# London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 12, 2014-15

JULY 2016 UPDATE
LONDON PLAN 2011

## London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 12, 2014-15

MARCH 2016 UPDATED JULY 2016
This AMR was updated following the publication of data on vacant properties returning to use by Government. This opportunity was also used to update the completions data from the London Development Database. To ensure consistency between the updated figures in KPI 4 (housing completions), KPI5 (affordable completions) and the rest of the AMR, changes were also made to the following: Executive Summary Paragraph vi Table 1.1 KPI 4 Annex 3 Housing Monitor Key findings and statistics Paragraphs 3.9 to 3.23
Tables 3.1 and 3.4 Figure 4
HPM tables 1-6 and 13-14
The page numbering has also been updated.

## Copyright Greater London Authority

July 2016
Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen's Walk More London London SE1 2AA
www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458
Crown Copyright All rights reserved. GLA 10032216 (2016)
Front cover photo: Eleanor Ward/GLA
Copies of this document are available from http://www.london.gov.uk/

## Contents

| Executive Summary	                                                                 |    |   1 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|----|-----|
| Chapter 1 introduction                                          |    |   7 |
| Scope and purpose of the AMR                                    |    |   8 |
| The London Development Database                                 |    |   9 |
| The London Plan and its Implementation                          |    |  10 |
| Chapter 2 performance against key performance indicator targets | 11 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 1                                     | 12 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2                                     | 14 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 3                                     | 16 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 4                                     | 18 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 5                                     | 21 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 6                                     | 25 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 7                                     | 26 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 8                                     | 27 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 9                                     | 31 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 10                                    | 33 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 11                                    | 34 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 12                                    | 36 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 13                                    | 38 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 14                                    | 39 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 15                                    | 41 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 16                                    | 42 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 17                                    | 45 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 18                                    | 46 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 19                                    | 47 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 20                                    | 49 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 21                                    | 51 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 22                                    | 54 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 23                                    | 55 |     |
| KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 24                                    | 57 |     |
| Chapter 3 additional performance measures and statistics        |    |  59 |
| Housing Provision Annual Monitor 2014/15                        | 60 |     |
| Introduction                                                    | 60 |     |
| Key statistics and findings                               | 61   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|------|
| Completions                                               | 62   |
| Approvals                                                 | 67   |
| Starts                                                    | 68   |
| The pipeline of new homes                                 | 68   |
| Gypsy and traveller sites                                 | 69   |
| Affordable housing delivery monitor                       | 94   |
| Intermediate housing                                      | 95   |
| Local Affordable Housing Policies                         | 96   |
| Achieving an Inclusive Environment                        | 102  |
| Environment and Transport                                 |      |
| PTAL Map                                                  | 104  |
| Crossrail funding                                         | 106  |
| Progress on Regional Flood Risk Appraisal recommendations | 107  |
| Planning                                                  | 111  |
| Progress With Supplementary Planning Guidance             | 111  |
| London Boroughs Policy Consultations                      | 111  |
| Progress With Local Plan Core Strategies                  | 115  |
| Opportunity Areas And Areas Of Intensification            | 117  |
| Planning Decisions                                        | 120  |
| London Planning Awards                                    | 121  |
| Chapter 4 Other contextual data sources                   |      |
| Chapter 5 Conclusions and Looking Ahead                   |      |

## Figures And Maps

| Figure 1 Affordable Housing - Three year average performance By borough	                                                                                   |    |   24 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|------|
| Figure 2 Office starts and year-end permissions in Central London, 1985-2014      | 29 |      |
| Figure 3 CO                                                                       |    |      |
| 2                                                                                 |    |      |
| emissions                                                                         |    |   52 |
| Figure 4 Total Housing Provision By Year                                          |    |   64 |
| Map 1 Total housing delivery 2014/15 (excludng vacants)                           |    |   90 |
| Map 2 Total housing delivery as a percentage of London Plan housing monitoring    |    |      |
| benchmarks (excluding vacants)                                                    | 91 |      |
| Map 3 Net affordable housing delivery as a percentage of net conventional housing |    |      |
| delivery 2014/15                                                                  |    |   92 |
| Map 4 Net conventional housing pipeline as at 31/03/2015                          | 93 |      |
| Figure 5 Change in Affordable Housing Delivery                                    |    |   94 |
| Map 5 Affordable housing delivery 20114/15 (all tenures)                          |    |  101 |
| Map 6 London Public Transport Accessibility (PTAL) Map 2014                       |    |  105 |
|                                         | Map 7 Opportunity Areas: Projected housing	    |   117 |
|-----------------------------------------|---|-------|
| Map 8 Opportunity Areas: Projected Jobs |   |   118 |
| Map 9 Opportunity Areas: Deliery Status |   |   119 |

## 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 indicators identified in Chapter 8 of the Plan. Although this is the twelfth AMR published by the Mayor, it is the fifth using the KPIs introduced in the 2011 London Plan. These have been slightly modified through the 2015 London Plan, However, as the Plan was adopted in March 2015 and key data are covering the year 2014/15, the 2011 indicators are still used in this AMR.
ii.	
Chapter 2 provides greater detail on each of the 24 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and the table below summarises progress against each of these KPIs. The 
KPIs are not policies; they have been chosen as yardsticks to show the direction of travel in implementing the London Plan, and the extent of change, to help monitor 
progress and identify areas where policy changes may need to be considered.
iii.	
The London Plan sets six strategic objectives to be delivered by its detailed policies. These are that London should be: •	Objective 1- A city that meets the challenges of economic and population 
growth,
•	Objective 2- An internationally competitive and successful city, •	Objective 3- A city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods, •	Objective 4- A city that delights the senses,
•	Objective 5- A city that becomes a world leader in improving the environment, •	Objective 6- A city where it is easy, safe and convenient for everyone to access 
jobs, opportunities and facilities. 
iv.	
Different KPIs contribute to measuring the performance of the London Plan 
against these six objectives; 
•	Objective 1 - KPIs 1,2,4,5,6,12,14 •	Objective 2 - KPIs 2,7,8,9,10,12,17,24 •	Objective 3 - KPIs 2,5,10,11,12,15 •	Objective 4 - KPIs 1,3,15,19,22,23,24 •	Objective 5 - KPIs 1,3,18,19,20,21,22,23 •	Objective 6 - KPIs 1,13,14,15,16,17
v.	
Overall, the performance is positive: 17 KPI targets are met or heading in the right direction. For KPIs 16 (water transport), KPI 23 (river restoration) and KPI 24 (heritage assets) uncertain/mixed trends have turned into clearly positive trends, and for KPI 18 (nature conservation) negative has changed to positive performance. Six KPI targets, however, have not been met or are heading the wrong way. For KPIs 14 (car traffic) and 21 (renewables) positive has turned to negative performance. For one KPI target (KPI 22 - green roofs) we have no new 
data. Table 1.1 of the attached AMR (within the Executive Summary) 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.	
A very high and above target proportion of new residential developments in London have been built on previously developed land in the last year, and densities within the density matrix range have fallen slightly again from the previous year. In total over 32,400 dwellings were completed in 2014/15. This meets the 2011 London Plan target. The gap in life expectancy between the most and least 
deprived Londoners continues to decrease.

## Objective 2 - An Internationally Competitive And Successful City

vii.	
London's employment rate (over 71%) has reached its highest annual average level since records began in 1992, almost closing the gap with that for the 
country as a whole. Office starts have increased substantially on the previous year and the office pipeline remains above the benchmark. The proportion of all B1 development in locations with high public transport accessibility has risen by another 6% and is well above its benchmark. The rate of loss of industrial land is significantly higher than in the previous two years and is more than 2.5 times above its monitoring benchmark. This trend will be monitored particularly closely.

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

viii.	
Employment specifically in Outer London has increased by 4.5% on the previous year. Lone parent income support in London is now lower than in England and Wales as a whole. The pupil/ teacher ratio in London as a whole remains stable, with more boroughs seeing a reduction than in the previous year. Net affordable housing completions (25% of conventional completions in 2014) are well below 
the new numeric target with the three-year average affordable homes share down by 6% on the previous year.

## Objective 4- A City That Delights The Senses

ix.	
The proportion of designated heritage assets at risk has decreased slightly. The 2015 river restoration target has been achieved with 2.5 km restored last year alone. Significantly more designated open space (30 ha) has been lost than in the previous year, but it should be noted that over 27 ha of this accounts for one former hospital site (the remaining 3 ha is much less than in the previous year), and the creation of new open space is not recorded. In terms of cycling, last year has seen the highest increase in mode share since 2005, although it is still substantially below the 2026 target. Objective 5- A city that becomes a world leader in improving the environment
x.	
Waste recycling rates are stable above 30% and landfilling continues to fall. 
Development proposals suggest improved performance when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions, with estimated CO2 savings increasing on previous years. There has also been an increase in wind/wave and photovoltaic energy generation, but the estimated total renewable energy production is well below its target. No new data are available for green roofs in the CAZ. There has been a loss of just 2 ha of protected habitat in terms of development approvals, substantially down on the previous year's figure of 15 ha.

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

xi.	
Public transport use continues to grow annually, while private car use continues to 
decline. The proportion of B1 development in locations with high public transport 
accessibility has risen by another 6% and is well above its benchmark. However, road traffic volumes across the whole of London and in particular in Outer London are rising. In terms of the use of London's waterways, passenger transport on the Thames is up by almost 20% and freight transport is up by a further 8% on the considerable increase in the previous year.

## Table 1.1 Kpi Performance Overview

| KPI TARGET                            |
|---------------------------------------|
| 1                                     |
| Maintain at least 96 per cent of      |
| new residential development to        |
| be on previously developed land       |
| 2                                     |
| Over 95 per cent of                   |
| development to comply with the        |
| housing density location and the      |
| density matrix                        |
| 3                                     |
| No net loss of open space             |
| designated for protection in          |
| LDFs due to new development           |
| 4                                     |
| Average completions of                |
| a minimum of 32,210 net               |
| additional homes per year             |
| 5                                     |
| Completion of 13,200 net              |
| additional affordable homes per       |
| year                                  |
| 6                                     |
| Reduction in the difference in life   |
| expectancy between those living       |
| in the most and least deprived        |
| areas of London (split by gender)     |
| 7                                     |
| Increase in the proportion of         |
| working age London residents in       |
| employment 2011-2031                  |
| 8                                     |
| Stock of office permissions           |
| to be at least three times the        |
| average rate of starts over the       |
| previous three years                  |
| 9                                     |
| Release of industrial land to be      |
| in line with benchmarks in the        |
| Industry SPG                          |
| 10                                    |
| Growth in total employment in         |
| Outer London                          |
| +                                     |
| 11                                    |
| Reduce employment rate gap            |
| between BAME groups and the           |
| white population; and reduce          |
| the gap between lone parents          |
| on income support in London vs        |
| England & Wales average               |
| 12                                    |
| Reduce the average class size in      |
| primary schools                       |
| +                                     |
| 13                                    |
| Use of public transport per head      |
| grows faster than use of private      |
| car per head                          |
| +                                     |
| Both approvals and completions        |
| above target, and completions 2.7%    |
| above previous year                   |
| -                                     |
| Below target and slight fall of       |
| proportion within density matrix      |
| range on previous year                |
| -                                     |
| Loss of 30 ha, significantly up on    |
| previous year, but over 27 ha of this |
| on one former hospital site and new   |
| open space not recorded               |
| +                                     |
| Up 3,000 on previous year and         |
| above 2011 target                     |
| -                                     |
| Below target. Three-year average      |
| affordable homes share of overall     |
| conventional housing provision        |
| down by 6% on previous year           |
| +                                     |
| Difference has shrunk at a slightly   |
| faster rate in the least deprived     |
| wards                                 |
| +                                     |
| Increase by 1.8% on previous year     |
| and continuing reduction in gap       |
| between London and the rest of the    |
| UK                                    |
| +                                     |
| Little change in stock of office      |
| permissions remaining at six times    |
| the average rate of starts, while     |
| starts as such are increasing         |
| -                                     |
| Significant increase in loss of       |
| industrial land on previous two       |
| years and more than 2.5 times         |
| above benchmarks                      |
| Total employment in Outer London      |
| increased by 4.5% on the previous     |
| year.                                 |
| +                                     |
| Little change in BAME gap in recent   |
| years; parent income support in       |
| London now lower than in England      |
| and Wales.                            |
| Average classroom size stable and     |
| reduction of size in more boroughs    |
| than in previous years                |
| +                                     |
| Public transport use continues to     |
| grow annually, and private car use    |
| continues to decline                  |

## Table 1.1 Kpi Performance Overview

| KPI TARGET                            | COMMENT               |
|---------------------------------------|-----------------------|
| 14                                    |                       |
| Zero car traffic growth for           |                       |
| London as a whole                     |                       |
| -                                     |                       |
| 15                                    |                       |
| Increase in share of all trips by     |                       |
| bicycle from 2 per cent in 2009       |                       |
| to 5 per cent by 2026                 |                       |
| 16                                    |                       |
| A 50% increase in passengers          |                       |
| and freight traffic transported on    |                       |
| the Blue Ribbon Network from          |                       |
| 2011-2021                             |                       |
| 17                                    |                       |
| Maintain at least 50 per cent of      |                       |
| B1 development in PTAL zones          |                       |
| 5-6                                   |                       |
| 18                                    |                       |
| No net loss of Sites of               |                       |
| Importance for Nature                 |                       |
| Conservation.                         |                       |
| 19                                    |                       |
| At least 45 per cent of waste         |                       |
| recycled/composted by 2015            |                       |
| and 0 per cent of biodegradable       |                       |
| or recyclable waste to landfill by    |                       |
| 2031                                  |                       |
| 20                                    |                       |
| Annual average % carbon               |                       |
| dioxide emissions savings             |                       |
| for strategic development             |                       |
| proposals progressing towards         |                       |
| zero carbon in residential            |                       |
| developments by 2016 and in all       |                       |
| developments by 2019                  |                       |
| 21                                    |                       |
| Production of 8550 GWh of             |                       |
| energy from renewable sources         |                       |
| by 2026                               |                       |
| 22                                    |                       |
| Increase in total area of green       |                       |
| roofs in the CAZ.                     |                       |
| ?                                     | No new data available |
| 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.                               |                       |
| Against longer term trend car traffic |                       |
| grew in the last year reaching again  |                       |
| volumes higher than in 2011           |                       |
| +                                     |                       |
| Highest increase in mode share        |                       |
| since 2005, but still significantly   |                       |
| below 2026 target                     |                       |
| +                                     |                       |
| Passenger numbers on Thames up        |                       |
| by almost 20% on previous year        |                       |
| and freight trade up by 8%            |                       |
| +                                     |                       |
| With 68% well above benchmark         |                       |
| and 6% increase on previous year      |                       |
| +                                     |                       |
| 2 ha loss to approved development,    |                       |
| well below 15 ha recorded last year.  |                       |
| New designations not included         |                       |
| +                                     |                       |
| Recycling/composting rates            |                       |
| stagnation just above 30%; landfill   |                       |
| rate continuing to decline            |                       |
| +                                     |                       |
| Increase by 3% compared to            |                       |
| previous years to 39% in regulated    |                       |
| CO2 emission reductions beyond        |                       |
| Building Regulations requirements     |                       |
| -                                     |                       |
| Increase in generation of wind, wave  |                       |
| and photovoltaics, but estimated      |                       |
| total production of just over 680     |                       |
| GWh is well below the 2026 target     |                       |
| +                                     |                       |
| Total 15 km target for 2008 - 2015    |                       |
| has been achieved with 2.5 km         |                       |
| restored in the last year             |                       |
| +                                     |                       |
| The share of assets at risk has       |                       |
| decreased slightly in the last year   |                       |

## Chapter 1 Introduction Scope And Purpose Of The Amr

1.1	
This is the twelfth London Plan Annual Monitoring Report (AMR 12). 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 twelfth AMR published by the Mayor, it is the fifth that uses the six strategic objectives and the suite of 24 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 
introduced in the London Plan published in July 2011. These are slightly modified through the revised London Plan published in March 2015, however the data in this report focusses on the period from 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015, so this AMR will continue to monitor against the KPIs in the 2011 plan. The amended 
targets, which will be used for the next AMR 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 
What is not changing is the importance the Mayor places on effective monitoring. The London Plan is founded on a "plan-monitor-manage" approach to policymaking, ensuring that strategic planning policies are evidence-based, effective, and changed when necessary.

1.3	
The AMR does not attempt to measure and monitor each Plan policy, as this would not recognize the complexity of planning decisions based on a range of different policies. It could also be unduly resource intensive and would raise considerable challenges in setting meaningful indicators for which reliable data would be available. However, these documents together do give a detailed picture of how London is changing, and of the significant contribution the planning system is making to meeting these changes.
1.4 At the core of this AMR are the KPIs set out in Policy 8.4 (A) and Table 8.1 of the 2011 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 2014/15.

1.5	
Paragraph 8.18 of the London Plan clarifies that the target for each indicator should be regarded as a benchmark, showing the direction and scale of change. These targets contribute to measuring the performance of the objectives set out in Policy 1.1 and paragraph 1.53 of the London Plan but do not represent additional policy in themselves.
1.6	
This report draws on a range of data sources, but the GLA's London Development Database (LDD) is of central importance (see further details about LDD in the following section). The LDD is a "live" system monitoring planning permissions and 
completions. It provides good quality, comprehensive data for the GLA, London 
boroughs and others involved in planning for London. In addition to the LDD, this report draws on details provided by the GLA's Intelligence Unit, the GLA's Transport and Environment Team, Transport for London (TfL), English Heritage, the Environment Agency and the Port of London Authority.

## The London Development Database

1.7	
The London Development Database (LDD) is the key data source for monitoring planning approvals and completions in London. Data is entered by each of the 33 London boroughs, although the London Legacy Development Corporation has taken responsibility for entering the data for its area and the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation have agreed to do the same. 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	
It should be noted that some boroughs use the London Development Database as a data source for their own AMRs, and all are expected to compare the data they publish with the data they have entered into LDD. This should ensure a level of consistency between data published in both the borough and GLA AMRs. However, some differences in the figures do occur. This can in part be attributed to LDD being a live system that is continually updated and adjusted to reflect the best information available. There are also occasional differences in the way completions are allocated to particular years, which may cause discrepancies between borough and GLA AMR data.
1.9	
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 changes of use from office to 
residential without the need for a full planning permission have been included in the scope of the scheme. Other forms of consent that can lead to a change in residential units (including other forms of prior approval and Certificates of Proposed Lawful Development) are currently submitted on a voluntary basis so are not included in the data in our AMR. A decision on whether to make the currently voluntary types of consent mandatory will be taken in the spring of 2016. We will also keep an eye on the Housing and Planning Bill currently going through Parliament and the introduction of 'permission in principle'.

1.10	 A major project to modernise the IT infrastructure that supports the database 
was finally completed in December 2015. While this work was ongoing it was not 
possible to make any other changes to the system. We hope that we are now in a position to catch up with changes to the planning system, and to introduce the 
proposed new data fields that will allow us to measure the length of time between an initial planning permission being granted and the final scheme reaching completion.
1.11	 The LDD public page can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/webmaps/ldd/. 
The 'Aggregated' maps showing borough and ward level totals were last updated in December 2014 and are now out of date. Work is ongoing to link these maps to the live data so they update automatically in the same way as the individual site data. It is hoped that this work will be completed in the summer of 2016.

## The London Plan And Its Implementation

1.12	 	
The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital. It forms part of the statutory development plan for Greater London. London boroughs' local plans need to be in general conformity with the London Plan, and its policies guide decisions on planning applications by councils and the Mayor.
1.13	 	
At the centre of the Mayor's approach to implementation of the London Plan is a suite of documents including in particular Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks, the Implementation Plan and this Annual Monitoring Report. 
1.14	 The key distinction between the Implementation Plan and the AMR is that the 
latter is looking predominately at past performance to identify trends, whilst the Implementation Plan is focusing on current and future actions to facilitate policy implementation and performance improvements. Linking KPIs and implementation actions directly may not be helpful as they serve different purposes and operate at different levels of detail. Together, however, they provide an important overview of the way London is changing, and of the way planning policies are used, and can be in the future, to influence and respond to these changes.

## 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 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	
97.4% of units approved during 2014/15 are on brownfield land, 1.4% above the 96% target, but a slight decrease of 1% on the previous year. Eight boroughs; 
Barking and Dagenham, Barnet, Croydon, Greenwich, Hammersmith, Havering, Merton and Westminster; are below the 96% target (see Table 2.2). 
2.3	
The proportion of units completed on brownfield land stands at 98.7%, 2.7% above the benchmark and an increase of 1.7% on the previous year.

YEAR
% OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND BY UNITS
BY SITE AREA
BY UNITS
BY SITE AREA
2006/07
98.6
98
97.2
96.5
2007/08
97.3
96.7
96.6
94.8
2008/09
98.1
96.6
98.9
98.1
2009/10
97.3
96.8
98.8
97.9
2010/11
96.8
95.3
97.1
95.7
2011/12
99
97.4
97.6
95.0
2012/13
98.2
97.8
95.7
95.3
2013/14
98.4
97.2
97
96.6
2014/15
97.4
96.7
98.7
96.7
Source: London Development Database
% OF DEVELOPMENT COMPLETED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND
BOROUGH
% OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND BY UNITS
BY SITE AREA
BY UNITS
BY SITE AREA
Barking and Dagenham
83.9%
73.6%
100%
100%
Barnet
95%
88.3%
98.3%
98.6%
Bexley
100%
100%
100%
100%
Brent
99.5%
99.4%
97.1%
95.9%
Bromley
99.8%
99.8%
100%
100%
Camden
99.2%
99.6%
100%
100%
City of London
100%
100%
100%
100%
Croydon
92.7%
85.5%
98.1%
97.3%
Ealing
99%
99.5%
98.3%
97.2%
Enfield
99.5%
99.6%
100%
100%
Greenwich
92.8%
98%
99.9%
99.4%
Hackney
100%
100%
100%
100%
Hammersmith and Fulham
91.1%
99.5%
100%
100%
Haringey
100%
100%
100%
100%
Harrow
100%
100%
100%
100%
Havering
85.9%
94.3%
83.3%
80%
Hillingdon
100%
100%
86.1%
84.3%
Hounslow
99.8%
98.8%
95.8%
84.3%
Islington
99.8%
99.9%
100%
100%
Kensington and Chelsea
100%
100%
100%
100%
Kingston upon Thames
99.7%
99.6%
100%
100%
Lambeth
100%
100%
100%
100%
Lewisham
98%
98.6%
100%
100%
Merton
86.9%
96.5%
92.9%
96.4%
Newham
99.9%
99.4%
100%
100%
Redbridge
100%
100%
100%
100%
Richmond upon Thames
100%
100%
100%
100%
Southwark
98.4%
99.1%
100%
100%
Sutton
100%
100%
100%
100%
Tower Hamlets
100%
100%
100%
100%
Waltham Forest
100%
100%
100%
100%
Wandsworth
100%
100%
99.7%
98.4%
Westminster
93.5%
95.4%
100%
100%
London
97.4%
96.7%
98.7%
96.7%
Source: London Development Database
% OF DEVELOPMENT COMPLETED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND

## 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	
The tables 2.3 and 2.4 compare the residential density achieved for each scheme against the optimal density range set out in the Sustainable Residential Quality (SRQ) matrix in the London Plan, taking into account both the site's Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) and its setting as defined in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. All units in residential approvals for which 
a site area could be calculated are included. Class J prior approvals for changes 
of use from office to residential have been included wherever possible. Density is the result of dividing the total number of units (gross) by the residential site area. In mixed use schemes, the area allocated to non-residential uses and to open space is subtracted from the total site area to give the residential site area. The 
percentages refer to units not schemes.
2.5	
Compliance within the density matrix for approvals during 2014/15 stands at 41%, down on 43% in the previous year. For schemes of 15 units or more, 39% of approved units are in schemes within the optimal range set out in the SRQ matrix.
2.6	
Land in London is a scarce resource and building costs in London are high. It is important that land is used appropriately and that schemes are designed to suit the local circumstances, but also that they are deliverable.  The Mayor has initiated a review of densities and how they are measured to inform the next London Plan 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. In the meantime, the Mayor will continue to work with boroughs to ensure that schemes are designed at a density that is both appropriate and viable.

## Matrix - All Schemes

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%

## Matrix - Schemes Of 15 Units Or More

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%

Source: London Development Database

## 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

2.7	
The performance monitoring for this KPI target looks specifically at changes in the amount of Protected open space as a result of planning permissions approved during 2014/15. It is important to note that designation of new open space for protection is not done through the planning permission process, and is therefore not recorded by the LDD. Re-provision within the planning permission is taken into 
account but no positive numbers are recorded meaning a loss is inevitable. We are 
working with partners Greenspace Information for Greater London to see if gains can be identified and included in future editions of the AMR, but at present there remains no accurate measure of net change.
2.8	
The types of protection are Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Local Open 
Spaces. Any borough specific designations are recorded as Other Designated Protection. These are different from the designations for nature conservation recorded in KPI 18. The definition of open space used is based on that found in the now withdrawn PPG 17.
2.9	
Table 2.5 shows that the overall loss of protected open space approved during 2014/15 was just under 30 hectares. This is a large increase on the previous financial year where the figure was less than 20 ha. However over 27 hectares of this year's loss relates to the redevelopment of the Cane Hill Hospital Site in Croydon. This site has now been cleared but previously contained an extensive array of redundant hospital buildings. Although it is entirely designated as green belt, it is also designated as a 'Major Development Site' in Croydon's development plan. The redevelopment of this site is to be carried out in phases, the first of 
which will be entirely on a site within the footprint of the original hospital buildings. Details of the remaining phases are yet to be confirmed and the losses are based on the information available. The accurate changes will be recorded in future AMRs and may be different from those recorded here. A further 0.3 hectares are on other brownfield sites, including a car park in an industrial estate in Hillingdon with a previous consent to redevelop for industrial uses (56862/APP/2014/170) and a school car park in Hounslow (01145/F/P19). The other losses are on greenfield sites.

BOROUGH NAME
BOROUGH REFERENCE
PROTECTION DESIGNATION
Barking and Dagenham
14/00739/FUL
Local Open Spaces
0.200
Bexley
13/01894/FUL
Metropolitan Open Land
0.026
Bromley
14/02136/FULL1 Green Belt
0.260
Croydon
13/02527/ PHASE1
Croydon
13/02527/ PHASE2
Croydon
13/02527/ PHASE2
Croydon
13/02527/ PHASE2
Ealing
P/2013/4113
Local Open Spaces
0.064
Ealing
P/2014/1459
Green Belt
0.015
Ealing
PP/2014/2436
Metropolitan Open Land
0.015
Enfield
P14-00271PLA
Local Open Spaces
0.040
Greenwich
14/0276
Metropolitan Open Land
0.175
Greenwich
14/0657
Other Designated Protection
0.012
Harrow
P/3757/14
Metropolitan Open Land
0.442
Havering
P0328/13
Green Belt
0.020
Havering
P0813/14
Local Open Spaces
0.104
Havering
P0923/14
Green Belt
0.340
Havering
P1257/13
Green Belt
0.180
Havering
P1728/14
Green Belt
0.190
Hillingdon
56862/ APP/2014/170
Hounslow
00176/D/P10
Metropolitan Open Land
0.081
Hounslow
00784/J/P1
Green Belt
0.033
Hounslow
01145/F/P19
Green Belt
0.119
Islington
P2013/4952/FUL Local Open Spaces
0.024
Lambeth
14/05864/RG3
Local Open Spaces
0.002
Sutton
D2014/69542
Other Designated Protection
0.007
London
29.699

Source: London Development Database

AREA OF OPEN SPACE (HA)
Green Belt
10.200
Green Belt
10.010
Green Belt
5.440
Green Belt
1.500
Green Belt
0.200

## Key Performance Indicator 4 Increase Supply Of New Homes

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

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

2.11	 Net conventional completions stand at 28,191, with 4,369 non-conventional 
completions, representing 103% of the 31,466 combined conventional and nonconventional target in the 2011 London Plan. The number of long-term vacant properties for London overall has risen by 120, reducing the total net additional dwellings slightly to 32,440, but they still remain just above the target figure.
2.12	 The conventional figure is up by 2,878 from the 25,313 completions in 2013/14 
(revised up from 23,986 recorded in AMR 11).
2.13	 The non-conventional figure of 4,369 is a slight increase on the previous year's 
figure of 4,298 (revised from 4,339 in AMR 11), well above the levels seen in previous years and the 1,634 benchmark in the 2011 London Plan. This net increase is entirely down to the delivery of new student accommodation as there has been a net decrease in sui generis (SG) accommodation of hostels, large houses in multiple occupation and other non-self-contained residential units. 
These losses have led to the creation of nearly 700 residential units, as well as a range of non-residential uses including a fire station, a hospital and other health facilities, a hotel, offices and a private members club. The major residential gains have been achieved through demolition and rebuild, although changes of use to a smaller number of self-contained residential units has provided over 150 new homes of a higher standard than the accommodation they have replaced.
2.14	 The other element of the London plan monitoring benchmark is for 749 empty 
homes to return to use each year. This is measured using the Government's housing live table 615 and taking the net change in the number of long term empty properties (longer than 6 months). The data covers the period to October each year so does not align to the reporting period in the AMR, but represents the best source of information available. The latest data shows a net increase in the number of long term vacant properties meaning they reduce the total net additional dwellings by 120 units.
2.15	 These are long-term benchmarks and individual years will vary over the 
development cycle. The increase in conventional completions in particular for the second year in a row suggests that the development industry is recovering from the impacts of the economic downturn. The completions observed this year are 230 above the benchmark in the London Plan 2011, but would still be 23% below the new benchmarks in the London Plan 2015. Schemes started during 2014/15 include over 40,000 residential units (conventional supply) for the second year in a row, and there is capacity for over 260,000 homes in the pipeline (up from 240,000 in the previous year). In addtiion there are over 37,000 non-conventional units in the pipeline. This shows that there is potential for the delivery of an increased number of new homes in the coming years. The revised population projections and 
increased housing delivery benchmarks set out in the London Plan 2015 show that 
the need for additional housing is more pressing than ever.

BOROUGH
NET CONV
NET NON- CONV
LONG-TERM EMPTY HOMES RETURNED TO USE*
Barking and Dagenham
512
0
57
569
1,064
53%
Barnet
1,327
-120
-120
1,087
2,254
48%
Bexley
811
9
-61
759
337
225%
Brent
1,605
-72
135
1,668
1,065
157%
Bromley
407
-16
-28
363
501
72%
Camden
459
1,083
8
1,550
665
233%
City of London
226
0
4
230
109
211%
Croydon
1,520
74
-281
1,313
1,332
99%
Ealing
883
93
-514
462
890
52%
Enfield
401
-6
224
619
559
111%
Greenwich
1,146
226
121
1,493
2,594
58%
Hackney
1,612
-8
36
1,640
1,158
142%
815
533
178
1,526
614
249%
Hammersmith and Fulham Haringey
629
-17
-273
339
820
41%
Harrow
410
-8
-16
386
352
110%
Havering
642
0
59
701
972
72%
Hillingdon
927
0
6
933
423
221%
Hounslow
897
0
335
1,232
474
260%
Islington
861
282
-314
829
1,172
71%
982
-32
-39
911
584
156%
Kensington and Chelsea
Kingston upon Thames
526
60
22
608
374
163%
Lambeth
1,406
447
212
2,065
1,197
173%
Lewisham
1,440
0
-131
1,309
1,105
118%
Merton
421
-9
56
468
318
147%
Newham
1,928
993
-415
2,506
2,501
100%
Redbridge
257
0
17
274
759
36%
293
-18
56
331
245
135%
Richmond upon Thames
Southwark
1,141
824
63
2,028
2,007
101%
Sutton
427
0
96
523
211
248%
Tower Hamlets
930
0
-64
866
2,887
30%
Waltham Forest
672
0
16
688
761
90%
Wandsworth
941
-13
174
1,102
1,143
96%
Westminster
737
64
261
1,062
770
138%
London
28,191
4,369
-120
32,440
32,210
101%

Source: The London development database * Source DCLG Housing live table 615 (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants)

TOTAL
% OF TARGET
LONDON PLAN TARGET

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

2.16	 This KPI measures the completion of affordable units as granted in planning 
permissions recorded on the London Development Database (LDD). It is a net figure for conventional completions of new homes, with unit losses deducted from the total. The tenure of the completed units is as set out in the s106 legal agreement. It does not attempt to measure acquisitions of units by Housing Associations or transfers of stock post completion.
2.17	 Table 2.8 shows that during 2014/15 a net total of 6,985 affordable units were 
completed. This represents a slight increase from the previous year's figure of 6,934 (revised upwards from 6,592 published in last AMR ).
2.18	 The share of affordable housing has also fallen - from 27% to 25% of net housing 
supply with the total level of conventional completions increasing.
2.19	 In gross terms (not subtracting demolitions and other losses) 8,486 affordable 
units were completed. This is higher than the 7,954 completed in the previous years.
2.20	 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 2.8 shows average affordable housing output as a proportion of overall conventional housing provision over the three years to 2014/15. During this period affordable housing output averaged 28% of total provision, down 6% on the 34% reported in the last AMR. 
2.21	 Figure 2.1 shows the three-year average performance of individual boroughs 
relative to the London-wide average of 28%. Over the three years, Haringey has reported the highest % of affordable housing. At 54% it is the only borough to exceeded 50% of total provision.
2.22	 The lowest proportion was recorded in Bromley (1%), the City of London (3%), 
followed by Redbridge (9%) and Westminster (12%). Bromley's negative figure for 2014/15 is due to two developments in Orpington; •		
211 social rented units were replaced by 58 affordable units (44 social rented and 14 intermediate) as part of phase 3 of the Ramsden estate regeneration (09/02931/FULL1). 
•	104 social rented units were replaced by 10 intermediate units at the new Ridge 
development formerly known as Alkham and Horton Towers (10/03698/FULL1). 
2.23	 	
Bromley's three year average has been further decreased by changes that have been made to LDD  The 2012/13 figure reported in last year's AMR (20%) has been corrected and is now -13%. This is due to the shifting of existing units on LDD as a 
result of analysing the net figures across the various estate renewal schemes.

2.24	 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; that is, supply from new developments or conversions, adjusted to take account of demolitions and other losses. The LHS investment figure is therefore generally higher than the planning target and completions can fall to be counted in different years. Monitoring achievement of the London Plan target is based on output from the 
London Development Database, and this definition should be used for calculating affordable housing targets for development planning purposes. Monitoring 
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.

CONVENTIONAL HOUSING PROVISION OVER THE THREE YEARS TO 2014/15
TOTAL NET CONVENTIONAL AFFORDABLE COMPLETIONS
BOROUGH
2012/ 13
2013/ 14
2014/ 15
TOTAL
2012/ 13
Barking and Dagenham
243
588
14
845
48%
68%
3%
45%
Barnet
408
320
368
1,096
29%
26%
28%
28%
Bexley
30
166
170
366
7%
31%
21%
21%
Brent
224
243
706
1,173
34%
35%
44%
40%
Bromley
-68
140
-54
18
-13%
21%
-13%
1%
Camden
299
201
61
561
53%
40%
13%
37%
City of London
0
24
0
24
0%
6%
0%
3%
Croydon
415
176
638
1,229
46%
14%
42%
33%
Ealing
326
185
59
570
32%
25%
7%
22%
Enfield
243
164
85
492
44%
32%
21%
34%
Greenwich
87
679
286
1,052
27%
51%
25%
37%
Hackney
576
574
498
1,648
46%
47%
31%
40%
Hammersmith & Fulham
107
96
172
375
24%
15%
21%
20%
Haringey
352
150
405
907
58%
33%
64%
54%
Harrow
310
33
96
439
44%
11%
23%
31%
Havering
127
237
276
640
45%
34%
43%
40%
Hillingdon
406
93
78
577
26%
15%
8%
19%
Hounslow
49
80
279
408
21%
9%
31%
20%
Islington
315
358
220
893
30%
29%
26%
28%
Kensington & Chelsea
4
164
196
364
7%
70%
20%
29%
Kingston upon Thames
38
84
59
181
18%
32%
11%
18%
Lambeth
269
346
358
973
42%
30%
25%
30%
Lewisham
563
155
418
1,136
33%
22%
29%
29%
Merton
196
138
94
428
43%
31%
22%
32%
Newham
305
503
568
1,376
30%
25%
29%
28%
Redbridge
52
2
16
70
20%
1%
6%
9%
Richmond upon Thames
167
109
5
281
34%
29%
2%
24%
Southwark
488
453
69
1,010
46%
27%
6%
26%
Sutton
103
49
121
273
44%
13%
28%
26%
Tower Hamlets
274
150
251
675
26%
17%
27%
23%
Waltham Forest
269
3
281
553
59%
1%
42%
36%
Wandsworth
308
224
144
676
34%
19%
15%
22%
Westminster
125
47
48
220
22%
9%
7%
12%
London
7,610
6,934
6,985
21,529
34%
27%
25%
28%

Source: London Development Database

AFFORDABLE AS % OF TOTAL NET CONVENTIONAL SUPPLY
2013/ 14
2014/ 15
ALL YEARS

## 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)

2.25	 Figures on life expectancy at birth are produced at ward level based on mortalities 
over a ten year period. The London Plan's regeneration areas (policy 2.14) are identified as the 20% most deprived Lower Super Output areas (lsoas), which are not directly comparable with ward boundaries. As a proxy measure the 20% most deprived wards in London were identified using calculations from the lsoa based 
Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2010. The figures for each deprivation quintile are 
simple averages of the published figures.
2.26	 When comparing the figures for 2005-09 and 2010-14 (see table 2.9), the 
difference in the life expectancy at birth in the most deprived wards has shrunk at a slightly faster rate compared to both the London average and the least deprived 
wards. The gap between top and bottom quintile for males has reduced from 5.3 to 4.4 years, while the gap for women has reduced from 3.4 years to 2.8 years. Due to the methods used to calculate this as explained above, a degree of variability would be expected, and a comparison of the figures for the two time periods needs to be treated with some caution.

YEAR
MALE
FEMALE
2005-2009
2010-2014
2005-2009
2010-2014
Most deprived 20% wards
75.2
78.0
80.7
83.2
80.4
82.4
84.2
86.0
Least deprived 20% wards
London average
77.7
80.0
82.2
84.0
5.2
4.4
3.5
2.8
Difference - most deprived to least deprived
2.5
2.0
1.5
0.8
Difference - most deprived to London average

Figures may not sum due to rounding Source: GLA using ONS mortality data (vital stats) and ONS mid-year population estimates

## Key Performance Indicator 7 Sustaining Economic Activity

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

2.27	 Table 2.10 shows that London saw a rise in its employment rate# during 2014 
by 1.8% on 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.
2.28	 The difference between London and the rest of the UK has also continued to 
improved, down to 1% in 2014.
2.29	 The 2004 - 2013 data in table 2.10 includes revisions made by ONS in March 2015. 
The data has been reweighted in line with the latest ONS estimates following the 
2011 Census, which provides more accurate population information than before.

YEAR YEAR
LONDON RESIDENTS OF WORKING AGE
LONDON WORKING-AGE RESIDENTS IN EMPLOYMENT
2004
3,433,700
5,039,000
68.1
72.5
-4.4
2005
3,476,500
5,112,400
68.0
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
-3.0
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
3,972,000
5,721,500
69.4
71.2
-1.8
2014
4,113,300
5,775,700
71.2
72.2
-1.0
 # This includes self-employment Source: Annual Population Survey
EMPLOYMENT RATE %#
LONDON 
UK 
DIFFERENCE 

## Key Performance Indicator 8 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

2.30	 In this edition of AMR we continue to use data from both EGi London Offices and 
the London Development Database (LDD). According to the EGi data, the ratio of permissions to average three years starts at end-2015 was 6.0:1 (Figure 1). This 
ratio has changed little from 2014, having fallen from a peak in 2010 and 2011. In the most recent set of comparable figures for the two databases, for 2014, the 
ratio of permissions to starts was 5.9:1 according to EGi and 3.2:1 according to LDD.
2.31	 Although the EGi ratio remains comfortably ahead of the 3:1 benchmark, the LDD 
ratio has moved very close to the benchmark (it should be remembered that while the LDD is an internally consistent database, over the long-term the permissions it records have been 60-70% of those from EGi).  Thus, while this trend should now be monitored very closely, it should be in the context of other indicators which will also inform a London Plan review.
2.32	 Final permissions and starts data from LDD for 2015 are not yet available, hence 
the absence of a ratio for that year.  The variation in the ratios can be accounted 

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
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.

for by the different definitions used in the datasets1.  It is known that the EGi database provides a more comprehensive coverage than LDD and, in particular, contains a much greater amount of data on the refurbishment market. 

## Starts And Permissions

2.33	 Based on EGi data, Figure 2 shows that 2015 saw starts of 839,044 sq m. 2 The 
2015 figure is a substantial increase on the 488,561 sq m achieved in 2014, and higher than the ten year average of 504, 000 sq m. When compared to the very long run, it is also higher than the 1985-2015 average of 584,500 sq m.  The three year average for starts over the period 2013-2015 is 610,000 sq m.
2.34	 There were six starts of 30,000 sq m or more. Four of these were in the City, 
namely: 100 Bishopsgate (80,673 sq m); Fleet Building, 70 Farringdon Street 
(78,402 sq m); 10 Fenchurch Avenue (36,240 sq m) and 52-54 Lime Street (34,579 sq m). One of the non-City schemes was the Here East project at Waterden Road in Hackney (41,919 sq m); and the other was at the BBC Television Centre project at White City in Hammersmith & Fulham (48,094 sq m).
2.35	 Unimplemented office permissions at year end 2015 totalled 3,632,376 sq m 
according to the EGi data (compared to 3,390, 534 sq m at the end of 2014). The 2015 figure compares to a ten year average of 3,865,450 sq m.
2.36	 As with last year's monitoring, the permissions are dominated by activity in 
Docklands: there are a total of eight proposals of more than 100,000 sq m, of which four are in E14.  These schemes include: Wood Wharf, Preston's Road (276,287 sq m); North Quay, Aspen Way (222,036 sq m); Riverside, Westferry (185,283 sq m) and Heron Quays, Bankside (103,886 sq m).  The other schemes over 100,000 sq m are at Battersea Power Station (157,777 sq m); 22 Bishopsgate (148,339 sq m); King's Cross (115,326 sq m) and at 49 Leadenhall in the City (105,033 sq m).

## 2.37	 These Eight Schemes Together Account For 36% Of The Consented Space At The

1 EGi data for permissions are based on planning committee decisions which are a precursor to discussion on the content of S106 agreements, whereas LDD waits for a decision letter to be issued which does not happen until the legal agreement has been signed.  LDD data has a minimum threshold of 1,000 sq m gross, whereas the threshold in EGi data is 500 sq m gross.  LDD data exclude refurbishments where the existing building is already in office use, which are included by EGi.  In addition EGi data for starts are based on observed construction of new or refurbished space, whereas LDD records whether work is started in a legal sense, so can include demolition works as starts where these, in effect, activate the permission.  The LDD figure provides a useful measure of the store of permissions available to facilitate the immediate responsiveness of developers to changes in demand, whereas the EGi figure gives a broader measure of activity by developers in the office market (accepting that some of the permissions in that dataset may never come to fruition). 2 All figures cited are sq m net internal area.	

 Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices end of 2015. The mean size of unimplemented permissions was highest in Tower Hamlets, at 26,389 sq m; followed by Lambeth at 16,509 sq m and the City of London at 15,941 sq m.

## Overview

2.38	 The central London office market performed well in 2015. Take-up remained above 
the long-term average, and exceeded the 2014 level.  As a result of strong takeup and relatively constrained supply, availability levels continued to fall.  Inevitably, 
rents moved upwards.  Headline prime rents continued to rise in the City, reaching £65-70 per sq ft; while those in the West End soared above £80 per sq ft generally, reaching over £100 per sq ft in certain prized markets, including Mayfair and St James's.
2.39	 **Tight supply** The impact of supply constraint has been particularly acute in the 
West End, where availability levels fell to around 3% - the lowest level since the 1980s.  New supply in the West End will continue to be constrained into 2016. Tight supply has also remained a feature of the City, although not to the extent of the West End with availability running at around 5%, lessening the impact on rents which remain competitive in central London. As noted above, a number of key schemes got underway during the year, including 100 Bishopsgate; 70 Farringdon Street; 10 Fenchurch Avenue and 52-54 Lime Street.  Supply in the City is set to be augmented by two new towers: 22 Bishopsgate and details emerging on 1 Undershaft.
2.40	 **Pre-lets** Supply constraints have meant that pre-lets have become a feature of 
the market.  Two of the most high profile in the West End involved social media company Facebook taking around 21,000 sq m at the former Royal Mail sorting office site at One Rathbone Square; and music label Universal Music UK taking 17,000 sq m at 4 Pancras Square, King's Cross.  In the City, one of the most significant deals of the year involved law firm Ashurst in pre-letting around 25,000 sq m at the Fruit & Wool Exchange, Brushfield Street, E1 (notably on the fringe of the City market). In the core, Royal Bank of Canada pre-let 25,000 sq m at Brookfield's 100 Bishopsgate.
2.41	 **Footloose occupiers** In recent years, evidence has emerged of occupiers 
becoming more footloose, and in the West End this has involved an 'eastward migration' - occupiers moving to Midtown and the City to find available space 
at an acceptable rent. Two notable examples in 2015 included wealth manager Rathbone Brothers moving from Mayfair and construction consultant Turner & Townsend vacating Covent Garden.  Also, TfL's proposed move, mainly from Victoria, to the International Quarter at Stratford should be mentioned.
2.42	 As rents in Shoreditch have risen sharply to equal those in the City, there is also 
evidence of an outflow from the area into Aldgate; a new cluster is emerging around King's Cross, and the South Bank is growing in importance. Aldgate Tower is a good example of footloose occupiers.  The 30,000 sq m building secured a final letting of 10,000 sq m in 2015, to engineering design firm Aecom, who will join law firm Ince & Co, Intellectual Property Office, Tag, Uber and WeWork.
2.43	 **Flexible space market** Also of significance in the City in 2015 was Brookfield's 
pre-let of Moor Place to co-work space provider WeWork. At around 17,000 sq m, it was by far the largest ever flexible space deal in London. The flexible space market has continued to expand in central London, responding to demand from the growing number of SMEs, particularly in the financial, professional and creative sectors.
2.44	 **Loss of office stock** One area of concern is the impact of Permitted Development 
Rights in 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 uses. The impact has been a sharp decline in the availability particularly of secondary stock, suitable for those businesses that are functionally part of the core area, but unable to pay prime rent.
Ensure that there is sufficient employment land available Target: Release of industrial land to be in line with benchmarks in the Industrial capacity SPG

2.45	 Table 2.12 shows an estimated total of 96.6 hectares of industrial land recorded 
in planning approvals for transfer to other uses in 2014/15. About 38% of the area approved for transfer was in West London and a further 30% in East London. The largest individual site transfers in planning approvals include 
•	the Former Dairy Crest Site, 58 Wood Lane in Hammersmith and Fulham (just 
under 10 hectares), 
•	the Former Area Food Depot, Victoria Road in Hillingdon (6 hectares) and •	Wood Wharf, Preston Road in Tower Hamlets (5 hectares). 
2.46	 Over 90% of the approvals involved transfers of less than one hectare of industrial 
land.
2.47	 Table 3.12 shows that industrial land release in 2014/15 planning approvals was 
more than that in 2012/13 and 2013/14 and more than two and half times the annual benchmark in the London Plan and the Land for Industry and Transport SPG. The four year average release in planning approvals 2011/12 to 2014/15 is 87 hectares per annum - slightly above the annual average rates of release in 2001- 2006 and 2006-2011. In 2014/15 the SPG benchmark was exceeded in all sub-regions and, in absolute terms, most significantly in West London. 
2.48	 These trends in industrial land release have been investigated in more detail by the 
GLA in a recent report (London's Industrial Land Supply and Economy Study 2015. GLA, February 2016.)  
2.49	 The study found that the rate of release of industrial land (measured in completed 
developments and analysis of map based surveys) was 105 ha per annum over the period 2010 to 2015. The total stock of industrial land in 2015 was just under 7,000 hectares. A total of 189 hectares of industrial land had planning approval (but development not yet started) for change to non-industrial use. Proposed future industrial land release in Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks, Local Plans and Housing Zones could result in a further reduction of 645 hectares. This analysis of the planning pipeline suggests that recent London-wide trend rates of release will continue in the coming years.

LONDON 
PLAN/SPG 
ANNUAL 
BENCHMARK 
2011-2031
RELEASE IN 
PLANNING   
APPROVALS 
2014/15
RELEASE IN 
PLANNING   
APPROVALS 
2013/14
RELEASE IN 
PLANNING   
APPROVALS 
2012/13
RELEASE IN 
PLANNING   
APPROVALS 
2011/12
ANNUAL 
AVERAGE 
RELEASE 
2011-2014
ANNUAL 
AVERAGE 
RELEASE 
2006-2011
ANNUAL 
AVERAGE 
RELEASE 
2001-2006
Central
6 5
9.1 9.4 6.0 7.3
13.5
2.3
East
57 54
31.4 38.6 29.2 28.3 29.4 19.4
North
2 2
4.2 1.5 6.5 3.6 5.1 3.4
South
11
4
14.0 31.7
5.1 6.7
12.3
4.4
West
10 18
28.2 35.1 25.7 15.6 36.3
7.2
London
86 83
86.8
116.3
72.5 61.6 96.6 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 use sites. 

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

2.50	 Table 2.13 shows the total number of jobs, including self-employed, from 2004 to 
2014, and the proportion of the Outer London boroughs, which has been stable at 39% for several years. In 2011 the total number of jobs 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 226,000 between 2011 and 2014 (11.8 %), including by 4.5% in the last year alone. However, this represents a weaker rise 
since 2011 than in both inner London (14.0 %) and London overall (13.2%).
2.51	 In 17 of the 19 Outer London boroughs the number of employee jobs has grown 
since 1984. However the growth has not been as large as in Inner London (17.0 % compared to 32.8 %). London overall experienced an increase of 26.3 %. The changes in employee jobs numbers for individual boroughs have varied 
significantly. Twelve Outer London boroughs achieved over 15 % growth since 1984, whereas two saw a reduction. 
2.52	 The Mayor set up the Outer London Commission to investigate how Outer 
London can best realise its potential to contribute to the London economy. The Commission's work has made a major contribution to relevant London Plan policies.

TABLE 2.13 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF JOBS IN OUTER LONDON, 2004-2014 YEAR
OUTER LONDON
LONDON
% IN OUTER LONDON
2004
1,918,000
4,565,000
42%
2005
1,937,000
4,667,000
42%
2006
1,963,000
4,717,000
42%
2007
1,945,000
4,772,000
41%
2008
1,986,000
4,910,000
40%
2009
1,924,000
4,808,000
40%
2010
1,923,000
4,803,000
40%
2011
1,911,000
4,879,000
39%
2012
1,998,000
5,088,000
39%
2013
2,047,000
5,249,000
39%
2014
2,138,000
5,520,000
39%

Source: Office for National Statistics; GLA Economics calculations Note: Estimates of employee jobs by borough are calculated by applying borough shares of total London employee jobs from the ONS Business Register and Employment Survey to the London total employee jobs component of ONS Workforce Jobs (WFJ). Selfemployed 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 selfemployed jobs component of WFJ. Employee and self-employed jobs are then added together for an estimate of total employment. Data for previous years has been amended based on revised population figures.

## 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

2.53	 Table 2.14 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 2.3%. However,there has 
been little change in recent years. In 2004, the gap was 16.6 % points  and the downward trend reduced this to 13.4 % points by 2010. Since then the gap has increased slightly and stands at 14.3% in 2014. 
2.54	 The 2004 - 2014 data in table 2.14 includes revisions made by ONS in March 2015. 
The data has been reweighted in line with the latest ONS estimates following the 2011 Census, which provides more accurate population information than before. 
2.55	 Table 2.15 shows that in terms of income support for lone parents with dependent 
children the gap between London and England and Wales has now closed. In London it fell by four % points between 2013 and 2014 compared with two points in England and Wales overall. 
2.56	 This now makes the proportion of lone parents claiming income support in London 
lower than in England and Wales by one % point. This reversed the gap that had been 8 % in 2004 and even 13 % in 2006.
2.57	 It should be noted that since the introduction of the Employment Support 
allowance (esa) in 2008, lone parents with health issues who were previously 
claiming Income Support, now claim esa. This has to be considered when comparing different years for the 'Lone Parents on Income Support' series. However, it does not affect the comparison of data between London and England and Wales.

BY CALENDAR YEAR
YEAR
IN EMPLOY- MENT
RATE %
RATE %
ALL PERSONS
WHITE GROUPS
BAME GROUPS
EMPLOYMENT RATE GAP WHITE/  BAME
IN EMPLOY- MENT
2004
3,433,700
68.1 2,518,200
73.4
907,600
56.8
16.6
2005
3,476,500
68.0 2,502,400
73.4
968,600
57.1
16.3
2006
3,528,500
68.1 2,489,900
73.6
1,031,200
57.7
15.9
2007
3,608,400
68.6 2,495,600
73.7
1,108,800
59.4
14.3
2008
3,699,400
69.1 2,554,500
74.4
1,140,700
59.6
14.8
2009
3,695,600
67.9 2,566,600
73.6
1,122,500
57.7
15.9
2010
3,719,200
67.3 2,507,600
72.3
1,204,100
58.9
13.4
2011
3,787,900
67.3 2,512,900
73.0
1,268,600
58.2
14.8
2012
3,867,000
68.2 2,554,800
73.7
1,308,800
59.6
14.1
2013
3,972,000
69.4 2,623,100
75.0
1,345,200
60.7
14.3
2014
4,113,300
71.2 2,702,100
76.8
1,403,200
62.5
14.3

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

| LONDON      | ENGLAND AND WALES   |
|-------------|---------------------|
| ANNUAL      |                     |
| REPORT      |                     |
| DIFFERENCE  |                     |
| LONE PARENT |                     |
| FAMILIES ON |                     |
| IS          |                     |
| AS % OF     |                     |
| LONE        |                     |
| PARENT      |                     |
| FAMILIES    |                     |
| #           |                     |
| LONE        |                     |
| PARENT      |                     |
| FAMILIES    |                     |
| ON IS       |                     |
| 2004        | 165,120             |
| 2005        | 163,620             |
| 2006        | 162,770             |
| 2007        | 160,450             |
| 2008        | 152,520             |
| 2009        | 141,720             |
| 2010        | 129,100             |
| 2011        | 109,200             |
| 2012        | 102,590             |
| 2013        | 83,050              |
| 2014        | 73,300              |

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

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

## Key Performance Indicator 12 Improving The Provision Of Social Infrastructure And Related Services

Target: Reduce the average class sizes in primary schools

2.58	 Between 2008 and 2015 the average class size across London has increased 
by one pupil per one teacher class. Over this period 29 London boroughs have seen an increase in the average number of pupils per class, in Redbridge class sizes have remained the same and in the City of London, Waltham Forest and Westminster they have decreased. Over the last three years the London average has remained stable at 27.8 pupils. The figure for England as a whole also remains 
the same as in 2014 with 27 pupils per class.  Class sizes in 16 boroughs have 
descreased in 2015, compared to 13 and 10 boroughs in the two previous years, in three they remain unchanged and in 14 boroughs they have increased.
2.59	 The main drivers of increasing class sizes in London are demographic (primarily 
reduced migration out of London to other parts of the UK), resulting in an 
increased number of primary school children, as well as challenges in recruiting and retaining teachers. This will continue to be monitored closely. 
2.60	 The building of new schools is likely to continue to counter this upwards trend. 
In 2014/15 in London 40 primary schools opened (taken from London Annual Education Report 2015). 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.
2.61	 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/webmaps/lsa/ 

| BOROUGH       |   2008 |   2009 |   2010 |   2011 |   2012 |   2013 |   2014 |
|---------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| 2008-         |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| 2014          |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Barking &     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Dagenham      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| 26.9          |   27.2 |   27.5 |   27.9 |   27.9 |   28.3 |   28   |    1.1 |
| Barnet        |   27.5 |   27.6 |   27.9 |   28.1 |   28   |   28.2 |   28.4 |
| Bexley        |   27.3 |   27.8 |   28   |   28.2 |   28.3 |   28.5 |   28.4 |
| Brent         |   28   |   27.8 |   28.1 |   28.5 |   28.6 |   28.7 |   28.9 |
| Bromley       |   27.2 |   27.7 |   27.8 |   28.1 |   28.3 |   28.4 |   28.3 |
| Camden        |   26.9 |   26.6 |   27.1 |   27.1 |   27.5 |   27.5 |   27.6 |
| City          |   24.8 |   24.7 |   25.9 |   25.9 |   24.7 |   25.9 |   25.9 |
| Croydon       |   27.6 |   27.7 |   27.9 |   28.1 |   28.2 |   28.2 |   28.2 |
| Ealing        |   27.5 |   27.2 |   27.7 |   27.8 |   28   |   28.3 |   28   |
| Enfield       |   28.3 |   28.6 |   28.2 |   28.7 |   28.8 |   28.8 |   28.7 |
| Greenwich     |   26.2 |   26.2 |   26.5 |   26.9 |   27   |   27.1 |   27.4 |
| Hackney       |   25.8 |   25.8 |   26.1 |   26.3 |   26.3 |   26.2 |   26.8 |
| Hammersmith   |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| & Fulham      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| 25.8          |   26.2 |   26.4 |   26.1 |   26.8 |   26.1 |   26.1 |    0.3 |
| Haringey      |   27.5 |   27.5 |   27.6 |   28   |   27.9 |   28.2 |   28   |
| Harrow        |   26.1 |   26.9 |   26.7 |   28   |   28.5 |   28.8 |   29.8 |
| Havering      |   27   |   27.4 |   27.8 |   28   |   28.2 |   28.6 |   28.4 |
| Hillingdon    |   26.5 |   27.2 |   27.4 |   27.4 |   27.5 |   27.9 |   28   |
| Hounslow      |   27.2 |   27.4 |   27.8 |   28.2 |   28.4 |   28.4 |   28.1 |
| Islington     |   25.5 |   25.5 |   25.3 |   26.2 |   26.4 |   26.3 |   26.6 |
| Kensington &  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Chelsea       |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| 26            |   25.7 |   26.2 |   26.8 |   27   |   26.7 |   26.7 |    0.7 |
| Kingston      |   27.1 |   27.1 |   27.7 |   27.6 |   27.5 |   27.7 |   27.6 |
| Lambeth       |   25.8 |   25.6 |   25.7 |   26   |   26.3 |   26.6 |   26.3 |
| Lewisham      |   25.9 |   26.3 |   26.3 |   26.8 |   26.9 |   27.2 |   27.4 |
| Merton        |   26.7 |   27   |   27.1 |   27.5 |   27.9 |   27.7 |   27.8 |
| Newham        |   26.8 |   27   |   27.4 |   27.8 |   28.1 |   27.9 |   26.6 |
| Redbridge     |   29.2 |   29.1 |   29   |   29.5 |   29.6 |   29.1 |   29.3 |
| Richmond      |   26.5 |   26.9 |   27.4 |   28   |   27.9 |   28.2 |   28.5 |
| Southwark     |   24.6 |   24.6 |   24.8 |   25.3 |   25.8 |   26.3 |   26.4 |
| Sutton        |   27.9 |   27.7 |   27.9 |   28.2 |   28.5 |   28.7 |   28.8 |
| Tower Hamlets |   26.3 |   26.3 |   26.9 |   27.3 |   27.7 |   27.6 |   27.7 |
| Waltham       |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Forest        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
| 28            |   28.1 |   28.5 |   28   |   28.5 |   28.2 |   28.4 |    0.4 |
| Wandsworth    |   25.5 |   25.3 |   25.9 |   25.6 |   26.3 |   25.9 |   25.8 |
| Westminster   |   25.8 |   25.4 |   26.3 |   26.7 |   26.6 |   26   |   25.6 |
| London        |   26.8 |   27   |   27.2 |   27.6 |   27.7 |   27.8 |   27.8 |

Source: Department for Education

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

2.62	 Since 2001, use of public transport per head has grown by over 36%, and 
increased by 2.4% in the latest year. In contrast, private transport use per head has decreased by over 21% since 2001, and is down slightly by 0.3% in the latest year. So, in line with the target, public transport use per head continues to grow while 
private transport continues to fall year on year. 
2.63	 The indices in table 2.17 are derived from the time series of journey stages per 
head compiled for the Travel in London Report 8 (TfL Planning December 2015). This includes all travel to, from or within Greater London, including travel by commuters and visitors..
2.64	 Total daily journey stages in 2014 were 31.3 million, up from 30.6 million in 2013, 
and 5.7 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 |

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

2.65	 Table 2.18 shows that road traffic volumes across London are still down by 9.1% 
on 2001 levels - over 16% down in Inner and over 5% in Outer London. However, in the last year traffic volumes for London as a whole were up 1.6% and again reached volumes higher than back in 2011. In Inner London they increased by 1.1%, while traffic in Outer London grew by 1.7%, which takes traffic levels almost 
up to 2009 levels. If this is a new trend (in Outer London traffic volumes are up for 
the third year) or an exception it will have be monitored closely.  
2.66	 For London to continue to make progress in reducing its reliance on the private 
car, considerable investment is required in public transport, such as the £15 billion investment in Crossrail. For further details on developer contributions to Crossrail 
and the use of CIL receipts please see the environment and transport section of chapter 3.

8.98 8.90 8.84 8.66 8.51 8.52 8.58 8.29 8.19 8.05 7.82 7.57 7.42 7.52
100.0
99.2 98.4 96.4 94.8 94.9 95.5 92.3 91.2 89.6 87.1 84.2 82.6 83.7
YEAR
2001 2002
2003
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2009
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
All roads:
Greater 
London
32.26
32.14 31.95 31.59
31.38 31.49
31.16 30.27
30.07 29.70
29.10 28.90 28.82 29.33
Inner London 
(excl City and 
Westminster)
Outer 
London
22.04
22.03 21.92 21.72
21.66 21.76
21.42 20.90
20.83 20.63
20.28 20.35 20.43 20.81
All roads index (2001=100)
Greater 
London 
100.0
99.6 99.0 97.9 97.3 97.6 96.6 93.8 93.2 92.1 90.2 89.6 89.3 90.9
Inner London 
(excl City and 
Westminster)
Outer 
London
100.0
99.9 99.5 98.6 98.3 98.7 97.2 94.8 94.5 93.6 92.0 92.3 92.7 94.4

Source: TfL Planning, Travel in London Report 8, section 3.10

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

2.67	 Table 2.19 shows that in 2014 in absolute terms around 0.65 million journey stages 
were made by bicycle in Greater London on an average day, an increase of over 100% compared to 2001, 10% more than in the most recent year and the highest annual increase of any year since 2001. Table 2.19 also shows that 2.1% of all journeys in Greater London on an average day were made by bicycle, compared to 
1.2% in 2001. This is the highest annual modal share increase since 2005.
2.68	 Growth will need to strengthen further to meet the Mayor's objective to see a 
cycling revolution by achieving the target for a 5% cycle mode share by 2026. The London Plan includes a range of policies to help achieve this objective, such as support for the cycle Superhighway network and the London cycle hire scheme as 
well as standards for cycle parking and facilities for cyclists in new development.

TABLE 2.19 CYCLE JOURNEY STAGES AND MODE SHARES, 2001 TO 2014
YEAR
DAILY CYCLE STAGES (MILLIONS)
2001
0.320
1.2
2002
0.323
1.2
2003
0.370
1.4
2004
0.380
1.4
2005
0.415
1.6
2006
0.466
1.7
2007
0.467
1.6
2008
0.489
1.7
2009
0.514
1.8
2010
0.544
1.9
2011
0.572
1.9
2012
0.582
1.9
2013
0.585
1.9
2014
0.645
2.1

Source: TfL Planning, Travel in London Report 8, tables 2.3 and 3.4

CYCLE MODE SHARE (PERCENTAGE)

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

2.69	 Table 2.20 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. 
2.70	 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, and last year's rise has been the highest since 2000 that was not 'helped' by a baseline change. Passenger numbers have also already exceeded the current ten-year target for 2011 - 2021. 
2.71	 In 2014/2015 two high profile events took place at riverside locations - the 'Blood 
Swept Lands and Seas of Red' poppy installation at the Tower of London and the Tall Ships Festival in Greenwich. These events will have contributed towards more people to travel by boat from Tower Pier and Greenwich Pier and had a positive impact on passenger journey numbers. 
2.72	 TfL continues to lead on delivering the Mayor's River Action Plan to achieve its 
target of 12 million annual river passenger journeys by 2020. Key projects aiming to contribute to this include improving ticketing by launching Oyster pay as you go 
yellow card readers at all piers served by the River Bus in September 2015, with Contactless following in Summer 2016; a new pier opening at Plantation Wharf in late 2015 and delivering three pier extensions in 2016 to increase capacity at TfL's Bankside, Embankment and Westminster piers; continuing to actively promote river services through marketing; and carrying out signage reviews to better integrate river services with the wider transport network. 
2.73	 Table 2.21 deals with cargo carried by river. A significant proportion of the freight 
transported on the River Thames in the capital is aggregates for the construction industry.
2.74	 The overall figure is a combination of both (1) the interport trade (handled at 
terminals in Greater London that either enters or leaves the Port of London across the seaward limits) such as sea dredged aggregates or sugar and (2) intraport trade (handled at terminals in Greater London that has its origin or destination within the Port of London or within the seaward limits). Both elements 
saw an increase in 2014 taking overall cargo a further 8% above the substantial increase in 2013/14. Since 2011 cargo trade has risen by almost one third. In terms of interport traffic, aggregates - as in 2013 - saw increases across most terminals, with particularly strong growth at terminals in Greenwich and Barking and Dagenham. Significant increases in throughput were also seen at terminals in Bexley. Intraport trade was strong in Greater London, with growth in both containerised waste (23%) and aggregates (32%). Transport of Construction, Excavation and Demolition Waste (CE&DW) decreased by 7% as the movements from major infrastructure projects (Crossrail and Lea Tunnel) slowed, although these are likely to be replaced by the substantial commitments associated with the Thames Tideway Tunnel.

YEAR
NUMBER OF PASSENGERS % CHANGE ON PREVIOUS 
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

Source: TfL London Rivers Services

YEAR
| YEAR                 | TONNES OF CARGO    |
|----------------------|--------------------|
| % CHANGE ON PREVIOUS |                    |
| YEAR                 |                    |
| 2001                 | 10,757,000         |
| 2002                 | 9,806,000          |
| 2003                 | 9,236,000          |
| 2004                 | 8,743,000          |
| 2005                 | 9,288,000          |
| 2006                 | 9,337,000          |
| 2007                 | 8,642,000          |
| 2008                 | 9,312,000          |
| 2009                 | 8,146,000          |
| 2010                 | 7,754,000          |
| 2011                 | 9,022,000          |
| 2012                 | 8,715,000          |
| 2013                 | 11,087,000         |
| 2014                 | 11,969,000         |

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

2.75	 This indicator aims to show that high-density employment generators such 
as offices are mainly located in areas with good access to public transport - defined as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 5 or 6 - 6 being the highest, 0 the lowest. The floorspaces are gross, i.e. they do not subtract associated losses. The data is taken from the London Development Database (LDD) which has a threshold for data submission of 1,000m2 for B1 uses, so 
schemes proposing less than this are not recorded. 
2.76	 68% of all B1 floorspace approved during 2014/15 is located in areas with good 
public transport accessibility, well above the benchmark target of 50% and 6% above the previous year's figure. When just offices are considered, the figure rises to 71% down 1% on the previous year. These figures reflect the location of the 
proposed floorspace. From roughly 657,000m2 of B1 floorspace granted outside the Central Activities Zone (CAZ), less than 30% is in an area of high PTAL, and from 187,000m2 of offices outside the CAZ, 32% is in an area of high PTAL. Both percentage figures are higher than in the previous year, but they compare to 98% in the highly accessible CAZ area. 
2.77	 As noted above, the figures are based on gross approvals with floorspace 
significantly above last year's. Overall approvals during 2014/15 would result in a net loss of both B1 and B1a office floorspace for the third year in a row.  The loss of office has taken place largely (66% this year) in areas with a high PTAL score.

PTAL LEVEL
ALL B1
OFFICES (B1A)
FLOORSPACE (M2)
%
FLOORSPACE (M2)
%
5 or 6
1030051
68%
1005584
71%
4 or less
482631
32%
411885
29%
Total floorspace
1512682
100%
1417469
100% 

Source: London Development Database

## Key Performance Indicator 18 Protection Of Biodiversity Habitat

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

2.78	 This performance indicator is based on the changes in SINCs as a result of 
planning permissions granted during 2014/15. Designation of new SINCs is not done through the planning permission process. Re-provision within the permission is taken into account but no positive numbers are recorded meaning a loss is inevitable. The London Development Database records the following conservation designations:
•	Statutory Site of Special Scientific Interest,
•		
Site of Metropolitan Importance,
•		
Site of Borough Grade I Importance
•		
Site of Borough Grade II Importance
•		
Site of Local Importance
2.79	 Open Space protection designations such as Green Belt, MOL and Local Open 
Space are addressed in KPI 3.
2.80	 Table 2.23 shows six approvals on SINCs in 2014/15. The total area covered is 2.02 
ha, well below the 15 hectares recorded in the AMR 11. The largest loss is on the Cane Hill hospital site in Croydon, already mentioned in KPI 3. This loss is in the outline part of the scheme and is an estimate based on the information available. It is expected that follow up applications will provide additional, more accurate, details.

BOROUGH NAME
BOROUGH REFERENCE
NATURE CONSERVATION TYPE
Brent
14/3815
Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance
0.051
Croydon
13/02527/ PHASE2
Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance
1.500
Ealing
P/2014/1459
Site of Metropolitan Importance
0.015
Greenwich
14/0276
Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance
0.175
Hammersmith and Fulham
2013/05200/ RES
Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance
0.255
Islington
P2013/4952/ FUL
Site of Local Importance
0.024
London (hectares):
2.020

Source: London Development Database

AREA OF 
OPEN SPACE (HA)

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

2.81	 Table 2.5 shows that the total amount of local authority collected waste declined  
by about 800,000 tonnes between 2002/03 and 2012/13, although it has started to increase again over the past two years - by almost 90,00 tonnes.
2.82	 London continues to produce the least amount of waste per head of population 
in the UK and five London boroughs (Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Islington, Ealing 
and Hammersmith and Fulham) are amongst the top 10 local authorities with the lowest waste generation per head count.
2.83	 Table 2.25  also shows that London's recycling rate for local authority collected 
waste has increased steadily from 2002 to 2012, reaching 30 % in 2012 and 
remaining above this level for the past three years. However there is still some way to go towards reaching the 45% target that was set for 2015. London has a lower household recycling rate than any other region in England, in part because it has a relatively high number of flats and less garden waste.
2.84	 The amount of local authority collected waste sent to landfill has more than halved 
since 2010 to 21%. The majority of waste previously going to landfill is being diverted to incineration with energy recovery. 

2002/
Landfill
3,163 3,021 2,856
2,692
2,404 2,209 1,946 1,882 1,696 1,116
911
 889 
754
(%)
71.0% 70.0% 65.4%
63.7%
56.8% 53.2% 49.0% 48.7% 44.7%
30.6% 25.5% 24.4%
21%
Incineration 
with EfW
872 826 869
767
929 919 912
803
896
1,303 1,462
 1,525 
1680
(%)
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%
Incineration 
without EfW
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
 0 
0
(%)
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0%
Recycled/
composted
410 494 643
763
844 925 994
1,060 1,076 1,105 1,088
 1,110 
1,107
(%)
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%
Other#
0 0 0 0
59
101 123
117
130 124 115
 116 
122
(%)
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%
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

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

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

Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2013/14, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/env18-local-authoritycollected-waste-annual-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

2.85	 Policy 5.2 of the London Plan sets out a stepped approach to reaching zero carbon 
targets - see tables 2.26 and 2.27.

TARGETS FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS YEAR
IMPROVEMENT ON 2010 BUILDING REGULATIONS
2010-2013
25 per cent
2013-2016
40 per cent
2016-2031
zero carbon
TARGETS FOR NON-DOMESTIC BUILDINGS YEAR
IMPROVEMENT ON 2010 BUILDING REGULATIONS
2010-2013
25 per cent
2013-2016
40 per cent
2016-2019
as per Building Regulations
2019-2031
zero carbon

Source: London Plan 2015

2.86	 An analysis of the energy assessments submitted alongside Stage II planning 
applications determined by the Mayor between 1 January and 31 December 2014 was undertaken by the GLA in 2015 to establish the projected carbon dioxide savings secured from these schemes. Its report reflects a full year of applications 
assessed against the Mayor's energy hierarchy and carbon dioxide reduction targets set out in London Plan policy 5.2. 
2.87	 Applications considered at Stage II in 2014 were assessed against one of three 
targets, depending on the date they were received by the GLA at Stage I. The London Plan target of 40 percent beyond Part L 2010 was applied to applications received at Stage I from October 2013 (see table 2.28), but only 1 of these schemes advanced to Stage II that year. By contrast, 89 of the 140 applications assessed in 2014 were assessed against this target and a further 7 applications were assessed against the equivalent (but recalibrated) target of 35 % beyond Part L 2013, once this was introduced in 2014. Statistics for applications received each year from 2010 to 2014 reveal there was an overall increase in the regulated CO2 emissions reductions in 2014 to 39 percent beyond Building Regulations requirements, up from 36 percent in 2012 and 2013 and 33 percent in 2010 and 2011.

| 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                        |                                          |

2.88	 There were only a small number of applications (seven) assessed against the 

recalibrated target of 35 percent beyond Part L 2013, but overall these exceeded 
this challenging target and achieved a 37 percent reduction in regulated CO2 emissions beyond Part L 2013 of the Building Regulations.

2.89	 The application of the London Plan energy policies in these new developments 
over 2014 resulted in cumulative regulated CO2 emission reductions of 53,423 tonnes per annum.
2.90	 Figure 2.3 shows that the largest contribution was due to connection to heat 
networks and on-site combined heat and power (CHP) plants, which amounted to 27,594 tonnes of CO2 per annum - over half of the overall reduction. The first element of the energy hierarchy, energy efficiency (EE), achieved an average reduction of 14 percent. Renewable energy (RE), the final element of the hierarchy, was responsible for the smallest reduction of the three elements - this is likely to be due to the challenge associated with installing on-site renewable energy in a high density, urban environment and the appropriateness of some renewable technologies in tandem with CHP (for example, supply of hot water through solar thermal collectors can reduce the efficiency and carbon  savings realised through CHP).
2.91	 Significant investment at each stage of the energy hierarchy was secured 
including £114 million in heat network infrastructure and associated CHP and £16 million in solar PV panels and additional investment in other renewable technologies. 
2.92	 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-in-lieu contribution to the relevant borough to be ring fenced to secure delivery of carbon dioxide savings elsewhere. 
2.93	 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 

2.94	 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. 
2.95	 The most authoritative datasets for energy generated in London from renewable 
energy sources are provided by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). Table 2.28 shows the generation of electricity from renewables in London for 2011-2014. Generation has increased by an estimated 18.3% to over 680 
GWh but is well below the 2026 target and slightly below last year's figure of 700 GWh. Despite increases in generation of wind and wave as well as photovoltaics in particular, the reduced electricity generation total is due to a decrease of the 'bioenergy' component, which is most significant in terms of scale.  This has been caused by a combination of reduced generation from the three Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) combustion plants - SELCHP, Edmonton and Belvedere as a whole, and a reduction in the renewable component of MSW from 55% in 2012 to 50% in 2014. In addition, through the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) and renewable heat Premium Payments (RHPP) (see https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/ rhiand-rhpp-deployment-data-november-2014), the following renewable heat installations have been achieved by November 2014:  
•	15.2MW of installed capacity installed through the non-domestic RHI (an 
increase of over 50% from the previous year); 
•	0.9MW of installed capacity from heat pumps and biomass, through the RHPP in 
domestic dwellings; 
•	A total of 216 domestic accredited installations from domestic RHI . 
Source: Energy Planning Monitoring Report 2014 
https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/environment-publications/2014- ener­
gy-planning-monitoring-report Note: Regulated emissions are the CO2 emissions arising from energy used by fixed building services, as defined in Approved Document Part L of the Building Regulations. 

These include fixed systems for lighting, heating, hot water, air conditioning and mechanical ventilation.

YEAR
BIO- MASS
LANDFILL GAS
CAPACITY (MW)/ (GWH)
WIND AND WAVE
2011# Total (MW)
0
3.7
0.3
20.6
165.7
25.0
215.3
Total (GWh)
0
8.0
1.7
49.9
558.7
7.0
625.3
2012# Total (MW)
0
4.4
0.3
23.4
167.0
42.3
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

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

SEWAGE GAS
BIO- ENERGY
PHOTO-
VOLTAICS TOTAL

## Key Performance Indicator 22 Increase In Urban Greening

Target: Increase total area of green roofs in the CAZ

2.96	 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-and-biodiversity/green-roof-map
2.97	 No formal updates are available at this stage but further research is proposed 
for 2016. The Green roof website linked above still encourages 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 2013.

## 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)

2.98	 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.
2.99	 The Rivers and Streams Habitat Action Plan Steering Group, co-ordinating 
the implementation of this aspect of London's Biodiversity Action Plan and managed by the Environment Agency, recommends that projects have post project appraisals. For the steering group to enable a project to be assessed as 
restoration, the following assessments can be made.
•	River Habitat Survey (undertaking pre and post project surveys are good 
practice).
•	Urban River Survey (undertaking pre and post project surveys are good practice). •	Pre and post fixed point photography.
2.100	The time of restoration of a habitat is defined as the point at which the necessary 
construction works have been carried out on the ground to the extent that the habitat is likely to develop without further construction work. For schemes that are phased over several years, an estimate of the length gained is made for each year ensuring that there is no double counting. In order to verify that habitats have been created and conditions secured, scheme details need to be submitted to the 
Rivers & Streams HAP Steering Group. Once the outputs have been verified then the scheme can be reported and placed on Biodiversity Action Reporting system.
2.101	Table 2.29 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. In 2015 alone 2.5 km were restored. With 1 km the Yeading Brook Improvement Project (River Crane Catchment) has made the most significant contribution. It should be noted that there has been a change in the reporting process for river restoration schemes in 2014/15. Project delivery is now reported directly to the River Restoration Centre through the 'Restore' database. This makes reporting simpler and improves the access to project details. To improve reporting, a River Restoration Group has also been established that will review and promote the new process. 
2.102	There is uncertainty associated with the additional 10 km target. However, 
significant schemes such as the Ram Brewery in Wandsworth and the Lewisham Gateway will be completed shortly and the All London Green Grid and River Basin Management Plan should facilitate further achievements. It should be noted that the London Biodiversity Action Plan includes, alongside this KPI, a target for maintenance and enhancement reflected in London Plan Policy 7.19 (Table 7.3). 

YEAR
RESTORATION (METRES)
CUMULATIVE RESTORATION (METRES)
2000
680
680
-
2001
150
830
-
2002
600
1,430
-
2003
2,300
3,730
-
2004
500
4,230
-
2005
0
4,230
-
2006
100
4,330
-
2007
5,100
9,430
-
2008
2,000
11,430
0
2009
1,500
12,930
1,500
2010
1,808
14,738
3,308
2011
3,519
18,257
6,827
2012
3,000
21,257
9,827
2013
2,395
23,652
12,222
2014
330
23,982
12,552
2015
2,490
27,172
15,742

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

CUMULATIVE CHANGE SINCE 2008 BASELINE

## 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

2.103	The target includes all designated heritage assets, including World Heritage Sites, 
listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens and registered battlefields. Despite the pressures of development, Table 2.30 shows that the number of designated assets in London has increased from last year's. There are 40 new listed buildings, four new conservation areas and two 
more scheduled monument in London.
2.104	In terms of designated assets at risk, in the last year there has been a slight 
decrease of listed buildings at risk (by 0.4%); of scheduled monuments at risk (by 0.3%); of registered parks and gardens at risk (by 1.3%). The situation remains constant for the other two designed assets in terms of both their number and 
their condition. 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 2015 summary for London.

| 2011               | 2012       | 2013       | 2014     | 2015   |
|--------------------|------------|------------|----------|--------|
| NO.                | NO.        | NO.        |          |        |
| % AT               |            |            |          |        |
| RISK               | NO.        |            |          |        |
| % AT               |            |            |          |        |
| RISK               | NO.        |            |          |        |
| % AT               |            |            |          |        |
| RISK               |            |            |          |        |
| %                  |            |            |          |        |
| AT                 |            |            |          |        |
| RISK               |            |            |          |        |
| %                  |            |            |          |        |
| AT                 |            |            |          |        |
| RISK               |            |            |          |        |
| 4                  | 0          | 4          | 0        | 4      |
| World              |            |            |          |        |
| Heritage           |            |            |          |        |
| Sites*             |            |            |          |        |
| 18,745 2.53 18,854 | 2.8 18,872 | 2.7 18,896 | 3 18,936 | 2.59   |
| Buildings#         |            |            |          |        |
| 1,000              | 6.4        | 949        | 6.8      | 1,009  |
| Areas              |            |            |          |        |
| 154 22.7           | 154 22.7   | 155 20.6   | 156      | 19.9   |
| Monuments          |            |            |          |        |
| 149 5.40           | 150        | 8          | 150      | 7.3    |
| Parks and          |            |            |          |        |
| Gardens            |            |            |          |        |
| 1                  | 0          | 1          | 0        | 1      |
| Battlefield        |            |            |          |        |

Source: English Heritage *designated by UNESCO. # does not include places of worship. ** 954 of the 1021 Conservation Areas in London have been surveyed through the Conservation Areas at Risk survey and 62, or 6%, are considered at risk.

## Chapter 3 Additional Performance Measures And Statistics Housing And Design Housing Provision Annual Monitor 2014/15 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. It 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, including student halls and homes that do not meet the definition of 'self-contained' make up the 'non-conventional' supply. These also contribute 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 that numbers of bedrooms, residential densities and compliance with accessibility standards are all calculated on gross figures.
3.4	
The reporting year used by LDD is the Financial Year (FY) which begins on 1st April and runs to 31st March. FY2014 therefore runs from 01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015. To make it clearer we have used the form 2014/15 rather than FY2014 in this report.
3.5	
The statistics are based on the details of planning applications approved by the London boroughs. LDD records all Full and Outline permissions that propose a loss or a gain of residential units. Variations to these, whether through details / reserved matters consents, s73 Minor Material Amendments or formal Variations to s106 agreements, are also recorded. Changes of use from office to residential via the prior approval process are also included following their introduction on 30th May 2013. Note that the streamlined prior approvals process means that applicants do not need to submit full details of their proposed scheme so it is not always possible for the local authority to fill in all of the details normally recorded on LDD. These gaps in the data can lead to totals not matching across tables in this report. Other prior approvals, for example from retail to residential, are not 
currently mandatory for inclusion on LDD so do not contribute to these figures. Temporary permissions are also excluded.

3.6	
The Mayor's London Housing Strategy sets out a separate and distinctly defined target for affordable housing delivery, comprising the gross number of affordable homes delivered through conventional supply or acquisitions of existing properties. Completion in relation to this target is triggered by payment of grant funding and is not the same as the definition of completion used on LDD. The Affordable Housing Monitor covers affordable housing delivery according to the London Housing Strategy definition.
3.7	
Although some individual schemes are referenced in this report, it is intended to 
give a brief overview to the London situation. More detailed information at a local 
level can be found in borough AMRs.
3.8	
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; 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.

## Key Statistics And Findings

a.	 There were 28,191 net conventional housing completions in London in 2014/15.
b.	 In addition 4,369 non-self-contained units were completed.
c.	 The number of long term vacant properties rose by 120 (a net loss of total 
housing supply) giving a total housing provision of 32.440. This amounts to 101% of the benchmark for completions in the London Plan 2011, although it 
represents 76.5% of the increased target in the London Plan 2015.
d.	 New build accounted for 83% of net conventional supply in 2014/15, conversions 
4% and changes of use 13%. This is up from 10% in the previous year.
e.	 Over the last three years net conventional affordable housing completions 
through planning permissions amounted to 21,529 homes. Social rented units make up 52% of affordable completions over this period, intermediate housing 37% and Affordable Rent nearly 11%, up from 3% reported in AMR 11.
f.		 Across all tenures, gross conventional housing supply was dominated by one 
or two bedroom homes. 34% of homes completed during 2014/15 had one bedroom, 42% had two bedrooms and the remaining 24% had three bedrooms or more, up slightly from 22% in 2013/14.
g.	 Net conventional housing approvals during 2014/15 are 74,930, up from 63,733 
in 2013/14
h.	 28% of gross affordable housing completions in 2014/15 comprised homes with 
three or more bedrooms, down from 29% the previous year.

i.	13% of net units approved and 18% of net units in schemes started during 
2014/15 are affordable housing.
j.	The conventional housing pipeline in London continues to grow. As of 31 March 
2015, the net conventional housing pipeline consisted of 261,643 homes.
k.	 There has been an increase in the proportion of units in schemes that are under 
construction. 51% of the units in the residential pipeline are in schemes that are under construction. This compares to 46% reported in the previous AMR.
l.	The average density of new housing approvals in 2014/15 was 160 dwellings per 
hectare (dph), and the average density of completions was 124 dph.

## Completions

3.9	
Total housing provision as monitored in the London Plan consists of three elements: conventional housing supply, non-self-contained bed spaces, and longterm empty homes returning to use, often referred to as 'Vacants'. KPI 4 in chapter 2 and Table HPM1 show housing provision at borough level compared to the London Plan target.
3.10	 Net conventional completions for 2014/15 are 28,191. This is the highest total 
since the peak of over 29,500 in 2008/09.
3.11	 The non-self-contained element of the benchmark is comprised of bedrooms in 
student halls of residence, hostels and large houses in multiple occupation. The net total of 4,369 is down on last year, but still above the average since LDD began in 2004/05. The combined total of 32,440 is the second highest since recorded on LDD, less than 800 below the 2006/07 peak.
3.12	 Care homes are not included as non-conventional supply in this AMR. However, 
through the 2015 London Plan they become part of the non-conventional supply 
and will therefore be included in future AMRs
3.13	 The figures for the change in long-term empty homes are taken from statistics 
published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, based on council tax returns from local authorities. The change is calculated from the number of vacant dwellings as at October each year so does not correspond with the reporting period of 1st April to 31st March for the LDD-sourced data, but it remains the best source of net change available. 
3.14	 Table 3.1 and Figure 4 show the separate elements of total housing provision for 
the last seven years. Completions have risen sharply for the second year in a row.
3.15	 In 2014/2015 a total of 32,245 conventional homes were completed, with 
4,054 lost or replaced to give the net total of 28,191 (see Table HPM1). Areas where large-scale residential redevelopment (usually in former council estates) is taking place can show high gross but low net supply, for example in Barking and Dagenham. This can be the result of the way that LDD records all losses 

2004/5
2005/6 2006/7
2007/8 2008/9
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
2014/15
2004/05 2005/06 2006/07
2007/08
2008/09 2009/10
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
TABLE 3.1 NET HOUSING SUPPLY IN LONDON, 2004/05 TO 2013/14
Conventional
24,685 25,550 26,624 27,747 29,567 24,728 18,936 22,710 22,197 25,313 28,191
Non-
Conventional
4,164
449
2,967 1,284 2,408 1,426 1,922 1,491 2,639 4,298 4,369
Vacants back 
in use
2,519
-61
3,608
287
-398
2,223 4,882 5,670 2,018 1,057
-120
Total
31,368 25,938 33,199 29,318 31,577 28,377 25,740 29,871 26,854 30,668 32,440
CAZ
4,877
4,281
7,611 4,813 4,212 2,739
4,308
15,595
7,619 7,554
14,112
Inner
26,709
23,647
26,722
40,705
24,295 28,400
21,590
44,463 21,747 32,300 35,776
Outer
23,881
25,387
23,610
35,000
19,461 15,022
31,922
26,207 11,919 23,879 25,042

Source: Conventional and non-conventional supply - London Development Database Vacants back in use - GOV.UK Housing Live Table 615; https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-ondwelling-stock-including-vacants

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07
2007/08
2008/09 2009/10
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
London
55,467
53315 57943
80,518
47,968 46,161
57,820
86,265 41,285 63,733 74,930
TABLE 3.3  NET CONVENTIONAL HOUSING PIPELINE IN LONDON AS AT END OF FINANCIAL YEAR
CAZ
9,468
9,923
13,198
15,256
16,233 15,441
14,682
23,866 29,094 32,626 38,377
Inner
56,792
62,842
72,568
87,779
87,510 90,792
83,745
102,841 109,015 125,389 133,866
Outer
43,133
52,531
57,703
70,917
70,225 66,825
79,696
86,364 81,746 85,213 89,400
London
109,393 125,296
143,469 173,952 173,968 173,058
178,123
213,071 219,855 243,228 261,643

Source: The London Development Database Source: The London Development Database.

Totals are as at 31st March each year (2014/15 is therefore as at 31/03/2015)

NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 2014/15 DWELLINGS
1 BED
2 BEDS
3 BEDS
4+ BEDS
TOTAL
Social Rented
1,125
1,614
1,173
473
4,385
Intermediate
1,102
1,285
257
36
2,680
Affordable Rent
429
568
334
90
1,421
Market
8,507
9,976
3,642
1,612
23,737
All Tenure
11,163
13,443
5,406
2,211
32,223
AS A % OF TOTAL
1 BED
2 BED
3 BED
4+ BED
TOTAL
Social Rented
26%
37%
27%
11%
100%
Intermediate
41%
48%
10%
1%
100%
Affordable Rent
30%
40%
24%
6%
100%
Market
36%
42%
15%
7%
100%
All Tenure
35%
42%
17%
7%
100%

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 in the same year, while gains can be spread over several years. In this case the completions include the redevelopment of the Goresbrook Estate which includes a net loss of 133 units (12/00854/FUL), but was considered as part of the wider redevelopment of estates in the borough which overall will see a net loss of just 16 units.

3.16	 There are three types of conventional housing supply recorded in the LDD; new 
build (including extensions), conversions (changes to the number of units in properties already in residential use) and changes of use (for example gains from industrial or commercial uses and losses to non-C3 uses). Table HPM2 shows gross and net conventional supply by type for each borough. Across London, new 
build provides the most units, however the 83% recorded in 2014/15 represents the second decrease in a row, down from 87% in 2012/13. Conversions make up 
4% of net supply and changes of use now make up 14%. This is an increase on the 10% recorded in the previous AMR.
3.17	 The increase in the importance of changes of use in part reflects the impact of 
the office to residential prior approvals on the completions figures. Without these consents, the proportion of completions from change of use is just under 10%, up less than half a percentage on the previous year. While new builds provide the most units in the majority of boroughs, this is not the case in all boroughs. New build units represent just 18% of completions in Richmond upon Thames, where office to residential prior approvals make up 43% of completions. Changes of use made up 89% of their 293 net completions as conversions resulted in a net loss.. The City of London and Westminster saw 66% and 57% of their net completions provided by changes of use even though the City is entirely exempt from office to residential prior approvals and they provided less than 1% of the completions in Westminster. This shows that changes of use are still being made through regular planning permissions as well as the new prior approvals. It is worth noting that in the previous AMR, no borough had less than 50% of its completions from new 
build.
3.18	 Residential conversions contributed 14% of completions in Haringey, the next 
highest being 13% in Islington, followed by Enfield (12%), Hammersmith & Fulham (11%) and Harrow (10%). Conversions can also lead to a net loss of units as buildings are de-converted from flats back to houses or a smaller number of flats. During 2014/15 three boroughs saw net decreases through conversion; Kensington and Chelsea lost 50 units, Westminster lost 30 units and Richmond upon Thames lost 19. It is worth noting that it is not clear that definition of development in the legislation that governs planning includes the de-conversion of flats to a smaller number of units. They are sometimes granted as certificates of proposed lawful development rather than as full planning permissions. It is expected that these will be included in the next AMR to increase the accuracy of our net housing figures, although it is possible that some de-conversions happen entirely outside the planning system.
3.19	 The average density of new housing completions in London (shown in Table 
HPM14) was 124 dwellings per hectare (dph), a slight increase on the 122dph for the previous two years (note that changes and corrections to the database have resulted in these figures being revised since the last AMR). As would be expected the lowest densities are found in the outer London boroughs. The density of completions in Bromley was 44dph, in Merton it was 45dph and in Havering 49dph. As in each of the recent years, The City of London delivered housing at the highest density, this year at 478dph. Tower Hamlets and Newham delivered at the next highest densities, 350 and 281dph respectively. Densities are calculated by dividing the gross total residential units by the sum of the residential site areas. The Mayor has initiated a review of the way in which densities are calculated to 
inform the next London Plan which may lead to changes in the way that densities 
are calculated in future.
3.20	 Table 3.4 shows the split of total gross conventional completions in 2014/15 
across London as a whole by tenure and number of bedrooms. The figures are presented in gross terms as the number of bedrooms has only recently started to be recorded on LDD for homes lost or replaced, however boroughs are now recording it on a voluntary basis so net data may become available in future AMRs. One and two-bed properties make up the majority of supply, accounting for 35% and 42% of the total respectively. However the profile of supply varies with tenure. Homes with 3 bedrooms or more make up 38% of social rented supply, 30% of Affordable Rent homes, 22% of market homes and 11% of intermediate homes. The proportion across all tenures is 24%. This is up on the 22% reported in AMR11.
3.21	 Table HMP6 shows the gross conventional supply of affordable housing by 
borough and number of bedrooms. The highest percentage of affordable housing with 3 or more bedrooms is in Redbridge where 9 of 17 units are affordable (53%), but more significant are the 267 units of 3 or more bedrooms that make up 51% of 
the supply in Hackney.
3.22	 Total net affordable housing supply in 2014/15 was 6,985, slightly up from 6,934 
in 2013/14 (revised from the figure of 6,592 published in AMR 11). Affordable units represent 25% of all net completions during this year, this is down on the previous year's figure of 27% due to the higher completions total. The three year average is down to 28%. Table HPM4 shows total net conventional affordable supply by borough over the last three years, both in numeric terms and as a proportion of total supply. In the last year the borough with the highest proportions of affordable housing supply was Haringey at 64%. The next highest is Brent at 44%. Haringey also has the highest three year average at 54%. Bromley recorded a net loss of affordable housing in 2014/15 because of a substantial loss on the redevelopment of the Alkham Tower (10/03698/FULL1). A review of large estate redevelopments has also resulted in Bromley showing a loss for 2012/13 because of the completion of phase 3 of the Ramsden Estate redevelopment (09/02931/FULL1). It is thought that another phase is still to be delivered on this site.
3.23	 Table HPM3 breaks down net conventional affordable supply in the last three years 
into social rented, intermediate and Affordable Rent. Over the three-year period net conventional affordable housing supply amounted to 21,529 homes, with social rented units accounting for 51% of these, intermediate products 38% and Affordable Rent units 11%.

## Approvals

3.24	 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 HPM7 breaks down 2014/15 approvals by tenure and Table HPM8 by bedrooms.
3.25	 Approvals have again risen sharply since the low level recorded in 2012/13 which 
followed the introduction of London's Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) at the end of 2011/12. The total of 74,930 has only been bettered in 2007/08 at the height of the last economic cycle, and in 2011/12, the pre-CIL rush. The borough to approve the highest number of units is Tower Hamlets. Their approvals include the submission of a revised scheme for Wood Wharf (PA/13/02966) which could potentially deliver up to 3,600 units, along with new consents such as South Quay Plaza (PA/14/00944, 888 units) and 151East Ferry Road (PA/11/03670, 850 units). After Wood Wharf, the next biggest scheme in terms of net units is the resubmission of the New Covent Garden Market in Wandsworth (2014/2810, 2,971 units). The largest new scheme is for 1,150 units on the Dairy Crest site in Hammersmith & Fulham. This is an outline application and details of proposed 
units are not known at this time. Note that approvals for 2013/14 have been 
revised upwards to 63,733 largely due to the addition of some major missing permissions in Greenwich and Tower Hamlets (amounting to over 5,300 units between them), although corrections in excess of 400 units have also been made to the figures for Islington, Barnet, Brent and Westminster.
3.26	 In terms of tenure, 87% of approved in 2014/15 units are for market sale or rent, 
leaving 13% as affordable units, broken down as 7% intermediate, 4% Affordable Rent and 2% social rented. It should be noted that the outline status of many of the larger permissions means that the tenure of the units may not have been defined 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.
3.27	 The average density of new housing approvals shown in Table HPM 13 is 159 dph, 
an increase on last year's 147dph (revised upwards from 137dph as stated in AMR 11). This is still lower than the figure of over 163dph for 2011/12. As ever there is 
wide variation between boroughs. The highest densities are in Tower Hamlets (461 dph) and Islington (405dph). Revisions to the data for 2013/14 mean that Tower Hamlets has approved permissions at the highest average density for three of the past four years. The lowest density is again in Bromley. The 39dph figure is higher than their figure of 30dph in 2013/14.

3.28	 Excluding the office to residential prior approvals, the density of approvals across 
London is slightly lower at 151dph.

## Starts

3.29	 In the LDD a 'start' is the point at which a planning permission can no longer 
lapse due to the acknowledgement of a legal start on site. This can be triggered 
by demolition of existing buildings or preparatory digging, and does not mean the start of physical construction work on an individual building. Annual starts include all units in planning permissions that are started during the year unless they are superseded by a revision to the scheme within the same year. Many of the permissions started will be for revisions to previously approved schemes or provide details of the phasing of outline permissions that have been started in previous years. As with approvals, starts can't simply be added together to give a cumulative total. They are however comparable year on year.
3.30	 Table HPM9 shows net conventional housing 'starts' by tenure. LDD records 
42,736 starts, below the revised figure for 2013/14 of 50,954 but still a big increase on the 29,637 in 2012/13. 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 2014/15 may 
be revised upwards by the time of AMR 13.
3.31	 In terms of tenure, 18% of net starts in 2014/15 were affordable housing. Social 
rented units account for 34% of net affordable starts, intermediate units 44% and Affordable Rent 22%. In gross terms social rented units account for 44% of affordable starts, reflecting the ongoing process of estate redevelopment and improvement.
3.32	 As in previous years the majority of the units recorded as starts contain 1 and 2 
bedrooms, with properties of 3 bedrooms or more making up 20% of starts (see HPM10).

## The Pipeline Of New Homes

3.33	 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.

3.34	 Table 3.4 shows the net pipeline as at the end of each financial year (31st March) at 
London level since 2004/05. The number of units in the pipeline continues to rise, now topping 260,000 units, meaning there is capacity within the planning system to deliver over 8 years of supply at the target level in the London Plan 2011, and six years at the new 42,000 target in the 2015 London Plan.
3.35	 Table HPM11 shows the planning pipeline for conventional residential units as of 
31 March 2015. At the end of the year there were 128,171 units (net) in schemes which have been granted planning permission but on which construction had not started and 133,472 units (net) in schemes under construction. The boroughs with the largest pipeline remain those in the East, long viewed as the part of London with the most potential to accommodate growth. Tower Hamlets now has the largest net pipeline at 33,648 units. Greenwich has a net pipeline of nearly 27,745 units and Newham's pipeline stands at 21,516. Further West, Wandsworth has a total net pipeline of 19,861 units. At the other end of the scale, the City of London have a total pipeline of 929 units, while Kingston upon Thames (1,419) and Merton (1,447) also have a net pipeline of under 1,500 units. 
3.36	 HPM 12 shows the gross conventional pipeline by number of bedrooms. 22% of 
units for which the information is available will provide 3 bedrooms or more, the same as last year.

## Gypsy And Traveller Sites

3.37	 A total of 5 traveller pitches were granted permission during 2014/15; 1 at 
Lonesome Depot in Lambeth (14/05864/RG3) and 4 at Grove Place in Sutton (C2014/70617). The 4 pitches in Sutton were also started during this year. There are no other sites from previous years in the pipeline.

| BOROUGH         | LOSSES   | GAINS   | NET    |
|-----------------|----------|---------|--------|
| Barking and     |          |         |        |
| Dagenham        |          |         |        |
| 538             | 1,050    | 512     | 1,041  |
| Barnet          | 68       | 1,395   | 1,327  |
| Bexley          | 16       | 827     | 811    |
| Brent           | 136      | 1,741   | 1,605  |
| Bromley         | 167      | 574     | 407    |
| Camden          | 96       | 555     | 459    |
| City of London  | 5        | 231     | 226    |
| Croydon         | 106      | 1,626   | 1,520  |
| Ealing          | 237      | 1,120   | 883    |
| Enfield         | 54       | 455     | 401    |
| Greenwich       | 26       | 1,172   | 1,146  |
| Hackney         | 63       | 1,675   | 1,612  |
| Hammersmith and |          |         |        |
| Fulham          |          |         |        |
| 166             | 981      | 815     | 564    |
| Haringey        | 121      | 750     | 629    |
| Harrow          | 43       | 453     | 410    |
| Havering        | 10       | 652     | 642    |
| Hillingdon      | 29       | 956     | 927    |
| Hounslow        | 87       | 984     | 897    |
| Islington       | 74       | 935     | 861    |
| Kensington and  |          |         |        |
| Chelsea         |          |         |        |
| 277             | 1,259    | 982     | 530    |
| Kingston upon   |          |         |        |
| Thames          |          |         |        |
| 26              | 552      | 526     | 329    |
| Lambeth         | 196      | 1,602   | 1,406  |
| Lewisham        | 98       | 1,538   | 1,440  |
| Merton          | 176      | 597     | 421    |
| Newham          | 139      | 2,067   | 1,928  |
| Redbridge       | 18       | 275     | 257    |
| Richmond upon   |          |         |        |
| Thames          |          |         |        |
| 91              | 384      | 293     | 210    |
| Southwark       | 398      | 1,539   | 1,141  |
| Sutton          | 45       | 472     | 427    |
| Tower Hamlets   | 15       | 945     | 930    |
| Waltham Forest  | 53       | 725     | 672    |
| Wandsworth      | 149      | 1,090   | 941    |
| Westminster     | 331      | 1,068   | 737    |
| London          | 4,054    | 32,245  | 28,191 |

Source: London Development Database

LONDON PLAN FALP BENCHMARK
SUPPLY AS % OF BENCHMARK
LOST
GAINED NET
LOST
GAINED NET
LOST
GAINED NET
LOST
GAINED
NET
BOROUGH
NEW BUILD
CONVERSION
CHANGE OF USE
TOTAL
Barking and 
Dagenham
531 970 439
7
16
9 0
64 64
538
1,050
512
Barnet
46
1,300 1,254
21 51 30
1
44 43 68
1,395 1,327
Bexley
1
758 757
13 30 17
2
39 37 16
827 811
Brent
77
1,602 1,525
57 60
3 2
79 77
136
1,741 1,605
Bromley
138 419 281
26 61 35
3
94 91
167 574 407
Camden
33
319 286
60 74 14
3
162 159
96
555 459
City of London
0
75 75
1 2 1 4
154 150
5
231 226
Croydon
26
1,133 1,107
61
184 123
19
309 290 106
1,626 1,520
Ealing
153 819 666
79
162
83
5
139 134 237
1,120
883
Enfield
11
245 234
41 88 47
2
122 120
54
455 401
Greenwich
11
1,122 1,111
14 28 14
1
22 21 26
1,172 1,146
Hackney
12
1,532 1,520
51 82 31
0
61 61 63
1,675 1,612
Hammersmith 
and Fulham
5
527 522 151 243
92 10
211 201 166 981 815
Haringey
34
495 461
83
174
91
4
81 77
121 750 629
Harrow
9
295 286
34 75 41
0
83 83 43
453 410
Havering
8
609 601
2 8 6 0
35 35 10
652 642
Hillingdon
24
906 882
4
17 13
1
33 32 29
956 927
Hounslow
73
948 875
10 18
8 4
18 14 87
984 897
Islington
2
475 473
70
180 110
2
280 278
74
935 861
Kensington 
and Chelsea
43
1,005
962 215 165
-50
19 89 70
277
1,259
982
Kingston upon 
Thames
16
395 379
7
13
6 3
144 141
26
552 526
Lambeth
50
1,103 1,053
140 254 114
6
245 239 196
1,602 1,406
Lewisham
41
1,359 1,318
55
125
70
2
54 52 98
1,538 1,440
Merton
138 485 347
33 51 18
5
61 56
176 597 421
Newham
11
1,832 1,821
121 188
67
7
47 40
139
2,066 1,928
Redbridge
2
229 227
16 29 13
0
17 17 18
275 257
LOST
GAINED NET
LOST
GAINED NET
LOST
GAINED NET
LOST
GAINED
NET
BOROUGH
NEW BUILD
CONVERSION
CHANGE OF USE
TOTAL
Richmond 
upon Thames
12 64 52 73 54
-19
6
266 260
91
384 293
Southwark
351
1,278
927
44 83 39
3
178 175 398
1,539 1,141
Sutton
10
307 297
26 46 20
9
119 110
45
472 427
Tower Hamlets
15
936 921
0 2 2 0 7 7
15
945 930
Waltham 
Forest
5
564 559
43 74 31
5
87 82 53
725 672
Wandsworth
51
812 761
89
133
44
9
145 136 149
1,090
941
Westminster
96
441 345 192 162
-30
43
465 422 331
1,068
737
London
2,035
25,359 23,324
1,839 2,931 1,092
180
3,954 3,774
4,054
32,244 28,191

Source: London Development Database

Hammersmith and 
Enfield
106 137
0
123
41
0
34 35 16
492
Greenwich
74 13
0
450 217
12
195
88
3
1,052
Hackney
379 184
13
405 169
0
350 137
11
1,648
Ealing
194 132
0
63
115
7
85
-36
10
570
Camden
194 105
0
159
29
13
34 27
0
561
City
0 0 0
24
0 0 0 0 0
24
Croydon
255
98 62 57 59 60
296
91
251
1,229
Barking and 
Dagenham
167
76
0
370
17
201
-101
115
0
845
Barnet
285 123
0
223
55
42
245
63 60
1,096
Bexley
18 12
0
99 47
20
44 78 48
366
Brent
174
50
0
151
92
0
294 274 138
1,173
Bromley
-82
14
0
110
30
0
-92
23 15 18
Redbridge
44
8 0 1 1 0 7 8 1
Merton
98 98
0
50 74
14
37 31 26
Newham
64
160
81
334 169
0
320 192
56
Kensington and 
Chelsea
0 0 4
143
21
0
135
61
0
364
Kingston upon 
Thames
29
9 0
48 23
13
37 16
6
181
Lambeth
174
95
0
236
97
13
150 142
66
973
Lewisham
228 265
70
103
52
0
241 164
13
1,136
Islington
137 178
0
117 241
0
196
24
0
893
Havering
95 32
0
120
50
67
8
21
247 640
Hillingdon
277 129
0
59 34
0
51 27
0
577
Hounslow
28 21
0
20 60
0
96
103
80
408
Haringey
204 148
0
68 82
0
49
217 139 907
Harrow
187
95 28 10 23
0
41 55
0
439
Fulham
5
102
0
-11
107
0 1
171
0
375
RENT
Total
SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT
SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
Westminster
97 28
0 9
38
0
25 23
0
220
London
4,441 2,911
258
3,820 2,501
613
3,000 2,564 1,421
21,529
Wandsworth
199 109
0
49
175
0
65 56 23
676
Sutton
70 33
0
17
5
27
88 25
8
273
Tower Hamlets
172 102
0
107
43
0
174
77
0
675
Waltham Forest
125 144
0
-234
147
90 24
110 147 553
BOROUGH NAME
Richmond upon 
Thames
118
49
0
81 28
0 5 0 0
281
Southwark
326 162
0
259 160
34
-134
146
57
1,010
NET CONVENTIONAL SUPPLY
, 2012/13 TO 2014/15
BOROUGH
TOTAL NET CONVENTIONAL AFFORDABLE COMPLETIONS 2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
Barking and Dagenham
243
588
14
48%
68%
3%
Barnet
408
320
368
29%
26%
28%
Bexley
30
166
170
7%
31%
21%
Brent
224
243
706
34%
35%
44%
Bromley
-68
140
-54
-13%
21%
-13%
Camden
299
201
61
53%
40%
13%
City of London
0
24
0
0%
6%
0%
Croydon
415
176
638
46%
14%
42%
Ealing
326
185
59
32%
25%
7%
Enfield
243
164
85
44%
32%
21%
Greenwich
87
679
286
27%
51%
25%
Hackney
576
574
498
46%
47%
31%
Hammersmith and Fulham
107
96
172
24%
15%
21%
Haringey
352
150
405
58%
33%
64%
Harrow
310
33
96
44%
11%
23%
Havering
127
237
276
45%
34%
43%
Hillingdon
406
93
78
26%
15%
8%
Hounslow
49
80
279
21%
9%
31%
Islington
315
358
220
30%
29%
26%
Kensington and Chelsea
4
164
196
7%
70%
20%
Kingston upon Thames
38
84
59
18%
32%
11%
Lambeth
269
346
358
42%
30%
25%
Lewisham
563
155
418
33%
22%
29%
Merton
196
138
94
43%
31%
22%
Newham
305
503
568
30%
25%
29%
Redbridge
52
2
16
20%
1%
6%
Richmond upon Thames
167
109
5
34%
29%
2%
Southwark
488
453
69
46%
27%
6%
Sutton
103
49
121
44%
13%
28%
Tower Hamlets
274
150
251
26%
17%
27%
Waltham Forest
269
3
281
59%
1%
42%
Wandsworth
308
224
144
34%
19%
15%
Westminster
125
47
48
22%
9%
7%
London
7,610
6,934
6,985
34%
27%
25%
Source: London Development Database
AFFORDABLE AS % OF NET CONVENTIONAL SUPPLY
BEDROOMS 2014/15 BOROUGH
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 1
2
3
4+
% 3+
Barking and Dagenham
349
388
270
43
30%
Barnet
305
771
244
75
23%
Bexley
227
496
63
41
13%
Brent
663
754
269
55
19%
Bromley
131
264
98
81
31%
Camden
187
223
91
54
26%
City of London
136
87
7
1
3%
Croydon
751
665
123
87
13%
Ealing
385
506
149
80
20%
Enfield
173
171
78
28
24%
Greenwich
296
552
260
64
28%
Hackney
596
543
429
107
32%
Hammersmith and Fulham
452
340
141
48
19%
Haringey
313
293
106
38
19%
Harrow
161
202
60
30
20%
Havering
104
276
183
80
41%
Hillingdon
329
162
138
327
49%
Hounslow
256
438
251
39
29%
Islington
439
348
102
38
15%
Kensington and Chelsea
384
532
240
103
27%
Kingston upon Thames
254
185
81
32
20%
Lambeth
570
791
172
69
15%
Lewisham
560
605
328
45
24%
Merton
209
195
81
112
32%
Newham
525
935
478
129
29%
Redbridge
117
68
50
40
33%
Richmond upon Thames
177
151
18
38
15%
Southwark
479
782
202
76
18%
Sutton
286
129
35
22
12%
Tower Hamlets
398
353
158
36
21%
Waltham Forest
237
369
101
18
16%
Wandsworth
404
497
100
89
17%
Westminster
310
372
300
86
36%
London
11,163
13,443
5,406
2,211
24%

Source: London Development Database

COMPLETIONS BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 2014/15 BOROUGH
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 1
2
3
4+
% 3+
Barking and Dagenham
178
170
157
33
35%
Barnet
116
179
67
6
20%
Bexley
39
98
27
6
19%
Brent
230
322
184
36
28%
Bromley
3
27
15
5
40%
Camden
26
30
15
10
31%
City of London
0
0
0
0
0%
Croydon
283
243
69
48
18%
Ealing
56
109
20
15
18%
Enfield
23
34
19
9
33%
Greenwich
105
127
54
0
19%
Hackney
113
146
192
75
51%
Hammersmith and Fulham
117
35
20
0
12%
Haringey
119
203
66
18
21%
Harrow
31
48
9
8
18%
Havering
49
124
66
37
37%
Hillingdon
10
32
20
16
46%
Hounslow
85
122
122
14
40%
Islington
62
86
55
18
33%
Kensington and Chelsea
38
94
37
28
33%
Kingston upon Thames
23
25
9
2
19%
Lambeth
126
174
79
11
23%
Lewisham
126
216
75
33
24%
Merton
83
78
18
1
11%
Newham
180
277
107
69
28%
Redbridge
2
6
4
5
53%
Richmond upon Thames
9
4
1
1
13%
Southwark
77
153
94
32
35%
Sutton
88
25
12
9
16%
Tower Hamlets
78
83
68
34
39%
Waltham Forest
79
133
59
14
26%
Wandsworth
80
46
12
6
13%
Westminster
22
18
12
0
23%
London
2,656
3,467
1,764
599
28%

Source: Londion Development Database

% 
RENT RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT
MARKET SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT MARKET
SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
EXISTING
PROPOSED
NET
NET 
AFF.
MARKET SOCIAL 
BOROUGH 
NAME
Barking and 
Dagenham
382 989
0 0
999
38
539 500 617
-951
539 500
12%
Barnet
177
0 0 0
2,084
32
9 0
1,907
32
9 0
2%
Bexley
35
0 0 0
406
3 9
42
371
3 9
42
13%
Brent
165
193
0 0
1,271
145
48 58
1,106
-48
48 58
5%
Bromley
102
0 0 0
1,183
24 20 85
1,081
24 20 85
11%
Camden
255
322
2 0
2,720
547 204
53
2,465
225 202
53
16%
City of 
London
27
0 0 0
190
0 0
27
163
0 0
27
14%
Croydon
123
51
0 1
3,979
85
159 139
3,856
34
159 138
8%
Ealing
231 204
0 0
1,840
277 295
14
1,609
73
295
14
19%
Enfield
93
110
0 6
800
59 33 11
707
-51
33
5
-2%
Greenwich
77
417
0 0
3,445
791 191
18
3,368
374 191
18
15%
Hackney
181
1,475
269
0
3,681
736 802
43
3,500
-739
533
43
-5%
Hammersmith 
and Fulham
251
11
1 0
4,705
111 316
69
4,454
100 315
69
10%
Haringey
168
42
0 0
1,119
220 116
35
951 178 116
35
26%
Harrow
75 40
0 0
1,139
0
56
0
1,064
-40
56
0
1%
Havering
29 48
0 0
972
44 41
2
943
-4
41
2
4%
Hillingdon
60
0 0 0
1,274
105
27
0
1,214
105
27
0
10%
Hounslow
53 25
0 0
1,958
150
66 44
1,905
125
66 44
11%
Islington
95 19
0 0
1,857
219 239 144
1,762
200 239 144
25%
Kensington 
and Chelsea
282
0 0 0
1,302
275
11
0
1,020
275
11
0
22%
Kingston 
upon Thames
64
0 0 0
1,002
16 50
2
938
16 50
2
7%
Lambeth
146
41
0 0
4,375
323 324 267
4,229
282 324 267
17%
Lewisham
82
0 0
46
1,622
106
54
229
1,540
106
54
183
18%
Merton
89 41
0 0
601
5
46
0
512
-36
46
0
2%
Newham
70 32 33
0
1,971
20
213 177
1,901
-12
180 177
15%
% 
RENT RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT
MARKET SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
RENT MARKET
SOCIAL 
RENT
INT.
AFF. 
EXISTING
PROPOSED
NET
NET 
AFF.
MARKET SOCIAL 
BOROUGH 
NAME
Redbridge
37
4 0 0
848
74 21 30
811
70 21 30
13%
Richmond 
upon Thames
140
0 0 0
1,036
65
1 0
896
65
1 0
7%
Southwark
122 242
1 0
2,654
388 337 124
2,532
146 336 124
19%
Sutton
65
4 0 0
1,293
52
2
12
1,228
48
2
12
5%
Tower 
Hamlets
80 80
0
17
8,325
822 562 605
8,245
742 562 588
19%
Waltham 
Forest
84
0 0 0
843
0
113
78
759
0
113
78
20%
Wandsworth
250
12 39
0
4,805
397 397
0
4,555
385 358
0
14%
Westminster
512
61
0 0
2,768
145 170
37
2,256
84
170
37
11%
London
4,602 4,463
345
70
69067
6274 5471
2845
64465
1811 5126
2775
13%
Source: London Development Database
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 2014/15
BOROUGH
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 1
2
3
4+
% 3+
Barking and Dagenham
583
808
443
242
33%
Barnet
851
824
339
94
20%
Bexley
184
159
51
66
25%
Brent
682
545
207
71
18%
Bromley
479
509
128
196
25%
Camden
1,432
1,438
517
137
19%
City of London
131
67
16
3
9%
Croydon
2,453
1,304
479
356
18%
Ealing
952
951
405
118
22%
Enfield
427
286
132
58
21%
Greenwich
1,596
1,899
833
117
21%
Hackney
2,096
1,980
962
223
23%
Hammersmith and Fulham
2,806
1,761
549
83
12%
Haringey
681
623
146
45
13%
Harrow
689
414
73
19
8%
Havering
255
381
332
91
40%
Hillingdon
619
425
107
41
11%
Hounslow
1,061
750
335
72
18%
Islington
1,162
901
285
82
15%
Kensington and Chelsea
541
443
388
216
38%
Kingston upon Thames
479
431
71
89
15%
Lambeth
2,233
2,226
669
161
16%
Lewisham
1,075
668
207
61
13%
Merton
350
179
52
47
15%
Newham
842
1,471
186
16
8%
Redbridge
396
349
137
91
23%
Richmond upon Thames
385
411
194
108
27%
Southwark
1,208
1,643
567
84
19%
Sutton
627
565
109
58
12%
Tower Hamlets
4,968
4,123
1,377
241
15%
Waltham Forest
406
384
210
34
24%
Wandsworth
1,597
2,752
1,100
148
22%
Westminster
958
1,105
821
236
34%
London
35,204
32,775
12,427
3,704
19%

Source: London Development Database

RENT PRS
SOC. 
RENT INT.
AFF. 
KET
RENT PRS
MAR-
SOC. 
RENT INT.
AFF. 
KET
RENT PRS
MAR-
SOC. 
RENT INT.
AFF. 
EXISTING
PROPOSED
NET
% 
MAR-
KET
aff.
BOROUGH 
NAME
Barking and 
Dagenham
73
152
0 0 0
208 192
20 36
0
135
40 20 36
0
42%
Barnet
23
0 0 0 0
694 112
90
8 0
671 112
90
8 0
24%
Bexley
20
1 0 0 0
399
55
4 0 0
379
54
4 0 0
13%
Brent
92
6 0 0
0 1,309
114 115
58
0 1,217
108 115
58
0
19%
Bromley
39
0 0 0 0
327
7 5 5 0
288
7 5 5 0
6%
Camden
64 93
0 0
0 1,001
207
83 31
0
937 114
83 31
0
20%
City of 
London
10
0 0 0 0
669
0 0 0 0
659
0 0 0 0
0%
Croydon
81
6 0 0
0 1,694
121
60
157
0 1,613
115
60
157
0
17%
Ealing
162 147
0 0 0
584 210 115
10
0
422
63
115
10
0
31%
Enfield
51 77
0 0 0
370
62 48
6 0
319
-15
48
6 0
11%
Greenwich
66 45
0 0
0 2,064
436 274
76
0 1,998
391 274
76
0
27%
Hackney
56
9 0 0 0
309
59 36
0 0
253
50 36
0 0
25%
Hammersmith 
and Fulham
172
24
0 0 0
692
5
128
28
0
520
-19
128
28
0
21%
Haringey
72
1 0 0 0
291
0 0 0 0
219
-1
0 0 0
-0%
Harrow
47
0 0 0
0 1,007
28 35 43
0
960
28 35 43
0
10%
Havering
11
0 0 0 0
229
8
16
7 0
218
8
16
7 0
12%
Hillingdon
9 0 0 0 0
599
4
18
0 0
590
4
18
0 0
4%
Hounslow
22 34
0 0 0
573 264
43 12
0
551 230
43 12
0
34%
Islington
79
0 0 0
0 1,258
37
191 144
0 1,179
37
191 144
0
24%
Kensington 
and Chelsea
271
9 0 0
0 1,558
110
69
7
0 1,287
101
69
7 0
12%
Kingston 
upon Thames
59 36
1 0 0
233
28
2 1 0
174
-8
1 1 0
-4%
Lambeth
146 262
0 0
0 1,797
386 207
62
0 1,651
124 207
62
0
19%
Lewisham
105 151
0
46
0 2,030
190 378 130
0 1,925
39
378
84
0
21%
Merton
70
0 0 0 0
544
44 56
0 0
474
44 56
0 0
17%
Newham
70 32 33
0
0 6,221
420 535 301
134 6,151
388 502 301 134
16%
RENT PRS
SOC. 
RENT INT.
AFF. 
113 2,533 3,283 1,673
134
18%
KET
RENT PRS
MAR-
SOC. 
RENT INT.
AFF. 
971 4.002 3.321 1.719
134
35,
KET
RENT PRS
MAR-
SOC. 
RENT INT.
AFF. 
EXISTING
PROPOSED
NET
% 
MAR-
KET
aff.
BOROUGH 
NAME
Redbridge
14
1 0 0 0
319
2 9
30
0
305
1 9
30
0
12%
Richmond 
upon Thames
93
0 1 0 0
784
80 16
0 0
691
80 15
0 0
12%
Southwark
130 327
3 0
0 2,476
311 231 104
0 2,346
-16
228 104
0
12%
Sutton
46 12
0 0 0
640
2
18 23
0
594
-10
18 23
0
5%
Tower 
Hamlets
14 30
0 0
0 3,752
453 163
58
0 3,738
423 163
58
0
15%
Waltham 
Forest
76
4 0 0 0
587
0
203 363
0
511
-4
203 363
0
52%
Wandsworth
115
8 0 0
0 1,036
25 80
4 0
921
17 80
4 0
10%
Westminster
500
2 0 0
0 1,717
30 73 15
0 1,217
28 73 15
0
9%
London
2,858 1,469
38
46
0
37.
BEDROOMS 2014/15 BOROUGH
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 1
2
3
4+
% 3+
Barking and Dagenham
121
166
139
30
37%
Barnet
263
458
96
87
20%
Bexley
89
208
129
32
35%
Brent
534
608
254
200
28%
Bromley
156
133
26
29
16%
Camden
532
517
228
45
21%
City of London
284
310
68
7
11%
Croydon
1,213
619
130
70
10%
Ealing
366
379
112
62
19%
Enfield
202
157
99
28
26%
Greenwich
989
1,276
522
63
21%
Hackney
148
127
88
41
32%
Hammersmith and 
Fulham
344
287
151
71
26%
Haringey
157
94
26
14
14%
Harrow
462
540
84
27
10%
Havering
42
75
103
31
53%
Hillingdon
312
263
39
7
7%
Hounslow
414
338
109
31
16%
Islington
874
528
194
31
14%
Kensington and Chelsea
634
445
411
254
38%
Kingston upon Thames
103
83
35
43
30%
Lambeth
971
1,138
271
72
14%
Lewisham
1,078
1,284
277
89
13%
Merton
319
225
58
42
16%
Newham
2,703
3,515
1,108
285
18%
Redbridge
105
122
58
75
37%
Richmond upon Thames
324
371
102
82
21%
Southwark
1,131
1,398
531
62
19%
Sutton
337
259
46
41
13%
Tower Hamlets
2,095
1,528
688
115
18%
Waltham Forest
383
463
235
72
27%
Wandsworth
323
533
233
56
25%
Westminster
520
633
528
154
37%
London
18,528
19,080
7,178
2,348
20%

Source: London Development Database

NOT STARTED
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL PIPELINE
BOROUGH NAME
EXISTING GROSS
NET
EXISTING
GROSS
NET
EXISTING GROSS
NET
Barking and Dagenham
1,373 3,888 2,515
289
11,145 10,856
1662
15033 13371
Barnet
1,095
12,091 10,996
2,414 6,090 3,676
3509
18181 14672
Bexley
173
1,009
836 655
1,439
784 828
2448 1620
Brent
646
2,469 1,823
63
5,546 5,483
709
8015 7306
Bromley
218
1,860 1,642
69
948 879 287
2808 2521
Camden
768
3,436 2,668
624
4,468 3,844
1392 7904 6512
City of London
20
493 473
5
461 456
25
954 929
Croydon
184
5,089 4,905
52
3,231 3,179
236
8320 8084
Ealing
509
6,799 6,290 3,282 4,607 1,325
3791
11406
7615
Enfield
137
1,092
955 341
1,583 1,242
478
2675 2197
Greenwich
524
10,138
9,614 2,073
20,204 18,131
2597
30342 27745
Hackney
522
4,044 3,522 2,710 6,160 3,450
3232
10204
6972
Hammersmith and 
Fulham
927
10,359
9,432
200
4,274 4,074
1127
14633 13506
Haringey
264
3,264 3,000
50
771 721 314
4035 3721
Harrow
138
2,597 2,459
406
1,892 1,486
544
4489 3945
Havering
288
1,300 1,012
368
2,848 2,480
656
4148 3492
Hillingdon
161
2,277 2,116
50
2,424 2,374
211
4701 4490
Hounslow
54
2,820 2,766
95
1,955 1,860
149
4775 4626
Islington
112
1,649 1,537
368
3,795 3,427
480
5444 4964
Kensington and 
Chelsea
184 979 795 894
3,296 2,402
1078 4275 3197
Kingston upon Thames
64
1,152 1,088
100 431 331 164
1583 1419
Lambeth
246
4,534 4,288 1,720 6,036 4,316
1966
10570
8604
Lewisham
82
4,562 4,480
314
4,847 4,533
396
9409 9013
Merton
153 800 647
92
892 800 245
1692 1447
Newham
16
10,353 10,337
362
11,163 10,801
378
21516 21138
Redbridge
153
1,286 1,133
19
479 460 172
1765 1593
Richmond upon 
Thames
172
1,149
977 112 962 850 284
2111 1827
NOT STARTED
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL PIPELINE
BOROUGH NAME
EXISTING GROSS
NET
EXISTING
GROSS
NET
EXISTING GROSS
NET
Southwark
555
5,406 4,851 1,607 8,801 7,194
2162
14207 12045
Sutton
142
2,103 1,961
693 865 172 835
2968 2133
Tower Hamlets
768
17,164 16,396
1,584
16,484 14,900
2352
33648 31296
Waltham Forest
49
1,738 1,689
55
1,687 1,632
104
3425 3321
Wandsworth
297
7,804 7,507
544
12,057 11,513
841
19861 19020
Westminster
635
4,096 3,461
590
4,431 3,841
1225 8527 7302
London
11629
139800 128171
22800
156272 133472
34429
296072 261643

Source: London Development Database

NUMBER OF BEDROOMS BOROUGH
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 1
2
3
4+
% 3+
Barking and Dagenham
2478
6750
4047
1758
39%
Barnet
5377
7459
2575
930
21%
Bexley
507
1191
470
280
31%
Brent
2847
3351
1446
354
23%
Bromley
934
1173
308
393
25%
Camden
2952
3180
1293
478
22%
City of London
437
388
99
30
14%
Croydon
3927
3113
862
418
15%
Ealing
3543
4860
2328
675
26%
Enfield
847
946
589
293
33%
Greenwich
12724
11473
4883
492
18%
Hackney
3934
3975
1819
475
22%
Hammersmith and 
Fulham
6659
5163
2170
639
19%
Haringey
2201
1338
331
150
12%
Harrow
1602
1935
562
390
21%
Havering
1216
1634
907
391
31%
Hillingdon
1551
2154
522
260
17%
Hounslow
2115
1735
754
171
19%
Islington
2378
2199
651
189
16%
Kensington and Chelsea
1435
1401
996
443
34%
Kingston upon Thames
624
682
120
157
17%
Lambeth
4029
4646
1537
358
18%
Lewisham
3555
4559
984
310
14%
Merton
747
610
178
133
19%
Newham
5084
6565
2748
569
22%
Redbridge
735
676
241
113
20%
Richmond upon Thames
761
860
273
213
23%
Southwark
4800
6067
2805
534
24%
Sutton
1132
1407
300
128
14%
Tower Hamlets
14509
12338
5606
1184
20%
Waltham Forest
1116
1498
661
150
24%
Wandsworth
5803
9689
3491
873
22%
Westminster
2449
3000
2434
576
36%
London
105,008
118,015
48,990
14,507
22%

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

TABLE HPM 13: DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL APPROVALS BY BOROUGH (DPH) BOROUGH
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
130
273
126
67
71
100
Barking and Dagenham Barnet
102
100
70
52
81
82
Bexley
83
80
101
64
77
56
Brent
182
185
146
134
193
154
Bromley
49
52
35
40
30
39
Camden
140
139
181
188
131
169
City of London
235
457
469
447
440
340
Croydon
97
141
153
121
165
102
Ealing
153
142
112
103
120
122
Enfield
72
61
61
91
75
73
Greenwich
145
337
239
233
239
233
Hackney
277
211
236
187
244
389
300
181
243
218
391
281
Hammersmith and Fulham
Haringey
107
117
214
150
102
141
Harrow
83
63
89
92
68
130
Havering
99
122
58
57
46
57
Hillingdon
39
57
70
60
55
76
Hounslow
62
75
124
67
138
201
Islington
271
293
285
193
232
407
195
225
192
162
140
178
Kensington and Chelsea
64
63
50
34
58
83
Kingston upon Thames Lambeth
195
183
168
226
215
355
Lewisham
229
133
230
128
143
139
Merton
69
65
75
46
64
95
Newham
266
398
372
127
167
285
Redbridge
373
158
108
71
99
97
46
106
71
53
91
93
Richmond upon Thames Southwark
230
224
209
365
297
221
Sutton
58
57
106
57
146
120
Tower Hamlets
362
318
477
220
442
461
Waltham Forest
121
111
144
128
141
142
Wandsworth
142
206
290
194
161
133
Westminster
199
206
218
195
191
167
London
149
136
163
128
148
160

Source: London Development Database

TABLE HPM 14: DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL COMPLETIONS BY BOROUGH (DPH) BOROUGH
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
Barking and Dagenham
238
111
57
166
152
75
Barnet
64
84
80
101
94
77
Bexley
81
65
70
98
63
110
Brent
150
156
141
141
129
110
Bromley
30
49
46
48
31
44
Camden
184
188
118
186
177
190
City of London
500
306
857
376
808
478
Croydon
121
101
75
82
76
97
Ealing
110
112
103
101
121
105
Enfield
61
86
59
73
98
70
Greenwich
110
239
217
98
102
252
Hackney
245
198
223
245
234
264
Hammersmith and Fulham
209
231
283
158
217
184
Haringey
108
106
148
147
110
125
Harrow
116
79
60
93
83
82
Havering
72
53
66
49
29
49
Hillingdon
94
44
25
102
61
55
Hounslow
184
94
78
51
116
131
Islington
199
187
296
207
215
235
Kensington and Chelsea
126
194
153
157
112
229
Kingston upon Thames
45
52
90
66
53
70
Lambeth
157
290
167
158
199
165
Lewisham
188
164
160
140
174
143
Merton
67
101
78
132
93
45
Newham
240
216
165
253
313
281
Redbridge
100
218
172
84
84
63
Richmond upon Thames
71
54
59
101
96
62
Southwark
226
372
213
165
190
230
Sutton
66
66
79
97
50
53
Tower Hamlets
354
361
284
261
295
350
Waltham Forest
117
160
125
133
114
136
Wandsworth
165
104
125
151
111
212
Westminster
260
142
195
214
217
186
London
136
129
112
122
122
124

Source: London Development Database

TABLE HPM 15: CLASS J PRIOR APPROVALS BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 2014/15 BOROUGH
NUMBER OF EDROOMS
PERCENTAGE
1
2
3
4+
N/K
% 1
% 2
% 3+
34
40
1
0
0
45%
53%
1%
Barking and Dagenham
Barnet
424
243
14
2
5
62%
36%
2%
Bexley
62
25
0
0
0
71%
29%
0%
Brent
301
68
3
0
17
81%
18%
1%
Bromley
346
142
6
2
0
70%
29%
2%
Camden
434
250
34
4
0
60%
35%
5%
City of London
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Croydon
1,451
451
16
0
0
76%
24%
1%
Ealing
159
70
4
0
0
68%
30%
2%
Enfield
220
57
3
0
0
79%
20%
1%
Greenwich
38
22
1
1
0
61%
35%
3%
Hackney
29
13
9
1
1
56%
25%
19%
169
156
28
1
2
48%
44%
8%
Hammersmith and 
Fulham
Haringey
148
14
3
0
0
90%
8%
2%
Harrow
508
166
6
0
0
75%
24%
1%
Havering
82
34
0
0
0
71%
29%
0%
Hillingdon
313
40
3
0
214
88%
11%
1%
Hounslow
457
121
2
0
0
79%
21%
0%
Islington
225
96
9
4
29
67%
29%
4%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Kensington and Chelsea
260
128
9
3
0
65%
32%
3%
Kingston upon Thames
Lambeth
385
99
18
1
0
77%
20%
4%
Lewisham
386
99
0
0
0
80%
20%
0%
Merton
213
71
7
3
24
72%
24%
3%
Newham
81
41
0
0
0
66%
34%
0%
Redbridge
122
26
0
0
0
82%
18%
0%
212
173
36
4
2
50%
41%
9%
Richmond upon Thames
Southwark
53
57
4
0
0
46%
50%
4%
Sutton
419
306
15
1
0
57%
41%
2%
Tower Hamlets
217
98
6
4
0
67%
30%
3%
Waltham Forest
92
27
1
0
0
77%
23%
1%
Wandsworth
213
223
39
1
1
45%
47%
8%
Westminster
34
40
15
1
0
38%
44%
18%
London
8,087
3,396
292
33
295
68%
29%
3%

Source: London Development Database Note: The Not Knowns are not included in the percentage calculations usi ng d elive ry whil st Southwark delivered over 2,000 units.

and C hels ea re corde d le ss th an ze ro n et ho y as a percentage of the London Plan hous

## Map 3 Net Affordable Housing Delivery As A Percentage Of Net Conventional Housing Delivery 2014/15 Affordable Housing Delivery Monitor

3.38	 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.
3.39	 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.
3.40	 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. 
3.41	 Table AHM2 shows affordable housing delivery in London by type in the four 
years 2011/12 to 2014/15. Over this period a total of 53,430 affordable homes were delivered, of which 23,200 were social rented housing, 17,490 intermediate 
housing and 12,270 were Affordable Rent. 

3.42	 Figure 3.2 shows the trend in total affordable housing delivery in London 
since 1991/92. The 18,270 affordable homes delivered in London in 2014/15 represented the highest figure on record, exceeding the previous peaks in 1995/96 (17,150) and 2011/12 (17,220).

## Intermediate Housing

3.43	 Paragraph 3.62 of the 2015 London Plan sets out the income thresholds for 
intermediate housing and states that these will be updated on an annual basis in 
the London Plan annual monitoring reports. The thresholds are therefore to be updated as follows. Intermediate provision is sub- market housing, where costs, 
including service charges, are above target rents for social rented housing, but where costs, including service charges, are affordable by households on incomes of less than £90,000. This figure has been up-dated on the basis of the latest data (from 2015) on lower quartile house prices in London rounded, and is an increase from the figure of £71,000 in AMR 11.
3.44	 In his 2011 replacement London Plan, the Mayor set out a higher intermediate 
housing income threshold of £74,000 for households with dependents, in order to reflect the higher cost of both developing and buying family-sized homes in London. This figure was derived by uprating the upper income threshold in the Plan (£61,400) by 20%.  However, in line with the Government's approach to shared ownership, from April 2016 people wanting to access intermediate products will no longer be restricted in terms of the size of units they buy or rent. Therefore, a single £90,000 household income will apply to all intermediate housing; in effect removing the higher income cap for families in larger homes. To ensure there is the flexibility to meet the needs of all households, the income cap has been rounded to the nearest £10,000 rather than the nearest £1,000, as it had been previously. 
Intermediate housing can include shared ownership, sub-market rent provision (including the new Affordable Rent product) and market provision, including key worker provision,  where this affordability criterion is met and where provision is appropriate to meeting identified requirements.
3.45	 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 Interim Housing SPG.
3.46	 Local planning authorities should seek to ensure that intermediate provision 
provides for households with a range of incomes below the upper limit, and provides a range of dwelling types in terms of a mix of unit sizes (measured by number of bedrooms), and that average housing costs, including service charges, to households for whom intermediate housing is provided are affordable by households on annual incomes of £55,850 pa. On this basis, average housing 
costs, including service charges, would be about £1,303 a month or £301 a week (housing costs at 40% of net income, net income being assumed to be 70% of gross income). This figure could be used for monitoring purposes.

3.47	 These intermediate income caps are also applied by the GLA to determine 
eligibility for GLA funded intermediate products.

## Local Affordable Housing Policies

3.48	 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 AHM1 shows adopted borough affordable housing policies.

BOROUGH
BOROUGH POLICY TARGET IN 2010
BOROUGH POLICY TARGET % (OR PRACTICE) AS AT 2002
Barking & 
Dagenham
None
None, use London 
Plan
Barnet
30
50%
40% (Sept 2012)
n/a
Bexley
25
35%
Brent
30-50
50%
50% (July 2010)
n/a
Bromley
20
35%
35% (March 2008)
Plan currently being reviewed
Camden
50 Proposed
50% for >50 dwellings10-50% for <50 dwellings
EMERGING BOROUGH POLICY TARGET
ADOPTED BOROUGH POLICY TARGET AS AT DECEMBER 2015 (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE)
Use London Plan 
Policy
n/a
n/a
50% and a minimum of 35% of units to be affordable housing (Feb 2012) 50% for >50 dwellings, 10-50% for <50 Dwellings (Nov2010)
Between 1 and 24 additional homes - starting at 2% for 1 home, increasing by 2% for each added housing capacity. >25 Dwellings - 50%
BOROUGH
BOROUGH POLICY TARGET IN 2010
BOROUGH POLICY TARGET % (OR PRACTICE) AS AT 2002
City of London
None
50%
Croydon
40
40-50%
50% (April 2013)
Ealing
50
50%
50% (April 2012)
n/a
Enfield
25
40%
40% (Nov 2010)
n/a
Greenwich
35
35% min
35% minimum (July 2014)
n/a
Hackney
25
50%
50% (Nov 2010)
 n/a
Hammersmith & Fulham
65
50%
40% (Oct 2011)
Haringey
30
50%
Harrow
30
London Plan
40% (Feb 2012)
n/a
Havering
None
50%
50% (2008)
Emerging
Hillingdon
25
365u/pa (50%)
35% (Nov 2012)
Hounslow
50
445 u/pa (50%)
40% (Sept 2015)
 n/a
Islington
25
45%
50% (Feb 2011)
n/a
Kensington & Chelsea
33
Min of 200 units per an from 2011/12 with site specific policy of 50%affordable by floorarea
Kingston upon Thames
50
35%
50% (April 2012)
n/a
Lambeth
35-50
40% (50% withgrant)
Lewisham
30
35%
50% (June 2011)
Emerging
London Legacy Development Corporation Merton
30
London Plan
40% (July 2011)
n/a
EMERGING BOROUGH POLICY TARGET
ADOPTED BOROUGH POLICY TARGET AS AT DECEMBER 2015 (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE)
n/a
 30% on site and 60% off site (Jan 
2015)
Plan currently 
being reviewed (50%) 
Plan currently being reviewed (min 40% 2015)
50% Affordable Housing on site (March 2013)
Plan currently being reviewed (40% 2016) Plan currently being reviewed (35% Oct 2015) 
50% (Dec 2010)
Plan currently being reviewed (50% Jul 2015) n/a
50% when public subsidy, 40% without (Sep 2015) 35% minimum (July 2015)
n/a
BOROUGH
BOROUGH POLICY TARGET IN 2010
BOROUGH POLICY TARGET % (OR PRACTICE) AS AT 2002
Newham
25
London Plan
50% (Jan 2012)
n/a
Redbridge
25
50%
50% (March 2008)
Emerging
Richmond upon Thames
40
50%
50% (April 2009)
Emerging
Southwark
25
50% overall (40% in CAZ, 35% in E&C and suburban zones)
Sutton
25
50%
50% (Dec 2009)
Emerging
Tower Hamlets
25-33
50% overall, 35- 50% on individual sites
Waltham Forest
40
50%
50% (March 2012)
n/a
Wandsworth
None
Min 373 units per an (to be reviewed on adoption of the LP)
Westminster
-
50% overall
30% (Nov 2013)
Emerging
EMERGING BOROUGH POLICY TARGET
ADOPTED BOROUGH POLICY TARGET AS AT DECEMBER 2015 (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE) 35% (April 2011)
Plan currently being reviewed (35%)
50% overall (Sept 2010)
Emerging
33% minimum (Oct 2010)
Currently being reviewed (onindividual sites at least 33%,in Nine Elms at least 15%)
2013/14 AFFORDABLE HOUSING DELIVERY TYPE
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 TOTAL
Social Rent, of which:
11,370
5,060
3,590
3,180 23,200
  HCA or GLA (new build)
9,070
4,470
2,780
2,140 18,460
  HCA or GLA (acquisitions)
810
160
80
60
1,110
  Affordable Housing Guarantees
 - 
 - 
50
130
180
  HCA or GLA Schemes 2
420
0
40
0
460
  Local authorities
600
120
150
370
1,240
    of which HCA grant funded (new 
build) 3
500
100
110
220
930
  Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total 
4
220
100
260
400
980
    of which, reported on IMS/PCS
80
50
200
340
670
  Private Finance Initiative 5
160
90
0
0
250
  Permanent Affordable Traveller 
Pitches 6
20
0
10
80
110
  Other 7
90
120
210
10
430
Affordable Rent, of which:
130
280
2,250
9,610 12,270
  HCA or GLA (new build)
90
150
1,130
5,880
7,250
  HCA or GLA (acquisitions)
50
80
380
1,370
1,880
  Affordable Housing Guarantees
 - 
 - 
50
600
650
  Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total 
4
0
40
280
830
1,150
    of which, reported on IMS/PCS
0
40
280
830
1,150
  Permanent Affordable Traveller Pitches 6
 - 
0
10
0
10
  Local authorities
0
0
380
910
1,290
  Other7
0
10
20
10
40
Intermediate Affordable Housing 8
5,710
3,360
3,390
5,480 17,940
Intermediate Rent, of which:
890
380
490
40
1,800
  HCA or GLA (new build)
760
330
440
20
1,550
  HCA or GLA (acquisitions)
30
10
0
10
50
  Other 7
110
40
50
10
210
Affordable Home Ownership, of which:
4,820
2,980
2,900
5,450 16,150
  HCA or GLA (new build)
4,190
2,500
1,870
3,860 12,420
  of which FirstBuy
290
600
20
0
910
  HCA or GLA (acquisitions)
100
30
90
120
340
  Affordable Housing Guarantees
 - 
 - 
190
210
400
  Other HCA or GLA Schemes 2
20
0
0
0
20
  Local authorities
10
10
20
50
90
  Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total
210
330
610
1,020
2,170
    of which, reported on IMS/PCS
100
200
610
1,020
1,930
  Assisted Purchase Schemes 9
280
110
120
160
670
  Other 7
20
0
0
30
50
All affordable
17,220
8,710
9,230
18,270 53,430

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

| SOCIAL                 | AFFORDABLE    |
|------------------------|---------------|
| BOROUGH                |               |
| RENT                   | RENT          |
| Barking and Dagenham   | 382           |
| Barnet                 | 167           |
| Bexley                 | 32            |
| Brent                  | 165           |
| Bromley                | 30            |
| Camden                 | 50            |
| City of London         | 43            |
| Croydon                | 58            |
| Ealing                 | 125           |
| Enfield                | 59            |
| Greenwich              | 252           |
| Hackney                | 244           |
| Hammersmith and Fulham | 27            |
| Haringey               | 0             |
| Harrow                 | 1             |
| Havering               | 58            |
| Hillingdon             | 0             |
| Hounslow               | 129           |
| Islington              | 77            |
| Kensington and Chelsea | 75            |
| Kingston upon Thames   | 29            |
| Lambeth                | 207           |
| Lewisham               | 140           |
| Merton                 | 41            |
| Newham                 | 59            |
| Redbridge              | 40            |
| Richmond upon Thames   | 2             |
| Southwark              | 276           |
| Sutton                 | 22            |
| Tower Hamlets          | 288           |
| Waltham Forest         | 28            |
| Wandsworth             | 10            |
| Westminster            | 61            |
| London                 | 3,177         |
| Source: DCLG           |               |
| INTERMEDIATE           | TOTAL         |

## Achieving An Inclusive Environment

3.49	 The LDD has been collecting data on Lifetime and Wheelchair Accessible Homes 
on all approvals since 2008. More details of the standard can be found at http:// www.lifetimehomes.org.uk/index.php. The standards for Wheelchair Housing are contained in the Accessible London SPG which can be found at https://www. london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/accessible-london-achieving-aninclusive-environment. The figures in the table are 'gross' approvals and calculated at scheme level. so units could be counted twice where a revised application for part of a scheme is approved within the same year as the orignial approval (usually through details or reserved matters applications). Percentages are shown rather 
than absolute numbers to avoid confusion as total units will be higher than total 
approvals in the Housing Monitor.
3.50	 Although developers should seek 100% compliance with Lifetime Homes 
standards for all development types, there are often practical difficulties that can arise when seeking to modify existing buildings through conversion or change 
of use. Separate totals are therefore shown for all schemes and for new build schemes for which 100% compliance is a more achievable goal.
3.51	 The data in Table 3.5 shows that compliance with Lifetime Homes standards on all 
approvals is 64%,  down from 75% in 2014/15 and 85% in 2012/13. The total rises to 79.9% for new builds. 7% of all homes, and 8.8% of new builds are designed to be wheelchair accessible, or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users.
3.52	 Despite these standards now being accepted as the norm in London, the 
achievement of London Plan targets of 100% Lifetime Homes and 10% Wheelchair Homes remains out of reach in terms of all units. One of the key reasons is that several boroughs only require compliance on schemes above a 
certain size, often ten units or more, even on new build schemes. The inclusion 
of applications for change of use from office to residential via permitted development has also affected the level of compliance for non-new build schemes. The streamlined application process does not require applicants to provide details of compliance with these standards or permit local authorities to require it. In the absence of better information, the office to residential prior approvals have been assumed to not comply. If these consents are excluded, the % compliance rises to 75%.
3.53	 The Lifetime and wheelchair homes standards were replaced by the Government's 
new technical housing standards on 1st October 2015. More details can be found in the Building Regulations Part M volume 1 which can be downloaded at http:// www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_AD_M1_2015.pdf. These changes are being incorporated into the London Plan in the Minor Alterations to the London Plan 2015/16. The new technical standards include three categories of access to new dwellings; M4(1) Visitable dwellings, M4(2) Accessible and adaptable dwellings and M4(3) Wheelchair user dwellings. Compliance with M4(2) and M4(3) 
will continue to be monitored using the LDD, but the new standards can only be applied to new build dwellings.

ACCESSIBLE HOMES STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS APPROVED DURING FY2014/15 BOROUGH NAME
% LIFETIME HOMES, ALL UNITS
% WHEEL- CHAIR HOMES, ALL UNITS
Barking and Dagenham
95.6
3.5
99.8
3.6
Barnet
50.7
3.9
89.5
6.8
Bexley
46.3
15.1
67.2
21.2
Brent
50.8
4.7
83.1
7.7
Bromley
30.4
2.3
59.3
4.6
Camden
59.7
6.3
89.4
9.0
City of London
79.7
8.8
97.8
10.0
Croydon
40.1
6.3
74.7
12.9
Ealing
68.2
7.2
87.4
9.2
Enfield
44.2
5.6
81.2
11.3
Greenwich
97.4
9.4
99.7
9.3
Hackney
97.1
11.2
99.6
11.6
Hammersmith and Fulham
81.3
8.2
97.9
9.6
Haringey
61.2
9.6
82.8
14.1
Harrow
39.1
7.9
95.7
12.9
Havering
67.9
3.9
79.3
3.2
Hillingdon
58.0
3.9
99.9
6.7
Hounslow
11.8
4.3
15.0
5.0
Islington
74.0
6.6
99.2
8.8
Kensington and Chelsea
30.9
11.7
33.8
12.0
Kingston upon Thames
61.9
4.8
100.0
8.3
Lambeth
82.1
8.5
97.4
10.1
Lewisham
48.8
13.6
70.5
20.9
Merton
48.0
0.0
94.6
0.0
Newham
86.9
9.1
97.3
10.1
Redbridge
72.9
7.1
90.9
9.1
Richmond upon Thames
44.4
3.1
82.1
4.7
Southwark
67.5
8.5
74.7
9.5
Sutton
35.1
4.0
94.2
12.2
Tower Hamlets
75.3
7.8
78.4
8.1
Waltham Forest
71.6
6.0
91.2
7.8
Wandsworth
30.6
2.9
34.9
3.3
Westminster
44.4
3.8
69.6
5.1
London
64.2
7
81.3
8.8

Source: London Development Database

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

## Environment And Transport Ptal Map

3.54	 In several important areas of planning policy (dealing, for example, with housing 
density and parking provision), the London Plan uses public transport accessibility levels (PTALs). The 2015 PTAL map (map 7) is the current version for the time covered by this monitoring report and is the one used to calculate compliance with the density matrix. Extracts are available from Transport for London (TfL).
3.55	 TfL have developed a web based tool to help transport planners named WebCAT 
(Web-based Connectivity Assessment Toolkit) which can be used to generate site 
specific PTALs. More information can be found at https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urbanplanning-and-construction/planning-with-webcat.
s plays the 2012 PTAL levels for London.

## Crossrail Funding

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

CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS FUNDING CROSSRAIL (£M). NET OF CIL ADMINISTRATION COSTS. S106
YEAR
CIL
0.24
2010/11
0
1.43
2011/12
0
17.20
2012/13
6.09
13.31
2013/14
46.69
13.69
2014/15
73.19
25.68
2015/16*
81.41
2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20
71.55
Total
207.38
TABLE 3.6A USE OF CIL RECEIPTS
CATEGORY
£
Total CIL Expenditure
207,379,548
amount used to repay borrowing
0
500,000#
amount spent (2015/16) on administration by TfL/ GLA (up to 1%)
3,394,402##
amount spent (2015/16) on administration by collecting authorities (up to 4%) amount of CIL 'in-hand'
0
* figures for 2015/16 are based on actual income up to the end of December 2015. # TfL / GLA admin fee capped at £500k in 2015/16. ## figures correct to the end of December 2015 Source: Transport for London

## Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations

3.59	 The Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) first review was published in August 
2014 and suggests some changes to the recommendations. It now contains 14 recommendations - progress against which is being monitored via the AMR. Table 3.7 provides an overview of progress at February 2016.
3.60	 The potential benefits and feasibility of monitoring the implementation of SUDS is 
being considered for inclusion in future AMRs. This will be explored further in cooperation with Lead Local Flood Authorities and the Environment Agency.

## Recommendations

| NO.                                        | RECOMMENDATION                       |
|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| 1                                          | All Thames-side planning authorities |
| should consider in their SFRAs             |                                      |
| and put in place Local Plan policies       |                                      |
| to promote the setting back of             |                                      |
| development from the edge of               |                                      |
| the Thames and tidal Tributaries           |                                      |
| to enable sustainable and cost             |                                      |
| effective upgrade of river walls/          |                                      |
| embankments in line with Policy            |                                      |
| 5.12, CFMPs, TE2100 and advice             |                                      |
| from the Environment Agency.               |                                      |
| 2                                          |                                      |
| The London Boroughs of                     |                                      |
| Richmond, Kingston, Hounslow               |                                      |
| and Wandsworth should put in               |                                      |
| place policies to ensure alternative       |                                      |
| responses to managing Fluvial risk         |                                      |
| such as flood resilience measures          |                                      |
| (e.g. Flood gates) or Potentially          |                                      |
| safeguarding land for Future flood         |                                      |
| storage or, on the fluvial tributaries,    |                                      |
| setting back local defences or             |                                      |
| any resilience measures between            |                                      |
| Teddington Lock and Hammersmith            |                                      |
| Bridge in line with TE2100 findings.       |                                      |
| 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.      |                                      |
| Most boroughs are now making               |                                      |
| reasonable progress in recognising this in |                                      |
| either their SFRAs or DPDs. LB Hounslow    |                                      |
| and City of London have both had their     |                                      |
| Local Plans adopted in 2015 and includes   |                                      |
| the principle of setting back development  |                                      |
| within their flood risk policies.          |                                      |
| LB Hounslow and City of London have        |                                      |
| both included the need to consider the     |                                      |
| raising of flood walls in line with TE2100 |                                      |
| recommendation for development             |                                      |
| along the River Thames. LBs Richmond,      |                                      |
| Kingston, and Wandsworth have policies     |                                      |
| in their Local Plans to address flood risk |                                      |
| management from all sources.               |                                      |
| Wandsworth's policy in particular ensures  |                                      |
| that developments take into account the    |                                      |
| ability To implement future improvements   |                                      |
| to flood defences, in accordance with the  |                                      |
| TE2100 Plan.                               |                                      |
| RB Greenwich has up-to-date Local Plan     |                                      |
| policies in place to ensure the potential  |                                      |
| safeguarding of land needs around the      |                                      |
| existing Thames Barrier.                   |                                      |
| LB Newham and LB Bexley are both           |                                      |
| working with the Environment Agency        |                                      |
| to update the flood risk policies in their |                                      |
| emerging Local Plans, including TE2100     |                                      |
| Plan requirements.                         |                                      |

## Table 3.7 Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations

| NO.                                       |
|-------------------------------------------|
| 4                                         |
| Boroughs at confluences of tributary      |
| rivers with the river Thames should       |
| ensure flood risk assessments             |
| (FRAs) include an assessment of the       |
| interaction of all forms of flooding,     |
| but fluvial and tidal flood risks in      |
| particular. These are the London          |
| Boroughs of Havering, Barking &           |
| Dagenham, Newham, Tower hamlets,          |
| Greenwich, Lewisham, Wandsworth,          |
| Hounslow, Richmond and Kingston.          |
| 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                                           |
| 5                                         |
| 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.                    |
| Tidal influences are generally taken      |
| into account in the SFRAs modelling       |
| addressing the interaction of fluvial and |
| tidal flood risk at confluences.          |
| These measures are becoming               |
| increasingly regularly built into SFRAs,  |
| local policies, development frameworks    |
| and planning applications.                |

## Table 3.7 Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations

| NO.                                           |
|-----------------------------------------------|
| 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).                 |
| 7                                             |
| Thames Water should continue                  |
| its programme of addressing foul              |
| sewer flooding.                               |
| 8                                             |
| The groundwater flood risk in                 |
| identified locations (see IPEG map)           |
| should be considered in Fras and              |
| SFRAs to ensure that its impacts do           |
| not increase.                                 |
| 9                                             |
| The reservoir flood risk in identified        |
| locations (see reservoir flood maps)          |
| should be in considered in FRAs and           |
| SFRAs to ensure its impacts do not            |
| increase.                                     |
| Since the changes to the NPPF guidance        |
| requiring sustainable drainage to be          |
| considered in major developments, and         |
| the publication of the updated Sustainable    |
| Design and Construction SPG in 2014           |
| the Environment Agency has seen an            |
| improvement in drainage strategies they       |
| have reviewed. Larger reductions in run-      |
| off rates are being achieved.                 |
| 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.                |
| The London Sustainable Drainage Action        |
| Plan will be published later in 2016 and will |
| focus on retrofitting sustainable drainage    |
| to existing land and buildings.               |
| The Drain London project has                  |
| commissioned consultants to produce           |
| a SUDS Opportunity Map for London,            |
| this will be available later in 2016 and will |
| highlight a range of SUDS options for all     |
| land and buildings across London.             |
| Thames Water continues to address             |
| localised sewer flooding problems and         |
| during 2015 undertook the first stage         |
| of consultation in respect of a major         |
| project in the Hammersmith-Kensington         |
| area known as Counters Creek Storm            |
| Relief Sewer. The second phase of pre-        |
| application consultation is currently open    |
| until April 2016.                             |
| As SFRAs are reviewed, this is starting       |
| to be included, and is starting to be         |
| addressed in some site specific FRAs as       |
| well.                                         |
| As SFRAs are reviewed, this is starting       |
| to be included, and is starting to be         |
| addressed in some site specific FRAs as       |
| well.                                         |

## Table 3.7 Progress On Regional Flood Risk Appraisal Recommendations

| NO.                                    |
|----------------------------------------|
| 10                                     |
| Detailed flood risk assessments        |
| should be undertaken at an early       |
| stage at the level of individual       |
| major development locations and        |
| town centre development sites,         |
| and opportunities to reduce flood      |
| risk should be maximised where         |
| possible.                              |
| 11                                     |
| Relevant transport authorities and     |
| operators should examine and           |
| regularly review their infrastructure  |
| including 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.                                |
| 12                                     |
| Emergency service authorities          |
| and operators covering hospitals,      |
| ambulance, fire and police stations    |
| as well as prisons should ensure       |
| that Emergency Plans in particular     |
| for facilities in flood risk areas are |
| in place and regularly reviewed so     |
| that they can cope in the event of     |
| a major flood. These plans should      |
| put in place cover arrangements        |
| through other suitable facilities.     |
| 13                                     |
| Education authorities should ensure    |
| that emergency plans in particular     |
| for facilities in flood risk areas are |
| in place and regularly reviewed so     |
| that they can cope in the event of     |
| a major flood. These plans should      |
| put in place cover arrangements        |
| through other suitable facilities.     |
| 14                                     |
| Operators of electricity, gas, water,  |
| sewerage, and waste utility sites      |
| should maintain an up to date          |
| assessment of The flood risk to their  |
| installations and, considering the     |
| likely impacts of failure, establish   |
| any necessary protection measures      |
| including secondary flood defences.    |

Source: GLA and Environment Agency

This is generally being achieved and the GLA is leading work to promote Integrated Water Management Strategies at major development locations including VNEB and Old Oak Common. London Underground and Transport for London are undertaking a comprehensive review of flood risk to their assets and 
Infrastructure. Other transport authorities will need to be contacted.
Through Drain London the GLA has undertaken work to examine surface water flood risk at hospital and emergency services sites across London.
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. The GLA recognises that it needs to confirm progress with these utility providers.

## Planning Progress With Supplementary Planning Guidance

3.61	 The Mayor produces Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents to 
provide further detail on particular policies in the London Plan. In 2015 the Mayor published the Social Infrastructure SPG (May 2015).
3.62	 In addition two draft SPGs, Interim Housing (May 2015) and Central Activities Zone 
(September 2015), were also published.
3.63	 All complete and draft SPG are available on the Mayor's website https://www.
london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-london-plan/supplementaryplanningguidance

## London Boroughs Policy Consultations

3.64	 	
This section lists London borough policy documents published in 2015.
3.65	 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires local planning authorities 
to produce a Local Plan for their area. In law this is described as the development plan documents (DPDs) adopted under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Current core strategies or other planning policies, which under the regulations would be considered to be DPDs, form part of the Local Plan. Several planning authorities in London are currently in the process of reviewing their Local Plans to respond to the changing circumstances in their area.
3.66	 All London borough Local Development Documents (LDDs), comprising core 
strategies, DPDs or other LDDs, are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan in accordance with Section 24(1) (b) of the Planning and Compulsory 
Purchase Act 2004. Under the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) 
(England) Regulations 2012, Regulation 18 requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to notify the Mayor of the subject of a local plan. This is the Preparation stage. The Mayor will endeavour to provide comments to the LPAs at this stage but is not required to respond to the consultation. 
3.67	 Under Regulation 19, before submitting the local plan to the Secretary of State, 
LPAs must make a copy of the proposed submission documents available and must request an opinion from the Mayor as to the general conformity of their local plans (Regulation 21). This is the Publication stage. The Mayor has 6 weeks to respond to the consultation. The Mayor will respond to Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPD) that raise strategic issues only.
3.68	 	
In order to achieve general conformity of LDDs the Mayor works proactively with the boroughs, commenting on and holding meetings to discuss informal drafts of documents and meetings to discuss the Mayor's response to consultation. Table 3.8 lists policy documents the LPAs worked on in 2013; the Mayor responded to 
many of them.

TABLE 3.8 LONDON BOROUGH POLICY DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED IN 2015 BOROUGH
POLICY DOCUMENTS
Barking & Dagenham 
-
Barnet
-
Bexley
CIL charging schedule 30 April 2015 CIL Regulation 123 list April 2015
Brent
Implications of Changes to the Planning System on Brent's Policies (May 2015)
Wembley Arena Action Plan
Bromley 
Camden 
Camden planning guidance (part)
City of London
Adopted Local Plan Thames Strategy Office Use Open Space Strategy
Barbican Estate listed building management guidelines (Volume 4) Finsbury Circus Conservation Area Foster Lane Conservation Area
Croydon 
-
Ealing
Local Development Scheme Planning for Schools DPD Southall Gateway SPD Planning New Garden Space SPD Central Acton Neighbourhood Revised Development Plan consultation
Enfield
CIL Regulation 123 Infrastructure List (Draft) Revised Draft Section 106 SPD Decentralised Energy Network Technical Specification SPD 
(Draft) Revised SCI in Planning
Greenwich
Planning Obligations (s106) Guidance
Hackney
Development Management Local Plan Policies map Proposed SALP Post Submission Modifications Version Stamford Hill AAP Planning Contributions SPD (CIL) Various Permitted Developments
Hammersmith & Fulham
Local Plan (Draft) Revised SCI in Planning CIL regulation 123 list Local Development Scheme
Haringey 
-
Harrow
Harrow School SPD (consultation)
Havering
-
Hillingdon 
Local Plan Part 2 (Draft)
TABLE 3.8 LONDON BOROUGH POLICY DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED IN 2015 BOROUGH
POLICY DOCUMENTS
Hounslow
Local Plan 2015-30 Planning Obligations and CIL SPD CIL regulation 123 list and Viability
Islington
Finsbury Park Development Framework SPD Location and Concentration of Uses SPD - Consultation Draft Preventing Wasted Housing Supply SPD
Kensington & Chelsea
Consolidated Local Plan Notting Hill Gate SPD Trellick-Edenham Planning Brief SPD
St Quintin and Woodlands - Referendum CIL Regulation 123 List
Construction Environment Management Plan
Kingston upon Thames
EDEN Quarter development brief SPD Local Development Scheme
Lambeth
Local Plan 2015 Policies Map 2015
Building Alterations and Extensions SPD Local Development Scheme SCI
Lewisham
Local Development Scheme Planning Obligations SPD River Corridor Improvement Plan Local Plan Consultation on Main Issues Local Plan IDP - framework document
London Legacy Development Corporation
Hackney Wick Management Guidelines Fish Island and White Post Lane Management Guidelines Local Plan 2015-2031 Local Plan Policies Map CIL Regulations 123 Draft Planning Obligations SPD
Merton
Borough-wide map of Article 4 extent Secretary of State modification of Merton's Article 4 
direction
Newham
-
Redbridge
Planning Brief for Station Estate and adjacent Land, Eastwood Close, South Woodford Draft Planning Brief for Marlyon Road, Hainault Medway Close Planning Policy & Design Statement Pershore Close, Gants Hill Planning Policy & Design Statement Stanway Close and Oakmoor Way, Hainault Planning and Design Statement
TABLE 3.8 LONDON BOROUGH POLICY DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED IN 2015 BOROUGH
POLICY DOCUMENTS
Richmond upon Thames
Draft REVISED Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report for the Local Plan Article 4 Direction Buildings of Townscape Merit SPD House Extensions and External Alterations SPD Refuse And Recycling Storage Requirements SPD Housing Optional Technical Standards update Barnes Village Plan SPD East Sheen Village Plan SPD Mortlake Village Plan SPD Housing Optional Technical Standards update
Good Practice Guide on Basement Developments Delivering SuDS in Richmond
Addendum to SCI
Southwark
Canada Water AAP Confirmed Article 4 Direction - Use Class A1 to A2 CIL Charging Schedule April 2015
Section 106 Planning Obligations and CIL Draft Development Viability SPD New Southwark Plan Preferred Option New Southwark Plan
Sutton
-
Tower Hamlets
South Quay Masterplan SPD
Waltham Forest
Blackhorse Lane AAP Housing Delivery SPD draft Norlington Road Industrial Site SPD draft South Grove/St James SPD2015 Public Houses SPD 2015
Wandsworth
Local Plan: employment and industry review Prep Stage Historic Environment SPD draft Lombard Road/York Road Riverside Focal Point SPD draft Housing SPD draft
Roehampton SPD draft
Planning Obligations SPD 2015 Town Centre Uses SPD 2015 Housing Standards Review - transitional arrangements guidance note
Westminster
Draft CIL charging schedule

Source: London Boroughs/GLA

## Progress With Local Plan Core Strategies 3.69	 Table 3.9 Provides An Overview Of London Borough Core Strategy Progress.

TABLE 3.9 LOCAL PLAN CORE STRATEGY PROGRESS (POSITION AS OF JANUARY 2016) CORE STRATEGY STAGE 
NO. OF BOROUGHS
BOROUGH
0
Core Strategy Issues and Options yet to be published
1
Bromley
Have published Core Strategy Policy 
Options and preferred strategy
0
Have published Core Strategy for Submission 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)
2016) CORE STRATEGY STAGE 
NO. OF BOROUGHS
BOROUGH
Local Plan being 
reviewed
18
Barking and Dagenham - Preparation Bromley - Preparation Camden - consultation draft Croydon - Preparation Haringey - Preparation Hammersmith & Fulham - Reg 18 Havering - Preparation
Hillingdon - Consultation draft Hounslow - Examination
Islington - Preparation Kensington & Chelsea - Partial review Publication Lambeth - Examination Lewisham - Issues and options LLDC - Examination
Redbridge Southwark - Preparation Wandsworth - Publication Westminster

Source: ALBPO Local Plan Borough Updates

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

## Opportunity Areas And Areas Of Intensification

3.71	 Up-to-date details on all Opportunity Areas (OAs) and Areas of Intensification 
(AIs) are included in Annex 1 of the London Plan. The following three maps provide an overview of the current status and scale of all Opportunity Areas Planning Frameworks (OAPFs), which are facilitating the delivery of the OAs. For some Development Infrastructure Funding (DIF) studies are prepared to support the delivery of the infrastructure required.
3.72	 In 2015 the Mayor of London published the City in the East brochure to promote 
the development of the east of London as an integrated part of the capital.
3.73	 The OA boundaries shown on the following maps are indicative. For further 
information about the OAs see https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/ implementing-london-plan/opportunity-areas/opportunity-areas
© Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Ordnance Survey 100032216 GLA

## Map 8 Opportunity Areas: Projected Jobs Map 9 Opportunity Areas: Deliery Status

REF LOCATION
18 Kensal Canalside
19 King's Cross-St.Pancras
20 Lewisham-Catford-New Cross
21 London Bridge/ Bankside
Deptford Creek/ Greenwich Riverside

## Planning Decisions

3.74	 To bring about positive change on the ground, policies need to be implemented. 
This is why the role of development management is so crucial. Table 3.10 highlights the ongoing work of the Mayor's Development & Projects Team in helping to implement the London Plan. The table shows a continuing high volume of referrals to the Mayor. This year has seen referrals rise by 22% over 2014. The Mayor is increasing the use of his strategic powers to call-in applications. Last year he 'called-in' five schemes: •	56-70 Putney High Street, Wandsworth;
•	Trocoll House, Barking and Dagenham;
•	Blossom Street, Tower Hamlets; •		
Monmouth House, Islington; and
•	Bishopsgate Goodsyard, Hackney and Tower Hamlets. 

2000- 2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
TOTAL 2000- 2014
Total
1,871
334
240
258
300
307
359
373
454
4496
Strategic Call-ins
-
-
2
1
2
1
2
1
5
14

Source: GLA Planning

## London Planning Awards

3.75	 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 13th London Planning Awards were held on 3rd February 2016. Full details of the winning entries are given in Table 3.11.

## Table 3.11 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 3Rd February 2016

Best New Place to Live Trafalgar Place Designed by dRMM Architects for Lend Lease. This is the first phase of the Heygate Estate regeneration. It comprises 235 high quality homes, accommodating a range of apartments and family sized townhouses, 25% of which are affordable. The scheme is within walking distance of Elephant and Castle, providing range of facilities and great transport connections. The development has been laid out to integrate to the surrounding neighbourhood, adding to the areas permeability and public realm network.  Additional public open space is provided along a new pedestrian street which runs through the middle of the site, a new children's play space, and generous footways and spaces around the buildings. The development also experiments with the use of engineered timber construction, providing further testing of this innovative and sustainable construction method and bringing it into large mainstream developments. 

Best New Place to Work Roundhouse Administration Building The Roundhouse administration building, conceived by Urban Space Management and the Roundhouse.  Constrained by the listed building, finance and the urgent need for additional space, the Roundhouse have located their administration roles in a new office block adjacent to the listed building.  Given the time and money constraints of the charity it was decided that the new office block would be made from recycled shipping containers, costing half the price and taking one third of the time a similar size conventionally constructed office building would have taken.  The container aesthetic fits in seamlessly with the railway siding character of the site and the industrial heritage of the Roundhouse itself. The success of the strategy is evident by how well used and vibrant the new office space . 

## Table 3.11 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 3Rd February 2016

Best Community Led Project Stamford Hill Area Action Plan Stamford Hill Area Action Plan. After a public and divisive argument between two local community groups trying to create opposing Neighbourhood Plans, officers in Hackney Council decided to arbitrate. Both community groups had huge local support but vastly different agendas in relation to planning. After several failed attempts to bring them together, the Council developed an alternative approach where they set up a Community Panel with representatives from both community groups, other key community group representatives, faith groups and local Councillors', reflecting the true demographic, faith and ethnic profile of the diverse community in Stamford Hill. This new group are now successfully working together with the council to develop the Stamford Hill Area Action Plan. 

Best Heritage Led Project Seven Pancras Square Seven Pancras Square. Refurbished as part of the King's Cross redevelopment, the Grade II Stanley Building (now Seven Pancras Square) was originally one of five near identical blocks of philanthropic flats built in the 1860's. The domestic scale of the building presented challenges in terms of room size and floor to ceiling heights and required carefully considered upgrades and insertions, alongside significant enhancements to its structure and fabric to serve its new use.  The architecture takes on these challenges and plays on the contrast between the old and new, creating a contemporary wrap to the historic building, within which the main entrance, communal spaces and circulation space is located.  This contrast creates a dramatic entrance lobby perfectly in line with the buildings proposed new use and users. "

## Table 3.11 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 3Rd February 2016

Best New Public Space Holborn Circus and St Andrew Holborn Church Garden Enhancement Scheme Holborn Circus and St Andrew Holborn Church Garden Enhancement Scheme.  It is a challenge to understand the transformative impact that this understated street junction scheme has had, without knowing what was there before.  The contentions moving of the Prince Albert statue a few metres to the west allowed the accident prone 'circus-turned-roundabout' to be reconfigured, reducing the total number of arms at the junction, hugely increasing pedestrian space and creating a space large enough to provide seating and respite in front of the St Andrews Church gardens. The scheme came hand in hand with the re-landscaping of the church garden, which further contributed to rebalancing pedestrian and vehicular activity in this historically important location.  "
Best Town Centre Project BL-NK Curtain Road BL-NK is a meanwhile use run by Hackney Council that provides meeting rooms and event spaces for small businesses and non-profit organizations in a prime location in central London.  Much of the space is provided either free of charge or is heavily discounted, encouraging a wide range of users to use a part of the city that would normally be unaffordable to most. The use of the space is carefully curated to as to encourage collaboration between different businesses and voluntary groups and build a growing network of small enterprises. The venue itself is furnished by local designers and makers, who are also promoted in the small ground floor retail space of the venue that includes a coffee shop to support its viability.  

## Table 3.11 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 3Rd February 2016

Best Project 5 Years on Hackney Marshes Centre Hackney Marshes Centre.  Designed by Stanton Williams architects and completed in 2010, this small but significant intervention has dramatically improved the use of the marshes as a football facility.   With over 1500 people using the changing room a week, as well as visitors to the café and educational facilities, the venue is heavily used. The robust deign of the building, with its weathered steel cladding and gabion walls makes it practically vandal proof, and despite it being accessible 24h and lacking overlooking, its external skin needs very little maintenance and looks as it did when it first opened.  The low maintenance ethos was also applied internally and after years of heavy use, there's only been a requirement to replace an occasional door. 

Best Conceptual Project Bridging East London Bridging East London.  We've seen our fair share of bridge proposals over the last year, but this multi-bridge proposal by Farrels Architects puts the importance of bridging across the river in context.  It shows how the more humble, low-level bascule bridges can provide walking, cycling and public transport connections which would be enough to unlock large areas of underdeveloped land in Londons eastern Opportunity Areas.  The study shows that whilst there are 34 bridges across the Thames in London, there is only one, east of Tower Bridge, and identifies 7 locations where these bridges could be the most feasible and beneficial.

## Best Local Planning Authority City Of Westminster Table 3.11 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 3Rd February 2016

Mayors Award for Planning Excellence Trafalgar Place Designed by dRMM Architects for Lend Lease. This is the first phase of the Heygate Estate regeneration. It comprises 235 high quality homes, accommodating a range of apartments and family sized townhouses, 25% of which are affordable.  The scheme is within walking distance of Elephant and Castle, providing range of facilities and great transport connections.  The development has been laid out to integrate to the surrounding neighbourhood, adding to the areas permeability and public realm network.  Additional public open space is provided along a new pedestrian street which runs through the middle of the site, a new children's play space, and generous footways and spaces around the buildings. The development also experiments with the use of engineered timber construction, providing further testing of this innovative and sustainable construction method and bringing it into large mainstream developments. 

## Conclusions And Looking Ahead 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. A full list of publications from the Demography and Policy Analysis Group is available via the GLA's website at: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/mayor/publications/gla-intelligence/ demography

## London Datastore

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

## London Development Database

For more information on the London Development database Email the LDD Team (lddteam@london.gov.uk). The re-launched LDD public page can be found at http://www. london.gov.uk/webmaps/ldd/

## 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: http://www.london.gov.uk/ priorities/planning/strategic-planning-applications

## Gla Economics Reports

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

## London Energy Partnership

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

## Other London Data Sources Waste

The Mayor's Municipal Waste Management Strategy can be found at http://www.london. gov.uk/priorities/environment/publications/the-mayors-waste-management-strategies DEFRA produces statistics on waste and recycling which can be found at: http://www. defra.gov.uk/statistics/environment/waste/ 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: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/ research-reports/london-aggregates-working-party-0

## Waterways

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

## Transport

The latest information on The Mayor's work on transport can be found at:	http://www. london.gov.uk/priorities/transport Transport for London performance statistics can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/publications/1482.aspx and at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/investorrelations/1458.aspx Details on how PTAL scores are calculated can be found in http://data.london.gov.uk/ dataset/public-transport-accessibility-levels/resource/86bbffe1-8af1-49ba-ac9bb3eacaf68137 A map based PTAL calculator can be found at http://www.webptals.org.uk/ 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/londonsbuilt-environment/community-infrastructure-levy/

## Health

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

## Government Data Sources

Government departments have moved their websites to a central domain, https://www.

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

## 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	
This AMR covers a period when at national level we are seeing a range of important reforms to the planning system emerging. In London the new 2015 London Plan has been published rolling the Plan forward to 2036, particularly within the context of the strong population growth from the 2011 Census. The next AMR will be the first to be based on this new Plan. Minor alterations to address the Government's Housing Standards Review and Government policy on parking have also recently been published. In addition, further Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents (Social Infrastructure, Interim Housing and draft Central Activity Zone) and several Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks (OAPFs) were produced during 2015. Finally, it should be noted that the Mayor is calling in more strategic applications and has seen more referrals than ever before with 20% more than in 
the previous year.
5.2	
Looking forward and following the Mayoral election in May, the first substantial steps towards the preparation of a Full Review of the London Plan will be made. The AMR, and in particular the LDD underpinning it, is an invaluable source to inform its evidence base.
5.3	
The continued exploration of innovative new ways to use the planning system to help deliver strategic infrastructure will also continue to be a priority to help ensure that growth and development is sustainable. This will be continue to be facilitated by the London Infrastructure Plan. The AMR/LDD are also supporting its activities.
5.4	
Robust, evidence-based and effectively monitored strategic planning policy for London continues to be vital if the progress shown across many of the indicators in this report is to be sustained, and even more so 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.