52
45
Hillingdon
68
91
39
57
69
58
Hounslow
95
159
61
75
128
67
Islington
252
243
271
310
287
194
Kensington and Chelsea
163
132
193
228
191
153
Kingston upon Thames
61
75
64
64
49
32
Lambeth
214
130
190
183
167
228
Lewisham
172
166
229
133
230
128
Merton
95
80
69
65
75
33
Newham
347
368
266
398
466
127
Redbridge
116
87
373
158
108
70
Richmond upon Thames
60
58
46
106
71
52
Southwark
277
334
230
224
208
361
Sutton
117
101
58
57
106
56
Tower Hamlets
447
310
373
318
487
239
Waltham Forest
128
132
121
111
147
128
Wandsworth
151
168
142
206
290
193
Westminster
256
156
199
207
217
198
London
151
138
152
137
165
126

Source: London Development Database DPH = dwellings per hectare

BOROUGH
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Barking and Dagenham
123
139
238
111
50
166
Barnet
63
98
64
78
81
100
Bexley
51
76
81
65
70
102
Brent
106
144
150
156
141
134
Bromley
55
35
30
54
47
49
Camden
140
229
187
195
122
205
City of London
535
505
500
319
857
313
Croydon
72
98
121
101
76
81
Ealing
136
159
110
112
104
103
Enfield
92
68
61
86
59
73
Greenwich
138
122
112
239
194
119
Hackney
182
223
245
200
224
278
Hammersmith and Fulham
143
207
208
232
289
165
Haringey
138
159
108
112
120
108
Harrow
79
71
116
79
60
93
Havering
63
71
71
53
61
50
Hillingdon
54
60
94
44
25
107
Hounslow
102
120
184
94
78
50
Islington
236
285
199
187
297
201
Kensington and Chelsea
167
173
126
194
153
157
Kingston upon Thames
112
49
45
52
89
68
Lambeth
163
172
155
290
167
158
Lewisham
124
136
188
164
160
140
Merton
96
47
67
101
79
134
Newham
292
267
240
216
166
171
Redbridge
122
110
100
217
173
84
Richmond upon Thames
58
82
71
53
59
89
Southwark
254
220
227
373
213
167
Sutton
53
88
66
66
79
97
Tower Hamlets
298
313
356
365
286
279
Waltham Forest
125
131
118
169
125
132
Wandsworth
135
172
165
104
125
133
Westminster
205
269
258
142
194
206
London
117
128
136
133
111
120

Source: London Development Database DPH = dwellings per hectare sea r eco rded less than zero net housing delivery whilst Southwark delivered over 2,000 units.

n a nd C
hel
2.7. 
Two bor oughs  Hounslow and Kensingto n also be seen in table 

## Benchmarks

se figures can  be vie wed  in tab ing monitoring benchmarks. The ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT 10Map HPM 3 displays net affordable housing delivery by borough as a percentage of net conventional delivery in 2012/13. The data behind this map can be found in table 2.8.

91Map HPM 4 displays the net conventional housing pipeline as at 31/03/2013. The data behind this map can be found in table HPM 11.

## Affordable Housing Delivery Monitor

DCLG no longer publish regional statistics but have provided the GLA with updated figures at London level.

3.26	The measure of affordable housing 
3.28	These statistics are compiled from a range 
of sources. The vast majority of delivery in London in recent years has been funded by the Homes and Communities Agency and the Greater London Authority, but the statistics also include units provided without any public funding and a number of assisted purchases. 
3.29	Table AHM1 below shows affordable 
delivery used in the Mayor's London Housing Strategy is very different from the measure of housing provision used in the London Plan. Affordable housing delivery is measured in gross terms and includes acquisitions of existing private sector homes for use as affordable housing. Therefore it is typically higher in any given year than the net provision of affordable housing in planning terms reported in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report and the Housing Provision Monitor.

3.27	The data source for monitoring affordable 
housing delivery in London by type in the four years 2009/10 to 2012/13. Over this period a total of 53,493 affordable homes were delivered, of which 32,385 were social housing, 20,699 intermediate housing and 409 were Affordable Rent. 

housing delivery targets is the set of statistics on affordable housing supply published by the Department for Communities and Local Government . 

3.30	Figure 3.2 shows the trend in total 
91/92 and 2012/13.

affordable housing delivery in London since 1991/92. Delivery peaked at 17,148 in 1995/96, fell to 8,273 in 2000/01 and rose again to a new peak of 17,217 in 2011/12 before falling again to 8,701 in 2012/13. The drop in 2012/13 was due to the transition from the 2008-11 National Affordable Housing Programme to the 2011-15 Affordable Homes Programme.

## Immediate Housing

3.31	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 figure has been up-dated from the London Plan (2011) figure of £61,400 on the basis of the latest data (as of quarter 4, 2013) on lower quartile house prices in London. This figure has been rounded, as it was in AMR 9,  which has resulted in no increase in this figure. 

3.32	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 £66,000 and rounding 
for a figure of £80,000. Intermediate housing can include shared ownership, sub-market rent provision (including the new affordable rent product) and market provision, including key worker provision, where this affordability criterion is met and where provision is appropriate to meeting identified requirements.  

3.33	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 £231,000), 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.  
3.34	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. The average incomes of those entering intermediate housing will be in future be monitored annually, against the benchmarks of £43,550 pa (i.e. the midpoint of the range between £21,100 - updated from AMR9 in line with RPI - and £66,000) and £50,550 pa (i.e. the midpoint of the range between £21,100 and £80,000 . On this basis, average housing costs, including service charges, would be about £1,020 a month or £235 a week for smaller homes (housing costs at 40% of net income, net income being assumed to be 70% of gross income) and £1,180 a month and £270 a week for larger homes of 3 or more bedrooms.

3.35	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 funded intermediate housing products. 

## Local Affordable Housing Policies

3.36	The National Planning Policy Framework 
(March 2012) in paragraph 50 requires boroughs, which have identified a need for affordable housing, to set out policies for meeting this need. London Plan Policy 3.11 states that targets should be consistent with the overall strategic target of at least 13,200 (17,000 in FALP) affordable homes in London p.a. Boroughs are free to set targets in absolute or percentage terms, the London Plan sets out a range of issues boroughs should consider (capacity, viability, balanced communities etc). Table 3.10 shows adopted borough affordable housing policies.

| BOROUGH              | BOROUGH POLICY    |
|----------------------|-------------------|
| TARGET IN 2010       |                   |
| BOROUGH              |                   |
| POLICY               |                   |
| TARGET               |                   |
| % (OR                |                   |
| PRACTICE)            |                   |
| AS AT 2002           |                   |
| Barking &            |                   |
| Dagenham             |                   |
| 25                   | 50% (August 2010) |
| Barnet               | 30                |
| Bexley               | 25                |
| Brent                | 30-50             |
| Bromley              | 20                |
| Plan currently       |                   |
| 50% for >50          |                   |
| dwellings            |                   |
| Camden               |                   |
| 50                   |                   |
| Proposed             | 10-50% for <50    |
| dwellings            |                   |
| City of              |                   |
| London               |                   |
| None                 | 50%               |
| Croydon              | 40                |
| Ealing               | 50                |
| Enfield              | 25                |
| Greenwich            | 35                |
| Hackney              | 25                |
| Hammersmith          |                   |
| & Fulham             |                   |
| 65                   | 50%               |
| Haringey             | 30                |
| Harrow               | 30                |
| Havering             | None              |
| Hillingdon           | 25                |
| Hounslow             | 50                |
| Islington            | 25                |
| Min of 200 units per |                   |
| an from 2011/12      |                   |
| with site specific   | Kensington &      |
| Chelsea              |                   |
| 33                   |                   |
| policy of 50%        |                   |
| affordable by floor  |                   |
| area                 |                   |
ADOPTED BOROUGH POLICY TARGET AS AT DECEMBER 2013 (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE)
EMERGING BOROUGH POLICY TARGET
50% and a minimum of 35% 
of units to be affordable 
n/a
housing (Feb 2012)
being reviewed
50% for >50 dwellings, 10-
50% for <50 Dwellings (Nov 
n/a
2010)
Plan currently 
being reviewed 
(30% on site 
and 60% off 
site)
Plan currently 
being reviewed 
(35%)
50% Affordable
Housing on site (March 
n/a
2013)
50% (Dec 2010)
n/a
| BOROUGH                     | BOROUGH POLICY      |
|-----------------------------|---------------------|
| TARGET IN 2010              |                     |
| BOROUGH                     |                     |
| POLICY                      |                     |
| TARGET                      |                     |
| % (OR                       |                     |
| PRACTICE)                   |                     |
| AS AT 2002                  |                     |
| Kingston                    |                     |
| upon Thames                 |                     |
| 50                          | 35%                 |
| Lambeth                     | 35-50               |
| 40% (50% with               |                     |
| grant)                      |                     |
| Lewisham                    | 30                  |
| 35% (June 2011)             | Currently being     |
| -                           | -                   |
| -                           | Emerging local      |
| London                      |                     |
| Legacy                      |                     |
| Development                 |                     |
| Corporation                 |                     |
| Merton                      | 30                  |
| Newham                      | 25                  |
| Redbridge                   | 25                  |
| Richmond                    |                     |
| upon Thames                 |                     |
| 40                          | 50%                 |
| 50% overall (40%            |                     |
| Southwark                   | 25                  |
| and suburban zones)         |                     |
| Sutton                      | 25                  |
| Tower                       |                     |
| Hamlets                     |                     |
| 25-33                       | 50% overall, 35-50% |
| on individual sites         |                     |
| 50% overall (2010)          |                     |
| Waltham                     |                     |
| Forest                      |                     |
| 40                          | 50%                 |
| Min 373 units per an        |                     |
| Wandsworth                  | None                |
| adoption of the LP)         |                     |
| Westminster                 | -                   |
| ADOPTED BOROUGH             |                     |
| POLICY TARGET               |                     |
| AS AT DECEMBER              |                     |
| 2013 (NUMERICAL /           |                     |
| PERCENTAGE)                 |                     |
| EMERGING                    |                     |
| BOROUGH                     |                     |
| POLICY                      |                     |
| TARGET                      |                     |
| 50% when                    |                     |
| 40% (50% with grant) (Jan   |                     |
| public subsidy,             |                     |
| 2011)                       |                     |
| 40% without                 |                     |
| reviewed 50%                |                     |
| plan                        |                     |
| Maximum                     |                     |
| reasonable                  |                     |
| amount                      |                     |
| 8,558 (equates to 35%       |                     |
| Currently been              |                     |
| borough-wide but varies     |                     |
| reviewed                    |                     |
| locally) (April 2011)       |                     |
| To provide at least 50%     |                     |
| (5,700 homes) of homes      |                     |
| as affordable over the plan |                     |
| period.                     |                     |
| 60/40 split. (March 2012)   |                     |
| Currently being             |                     |
| On individual sites a       | reviewed (on        |
| proportion of at least      | individual sites    |
| 33% of homes should be      | at least 33%,       |
| affordable (Oct 2010)       | in Nine Elms at     |
| least 15%)                  |                     |
| 2009/10                                                                | 2010/11   | 2011/12   | 2012/13   | TOTAL   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|---------|
| TABLE AHM 2: AFFORDABLE HOUSING DELIVERY IN LONDON BY TYPE, 2009/10 TO |           |           |           |         |
| 2012/13                                                                |           |           |           |         |
| AFFORDABLE HOUSING DELIVERY                                            |           |           |           |         |
| TYPE                                                                   |           |           |           |         |
| Social Rent, of which:                                                 | 7,055     | 8,892     | 11,374    | 5,064   |
| Homes and Communities Agency (new                                      |           |           |           |         |
| build)                                                                 |           |           |           |         |
| 5,300                                                                  | 5,807     | 9,066     | 4,474     | 24,647  |
| Homes and Communities Agency                                           |           |           |           |         |
| (acquisitions)                                                         |           |           |           |         |
| 1,399                                                                  | 2,080     | 795       | 161       | 4,435   |
| Other Homes and Communities Agency                                     |           |           |           |         |
| Schemes                                                                |           |           |           |         |
| 55                                                                     | 233       | 420       | 1         | 709     |
| Local authorities                                                      | 4         | 508       | 611       | 118     |
| of which HCA grant funded (new                                         |           |           |           |         |
| build)                                                                 |           |           |           |         |
| 258                                                                    | 501       | 99        | 858       |         |
| Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total                               | 297       | 145       | 215       | 103     |
| of which, reported on IMS                                              | 238       | 91        | 83        | 50      |
| Private Finance Initiative                                             | 0         | 119       | 162       | 88      |
| Other                                                                  | 0         | 20        | 0         | 20      |
| Affordable Rent, of which:                                             | 131       | 278       | 409       |         |
| Homes and Communities Agency (new                                      |           |           |           |         |
| build)                                                                 |           |           |           |         |
| 85                                                                     | 197       | 282       |           |         |
| Homes and Communities Agency                                           |           |           |           |         |
| (acquisitions)                                                         |           |           |           |         |
| 46                                                                     | 80        | 126       |           |         |
| Section 106 (new build) - total                                        | 0         | 0         | 0         |         |
| of which, reported on IMS                                              | 0         | 0         | 0         |         |
| Local authorities                                                      | 1         | 1         |           |         |
| Intermediate Affordable Housing                                        | 6,507     | 5,121     | 5,712     | 3,359   |
| Intermediate Rent, of which:                                           | 809       | 1,353     | 937       | 402     |
| Homes and Communities Agency (new                                      |           |           |           |         |
| build)                                                                 |           |           |           |         |
| 743                                                                    | 1,211     | 757       | 330       | 3,041   |
| Homes and Communities Agency                                           |           |           |           |         |
| (acquisitions)                                                         |           |           |           |         |
| 66                                                                     | 142       | 73        | 36        | 317     |
| Other                                                                  | 107       | 36        | 143       |         |
| Low Cost Home Ownership, of                                            |           |           |           |         |
| which:                                                                 |           |           |           |         |
| 5,698                                                                  | 3,768     | 4,775     | 2,957     | 17,198  |
| Homes and Communities Agency (new                                      |           |           |           |         |
| build)                                                                 |           |           |           |         |
| 3,237                                                                  | 2,786     | 4,189     | 2,583     | 12,795  |
| of which, FirstBuy                                                     | 286       | 596       | 882       |         |
| Homes and Communities Agency                                           |           |           |           |         |
| (acquisitions)                                                         |           |           |           |         |
| 1,464                                                                  | 77        | 52        | 2         | 1,595   |
| Other Homes and Communities Agency                                     |           |           |           |         |
| Schemes                                                                |           |           |           |         |
| 0                                                                      | 0         | 16        | 0         | 16      |
| Local authorities                                                      | 11        | 8         | 19        |         |
| Section 106 (new build) - total                                        | 467       | 295       | 208       | 247     |
| of which, reported on IMS                                              | 317       | 263       | 101       | 118     |
| Assisted Purchase Schemes                                              | 530       | 610       | 283       | 114     |
| Other                                                                  | 16        | 3         | 19        |         |
| All affordable                                                         | 13,562    | 14,013    | 17,217    | 8,701   |

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

BOROUGH
SOCIAL RENT
AFFORDABLE RENT
Barking and Dagenham
52
0
42
94
Barnet
225
10
120
355
Bexley
11
1
157
169
Brent
392
12
125
529
Bromley
157
64
130
351
Camden
368
0
105
473
City of London
6
0
0
6
Croydon
149
10
111
270
Ealing
128
0
65
193
Enfield
60
3
81
144
Greenwich
162
6
106
274
Hackney
463
5
122
590
Hammersmith and Fulham
9
0
94
103
Haringey
188
0
192
380
Harrow
128
28
141
297
Havering
354
31
68
453
Hillingdon
61
8
128
197
Hounslow
44
4
29
77
Islington
254
0
139
393
Kensington and Chelsea
138
0
3
141
Kingston upon Thames
5
0
10
15
Lambeth
175
7
131
313
Lewisham
348
1
322
671
Merton
61
8
125
194
Newham
145
6
125
276
Redbridge
53
15
67
135
Richmond upon Thames
14
14
0
28
Southwark
337
9
124
470
Sutton
72
0
52
124
Tower Hamlets
238
31
173
442
Waltham Forest
145
5
169
319
Wandsworth
56
0
87
143
Westminster
66
0
16
82
London
5,064
278
3,359
8,701

*Includes Affordable Rent. Source: DCLG

INTERMEDIATE
TOTAL

## Achieving An Inclusive Environment

3.37	The LDD has been collected data on 
Lifetime and Wheelchair Accessible Homes on all approvals since 2008. More details of the standard can be found at http:// www.lifetimehomes.org.uk/index.php. The standards for Wheelchair Housing are contained in the Accessible London SPG which can be found at http:// www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ archives/spg_accessible_london.pdf. The figures in the table are 'gross' approvals and calculated at scheme level. so units may be counted twice where a scheme is revised and approved within the same year. Percentages are shown rather than absolute numbers to avoid confusion as total units will be higher than total approvals in the Housing Monitor.

3.38	Although developers should seek 100% 
compliance with Lifetime Homes standards for all development types, there are often practical difficulties that can arise when seeking to modify existing buildings through conversion or change of use. Separate totals are therefore shown for all schemes and for new build schemes.
3.39	The data in Table 3.5 shows that 
compliance with Lifetime Homes standards is now the norm for unit approvals in London. Nearly 85% of all units are now designed to meet Lifetime Homes standards and the total rises to 95% for new builds. 8.4% of homes are designed to be fully Wheelchair Homes standard compliant while 9.5 of new builds are designed to this high standard of accessibility. The London Plan targets of 100% Lifetime Homes and 10% Wheelchair Homes remains elusive though, even 
on new builds. Several boroughs only require compliance on schemes above a certain size, often ten units or more. With 2012/13 seeing a relatively low level of approvals, small schemes in these boroughs make a bigger impact on the London total than they would in busier years.

ACCESSIBLE HOMES STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS APPROVED DURING FY2012/13
BOROUGH NAME
% LIFETIME HOMES, ALL UNITS
% WHEEL- CHAIR HOMES, ALL UNITS
Barking and Dagenham
98.4
15.8
100.0
16.2
Barnet
54.7
2.6
76.2
3.4
Bexley
79.8
6.3
84.0
6.5
Brent
85.8
12.2
95.7
13.7
Bromley
48.1
2.4
70.9
3.9
Camden
77.9
8.6
98.2
11.1
City of London
17.4
1.8
0.0
0.0
Croydon
63.0
11.5
80.8
15.5
Ealing
83.7
7.8
98.0
9.2
Enfield
89.7
10.9
90.6
14.6
Greenwich
90.4
9.9
99.5
11.3
Hackney
86.8
10.7
93.7
14.7
Hammersmith and Fulham
74.8
7.6
92.1
10.3
Haringey
87.8
6.1
93.6
7.7
Harrow
91.7
4.5
98.9
4.2
Havering
82.0
6.4
85.0
6.6
Hillingdon
87.4
7.1
98.4
8.5
Hounslow
52.9
4.0
67.7
4.9
Islington
56.2
3.9
93.6
6.6
Kensington and Chelsea
43.6
3.7
70.7
6.3
Kingston upon Thames
51.5
1.7
84.4
3.0
Lambeth
65.7
6.0
89.6
8.6
Lewisham
73.7
7.5
93.8
9.3
Merton
71.8
4.8
86.8
7.4
Newham
98.2
9.7
99.8
9.9
Redbridge
98.6
3.4
100.0
6.8
Richmond upon Thames
22.0
1.2
35.6
2.7
Southwark
92.3
8.6
97.1
9.1
Sutton
92.2
11.6
97.7
11.1
Tower Hamlets
93.4
10.3
96.9
10.7
Waltham Forest
84.4
7.6
97.9
9.1
Wandsworth
93.1
8.9
97.9
9.2
Westminster
46.7
5.0
77.4
8.7
Total:
84.5
8.4
95.1
9.5

	
	Source: London Development Database

% LIFETIME HOMES, NEW BUILD
% WHEEL- CHAIR HOMES, NEW BUILD

## Environment And Transport Ptal Map

3.40	In several important areas of planning 
policy (dealing, for example, with housing density and parking provision), the London Plan uses public transport accessibility levels (PTALs). The 2012 PTAL map (figure 3.3) is the current version for the time covered by this monitoring report and is the one used to calculate compliance with the density matrix. Extracts are available from TfL.

## Crossrail Funding

3.41	For London to continue to make progress 
in reducing its reliance on the private car, considerable investment in public transport is required. Crossrail is a £15bn investment travelling east-west through the heart of London, serving substantial suburban locations. Under the funding agreement with the Government the Mayor is required to raise £300m from S106 contributions and £300m from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CiL). In April 2012 the Mayor's CiL, to raise funds to contribute to the construction of Crossrail, came into effect. In April 2013 the Mayor published the "Use of Planning Obligations in the funding of Crossrail, and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy" SPG
3.42	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 (as amended) 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.

CROSSRAIL (£M)
S106
YEAR
CIL
0.24
2010/11
1.43
2011/12
17.20
2012/13
6.09
7.62
2013/14*
26.68
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20
26.46
Total
32.77
300
Agreed Total
300
| CATEGORY                |   £ |
|-------------------------|-----|
| Total CiL Expenditure   |     |
| 32,768,803              |     |
| #                       |     |
| Amount used to repay    |     |
| borrowing               |     |
| 0                       |     |
| Amount spent on         |     |
| administration          |     |
| 341,873.00              |     |
| #                       |     |
| Amount of CiL 'in-hand' |   0 |

* figures for 2013/14 only include to the end of December 2013. # figures correct to the end of December 2013 Source: Transport for London

## Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations

3.43		
The Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) 
was published in October 2009 and contains 19 recommendations progress against which is being monitored via the AMR. Table 3.7 provides an overview of progress at January 2014. The RFRA is currently being reviewed and a new draft was published for consultation alongside the FALP in January 2014. The review suggests some changes to the recommendations. Next year's AMR will monitor progress against the revised set of recommendations of the final version of the new RFRA.

## Table 3.7 Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations

| NO.                                          | RECOMMENDATION                       |
|----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| 1                                            | All Thames-side planning authorities |
| should consider in their Strategic Flood     |                                      |
| Risk Assessments (SFRAs) and put             |                                      |
| in place DPD policies to promote the         |                                      |
| setting back of development from the         |                                      |
| edge of the Thames and tidal tributaries     |                                      |
| to enable sustainable and cost effective     |                                      |
| upgrade of river walls/embankments,          |                                      |
| in line with Policy 5.12, Catchment          |                                      |
| Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) and           |                                      |
| Thames Estuary 2100                          |                                      |
| 2                                            | The London boroughs of Richmond,     |
| Kingston-upon-Thames, Hounslow               |                                      |
| and Wandsworth should put in place           |                                      |
| policies to avoid development that           |                                      |
| would prejudice the implementation           |                                      |
| of increased channel capacity between        |                                      |
| Teddington Lock and Hammersmith              |                                      |
| Bridge in line with TE2100 findings          |                                      |
| Most boroughs are now making reasonable      |                                      |
| progress in recognising this in either their |                                      |
| SFRAs or DPDs.                               |                                      |
| Relevant flood risk management measures are  |                                      |
| broadly reflected in draft planning policies |                                      |
| in Kingston, Hounslow, Richmond and          |                                      |
| Wandsworth,                                  |                                      |

## Table 3.7 Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations

| RECOMMENDATION                           | PROGRESS AT JAN 2014            |
|------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
| NO.                                      |                                 |
| 3                                        | The London boroughs of Havering |
| and Bexley should put in place           |                                 |
| policies to prevent development that     |                                 |
| would prejudice the use of Rainham/      |                                 |
| Wennington Marshes, Erith Marshes        |                                 |
| and Dartford/Crayford Marshes for        |                                 |
| emergency flood storage in line with     |                                 |
| TE2100 findings. Although outside        |                                 |
| London, Thurrock and Dartford should     |                                 |
| also consider this aspect of flood risk  |                                 |
| management                               |                                 |
| Boroughs at confluences of tributary     |                                 |
| rivers with the River Thames should pay  |                                 |
| particular attention to the interaction  |                                 |
| of fluvial and tidal flood risks. These  |                                 |
| are Havering, Barking & Dagenham,        |                                 |
| Newham, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich,        |                                 |
| Lewisham, Wandsworth, Hounslow,          |                                 |
| Richmond and Kingston                    |                                 |
| 4                                        |                                 |
| Boroughs at confluences of tributary     |                                 |
| rivers with the River Thames should pay  |                                 |
| particular attention to the interaction  |                                 |
| of fluvial and tidal flood risks. These  |                                 |
| are Havering, Barking & Dagenham,        |                                 |
| Newham, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich,        |                                 |
| Lewisham, Wandsworth, Hounslow,          |                                 |
| Richmond and Kingston                    |                                 |
| Regeneration and redevelopment of        |                                 |
| London's fluvial river corridors offer   |                                 |
| a crucial opportunity to reduce flood    |                                 |
| risk. SFRAs and policies should focus    |                                 |
| on making the most of this opportunity   |                                 |
| through appropriate location, layout     |                                 |
| and design of development as set out     |                                 |
| in PPS25 and the Thames CFMP.            |                                 |
| Once funding is confirmed Drain          |                                 |
| London will investigate and plan for     |                                 |
| long term management of London's         |                                 |
| surface water infrastructure in order to |                                 |
| reduce surface water flood risk.         |                                 |
| 5                                        |                                 |
| Developments all across London should    |                                 |
| reduce surface water discharge in line   |                                 |
| with the Sustainable Drainage Hierarchy  |                                 |
| set out in Policy 5.13 of the London     |                                 |
| Plan                                     |                                 |
The use of these areas for emergency flood storage is not a preferred option, so this requirement is no longer valid. However, the relevant boroughs are working with the Environment Agency to explore future flood risk management options in line with the TE2100 Plan. Tidal influences are generally taken into account in the SFRA modelling addressing the interaction of fluvial and tidal flood risk at confluences. Tidal influences are generally taken into account in the SFRA modelling by all listed boroughs addressing the interaction of fluvial and tidal flood risk at confluences. SFRAs and DPD policies generally promote the use of location, layout and design of new development, including the use of SUDS, to reduce flood risk.

Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs) were produced for each Borough in 2011. Project is now funding specific investigations and measures to address flood risk areas, this programme will continue to March 2014. The GLA will be working with boroughs to extend current positive trends to smaller scale development proposals. It is expected that the Mayor's emerging Sustainable Design and Construction SPG and the emerging SUDS Approval Body mechanism will enable boroughs to increase the scale of sustainable drainage being implemented across London.

## Table 3.7 Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations

| RECOMMENDATION                                  |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| NO.                                             |
| 6                                               |
| Regeneration and redevelopment of               |
| London's fluvial river corridors offer          |
| a crucial opportunity to reduce flood           |
| risk. SFRAs and policies should focus           |
| on making the most of this opportunity          |
| through appropriate location, layout            |
| and design of development as set out            |
| in PPS25 and the Thames CFMP.                   |
| 7                                               |
| Once funding is confirmed Drain                 |
| London will investigate and plan for            |
| long term management of London's                |
| surface water infrastructure in order to        |
| reduce surface water flood risk.                |
| 8                                               |
| Organisations responsible for                   |
| development with large roof areas               |
| should investigate providing additional         |
| surface water run-off storage                   |
| 9                                               |
| Thames Water to continue the                    |
| programme of addressing foul sewer              |
| flooding                                        |
| 10                                              |
| That groundwater flood risk is kept             |
| under review                                    |
| 11                                              |
| Network Rail should examine the                 |
| London Rail infrastructure for potential        |
| flooding locations and flood risk               |
| reduction measures. For large stations,         |
| solutions should be sought to store or          |
| disperse rainwater from heavy storms;           |
| this may involve the need for off site          |
| storage                                         |
| SFRAs and DPD policies generally promote        |
| the use of location, layout and design of new   |
| development, including the use of SUDS,         |
| to reduce flood risk.  The Olympics area        |
| is a good example where river restoration       |
| has reduced flood risk to several thousand      |
| properties whilst creating a much improved      |
| river park. There are other good examples       |
| such as the Ravensbourne Corridor               |
| (Lewisham), the Ram Brewery (Wandsworth)        |
| and the Wandle Park and New South Quarter       |
| (Croydon).                                      |
| Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs)          |
| were produced for each Borough in 2011.         |
| Drain London is now funding 24 specific         |
| investigations and assessment of risks to       |
| critical infrastructure. This current programme |
| runs until March 2016.                          |
| Drain London has funded 15 demonstration        |
| sustainable drainage projects within Business   |
| Improvement Districts. The SUDS for Schools     |
| project has introduced sustainable drainage     |
| at 10 schools. Drainage works are also part of  |
| the improvement works at Victoria Station.      |
| Future funding has been reduced through         |
| Ofwat settlement, but initial work is           |
| underway, in particular in relation to Counters |
| Creek sewer in west London.                     |
| Drain London has identified areas of            |
| Indicative Potential for Elevated Groundwater   |
| within each SWMP. The Environment Agency        |
| also monitors groundwater levels and reports    |
| annually - see following link: http://www.      |
| environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/     |
| publications/34017.aspx. Specific action        |
| may be required in the light of the recent      |
| groundwater flooding in Croydon.                |
| No specific actions yet, but Drain London in    |
| contact with Network Rail through a project     |
| in Hillingdon.                                  |

## Table 3.7 Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations

| RECOMMENDATION                             |
|--------------------------------------------|
| NO.                                        |
| 12                                         |
| London Underground and DLR should          |
| keep potential flood risks to their        |
| infrastructure and flood risk reduction    |
| measures under review and up to date       |
| 13                                         |
| TfL, Highways Agency and London            |
| boroughs should continue to                |
| monitor the flood risk and flood risk      |
| reduction measures at these locations      |
| (subterranean river crossings and road     |
| underpasses - RFRA para 148) and any       |
| others with a potential flood risk         |
| 14                                         |
| Bus operators should examine bus           |
| garages for potential flood risks and      |
| put in place remedial or mitigation        |
| measures where there is a significant      |
| risk                                       |
| 15                                         |
| Edgware Hospital should carry out a        |
| flood risk assessment of its current       |
| premises and determine any mitigation      |
| works necessary to ensure that the         |
| hospital can continue to operate in the    |
| event of a flood on the Silk Stream        |
| Operators of electricity, gas, water       |
| and sewerage utility sites should          |
| maintain an up to date assessment of       |
| the flood risk to their installations and  |
| considering the likely impacts of failure, |
| programme any necessary protection         |
| measures, this may include secondary       |
| flood defences                             |
| 16                                         |
| Other hospitals in the RFRA table (para    |
| 153) should examine how they may           |
| cope in the event of a major flood         |
| 17                                         |
| The National Offender Management           |
| Service (NOMS) should ensure that          |
| there is an emergency plan for Belmarsh    |
| Prison in the event of a major flood       |
| 18                                         |
| Operators of London's emergency            |
| services should ensure that emergency      |
| plans for flooding incidents are           |
| kept up to date and suitable cover         |
| arrangements are in place in the           |
| event of a flood effecting operational     |
| locations                                  |
London Underground is currently undertaking a review of flood risk from all sources that may affect its lines, stations, depots and other infrastructure. Its outcomes are expected to be available in 2015. Drain London is investigating several high risk sections of the highway network, notably underpasses on the TLRN, but a programme of further investigations will need to be developed with TfL. No specific actions yet. However, there are good practice examples of green roofs at bus depots, such as at West Ham, where also rainwater is captured for use in vehicle washing. A detailed flood risk assessment has been undertaken and mitigation works necessary to ensure that the hospital can continue to operate in the event of a flood on the Silk Stream have been identified. No specific actions yet, but GLA will contact utility companies during 2013. Following a scoping of hospital sites across London 12 hospitals are being assessed for surface water flood risk as part of a Drain London project. No specific actions yet. Drain London outputs are informing London Resilience Team at City Hall.
| RECOMMENDATION                             |
|--------------------------------------------|
| NO.                                        |
| 19                                         |
| Operators of electricity, gas, water       |
| and sewerage utility sites should          |
| maintain an up to date assessment of       |
| the flood risk to their installations and  |
| considering the likely impacts of failure, |
| programme any necessary protection         |
| measures, this may include secondary       |
| flood defences                             |

Source: GLA and Environment Agency

No specific actions yet. 

## Planning Progress With Supplementary Planning Guidance

3.44	The Mayor produces Supplementary 
Planning Guidance (SPG) documents to provide further detail on particular policies in the London Plan. In 2013 the Mayor published the following SPGs: Published Guidance in 2013

•	Preparing Borough Tree & Woodland 
Strategies (Feb 13)
•	Use of planning obligations in the funding 
of Crossrail, and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (Apr 13)
3.45		
The following SPGs are available in draft: 
•	London Planning Statement (Dec 12) •	Town Centres (Jan 13) •	Shaping Neighbourhoods - Character & 
Context (Feb 13)
•	Sustainable Design & Construction (Jul 
13)
•	Control of Dust and Emissions during 
Construction and Demolition (Aug 13)
3.46		
All complete and draft SPG are available 
on the following website http://www. london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/vision/ supplementary-planning-guidance.

## London Boroughs Policy Consultations

3.47		
The National Planning Policy Framework 
(NPPF) requires local planning authorities to produce a Local Plan for their area. In law this is described as the development 
plan documents (DPDs) adopted under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Current core strategies or other planning policies, which under the regulations would be considered to be DPDs, form part of the Local Plan. Several planning authorities in London are currently in the process of reviewing their Local Plans to respond to the changing circumstances in their area.

3.48	All London borough Local Development 
Documents (LDDs), comprising core strategies, DPDs or other LDDs, are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan in accordance with Section 24(1) (b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Under the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, Regulation 18 requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to notify the Mayor of the subject of a local plan. This is the Preparation stage. The Mayor will endeavour to provide comments to the LPAs at this stage but is not required to respond to the consultation. 

3.49	Under Regulation 19, before submitting 

the local plan to the Secretary of State, LPAs must make a copy of the proposed submission documents available and must request an opinion from the Mayor as to the general conformity of their local plans (Regulation 21). This is the Publication stage. The Mayor has 6 weeks to respond to the consultation. The Mayor will respond to Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPD) that raise strategic issues only.

3.50		
In order to achieve general conformity of 
LDDs the Mayor works proactively with the boroughs, commenting on and holding meetings to discuss informal drafts of 
documents and meetings to discuss the Mayor's response to consultation. Table 3.8 lists policy documents the LPAs worked on in 2013; the Mayor responded to many of them.

TABLE 3.8 LONDON BOROUGH POLICY DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED IN 2013
BOROUGH
POLICY DOCUMENTS
Barking & Dagenham 
Betting Offices SPD and Article 4 Direction Local Development Order: Employment Areas
Barnet
Residential Design Guidance and Sustainable Design & Construction SPDs 
Bexley
Detailed policies and sites local plan preferred approaches paper
Brent
Wembley Area Action Plan, Submission Work with neighbourhood forums
Bromley 
Draft Local Plan - Options and Preferred Strategy
Camden 
Site Allocations DPD Fitzrovia AAP Euston Area Action Plan Work with neighbourhood forums
City of London
Draft Local Plan - submission
Croydon 
Local Plan: Strategic Policies DPD Croydon OAPF Fair Field Masterplan
Ealing
Development Sites DPD and Development Management DPD Ealing Cinema SPD Sustainable Transport for New Development SPD Planning for Schools DPD - Issues and Options
Enfield
Development Management Document and Policies Map- Submission Draft North Circular AAP Meridian Water Masterplan Edmonton Ecopark Planning Brief
Greenwich
Core Strategy - Submission
Hackney
Development Management and Site Allocations Local Plan Dalston AAP Manor House AAP Work with neighbourhood forums
Hammersmith & Fulham
Development Management Local Plan Planning Guidance SPD Regeneration Area SPDs for Earls Court/West Kensington and South Fulham Riverside. White City Opportunity Area draft SPD Old Oak - A Vision for the Future Work with neighbourhood forums
TABLE 3.8 LONDON BOROUGH POLICY DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED IN 2013
BOROUGH
POLICY DOCUMENTS
Haringey 
Local Plan: Strategic Policies Draft Development Management DPD Draft Site Allocations Development Plan Document Draft Tottenham Area Action Plans Work with neighbourhood forums
Harrow
Development Management Policies Local Plan Site Allocations Local Plan Garden Land Development SPD Draft Planning Obligations & Affordable Housing SPD
Havering
Planning Obligations SPD Shop Front Design SPD Draft Gypsy and Travellers' Sites DPD
Hillingdon 
Draft Local Plan Part 2
Hounslow
Draft Local Plan - Policy options Draft Revised Site Allocations - Policy Options Shop Front Design Guidelines SPD Work with neighbourhood forums
Islington
Development Management Policies DPD Site Allocations DPD Finsbury Local Plan (for Bunhill and Clerkenwell) Student accommodation bursaries SPD Cally Plan SPD (for Caledonian Road) Planning Obligations (Section 106) SPD Draft Inclusive Design SPD
Kensington & Chelsea
Partial review of core strategy re policies on conservation and design, basement developments, employment & housing policies - submission Policy protecting public houses and other community facilities adopted Draft Notting Hill Gate SPD Norland Neighbourhood Plan - Referendum Work with neighbourhood forums
Kingston upon Thames
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Transport SPDs Residential Design SPD Latchmere House Planning Brief Draft North Kingston Development Brief
Lambeth
Draft Local Plan - Submission Vauxhall Area SPD Waterloo Area SPD Brixton Area SPD Draft Revised Section 106 Planning Obligations SPD Work with neighbourhood forums
Lewisham
DM Policies - submission Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan -Submission Catford Local Plan - Submission Site Allocations Gypsy & Traveller Site(s) Local Plan - Reg 18
London Legacy Development Corporation
Draft Local Plan- pre-regulation 18

Source: London Borough/GLA

## Progress With Local Plan Core Strategies

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

TABLE 3.9 LOCAL PLAN CORE STRATEGY PROGRESS (POSITION AS OF JANUARY 2014)
CORE STRATEGY STAGE 
NO. OF BOROUGHS
Core Strategy Issues and Options yet to be published
0
Have published Core Strategy Policy Options and preferred strategy
2
Hounslow Bromley
Have published Core Strategy for Submission
1
Greenwich
Core Strategy adopted 
30
BOROUGH Barking and Dagenham (July 2010) Barnet (Sep 2012) Bexley (Feb 2012) Brent (July 2010) Camden (Nov 2010) City of London (Sep 2011) Croydon (April 2013) Ealing (April 2012) Enfield (Jan 2014) Hackney (Nov 2010) Hammersmith & Fulham (Oct 2011) Haringey (March 2013) Harrow (Feb 2012) Havering (2008) Hillingdon (Part 1 Nov 2012) Islington (Feb 2011) Kensington & C (2010) Kingston upon Thames (April 2012) Lambeth (Jan 2011) Lewisham (June 2011) Merton (2011) Newham (Jan 2012) Redbridge (March 2008) Richmond upon Thames (2009) Southwark (April 2011) Sutton (Dec 2009) Tower Hamlets (2010) Waltham Forest (March 2012) Wandsworth (October 2010) Westminster (Nov 2013)
TABLE 3.9 LOCAL PLAN CORE STRATEGY PROGRESS (POSITION AS OF JANUARY 2014)
CORE STRATEGY STAGE 
NO. OF BOROUGHS
Local Plan being reviewed
17

Source: ALBPO Local Plan Borough Updates

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

BOROUGH Bromley - Preparation City of London - Publication Croydon Greenwich - Publication Hammersmith & Fulham Havering Hillingdon Hounslow Islington - Preparation Kensington & Chelsea - partial review - Publication Lambeth - Publication Lewisham - Publication LLDC - Initial consultation Redbridge Southwark Wandsworth - Publication Westminster - Adopted

## Opportunity Areas And Areas Of Intensification

3.53	Up-to-date details on all Opportunity Areas 
and Areas of Intensification are included in Annex 1 of the recently published FALP. 
3.54	Of the 33 Opportunity Areas, Frameworks 
have been produced for:
•	Croydon •	Earls Court and West Kensington •	Euston •	London Riverside •	Lower Lea Valley •	Olympic Legacy •	Old Oak Common •	Park Royal •	Southall •	Upper Lee Valley •	Vauxhall / Nine Elms/ Battersea •	Waterloo •	White City
3.55	During the last year, the GLA adopted 
Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks (OAPFs) for Croydon; Earls Court and West Kensington; Upper Lee Valley and White City. Additionally, consultation was carried out on the Euston Area Plan; Old Oak , 'A Vision for the Future'; and Southall.  

## Table 3.10  Planning Applications Referred To The Mayor

2000- 2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
TOTAL 2000- 2013
Total
1,871
334
240
258
300
307
359
3669
Strategic Call-ins
-
-
2
1
2
1
2
8

Source: GLA Planning

## Planning Decisions

3.56	To bring about positive change on the 
ground, policies need to be implemented. This is why the role of development management is so crucial. Table 3.10 below highlights the ongoing work of the Mayor's Development and Projects Team 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 17% over 2012. The Mayor has continued to use his strategic powers to call-in applications sparingly. Last year he 'called-in' two applications, less than 1% of referable applications. The two applications were, Convoys Wharf in Lewisham and City Forum in Islington.

## London Planning Awards

3.57		
The Mayor, London First, the Royal Town 
Planning Institute and London Councils jointly organise the privately-sponsored annual London Planning Awards to showcase and celebrate good planning practice in the capital. The 2013/14 Awards Ceremony was held on 04 February 2014. Full details of the winning and commended entries are given in Table 3.11 below:
TABLE 3.11 LONDON PLANNING AWARDS - WINNERS AND COMMENDED ENTRIES
ENTRY DESCRIPTIONS AND AWARD CITATIONS TAKEN FROM THE MAYOR'S AND SIR EDWARD LISTER'S SPEECHES AT THE LONDON PLANNING AWARDS CEREMONY, CITY HALL 04 FEBRUARY 2014 1: BEST BUILT PROJECT (sponsored by CBRE) WINNER For its dramatic transformation of a challenging brownfield site into a vibrant hub of activity, and improvement to the area as a whole, the award for the Best Built Project category goes to The North East Quadrant. The North East Quadrant, in the Borough of Camden.  Submitted by British Land.  The scheme completes the radical transformation of the 5 Hectare site north of Euston Road into a lively mixed use hub. This last phase accommodates 360, 000 square feet of office space and 11,600 square feet of retail.  It provides 162 residential units, with 62% of them affordable. 2: Best Built Project - Community Scale (sponsored by Land Securities) WINNER For its transformational impact on the wider area, benefits to the local community, design and ingenuity, the winner of the Best Built Project - Community Scale category is The Glass Mill. The Glass Mill Leisure Centre, in Lewisham.  Submitted by LA Architects, with Barrat East London, Oelikaan Construction and the London Borough of Lewisham. The scheme provides a state of the art community leisure centre surrounded by a new park and a significantly improved public realm.  Its quirky elevation was developed with local artists and the name of the centre was chosen through a community competition. COMMENDATION For the inspirational level of local involvement and community ownership achieved by genuinely collaborative working, the judges have commended Van Gogh Walk. Van Gough Walk, in Lambeth.  Submitted by the London Borough of Lambeth, with Streets Ahead, Shape, Atelier Works and FM Conway. The community driven transformation of a small neighbourhood street into a part pedestrianised public space.  Prototyped through temporary community events and now implemented to include public seating, play facilities and tree planting.

TABLE 3.11 LONDON PLANNING AWARDS - WINNERS AND COMMENDED ENTRIES
ENTRY DESCRIPTIONS AND AWARD CITATIONS TAKEN FROM THE MAYOR'S AND SIR EDWARD LISTER'S SPEECHES AT THE LONDON PLANNING AWARDS CEREMONY, CITY HALL 04 FEBRUARY 2014 3: BEST CONCEPTUAL PROJECT (sponsored by Berwin Leighton Paisner) WINNER for the careful, sensitive and responsive approach to estate renewal, the winner of the Best Conceptual Project category goes to Copley Close. Copley Close, in Ealing. Submitted by the London Borough of Ealing with Peter Brett Associates and Hunters Architects.  An estate renewal project where Ealing Council are assuming the role of developer and landlord.  Combining a mixture or refurbishment and redevelopment, the strategy addresses many of the issues resulting from the poor original layout of the estates whilst avoiding unnecessary disruption to the existing community. COMMENDATION For the innovative, challenging and topical exploration of short term homelessness, the commendation goes to Pop up HAWSE. Pop-Up Hawse, submitted by Levitt Bernstein Associates. The project proposes small single pop-up flats that can quickly be erected in underused sites to provide temporary accommodation for the short-term homeless. The units are manufactured off- site for quick and easy on-site assembly and cost £13,000 each. 4: BEST NEW PLACE TO LIVE (sponsored by PwC) WINNER For its scale, quality and understated innovation, the winner of the award for the Best Place to Live category is East Village. East Village, in Stratford. Also shortlisted for Best Built Project. Submitted by East Village with Get Living London, Triatholon Homes and the Olympic Delivery Authority. The project provides 2818 high quality, tenure blind homes, from one bedroom apartments to four bedroom  townhouses,  all with access to good quality private amenity space and a vibrant public realm.  The scheme is located adjacent to 27Ha of public open space, great transport infrastructure, sports and education facilities. 5: BEST NEW PUBLIC SPACE (sponsored by Hogan Lovells) WINNER For its ingenuity and historical sensitivity, the winner of the award for Best New Public Space category goes to Brown Hart Gardens. Brown Hart Gardens, in the heart of Mayfair.  Submitted by BDP with Gerald Eve and Grosvenor. This eccentric new public square is located on the roof of a Grade II listed Substation.  It sensitively responds to the historical importance of the building whilst improving access and creating a great piece of public realm. COMMENDATION For its replicability and community involvement, already commended in the Category of Community Scale project - the commendation for Best New Public Space goes to Van Gogh Walk. Van Gogh Walk, in the Borough of Lambeth. Submitted by the London Borough of Lambeth, with Shape, Atelier Works and FM Conway.  Already commended in the Best Community Scale category, involved the transformation of a small neighbourhood street into a part pedestrianised public space. The scheme was prototyped through temporary events and now has been implemented to include public seating, play facilities and tree planting.

TABLE 3.11 LONDON PLANNING AWARDS - WINNERS AND COMMENDED ENTRIES
ENTRY DESCRIPTIONS AND AWARD CITATIONS TAKEN FROM THE MAYOR'S AND SIR EDWARD LISTER'S SPEECHES AT THE LONDON PLANNING AWARDS CEREMONY, CITY HALL 04 FEBRUARY 2014 6: BEST BUILT PROJECT FIVE YEARS ON (sponsored by GVA) WINNER for its subtle yet transformative impact on the South Bank as a whole and revitalising the complex multi-level building to significantly improve the public realm , the winner of the Best Built Project Five Years on is: Royal Festival Hall Royal Festival Hall, on the South Bank.  Submitted by Allies and Morrison, with Southbank Centre, RPS, Rick Maher Architects, Max Fordham, Price and Myers, Davis Langdon, David Bonnett Associates, Kirkegaard Associates, Gross Max, Spiers and Major Associates, ISG and Carr and Angier. Refurbished to increase its public facilities by 35%.  In doing so it has better integrated the South Bank with the wider area.  The improved routes around and through the site now mean that it benefits from over 25 million people crossing it per year. COMMENDATION For having managed to retain some of the spirit of the more quirky east London retail offer and the careful management of the historical East End fabric, the commendation for the Best Built Project Five Year on Category goes to Spitalfields Market. Old Spitalfields Market, on the edge of the City.  Submitted by Ballymore Properties, with Ashkenazy Group. The scheme sensitively combines the listed perimeter structures of the Old Market  with new retail pavilions. It has carefully managed to avoid the potential sanitiziation of this vibrant piece of east London by a carefully considered choice of retailers and public events. 7: BEST HISTORIC BUILDING MANAGEMENT (sponsored by English Heritage) JOINT WINNERS Restoring Roehampton's Heritage and The William Morris Gallery Restoring Roehampton's Heritage, submitted by St James Group, carefully coordinates the restoration of a number of heritage assets in the Roehampton, bringing  them back into use and  using them as triggers for the areas wider regeneration. The William Morris Gallery and Gardens, submitted by Waltham Forest Council, with Pringle Richards Sharat and the Heritage Lottery Fund. The scheme involves the refurbishment of the William Morris Gallery to create new displays, research rooms, staff offices and a new tea room and exhibition space.  It also included the refurbishment of the gardens around the Gallery back to its former glory. 8: BEST TOWN CENTRE PROJECT (sponsored by Turley Associates) WINNER  For its subtle yet transformative changes to the way Woolwich Town Centre works, the winner of Best Town Centre Project is Woolwich Squares. Woolwich Squares also shortlisted for Best New Public Space.  Submitted by Gustafson Porter, with Voker Highways and the Royal Borough of Greenwich.  The scheme consolidates the public realm in Woolwich Town Centre into a unified and coherent whole.   It includes the re-organisation of the market, servicing to shops, a new water feature, public seating, and tree planting, transforming the quality of the town centre as a whole. 9: LIFETIME AWARD FOR PLANNING EXCELLENCE IN LONDON WINNER  For leading the team responsible for the £1.5bn transformation of a large portion of the West End, The Crown Estate is surely in safe hands. The award for London Planning and Development Person of the Year goes to Alastair Smart, Head of Development and Project Management, The Crown Estates.

## Table 3.11 London Planning Awards - Winners And Commended Entries Entry Descriptions And Award Citations Taken From The Mayor'S And Sir Edward Lister'S Speeches At The London Planning Awards Ceremony, City Hall 04 February 2014 10. Mayor'S Award For Planning Excellence Winner Not Only For Creating A New High Quality Neighbourhood In East London, But For Its Approach To Housing Delivery, Its Simple And Replicable Design Solution, Its Scale And Its Overall Quality, This Year The Award For Planning Excellence Goes To East Village.

East Village, in Stratford. Also shortlisted for Best Built Project. Submitted by East Village with Get Living London, Triatholon Homes and the Olympic Delivery Authority. The project provides 2818 high quality, tenure blind homes, from one bedroom apartments to four bedroom  townhouses,  all with access to good quality private amenity space and a vibrant public realm.  The scheme is located adjacent to 27Ha of public open space, great transport infrastructure, sports and education facilities. 

## Endnotes

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

## Chapter Four Other Contextual Data Sources

4.1	 This AMR cannot and does not attempt 
to be comprehensive. There is also a significant amount of relevant data available from both the GLA and other sources. The list of references and links below should enable anyone researching these subjects access to the most up to date data.

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

4.2	 A full list of publications from the 
Demography and Policy Analysis Group is available via the GLA's website at: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayorassembly/mayor/publications/glaintelligence/demography

## London Datastore

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

## London Development Database

4.4	 For more information on the London 
Development database Email the LDD Team (lddteam@london.gov.uk). The relaunched LDD public page can be found 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 
4.7	 For the latest news the Mayor's Business 
and Economy section can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayorassembly/mayor/publications/businesseconomy
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/
4.12	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://www.webptals.org.uk/
4.19		
The Department for Transport provides 
some useful data on transport at https:// www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ department-for-transport/about/statistics
4.20	London First are monitoring how the 
London boroughs are progressing with the development of their CIL charging schedules http://londonfirst.co.uk/ our-focus/londons-housing/communityinfrastructure-levy/

## Health

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

## Government Data Sources

4.24	Government departments have moved 
their websites to a central domain, https:// www.gov.uk/. It is likely that any links to websites outside gov.uk will cease to function in the near future.
4.25	Various data and studies on education 
and skills can be found at the following site: http://www.education.gov.uk/, which contains a section on Research and Statistics.
4.26	Links to a number of national reports 
on education provision can be found at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources

## Department Of Environment, Food And Rural Affairs

4.27	Various data and studies on the 
environment can be found on the DEFRA site http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/ or https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications?departments[]=depar tment-for-environment-food-ruralaffairs&publication_filter_option=statistics

## Communities And Local Government

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

5.1	 This AMR covers a period when at 
national level the National Planning Policy Framework was being implemented. In London the Revised Early Minor Alterations to the Plan took account of the National Planning Policy Framework, changes to national policy on affordable housing and other developments and a wide range of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents were published.

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, 2014 will see the 
progression of the Further Alterations to the London Plan to roll the Plan forward to 2036, particularly within the context of the strong population growth from the 2011 census. 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 and more recently the emerging high-profile Infrastructure Investment Plan. The latter is based on a recommendation by the London Finance Commission and will set out London's infrastructure needs and explore costs and funding opportunities. An interim version is expected to be published during the summer. A number of further SPGs will also be published during 2014.
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 all opportunities are maximised.