LPAC’s declared strategic objective was to increase the quantity and improve the quality of London’s housing and to safeguard existing housing in order to ensure the choice of a decent home for all, especially those on low incomes at a price all could afford.
During its fourteen years of existence LPAC was to produce a wide range of reports across the housing policy space. Nicky’s archive contains close to a hundred working documents on topics of housing needs assessment, land supply and provision, large-scale housing developments, housing above shops, office conversions, single-person dwellings, housing for those with special needs and London’s relationship with the wider southeast. Consultants were commissioned to produce detailed work across a range of topic areas, including the vexed issue of how to increase density yet still retain residential quality, which is covered more extensively below. The archive also contains contributions from LPAC and from Nicky herself to Government consultations, conferences, periodicals and newspapers. The material that follows can, therefore, but tell only a part of LPAC’s contribution to this priority issue for London and Londoners, an issue which continues to constrain the lives of so many Londoners who would wish, were they able, to access better quality, more affordable, more appropriate living spaces.
LPAC’s first published policy document[1] set out the challenges facing the housing sector in the late 1980s. There were 2.8 million dwellings in London of which 56% were owner occupied, 33% were rented from boroughs or housing associations and 11% were rented from private owners.
Public housebuilding had, since the 1970s, been sharply reduced. Private housebuilding and conversions for sale to owner occupiers were now the predominant activities. Since 1981 growth in the housing stock had averaged at least 14,000 dwellings a year though less than 10,000 dwellings were newly built, the rest being conversions or replacement dwellings.
While there had been a big reduction in the number of dwellings not meeting minimum standards of structural condition or basic facilities (and there had been some significant achievements in reducing overall shortages, unfitness and overcrowding), disrepair was increasing at an alarming rate.
LPAC estimated that there were some 350,000 dwellings in a state of disrepair (up from 250,000 in 1979), 125,000 dwellings unfit (down from 220,000 in 1979) and 50,000 lacking amenities (down from 125,000 in 1979) – in total almost 20% of London’s housing stock.
Moreover, London’s housing was in relative terms older, twice as likely to be unfit and much less likely to be owner occupied, detached or self-contained than in the rest of the country. Some 233,000 households (ie 1 in 11) were in measurable housing need in 1987 – and this figure did not include the 50,000 accepted as homeless or those sleeping rough and in temporary accommodation.
After years of decline, London’s population was now on the increase – with the growth in the number of households driven by the number of younger, single person households – LPAC estimated the overall housing requirement to be between 100,000 and 370,000 dwellings up to 2001, while SERPLAN’s regional strategy indicated a need for 150,000 dwellings between 1991 and 2001. LPAC’s first housing capacity study (1987) indicated available land to produce 20,000 extra dwellings per year through new build and conversions – given the then Government’s policies, most new dwellings would be for owner occupation.
LPAC’s 1988 strategic advice stated that “Guidance and UDPs ought to include a general presumption against the loss of existing and potential housing to other land uses.” In predominantly residential areas, there should be a presumption in favour of residential use, and boroughs were expected to promote land-use and other policies aimed at providing during the period 1987-2001 for 260,000 new dwellings (including new build and conversions). These policies should include an assessment of current and projected need for low-cost housing for key workers and for those on low and middle incomes. With large new build schemes providing a minimum of 25% affordable to buyers or renters on low to medium incomes.
As a general guideline, densities for mixed housing schemes should normally be within the range of 125-250 habitable rooms per hectare (50-100 habitable rooms per acre). Family housing schemes would normally be within the range of 125-210 habitable rooms per hectare (50-85 habitable rooms per acre).
LPAC was also keen to encourage partnerships between boroughs and developers, such that major employment generating developments provide low-cost housing to meet housing needs in the locality. And boroughs were expected to ensure that adequate community services and infrastructure provision was made.
However, the Strategic Guidance took a more laissez-faire approach and stated that
“A borough may include in its UDP a general presumption against the loss to other uses of existing sites and buildings in residential use, but in doing so it should take account of the need to make reasonable provision for business development within its area.
The Government recognises the importance of providing housing for lower and middle income households in London. It has undertaken a range of initiatives to alleviate problems of access to affordable housing. The planning system can play a part by ensuring that there is an adequate and continuing supply of land for new housing; and that local policies allow for conversions of existing houses into smaller units and for redevelopment at higher densities where appropriate.
The standards of housing density appropriate in different localities in London vary widely. The Secretary of State does not consider that it would be helpful to set London-wide guidelines on this matter. Each borough is responsible for setting its own general guidelines on densities for its areas appropriate in the light of local circumstances, taking into account the requirement for additional housing in the borough.”
The government did, however, accept LPAC’s new build housing advice and considered it reasonable to make provision in UDPs for an estimated 260,000 additional dwellings for 1987-2001, including conversions. LPAC’s borough capacity figures were accepted.
LPAC’s disappointment at the lack of detail and proscription within the strategic guidance ran deep. Nevertheless, lead members and officers were aware that demand for housing was increasing and that given the desire to keep London’s population within its boundaries the intellectual task was to work out where and how this increased level of build could be accommodated – the number of large sites (for example such as at Greenwich Peninsula) were inevitably limited.
During this period, LPAC commissioned and published a number of relevant reports, many of which can be found in the archive. Papers covered housing needs assessments, the provision of affordable housing, offices to homes, the conversion of houses into flats and flats above shops. Work was also undertaken to map out how to better improve the quality of London’s residential environment, particularly access to open spaces, one of the core findings from the World City report (1991).
But housing provision was not to be considered in isolation from the wider region. LPAC had a statutory function to take part in the strategic planning of the south-east on London’s behalf, and LPAC members played a major role within SERPLAN.
SERPLAN was a voluntary body founded in 1962.[2] It consisted of 64 elected members of local authorities in the south-east, on the following basis:
The conference was not an executive body but an advisory organisation which monitored and commented on major transport and planning issues affecting the region. It co-ordinated joint policies on matters of common interest, such as the problems of waste disposal, the impact of regional shopping centres, the maintenance of open land in the green belt, the implications of the Channel tunnel or the allocation of building land for housing.
There were full meetings of the conference at least twice a year. A member policy group (21 members) and an officers advisory panel looked at different policy issues, assisted by working groups and steering groups of local authority officers or the secondment of individual specialists. A small secretariat of 15 full-time staff based at SERPLAN’s offices in central London clerked the conference, the members’ policy groups and officer groups and prepared reports.
In 1988, Nicholas Ridley as Secretary of State had asked SERPLAN to advise on comprehensive guidance for the wider south-east. Thus, began a process whereby a representative body of the local planning authorities advised what its members required as regards regional planning policy to manage continuing growth. A key issue was the need for strategy to provide a better balance between economic overheating on the west side of the region and an eastern side in dire need of regeneration and development. SERPLAN responded in 1990, leading to new regional planning guidance, RPG9 in 1994. This was a 36-page document with six maps, providing a much fuller geographical framework for the region’s development. This was supplemented in 1995 by governmental sub-regional guidance for what became known as the Thames Gateway, also based on SERPLAN advice.
Given its remit, LPAC maintained and strengthened its presence within SERPLAN. A member group led by the LPAC chair formed part of SERPLAN’s conference mechanism, while an officer group led by LPAC’s chief planner and including borough representatives participated in SERPLAN working groups. This meant LPAC became well-placed to represent London’s strategic planning interests within the wider regional body. This influence increased as the 1990s progressed.[3]
Following the 1992 general election, the new Conservative government took significant steps to develop strategic governance across the regions but particularly in London including a Cabinet sub-committee for London chaired by Secretary of State for the Environment, John Gummer. A minister for London and a minister for transport in London were created. In 1994, government invited London, Birmingham and Manchester to participate in a ‘City Pride’ initiative. Each city would prepare a ‘prospectus’ setting out a vision for the development of the city over a 15-20 year time horizon.
Integrated government offices for the regions in England, including the government office for London (GOL), were also set up in 1994. GOL’s main tasks included distributing regional funds and capital expenditure on housing, strategic land-use planning and acting as a focal point of contact with the boroughs, the voluntary and private sector.
In 1994 LPAC published its strategic planning advice. LPAC agreed that the provision of additional housing in London should primarily reflect capacity considerations. The optimal provision of housing from then to 2006 would be 234,000 net additional dwellings, with an additional contribution possible from the conversion of vacant office space to residential use.
Unitary Development Plans (UDPs) should specify an overall guideline for additional social housing and targets for individual sites, based on the assessments of local need and taking account of the high level of need in London as a whole. As a minimum, social housing should be 25% of all additional dwellings over the 1992-2006 period.
As a general guideline, specific densities within the range 125-250 habitable rooms per hectare for mixed housing schemes; and 125-210 habitable rooms per hectare for family housing schemes. In appropriate locations such as parts of central London, strategic centres and public transport interchanges, densities above this range and mixed-use developments could be encouraged provided there would be no detriment to environment or amenity.
The 1996 strategic planning guidance (prepared within the context of RPG9)[4] stated that
“Boroughs need to have regard to the interrelationship between London and the rest of the South East, with the aim of regional guidance to reduce development pressure to the west of London and enhance growth in the east. LPAC and SERPLAN should ensure that strategic and regional issues are brough to the attention of their member authorities.”[5]
While accepting LPAC’s estimates of capacity as being a fair appraisal of the implications of current conditions and policies, government did not consider that they provided a sufficient forward-looking basis for boroughs planning for their next round of UDPs. In particular, government argued that LPAC’s advice assumed a continuing depressed market for conversions, the use of more restrictive standards to be applied within UDPs, and in some cases the requirement for minimum off-street car parking provision.
“These assumptions may have unduly limited the potential gains to the housing stock that could result from increased conversion activity [hence] the 234,000 figure should be regarded as the minimum net additional completions over the period.”[6]
On affordable housing, the government stepped back from LPAC’s more prescriptive approach.
“London’s need for affordable housing requires cooperative action from those involved in providing housing. Boroughs should not, however, apply any target for affordable housing as a single blanket percentage figure on each and every new housing site or proposal… a better approach is for Boroughs to identify sites or areas which are particularly suitable for affordable housing, either on the basis of local need or the type of stock to be considered and to set out the affordable component they would seek in negotiation with developers and agencies.” On density there was little real guidance, bar stating that each borough would need to demonstrate in its review of its UDP that it had had “regard to the requirement to provide the maximum number of dwellings subject to the maintenance of a quality environment.”
In the context of government projections showing that between 1991 and 2016 the number of households in London was expected to grow by 629,000 compared to a current housing capacity estimate of 234,000 dwellings up to 2006, LPAC became increasingly focused on the question of how London might itself accommodate such large numbers of additional dwellings while maintaining urban quality and fostering sustainable development.
LPAC commissioned and produced a wide range of reports on what became known as sustainable residential quality (SRQ). In 1994 LPAC, with some financial support from the Government Office for London, commissioned “The Quality of London’s Residential Environment”, from Llewelyn-Davies Consultants in association with South Bank University and Environment Trust Associates. The report made a general assessment of the quality of London’s residential environment examining 50 residential areas from nine case study boroughs forming an east-west cross-section through London. This enabled the principal factors of residential environmental quality and those detracting from it to be identified; this included landscape, ambient qualities, maintenance, built form, privacy, security, the public realm.
However, the research found that it was the use of the private car and the need for individual parking spaces that was the most frequently identified factor affecting the environmental quality of the 50 residential areas surveyed. The report noted that
“the environmental quality of many areas has already been eroded to the point where more radical treatment including the remodelling of the street is necessary to restore environmental quality.”
The research also argued that
“A relationship is assumed by current planning policies which typically require off-street parking to be provided with conversions and refuses planning permission where this cannot be provided. The research questions this relationship, highlighting not only the complex pattern of change in car ownership over time in any given street as residents move through different stages of the life and car-ownership cycles, but also the fact that the future growth in residential parking demand will result mainly from increased car ownership rates rather than population increase.”
The report included a section on car-free housing, an innovation which at the time was becoming evident in Germany, for example in Bremen, Berlin, and Nuremberg. It suggested that policies for parking in housing could be related to accessibility measures, in particular access to public transport. Car ownership was found on average to be lower in locations with good public transport accessibility.
There followed a series of reports including:
LPAC (1997) Offices to Other Uses, London Residential Research. LPAC, London.
LPAC (1998) Possible Future Sources of Large Housing Sites in London, Halcrow Fox. LPAC, London.
LPAC (1998) Dwellings Over and in Shops, Civic Trust & University of Westminster. LPAC, London.
LPAC (1998) Sustainable Residential Quality: New Approaches to Urban Living, Llewelyn-Davies in association with Savills and Urban Investment. LPAC, London.
LPAC (1999) Sustainable Residential Quality II: Approach & Method Statement, Llewelyn-Davies. LPAC, London.
A landmark report Sustainable Residential Quality: Exploring the Housing Potential of Large Sites[7]commissioned by LPAC in 1998 from Llewellyn Davies and the Metropolitan Transport Research Unit and Urban Investment was published in January 2000. This study extended the application of the sustainable residential quality approach, developed initially in relation to small town centre sites, to large sites across London. Its focus was on establishing a strategic context for exploring the housing potential of large sites. To forge more effective linkages between:
It was essentially concerned to extend Londoners’ housing choices and to secure a high standard of residential amenity.
The study built on two of the earlier reports on sustainable residential quality. The first of these, “Sustainable Residential Quality: new approaches to urban living” (SRQ I 1998) highlighted the potential for higher density well designed housing on vacant, derelict and under-used land in the “ped-sheds” around London’s network of town centres. The study illustrated how a site specific “design-led” approach could achieve more intensive forms of urban housing than was possible under then current UDP policies and standards, while maintaining a high standard of design and amenity.
A series of 50 design case studies provided the basis for a density, location and parking matrix indicating a series of different density ranges appropriate to sites with different levels of accessibility to public transport and local facilities. A handful of boroughs did not accept the principles of SRQ. However, most boroughs were generally supportive of the matrix and valued its use as a planning tool to determine density, using it as a starting point and then taking into account local considerations such as site shape and surrounding uses.
This matrix was subsequently incorporated into LPAC’s interim advice on sustainable residential quality and was eventually incorporated into the London Plan, although later abandoned by the mayor in 2016.
One of LPAC’s strengths was that it took a consultative approach both in commissioning research and in policy development. The archive contains many examples of speeches given, papers drafted and consultation responses issued as LPAC sought to achieve compromises, with the boroughs, with government and with the house builders over key housing issues such as the proportion and types of affordable housing, reflecting the economic arguments for key worker housing and the social arguments for social equity.
LPAC’s handover to the new mayor of London, as set out in the endowment report (March 2000), was extensive. LPAC presented the mayor with a housing capacity study, advice on planning for housing, affordable housing advice and the housing provision monitoring framework as major build blocks for the future building development strategy.
The legacy represented innovative strategic thinking to the provision of alternative sources and forms of housing suited to London’s changing housing needs. It set out a planning framework to realise the capacity that was needed to be carried forward and integrated with local and strategic resources and implementation programmes.
A key part of that endowment was the London housing capacity report co-ordinated by LPAC for and with the 32 London boroughs and the City of London and published in September 2000. The housing capacity study was the third London-wide study of housing capacity co-ordinated by LPAC. The study built upon the experience of the two previous LPAC studies published in 1987 and 1994. These two studies were conducted by the London Research Centre and estimated housing for three components, large sites, small sites and conversions phased over a fifteen-year plan period. The results were then used to inform the Secretary of State’s regional planning guidance.
The 2000 study incorporated the strategic approach aggregating borough returns for different housing components of housing capacity and spaced over 5-year periods and provided a key policy building block for the GLA’s spatial development strategy (the London Plan). It also gave a comprehensive methodology for monitoring housing completions and approvals.
And now after a hiatus of 14 years, London had its own government to take forward housing delivery.
As a matter of record and of some public interest, the question arises as to whether the housing targets set by LPAC (and generally accepted by government) were met.
This is not a straightforward task. There are many and varied data sets, but it remains a struggle to pull together a meaningful time series. The most readily accessible data runs from 2010 – there are some data sets that go back to 2001, but they cannot be easily spliced together. The evidence base for the housing strategy documents (ie the strategic housing market assessment, the SHMA) helps but there are many charts but no easy access to raw data.
What can be said?
The housing targets were set at:
Greater London Development Plan (1985) – 16,000 per year (including conversions) (1983-1992)
Strategic Advice (1988) – 18,500 per year (including conversions) (1987-2001)
Strategic Advice (1994) – 19,500 per year (excluding conversions) – with affordable proportions to be decided by each borough on a site-by-site basis. (1994-2006)
The London housing capacity study (2000) sets out figures that over the twenty years between 1997 and 2016, housing capacity in London was estimated to be 381,000 net additional dwellings or 19,000 per year and that total capacity was 458,000 (23,000 a year), the latter figure including an allowance for reduced dwelling vacancies and non-self-contained accommodation.[8]
The following charts are taken from the 2017 strategic housing market assessment and what can be broadly stated is that, while new house building completions target came close to meeting the GLDP, the 1986 advice and 1994 advice targets were missed by a distance as net new builds failed to keep up with the rising levels of demand. And as we know from future years’ data which can be more easily monitored, the gap between new builds and demand was soon to grow at an alarming rate.[9]
The issue of housing delivery is, however, not just the failure of the planning system to deliver enough housing but also the house building industry (including issues of land availability, viability and capacity) and the lack of government funding for social housing.
[1] LPAC, Policy Issues and Choices, LPAC 1988.
[2] SERPLAN was abolished in 2001 when Regional Assemblies were introduced
[3] The preceding paragraphs are based on notes provided by Martin Simmons LPAC’s Chief Planner.
[4] RPG 9 set out three key objective for the South East region:
[5] Department of the Environment, Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities, Government Office for London, HMSO, May 1996
[6] Ibid.
[7] https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/srq_iii_exploring_the_housing_potential_of_large_sites.pdf
[8] Affordable housing was estimated to be 20% of total dwellings, with over three-quarters of capacity coming from large identified and windfall sites.
[9] Thanks to Julia Atkins for help with the data in this section.
