# Strategy Title

Subtitle

# London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 2015/16 July 2017

Date

## Contents Copyright

Greater London Authority July 2017 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

All data from the London Development Database (LDD) except where stated. Crown Copyright all rights reserved. GLA 10032216 (2017) Front cover photo: Eleanor Ward/GLA Copies of this document are available from http://www.london.gov.uk

## Table 1.1 - Main Contents Executive Summary Chapter 1 - Introduction Chapter 2 - Performance Against Key Performance Indicator Targets

| Key Performance Indicator 1 	                              |    |   16 |
|------------------------------|----|------|
| Key Performance Indicator 2  |    |   19 |
| Key Performance Indicator 3  |    |   21 |
| Key Performance Indicator 4  |    |   24 |
| Key Performance Indicator 5  |    |   29 |
| Key Performance Indicator 6  |    |   34 |
| Key Performance Indicator 7  |    |   35 |
| Key Performance Indicator 8  |    |   36 |
| Key Performance Indicator 9  |    |   41 |
| Key Performance Indicator 10 |    |   43 |
| Key Performance Indicator 11 |    |   44 |
| Key Performance Indicator 12 |    |   46 |
| Key Performance Indicator 13 |    |   49 |
| Key Performance Indicator 14 |    |   50 |
| Key Performance Indicator 15 |    |   52 |
| Key Performance Indicator 16 |    |   54 |
| Key Performance Indicator 17 |    |   57 |
| Key Performance Indicator 18 |    |   59 |
| Key Performance Indicator 19 |    |   61 |
| Key Performance Indicator 20 |    |   63 |
| Key Performance Indicator 21 |    |   66 |
| Key Performance Indicator 22 |    |   69 |
| Key Performance Indicator 23 |    |   70 |
| Key Performance Indicator 24 |    |   72 |

## Chapter 3 - Additional Perfomance Measures And Statistics 75

| Housing and Design	                                          |     |   76 |
|------------------------------------------|-----|------|
| Housing Provision Annual Monitor 2015/16 | 76  |      |
| Affordable Housing Delivery Monitor      | 135 |      |
| Local Affordable Housing Policies        |     |  138 |
| Achieving an Inclusive Environment       |     |  146 |
| Environment and Transport                |     |  151 |
| Planning                                 |     |  162 |

## Chapter 4 - Other Contextual Data Sources 181 Chapter 5 - Conclusions And Looking Ahead 185 Figures And Maps

Figure 2.1 - Affordable Housing - Three Year Average Performance by Borough	
                                                                                
                                                                                                32
Figure 2.2 - Office Starts and Year-end Permissions in Central London, 1985-2016	 
                                                                                                38
Figure 2.3 - Co2 Emissions	
                             
                                                                                                68
Map 3.1 - Total Housing Delivery 2015/16	
                                            
                                                                                                94
Map 3.2 - Total Housing Delivery as a Percentage of London Plan Housing Monitoring Benchmarks	98
Figure 3.1 - Total Housing Provision By Year	 
                                                                                              100
Map 3.3 - Net affordable housing delivery by tenure	 
                                                                                              110
Map 3.4 - Affordable Housing Delivery as a Percentage of Net Conventional Housing Delivery 
      2015/16	
                      
                                                                                              112
Map 3.5 - Net Conventional Housing Pipeline as at 31/03/2016	
                                                                  
                                                                                              130
Figure 3.2 - Affordable housing delivery in London 1991/92 - 2015/16	
                                                                         
                                                                                              136
Map 3.6 - London Public Transport Access (PTAL) Map 2015	
                                                                                              152

## Executive Summary

i.	
This Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) provides information about progress being made in implementing the policies and addressing the objectives 
of the London Plan by showing how London is performing against 24 Key Performance Indicator s (KPIs) identified in Chapter 8 of the Plan. Although 
this is the 13th AMR published by the Mayor, it is the first one that monitors the 2015 London Plan using the slightly modified set of KPI targets introduced through that Plan. 
ii.	
Chapter 2 provides greater detail on each of the 24 KPIs, and Table 1 summarises progress against each of them. 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.	
17 KPI targets are met or heading in the right direction. For KPI 3 (open 
space), KPI 9 (industrial land release) and KPI 14 (car traffic growth) a negative has changed to a positive performance. KPI 19 (waste 
management) and KPI 24 (heritage assets) have turned from a positive to a mixed trend. Four KPI targets, however, have not been met or are heading the wrong way. For KPI 18 (Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation) a positive has turned to a negative performance. For one KPI target (KPI 6 - life expectancy) data is no longer available. Table 1 provides an overview of the performance of all KPIs. The performance against the individual London Plan Objectives is summarised as follows: 

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

vi.	
Net provision of new affordable housing has decreased to 6,675 units, 14% less than in 2014/15 and over 10,000 below the London Plan affordable housing target. In total, over 38,500 dwellings were completed in 2015/16, 9% below the 2015 London Plan target. An above-target proportion of new residential developments in London have been built on previously developed land in the last year, and densities within the density matrix range have fallen 
again slightly.

## Objective 2 - An Internationally Competitive And Successful City

vii.	
At 73% London's employment rate has continued to rise since 2009. Office starts were lower than in 2015 but still higher than the ten year average, and the office pipeline has remained above its benchmark although it has decreased this year. The rate of loss of industrial land was 41 ha, 4 ha above the monitoring benchmark.

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

viii.	
The employment rate gap between the BAME and white population is almost 1% lower than in the previous year, and lone parent income support in London has been 3% lower than in the country as a whole. Employment in Outer London has increased by 2.4% on the previous year. The pupil/ teacher ratio across London has dropped slightly, with more boroughs seeing a fall than in the previous year. Net affordable housing completions (20% of conventional completions in 2015) have been significantly below the 
numeric target with the three-year average affordable homes share down by a further 4%.

## Objective 4- A City That Delights The Senses

ix.	
The proportion of designated heritage assets at risk has generally only changed slightly, but for scheduled monuments the risk has gone down by 2.6%. Progress has been made against the 2020 river restoration target, 30% of it has been achieved by the end of 2015/16. 16 ha designated open space (gross) was lost last year, just over half the amount of space lost in the previous year. In terms of cycling, mode stages have increased by 23k. 

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

x.	
Rates for waste recycling and waste going to landfill have flatlined. Average carbon dioxide emission savings have exceeded the Building Regulation target. The estimated generation of renewable energy has increased by 45% but is still well below target. An additional 4.5 ha of green roofs have been installed between 2013 and 2015. There has been a gross loss of 9 ha of protected habitat based on development approvals, higher than previous year's figure of just 2 ha.

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

xi.	
Private car and public transport use both declined last year and there was a slight decrease in the total distance travelled by road traffic across London of 0.3% compared to the previous year. The proportion of B1 development in locations with high public transport accessibility has risen slightly and is above the benchmark. In terms of the use of London's waterways, both passenger and freight transport on the Thames were slightly up on the previous year.

| KPI                              | KPI Target                       |   Comment |
|----------------------------------|----------------------------------|-----------|
| +                                | Both approvals and completions   |           |
| above target, approvals 1.3%     |                                  |           |
| above previous year              |                                  |           |
| 1                                | Maintain at least 96 per cent of |           |
| new residential development      |                                  |           |
| to be on previously developed    |                                  |           |
| land                             |                                  |           |
| -                                | Below target, and further slight |           |
| fall of proportion within matrix |                                  |           |
| range on previous year           |                                  |           |
| 2                                | Over 95 per cent of              |           |
| development to comply with the   |                                  |           |
| housing density location and     |                                  |           |
| the density matrix               |                                  |           |
| +                                | Loss at 16 ha compared to 30 ha  |           |
| in the previous year             |                                  |           |
| 3                                | No net loss of open space        |           |
| designated for protection in     |                                  |           |
| LDFs due to new development      |                                  |           |
| 4                                | Average completion of a          |           |
| minimum of 42,000 net            |                                  |           |
| additional homes per year        |                                  |           |
| +                                | Over 38,500 completions          |           |
| in 2015/16, 9% below 2015        |                                  |           |
| London Plan target               |                                  |           |
| 5                                | Completion of 17,000 net         |           |
| additional affordable homes per  |                                  |           |
| year                             |                                  |           |
| -                                | Below target; three year average |           |
| affordable homes share of net    |                                  |           |
| conventional supply down by a    |                                  |           |
| further 4% on the previous year  |                                  |           |
| n/a                              | ONS has stopped publishing       |           |
| mortality data                   |                                  |           |
| 6                                | Reduction in the difference in   |           |
| life expectancy between those    |                                  |           |
| living in the most and least     |                                  |           |
| deprived areas of London (split  |                                  |           |
| by gender)                       |                                  |           |
| +                                | 1.7% increase on previous year   |         7 |
| 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             |                                  |           |
| +                                | Ratio down on previous year,     |           |
| but according to up-to-date      |                                  |           |
| EGi data still ahead of 3:1      |                                  |           |
| benchmark                        |                                  |           |

## Table 1 - Kpi Performance Overview

| KPI                              | KPI Target                        |
|----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| 9                                | Release of industrial land to be  |
| in line with benchmarks in the   |                                   |
| Industrial Capacity SPG          |                                   |
| +                                | Release of nearly 41 ha is 4 ha   |
| above benchmark but lower than   |                                   |
| in previous years                |                                   |
| 10                               | Growth in total employment in     |
| Outer London                     |                                   |
| +                                | Employment in Outer London        |
| has grown by 2.4% in the last    |                                   |
| year                             |                                   |
| +                                | Employment rate gap 0.9%          |
| below previous year's and lone   |                                   |
| parents on income support 3%     |                                   |
| below national average           |                                   |
| 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               |                                   |
| +                                | Average number of pupils per      |
| one teacher class has dropped    |                                   |
| slightly                         |                                   |
| 13                               | Use of public transport per       |
| head grows faster than use of    |                                   |
| private car per head             |                                   |
| +                                | Both public and private           |
| transport down in the last year  |                                   |
| but the latter decreasing faster |                                   |
| 14                               | Zero car traffic growth for       |
| London as a whole                |                                   |
| +                                | Car traffic levels in London fell |
| slightly compared to previous    |                                   |
| year                             |                                   |
| 15                               | Increase in share of all trips by |
| bicycle from 2 per cent in 2009  |                                   |
| to 5 per cent by 2026            |                                   |
| +                                | Increase in cycle mode stages     |
| by 23k compared to previous      |                                   |
| year                             |                                   |
| +                                | Passenger and freight             |
| movements are up slightly on     |                                   |
| previous year                    |                                   |
| 16                               | A 50% increase in passengers      |
| and freight traffic transported  |                                   |
| on the Blue Ribbon Network       |                                   |
| from 2011-2021                   |                                   |
| +                                | 69% is above benchmark and a      |
| 1% increase on previous year     |                                   |
| 17                               | Maintain at least 50 per cent of  |
| B1 development in PTAL zones     |                                   |
| 5-6                              |                                   |

## Table 1 - Kpi Performance Overview

| KPI                                | KPI Target                       |
|------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| 18                                 | No net loss of Sites of          |
| Importance for Nature              |                                  |
| Conservation.                      |                                  |
| -                                  | 9 ha loss to approved            |
| development, above 2 ha            |                                  |
| recorded last year, but new        |                                  |
| designations not included          |                                  |
| 19                                 | At least 45 per cent of waste    |
| recycled/composted by 2015         |                                  |
| and 0 per cent of biodegradable    |                                  |
| or recyclable waste to landfill by |                                  |
| 2026                               |                                  |
| +/-                                | Since 2014 there has been        |
| a small decline of 0.6% in         |                                  |
| recycling. Waste to landfill is    |                                  |
| continuing to fall but only by     |                                  |
| 0.3% in the last year              |                                  |
| +                                  | Average 0.8% saving in           |
| regulated CO2 emission beyond      |                                  |
| current Building Regulations       |                                  |
| target across all applications in  |                                  |
| 2015                               |                                  |
| 20                                 | Annual average% carbon           |
| dioxide emissions savings          |                                  |
| for strategic development          |                                  |
| proposals progressing towards      |                                  |
| zero carbon in residential         |                                  |
| developments by 2016 and in        |                                  |
| all developments by 2019           |                                  |
| 21                                 | Production of 8550 GWh of        |
| energy from renewable sources      |                                  |
| by 2026                            |                                  |
| -                                  | Generation has increased largely |
| due to baseline changes, and       |                                  |
| still well below 2026 target       |                                  |
| 22                                 | Increase in total area of green  |
| roofs in the CAZ.                  |                                  |
| +                                  | Additional 4.5ha of green roof   |
| has been installed between         |                                  |
| 2013 and 2015                      |                                  |
| +                                  | 30% progress against the         |
| additional 10 km target to 2020    |                                  |
| 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% of the total number     |                                  |
| of designated heritage assets      |                                  |
| in London.                         |                                  |
| +/-                                | The share of assets at risk has  |
| slightly increased for some        |                                  |
| types of assets in the last year   |                                  |
| but decreased for scheduled        |                                  |
| monuments                          |                                  |

## Chapter 1 - Introduction Scope And Purpose Of The Amr

1.1	
This is the 13th London Plan Annual Monitoring Report (AMR 13). Section 346 of the Greater London Authority (GLA)  Act 1999 places a duty on the 
Mayor to monitor implementation of his Spatial Development Strategy (the London Plan) and collect data about issues relevant to its preparation, review, alteration, replacement or implementation. The AMR is the central document in the monitoring process and in assessing the effectiveness of the London Plan. It is important for keeping the London Plan under review and as evidence for plan preparation.
1.2	
While this is the 13th AMR published by the Mayor, it is the sixth that uses the six strategic objectives and the suite of 24 Key Performance Indicator s (KPIs) introduced in the London Plan published in July 2011. These were slightly modified through the revised London Plan published in March 2015. The amended targets are listed below: •	KPI 4 - Target net additional homes figure changed from 32,210 to 42,000 •	KPI 5 - Target net additional affordable homes figure changed from 13,200 
to 17,000
•	KPI 19 - Target date for zero biodegradable and recyclable waste to landfill 
brought forward from 2031 to 2026
•	KPI 21 - Target production figure of 8550 GWh of energy from renewables 
included 
Sadiq Khan was elected Mayor in May 2016 and will be publishing a new draft London Plan later this year. He places considerable importance on 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 recognise the complexity of planning decisions which are 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 indicators 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 KPIs set out in Policy 8.4 (A) and Table 8.2 of the 2015 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 2015/16.
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), Historic England, the Environment Agency and the Port of London Authority.

## The London Development Database

1.7	
The London Development Database (LDD) is the key data source for monitoring planning approvals and completions in London. Data is entered by each of the 33 London boroughs, although the London Legacy Development Corporation and the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation have taken responsibility for entering the permissions they have granted. The GLA provides the software and carries out a co-ordinating, consistency and quality management role. The Database monitors each planning permission from approval through to completion or expiry. Its strength lies in the ability to manipulate comparable London-wide data in order to produce a diverse range of reports. The data can also be exported to GIS systems to give a further level of spatial analysis. The value of the LDD is dependent on the work done by London's planning authorities in 
providing the data, and the Mayor would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those concerned in supporting this invaluable resource.

1.8	
Since the system was first developed in 2004 it has been subject to 
incremental development to keep up to date with changes in the planning system, such as adding new permission types or adapting to changes in the monitoring of accessible dwellings. It has now reached the point where the system is in need of a major overhaul. We are currently working with the London Boroughs and other stakeholders to agree on the changes that are required. This could potentially lead to changes in the structure of the database that will affect the existing data as well as the newly added permissions. It is expected that the project will begin in the summer of 2017 and take at least a year to complete. A further update on this work will be provided in the next AMR, and any changes to the way data is handled or totals calculated will be clearly stated.
1.9	
Since the last review of the Information Scheme (the legal document that sets out the roles and responsibilities of the Mayor and the London Boroughs in relation to LDD) in 2013, Prior Approvals (which permit specific changes of use without the need for a full planning permission) have been included in the scope of the scheme. Office to residential prior approvals have been mandatory since their introduction on 30th May 2013, while 
other forms of consent that could lead to a change in residential units (including other forms of prior approval and Certificates of Proposed Lawful Development) were initially submitted on a voluntary basis. These all became mandatory in 2015/16, so form part of the figures in this AMR. Consents for a temporary period only are however excluded. All time-series data has been updated accordingly.
1.10	
The LDD public page, which shows the LDD data on an interactive map, can be found at https://maps.london.gov.uk/map/?ldd. Since the last AMR the maps showing borough and ward level housing totals have been updated with the data for 2015/16. Work is also ongoing to create a new version of the map which will include historic data on residential approvals, completions and the housing pipeline. It is hoped that the new map will go live in the autumn of 2017. In the meantime, a new version of the map showing the number of permissions by use class (rather than residential units and non-residential floor spaces) has also been created and is available 
at http://maps.london.gov.uk/ldd/ or via the In My Area section of the GLA website. Furthermore, a listing of schemes from the LDD is now available on the London Datastore. The Mayor will continue to work with boroughs to improve access to, and make better use of, the data we hold.

## Chapter 2 - Performance Against Key Performance Indicator Targets Key Performance Indicator 1

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

2.1	
This KPI looks at the proportion of residential planning permissions on previously developed land. The figures in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 are shown both by number of units and by site area, although the proportion by 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 is lost is then compared with 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	
98.7% of units approved during 2015/16 are on brownfield land, 2.7% above the 96% target and 1.3% above the previous year's figure. Table 2.2 shows that the only boroughs with figures below the 96% target are Bexley, Southwark and Tower Hamlets. Southwark's is due to permissions granted as part of the redevelopment of the Aylesbury Estate including a net loss of amenity space, but with higher quality and more publicly accessible parks and civic spaces being provided in return. The Tower Hamlets figure results from the confirmation of details of the phase of the Wood Wharf development that will reduce the area of the South Dock. This loss was already approved in the Outline application PA/13/02966. The biggest single development on greenfield land is the reclamation of the Erith Quarry site (14/02155/OUTM). The site was backfilled with rubble and waste material when quarrying ceased during the 1960s and 1970s. The proposed redevelopment, of which this is the first phase, also offers ecological improvements.

2.3	
The proportion of units completed on brownfield land stands at 98.1%, with greenfield developments being completed in Lymington Fields in Barking and Dagenham, Trinity Village (the Former Blue Circle sports ground) in Bromley and infill developments at the Brabazon Estate in Hounslow.

Year
% of Development Approved 
on Previously Developed Land
% of Development Completed on 
Previously Developed Land
by units
by site area
by units
by site area
2006/07 
98.6 
98 
97.2 
96.5 
2007/08 
97.3 
96.7 
96.6 
94.8 
2008/09 
98.1 
96.6 
98.9 
98.1 
2009/10 
97.3 
96.8 
98.8 
97.9 
2010/11 
96.8 
95.3 
97.1 
95.7 
2011/12 
99 
97.4 
97.6 
95.0 
2012/13 
98.2 
97.8 
95.7 
95.3 
2013/14 
98.4 
97.2 
97 
96.6 
2014/15 
97.4 
96.7 
98.7 
96.7 
2015/16
98.7
98.6
98.1
97.2
Borough
% of Development Approved on Previously Developed Land
% of Development Completed on Previously Developed Land
by units
by site area
by units
by site area
Barking and Dagenham
98.5%
95.9%
92.1%
81.7%
Barnet
99.9%
99.6%
99.8%
99.7%
Bexley
89.7%
88.7%
100%
100%
Brent
99.9%
99.8%
100%
100%
Bromley
99.7%
99.6%
80.7%
87.4%
Camden
98.8%
99.1%
100%
100%
City of London
100%
100%
100%
100%
Croydon
100%
100%
99.6%
96.7%
Ealing
99.8%
99.8%
99.7%
99.2%
Enfield
99.4%
95.9%
100%
100%
Greenwich
100%
100%
95.2%
97.8%
Hackney
100%
100%
98.6%
99.6%
Hammersmith and Fulham
100%
100%
100%
100%
Haringey
100%
100%
100%
100%
Harrow
96.2%
93.9%
92.7%
98.2%
Havering
97.2%
95.2%
99.9%
99%
Hillingdon
100%
100%
100%
100%
Hounslow
100%
100%
91%
79.6%
Islington
100%
100%
100%
100%
Kensington and Chelsea
100%
100%
100%
100%
Kingston upon Thames
97%
97.5%
98.9%
98.6%
Lambeth
99.7%
99.1%
100%
100%
Lewisham
100%
100%
98.6%
97.8%
Merton
100%
100%
94.4%
97.3%
Newham
100%
100%
100%
100%
Redbridge
99.1%
99.2%
100%
100%
Richmond upon Thames
100%
100%
99.3%
99.4%
Southwark
95.5%
96.3%
99.1%
99.6%
Sutton
100%
100%
100%
100%
Tower Hamlets
92.4%
97%
99.9%
99.9%
Waltham Forest
100%
100%
100%
100%
Wandsworth
99.9%
99.9%
100%
100%
Westminster
100%
100%
100%
100%
London
98.7%
98.6%
98.1%
97.2%

## Key Performance Indicator 2 Optimise The Density Of Residential Development

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

2.4	
Table 2.3 and Table 2.4 compare the residential density achieved for each scheme against the density range set out in the Sustainable Residential Quality (SRQ) matrix in the London Plan, taking into account both the site's Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) and its setting as defined in the 2013 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. All units in residential approvals for which a site area could be calculated are included. Class J prior approvals for changes of use from office to residential have been included wherever possible. Density is the result of dividing the total number of units (gross) by the residential site area. In mixed use schemes, the area allocated to non-residential uses and to open space is subtracted from the total site area to give the residential site area. The percentages refer to units not schemes. The same PTAL is calculated for all units on a site within a permission based on the location provided for the scheme as a whole. This will usually be towards the centre of the site.
2.5	
The number of units within the density matrix range has continued to fall. For approvals compliance during 2015/16 stands at 37.7%, down on the 41% in the previous year. For schemes of 15 units or more, 34% of approved units are in schemes within the range set out in the SRQ matrix.
2.6	
Of the 56% of units in schemes that are above the recommended densities, 77% are within designated Opportunity Areas. Opportunity Areas are a significant source of previously developed land available for residential development and are generally of a size which enables them to define their own character. Furthermore the commencement of development of these sites may often trigger improvements to the public transport serving the site. The pattern of compliance outside the Opportunity Areas is very different to the overall pattern with 57% of approved units being within the SRQ density range, 32% above and 11% below, showing the broad diversity of schemes being developed across London.
2.7	
Land in London is a scarce resource and building costs are high. It is important that land is used appropriately and that schemes are designed 
to suit the local circumstances, but also that they are deliverable. A review of densities and how they are measured has recently been carried out to inform the next London Plan. A new policy on density is being developed which may lead to changes in the way that densities are calculated or more location-sensitive ways of judging an appropriate density for specific sites. The Mayor will continue to work with boroughs to ensure that schemes are designed at a density that is both appropriate and viable.

Financial year
% of units approvals Within range
Above range
Below range
2006/07
36% 
60% 
4% 
2007/08
40% 
55% 
5% 
2008/09
41% 
53% 
7% 
2009/10
39% 
56% 
6% 
2010/11
37% 
58% 
5% 
2011/12
40% 
55% 
5% 
2012/13
58% 
37% 
5% 
2013/14
43% 
50% 
7% 
2014/15
41% 
51% 
8% 
2015/16
38%
56%
6%
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% 
2013/14
40% 
56% 
4% 
2014/15
39% 
57% 
4% 
2015/16
34%
64%
2%

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

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

2.8	
The performance monitoring for this KPI target looks specifically at changes in the amount of protected open space as a result of full or outline planning permissions approved during 2015/16. The data for this KPI target is derived from planning permissions submitted to the LDD. It is important to note that the designation or de-designation of protected open space is not done through the planning permission process, and is therefore not recorded on the LDD. What is recorded is that approval has been given for a building or works that will affect the character of the protected open space. The decision as to whether the completed development warrants the de-designation of the area is a separate one. Re-provision within a planning permission is taken into account when calculating the loss, but positive numbers are only recorded in rare circumstances, meaning a loss is inevitable and therefore no accurate measure of net change can be achieved. We are working with partners Greenspace Information for Greater 
London (GiGL) and the London Boroughs to see if the data for this KPI target can be improved by accurately measuring spatial boundaries.
2.9	
The types of protection are Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Local Open Spaces. Any borough specific designations are recorded in addition as Other Designated Protection. These are different from the designations for nature conservation recorded in KPI 18.
2.10	
Table 2.5 shows that the overall loss of protected open space approved during 2015/16 was over 16 hectares, compared to just under 30 hectares in 2014/15. Over half of this (8.389 hectares) is potential development in the Green Belt, 5.51 hectares is on Metropolitan Open Land and 2.937 hectares is on local and other protected open spaces.
2.11	
The biggest single recorded loss is 6.6 hectares of Green Belt off Stockley Road in Hillingdon (ref 37977/APP/2015/1004). The site has a long planning history and was Phase 3 of the Stockley Park master-plan granted planning permission in 1984. It has been partially developed following the granting of reserved matters in 2000 so the principle of development on the site 
has been clearly established. The current consent for a light industrial and distribution and distribution centre includes proposals for extensive landscaping and improved pedestrian access across the retained open space on the site, plus the transfer of off-site parcels of Green Belt to the council to provide additional public open space. 

2.12	
The next biggest recorded loss is for a net loss of 3.2 hectares of Metropolitan Open Land to provide space for the Nishkam free school in Hounslow. Much of the wider site will be retained and enhanced for sport and recreational uses. 0.73 hectares will provide space for the expansion of Hackbridge Primary School in Sutton. A small gain of 0.039 hectares of Metropolitan Open Land has been recorded this year as part of the garden of White Ash Lodge in Richmond Park will be incorporated into the park as a result of the permission to convert the lodge from flats to a single house.
2.13	
The largest area of locally protected open space that was subject to planning permissions in 2015/16 is 2 hectares at the Tolworth Girls School and Recreation Centre in Kingston upon Thames which will provide housing as part of the scheme to expand and remodel the existing school. 
2.14	
A full list of permissions is provided in Table 2.5

Table 2.5 - Loss of Designated Open Space (Approvals) 2015/16 Borough Name
Borough Reference
Protection Designation
Area of Open 
Space (HA)
Bexley
13/02057/FUL
Green Belt
-0.050
Bromley
15/00060/ FULL1
Metropolitan Open Land
-0.096
Bromley
10/02059/ FULL2
Green Belt
-0.092
Ealing
PP/2015/2659
Metropolitan Open Land
-0.195
Ealing
PP/2015/4529
Metropolitan Open Land
-0.076
Ealing
PP/2014/5207
Metropolitan Open Land
-0.072
Ealing
PP/2015/1288
Local Open Spaces
-0.050
Ealing
PP/2015/5504
Metropolitan Open Land
-0.043
Greenwich
15/1225/F
Other Designated Protection
-0.500
Greenwich
15/1282
Metropolitan Open Land
-0.373
Harrow
P/2336/11
Local Open Spaces
-0.146
Harrow
P/0185/15
Local Open Spaces
-0.037
Havering
P0405/15
Green Belt
-0.600
Havering
P0773/13
Green Belt
-0.358
Hillingdon
37977/ APP/2015/1004
Green Belt
-6.600
Hounslow
01106/152/P3
Metropolitan Open Land
-3.200
Hounslow
00287/K/P2
Green Belt
-0.689
Kingston upon Thames
14/10306/FUL
Local Open Spaces
-2.020
Kingston upon Thames
13/12408/EXT
Local Open Spaces
-0.048
Richmond upon Thames
14/4971/FUL
Metropolitan Open Land
0.039
Sutton
C2015/72418
Metropolitan Open Land
-0.731
Sutton
C2015/71157
Local Open Spaces
-0.136 -16.073

## Key Performance Indicator 4 Increase Supply Of New Homes

Target: Average completion of a minimum of 42,000 net additional homes per year.

2.15	
This target comprises three elements: •	conventional completions of self-contained houses and flats, •	the non-conventional supply of student bedrooms, care homes and 
non-self-contained accommodation in hostels and houses in multiple occupation
•	long-term empty properties (referred to as 'vacants') returning to use.
2.16	
The first two are taken from the LDD, the third uses Council Tax data published by CLG. The components of the target at planning authority level can be found in Annex 4 of the London Plan. This is the first AMR to monitor the new, higher targets introduced in the 2015 London Plan. In addition to each borough being given a new target based on capacity identified in the 2013 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), the following changes have been made:
•	the London Legacy Development Corporation has been given its own 
target
•	the non-conventional supply now includes C2 care homes •	the self-contained and non-conventional elements of the target have been 
combined
2.17	
The number of long-term vacant properties returning to use is calculated using the Government's housing live table 615, by taking the net change in the number of long term empty properties (longer than 6 months). The data covers the period to October each year so does not align to the reporting period in the AMR, but represents the best source of information available.
2.18	
Net conventional completions stand at 32,919, non-conventional completions at 4,564 and long term vacant properties returning to use are 1,070. The total of 38,553 represents 91% of the 42,3881  target in the 2015 
London Plan.
2.19	
However, there is significant variation in delivery compared to the benchmark between boroughs, with a total of 14 boroughs exceeding their 
annual benchmark and 19 plus the London Legacy Development Corporation falling short. Lambeth's total delivery of 2,811 homes represents 180% 
of their benchmark figure of 1,559 and is the highest delivery compared to the benchmark. Hillingdon recorded 993 completions, which is 178% of their benchmark as is the 3,142 in Wandsworth, while Richmond upon Thames has recorded 544 completions,173% of their benchmark. Merton, Islington and Camden also exceeded their target by at least 50%. In purely numeric terms, the highest delivery is in Wandsworth. The next highest is Tower Hamlets, however, the total of 2,881 completions represents 73% of their target. Bexley, Kensington and Chelsea, Haringey, Barking and Dagenham and Redbridge have all recorded completions that are less than 50% of their annual benchmark. Bexley has recorded a net loss of 100 units in 2015/16, mostly due to the completion of Phase 1 of the Larner Road Estate redevelopment (12/01379/OUTM). All of the units demolished across the whole site are lost in this year, while previously completed units in the scheme contributed to Bexley delivering 225% of its target in the last AMR and further units will be delivered in phase 2 (14/02120/FULM) which is currently under construction. 
2.20	 It is recognised in paragraph 1.1.37 of the Housing Supplementary Planning 
Guidance (SPG) that housing supply has the potential to be 'lumpy' due to the phasing of key sites. The data for Bexley in particular shows the importance of not viewing a single year's figures in isolation, but considering delivery over time.
2.21	
The total of 32,919 conventional completions in 2015/16 is 2,424 higher than the revised figure for the previous year of 30,495. The borough recording the highest conventional completions during 2015/16 is Wandsworth (3,115), followed by Tower Hamlets (2,431) and Croydon (2,044). Meanwhile Bexley have recorded a net loss of 93 conventional units, while the City have recorded 77 conventional completions. Note that since the last AMR was published there have been some significant changes to the data for 2014/15 and consequently to the completions recorded in some boroughs. The net effect was an increase of the total conventional completions in 2014/15 to 30,495, revised up from 28,191 stated in AMR 12.
2.22	 The non-conventional figure of 4,564 for the first time includes bedrooms 
in care homes, and so is not comparable with previously published figures. 
When the figure for 2014/15 is recalculated to include care homes, the total for the year is 4,015. This is lower than the 4,369 figure reported in AMR 12 
because of a net loss of C2 bedrooms in completions during 2014/15. It was noted in the last AMR that the net increase in non-conventional supply is entirely down to the delivery of new student accommodation as there had been a net decrease in other non-self-contained accommodation. The same is true in 2015/16. This can in part be attributed to the gradual improvement of existing sub-standard stock, with both care homes and sui generis (SG) accommodation (including hostels, large houses in multiple occupation and other non-self-contained residential units) being replaced by new selfcontained units.

2.23	 The other element of the London Plan monitoring benchmark is for 755 
empty homes (vacants) to return to use each year, a slight increase on the 749 target in the 2011 London Plan. The Government's housing live table 615 shows that the number of long-term empty homes in London fell from 20,915 in October 2015 to 19,845 in October 2016, a drop of 1,070. However, the relative stability at London-wide level hides some large changes at borough level, for example an increase in empty homes from 97 to 651 in Harrow has reduced their overall delivery to 61% of target (as opposed to 155% from just conventional and non-conventional 
completions). A fall from 1,318 to 593 in Newham represents a gain of 725 units, taking total delivery to 83% of the annual target.
2.24	 These are long-term benchmarks and individual years will vary over the 
development cycle. The high level of completions over the last two years make a positive contribution to the delivery of the London Plan. However the total is below the 2015 London Plan target and does little to address historic under provision.
2.25	 There remains substantial capacity in the development pipeline (see Table 
3.4 and Table 3.23) for completions to continue at a high level. However, it is not yet clear whether and how delivery will be affected by market conditions and other external factors such as infrastructure provision and the availability of skilled construction workers.
2.26	 It is expected that the new London Plan will re-assess the components 
of this KPI. One issue that will be considered is the relative weight given to conventional and non-conventional supply. At present a small house in multiple occupation (containing up to six rooms) will count as a single 
conventional unit, whereas a large HMO (7 bedrooms or more) is classified as a hostel with each bedroom contributing to the non-conventional supply. 

Student accommodation also contributes one unit per room. One option could be to reduce the relative impact of the non-conventional supply by, for example, dividing the total by a fixed number. Adopting this approach would reduce the delivery total when compared to past AMRs. Whatever approach is adopted, it will ensure that comparable totals can be derived from the historic data on LDD.

Net 
Borough
Net 
% of target
conv
non-conv
Vacants* Total
London 
Plan target
Barking and Dagenham
789
-378
92
503
1,236
41%
Barnet
1,644
34
149
1827
2,349
78%
Bexley
-93
-15
8
-100
446
-22%
Brent
1,047
450
-48
1449
1,525
95%
Bromley
728
-68
105
765
641
119%
Camden
942
368
24
1334
889
150%
City of London
77
0
-4
73
141
52%
Croydon
2,044
-18
-194
1832
1,435
128%
Ealing
1,082
565
-28
1619
1,297
125%
Enfield
676
-19
-268
389
798
49%
Greenwich
1,756
-42
41
1755
2,685
65%
Hackney
838
1,030
-9
1859
1,599
116%
Hammersmith and F.
368
0
-114
254
1,031
25%
Haringey
367
0
120
487
1,502
32%
Harrow
910
7
-554
363
593
61%
Havering
1,490
0
70
1560
1,170
133%
Hillingdon
851
80
62
993
559
178%
Hounslow
506
-38
126
594
822
72%
Islington
1,027
475
454
1956
1,264
155%
Kensington and Chelsea 341
-117
-110
114
733
16%
Kingston upon Thames
304
62
-1
365
643
57%
Lambeth
1,348
1,077
386
2811
1,559
180%
Lewisham
1,541
-10
-87
1444
1,385
104%
London Legacy DC
547
759
0
1306
1,471
89%
Merton
642
47
8
697
411
170%
Newham
917
7
725
1649
1,994
83%
Redbridge
538
0
-7
531
1,123
47%
Richmond upon Thames 514
-8
38
544
315
173%
Southwark
1,382
124
4
1510
2,736
55%
Sutton
371
-99
-15
257
363
71%
Tower Hamlets
2,431
440
10
2881
3,931
73%
Waltham Forest
972
-39
-58
875
862
102%
Wandsworth
3,115
-16
43
3142
1,812
173%
Westminster
907
-94
102
915
1,068
86%
London
32,919
4,564
1,070
38553
42,388
91%

## Key Performance Indicator 5 An Increased Supply Of Affordable Homes

Target: Completion of 17,000 net additional affordable homes per year

2.27	 This KPI measures the completion of affordable units as granted in planning 
permissions recorded on the London Development Database (LDD). It is a net figure for conventional completions of new homes, with unit losses deducted from the total. The tenure of the completed units is as set out in the s106 legal agreement. It does not attempt to measure acquisitions of units by Housing Associations or transfers of stock post completion.
2.28	 Table 2.7 shows that during 2015/16 a net total of 6,675 affordable units 
were completed. This represents a decrease of over 14% of the previous year's figure of 7,803. Note that the figure for 2014/15 has been revised upwards from the 6,985 published in last AMR.
2.29	 In percentage terms, the share of affordable housing has also fallen - from 
26% to 20% of net housing supply. 
2.30	 In gross terms (not subtracting demolitions and other losses) 8,973 
affordable units were completed, 5.5% below the 9,498 completed in 
2014/15.
2.31	
Net affordable housing output can vary considerably from year to year, particularly at a local level. Therefore it is more meaningful to measure individual borough delivery against a longer term average. Table 2.7 therefore shows average affordable housing output as a proportion of overall conventional housing provision over the three years to 2015/16. During this period affordable housing output averaged 24% of total provision, down 4% on the 28% reported in the last AMR and continuing the downward trend seen in recent years.
2.32	 Figure 2.1 shows the three-year average performance of individual boroughs 
relative to the London-wide average of 24%. Over the three years, Waltham Forest has reported the highest share of affordable housing, despite only 1% of units completed in 2013/14 being affordable. This shows the importance of looking at longer term average rather than any one year in isolation as the timing when unit losses are recorded can have a significant impact. It should be noted that the figures for Bexley include the loss of social rented units at 
the Larner Road Estate (see KPI 4 for details).

2.33	 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, whereas the London Plan target is measured in terms of net conventional supply (i.e. 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 and completions can fall to be counted in different years. Monitoring achievement of the London Plan target is based on output from the LDD, and this definition should be used for calculating affordable housing targets for development planning purposes. Monitoring gross affordable housing delivery and the achievement of the LHS investment targets uses the more broadly based official statistics provided by DCLG. See the Affordable Housing Delivery Monitor in Chapter 3 for more details.

Borough
Total Net Conventional Affordable Completions
Affordable as% of Total Net Conventional Supply
2013/
2014/
2015/
2014/
2015/
14
15
16
Total
2013/ 14
15
16
All Years
Barking and Dagenham
588
14
325
927
68%
3%
41%
43%
Barnet
285
359
190
834
27%
26%
12%
20%
Bexley
166
170
-329
7
31%
21%
<0
1%
Brent
243
706
52
1,001
35%
44%
5%
30%
Bromley
140
-62
10
88
20%
<0
1%
5%
Camden
202
61
182
445
37%
12%
19%
22%
City of London
24
0
0
24
6%
0%
0%
3%
Croydon
179
638
383
1,200
14%
42%
19%
25%
Ealing
185
59
239
483
25%
7%
22%
18%
Enfield
164
102
52
318
31%
25%
8%
20%
Greenwich
679
298
786
1,763
50%
23%
45%
40%
Hackney
354
498
145
997
35%
31%
17%
29%
Hammersmith & Fulham
229
173
35
437
21%
20%
10%
19%
Haringey
150
454
0
604
33%
54%
0%
36%
Harrow
33
96
-94
35
11%
23%
<0
2%
Havering
292
392
600
1,284
31%
54%
40%
41%
Hillingdon
93
86
97
276
15%
9%
11%
11%
Hounslow
129
401
212
742
13%
37%
42%
29%
Islington
358
223
222
803
28%
26%
22%
25%
Kensington & Chelsea
164
53
67
284
70%
7%
20%
21%
Kingston upon Thames
84
132
-7
209
32%
25%
<0
19%
Lambeth
346
358
138
842
30%
25%
10%
21%
Lewisham
155
418
237
810
22%
29%
15%
22%
Merton
138
91
65
294
30%
19%
10%
19%
Newham
503
568
423
1,494
25%
29%
29%
28%
Redbridge
2
17
52
71
1%
7%
10%
7%
Richmond upon Thames 109
5
99
213
29%
2%
19%
18%
Southwark
483
109
121
713
29%
9%
9%
17%
Sutton
49
180
9
238
13%
38%
2%
19%
Tower Hamlets
213
731
886
1,830
13%
32%
36%
29%
Waltham Forest
3
281
670
954
1%
41%
69%
47%
Wandsworth
224
144
632
1,000
19%
15%
20%
19%
Westminster
47
48
176
271
9%
7%
19%
12%
London
7,013
7,803
6,675
21,491 26%
26%
20%
24%

## Key Performance Indicator 6 Reducing Health Inequalities

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

2.34	 The figures for this KPI target were in the past calculated by the GLA using 
ONS mortality data and ONS mid-year estimates. However, after 2013 ONS stopped publishing the mortality data, meaning life expectancy can no longer be calculated. Alternative data sources are not available. Therefore, this KPI target can currently not be monitored.

## Key Performance Indicator 7 Sustaining Economic Activity

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

2.35	 Table 2.8 shows that London saw a rise in its employment rate# during 
2015 by 1.7% on the previous year, as the economy continued its recovery following a downturn between 2009 and 2011. This has taken London's employment rate to its highest annual average level at any time since records began for London in 1992. 
2.36	 The difference between London and the rest of the UK has also continued to 
improve, down to 0.5% in 2015. 
2.37	
The data in Table 2.8 includes further revisions made by ONS in October 2016. The data has been re-weighted in line with the latest ONS estimates following the 2011 Census, which provides more accurate population information than was previously available. 

Employment Rate%#
Year
London Working-Age Residents in Employment
London Residents of Working Age
London 
UK 
Difference 
2004
3,433,700
5,039,000
68.1
72.5
-4.4
2005
3,476,500
5,112,400
68
72.5
-4.5
2006
3,528,500
5,183,500
68.1
72.4
-4.3
2007
3,608,400
5,262,000
68.6
72.4
-3.8
2008
3,699,400
5,351,500
69.1
72.1
-3
2009
3,695,600
5,443,400
67.9
70.6
-2.7
2010
3,719,200
5,524,000
67.3
70.1
-2.8
2011
3,787,900
5,630,500
67.3
69.8
-2.5
2012
3,867,000
5,669,600
68.2
70.5
-2.3
2013
3,978,000
5,722,000
69.5
71.2
-1.7
2014
4,128,300
5,788,300
71.3
72.2
-0.9
2015
4,278,200
5,863,900
73
73.5
-0.5

Source: Annual Population Survey - #includes self-employment. 

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

The ratio

2.38	 In this edition of the 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-2016 was 4.9:1 (Table 2.9), the lowest ratio since this benchmark was initiated. In the most recent set of comparable figures for the two databases, for 2015, the ratio of permissions to starts was 6.0:1 according to EGi and 2.3:1 according to LDD.

Table 2.9 - Ratio of Planning Permissions to Three Year Average Starts in Central 
London Year
EGi
LDD
2004
11.9:1
6.4:1
2005
8.1:1
7.4:1
2006
8.3:1
8.7:1
2007
6.3:1
4.7:1
2008
7.5:1
4.1:1
2009
10.0:1
7.0:1
2010
13.0:1
11.6:1
2011
13.5:1
8.0:1
2012
8.3:1
3.9:1
2013
7.1:1
4.5:1
2014
5.9:1
3.2:1
2015
6.0:1
2.3:1*
2016
4.9:1
n/a

Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices, London Development Database - 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. *3.8:1 if Battersea Power Station is excluded as a 'start' and only the first phase of Wood Wharf is treated as a 'start' - see paragraph 2.37

2.39	 Although the EGi ratio remains comfortably ahead of the 3:1 benchmark, 
this is the first time that the LDD measure has fallen below 3:1 since the 
dotcom demand boom of the early 21st century, the only other time this has happened since the 1980s. It follows two years of very strong start 
activity. However, at this stage only an "amber" warning is indicated, since (as discussed further below) there is evidence that the market is turning and that, therefore, the level of starts is likely to tail off and permissions to 'restock'. This would bring the ratio back up again. This is a long-term benchmark dealing with future supply capacity which is drawn on by developers as the property cycle dictates. 
2.40	 It should also be noted that LDD handles the starts of phased schemes 
differently to EGi. Using the EGi basis and including only that phase of Wood Wharf that is fully committed LDD data returns a ratio of 3.2. Similarly, EGi does not yet treat Battersea Power Station as a start (and, again, will only include the phases where substantial building is under way). Adjusting the LDD data on this basis gives a ratio of 3.8:1. It is important to view this benchmark ratio in the context of other indicators which will inform a London Plan review.
2.41	
Final permissions and starts data from LDD for 2016 are not yet available, hence the absence of a ratio for that year. In addition to different handling 
of starts, variation in the ratios can be accounted for by the different definitions used in the datasets.  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 - around 13% of development activity is refurbishment.

## Starts And Permissions

2.42	
Based on EGi data, Figure 2 shows that 2016 saw gross starts of 833,366 sq m.  The 2016 figure is marginally lower than the 2015 figure but still substantially higher than the ten year average of 593,667 sq m. When compared to the very long run, it is also higher than the 1985-2016 average of 592,286 sq m. The three-year average for starts over the period 2014- 2016 is 720,324 sq m, which is the highest three year average since 2002.
2.43	 There were five starts of 30,000 sq m or more. These include the 
exceptionally large 190,881 sq m 22 Bishopsgate, but otherwise were spread around central London at Heron Quays, 1 Bank Street, Canary Wharf (70,117 
sq m); Southbank Place (Formerly Shell Centre), York Road (60,834 sq m); 70 St Mary Axe (30,256 sq m) and the Brunel Building at North Wharf (30,016 sq m). As noted above EGi and LDD treat Wood Wharf differently. EGi records only the commenced phase as a start (8,581 sq m) while LDD counts the entire scheme as a start (222,887 sq m).

2.44	 This highlights the issue of data monitoring and, in particular, that the largest 
modern schemes are very large indeed and usually multi-phased. When this benchmark was instigated it would be exceptional for a single scheme to have an impact on the benchmark ratio. However, Wood Wharf makes up over one quarter of starts recorded by LDD. Further, Wood Wharf and Battersea Power Station together account for more than 40% of starts. EGi does not have Battersea Power Station listed as a 2016 start. 
Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices

2.45	 Unimplemented office permissions at year end 2016 totalled 3,517,880 sq m 
according to the EGi data (compared to 3,632,376 sq m at the end of 2015). The 2016 figure compares to a ten-year average of 3,800,000 sq m.
2.46	 As has been the case for several years, large permissions are dominated by 
activity in Docklands: with a total of eight proposals of more than 100,000 sq m, of which four are in E14. These schemes are, in fact, the same schemes 
as in 2015, namely: Wood Wharf, Preston's Road (267,372 sq m); North Quay, Aspen Way (222,036 sq m); Riverside South, Westferry (185,283 sq m) and Heron Quays, Bankside (103,886 sq m). The other schemes over 100,000 sq m are largely unchanged: Battersea Power Station (157,777 sq m); King's Cross (115,326 sq m) and 49 Leadenhall in the City (105,033 sq m). 22 Bishopsgate (148,339 sq m) moves to the 'start' list, while 1 Undershaft (105,033 sq m) replaces it in the consent list.

2.47	
These eight schemes together account for 35.5% of the consented space at the end of 2016. The mean size of unimplemented permissions was highest in Tower Hamlets, at 19,952 sq m; followed by the City of London at 16,146 sq m, and Wandsworth at 9,162 sq m.

## Office Market Overview

2.48	 The Central London market had a mixed 2016. Take-up was somewhat below 
the long-run average, and lower than 2014 or 2015, but was well above levels that would indicate a struggling market.  Cushman and Wakefield data indicates that 2015 take up was 1.07 million sq m, against a 2016 figure of 938,000 sq m (including the Apple pre-let) and in this context it is not a surprise that, although headline rents remained reasonably stable, the 
incentives available to occupiers increased.
2.49	 **Supply eases** Given lower take-up, supply constraints eased, raising from 
604,000 sq m to 1.1 million sq m and even the core West End saw more space with Mayfair availability rising from around 32,000 sq m to 49,000 sq m. It would be premature to read increased supply as a form of market turning point, although some commentators have suggested that this cycle may have passed its peak, suggesting a subdued 2017. Indeed, some argue that the peak was before the EU Referendum.
2.50	 **Pre-lets** The requirement for pre-letting before starting construction has 
been a feature of the Central London market for well over two decades, since even the most generous financiers will want some security. For the first time in many years a significant level of starts has happened in the City of London without the security of pre-lets. It is too early to read anything into this. The average size of City of London start (16,146 sq m) is somewhat skewed by the inclusion of 22 Bishopsgate which makes up nearly 55% of total starts. Further, starts at Canary Wharf are more than 30% pre-let, which is much more in line with expectations. It should be noted that arguably the marquee 
letting of 2016 - Apple's 50,000 sq m at Battersea Power Station - is not yet reflected in the EG's prelet statistics, although agents do count it. 

2.51	
Tech influx The Apple letting highlights a trend that might be significant in 
the context of concerns about the post-Brexit future of the City of London. Apple is only the most recent of the global technology companies (along with Amazon, Facebook, Google and Snapchat) making major commitments to London over the past few years. It might be notable, in the case of Apple, that it has taken far more space than UK employee numbers would suggest it needs. Rents in Shoreditch have risen sharply to equal those in the City, although they stabilised in the second half of 2016. The moves by Google and Facebook are likely to compound the evidence of outflow we noted in the previous AMR from Shoreditch into Aldgate. A new cluster is emerging around King's Cross.
2.52	
Flexible space market The flexible space market continues to develop and it is noteworthy that WeWork is now one of the largest holders of space in Central London. This comes at a time when the mainstream property market is facing challenges in offering space to small business as a result of two policy actions. First, at the time of writing, various industry businesses are expressing alarm at the impact of the forthcoming rating revaluation 
on London, and second, the impact of Permitted Development Rights (see 
below). 
2.53	 **Loss of office stock** The application of Permitted Development Rights - 
a policy designed to turn redundant office space into housing - is in fact removing perfectly good, low specification offices, used by small business, from the market. Concern about the impact of PDR was raised in the last AMR, especially for those central area fringe locations lying just beyond the CAZ and Tech City exemptions. Office premises here are coming under intense pressure for conversion to residential use with, for example, Camden, Islington, Tower Hamlets and Southwark losing useful secondary space to residential. But crucially, nearly two-thirds of this was space that was at least partially in use at the time consent was sought for conversion. This is a significant concern and needs to be monitored closely.

## Key Performance Indicator 9 Ensure That There Is Sufficient Employment Land Available

Target: Release of industrial land to be in line with benchmarks in the Industrial Capacity SPG

2.54	 Table 2.10 shows an estimated total of 40.9 hectares of industrial land 
recorded in planning approvals for transfer to other uses in 2015/16. Almost two thirds of the area approved for transfer was in East London and a further 15% in South London. The largest individual site transfers in planning approvals include: •		
Fresh Wharf Estate, Fresh Wharf Road in Barking & Dagenham (7 hectares)
•		
Land at Enderby Wharf, Christchurch Way in Lewisham (3 hectares)
•		
Kent Wharf & 24a, Creekside in Greenwich (2.7 hectares)
2.55	 Over 97% of the approvals involved transfers of less than one hectare of 
industrial land.
2.56	 Table 2.10 shows that industrial land release in 2015/16 planning approvals 
was only marginally above the annual benchmark in the London Plan and 
the Land for Industry and Transport SPG and substantially lower than that in 2013/14 and 2014/15. In 2015/16 the SPG benchmark was exceeded in the Central, East and South sub-regions. 
2.57	
The five year average release in planning approvals 2011/12 to 2015/16 is 78 hectares per annum - lower than the annual average rates of release in 2001-2006 and 2006-2011 but still more than twice the London Plan benchmark. Note that figures presented here are based on planning approvals that involve the loss of industrial or warehousing floorspace and do not record transfers of other types of industrial land where there is an absence of existing industrial or warehousing floorspace (typically, though not always, in open storage, construction, waste management, utilities and vacant cleared sites).
2.58	 These trends were investigated in more detail by the GLA in a report 
published in February 2016 (London's Industrial Land Supply and Economy Study 2015). This study found that over the period 2010 to 2015 around 105 hectares per annum of land in industrial and related uses had been released 
- almost three times the London Plan benchmark. 

2.59	 A GLA assessment of London's future demand for land in industrial, 
warehousing and related uses is anticipated for publication in Spring 2017.

Annual average release
Release in planning   approvbenchmark 2011-2031
2001- 2006
2006- 2011
2011/12- 2015/16
2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
Central
6
5
8
7.3
13.5
4.1
2.3
East
57
54
30
28.3
29.4
25.7
19.4
North
2
2
4
3.6
5.1
1.2
3.4
South
11
4
12
6.7
12.3
6.3
4.4
West
10
18
23
15.6
36.3
3.6
7.2
London
86
83
78
61.6
96.6
40.9
36.7

Source: LDD, London Plan (March 2015) and SPG Land for Industry and Transport. Figures include release of land currently in industrial use and in mixed industrial/ non-industrial uses. 

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

2.60	 Table 2.11 shows the total number of jobs, including self-employed, from 
2004 to 2015, and the proportion of jobs in the Outer London boroughs, which has remained at 39%. In 2011 the total number in Outer London had fallen by 76,000 from its 2008 peak. However, since 2011 there has been a strong recovery in employment, increasing by 240,000 between 2011 and 2015 (12.5%), including by 2.4% in the last year alone. However, this represents a weaker rise since 2011 than in both inner London (13.9%) and London overall (13.4%). 
2.61	
In 18 of the 19 Outer London boroughs the number of employee jobs has grown since 1984. Growth in jobs has not been as large as in London overall. The changes in employee jobs numbers for individual boroughs have varied significantly. 

Year
Outer London
London
% in Outer London
2004
1,925,000 
4,565,000 
42% 
2005
1,940,000 
4,666,000 
42% 
2006
1,968,000 
4,717,000 
42% 
2007
1,953,000 
4,772,000 
41% 
2008
1,989,000 
4,911,000 
41% 
2009
1,922,000 
4,811,000 
40% 
2010
1,929,000 
4,802,000 
40% 
2011
1,913,000 
4,882,000 
39% 
2012
1,998,000 
5,081,000 
39% 
2013
2,041,000 
5,221,000 
39% 
2014
2,102,000 
5,433,000 
39% 
2015
2,153,000
5,538,000
39%

Source: London Datastore for London Labour Market Projections. 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.

## Key Performance Indicator 11 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
2.62	
Table 2.12 shows that employment rates for both white and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups continue to increase. The gap between employment rates for white vs BAME Londoners has broadly followed a downward trend. Over the last ten years the gap has reduced by 3.1%. After a sharp increase in 2011 to 14.8%, the gap has continued falling and is now at 13.2%  - the lowest on record and 0.9% below the previous years gap.
2.63	 The 2004 - 2015 data in Table 2.12 includes revisions made by ONS in 
October 2016. The data has been re-weighted in line with the latest ONS estimates following the 2011 Census, which provides more accurate population information than before. 
2.64	 Table 2.13 shows that while lone parents were 9% more likely to be claiming 
income support than the national average in 2006 this gap has fallen over the last decade. In fact lone parents in London are now 3% less likely to be claiming income support than the national average.
2.65	 It should be noted that since the introduction of the Employment Support 
allowance (ESA) in 2008, lone parents with health issues who were previously claiming income support, now claim ESA. This has to be considered when comparing different years for the 'Lone Parents on Income Support' series. However, it does not affect the comparison of data between London and England and Wales in one particular year.
Source: Table 2.12 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 time series. They can, however, be used to estimate the relative levels of economic activity of different ethnic groups. Source: Table 2.13 DWP's Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study extracted from NOMIS, denominators are number of lone parents with dependent children taken from ONS Labour Force Survey April-June

| All Persons   | White Groups   |   BAME Groups |
|---------------|----------------|---------------|
| Employment    |                |               |
| rate gap      |                |               |
| Year          |                |               |
| In employ-    |                |               |
| ment          |                |               |
| rate%         |                |               |
| In employ-    |                |               |
| ment          |                |               |
| rate%         |                |               |
| In employ-    |                |               |
| ment          |                |               |
| Rate%         |                |               |
| White/  BAME  |                |               |
| 2004          | 3,433,700      |          68.1 |
| 2005          | 3,476,500      |          68   |
| 2006          | 3,528,500      |          68.1 |
| 2007          | 3,608,400      |          68.6 |
| 2008          | 3,699,400      |          69.1 |
| 2009          | 3,695,600      |          67.9 |
| 2010          | 3,719,200      |          67.3 |
| 2011          | 3,787,900      |          67.3 |
| 2012          | 3,867,000      |          68.2 |
| 2013          | 3,978,000      |          69.5 |
| 2014          | 4,128,300      |          71.3 |
| 2015          | 4,278,200      |          73   |
| London                                             | England and Wales   |
|----------------------------------------------------|---------------------|
| Annual                                             |                     |
| Report                                             |                     |
| Difference                                         |                     |
| Lone Parent                                        |                     |
| families on IS                                     |                     |
| as % of lone                                       |                     |
| parent fami-                                       |                     |
| lies#                                              |                     |
| Lone Par-                                          |                     |
| ent Fami-                                          |                     |
| lies on IS                                         |                     |
| as % of Lone                                       |                     |
| Parent fami-                                       |                     |
| lies#                                              |                     |
| 2006                                               | 160,450             |
| 2007                                               | 152,520             |
| 2008                                               | 141,720             |
| 2009                                               | 129,100             |
| 2010                                               | 109,200             |
| 2011                                               | 102,590             |
| 2012                                               | 83,050              |
| 2013                                               | 73,300              |
| 2014                                               | 66,440              |
| 2015                                               | 62,450              |
| #Lone parent families with dependent children only |                     |

## Key Performance Indicator 12 Improving The Provision Of Social Infrastructure And Related Services Target: Reduce The Average Class Sizes In Primary Schools

2.66	 An accurate figure for the City of London was not available for 2015/16. 
Therefore the following analysis focuses on the other 32 London Boroughs. 
Between 2009 and 2016 the average class size2 across London increased 
slightly by 0.7. Over this period 26 London boroughs recorded an increase in the average number of pupils per class, and 7 recorded a decrease. After remaining stable for 3 years at 27.8 the London average has dropped very slightly to 27.7 pupils per class, the first decrease recorded since the indicator was established. However it is unclear whether this decrease will continue and class sizes will continued to be monitored closely. 
2.67	
The 2015/16 figure for the City of London highlighted problems with the data collection method utilised by the Department of Education (DfE). The count of pupils in one teacher classes occurs at a time specified by the DfE. It is therefore possible to carry out the count whilst the majority of students are being taught in multiple teacher classes. 
2.68	 The main drivers of changing class sizes in London is demographic including 
migration out of London to other parts of the UK as well as challenges in recruiting and retaining teachers.
2.69	 The building of new schools is likely to need to continue as the population 
continues to grow. Between January 2015 and January 2016, 14 primary schools opened in London3. 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). The Social Infrastructure SPG, published in May 2015 suggests additional ways to link the provision of schools with housing growth through co-located and multi-use facilities.
2.70	
The London Schools Atlas is an innovative interactive online map providing a uniquely detailed and comprehensive picture of London schools, current 
patterns of attendance and potential future demand for school places. Covering primary and secondary provision, including academies and free 
schools, the Atlas uses data to illustrate current patterns of demand for school places at a pan-London level for the first time. It also shows projected changes in demand for school places, helping to provide an indicative picture of areas with particular pressure on places in the future. https:// maps.london.gov.uk/schools/ 

Borough
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2009- 2016
Barking & Dagenham
27.2
27.5
27.9
27.9
28.3
28.0
28.3
28.7
1.5
Barnet
27.6
27.9
28.1
28
28.2
28.4
28.5
28.2
0.6
Bexley
27.8
28
28.2
28.3
28.5
28.4
28.5
28.5
0.7
Brent
27.8
28.1
28.5
28.6
28.7
28.9
28.4
28.4
0.6
Bromley
27.7
27.8
28.1
28.3
28.4
28.3
28.4
28.2
0.5
Camden
26.6
27.1
27.1
27.5
27.5
27.6
27.7
27.9
1.3
City
24.7
25.9
25.9
24.7
25.9
25.9
24.4
-
-
Croydon
27.7
27.9
28.1
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.0
28.0
0.3
Ealing
27.2
27.7
27.8
28
28.3
28.0
28.2
27.9
0.7
Enfield
28.6
28.2
28.7
28.8
28.8
28.7
28.4
28.4
-0.2
Greenwich
26.2
26.5
26.9
27
27.1
27.4
27.9
27.7
1.5
Hackney
25.8
26.1
26.3
26.3
26.2
26.8
26.9
26.8
1.0
Hammersmith & Fulham
26.2
26.4
26.1
26.8
26.1
26.1
26.0
25.6
-0.6
Haringey
27.5
27.6
28
27.9
28.2
28.0
28.1
28.2
0.7
Harrow
26.9
26.7
28
28.5
28.8
29.8
29.4
29.0
2.1
Havering
27.4
27.8
28
28.2
28.6
28.4
28.0
28.1
0.7
Hillingdon
27.2
27.4
27.4
27.5
27.9
28.0
28.1
28.1
0.9
Hounslow
27.4
27.8
28.2
28.4
28.4
28.1
28.1
28.2
0.8
Islington
25.5
25.3
26.2
26.4
26.3
26.6
26.7
27.0
1.5
Kensington & Chelsea
25.7
26.2
26.8
27
26.7
26.7
26.7
26.3
0.6
Kingston
27.1
27.7
27.6
27.5
27.7
27.6
27.7
27.7
0.6
Lambeth
25.6
25.7
26
26.3
26.6
26.3
26.1
26.2
0.6
Lewisham
26.3
26.3
26.8
26.9
27.2
27.4
27.2
27.0
0.7
Merton
27
27.1
27.5
27.9
27.7
27.8
27.1
27.1
0.1
Newham
27
27.4
27.8
28.1
27.9
26.6
27.4
29.6
2.6
Redbridge
29.1
29
29.5
29.6
29.1
29.3
29.2
28.3
-0.8
Richmond
26.9
27.4
28
27.9
28.2
28.5
28.2
25.9
-1.0
Southwark
24.6
24.8
25.3
25.8
26.3
26.4
26.1
28.7
4.1
Sutton
27.7
27.9
28.2
28.5
28.7
28.8
28.8
27.0
-0.7
Tower Hamlets
26.3
26.9
27.3
27.7
27.6
27.7
27.5
27.3
1.0
Waltham Forest
28.1
28.5
28
28.5
28.2
28.4
27.8
25.3
-2.8
Wandsworth
25.3
25.9
25.6
26.3
25.9
25.8
26.0
25.0
-0.3
Westminster
25.4
26.3
26.7
26.6
26.0
25.6
25.3
27.7
2.3
London
27
27.2
27.6
27.7
27.8
27.8
27.8
27.7
0.7

Source: Department for Education https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/schools-pupils-and-theircharacteristics-january-2016 London Annual Education Report 2017. https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Final_GLA_Annual_Report_2017- 21st-Feb.pdf

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
2.71	
Since 2001, use of public transport per head has grown by over 36%, although there was a slight decrease of 0.5% in the latest year. Private transport use per head has decreased by over 23% since 2001, and is down by 2% in the latest year. 
2.72	
The indices in Table 2.15 are derived from the time series of journey stages per head compiled for the Travel in London Report 9 (TfL Planning December 2016). This includes all travel to, from or within Greater London, including travel by commuters and visitors. 
2.73	
Total daily journey stages in 2015 were 31.5 million, up from 31.3 million in 2014, and 5.9 million higher than in 2001.

|   Year |   Public transport index |   Private transport index |
|--------|--------------------------|---------------------------|
|   2001 |                    100   |                     100   |
|   2002 |                    103.1 |                      99.5 |
|   2003 |                    108.1 |                      97.1 |
|   2004 |                    113.8 |                      95.1 |
|   2005 |                    112   |                      92.6 |
|   2006 |                    114.7 |                      92   |
|   2007 |                    124.4 |                      90.9 |
|   2008 |                    128.2 |                      86.4 |
|   2009 |                    127.5 |                      85.6 |
|   2010 |                    127.8 |                      84.8 |
|   2011 |                    131.2 |                      82.8 |
|   2012 |                    133.6 |                      80.7 |
|   2013 |                    134.2 |                      78.8 |
|   2014 |                    136.6 |                      78.5 |
|   2015 |                    136.1 |                      76.6 |

Source: Transport for London, ONS Surveys on labour force and international passengers

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
2.74	
Table 2.16 shows that road traffic volume across London is down by 9.4% on 2001 levels (16% Inner London and 6% Outer London). In the last year traffic volume for London as a whole has fallen by 0.3%. Outer London records a fall following three years of growth.
2.75	
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.

Since 2001, 
vehicle kilometers 
travelled in London 
have reduced by:

Year
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2009
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Source: TfL Planning, Travel in London Report 9, section 6.3

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% in 2009 to 5% by 2026
2.76	
Table 2.17 shows that in 2015 there were 668,000 cycle journey stages a day, which is a 3.5% increase on 2014, following a 61% increase in cycle stages since 2005 and a 133% increase since 2000. This is equivalent to one-fifth of all daily Underground trips or slightly more than the number of trips on the Bakerloo, Circle and Hammersmith & City lines combined. In Zone 1, during the morning rush hour, 32% of all vehicles on the roads are now bicycles. On some main roads in central London, up to 70% of vehicles are bicycles. If trends continue, the number of people commuting to central London by bicycle will overtake the number commuting by car by 2019.
2.77	
Journey stages by bicycle in Greater London on an average day have increased by more than 100% since 2001. However, in particular in recent years the mode share has been influenced significantly by the strong population growth diluting the numerical progress in the number of cycle 
stages set out above. The numerical target set out in the Mayor's Transport 
Strategy (MTS) is 1.5 million cycle journey stages per day by 2026. This reflects TfL's cycling investment aiming to deliver a 400% increase on 2001 cycling levels. In 2010 this equated to achieving the 5% modal share for cycling. Despite mode share no longer being stated in TfL cycling targets, TfL forecasts assume a 5% cycling mode share (at the journey stage level) will be achieved by 2026 and 6% in 2041. Funding for new infrastructure confirmed in the TfL Business Plan by the Mayor will help achieve this, and the London Plan includes a range of relevant policies such as support for the Cycle Superhighway network and the cycle hire scheme as well as standards for cycle parking and facilities for cyclists in new development.

Year
Daily Cycle stages (millions)
Cycle mode share (percentage)
2001
0.320
1.2
2002
0.323
1.2
2003
0.370
1.4
2004
0.380
1.4
2005
0.415
1.6
2006
0.466
1.7
2007
0.467
1.6
2008
0.489
1.7
2009
0.514
1.8
2010
0.544
1.9
2011
0.572
1.9
2012
0.582
1.9
2013
0.585
1.9
2014
0.645
2.1
2015
0.668
2.1

Source: TfL Planning, Travel in London Report 9, tables 2.3 and 5.4 A cycle trip (see KPI target) is defined as a one-way movement to achieve a specific purpose that is conducted entirely by bike. A cycle journey stage (as monitored above) includes these trips, but also shorter cycle legs undertaken as part of a longer trip using another mode - for example, cycling to a station to catch a train. Cycle journey stages therefore give a best indication of total cycling activity.

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

2.78	
Table 2.18 includes figures for passenger journeys on all river boat services on the Thames - River Bus, River Tours, Charter Services and also Woolwich Ferry passengers. Woolwich Ferry passenger numbers were only included in the count from 2006/2007. This partly explains the large 122% increase on 2005/2006 figures. From 2013/14 onwards a new passenger counting system linked to the Automatic Identification System (AIS) on board vessels has been used to give a clearer reflection of the total number of passenger journeys on the Thames. This partly explains the 34% increase from 2012/13 figures. 
2.79	
Despite the baseline changes it is apparent that the number of passengers on the Thames increased until 2011 and after a small decline in 2011/12 and 2012/13, numbers have risen again, to over 10.3 million in 2015/16. Delivery of the River Action Plan and high profile events such as the 2014 
poppy installation at Tower Hill and the Tall Ships Festival in Greenwich have helped passenger numbers to grow and exceed the current ten-year target for 2011/2021 early. 
2.80	 TfL has worked with partners to deliver the majority of actions set out 
in the River Action Plan and is on track to achieve its own target of 12 million annual river passenger journeys by 2020. Key projects which have contributed to this include: •	The roll-out of Contactless (May 2016) and Oyster card (September 2015) 
payment readers at all River Bus piers, enabling pay as you go users to use River Bus services without first queuing for a ticket
•	A new developer led pier at Plantation Wharf opened in November 2015 
has improved River Bus connectivity in west London, while Thames Water have delivered a new pier at Blackfriars (November 2016) as part of the Thames Tideway Tunnel works
•	A new river marketing campaign has been launched demonstrating the link 
between the river and key tourist attractions and business hubs along the Thames

•	Improvements to signage and information provision on piers, including 
countdown screens and Legible London wayfinding maps and signs
•	Two pier extensions have been delivered in 2016 at Bankside and 
Westminster Piers, enabling new services to stop at these piers and improving the customer experience
2.81	
Table 2.19 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. Data for two years (2015 and 2016) has been added to Table 2.19 since the last AMR. Following a decrease of 11% in 2015 there has been an increase of water freight trade by 7% in 2016.
2.82	 The overall figure is a combination of (1) the interport trade (cargo handled 
at terminal in Greater London that either enters or leaves the Port of London across the Seaward Limits) such as sea dredged aggregates, petroleum products or cane sugar; and (2) intraport trade (cargo handled at terminals in Greater London that has its origin or destination at terminals within the Port of London or within the Seaward Limits). Both Interport and Intraport cargo volumes increased in 2016, with aggregates and petroleum products 
showing strong growth in terms of Interport trade. The movement of aggregates was particularly strong (+32%) in Intraport trade, with additional growth for the second year in the movement in containerised waste (+2%). Movements of Intraport Construction, Excavation and Demolition Waste (CE&DW) decreased by 1%, although the movement of this material will increase in 2017 with the movement of the tunnel arisings by water from the Northern Line Extension.  Major CE&DW volumes from the Thames Tideway Tunnel are due to commence in 2018.
2.83	 The Port of London Authority launched their 2035 Vision for the Tidal 
Thames in May 20164 setting out goals and priority actions including freight 
and passenger transport on the Thames. The Vision sets out clear targets including doubling the number of passengers travelling by river to 20 million per year and the movement of over 4 million tonnes of freight between wharves (excluding volumes associated with major infrastructure projects). The GLA and TfL will work closely with the PLA to identify opportunities to continue to grow passenger and freight movement on the Thames.

| Year                               | No of passengers   | % change   |
|------------------------------------|--------------------|------------|
| 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            | 5,260,157          | + 122      |
| April 2007 - March 2008            | 5,337,368          | +1.4       |
| April 2008 - March 2009            | 6,179,889          | +16        |
| April 2009 - March 2010            | 6,298,933          | +2         |
| April 2010 - March 2011            | 6,621,116          | +5         |
| April 2011 - March 2012            | 6,602,707          | - 0.2      |
| April 2012 - March 2013            | 6,277,244          | -5         |
| April 2013 - March 2014            | 8,411,200          | +34        |
| April 2014 - March 2015            | 10,022,668         | + 19       |
| April 2015 - March 2016            | 10,300,864         | +2.8       |
| Source: TfL London Rivers Services |                    |            |
|   Year | Tonnes of cargo    | % change   |
|--------|--------------------|------------|
|   2001 | 10,757,000         | -          |
|   2002 | 9,806,000          | + 9%       |
|   2003 | 9,236,000          | + 6%       |
|   2004 | 8,743,000          | - 5%       |
|   2005 | 9,288,000          | + 6%       |
|   2006 | 9,337,000          | + 0.5%     |
|   2007 | 8,642,000          | - 7%       |
|   2008 | 9,312,000          | + 8%       |
|   2009 | 8,146,000          | - 13%      |
|   2010 | 7,754,000          | - 5%       |
|   2011 | 9,022,000          | + 16%      |
|   2012 | 8,715,000          | -3%        |
|   2013 | 11,087,000         | + 27%      |
|   2014 | 11,969,000         | + 8%       |
|   2015 | 10,633,000         | - 11%      |
|   2016 | 11,376,000         | +7%        |

Source: Port of London Authority

Increase in the number of jobs located in areas of high PTAL values
Target: Maintain at least 50% of B1 development in PTAL zones 5-6 2.84	 This indicator aims to show that high-density employment generators such 
as offices are mainly located in areas that are well connected by public transport - defined as having a Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) of 5 or 6 - 6 being the highest, 0 the lowest. The floorspaces are gross, i.e. associated losses are not subtracted. The data is taken from the LDD which has a threshold for data submission of 1,000sqm for B1 uses, so schemes proposing less than this are not recorded.
2.85	 69% of all B1 Business floorspace approved during 2015/16 is located in 
areas that are well connected by public transport, well above the benchmark target of 50% and 1% above the previous year's figure. When just offices are considered, the figure rises to 73%, up 2% on the previous year.
2.86	 The majority (60%) of the office floorspace approved in 2015/16 is in the 
CAZ. All of this is in areas of high PTAL. A further 37% of office floorspace is 
located in the rest of Inner London (outside CAZ) with two thirds in areas of 
high PTAL. Only 3% of the approved office floorspace is in the Outer London boroughs. Of this, less than 15% is in areas with a high PTAL level.
2.87	
 As noted above, the figures are based on gross approvals of 1,000m2 or more. When losses to change of use or demolition are taken into account, approvals during 2015/16 would result in net gains of both all B1 (221,758m2) and B1a office (59,466m2) floorspace across London. This reverses a trend which had seen net losses in each of the three previous years. However the spatial distribution is significant, with growth in Inner London masking a decline in the amount of B1, and office floorspace in particular, in the Outer London boroughs. Almost 60% of the net loss of office floorspace in Outer London is in areas of high PTAL.

PTAL Level 
All B1 
Offices (B1a) 
Floorspace (M2) % 
Floorspace (M2) % 
5 or 6
1,167,171
69%
1,065,023
73%
4 or less
526,502
31%
388,885
27%
Total floorspace 
1,693,673
1,453,908

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

2.88	 This performance indicator is based on the changes in SINCs as a result of 
Planning permissions granted during 2015/16 and submitted to the London Development Database. Designation and de-designation of SINCs is not done through the planning permission process. What is recorded is that approval has been given for a building or works that will affect the character of the site. The decision as to whether the completed development warrants the de-designation of the area is a separate one. Re-provision within the permission is taken into account but positive numbers are only recorded in exceptional circumstances 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
2.89	 Open Space protection designations such as Green Belt, MOL and Local 
Open Space are addressed in KPI 3.
2.90	 Table 2.21 shows that a total of seven approvals were recorded during 
2015/16 on SINCs. The total area covered is 9.275 hectares.
2.91	
Three permissions were granted on Sites of Metropolitan Importance, the largest being the Nishkam Free School on 3.2 hectares at the Osterley sports ground in Hounslow. A loss of 0.76 is recorded as part of the expansion of facilities at the Charlton Athletic Training Ground in Eltham (15/0949), Greenwich. However, this is a revision to an earlier permission, and the new buildings are restricted to areas of existing buildings and hardstanding. The third recorded loss is 0.73 hectares for the expansion of Hackbridge Primary School on open space that was formerly part of the Beddington sewage treatment plant in Sutton (C2015/72418). The lack of alternative sites was considered to provide the very special circumstances 
required for permission to be granted.

2.92	 The largest loss is nearly 4.5 hectares at the former Erith Quarry, a Site of 
Borough Grade 1 Importance. The site was roughly filled with rubble and 
other waste materials as the quarrying use ceased during the 1960s and 70s. The site will be redeveloped for a school and new homes, and part of the site will be retained as open space with its management improved.
2.93	 The development of 28 homes at the Gondar Reservoir in Camden 
(2013/7585/P) is the largest permission on a Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance, but it is the re-submission of a previously approved scheme.

Borough
Borough Reference
Nature Conservation Type
Area of Open Space (Ha)
Bexley
13/02057/FUL
Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance
-0.05
Bexley
14/02155/OUTM
Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance
-4.457
Camden
2013/7585/P
Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance
-0.069
Ealing
PP/2015/2659
Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance
-0.005
Greenwich
15/0949
Site of Metropolitan Importance
-0.763
Hounslow
01106/152/P3
Site of Metropolitan Importance
-3.2
Sutton
C2015/72418
Site of Metropolitan Importance
-0.731
Total
-9.275

Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted and elimination of waste to landfill by 2031
Target: At least 45% of waste recycled/ composted by 2015 and 0% of biodegradable or recyclable waste to landfill by 2026

2.94	 Table 2.22 shows the total amount of local authority collected waste has 
declined by 870,000 tonnes over the 10 year period between 2002/03 and 2012/13, although it has increased over the past three years - by almost 130,000 tonnes.
2.95	 Table 2.22 also shows London's recycling rate for local authority collected 
waste increasing steadily between 2001/02 to 2013/14, reaching 30.5% but has since fallen by 0.9%. London did not meet the 45% recycling target for 2015 and there is still some way to go towards reaching the 50% target by 2020. London has a lower household recycling rate and faces a number of challenges including the following: a relatively high proportion of flats with limited storage space and access for recycling; varied and potentially confusing recycling services provision across borough boundaries; 
and production of less garden waste for composting.  However, London 
compares more favourably with other areas of the country in terms of managing  of 'dry material' (e.g. plastics, paper, tins, cans, glass).
2.96	 The amount of local authority collected waste sent to landfill has decreased 
by 43% over the last decade although there has only been a small decrease of 0.3% in the last year. The majority of waste previously going to landfill is being diverted to incineration with energy recovery. 

Landfill
2,856
2,692 2,404
2,209 1,946 1,696
1,116
20.3%
Incineration 
with EfW
872 826 869 767 929 919 912 803 896
1,303 1,462
 1,525 1680
 1,708 
(%)
20.0% 19.0% 19.9% 18.2% 21.9% 22.1% 22.9% 20.8% 23.6% 35.7% 40.9% 41.9% 46%
46.1%
Incineration 
without EfW
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
 0 
0
 20 
(%)
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0%
0.5%
Recycled/
composted
410 494 643 763 844 925 994
1,060 1,076
1,105 1,088
 1,110 1,107
 1,096 
(%)
9.0%
11.0% 14.7% 18.1% 19.9% 22.3% 25.0% 27.4% 28.3% 30.3% 30.4% 30.5% 30.2% 29.6%
Other#
0 0 0 0
59
101 123 117 130 124 115
 116 
122
 131 
(%)
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 1.4%
2.4% 3.1% 3.0% 3.4%
3.4%
3.2% 3.2% 3.3%
3.5%
Total*
4,446 4,342 4,370
4,223 4,235
4,154 3,975 3,862 3,797
3,648 3,576
 3,640 3,662
 3,705 

# Other includes material sent for other treatment processes including mechanical sorting, biological or specialist treatment. 

Source: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/env18-local-authority-collected-wasteannual-results-tables

## Key Performance Indicator 20 Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions Through New Development

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

2.97	
Policy 5.2 of the London Plan sets out a stepped approach to reaching zero carbon targets - see Table 2.23 and Table 2.24. While the zero carbon target for major residential developments came into effect as of 1 October 2016, the following analysis covers progress made against KPI 20 from January 2015 - December 2015 as this KPI is monitored by calendar year.
2.98	 An analysis of the energy assessments submitted alongside Stage II 
planning applications determined by the Mayor between 1 January and 31 December 2015 was undertaken by the GLA in 2016 to establish the projected carbon dioxide savings secured from these schemes. The 2015 Energy Planning Monitoring Report 5 reflects a full year of applications 
assessed against the Mayor's energy hierarchy and carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction targets set out in London Plan policy 5.2.

Residential Buildings Year
Improvement on 2010 Building Regulations
2010-2013
25 per cent
2013-2016
40 per cent
2016-2031
zero carbon
Non-domestic Buildings Year
Improvement on 2010 Building Regulations
2010-2013
25 per cent
2013-2016
40 per cent
2016-2019
as per Building Regulations
2019-2031
zero carbon
Source: London Plan 2015
Table 2.25 - Mayoral Referrals
Stage 1 Receipt Date
Carbon Dioxide Reduction Target Beyond Building Regulations Part L
Prior to 1st October 2013
25% beyond Part L 2010
1st October 2013 to 3rd April 2014 40% beyond Part L 2010 From 4th April 2014
25% beyond Part L 2013

Source: GLA

2.99	 Applications considered at Stage II in 2015 were assessed against one of 
three targets listed in Table 2.25 depending on the date they were received by the GLA at Stage I. Most of the applications considered at Stage II in 2015 were assessed against the target of 35 percent beyond Part L 2013, this having been introduced in 2014. This superseded, but was equivalent to, the London Plan target of 40 percent beyond Part L 2010 that was applied to earlier applications that were received at Stage I from October 2013.  There were also still a few schemes reaching Stage II during 2015 whose Stage I 
submission preceded this, and these were consequently assessed against 
the earlier target of 25 per cent beyond Part L 2010.
2.100	 The commitments secured during 2015 will reduce fossil fuel use leading 
to a total of more than 49,000 tonnes per annum of regulated CO2 emission 
reductions, over and above those reductions required to comply with the appropriate Part L (2010 or 2013) of the Building Regulations. This is broadly equivalent to retrofitting loft insulation in more than 82,000 existing homes. 
2.101	 For 2015, 81 percent of applications were assessed against the stricter 2013 
Part L, compared with only 5 per cent in 2014. The majority of applicants exceeded this target to produce an average of 35.8 per cent regulated CO2 
emission reductions beyond Part L 2013 across all applications in 2015. When the figures are normalised to Part L 2010 for year on year comparison, the figure for regulated CO2 emission reductions for 2015 is in excess of 
57,000 tonnes per annum. 
2.102	 Combined Heat and Power (CHP) remained the biggest single contributor to 
CO2 emission reductions with the total proposed CHP capacity increasing 
to over 32MWe, a substantial increase from the 2014 figure of 20MWe, a 
reversal to the decline seen since 2012 and the highest figure recorded for proposed CHP capacity. Almost 95 per cent of the applications reaching Stage II in 2015 met or exceeded the Building Regulations through energy efficiency alone, while renewable energy is present in 78 percent of applications reaching their target. The amount of solar photovoltaics (PV) proposed declined compared with 2014 but is distributed over a larger number of schemes, thereby continuing to demonstrate the importance of renewable energy in developments to contribute to meeting the London Plan target. 

2.103	 Significant investment at each stage of the energy hierarchy was secured 
including £117 million in heat network infrastructure, circa £22 million in CHP and £15 million in solar PV panels as well as additional investment in other renewable technologies. 
2.104	 Major development proposals are required to provide a detailed energy 
assessment to demonstrate how the targets for CO2 emissions reduction outlined above are to be met within the framework of the energy hierarchy. Where it is clearly demonstrated that the specific targets cannot be fully achieved on-site, any shortfall may be provided off-site or through a cash-inlieu contribution to the relevant borough to be ring-fenced in an off-set fund to secure delivery of carbon dioxide savings elsewhere. 

## 2.105	 The Mayor'S Sustainable Design And Construction Supplementary Planning Guidance Was Published In April 2014. This Provides The Boroughs With Further Guidance On What To Consider When Setting Up An Off-Set Fund. Key Performance Indicator 21

Increase in energy generated from renewable sources.

Target: Production of 8550 GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2026 

2.106	 This renewable energy generation target has been developed using data in 
the Mayor's Decentralised Energy Capacity Studies which marked out the role renewables could play in our future energy mix by 2026. The renewable energy generation figure includes the potential energy production from various electricity and heat supply technologies, including: photovoltaics, wind, hydro, biomass and energy from waste; as well as solar thermal, ground and air and water source heat pumps. 
2.107	 The most authoritative datasets for energy generated in London from 
renewable energy sources are provided by the Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS, formerly Department for Energy and Climate Change). Table 2.26 shows the generation of electricity from renewables in London for 2011-2015. Generation has increased to 989 GWh from 751 GWh in 2011, but is well below the 2026 target. This increase is primarily due to improved/corrected geo-referencing for landfill and sewage 
gas sites, with several large sites reallocated from a neighbouring region 
(East or South East) to London.  These sites are: Beckton and Riverside (Sewage), and Beddington, South Ockendon and Rainham (Landfill Gas). 
2.108	 In addition, through the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI)6 - the following 
renewable heat installations have been achieved by December 2016: •	27 MW of capacity installed through the non-domestic RHI (an increase of 
35% from December 2015); 
•	A total of 424 domestic accredited installations from domestic RHI. 

Year
Capacity (MW)/ 
Generation 
Biomass
Landfill 
Gas
Sewage 
Gas
Bioenergy
Photovoltaics Total
Wind 
and Wave
(GWh)
2011# Total (MW)
0
3.7
0.3
20.6
165.7
25.0
215.3
Total (GWh)
0
8.0
1.7
49.9
558.7
7.0
625.3
2012# Total (MW)
0
4.4
0.3
23.4
167.0
42.3
237.5
Total (GWh)
0
10.9
1.3
46
679.7
34.2
772.1
2013# Total (MW)
0
4.4
0.3
23.4
169.5
49.1
246.8
Total (GWh)
0
11.5
2.3
60.2
706.3
39.7
820.1

2014# Total (MW)
0
11.2
0.3
23.4
172.4
60.7
268.0
Total (GWh)
0
14.5
2.6
53.1
560.3
53.3
683.8
2015
Total (MW)
0
11.2
25.8
38.6
191.7
82.1
349.4
Total (GWh)
0
20.1
169
81.3
648.2
70
988.7

# Updated with amended data released in September 2016 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/regional-renewable-statistics Source: Regional Statistics 2003-2015: Installed Capacity, Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy, and Regional Statistics 2003-2013: Generation, Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy Source: Energy Planning Monitoring Report 2015 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2015_monitoring_report_-_final_ nov_2016.pdf

Increase in Urban Greening
Target: Increase total area of green roofs in the CAZ 2.109	 In 2014 the GLA, working with the Green Roof Consultancy, mapped all 
known green roofs in the CAZ that were visible on aerial imagery taken in the summer of 2013. A total of 678 green roofs covering an area of over 175,000m2 (17.5 ha) were found. The map is published here: https:// www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/ environment/parks-green-spaces-andbiodiversity/green-roof-map. 
2.110	 We have recently updated this dataset by assessing aerial imagery from 
summer 2015, and estimate an additional 45,000 m2 (4.5 ha) has been installed to make a total CAZ green roof area of around 22 ha. We will add this data to our green roof map in early 2017 and continue to encourage installers and purchasers of green roofs to inform the GLA of any green roofs that may have been missed, or that have been installed since the summer of 2015. The next update is likely to use aerial imagery from 2017.

## Key Performance Indicator 23 Improve London'S Blue Ribbon Network

Target: Restore 15km of rivers and streams* 2009 - 2015 and an additional 10km by 2020 (*defined as main river by the Environment Agency - includes larger streams and rivers but can also include smaller watercourses of local significance)

2.111	 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. 
2.112	 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, recommended that projects have post project appraisals. For the Steering Group to enable a project to be assessed in terms of restoration, the following investigations 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. 
2.113	 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 London River Restoration Group, which is a sub-group of the Catchment Partnership in London 
2.114	 Table 2.27 shows consistent restoration of 1.5 km p/a and above each year 
since 2007, except for the year 2014. Overall, the target of 15 km of river restoration between 2008 (base year as per London Biodiversity Action Plan habitat target) and 2015 has been achieved and exceeded by 742 m and in 2016 over 3km were restored. This represents significant progress of 30% 
against the additional 10km target to 2020. 

2.115	 Significant restoration schemes at Hogsmill, Yeading Brook and Brookside 
delivered just under 2km of restoration while an additional 600m of river was enhanced by volunteers in Richmond Park. The Ram Brewery in Wandsworth and the Lewisham Gateway projects will be completed shortly. The All London Green Grid and River Basin Management Plan should also facilitate further achievements. It should be noted that the London Biodiversity Action Plan includes, alongside this KPI, a target for maintenance and enhancement reflected in London Plan Policy 7.19 (Table 7.3).

| Year                | Restoration (metres)   |
|---------------------|------------------------|
| Cumulative Restora- |                        |
| tion (metres)       |                        |
| Cumulative Change   |                        |
| Since 2008 Baseline |                        |
| 2000                | 680                    |
| 2001                | 150                    |
| 2002                | 600                    |
| 2003                | 2,300                  |
| 2004                | 500                    |
| 2005                | 0                      |
| 2006                | 100                    |
| 2007                | 5,100                  |
| 2008                | 2,000                  |
| 2009                | 1,500                  |
| 2010                | 1,808                  |
| 2011                | 3,519                  |
| 2012                | 3,000                  |
| 2013                | 2,395                  |
| 2014                | 330                    |
| 2015                | 2,490                  |
| 2016                | 3,010                  |

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

## Key Performance Indicator 24 Protecting And Improving London'S Heritage And Public Realm

Target: Reduction in the proportion of designated heritage assets at risk as a% of the total number of designated heritage assets in London

2.116	 The target includes all designated heritage assets, including World Heritage 
Sites, listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens and registered battlefields. Table 2.28 shows that the number of designated heritage assets in London has increased from last year's. There are 84 new listed buildings, five new conservation areas, four more scheduled monument and one more registered park and garden in London. 
2.117	 In terms of designated assets at risk, in the last year there has been a 
slight increase of: listed buildings at risk (by 0.4%), conservation areas at risk (by 1% of those surveyed), and registered parks and gardens at risk (by 1%). The situation is more positive for the other three designed assets; the percentage of scheduled monuments at risk has decreased by 2.6% and none of London's world heritage sites or registered battlefields are at 
risk. For details on individual designated assets, please visit http://www.
historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/data-downloads. Historic England also provides a summary document with the number and condition of all designated assets and has produced a Heritage at Risk 2016 summary for London. 

| 2012         | 2013       | 2014     | 2015        | 2016     |
|--------------|------------|----------|-------------|----------|
| Asset        |            |          |             |          |
| No.          |            |          |             |          |
| % at         |            |          |             |          |
| Risk         | no.        |          |             |          |
| % at         |            |          |             |          |
| Risk         | No.        |          |             |          |
| % at         |            |          |             |          |
| Risk         |            |          |             |          |
| No.          |            |          |             |          |
| % at         |            |          |             |          |
| Risk         |            |          |             |          |
| No.          |            |          |             |          |
| % at         |            |          |             |          |
| Risk         |            |          |             |          |
| 4            | 0          | 4        | 0           | 4        |
| Heritage     |            |          |             |          |
| Sites*       |            |          |             |          |
| Listed       |            |          |             |          |
| Buildings#   |            |          |             |          |
| 18,854 2.8   | 18,872 2.7 | 18,896 3 | 18,936 2.59 | 19,020 3 |
| Conservation |            |          |             |          |
| Areas        |            |          |             |          |
| 949          | 6.8        | 1,009    | 6.3         | 1,017    |
| Schedule     |            |          |             |          |
| Monuments    |            |          |             |          |
| 154          | 22.7 155   | 20.6 156 | 19.9        | 158      |
| 150          | 8          | 150      | 7.3         | 150      |
| Parks and    |            |          |             |          |
| Gardens      |            |          |             |          |
| Registered   |            |          |             |          |
| Battlefield  |            |          |             |          |
| 1            | 0          | 1        | 0           | 1        |

Source: Historic England *designated by UNESCO.  
** 952 of the 1026 Conservation Areas in London have been surveyed through the Conservation Areas at Risk survey. 72 or 7% of those conservation areas surveyed are considered to be at risk.

## Chapter 3 - Additional Performance Measures And Statistics Housing And Design Housing Provision Annual Monitor 2015/16 Introduction

3.1	
This report provides further detail on housing provision in London, adding to that provided in the tables in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report. It is based on data provided by London boroughs to the London Development Database (LDD). The LDD was established by the GLA in 2004 with the support of government and the London Local Authorities and is widely regarded as the most authoritative source of information on housing provision in London.
3.2	
This section deals with housing provision as defined for the purpose of monitoring the London Plan. The main focus is on the 'conventional supply' of housing, that is the supply of new housing from new build, conversions of existing residential buildings or changes of use. This definition only includes dwellings that are fully self-contained; meaning they have their own kitchen and bathroom behind their own lockable front door. Other forms of living 
accommodation that do not meet the definition of 'self-contained' make up the 'non-conventional' supply. This includes rooms in student halls, large houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) and, for the first time, bedrooms in care homes. The non-conventional supply also contributes to the housing targets in Annex 4 of the London Plan, as do vacant properties returning to use. Where these are being referred to, it will be explicitly stated in the text.
3.3	
All figures are usually 'net' (losses of existing units are subtracted from the gains) unless otherwise stated. The main exceptions are figures showing numbers of bedrooms, residential densities and compliance with accessibility standards, which are all calculated on gross figures (losses are not subtracted from the total).
3.4	
The reporting year used by LDD is the Financial Year (FY) which begins on 1st April and runs to 31st March the following year. FY2015 therefore runs from 01/04/2015 to 31/03/2016. To make it clearer we have used the form 2015/16 rather than FY2015 in this report.
3.5	
Tenure types are generally taken from the s106 legal agreement associated 
with a permission, but they may be updated to reflect the final tenure split when the scheme is implemented, for example if a site or all of the units are acquired by a housing association for affordable housing prior to completion. Tenure changes after completion are not recorded on LDD.

3.6	
A separate definition of affordable housing delivery is used by central government and by the Mayor for the purposes of monitoring his affordable homes programme. This counts the gross number of affordable homes delivered through conventional supply or acquisitions of existing properties, and includes changes in tenure that are not linked to the planning system so are not captured by LDD. Completion in relation to this definition is triggered by payment of grant. The Affordable Housing Monitor covers affordable housing delivery according to the London Housing Strategy definition.
3.7	
Build to rent schemes are included in the Market units.
3.8	
The statistics are based on the details of planning applications approved by London's 35 planning authorities. This includes the 33 London Boroughs, plus the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) and the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC). LDD records all planning consents that propose a loss or a gain of residential units. This includes Full and Outline planning permissions, but also variations to these, 
whether through details / reserved matters consents, s73 Minor Material Amendments or formal Variations to s106 agreements are also recorded. Changes of use to residential through Section 3 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) are also recorded, whether or not prior approval is required. Where prior approval is required (as is the case for Class O office to residential changes), the relevant class from the GPDO is recorded. Other classes (e.g. Class G ancillary retail to residential) may be recorded as s192 Certificates of Proposed Lawful Development rather than by the class in the GPDO. Note that the streamlined prior approvals process means that applicants do not need to submit full details of the proposed scheme so it is not always possible for the local authority to fill in all of the details normally recorded on LDD. These gaps in the data can lead to totals not matching across tables in this report. S191 Certificates of Existing Lawful Use are included where the change in units identified by the consent has not previously been identified in the Local Authority's housing stock figures. Temporary permissions are not included in these figures.
3.9	
All time series data has been updated for this AMR and uses the definitions 
outlined in the preceding paragraphs.

3.10	
Data in all tables is shown by London Borough, rather than by planning 
authority. The only exception is Table 3.6 - Total net completions against 
London Plan benchmark 2015/16 which includes LLDC as it now has its own housing target, introduced in the 2015 London Plan. The Borough has been used in the remaining tables to allow comparison on with previous AMRs. This will be reviewed in the next AMR.
3.11	
Although some individual schemes are referenced in this report, it is only intended to give a brief overview to the London situation. More detailed information at a local level can be found in borough AMRs.
3.12	
Although the data in the LDD is supplied by the boroughs, the information presented here may be different from that found in the borough AMRs. This can be due to the timing of when the data is extracted as LDD is a live system that is continually updated and adjusted to reflect the best information available. There are also occasional differences in the way data is recorded, for example the way completions are allocated to particular years. The LDD ensures that the data is collected using the same methodology across London.

## Table 3.1 - Key Statistics And Findings

There were 32,919 net conventional housing completions in London in 2015/16, an 8% increase on completions in 2014/15. In addition 4,564 non-self-contained units were completed, a 14% increase on 2014/15. The number of long term vacant dwellings in London decreased by 1,070. This total of 38,553 is 91% of the 42,388 benchmark for the annual provision of new housing in the London Plan 2015 and an 12% increase on completions in 2014/15. New build accounted for 77% of net conventional supply in 2015/16, conversions 4% and changes of use 19%. This latter figure is up from 13% in the previous year.

net conventional affordable housing completions through planning permissions amounted to 21,491 homes. This represents 24% of total completions, compared to the three year average reported in AMR 12 of 28%. Across all tenures, gross conventional housing supply was dominated by one or two bedroom homes. 38% of homes completed during 2014/15 were one bedroom or studio units, 42% had two bedrooms and the remaining 20% had three bedrooms or more, down slightly from 24% in 2014/15.

26% of gross affordable homes completed in 2015/16 had three or more bedrooms, down from 28% the previous year.

Net conventional housing approvals during 2015/16 are 73,271. This is down on the revised total of 88,668 approvals in 2014/15.

The average density of new housing approvals in 2015/16 was 171 dwellings per hectare (dph), and the average density of completions was 132 dph.

LDD records 60,125 net conventional starts and 3,716 net non-self-contained starts. (See paragraph 3.41 for the definition of a start). This total of 63,841 is an increase of nearly 12% on the combined 56,276 starts in 2014/15.

15% of net units approved and 14% of net units in schemes started during 2015/16 are affordable housing. The conventional housing pipeline in London continues to grow. As of 31 March 2015, the net conventional housing pipeline consisted of 274,638 homes. Of these, 56% are in schemes that are recorded as 'under construction'. The pipeline of non-self-contained accommodation is 12,633 units, down from 19,106 as at 31/03/2015. Of the units in the current pipeline, 78% are in schemes that are under construction.

## Completions

3.13	
Total housing provision as monitored in the London Plan consists of three elements: conventional housing supply, non-self-contained accommodation, 
and long-term empty homes returning to use, often referred to as 'Vacants'. KPI 4 in chapter 2 and Table 3.6 show housing provision at borough level compared to the housing targets in Annex 4 of the 2015 London Plan. Table 3.7 shows the delivery by borough compared to the housing targets over the last three years. This is the first AMR to be monitored against the target in the 2015 London Plan. Table 3.7 therefore compares delivery to the sum of one year of the 2015 target and two years of the target in the 2011 plan.
3.14	
Net conventional completions for 2015/16 are 32,919. This continues an upward trend each year since 2010/11 when conventional completions fell below 20,000.
3.15	
The non-self-contained element of the benchmark is comprised of bedrooms in student halls of residence, hostels, large houses in multiple occupation and care homes. The latter is a new component of the non-selfcontained supply introduced for the 2015 plan and brings our definition in line with that used for Communal Accommodation category in the annual 
Housing Flows Reconciliation return to the Department for Communities and Local Government. However for the purposes of monitoring the London Plan the number of separate bedrooms is counted, whereas the Housing Flows Reconciliation records the number of Council Tax rateable units, which will generally be a lower figure. The net total non-self-contained completions for 2015/16 are 4,564.
3.16	
The number of 'vacants', as measure by the Council Tax Base, dropped from 20,915 to 19,845, a net addition to the housing supply figures of 1,070 homes.
3.17	
When combined, the total supply is 38,553. This is 4,163 above the revised total of 34,390 for 2014/15 which is now in excess of the previous high total of 33,283 completions achieved in 2006/07.
3.18	
Table 3.2 and Figure 3.1 show the latest data on completions by year. From 2015/16 it has been mandatory for boroughs to record all types of consent that permit a change in the number of units. This means that various types of prior approval (such as retail to residential and storage and distribution 
to residential) and Certificate of Proposed Lawful Development granted under s192 of the Town and Country Planning Act are being recorded for the first time (although office to residential prior approvals have been recorded since their introduction on 30th May 2013). All of the permission types recorded on LDD are included in the completions figures in this AMR, and the data for previous years has also been updated. It is recognised that some of the newly-required permission types granted before 01/04/2015 may not have been recorded so will not appear in the completions figures. However the numbers of units involved are small. Approvals and completions by permission type are shown in Table 3.19 and Table 3.15 respectively to give an indication of the numbers. The new types of consent are grouped together under the heading of 'Other prior approvals'.In 2015/2016 a total of 37,922 conventional homes were completed, with 5,003 lost or replaced to give the net total of 32,919 (see Table 3.11). As ever, there has been a wider variation in the number of units completed by borough. The borough with the largest number of completions in both gross and net terms is Wandsworth, where 3,115 net and 3,326 gross completions have been recorded. Tower Hamlets (2,452) and Croydon (2,044) also have net completions in excess of 2,000. In total, 13 boroughs have recorded over 1,000 net conventional completions.

3.19	
Areas where large-scale residential redevelopment is taking place can show high gross but low net supply. This can be the result of the way that LDD records all losses in the same year, while gains can be spread over several years. This is the case with the net loss of units recorded in Bexley where 547 completions are less than the losses of 640 units, giving a net total of -93. This is largely due to the loss of all units at the Larner Road Estate on permission 12/01379/OUTM being recorded in 2015/16, while their replacement is spread over more than one year. Besides Bexley, two other boroughs have recorded less than 100 net completions, The City, due to its small area and focus on commercial activity, has 77.
3.20	 There are three development types for 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 gains from industrial or commercial uses and losses to non-C3 uses). Table 3.11 shows gross and net conventional supply by type for each borough. Across London, new build provides the most units accounting for 77% of net completions, however the contribution of changes 
of use continues to rise. Conversions again make up 4% of net supply while changes of use now make up 19%. This is up from 10% recorded in AMR 11.

3.21	
The increase in the importance of changes of use reflects the impact of 
the new classes of prior approval which together make up 12% of net completions. Office to residential prior approvals, introduced in May 2013, make up 98% of these. Retail to residential changes of use are yet to make a significant impact in London. The impact of office to residential prior approvals has been most significant in Outer London where they make up nearly 19% of completions, compared to 8% in Inner London (excluding the Central Activities Zone where there is an exemption from this type of prior approval). As a consequence, new build units make up approximately 71% and changes of use 25% of completions in Outer London compared to 82% and 16% in Inner London. The impact is most significant in Richmond upon Thames where prior approvals contributed 59% of their 514 net completions and Sutton where they account for 60% of 371 net completions.
3.22	 The impact of residential conversions is insignificant in many boroughs, but 
again shows wide variation across London. While they contributed 30% of completions recorded in Haringey, and 11% in Ealing, they contributed a net loss in four boroughs, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston upon Thames, Westminster and Richmond upon Thames because the gain from converting 
houses into flats was outweighed by the loss from converting flats into houses. Of these four, all except Kingston upon Thames also had a net loss from conversions during 2014/15.
3.23	 Total net affordable housing supply in 2015/16 was 6,675, representing 20% 
of total completions. This is lower in both absolute and percentage terms than was achieved in either 2013/14 or 2014/15. The three year average is down to 24%, down from 28% for three years from 2012/13 to 2014/15. Table 3.13 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 this period the borough with the highest proportions of affordable housing supply was Waltham Forest at 69%. The next highest is Greenwich at 45%. Waltham Forest also has the highest three year average at 47%. Three other boroughs have a 3 year average of 40% or more, Barking and Dagenham (43%), Havering (41%) and Greenwich (40%). In contrast, Bexley, Harrow and Kingston upon Thames all recorded a net loss of affordable housing in 2015/16. In part as a consequence of a big loss at the Larner Road Estate (planning reference 12/01379/OUTM), Bexley now has a three 
year average supply of 1%. Harrow (2%), City of London (3%), Redbridge (3%) and Bromley (5%) all have a three year average well below 10%. It is important to remember the role that the timing of losses in relation to the re-provision can have a significant impact on the annual figures for any individual borough, but the low three-year average in not just these boroughs but across London generally is a matter which the current Mayor has made a clear commitment to address.

3.24	 Table 3.10 shows the split of total gross conventional completions in 
2015/16 across London as a whole by tenure and number of bedrooms. The figures are presented in gross terms as the number of bedrooms for homes lost or replaced is currently recorded on a voluntary basis and there is not yet sufficient data to provide meaningful net figures. One-bed (including studios and bedsits) and two-bed properties make up the majority of supply, accounting for 38% and 42% of the total respectively. The remaining 20% have 3 bedrooms or more. However the profile of supply varies with tenure. Homes with 3 bedrooms or more make up 34% of social rented supply, 30% of Affordable Rent homes, 18% of market homes and 14% of intermediate homes. The proportion across all tenures is 20%. This is a decrease from 24% in 2014/15 meaning there has been a shift from family homes to 1 bed units compared to completions for the previous year.
3.25	 Table 3.9 shows the gross conventional supply of housing by borough 
and number of bedrooms while Table 3.10 shows the same for affordable housing only. The percentage with 3 bedrooms or more is shown to reflect the provision of family housing. Across London, 20% of completed homes have 3 bedrooms or more. The borough providing the highest percentage of family housing is Bexley (36%), followed by Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea (both 34%) and Havering (33%). When we look just at affordable housing with 3 or more bedrooms, the highest percentage is in Kingston upon Thames where 19 of 28 units are affordable (68%). More significant in terms of numbers are the 338 family homes that make up 36% of the supply of affordable housing in Tower Hamlets and the 228 units that make up 34% of the supply in Waltham Forest. In total, 11 boroughs have delivered at least 30% of their affordable housing as family units. A total of 2,318 affordable family homes represents 26% of total affordable completions. years into social rented, intermediate and Affordable Rent. Over the threeyear period net conventional affordable housing supply amounted to 21,491 
homes, with social rented units accounting for 38% of these, intermediate products 39% and Affordable Rent units 23%. This continues the anticipated trend from Social Rented to Affordable Rent. Note though that some Affordable Rent units are ultimately provided at a level equivalent to social rent, so the terms are sometimes used interchangeably by boroughs.

3.27	 The average density of new housing completions in London (shown in 
Table 3.14) was 132 dwellings per hectare (dph), compared to an average of approximately 127dph for the years from 2008/09 to 2014/15. As has been reported in previous AMRs the lowest densities are found in the outer London boroughs. The density of completions in Bromley was 45dph, in Hillingdon and Kingston upon Thames it was 64dph and in Bexley it was 69dph. The highest average density is in Haringey where the figure of 346dph is well above the average for completions which is approximately 140dph for the period 2008/09 to 2014/15. The City of London delivered housing at a density of 298dph, lower than recorded in previous years.
3.28	 Densities are calculated by dividing the gross total residential units by the 
sum of the residential site areas. This means that the value entered for the site area on an individual permission can have a significant impact on the density for the whole borough, and even for London as a whole if the area entered is high enough. Site areas can be difficult to calculate, particularly 
on mixed use schemes and those being delivered in phases, and are often recalculated as a result of details of later phases are approved. The site areas for a number of major permissions have recently been reviewed as part of the preparation of site data for the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment which is currently underway to inform the boroughlevel housing targets for the new London Plan. These changes, which have increased some densities and reduced others, have led to changes in some of the historic data. Table 3.14 has been updated to reflect these changes. 
3.29	 The total of 4,564 non-self-contained units completed during FY2015 
continues the recent trend for strong delivery of student accommodation. In total 5,637 student rooms were completed and 378 lost, giving a net total of 5,259. Most of the new student accommodation is in the Central Activities Zone, 3,018 rooms is 57% of net supply. Meanwhile just 869, or 16%, of net student rooms are in Outer London. However this is partly due to the loss of 378 rooms at the former University of East London site in Barking and Dagenham (permission 06/01284/OUT). In gross terms, 22% of the student rooms completed are in Outer London.
3.30	 In contrast to the large gains in student rooms, there has been a decrease 
of 695 rooms from the other two elements of the non-self-contained supply, 
care homes (-476) and hostels / large HMOs (-219). This can at least in part be attributed to a move towards more self-contained provision for older 
people and improvements to the existing housing stock leading to lowquality non-self-contained units being replaced by new self-contained flats.
3.31	
The number of long term vacant properties is derived from the Council Tax Base and is published by the Department for Communities and Local Government in Housing Live Table 615. The data included in this report is broken down by borough (meaning there is no separate total for the London Legacy Development Corporation) and it covers the period from 6th October 2015 to 3rd October 2016, so does not exactly match the time period used for the rest of the data. However it remains the best source of net data available. Long-term empty homes are defined as those dwellings which had been unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for over six months. Since April 2012 there has been local discretion over the level of discount that vacant properties receive, and since April 2013 local authorities can also charge a premium of up to 50% on properties vacant for more than two years. It is not known what impact this has had on the recording of vacant properties.
3.32	 The number of long-term vacant properties (vacants) dropped from 20,915 
in October 2015 to 19,845 in October 2016, meaning a net increase of 1,070 units to housing supply. In Newham the number of vacants dropped from 1,318 to 593, a net increase to housing supply of 725. In Islington the number dropped from 953 to 499, a gain of 454 units. Lambeth gained 386 units. In total 19 boroughs recorded a drop in vacants which added to their housing provision total. Meanwhile 14 boroughs recorded a rise in vacants. The biggest rise was in Harrow where there was an increase from 97 to 651 units, a loss of 554 units from their housing supply. Enfield saw a rise in the number of vacants of 268 and Croydon 194. Full details at borough level can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/livetables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants.

## Approvals

3.33	 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 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. Table 3.3 shows the trend in net approvals at London level since 2004/05, while Table 3.16 breaks down 2015/16 approvals by tenure and Table 3.17 by bedrooms.
3.34	 Net conventional housing approvals during 2015/16 currently stand at 
73,271. This is well below the total approvals for 2014/15, which have been revised upwards to 88,668. This revised figure for 2014/15 is a big increase on the 74,930 reported in AMR 12. For this reason it is difficult to talk about trends. However it is likely that the final revised approvals figure for 2015/16 will remain well below the peaks recorded in 2010/11 and 2014/15, but above the long term average of around 65,000. Approvals in outer London in general are relatively high, accounting for 40% of all approvals. This is in contrast to a relatively low number of housing approvals in CAZ, both in 
numeric and percentage terms, when compared to the last four years. In each of the last four years, the rest of inner London (excluding CAZ) has provided approximately 50% of approved homes.
3.35	 The borough to approve the highest number of units is Greenwich, in which 
over 15,000 homes have been granted permission. However, nearly 13,000 of these are in the revised Greenwich Peninsula master-plan (15/0716) which supersedes a number of existing permissions including and following on from the original master-plan that granted 10,000 units in 2004 (022903O). It therefore does not add the full number of approved units to the existing housing pipeline. Other large schemes to have been granted permission are at the Peel Centre in Barnet (2,900 units under ref H/04753/14), Kodak East in Harrow (1,800 units under ref P/2165/15) and the Wharves Site, Oxestalls Road, Lewisham (1,100 units under reference 15/092295). The redevelopment of the Aylesbury Estate in Southwark (14-AP-3844) gave permission for 2,745 homes, a net increase of 644. The details / reserved matters applications that will follow these outline application will appear in the approvals figures in future years. Outline applications account for over 
25% of unit approvals in 2015/16. This is close to the long term average. Prior approvals account for nearly 12% of net unit approvals, of which office to residential prior approvals account for 97%.

3.36	 In terms of tenure, 85% of homes approved in 2015/16 units are for 
market sale or rent, leaving 15% as affordable units, broken down as 7% intermediate, 6% Affordable Rent and 1% social rented. This is a slight increase on the 14% in 2014/15 (revised up from 13% in AMR 12). It should be noted that the tenure of the units may not have been defined on some outline permissions, so the number of affordable units may increase as details of the later phases are submitted. The tenure of approved units can also change at any time before completion, for example as the result of negotiations between developers and planning authorities or by subsequent transfer of units to a housing association.
3.37	
19% of units approved in 2015/16 have 3 or more bedrooms, the threshold to qualify as family housing. 42% are 1 bed units (including studios) and 39% 2 bed units. Enfield approved the highest proportion of units with 3 or more bedrooms, 460 units equating to 34% of gross approvals. Southwark approved a total of 1,525 units with 3 bedrooms or more, 31% of their approvals. Barking and Dagenham approved just 128 family units, 8% of total gross approvals. The City of London also approved less than 10% family 
units, 33 units equating to 9% of total gross approvals. Not shown inTable 3.17 is that just 2% of units granted through the prior approval process have 3 bedrooms or more. When these are excluded, the proportion of family units in approvals during 2015/16 is 20%.
3.38	 The average density of new housing approvals shown in Table 3.18 is 154 
dph, a decrease on last year's 168 dph (revised upwards from 147 dph as stated in AMR 12. Note that there have been several changes to densities following a reappraisal of some large sites in preparation for the 2017 London SHLAA) and Table 3.18 has been updated accordingly. As ever there is wide variation between boroughs. The average of the London totals from the years 2008/09 to 2014/15 is 148 dph. For the third year in a row, the highest density is in Tower Hamlets (488 dph). The next highest is in the City of London (316 dph) followed by Hackney (249 dph). The lowest density figures are in Havering (45 dph) Kingston upon Thames (53 dph) and Bromley (55 dph).
3.39	 Not shown in the tables are the densities within and outside Opportunity 
Areas. When approvals within OAs are excluded from the analysis, the density is 111 dph. This compares to a density of 217 dph for sites in OAs.

3.40	 A net total of 867 non-self-contained rooms were approved during 2015/16. 
This is made up of a net gain of 1,132 student bedrooms,  a loss of 68 care home bedrooms and a loss of197 hostel / HMO bedrooms. The average net approvals of non-self-contained accommodation for the period 2004/05 to 2014/15 is approximately 4,800, so the approvals for 2015/16 are currently well below the long-term average. They are also well below the 4,564 completions.

## Starts

3.41	
In the LDD a 'start' is the point at which a planning permission can no longer lapse due to the acknowledgement of a legal start on site. This can be triggered by demolition of existing buildings or preparatory works on site, and does not mean the start of physical construction work on an individual building. It may be several years between a scheme start and the completion of the final units, particularly on large schemes. 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 already been started in previous years. As with approvals, starts from different years can't simply be added together to give a cumulative total. They are however comparable year on year.
3.42	
Table 3.20 shows net conventional housing 'starts' by tenure. LDD records 67,619 starts, higher than the revised figure for 2014/15 of 51,777. It is important to note that boroughs are still reporting difficulties in identifying starts on site and that some starts only get picked up when work is well underway, or occasionally only on scheme completion (particularly in the case of conversions or changes of use where there may be little or no external evidence of the work). This means that the figure for starts will generally be revised upwards as more information becomes available.
3.43	 In terms of tenure, 15% of net starts in 2015/16 were affordable housing 
units. Intermediate units account for the largest proportion of net starts, the 4,878 units making up 49% of the affordable starts and 7% of total starts. 
28% of net affordable starts are Affordable Rent and the remaining 23% for social rent. This reflects the fact that social rented units are the most likely affordable tenure to be replaced during estate redevelopment schemes. In gross terms social rented units make up nearly 40% of affordable starts.

3.44	 As in previous years the majority of the units recorded as started have 1 and 
2 bedrooms, with 41% being one bedroom or studio units, 38% having 2 bedrooms and 20% having 3 bedrooms or more.
3.45	 A total of 3,591 non-self-contained units were recorded as started during 
2015/16. As observed in the completions and approvals, the gains are all in student bedrooms. The net starts of 3,846 student rooms compares to starts of schemes containing a net loss of 202 SG bedrooms and 53 bedrooms in care homes. There were 4,705 non-self-contained unit starts in 2014/15.

## The Pipeline Of New Homes

3.46	 The 'pipeline' of housing supply comprises homes which have been granted 
planning permission but are not yet completed, and can be broken down into homes that are 'not started' and those that are 'under construction'. 
It is important to bear in mind the definition of a start above. The under construction pipeline shows the capacity in schemes on which some work has started but should not be used to infer that work has begun on all the dwellings in those schemes. The annual flow of planning approvals for new homes adds to the pipeline, while units are removed when they are either completed, superseded by a new scheme or pass their lapse date without a start being made.
3.47	
Table 3.4 shows the net pipeline as at the end of each financial year (31st March) at London level since 2004/05. The number of units in the pipeline continues to rise, now to over 274,000 units, meaning there is capacity within the planning system to deliver more than 6 years of supply at the target level in the London Plan 2015.
3.48	 Table 3.23 shows the planning pipeline for conventional residential units 
as of 31 March 2016. At the end of the year there were 119,984 units (net) in schemes which have been granted planning permission but on which construction had not started and 154,654 units (net) in schemes under construction, giving a total pipeline of 274,638. This means that 56% of units 
are in schemes that are started, up from 52% in the pipeline as at 31st March 2015.

3.49	 Table 3.24 shows the proportion of the pipeline by permission type. This 
shows that over 6% of the pipeline is in office to residential prior approvals. This is the only prior approval type to have so far made a significant impact on London's housing supply. Nearly 36% of the total pipeline is in Outline permissions which will generally need further details to be submitted before the approved homes can be constructed . Perhaps surprisingly 33% of units in started schemes are in Outline permissions. This is partly down to hybrid applications (part full / part outline) being included in the Outline category (all of the units are included in the starts as soon as the Full permission is started), but this suggests that up to a third of the started units are potentially several years away from final construction. Most notably this includes Barking Reach (04/01230/OUT) where over 10,000 units are in the started pipeline.
3.50	 East London has long been viewed as the part of London with the most potential to accommodate growth, and the boroughs with the most homes in the pipeline are Greenwich and Tower Hamlets. Between them they have capacity for over 58,000 homes, or 21% of the total. However there is capacity in other parts of London too. The pipeline in Barnet has increased to 20,122 and Wandsworth has a total net pipeline of 18,756 units. At the other end of the scale, the City of London have a net pipeline of 991 homes, while Merton (currently 1,216), Kingston upon Thames (1,536) and Richmond upon Thames (1,852) also have a net pipeline of under 2,000 units. However the data return from Merton for 2015/16 is currently incomplete so the pipeline there will most likely be higher than the current figure once all approvals are added and completions recorded. The small pipeline in Richmond upon Thames is despite a large number of office to residential prior approvals being submitted within the borough. These consents now make up nearly a third of the net pipeline in the borough.

3.51	
Table 3.22 shows the gross conventional pipeline by number of bedrooms. 21% of units for which the information is available will provide 3 bedrooms or more,  while 40% are two bed units..
3.52	
The net pipeline of non-self-contained units is 12,633. Of these, 78% are in schemes that are under construction. This leaves around 2,700 rooms in permissions that are not started, down from nearly 7,500 at the end of 
2014/15.

## Gypsy And Traveller Sites

3.53	 A total of 10 pitches were granted permission during 2015/16 in four 
separate consents. However all relate to the on-going occupation of sites, and are personal to the occupants. The consents are Bexley 13/02057/FUL, Bromley 10/02059/FULL2, Havering P0405.15 and Havering P0773.13.
3.54	 Two permissions are recorded as complete during 2015/16, Lambeth 
14/05864/RG3 for 1 additional pitch and Sutton C2014/70617 confirms 4 additional pitches at Grove Place, taking the total on that site to 16. Note that traveller pitches are now included with as part of the overall residential supply, contributing to the residential totals in this report.

Table 3.2 - Net Housing Supply in London
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
Average
Conventional
24,680
25,549
26,647
27,736
29,527
25,096
19,914
23,582
23,903
26,581
30,495
32,919
26,386
Non-Conventional
5,314
792
3,028
1,407
2,760
1,561
2,021
1,282
2,939
4,433
4,015
4,564
2,843
Vacants back in use
2,519
-61
3,608
287
-398
2,223
4,882
5,670
2,018
1,057
-120
1,070
1,896
Total
32,513
26,280
33,283
29,430
31,889
28,880
26,817
30,534
28,860
32,071
34,390
38,553
31,125
Vacants back in use - GOV.UK Housing Live Table 615; https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants
Table 3.3 - Net Conventional Housing Approvals
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
Average
Central Activities Zone 4,877
4,281
7,604
4,800
4,208
2,739
4,309
15,694
10,469
8,003
17,166
7,075
8,207
Inner
26,709
23647
26,722
40,664
24,267
28,269
22,126
45,081
22,037
32,635
45,355
36,983
32,414
Outer
23,881
25387
23,610
35,000
19,273
15,029
31,930
26,250
12,706
24,636
26,147
29,213
24,379
London
55,467
53,315
57,936
80,464
47,748
46,037
58,365
87,025
45,212
65,274
88,668
73,271
65,000
Table 3.4 - Net Conventional Housing Pipeline in London as at End of Financial Year
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
Average
Central Activities Zone 9,468
9,923
13,180
15,225
16,209
15,416
14,589
24,131
29,488
33,445
39,158
37,764
21,500
Inner
58,648
63589
73,303
87,836
87,433
91,942
83,791
100,541
106,378
121,240
132,626
136,290
95,301
Outer
43,563
52862
57,936
71067
70199
67,192
79,795
86,547
82,952
87,920
93438
100,584
74,505
London
111,679
126,374
144,419
174,128
173,841
174,550
178,175
211,219
218,818
242,605
265,222
274,638
191,306
Table 3.5 - Net Conventional Housing Completions
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
Average
Central Activities Zone 2,311
2,567
2,391
1,526
1,930
1,911
2,317
1,628
1,558
2,122
2,570
4,009
2,237
Inner
10,672
11,819
11,852
12,345
14,464
13,769
9,628
11,270
11,191
12,617
13,590
13,528
12,229
Outer
11,697
11,165
12,402
13,868
13,133
9,416
7,969
10,684
11,154
11,842
14,335
15,382
11,921
London
24,680
25,551
26,645
27,739
29,527
25,096
19,914
23,582
23,903
26,581
30,495
32,919
26,386
All data from the London Development Database

The London Plan includes a separate housing target for the London Legacy Development Corporation, which overlaps with the boroughs of Newham, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest.

The other Mayoral Development Corporation, the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation, does not have a housing target in the 2015 London Plan.

Borough
Net Conventional 
Completions
Net Non-conventional rooms
Long term vacants 
returning to use
Total
London Plan 
Benchmark
% of Target
Barking and Dagenham
789
-378
92
503
1,236
41%
Barnet
1,644
34
149
1,827
2,349
78%
Bexley
-93
-15
8
-100
446
-22%
Brent
1,047
450
-48
1,449
1,525
95%
Bromley
728
-68
105
765
641
119%
Camden
942
368
24
1,334
889
150%
City of London
77
0
-4
73
141
52%
Croydon
2,044
-18
-194
1,832
1,435
128%
Ealing
1,082
565
-28
1,619
1,297
125%
Enfield
676
-19
-268
389
798
49%
Greenwich
1,756
-42
41
1,755
2,685
65%
Hackney
838
1,030
-9
1,859
1,599
116%
Hammersmith and Fulham
368
0
-114
254
1,031
25%
Haringey
367
0
120
487
1,502
32%
Harrow
910
7
-554
363
593
61%
Havering
1,490
0
70
1,560
1,170
133%
Hillingdon
851
80
62
993
559
178%
Hounslow
506
-38
126
594
822
72%
Islington
1,027
475
454
1,956
1,264
155%
Kensington and Chelsea
341
-117
-110
114
733
16%
Kingston upon Thames
304
62
-1
365
643
57%
Lambeth
1,348
1,077
386
2,811
1,559
180%
Lewisham
1,541
-10
-87
1,444
1,385
104%
LLDC
547
759
0
1,306
1,471
89%
Merton
642
47
8
697
411
170%
Newham
917
7
725
1,649
1,994
83%
Redbridge
538
0
-7
531
1,123
47%
Richmond upon Thames
514
-8
38
544
315
173%
Southwark
1,382
124
4
1,510
2,736
55%
Sutton
371
-99
-15
257
363
71%
Tower Hamlets
2,431
440
10
2,881
3,931
73%
Waltham Forest
972
-39
-58
875
862
102%
Wandsworth
3,115
-16
43
3,142
1,812
173%
Westminster
907
-94
102
915
1,068
86%
London
32,919
4,564
1,070
38,553
42,388
91%
benchmark met 
housing 85% Non-selfcontained  12%

of homes in 2015/16, largely due to demolition as part of a phased redevelopment scheme. This shows the importance of considering housing delivery over time.

 

Borough
Total net completions
Total expected 
by benchmark
Delivery compared to benchmark
Barking and Dagenham
1,799
3,537
51%
Barnet
3,901
6,953
56%
Bexley
1,290
1,227
105%
Brent
4,403
4,115
107%
Bromley
1,542
1,782
87%
Camden
4,638
2,443
190%
City of London
736
392
188%
Croydon
4,963
4,200
118%
Ealing
3,395
3,484
97%
Enfield
1,535
2,156
71%
Greenwich
4,806
7,965
60%
Hackney
4,492
4,358
103%
Hammersmith and Fulham
3,443
2,677
129%
Haringey
1,613
3,824
42%
Harrow
1,677
1,536
109%
Havering
3,203
3,310
97%
Hillingdon
2,550
1,543
165%
Hounslow
2,643
2,114
125%
Islington
4,208
3,698
114%
Kensington and Chelsea
1,188
2,051
58%
Kingston upon Thames
1,293
1,661
78%
Lambeth
5,801
4,313
135%
Lewisham
3,664
3,875
95%
LLDC
835
2,942
28%
Merton
1,594
1,142
140%
Newham
6,254
6,488
96%
Redbridge
1,038
3,006
35%
Richmond upon Thames
1,216
875
139%
Southwark
5,220
7,477
70%
Sutton
1,192
936
127%
Tower Hamlets
7,696
10,747
72%
Waltham Forest
1,993
2,484
80%
Wandsworth
5,035
4,769
106%
Westminster
2,143
2,906
74%
London
102,999
116,986
88%

Notes for table Table 3.7: 'Total net completions' is the combined total of the convnetional, non-self-contained and vacant properties returning to use for the three years 2013/14 to 2015/16. 'Total expected by benchmark' is the sum of the housing benchmark figures from Annex 4 of the London Plan across the same period. 2013/14 and 2014/15 take the figure from the London Plan 2011 while 2015/16 takes the figure from the London Plan 2015.

bedrooms 2015/16 Dwellings
1 bed
2 beds
3 beds
4+ beds
Total
Social Rented
1,020
1,284
882
310
3,496
Intermediate
1,268
1,361
357
24
3,010
Affordable Rent
699
1,023
560
185
2,467
Market
11,484
12,187
3,801
1,477
28,949
All Tenures
14,471
15,855
5,600
1,996
37,922
As a% of total
1 bed
2 bed
3 bed
4+ bed
Total
Social Rented
29%
37%
25%
9%
100%
Intermediate
42%
45%
12%
1%
100%
Affordable Rent
28%
41%
23%
7%
100%
Market
40%
42%
13%
5%
100%
All Tenures
38%
42%
15%
5%
100%
Borough
Number of Bedrooms
1
2
3
4+
Total
% 3 or 
more
Barking and Dagenham
239
396
146
83
864
27%
Barnet
525
705
307
191
1,728
29%
Bexley
100
248
149
50
547
36%
Brent
465
583
155
39
1,242
16%
Bromley
266
335
96
114
811
26%
Camden
448
381
192
76
1,097
24%
City of London
56
25
1
0
82
1%
Croydon
1,113
717
153
155
2,138
14%
Ealing
519
535
180
55
1,289
18%
Enfield
272
282
162
81
797
30%
Greenwich
630
909
283
36
1,858
17%
Hackney
463
401
177
48
1,089
21%
Hammersmith and Fulham
164
196
69
25
454
21%
Haringey
244
137
40
23
444
14%
Harrow
509
600
90
46
1,245
11%
Havering
414
597
433
71
1,515
33%
Hillingdon
341
348
172
39
900
23%
Hounslow
269
231
66
22
588
15%
Islington
571
408
119
23
1,121
13%
Kensington and Chelsea
194
150
118
56
518
34%
Kingston upon Thames
126
193
39
36
394
19%
Lambeth
776
688
192
51
1,707
14%
Lewisham
605
841
130
33
1,609
10%
Merton
449
210
41
16
716
8%
Newham
552
652
277
59
1,540
22%
Redbridge
184
262
90
100
636
30%
Richmond upon Thames
295
219
53
47
614
16%
Southwark
672
833
307
46
1,858
19%
Sutton
175
203
13
41
432
13%
Tower Hamlets
1,022
1,035
410
111
2,578
20%
Waltham Forest
389
388
217
64
1,058
27%
Wandsworth
1,058
1,772
404
92
3,326
15%
Westminster
366
375
319
67
1,127
34%
London
14,471
15,855
5,600
1,996
37,922
20%
Borough
Number of Bedrooms
1
2
3
4+
Total
% 3 or 
more
Barking and Dagenham
106
214
48
24
392
18%
Barnet
48
103
32
7
190
21%
Bexley
27
123
98
26
274
45%
Brent
27
54
19
18
118
31%
Bromley
7
8
5
0
20
25%
Camden
89
72
33
12
206
22%
City of London
0
0
0
0
0
-
Croydon
110
200
73
20
403
23%
Ealing
148
106
50
21
325
22%
Enfield
42
49
27
4
122
25%
Greenwich
259
430
112
23
824
16%
Hackney
91
68
48
18
225
29%
Hammersmith and Fulham 14
5
9
7
35
46%
Haringey
0
0
0
0
0
-
Harrow
94
48
5
14
161
12%
Havering
169
256
137
50
612
31%
Hillingdon
56
27
14
0
97
14%
Hounslow
106
119
40
11
276
18%
Islington
99
105
39
2
245
17%
Kensington and Chelsea
27
22
12
6
67
27%
Kingston upon Thames
3
6
15
4
28
68%
Lambeth
131
141
100
19
391
30%
Lewisham
111
79
39
13
242
21%
Merton
44
9
12
0
65
18%
Newham
118
157
144
30
449
39%
Redbridge
31
30
28
0
89
31%
Richmond upon Thames
22
57
14
7
100
21%
Southwark
154
221
113
16
504
26%
Sutton
23
21
0
0
44
0%
Tower Hamlets
287
327
242
96
952
36%
Waltham Forest
202
240
178
50
670
34%
Wandsworth
304
288
64
15
671
12%
Westminster
38
83
49
6
176
31%
London
2,987
3,668
1,799
519
8,973
26%
Borough
New build
Conversion
Change of use
Total
Lost
Gained
Net
Lost
Gained
Net
Lost
Gained
Net
Lost
Gained
NET
Completions by development type
New Build 77%
Conversion 4%
Change of Use 19%
Net conventional homes
New Build 74% Conversion 8% Change of Use 17%
Gross conventional homes
Barking and Dagenham
68
794
726
6
20
14
1
50
49
75
864
789
Barnet
43
1,372
1,329
41
80
39
0
276
276
84
1,728
1,644
Bexley
633
485
-148
5
15
10
2
47
45
640
547
-93
Brent
95
910
815
98
189
91
2
143
141
195
1,242
1,047
Bromley
46
615
569
34
59
25
3
137
134
83
811
728
Camden
60
739
679
94
125
31
1
233
232
155
1,097
942
City of London
0
1
1
3
9
6
2
72
70
5
82
77
Croydon
32
1,258
1,226
58
171
113
4
709
705
94
2,138
2,044
Ealing
121
1,003
882
83
206
123
3
80
77
207
1,289
1,082
Enfield
79
540
461
30
73
43
12
184
172
121
797
676
Greenwich
52
1,695
1,643
12
41
29
38
122
84
102
1,858
1,756
Hackney
109
752
643
129
179
50
11
158
147
249
1,089
840
Hammersmith and Fulham
16
289
273
68
101
33
2
64
62
86
454
368
Haringey
1
200
199
76
186
110
0
58
58
77
444
367
Harrow
300
795
495
34
74
40
1
376
375
335
1,245
910
Havering
23
1,475
1,452
2
4
2
0
36
36
25
1,515
1,490
Hillingdon
32
597
565
12
35
23
5
268
263
49
900
851
Hounslow
75
466
391
7
13
6
0
109
109
82
588
506
Islington
35
813
778
59
147
88
0
161
161
94
1,121
1,027
Kensington and Chelsea
28
331
303
143
112
-31
6
75
69
177
518
341
Kingston upon Thames
58
210
152
31
24
-7
1
160
159
90
394
304
Lambeth
263
1,022
759
91
163
72
5
522
517
359
1,707
1,348
Lewisham
8
1,227
1,219
41
79
38
19
303
284
68
1,609
1,541
Merton
47
335
288
11
12
1
16
369
353
74
716
642
Newham
2
1,198
1,196
96
190
94
1
152
151
99
1,540
1,441
Redbridge
82
554
472
12
28
16
4
54
50
98
636
538
Richmond upon Thames
25
191
166
66
57
-9
9
366
357
100
614
514
Southwark
412
1,483
1,071
61
85
24
3
290
287
476
1,858
1,382
Sutton
43
157
114
18
40
22
0
235
235
61
432
371
Tower Hamlets
109
2,404
2,295
14
40
26
3
134
131
126
2,578
2,452
Waltham Forest
4
777
773
78
165
87
4
116
112
86
1,058
972
Wandsworth
74
3,012
2,938
135
180
45
2
134
132
211
3,326
3,115
Westminster
30
649
619
172
141
-31
18
337
319
220
1,127
907
London
3,005
28,349
25,344
1,820
3,043
1,223
178
6,530
6,352
5,003
37,922
32,919
Borough Name
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
Total
All tenures 
Total
Social Rented
Intermediate
Affordable Rent
Social Rented
Intermediate
Affordable Rent
Social Rented
Intermediate
Affordable Rent
Social Rented
Intermediate
Affordable Rent
Barking and Dagenham
370
17
201
-101
115
0
19
83
223
288
215
424
927
Barnet
188
55
42
245
54
60
130
60
0
563
169
102
834
Bexley
99
47
20
44
78
48
-583
80
174
-440
205
242
7
Brent
151
92
0
294
274
138
7
14
31
452
380
169
1,001
Bromley
110
30
0
-100
23
15
-8
13
5
2
66
20
88
Camden
160
29
13
34
27
0
48
131
3
242
187
16
445
City
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
0
24
Croydon
57
59
63
296
91
251
23
92
268
376
242
582
1,200
Ealing
63
115
7
85
-36
10
51
148
40
199
227
57
483
Enfield
123
41
0
34
35
33
-37
74
15
120
150
48
318
Greenwich
450
217
12
207
88
3
409
247
130
1,066
552
145
1,763
Hackney
128
109
117
350
137
11
25
75
45
503
321
173
997
Hammersmith and Fulham
-11
240
0
2
171
0
14
21
0
5
432
0
437
Haringey
68
82
0
41
224
189
0
0
0
109
306
189
604
Harrow
10
23
0
41
55
0
-213
59
60
-162
137
60
35
Havering
150
75
67
19
21
352
371
95
134
540
191
553
1,284
Hillingdon
59
34
0
59
27
0
65
8
24
183
69
24
276
Hounslow
69
60
0
168
170
63
16
108
88
253
338
151
742
Islington
117
241
0
196
27
0
110
112
0
423
380
0
803
Kensington and Chelsea
143
21
0
-8
61
0
43
24
0
178
106
0
284
Kingston upon Thames
48
23
13
37
19
76
-7
0
0
78
42
89
209
Lambeth
236
97
13
148
143
67
-17
53
102
367
293
182
842
Lewisham
103
52
0
241
164
13
157
75
5
501
291
18
810
Merton
50
74
14
34
31
26
23
42
0
107
147
40
294
Newham
334
169
0
320
192
56
190
132
101
844
493
157
1,494
Redbridge
1
1
0
8
8
1
-11
16
47
-2
25
48
71
Richmond upon Thames
81
28
0
5
0
0
95
4
0
181
32
0
213
Southwark
299
160
24
-121
169
61
-165
154
132
13
483
217
713
Sutton
17
5
27
157
0
23
-35
32
12
139
37
62
238
Tower Hamlets
6
175
32
486
190
55
303
318
265
795
683
352
1,830
Waltham Forest
-234
147
90
24
110
147
0
214
456
-210
471
693
954
Wandsworth
49
175
0
65
56
23
141
390
101
255
621
124
1,000
Westminster
9
38
0
25
23
0
82
94
0
116
155
0
271
London
3,527
2,731
755
3,335
2,747
1,721
1,246
2,968
2,461
8,108
8,446
4,937
21,491

## Map 3.3 - Net Affordable Housing Delivery By Tenure

Borough
Total net conventional affordable completions
Affordable as% of net conventional supply
2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
Barking and Dagenham
588
14
325
68%
3%
41%
Barnet
285
359
190
27%
26%
12%
Bexley
166
170
-329
31%
21%
354%
Brent
243
706
52
35%
44%
5%
Bromley
140
-62
10
20%
-15%
1%
Camden
202
61
182
37%
12%
19%
City of London
24
0
0
6%
0%
0%
Croydon
179
638
383
14%
42%
19%
Ealing
185
59
239
25%
7%
22%
Enfield
164
102
52
31%
25%
8%
Greenwich
679
298
786
50%
23%
45%
Hackney
354
498
145
35%
31%
17%
Hammersmith and Fulham 229
173
35
21%
20%
10%
Haringey
150
454
0
33%
54%
0%
Harrow
33
96
-94
11%
23%
-10%
Havering
292
392
600
31%
54%
40%
Hillingdon
93
86
97
15%
9%
11%
Hounslow
129
401
212
13%
37%
42%
Islington
358
223
222
28%
26%
22%
Kensington and Chelsea
164
53
67
70%
7%
20%
Kingston upon Thames
84
132
-7
32%
25%
-2%
Lambeth
346
358
138
30%
25%
10%
Lewisham
155
418
237
22%
29%
15%
Merton
138
91
65
30%
19%
10%
Newham
503
568
423
25%
29%
29%
Redbridge
2
17
52
1%
7%
10%
Richmond upon Thames
109
5
99
29%
2%
19%
Southwark
483
109
121
29%
9%
9%
Sutton
49
180
9
13%
38%
2%
Tower Hamlets
213
731
886
13%
32%
36%
Waltham Forest
3
281
670
1%
41%
69%
Wandsworth
224
144
632
19%
15%
20%
Westminster
47
48
176
9%
7%
19%
London
7,013
7,803
6,675
26%
26%
20%
2015/16
Borough
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
Barking and Dagenham
112
57
166
152
71
130
Barnet
84
80
101
88
75
71
Bexley
42
70
98
64
108
69
Brent
156
141
137
130
110
169
Bromley
49
46
49
31
41
45
Camden
184
116
178
171
172
160
City of London
306
857
376
808
478
298
Croydon
101
75
82
77
97
177
Ealing
112
102
101
121
106
107
Enfield
86
59
73
97
67
72
Greenwich
239
144
166
102
281
229
Hackney
198
230
242
236
257
204
Hammersmith and Fulham 231
205
223
277
173
187
Haringey
106
148
147
110
107
346
Harrow
79
60
93
83
82
75
Havering
53
68
48
39
53
99
Hillingdon
44
25
101
58
56
64
Hounslow
94
78
51
119
115
113
Islington
187
296
207
215
230
231
Kensington and Chelsea
194
153
157
112
161
154
Kingston upon Thames
52
90
66
52
71
64
Lambeth
290
170
158
199
165
180
Lewisham
164
160
140
174
143
283
Merton
101
78
132
93
48
133
Newham
216
164
169
307
280
189
Redbridge
218
171
84
84
63
137
Richmond upon Thames
54
59
101
96
61
79
Southwark
372
212
165
190
230
181
Sutton
66
79
97
50
53
96
Tower Hamlets
404
305
230
311
279
232
Waltham Forest
160
125
133
115
132
112
Wandsworth
104
125
163
112
211
167
Westminster
142
195
213
216
187
234
London
130
114
129
128
122
132
| Borough                    | Full   | Outline   |
|----------------------------|--------|-----------|
| Reserved mat-              |        |           |
| ters and other             |        |           |
| amendments                 |        |           |
| Office to Res-             |        |           |
| idential Prior             |        |           |
| Approval (Class            |        |           |
| O - formerly J)            |        |           |
| Barking and Dagenham       | 441    | 68        |
| Barnet                     | 485    | 418       |
| Bexley                     | 221    | -338      |
| Brent                      | 860    | 0         |
| Bromley                    | 600    | 33        |
| Camden                     | 550    | 6         |
| City of London             | 77     | 0         |
| Croydon                    | 1,386  | 0         |
| Ealing                     | 931    | 18        |
| Enfield                    | 526    | 0         |
| Greenwich                  | 1,415  | 196       |
| Hackney                    | 694    | 0         |
| Hammersmith and Fulham 331 | 0      | 0         |
| Haringey                   | 77     | 0         |
| Harrow                     | 252    | 297       |
| Havering                   | 871    | 210       |
| Hillingdon                 | 380    | 258       |
| Hounslow                   | 349    | 124       |
| Islington                  | 826    | 0         |
| Kensington and Chelsea     | 198    | 145       |
| Kingston upon Thames       | 156    | 0         |
| Lambeth                    | 720    | 102       |
| Lewisham                   | 1,293  | 0         |
| Merton                     | 339    | 2         |
| Newham                     | 804    | 0         |
| Redbridge                  | 414    | 0         |
| Richmond upon Thames       | 212    | 0         |
| Southwark                  | 1,336  | 0         |
| Sutton                     | 137    | 1         |
| Tower Hamlets              | 2,122  | 199       |
| Waltham Forest             | 814    | 0         |
| Wandsworth                 | 3,003  | 11        |
| Westminster                | 895    | 0         |
| London                     | 23,715 | 1,750     |

Note: Reserved matters and other amendments includes Details and Reserved matters, Minor Material Amendments and Variations to s106. Other prior approvals includes s192 Certificates of Proposed Lawful Development, but does not include office to residential prior approvals.

Other Prior Approvals
All permission types
S191 Certificate of Existing Lawful Use
Borough
Existing
Proposed
Net
Net% 
affordable.
Market
Social Rent Intermediate
Affordable Rent
Market
Social Rent Intermediate
Affordable Rent
Market
Social Rent Intermediate
Affordable Rent
Barking and Dagenham
18
0
0
0
1,155
309
49
2
1,137
309
49
2
24%
Barnet
480
0
0
0
5,580
473
166
207
5,100
473
166
207
14%
Bexley
116
0
0
0
757
137
69
0
641
137
69
0
24%
Brent
225
0
0
0
1,431
65
37
111
1,206
65
37
111
15%
Bromley
105
10
0
0
870
1
20
4
765
-9
20
4
2%
Camden
146
145
25
0
1,038
120
40
10
892
-25
15
10
0%
City of London
2
0
0
0
336
13
0
0
334
13
0
0
4%
Croydon
152
35
0
0
2,815
68
177
175
2,663
33
177
175
13%
Ealing
433
926
0
0
2,120
732
247
20
1,687
-194
247
20
4%
Enfield
146
128
0
0
1,114
150
47
59
968
22
47
59
12%
Greenwich
69
9
0
303
12,269
203
1,029
2,110
12,200
194
1,029
1,807
20%
Hackney
255
0
1
0
1,297
17
114
3
1,042
17
113
3
11%
Hammersmith and Fulham 819
0
0
0
2,529
34
155
10
1,710
34
155
10
10%
Haringey
197
0
0
0
740
0
18
5
543
0
18
5
4%
Harrow
116
1
0
0
3,315
134
92
397
3,199
133
92
397
16%
Havering
51
54
0
0
558
20
0
25
507
-34
0
25
-2%
Hillingdon
50
0
0
0
755
26
58
0
705
26
58
0
11%
Hounslow
57
25
0
0
2,824
66
230
232
2,767
41
230
232
15%
Islington
99
42
0
0
719
323
23
0
620
281
23
0
33%
Kensington and Chelsea
271
0
0
0
504
25
0
0
233
25
0
0
10%
Kingston upon Thames
58
0
0
0
599
0
53
10
541
0
53
10
10%
Lambeth
97
188
0
0
1,847
107
328
228
1,750
-81
328
228
21%
Lewisham
92
0
0
0
2,066
8
200
179
1,974
8
200
179
16%
Merton
68
0
0
0
547
0
1
3
479
0
1
3
1%
Newham
211
26
0
0
2,474
43
211
291
2,263
17
211
291
19%
Redbridge
86
37
1
0
679
15
9
54
593
-22
8
54
6%
Richmond upon Thames
92
0
0
0
610
54
34
0
518
54
34
0
15%
Southwark
420
2,319
0
0
2,963
1,407
577
5
2,543
-912
577
5
-15%
Sutton
54
10
27
0
806
124
25
13
752
114
-2
13
14%
Tower Hamlets
62
0
0
0
5,730
211
322
319
5,668
211
322
319
13%
Waltham Forest
89
16
0
0
644
49
20
65
555
33
20
65
18%
Wandsworth
219
0
0
0
3,476
73
540
478
3,257
73
540
478
25%
Westminster
459
152
0
0
2,898
242
296
49
2,439
90
296
49
15%
London
5,814
4,123
54
303
68,065
5,249
5,187
5,064
62,251
1,126
5,133
4,761
15%
2015/16
Borough
Number of Bedrooms
% 3 or more
1
2
3
4+
Total
Barking and Dagenham
496
891
126
2
1,515
8%
Barnet
2,170
2,638
1,195
423
6,426
25%
Bexley
334
462
140
27
963
17%
Brent
851
487
232
74
1,644
19%
Bromley
337
414
69
75
895
16%
Camden
511
448
186
63
1,208
21%
City of London
150
166
33
0
349
9%
Croydon
1,933
869
315
118
3,235
13%
Ealing
897
1,373
675
174
3,119
27%
Enfield
374
536
308
152
1,370
34%
Greenwich
7,766
5,500
2,316
29
15,611
15%
Hackney
684
536
178
33
1,431
15%
Hammersmith and Fulham
1,109
985
466
168
2,728
23%
Haringey
339
265
78
81
763
21%
Harrow
1,233
2,326
206
173
3,938
10%
Havering
122
288
105
88
603
32%
Hillingdon
429
328
60
22
839
10%
Hounslow
1,741
1,268
276
67
3,352
10%
Islington
479
437
118
31
1,065
14%
Kensington and Chelsea
234
142
93
60
529
29%
Kingston upon Thames
286
190
102
84
662
28%
Lambeth
1,120
994
365
31
2,510
16%
Lewisham
1,102
996
306
49
2,453
14%
Merton
241
212
36
62
551
18%
Newham
1,319
978
672
50
3,019
24%
Redbridge
456
202
75
24
757
13%
Richmond upon Thames
264
321
62
51
698
16%
Southwark
1,537
1,890
846
679
4,952
31%
Sutton
546
329
75
18
968
10%
Tower Hamlets
3,373
2,487
653
69
6,582
11%
Waltham Forest
361
319
77
21
778
13%
Wandsworth
1,284
2,137
803
343
4,567
25%
Westminster
1,170
1,170
862
283
3,485
33%
London
35,248
32,584
12,109
3,624
83,565
19%
2015/16
Borough
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
Barking and Dagenham
273
126
67
71
100
217
Barnet
100
70
93
80
83
117
Bexley
80
99
64
98
57
93
Brent
185
146
134
193
151
164
Bromley
52
35
40
31
40
62
Camden
139
181
188
131
189
167
City of London
457
469
447
440
340
311
Croydon
141
153
120
164
102
135
Ealing
142
112
103
119
122
84
Enfield
61
61
91
75
73
119
Greenwich
337
239
233
254
245
670
Hackney
235
239
122
246
423
248
Hammersmith and Fulham 183
243
218
393
262
176
Haringey
117
214
150
107
144
72
Harrow
63
89
92
65
130
133
Havering
122
58
57
46
57
46
Hillingdon
57
70
60
55
83
67
Hounslow
75
106
67
138
207
173
Islington
293
285
193
232
376
166
Kensington and Chelsea
225
192
163
140
190
145
Kingston upon Thames
62
50
34
58
86
53
Lambeth
183
177
226
216
359
211
Lewisham
133
230
128
141
207
156
Merton
65
75
46
71
106
92
Newham
398
316
151
176
260
218
Redbridge
158
108
70
99
111
156
Richmond upon Thames
106
71
54
91
92
88
Southwark
224
211
366
296
218
163
Sutton
57
106
57
146
119
115
Tower Hamlets
296
479
192
455
428
473
Waltham Forest
111
144
128
142
143
107
Wandsworth
206
287
194
161
134
212
Westminster
206
218
195
193
169
186
London
137
161
130
149
168
171
| Borough                      | Full   | Outline   |
|------------------------------|--------|-----------|
| Reserved Mat-                |        |           |
| ters and Other               |        |           |
| Amendments                   |        |           |
| Office to Res-               |        |           |
| idential Prior               |        |           |
| Approval (Class              |        |           |
| O - formerly J)              |        |           |
| Barking and Dagenham         | 1,281  | 149       |
| Barnet                       | 4,827  | 154       |
| Bexley                       | 578    | 88        |
| Brent                        | 382    | 103       |
| Bromley                      | 558    | 0         |
| Camden                       | 577    | 0         |
| City of London               | 116    | 0         |
| Croydon                      | 1,627  | 0         |
| Ealing                       | 1,198  | 230       |
| Enfield                      | 533    | 500       |
| Greenwich                    | 2,248  | 12,898    |
| Hackney                      | 653    | 0         |
| Hammersmith and Fulham 1,451 | 0      | 207       |
| Haringey                     | 418    | 0         |
| Harrow                       | 871    | 1,800     |
| Havering                     | 298    | 7         |
| Hillingdon                   | 376    | 3         |
| Hounslow                     | 1,489  | 876       |
| Islington                    | 620    | 0         |
| Kensington and Chelsea       | 260    | 0         |
| Kingston upon Thames         | 392    | 118       |
| Lambeth                      | 1,096  | 0         |
| Lewisham                     | 885    | 1,131     |
| Merton                       | 320    | 1         |
| Newham                       | 712    | 2         |
| Redbridge                    | 198    | 0         |
| Richmond upon Thames         | 373    | 0         |
| Southwark                    | 1,456  | 649       |
| Sutton                       | 494    | 9         |
| Tower Hamlets                | 2,883  | 0         |
| Waltham Forest               | 429    | 0         |
| Wandsworth                   | 3,152  | 0         |
| Westminster                  | 2,820  | 0         |
| London                       | 35,571 | 18,718    |

Note: Reserved matters and other amendments includes Details and Reserved matters, Minor Material Amendments and Variations to s106. Other prior approvals includes s192 Certificates of Proposed Lawful Development, but does not include office to residential prior approvals. 

Other Prior Approvals
All Permission Types
S191 Certificate of Existing Lawful Use
Borough
Existing
Proposed
Net
% Affordable.
Market
Soc.Rent
Intermediate
Aff. Rent
Market
Soc. Rent
Intermediate
Aff. Rent
Market
Soc. Rent
Intermediate
Aff. Rent
Barking and Dagenham
382
987
0
0
1,007
6
539
486
625
-981
539
486
7%
Barnet
93
162
0
0
3,593
253
47
283
3,500
91
47
283
11%
Bexley
77
0
0
0
369
14
24
28
292
14
24
28
18%
Brent
169
285
0
0
1,977
182
51
40
1,808
-103
51
40
-1%
Bromley
48
10
0
0
841
13
14
10
793
3
14
10
3%
Camden
223
355
34
0
1,509
352
117
23
1,286
-3
83
23
7%
City of London
17
0
0
0
559
0
0
27
542
0
0
27
5%
Croydon
115
56
0
1
3,316
64
135
162
3,201
8
135
161
9%
Ealing
262
249
45
0
1,931
388
347
27
1,669
139
302
27
22%
Enfield
80
33
0
0
1,375
94
49
11
1,295
61
49
11
9%
Greenwich
56
43
0
303
4,872
978
389
38
4,816
935
389
-265
18%
Hackney
151
3
0
0
1,472
168
265
26
1,321
165
265
26
26%
Hammersmith and Fulham
57
0
0
0
962
0
155
10
905
0
155
10
15%
Haringey
114
40
0
0
775
193
115
0
661
153
115
0
29%
Harrow
75
1
0
0
1,086
70
9
4
1,011
69
9
4
8%
Havering
15
12
0
0
192
26
10
25
177
14
10
25
22%
Hillingdon
88
0
0
0
1,507
9
13
41
1,419
9
13
41
4%
Hounslow
14
0
0
0
608
50
101
57
594
50
101
57
26%
Islington
65
21
0
0
1,116
293
71
49
1,051
272
71
49
27%
Kensington and Chelsea
202
0
0
0
665
65
20
0
463
65
20
0
16%
Kingston upon Thames
38
0
0
0
651
6
58
0
613
6
58
0
9%
Lambeth
103
297
0
0
2,786
198
360
325
2,683
-99
360
325
18%
Lewisham
65
1
0
0
2,319
89
206
284
2,254
88
206
284
20%
Merton
54
40
0
0
582
7
21
12
528
-33
21
12
0%
Newham
73
26
0
0
1,238
90
146
109
1,165
64
146
109
21%
Redbridge
27
0
0
0
538
11
12
37
511
11
12
37
11%
Richmond upon Thames
105
0
0
0
656
89
5
0
551
89
5
0
15%
Southwark
63
339
0
0
2,383
484
236
41
2,320
145
236
41
15%
Sutton
48
88
27
0
1,378
102
43
31
1,330
14
16
31
4%
Tower Hamlets
84
35
0
17
9,706
614
533
730
9,622
579
533
713
16%
Waltham Forest
82
0
0
0
995
0
126
90
913
0
126
90
19%
Wandsworth
170
0
0
0
5,670
343
478
96
5,500
343
478
96
14%
Westminster
348
0
0
0
2,554
120
289
47
2,206
120
289
47
17%
London
3,563
3,083
106
321
61,188
5,371
4,984
3,149
57,625
2,288
4,878
2,828
15%
Borough
Number of Bedrooms
1
2
3
4+
Total
% 3 or 
more
Barking and Dagenham
568
801
427
242
2,038
33%
Barnet
1,537
1,712
799
128
4,176
22%
Bexley
189
163
51
32
435
19%
Brent
1,011
931
251
57
2,250
14%
Bromley
366
358
99
55
878
18%
Camden
765
832
322
82
2,001
20%
City of London
295
228
54
9
586
11%
Croydon
1,873
981
484
339
3,677
22%
Ealing
931
1,149
468
145
2,693
23%
Enfield
450
481
379
219
1,529
39%
Greenwich
2,991
2,478
788
20
6,277
13%
Hackney
922
687
256
66
1,931
17%
Hammersmith and Fulham
570
349
139
69
1,127
18%
Haringey
503
480
71
29
1,083
9%
Harrow
571
259
169
170
1,169
29%
Havering
28
110
69
46
253
45%
Hillingdon
739
590
148
93
1,570
15%
Hounslow
392
266
83
75
816
19%
Islington
650
641
181
57
1,529
16%
Kensington and Chelsea
283
279
131
57
750
25%
Kingston upon Thames
348
267
60
40
715
14%
Lambeth
1,664
1,427
495
83
3,669
16%
Lewisham
1,238
1,224
380
56
2,898
15%
Merton
294
248
37
43
622
13%
Newham
609
547
406
21
1,583
27%
Redbridge
232
241
64
61
598
21%
Richmond upon Thames
316
325
60
49
750
15%
Southwark
1,137
1,342
600
65
3,144
21%
Sutton
569
759
163
63
1,554
15%
Tower Hamlets
5,385
4,173
1,850
175
11,583 17%
Waltham Forest
456
550
180
25
1,211
17%
Wandsworth
1,967
2,905
1,503
212
6,587
26%
Westminster
871
1,088
804
247
3,010
35%
London
30,720
28,871
11,971
3,130
74,692 20%
Borough
Number of Bedrooms
1
2
3
4+
Not 
known
Total
% 3 or 
more
Barking and Dagenham
2,260
6,689
3,709
1,598
0
14,256
37%
Barnet
7,825
11,362
3,658
1,359
37
24,241
21%
Bexley
679
1,219
405
254
1
2,558
26%
Brent
3,147
3,528
1,430
276
47
8,428
20%
Bromley
997
1,228
282
350
2
2,859
22%
Camden
2,843
3,270
1,310
387
3
7,813
22%
City of London
454
445
97
20
0
1,016
12%
Croydon
4,598
3,153
1,007
378
0
9,136
15%
Ealing
3,928
5,812
2,812
781
0
13,333
27%
Enfield
954
1,206
732
356
0
3,248
33%
Greenwich
15,241
12,021
4,759
393
770
33,184
16%
Hackney
4,232
4,273
1,964
456
890
11,815
20%
Hammersmith and Fulham
7,099
5,335
2,407
673
48
15,562
20%
Haringey
2,237
1,299
354
214
15
4,119
14%
Harrow
1,882
3,243
463
279
0
5,867
13%
Havering
742
1,102
566
314
1
2,725
32%
Hillingdon
1,519
2,108
465
262
212
4,566
16%
Hounslow
3,137
2,804
963
226
0
7,130
17%
Islington
1,954
1,977
614
180
27
4,752
17%
Kensington and Chelsea
1,462
1,378
957
424
0
4,221
33%
Kingston upon Thames
726
604
167
155
0
1,652
19%
Lambeth
3,887
4,464
1,572
302
0
10,225
18%
Lewisham
3,399
4,083
982
295
3,501
12,260
10%
Merton
523
609
144
175
4
1,455
22%
Newham
5,828
6,223
3,308
478
4,900
20,737
18%
Redbridge
1,094
764
254
111
1
2,224
16%
Richmond upon Thames
695
910
269
209
18
2,101
23%
Southwark
5,749
7,504
2,733
920
1
16,907
22%
Sutton
1,454
1,673
538
173
1
3,839
19%
Tower Hamlets
12,650
10,868
4,550
767
761
29,596
18%
Waltham Forest
1,058
1,397
526
101
0
3,082
20%
Wandsworth
5,721
9,590
3,657
915
2
19,885
23%
Westminster
3,059
3,481
2,740
667
66
10,013
34%
London
113,033
125,622
50,394
14,448 11,308 314,805 21%
Borough
Not Started
Started
Total Pipeline
Existing
Proposed
Net
Existing
Proposed
Net
Existing
Proposed
Net
Barking and Dagenham
22
1,936
1,914
1,583
12,320
10,737
1,605
14,256
12,651
Barnet
855
12,469
11,614
3,264
11,772
8,508
4,119
24,241
20,122
Bexley
211
1,413
1,202
80
1,145
1,065
291
2,558
2,267
Brent
399
2,018
1,619
413
6,410
5,997
812
8,428
7,616
Bromley
156
1,563
1,407
125
1,296
1,171
281
2,859
2,578
Camden
330
2,630
2,300
1,076
5,183
4,107
1,406
7,813
6,407
City of London
3
171
168
22
845
823
25
1,016
991
Croydon
194
4,393
4,199
136
4,743
4,607
330
9,136
8,806
Ealing
1,291
6,724
5,433
3,657
6,609
2,952
4,948
13,333
8,385
Enfield
248
775
527
364
2,473
2,109
612
3,248
2,636
Greenwich
473
15,207
14,734
2,384
17,977
15,593
2,857
33,184
30,327
Hackney
533
3,835
3,302
4,630
7,980
3,350
5,163
11,815
6,652
Hammersmith and Fulham
1,652
11,206
9,554
157
4,356
4,199
1,809
15,562
13,753
Haringey
239
2,348
2,109
138
1,771
1,633
377
4,119
3,742
Harrow
155
4,067
3,912
152
1,800
1,648
307
5,867
5,560
Havering
196
1,485
1,289
399
1,240
841
595
2,725
2,130
Hillingdon
121
1,234
1,113
50
3,332
3,282
171
4,566
4,395
Hounslow
115
4,897
4,782
65
2,233
2,168
180
7,130
6,950
Islington
141
912
771
369
3,840
3,471
510
4,752
4,242
Kensington and Chelsea
640
974
334
351
3,247
2,896
991
4,221
3,230
Kingston upon Thames
67
904
837
49
748
699
116
1,652
1,536
Lambeth
91
2,732
2,641
1,680
7,493
5,813
1,771
10,225
8,454
Lewisham
97
7,008
6,911
319
5,252
4,933
416
12,260
11,844
Merton
119
612
493
120
843
723
239
1,455
1,216
Newham
151
11,905
11,754
361
8,832
8,471
512
20,737
20,225
Redbridge
80
1,203
1,123
52
1,021
969
132
2,224
2,092
Richmond upon Thames
142
1,025
883
107
1,076
969
249
2,101
1,852
Southwark
2,874
6,569
3,695
1,571
10,338
8,767
4,445
16,907
12,462
Sutton
55
1,246
1,191
716
2,593
1,877
771
3,839
3,068
Tower Hamlets
145
7,554
7,409
1,239
22,042
20,803
1,384
29,596
28,212
Waltham Forest
48
1,278
1,230
52
1,804
1,752
100
3,082
2,982
Wandsworth
279
6,458
6,179
850
13,427
12,577
1,129
19,885
18,756
Westminster
796
4,151
3,355
718
5,862
5,144
1,514
10,013
8,499
London
12,918
132,902
119,984
27,249
181,903
154,654
40,167
314,805
274,638

Much of the new housing with planning permission is in Central and East London, particularly Greenwich and Tower Hamlets.

However Barnet stands out as an outer-London borough with a large number of homes in the pipeline

| Borough                      | Full    | Outline   |
|------------------------------|---------|-----------|
| Reserved Matters             |         |           |
| and Other Amend-             |         |           |
| ments                        |         |           |
| Office to Residen-           |         |           |
| tial Prior Approval          |         |           |
| (Class O - formerly          |         |           |
| J)                           |         |           |
| Barking and Dagenham         | 1,797   | 10,411    |
| Barnet                       | 7,051   | 10,601    |
| Bexley                       | 1,427   | 479       |
| Brent                        | 3,078   | 2,864     |
| Bromley                      | 1,632   | 233       |
| Camden                       | 4,368   | 859       |
| City of London               | 600     | 0         |
| Croydon                      | 4,115   | 1,478     |
| Ealing                       | 2,831   | 4,526     |
| Enfield                      | 1,427   | 904       |
| Greenwich                    | 7,814   | 20,843    |
| Hackney                      | 2,350   | 2,235     |
| Hammersmith and Fulham 9,356 | 2,689   | 1,075     |
| Haringey                     | 1,856   | 1,489     |
| Harrow                       | 1,694   | 2,261     |
| Havering                     | 1,568   | 491       |
| Hillingdon                   | 1,494   | 1,954     |
| Hounslow                     | 2,965   | 2,417     |
| Islington                    | 2,810   | 930       |
| Kensington and Chelsea       | 2,109   | 344       |
| Kingston upon Thames         | 950     | 126       |
| Lambeth                      | 4,401   | 968       |
| Lewisham                     | 3,095   | 7,503     |
| Merton                       | 862     | 73        |
| Newham                       | 8,767   | 4,859     |
| Redbridge                    | 1,410   | 24        |
| Richmond upon Thames         | 1,247   | 2         |
| Southwark                    | 8,256   | 3,516     |
| Sutton                       | 1,356   | 734       |
| Tower Hamlets                | 14,662  | 6,280     |
| Waltham Forest               | 2,344   | 369       |
| Wandsworth                   | 12,289  | 2,732     |
| Westminster                  | 7,874   | 0         |
| London                       | 129,855 | 95,194    |

Note: Reserved matters and other amendments includes Details and Reserved matters, Minor Material Amendments and Variations to s106. Other prior approvals includes s192 Certificates of Proposed Lawful Development, but does not include office to residential prior approvals.

Other Prior Approvals
All Permission Types
7% of all units in the pipeline were granted through Permitted Developmment rights
11% of all units in the pipeline were granted through reserved matters applications and other consents that change the details of previously consented schemes
| Borough   | Not Started Started   | Total   |
|-----------|-----------------------|---------|
78% of nonconventional 
units in the pipeline are in started developments
Barking and Dagenham
18
176
194
Barnet
131
-134
-3
Bexley
98
234
332
Brent
-8
2,341
2,333
Bromley
146
-89
57
Camden
-300
727
427
City of London
0
-202
-202
Croydon
0
36
36
Ealing
38
326
364
Enfield
18
-266
-248
Greenwich
-63
745
682
Hackney
256
313
569
Hammersmith and Fulham
111
-9
102
Haringey
6
-28
-22
Harrow
164
53
217
Havering
-36
0
-36
Hillingdon
109
254
363
Hounslow
-11
32
21
Islington
-15
1,081
1,066
Kensington and Chelsea
107
-56
51
Kingston upon Thames
493
510
1,003
Lambeth
579
532
1,111
Lewisham
192
810
1,002
Merton
-24
-46
-70
Newham
422
866
1,288
Redbridge
67
0
67
Richmond upon Thames
-59
-35
-94
Southwark
-44
1,000
956
Sutton
60
265
325
Tower Hamlets
32
580
612
Waltham Forest
-8
570
562
Wandsworth
258
-190
68
Westminster
-27
-473
-500
London
2,710
9,923
12,633

## Affordable Housing Delivery Monitor

3.55	 The measure of affordable housing delivery used in the Mayor's London 
Housing Strategy is very different from the measure of housing provision 
used in the London Plan. Affordable housing delivery is measured in gross terms and includes acquisitions of existing private sector homes for use as affordable housing. Therefore it is usually 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.
3.56	 The data source for monitoring affordable housing delivery targets is the 
set of statistics on affordable housing supply published by the Department for Communities and Local Government. DCLG no longer publish regional statistics but have provided the GLA with updated figures at London level. 
3.57	
These statistics are compiled from a range of sources. The vast majority of delivery in London in recent years has been funded by the Greater London Authority, but the statistics also include units provided without any public funding and a number of assisted purchases.
3.58	 Table 3.26 shows affordable housing delivery in London by type in the four 
years 2012/13 to 2015/16. Over this period a total of 42,310 affordable 
homes were delivered, of which 12,870 were social rented housing, 14,110 intermediate housing and 15,320 Affordable Rent.
3.59	 Figure 3.2 shows the trend in total affordable housing delivery in London 
since 1991/92, while Table 3.26 shows delivery by borough and type in 2015/16.

| Affordable Housing                    | 2012/13   | 2013/14   | 2014/15   | 2015/16   |
|---------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| Social Rent                           | 5,060     | 3,590     | 3,160     | 1,060     |
| Affordable Rent                       | 480       | 2,400     | 9,630     | 2,810     |
| Intermediate Affordable Housing 3,360 | 3,390     | 5,440     | 1,920     |           |
| All affordable                        | 8,910     | 9,380     | 18,230    | 5,790     |

## Intermediate Housing

3.60	 Paragraph 3.62 of the 2016 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. 
3.61	
In the 2016 AMR, to reflect Government's approach to shared ownership, a single £90,000 household income was introduced for intermediate housing; in effect removing the previous higher income cap for families in larger homes. However, recognising the different role that intermediate rented products play in meeting affordable housing need compared to shared ownership products and to ensure those rented products are genuinely affordable in line with the Mayor's London Living Rent product the cap for intermediate rented products will be reduced to a household income of £60,000 per annum, which is the income required to afford a two-bedroom London Living Rent home in the most expensive ward (Queen's Gate in Kensington and Chelsea). 
3.62	
Therefore from April 2017 the costs, including service charges of intermediate ownership products such as London Shared Ownership and 
Discounted Market Sale (where they meet the NPPF and London Plan definition of affordable housing) , should be affordable to households on 
incomes of £90,000 or less.  From April 2017 the costs, including service charges for all intermediate rented products (including London Living Rent, Discounted Market Rent, Affordable Private Rent and Intermediate Rent) should be affordable to households on incomes of £60,000 or less.  
3.63	 For dwellings to be considered affordable, annual housing costs, including 
mortgage (assuming reasonable interest rates and deposit requirements), rent and service charge, should be no greater than 40% of net household income, based on the household income limits set out above. Further guidance is provided in the draft Affordable Housing and Viability SPG. 
3.64	 Local planning authorities should seek to ensure that intermediate provision 
provides for households with a range of incomes below the upper limit, and provides a range of dwelling types in terms of a mix of unit sizes (measured by number of bedrooms), and that average housing costs, including service charges for Shared Ownership and Discounted Market Sale are affordable by households on annual incomes of £56,200 pa. On this basis, average housing costs, including service charges, would be about £1,311 a month 
or £303 a week (housing costs at 40% of net income, net income being assumed to be 70% of gross income). For intermediate rent products average housing costs, including service charges shook be affordable by households with an annual incomes of £41,200, resulting in housing costs of £11,536 a year or £961 a month and £222 a week.
3.65	 This figure could be used for monitoring purposes. 3.66	 These intermediate income caps are also applied by the GLA to determine 
eligibility for GLA funded intermediate products. 

## Local Affordable Housing Policies

3.67	
Paragraph 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) requires all 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 17,000 affordable homes in London p.a. (This target relates to the 2015 London Plan, increased from 13,200 in the 2011 Plan). 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 3.27 shows adopted and emerging borough affordable housing targets.

Table 3.27 - Affordable Housing Policy by Borough
Borough
Adopted Borough Policy Target as at January 2017 (Numerical/ Percentage)
Emerging Borough Policy Target
Affordable Housing Tenure Split
Barking & Dagenham
Use London Plan Policy
25%/ 30%
Emerging 10% or 12% intermediate; 15%/18% affordable rent
Barnet
40% for sites of 10 units or more (0.4 ha or more)
n/a
60% social rented; 40% intermediate 
Bexley
50% and a minimum of 35%
n/a
70% social rented; 30% intermediate
Brent
50%
50% for sites of 10 or more dwellings
Adopted 70% social rented; 30% intermediate Emerging 70% social/affordable rented; 30% intermediate
Bromley
35% provision for sites of 10 dwellings or more than 0.4 ha
n/a
70% social-rented; 30% intermediate
Camden
50%
50% for developments with 25 or more dwellings; fewer than 25 additional homes starting at 2% for one home, increasing by 2% for each additional home; on-site provision required for developments of 10 or more; fewer than 10, payment-in-lieu acceptable; for developments over 0.5ha council may seek affordable accommodation for travellers
City of London
 30% provision for sites of 10 dwellings or more on site and 60% off site
n/a
60% social/affordable rent; 40% intermediate including key worker housing
60% social rented; 40% intermediate 

## Table 3.27 - Affordable Housing Policy By Borough

Borough
Adopted Borough Policy Target as at January 2017 (Numerical/ Percentage)
Emerging Borough Policy Target
Affordable Housing Tenure Split
Croydon
50%
50% for sites of 10 or more dwellings
Adopted 60% affordable/social rent; 40% intermediate Emerging 75% affordable/social rent; 25% intermediate
Ealing
50% for developments of 10 or more dwellings
n/a
60% social/affordable rented; 40% intermediate
n/a
70% social rented; 30% intermediate
Enfield
40% provision for sites with 10 or more dwellings; developments with fewer than 10 units, a contribution towards off site affordable housing required based on borough wide target of 20%
Greenwich
35% provision for sites of 10 dwellings or more than 0.5 ha
n/a
70% social/affordable rented; 30% intermediate
Hackney
50% provision for sites of 10  or more dwellings
 n/a
60% social rented; 40% intermediate
Hammersmith & Fulham
40% provision for sites of 10 or more dwellings
Emerging 60% social/affordable rented; 40% intermediate
Haringey
50% of habitable rooms for sites with 10 or more dwellings
40% of habitable rooms on sites delivering 10 or more dwellings
70% affordable/social rented; 30% intermediate
 n/a
60% affordable/social rent; 40% intermediate
Emerging 60% affordable/social rented; 40% intermediate
Harrow
40% provision for sites of 10 or more dwellings
n/a
London Plan Policy (60% social/ affordable rented, 40% intermediate) but to be agreed on a case by case basis at pre app stage
Havering
50% of all new homes from specified sources
n/a
70% social/ affordable rented; 30% intermediate on sites with 10 or more dwellings or sites of 0.5ha or more
Hillingdon
35% provision for sites of 10 or more dwellings 
n/a
70% social rent; 30% intermediate
Hounslow
40% provision for sites of 10 or more dwellings (strategic borough-wide target of 40% of all new housing)

## Table 3.27 - Affordable Housing Policy By Borough

Borough
Adopted Borough Policy Target as at January 2017 (Numerical/ Percentage)
Emerging Borough Policy Target
Affordable Housing Tenure Split
n/a
70% social rent; 30% intermediate
Islington
50% additional housing built in the borough; Sites below 10 units required to provide financial contribution
n/a
70% social/affordable rent; 30% intermediate
Kensington & Chelsea
50% by floor area on residential floorspace in excess of 800 gross internal area
n/a
A minimum 15% affordable units to be intermediate in Golborne, St Charles, Notting Barns, Norland, Colville, Earls' Court and Cremorne wards.  All other wards a minimum of 85% social rented.
Kingston upon Thames
50% on sites of 10 or more units. Sites of 5 - 10 units: 5 units (1 affordable) 6 units (1 affordable) 7 units (2 affordable) 8 units (3 affordable) 9 units (4 affordable) 10 units (5 affordable)
n/a
70% social/affordable;
30% intermediate
Lambeth
50% on sites of 0.1 ha or 10 or more homes where 
public subsidy is available.  40% without public subsidy. Financial contribution for sites fewer than 10 units
35% minimum (or 455 our of 1,471)
n/a
60% social/ affordable rent; 40% intermediate
Lewisham
50% from all sources
n/a
70% social rented; 30% intermediate
London Legacy Development Corporation
n/a
60% social rented; 40% intermediate
Merton
40% borough-wide 40% ten units or more 20% 1-9 units
n/a
Target yet to be determined
Newham
50% of all new homes 35-50% of sites with 10 or more dwellings
n/a
50% social rent; 50% intermediate
Old Oak Park Royal Development Corporation Redbridge
50% provision for sites of 10 or more dwellings or residential sites of 0.5ha or more
n/a
60% social rent; 40% intermediate
Borough
Adopted Borough Policy Target as at January 2017 (Numerical/ Percentage)
Emerging Borough Policy Target
Affordable Housing Tenure Split
Richmond upon Thames
50% of all new units
n/a
80% social rent 20% intermediate
Southwark
35% everywhere
35% provision for sites providing 10 or more dwellings
70% social rented; 30% intermediate. Elephant & Castle OA 50% - 50%; Peckham AA 30% - 70%; Old Kent Road AA 50% - 50%; West Camberwell AA 50% - 50%.
Sutton
50% borough wide and on all sites of 10 dwellings or more
n/a
70% social rent; 30% intermediate
Tower Hamlets
35%-50% provision for sites of 10 or more dwellings n/a
70% social/ affordable rent; 30% intermediate
Waltham Forest
50%
n/a
n/a
Wandsworth
33% provision for sites of 10 or more dwellings. Minimum 15% in Nine Elms.
n/a
60% social/ affordable rent; 40% intermediate
Westminster
30%
60% social/ affordable rent; 40% intermediate

## Achieving An Inclusive Environment Accessible Dwellings

3.68	
The LDD began collecting data on Lifetime and Wheelchair Accessible Homes on residential approvals in 2008. In 2014 the Government undertook an extensive review of housing standards in planning, including those relating to accessible dwellings. As a result of this review, Part M Volume 1 of the Building Regulations was published and included three design standards on accessible housing:
•	M4(1) Visitable dwellings •	M4(2) Accessible and adaptable dwellings •	M4(3) Wheelchair user dwellings (wheelchair accessible or wheelchair 
adaptable)
3.69	
M4(1) is mandatory for all new-build dwellings, while M4(2) and M4(3), which roughly equate to Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Housing standards respectively, are 'optional' and can only be applied if they are 
'switched on' by local planning policy and required by planning condition. Minor 
alterations to the London Plan were adopted in 2015 which updated policy 3.8 to incorporate these new standards. Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Housing standards were effectively replaced by optional Building Regulations Part M standards M4(2) and M4(3) in London on 1st October 2015.
3.70	
For monitoring purposes there was a relatively smooth transition as the existing data fields continued to be used. However there are two major differences in the way the standards are applied. Firstly the new optional Building Regulations standards only apply to new build dwellings. Previously London Plan policy 3.8 included the requirement for 100% of new dwellings to meet Lifetime Homes standards and 10% to be Wheelchair Accessible or 'easily adaptable', although it was realised that this was not always possible where homes were being created by conversion or change of use. The policy has now been updated to make it clear that it applies to new build dwellings only. The other change is that previously all Wheelchair Accessible Homes also met Lifetime Homes standards (the two standards were compatible). From 1st October 2015 dwellings can either meet M4(2) or M4(3), but not both. The policy has therefore been updated to require 90% of homes to meet M4(2)  Accessible and adaptable dwellings 
and 10% to meet M4(3) Wheelchair user dwellings. As a result of these changes, it has been decided to separate the data into two tables, the first including approvals up to 30th September 2015 and the second including all approvals from 1st October 2015 onwards.

3.71	
The figures in both tables are 'gross' approvals calculated at scheme level. This means that units could be counted twice where a revised application for part of a scheme is approved within the same year as the original permission (usually through details or reserved matters applications). Also only schemes that are 100% new build are included. Percentages are shown rather than absolute numbers to avoid confusion as total units will be different to the total approvals in the Housing Monitor.
3.72	
The data in Table 3.28 shows that compliance with Lifetime Homes standards on all approvals up to 30th September was 70.3%. However when new build schemes only are considered, the total rises to 92.9%. This reflects the significant contribution that conversions of existing dwellings and changes of use to residential make to total housing approvals. This has been increased by the new categories of prior approval such as office to residential. The percentage of Wheelchair Accessible Homes is 8.2%, however 11% of new builds approved are designed to be wheelchair accessible, or easily adaptable 
for residents who are wheelchair users. This is above the aspirational target 
and may be linked to a move towards the development of more self-contained dwellings for older people to replace outdated care homes.
3.73	
Table 3.29 shows the compliance with M4(2) and M4(3) from October 2015 to March 2016. The total of 86.3% meeting M4(2) is only just below the 90% target while the 10% target for M4(3) dwellings has been matched. The data was collected during a period where developers and borough planners were adjusting to the transition from one set of housing standards to the next, which may have led to old monitoring techniques being used. An important difference is that the M4(2) and M4(3) must be required by condition on the planning permission, whereas previously compliance would have been assumed from the Design and Access Statement submitted along with the application. A more rigorous assessment of the presence of a condition in determining compliance with these standards could potentially see a fall in compliance levels in the short term while awareness of the new 'system' improves.

Borough
% Lifetime Homes, all Units
% Lifetime Homes, New Build
% Wheelchair Homes, New Build
% Wheel- Chair Homes, all units
Barking and Dagenham
93.9
8.6
100.0
8.4
Barnet
84.8
8.5
97.6
8.4
Bexley
64.1
13.2
77.7
17.6
Brent
43.1
1.4
97.3
3.7
Bromley
55.8
3.7
87.6
5.9
Camden
47.8
10.7
74.0
54.1
City of London
87.2
8.4
99.6
9.7
Croydon
34.1
5.8
77.9
14.3
Ealing
70.1
7.8
93.3
10.0
Enfield
77.4
10.3
72.0
23.0
Greenwich
87.7
9.5
99.4
8.1
Hackney
52.4
3.5
87.4
3.8
Hammersmith and Fulham
55.1
5.3
88.2
8.4
Haringey
37.8
2.6
45.6
2.9
Harrow
68.2
11.7
99.6
39.7
Havering
25.0
6.7
55.2
15.7
Hillingdon
56.2
7.0
80.0
16.7
Hounslow
61.6
6.9
94.8
10.3
Islington
56.4
5.4
96.3
9.3
Kensington and Chelsea
33.2
10.9
27.6
14.9
Kingston upon Thames
69.8
5.0
98.3
8.2
Lambeth
73.0
7.8
97.1
10.1
Lewisham
69.8
9.6
97.0
20.2
Merton
47.3
8.8
81.6
16.6
Newham
80.2
8.7
91.2
7.7
Redbridge
33.8
4.5
89.4
12.1
Richmond upon Thames
45.3
3.1
84.7
6.5
Southwark
88.1
9.1
97.0
10.1
Sutton
38.9
12.2
94.9
43.9
Tower Hamlets
78.3
8.5
94.9
4.3
Waltham Forest
44.6
2.8
90.1
5.6
Wandsworth
75.6
10.5
93.3
15.8
Westminster
40.8
5.7
91.4
11.9
London
70.3
8.2
92.9
11.0
Borough
% M4(2) Compliant
% M4(3) Compliant
Barking and Dagenham
87.3
11.8
Barnet
89.7
9.7
Bexley
72.9
3.8
Brent
63.6
1.9
Bromley
49.2
8.5
Camden
91.0
6.6
Croydon
60.0
7.9
Ealing
79.7
9.3
Enfield
93.5
6.4
Greenwich
87.3
9.8
Hackney
86.3
6.3
Hammersmith and Fulham
0.0
0.0
Haringey
65.5
3.6
Harrow
87.6
12.5
Havering
3.2
3.2
Hillingdon
85.4
8.5
Hounslow
87.5
10.7
Islington
88.7
8.9
Kensington and Chelsea
67.9
21.2
Kingston upon Thames
81.5
5.4
Lambeth
84.0
12.4
Lewisham
89.6
10.4
Merton
81.8
2.6
Newham
90.0
9.9
Redbridge
85.7
7.1
Richmond upon Thames
46.7
0.0
Southwark
80.4
9.6
Sutton
66.8
6.1
Tower Hamlets
87.0
12.7
Waltham Forest
86.2
4.6
Wandsworth
85.3
8.0
Westminster
81.4
12.8
London
86.3
10

Note: Only schemes that are 100% New Build or Extension are included in the "New" category. This table includes permissions from 1st April 2015 to 30th September 2015 Notes: Only schemes that are 100% New Build are included M4(2) and M4(3) replaced Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Homes standards in London on all approvals granted  from 01/10/2015 onwards. This table includes permissions from 1st October 2015 to 31st March 2016.

## Specialist Housing For Older People

3.74	
The 2015 London Plan introduced new strategic benchmarks to inform local targets for specialist housing for older people. Provision is being made to 
monitor housing for older people through the LDD, but data is not available for 2015/16. Based on the data that is available, it is likely that there has been a modest increase in overall supply as there has been a net increase in the amount of "sheltered" residential units, which includes, but is not restricted to, housing for older people. It is intended that more accurate data will be available in time for inclusion in the next AMR.

## Affordable Student Accommodation

3.75	
The Mayor's Housing SPG (2016) states that the Mayor will publish, in his Annual Monitoring Report for the London Plan, the annual rental cost for purpose built student accommodation (PBSA) that is considered affordable for the coming academic. As set out in the Housing SPG, the annual rental cost for affordable PBSA equates to 55% of the maximum student maintenance loan for living costs available to a UK full-time student in London living away from home for that academic year. For the academic year 
2017/18 the annual rental cost for affordable PBSA must not exceed £6,051. 

## Environment And Transport Ptal Map

3.76	
Map 3.6 displays the public transport access levels (PTALs) for London. In several important areas of planning policy (for example housing density and parking provision), the London Plan uses PTALs to calculate compliance with the density matrix. Datasets are available from Transport for London (TfL).
3.77	
TfL's WebCAT toolkit can be used to measure transport connectivity using PTAL and Time Mapping analysis. Further information can be found at: 
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-withwebcat/webcat?intcmp=25932

## Map 3.6 - London Public Transport Access (Ptal) Map 2015 Crossrail Funding

3.78	
Crossrail is a £15bn investment in public transport that will contribute to accommodating economic growth and a rising population within London. 
Under the funding agreement with the Government the Mayor is required to raise £600m from developer contributions via both S106 contributions related to the Crossrail funding SPG and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (MCIL). The MCIL came into effect in April 2012 and it raises funds to contribute to the construction of Crossrail. It is a Londonwide charge, applying to most land uses. The SPG on the "Use of Planning Obligations in the funding of Crossrail, and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy" was refreshed in March 2016.
3.79	
Table 3.30 shows funding secured for Crossrail to date from each funding stream. The CIL regulations 2010 (as amended) require the Mayor to report on various aspects of how CIL receipts are being spent. This is set out in Table 3.31. It is not possible to link CIL to a specific type of Crossrail expenditure as the proceeds are transferred into the Sponsor Funding Account (SFA), which then draws on the total to be spent in line with the project's requirements. The amount of CIL 'in hand' is zero, as all of it is transferred to the SFA to fund the Crossrail scheme on a quarterly basis. The 
Mayor is on track to raise the required £600m by the end of March 2019. 

| Category              | £           |
|-----------------------|-------------|
| Total CIL Expenditure | 341,737,237 |
| Amount used to repay  |             |
| borrowing             |             |
| 0                     |             |
| 600,000#              |             |

* figures for 2016/17 are based on actual income up to the end of January 2017. # TfL / GLA admin fee capped at £600k in 2016/17. ## figures correct to the end of January 2017 Source: Transport for London

Amount spent (2016/17) on administration by TfL/ GLA (up to 1%)
3,394,402##
Amount spent (2016/17) on administration by collecting authorities (up to 4%)
collecting authorities (up to 4%)
4,051,346##
Amount of CIL 'in-hand' 0

## Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations

3.80	 The Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) first review was published in 
August 2014, updating the previous (2009) RFRA.  A new RFRA is being 
prepared to accompany the Mayor's new London Plan. 
3.81	
The Mayor published his London Sustainable Drainage Action Plan (LSDAP) in December 2016.  The Action Plan contains 40 actions mainly focused on retrofitting sustainable drainage measures and progress against those actions will be reported on an annual basis, potentially alongside the progress on the RFRA.

## Table 3.32 - Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations No. Recommendation Progress At February 2017

Most boroughs are now making reasonable progress in recognising this in either their SFRAs or DPDs. Further work with Environment Agency will be useful in identifying options and funding opportunities for relevant flood risk upgrades.

1
All Thames-side planning authorities should consider in their SFRAs and put in place Local Plan policies to promote the setting back of development from the edge of the Thames and tidal Tributaries to enable sustainable and cost effective upgrade of river walls/ embankments in line with Policy 5.12, CFMPs, TE2100 and advice from the Environment Agency.
Richmond, Hounslow, Kingston, and Wandsworth have policies in their Local Plans to address flood risk management from all sources. Wandsworth's policy in particular requires developments take into account the ability to implement future improvements to flood defences, in accordance with the TE2100 Plan.

2
The London Boroughs of Richmond, Kingston, Hounslow and Wandsworth should 
put in place policies to ensure alternative responses to managing Fluvial risk such as flood resilience measures (e.g. Flood gates) or Potentially safeguarding land for Future flood storage or, on the fluvial tributaries, setting back local defences or any resilience measures between Teddington Lock and Hammersmith Bridge in line with TE2100 findings.
Greenwich has up-to-date Local Plan policies in place to enable the potential safeguarding of land needs around the existing Thames Barrier. Any major land take for a new flood barrier will be outside London.

3
The London Boroughs of Newham and Greenwich should work with the Environment Agency on issues such as the potential safeguarding of potential land needs around the existing Thames Barrier, and the London Borough of Bexley should work with the Environment agency on future flood risk management options in line with TE2100 findings.
Tidal influences are generally taken into account in the SFRAs modelling addressing the interaction of fluvial and tidal flood risk at confluences.

4
Boroughs at confluences of tributary rivers with the river Thames should ensure flood risk assessments (FRAs) include an assessment of the interaction of all forms of flooding, but fluvial and tidal flood risks in particular. These are the London Boroughs of Havering, Barking & Dagenham, Newham, Tower hamlets, Greenwich, Lewisham, Wandsworth, Hounslow, Richmond and Kingston.

## Table 3.32 - Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations No. Recommendation Progress At February 2017

These measures are becoming increasingly regularly built into SFRAs, local policies, development frameworks and planning applications, but more work is needed to support Lead Local Flood Authorities promoting TE2100.

5
Regeneration and redevelopment of London's fluvial river corridors offer a crucial opportunity to reduce flood risk. SFRAs and policies should focus on making 
the most of this opportunity through appropriate location, layout and design of development as set out in the Thames CFMP.  In particular opportunities should be sought to: Set back development from the river edge to enable sustainable and cost effective flood risk management options Ensure that developments at residual flood risk are designed to be flood compatible and/or flood resilient Maximise the use of open spaces within developments which have a residual flood risk to make space for flood water.
In strategic developments reviewed by the GLA, many developments achieve green-field run-off rates and almost all achieve at least a 50% reduction in run-off rates compared to the existing site.

6
Developments all across London should reduce surface water discharge in line with the Sustainable Drainage hierarchy set out in Policy 5.13 of the London Plan, the emerging Sustainable Design and construction SPG and the emerging London Sustainable Drainage Action Plan (LSDAP).
However, these schemes often rely on attenuation tanks. GLA officers will seek to promote the use of 'green' sustainable drainage techniques, which can deliver a wider range of benefits and feature higher in the hierarchy.
7
Thames Water should continue its programme of addressing foul sewer flooding.
Thames Water continues to address localised sewer flooding problems. Following pre-application consultation, Thames Water is also expected to apply for planning permission for the Counters Creek Storm Relief Sewer in 2017.
8
The groundwater flood risk should be considered in FRAs and SFRAs to ensure that its impacts do not increase.
As SFRAs are reviewed, this is starting to be included, and it is also being addressed in some site specific FRAs. However, poor data quality may prevent more detailed consideration.
9
The reservoir flood risk should be considered in FRAs and SFRAs to ensure its impacts do not increase.
As SFRAs are reviewed, this is starting to be included, and is starting to be addressed in some site specific FRAs as well.
10
Detailed flood risk assessments should be undertaken at an early stage at the level of individual major development locations and town centre development sites, and opportunities to reduce flood risk should be maximised where possible.
London Underground and Transport for London has undertaken a comprehensive review of flood risk to their assets and infrastructure. Other transport authorities will need to be contacted to consider what they can do.

This is generally being achieved and the GLA has lead work to promote Integrated Water Management Strategies at major development locations including Vauxhall, Nine Elms Battersea, Old Oak & Park Royal, Charlton to Crayford Riverfront and emerging work for Old Kent Road. The Environment Agency's Sustainable Places Team is also engaging at the preapplication stage.
11
Relevant transport authorities and operators should examine and regularly review their infrastructure including the networks, stations, depots, underpasses and tunnels for potential flooding locations and flood risk reduction measures. For large stations and depots, solutions should be sought to store or disperse rainwater from heavy storms.

Table 3.32 - Progress on Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations
No. Recommendation
Progress at February 2017
Through Drain London the GLA has undertaken work to examine surface water flood risk at hospital and emergency services sites across London. 

12
Emergency service authorities and operators covering hospitals, ambulance, fire and police stations as well as prisons should ensure that Emergency Plans in 
particular for facilities in flood risk areas are in place and regularly reviewed so that they can cope in the event of a major flood. These plans should put in place cover arrangements through other suitable facilities.

Through Drain London the GLA has undertaken work to examine surface water flood risk at secondary school sites across London. The LSDAP identifies school sites as having a good range of opportunities to implement more sustainable drainage measures.

Each London Borough also has its own Multi-Agency Flood Plan, which should identify critical infrastructure/vulnerable sites at risk of flooding.
13
Education authorities should ensure that emergency plans in particular for facilities in flood risk areas are in place and regularly reviewed so that they can cope in the event of a major flood. These plans should put in place cover arrangements through other suitable facilities.

The update of the RFRA, which is underway, aims to provide a more up-to-date and accurate picture of flood risk to strategic utilities as an initial step.

Each London Borough also has its own Multi-Agency Flood Plan, which should identify education facilities at risk.
14
Operators of electricity, gas, water, sewerage, and waste utility sites should maintain an up to date assessment of the flood risk to their installations and, considering the likely impacts of failure, establish any necessary protection measures including secondary flood defences.

## Planning Progress With Supplementary Planning Guidance

3.82	 The Mayor produces Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents 
to provide further detail on particular policies in the London Plan. In March 2016 the Mayor published three SPGs: Crossrail Funding, Housing and Central Activities Zone. 
3.83	 In addition in November the draft Affordable Housing & Viability SPG was 
published.
3.84	 All full and draft SPGs are available on the Mayor's website https://
www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-london-plan/ supplementary-planning-guidance

## London Borough Local Plans And Progress

3.85	 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires local planning 
authorities to produce a Local Plan for their area. In law (Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) this is described as the development plan 
documents (DPDs). There is now good coverage of Local Plans across London, with the last Plan (Bromley) moving toward Examination in 2017 and Adoption in late 2017-18. Over half of boroughs are now well advanced with reviews/replacements of their Local Plans, indicating that the policy framework is being kept up to date (see Table 3.33).
3.86	 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. 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 Document (SPD) and Neighbourhood Plans only where strategic 
policy issues are raised.

3.87	
In order to achieve general conformity with the London Plan in accordance 
with Section 24(1) (b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, 
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 3.34 lists policy documents that were published in 2016 (with some additions for early 2017).

## Table 3.33 - London Borough Policy Documents Published In 2016 Borough Policy Documents

Barking & Dagenham 
-
Barnet Local Development Scheme Residential Design Guidance Sustainable Design & Constructions SPDs Graham Park SPD
Bexley Article 4 Direction - Housing in Multiple Occupation (HMO)
Brent Development Management Policies Adopted Shopfront and Advertising Design Guide Bromley Local Plan Reg 19 Submission Camden Draft Local Plan Submission & Examination Highgate Neighbourhood Plan (joint with Haringey) Kentish Town Neighbourhood Plan Article 4 Direction - Basements City of London Local Plan Issues & Options Archaeology and Development SPD Public Realm SPD Enforcement SPD Fleet Street Area Strategy Air Quality SPD (Jan 2017) Local Plan Strategic Policies Partial Review Reg 19 Local Plan detailed Policies and Proposals Reg 19

## Table 3.33 - London Borough Policy Documents Published In 2016 Borough Policy Documents

| Enfield                                            | North East Enfield Area Action Plan Adopted           |
|----------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
| S106 SPD Adopted                                   |                                                       |
| Ritz Parade SPD consultation                       |                                                       |
| CIL SPD Adopted                                    |                                                       |
| Greenwich                                          | Local Plan Site Allocations Issues & Options          |
| Thomas Street SPD                                  |                                                       |
| Residential Extensions, Conversions and Basements  |                                                       |
| SPD                                                |                                                       |
| Hackney                                            | New Local Plan Direction of Travel Consultation       |
| Hackney Central AAP                                |                                                       |
| Hammersmith & Fulham -                             |                                                       |
| Haringey                                           | Examination and post  examination modifications into: |
| Alterations to the Strategic Policies              |                                                       |
| Development Management DPD                         |                                                       |
| Site Allocations DPD                               |                                                       |
| Tottenham Area Action Plan                         |                                                       |
| Wood Green Area Action Plan 9Feb 2017)             |                                                       |
| Highgate Neighbourhood Plan (joint with Camden)    |                                                       |
| Harrow                                             | -                                                     |
| Havering                                           | New Local Plan Direction of Travel Consultation       |
| Hillingdon                                         | -                                                     |
| Hounslow                                           | Noise Generating & Noise Sensitive Development SPD    |
| Great West Corridor - issues paper                 |                                                       |
| West of Borough - issues paper                     |                                                       |
| Islington                                          | Local Plan Review (scope) Reg 18 Consultation         |
| Planning Obligations SPD                           |                                                       |
| Urban Design Guide SPD                             |                                                       |
| Article 4 Direction                                |                                                       |
| Kensington & Chelsea                               | Local Plan Partial Review Reg 18 Consultation         |
| Basements SPD (Adopted)                            |                                                       |
| Article 4 Direction                                |                                                       |
| Kingston upon Thames                               | Local Development Scheme (Adopted)                    |
| New Local Plan Direction of Travel                 |                                                       |
| Lambeth                                            | Development Viability SPD                             |
| Employment and Skills SPD                          |                                                       |
| South Bank & Waterloo Neighbourhood Plan (see also |                                                       |
| Southwark)                                         |                                                       |
| Lewisham                                           | Gypsy & Traveller Site Allocation                     |
| London Legacy                                      |                                                       |
| Development                                        |                                                       |
| Corporation                                        |                                                       |
| Bromley by Bow SPD                                 |                                                       |
| Pudding Mill SPD                                   |                                                       |
| Hackney Wick and Fish Island SPD                   |                                                       |
| Carbon Off-setting SPD                             |                                                       |
| Planning Obligations SPD                           |                                                       |

## Table 3.33 - London Borough Policy Documents Published In 2016 Borough Policy Documents

Local Plan Reg 18 Consultation
Merton
Merton Estates Local Plan Submission
Newham
Detailed Sites & Policies DPD (Examination, Mods & Adoption) Waste Management in New Development SPD Planning Obligations & Development Viability SPD Gypsy & Traveller DPD
Old Oak & Park Royal Development 
Corporation Redbridge
Local Plan 2015-2030 Pre Submission draft
Richmond upon Thames Local Plan Reg 19
Noise Generating & Noise Sensitive Development SPD Hampton Draft Village Planning Guidance SPD Hampton Hill Draft Village Planning Guidance SPD Hampton Wick & Teddington Draft Village Planning Guidance SPD Ham & Petersham Neighbourhood Plan (Feb 2017)
Southwark
New Southwark Plan –Area Visions & Site Allocations (Feb 2017) Old Kent Road AAP Article 4 Direction South Bank & Waterloo Neighbourhood Plan (see also Lambeth)
Sutton
New Local Plan Reg 19 Hackbridge & Beddington Corner Neighbourhood Plan 
Tower Hamlets
New Local Plan Reg 18 Consultation Planning Obligations SPD Development Viability SPD
Waltham Forest
Lee Valley Eastside Vision
Wandsworth
Historic Environment SPD (Adopted) Housing SPD (Adopted) Local Plan Call for Sites
Westminster
Local Plan Special Policy Areas Reg 19 & Examination Local Plan Main Mods (Basements & Mixed Use) Article 4 Direction (Basements) Mayfair Neighbourhood Plan Knightsbridge Neighbourhood Plan Opportunity Framework Upper Vauxhall Bridge Rd
Core Strategy Stage 
No. of 
Boroughs Borough
Core Strategy Issues and Options yet to be published
0 0
Have published Core Strategy Policy Options and 
preferred strategy Have published Core 
Strategy for Submission
1
Bromley
Core Strategy adopted 
33
Barking and Dagenham (July 2010) Barnet (Sep 2012) Bexley (Feb 2012) Brent (July 2010) Camden (Nov 2010) City of London (Sep 2015) Croydon (April 2013) Ealing (April 2012) Enfield (Jan 2014) Greenwich (July 2014) Hackney (Nov 2010) Hammersmith & Fulham (Oct 2011) Haringey (March 2013) Harrow (Feb 2012) Havering (2008) Hillingdon (Part 1 Nov 2012)
Hounslow (2015) Islington (Feb 2011) Kensington & Chelse (2010) Kingston upon Thames (April 2012) Lambeth (Jan 2011) Lewisham (June 2011) London Legacy Development Corporation (July 2015) Merton (2011) Newham (Jan 2012) Redbridge (March 2008) Richmond upon Thames (2009) Southwark (April 2011) Sutton (Dec 2009)
Core Strategy Stage 
No. of 
Boroughs Borough
Local Plan being reviewed
24
Barking and Dagenham - Preparation Bromley - Preparation Camden - Examination City - Issues & Options
Croydon - Reg 19 Haringey - Examination
Hammersmith & Fulham - Reg 18 Havering - Preparation Hillingdon - Consultation draft Hounslow - Examination Islington - Reg 18 Kingston - Preparation Kensington & Chelsea - Partial review Reg 19 Lambeth - Examination Lewisham - Issues and options LLDC - Examination OPDC - Reg 18 Redbridge Reg 19 Richmond Reg 19 Southwark - Preparation Sutton Reg 18 Tower Hamlets Reg 18
Wandsworth - Publication Westminster

Source: Association of London Borough Planning Officers (ALBPO), Local Plan Borough Updates & Borough websites. 

## Planning Decisions

3.88	 Table 3.35 highlights the ongoing work of the Mayor's Development & 
Projects Team in helping to implement the London Plan by assessing and 
commenting on referable planning applications.

2000- 2007
2008 2009 2010
2011
2012 2013
2014 2015 2016
Total 2000- 2016
Total
1,871
334
240
258
300
307
359
373
454
389
4885
Strategic Call-ins
-
-
2
1
2
1
2
1
5
3
17

Source: GLA Planning

## Opportunity Areas And Areas Of Intensification

3.89	 Details on all Opportunity Areas (OAs) and Areas of Intensification (AIs) are 
included in Annex 1 of the London Plan.
3.90	 For further information regarding the 38 OAs including details on housing 
and employment targets please visit our new interactive Opportunity Area Map https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-londonplan/opportunity-areas/opportunity-areas-map-0
3.91	
Table 3.36 shows the progress of residential development in the Opportunity Areas. The table shows the pipeline of permitted residential development as well as completions in 2015/16. All figures are net conventional housing. This table just gives an indication of the progress in the development of London's OAs derived from the data in the Housing Monitor. Figures for nonself-contained dwellings, employment and other non-residential uses are not included, neither are completions in other years.

conventional housing)
Opportunity Area
Housing pipeline as at 31/03/2016
Completions 2015/16
Not started
Started
Total pipeline
Bexley Riverside
360
649
1,009
11
Bromley
186
403
589
113
Canada Water
96
1,437
1,533
0
Charlton Riverside
19
100
119
82
City Fringe/ Tech City
2,269
5,754
8,023
710
Colindale/Burnt Oak
527
5,683
6,210
456
Cricklewood/Brent Cross
8,008
668
8,676
301
Croydon
2,648
3,181
5,829
703
Deptford Creek/ Greenwich Riverside
3,704
693
4,397
262
Earls Court and West Kensington
4,919
1,779
6,698
0
Elephant and Castle
96
2,847
2,943
9
Euston
34
-60
-26
93
Greenwich Peninsula
13,678
5,935
19,613
1,118
Harrow & Wealdstone
2,886
846
3,732
438
Heathrow
1,903
2,682
4,585
544
Ilford
372
161
533
88
Isle of Dogs
3,964
11,330
15,294
534
King's Cross - St Pancras
132
1,086
1,218
255
Lewisham, Catford & New Cross
2,986
4,000
6,986
1,196
London Bridge, Borough & Bankside
721
1,509
2,230
550
553
1,532
2,085
967
London Riverside
2,324
10,114
12,438
686
Lower Lea Valley (outside LLDC boundary)
Opportunity Area
Housing pipeline as at 31/03/2016
Completions 2015/16
Not started
Started
Total pipeline
Old Kent Road
38
438
476
56
Old Oak Common
47
152
199
0
Olympic Legacy SPG area
12,285
5,447
17,732
1,134
Paddington
102
826
928
0
Park Royal
118
259
377
270
Royal Docks and Beckton Riverside
2,180
4,107
6,287
96
Southall
3,805
208
4,013
196
Thamesmead & Abbey Wood
157
277
434
37
Tottenham Court Road
97
289
386
0
Upper Lea Valley
911
2,139
3,050
831
Vauxhall, Nine Elms & 
Battersea
4,860
11,147
16,007
1,416
Victoria
410
655
1,065
7
Waterloo
171
1,130
1,301
9
Wembley
574
4,044
4,618
20
White City
2,741
1,137
3,878
3
Woolwich
612
7,010
7,622
272
Total (All OAs)
81,493
101,594
183,087
13,463

London Planning Awards 

3.92	 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 14th London Planning Awards were held on 27th February 2017. Full details of the winning entries are given in Table 3.37.

## Table 3.37 - London Planning Awards - Winners Entry Descriptions And Award Citations Taken From The Mayor'S And Sir Edward Lister'S Speeches At The London Planning Awards Ceremony, City Hall 27Th February 2017 Best New Place To Live London City Island

An ambitious two phase redevelopment of former docklands on the Leamouth Peninsular, including 1,700 new homes arranged within a sequence of 10 simple and well-designed buildings by Glenn Howells Architects. The scheme is an exemplar of how high density residential development can unlock a constrained island site to provide genuine place-making opportunities, new public open space and connections. A new pedestrian bridge links the island to Canning Town Station, dramatically improving both local and wider connections towards Canary Wharf, and Central London. This new neighbourhood will include a mix of independent restaurants and retail offers, a varied sequence of new riverside public spaces, and a new arts and cultural hub to include the English National Ballet and London Film School. Residential buildings were constructed using an innovative system of pre-cast concrete panels not previously used before in the UK. This approach offers both time and cost efficiencies whilst also ensuring an exemplary and sustainable build quality, incorporating full brickwork of varying colour tones, which gives the development its distinctive appearance.  Alongside the public realm and cultural uses, the scheme delivers a mix of affordable and family sized accommodation.

## Best New Place To Live - Highly Commended Place/Ladywell

An innovative blend of off-site manufacturing techniques and a solution to addressing the needs of homeless families in the borough, this scheme is made up of a series of 'podlike' units which are stacked around cores to create 24 generously sized and accessible homes, close to Lewisham town centre.  The off-site factory assembly process enables a very precise method of construction and improved energy efficiency to the building's fabric, resulting in very low energy bills for residents. Each unit is 10% larger than London Plan space standards and includes generous floor to ceiling heights of 2.6metres, promoting residents' well-being providing through a heightened sense of space and optimised daylight penetration.

## Table 3.37 - London Planning Awards - Winners Entry Descriptions And Award Citations Taken From The Mayor'S And Sir Edward Lister'S Speeches At The London Planning Awards Ceremony, City Hall 27Th February 2017 Best New Place To Work The Francis Crick Institute

A pioneering partnership between six of the world's leading biomedical research organisations - the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust, University College London, Imperial College London and King's College London - all brought together in one building. The institute aims to respond to fast-moving changes in the medical sciences by facilitating collaboration and accelerating the translation of scientific research from the laboratory to hospitals and pharmacies. It combines an innovative 'open' building layout to support active collaboration between students, medical professionals and researchers, while also offering members of the public views into laboratories to observe practitioners at work. The 'Crick' is within a short walking distance of St Pancras and King's Cross stations and staff have direct access to a range of facilities including a 450 seat auditorium, cycle storage, restaurant and break-out spaces. As well as being a substantial part of the wider Kings Cross redevelopment, the 'Crick' exerts wider influence as a flagship for British biomedical science. The building incorporates a range of energy efficient measures and achieves a BREEAM 'Excellent' rating.

## Best New Place To Work - Highly Commended Make Hq, 32 Cleveland Street

Make's new studio embodies the core principals of their work and showcases an innovative use of an under-used former NCP basement car park in Fitzrovia. The existing vehicle access ramp has been transformed into a grand main entrance stair into the office space, flanked with areas of displaying models, 3D printing and bespoke tables for informal meetings. Elsewhere, the efficient layout and clever use of space provides 27 cycle storage racks, staff showers and a soundproof rest-room. The visionary design approach retains and works with many of the original quirks of the car park, including wrapping circular work surfaces around large concrete columns to promote collaborative working amongst staff. Best Community Led Project

## Peckham Cole Line

An ambitious project, using crowd-funding, financial support from Southwark Council and the Mayor of London and a series of community-led events to enable the commissioning of a collaborative feasibility study to explore options for opening up a disused coal rail line to provide a green link between Queens Road and Rye Lane.  The 900metre green route would enhance the urban setting and provide the public with much improved local connections, bridging the gap between an established network of walking greenways and cycle routes between Brixton and the Thames. The Cole Line project has been successful in connecting local people and businesses while strengthening and building on established networks of community groups.

## Table 3.37 - London Planning Awards - Winners Entry Descriptions And Award Citations Taken From The Mayor'S And Sir Edward Lister'S Speeches At The London Planning Awards Ceremony, City Hall 27Th February 2017 Best Heritage Led Project The Deptford Project

A £47million public private partnership, this development successfully regenerates a long vacant, 2 acre site next to Deptford Railway Station.  At the heart of the scheme, a Grade 2 Listed carriage ramp, built in 1836 and previously featured on the 'buildings at risk' register, is sensitively restored and re-purposed to provide independent commercial spaces within 14 arches. The strong heritage-led design led by Pollard Thomas Architects, encompasses a sensitive and well-crafted arrangement of new build elements, improving access to the station and using a carefully selected palette of materials which define and reinstate the public realm of Deptford town centre. 'The Tinderbox', an 8 storey private residential building has enabled much of the wider restoration works, as well as the addition of eight new affordable homes managed by Peabody. Best New Public Space

## Pearson Square, Fitzroy Place

The largest new London Square to be completed in the last 100 years, this is an exemplary scheme which opens up new pedestrian routes and creates a series of carefully landscaped spaces, framed and overlooked by a distinctly modern and well-designed set-piece of residential and commercial buildings. At the heart of the square sits the Grade II* listed chapel of the former Middlesex Hospital, that has been sensitively restored and expertly integrated into the landscaping. Every aspect of the square is designed to be fully accessible and from the outset, the architects worked with the public realm specialists, Publica, to explore the use and character of existing public spaces in the neighbourhood. The findings of this work informed the positioning of more active commercial frontages to the exterior edges of blocks, enabling the square to become a tranquil counterpoint to the surrounding busy streets. Best Town Centre Project

## The Scene, Walthamstow

This simple and well-designed mix-used building has reinvigorated Walthamstow town centre, bringing back into use a long empty piece of land at the corner of Hoe Street and the High Street (home to Europe's longest outdoor street market). The building contains the first cinema in Walthamstow for over a decade and in tandem with Waltham Forest's recent investment into public realm upgrades, the scheme re-establishes this prominent corner of the town centre, creating a popular public space and destination for local people. Key to addressing the technical and acoustic challenges of combining cinema and residential uses, the scheme's design embeds the 9-screen complex a full storey below ground and wraps it with active restaurant uses at street level. At the upper levels, the cinema's insulated roof forms the base for a tranquil residential courtyard, surrounded by 121 new mixed tenure flats and houses. The project's success has encouraged further investor interest in the town centre, with several new schemes, including extensions to the nearby Mall Shopping Centre and a 700 home development to the eastern end of the High Street in the pipeline. The Council has subsequently attracted GLA High Street funding to develop a twilight market.

## Table 3.37 - London Planning Awards - Winners Entry Descriptions And Award Citations Taken From The Mayor'S And Sir Edward Lister'S Speeches At The London Planning Awards Ceremony, City Hall 27Th February 2017 Best Project 5 Years On Quadrant 3, The Crown Estate

Part of a wider £1 billion, 20 year regeneration programme, including three other quadrant buildings located along the length of Regents Street, Quadrant 3 involves the sensitive repair and refurbishment of the former Regent Palace hotel block, creating 200,000 sq.ft of grade A office space, 65,000 sq.ft. of prime retail space and 44,000 sq.ft. of enhanced public realm. This development has had a genuinely transformative effect on what was once a run down and poorly maintained part of the West End. Dixon Jones Architects have expertly combined exemplary modern architecture with retained neoclassical façades, rejuvenating and respecting the area's iconic townscape and reinstating it as a visitor destination. The building's revolutionary hydrogen fuel cell was installed in 2013 and remains the largest of its kind in the UK, reducing carbon usage by 38% and achieving a 99% reduction in emissions. Five years on from completion, the building is fully occupied, with minimal turnover and provides the UK headquarters for a number of high profile companies including Twitter and Telefonica.

## Best Project 5 Years On - Highly Commended Regent Quarter

Arranged over 2.4 hectares and comprising four urban blocks, the Regent Quarter development has successfully turned around a once neglected and run down area to the east of King Cross station, creating a rich and varied district of office, residential, retail and restaurant uses. A strong heritage-led design framework was established from the outset and established a sensitive balance of retention, reuse and modern intervention. From the outset, uptake for all uses was impressive and the Quarter continues to support high occupancy levels throughout, bringing sustained activity and street life to the area, both day and night. Blocks are arranged around a series of pedestrian routes and courtyards, forming local connections and creating quiet spaces flanked with active uses. The development's success acted as a catalyst for the subsequent and ongoing regeneration of both St Pancras and Kings Cross stations and the major developments, led by Argent, further to the north. Best Conceptual Project

## Wind Modelling Of The Eastern Cluster

This internationally ground breaking project studies cumulative wind impact on existing, consented and proposed tall buildings within the eastern cluster of the City and innovatively combines wind tunnel and computer fluid dynamics technology. Its aim is to better understand the macro and micro level impacts of the cluster in order to inform future developments and identify wider future mitigation measures to ensure the highest quality of public realm and pedestrian environment. The findings of this work are intended to be captured to inform far reaching planning policies and guidance which may re-define acceptable criteria for wind impacts on the public realm. The findings also has potential to be layered with other micro-climate related conditions including sunlight, daylight, noise and air pollution data to create a micro-climatic map of the City to reconcile strategic challenges of accommodating significant growth to maintain the City as a leading World commercial hub. Best Local Planning Authority

## London Borough Of Southwark Mayors Award For Planning Excellence Wind Modelling Of The Eastern Cluster

Demonstrating how 3D technology can transform the understanding of London's urban environment and deliver better outcomes for planning, designing and building in the city.

## Chapter 4 - Other Contextual Data Sources

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 provided here should enable anyone researching these subjects access to the most up to date data.

## London Datastore

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

## London Development Database

For more information on the London Development database please email the Data Team or visit our public page. 

## Development And Projects

More information on the activities of the Mayor's Development and Projects unit (Formerly the Planning Decisions Unit) can be found at: https://www.london.gov.uk/
what-we-do/planning/planning-applications-and-decisions

## Gla Economics Reports

The latest reports can be found at https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/ research-and-analysis/gla-economics-publications. The latest news is available at: 
 
https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/business-and-economy

## London Sustainable Development Commission

The London Sustainable Development Commission website is at http://www. londonsdc.org/

## Waste

The Mayor's Municipal Waste Management Strategy can be found at https://www. london.gov.uk/WHAT-WE-DO/environment/environment-publications/mayorsmunicipal-waste-management-strategy DEFRA produces statistics on waste and recycling which can be found at: https:// www.gov.uk/government/collections/waste-and-recycling-statistics Up to date London specific data is available on the Local Authority Waste and Recycling Information Portal http://laportal.wrap.org.uk/Login.aspx  

## Minerals (Aggregates)

Information on the London Aggregates Working Party (LAWP), including Annual Monitoring Reports, can be found at: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/ planning/who-we-work/planning-working-groups/london-aggregates-workingparty

## Transport

The latest information on The Mayor's work on transport can be found at: https:// www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/transport Transport for London performance statistics can be found at: https://tfl.gov.uk/ corporate/publications-and-reports/annual-report Details on how PTAL scores are calculated can be found in https://data.london.gov.

uk/dataset/public-transport-accessibility-levels TfL's WebCAT toolkit can be used to measure transport connectivity using PTAL and Time Mapping analysis: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-andconstruction/planning-with-webcat The Department for Transport provides some useful data on transport at https:// www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport London First are monitoring how the London boroughs are progressing with the development of their CIL charging schedules http://londonfirst.co.uk/our-focus/ londons-built-environment/community-infrastructure-levy/

## Health

London Health Programmes closed as a separate NHS organisation on of 31 March 2013. Its work is now carried forward through other organisations. More information can be found here: http://www.londonhp.nhs.uk/ 
Public Health England have collated resources and data tools to support local areas in improving health in the capital: https://www.gov.uk/government/
collections/phe-london-advice-support-and-services

## Government Data Sources

Government departments have moved their websites to a central domain: https:// www.gov.uk Various data and studies on education and skills can be found at: https://www.gov. uk/government/organisations/department-for-education Links to a number of national reports on education provision can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?keywords=Education&publication_ filter_option=all&topics%5B%5D=all&departments%5B%5D=all&official_ document_status=all&world_locations%5B%5D=all&from_date=&to_date=

## Department Of Environment, Food And Rural Affairs

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

## Department For Communities And Local Government

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

## Chapter 5 - Conclusions And Looking Ahead

5.1	
Following the Mayoral election in May 2016, 'City for All Londoners' outlined the capital's key challenges and opportunities across priority policy areas. 
The first substantial steps were taken towards the preparation of a new suite of Mayoral Strategies including - crucially - of a Full Review of the London 
Plan. The AMR, and in particular the LDD underpinning it, is an invaluable source to inform its evidence base. 
5.2	
This is the first AMR that is based on based on the 2015 London Plan using a slightly modified set of KPI targets introduced through that Plan. This year's performance of the KPIs is positive: Many targets are met or are heading in the right direction, some turning from a negative to a positive performance, including the KPIs on open space, industrial land release and car traffic growth. Four KPI targets have not been met or are heading the wrong way, including the KPI target on Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation, for which in the previous year a positive performance had been recorded. 
5.3	
During 2016 the Mayor also published Supplementary Planning Guidance on Housing, the Central Activity Zone and Crossrail Funding as well as draft SPG on Affordable Housing & Viability.
5.4	
Looking forward, a draft of the new London Plan is expected to be consulted on for three months in late 2017. Following the Examination in Public during 
autumn 2018, which will be supported by data set out in the AMR and LDD more widely, the new Plan would then be published in the Autumn 2019. 
5.5	
The Mayor will also improve public access to data and will work with and encourage the London boroughs to do the same, in order to provide more open and transparent governance.
5.6	
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 to address the areas where further work is needed. This AMR again makes plain that the planning system has much to contribute to Londoners' quality of life - and there is a huge amount of activity at City Hall, in boroughs and neighbourhoods to make sure all opportunities are maximized.
Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen's Walk More London London SE1 2AA Telephone 020 7983 4100
Minicom 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk