sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bexleyheath, Inner London, North London, Oriental City, Outer London

1 Ipsummy nosto consequis non er sis acil June 2010 June 2010 The Mayor’s OLC Report The Mayor’s Outer Commission: Report June 2010

The Mayor’s Commission: Report Authority June 2010 Published by City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN 978-1-84781-378-7

Photographs: cover picture © TfL Visual Image Service.

Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk

Printed on Evolution Satin paper: 75 per cent recycled fibre content; 25 per cent virgin fibre, 10 per cent FSC sourced; FSC and NAPM certified. Contents 3

Foreword 5

Executive summary 7

1 Introduction 23 Purpose 23 Methodology 23-25 Terms of reference 26-28 2 Survey 29 Sources 29 Historic context 31 Demand side 32 Supply side 48 Demography 57 Workforce Housing 76 Transport 83 Quality of Life 88 Future trends 95 Stakeholder views 105 3 Analysis 119 Scale and sources of growth 119 A new spatial structure for growth? 126 Making the most of existing places 131 Quality of Life 145 Transport 147 4 ‘Plan’ – Recommendations 153 Spatial structures 153 Demography and housing 159 Economy 161 Transport 165 Labour market 169 Institutional 170 Quality of Life 171 The Future 174 Annexes 175 Annex 1: Commission’s ‘First Thoughts’ paper 175 Annex 2: Initial consultation questions 182 Annex 3A: Interim employment trends 185 Annex 3B: Final employment trends 188 Annex 3C: Home Counties Employment 193 Annex 4: Economically active population trends 194 Annex 5A: Housing trends 195 Annex 5B: Net completions for inner and outer London 196 Annex 5C: Compliance with the Housing Density Matrix 197 Annex 6A: Health infrastructure benchmarks 198 Annex 6B: Social infrastructure maps 200 Annex 6C: Borough school roll projections 209 Annex 7: Office development trends 212 Annex 8: Respondents to the Outer London Commission 214

Foreword 5

Dear Mr Mayor

I have pleasure in submitting the final report of the Outer London Commission. It outlines the work we have undertaken and the research and consultation responses on which we have drawn in coming to our conclusions, and then sets out our findings and recommendations.

It is clear that outer London has many strengths and huge potential on which it can build in ensuring it takes its place in supporting the future prosperity of those living and working there and, indeed, of the capital as a whole. Among its key assets are the imagination and hard work of those working on the ground, many of whom we have met during our work.

In submitting this report I would like to thank my fellow Commissioners – and those in the GLA group, who supported them - for all their hard work and commitment in enabling this report to be presented

William McKee Chair, Outer London Commission 6 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report Executive summary 7

Purpose of the Commission • Identify issues that are presented by the relationship between outer, inner and The Mayor set up the Outer London”. Commission to: Working arrangements 1 “Identify the extent to which outer London has unrealised potential to 2 The Commission was composed of 14 contribute to London’s economic success, individuals with extensive experience identify the factors which are holding in London business, local government, it back and recommend policies and development, planning, design, academic proposals for the future development of geography, transport and the voluntary outer London to the Mayor for inclusion sector and chaired by Will McKee CBE. Its in the London Plan and other GLA group secretariat was provided by GLA Group strategies and guidance. These should officers. include: • Ways of encouraging employment growth 3 The Commission had a distinctive method in outer London. of operation, testing propositions • Ways of identifying, and supporting the iteratively, as they emerged from its work, development of economic growth hubs in by calling not just on the expertise of its outer London. members and its own research, but also • The role of town centres and town by drawing on and informing work being centre based initiatives such as business undertaken at the same time to develop improvement districts and town centre a common evidence base for the Mayor’s partnerships. Economic Development and Transport • The role that heritage and urban design strategies and the London Plan. Uniquely, issues might play. it carried out an extensive programme of • The links between housing, retail, office consultation with the main stakeholders in based and other types of employment the outer London economy through: and development in outer London. • a series of ‘meetings in public’ in each of • Links between economic success and the different quadrants of the capital; improving quality of life in outer London, • over 30 ‘one to one’ or small group and ways of managing these effectively. meetings, and • Infrastructure and other supporting • a structured ‘call for evidence’. investment required to support economic growth in outer London. 4 The Commission wishes to place on record • Methods of funding such infrastructure its appreciation for all these contributions and investment. – they added a new dimension to understanding the ambitions, challenges 8 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

and experiences of those engaged in 7 At least in terms of economic trends, there realising the potential of outer London. is some substance to these concerns – on average over the last two economic cycles 5 We have sought to collate a robust only 2,800 jobs pa have been generated in evidence base to support and develop outer London compared with 5,100 pa in our conclusions. In reaching our final and 36,000 pa in the ‘home conclusions and recommendations we counties’. Moreover, this overarching have followed the familiar process of trend conceals very substantial variation survey, analysis and policy-making so between boroughs and smaller but still readers can follow the steps we have taken significant differences between their in making our recommendations. performances in different cycles. Over the whole period 1989 – 2007, five outer Benchmark trends boroughs were above the pan London average trend, four above the outer 6 From the outset it was clear that outer London average, one below the average London’s potential to contribute to the but positive and nine had negative wider economy could not be measured growth. simply in terms of the number of jobs there. These were of course the key 8 A key task for the Commission was concern of the Commission (both as a therefore to establish reasonable future focus of its terms of reference, and as employment trends or benchmarks they account for over 40 per cent of the against which it could test measures capital’s jobs). But other factors were also which might generate higher growth. As crucial, not least because outer London well as collating five data sources on the is home to 60 per cent of all Londoners, historic trend to inform this process, the two fifths of whom work outside the Commission also drew on three sets of area and help give most parts of it a employment projections. In examining higher economic activity rate than inner them it was mindful not just of the effects London. However, this dependence on of the recent recession and of the need to commuting, coupled with relatively low relate them to the wider economy, but also local employment growth, has given rise of the perception of some consultees that to what was the key concern for many low projections led to low infrastructure consultees – that outer London has been investment and so reinforced low growth. relegated to a dormitory suburb role, and Account was also taken of the axiom its local economies neglected, with the that in using projections it is better to be thrust of metropolitan policy focused on broadly right than precisely wrong. growth in . 9

9 The projections ranged from a simple which might help lift outer London’s extrapolation of the historic trend economy above trend. (2,800 more jobs pa); a somewhat dated triangulation of trend, development The ‘super-hub’ concept capacity and transport accessibility 12 The Commission’s brief suggested that (10,000); a more up-to-date top down as a working proposition, there might forecast (10,500) and the current draft be four ‘super-hubs’, one in each London Plan projection which incorporates quadrant of outer London, perhaps based trend data anticipating the onset of the on the Heathrow area, / recent recession and up-to-date estimates , and Stratford. The of development capacity and public concept was intended to identify centres transport accessibility (6,000 pa). where proposals for development could complement other business centres by Sources of future growth providing the potential to generate a distinct offer of greater than sub regional 10 In exploring potential sources of growth importance (most existing business above trend the Commission found centres in outer London are, at best, of it useful to distinguish conceptually only sub-regional significance). In practice between: we have concluded that to be successful, • those based on existing sectors hubs of this kind would have to support (‘endogenous’ growth) which have high density business agglomerations or contributed to the trends outlined clusters to found the basis of a virtuous above, but which might have capacity to circle of public investment (particularly in perform more effectively if constraints transport infrastructure) and wider growth. on their cumulative performance were This pointed to office-based activities addressed, and generating rental values of more than • those which for convenience might be £25-£30/sq ft and on a scale substantially termed ‘exogenous’ sources of growth. above that anticipated in any of the These might be either strategically benchmark employment projections – say significant, largely new activities or double the 300,000-400,000 sq m usually existing activities capable of a step taken as the basis for an office quarter change in performance. with a distinct mass and identity, with capacity, say, for 50,000 new office jobs. New spatial structures 13 On the face of it such a proposition might 11 The Commission’s brief required it to not seem implausible – after all, Canary identify and test new spatial structure Wharf has gone from virtually zero to over 90,000 new jobs in two decades and the 10 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

‘Home Counties’ have recorded an average 16 The Commission was primarily concerned of 36,000 more jobs pa over two economic with technical considerations bearing cycles. on the economic realism of ’super- hubs’. However, it was also mindful 14 However, closer analysis raised that development proposals on this substantial doubts. Most of the office scale would have to be ‘owned’ by the growth projected for the London Plan key stakeholders – the response from is expected to come from relatively low boroughs in particular suggested that this value added local services spread across was unlikely. Thus, though the testing outer London – not the sort of relatively exercise did not lead to the Commission high value jobs required to pay rents endorsing the concept, it did provide justifying strategically significant private valuable insight into other parts of its office development in a few small areas. work. While a few parts of outer London have experienced significant office new build Strategic outer London in the past, even two hubs of say 600,000 development centres sq m each would approximate to 23 years 17 While the Commission concluded that of historic gross average output across the it could not endorse the idea of ‘super whole of outer London (and this is on a hubs’, the testing exercise did show that generous definition of what constitutes there was scope for smaller increments to growth in office space). existing capacity (and improvements to its quality) in some competitive locations 15 Nevertheless, the Commission was with distinct types or scales of activity (or mindful that it had to look beyond historic mix of activities). To avoid compromising trends to see if there was potential for the viability of capacity in other centres, ‘exogenous’ growth. It therefore examined these would have to be of more than the applicability of a series of different sub-regional importance and with the potential models or proxies for ‘super potential for further development both hubs’ – Heathrow and other outer London within the centres themselves and in their centres with a history of significant hinterlands. This concept could be applied growth, in inner London to a wider range of business clusters than and office centres in the wider south the office based ‘super-hubs’, including east, as well as modelling the transport leisure/tourism, media, logistics, industry, implications of the concept. These either higher/further education and retailing. did not meet the ‘super-hub’ criteria The Commission recommends that its outlined above or were not realistic initial list of these clusters be left open to propositions in the distinct circumstances be refined through the Draft Replacement of outer London. London Plan preparation process, and 11

we are pleased to see the concept taken of limited transport capacity, there is forward in the draft Plan’s policy on particular growth in out-commuting which ‘strategic outer London Development must be encouraged to move towards centres’. public transport. It extends to the wider coordination of land use and transport Extending into the Green Belt? investment for the benefit of the city 18 The Commission considered whether region as a whole, as well as to more strategic extensions of provision for specific issues like waste management, business activity in to the Green Belt was logistics coordination, more positive use necessary to realise the economic potential of the Green Belt and establishment of a of outer London. We have concluded level playing field for parking policy (in that as a strategic principle this was line with government’s regional policy). unnecessary and wasteful in terms of the With some notable exceptions, and while use of land and existing infrastructure. recognising the uncertainty over regional working outside London, cross border Making the most of existing places arrangements to address these (especially along strategic ‘Corridors’) appear to 19 As well as exploring new types of require rejuvenation. business location, the Commission also investigated the performance of existing 21 It will be important to ensure that planning structures and ways in which outer London makes the most of they could more effectively realise outer the development and regeneration London’s potential to contribute to the opportunities that may arise from metropolitan economy. An over-arching national and regional transport and theme was the importance of using a other infrastructural investment (with ‘star and cluster’ based approach to projects like Crossrail or High Speed 2, coordinating development, and within this for example). Similarly, the importance to ensure that town centres develop as its of airports will remain a major economic fundamental building block. driver for outer London. As already indicated, joint local and strategic working Inter and intra-regional working is vital to resolve local environmental 20 The Commission was very conscious and other concerns with wider strategic that London is part of a much wider city economic objectives. region and of the need for the planning system to address this in a concrete way 22 Within London, it must be recognised if outer London is to realise its potential. that there is no hard and fast dividing This is most apparent for transport - as line between its inner and outer parts. well as the need for strategic coordination Irrespective of administrative boundaries 12 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

it is essential that for policy purposes of transport. The Commission stressed boundaries are regarded as permeable. the need for tempering ambitions for The Commission supports the Mayor’s local centres with economic realism and positive response in the DRLP to its recognition of the different roles each recommendation that, on balance, centres plays in the broad town centre Newham is more properly considered to be network. Its recommendations to support part of inner London. this included: • the need for real partnership working, Sub-regional structures including possible use of land acquisition 23 The Commission supports the view that powers to assemble sites: a ‘one size fits all’ structure to coordinate • measures to enhance their quality and sub-regional activity would not be fit offers: for all economic development purposes. • guidance on a creative approach to mixed However, it did stress the importance of use development including increased sustaining an effective sub-regional facility town centre related residential provision; to support and inform the important • the importance of a sensitive approach to step down from pan-London policy parking policy: principles to the geographically specific • maintenance of London’s distinct detail required at local level. It noted the approach to the ‘sequential test’: variety in current arrangements and the • closer integration of the investment need to ensure that they remained fit for priorities and initiatives of the GLA purpose as well as providing the strong Group and other agencies such as the leadership necessary to respond positively Homes and Communities Agency, as to changing circumstances. well as the boroughs and other relevant stakeholders; and, Town Centres • the potential to develop emerging results 24 The Commission’s work showed that from GLA research on use of the planning 60 per cent of employment in outer system to secure small shop provision so London took place in its main town that large new retail developments can centres. Coupled with the other roles contribute to relevant aspects of local of these centres, this supports the view town centre renewal. that they should be developed as the single most important set of business Opportunity Areas and Areas of locations outside central London; and that Intensification the focus here should be on promoting 25 The Commission supports these as access to a competitive selection of goods mechanisms to bring forward capacity for and services, foregrounding the use of development in an integrated, sustainable more environmentally-friendly modes way. The GLA should continue to work 13

with boroughs and other stakeholders locations for future growth complemented to investigate whether the concepts can by recognition that structural change in be extended elsewhere. However, the parts of the outer London office market Commission was concerned at the slow looks set to continue. rate of progress in bringing forward some Opportunity/Intensification Area Planning 29 The Commission’s report provides detailed Frameworks. suggestions on how the release of surplus office provision might be managed, Industrial Land taking into account the continuing need 26 Careful management of strategic and for some lower cost accommodation, the local industrial capacity remains essential, significance of phasing in this process, especially to accommodate the relatively the importance of an attractive business low-value but vital functions which it environment as part of a broader mix of supports. The Commission has made uses, a sensitive approach to car parking specific recommendations over policy to and the role of re-positioning and re- secure an adequate quantity of provision branding the most competitive elements as well as the need to place greater of outer London’s office offer. This might emphasis on quality, including improved be supported by use of the mixed-use local road access. ‘swaps’ concept in competitive locations.

The potential for growth in different ‘Knowledge based’, ‘Creative’ economic sectors and ‘Green sectors’. 30 While many consultees lauded the 27 The Commission identifies ourf main potential of these sectors it was noted that growth sectors for the outer London there did not appear to be a universally economy: office-based work (including agreed definition of the terms (and the public sector); knowledge-based indeed, some overlap between them). The industries; leisure, tourism and culture; GLA could usefully address this, linking it and retail. Each of these will require a as far as possible to the planning process. particular set of approaches, which we outline below: 31 Looking at these sectors raises the question of whether outer London Office based sectors lacks information and communications 28 The Commission recommends a realistic technology infrastructure and whether and proactive approach to office the public sector or effective planning development where increased economic can help address this. Taking this further, potential can be clearly identified - the there may be scope to encourage home focus needs to be on the most competitive (or near-home) working, with new forms 14 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

of infrastructure or locally based business education institutions and hospitals as a support services (local ICT “hubs” giving focus of regeneration. Putting HE and FE SMEs and individual workers access institutions (or satellites of institutions to the kind of sophisticated ICT that based elsewhere) in outer London has they could not economically afford to the further benefit of developing the buy themselves, for example). We have local labour market by helping people to suggested that public libraries or ‘touch improve their skills and employability. down’ centres with provision for meetings, possibly provided by large, centrally based Leisure and culture firms, might have a role in this. In addition 34 There is considerable potential for growth Boroughs could take a more proactive in the spectrum of leisure activities approach to extending fibre optic cable including arts and culture, tourism and or WIFI networks to enhance capacity to local leisure activities. These both make serve such centres – the London Chamber outer London an attractive, ‘liveable’ of Commerce and Industry would be place for Londoners and offer potential happy to work in partnership to progress for development of a visitor economy this. following successful examples such as Gardens. The Commission welcomes 32 The GLA group could usefully re- strategic support and encouragement consider if there is a case for public sector to identify more hotel capacity in outer intervention to support the provision of London, especially in and around town innovation parks so that similar, related centres. small or medium-sized businesses can cluster together, and this might require 35 The Commission has noted the imbalance active public intervention. between the number of cultural facilities in outer London and the amount of Public sector public funding available (most of which 33 While recognising central government’s in the capital goes to central London). It views on dispersal of its activities, outer recommends that this imbalance should be London is clearly a cost-effective place reviewed. This should be complemented by for government and other public sector more positive marketing of outer London’s functions, such as health, judicial and distinct attractions, particularly its leisure education functions of greater than and cultural clusters. Local regeneration sub- regional importance – and can be can be prompted by a more proactive promoted as such. This might include approach to the ‘cultural quarter’ concept. building links to existing central London institutions and to local labour markets. 36 The possibility of large scale commercial The potential here is to use higher leisure, perhaps of international 15

significance could also be explored. At the investment and regeneration of particular other end of the scale, we believe there centres. The London Development Agency is scope for the rejuvenation of many of has a particular role to play both in outer London’s medium-sized theatres, helping support the extension of models and extending their use for purposes such like Business Improvement Districts and as art house cinemas. more directly through supporting site assembly. Transport issues need to be 37 Some parts of outer London have seen a given particular emphasis, especially rapid growth in the night time economy. encouraging access to and within centres It is important to remember, though, that by walking and cycling. areas with a night time economy require effective management and promotion to 40 There is a need to understand and build ensure that they remain attractive and upon the distinctive character and role of safe, and that potential negative impacts different types of centre, ranging from the on local residents and businesses are Metropolitan centres, with their particular managed effectively. transport needs, through to smaller District and Neighbourhood centres. Retail Each has an important part to play, and 38 Consumer spending will be a vital maintaining the kind of network that has economic driver in outer London, been one of outer London’s real strengths underscoring the importance of retail here. will require careful and realistic planning. New retail should be focused on town The tools that could be used to achieve centres and provided in ways that seek this include policies to encourage a diverse to enhance their distinct characteristics – and vibrant retail mix across centres, such there is no reason why even a centre with as supporting the provision of affordable a large number of national stores should shop units, and promoting street markets be a “clone town”, and places with a to enhance vitality of town centres. distinct feel and character are likely to be Greater encouragement of walking and those that will thrive. At neighbourhood cycling as more environmentally sound and more local centre level there is and healthier means of getting into and scope to integrate new retail provision going around town centres is also essential into larger, predominantly residential developments to support place shaping as The Outer London labour market well as providing essential services. Skills 39 The Commission believes that efficient 41 In terms of school-age education, outer management of town centres is vital- London out performs inner London - its particularly when combined with targeted residents have higher rates of employment 16 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

and lower rates of worklessness than will mean considering the extent of the inner London residents. It has more benefit it will bring whether in transport economically active people than that inner terms (such as travel time savings) or in London – partly because it has a large, the development it can support. These albeit slowly growing, employment base judgements will have to be informed by of its own, and partly because it is home the distribution and density of population, to many Londoners who work elsewhere, jobs and development. Having entered especially in inner London. these caveats, the Commission considers it is essential that investment in transport 42 To build on this success, it is vital that the infrastructure specific to outer London, distinctive skills needs of outer London its unique character and distinctive needs are addressed. Public sector investment in is not neglected. Outer London does skills is targeted on need not geography, benefit from pan-London and radial and this tends to result in broad-brush improvements, however, and these should approaches tackling broad-based areas not be seen as polar opposites locked in a of need. Outer London should not be zero-sum game. overlooked. The Commission recommends that the LDA should adopt an approach to 45 These considerations were weighed by commissioning training and skills provision the Commission in considering the case which will provide further opportunities for made by a number of stakeholders for a locally driven responses while delivering high-speed, contiguous orbital transport strategic outcomes. system. It concluded that a “star and cluster” model (see Figure 1) offers a more Transport and outer London effective and practical model to meet the needs of the constellation of centres and 43 Transport is a huge issue for outer London. employment locations characterising outer Before summarising the Commissions London. Orbital movement around London considerations for different issues, it can also be facilitated by developing and agreed some general principles to inform improving strategic interchanges and its detailed recommendations: ensuring the most is made of existing links. 44 Most importantly, the Commission has taken seriously the need to ensure that what it says about transport is realistic – public sector resources are tight and likely to be tighter. Investment in transport infrastructure will require a strong business case. For outer London this 17

to the quality of stations, including improvements to make travellers feel more secure, improved information for travellers and more effective coordination with other modes. There is also a case for medium-scale investment – such as providing new strategic interchanges or improving existing ones – which can give significant benefits for relatively modest investment. • Buses will continue to be a vital component of public transport in outer London and need to be better integrated Figure 1: “Star and cluster” approach using existing links and improved strategic interchanges shown in with other modes such that passengers orange can make whole journeys by public transport. Buses and coaches can be 46 Moving from these general principles, the used to improve orbital connectivity Commission has considered the role of in outer London, and the Commission different modes of transport: suggests consideration of things like • Rail is proportionately more important express services and strategic coach hubs in outer London than for other parts of that can facilitate this. Better service the capital, especially in information and marketing are also where there is less tube coverage. recommended. Particularly given the shortage of • Ticketing: stakeholders also raised the resources, the Commission recommends question of fare affordability, which is that there should be an emphasis on widely seen as a particular issue for outer making the current system operate London. The Commission would like to more effectively, including improving see a review of ticketing measures – such connectivity and interchange with other as development of the Oyster concept to transport services like buses and cycling. provide an outer London travelcard – to The welcome move towards viewing address this. rail services as an integrated network • Cycling and walking are key Mayoral in ticketing, timetabling, service levels, policy priorities, The Commission shares information provision and promotion his enthusiasm, and recommends that should be extended to those parts of opportunities to increase them as ways the system which are still not covered. of getting around outer London are The Commission recommends that identified and taken up. These support further improvements should be made other Commission recommendations 18 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

dealing with things like ensuring a Car parking policy in outer London liveable public realm and easy access should be developed on an individual and to local services. There is particular local basis – a “one size fits all” approach potential to encourage cycling and is not appropriate to such a diverse walking to and in town centres, which area. A balance must be struck between will have health and environmental as promoting new development and well as transport and health benefits and preventing excessive parking provision should be promoted as modes of choice. which can discourage sustainable modes There is a particular case for leadership and increase congestion. by boroughs in developing cycle hubs The Commission suggests a flexible and promoting cycling. The Commission approach. It recognises the point made supports a combination of incentives by many developers that the lack of and investment to encourage these onsite parking for office developments sustainable modes, and to give a real in outer London puts them at a choice not to use private cars. disadvantage compared with centres • The car is likely to remain a key mode outside London. There is also a case for many trips in outer London, however. for liberalisation in town centres in The Commission recommends more need of regeneration. The Commission effective road management and cross- therefore recommends a selective review borough work to address congestion. of parking policies. It also supports These should include ways of improving park and ride schemes where these will freight transport and servicing and reduce congestion and journey times and reducing the need for “school runs”. It promotion of car sharing and car clubs. also supports speeding up the process • Freight: Increases in the density of for approval of highway projects. There commercial activity across London, is scope to reduce local traffic through including outer London, will require better integration of land use and logistics premises to support the transport planning, especially in relation associated demand in freight and to local retail centres, and for some servicing vehicles. This may include local enhancements to road capacity to the need for consolidation centres, address particular congestion problems. but the case for them still needs to Alongside these steps, the Commission be understood further. In addition to considers there is a role for demand managing congestion at key locations management measures, potentially in outer London, increasing the role of including road user charging in the longer rail and river in freight movements will term. Consideration should also be given relieve some of the pressures on the road to more effective ways of managing road network. However, it is essential to take works. realistic account of the primary role of 19

road transport in sustaining London’s 49 As its ‘pure’ economic recommendations industrial and other business locations above make clear, the Commission so that they can realise their potential was conscious that improving housing contribution to the wider metropolitan provision to meet local needs and to economy. support the wider London economy does not mean relegating outer London to a Outer London as a place to live ‘dormitory’ role – an important concern for some of its respondents. Indeed, increased 47 The Commission is clear that economic housing provision can, coincidentally issues cannot and should not be increase local jobs. One element in this considered in a vacuum, and throughout would be a more consistent approach its work it has taken account of the range to implementation of housing density of likely benefits of a more polycentric policy. Emerging density policy appears approach to development, while avoiding to place greater emphasis on respecting simplistic links between population local context by responding sensitively to growth and job creation. It makes clear different local circumstance. This should the importance of “place-shaping” and enable boroughs to enhance capacity ensuring new development fits in with in appropriate locations such as town local needs and heritage, so places are centres, while supporting lower density attractive to live in as well as work in. development in neighbourhoods served This will require encouragement of mixed less well by public transport. High quality use development and support for local design is an essential complement to this. capacity-building, high quality design and It is clear that housing policy cannot focus appropriate development densities. solely on numbers, and the Commission stresses the importance of looking at how 48 While it is important to encourage new homes should be planned for, built affordable family housing, there is also and supported with the social and other a need to accommodate the needs of infrastructure which new and existing smaller households. All housing should neighbourhoods need if they are to be be of high quality; the Commission also sustainable. recommends that a closer look should be taken at the links between housing 50 Ensuring development of sustainable density, accessibility and parking provision communities is likely to require new – all things that form the sense of place delivery models. There may be particular and neighbourhood and can help make scope for community-based initiatives. better places to live. It will also be vital to make sure mayoral strategies and their implementation are 20 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

carefully coordinated to ensure public preservation of the quality of life in outer investment secures the maximum benefit. London. The Commission recommends that further work on these issues should Quality of life be undertaken at strategic level, including updating of the Mayor’s “Toolkit for 51 Maintaining and improving the quality of Tomorrow’s Suburbs”. There is a particular life for those living and working in outer need to develop new ways of enabling London is vital to realising its potential greater community identity and cohesion contributions to London as a whole. to help foster a sense of ownership and While the Commission’s recommendations empowerment in taking decisions about support more development, it is also growth and development. clear that it is important to ensure growth can be harnessed and influenced to help 53 The Commission noted the historic improve the quality of places in outer justifications for targeting resources London, and the quality of life for those on inner London because of the living there. In practice, this means taking concentration of problems of deprivation a neighbourhood-based approach to there. It considered that if a more fine- promote and support local functions. As grained approach is taken, more localised already mentioned, it strongly supported concentrations of chronic deprivation application of the concept of “place- could be identified in outer London and making” and reinforcing the importance that there might be benefit for the capital of town centres. It also supported the in considering the reallocation of some idea of “lifetime neighbourhoods” – those (but by no means all) social and local meeting the needs of residents at all renewal to realise the potential of those stages of their lives. who are still disadvantaged, but not to the extent of those in the most acute need. It 52 The Commission would agree with its also disagreed with the view that the lack many respondents concerns over the of national funding programmes and of need to secure appropriate local social strong market drivers means that strategic infrastructure (such as schools and measures to address outer London’s social healthcare), to give greater attention and physical infrastructure needs would be to London’s “green suburbs” and to difficult. The Commission recognises that enhance the semi-public realm and to financial constraints limit the potential for ensure its maintenance. As part of this, it major infrastructure investment, but this supports a general presumption against does not mean that it is not needed in development of back gardens where this some places, nor that innovative solutions is a problem, and continued and vigorous cannot be found to address some of these protection of the open spaces so vital to constraints. 21

The governance of change some areas where further work should be done – aspects of quality of life, 54 The Commission recognises that the institutional arrangements (especially in London Development Agency (LDA) terms of cross-boundary working), what and (TfL) are climate change might mean for the area now working to make outer London a and, in particular, the resources available higher spatial priority in their investment to help it realise its economic potential strategies and plans. To support this, the and the scope to make London’s ‘spatial LDA in particular should encourage local strategy’ more effective in coordinating partnerships by, for example, facilitating investment beyond its traditional land land assembly, helping create capacity for use, transport and environmental areas town centre management and identifying of concern. There are also some specific distinct outer London skills needs. issues for further research, like the definition of ‘knowledge-based’ and 55 The Commission supports streamlining ‘green’ industries. of the development process in order to reduce the time spent on the planning 57 In conclusion, the Commission suggests permission process and speed up that consideration be given to maintaining the production of local development a forum for outer London to advise on frameworks. It supports boroughs implementation of the recommendations retaining part of the national non- in this report and, perhaps separately, domestic rates paid by businesses in their to provide the basis for occasional, high area, and allowing them to borrow against level engagement with key stakeholders future Council Tax income. There is also in the outer London economy to identify room for changes to national government and assess emerging challenges and practice – in speeding up the identification opportunities. and disposal of surplus public land, for example.

The future

56 This report marks the end of the Commission’s formal task. In looking back over its work, it reflects on the huge and increasing diversity of outer London, and the many talented people it has in its businesses, voluntary organisations, communities and boroughs. It highlights 22 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report 1: Introduction 23

1.1 The Outer London Commission (OLC) business and residential environments; was formally established by the Mayor of examine the relationship between London in February 2009 as a small, highly population, housing and economic experienced and focused group, to advise growth and the infrastructure necessary to how outer London can play its full part in support this. the city’s economic success. In short, its task was to see how outer London could Methodology be given “a shot in the arm”, redressing what has been seen as an imbalance in 1.3 The Commission has taken pains to the attention given to outer London and ensure its discussions, conclusions and refocusing attention on a part of the recommendations are based on credible capital that plays so important a role in and robust evidence. Starting from a the life of our city. ‘First Thoughts’ paper based on initially available information, the Commission Overall purpose of the report set out to establish a base line data set showing as far as possible economic 1.2 This is the Commission’s final report. It: performance and other trends over two • Examines the extent to which outer business cycles. It has gratefully used London has potential to contribute to the past research and studies (including economic success of London as a whole that prepared for the GLA by Robin • Identifies the factors which are holding it Thompson) and has commissioned new back from doing so, and work where needed. It has also engaged • Makes recommendations on policies and in the evolution of the joint evidence base mechanisms to enable to enable it to play developed by the GLA Group to support its full part in London’s future success. the draft replacement London Plan and the Mayor’s draft Economic Development The report addresses the fundamental and Transport strategies. reasons for establishing the Commission in the first place – to identify the capacity 1.4 The Commission was clear from the to grow the outer London economy in outset that the experiences, views and a sustainable way, removing barriers ideas of those who have engaged with to growth for competitive, established outer London and its issues over the sectors and to attract new ones; explore years would be an essential resource the potential contribution of a few on which it would need to draw. With large “growth hubs”; secure the wider this in mind the second step it took rejuvenation of outer London’s town was an extensive series of consultation centres and other business locations; meetings with outer , improve outer London’s quality of life, business groups, civic amenity societies 24 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 1.1: Locations of OLC public meetings.

and others to address the aspirations 1.5 The next stage was to draw on the evidence of outer London and the priorities for and views the Commission had gathered policy intervention. The starting point to consider the spatial opportunities for for this was responses to a set of written outer London growth, taking particular questions published on the Commission’s account of the likely levels of investment in website (see Annex 2). In addition to the transport and accessibility. provision of written questions, there were more than thirty meetings of one to one/ 1.6 Finally, the Commission reached its small group discussions with stakeholders conclusions and made recommendations. and ‘meetings in public’ in the quadrants As requested in its terms of reference, it of outer London. Figure 1.1 shows the prepared an interim report in June 2009 to locations of the public meetings: help inform the draft replacement London Plan and other mayoral strategies issued 25

Figure 1.2: The work of the Commission: a timeline

for consultation in October. This interim Commission’s work, and the processes for report and evidence submitted to the revising the London Plan and the Mayor’s Commission can be found at: Economic Development and Transport http://www.london.gov.uk/olc/docs/ strategies: interim-conclusions.pdf. The Commission 1.7 This is our final eport,r which draws our conclusions and recommendations 1.9 The Commission was chaired by William together, and shows how these have been McKee CBE, who has extensive experience developed, and the evidence on which in both the public and private sectors. Its they are based. This process has broadly membership comprised representatives from followed the “survey – analysis – plan” diverse backgrounds including business, approach familiar to town planners in boroughs, architecture and design, drawing up strategic policy. developers and the voluntary sector: Chair: William McKee CBE 1.8 The period over which this work was Sir Terry Farrell, Adviser on architecture and carried out is shown in Figure 1.2. This civic design also shows the relationship between the 26 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Colin Stanbridge, London Chamber of • Ways of encouraging employment growth Commerce and Industry in outer London. Cllr Mike Fisher, LB Croydon (nominated by • Ways of identifying, and supporting the ) development of economic growth hubs in Cllr Clyde Loakes, LB Waltham Forest outer London. (nominated by London Councils) • The role of town centres and town Cllr Serge Lourie, LB Richmond-upon- centre based initiatives such as business Thames (nominated by London Councils) improvement districts and town centre Robert Heskett, Land Securities partnerships. Tony Pidgley, Berkeley Group • The role that heritage and urban design Nigel Keen, John Lewis Partnership issues might play. Peter Eversden, London Forum of Amenity • The links between housing, retail, office and Civic Societies based and other types of employment Corinne Swain, Arup and development in outer London. Professor Ian Gordon, London School of • Links between economic success and Economics improving quality of life in outer London, Peter Rogers/Peter Bishop, London and ways of managing these effectively. Development Agency • Infrastructure and other supporting Peter Hendy/Michele Dix, Transport for investment required to support economic London growth in outer London. Secretariat: John Lett, Rob Coward, Hannah • Methods of funding such infrastructure Phillips (GLA), Peter Wright (TfL). and investment. • Identify issues that are presented by the Terms of Reference relationship between outer, inner and central London. 1.10 The Mayor set the Commission the following terms of reference: 1.11 The Commission was also requested to make general and place specific “Identify the extent to which outer London recommendations about implementing the has unrealised potential to contribute policies and initiatives, including: to London’s economic success, identify • Improving the current arrangements for the factors which are holding it back and sub- regional working. recommend policies and proposals for the • Encouraging more effective joint action future development of outer London to the by boroughs, the GLA Group, other Mayor for inclusion in the London Plan and public sector agencies and the private other GLA group strategies and guidance. and not- for- profit sectors. These should include: • Ways to make public, private and third sector partnerships to secure investment 27

Figure 1.3 Definition of outer London (as amended)

Definition of Outer London:

The definition of outer London used by the OLC was based on that used by the GLA in the initial preparation of the London Plan . It includes the following boroughs: Barking & , Barnet, , Brent, , Croydon, , Enfield, Haringey, Harrow, Havering, , , , , Newham, Redbridge, Richmond upon Thames, Sutton and Waltham Forest.

Compared to the GLA definition of outer London the ONS definition includes but excludes Newham and Haringey. It should be noted that following the consultation undertaken by the OLC, in particular representation by Newham regarding the dominant characteristics of the borough, the definition of outer London changed to reclassify Newham as part of inner London (see Figure 1.3).

and development in outer London more development of outer London and effective. neighbouring parts of the wider • Establishing more effective metropolitan area. communication with neighbouring regions to secure coordinated economic 28 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

This report • The question of linkages with neighbouring regions outside London 1.12 Following the “survey – analysis – plan” and the “outer metropolitan area” approach, this report is divided into • Transport issues that will have to be sections as outlined below: addressed. : Existing policy approaches and drivers of economic success, Chapter 2: ”Survey” summarises key including the historic approach of parts of the evidence gathered by the the London Plan and development of Commission and taken into account in London, the current economic recession, its work. It briefly outlines the historic additional analysis for transport and land background to the development of the use options and economic viability. outer London economy and highlights elements of the Commission’s evidence Chapter 4: “Plan”/Recommendations base relating to its size and importance, – sets out our final conclusions and its role in the wider London economy, recommendations: its structure and geography. It also sets out information about outer London’s This is followed by a list of key references workforce and its resources of land and used in preparing the report, together investment with a series of Annexes providing further information. Chapter 3: “Analysis” draws on the evidence in the previous chapter to develop recommendations and proposals. It examines: • The possible scale of economic growth in outer London • The kinds of economic sectors that might support growth in the area • The case for a hub-based approach to policy • Ways of making the existing economic geography of outer London – town centres, strategic industrial locations, Opportunity/Intensification Areas etc. work better to support growth in outer London • The importance of quality of life and environmental quality issues 2: Survey 29

Introduction in the 20th century1; others dealing with outer London as a geographic entity2 2.1 This chapter of the report seeks to and some dealing with specific themes3. briefly summarise the evidence which the Also important were broader studies, Commission gathered or had access to. such as thematic analysis, for example With such a complex and broad ranging that by Sir Peter Hall and Cathy Pain on array of material there is no single, simple ‘polycentricity’4 and that by the Solutions methodology for presenting it. The team5 on sustainable development. The pragmatic response has been to briefly work of the ‘London Group’6 of academics describe the main sources of information was particularly illuminating. used and then, to set the scene, sketch a potted history of outer London. This 2.3 Of more immediate interest were the is followed by largely statistical outlines reports by Robin Thompson7 and the of the key issues considered by the London Assembly8 prepared to inform the Commission, broken down broadly by 2008 edition of the Plan. These showed those which are ‘demand side’ (output, what had previously been addressed in employment, businesses) and ‘supply side’ this context (the Commission had no wish (population and workforce). In the world to reinvent the research wheel), and also of planning (rather than economics) there what had not, or perhaps more pertinently, can be considerable overlap between the not in the way in which the Commission’s two, but the distinction has been made brief was cast. to help the reader. This is complemented by sections on housing, transport, and 2.4 Where the Commission was able to add a ‘quality of life’ and, by way of synthesis, new dimension was in engaging with the one which explores possible future trends key stakeholders in the London economy in the outer London economy and another to find out what they thought were summarising what key stakeholders the key opportunities and challenges it thought of its economic past and see for faced and how they might be addressed its future. (see Chapter 1 of this report for methodology). The contributors to this Sources process are noted in Annex 8 and their responses briefly summarised below. 2.2 The Commission was able to draw, and These, and, the evidence they submitted reach its own conclusions, on a wealth to the Commission, are available on the of published studies on London, some Commission’s website9. dealing with London as a whole but touching, sometimes in depth, on outer London e.g. Jerry White’s opus on London 30 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

2.5 The Commission sought to assess these 2.8 GLA Economics13 and the LDA14 prepared views, and its own, through independent a series of statistical analyses of some of analysis. This work was undertaken in the individual issues and areas identified an iterative way, initially testing the by the Commission. They are raised below, propositions in its ‘First Thoughts’ paper10. together with the results of relevant This is set out in full as an annex to the ‘one-off’ studies, such as the London present report because it shows ‘where Office Policy Review15 (which included the Commission was coming from’ when it a bespoke analysis of the outer London began its work. and Metropolitan Area office markets); the London Town Centres Health Check 2.6 As it progressed the Commission sought and retail need study16, the Strategic to make the most effective use of Housing Land Availability Assessment/ integrated material being prepared to Housing Capacity Study17 and borough inform the draft Transport and Economic level sectoral refinements to the 2009 Development Strategies as well as the Plan’s economic projections18. The London Plan. Thus the Commission was Commission also reconsidered some of able to influence and benefit from the the evidence which underpinned the results of large scale ‘number crunching’ 2008 London Plan19. It was fortunate in exercises assessing long term trends in being able to draw on the expertise of London’s demography and economy as one of its members involved in preparing well as testing different approaches to the most recent edition of the City of transport investment. London’s annual ‘London’s Place in the UK Economy’ report20, which includes a 2.7 However, it began its work by first separate section on outer London. evaluating the demographic, economic and investment assumptions which had 2.9 In taking account of such a range of underpinned the 2008 Plan, and moving sources covering a long period, the on to assessment of emerging analysis, Commission encountered a range of such as then new historic employment definitional issues, not least geographical. trends prepared by Cambridge As far as possible, it conducted its Econometrics, Oxford Economics and analysis on the basis of the area of outer Business Strategies Limited (Annex 3A) London defined in its brief (see Figure before exploring what were to become 1.1) – which inter alia contributed to its the 2009 London Plan base trends and recommendation that Newham was more projections11 (Annex 3B). These are appropriately defined as an inner London summarised in iterations of the Joint borough (see Figure 1.3). Where this was Strategies Evidence base12. not possible, the definitions used are noted in the text/footnotes. 31

Outer London: historic context by the between 1896 and 1906, and provision of services 2.10 Outer London is a mixture of old and new. by local authorities like helped The capital’s outward growth embraced support further expansion. These are the ancient towns and villages – the first suburbs marked by terraces of Victorian written record mentioning Croydon is and Edwardian houses in places like an Anglo Saxon will dating from 962 , and . and parts of Ealing have been occupied for at least 700 years. But other areas 2.12 The greatest expansion, though, came in and much of the area’s “connective the period between the two world wars. tissue” is much more recent – most of This was when what is now north-west suburban north was built London was developed, seeing huge in the years between the world wars, population growth (north-west and photographs of the areas from the grew by 800,000 in this period) supported early thirties around new Underground by new rail lines and services. Perhaps stations in places like show small the best known example of this is the rural villages unrecognisable today. The Metropolitan Railway, which established a term “connective tissue” is an apposite development subsidiary to build houses in one; London’s outward surge followed places like Harrow and . improvements in public transport and the construction of new infrastructure 2.13 The 1930s saw a range of new industries which made it possible to work in central move to outer London where larger London while living in places with many of sites with easy access to the large and the conveniences of urban living and the growing markets of the London area – for quality of life of more rural areas. example Fords in Dagenham in the 1920s and Hoover building its iconic works on 2.11 The administrative the Western Avenue. Outer London was established in 1889 covered the area not only a place where more and more roughly encompassed by Travelcard zones people lived, but also a place where many 1 and 2. The continuously built-up area worked and made things. By the 1950s, extended a little further out into the areas for example, Fords were producing around around the docks to the east, Hackney a quarter of a million vehicles each year and to the north and Herne at Dagenham and London as a whole Hill to the south. Cheap workmen’s accommodated a quarter of the country’s rail fares helped the city spread to the manufacturing jobs, most in outer London. north and east from the 1860s. The Particularly after the second world war, consolidation of previously privately- outer London experienced substantial owned and competing tram networks growth in office based jobs, providing 32 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

‘back offices’ for central London’s business others have seen traditional strengths and financial services, administrative in services reinforced and built upon and headquarters functions for firms as sectors change and new ones come which wanted a London location without forward. The remainder of this chapter central London costs, central government seeks to map this variety. administrative functions, and some specialist activities such pharmaceuticals Outer London economy: demand side and the emerging IT sector. How big is the outer London 2.14 Manufacturing in London started to economy? decline in the early 1970s. In 1971, there were over a million manufacturing jobs Output in the capital, many of them in outer 2.16 In workplace output terms, outer London London. There are now 224,000, with the accounted for a third (32.6% – £83,064 prospect of further decline to 89,000 by million) of London’s £254,621 million 203121. The large factories in outer London economy in 200722. While this was little closed as production was moved to other more than half (54%) of that of the ‘home parts of the where larger, counties’ as a whole (Essex, Bedfordshire, cheaper sites were available – or out of , Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, the country altogether. Exacerbated by and ), its was substantially technological and organisational change larger than any individual county e.g. Beds and government dispersal policy, a similar & Herts £36,310 million, Essex £28,349 process also affected some of outer million, Surrey £26,992 million, Kent London’s large post-war office occupiers. £26,519 million). The outer West &North West ONS London sub-region accounted 2.15 However, at the same time new, more for 47 per cent of the outer London locally based jobs were being created total, with the outer East & North East in the service sectors like retail, leisure, contributing a further 27 per cent and personal and business services and outer South 26 per cent. the creative industries, especially to meet the local needs of an increasingly 2.17 Between 1995 and 2007, outer London’s affluent population. The result is a hugely workplace based output grew at a variegated one, with some parts of the significantly slower rate (86%) than that area still coping with the consequences of of inner London (138%), with the outer the first shift to a post-industrial economy E & NE (72%) and outer S (76%) growing or with the first set of post-industrial more slowly than outer W and NW (101%). changes as large scale office occupation This rate of growth was also slower than contracted in the 1980s and 1990s, while that recorded for the ‘home counties’ as 33

Figure 2.1 Gross average weekly household income 2007/8

a whole (103%), and at individual county for average resident household income level only Buckinghamshire had a slower in Figure 2.1, which shows the boroughs growth rate (79%). towards the west of outer London as part of a more extensive distribution of 2.18 It must be borne in mind that these are wealthier districts across the western workplace not residence based measures parts of the Outer Metropolitan Area, of output. The high levels of out- and conversely, the less affluent commuting by outer London residents to eastern boroughs as part of a similarly inner London and, to a lesser extent, to characterised area beyond London’s the ‘home counties’ (see below) create boundaries, especially towards the south a rather different pattern. A rough proxy east. However, as more detailed analysis for this distribution is provided by that later in this report demonstrates, as an 34 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

indication of the incomes of different types 3,200 pa 1989 – 2001 and 0.10 per cent pa of household, this broad brush impression (1,900 pa) 2001 – 2007. This compares with can be misleading: a finer appreciation 0.49 per cent pa (5,300 pa) in inner London shows a much more complex picture. 1989 –2001 and 0.41 per cent pa (4,600 pa) 2001 – 2007, and in the ‘home counties’ Employment respectively 1.71 per cent pa (50,000 pa) 2.19 In workplace employment terms, Annex 3B and 0.28 per cent pa (9,000 pa) over the shows that outer London accounted for same periods24. See Annex 3C for the ‘home two fifths (42% – 1.97 million) of London’s counties’ employment figures 1989-2007. 4.67 million jobs in 2007. This was more than half (60%) of that of the ‘home How is employment growth counties’ as a whole (Essex, Bedfordshire, distributed? Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, 2.22 Figures 2.2 and 2.3 and Annex 3B show that Surrey and Kent), and was substantially over the two cycles spanning 1989 – 2007, larger than any individual county e.g. Kent outer London employment growth was far 635,000, Essex 625,000, Surrey 506,000, from homogeneous. At borough level: Berkshire, 462,000) • Five outer boroughs exceeded the pan- London total average growth for the 2.20 Over time, employment growth in outer period (8.9%) and the inner London London has been relatively slow, but average (8.6%): LB Hillingdon (50.6%); steady. This is in contrast to the more LB Richmond (41.0%); LB Barnet (18.4%); boom-to-bust cycle that characterises LB Haringey (13.5%) and LB Bromley employment in inner London. In fact, (12.9%). employment has been largely steady across Of the remainder outer London for several decades, although • Four boroughs were above the outer employment growth over the two last London average (2.6%): LB Kingston economic cycles has been lower in outer (8.5%); LB Merton (7.4%); Redbridge London than in London as a whole. (6.4%) and LB Harrow (6.3%). • One borough was below the outer London 2.21 Peak to peak across two economic cycles average but had positive growth: LB Sutton (1989 – 2001 and 2001 – 2007) outer (1.1%); and London employment grew by an average • Nine outer boroughs had negative growth: 0.14 per cent pa or 2,800 pa, compared LB Havering (-0.2%); LB Ealing (-4.9%); with 0.46 per cent pa in inner London23 LB Bexley (-6.2%); LB Enfield (-6.4%); LB (5,100 pa) and 1.23 per cent pa (36,000 Brent (-11.0%); LB Croydon (-13.8%); LB pa) in the ‘home counties’. More recently Waltham Forest (-14.0%); LB Hounslow growth has been slower, with outer London (-16.2%) and LB Barking & Dagenham employment growing by 0.17 per cent or (-27.1%). 35

Figure 2.2 Average annual change in employment over economic cycles 1989-2001 and 2001 – 2007 Source: Roger Tym & Partners, 2010

2.23 Analysis of annual average change in 2.24 In outer London, the pattern at borough employment in Figures 2.2 and 2.3 shows level however reveals significant that for outer London as a whole there variations. Five boroughs in outer west was a slight difference in employment and south London (Harrow, Hillingdon, growth rates between the cycles, 0.17 per Kingston, Merton and Richmond) cent pa 1989-2001, compared to 0.10 per experienced positive average annual cent pa 2001-2007, compared to the inner employment growth across both cycles. London respective averages of 0.46 per Employment growth rates were particularly cent pa and 0.36 per cent pa respectively. strong across the two cycles 1989-2001 and 2001-2007 in Hillingdon (3% pa and 0.9% pa respectively) and Richmond 36 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 2.3 Average annual % change in employment over economic cycles

(2% pa and 1.8% pa respectively). Four 2.25 Figures 2.2 and 2.3 highlight this variation boroughs (Barnet, Havering, Redbridge in employment growth. To some extent the and Sutton) experienced positive annual variation in growth rates reflects the state average employment growth 1989- of industries located in different boroughs. 2001 but negative annual average As noted below, some industries are employment growth in 2001-2007. concentrated in small geographies. Barking Three boroughs (Bromley, Ealing and & Dagenham has historically been an area Haringey) experienced negative annual associated with manufacturing, an industry average employment growth 1989- that has been in decline for decades, 2001 but strong positive annual average whereas employment in Richmond is much employment growth in 2001-2007. Seven more heavily concentrated in finance and boroughs (Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, other service industries. These industries Brent, Croydon, Enfield, Hounslow and have been growing rapidly in the last three Waltham Forest) experienced negative decades. average annual employment growth across both cycles. 2.26 Figures 2.4a and 2.4b show that Borough level analysis can distort appreciation of the distribution of growth. A finer grained approach to London’s economic 37

Figure 2.4a London’s Economic Geography

Figure 2.4b London’s Economic Geography: shares of employment in key economic activities 2002 Source: Annual Business Inquiry, GLA Economics. Based on ONS definition of outer London 38 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

geography highlights what GLA that the area of outer Economics25 call the ‘pillars’ of the outer London was most reliant on traditional London economy focused on Heathrow manufacturing activities as of 2002. and Croydon, together with ‘corridors’ of development that offer potential for 2.30 The 2007 Annual Business Inquiry shows employment growth and ‘wider urban that the two largest outer London areas of areas’. employment in absolute terms are Croydon (with 92,000 employees) and Heathrow 2.27 Sectors shown in Figure 2.4b make up and its immediate surrounds (with 91,000 around 60 per cent of total employment employees). To put this in context, the City in outer London (sectors including of London (which is, in terms of land mass, construction, hotels and parts of the less than a sixth of the size of Croydon) public sector were not included in the accounts for over 300,000 employees analysis). (or just under a seventh of all the jobs in outer London). Other Outer Metropolitan 2.28 Heathrow is notably dominated by centres (as defined in the London Plan) passenger transport, freight and storage with large clusters of employment include activities, reflecting the position of (around 35,000 employees), the airport in the local economy. As a Bromley (27,000 employees) and result, the area has very small shares of Kingston (23,000 employees). Most other employment in local activities and in Metropolitan and Major centres in outer schools and hospitals – employment that London have fewer than 20,000 employee can be viewed as serving the needs of the jobs. local community. To test this distribution further, GLA In comparison the outer urban areas Economics have undertaken more detailed generally have larger shares of employees spatial analysis: engaged in local activities and in schools and hospitals (further details on this Employment in outer London below). town centres 2.31 Employment density in outer London 2.29 Also of note are relatively large shares of is far lower than in central London and Croydon’s and south eastern London’s so much of the geographic variation in employment in financial services. Amongst density within outer London is hidden outer London areas, creative jobs are most if it is examined as part of employment predominant in the western and south density across London as a whole (Figure western zones and wholesale activities 2.6). Figure 2.5 below therefore examines provide large shares of employment employment density in outer London only in the western wedge. The data shows and so uses a scale that explicitly shows 39

Figure 2.5: Employment density in outer London by Middle Supper Output Area. Town Centres are shaded in red and blue. Source: GLA Economics

the finer variation in employment across employees work in town centres and about outer London. If employment in outer 40 per cent work outside these centres. London was only located in town centres this map would show a number of darker 2.32 Places where people work outside centres patches that correspond to town centres. include industrial parks like , the But it does not. There are many areas of Thameside sites in , and sites employment that are outside town centres in Enfield. Or they are smaller industrial and sometimes the number of people sites, such as in New Addington. They working here is quite substantial. In total, include hospitals, for example in Bromley around 60 per cent of outer London Common, or universities, like in Coombe Hill. And around Heathrow airport there 40 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

are a number of industrial sites and office District centres, the 119 town centres in parks. Office parks are not uncommon in outer London account for around 60 per West London. cent of employment in outer London. The remaining 40 per cent is located outside Method these town centres, in industrial areas, 2.33 This analysis was conducted using business parks or in smaller local centres. data from the Annual Business Inquiry at Middle Supper Output Area. This 2.35 Employment in the town centres varies as geography was used because there are much as across outer London as a whole. over 900 MSOA, about 50 per cent For example: more than wards. This helped increase • Much of the employment in Croydon the granularity of the analysis. MSOAs is split across three broad economic that contain any part of a town centre, sectors. Financial and business services including those that merely share a currently employ around 27,000. Public border, were assumed to be part of a administration, education and health town centre to allow for any instances activities provide 25,000 jobs and the where town centre boundaries follow broad distribution, hotels and restaurants retail patterns rather than class B uses as sector employs a further 21,000. defined by DCLG (PPS4). All employment • In Uxbridge, public administration, within these MSOAs was aggregated and education and health services account assumed as ‘town centre’ employment. for around 10,500 jobs. The other Any employment in the other MSOAs was largest sources of employment are the not defined as town centre employment. distribution, hotels and restaurants This analysis did not attempt to estimate sector (just over 9,000 jobs) and business employment in individual town centres. services (7,000 jobs). • In Bromley, financial and business 2.34 This is an important point for the services accounts for 11,000 employees, Commission and perhaps one which with around half of these jobs in runs counter to the perceptions of some financial services. Distribution, hotels of its consultees. Employment in outer and restaurants account for almost London is not concentrated in a few 6,000 and only slightly less are in public small areas, but is actually spread widely administration, education and health. across the region, with generally more • Finally, in Kingston, retail and wholesale people working in the western half. The is the largest sector of employment, Metropolitan Town Centres make up only providing around 7,000 jobs. Other a small amount of total employment but economic activities in this area are public are significantly clusters relative to their administration, education and health with surroundings. Together with the Major and 41

7,000 jobs and business services with data – a substantial proportion of it may around 4,000 jobs. be located there, as an sector cluster.

The GLA is advised to examine the types 2.38 Data from the annual business inquiry of work occurring in out of centre as well shows that clusters of employees exist as these town centre locations and if in outer London in a number of sectors. possible to explore their relative growth These range from manufacturing to rates. insurance activities.26

What are the key clusters of economic 2.39 West London is home to a number of activity in outer London? industrial clusters, particularly in what 2.36 While it is useful to examine the is known as the ‘western wedge’ from composition of employment in outer Heathrow to central London. These include London this only compares areas against many ‘creative’ industries, including: areas. It is also worthwhile to consider the • Motion picture, video and television location of employment within specific programme production, sound recording industries. By examining the location of and music publishing activities; specific industries it is possible to identify • Programming and broadcasting activities; industrial clusters where significant and numbers of employees within the industry • Advertising and market research. are located. Some sectors benefit more than others by being located near to one There are also a number of west London another. These clusters may then continue centres where Scientific Research and to attract the same type of industry. Development is concentrated. Other sectors tend to locate together in areas where there is a natural advantage 2.40 It was noted above that many more to them. For example, businesses moving people are employed in financial services large amounts of goods between cities in Croydon than in other parts of outer may locate near a motorway because of London. This is largely because of a the transport infrastructure usually, rather significant cluster of insurance and than because they benefit from being near reinsurance activities and a smaller cluster one another. exists in nearby Bromley.

2.37 It is possible to identify sectors that are 2.41 Notable clusters in manufacturing and significantly located within outer London. warehousing employment exist elsewhere So even though employment in these in outer London, particularly near may be small – causing the activity to transport infrastructure. Manufacturing ‘disappear’ when looking at borough-level is most prominent near Heathrow, Park 42 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 2.6 Employment density in London Source: Annual Business Inquiry 2007

Royal and in the Upper Lea Valley. other such functionally important clusters, Warehousing follows a similar pattern, including those in other sectors such as with additional clusters near London City leisure and culture. Airport, Croydon and along the Thames in East London. The Commission was mindful How does outer London relate to the that employment is only one measure wider metropolitan economy? of economic activity. It did, for example, 2.42 Within London as a whole the accessibility identify functionally important clusters of and agglomeration advantages make the manufacturing related activity elsewhere Central Activities Zone the prime location e.g. at Biggin Hill and in south Kingston. for businesses and there is very high The GLA and more local stakeholders competition for space there. Indeed it is could usefully work together to identify this competition for limited space that 43

Figure 2.7 Industrial structures: comparative geography Source: Annual Business Inquiry, 2007

drives up land values and acts, alongside businesses tend to be suppliers to other congestion and other diseconomies of businesses, often those in the centre, and spatial concentration, as a check on businesses serving local communities. The further concentration27. As in most cities, types of business that might provide a land prices are highest in the centre and more supportive role to other businesses generally decline with distance from the include those involved in catering, centre, reflecting the appeal of central cleaning, logistics and security. To this locations when compared to peripheral end the proportion of jobs associated ones. Firms that benefit most from with serving the population (like retail agglomeration are most willing and able or health and education for example) to pay for offices in central London and and jobs in what might be referred to as so the most productive jobs are located ‘support business services’ is higher in in the centre. This is reflected in both outer London than in inner London. As a productivity and wages earned28, as well as result, the composition of the economy in employment densities (see Figure 2.6) the outer boroughs more closely resembles that of the rest of Great Britain than inner 2.43 Where agglomeration benefits do not London, as shown in Figure 2.7. Health amount to enough to compensate for and education account for 18 per cent of higher rents, for instance in activities that jobs in outer London and 23 per cent of are more space intensive, firms locate employment is in retail and leisure. This elsewhere, either in outer London or compares to only 11 and 20 per cent, other towns and cities in the wider region. respectively, of jobs in inner London. By and large (but not exclusively) these Businesses providing supplies or services 44 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 2.8: Shares of total employment in local activities and in schools and hospitals, GLA Economics geography zones (see Figure 2.6) 2002 Source: Annual Business Inquiry, GLA Economics. Based on ONS definition of outer London

to other businesses make up the third The Northern, Eastern and South largest component of outer London’s Eastern outer urban areas typically have labour market. the highest proportions of their total employees in either local activities or 2.44 The analysis above underscores the schools and hospitals (around 25 per importance of local services, both public cent). Proportions of employees in and private, in driving the outer London schools and hospitals in Western and economy. Figure 2.8 shows the shares of South Western areas are slightly lower in total employment in local activities and comparison. in schools and hospitals in the economic geography zones in outer London. 45

Figure 2.9: IDBR VAT registered enterprises by industry, outer London boroughs, 2007 Source: DMAG Focus on London borough statistics, ONS. Based on ONS definition of outer London

2.45 Croydon and the outer areas of the What are the distinct features remaining four corridors have shares of associated with outer London jobs in local activities and in schools and businesses and other employers? hospitals between 13 per cent and 18 per 2.46 The nature of economic activity in cent. These comparatively lower shares outer London boroughs can also be reflect greater levels of employment in gauged from the composition of firms other economic activities as shown in in those boroughs. Figure 2.9 shows the Figure 2.5. proportions of firms in broad sectors defined by the ONS inter departmental business register (IDBR) for outer London boroughs. 46 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 2.10: IDBR VAT registered enterprises by employment size band, outer London boroughs, 2007 Source: DMAG Focus on London borough statistics, ONS. Based on ONS definition of outer London

2.47 Figure 2.9 shows that proportions of most likely to be located close to their construction firms are highest in Havering places of registration in outer boroughs (24.6 per cent) and Bexley (22.4 per cent). (unlike employment in larger firms). Figure Meanwhile, Richmond upon Thames has 2.10 shows that the largest number of the highest share of firms in the property micro firms are located in Barnet, Ealing and business services sector (49.9 per and Richmond. Of all the outer boroughs cent) followed by Barnet (45.1 per cent), the fewest number of firms with less than Kingston upon Thames, Harrow and 10 employees are located in Barking and Merton. Dagenham.

2.48 IDBR data also shows the prevalence of 2.49 Figure 2.11 shows the break down of small firms in the outer boroughs. Figure private businesses by broad industrial 2.10 here is restricted to micro firms category in each of the outer London (those with less than 10 employees) boroughs and makes clear the variation in because employment in these firms is employment type between the different 47

Figure 2.11: Business units in outer London by broad industrial group Source: Annual Business Inquiry, 2007

boroughs, though even this masks very local differences. This analysis looks only at business units and so overstates the size of the private sector in outer London as public bodies like schools, hospitals and borough councils tend to employ large numbers of people. 48 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Outer London economy: • eight boroughs growing above the outer supply side issues London average (8.7%) – Hounslow 17.6%, Merton 17.3%, Haringey 16.3%, What are the key demographic issues Redbridge 15.6%, Kingston upon Thames relevant to the Commission? 15.5%, Richmond upon Thames 13.0%, Brent 12.1% and Enfield 11.0%, Historic trends and 2.50 While outer London currently contains • eleven boroughs growing below the outer 42 per cent of the capital’s jobs it is London average – Barnet 10.3%, Barking home to 60 per cent of its 7.6 million & Dagenham 8.9%, Hillingdon 8.3%, residents. The historic demographic trends Ealing 8.2%, Sutton 8.1%, Croydon 6.2%, underpinning the present population/ Harrow 5.7%, Waltham Forest 4.5%, employment structure have a fundamental Bromley 1.2%, Bexley 0.6% and Havering bearing on the issues and perceptions -3.8%. which the Commission was asked to address. 2.52 The factors underpinning this pattern of change are complex and have implications 2.51 Figure 2.12 shows how outer London’s for the economy of the wider city as well historic role in accommodating the city’s as that of outer London itself. On the population has changed. While London’s one hand, the 2001 Census1 showed that overall population declined from WWII compared with inner London, outer London until the mid 1980’s, this contraction was is still relatively strongly characterised by concentrated in inner London, with outer indicators of ‘familism’ and social stability. London experiencing a mix of modest It has relatively fewer single person expansion or relatively lower rates of households, more economically active decline. The mid 80s was a cathartic time residents as well as those over retirement for London in demographic as well as age, less over-crowding, better health political and economic terms. London’s and higher educational attainment (see population began to stabilise and then below). expand but this process was focused on inner London, with generally lower 2.53 However, outer London is changing. rates of growth in outer London. As with There is already a well established trend employment growth, Table 2.1 shows that for migration of families and older people the pattern of population change was by from outer London, especially to the home no means even, with: counties (from which the economically • no boroughs growing at the same or active may return to London to work). a higher rate than the inner London Conversely, the historic exodus of inner average (19.1%), Londoners to outer looks set to continue, 49

Figure 2.12: Annual population change: inner, outer and Greater London: 1971-2008

Figure 2.13 Change in high socio-economic group (Social Occupation Class 1-3) 1991 – 2001 50 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 2.14 Percentage change in ethnic minority population 1991 - 2001

perhaps partially offset in the future Projected trends by reverse migration of younger outer 2.54 Like London as a whole, Tables 2.1 and 2.2 Londoners seeking more urban lifestyles show that the outer suburbs are projected closer to the centre. Figure 2.13 shows to experience a substantial increase in both that the ethnic composition of outer population and households in the period London is also changing with particular up to 2031. Outer London’s population growth in west, north and parts of east is expected to grow by 520,000 to over and south outer London. So too is its 5.1 million. On an annualised basis, this is social status, with downward or static significantly higher (23,000 pa) than that trends among the higher socio economic recorded in the previous 23 years (16,000 groups across most boroughs (Figure pa), but much lower than that projected 2.14). for inner London (32,000 pa). Figure 2.15 shows this projected growth between 2011 51

and 2031on a ward by ward basis. The London (78%) than inner (59%) as the projected increase in household numbers suburbs undergo some of the demographic (17.6%) is expected to be significantly less changes which characterised inner London than in other parts of London, but will still in earlier decades. While the numbers of produce a challenging increment of 330,000. married couples are expected to decline, numbers of co-habiting couples, lone 2.55 This is partly because the tendency towards parents and ‘other adult’ households are small households will be slightly more expected to increase. pronounced here than in the rest of the Nevertheless, relative to inner London, capital. In the period to 2031, one person growth in the younger age groups is households are expected to comprise a expected to be less and in the older greater component of growth in outer groups greater.

Table 2.1: Outer London Population Change: 1985 – 2031 1985 2008 2031 % growth 1985-2008 % growth 2008-2031 Barking and Dagenham 157.9 171.9 237.6 8.9 38.2 Barnet 294.7 324.9 414.5 10.3 27.6 Bexley 217.3 218.5 225.8 0.6 3.3 Brent 246.3 276.1 310.1 12.1 12.3 Bromley 296.9 300.5 315.4 1.2 4.9 Croydon 317.2 336.8 379.4 6.2 12.6 Ealing 290.5 314.3 347.4 8.2 10.5 Enfield 262.6 291.5 308.3 11.0 5.8 Haringey 201.2 234.0 273.8 16.3 17.0 Harrow 205.6 217.3 211.8 5.7 -2.5 Havering 238.5 229.4 272.2 -3.8 18.7 Hillingdon 232.6 251.9 280.1 8.3 11.2 Hounslow 195.6 230.0 254.0 17.6 10.5 Kingston upon Thames 132.5 153.1 165.8 15.5 8.3 Merton 166.7 195.6 200.7 17.3 2.6 Redbridge 217.9 252.0 285.0 15.6 13.1 Richmond upon Thames 162.4 183.6 195.3 13.0 6.4 Sutton 170.6 184.4 186.3 8.1 1.0 Waltham Forest 216.1 225.8 249.0 4.5 10.3 Inner London 2544.0 3030.6 3756.2 19.1 23.9 Outer London 4223.1 4591.5 5112.5 8.7 11.3 Greater London 6767.1 7622.2 8868.7 12.6 16.4 52 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Table 2.2: Outer London Household Change: 2008- 2031 2008 2031 % growth 2008-2031 Barking & Dagenham 71.5 103.9 45.3 Barnet 132.7 180.2 35.8 Bexley 92.1 99.3 7.8 Brent 106.0 129.8 22.4 Bromley 130.8 143.9 10.0 Croydon 145.2 176.4 21.5 Ealing 123.2 142.8 15.9 Enfield 117.6 130.0 10.6 Haringey 97.2 115.3 18.6 Harrow 85.0 93.9 10.4 Havering 95.6 121.9 27.5 Hillingdon 102.1 119.2 16.7 Hounslow 90.8 103.4 13.9 Kingston upon Thames 64.5 72.9 13.0 Merton 83.0 90.8 9.4 Redbridge 97.8 116.0 18.6 Richmond upon Thames 79.7 85.6 7.4 Sutton 79.9 85.4 6.8 Waltham Forest 94.1 111.4 18.4 Inner London 1345.3 1775.4 32.0 Outer London 1888.9 2221.9 17.6 Greater London 3234.2 3997.3 23.6 53

Figure 2.15: Ward Level Population Change: 2011-31

2.56 These projections are based on recent Age trends and national assumptions in 2.57 The age of the resident population has mortality and fertility, together with particular implications for the economic migration largely determined by housing concerns of the Commission, including the development. While susceptible to policy, way these relate to quality of life through social and technology changes e.g. in infrastructure provision. In 2006 outer terms of migration, social cohesion or London as a whole had larger shares of its medicine, and subject to continuous population in the 45-64 and 65 and over monitoring, they at present look deepset age cohorts compared with inner London, and are considered to provide a robust although these shares were still lower than basis for planning London’s future. those for the wider UK (Table 2.3). Outer London also had slightly higher shares of residents 15 or under than inner London. 54 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

However there was a significantly lower (17.5 per cent), followed by Bromley share of 25-44 year olds in outer London (16.7 per cent) and Bexley (15.9 per as a whole compared with inner London cent). Meanwhile the highest shares of (almost a 10 per cent differential). population 15 or under were in Barking and Dagenham (23.8 per cent), Redbridge 2.58 Comparing outer London boroughs, (21.4 per cent) and Waltham Forest (21.0 Havering had the largest share of its per cent). resident population in the 65+ age group

Table 2.3: Resident Population mid-2006 by age groups Percentages 0-15 16-24 25-44 45-64 65+ Barking & Dagenham 23.8% 12.5% 30.8% 20.1% 12.8% Barnet 20.2% 10.8% 32.9% 22.2% 13.8% Bexley 20.2% 11.2% 28.2% 24.4% 15.9% Brent 18.7% 12.5% 36.8% 20.3% 11.7% Bromley 19.7% 9.7% 29.4% 24.6% 16.7% Croydon 20.8% 11.5% 31.7% 23.2% 12.8% Ealing 18.8% 11.7% 37.4% 20.8% 11.3% Enfield 20.9% 11.7% 31.9% 22.3% 13.3% Greenwich 20.8% 12.5% 34.5% 20.3% 11.9% Harrow 19.5% 11.7% 31.2% 23.5% 14.2% Havering 19.1% 11.0% 26.6% 25.8% 17.5% Hillingdon 20.5% 13.3% 30.5% 22.3% 13.5% Hounslow 19.5% 12.3% 36.2% 21.0% 10.9% Kingston upon Thames 18.0% 13.1% 34.3% 22.3% 12.2% Merton 18.3% 10.5% 38.6% 20.6% 12.0% Redbridge 21.4% 11.7% 31.4% 22.5% 12.9% Richmond upon Thames 19.4% 9.0% 34.8% 24.1% 12.7% Sutton 20.0% 10.4% 32.4% 23.2% 14.0% Waltham Forest 21.0% 12.2% 36.1% 19.8% 10.9% Inner London 18.0% 12.5% 42.2% 17.8% 9.5% Outer London 20.0% 11.5% 32.9% 22.3% 13.3% London 19.2% 11.9% 36.6% 20.5% 11.8% United Kingdom 19.0% 11.9% 28.3% 24.7% 16.0%

Source: DMAG Focus on London 2008, ONS; Based on ONS definition of outer London 55

Density Brent (6,277 per km2), Waltham Forest 2.59 Also of relevance to the Commission is (5,712 per km2) and Ealing (5,517 per the density of outer London’s population km2). which affects not just the nature of market The sparsest populations were in the outer areas but also bears on the economics of boroughs of Bromley (1,992 per km2), infrastructure provision. Table 2.4 shows Havering (2,025 per km2) and Hillingdon population densities for outer London (2,161 per km2). Population density in boroughs and inner London (based on outer London as a whole was almost a ONS definitions) in 2006. The most third of that recorded for inner London. densely populated outer boroughs were

Table 2.4: Population density, mid-2006 Area (Km2) Population (thousands) Density (Pop/km2) Barking & Dagenham 36 165.7 4,591 Barnet 87 328.6 3,788 Bexley 61 221.6 3,659 Brent 43 271.4 6,277 Bromley 150 299.1 1,992 Croydon 87 337.0 3,895 Ealing 56 306.4 5,517 Enfield 81 285.3 3,529 Greenwich 47 222.6 4,702 Harrow 50 214.6 4,251 Havering 112 227.3 2,025 Hillingdon 116 250.0 2,161 Hounslow 56 218.6 3,904 Kingston upon Thames 37 155.9 4,186 Merton 38 197.7 5,257 Redbridge 56 251.9 4,466 Richmond upon Thames 57 179.5 3,127 Sutton 44 184.4 4,206 Waltham Forest 39 221.7 5,712 Inner London 319 2,972.9 9,311 Outer London 1253 4,539.4 3,624 London 1572 7,512.4 4,779

Source: DMAG Focus on London 2008, ONS Based on ONS definition of outer London 56 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 2.16 Average population turn over rates 2001 - 2006

Population ‘churn’ rates of population churn over the 2001- 2.60 Population turnover or ‘churn’ is also of 2006 period were in the outer London relevance to the Commission. Turnover is boroughs of Sutton, Bromley, Bexley and measured as the population inflow plus Havering. outflow excluding within-borough moves. Flows include both migration within the UK and international flows (Figure 2.16).

2.61 Highest turnover rates amongst the outer boroughs are in those to the south and west of London, namely Merton, Kingston upon Thames, Richmond upon Thames, Hounslow, Ealing and Brent. The lowest 57

Figure 2.17: Areas of London with employment to population density ratio > 1

What are the characteristics of the 2.63 While areas with the highest ratios of outer London workforce? employment to population density are focused in the centre of London, reflecting 2.62 The relationship between numbers of an agglomeration of business activities in residents and the numbers of jobs in the centre and commuting to central areas, outer London bears on the Commission’s the blue wards coinciding with Metropolitan remit. GLA Economics have assessed this town centres and other major employment using 2001 employment and population foci e.g. Heathrow also have high ratios. density data2. Results displayed in Figure Despite having lower accessibility these 2.17 show wards where the ratio of outer London areas maintain high relative employment to population density is levels of employment, presumably sustained greater than unity. to a greater extent by the local resident populations. 58 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

2.64 When the population: employment 2.65 Boroughs with the lowest jobs density relationship is presented at borough ratios are Waltham Forest (0.55), Barking level (Table 2.4), Hillingdon (including and Dagenham (0.57) and Redbridge its airport related employment) emerges (0.58). These low ratios are likely to reflect with the highest ratio, with slightly more both commuting and workless individuals than 4 jobs for every 3 residents. Kingston living in the borough (both of which are is the only other outer borough where covered by analysis below). the number of jobs exceeds the resident population.

Table 2.4: Jobs density in outer London boroughs, working age, 2006 Barking and Dagenham 0.57 Barnet 0.82 Bexley 0.63 Brent 0.72 Bromley 0.80 Croydon 0.78 Ealing 0.76 Enfield 0.67 Greenwich 0.63 Harrow 0.74 Havering 0.74 Hillingdon 1.37 Hounslow 0.98 Kingston upon Thames 1.03 Merton 0.71 Redbridge 0.58 Richmond upon Thames 0.88 Sutton 0.69 Waltham Forest 0.55 Greater London 1.02 United Kingdom 0.88

Source: ONS Based on ONS definition of outer London 59

Figure 2.18: Flows of workers within, into and out of London

2.66 Whilst residents outnumber jobs in all but workers that live outside that borough’s a small number of outer London areas boundaries. namely Heathrow and outer town centres Figure 2.18, showing absolute flows of 2.68 The top section of the chart shows workers, indicates that the majority of that in inner London boroughs receive those who do work in outer London are large shares of workers from other areas also residents of outer London boroughs. (typically 70-90 per cent of the total workforce). In contrast, outer London 2.67 Figure 2.19 shows proportions of Boroughs tend to be more “self contained” working residents that are employed in so far as more of their local workforce outside of boroughs in which they live, is made up of local residents. However, and the proportions of each borough’s even outer London boroughs depend 60 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 2.19: Fluidity of workforce by borough Source: Census 2001.

significantly on non-resident workers 2.69 Aside from commuting to work, residents – 39 per cent of Croydon’s workers do also travel for leisure and other purposes. not live in the borough, 50 per cent in Data from TfL’s London Travel Demand Kingston. Hillingdon (not shown on this Survey (LTDS) breaks down trips by chart) sourced 63 per cent of its workers purpose that are taken within and from outside of the borough. According between outer London, inner London and to 2001 data Hillingdon was also the only central London. Results are shown in Table borough in which less than half of working 2.5. residents did not work outside of the borough boundary (reflecting employment 2.70 Table 2.5 shows that the largest total opportunities offered by Heathrow). number of trips per day are taken within outer London (ONS definition used by 61

TfL). The majority of these trips are taken 2.72 Additional data from the LTDS indicates for shopping or leisure purposes. that of all outer London boroughs (ONS definition) residents of Kingston upon 2.71 Around half of all trips between outer Thames make the greatest number of trips and central London are for commuting per day on a per person basis, followed by purposes. In comparison a lower share those in Richmond upon Thames, Barnet of trips between inner and outer London and Bromley. Total distance travelled per areas are for commuting, the largest share person per day is highest for Bromley being for leisure purposes. followed by Kingston, Havering and Richmond.

Table 2.5: Trip purpose shares by origin-destination areas 2007/2008 Trips per day Trip purpose (thousand) Shopping/ Commuting Other work Education personal Leisure Other business Within central London 742 20% 8% 2% 32% 32% 6% Within inner London 4,478 11% 5% 9% 35% 26% 14% Between central and 1,247 33% 11% 7% 23% 20% 6% inner London Within outer London 8,757 12% 4% 9% 34% 25% 16% Between central and 719 51% 15% 3% 11% 17% 3% outer London Between inner and 1,779 22% 11% 6% 20% 31% 9% outer London Between Greater 690 16% 17% 3% 17% 40% 7% London and rest of GB All areas 18,410 16% 6% 8% 31% 26% 13%

Source: TfL London Travel Demand Survey 2007/08 Based on ONS definition of outer London 62 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 2.20: Employment in inner and outer London, expenditure-based sectors, 2005

2.73 The patterns of commuting for work and sectors. This categorisation differs from leisure shown in Figures 2.17 and 2.18 traditional industrial classification in that it and Table 2.5 reflect the concentrations aims to understand the role products and and occupational makeup of jobs in outer services play in the economy rather than London and central areas. Residents simply categorising the output created. of outer London boroughs commonly So, for instance, instead of classifying commute to work in agglomerated bars and catering as part of ‘hotels and business and financial services in the CBD, restaurants’ they are split into ‘consumers leading to higher overall employment spending their money’ (bars) and ‘support densities in the centre. Employment data business services’ (catering). in Figure 2.203 illustrate these patterns of employment in outer and inner London 2.74 In contrast to inner London, commerce using a range of expenditure-based in the outer London boroughs (with the 63

Figure 2.21: Average point score by candidates achieving GCE/VCE A/AS and key skills at Level 3 qualification

exception of Heathrow) has proportionally 2.76 Figure 2.21 compares outer London (ONS greater focus on leisure, shopping and definition) with inner London, London as a local activities required by local residents. whole and in terms of the average points score of candidates achieving Level Qualifications 3 qualifications (A level or equivalent). 2.75 School achievement provides a foundation The chart shows that the average score for Londoners to succeed in the region’s in outer London is higher than in inner labour market, which employs a greater London and just below the England proportion of highly skilled people than average. other parts of the UK. Outer London has a 78 per cent participation in post 16 2.77 Department for Children, Schools and education compared to 70 per cent in Families (DCSF) data for 2006/07 show a inner London and 71 per cent in England. similar out-performance of outer London 64 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 2.22: GCSE (5+ A*–C) attainment including English and Maths by London Borough 2005/06 (%)

over inner London in GCSE results, with 2.79 Figure 2.22 shows that attainment at the percentage of outer London pupils GCSE level is better than the London achieving 5+ GCSEs with A*-C grades average across the majority of outer higher than the England average. London boroughs with the top performing outer borough being Sutton in which 63.1 2.78 It is also possible to compare the per cent of pupils achieved 5+ GCSEs with performance of pupils across outer A*–C grades including English and Maths. London boroughs. This is done in Figure Only three outer London boroughs posted 2.22, a chart modified from a previous weaker attainment than the inner London GLA Economics report to focus on outer average, Waltham Forest (38.6 per cent), London areas (ONS definition of outer Barking and Dagenham (37.7 per cent) London used)4. and Greenwich (31.4 per cent). Table 2.6: Destinations of secondary school pupils, outer London boroughs, 2007 65 Outflows of pupils Inflows of pupils Pupils Pupils from attending residing in to other to outside from other outside of Net schools in Turnover borough boroughs of London boroughs London difference1 borough ratio2 Richmond upon 5,809 1,400 205 2,666 108 1,169 6,978 0.75 Thames Sutton 10,934 2,105 865 4,187 887 2,104 13,038 0.74 Kingston upon 6,929 1,594 550 2,013 582 451 7,380 0.68 Thames Hounslow 12,448 2,887 1,047 3,726 186 -22 12,426 0.63 Merton 8,689 2,857 96 2,051 137 -765 7,924 0.59 Barnet 15,625 3,115 479 4,040 315 761 16,386 0.51 Brent 14,493 3,769 74 3,180 334 -329 14,164 0.51 Greenwich 13,187 3,778 112 2,744 47 -1,099 12,088 0.51 Bexley 14,699 2,054 604 3,810 633 1,785 16,484 0.48 Croydon 19,807 4,648 956 3,536 323 -1,745 18,062 0.48 Harrow 10,700 2,962 584 1,295 113 -2,138 8,562 0.46 Bromley 16,228 2,555 656 3,888 276 953 17,181 0.45 Havering 14,881 1,800 1,107 2,336 909 338 15,219 0.41 Redbridge 15,975 2,240 945 2,428 578 -179 15,796 0.39 Hillingdon 15,149 2,278 953 2,107 510 -614 14,535 0.39 Ealing 15,473 3,417 207 1,804 32 -1,788 13,685 0.35 Enfield 17,928 2,373 442 2,902 324 411 18,339 0.34 Barking and 11,505 1,821 43 1,042 83 -739 10,766 0.26 Dagenham Waltham Forest 13,970 1,656 142 774 64 -960 13,010 0.19 Outer London 254,429 49,309 10,067 50,529 6,441 -2,406 252,023 0.46 Inner London 124,131 35,336 436 30,273 219 -5,280 118,851 0.53 Total London 378,560 84,645 10,503 80,802 6,660 -7,686 370,874 0.48

1 Positive figure indicates borough is a net importer of pupils. Negative figure indicates borough is a net exporter of pupils 2 Turnover ratio is the sum of inflows plus outlows of pupils divided by number of pupils residing in the borough Source: DMAG Focus on London 2008, DCSF Based on ONS definition of outer London

2.80 Many pupils attend schools that are not 2.81 The table shows that some outer London maintained by the borough in which boroughs are net importers of secondary they live, commuting to other boroughs school pupils relative to numbers of pupils or outside of Greater London. This may in residence and other boroughs are net reflect relative attractiveness or scarcity exporters of pupils. Overall the number of schools relative to where a pupil lives of pupils attending secondary schools in or the ability of a pupil to travel. Table outer London boroughs (ONS definition) is 2.6 provides details of the movements of approximately 2,400 less than the number secondary school pupils across boroughs of pupils residing in those boroughs. The and London’s boundaries. Figures are for turnover ratio is a measure of the fluidity pupils attending maintained mainstream of pupils in the boroughs – the sum of secondary schools, City Technology inflows and outflows divided by resident Colleges and Academies (not including pupils in the borough. Richmond and those attending independent schools). Sutton are the boroughs with the highest 66 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 2.23: Economic activity rates, working age, 2006

turnover of pupils and are also the biggest How extensive is worklessness and importers of pupils. poverty in outer London? 2.83 Worklessness and poverty are both 2.82 Table 2.6 does not include pupils influenced by whether people are attending independent schools. For 2007 supplying or wanting to supply their DCSF data shows that the most pupils labour to produce goods and services – attending independent schools were in the that is those in the population who are boroughs of Richmond (3,529), Croydon economically active. Economic activity (3,000), and Barnet (2,388). The fewest rates for the outer London boroughs, attendants of independent schools were London as a whole and England and Wales in Bexley, Barking and Dagenham, and are shown in Figure 2.23. Havering. 2.84 The chart shows that in 11 of the outer London boroughs economic activity rates are above the average rate for England 67

Figure 2.24: Employment and unemployment rates in London boroughs, 2005 Source: GLA DMAG Borough 68 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

and Wales and the average outer London clustered together in north eastern activity rate (77%) is above that of London there are far lower rates of inner London (75%). However, Annex economic activity – notably Newham 4 shows that in broad terms, growth (65.0 per cent), Barking and Dagenham in the economically active population (70.2 per cent) and Redbridge (10,900 persons pa 1991 – 2008) has (71.5 per cent). outstripped historic employment growth (2,800 jobs pa 1989 – 2007) and is 2.87 Employment and unemployment projected to do so in the future (average rates are displayed in Figure 2.24. The economically active population growth maps show a clear pattern with high 2008 – 2031 is expected to be 8,900 pa employment and low unemployment while employment growth 2007 - 2031 rates in outermost boroughs to the South is projected to be 6,000 pa). To set this West, South East and East of London. in a wider perspective, the economically There are mixed rates of employment and active population of London as a whole unemployment in the North and North is projected to increase by an average of West outer boroughs. 26,000 people pa while employment in Barking and Dagenham and Newham are London is projected to increase by 32,000 the outer boroughs that suffer the lowest pa 2007 – 20315. employment and highest unemployment rates. According to latest ONS data for 2.85 This provides a fuller context for concerns 2007, the unemployment rate in Newham expressed to the Commission over the stood at 11.3 per cent. perceived ‘decline’ of the outer London economy – while it is widely recognised Poverty Indicators that locally based employment is not 2.88 Boroughs with the highest rates of growing as fast as in inner London (see worklessness are also, not surprisingly, above), this is not always balanced by those with the greatest incidence of an appreciation that local residents of poverty and low income households. working age are more likely to be in employment, partly because two fifths 2.89 Taking firstly the income distribution, of them commute elsewhere. Thus Figure 2.25 shows for outer London policy must recognise the importance of boroughs the shares of households commuting to outer London residents as receiving incomes in four bands ranging well as the need to generate additional from less than £15,000 to £60,000 or local employment. more.

2.86 However, it must also be borne in mind 2.90 The data are equivalised, meaning that that in a number of outer boroughs incomes are adjusted to reflect household 69

Figure 2.25: Household income distribution, equivalised, % of households, 2008 Source: DMAG from 2008 PayCheck dataset. Outer and inner London distributions based on ONS definitions

size, taking into account both the of less than £30,000 are greater than greater income needs of larger families the corresponding proportion for Great and economies of scale achieved when Britain (59 per cent). people live together. The data relates to household income from earnings and 2.92 The outer boroughs with the greatest benefits but does not include outgoings proportions of residents with incomes such as tax payments and housing costs. of above £60,000 are Richmond (26 per cent), Kingston (20 per cent), and 2.91 Boroughs with the highest shares of Bromley (18 per cent). households with incomes of under £15,000 are Newham and Barking & 2.93 Aside from income thresholds, which Dagenham (around one-quarter of can be considered an absolute measure households in both boroughs). These are of poverty, benefits data offer a useful also the only two outer boroughs where source of information about the degrees proportions of residents with incomes of poverty and low incomes across 70 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Table 2.7: People of working age and children in families on key benefits People of working age on key benefits, Children in families on key benefits, August November 2007 2007 Claimant rate (%) Rank in Great Britain Claimant rate (%) Rank in Great Britain Barking and Dagenham 20.4 32 33.3 14 Greenwich 17.8 73 32.5 17 Waltham Forest 16.9 86 33.2 15 Enfield 16.2 99 30.1 27 Brent 15.6 111 32.6 16 Ealing 13.4 164 27.7 38 Croydon 13.3 166 23.0 82 Redbridge 13.0 172 23.6 78 Hounslow 12.8 181 27.0 39 Hillingdon 11.9 216 22.4 92 Havering 11.7 221 16.5 183 Barnet 11.3 235 18.8 140 Bexley 11.3 236 14.8 213 Harrow 11.0 245 17.5 167 Bromley 10.3 267 15.8 190 Sutton 9.8 285 14.4 224 Merton 8.7 318 20.3 118 Kingston upon Thames 7.1 369 10.8 300 Richmond upon Thames 6.9 380 8.6 350 Outer London 12.7 - 22.8 - Inner London 15.6 - 35.7 - Greater London 14.0 - 27.5 - Great Britain 13.9 - 19.1 -

Source: DMAG Borough Poverty Indicators from DWP Based on ONS definition of outer London Notes: Rates are calculated as a percentage of all those of working age and aged 0-18 years respectively from the ONS 2007 mid-year population estimates. Rankings are out of 408 Local Authorities in Great Britain where 1 is the highest rate.

the outer London boroughs. Table 2.7 benefit, disability allowances, income shows, for outer London boroughs (ONS support and working and child tax credits. definition), people of working age and children in families on key benefits 2.94 The table shows that in outer London including jobseekers allowance, incapacity (ONS definition) the highest proportions of both working age population and 71

children in families on key benefits are in the proportions of different types of the borough of Barking and Dagenham. households in the outer London boroughs In close proximity and also scoring poorly (ONS definition) and in inner London and on these benefits indicators is Waltham England for comparison. Forest (ranked second-worst overall in outer London based on the ONS definition 2.98 Outer London as a whole has lower in terms of children in families on key proportions of one-person households benefits). (32 per cent) and households formed of two or more unrelated adults (9 per cent) 2.95 Not included in the table is Newham due compared with inner London (for which to the borough not being in the ONS the proportions in these categories are outer London definition of outer London 40 per cent and 14 per cent respectively). used by this dataset. Child poverty is In contrast there is a markedly greater especially acute in Newham, with 41 per proportion of married couple households cent of children in families on key benefits in outer London (42 per cent) compared (ranked fourth out of all Local Authorities with inner London (24 per cent). in Great Britain). 2.99 Comparing outer London boroughs with 2.96 For all of the outer London boroughs one another, the largest proportions of the proportions of children in families married couple households are in Harrow on key benefits ranks higher out of all and Havering (making up 51 per cent Local Authorities in Great Britain than the of households in both boroughs). The proportions of all people on key benefits. highest proportions of households formed This reflects a greater extent of child of two or more unrelated adults are Brent poverty in London compared with the rest (14 per cent) and Ealing (12 per cent). of the country. However, claimant rates in outer London boroughs are significantly 2.100 The greatest proportions of lone-parent lower than those in inner London – households in outer London boroughs the gap between the two areas being are in Barking and Dagenham (13 per particularly marked for children in families cent), Greenwich (13 per cent), Waltham on key benefits. Forest (11 per cent) and Brent (11 per cent). These are the only outer London What is distinct about outer London’s boroughs with proportions of lone-parent incomes and lifestyles? households above the proportion for 2.97 Household incomes and expenditures, to inner London boroughs combined (ONS be considered below, in part reflect the definition). types of households in which individuals in the outer boroughs live. Figure 2.26 shows 72 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 2.26: Households by type, outer London boroughs, 2004

2.101 Household income distribution in the £449, Brent with £475, and Barking and outer London boroughs has been analysed Dagenham with £494). previously above. Also of interest are average incomes and earnings in the outer 2.103 The highest average incomes and levels London boroughs and comparisons with of weekly pay in outer London are in the inner London. Figure 2.27 maps median boroughs of Richmond upon Thames and average equivalised household incomes Kingston upon Thames. and median average weekly pay for individuals. 2.104 Occupations are a key driver of incomes and earnings. Evidence of this for outer 2.102 The outer boroughs with the lowest London is the occupational mix in average equivalised household incomes boroughs with the highest and lowest are Newham (£23,600), Barking and average household incomes and earnings. Dagenham (£23,900), and Brent (£26,600). These same three boroughs 2.105 Outer boroughs with the top three average are also those with individuals on the household incomes are also those with lowest average weekly pay (Newham with residents on the highest average weekly pay (Richmond upon Thames, Kingston 73

Figure 2.27: Median equivalised household income (2008) and median weekly pay (2007) 74 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

upon Thames and Bromley). And three 2.108 The occupational mix of residents living in boroughs with lowest average household outer boroughs with the highest incomes incomes are also those with lowest and earnings is closer to that of inner average weekly pay levels (Newham, London. The occupational mix in boroughs Barking and Dagenham, and Brent). For with the lowest incomes and earnings is these two groups of boroughs, Figure 2.28 more akin to that of outer London as a shows proportions of residents in different whole, but with higher shares of residents occupational groups from all those in employed in low skill occupations. employment. Also shown for comparison are the occupational shares in all outer 2.109 Geographically, this provides a finer London and inner London boroughs. grained appreciation of the broad differences in income distribution shown 2.106 In the boroughs with lowest household in Figure 2.1, which outlined a greater incomes and earnings there is a spread concentration of wealthier outer London of residents working across the major households towards the south west occupational groups, with over a and, with some exceptions, a greater quarter of people employed in what concentration of the less well-off towards can be termed low skill jobs; elementary the east. occupations, process, plant and machine operatives, and sales and customer service occupations. Just over 40 per cent of working residents in these boroughs are employed in one of the high skill categories; managers and senior officials, professional occupations, and associate professional & technical occupations.

2.107 In contrast, greater proportions of workers living in boroughs with the highest incomes and earnings are employed in the high skill occupations – likely to be in higher-end business and financial services agglomerated centrally and thought of as specialist areas for London. Only 13 per cent of workers living in these boroughs are employed in the aforementioned low skill occupations. 75

Figure 2.28: Occupational shares in boroughs with the top three and bottom three average household incomes and earnings, 2007 76 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

What is distinct about housing in outer 17.7 per cent the proportion of public London? sector dwellings in outer London is almost half that in inner London (34.9 per cent). 2.110 By way of context for the Commission’s The tenure mix in outer London is closer work, it should be noted that the to those in the South East and Eastern characteristics of London’s housing market regions and England as a whole. are distinct from elsewhere in the country. Greater London has the highest average 2.114 Outer London boroughs with the highest house prices of any UK region and a proportions of affordable housing are greater proportion of London’s housing Barking and Dagenham (32.4 per cent), stock is social (public) housing compared Newham (30.7 per cent) and Haringey with the rest of England. (29.6 per cent). These three boroughs along with Brent provide over 30 per cent 2.111 Of particular relevance to the Commission of outer London’s total affordable housing are those features of housing in outer supply. Figure 2.29 is a map showing the London that differ from those in inner geography of social housing throughout London and the wider south east. Also London. Outer boroughs with the highest of significance are differences in housing shares of private housing are Redbridge market conditions between outer London (90.7 per cent), Harrow (89.3 per cent) boroughs. and Kingston upon Thames (88.5 per cent). 2.112 Table 2.8 shows total numbers of dwellings and percentages of private and public 2.115 The proportions of unfit housing in outer (social) housing in outer London boroughs London are lower than those in inner and, for comparison, inner London, London but higher than shares recorded Greater London, the South East, the in the wider south east. Of outer London East of England and England as a whole. boroughs, Newham and Brent have Private housing is that which is owner particularly high shares of unfit dwellings occupied or private rented. The table also in the private sector and the greatest shows the percentages of private and shares of unfit public housing are in public dwellings in each area that are Barking and Dagenham and Harrow. deemed unfit.

2.113 Outer London provides 61 per cent of London’s total dwelling stock. The tenure mix here is noticeably different from that of inner London, where a much greater proportion of housing is ‘affordable’. At 77

Table 2.8: Dwelling stock by tenure and condition, 2006 Total % Unfit % Unfit Dwelling Stock % Private Sector % Public Sector Private Sector Public Sector Barking and Dagenham 69,137 67.6 32.4 4.8 5.0 Barnet 134,105 86.4 13.6 5.6 0.9 Bexley 93,773 87.4 12.6 3.5 0.0 Brent 105,424 75.7 24.3 15.3 0.2 Bromley 131,834 88.3 11.7 3.1 4.6 Croydon 139,366 83.3 16.7 8.3 1.0 Ealing 122,484 80.0 20.0 0.9 1.7 Enfield 117,446 84.5 15.5 3.8 0.8 Haringey 98,838 70.4 29.6 9.8 4.5 Harrow 83,567 89.3 10.7 3.9 8.9 Havering 96,904 86.0 14.0 3.9 2.7 Hillingdon 101,593 82.3 17.7 5.7 0.8 Hounslow 90,964 77.7 22.3 3.5 0.1 Kingston upon Thames 62,982 88.5 11.5 4.4 0.0 Merton 80,403 86.4 13.6 5.7 2.4 Newham 98,169 69.3 30.7 15.2 3.2 Redbridge 96,638 90.7 9.3 5.9 0.0 Richmond upon Thames 79,949 88.0 12.0 5.0 0.4 Sutton 77,734 84.7 15.3 4.2 0.0 Waltham Forest 95,026 78.2 21.8 5.8 3.3 Outer London 1,976,336 82.3 17.7 5.8 2.1 Inner London 1,239,656 65.1 34.9 7.1 4.7 Greater London 3,215,992 75.7 24.3 6.2 3.6 South East 3,535,792 85.6 14.4 3.7 0.9 East of England 2,421,804 83.7 16.3 3.9 0.5 England 22,085,741 81.5 18.5 4.8 2.5

Source: GLA DMAG 2009 London Borough Stat-pack Based on GLA definition of outer London

2.116 Over the past 20 years London’s and stock of housing, with these trends population has been rising which, together expected to continue in the medium to with declining average household size, long term. This follows economic theory. has led to increased demand for housing. There are many things that affect price The result has been a rise in both the price and dwelling numbers but increasing 78 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 2.29: Proportions of households living in social housing by ward, 2001

household numbers is one of the most completions over time in outer London fundamental of them. This can be inferred sub-regions (left hand axis) and inner from the market assessments and NHPAU London for comparison (right hand axis)1. reports. 2.118 Housing supply in the outer South 2.117 Annex 5B shows that until the early East (Bexley and Bromley) has been in 90’s, outer London housing output was general decline since the late 1980s, consistently above that of inner London, although picked up somewhat since 2003. but since then, with few exceptions, it Completions in the outer North, outer has been below, usually by a significant South West and outer West all fell during margin. However, this headline conceals the 1990s but have risen since the start of considerable local variation. Figure the current decade, with the sharpest rate 2.30 shows net conventional housing of growth in this period in the outer South 79

Figure 2.30: Net conventional housing completions, 3 year moving averages2

West. Housing supply in the outer North when they resulted in development East rose strongly from 1999 to 2002 but which is out of scale and character with has rather plateaued since then. the residential heartlands. Thus, while average density of new development 2.119 Housing output is partly a function of in outer London is less than half that the density of development. However, in inner London3 (Figure 2.31), 50 per simply raising densities across the board cent of output is still above the range is not a solution to increasing output, for a particular location which might much less sustaining the distinct qualities be expected from London Plan density of suburban London. High housing policy (compared with 56 per cent in densities in inappropriate locations were inner London – Annex 5C). The policy an important concern for many of the itself4, based on ‘Sustainable Residential respondents to the Commission, especially Quality’ (SRQ) principles originally 80 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

developed by the boroughs themselves, in particular, new homes are of a high appears reasonable (subject to some standard. minor modifications – see below). The problem would seems to be much more in 2.121 According to data from the Land Registry, its implementation, with the ‘SRQ’ matrix average house prices rose in every outer being interpreted mechanistically and not London borough in every year from 1997 enough attention being paid to the need to 2007. It is of interest to examine the to respect local context and to take proper magnitude of house price increases across account of public transport accessibility. different outer London boroughs during Annex 5C also shows that even taking this the residential property boom. into account, the policy does not seem to be being interpreted consistently across 2.122 Figure 2.32 shows percentage increases in outer London. Though it is intended to average house prices in the latest two five- provide flexibility to respond to different year periods for which data is available local circumstances, the character of outer (1997 to 2002 and 2002 to 2007). Data London would not appear to vary so much is shown for the outer London boroughs as to justify one outer borough having (ONS definition), outer and inner London an average new development density of and the East and South East regions for 35 dwellings/ha5 (implying significant comparison. output below the national 30 dwellings/ ha minimum benchmark), while densities 2.123 The chart shows that across all areas in most outer boroughs are at least double growth in house prices was sharper in the this. period 1997-2002 compared with 2002- 2007. During the 1997-2002 period prices 2.120 The Commission recognises that in outer London underwent a sharper implementing the policy more effectively percentage increase (96 per cent) than will require a more complex decision those in inner London (90 per cent), the making process and will place pressure wider South East (90 per cent) and East on Development Control resources – (89 per cent) regions, and the whole of however, this is essential to deliver the England and Wales (74 per cent). The ‘Sustainable Residential Quality’ outcomes sharpest rises in outer London occurred in originally anticipated. It should be backed Waltham Forest, Brent and Redbridge. by refinements to the 2008 Plan which place greater emphasis on optimising 2.124 From 2002-2007 the percentage increase rather than maximising output by taking in average prices in outer London (50 per proper account of local context and access cent) was slightly less marked than that to public transport, and by measures to in inner London (53 per cent), the East ensure that in higher density development of England (53 per cent), and England Figure 2.31: Density of residential development by borough 81 Approvals Completions

Inner London 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07 Camden 136 116 227 227 141 106 330 1,263 525 505 558 423 Greenwich 136 246 161 123 148 170 Hackney 201 240 275 236 183 266 and 187 227 160 197 143 116 259 256 319 288 235 226 Kensington and Chelsea 138 164 170 147 164 135 127 216 203 173 163 141 163 173 142 137 123 109 Newham 366 347 269 261 293 163 321 277 285 229 263 268 Tower Hamlets 311 481 348 312 299 248 171 151 154 172 135 169 154 254 160 261 207 259 213 274 208 215 181 189

Approvals Completions

Outer London 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07 Barking and Dagenham 80 146 165 144 125 95 Barnet 113 79 78 115 66 66 Bexley 99 51 87 75 48 44 Brent 133 149 199 150 106 113 Bromley 36 49 44 35 54 54 Croydon 130 106 115 98 72 78 Ealing 160 113 121 162 140 195 Enfield 66 82 52 70 95 75 Haringey 114 173 136 163 138 175 Harrow 59 90 111 71 79 93 Havering 55 41 60 72 63 55 Hillingdon 91 69 85 60 54 49 Hounslow 164 95 156 120 102 120 Kingston upon Thames 77 60 45 59 115 86 Merton 74 94 64 46 96 93 Redbridge 87 116 150 114 132 126 Richmond upon Thames 58 60 83 82 58 74 Sutton 92 118 70 89 53 60 Waltham Forest 119 128 130 132 125 140 90 96 87 85 83 87

All boroughs 136 151 129 130 118 123

Note: Figures are based on gross residential units in schemes for which a site area is available 82 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 2.32 Percentage changes in average house prices, 1997 to 2002 and 2002 to 2007

and Wales (59 per cent). However, outer boroughs in terms of their average house London’s increase was again sharper than prices changed little over the last ten years that in the South East (47 per cent). with a few notable exceptions. Average The sharpest increases in outer London prices in Brent and Redbridge were the between 2002 and 2007 were in Barking tenth and thirteenth most expensive in and Dagenham, Waltham Forest and outer London respectively in 1997. By Merton. 2007 Brent was the sixth most expensive borough and Redbridge the tenth most 2.125 In 2007 (i.e. close to the peak of the expensive borough. recent housing boom) the average house price in outer London was £301,000 compared with £440,000 in inner London (ONS definitions). Average prices in outer London boroughs varied widely from £512,000 in Richmond to £193,000 in Barking and Dagenham. The ranks of outer 83

Figure 2.33: Number and main mode share of residents’ trips (all purposes) within and between central, inner and outer London, 2001

What are the distinct features of 2.127 The main mode shares displayed on the transport in outer London? map indicate that of trips taken within outer London over half were taken by car and 2.126 Information already presented covers around a third were walking or cycling trips. commuting aspects of transport. Figure Car journeys represented an even larger 2.33 shows the main mode shares of share of trips between outer boroughs and trips taken for all purposes within outer outside of London (around 80 per cent). London and to inner and outside of London. Also shown on the map are total 2.128 In contrast, public transport was used for numbers of trips in millions. The ‘private’ around 80 per cent of all trips between mode represents car or other automobile outer and central London, with the journeys. remainder of journeys between the two areas by car. 84 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Table 2.9: Main mode of travel to work, Autumn 2006

Source: ONS Labour Force Survey from TfL 2007 London Travel Report Based on ONS definition of outer London

Table 2.10: Travel times to work by main mode, Autumn 20062

1 Includes modes not listed (e.g. taxi). 2 Comparisons with earlier years results (reported in previous editions) are subject to sampling error and should be treated cautiously. Source: ONS Labour Force Survey from TfL 2007 London Travel Report Based on ONS definition of outer London

2.129 Between outer and inner London car 2.130 Data gathered by TfL also allows closer journeys were again the most widely used inspection of modes of travel to work form of transport, representing slightly from and to outer London areas (and inner more than half of all trips. The vast majority London). This information is shown in of non-car trips between outer and inner Table 2.9. London were taken by public transport. 85

Figure 2.34: Estimated traffic flow densities, flows for all motor vehicles (million kilometres) per sq km

Almost half of all journeys to work commutes. Shorter journeys are likely to by residents of outer London (ONS be taken by those that live and work in definition) are by car, reflecting a large outer London and outer areas contain proportion of work commutes that are lower employment densities compared within outer London (see Table 2.5). The with central London, meaning that three principal modes of public transport congestion is not as great. (bus, rail and underground) are used by approximately equal shares of outer 2.132 As shown above car journeys make up a London residents to get to work. significant proportion of all trips taken by residents of outer London. It is therefore 2.131 Travel to work times, shown by main of interest to examine which outer modes of transport in Table 2.10, are boroughs contain the most car traffic, and significantly shorter for workers in outer to compare boroughs of different sizes it London compared with inner London 86 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 2.35: Change in traffic flows 1993-2007, outer and inner London, flows for all motor vehicles (million kilometres)

is useful to look at traffic flows per square time in the two areas is shown in Figure kilometre of area. 2.35. Traffic has increased steadily in outer London from just over 21 billion vehicle 2.133 Figure 2.34 shows firstly that traffic flow kilometres in 1993 to just under 23 billion density is much lower in outer London vehicle kilometres in 1999, and has since compared with inner London. It also shows remained at about the same level. Traffic which outer boroughs receive the highest in inner London increased from 1993 to and lowest traffic flow densities, with 1999, and has since fallen. densities likely to reflect traffic volume and the location of major thoroughfares 2.135 Freight and servicing vehicles make up and motorways (M4 and M11 for an important component of the trips example). undertaken across London by road, rail and river. Despite the large number of rail 2.134 Without accounting for area, outer freight movements along the corridors to London contains higher absolute flows of the north, west and east of London, road traffic compared with inner London. Total freight makes up 89 per cent of freight by absolute traffic (vehicle kilometres) over tonnage and furthermore it is expected 87

Figure 2.36: HGV freight flows across London

to grow to meet the demands from day activities taking place in London. The London and the rest of the country. Figure number of vans (LGVs) is forecast to grow 2.36 shows HGV freight flows across by 30 per cent between 2008 and 2031 London. Within the M25 freight flows with some growth in HGV activity. are high predominantly on radial routes through outer London, as well as along the orbital north circular road. Across London, freight accounts for 17 per cent of kms travelled. A 10 per cent increase in freight mileage would be more than all bus mileage in London. Commercial vehicles, such as those used for deliveries and waste collection, facilitate the day to 88 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Quality of Life Open space 2.139 Access to open space is relatively good. 2.136 Outer London scores strongly on most Every outer London borough has more statistical indicators of life and environmental open space per capita than any inner quality. However, as Thompson1 noted, borough3. The Mayor’s Green Capital opinion polls suggest that while around four Report also indicated that most of fifths of outer London residents are satisfied London’s important biodiversity is in the with their neighbourhood as a place to live, outer boroughs. Almost all of London’s polls also indicate that residents have some Natura 2000 sites, designated under specific concerns, with crime, the local street European Union directives, are in outer environment and anti-social behaviour London. All but four of London’s 38 coming at the top of factors that they Sites of Special Scientific Interest are in regarded as needing improvement2. the outer London boroughs, along with the majority of Sites of Metropolitan Crime Importance, much of its Metropolitan 2.137 Crime is cited as the main cause of concern Open Land, many of its allotments for residents. While rates are higher than and all of its Green Belt. Figure 2.37 for the country as a whole, they are lower illustrates London’s strategic open space in outer London, and historically have network. Figure 2.38 shows the number been falling faster, than in inner London. of allotment sites per 10,000 people for Table 2.11 shows rates for particular types London. of crime. Newham and some other outer boroughs with significant ‘inner London’ Atmospheric emissions characteristics, tend to have higher levels 2.140 Figure 2.39 suggests that carbon of crime, but this is by no means universal emissions per resident are generally higher – Ealing, for example, experiences motor in outer London and especially in the vehicle and burglary offences above the boroughs on London’s boundary. This inner London average. may be linked to relatively higher private vehicle usage (see paragraph 2.105). 2.138 Rates of the four categories of crime shown in the table are consistently low in the 2.141 The two main pollutants of concern for borough of Sutton. Richmond has some of Greater London are particulate matter the lowest rates in outer London with the (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). exception of burglary offences (which are Ambient air quality in outer London approximately average). Kingston has one of tends to be better than in central and the three lowest outer London rates in three inner London apart from in the vicinity of of the crimes listed but is middle ranked for Heathrow or very busy roads. violence against persons. Table 2.11 Crime rates in outer London boroughs 89 Motor vehicle Robbery Violence against Burglary offences per offences per persons per offences per 1,000 population 1,000 population 1,000 population 1,000 households Barking and Dagenham 20.0 4.7 32.1 16.7 Barnet 19.3 3.8 19.6 20.7 Bexley 12.8 2.2 19.9 13.3 Brent 18.0 8.8 30.8 22.4 Bromley 16.2 3.0 18.4 16.4 Croydon 13.2 5.4 22.8 16.1 Ealing 21.5 6.6 26.0 25.2 Enfield 15.3 5.2 18.8 21.0 Haringey 22.3 9.0 30.9 28.2 Harrow 13.2 4.1 14.3 18.8 Havering 18.7 2.0 18.5 11.7 Hillingdon 18.2 3.5 25.2 18.1 Hounslow 19.9 4.0 30.3 20.8 Kingston upon Thames 8.4 2.2 21.3 9.8 Merton 11.9 3.3 19.1 12.2 Newham 28.2 10.1 34.0 27.3 Redbridge 18.0 5.4 16.1 22.6 Richmond upon Thames 10.6 2.5 12.8 17.2 Sutton 13.2 2.3 17.8 8.7 Waltham Forest 21.6 10.8 30.8 20.4 Outer London 17.3 5.1 23.0 18.9 Inner London 20.7 7.9 32.9 21.4 Greater London 18.5 6.1 26.6 19.8 England and Wales 13.5 1.8 19.7 13.5 Source: Home Office Based on GLA definition of outer London

Figure 2.37: London’s Strategic Open Space Network 90 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 2.38: Number of Allotment Sites per 10,000 people

Figure 2.39 Carbon Dioxide Emissions per Capita 91

Figure 2.40 PM10 annual average concentrations (mg/m3) 2008

Figure 2.41 NO2 annual average concentrations (mg/m3) 2008 92 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

2.142 Figure 2.40 shows that the vast majority the quality of life for outer Londoners and of London already meets the EU Limit should be reflected in the replacement Value for the annual mean PM10 in 2008 Plan for implementation in light of local (shaded blue, green, yellow and orange). circumstances, playing to the strengths Figure 2.41 shows that there are areas of local places – one suggestion was that throughout Greater London that exceed it could help lead to the ‘rediscovery the NO2 annual mean EU limit value of London’s lost towns’ (Figure 2.42) (shaded yellow and red in Figure 2.41). to provide stronger foci and sense of The Mayor recently published his draft Air place for established as well as new Quality Strategy for public consultation communities. This would complement that includes London wide and central the more sensitive approach to housing London focused initiatives to reduce density and quality required to support emissions of these harmful pollutants and increased housing output outlined in para thus improve the health of Londoners. 2.119

2.143 Ambient air quality in outer London Social Infrastructure tends to be better than in central and 2.145 While outer London anticipates lower inner London apart from in the vicinity of growth than inner London, this growth Heathrow or very busy roads, although will still be substantial: 890,000 more the Government’s health based air quality people, 330,000 more households objectives are unlikely to be met in at least and 140,000 more jobs up to 2031. To part of every London borough. Ambient support this, and maintain quality of noise maps show a similar picture with life for existing residents, more social outer London tending to be less noisy infrastructure is required, especially in than central and inner. This is largely due terms of health and education facilities. to less noise from the transport network. Historically, coordination of this function Household recycling rates are higher in has sometimes been problematic. This outer London at 23.5 per cent, compared is due to a range of factors, including to 17.9 per cent in inner London. the tendency for national education investment to take a short term Housing quality perspective; fragmentation between 2.144 The Commission noted that the 2008 the commissioners and providers of London Plan was prepared before the health services (and the distribution ‘place shaping’ agenda had been fully set. of infrastructure which underpins this There is now extensive advice on this for process); the weight accorded to borough different types of locality, not least town based Community Strategies, and the centres and residential neighbourhoods. It relatively isolated role of the Strategic can make a key contribution to enhancing Health Authority. For the longer term the 93

Figure 2.42: London’s ‘lost towns’ Source: Farrells

Plan would appear to have scope to take the Healthy Urban Development Unit a more proactive part in coordination of (HUDU) shows potential gross demand social infrastructure provision. for additional health infrastructure arising from an increase in population generated 2.146 For the interim, to inform this process, from future housing supply. These broad the Commission has engaged in work requirements take into account an to provide strategic gross provision expected shift in activity from acute to benchmarks to help local stakeholders primary and community care settings, but assess their net need for different types do not address the capacity of current of social infrastructure in light of existing health services and facilities. Annex 6b provision. Annex 6a, developed by sets out projected education/school 94 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

age populations to enable boroughs to 2.149 The Commission also noted his test whether they have made provision observation that “some polls suggest to meet future education requirements that outer London residents identify far in LDFs. Interpretation of parts of more strongly with their local area than these tables should be informed by the with London as a whole. Phenomena associated TfL maps showing access such as traffic congestion, high housing to facilities. Consideration should be costs and more intensive development given to extending use of this material may give residents the feeling that inner in a more formal planning context, for city characteristics are intruding into the example through Supplementary Planning traditional suburban styles of living. To Guidance. this could be added a sense of a “slide” in the perceived status and position of Broader Quality of Life issues outer London as the outer Metropolitan 2.147 The Commission’s economic remit, and economy out-performs it and the inner thus its approach to quality of life issues, London regeneration powers on”. differed from Robin Thompson’s brief for his work4 on the 2008 Plan, which had 2.150 In considering quality of life issues, the a stronger social emphasis. However, Commission would agree with Thompson from the evidence it has considered the that “this presents policy makers with Commission would agree with him that “on difficult issues. The changes that are most indicators, outer London is healthier, occurring in the economy and demography wealthier and greener than inner London have deep rooted structural causes such and indeed most urban areas in the UK. Its as de- industrialisation, concentration residents like living there, although some of global finance and business growth are voicing some concerns with the quality sectors in the centre city and the growing of the local environment”. popularity of inner city living with young professional people. These structural 2.148 The Commission noted his view “This changes are by no means unique to may, to an extent, reflect ‘private wealth London. They can be seen in, for example, and public squalor’. As the quality of the New York and England’s next two largest private domestic environment grows, cities, Birmingham and Manchester. dissatisfaction is focused on the relatively They can only be managed by long-term poor quality of the external environment strategies that address the deep-seated as manifested by poor paving, graffiti, nature of some of these trends”. abandoned vehicles, anti-social and criminal behaviour and the like”. 95

Statistically, what are outer London’s country, if only because it has not fallen long term economic prospects? as far. An unknown factor that may have a strong influence on London’s economy is General trends change to the regulation of the financial 2.151 Despite the lengthy recession, it is likely services sector. Since this does not that long-term economic growth will return. normally occur after typical recessions At the time of writing it was expected that it may affect historical patterns. Though London would emerge from recession either this sector is concentrated in central at the end of 2009 or the first half of 2010. London and employs a relatively small GLA Economics then forecast that GVA number of people, it is an integral part of growth would be –3.5 per cent in 2009 the larger economy. But experience over and –0.2 per cent in 2010. On an annual time suggests economic growth after the basis it was the thought that GVA growth recession may be above trend. might not resume until 2011, at 1.5 per cent. Employment normally lags output 2.153 The same reasons that have made London and so it was expected that the number of a desirable place for business in the past people working in London might decline remain so today. The recession has not through 2011. The then latest forecast is changed London’s strategic position summarized in Table 2.12 below. in the global economy – an important consideration for outer London. Table 3.1 2.152 While London has performed better than illustrates the factors that are considered the rest of the UK during this recession, it important to businesses, emphasising that is expected that in the recovery London’s London scores highly with a variety of growth will lag that of the rest of the factors.

Table 2.12: Economic forecasts for London (2009-2011) Annual growth rates (per cent) 2008 2009 2010 2011 London GVA (constant 2003 £ billion) 1.4 -3.5 -0.2 1.5 Consensus (average of independent forecasts) -3.6 -0.4 2.1 London civilian workforce jobs 0.7 -3.4 -2.3 -0.6 Consensus (average of independent forecasts) -3.6 -2.1 -0.1 London household spending (constant 2003 £ billion) 2.8 -3.0 -1.9 0.5 Consensus (average of independent forecasts) -3.5 -0.6 1.3 London household income (constant 2003 £ billion) 3.1 -2.3 0.6 1.7 Memo: Projected UK RPI (Inflation rate) -1.1 1.8 2.2 Projected UK CPI (Inflation rate) 1.7 1.6 1.4

Sources: GLA Economics’ Autumn 2009 forecast and consensus calculated by GLA Economics. 96 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

2.154 GLA Economics projects that by 2031 a key consideration for outer London London’s economy will add 775,000 jobs because they are less closely associated over 2007 levels (Annex 3). Of these with central London. Within outer London, around 140,000 will be in outer London, office based employment is projected to which equates to some 6,000 new jobs increase by 70,000 2007 – 2031, broadly per year. On these trends conventional defined industrial type jobs are expected manufacturing employment looks set to decline by 94,000 and ‘other’ (mainly to continue to decline, by 224,000 jobs local service based) jobs to expand by across London and by 2031 may be only 167,000 (see Annex 3B). a marginal employer. In contrast financial and business services are expected to Future office demand in outer London grow by 360,000 while the hotels and 2.155 As a result of structural change in its restaurants industry is projected to add historic occupier base (see above), office 235,000 jobs1 – the latter sectors are based development and employment in

Figure 2.43 Average annual completions of office floor space (gross sqm) 2000/01 to 2008/09 97

much of outer London have not been value development, especially housing. closely related over at least two economic In addition, nearby parts of the wider cycles. This is partly because office based southeast (the Outer Metropolitan Area – employment growth (see Annex 3A) has OMA), especially towards the west, have not been sufficiently ‘value added’ to offered competitive advantage to potential justify strategically significant new office occupiers (Figure 2.44), providing development across outer London (Annex modern new space at around the same 7). To be viable such development typically rental threshold as might apply in outer required rentals of more than £25/£28 London but with lower other business per sq ft in historically ‘normal’ economic costs, especially those generated by conditions (and more realistically £30 sq labour market related factors. Such OMA ft)2. While these rents have been achieved locations do not incur the wider costs of in a relatively few, attractive locations trying to do business in an extensive and (mainly in west London), demand to densely urbanised area while still garnering sustain them has not been sufficiently some of the agglomeration benefits widespread to lead to extensive, structural arising from proximity to it. It is arguable rejuvenation of the outer London office that such new office development as has stock. Figure 2.43 (and more specifically been proposed within London but outside Annex 7) shows that with some notable CAZ/Canary Wharf, has been following a exceptions there has been relatively little similar pattern – in strategic terms little is office development in much of outer planned to come forward in town centres; London over the last economic cycle. The most is at best in edge of centre locations series of London Office Policy Reviews for and much is out of centre3. the GLA and London Planning Advisory Committee suggest that this inactivity also 2.157 The mismatch between office employment covered the previous cycle 1989 – 2001. and development prospects was central to the work of the Commission (see next 2.156 This position has been exacerbated ‘Analysis’ section of this report). It is now by the scale of the existing stock also recognised by the Draft Replacement (7.1 mll sq m or 25 per cent of the London Plan, which strongly qualifies London total), most of which is available application of conventional worker at significantly lower rents than those floorspace density assumptions to office required to support new development. employment projections when coming In some cases, these rents may not even to a view on future office floorspace be enough to justify investment for demand in the distinct circumstances of modernisation, or retention of the space outer London. Thus, while the draft Plan in office use when faced with competition does provide consistent, pan-London for scarce land resources from higher monitoring benchmarks produced on 98 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 2.44 Office Floorspace 2008 London & Outer Metropolitan Area

an employment/density basis, it makes this total demand, some 940,000 sq.m clear that in outer London in particular (18%) was attributed to outer London. these should be qualified by other market Figure 2.45 illustrates the geographical indicators e.g. development trends, distribution of this projected demand density, rents, take-up, vacancy. for office floorspace in outer London at borough level, and compares it with 2.158 While acknowledging the limitations of floorspace in the planning pipeline working just on an employment/density (including offices under construction or basis, the 2009 London Office Policy with planning permission). Review (LOPR09)4 showed that it could on this basis suggest demand for some 2.159 Relative to other parts of outer London, 5.3 million sq.m of office floorspace across the strongest demand for offices London over the period 2007-2031. Of is anticipated in the West (notably 99

Figure 2.45: Employment density based projected demand for office floorspace (gross) in outer London boroughs 2007-2031 and identified capacity, sq.m.

Hillingdon, Hounslow and Brent) and 2.160 LOPR09 illustrates the great variability in parts of outer (Barnet). the attractiveness and success of outer The supply-demand balance in Figure London office markets and supports the 2.45 shows however that identified concept of focussing demand on the capacity exceeds forecast demand in most viable and competitive business nine outer London boroughs and most locations. The study considered the notably in Croydon, Havering, Barking & potential growth prospects of outer Dagenham and Barnet. Whilst this supply- London centres based upon a range of demand analysis can be useful when factors including current and prospective considering potential approaches to office levels of economic activity, clustering development, the review warns against advantages, diversity of offer, impact using this data too prescriptively. of infrastructure improvements and strategic site availability. The consultants 100 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 2.46 Outer London Office Development Guidelines (DRLP Annex 2)

considered that there may be a case for 2.161 As the Commission was sitting, the encouraging office-led development in consultants also examined the relative the next economic cycle at Park Royal, performance of outer London (OL) and the , , Hounslow, Heathrow Outer Metropolitan Area (OMA), between perimeter, Uxbridge, Stockley Park, 2003 and 2007, according to a number Croydon and Wimbledon (see Figure of economic performance measures. They 2.46). The assessment identified a case found that the simple perception that OL is for office-led mixed use development in a ‘under-performing’ OMA to be misleading. number of other centres in outer London Rather, it has changed structurally over the including Barking, Bexleyheath, , last twenty years due to a range of factors , Ealing, , , including the degradation of central London Bromley, Kingston, , Richmond, salary weightings and the effects of ‘new , Sutton and Brent Cross. technology’ on traditional central London 101

‘back office’ functions, resulting in a major 2.163 Like office demand in outer London, that reduction in the ‘relocation’ market – the for industrial capacity is complex. While residual of this market may now well go traditional metal based manufacturing, overseas. Perhaps counter-intuitively, the particularly on a large scale, looks set to consultants’ assessment of performance continue its well documented decline, measures suggested that there was no other types of occupier may have a more clear pattern of out-performance by OMA. positive future. These range from small In addition to its labour market and lower scale providers of ‘services for the service land cost advantages, the consultants sector’, through larger scale industrial type found there were was some evidence services such as waste management, to that OMA performed better on quality of the complex logistics networks essential environment measures – a potential lesson to provide goods for a post industrial city. for outer London. The consultants also What most have in common is a need for noted that liberal parking regimes might relatively cheap land protected through offer advantage in some circumstances, the planning system. Though ‘top end’ but qualified this by noting that one industrial rents of slightly more than £15 of outer London’s most successful sq ft (but more usually £10 - £12) may business parks (Chiswick Park) is firmly compete with some other commercial embedded in its urban environment. They functions, in most economic circumstances concluded that “the fundamental issue they are challenged by a substantial of competition between east and west is margin (a factor of five or more) by probably the much more significant issue residential land values. At the other and strategic challenge (than between OL end of the scale, it is environmentally and OMA). desirable and economically necessary for those firms which need to compete from Future industry/warehousing a £5 sq ft (or less) rent base to remain in demand in outer London London to provide it with their specialist 2.162 Together, the outer London boroughs services. While it is essential to be more in 2006 contained an estimated 4,000 realistic in accommodating the needs hectares in industrial, warehousing and of commercial vehicles, further growth related uses such as waste management in ‘white van’ traffic (already the main and utilities. This represents some source of commercial traffic growth) 73 per cent of the London total5. Over should not be exacerbated by forcing 450 hectares of industrial land in outer these firms to relocate beyond London. London was identified as vacant or Thus, when coming to a view on using the 11.3 per cent of the total, compared to planning system to accommodate business the inner London vacancy rate of activities which ‘need to be in London’, 16.5 per cent. account should be taken not just of issues 102 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

associated with economic linkages/supply Estimated household expenditure on chains, but also indirect environmental convenience goods retail in the outer and transport capacity costs, as well as to London boroughs in 2006 stood at providing more positively for the efficient £7.2bn and was projected to rise to movement of commercial vehicles on the £10bn in 2031, an increase of 39 per road system. cent, compared to the London average of 46 per cent. Household spending on 2.164 Based upon a strategic assessment leisure in outer London was also expected of supply and demand for industrial to rise from a base of £31.6bn in 2006 uses, London Plan SPG indicates that to over £42.3bn in 2031. The outer the outer London boroughs where the London borough distribution of growth in supply-demand balance for industrial household convenience, comparison goods land is tightest include Croydon, Sutton, retail and leisure spend 2006-2031 is set Merton, Bromley, Richmond, Kingston out in Figure 2.47. and Hounslow. In Bexley, Havering and Barking & Dagenham the supply-demand 2.166 Taking into account growth in commuter balance is less restrictive, but a managed and tourist spending, retailers making approach to industrial land reconfiguration more efficient use of existing space and and transfer to other uses will be essential. new forms of retailing like buying on line, Strategic and local employment land London has a ‘net additional’ need for reviews will continue to play a key role 1.3-2.2 million sq.m comparison goods in assessing the quality of sites and retail floorspace by 2031. About 40 per identifying opportunities to enhance the cent of this need is identified in outer attractiveness and competitiveness for London (excluding Newham), or 50 per industrial type activities. cent if Newham is included. Figure 2.48 The Commission’s views are informing an illustrates estimated comparison goods LDA review of industrial land in London, retail floorspace in the planning pipeline the results of which are anticipated in and how the additional demand to 2031 June 2010. is distributed across the outer London boroughs. The largest comparison goods Other services including retail retail developments in the pipeline in and leisure outer London are listed in Table 2.12 with 2.165 In 2006, estimated consumer expenditure schemes over 35,000sqm at Brent Cross/ on comparison goods retail in the outer Cricklewood, Kingston, Bromley and London boroughs stood at £13.9bn and Croydon town centres. Definitions of outer was projected to rise to £38.3bn in 2031, London including Newham would raise the an increase of 176 per cent, compared pipeline figure significantly, with around to the London average of 190 per cent. 103

Figure 2.47 Growth in household convenience and comparison goods retail and leisure spend, outer London boroughs 2006-2031 (£m). Source: Experian Business Strategies, 2009

Figure 2.48 Comparison Goods Retail Floorspace in the Planning Pipeline and Net Additional Need to 2031, sqm. 104 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Table 2.12 Comparison Goods Retail Floorspace in the Planning Pipeline in outer London (largest schemes at 2009) Borough Site Name Additional Comparison Retail Floorspace (sqm) Barnet Brent Cross Cricklewood 60,776 Kingston upon Thames Shopping Centre, Eden Walk 50,000 Bromley Bromley Town Centre 38,000 Croydon , Park Street 36,707 Bexley B & Q Plc , Sidcup-By-Pass 30,261 Enfield Edmonton Green Shopping Centre & Adjacent, 17,472 The Broadway Ealing Arcadia Centre, The Broadway 16,360 Haringey Retail Park, Broad Lane 15,863 Brent , 399 Edgware Road 14,677 Hounslow Blenheim Centre, Key Site One (Phase 2), High St. 13,266

Source: Experian Business Strategies, 2009

112,000sqm comparison goods retail under construction at Stratford City.

2.167 Identification of capacity ot accommodate growth in retail and leisure is a key issue in outer London and the recent London- wide Town Centre Health Check provided an indication of town centres where such capacity might exist, such as at Croydon, Kingston, , Wembley, Ealing and . The Health Check report noted however, that evidence of capacity was limited, and that it will be important to identify such capacity in more local retail and leisure assessments within and on the edges of town centres where appropriate. 105

Stakeholders views: summary Table 2.13: Public meetings held by the OLC Location London region Date 2.168 From the outset, the Commission has 1 City Hall Central 3 February 2009 sought to gather a range of views on 2 Haringey North 18 March 2009 past and possible future directions for Civic Centre the outer London economy, which could 3 Kingston South 15 April 2009 both complement and inform its own Guildhall investigations. To facilitate this, the 4 Romford East 13 May 2009 Commission set out a series of questions Town Hall under three broad themes: Economy, 5 Ealing West 17 June 2009 Transport, and Quality of Life, and invited Town Hall stakeholders to respond to these and 6 City Hall Central 7 July 2009 add their own additional comments. As well as acting as an invitation for written 2.170 This section of the report identifies comments, the questions were used as a commonly-raised issues and is not basis for discussion at the public meetings intended to be a comprehensive held by the Commission. The questions description of all the matters covered in invited respondents to, for example, the responses – almost all the respondents identify present and previous barriers to described the conditions, needs and economic development, suggest ways of aspirations of their particular borough or overcoming these and comment on possible sub-region. Copies of all written responses configurations for development. There was are available online at the OLC website. scope to identify generic issues as well The Commission was heartened by the as matters specific to a particular area or enthusiasm and commitment which stakeholder, and the questions acted as a respondents showed in their vision for useful stimulus to the debate. The full list of outer London. initial questions is reproduced in Annex 2. Economy 2.169 Responses were welcomed from any 2.171 In response to one of our first questions, quarter, and we were pleased to see a there was some consensus on what have range of respondents: London boroughs, been the historic barriers to development partnerships, developers, business groups in outer London. One was the legacy of and other government bodies. There were the industries with which outer London 52 written responses in total, and a list has often been strongly associated and of respondents is given in Annex 8. As which now either have been in long-term described in Chapter 1, the Commission held decline, face competition from locations six public meetings, which are listed in the outside London, or both. These include table above: manufacturing and heavy industry, 106 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

back office functions and ‘traditional’ outer London or particular locations waste management, as well as logistics, within it. distribution and retail. There is sometimes Some respondents noted that the a perception that, even as these sectors planning regime can act as an inhibitor to have declined, ‘this is what outer London investment. They noted the many bodies does’, and an apparent reluctance to re- involved in local development and the evaluate this. need to align expectations and aspirations Additionally, many of the jobs in these in order to give a clear message about sectors are low-paid, and the relative the future of the areas to attract and affordability of commuting into higher- reassure investors. Similarly, any plans value jobs in central London, or to towns proposed by the Commission must have beyond the Capital, has contributed to regard to existing policies and frameworks slower growth in outer London. It was put in place by local responsible noted that outer London competes bodies (eg through Local Development much more with the Outer Metropolitan Frameworks). There was also a call to Area (OMA) than with inner London. In release land, especially public sector land, particular, the retail sector in town centres for development. It was suggested that and on the high street has had to compete the existing London Plan has enabled with bigger, more attractive out-of-town central London to dominate the economy locations, which are well connected both of London by focusing new growth in this for public transport and, more importantly, area, a pattern reinforced by good radial the private car. Consider, for example, the transport links, and the assumption that competition from Bluewater in Kent or while outer London is a desirable place to Lakeside in Essex for shopping (all that live, the centre is where the jobs are. parking space!) or Reading for modern offices. As office-based jobs have moved 2.173 Related to this, many respondents out, the office stock available, and its highlighted that there is a highly-skilled quality, has declined. Furthermore, the workforce living in outer London, but that, higher value of residential development with notable exceptions, many commute in outer London means that available land to the centre or outside London for is often diverted from business and office work. There are pockets of outer London sectors to housing. where the potential or existing workforce has lower skill levels, and worklessness 2.172 Respondents identified a need, then, to is a problem. Local jobs may often be “re-brand” and reinvent outer London lower-paid, and the cost of commuting as part of our quest to secure future can be a barrier, as can the lack of economic growth. Some suggested that affordable childcare. Most identified there needed to be active ‘marketing’ of the positive effects of local further and 107

higher education institutions, and the sectors. Also highlighted was the need to relatively low number of universities in reinvent some of outer London’s historical outer London. Not only can education roles to reflect the needs of the 21st serve to upskill the local workforce, but it century, and in particular to respond to can help to attract innovative and high- concerns about the environment and tech employers to the area, and benefits climate change. Waste management both research and the economy. Other would continue to be an important sector, institutions, such as specialist hospitals or but should continue to re-focus on large public sector organisations, can also recycling and enhanced energy recovery act as a ‘magnet’ for related industries. and alternatives to landfill. Distribution Similarly, it was suggested that some and logistics would also remain a key central government functions could be part of the outer London economy; relocated to outer London. One means of again with potential to make these more revitalising some locations, then, could be environmentally beneficial, for example to site a new HE or FE institution there, by freight consolidation. A couple of or re-locate public sector institutions from respondents said that decentralised central London. energy provision should be part of the area’s future; as could leisure and tourism. In the London economy, the demand for work Naturally, many respondents outlined in requiring low skills and/or qualifications has some detail the particular strengths and shrunk greatly and will continue to [do so] opportunities for economic development University of East London in their area.

2.175 There was a strong consensus, though, 2.174 Respondents also suggested that there that growth should be based upon a needed to be business support for small to diverse base of sectors and with a range medium enterprises and recognition that of employers, to mitigate the impacts of much economic activity was now micro-, future economic downturns. In the past, it often home-based businesses. There was suggested, there has been too much could be better support for them via, for concentration on a few areas, such as example, office support centres in towns, financial and business services. Spreading with cheap and flexible services and rents. the growth over a wider base would help Respondents said that future to ensure the economic resilience of employment sectors needed to be high- London as a whole. The London Plan, and value, and with a long future life. These the other strategies, need to support this. include knowledge-based and creative industries, innovative technology (for 2.176 As stated earlier, views about the example pharmaceuticals), and ‘green’ potential for ‘growth hubs’ identified 108 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

in the Commission’s initial questions and build on existing strengths rather than were mixed. Many noted that Croydon start from scratch. and Stratford had already developed as economic centres with good transport 2.178 It was also suggested that the definition links, and that there were already plans of outer London should be permeable, in place to enhance these, meaning that and that the Commission should take into plans for new growth hubs would be account the strong inter-dependencies superfluous. More importantly, though, between inner and outer boroughs in the respondents stated clearly that the overall Capital, as well as London’s place in the effect of the Commission’s work should wider South East. One of our respondents be to benefit the London economy as a sums this up particularly well: whole. Any growth hubs must benefit their surrounding area, and fit in with existing There should be an elastic definition of outer and potential growth areas. In particular, London reflecting economic characteristics, it was felt that growth must not be to the opportunities and needs rather than the detriment of town and district centres traditional planning based designation.... or attempt to create centres where none Thames Gateway London Partnership would naturally exist. There could be a risk of re-creating the central/outer London economic and transport dichotomy within 2.179 There was significant debate around the outer London, if hubs were to grow at the definition of outer London. At the start expense of the wider region. of its work, and in accordance with the general definitions uses, the Commission 2.177 Some suggested that a more natural included the pattern would be growth ‘ribbons’ as an outer London borough. In the or corridors, which would reflect and borough’s response to the consultation, enhance current residential, travel and its Mayor, Sir Robin Wales, stated that employment configurations. Industries the borough had long contested this already cluster in different parts of outer designation and set out reasons for its London – creative industries in White City, re-definition as an inner London borough. say, or support for the Olympics around In subsequent discussion and analysis, Stratford – and these should be enabled to the Commission used this designation, grow. Future development should similarly and similarly in the development of the be around ‘anchors’ of natural growth, three Mayoral Strategies, Newham was allowing similar and related businesses to considered an inner London Borough. benefit from co-location. Whatever the However, in our work we have recognised configuration, growth should be ‘organic’ that some places in “inner” London (perhaps Stratford in particular) are closely 109

linked with more outer areas – and have Also mentioned were co-ordinated signal the potential to support their future timings and the potential removal or development. shutdown of some signals.

Transport [T]he underperformance [of outer London]... 2.180 There is, of course, a strong association can be attributed in part to two interlinked between economic growth and increased factors: rising levels of congestion and car use, and respondents stated that skill deficiencies. areas identified for future economic BAA Heathrow growth must offer sustainable transport alternatives. Otherwise, growth in outer areas would most likely increase car use. 2.182 That said, it would not be feasible to Also, capacity on the road network is provide public transport links to all constrained, and while traffic management destinations in outer London and that measures have a role to play, it is not the car would remain important for many, feasible or desirable to accommodate although opportunities to enable and increased demand for travel simply by promote the use of public transport, increasing car use. There were concerns walking and cycling, should be maximised. about traffic emissions and the wider Several respondents said that there should adverse health impacts of car reliance: be a package of measures to reduce car for example, children not getting enough travel; for a few this included road user exercise because they are driven to school or parking charges. More generally, it was rather than walking or cycling locally. felt to be important to offer attractive alternatives. It was noted that many 2.181 Traffic congestion was perceived as families retained a car for non-work probably the most significant problem, trips that would be difficult to make by with an adverse impact on both economic public transport. Overall, there was a performance and local quality of life. clear message that the car would remain Respondents suggested a range of important in outer London, and planning measures to address this issue, ranging should recognise this. from workplace parking levy, increases in public transport capacity through to 2.183 Smarter Travel programmes cropped up encouraging more walking and cycling. often as a success story. TfL has, with Some respondents wanted to see more boroughs, run programmes in Sutton and, consideration of park and ride facilities more recently, Richmond upon Thames. and others drew attention to the real- The scheme uses a range of measures time traffic management measures that – personal, school and workplace travel have been successful in central London. planning, promotion of car clubs and car- 110 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

sharing – to encourage people to choose New employment generating development public transport, walking and cycling. needs to be based on principles of reducing The success of Smarter Travel in shifting the need to travel (through provision of local car users to more sustainable modes was employment opportunities and encouraging cited by many respondents and there home working) and through ensuring new was enthusiasm for the programme being opportunities further from home are available more widely. Also, it is important accessible by public transport. to ‘lock in’ the benefits of the scheme, otherwise suppressed demand will reclaim LB Richmond upon Thames the road capacity. Some respondents said that schools and hospitals, in particular, 2.185 It was recognised that additional resources would benefit from enhanced travel for transport are limited. In this context, planning. respondents were keen that existing services and infrastructure were fully 2.184 However, the potential transport (and utilised, for example by increasing service environment) benefits of greater frequencies and passenger capacity. employment growth in outer London were Respondents suggested that cycling welcomed: enabling people to work and routes should be concentrated around access key services closer to home would town centres rather than attempting reduce the amount of overall travel as overall coverage. There is also potential to well as enabling people to choose more get greater value from transport services sustainable modes. Obviously, it’s easier via ‘reverse commuting’, as outer London’s to walk or cycle to work if your office is role as an employment destination grows. in your local town centre. But also crucial Under this scenario, residents would travel to people making this choice is a pleasant from home in one outer London location and safe environment, in which people to another (spreading the load on public feel confident to walk, cycle or use public transport on the roads), rather than transport. Some respondents reiterated everyone taking a similar route to the benefits of mixed-use development the centre. and the added value of having, for example, education and health services in 2.186 In the short to medium term, additional the same location. public transport is most likely to come from buses and transits and several highlighted the need to make buses more reliable and attractive. This could include bus priority measures on the roads. Other relatively inexpensive measures to encourage the use of public transport, 111

like better information provision, were network. A few identified the need to also identified. Furthermore, well-placed, electrify parts of the network; others user-friendly interchanges could help to emphasised the need for additional river squeeze the most value from the existing crossings. Trams were identified as an network. Being able to access up-to-date attractive alternative to car use in some and understandable travel information parts of London. is also seen as key. It was noted that in some instances, people use the car simply 2.189 Public transport costs are perceived as because they are put off by having to higher in outer London, potentially putting make connections and join up different off users. Fares between destinations in timetables. outer London needed to be affordable in order to have a mobile labour market; 2.187 There was also a call to look at the and the price of public transport needs to provision of cross-boundary bus and other compare favourably to the cost of running transport services (covering London and a car. There was a suggestion for an ‘outer non-London services), since outer London London travelcard’ to make it cheaper to residents do not, of course, only travel travel within this area. Some respondents within the Capital. All transport services suggested that the Mayor’s lack of control need to be co-ordinated in order to make over National Rail is an inhibitor to fully them easier and more attractive to use; integrated and affordable services in and to squeeze maximum benefit from the outer London, where there is heavier existing systems. dependence on this mode. This is an issue which the Mayor is partly addressing 2.188 Respondents gave detailed proposals through the integration of Oyster ticketing and suggestions for particular transport on National Rail services. improvements in their area. While it’s not appropriate to list these here, we can 2.190 Respondents recognised that there pull out some key messages. In general, would be a need for greater residential it was felt that there should be links to, density in order to justify public transport from, and within town and district centres, investment, although many hoped and historically deprived areas should that this could be achieved without be enabled to access public transport to compromising quality. There were get to work. Also important was orbital examples of how this could be achieved, connectivity, and links between the by strong urban design standards and ‘spokes’ of the town centre hubs. There green spaces, for example. There was an were various suggestions for extending overarching concern that the suburbs Underground, DLR and Tramlink lines, remain an attractive place to live as well as as well as increasing services on the rail work. Further to this, respondents noted 112 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

that outer London residents not only need 2.192 In addition, development must be transport provision for employment, they sustainable (in all the senses of that word) also need it to access education, leisure and have regard to its environmental and social/family events. impacts, particularly in terms of mitigating the extent of future climate change and Outer London will become a more attractive adapting to its consequences. Many place to work if employment centres are easily people make a choice to live in outer accessible by public transport. Therefore London because it is less intensively increased traffic congestion and pollution developed and offers a pleasant and need not be an inevitable consequence of attractive place to live, particularly for employment growth if planned correctly. families. If development is not mindful Some of the proceeds of economic growth of these considerations, there is a risk need to be reinvested into the PT system to that those who can, will choose to leave ensure this virtuous circle is maintained. London altogether. However, there was LB Barking & Dagenham support for having more ‘self-contained’ centres in outer London, where people do not need to travel long distances for work Quality of Life or shopping. 2.191 Overwhelmingly, respondents were clear that increased economic activity in outer 2.193 There was a clear message regarding London should not be at the expense of the need to support and revitalise town retaining the different local characteristics and district centres, which may have of each area and the many advantages it become rundown and are less attractive offers to residents. While the Commission and accessible as shopping destinations has, of necessity, had to talk about ‘outer compared with out-of-town alternatives. London’ as a generality, we’ve always Several noted that town centres need been mindful that this definition contains to have a mix of quality jobs, shops and hundreds of unique locations, each with services in order to remain viable. They their own particular heritage and features. are also important for social cohesion, allowing people to access services nearer The fantastic attraction to London is its to home. Co-location of key services, like diversity. One size does not fit all and we health and education, can bring benefits should, therefore, endeavour to give in terms of reduced need to travel and flexibility in our recommendations enhanced accessibility. It is also important Tony Pidgley, OL Commissioner to be able to access cultural and leisure facilities near to home, avoiding the need to travel to the West End or out-of-town leisure parks. In fact, many of these 113

facilities already exist, we just need to be vital to provide an increasing residential more aware of them and give them the population with the right health and support they deserve. education services, some of which (for example primary education) are already It is essential that good quality social struggling to meet demand. infrastructure is provided to support existing and future needs. Healthy, well-educated We have a duty to ensure that local people and skilled citizens will have a competitive share in any wealth generated in the area, advantage in the labour market. These that jobs are available to the many that they facilities should be co-located and provided receive the skills training and good quality at the heart of the communities they serve in housing which they need to improve their order to minimise the need for travel living standards LB Barking & Dagenham LB Newham

2.194 The issue of the night-time economy in 2.196 Respondents strongly identified a need town centres was widely discussed: some to improve the urban realm, particularly felt it was important to encourage this to in town centres. There was a variety of avoid centres becoming deserted at night. suggestions for achieving this, including But this was accompanied by a concern de-cluttering streets, shared space, and that there were measures to prevent crime green spaces. Since traffic affects the and anti-social behaviour at night. Fear of quality of the environment, there were crime, as well as actual crime rates, is a key suggestions for traffic calming and, from concern of residents. some, limitation: 20 mph zones, priority measures for cyclists and public transport, 2.195 Housing was often raised as an important and shared space schemes. These could issue, and this relates to the matter also help to promote walking and cycling of residential intensification as well as as well as attracting new, high-value issues of affordability. It was noted that employment to town centres. Traffic the housing stock in suburban London congestion was said to have a strongly was ageing. Several said that there was negative impact on quality of life in outer a need to re-focus development away London. from one or two-bedroom flats towards bigger homes where families could settle. 2.197 Development needs to be respectful of With caveats regarding quality and space, the heritage and natural characteristics of intensification was acknowledged as a the area. The existing features of the area way forward. But housing is not the whole – for example waterside space – should be story. Respondents noted that it was maximised. Again, this recalls the ‘organic’ 114 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

growth that respondents talked about with regard to the economy of outer London. Access to green spaces was seen as very important and many said that the Green Belt must remain sacrosanct. 115

Chapter 2 footnotes 12 GLA. Economic Evidence Base GLA, October 2009 http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/ Survey economic-evidence-base-october-2009-version. 1 White J. London in the 20th century. Vintage, 2008 13 outer London Commission, GLA Economics. Working Paper 34: outer London - Economic Data 2 e.g. Saint A. London’s suburbs. Merrell Holberton, and Statistics, GLA, March 2009 http://www. English Heritage, 1999 london.gov.uk/publication/working-paper-34- 3 e.g. Buck Nick, Gordon I. Turbulence and outer-london-%E2%80%93-economic-data-and- Sedimentation in the London Labour Market, in statistics Gary Bridge , Sophie Watson, A Companion to the 14 Innovacion, LDA. Working Paper: Understanding City, Blackwell Publishers, 2003 the economy of outer London- Early Thoughts. 4 Hall P, Pain K. The Polycentric Metropolis: LDA, 2009 Learning from Mega-city Regions in Europe, 2006 Innovacion, LDA. Working Paper to Support the 5 Solutions – Sustainability Of Land Use and outer London Commission. Economic Profile of Transport In outer Neighbourhoods, 2008. See Key Locations in outer London. LDA, 2009 http://www.suburbansolutions.ac.uk/ Innovacion, LDA. Working Paper to Support 6 LSE London group – see http://www2.lse.ac.uk/ the outer London Commission. Sources of researchAndExpertise/researchHome.aspx Endogenous Growth in outer London. A Case 7 . outer London: Issues for the Study of South West London. LDA, 2009 London Plan. GLA 2007 Innovacion, LDA. Working Paper. Heathrow – 8 London Assembly Planning and Spatial International Gateway and Cluster of Transport Development Committee. Semi-Detached: Services. LDA, 2009 Reconnecting London’s Suburbs. GLA 2007 Innovacion/LDA. Working Paper to Support the 9 OLC. The Mayor’s outer London Commission outer London Commission. Data on key Locations Interim Conclusions July 2009 http://www. in outer London (Potential Criteria for Hubs). london.gov.uk/olc/questions/interim-conclusions. LDA, 2009. jsp. LDA, Innovacion. Working Paper. Economic Profile 10 OLC Initial Questions for the Commission – see: of Bexley. LDA, 2009 http://www.london.gov.uk/olc/questions/initial- 15 Ramidus Consulting, Roger Tym & Partners. questions.jsp London Office Policy Review, GLA, 2009 11 the final iteration of which is: Roger Tym & 16 Mayor of London, 2009 London Town Centre Partners. GLA Employment Time Series. Technical Health Check Analysis Report, GLA 2009; Report. GLA, 2010 Mayor of London: Consumer Expenditure and Comparison Goods Retail Floorspace Need in London, GLA 2009 116 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

17 Mayor of London. The London Strategic Housing system introduced in 2007 (SIC 2007). This new Land Availability Assessment and Housing classification breaks up the previous ‘Business Capacity Study 2009, GLA, 2009 Services’ classification into a number of component industries. It also removed publishing 18 Roger Tym & Partners. London Employment Time from the manufacturing class. Series, GLA, 2010 27 Krugman P, What’s new about the new economic 19 GLA Economics. More residents, more jobs? The geography?, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, relationship between population, employment Vol 14, No.2. and accessibility in London. GLA, 2005. 28 The Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2009: Batty M. More residents, more jobs. The median gross earnings for all residents in London relationship between population, employment was £28,100; £30,000 for inner London residents and accessibility in London. A review of the report and £27,000 for outer London residents. For from GLA Economics. GLA, 2007 only full-time employees the median across URS. Industrial Land Release Benchmarks. London is £31,900, with £33,400 in inner London GLA, 2007 and£31,200 in outer. 20 Ian Gordon, Tony Travers and Christine Whitehead, with Kathleen Scanlon: London’s Place in the UK Economy 2009-10, City of Outer London economy 1 GLA DMAG. 2001 Census Ward Atlas of London. London, 2009 Vols 1 & 2. GLA, 2006 21 Annex 3B 2 More residents, more jobs? The relationship 22 ONS. Regional, sub-regional and local gross value between population, employment and added. ONS Statistical Bulletin, 2009 (workplace accessibility in London, GLA Economics, January based). 2005. 23 Excluding CAZ and the 3 GLA Economics Working Paper 25: An 24 Note that the data for the ‘home counties’ expenditure-based approach to employment includes the relevant unitary authorities and sectors in London, November 2007. comes from three sources (Census of Employment 4 Chart originally presented for all London (1987-2001), Annual Employment Survey (1991- boroughs in ‘Globalisation, Skills and 1998) and ABI (1998-2007). Comparability Employment: The London Story’, GLA Economics, of these datasets over time is imperfect so the October 2007. figures should be treated with caution. 5 Annex 3B 25 GLA Economics. Our London, Our Future. Planning for London’s Growth II. GLA, 2005 26 This analysis was conducted using 2008 ABI data with the new industrial classification 117

Housing in outer London 3 ODPM. Generalised Land Use Database. ODPM, 1 Boroughs contained in outer areas of the sub 2006 regions are as follows; outer North East includes 4 Thompson R. Outer London: issues for the London Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Newham, Plan. GLA, 2007 Redbridge and Waltham Forest; outer North includes Barnet, Enfield and Haringey; outer South East includes Bexley and Bromley; outer Long term economic prospects West includes Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon 1 The full projections are detailed in “Working and Hounslow; outer South West includes Paper 38: Employment projections for London by Croydon, Kingston, Merton, Richmond and sector and trend-based projections by borough”, Sutton. GLA Economics, Nov 2009. 2 Data from 2003-04 was collected using a 2 Ramidus, Roger Tym & Partners 2009 op cit different method and is therefore not strictly 3 Ramidus, Roger Tym & partners 2009 op cit comparable with data from previous years. 4 Ramidus, Roger Tym & Partners 2009 op cit 3 Mayor of London. London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 6. GLA, 2010 5 URS Industrial Land Release Benchmarks 2007 4 Mayor of London. The London Plan Consolidated with |Alterations since 2004, Policy 3A.3. GLA, 2008. 5 Mayor of London. Annual Monitoring Report 2010 op cit

Transport in outer London 1 Includes modes not listed (e.g. taxi). 2 Comparisons with earlier years results (reported in previous editions) are subject to sampling error and should be treated cautiously.

Quality of life 1 Thompson R. 2007 op cit 2 MORI. Dystopian Suburbia. Mori, 2006 IPSOS MORI. Annual London Survey 2006. Final Topline Results. GLA, 2006 118 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report 3: Analysis 119

3.1 This chapter draws on the evidence Potential scale and sources of growth in the previous chapter to develop recommendations and proposals. It 3.2 The European Cities Monitor published examines: annually by Cushman and Wakefield, Healey and Baker identifies and ranks • The possible scale of economic growth in the factors considered to be attractive to outer London businesses when deciding where to locate. • The kinds of economic sectors that might These are: support growth in the area • Availability of qualified staff • The case for a hub-based approach to • Easy access to markets policy • Quality of telecommunications • Ways of making the existing economic • External transport links geography of outer London – town • Cost of staff centres, strategic industrial locations, • Climate for doing business Opportunity/Intensification Areas etc. • Language spoken work better to support growth in outer • Office space – value for money London • Internal transport • The importance of quality of life and • Availability of space environmental quality issues • Quality of life • The question of linkages with • Freedom from pollution neighbouring regions outside London and the “Outer Metropolitan Area” 3.3 They use these criteria to ask businesses • Transport issues that will have to be to rank European cities as places to locate addressed. their activities. As Table 3.1 shows, London has consistently scored highly against most of these, performing poorly relative to other cities only against cost of staff, value for money office space and freedom from pollution: 120 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Table 3.1: London’s performance against factors attractive to business 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 Leader Availability of qualified staff 1 1 1 1 London Easy access to markets 1 1 1 1 London Quality of telecommunications 1 1 1 1 London External transport links 1 1 1 1 London Cost of staff 22 16 25 29 Warsaw Climate for doing business 6 5 2 5 Dublin Language spoken 1 1 1 1 London Office space - value for money 24 29 18 24 Leeds Internal transport 2 1 1 1 London Availability of office space 3 1 2 5 Berlin Quality of life 13 7 11 14 Barcelona Freedom from pollution 27 26 29 27 Oslo

3.4 London as a whole scores well. In some the principle of it being “better to be of the areas where it does less well, outer broadly right than precisely wrong” – a London is likely to be able to demonstrate useful axiom when considering any strengths. Wage levels tend to be lower projection. We were also mindful that than in central London; office rents are we were interpreting these figures not also lower. Much of outer London also as statisticians (though we did of course enjoys a high quality of life, including want them to be as ‘right’ as possible) but lower pollution levels in most parts. If as an aid to formulating planning policy these are combined with the benefits the (in which it is prudent to make provision area gains from being part of London, which enables rather than constrains there is clearly much to play for. growth). In addition we were conscious that these projections are subsets of those 3.5 Drawing on the employment projections for London as a whole and thus subject provided for us by GLA Economics, to wider debate: not just as to whether projections from a number of independent they were constraining outer London’s forecasters and the information provided growth (a concern among some of the to us by stakeholders, we consider there Commission’s respondents), but also are four possible growth scenarios for whether they were part of a broader view outer London, and we have applied that, historically at least, some projections these as sensitivity tests in considering for London as a whole might have erred our recommendations (Table 3.2). In towards the economically optimistic. using them we have been guided by 121

Table 3.2 : Possible scenarios for employment growth in outer London Scenario 1 Continuation of 1989-2007 historic trends a static view of how employment might change, could result in an average of 2,800 more taking no account of the changing future jobs, made up of 4,800 more ‘office’ jobs pa, importance of different sectors 5,400 more ‘other’ jobs’ and a loss of 7,400 ‘industrial’ jobs pa.

Scenario 2 2008 London Plan projection based on a assumes London will grow in line with triangulation of now dated historic trends = national trend and takes account of changing 10,000 more jobs pa, made up of 8,600 more relationships between different sectors but does ‘office’ jobs pa, 3,400 more ‘other ‘ jobs and a not reflect the most up-to-date information on loss of 1,700 ‘industrial’ jobs pa economic trends

Scenario 3 Oxford Economics Forecast =10,500 a more up-to-date, top-down, macro-economic more jobs pa view but does not reflect local infrastructure investment and development capacity. Sectoral information not available.

Scenario 4 New Draft London Plan projection based on a assumes London will grow in line with national triangulation of new employment, development trend and incorporates data which takes capacity and public transport data = 6,000 pa, account of the onset of the recent recession. made up of 2,900 more ‘office’ jobs pa, 7,300 more ‘other’ jobs and a loss of 4,000 ‘industrial’ jobs pa.

Note: these figures are only broadly indicative due to rounding and because definitions vary.

Where could growth come from? that exist in outer London were addressed. We have concluded that there are two These sources include: fundamental sources for future growth. • Office-based private sector activities • Retail 3.6 The first isendogenous growth, based • Leisure/tourism on existing sectors and sources of • Local/central government employment. These, of course, have • Other public sector activity, such as contributed to the underlying trends health, community safety etc examined earlier in this report, but • Industry and logistics there may be scope for them to perform • Creative industries more effectively if constraints on their • Other sectors, such as construction. performance, competitiveness and growth 122 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

3.7 Some growth from these sources can and to avoid making undue reliance on be expected from increased residential multiplier effects or double counting. population, increasing demand for goods and services locally. Peer group reviewed 3.10 The Commission considered at some work1 for the 2008 London Plan suggested length whether it would be realistic to that every extra 1000 population might include new, large scale, commercial office generate 230 more local jobs. occupiers in the above list as a distinct element of potential exogenous expansion. 3.8 The second is exogenous growth. This Clearly, it would be desirable to attract means either wholly new sources of these back to outer London as a source of employment on a strategically significant sustainable growth. Paragraph 3.4 above scale or step changes in the scale or nature shows that outer London may be able to of existing sources which might be possible offer them competitive advantage, and if constraints on outer London’s competitive from the representations made to the position can be addressed. These might Commission, there are certainly strong include: local ambitions to support this. In addition, • Central government functions (along the major office proposals at Chiswick Park, lines of the Home Office’s operations in Stockley Park, Park Royal, Brent Cross and Croydon) Croydon suggest that the development • Other governmental and related functions sector has not discounted the possibility. (European Union agencies, for example) However, with some notable exceptions • National or regional level health or the tendency over the last two economic community safety facilities cycles (at least) has been for such firms • Sources arising from, or supported to leave rather than migrate to outer by, new national or regional transport London. This suggests that while there infrastructure, such as Crossrail or a High may not be sufficiently robust evidence to Speed rail terminus justify a change of policy to make specific • Environmental industries strategic provision across outer London • Attracting back “back office” and other as a whole for such occupiers, this does kinds of employment that have moved not mean that local stakeholders should in recent years from outer London to the not continue to work to develop their surrounding Outer Metropolitan Area. competitive advantages to attract them to viable locations. The targeted approach 3.9 More generally, in considering both to management of the office stock and exogenous and endogenous sources of its selective renewal set out in paragraphs growth, we have been alive to the need to 2.155 to 2.160 should support this, as be realistic about what might be possible, well as making provision for other types of occupier. 123

3.11 We particularly want to highlight two of March 2009 estimates could generate possible sources of growth. The first, over 800 jobs per year. which is likely to be mainly exogenous, is based on those activities associated 3.12 Outer London, with its proximity to the with the environmental sectors. One environmentally oriented finance and the one hand, there is a view that, at business services in the centre, its range of least for the manufacturing component sites and workspaces and access to a skilled of green industries: “why should they workforce, could be well placed to benefit come to a relatively high cost location from job creation and investment in the like outer London when they can find area as the capital shifts to a low carbon lower cost bases, and possibly subsidy, economy. in other places?” However, on the other hand, outer London is well-positioned 3.13 The second potential source of growth is to play a leading role in the research the public sector which has both exogenous and development of ‘green industries’, and endogenous components. While the perhaps building on the progress London Commission was mindful of government is making to be the global market leader in policy to relocate its administrative carbon finance and its strengths in areas functions away from London, it did note associated with low carbon activity and that locating government, health and research. It is a global centre with very high higher/further education functions of levels of investment in new technology. greater than sub regional significance in London is well placed to develop expertise outer London would bring many benefits, in sectors that are able to respond to including links to existing central London the growing market opportunities in institutions and local labour markets, lower the areas of climate change mitigation costs, skilled labour force and relatively and adaptation; outer London would good communications. Higher education be well suited to contribute to such institutions and hospitals in outer London development, for example associated with (see figures 3.1 and 3.2) have a potential the decarbonisation of the residential beyond the direct employment they bring property sector (including both the 3.1 as focii of regeneration, both because of the million existing homes in London and the direct employment they bring, the scope 33,000 pa planned for the future). The for helping employees gain experience and draft replacement London Plan requires skills (the “skills escalator effect, particularly a significant proportion of London’s marked in the Health Service), the indirect energy to be supplied by decentralised benefits they bring to local economies and energy by 2025; this will provide a market the scope for harnessing “spill over” effects opportunity in London that the ‘Prospectus in encouraging emerging sectors. In the for London, the Low Carbon Capital’ report next section, we take this line of thought 124 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 3.1: Higher/ Further Education institutions as a focus of regeneration

Figure 3.2: Hospitals as a focus of regeneration 125

further in examining whether it is possible of the GLA Group as a whole, boroughs to attract or support exogenous growth in and the whole range of public, private and particular places. voluntary sectors with a part to play in the success of places in outer London. 3.14 While there is understandable scepticism about the historic effectiveness of the 3.16 For the future, the Mayor may wish to public sector looking at economic sectors explore how the London Plan can help in this way (or ‘picking winners’), the make a step change in the effectiveness Commission was also conscious that this is of private and public investment what the private sector tries to do all the coordination. So far the Plan does not time. A pragmatic partnership of public appear to have fully flexed its institutional and private stakeholders might be more muscles as a ‘spatial strategy’, instead effective in realising synergies between staying close to the planners’ traditional sectors than the top down interventions of comfort zone of land use, transport and the 1960’s and 1970’s. the environment. The Commission has suggested incremental extensions to this 3.15 The Mayor’s London Plan is a spatial to provide more specific coverage of social development strategy. That is, it can infrastructure. Potentially it could perhaps coordinate all the investment and other go much further, providing a strategic interventions that affect the locational context to add value to the Total Place decisions businesses make. We can make and Total Capital concepts which have sure that there are sufficient workspaces recently been tested at borough level, in the right places and with the right and extending the ‘localness agenda’ to environment, supported by the transport, embrace the city region. A start might information/communications and other be made by investigating how it might infrastructure and easily accessible by a improve services and drive savings by workforce that has been provided with adding a strategic dimension to delivery the skills and training support it needs. of the ‘health agenda’, and exploring We can also make sure that policy does how this can contribute to achievement not disadvantage development inside the of the Mayor’s wider objectives. For Greater London boundary as compared example, could it help to coordinate more with that outside (in car parking policy, for effectively the infrastructure needed example). Getting this spatial development to support integration of strategic and framework right means ensuring the right local health and complementary service mix of mutually supportive planning, delivery, possibly between boroughs or transport and economic development across wider areas of London, linked to policies Londonwide and locally, and Opportunity Area or town centre renewal coordinating the investment and operations initiatives? 126 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

A new spatial structure for growth? in each quadrant of outer London) as a basis for this discussion. At the same time, 3.17 As a key part of our terms of reference, it was made clear that the Commission we were asked to consider the concept of had an open mind on this issue, and that economic growth hubs in outer London other options would also be considered. and the contribution a concept of this kind Any future land-use options would of could have in helping outer London to course need to be examined in the light of reach its full economic potential. We also economic viability, transport interventions examined the related question – raised by and projections of employment and many of those we spoke to - of whether population growth. and how more polycentric growth should be encouraged, with a view to informing 3.19 This question probably caused more the development of the revision to the controversy than any other of the issues London Plan, and subsequent strategies. we considered. Fears were expressed that identified hubs would receive the bulk Polycentric development: of transport and other investment at the Polycentric development, as defined by expense of other parts of outer London, Hague & Kirk, 2003 (ODPM) is a spatial and and that they would see the most of any functional form of development in which additional growth. As set out below, it also there are many centres and not just one large became clear from our consideration of city that dominates all the others. Polycentric past and likely future trends in the outer development helps to encourage increased London office market that it was very competitiveness, cohesion and regional unlikely that there would be sufficient balance, equality of access to infrastructure high ‘added value’ private office demand and knowledge and sustainable development, to support the scale of growth hubs of this and is a concept promoted, for example, kind would require. in the European Spatial Development Perspective. 3.20 Thus, as part of its initial work the Commission considered just what a ‘super- hub’ might comprise. The Commission’s 3.18 The Commission asked for views on the brief and its early consultations and concept of ‘super hubs’ or ‘growth hubs’ analyses suggested that in terms of core - places that could form the focus of, and functions, ‘super-hubs’ should have a catalyst for, more general above-trend wider than sub regional ‘reach’; that these growth in outer London. It started with functions should be capable of being four broad locations identified as potential accommodated at high enough densities growth hubs: Stratford, Croydon, Brent to justify public transport investment (to Cross/Cricklewood and Heathrow (one create a virtuous, self reinforcing circle of 127

public investment and wider growth); and 3.22 The 50,000 employment growth from that they should generate sufficient value this variant of the ‘super-hub’ model is to justify private development investment. equivalent to more than a third of the This pointed to office based functions Draft London Plan’s projected employment capable of generating rental values of more growth for all sectors across outer London than about £27 sq ft (in the same general (Table 3.2 Scenario 4) i.e. if successful, order as those in nearby parts of the Outer a ‘super-hub’ would certainly achieve Metropolitan Area and indeed in much of the desired ‘step change’ in employment provincial Britain), backed by substantial opportunities. On this basis, it might high value residential development and an absorb much of the office employment attractive range of supporting services. growth projected for the whole of outer London under Scenario 4, about half that 3.21 To generate the desired step change in projected under Scenario 1 and a quarter employment over and above historic or of that expected under Scenario 2. currently projected trends, the scale of such office development would have to be 3.23 The Commission also considered significantly greater than that anticipated other models for the ‘super hub’ in the emerging London Plan. As an initial concept. For example, was it useful proposition for testing, it was suggested to use the Heathrow area as a proxy? that in broad brush terms this might entail This accommodates 90,000 jobs, and development at, say, twice the scale of that while specific growth data was not usually considered necessary to generate available, the Commission was mindful its own mass and identity as a strategically that Hillingdon, in which much of this significant office quarter - say, double activity is concentrated, has had by far the 300,000 – 400,000 sq m which in the the greatest employment growth of any past has been considered for such quarters outer borough (68,000 more jobs 1989 at Brent Cross or Earls Court. At average – 2007). Though Heathrow does have a London Plan densities this would provide distinct core set of airport related activities capacity for at least 50,000 office workers. (stemming in part from very substantial Variants on this model suggested that public investment), geographically these even if densities were reduced from 12 sq are quite dispersed, most are not office m person to 18 sq m (which would have based (Annex 3B) and arguably they do implications for development viability) and not form the tightly focused nexus which applied to the smallest office ‘super-hub’ might be characterised as a ‘super-hub’. option (600,000 sq m), this would still More importantly, the area is quite unique create capacity for over 30,000 more office – realistically it is doubtful whether it workers. could be used as a model for replication elsewhere in London. 128 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure: 3.3: Office based employment 2007

3.24 However, dispersed areas of growth, growth was not office based and was sometimes clustered around pockets of generated by a fairly dispersed geographic more intense activity, do exist elsewhere in structure, with all that that implies for London. The employment density maps in transport investment. Chapter 2 provide a static picture of these, and the borough level tables in Annex 3B 3.25 The Commission also considered whether provide a broad brush impression of the office hubs in the Outer Metropolitan Area scale of their growth. Richmond (27,000 could serve as models – after all, OMA as a job growth 1989 – 2007) and Barnet whole had grown by 36,000 jobs pa across (21,000) are the most graphic examples. two economic cycles while outer London In terms of scale, doubling their historic had managed only 2,800, and the OMA performance would apparently put them office market is a more realistic comparator in the same league as the notional ‘super- for outer London ‘super-hubs’ than that of hub’ described above, but much of this inner London. But the employment growth 129

headline across the ‘Home Counties’ belies other models, this development required the scale of office growth in each of its substantial public subsidy from a range own ‘hubs’. The nearest proxy to a ‘super- of sources, including very significant rail hub’ there is Reading, with some 30,000 infrastructure. Thus, from this perspective, office jobs and nearby Wokingham with the scale of the ‘super-hub’ concept some 22,000 jobs. Wokingham grew by outlined above does not appear immodest. 850 jobs pa across two cycles, and growth However, it is misleading because Canary in Reading was erratic but, on average, Wharf serves a very different market from negative i.e. very different to the 2,500 that which might be attracted to outer jobs pa required over 20 years to reach a London. Historic prime rents there have 50,000 target for a London ‘super-hub’. been in the order of £40 sq ft i.e. roughly Moreover, a significant part of this area’s the same as central London’s ‘Mid Town’, office economy is based on a set of more not far above those sometimes achieved dispersed, car based spatial structures in parts of Hammersmith but well above than the dense, public transport based those in the Outer Metropolitan Area configuration posited for the distinct which serves a market more analogous circumstances of London. Other OMA to that which might be created in outer centres outlined in Figure 3.3 do not have London. even half the level of office employment suggested for a London ‘super-hub’ – only 3.27 These of course are not wholly valid Bracknell has more than 15,000 jobs. comparators, not least because much of Moreover, as independent consultants for the projected employment growth in outer the London Office Policy Review 2009 London is likely to be essentially ‘low concluded, “when looking at office-based value added’ while the new exogenous employment specifically, the performance growth required for a ‘super-hub’ would of OMA centres is marginally stronger represent a ‘step change’ to a new ‘high (than those in outer London) but …. the value added’ type necessary to justify the range of growth rates across the two types development investment. Nor do they of centres precluded any definitive and address concerns as to the balance of over-arching conclusions”. probabilities of outer London attracting such exogenous employment on this 3.26 It was tempting to use Canary Wharf as an scale, or recognize differences in the exemplar of a successful London ‘super- markets served by other office locations. hub’. Early phases of development there However, they do provide a context for provided capacity for some 50,000 workers understanding what a ‘super-hub’ might which have now grown to more than entail, and, not least in light of other 90,000, with development capacity to evidence submitted to the Commission, exceed 200,000 jobs. As with some of the beg questions as to the realism of 130 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Table 3.3: Potential locations for ‘strategic outer London development centres’ and their strategic functions Strategic function(s) Sites Leisure/tourism Wembley; and parts of Greenwich; Richmond; Hillingdon; Wandle Valley Media (also food-related) White City; Park Royal Logistics Parts of Bexley; B&D; Havering; Hillingdon0; Hounslow Other transport Hillingdon; Royal Docks-City airport; Biggin Hill Office Croydon; Stratford Higher/Further Education Uxbridge; Kingston; Greenwich and possibly Croydon; Stratford; Romford Industry Upper Lee Valley; Bexley Riverside Retail Brent Cross

predicating a major change in London Plan employment is concentrated in its policy on the basis of such development. main town centres, 40 per cent is more While this testing of the ‘super-hub’ dispersed, the Commission instead came concept did not lead to its endorsement, to the conclusion that a more clearly it did provide useful lessons for the wider nuanced approach would be more work of Commission. constructive – one that made clear that it was based on smaller nodes or clusters 3.28 We also considered whether substantial of activities of greater than sub-regional planned extensions of existing urban importance which could be developed areas, perhaps based on release of Green either by building on existing strengths or Belt or Metropolitan Open Land, would the capacity to attract new activities not be a viable way forward. We came to the found elsewhere, and which recognised conclusion that this would be unnecessary the potential of a wider range of places. and wasteful in terms of the use of land This was the origin of the “strategic outer and existing infrastructure. There is very London development centre” which we considerable capacity for development propose in this report. and a good deal of “sunk” investment in buildings and infrastructure within the 3.30 The London Plan should draw on this existing urban envelope. There is not, list, and our work more generally, to therefore, the justification for large-scale identify specific locations in outer release for development of land which we London with specialist strengths, accept is extremely important for a range existing (“endogenous”) or potential of policy reasons and to quality of life. (“exogenous”). Other centres could be added as necessary (the Commission’s 3.29 Informed by the Survey results showing table is not intended to be exhaustive that while 60 per cent of outer London’s or preclude other configurations). We 131

hope to see a commitment to developing Making the most of existing places these and other centres, with a focus on both the business environment and the 3.32 Considerable attention has been given public realm. This should include ways of to new kinds of places that could be attracting investment for infrastructure, embodied in spatial policy. Many of those and measures to help Londoners to access we spoke to quite rightly pointed to the employment. need to make the most of existing spatial structures identified in the London plan 3.31 To avoid any misunderstanding, and elsewhere, and particularly town recommendations for outer London centres. We strongly agree with these development centres are intended to mean points. Any new spatial designations existing town centres and other centres of should complement and not replace or growth, and not the 4 ‘growth’ or ‘super’ endanger the success of existing places hubs originally envisaged. The meaning and centres. We briefly consider some of has broadened and, could include different the key spatial designations relevant to classifications, including relatively small outer London, and flag their potential district and neighbourhood centres as for both kind of economic growth we well as non- town centre locations such as identified earlier. Strategic Industrial Locations identified in the London Plan. The planning guidance Town centres and proposals would, of course, need to 3.33 Though outer London’s larger town be adapted for different classifications as centres already support 60 per cent of its appropriate. employment there are other reasons why the draft replacement London Plan should identify them as the most important spatial designation outside the Central Activities Zone to provide the main foci for commercial development, new retail and housing. We support the development of London’s town centres to provide a constellation of the most important business locations beyond the centre, providing the basis for transport and other linkages binding outer London together and providing a source of future strength. Doing this means ensuring that all of those concerned with particular centres work together to ensure each provides a 132 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 3.4: London’s Town Centre Network

competitive choice of goods and services, the number and density of housing in that they are accessible increasingly by town centres is increasingly important sustainable modes of transport, that each to ensuring their success, and this contains a range of locations suitable to needs to be a particular regeneration support growth and development and that objective. Consideration should be given barriers to development are addressed. to addressing the needs of groups and individuals who may particularly enjoy the 3.34 There is also a need for targeted ‘buzz’ of town centres such as students, or regeneration action coordinated by all some types of smaller households, perhaps the agencies involved, including those even including some older people. Area involved in site assembly and making Action Plans as part of borough LDFs better use of under-developed town will be an important part of this process. centre sites. We believe that increasing These can provide a framework for more 133

Figure 3.5: Opportunity and Intensification Areas

specific work to improve the public realm 3.36 We support the principles behind these of streets and spaces, possibly as part designations, which we note have stood of initiatives to enhance civic pride and the test of time since the first publication quality of life such as local variants of the of the London Plan. We also support the London Festival of Architecture. identification of new areas of these kinds in outer London. However, based on what Opportunity and Intensification Areas we were told we do think there is a need These are London Plan designations: for greater coordination of investment in them by the Homes and Communities 3.35 Opportunity Areas are London’s Agency, the London Development principal opportunities for accommodating Agency and other organisations. There large-scale development to provide is also a need to improve their social and substantial numbers of new employment environmental infrastructures to help and housing (typically more than 5,000 establish and sustain their attractiveness jobs and/or 2,500 homes) with a mixed as places to live and work. and intensive use of land and assisted by good public transport accessibility. Industrial land/clusters Intensification Areas are places with 3.37 It is important that London retains significant potential for increases in and then makes the most of the land residential, employment and other uses resources it has for industrial purposes in through development of sites at higher order to secure the capital’s capacity to densities with more mixed and intensive accommodate activities that are relatively use but at a level below that which can be low value, but which play an essential achieved in Opportunity Areas. part in maintaining the city’s metabolism 134 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 3.6: Distribution of industrial land within and outside Strategic Industrial Locations in London

– manufacturing and maintenance, waste accessibility, both for workers and for management and recycling, wholesale freight. and logistics and the range of support activities a service economy relies upon. Growth and coordination corridors These sectors are often important to outer 3.38 The London Plan recognises two London’s economy and to providing a nationally-designated growth corridors range of employment opportunities there. (the Thames Gateway and the London- The debate about these places all Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough too often begins and ends with the Corridor) and three corridors connecting question of quantity; we believe that London with the wider city region (the more attention should be given to ways Western Wedge, Wandle Valley and of improving their quality. In particular, London-Luton-Bedford corridor). We there is a need to look at their physical agree with those who suggested to us that 135

Figure 3.7: London’s growth corridors Source: GLA

the full potential of these corridors has illuminating illustration of how this might not been realised. There is clearly a need be approached in refining the ‘Western for more active work and coordination by Wedge’ concept. authorities on either side of the Greater London boundary on a range of issues, London’s sub-regions but perhaps particularly on transport. 3.39 The draft replacement London Plan sets Delivering this means putting practical out a new sub-regional structure and a joint planning arrangements in place more flexible approach to sub-regional for each corridor, and focussing on the working which enables the formation of opportunities providing the most potential partnerships across borough boundaries – the nodes within each of the corridors, according to the nature of the issue under rather than the spaces between. The West consideration. London Partnership provided a particularly 136 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 3.8: London’s sub- regions

3.40 We welcome the approach taken to sub Regional/national/international regional coordination in the draft Plan. linkages It will allow the sound foundation of 3.41 The London Plan rightly makes much of work carried out by established sub- London’s place as part of Europe’s urban regional partnerships to be built upon framework and the United Kingdom’s and developed, providing a valuable link network of core cities. We have had between the London-wide and the local. to be mindful of this wider context in This could be taken further by looking at considering our recommendations and ways in which working at a sub-regional to the contribution that policies on this level can add value in delivering services wider scale will have for outer London. For and ensuring the kind of coordinated, example, there is the scope for maximising targeted regeneration activity we have the benefits from national transport identified as being essential. infrastructure investment like High Speed 137

Figure 3.9: London’s cultural facilities

Rail. Access to international transport facilities. In doing so, we have noted links is an important factor in businesses’ that most of the funding for cultural locational decisions, and airports will facilities and activities goes to central remain an important economic driver in London – even though one third of the outer London (particularly perhaps in west approximately 3,500 cultural facilities in and south London – see Figure 3.7). the capital are in outer London. There is clearly a case for funding bodies to 3.42 Addressing these and similar issues in ways rethink this. that support growth while not putting quality of life, environmental and other 3.44 We believe there are things that should objectives at risk requires close working be done more locally and immediately to by all the agencies concerned at strategic make the most of these sectors in outer and local level, within London and across London. First, there is a need for more regional boundaries. This reinforces the effective marketing of the area’s cultural need to develop arrangements for this assets, particularly where these fall within kind of joint work mentioned earlier. identifiable clusters. This may mean joint marketing efforts by groups of authorities Cultural quarters and areas or agencies on a cross-boundary basis. 3.43 Outer London already has a range of high quality leisure, arts, culture and 3.45 There is scope for taking a more proactive tourism facilities. We believe there is approach to management of areas of considerable scope to build on this, both cultural importance, and we commend to make the most of what already exists, the concept of “cultural quarters” – and to identify the opportunities for new places able to accommodate new arts, 138 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

cultural and leisure activities and which 3.48 However, if promoted simply as a blanket can be managed so they contribute more ‘good thing’, it can also raise tensions with effectively to regeneration – identified in other planning objectives, not least when the London Plan. This could be used as it is used as a ‘back-door’ to replacing the basis for exploring the potential for lower value but still functionally important very large scale commercial leisure facilities activities hitherto protected by the able to provide a regional, national or planning system. Its application must be international scale offer (as has been done tailored to local circumstances. at Wembley, or at North Greenwich with the 02 Centre). At the other end of the 3.49 The London Plan already provides support scale, consideration could be given to for mixed use development in different rejuvenation of medium-sized theatres and types of location: some policies promote other facilities. and manage mixed use development in particular areas (2A.5 Opportunity Areas, 3.46 Allied to this is the need for effective 2A.6 Intensification Areas, 2A.8 Town management of the night time economy, Centres, 2A.9 The Suburbs, 5G.3 CAZ) and which can on the one hand help support some in relation to particular uses (3A.2 the vitality of town centres, but can also housing targets, 3A.10 affordable housing, make them unpleasant places to be. This 3B.3 offices, 2A.10 and 3B.4 industry). means looking at ways of broadening the Others support it generically (notably range of night-time activities and linking 2A.1 sustainability criteria and 4B.1 design them to cultural facilities and other leisure principles for a compact city – see below). uses, as well as ensuring effective cross- agency working. 3.50 The Commission considered that, within the context of its terms of reference, Mixed use development further guidance is required on 3.47 The Commission noted that mixed use implementation of these general policies development can play an important part in: to ensure that the concept delivers what • shaping places; is expected of it and does not have • securing a more efficient and sustainable unintended consequences. This bears use of outer London’s scarce stock of particularly on mixed use redevelopment development capacity; which involves housing – at strategic level • enabling different land uses to be the highest value use in outer London, accommodated on the same site or in the and one which, while meeting an essential same neighbourhood; and need and potentially contributing to • reducing the need to travel between suburban renewal, can also compromise different activities (such as living and wider planning objectives. It therefore working or shopping and healthcare). suggests that when developing guidance 139

on implementation of mixed use policy outer London or to generate investment to consideration be given to the approaches maintain and improve the quality of all the outlined below for development which existing office stock. entails: • conversion/redevelopment of surplus 3.52 The Commission noted that the London offices Plan anticipates that housing-led, • town centre redevelopment mixed use re-development could play • industrial land a major part in helping to consolidate and modernise part of the office stock Mixed use development and the beyond central London while at the same changing outer London office market time adding significantly to housing 3.51 As already noted, the office market capacity. A downturn in the office market, beyond central London is subject to a accelerating release of surplus office complex combination of factors which, capacity, coupled with new opportunities over the long term, look likely to reduce for significant investment in affordable strategically significant office investment. homes (see London Housing Strategy) Of particular importance are declining may provide particular opportunities demand from historically important for such mixed use renewal. However, large scale occupiers, such as ‘back to ensure that the viability of existing offices’ to serve CAZ businesses and office occupiers and investment is not central government or for commercial compromised this must be approached headquarters and administrative activities sensitively through local strategies tailored which in the past sought a London but to local circumstances. General principles not a central London location. Against which these strategies could usefully take this decline must be set strategic and into account include: local initiatives to re-invent and re-brand • Recognising that unlike mixed use some of these areas as attractive and development in central London, which competitive business locations, as well as is mainly office-led, in the remainder of to retain existing occupiers. In addition, London retail, leisure and, in particular, population expansion is likely to generate housing are usually higher value uses new demand for local business services and are likely to be the main drivers of and justify retention of some lower cost change. office space. However, overall, while • Depending on local and strategic locally based office employment beyond circumstances (see below), the higher central London is projected to expand values associated with these can also substantially its ‘added value’ may not provide scope for partial renewal of the be sufficient to prompt strategically office stock which should be in line with significant new office development across the locational and other requirements, 140 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

including coordinated conversion of the overall office market beyond central surplus offices to residential (or to other London. The Commission noted that to uses). help provide a wider picture, the GLA • Phasing of the office renewal/ publishes strategic reviews of the office replacement process will be critical to market across London2 which suggested ensure that the viability of existing categorising significant office locations office occupiers and investment is not beyond CAZ and Canary Wharf according compromised – given the importance of to whether: managing change in the outer London • speculative office development could economy, housing objectives should be promoted, possibly in the context of generally be a consequence of economic some loss of less attractive capacity; concerns when developing office • some office provision could be promoted consolidation strategies in this regard. as part of wider residential/other use led schemes in the context of more 3.53 This phasing should take into account significant loss of less attractive office the capacity of the existing stock for capacity; or interim renewal to accommodate new • they are unsuitable for/there is no office occupiers e.g. sub division to strategic case for encouraging office accommodate small firms – this may delay development. residential led mixed use redevelopment of some sites. 3.55 The Commission welcomes the DRLP Because much office space outside (Annex 2) proposal to take forward a central London is in or around town categorisation along the lines of the centres, local initiatives to manage office above recommendation and summarised capacity could usefully be integrated into in Figure 2.43. In view of the changing wider town centre strategies. Mixed use, nature of the office market beyond central housing-led, partial renewal of the office London, it is particularly important that stock can help achieve the objectives of borough analyses of their office markets these. (and their approach to housing led mixed use renewal) is in the context of the 3.54 Boroughs are strongly advised to take a ‘Plan, Monitor and Manage’ approach broader than local perspective in analysing proposed in the London Plan (paragraph their office markets (and as the context for 3.150). To inform the scope for housing- subsequently realising potential housing led mixed use development, as well as capacity). Office locations outside town for office renewal, it will be important to centres should be considered (including test and revise the above categorisations the environmental as well as the economic for individual centres. This should inform sustainability of these) as should trends in any guidance on Town Centres and the 141

GLA Town Centres Healthcheck, as well as • innovation parks ranging from urban further revision of the London Plan. incubator units to more spacious provision. 3.56 Significant office renewal and new office development should be consolidated in 3.58 Mixed use conversion of surplus office the most competitive locations where buildings, especially to residential, can a market can be developed for existing pose particular challenges. Schemes and new occupiers. In several of the can vary significantly and in some different types of location identified in circumstances, while the intent of the London Plan (paragraph 3.148), mixed internal space, sound insulation and use development with a strong residential energy efficiency standards must be component could play an important part maintained, an imaginative approach to in the office renewal process. These types their application may be required. Housing of location include: led conversions and surplus office site • strategic office centres, currently re-development must also be set in the Croydon and Stratford, and elsewhere if context of the supply of local amenities, justified by demand; services and social and environmental • town centre based office quarters; infrastructure. In areas deficient in these, • locally oriented, town centre based office DPDs should ensure that some of the provision, which can be consolidated development capacity represented by effectively to meet local needs, or where surplus offices addresses such needs. necessary changed to other uses; and This may require sensitive planning and • existing linear office developments such entail partnership action to facilitate as the ‘Golden Mile’. comprehensive, or at least partial, area renewal. 3.57 Other types of location for suburban office renewal identified in the Plan are likely to 3.59 The physical configuration of some be less suitable for a mixed use, residential surplus office buildings may make them led approach: unsuitable for the provision of on- • mid-urban business parks such as that site affordable housing for some client developed at Chiswick; groups, though this should not exclude • conventional business parks beyond the them from affordable housing policy urban area, such as those at Stockley requirements (including off site or cash Park and Bedfont Lakes, which should in lieu contributions where this provides become more sustainable in transport more appropriate housing than on site terms; and provision). 142 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Mixed use development and town reduces the need for car parking provision centres and provides scope to move towards ‘zero’ 3.60 Outer London’s strategically recognised provision, further increasing housing (Figure 3.4), and many more locally capacity (Policy 3C.24 and Annex 4). designated, town centres will be the Higher densities also enhance the viability primary geographical focus for most of its of car sharing schemes. 520,000 new residents expected to 2031, and for much of the £38 billion growth 3.62 A real commitment to partnership working, in outer London household expenditure backed where necessary by the Mayor, will projected to be spent on comparison be needed to realise this potential. This goods by 2031 (see paragraph 2.165). may include innovative approaches to land These trends will help drive substantial assembly, possibly using the compulsory mixed use development. Housing is purchase process, perhaps with LDA expected to form an important part support. A range of partners including of this development, capitalising on boroughs and the LDA have explored how the accessibility of town centres which a design led approach to development also underpins their capacity for higher in and around medium sized and smaller density development. Housing can also town centres3 can increase housing complement other town centre activities capacity there. This work suggests design - physically in terms of utilising air space and development principles to secure above commercial uses, functionally high quality, high density development as in terms of adding to their vitality and well as providing illustrations of ways to viability and perceptually by strengthening balance the need for homes of different the ‘sense of place’ and quality of life sizes. which they provide for local communities. 3.63 In some circumstances, implementation 3.61 As the main nodes on London’s public of mixed use policy will require flexible transport network, town centres typically application of affordable housing have higher ‘PTAL’ scores, capable of policy providing this flexibility does not sustaining housing densities up to 400 compromise achievement of the broad units per hectare or more depending strategic objective to maximise provision. on dwelling size. Opportunities for play It is noted that the Mayor’s new Interim and other amenity spaces tend to be Housing SPG4 recognises the need for more constrained in town centres than a more flexible approach to the balance elsewhere so a lower proportion of family between social housing and intermediate homes may be appropriate in these housing. locations. A combination of smaller homes and good public transport accessibility 143

Mixed use development and surplus managed and monitored basis to ensure industrial land that the needs of the full range of bona 3.64 Historically, surplus industrial land fide industrial type occupiers are taken has been a key source of new housing into account, including transport, logistics capacity. By 2006 the stock of industrial and, in particular, waste. land had fallen to an estimated 5,500 hectares, a reduction of 440 hectares 3.66 In line with PPS3, PPS4 and government since 2001. London’s manufacturing guidance on employment land reviews5, sector is projected to continue to contract policies and decisions to retain business and new industrial type activities are land, including that for industry, must be expected to make more effective use justified by realistic demand assessments. of existing industrial land, freeing up The Industrial Capacity SPG6 sets surplus industrial capacity for other out quantified industrial land release uses, especially housing. However, it is monitoring benchmarks for individual essential that the process of industrial boroughs in North East and South East land release is managed sensitively so London and more general release/ that provision is still made for essential retention guidance for all boroughs industrial functions, especially logistics, (the Commission notes that the Mayor waste and transport, emerging new sectors proposes to include this guidance within such as green industries and the myriad the body of the DRLP). For the period small industrial type firms which rely on 2006 – 2026, annualised benchmarks to the planning system to protect affordable monitor release (including for housing) at business space. The introduction of new sub regional level are: uses, including housing, to industrial areas should not compromise continuing North 9 hectares per year industrial activities there. North East 18 hectares per year South East 7 ha per year 3.65 The Commission notes that the London South West 3 ha per year Plan states that “there is scope for an West 3 ha per year annual net release of 41 ha (of industrial land) 2006 – 2026, mainly in parts of 3.67 It is anticipated that, outside east London, North East and South East London. This subject to demand and other assessment should go to other priority uses, notably criteria, most industrial land releases housing and social infrastructure a higher to housing should come from smaller level of release is appropriate in the early industrial sites. The main reservoir of part of the plan period (48 ha per annum industrial capacity will continue to be 2006 – 2016)”. This release should be protected as Strategic Industrial Locations undertaken on a selective and carefully 144 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 3.10 Strategic Industrial Locations

(SILs) and where formally designated, as through the successor to Sub Regional Locally Significant Industrial Sites. Implementation/Development Frameworks (the proposed Implementation Plan). 3.68 Among SILs, especially in east London, Smaller scale releases from SILs should there will still be some scope for not compromise the integrity and viability strategically coordinated intensification, of the remainder of the SIL. These are consolidation, locational substitution and/ typically small parts of SILs which are or mixed use development which will yield sequestered from the main body of the capacity for other uses, especially housing. Location by a road or railway, often close Where significant land is to be released to a town centre. Boroughs are advised to from SILs, notably in parts of East London, draw on the criteria to manage the release this should be managed through individual of these and other small sites are set out planning frameworks and coordinated in the SPG. 145

Quality of Life/Environmental Issues “Lifetime Neighbourhoods”, and are glad to see it has been taken up in the draft 3.69 Although our focus has primarily been on replacement London Plan. outer London’s economic development, it was clear to us from the start that we 3.71 This approach to ensuring strong and could not ignore the things that make sustainable (in all senses of that term) much of it somewhere that is pleasant neighbourhoods also means we have to to live and work. These are the reasons be more proactive in identifying the range why outer London has a skilled resident of social infrastructure (everything from workforce. They are why the people schools, clinics and hospitals through who support local shops and businesses cultural and leisure facilities through choose to live there. They are why many to prisons) that are needed for civilised businesses decide to locate there. The urban living. We think there may be quality of life that is enjoyed in much of value in the London Plan giving more outer London is crucial for its economic guidance on identifying appropriate success – and that of London as a whole. levels of social infrastructure in particular places, perhaps by providing benchmarks 3.70 We believe that development need not linked to particular levels of development detract from what is one of the key and growth– we have suggested some strengths of the area. Making sure this of these, together with illustrations of happens depends on our taking the relative accessibility to some types of concepts of “place making” and, on facility, in Annexes 6A and 6 B, but these occasion “place shielding”, and realising could be extended e.g. to cover libraries them on the ground - applying the best and facilities for the elderly. of contemporary design and building standards, and tailoring them to local 3.72 One way of taking these principles and circumstances. This means taking a translating them into action might be neighbourhood-based approach to design through providing more strategic advice and development, taking local context and guidance. The GLA has published into account in ways that address strategic “Tomorrow’s Suburbs”, a toolkit for policy objectives while also enabling sustainable suburban development to local needs to be met. To be effective support the London Plan. We think in a city like London, with a growing this could be refined and updated, and changing population means taking informed by our research, findings and account of the needs of people at all recommendations. In particular, it should stages of their lives and enabling them to set out approaches to help engender make the most of the places where they greater community ownership, cohesion live. We strongly endorse the concept of and choices – all things that are integral to 146 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

the creation of the kind of neighbourhood • Positioning bus stops for ease of we think will help support delivery of the interchange kinds of growth we want to see. • Improving Dial-a-Ride • Maintaining street trees and open spaces 3.73 Civic groups report developers ‘cherry to acceptable standards pick’ profitable parts of development • Protecting local shops areas without making commensurate • Developing loyalty purchase schemes contributions needs to provide the social • Eliminating graffiti, flyposting and infrastructure required to secure quality dumping of life in the areas as a whole. They have • Encouraging development of live/work also suggested a ‘shopping list’ of the units and serviced offices sorts of cumulatively important small scale • Supporting street markets, farmers’ measures which quality of life policies markets and food growing should cover including: • Providing community and business • Manning of stations in the evenings meeting space, including asset transfer • Designing out crime • Protecting heritage and conservation • Eliminating street clutter and improving areas the public realm • Managing the night time economy • Maintaining visible Police presence • Reducing air pollution • Reducing gang culture and associated • Managing noise problems violence • Preventing more front garden parking • Providing good special needs education • Encouraging apprenticeships for young 3.74 All these approaches are, we believe, people important if we are to be able to make • Providing leisure facilities for both young sure that growth in outer London is to go and elderly people ahead in ways that enhance the quality • Dealing with worklessness in certain of living in outer London. This is essential groups if growth is to be acceptable in the first • Achieving community cohesion place, and then effective in supporting • Developing borough outreach and outer London’s success. They must be engagement of communities backed by a consistent and rigorous • Ensuring local democratic decision making approach not just to timely translation • Introducing an effective third party right of strategic policy to the local level of appeal (slippage in LDF preparation timetables • Improving capacity and reliability of is reported to be common) but also in its public transport and user information implementation – civic groups report that • Realigning bus routes for effective usage all too often they find that the policies which are in place to secure quality of life 147

are not accorded appropriate weight in Transport issues planning decisions. 3.76 It was clear from the outset that one of 3.75 So far, we have focussed on new the key considerations in assessing the development and growth. We must feasibility of growth in outer London, let not forget the huge contribution of alone ‘growth hubs’, was the transport the suburban heartlands – the places demand and associated capacity required between town centres that give the to facilitate it. Our consideration of the area its unique feel and character. These issue was supported by scenario testing of places are important to outer London’s the effects of different patterns of spatial success as well, and we should nurture development carried out as part of the and support the capital’s “green suburbs”, development of the draft London Plan and which are one of the city’s key assets. Mayors Transport Strategy by Transport for It is important that policy supports the London. . public and semi-public realm in this area – the green and open spaces provided 3.77 Two principal scenarios were considered: by parks, sports clubs, playing fields and • Scenario A, with the focus of gardens. These have a value that goes employment growth in central London beyond protecting pleasant places – they with population growth largely in inner are important to the quality of life, health and East London (as per the February and well-being of all Londoners and, 2008 edition of the London Plan) – in perhaps at a more mundane level, are a other words, a continuation of existing vital part of the outer London “offer” to trends investors and developers. We welcome • Scenario B, a more dispersed growth, the strong support for protection of these with higher levels of growth in outer spaces in the draft replacement London London, centred on the four ‘strategic Plan, its support for local presumptions outer London development centres’ 1 against development of back gardens and the proposal to extend the “green 3.78 Each of these basic scenarios, and a grid” approach to ensuring a coordinated number of variations on them, were network of green and open space beyond tested against the possible transport east London. interventions required to support their sustainable development. In addition to the four potential hubs, a further scenario considering the 11 “metropolitan” outer London town centres identified in the current version of the London Plan, was also tested. These 3 main scenarios, then, 148 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 3.11: Matrix of land-use and transport changes modelled

were examined against the following 3.79 Figure 3.11 illustrates the matrix of scenarios of transport intervention: land-use planning options and transport • TfL Business Plan (to 2017/18) and interventions modelled as part of the funded rail schemes as defined by HLOS7 evidence base for the OLC report and the • With a dedicated orbital link Mayoral strategies. predominantly in outer London • With further interventions 3.80 Different configurations within each of these 3 main transport interventions 149

were also relevant. For example, in supporting outer London development centres, possible transport interventions could include maximising the use of proposed cross-London strategic links (eg Crossrail); developing ‘chordal’ links between inner London and outer London centres via direct services or interchanges; and improving radial connections into centres, which would then connect up to form orbital links. Figure 3.12 illustrates these models and was also presented in the Statement of Intent for the Mayor’s Transport Strategy issued for consultation with the London Assembly and functional Figure 3.12: Possible configurations for connecting bodies. development centres in outer London through enhanced orbital connections. 3.81 Furthermore, the transport modelling indicated that a new dedicated, Congestion segregated orbital link in outer London 3.82 The transport modelling indicated that would not be viable, due to the lack of without changes to public transport sufficient potential patronage. However, capacity and connectivity, growth in it would be important to provide other, outer London would lead to more road enhanced orbital connections in some congestion with associated increases parts of London where demand is higher. in CO2 emissions. This result is largely These could be achieved, for example, accounted for by the relatively high by making better use of interchanges dependence on private car journeys in and joining up existing links. We believe outer London (50% of all resident trips that doing this in a way that focuses on are currently made by car). In this respect, links to, and between, centres in outer outer London is much more similar to London (what we have termed a “star and other UK metropolitan centres than it is cluster” approach, and presented in the to inner and central London, where public recommendations) will result in a denser transport has a much greater share. network of interchanges and orbital services that will enable investment to be 3.83 We have to act to prevent development concentrated where it will have the most and growth in outer London simply adding effect. to road congestion and the problems of traffic emissions and the wider adverse 150 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

health impacts of car reliance: for effectively. This should include a focus on example, children not getting enough improved connectivity and interchange exercise because they are driven to school between rail and other services such rather than walking or cycling locally. as buses and cycling. We welcome the Congestion will also adversely affect integration of Oyster cards into the NR quality of life for residents and for those network and the continued promotion driving. Unsurprisingly, this was an issue of the system as an overall network – that was raised with us extensively in our after all, passengers are more concerned discussions with stakeholders. with completing their journey than who provides the service. 3.84 It would not, of course, be feasible to provide public transport links to all 3.86 Buses will continue to be a vital destinations in outer London. The car component of public transport in outer is likely to remain important for many, London, but integration with other although opportunities to enable and services is crucial. Allowing passengers promote the use of public transport, to complete the whole journey by public walking and cycling, should obviously transport where possible, either through be maximised. This is the situation that improved services, information or those devising strategic policies for outer marketing. London will have to face. 3.87 Cycling and walking we share the We have identified four areas to which mayor’s enthusiasm for ensuring a attention should be given: revolution in cycling, and believe it is important that opportunities to increase 3.85 Rail services (both those provided by cycling in outer London are identified and Transport for London and National Rail). taken up. This links to emphasis we have These have a proportionately greater put on a liveable public realm and easy significance for outer London compared access to local services. We particularly to inner and central parts of the Capital. see potential to encourage cycling and Particularly in south outer London, there walking to and within town centres. This is less Tube coverage and more public in part needs to be facilitated through transport journeys use National Rail or improvements in land use planning, TfL Overground services. With this in which has the potential to encourage or mind, and an awareness that there is discourage the take up of walking and unlikely to be significant funding for new cycling in outer London, e.g. out of town infrastructure available in the short-term, centre developments lead to an increase we think there is considerable scope to in car travel. There are of course additional make the current system operate more health benefits of promoting active modes 151

like cycling and walking, and these must can often put them at a disadvantage be promoted as modes of choice. They compared to centres outside London. are also cheap and have minimal negative In town centres where regeneration is environmental impacts. There is a role for needed, there may be justification for local authorities to take a lead in outer some liberalisation. London, developing cycle hubs in and promoting local cycling. Freight 3.88 Demand management given the 3.91 With road freight currently comprising likelihood that outer London is likely to nearly 90 per cent of London’s freight continue its reliance on the car, more by tonnage, it is clear that managing the effective management of the road network demands and impacts of road freight is crucial to ensure that congestion does are an essential part of the package of not act as a barrier to economic growth delivering growth in outer London. Whilst the key driver of growth in freight is likely Car parking to be the significant population growth 3.89 Car parking policy in outer London needs over the next ten years and beyond, it to be developed on an individual and is the various functions associated with local basis- a “one size fits all” approach this growth that will lead to an increased is not appropriate here. Our view is that demand for goods and essential materials. a balance needs to be struck between This will require significant freight promoting new development (which is and servicing activity across London good for the economy) and preventing and towards the east, for example in excessive car parking provision (that can construction. If the potential of outer discourage cycling, walking and public London’s business locations to contribute transport). Adopting a flexible approach to more effectively to that of the capital car parking in outer London is required so as a whole, it will also need realistic and that a level of accessibility is maintained locally sensitive acknowledgement of the whilst being consistent with the overall transport requirements of road based balance of the transport system at the freight. local level.

3.90 We have heard that developers often view the lack of onsite car parking for offices in outer London as a disincentive to develop offices here, and this is not desirable from an economic point of view. We also know that parking policies in outer London 152 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Chapter 3 footnotes

Analysis 1 GLA Economics. More residents, more jobs. The relationship between population, employment and accessibility in London. GLA, 2005 2 Ramidus, Roger Tym & Partners 2009 op cit 3 Urhahn Urban Design, Urban Progress Studio, GVA Grimley. Housing Intensification in seven south London town centres. LDA, 2009 Urhahn Urban Design, CBRE. TEN: town centre enhancement in north London. LDA, GOL 2007 4 Mayor of London. Interim Revised Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance. GLA, 2010 5 ODPM. Employment Land Reviews Guidance Note. ODPM, 2004 6 Mayor of London. Industrial Capacity Supplementary Planning Guidance. GLA, 2008 7 High Level Output Statement – the programme for investment on the national rail network 4: ‘Plan’– Recommendations 153

This chapter sets out our recommendations, realise the economic potential of outer drawing on the evidence presented in chapter London. Listed below are some examples 2 and the analysis in chapter 3. They are of the options we looked at: presented here. 4.3 The definition of outer London: Spatial structures: The approach many outer London boroughs have to promoting regeneration and ‘inner characteristics’ and vice versa (and employment growth in outer London: some parts of the Outer Metropolitan recommendations for strategic Area are very similar to outer London). approaches It is therefore important that for policy purposes the boundaries of outer 4.1 In this section we make seven London are considered to be ‘permeable’ recommendations about the spatially- so boroughs are not constrained by based policies that should be pursued with administrative boundaries in drawing on regard to strategic ways of encouraging the Commission’s conclusions if these outer London’s development. They address are relevant in addressing the needs and particularly those parts of our terms of challenges of local neighbourhoods. reference dealing with the question of economic growth hubs and the role of 4.4 ‘Super- hubs’ – the original proposition town centres, but our conclusions on these tested by the Commission was that these points have also been influenced by the could be based on a very large scale evidence and discussion in earlier sections expansion of a few already successful dealing with issues like: business locations to develop their ‘greater • demography and housing; than sub-regional offer’. It was thought • the potential for growth in different that a benefit of these might be their economic sectors; potential to provide further agglomeration • transport; economies and so justify the substantial • the labour market investment required to support them. • institutional and legislative changes/ However, it was soon realised that if the initiatives concept was to be widely ‘owned’ by • quality of life boroughs, even if the potential growth to sustain them might come forward in the Spatial Structures future they would need to be developed 4.2 The spatial structure of a city can have without having a negative impact on a large influence on its regeneration and existing business locations. This possible growth potential. We considered a variety spatial structure was rejected by the OLC, of new spatial structures with a view to as the potential particularly for private ascertaining which could best help to office demand on this scale is doubtful 154 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

and there was also strong opposition 4.7 Reconfiguration of linkages between from numerous stakeholders because it existing business locations – a would compromise the prospects of other particular focus here was with growth business locations within sub regions. corridors in east and west London, making more effective use of transport linkages, 4.5 Substantial Green Belt/ Metropolitan enhancing agglomeration economies Open Land (MOL) based urban and support specialisms. Our view is to extensions (including the potential to support this potential spatial structure use farms and other open land)- this as a more realistic and feasible structure spatial structure was rejected by the OLC which accommodates the scale and nature in principle. There is already significant of growth expected to come forward, development capacity and potential to whilst making appropriate use of existing for intensification to make more effective transport facilities and available future use of transport infrastructure within the transport investment. It also emphasises urban area, and this should be our first the relationship between growth areas port of call. However, it may be possible within London and those at the corridors to explore this option if there is no net beyond London. loss of Green Belt/MOL as a result of development. 4.8 Having considered these and other options, we reached a general conclusion 4.6 Strategic Outer London Development that we should ensure the best use should Centres – this idea as a potential spatial be made of outer London’s existing spatial structure is supported as a more realistic structures, building on (and in some cases and feasible type of hub. It is more suited developing) its current strengths, and to accommodating the scale and nature of making the most of the investment that growth likely to occur and to minimise the has already been made there. necessity of travel whilst complementing existing structures. Some locations were 4.9 This approach leads us to recommend recommended as potential areas for that the development of outer London growth and influence beyond the areas should be modelled on a “star and cluster” within which they are located; for example, approach. This would make specific use Wembley, Greenwich and Richmond as of the existing town centre network sites for leisure and tourism; White City for whilst recognising other important Media and Industry in Upper Lee Valley business locations. It is also likely to be and Bexley Riverside. There is further the most sustainable and cost-effective information on locations and specialisation approach to transport infrastructure given in Chapter 3, section 5 of this investment. There are many variants report. within this broad approach: Figure 4.1 155

Figure 4.1: Some variants on the ‘star and cluster’ structure

illustrates schematically one which reflects 4.10 Ways of refining the existing spatial the perception of a ‘Central Activities structures listed in the London Plan to Zone-centric’ structure for London (the more effectively support this structure ‘centripetal city’); one which represents are listed below. As can be seen, the list London as a ‘city of villages’ (the includes ‘pure’ spatial structures (like town ‘polycentric city’; and one which seeks to centres) and instances where development marry ambitions for greater local growth in is clustered around, or stimulated by outer London with a realistic appreciation significant economic institutions (like an of outer London residents’ dependence airport or a university). on access to the opportunities of the metropolitan labour market as a whole 4.11 Town Centres: While the Commission (the model which seemed most plausible was mindful that two fifths of outer to the Commission). These are refined London’s employment was not in its main further in Figure 4.2. town centres, it supports the Mayors view that these centres should be the 156 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

single most important set of business than in the rest of the country. Conversely, locations outside central London; and that inappropriate out-of-centre development the focus here should be on promoting should be resisted rigorously. Increased access to a competitive selection of goods town centre related higher density, high and services, foregrounding the use of quality residential provision can play a more environmentally-friendly modes of key part in town centre rejuvenation, transport. The Commission was impressed coincidentally reducing pressure on by the ambitions of stakeholders for their established, predominantly residential town centres and would only caution neighbourhoods to meet housing needs. that aspirations should be tempered with This approach should inform the policies, realism – there may be scope to secure a investment priorities and initiatives of step change in the performance of some the GLA Group and other agencies such by enhancing their specialist functions of as the Homes and Communities Agency, wider than sub regional significance, but as well as the boroughs and other for most it will be a matter of playing to relevant stakeholders. The Commission their existing strengths in serving their noted that GLA research on use of the existing and future local communities planning system to secure small shop – there is substantial potential growth provision could have wider implications in their consumer expenditure bases. to contribute to different aspects of town Bringing forward capacity to accommodate centre renewal providing they does not this in an already built up area will conflict with competition legislation. This inevitably be a sensitive process, requiring could usefully be taken forward through real partnership working and imaginative Supplementary Planning Guidance. measures to enhance their quality and offers, especially improving their public 4.12 Opportunity Areas and Areas of realm to create a more attractive and Intensification: We consider these competitive business environment spatial designations do continue to and to develop a stronger and more fulfil a valuable role in identifying appealing sense of place and focus for those areas with the greatest potential local communities; possible use of the for development. Indeed, we believe CPO process for site assembly; a creative there is scope for designation of new approach to mixed use development; areas, and we welcome the fact that a sensitive approach to parking policy; the draft replacement London Plan has, and maintenance of London’s distinct for example, proposed a new area for approach to the ‘sequential test’, with intensification at Harrow and . in-centre development continuing to Within these structures, the social and be the first choice, but a more liberal environmental infrastructure typically approach to edge of centre development needs to be improved so as to enhance 157

their attractiveness as places to live 4.14 Growth/Coordination Corridors: The and work. Given the success of some potential of these have not been realised. Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks in Experience shows that this is not likely identifying and helping to bring forward to be redressed without more active joint development capacity, the Commission is work and coordination across the Greater concerned at the slow rate of progress in London boundary, bringing in local, sub- progressing some of these Frameworks. regional and regional actors on either side. Comparison of ideas for taking forward 4.13 Industrial Land: The reservoir of the Croydon – Gatwick and West London strategically important industrial land Corridors suggest that a ‘one size fits all’ in the London Plan provides secure approach is not likely to be appropriate. capacity for low- value but vital functions. This work now needs to be taken forward Implementation of historic industrial more vigorously – early signs (in relation capacity policy raises two sets of issues to the London-Luton-Bedford corridor concerned with quantity and quality of for example), are encouraging. But there provision. While the principles of the is clear scope for more, and we would methodology underlying the policy for urge the Mayor to work with agencies in managing London’s diminishing stock the wider metropolitan area to see how of land and its changing occupier base this agenda can be taken forward most appear to be sound, release rates seem, effectively. There is a particular need for for the most part, to be significantly above joint work of this kind on transport issues. the relevant benchmarks. The Commission notes that hitherto, this process has been 4.15 Sub regions: We welcome the more coordinated through SPG and therefore flexible approach to sub-regional supports the greater weight given to working that has been taken in the draft management mechanisms by including replacement London Plan. The sheer them within the body of the London variety of outer London is a theme that Plan. There is also a need to put greater runs through this report, and in view of emphasis on the quality of these sites (this that, a rigid sub regional framework is will help ensure the debate about quantity clearly unlikely to be relevant or helpful deals with the fundamental issues). Within in delivering the objectives we describe this, particular attention needs to be given here. There is a need for work at a level to local road access. The economic role below the citywide; a key aspect here is of farms within outer London should also to build on established partnerships which be given further attention, to ensure the are vital for creating linkages between benefits they could bring to the outer London and local areas and a revision London economy – and the wellbeing of of implementation plans to coordinate the capital as a whole – are maximised. funding and other initiatives such as cross 158 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

border working. We also believe there is of the development and regeneration scope to consider how working at this level opportunities that may arise from can complement work and service delivery national and regional transport and at the regional and local levels, providing other infrastructural investment (with scope for cost efficiencies and adding projects like Crossrail or High Speed 2, value. for example). Similarly, the importance of airports will remain a major economic 4.16 Regional/National/International driver for outer London. As we have linkages: Particularly given the likely already indicated, joint local and shortage of public resources in the next strategic working is vital to resolve local decade, it will be important to ensure environmental and other concerns with that outer London makes the most wider strategic economic objectives.

Recommendation 1- Spatial Structures: a) We recommend that outer London’s existing spatial structure should be developed as necessary to support its future development and regeneration. The development of outer London should be modelled on a “star and cluster” structure focused on the existing town centre network. We support the concept of strategic outer London development centres where these will accommodate sufficiently the scale and nature of growth likely to occur. b) We endorse the opportunity/intensification area designations in the London Plan, and recommend that the process of preparing planning frameworks for them should be accelerated and that opportunities for designation of new areas should be considered. c) We recommend greater weight be given to policy managing outer London’s diminishing stock of industrial land and suggest that more attention should be given to ways of determining its future and improving its quality and accessibility to ensure it can make a real contribution to outer London’s success. d) We recommend that more attention is given to ensuring effective cross-boundary work on issues like realising the potential of growth and coordination corridors and transport. e) We recommend that the Mayor, boroughs and other agencies work together to develop sub-regional working arrangements, in particular to identify opportunities to improve cost- effectiveness and add value in service delivery at this level, including through Multi Area Agreements. f) We recommend that everyone concerned with planning for outer London works together to identify, and then realise, opportunities for development and regeneration arising from national, regional and local transport and other infrastructure investment 159

Demography and Housing these elements form the sense of place and neighbourhood and can help to make 4.17 Economic growth cannot be considered better places to live. For example, there in a vacuum, and in looking at outer might be less need for parking spaces if London’s economic potential we were neighbours could car-share, which could always mindful of the likely knock-on also have benefits in terms of public realm, effects of more polycentric development. air quality and a sense of community. We With this in mind, we consider that it also recognise that some respondents is important to avoid making simplistic perceive housing density to be an issue in links between population growth and its own right. While the 2008 London Plan job creation – it is essential that growth policy does require some refinements to is sensitive to the quality of the local make clear the importance of respecting neighbourhoods. We would like to see local context and of the need for effective much stronger emphasis on ‘place shaping’ coordination with public transport and on ensuring that development fits accessibility, in essence the policy does in with local needs and heritage, so that have the flexibility to respond to the places are attractive to live in as well as different types of neighbourhood found work in. To this end, we advocate mixed across outer London. It does however use developments and capacity building need to be complemented by a stronger at a local level coupled with high quality commitment to quality, both within the urban design and appropriate density of home and in the neighbourhood – this is development in accordance with London particularly important for higher density Plan policies. developments. With over 60 per cent of developments above the density 4.18 In terms of housing, we would draw thresholds for particular types of location, attention to the need for both affordable there does appear to have been a real family housing and responding to the problem with policy implementation needs of smaller households. At the same - those proposing and controlling time there will be more younger and older development must take into account the Londoners; there is also likely to be a range of factors which bear on optimising move towards more one- or two-person housing output and not just use density households. Housing provision needs to matrix mechanistically but to secure reflect these trends. Whatever its tenure Sustainable Residential Quality – what type, housing should be of high quality. the boroughs who authored the concept originally intended. 4.19 We would also recommend a closer look at the link between housing density, 4.20 Again, policy cannot simply focus on accessibility and parking provision. All of numbers. Particularly if new homes are 160 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

to be provided in ways that respect the ways of improving the quality of new quality of existing neighbourhoods, and homes and of the public realm in which make a contribution to improving the they sit (looking at questions such as quality of life of existing as well as new the pooling of section 106 contributions residents, attention will have to be given for investment). This is likely to require to looking at how new homes should be new delivery models, and we believe planned for, built and supported with that there may be particular scope for the social and other infrastructure new community-based initiatives and models. neighbourhoods need if they are to It will also be extremely important to be sustainable. Annexes to this report ensure that mayoral strategies and their provide potential benchmarks to inform implementation are carefully coordinated this, possibly through Supplementary to ensure that GLA Group and Homes Planning Guidance. We recommend that and Communities Agency investment can further consideration also be given to secure the maximum benefit.

Recommendation 2- Demography and Housing: We strongly urge that simplistic links should not be made between population growth and job creation. There are other factors which need to be considered such as the concept of ‘place shaping’ and provision of adequate and affordable housing. In planning for new homes it will be important to bear in mind the changing patterns of demand – the need for more family homes, meeting the particular needs of more young and older Londoners and the growth in smaller households. Quality should be given far greater emphasis. We recommend that attention be given to the way in which new homes are planned for, built and supported. In particular, we believe that community- based initiatives can help to create sustainable neighbourhoods. It will also be important to ensure better coordination across mayoral strategies and the GLA Group to ensure that its investment and programmes, and those of the Homes and Communities Agency, secure the maximum benefit. 161

The potential for growth in different so are the strategic economic needs of the economic sectors sub-region and the London economy as a whole and each of these aspects should be 4.21 We have identified four main growth weighed carefully – in considering them, sectors for the outer London economy: particular attention should be paid to office-based work (including the public maximising public transport use. Further sector); knowledge-based industries; use of tools like mixed-use ‘swaps’ in leisure, tourism and culture; and retail. competitive locations; allowing developers Each of these will require a particular set of to negotiate with local authorities so approaches, which we will outline below. that they can provide more or less office space as appropriate in any particular 4.22 For offices, we recommend a realistic development would help support the kind and proactive approach to development of focus on the most competitive locations where there is scope to increase economic for future growth. potential - the focus needs to be on the most competitive locations for future 4.23 We have heard much about the potential of growth complemented by recognition “knowledge-based industries”. The problem that structural change in parts of the with this term is that there is no universally- outer London office market looks set to agreed definition, and we feel that the continue. We have provided more detailed debate around the contribution that could suggestions on how the release of surplus be made by the kind of economic sector office provision might be managed, commonly brought under this heading taking into account the continuing need would be greatly advanced if such a for some lower cost accommodation, the definition could be developed and adopted. significance of phasing in this process, We consider that there is scope to develop the importance of an attractive business the various activities which are based environment as part of a broader mix of on knowledge, the media and creative- uses, a sensitive approach to car parking based work, including aspects of what has and the role of re-positioning and re- become known as the environmental or branding the most competitive elements “green collar” sectors (concepts which also of outer London’s office offer. We have suffer from imprecise definition, and to been mindful that some (but not all) of the which our earlier recommendations equally relatively few recent proposals for office apply). Looking at these sectors raises the development in London beyond CAZ/ urgent question of whether outer London Canary Wharf have come forward in out-of- lacks information and communications centre, or at best, edge of centre locations. technology infrastructure and whether the With this in mind, we note that, while local public sector or effective planning can help and environmental concerns are important, address this is also required. Taking this 162 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

further, there may be scope to encourage and other public sector functions, such as home (or near-home) working, with new health, judicial and education functions forms of infrastructure or locally-based of greater than sub- regional importance, business support services (local ICT “hubs” whilst including links to existing central giving SMEs and individual workers access London institutions and to local labour to the kind of sophisticated ICT that they markets. The potential here is to use higher could not economically afford to buy education institutions and hospitals as a themselves). It has been suggested that focus of regeneration. Putting HE and FE public libraries or ‘out offices’ for large, institutions (or satellites of institutions centrally based firms might have a role based elsewhere) in outer London has the in this. It has also been suggested that further benefit of developing the local Boroughs could take a more proactive labour market by helping people to improve approach to extending fibre optic cable their skills and employability. to enhance capacity to serve such centres – the LCCI would be happy to work in 4.26 In our view, there is considerable potential partnership to progress this. for growth in the leisure and retail sectors, both of which have an important role to 4.24 There may be a case for public sector play in outer London. In the first category intervention to support the provision of we need to consider a wide range of innovation parks so that similar, related activities, including arts and culture, small or medium-sized businesses can tourism and local leisure activities. These cluster together in a distinct, attractive both make outer London an attractive, business environment, and this might ‘liveable’ place for Londoners, as well as require active public intervention. These offering potential for a visitor economy need to be considered carefully and – and are usually cheaper than in central on a case-by-case basis, to see if there London. is a suitable market for their services, and we would recommend that there is 4.27 We have been struck by the imbalance active brand management of any such between the number of cultural facilities centres. We know from past experience in outer London (some 3,500) and the that without ongoing interest in such amount of public funding available (most centres, they can easily become moribund of which in the capital goes to central and unattractive, and we recognise that London). We think this imbalance should funding specialist buildings can pose be reviewed. We recognise that this is particular challenges. not something that is likely to change quickly, however, and we recommend a 4.25 Outer London should also be promoted more positive marketing of outer London’s as a cost-effective place for government distinct attractions, particularly where 163

clustering occurs, as it does in several underscores the future importance of retail town centres. The Strategic Cultural Areas here. New retail should be focused on town already identify the strategically most centres and should be provided in ways that important clusters but there is scope to seek to preserve their distinct characteristics realise the potential of others, possibly by – there is no reason why even a centre with branding and marketing them as grouped a large number of national stores should be attractions. More local regeneration can be a “clone town”, and places with a distinct prompted in outer London through a more feel and character are likely to be those proactive approach to the ‘cultural quarter’ that will thrive. At neighbourhood and concept (which supports coordinated more local centre level there is scope to approaches to planning for and managing integrate new retail provision into larger, important clusters of cultural assets and predominantly residential developments to related uses); these can also provide support place shaping as well as providing inputs to more effective strategic and local essential services. coordination and marketing of attractions in outer London. 4.31 We believe the evidence is clear that efficient management of town centres is 4.28 The possibility of large scale commercial vital- particularly when combined with leisure with possible international targeted investment and regeneration significance could also be explored. At the of particular centres (and the London other end of the scale, we believe there Development Agency has a particular is scope for the rejuvenation of many of role to play both in helping support outer London’s medium-sized theatres, and the extension of models like Business their use for purposes such as art house Improvement Districts and more directly cinemas. through supporting site assembly). Transport issues need to be given particular 4.29 Some parts of outer London have seen a emphasis, especially encouraging access to rapid growth in the night time economy. and within centres by walking and cycling. It is important to remember, though, that areas with a night time economy require 4.32 There is a need to understand and build effective management and promotion to upon the distinctive character and role of ensure that they remain attractive and safe, different types of centre, ranging from the and that potential negative impacts on Metropolitan centres, with their particular local residents and businesses are managed transport needs, through to smaller District effectively. and Neighbourhood centres. Each has an important role to play, and maintaining the 4.30 Consumer spending will be a vital kind of network that has been one of outer economic driver in outer London, and this London’s real strengths will require careful 164 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

and realistic planning. Consideration should of getting into and going around town be given as to how they can become more centres is also an essential aspect of this distinct destinations not just for retailing development. Safety considerations are a but also for business, leisure, civic, social key part of this. and wider functions, complemented by environmental improvements which play to 4.33 A strong, vibrant and diverse retail sector their particular strengths and characters. is a key component of successful and The tools that could be used to achieve effective town centres. It will help to this include policies to encourage a diverse attract other employment, which will and vibrant retail mix across centres, such in turn help drive retail footfall. When as encouraging the provision of affordable managed well, a lively retail and leisure shop units, and promoting street markets sector in Metropolitan town centres can to enhance vitality of town centres. Greater contribute to the vitality and viability of encouragement of walking as a more the whole area and complement the more environmentally sound and healthier means local offer of smaller centres.

Recommendation 3- Economy: the scope of new business support a) We recommend that particular attention services to support home or near-home should be given to four key employment working. Outer London should be sectors in outer London: promoted as a cost-effective place for the • office-based employment and public sector to do business. “knowledge industries” More attention should be given to the • the public sector role of leisure, culture and arts in outer • leisure arts and culture London – and to the funding they receive. • retail The effective marketing of cultural assets in outer London and a more positive b) There should be a focus on the most approach to the ‘cultural quarter’ concept competitive locations for future growth should be adopted. Opportunities to in the office-based sectors and some attract large-scale leisure uses, and to development should be allowed where rejuvenate medium-sized theatres should increased economic potential exists. be pursued. There is a need for an agreed definition A vibrant and diverse retail sector in a of “knowledge industries”, and there may range of centres should be encouraged be a case for public sector support for in outer London. There is a need for science/innovation parks. More widely, effective town centre management to attention should be given to the extent of complement investment and improvement ICT infrastructure in outer London and to 165

Transport character and distinctive needs is not neglected. We recognise, however, that 4.34 Transport is a huge issue for outer London. outer London benefits from pan-London We will summarise our considerations for and radial improvements, and that these different aspects in turn: rail (including should not be seen as polar opposites both TfL and NR-provided services); locked in a zero-sum game (see Figure 4.2). cycling and walking; buses and the role of private car transport and parking 4.37 These are the considerations that have policy. Before doing this, however, there led us to accept that a high-speed, are some general principles we have contiguous orbital public transport system agreed upon which inform our detailed is unlikely to address outer London’s recommendations. needs, and that our variant on the “star and cluster” model offers a more effective 4.35 Most importantly, we have taken and practical approach to meet the seriously the need to ensure that our needs of the constellation of centres and recommendations have to be realistic. employment locations outlined in this This is especially important at a time report. We recommend that in addition to when public resources are tight, with the making the most of existing links, strategic prospect of matters becoming tighter interchanges are used to both relieve over the next few years. With this in pressure on central London and facilitate mind, we have recognised that Transport more orbital movements in outer London for London cannot (and should not) (see Figure 4.2). commit investment without a strong business case. In outer London this will mean consideration of issues including the extent of benefits that investment will bring (such as how much time will be saved by how many people) or the size of the development and regeneration dividend. These assessments will in turn be affected by the sale, massing, distribution and density of different parts of the area. We have also had to bear in mind that TfL have to plan across the city-region as a whole. Figure 4.2 : “Star and cluster” structure enhancing 4.36 That said, it is essential that investment existing links and strategic interchanges (yellow) specific ot outer London, its unique 166 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

4.38 Rail has a proportionately greater 4.39 There is a case for medium-scale significance for outer London compared investment (such as upgrading/building to inner and central parts of the Capital. strategic interchanges (see above) which Particularly in south outer London, there can provide significant benefits for is less Tube coverage and more public relatively modest levels of investment. transport journeys use National Rail or TfL We also need to ensure there is the scope Overground services. With this in mind, for further new infrastructure in the and taking account of the likely shortage future by considering whether unused of funding for new infrastructure available rail alignments and infrastructure can be in the short-term, we recommend that safeguarded. there is an emphasis placed on making the current system operate more 4.40 Buses will continue to be a vital effectively. This should include a focus on component of public transport in outer improved connectivity and interchange London. As we have already said, there between rail and other services such must be a better integration with rail as buses and cycling. We welcome the services so that passengers can complete integration of Oyster cards into the the whole journey by public transport. National Rail network and the new Both buses and coaches could be used emphasis on promotion of the system as to improve orbital connectivity in outer an overall network – after all, passengers London, including the possible provision are more concerned with completing of coaches or express services where there their journey than who provides the is sufficient demand. We would like to service. This must be extended to those see the opportunity for strategic coach parts of the system which are still not hubs investigated further. Some people covered. We would still like to see more are put off using buses by uncertainty improvements made to the quality of about timetables and reliability, and we stations, which can at present be variable. would like to see measures to address This should include improvements which this, such as better information provision help travellers feel more secure, such as and marketing of the services available. better lighting and security in and around TfL has explored the initial suggestion stations, improved information (not just that there may be scope for more limited in terms of timetabling but also of using stop and express service bus services the suburban rail system more effectively – while these cannot be justified in its as an integrated network), and more own budget, other providers may wish to effective coordination with other modes develop their potential. including buses and cycling. 4.41 The Mayor has made very plain his enthusiasm for cycling and walking. We 167

share this and particularly advocate that the efficiency of freight and servicing opportunities to increase cycling and movements, as well as those which will walking in outer London are identified reduce the need for ‘school runs’. We and taken up. There are clear synergies would also like to see the approvals between this and our advocacy for a process for highways projects where liveable public realm and easy access to appropriate speeded up. There is an local services, and we think that these opportunity to reduce local traffic by more healthy and sustainable modes having more local retail centres (which, as are brought within the mainstream of we have seen, have other benefits), and transport and spatial planning and so more use of freight consolidation centres. not seen as “nice to have” add-ons. We There would seem to be to be scope for particularly see potential to encourage some local enhancements to road capacity cycling and walking to and within town to address particular points of congestion centres. There are of course additional - and which should not compromise the health benefits of promoting active overall thrust of the emerging Transport modes like cycling and walking, and these Strategy. Alongside this, we do see a role must be promoted as modes of choice. for some demand management measures, They are also cheap and have minimal potentially including road user charging in negative environmental impacts. There the longer term. Naturally this would need is a role for local authorities to take a much greater consideration, especially lead in outer London, developing cycle with regard to local circumstances, than hubs in and promoting local cycling. we are able to provide here. However we We would like to see a combination of would like to note in principle our support incentives and investment to encourage for a consideration of such measures. these sustainable modes and give people These could take a very wide range of a real choice not to use their cars. We forms. Consideration should also be given have noted the success of Smarter Travel to a more effective way of managing road programmes in Richmond and Sutton and works, especially those occasioned by hope that these can be used more widely. utility providers.

4.42 That said, we do recognise that within 4.43 Car parking policy in outer London needs outer London the car is likely to remain to be developed on an individual and a key mode for many trips. Given this local basis – a “one size fits all” approach fact, we would like to see more effective is not appropriate here. Our view is that road management and collaboration a balance needs to be struck between between local authorities to address promoting new development (which is congestion pressures on our roads. This good for the economy) and preventing should include measures to improve excessive car parking provision (that can 168 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

discourage cycling, walking and public without prompting unacceptable levels of transport and increase congestion). congestion and pollution. Adopting a flexible approach to car parking in outer London is required so that 4.45 The use of Park and Ride schemes in a level of accessibility is maintained whilst outer London is supported where it can be being consistent with the overall balance shown they will lead to overall reductions of the transport system at the local level. in congestion and journey times. We would also ask TfL and the boroughs to 4.44 We know that some of our respondents examine the capacity to incentivise lower often view the lack of onsite car CO2 emitting vehicles, and also promote parking for offices in outer London as a car sharing and car clubs. disincentive to develop offices here, and this is not desirable from an economic 4.46 Increases in the density of commercial point of view. We also know that parking activity across London, including outer policies in outer London can often put London, will require logistics premises them at a disadvantage compared to to support the associated demand in centres outside London. In town centres freight and servicing vehicles. This where regeneration is needed, there may may include the need for consolidation be justification for some liberalisation. centres, but the case for them still needs There is a case for selective review to be understood further. In addition to of parking policies, which in cases managing congestion at key locations outside London may necessitate central in outer London, increasing the role of government involvement. We reiterate rail and river in freight movements will that a balance needs to be achieved relieve some of the pressures on the road so that development is encouraged network. However, it is essential to take realistic account of the primary role of

Recommendation 4- Transport: We do not consider that a single, high-speed orbital public transport system is likely to address outer London’s needs. Rather we support a “hub and spoke” approach. Improved connectivity and interchange and better integration between bus and rail services is needed, in order to enable orbital and local travel in outer London. Better marketing and information relating to public transport should be accompanied by active encouragement of cycling and walking, especially to and within town centres. For cars, we advocate both more effective road traffic management and a consideration of demand management measures. There is a case for selective review of local parking policies. 169

road transport in sustaining London’s London’s Labour Market industrial and other business locations so that they can realise their potential 4.48 Over the past thirty years or so, many contributions to the wider metropolitan Londoners have prospered. At the same economy. time, too many have not. The reasons for this disparity and its persistence have 4.47 Finally, the question of fare affordability much to do with how different groups cropped up throughout our discussions. and individuals fare in the labour market. There is a view that travel in outer London, London as a whole faces the challenge of necessitating as it often does considerable ensuring its workforce has the necessary distance and ‘changing’ of services and skills to participate fully in the economy modes, is disproportionately expensive. and enjoy its success, particularly as the We would like to see an exploration of economy continues to change towards ticketing measures, for instance based on one based on services demanding higher Oyster type products, to address this. skill levels.

4.49 There is already a firm foundation in outer London for this. In terms of school-age education, outer London out performs inner London; outer London residents have higher rates of employment and lower rates of worklessness than inner London residents. Additionally, younger, higher- skilled workers from the rest of the UK and abroad are attracted to live and work in London. One of the often forgotten facts about the outer London labour market is that it contains significantly more economically active people than that in inner London – partly because it has a large, albeit slowly growing employment base of its own, and partly because it is home to many Londoners who work elsewhere, especially in inner London. 170 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

4.50 To build on this success, it is vital that the Institutional Changes distinctive skills needs of outer London are addressed. Public sector investment in 4.51 It will be more than apparent by now skills is targeted on need not geography, that we recommend that the London and this tends to result in broad-brush Development Agency (LDA) and TfL give approaches tackling broad-based areas greater recognition to outer London as a of need. Outer London should not be spatial priority. overlooked - to give an example, even though Crossrail is essentially an inner 4.52 The LDA in particular should provide London scheme, we would anticipate support for local partnerships by, for that it would draw its skilled workers example, working to facilitate land from across London. We recommend that assembly, helping to create capacity for the LDA should adopt an approach to town centre management and identifying commissioning training and skills provision distinct outer London skill needs. It will which will provide further opportunities also have a role in supporting the Mayor for locally driven responses to the delivery in leading inter-regional discussions and of strategic outcomes. working.

4.53 Some of the initiatives we would like to Recommendation 5- Labour Market: see would require a legislative change. We would like to see a streamlining of Ensure appropriate skills are attained the development process to reduce the by London’s workforce for successful time spent on the planning permissions involvement in the economy. The LDA’s process and to speed up the production commissioning should take account of the of local development frameworks. distinctive skills needs of outer London’s Boroughs should be able to retain part people and economy, and should focus on of the revenue from the national non- ensuring that there are opportunities for domestic rates paid by businesses in their locally driven responses to the delivery of areas, and consideration should be given strategic outcomes. to permitting local authorities to borrow against future Council tax income. There is also scope for changes to government practice – in speeding up the identification and disposal of surplus public land, for example. 171

Quality of Life Recommendation 6- Institutional: The recognition of outer London as a 4.54 As we have seen, maintaining and spatial priority is essential. Support for improving the quality of life available to local partnerships working to facilitate those living and working in outer London land assembly, town centre management is a vital consideration for its overall and outer London skill needs is required. success. In fact, a sound approach to Streamlining of planning permissions and the quality of life here will improve the other processes should be explored, with whole of London and the south east more the case made for appropriate changes to generally. This report advocates further legislation. development in outer London, and we recognise how important it is to ensure growth can be harnessed and influenced in ways that improve the quality of places in outer London and the quality of life of those living there.

4.55 Taking a practical approach to these issues ties back to many of the questions discussed earlier with regard to outer London’s spatial structure. We consider that a neighbourhood- based approach is essential to promote and support local functions. The London Plan needs to support and enable this local approach; its role here is to facilitate local development happening in line with local needs while recognising that, cumulatively, this development contributes to the strategic needs of the whole city region. Part of this is ensuring there is sufficient access to services across the various centres of outer London.

4.56 Our interim report recommended that the London Plan should place greater emphasis on the concept of ‘place making’ as well as on town centres being the focus 172 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

for neighbourhoods and the importance This will require borough implementation of ‘life time neighbourhoods’ that can of national policy to facilitate and meet the needs of a population growing encourage public participation. at either end of the age range. We are glad to see that the Mayor has responded 4.59 In Chapter 2, the Commission noted to these in the draft replacement London how it found itself in agreement with Plan. many of Robin Thompson’s views on the importance of quality of life in outer 4.57 Of course, a balance needs to be struck London1, which informed the 2008 between providing appropriate local social London Plan. Where the Commission infrastructure (e.g. schools, healthcare would have some reservations with him – see proposed benchmarks in Annex is in fully accepting the status quo over 6A and 6B) whilst accommodating the the distribution of historic investment to necessary economic growth. An emphasis address deprivation in London because should be placed on London’s ‘Green “inner London still has far more people Suburbs’ whilst enhancing the semi-public and places with more serious problems realm and securing its maintenance. There than those of outer London. This is must be a general presumption against reflected in national (and European) policy back garden development where this is a and funding, which is strongly oriented problem and the continued and vigorous towards inner cities.” protection of open spaces in order to preserve the quality of life in outer 4.60 In response, the Commission would note London. firstly that a more fine grained approach to identifying neighbourhood deprivation 4.58 There is room for further work on these shows that it is much more dispersed issues at a strategic level. The previous than the ‘blockier’ methodology use in Mayor issued a “Toolkit for Tomorrow’s the 2008 Plan, which concealed some Suburbs” to support the London Plan. This chronic, if more localised concentrations was well-received, and we think it would of deprivation in outer London. Secondly, be worthwhile to produce an updated and partly as a reflection of the version reflecting changes since 2004 and Commission’s wider remit to enable outer the approaches we have recommended in London to realize its potential contribution this report. In particular, there is a need to London as a whole, it would question to develop thinking on ways of enabling the orthodoxy of placing such a high greater community identity and cohesion priority on focusing social/community as a first step in encouraging a sense of regeneration funding in the areas with the ownership and empowerment in taking most acute need (which for the most part, decisions about growth and development. it is acknowledged, lie in inner London). 173

Instead, it would ask whether there may the preceding sections of this report, be benefit for the capital in reconsidering the Commission recognizes that financial the re-allocation of some (but by no constraints do of course limit the potential means all) social and local renewal to for major infrastructure investment, but realize the potential of those who are still that does not mean that in some areas it is disadvantaged but not to the extent of not required, nor that innovative solutions those in most acute need. This is perhaps cannot be found to address some of these a philosophical question for the LDA and constraints. its emerging Economic Development Strategy. Recommendation 7- Quality of Life: 4.61 As Thompson notes, “many of the problems relating to the social and A good quality of life is vital to both outer physical infrastructure of outer London London’s residents and its businesses. require ‘soft’ measures such as re- We recommend a neighbourhood based skilling and the regular improvement and approach to help strike a balance between maintenance of the very local environment social infrastructure provisions and necessary …. They need detailed, local, day to day growth, retaining an emphasis on ‘place attention spread over very wide areas, making’ and ‘life time neighbourhoods’. which will generally need to be done at the local rather than the strategic level …... there are real challenges in funding development and infrastructure in outer London, where national programs such as the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund are generally not available and where some market drivers (other than residential) are weak and where most local authorities may have less access to networks of developers and funding bodies.”

4.62 Where the Commission perhaps disagrees with Thompson is in his views on more directly realising the potential of the outer London economy and his suggestion that this potential is “not readily addressed by big infrastructure measures or by targeting priority areas”. As is clear from 174 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

The Future some more specific economic points which require further analysis, especially 4.63 While this report marks the end of the definition of ‘knowledge based’ and the formal task the Mayor gave us, ‘green’ industries. our work has left us with a number of overwhelming impressions. Outer London 4.65 We have deliberately made the report is hugely diverse, and is becoming ever action-oriented, dealing with questions of more so. It has seen huge changes implementation as well as ideas and policy over the past century, and again this proposals. We believe the Mayor was right looks set to continue. It is fortunate in to set the Commission up, to bring a focus having very many talented people in its on outer London that was missing before. local authorities, businesses, voluntary For the same reasons, there is room for the organisations and communities who continued existence of a forum for outer have a wealth of experience and ideas London to advise on the implementation about how their area can make its full of the recommendations in this report, contribution to London’s success and in and, perhaps separately, to provide the doing so improve the prosperity and well- basis for high level engagement with the being of those living and working there. key stakeholders in the outer London economy to identify emerging strategic 4.64 Against this background, a report of challenges and opportunities. this kind can only be a partial view at a particular point in time. We are conscious We have enjoyed the process of that while we have addressed the core research and consultation that have economic issues identified in our terms of led to this report, and commend our reference, there are others which bear on recommendations to the Mayor – and to them which merit further investigation. London. Among these, aspects of quality of life, institutional arrangements (especially in terms of cross border working), what Chapter 4 footnotes climate change may mean for outer London and, in particular, the resources Quality of life available to help realise its economic 1 Thompson R. outer London: issues for the London potential, and the way London’s spatial Plan. GLA, 2007 strategy could add value beyond its conventional land use remit by more effectively coordinating these to develop relevant aspects of ‘localness agenda’ at the city region level. There are also Annexes 175

Annex 1: 3. There are local as well as broad strategic Commission’s First Thoughts Paper reasons why many areas of the outer Outer London: realising its potential London economy have been at best little more that economically static. These First thoughts reasons are further complicated by the current macro economic downturn, which Background will affect the whole of the UK and could 1. While employment in London as a whole bear particularly hard on the London’s rose by 6 per cent between the cyclical service dominated economy. peaks of 1989 and 2001 (and by 3% between 2001 and 2007), employment in 4. Long term employment projections over outer London rose by only 1 per cent 1989 20 years, extending beyond this, and – 2001 and by 2 per cent between 2001 probably other recessions, suggest that and 2007. In the counties surrounding the number of jobs in outer London might Outer London, employment grew by grow by 11 per cent if account is taken 11 per cent 1989-2001 and by 4 per cent of significant (albeit often unfunded and 2001-20071. therefore hypothetical) public transport investment and substantial identified 2. Outer London is far from homogeneous development capacity. This is a marked and this general trend conceals significant improvement on historic trends but does local variations. Some outer boroughs not compare well with 21 per cent in recorded strongly positive employment central London and 32 per cent in the rest growth, especially between 1989 and of inner London. Though the projections 2001: Hillingdon’s employment increased suggest growth may take place in all outer by 39 per cent or 54,000, Richmond grew Boroughs to 2026, the rate of growth in a by 26 per cent (17,000) and Barnet by significant number is not expected to be 17 per cent (20,000). Against these substantial: 3 per cent over two decades must be set significant declines in the respectively in Sutton and Kingston, 4 1989-2001 period for Barking (-21 % per cent in Croydon and 5 - 6 per cent in or -15,000), Waltham Forest (-13%, Bromley, Enfield and Richmond. -11,000), Croydon (-10%, -17,000) and Hounslow and Brent each -9 per cent and 5. Most of outer London’s employment -15,000 and -12,000 respectively. More growth over the next 20 years is expected substantively, Figure 1 shows that below to be in office based sectors (+170,000) these headline boroughs is a raft of others and to a lesser extent ‘other’ sectors with lower levels of decline or, at best, (+68,000) while industrial type activities only modest growth. are expected to continue to decline (-35,000). However, when examined in 176 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Figure 1: Employment levels by year, outer London boroughs.

greater detail and locally, the picture is recessionary factors. However, its core much more complex. The overall decline task is to identify and address longer in ‘industrial’ employment jobs masks a term structural challenges which have significant contraction in manufacturing led to what appears to be a fundamental and an expansion in logistics. The imbalance in London’s economic geography Commission should bear in mind that while outlined above. headline net figures may suggest little or no change in local economies there 7. It is anticipated that after considering the can in fact be significant changes going LDA’s statistical profile of outer London on between sectors, and there is some (see Item on this Agenda) the Commission evidence to suggest that such changes can may need more detailed economic lead to future net growth. assessments e.g. what kinds of office jobs (financial services, public sector, etc) 6. The Outer London Commission will are forecast to grow. What is the overall of course take into account current public sector/private sector split? Has 177

any attempt been made to assess ‘new’ past, one model suggests that it might do employment opportunities such as green so in the future. and creative industries etc? Is the growth of employment opportunity constrained 9. Given this economically positive context by any factors (skill sets, lack of cluster there is a view that the main thrust of development, infrastructure deficits etc). policy for outer London should be to play Some of this material is to hand within to its core, modern strength as an attractive the GLA and some is in the process of place to live, uniquely located to access the preparation (retail needs assessment, main motor of the UK economy. Moreover, town centres healthchecks, London Office enhancing this core strength, especially Policy Review, Housing Capacity Study). by increasing housing provision, will of The Commission would like to express its itself lead to local growth in demand for appreciation for the work the LDA has goods, and more importantly, services, already done and also to flag that future approximating perhaps to 230 more local contributions will add significantly to its jobs for every extra 1000 residents. effectiveness in addressing the Mayor’s objectives. 10. Such a view might also hold that attempts to intervene further to secure additional Is there a problem? locally based economic growth might 8. As a first step, an independent Commission compromise the thrust of such a core must ask itself whether this apparent policy by moving resources away from key geographical imbalance really matters in priorities: much needed environmental economic terms. There is a view that it may improvements, expanding housing output not. Such a view is predicated on the wider including affordable housing and forging geographical context of outer London. better links to more competitive areas It is part of the wider South East, a city within London. region of 21 million people accounting for two fifths of overall national output and 11. There are some telling points in the above much of its net growth. Closer to home arguments but they do not represent a full, it has improving links and access to the much less a particularly positive, vision of main growth areas of the 4.5 million job the economic roles outer London could London economy which over the long term or should play in London and the wider is generally expected to grow at least at South East to achieve the Mayor’s and national trend (2.5% GDP). Outer London government objectives. These are that also has a substantial employment base of outer London is not just a dormitory and it its own (almost 2 million jobs or two fifths should: of the London total) and while it has not • optimise its contribution to the regional expanded to a significant degree in the economy, 178 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

• ensure that this economic contribution reasonably expect to be still there in complements broader objectives e.g. twenty years. minimising the need to travel, and • Employment which is mainly based on the • better meet local aspirations in terms of willingness of the private sector to invest, choice of local employment opportunities. while recognising that in many parts of outer London the public sector is and will 12. More generally, elimination of the continue to be the single most important imbalance must matter, because if we employer. can raise the growth rates to the London • A workforce with the skills and training average or the OMA average then the to take advantage of the employment whole economy must grow. This particular opportunities, or, in the case of new or aspiration underpins, for example, expanding opportunities, capable of Government’s justification for the Thames being trained to take the jobs Gateway initiative. There is also a strong • Employment that is physically accessible argument that fostering economic growth – it does not even have to be in the area and residential enhancement are not itself, it can be in central or inner London mutually exclusive. or even outside the London boundary. What matters is that jobs are easy to get Towards a new vision for the outer to, offer the prospect of getting people London economy off benefits and into the work culture 13. As a basis for discussion at the first and, within the bounds of economic meeting of the Commission, it is suggested realism, are located to meet local that consideration be given to developing a aspirations and broader policy objectives vision for the outer London economy which e.g. reducing CO2 emissions. more effectively addresses the Mayor and government’s objectives than one which Does quality of life have a role in outer is based predominantly on residential led London’s economic regeneration? regeneration. 15. It is also suggested that economic regeneration cannot be separated from 14. This vision could be predicated on the local quality of life and quality of the proposition that recommendations on the environment. One of the historic virtues future of any area (including outer London of many London suburbs lay in their and/or its constituent parts) must start sense of community and place. Economic by ensuring that the area is ‘economically rejuvenation must be part of wider place- sound’. It is suggested that this means that making and community regeneration it needs to satisfy the following: around facilities and services required • Employment, both existing and proposed, to meet the changing needs of outer should have a long term future and London – schools, hospitals, cinemas – 179

and high quality of the public realm, not for the first period are identified in more least open spaces. If this is accepted, detail. The longer term proposals could one of the roles of the Commission include major infrastructure provision could be to press for more and better which will take at least 20 years to local social infrastructure, possibly complete – a not unlikely timeframe given forming part of a wider ‘Civic Hub’. It the gestation periods of Crossrail and is also suggested that while adequately Thameslink. supported residential development can be an agent for regeneration, there may be a Promoting growth premium on fitting the size and quality of 18. It is suggested that the Commission should housing supply, existing and new, to the not take a doctrinaire (e.g. ‘interventionist’ demographics of an area. The Commission v ‘just leave it to the market’) approach should also recognise that all parts of outer to rejuvenation but instead be more London do not live up to its image as an pragmatic. While supporting a regeneration attractive leafy suburb – some parts require philosophy that, for the long term, is urgent environmental improvement both predicated on the primacy of the private for business and residents. sector, the Commission might consider whether the public sector in the short to ‘Big bang’ or more incremental medium term can have a valid incentivising approach? role for key sectors which may have a 16. It must also be recognised that locally competitive advantage in a particular based economic changes will not happen locality. For the purposes of discussion, it over-night. A central thrust of an economic is suggested that in different parts of outer vision for outer London must include London these sectors might include: the promotion of marginal local changes • ‘Creative’ industries complemented by measures to ensure that • ‘Knowledge based’ activities more of the incomes earned in central • ‘Green industries’, energy efficiency etc London or in the Outer Metropolitan Area • Servicing the service industries (OMA) are retained and spent on goods • Logistics and services in outer London and so attract • The public sector, international, national more business investment, starting a or local. virtuous cycle. 19. An early task for the Commission might 17. A further question for the Commission be to define just what these activities are could be whether it should be trying to e.g. what do ‘knowledge based’ activities look forward beyond the end of the next include: any sector which requires a high London Plan period (20 years) and identify degree of skill; a fusion between higher a longer term strategy of which the aims education and other sectors through 180 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

research and the labour market, possibly the unique circumstances of London, the with ‘seed corn’ public sector infrastructure London Plan is more rigorous than national investment to support science parks; policy both in resisting inappropriate out- or something wider e.g. finding out of centre development and in encouraging whether outer London is competitively partners to work together proactively to disadvantaged in terms of IT infrastructure identify and bring forward development like fibre cable or local ‘hubs’? capacity in or on the edge of town centres. It also notes that there is already The existing economic structure significant out of centre capacity on which 20. It is also suggested that as well as partners should work to ensure that it identifying relatively new growth sectors, becomes more sustainable in terms of the Commission should explore how public transport access and, in appropriate to make sectors which are already well locations, evolves into functionally represented more competitive. This balanced town centres. will not be a clear cut exercise because employment is more evenly distributed 23. It is suggested that the Commission could across sectors than in other parts of provide useful guidance on implementing London. It is suggested that, after these complementary policies in the considering the LDA statistical report, the context of its broader economic remit Commission comes to a view as to whether and the Mayor’s town centre strategy. further sectoral analysis is required and In light of the importance of car based whether this is most usefully portrayed trips in outer London it could investigate ‘peak to peak’. how parking policy bears on the vitality and viability of town centres relative to In and out of centre development: a out of town, and indeed out of London, false dichotomy? development. 21. 8 per cent of outer London’s employment is in comparison retailing and 10 per cent Orbital movement in leisure related activities. Historically, 24. It is suggested that while there is a strong both were strongly concentrated in town local demand to revitalise public transport centres but became more dispersed with in outer London, an elaborate strategic development of out of centre locations. orbital system may not be justifiable per se. While London tends to have less out-of- The Commission could usefully investigate centre development than the rest of the whether a more realistic way of meeting country it is nevertheless still significant. demand for movement could be a system of hubs on the strong radial routes with 22. The Mayor has made clear his commitment spokes linking neighbouring centres and to a ‘town centres first’ policy. Addressing communities. 181

Does outer London need a new complementary initiatives for smaller regeneration geography? centres (see elsewhere in this paper). 25. The London Plan already sets out a flexible and relatively sophisticated 26. It is suggested that the Commission geographical structure to guide explore the hub concept, focusing mainly investment across London, including outer but not entirely on elements of the town London. However, there is concern that centre network. Possible criteria for this may not be making the most effective identifying such hubs as being of sub use of scarce regeneration resources. regional or greater significance could It could usefully be supplemented by include those set out in Figure 2. This enhancing the competitive strengths of a seeks to test the criteria against a number small number of key hubs, development of possible hubs using as a benchmark the of which will benefit outer London established global hubs of the City and as a whole, especially if backed by Westminster.

Figure 2: Possible criteria to define hubs of sub regional or greater significance Criteria City West End Stratford Croydon Heathrow Brent Wembley Kingston area Cross Sub regional+ Y Y N N Y Y N Y historic growth Sub regional+ scale Y Y (UC) Y Y Y Y Y Sub regional+ Y Y Y Y Y ? Y N accessibility Sub regional+ retail Y Y Y (UC) Y N Y Y (P) Y function Sub regional+ Y Y Y (P) Y Y? Y (P) N N office clusters Sub regional+ Y Y N? N Y N N Y academia Sub regional+ Y Y N N Y N N N health Sub regional+ Y Y Y? Y N N N N culture Sub regional+ Y Y Y (UC) N? N N Y Y? leisure Sub regional+ Y Y Y? N N N Y ? heritage/ tourism Sub regional+ govt Y Y N Y N N N Y Strategic Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N commercial capacity 182 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Annex 2: possible locations. Do you consider the Initial Consultation Questions development of 4 or 5 super-hubs in outer London would enhance the outer London’s Economic overall employment growth potential? (1) Why has outer London growth in What form do you think they might take? employment lagged behind that of inner What role could mixed use development and central London and that of the South have there? East? (6) Which super-hub locations would you (2) What factors have contributed to the consider best meet the aim to improve uneven performance of economic sectors outer London’s economic performance and and geographic areas in outer London? why? What can be done to ensure that Why have some economic sectors the super hubs are sufficiently attractive prospered and others declined? Why have to business that businesses would want some areas done better and others worse? to base their operations there? What is required to ensure that a sufficient (3) Overall, what are the main barriers to employment base is created for a super economic and employment growth in hub; in particular, could growth be outer London and what factors need to achievable with or without infrastructure be addressed to allow the region to fulfil improvements (specify the infrastructure its economic potential? In particular, improvements needed)? what investments are needed (particularly transport, both private/public, and (7) If super-hubs are created, what role would education/skills and business support) to you envisage for other town centres and best ensure employment growth to 2031 other business locations/hubs (eg Park either in existing or new sectors? Royal) in outer London and how can those roles be enhanced alongside the creation (4) Which of the current employment sectors of super-hubs? in outer London will be thriving in 2031 and will any new sectors have emerged by (8) What do you consider would be the then? Should we be actively encouraging optimal balance of employment particular sectors or focusing more on opportunity for outer London between barriers that could be holding back growth local opportunities, those in central or in outer London? inner London, or those outside London in nearby growth corridors? What are the (5) The Commission’s ‘First Thoughts’ implications for these other areas? paper outlines some ideas on the form ‘superhubs’ might take and 183

Quality of Life Transport (9) In absolute and relative terms (compared (15) How would you make the super-hubs with central and inner London and the you have indicated more generally South East) how has the residential accessible to residents and workers from environment changed (good or bad) in across London and outside? What is outer London over the last 25 years and an acceptable balance between public how has this affected its attractiveness as transport and provision for cars? Will this a place to live, work and do business. vary in different parts of outer London eg in the Thames Gateway relative to West (10) What improvements would bring about London? the greatest improvements to the quality of life for outer London residents, workers (16) What approach should be taken to traffic and businesses? How would these management including car parking, bear on the economic objectives of the congestion and pollution and the bearing Commission? these have on climate change? How could this bear specifically on super-hubs, and (11) How could super hubs affect the quality more generally across outer London if of life in outer London for residents, employment growth rose above historic workers and businesses? trends and travel patterns changed as outer London became a more attractive (12) How important is the provision of local place to work? social infrastructure to the quality of living in outer London? (schools, health or other (17) Where traffic demand exceeds capacity in specific infrastructure). How does this outer London, what tools would be most bear on the economic objectives of the effective for smoothing traffic around Commission? town centres (and managing crowding) in addition to or where there is not scope for (13) What are the factors that give your or infrastructure improvements? other districts in outer London a sense of place and community ownership? How (18) Extensive radial public transport networks will these bear on the economic objectives already exist to town centres and some of the Commission? super-hubs, what needs to change to make them the modes of choice? (14) What improvements would you like to see in the quality of the public realm eg open (19) The development of super-hubs is likely to space quality and provision? How will require public transport improvements to these bear on the economic objectives of make them more accessible. That in turn the Commission? is likely to need residential densities to be 184 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

optimised around and within the super- hubs to justify the necessary transport investment. Is this trade-off acceptable to secure better public transport access and employment growth and is there a particular, economically viable, balance to be struck between residential intensification, transport investment and employment growth?

(20) Do super-hubs need to evolve into ‘hub and spoke’ networks serving the neighbouring areas to make the most of opportunities for local residents? How could a hub and spoke network service the more geographically extensive labour markets required to support super-hubs (and provide accessible opportunities to more workers within and outside London)? If these networks are road based systems, should options for further demand management be considered?

(21) More generally, what are the key destinations/services which people in outer London want access to?

(22) How important is the provision of local transport infrastructure to the quality of living in outer London? How does this bear on the economy of outer London? 185 Experian Business Strategies Oxford Economics Oxford ‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s % 1989 to 20011989 to 2007 2001 to 2007 1989 to 2001 1989 to 2006 2001 to 2006 1989 to 187.64 8.11% 140.71 5.63% 328.36 14.20% 243.91 10.58% 35.72 1.40% 279.63 12.13% Inner 28.50 11.08% 10.56 3.70% 39.06 15.19% 39.29 15.66% -8.78 -3.03% 30.51 12.16% Inner -5.82 -7.57% 8.02 11.29% 2.20 2.87% -5.24 -6.67% 7.37 10.06% 2.13 2.71% Inner 23.36 23.57% 5.40 4.41% 28.76 29.01% 28.01 30.53% 11.36 9.49% 39.37 42.92% Inner 13.16 14.19% -12.85 -12.13% 0.32 0.34% 4.18 4.46% -6.18 -6.31% -2.00 -2.13% Inner 21.04 14.24% 38.24 22.66% 59.28 40.14% 32.82 23.07% 5.21 2.98% 38.03 26.73% Inner -15.74 -10.84% 8.94 6.91% -6.80 -4.69% -8.03 -5.73% 4.93 3.73% -3.10 -2.21% Inner 3.99 5.60% 3.41 4.54% 7.40 10.39% 1.14 1.58% 2.66 3.63% 3.80 5.27% Inner 17.99 11.29% 5.86 3.31% 23.85 14.97% 15.58 9.23% 17.68 9.59% 33.26 19.70% Inner 3.30 2.79% 5.92 4.88% 9.21 7.81% 7.56 6.68% 5.69 4.72% 13.26 11.71% Inner 30.00 5.21% 19.97 3.30% 49.97 8.69% 39.67 6.81% -8.84 -1.42% 30.83 5.30% Outer 17.68 15.31% -1.49 -1.12% 16.19 14.02% 22.69 20.34% -0.11 -0.08% 22.58 20.24% Outer 3.29 4.49% 0.39 0.51% 3.68 5.02% -4.77 -5.98% 0.14 0.19% -4.63 -5.80% Outer -6.33 -5.22% -5.87 -5.11% -12.20 -10.06% -9.06 -7.32% -2.95 -2.57% -12.00 -9.71% Outer 5.35 4.87% 25.62 22.26% 30.96 28.22% 0.68 0.59% 7.51 6.45% 8.19 7.08% Outer -9.82 -5.91% -3.71 -2.37% -13.52 -8.14% -15.01 -8.69% -8.92 -5.65% -23.93 -13.85% Outer -11.35 -7.97% 6.79 5.18% -4.56 -3.20% -11.55 -7.97% 4.51 3.38% -7.04 -4.86% Outer -2.73 -2.45% -1.13 -1.04% -3.87 -3.46% -2.86 -2.45% -3.59 -3.15% -6.46 -5.52% Outer -4.36 -5.67% 4.83 6.65% 0.47 0.61% -3.72 -5.01% 10.06 14.28% 6.34 8.55% Camden Annex 3A: Outer London Commission Interim Employment Projections: Cambridge Econometrics, Oxford Economics, Business Strategies Ltd Business Strategies Economics, Oxford Cambridge Econometrics, Projections: Employment Commission Interim London Annex 3A: Outer City of London Inner 6.99 2.18% 7.96 2.44% 14.95 4.67% 23.30 7.02% -22.43 -6.32% 0.87 0.26% Greenwich H&F Hackney Islington Kensington and ChelseaKensington Inner 20.15 16.40% -20.39 -14.26% -0.24 -0.19% 24.96 21.25% -12.62 -8.86% 12.34 10.51% Lambeth Lewisham Southwark Tower HamletsTower Inner 40.73 31.91% 59.67 35.45% 100.40 78.67% 40.66 33.28% 39.68 24.36% 80.34 65.75% Wandsworth Westminster Barking and Dagenham Outer -12.13 -18.26% -2.28 -4.20% -14.41 -21.69% -13.41 -19.20% -4.18 -7.41% -17.59 -25.19% Barnet Bexley Brent Bromley Croydon Ealing Enfield Haringey 186 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report Experian Business Strategies Oxford Economics Oxford

1989 to 20011989 to 2007 2001 to 2007 1989 to 2001 1989 to 2006 2001 to 2006 1989 to 54.09 6.66% 59.31 6.85% 113.40 13.97% 27.04 3.27% 50.43 5.90% 77.47 9.36% 10.59 3.48% 2.20 0.70% 12.79 4.20% 16.11 5.32% 6.35 1.99% 22.47 7.42% 24.13 3.51% 29.30 4.11% 53.43 7.77% 19.54 2.81% 12.52 1.75% 32.06 4.61% 60.99 8.41% 4.31 0.55% 65.30 9.00% 56.69 7.74% 10.06 1.28% 66.75 9.12% ‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s % 71.07 3.66% 25.56 1.27% 96.63 4.97% 43.06 2.17% 18.79 0.93% 61.86 3.11% 108.92 6.31% 71.14 3.87% 180.07 10.43% 167.59 9.67% -24.85 -1.31% 142.73 8.23% 258.72 6.08% 166.27 -3.68% 424.99 9.98% 286.97 6.69% 54.51 1.19% 341.49 7.96% Outer 26.59 16.59% 18.30 9.79% 44.89 28.00% 57.29 42.27% 11.11 5.76% 68.40 50.48% Outer 23.61 18.81% -19.65 -13.18% 3.96 3.16% -10.40 -6.53% -17.72 -11.91% -28.12 -17.66% Outer 11.64 16.62% -2.85 -3.50% 8.78 12.54% 4.79 6.33% -1.27 -1.57% 3.53 4.66% Outer 6.73 9.31% 3.71 4.69% 10.44 14.43% 0.91 1.20% 9.87 12.90% 10.77 14.25% Outer 9.89 14.08% 1.67 2.08% 11.55 16.45% 9.65 13.45% -5.71 -7.01% 3.94 5.49% Outer -1.35 -1.79% -1.46 -1.97% -2.81 -3.72% 2.65 3.68% -1.92 -2.58% 0.73 1.01% Hillingdon Hounslow Kingston upon Thames upon Kingston Outer 1.72 2.17% 4.18 5.17% 5.89 7.45% 2.58 3.22% 2.07 2.50% 4.65 5.81% Merton Newham Redbridge Richmond upon ThamesRichmond upon Outer 13.30 19.11% 1.62 1.95% 14.91 21.43% 16.28 24.58% 9.36 11.34% 25.64 38.70% Sutton Waltham ForestWaltham Outer -8.22 -10.87% 2.18 3.23% -6.05 -8.00% -10.03 -12.61% 4.04 5.81% -5.99 -7.53% Central London Total London Central East London Total East London North London Total North London South London Total South London West London Total London West London Total London Volterra 187 1989 to 2001 2001 to 2007 1989 to 2007 ‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s % Camden Inner 38.69 15.79% 1.02 0.36% 39.71 16.21% City of London Inner 30.09 9.71% 5.98 1.76% 36.06 11.63% Greenwich Inner -4.71 -6.06% 7.36 10.07% 2.65 3.41% H&F Inner 26.65 28.28% 10.56 8.74% 37.21 39.49% Hackney Inner 12.74 14.25% -8.31 -8.14% 4.42 4.95% Islington Inner 26.25 18.96% 31.77 19.29% 58.02 41.91% Kensington and Chelsea Inner 25.20 21.14% -24.46 -16.94% 0.74 0.62% Lambeth Inner -18.15 -12.42% 8.54 6.68% -9.61 -6.58% Lewisham Inner 3.94 5.45% -0.65 -0.86% 3.29 4.55% Southwark Inner 22.69 12.88% 19.16 9.64% 41.86 23.77% Tower Hamlets Inner 47.12 40.20% 45.46 27.67% 92.58 79.00% Wandsworth Inner 9.57 8.60% 7.22 5.98% 16.79 15.10% Westminster Inner 46.15 8.32% -18.49 -3.08% 27.66 4.99% 266.22 11.82% 85.17 3.38% 351.39 15.61% Barking and Dagenham Outer -6.58 -10.87% -1.49 -2.75% -8.07 -13.32% Barnet Outer 17.26 14.68% -1.38 -1.02% 15.88 13.51% Bexley Outer 3.30 4.53% -1.97 -2.59% 1.33 1.82% Brent Outer -4.29 -3.55% -8.01 -6.88% -12.30 -10.18% Bromley Outer 7.40 7.02% 21.03 18.65% 28.42 26.97% Croydon Outer -3.82 -2.39% -7.36 -4.72% -11.18 -7.00% Ealing Outer -5.35 -3.89% 4.45 3.36% -0.90 -0.66% Enfield Outer -1.78 -1.58% -5.67 -5.12% -7.45 -6.62% Haringey Outer -0.73 -0.96% 4.90 6.47% 4.17 5.46% Harrow Outer 11.80 17.15% 1.06 1.31% 12.86 18.68% Havering Outer 8.62 11.20% -5.08 -5.93% 3.54 4.60% Hillingdon Outer 31.49 20.46% 13.08 7.05% 44.56 28.96% Hounslow Outer 22.44 17.34% -19.48 -12.83% 2.96 2.28% Kingston upon Thames Outer 3.26 4.16% 3.32 4.06% 6.58 8.40% Merton Outer 11.01 15.15% -6.30 -7.54% 4.70 6.47% Newham Outer 4.76 6.28% 0.41 0.51% 5.17 6.82% Redbridge Outer 9.67 13.80% 0.93 1.17% 10.60 15.13% Richmond upon Thames Outer 12.59 17.57% 2.11 2.50% 14.69 20.52% Sutton Outer 1.09 1.56% -0.44 -0.62% 0.65 0.94% Waltham Forest Outer -7.08 -9.17% -2.97 -4.23% -10.05 -13.02% 115.03 6.03% -8.87 -0.44% 106.17 5.56%

Central London Total 170.92 10.12% 23.53 1.26% 194.45 11.51% East London Total 71.76 9.08% 33.70 3.91% 105.46 13.35% North London Total 14.75 4.81% -2.15 -0.67% 12.60 4.11% South London Total 41.09 6.14% 19.58 2.76% 60.66 9.07% West London Total 82.73 11.74% 1.65 0.21% 84.38 11.97% London Total 381.25 9.17% 76.30 1.68% 457.55 11.00% 188 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report Annual % 2007-2031 Annual % 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 1989-2007 1989 2001 2006 2007 80,100 76,200 75,000 75,10074,60077,300 -0.36% 70,30085,000 79,800 73,600 82,000 87,100 83,000 74,10080,100 84,600 90,80075,700 82,200 73,000 83,50071,700 84,800 0.70% 80,600 76,500 0.34% 85,500 80,30072,000 -0.01% 86,700 80,30079,600 81,700 79,000 86,900 75,400 75,300 82,700 89,300 81,300 69,200 83,300 0.21% 76,300 0.45% 72,900 82,200 91,500 0.40% 73,500 82,300 84,700 72,800 0.35% 83,300 95,100 82,700 68,500 85,800 83,300 73,600 86,800 0.06% 97,800 83,300 -0.83% 88,400 83,300 73,100 71,600 89,400 0.61% 84,300 67,600 0.30% 85,800 75,100 72,100 0.22% 85,800 67,000 89,400 78,500 71,000 87,400 67,900 0.12% 81,100 74,400 70,300 0.30% 0.25% 77,000 72,800 0.23% 0.25% 112,800 136,600124,200 134,400116,000 114,100173,700 133,600 115,900 111,700146,000 159,100 124,100117,000 110,500 133,000 0.94% 150,500 130,900 114,900 137,300 136,200 -0.65% 149,700 110,600 138,900 140,100 0.67% 112,000134,800 -0.82% 109,600159,600 138,900 129,100 115,700 -0.28% 192,300 146,300 -0.36% 147,400 144,700 128,900 115,200 137,200 203,400 145,200 108,900 132,000 127,500 149,800 118,900 138,100 203,100 144,000 110,700 133,800 132,300 143,000 123,800 0.48% 148,800 2.30% 113,100 137,300 147,800 -0.97% 0.47% 155,000 200,700 117,800 130,100 153,900 0.20% 202,000 0.15% 120,600 128,900 0.43% 201,600 128,600 0.40% 209,800 133,300 217,400 138,300 0.28% 0.14% 1,915,8001,313,600 1,954,400 1,504,500 1,966,900 1,529,100 1,965,900 1,555,100 0.14% 0.94% 1,946,800 1,653,900 1,957,500 1,750,800 1,963,600 1,845,600 2,037,000 1,896,400 2,109,200 1,952,700 0.29% 0.95% 4,292,400 4,586,000 4,631,800 4,676,100 0.48% 4,797,300 4,953,200 5,114,100 5,280,300 5,451,900 0.64% Annex 3 B: Historic and projected employment in outer London boroughs London in outer employment and projected Annex 3 B: Historic Borough Barking and DagenhamBarnet Bexley 70,100Brent Bromley 55,900Croydon Ealing 52,100Enfield Haringey 51,100Harrow -1.74%Havering Hillingdon 51,400Hounslow Kingston 51,800Merton Redbridge 52,500ThamesRichmond Upon Sutton 53,700 Forest Waltham 65,400 London Outer 56,200CAZ incl IOD 82,800 CAZ/IoD) Inner (excl 0.40% Total 92,500 1,063,000 92,200 1,127,000 1,135,900 1.93% 1,155,100 89,800 0.46% 1,196,600 88,300 1,244,900 87,400 1,305,000 1,346,800 90,900 1,390,000 94,600 0.77% 0.11% 189 Annual % 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2007-2031 Annual % 1989 2001 2006 2007 1989-2007 5,100 5,900 5,400 5,400 0.32% 5,700 6,000 6,200 6,600 7,000 1.09% 32,200 21,000 17,000 17,200 -3.42% 16,200 15,100 14,200 13,500 13,200 -1.10% 32,800 28,900 29,600 28,400 -0.80% 29,500 30,700 32,000 33,600 36,000 0.99% 21,800 33,300 35,400 34,100 2.52% 35,500 37,300 37,400 39,500 40,900 0.76% 18,100 16,700 14,600 16,700 -0.45% 15,900 15,000 13,700 13,100 12,500 -1.20% 72,900 86,700 84,500 82,700 0.70% 84,800 87,800 87,700 92,100 96,400 0.64% 12,100 11,700 10,000 9,400 -1.39% 9,400 9,800 9,900 10,600 11,000 0.66% 23,400 18,200 16,800 18,100 -1.42% 16,600 15,500 14,200 13,900 13,500 -1.21% 40,000 33,200 27,600 29,500 -1.68% 28,000 26,700 24,700 23,700 23,200 -1.00% 30,200 27,400 25,200 27,400 -0.54% 27,200 27,500 27,300 28,600 29,700 0.34% 42,800 41,600 44,700 44,000 0.15% 42,900 42,600 42,000 43,400 44,900 0.08% 35,900 24,900 19,900 20,000 -3.20% 18,500 17,300 16,200 15,800 15,600 -1.03% 94,900 92,600 85,800 85,700 -0.56% 84,800 85,300 85,800 89,600 94,400 0.40% 80,100 76,200 75,000 75,100 -0.36% 73,600 74,100 73,000 76,500 79,000 0.21% 44,600 46,300 48,200 47,600 0.36% 47,500 48,800 48,900 52,000 54,500 0.57% 18,900 20,400 20,600 19,900 0.29% 20,900 22,500 23,000 24,400 25,800 1.09% 65,300 60,600 63,500 61,000 -0.38% 63,000 66,500 67,500 70,700 74,800 0.85% 17,600 16,800 16,100 16,300 -0.43% 14,900 13,600 12,400 11,800 11,300 -1.51% 68,200 71,700 82,800 87,200 1.37% 87,000 87,900 87,900 91,900 96,300 0.41% 112,800 136,600 134,400 133,600 0.94% 136,200 140,100 138,900 144,700 149,800 0.48% 124,200 114,100 111,700 110,500 -0.65% 112,000 115,700 115,200 118,900 123,800 0.47% 116,000 115,900 124,100 130,900 0.67% 129,100 128,900 127,500 132,300 137,300 0.20% 173,700 159,100 150,500 149,700 -0.82% 146,300 145,200 144,000 148,800 155,000 0.15% Historic and projected employment in outer London boroughs by broad economic sector economic broad by boroughs London in outer employment and projected Historic Borough/Sector Barking & Dagenham Office 70,100 55,900 52,100 51,100 -1.74% 51,400 51,800 52,500 53,700 56,200 0.40% Industrial Other Barnet Office Industrial Other Bexley Office Industrial Other Brent Office Office Industrial Other Bromley Office Office Industrial Other Croydon Office Office Industrial Other 190 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report Annual % 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2007-2031 Annual % 1989 2001 2006 2007 1989-2007 9,300 12,400 11,600 10,000 0.40% 9,900 10,100 10,400 11,100 11,500 0.58% 42,700 31,900 32,500 34,900 -1.11% 31,800 28,900 27,200 25,500 24,200 -1.51% 17,000 33,900 37,300 38,400 4.63% 39,500 41,500 42,800 45,900 48,400 0.97% 74,600 70,300 82,000 84,600 0.70% 86,700 89,300 91,500 95,100 97,800 0.61% 77,300 79,800 83,000 82,200 0.34% 81,700 83,300 82,300 85,800 88,400 0.30% 85,000 87,100 90,800 84,800 -0.01% 82,700 82,200 83,300 86,800 89,400 0.22% 24,400 28,500 31,700 30,800 1.30% 31,600 33,200 35,400 37,500 39,700 1.06% 78,900 72,600 73,100 73,200 -0.42% 73,800 76,000 80,500 84,800 90,100 0.87% 18,900 19,500 19,300 19,100 0.06% 19,300 20,000 20,600 21,700 22,300 0.65% 39,900 28,000 22,300 22,300 -3.18% 20,800 19,400 18,400 17,800 16,900 -1.15% 58,200 67,400 69,100 68,100 0.88% 68,900 71,300 74,100 78,300 81,400 0.75% 10,000 13,200 14,800 16,800 2.92% 17,700 18,600 19,300 20,300 20,900 0.91% 19,100 13,400 14,100 14,400 -1.56% 13,600 12,600 11,800 11,200 10,700 -1.23% 45,500 43,800 53,100 53,400 0.89% 55,500 58,100 60,400 63,500 66,200 0.90% 17,900 21,200 21,500 20,200 0.67% 20,400 21,200 21,200 22,300 23,000 0.54% 14,900 13,900 11,500 11,700 -1.33% 10,800 10,100 9,300 9,100 8,800 -1.18% 44,600 44,700 50,100 50,400 0.68% 50,500 51,900 51,800 54,400 56,600 0.48% 21,400 17,900 18,400 18,600 -0.78% 17,000 15,700 14,800 14,300 13,700 -1.27% 54,300 56,800 60,900 56,300 0.20% 55,800 56,400 58,100 61,400 64,200 0.55% 29,900 33,300 32,200 32,800 0.52% 30,500 28,500 26,500 25,700 24,900 -1.14% 87,900 125,000 133,900 131,900 2.28% 130,700 132,000 132,300 138,200 144,000 0.37% 23,100 43,200 36,000 37,200 2.68% 37,800 39,400 40,900 44,200 47,400 1.01% 47,400 31,000 25,500 27,200 -3.04% 24,900 22,900 21,200 20,400 19,600 -1.36% 89,100 73,200 70,500 69,400 -1.38% 67,400 66,700 66,500 68,800 71,300 0.11% 117,000 114,900 110,600 109,600 -0.36% 108,900 110,700 113,100 117,800 120,600 0.40% 134,800 192,300 203,400 203,100 2.30% 200,700 202,000 201,600 209,800 217,400 0.28% 159,600 147,400 132,000 133,800 -0.97% 130,100 128,900 128,600 133,300 138,300 0.14% 146,000 133,000 137,300 138,900 -0.28% 137,200 138,100 143,000 147,800 153,900 0.43% Borough/Sector Ealing Office Office Industrial Other Enfield Office Industrial Other Haringey Office Industrial Other Harrow Office Industrial Office Office Other Industrial Havering Other Hillingdon Office Industrial Other Hounslow Office Industrial Other 191 Annual % 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2007-2031 Annual % 1989 2001 2006 2007 1989-2007 80,100 83,500 85,500 86,900 0.45% 84,700 83,300 83,300 85,800 89,400 0.12% 75,700 80,600 80,300 81,300 0.40% 82,700 83,300 84,300 85,800 87,400 0.30% 21,200 22,400 20,600 20,100 -0.30% 19,800 19,500 19,600 20,200 20,900 0.16% 15,000 13,100 11,100 11,700 -1.37% 10,600 9,500 8,700 8,200 7,900 -1.62% 43,900 48,000 53,900 55,100 1.27% 54,400 54,200 55,100 57,400 60,600 0.40% 8,700 15,700 18,900 19,200 4.50% 20,100 20,900 21,600 22,300 22,800 0.72% 7,400 9,000 9,600 8,700 0.90% 8,900 9,100 9,300 9,800 10,300 0.71% 26,200 19,500 16,000 17,400 -2.25% 16,400 14,900 13,700 12,700 11,800 -1.61% 40,800 45,400 45,300 44,700 0.51% 46,200 47,500 49,000 50,800 52,800 0.70% 12,800 18,200 14,100 13,700 0.38% 13,400 13,600 14,100 14,900 15,500 0.52% 15,500 11,600 10,100 10,700 -2.04% 9,600 8,800 8,300 8,000 7,600 -1.42% 43,400 50,400 51,200 51,900 1.00% 50,600 50,700 52,700 55,600 58,100 0.47% 17,600 27,900 32,200 32,400 3.45% 31,900 31,800 31,500 32,700 33,700 0.16% 10,100 9,600 8,600 8,900 -0.70% 7,900 7,100 6,400 6,100 5,900 -1.70% 37,700 45,400 51,700 50,900 1.68% 49,900 49,500 49,500 52,100 55,100 0.33% 17,700 16,900 17,100 16,100 -0.52% 15,900 16,200 15,900 16,700 17,200 0.28% 13,100 14,600 11,900 11,600 -0.67% 10,700 10,000 9,200 9,000 8,700 -1.19% 41,300 43,800 43,900 45,100 0.49% 44,900 45,900 45,900 48,700 51,100 0.52% 23,700 17,600 14,600 13,500 -3.08% 12,400 11,200 10,500 10,000 9,600 -1.41% 48,600 42,600 49,300 46,300 -0.27% 46,400 46,700 48,000 50,400 52,900 0.56% 71,700 80,300 75,400 76,300 0.35% 73,600 73,100 75,100 78,500 81,100 0.25% 72,000 75,300 72,900 72,800 0.06% 71,600 72,100 71,000 74,400 77,000 0.23% 79,600 69,200 73,500 68,500 -0.83% 67,600 67,000 67,900 70,300 72,800 0.25% Borough/Sector Kingston Office Industrial Other Merton Office Industrial Other Redbridge Office Industrial Other Richmond Upon ThamesRichmond Upon Office 65,400 82,800 92,500 92,200 1.93% 89,800 88,300 87,400 90,900 94,600 0.11% Industrial Other Sutton Office Industrial Other Waltham Forest Waltham Office Industrial Other 192 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report Annual % 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2007-2031 Annual % 1989 2001 2006 2007 1989-2007 336,900 422,300 426,000 423,100 1.27% 427,900 440,700 448,400 472,800 492,700 0.64% 486,100 386,200 340,700 353,400 -1.76% 327,100 302,800 281,400 269,700 259,800 -1.27% 668,700 840,600 861,900 882,200 1.55% 947,400 1,011,000 1,068,000 1,096,900 1,122,900 1.01% 140,300 102,100 88,800 88,000 -2.56% 86,500 84,300 82,900 79,000 76,800 -0.57% 504,600 561,900 578,400 584,800 0.82% 620,000 655,500 694,700 720,600 753,000 1.06% 204,700 292,900 294,500 311,600 2.36% 324,500 340,700 360,200 374,300 386,500 0.90% 178,800 158,500 133,100 135,400 -1.53% 132,900 127,900 124,100 119,200 114,200 -0.71% 679,600 675,600 708,300 708,100 0.23% 739,200 776,300 820,600 853,200 889,200 0.95% 805,200 646,700 562,600 576,800 -1.84% 546,500 515,100 488,400 467,900 450,900 -1.02% 1,092,700 1,145,900 1,200,200 1,189,400 0.47% 1,191,700 1,214,000 1,233,800 1,294,500 1,356,700 0.55% 1,915,800 1,954,400 1,966,900 1,965,900 0.14% 1,946,800 1,957,500 1,963,600 2,037,000 2,109,200 0.29% 1,313,600 1,504,500 1,529,100 1,555,100 0.94% 1,653,900 1,750,800 1,845,600 1,896,400 1,952,700 0.95% 1,210,300 1,555,800 1,582,300 1,616,900 1.62% 1,699,900 1,792,300 1,876,600 1,944,000 2,002,100 0.89% 2,276,900 2,383,500 2,486,900 2,482,400 0.48% 2,551,000 2,645,800 2,749,100 2,868,300 2,998,900 0.79% Borough/Sector Outer London Outer Office Office Industrial Other CAZ incl IOD Office Office Industrial Other Inner (excl. CAZ/IoD) Inner (excl. 1,063,000 1,127,000 1,135,900 1,155,100 0.46% 1,196,600 1,244,900 1,305,000 1,346,800 1,390,000 0.77% Office Office Industrial Other Greater LondonGreater 4,292,400 4,586,000 4,631,800 4,676,100 0.48% 4,797,300 4,953,200 5,114,100 5,280,300 5,451,900 0.64% Office Office Industrial Other Source: Roger Tym & Partners, 2010. Projections are consistent with draft replacement London Plan (2009) London with draft & Partners,replacement consistent are 2010. Projections Tym Roger Source: 193 2001-2007 % annual ave growth 2001-2007 % Growth 2001-2007 Growth pa average 2001-2007 Growth 1989-2001 % annual ave growth 1989-2001 % Growth 1989-2001 Growth pa average 1989-2001 Growth 1989-2007 % annual ave growth 1989-2007 % Growth 1989-2007 Growth pa average Growth 506,968 588,346524,935 625,304 610,560 118,3362,648,430 6,574 634,574 3,244,793 3,300,230 651,800 109,639 23.3% 36,211 6,091 24.6% 1.17% 20.9% 1.23% 81,378 1.06% 596,363 6,782 49,697 85,625 16.1% 22.5% 7,135 1.25% 1.71% 16.3% 55,437 36,958 1.27% 9,240 6,160 24,014 1.7% 6.3% 4,002 0.28% 1.02% 3.9% 0.65% 1989 2001 2007 1989-2007 Annex 3C: Home Counties Employment 1989-2007 Annex 3C: Home Counties Employment Home County Groups BedfordshireBerkshire 304,172Buckinghamshire 173,380 355,502Essex 344,843 215,151 377,033Hertfordshire 464,229 203,209Kent 72,861 393,543 462,163 29,829Surrey 4,048 504,460 1,657 117,320 6,518 24.0% 491,525 17.2% 97,982 1.20% 34.0% 400,589 0.89% 5,443 51,330 506,545 1.64% 41,771 24.9% 506,422 4,278 119,386 3,481 105,833 1.24% 9,949 16.9% 5,880 24.1% 110,917 34.6% 1.31% 26.4% 9,243 1.82% 2.51% 21,531 1.31% 28.2% -11,942 -2,066 3,589 105,956 -1,990 2.09% 8,830 -344 6.1% -5.6% -12,935 26.5% -0.4% -2,156 0.98% -0.95% 1.97% -2.6% -0.07% -123 -0.43% -21 0.0% 0.00% Note that the data for the ‘home counties’ includes the relevant unitary authorities and comes from three sources (Census of Employment (1987-2001), Annual Employment Survey (1991- (Census of Employment (1987-2001), sources three unitaryfrom includes the relevant authorities and comes the ‘home counties’ Note that the data for caution. with ABI (1998-2007). Comparability should be treated so the figures of these datasets over time is imperfect 1998) and 194 TheAnnex Mayor’s 4: Economically Outer London Active Commission Population Report 1991 to 2031 Table A: Projected Resident Labour Force 1991 2008 2031 City of London 3.5 5.8 8.4 Camden 97.1 109.4 128.0 Greenwich 101.4 113.0 161.8 Hackney 87.7 106.0 136.7 Hammersmith & Fulham 87.7 100.8 112.1 Islington 89.5 107.0 129.8 Kensington & Chelsea 79.8 90.1 103.4 Lambeth 137.1 162.9 185.6 Lewisham 124.0 143.2 170.2 Newham 97.5 117.0 171.6 Southwark 114.6 143.4 191.2 Tower Hamlets 73.0 109.9 166.8 Wandsworth 148.9 171.0 198.8 Westminster 101.3 119.0 133.0 Barking & Dagenham 71.9 79.1 112.6 Barnet 147.9 165.5 207.0 Bexley 111.8 112.7 115.9 Brent 124.7 136.6 147.9 Bromley 150.2 155.2 144.8 Croydon 166.8 173.7 189.1 Ealing 149.0 163.1 176.1 Enfield 131.5 143.2 140.5 Haringey 108.7 122.2 146.5 Harrow 103.1 113.8 113.6 Havering 115.7 117.8 142.5 Hillingdon 124.2 131.1 144.1 Hounslow 107.7 121.0 128.9 Kingston upon Thames 72.3 83.8 87.7 Merton 90.1 105.1 104.5 Redbridge 110.5 122.5 140.3 Richmond upon Thames 89.1 100.3 104.1 Sutton 88.5 99.7 96.8 Waltham Forest 109.4 111.5 119.1 London Plan Inner 1343.1 1598.6 1997.4 London Plan Outer 2172.9 2357.8 2562.1 GREATER LONDON 3516.2 3956.5 4559.5 Source: GLA 2009 Round Demographic Projections: London Plan otal 195 5,434 20,008 15,069 10,240 17,734 17,545 14,951 28,122 11,831 37,266 67,153 14,293 44,025 24,153 39,316 24,734 16,314 28,760 32,958 12,611 27,163 18,776 12,255 23,552 29,059 12,493 44,714 12,106 32,710 18,834 15,035 24,006 11,522 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 T 314 293 219 426 494 345 222 681 1,171 1,142 601 414 454 618 375 571 614 492 697 435 323 134 127 73 98 333 387 472 210 398 883 569 656 1,000 974 1,018 1,682 256 745 1,500 1,913 1,713 806 2,679 914 610 472 975 1,138 873 1,128 1,373 415 560 647 1,255 1,144 871 1,373 1,049 903 748 570 668 950 727 888 355 261 631 448 449 414 617 344 354 869 1,761 1,241 1,084 1,099 933 642 676 542 227 596 224 241 850 645 610 750 464 865 1,897 99 522 293 477 322 743 413 513 662 468 588 165 164 276 501 236 239 356 355 266 213 1,897 99 522 480 657 1,475 874 1,231 531 293 0 162 123 125 5 14 234 322 345 964 763 494 565 47 38 81 105 160 143 72 379 966 1,947 1,770 591 403 608 575 710 548 262 467 626 189 231 485 260 761 814 533 872 882 535 368 743 500 352 666 552 211 181 835 544 1,005 282 747 277 699 573 1,384 841 974 507 11,530 235 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total 1,088 1,263 844 949 943 870 800 369 493 -544 572 1,057 654 511 963 628 1,238 5,439 1,043 1,479 1,960 933 on Annex 5A: Housing Trends Net Approvals for Inner and Outer London 1987-2008 London Inner and Outer for Approvals Net Trends Annex 5A: Housing Richmond 548 669 704 312 572 377 Redbridge Redbridge 1,086 691 1,209 674 407 999 670 605 310 317 313 584 1,261 286 1,286 1,225 1,539 2,070 1,516 1,985 703 272 Merton 1,209 1,806 566 497 549 480 421 578 386 492 410 431 428 831 622 698 484 847 1,247 730 734 623 Kingston Kingston 539 434 205 90 227 760 438 272 603 624 203 711 429 349 1,020 430 408 598 424 406 361 709 Hounslow 612 1,009 564 431 443 434 1,200 814 378 518 428 284 671 1,013 1,002 1,498 1,033 1,172 1,202 1,739 762 527 Outer Hillingdon 1,297 655 497 531 345 423 846 510 348 553 706 487 389 463 746 582 305 582 957 2,253 2,249 1,821 Total 14,125 14,782 12,430 9,340 8,542 12,119 13,531 13,469 10,764 19,434 19,021 14,387 14,458 18,704 12,781 19,943 14,509 33,978 32,469 34,818 45,030 30,812 419,446 Havering 840 1,039 769 2,259 351 489 518 267 230 145 135 389 608 629 276 569 641 754 1,676 1,094 664 609 Westminster 1,770 2,148 1,269 939 529 643 529 990 909 1,617 1,922 1,865 1,901 920 1,177 1,046 912 1,721 1,247 1,332 1,830 906 Wandsworth 1,485 1,417 1,662 1,375 746 1,105 1,307 709 538 1,312 2,687 1,205 839 1,756 2,388 3,073 1,351 2,068 2,821 3,359 1,608 2,455 Harrow Harrow T Hamlets 667 667 667 667 667 3,471 3,472 3,472 1,568 3,387 4,315 1,815 2,226 2,380 2,224 2,062 2,460 4,274 6,283 4,410 9,560 6,439 Haringey 636 480 531 290 581 381 689 944 608 239 137 112 224 352 429 1,283 844 976 1,334 655 1,774 794 Southwark 1,652 2,420 1,615 1,429 1,146 1,254 2,076 1,217 1,708 1,544 1,775 1,215 1,543 1,681 1,278 2,581 2,362 2,752 3,111 3,500 3,231 2,935 Newham 707 622 400 754 621 251 592 779 424 599 978 641 397 980 726 1,138 751 2,000 6,149 1,629 12,340 5,838 Enfield Lewisham Lewisham 1,840 2,158 1,793 1,200 950 1,403 927 1,097 766 747 479 495 440 562 421 927 980 1,549 1,296 1,365 1,482 1,857 Ealing Lambeth 1,037 1,071 640 116 1,063 851 822 734 1,130 2,155 791 402 915 1,169 808 799 852 1,891 1,664 3,880 3,410 2,560 K & C Croydon Croydon 2,088 2,789 2,808 1,795 1,071 972 1,391 812 544 831 402 598 447 734 763 1,001 1,414 1,412 2,273 2,787 3,384 2,642 Islington Islington 678 195 478 286 254 538 693 568 676 1,471 1,432 1,676 1,297 1,657 871 3,319 1,368 1,411 2,245 2,072 2,241 1,737 Bromley Bromley 1,193 1,176 684 423 575 846 494 530 502 371 993 311 317 402 793 576 1,083 1,376 1,003 1,568 2,122 1,438 H & F Brent Brent Hackney 1,170 1,304 1,008 853 592 755 1,006 1,063 970 773 1,184 956 1,104 1,410 1,015 1,452 1,005 2,903 3,091 2,525 1,618 1,302 London London Total 32,756 36,420 30,933 23,053 20,041 26,119 26,625 23,539 18,134 28,560 29,081 23,903 23,971 29,357 25,883 33,585 30,469 57,662 55,650 57,398 82,564 49,039 764,742 Greenwich 301 489 792 727 569 569 531 334 172 3,790 831 1,984 1,667 1,000 1,111 2,017 1,168 11,213 1,414 5,929 5,291 2,815 Total 18,631 21,638 18,503 13,713 11,499 14,000 13,094 10,070 7,370 9,126 10,060 9,516 9,513 10,653 13,102 13,642 15,960 23,684 23,181 22,580 37,534 18,227 345,296 Bexley 1,050 1,203 944 419 541 875 775 642 85 770 481 366 811 477 186 154 233 222 536 162 1,073 488 City W Forest W Forest 999 924 972 459 592 358 638 581 -257 762 110 185 -48 158 367 301 512 830 790 906 1,214 753 Barnet 1,850 2,070 1,756 825 1,154 1,036 1,185 924 707 877 1,231 954 412 871 652 1,239 1,308 1,321 3,860 1,846 3,593 3,039 Camden 1,221 1,147 814 479 520 774 820 1,186 697 728 558 640 557 830 517 447 446 957 1,191 3,057 703 545 B & D Sutt Inner N.B. estimates are highlighted in white N.B. estimates are 196 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report otal 8,369 8,134 8,531 7,338 7,449 8,243 9,360 2,269 9,559 7,990 13,349 15,567 12,100 18,383 17,006 43,007 10,185 26,444 17,452 21,184 12,153 18,875 17,169 19,349 15,629 18,045 15,523 21,343 17,428 10,094 21,995 13,260 10,602 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 T 204 257 387 304 90 479 552 473 162 349 209 534 445 780 369 399 2 24 2 18 1 9 3 6 45 136 229 222 458 298 106 272 186 -26 48 37 75 118 726 1,083 340 298 330 279 252 347 297 373 132 218 134 177 218 482 199 331 696 474 727 256 499 401 419 322 327 333 237 318 148 122 161 279 99 41 309 199 346 765 628 300 507 578 482 508 407 171 447 106 181 638 484 460 563 348 649 220 100 179 452 239 244 236 200 135 582 744 797 204 143 120 165 313 393 428 215 193 171 220 100 179 310 822 361 445 715 623 774 894 1,282 942 473 1,070 671 473 1,052 286 373 402 257 722 403 415 1,009 -163 1,060 1,067 1,112 949 358 361 1,026 551 1,162 348 460 508 425 470 209 386 116 883 109 137 149 788 177 124 294 319 366 934 695 692 459 736 390 639 568 652 447 319 208 243 172 208 337 570 662 154 387 764 129 258 366 467 478 196 331 318 125 374 551 660 818 332 637 466 348 713 280 644 592 476 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total 9,770 11,813 10,008 8,353 7,995 9,092 10,368 11,942 9,550 11,618 12,706 11,630 11,693 11,344 9,413 10,960 11,987 13,936 12,799 16,160 14,104 15,044 252,285 on Annex 5B: Net Completions for Inner and Outer London 1987-2008 London Inner and Outer Annex 5B: Net Completions for Richmond 278 349 434 357 219 360 Redbridge Redbridge 994 940 606 632 378 497 533 961 584 353 382 446 99 244 560 438 229 1,239 1,055 1,086 675 418 Merton Kingston Kingston 238 579 300 315 192 135 143 376 319 714 726 329 280 428 456 272 435 330 557 290 415 305 Hounslow 300 623 515 958 349 281 507 375 1,401 1,030 979 643 378 487 399 97 850 1,114 714 1,307 1,114 1,146 Outer Hillingdon 1,526 941 1,044 538 587 185 292 512 868 701 257 454 206 622 355 317 265 259 665 358 424 724 Total Havering 410 344 408 374 340 282 459 396 306 309 112 210 304 148 375 313 396 654 396 626 730 639 Westminster 1,057 957 703 957 523 374 288 313 735 698 1,083 1,370 1,555 1,054 911 474 1,286 827 635 1,199 712 672 Wandsworth 307 490 442 364 650 297 548 667 788 486 653 729 1,073 842 624 741 768 1,777 1,282 1,350 1,095 1,033 Harrow Harrow T Hamlets 667 667 667 2,101 973 2,777 2,777 2,778 1,254 2,710 3,453 1,633 2,003 2,574 1,708 1,630 1,108 2,191 1,337 3,153 2,625 2,221 Haringey 572 432 478 261 523 343 620 849 547 269 177 206 287 233 85 243 307 939 544 568 962 740 Southwark 1,487 2,178 1,454 1,286 759 467 1,001 1,472 1,101 1,164 1,168 1,446 861 844 925 1,001 834 1,476 1,126 2,148 1,101 1,145 Enfield 1,134 1,223 562 457 1,585 1,189 471 1,173 838 559 493 838 337 646 1,377 730 720 766 121 665 1,141 427 Newham 487 1,356 1,356 1,041 726 726 726 999 712 702 419 697 488 1,278 1,220 1,512 1,446 1,417 446 1,134 814 1,482 Ealing 2,510 311 243 315 142 75 654 67 332 398 279 329 159 118 188 527 606 491 830 1,018 1,730 831 Lewisham Lewisham 584 1,295 1,173 606 1,428 797 1,028 901 742 1,316 1,292 758 508 470 470 722 778 979 864 546 709 909 Lambeth 1,037 1,072 576 107 957 1,024 1,024 1,025 1,025 1,025 543 1,059 824 709 833 296 567 1,358 842 1,362 949 1,135 Croydon Croydon 1,170 1,691 1,369 904 734 416 442 1,152 852 389 703 379 326 227 491 472 592 562 769 970 1,106 1,453 K & C Bromley Bromley 1,479 1,682 1,173 1,030 636 417 1,050 521 345 505 248 442 200 356 535 488 437 1,196 665 943 774 507 Islington Islington 442 105 213 133 194 473 664 538 419 612 1,154 907 957 823 1,380 614 1,251 727 924 1,406 1,856 2,253 H & F Brent Brent London London Total 25,310 27,400 22,968 19,189 18,525 18,157 20,064 22,931 20,568 20,787 19,843 19,924 17,131 19,498 17,507 17,465 20,012 26,107 24,664 28,775 28,892 27,667 483,384 Hackney 1,053 1,174 907 768 533 800 800 800 800 800 1,067 860 994 855 609 1,319 825 971 997 1,038 1,640 1,733 Total 15,540 15,587 12,960 10,836 10,530 9,065 9,696 10,989 11,018 9,169 7,137 8,294 5,438 8,154 8,094 6,505 8,025 12,171 11,865 12,615 14,788 12,623 231,099 Bexley Greenwich Greenwich 484 210 578 165 193 425 425 425 425 425 365 744 651 786 212 1,593 1,893 893 3,189 1,445 1,048 854 City W Forest W Forest 578 1,057 728 237 428 370 503 235 112 780 -97 558 143 736 548 75 141 157 665 465 978 697 Barnet 1,499 1,484 972 1,186 1,188 1,553 1,477 1,512 1,512 581 915 717 535 1,038 715 277 450 926 936 776 751 995 Camden 1,099 1,033 733 432 468 697 738 1,067 627 656 502 664 501 371 215 428 283 285 504 661 565 731 B & D Sutt Inner N.B. estimates are highlighted in white. The completion figures for 2002/03 are taken from ODPM returns not estimated by the GLA ODPM from taken for 2002/03 are figures The completion highlighted in white. N.B. estimates are Annex 5C: Compliance with the London Plan Housing Density Matrix 197 (Percentage of Gross Residential Units Approved) 2008/2009 All Units Schemes of 15 units or more Inner Within Above Below Within Above Below Camden 43% 39% 18% 38% 49% 14% City of London 67% 31% 2% 100% 0% 0% Greenwich 57% 41% 2% 57% 43% 0% Hackney 65% 27% 9% 70% 25% 5% Hammersmith and Fulham 57% 33% 10% 44% 56% 0% Islington 22% 67% 11% 12% 79% 9% Kensington and Chelsea 65% 13% 22% 83% 0% 17% Lambeth 82% 14% 4% 86% 14% 0% Lewisham 53% 39% 7% 53% 42% 5% Newham 7% 93% 0% 4% 96% 0% Southwark 31% 67% 3% 26% 73% 1% Tower Hamlets 30% 69% 2% 29% 70% 1% Wandsworth 38% 56% 6% 29% 71% 0% Westminster 36% 38% 26% 11% 50% 39% Inner London 38% 56% 5% 35% 63% 2% All Units Schemes of 15 units or more Outer Within Above Below Within Above Below Barking and Dagenham 47% 52% 1% 47% 53% 0% Barnet 14% 81% 6% 5% 93% 1% Bexley 32% 62% 6% 13% 87% 0% Brent 62% 31% 8% 64% 36% 0% Bromley 54% 13% 33% 69% 11% 20% Croydon 40% 52% 8% 28% 72% 0% Ealing 31% 62% 7% 0% 100% 0% Enfield 76% 17% 7% 95% 5% 0% Haringey 53% 39% 8% 47% 53% 0% Harrow 73% 10% 17% 100% 0% 0% Havering 40% 43% 17% 34% 66% 0% Hillingdon 45% 51% 4% 43% 57% 0% Hounslow 47% 52% 2% 46% 54% 0% Kingston upon Thames 78% 9% 13% 100% 0% 0% Merton 42% 44% 15% 34% 58% 8% Redbridge 49% 39% 12% 40% 60% 0% Richmond upon Thames 59% 32% 9% 77% 23% 0% Sutton 17% 74% 9% 0% 98% 2% Waltham Forest 62% 34% 4% 61% 39% 0% Outer London 42% 50% 8% 35% 64% 1% All boroughs 40% 54% 6% 35% 63% 2% Note: Figures are based on gross residential units in schemes for which a site area is available 198 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report (High) Primary & care space space care community community (Low) Primary & care space space care community community (High) No of GPs (Low) No of GPs health Mental (High) 2 bedspace bedspace m health (Low) Mental 2 m bedspace bedspace

2 Acute Acute (High) daycare daycare space m space

2 Acute Acute (Low) daycare daycare space m space

2 (High) elective space m space Acute non Acute

2 (Low) elective space m space Acute non Acute

2 Acute Acute (High) elective space m space

2 Acute Acute (Low) elective space m space Pop Pop (High) Increase Increase 2011-2031 Pop Pop 9175 12295 70 100 325 440 40 55 205 275 5 7 1470 1980 5400 12270 35 85 175 400 20 45 105 240 3 7 830 1885 5270 7770 40 60 175 270 20 30 100 150 3 4 815 1225 (Low)1 66780 92580 395 555 1470 2055 230 320 1250 1730 37 51 9095 12640 33260 48980 310 455 955 1410 125 185 720 1050 18 27 5015 7390 17150 22110 180 235 620 805 85 110 355 455 9 12 2825 3660 35645 49225 245 340 1210 1680 130 185 680 935 20 27 5545 7665 24765 36025 200 300 840 1240 115 170 335 480 14 20 3915 5730 16730 22270 90 115 395 525 60 80 510 680 9 12 2305 3065 22345 33020 145 210 685 1015 95 145 1090 1585 12 18 3370 4985 Increase Increase 10125 14190 65 95 240 340 40 55 230 325 6 8 1410 1995 31215 45800 250 375 1550 2340 135 205 155 230 17 25 5665 8420 20790 26460 190 240 630 805 85 105 285 360 12 15 3180 4050 13045 19220 90 135 430 645 45 70 165 240 7 11 2010 2975 73240 110440 475 725 2315 3500 260 395 1885 2845 41 61 11080 16750 21515 28980 140 190 815 1115 85 115 180 245 12 16 3465 4700 21665 30565 150 210 760 1080 90 125 195 275 12 17 3415 4840 484900 692060 3495 5020 15695 22655 1845 2655 9085 12970 270 383 74515 106800 2011-2031 Annex 6A: The broad requirements for future health infrastructure by borough from the total estimated housing capacity. estimated the total from borough by health infrastructure future for requirements The broad Annex 6A: Borough Outer London Outer Barking &Dagenham 39600 57600 245 360 1530 2240 125 185 225 325 22 32 6380 9305 Barnet Bexley Brent Bromley Croydon Ealing Enfield Haringey Harrow Havering Hillingdon Hounslow Kingston upon Thames upon Kingston 11115 13775 120 150 400 500 40 50 270 340 6 8 1815 2255 Merton Newham Redbridge Richmond upon ThamesRichmond upon 6070 8485 60 85 175 250 20 25 145 205 3 5 910 1285 Sutton Waltham Forest Waltham Total Total 199 (High) Primary & care space space care community community (Low) Primary & care space space care community community (High) No of GPs (Low) No of GPs health Mental (High) 2 bedspace bedspace m health (Low) Mental 2 m bedspace bedspace

2 Acute Acute (High) daycare daycare space m space

2 Acute Acute (Low) daycare daycare space m space

2 (High) elective space m space Acute non Acute

2 (Low) elective space m space Acute non Acute

2 Acute Acute (High) elective space m space

2 Acute Acute (Low) elective space m space Pop Pop (High) Increase Increase 2011-2031 Pop Pop 2600 3500 25 35 105 115 10 15 145 190 1 2 515 545 (Low)1 18460 26375 125 175 615 885 70 105 985 1405 10 15 2855 4090 70525 101740 575 840 2420 3495 310 450 2020 2890 39 56 11175 16140 35870 49425 315 440 1065 1475 110 155 1935 2655 20 27 5405 7470 16325 26050 105 170 555 905 55 90 225 355 9 14 2525 4065 31130 42525 210 290 1090 1500 130 180 1885 2570 17 24 4905 6720 35030 51250 230 340 1145 1685 130 190 1190 1740 19 28 5370 7870 31395 44175 225 315 1060 1500 145 205 1065 1485 17 24 4915 6935 Increase Increase 58270 82400 370 525 1835 2600 210 295 1385 1945 32 46 8800 12460 86380 133970 445 695 3195 5000 255 400 3245 4995 48 74 13565 21120 34280 47850 325 470 1045 1490 115 165 740 1040 19 27 5250 7400 22525 29730 200 265 600 795 80 110 745 980 12 16 3310 4375 459475 660620 3315 4775 15140 21980 1680 2435 16480 23440 252 365 71005 102325 2011-2031 Borough Inner London Camden City of London Greenwich Hackney Hammersmith & Fulham Islington Kensington & ChelseaKensington 16685 21630 165 215 410 535 60 75 915 1190 9 12 2415 3135 Lambeth Lewisham Southwark Tower Hamlets Tower Wandsworth Westminster Total Source: The London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and Housing Capacity Study (SHLAA/ HCS) and the HUDU Model. Availability Housing Land Strategic The London Source: 200 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Annex 6B: Social Infrastructure Maps

PTAL and ATOS combined 201

Primary School Roll projections

Secondary School Roll Projections 202 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Tertiary School Roll Projections 203

Inner North East London Polysystem Hubs with Population Projection

North Central London Polysystem Hubs with Population Projection 204 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

North West London Polysystem Hubs with Population Projection

Outer North East London Polysystem Hubs with Population Projection 205

South East London Polysystem Hubs with Population Projection

South West London Polysystem Hubs with Population Projection 206 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

All Social Infrastructure Maps Further Education

All Social Infrastructure Maps GPs 207

All Social Infrastructure Maps Primary Schools

Social Infrastructure Maps Food Shopping 208 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Social Infrastructure Maps Secondary Schools 209 26,544 27,622 28,381 29,099 29,651 29,881 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 200 205 202 208 211 216 220 222 224 224 228 228 226 228 9,839 9,859 9,997 9,844 9,868 9,960 10,159 10,276 10,414 10,567 10,746 10,895 11,031 11,081 23,803 23,641 23,715 23,811 23,996 24,443 24,924 25,083 26,070 27,203 28,133 28,940 29,484 29,794 20,696 20,469 20,297 19,929 19,827 19,963 20,235 20,671 21,198 21,849 22,501 23,033 23,487 23,920 19,506 19,441 19,208 19,013 19,038 19,172 19,196 19,502 19,942 20,485 20,944 21,337 21,622 21,921 13,680 13,448 13,384 13,315 13,237 13,307 13,463 13,795 14,181 14,615 14,965 15,294 15,479 15,625 20,616 20,815 21,147 21,281 21,665 22,031 22,595 23,126 23,768 24,319 24,633 24,919 25,167 25,204 19,501 19,619 19,883 19,870 19,999 20,117 20,455 20,843 21,178 21,541 21,899 22,250 22,659 22,982 23,683 23,488 23,280 23,040 22,963 22,998 23,156 23,484 23,930 24,405 24,742 25,021 25,291 25,481 19,031 19,200 19,419 19,664 20,078 20,632 21,282 22,098 22,986 23,796 24,334 24,753 25,066 25,220 10,313 10,249 10,329 10,202 10,323 10,475 10,577 10,741 10,867 11,035 11,188 11,308 11,408 11,515 15,353 15,382 15,539 15,447 15,608 15,895 16,246 16,803 17,282 17,790 18,197 18,541 18,873 18,985 27,597 27,335 27,238 26,883 26,930 27,164 27,444 28,032 28,881 29,802 30,573 31,185 31,727 32,228 23,339 23,303 23,886 23,882 24,191 24,630 25,237 25,977 26,768 27,383 27,820 28,103 28,190 28,150 25,057 25,134 25,463 25,582 25,749 26,223 26,876 27,609 28,415 29,111 29,556 29,862 29,934 29,891 18,519 18,632 18,734 18,585 18,710 19,124 19,698 20,463 21,433 22,468 23,460 24,336 24,927 25,360 15,918 15,912 15,871 15,606 15,547 15,602 15,674 15,829 15,925 16,132 16,241 16,367 16,430 16,433 19,465 19,480 19,513 19,278 19,259 19,280 19,433 19,790 20,226 20,633 21,008 21,332 21,680 22,008 16,649 16,629 16,747 16,682 16,762 16,977 17,203 17,525 17,992 18,448 18,833 19,187 19,484 19,689 18,936 18,575 18,337 18,274 18,174 18,213 18,257 18,449 18,736 19,179 19,538 19,938 20,285 20,648 21,243 21,204 21,338 21,371 21,582 21,687 21,973 22,352 22,830 23,308 23,706 24,058 24,410 24,564 16,776 16,753 16,959 16,895 17,024 17,419 17,786 18,355 18,962 19,541 20,064 20,436 20,678 20,823 13,068 12,909 12,701 12,482 12,336 12,290 12,258 12,286 12,336 12,381 12,375 12,345 12,313 12,339 17,722 17,837 17,993 18,045 18,312 18,560 18,872 19,103 19,349 19,617 19,777 19,856 19,964 19,963 19,694 19,669 19,633 19,610 19,758 20,165 20,906 21,572 22,430 23,274 24,019 24,668 25,197 25,465 12,481 12,660 12,767 12,802 12,956 13,221 13,561 14,073 14,621 15,107 15,527 15,807 15,974 16,022 26,940 26,817 27,120 27,017 27,125 27,467 27,971 28,682 29,651 30,666 31,515 32,359 33,059 33,540 21,448 21,559 21,915 22,170 22,590 23,290 24,222 25,322 564,905 564,175 567,163 565,254 568,873 576,527 587,190 601,240 618,208 635,613 649,847 662,016 671,506 677,664 Thames 11,928 12,168 12,297 12,444 12,696 12,840 13,008 13,372 13,739 14,153 14,419 14,693 14,942 15,112 TOTAL Annex 6C: Borough School Roll Projections Ages 4-10 Projections School Roll Annex 6C: Borough District Barking and Dagenham 16,401 16,338 16,651 16,797 17,071 17,692 18,487 19,581 20,640 21,704 22,759 23,715 24,433 24,968 Richmond upon Barnet Southwark Bexley Sutton Brent Tower Hamlets Tower Bromley Waltham Forest Waltham Camden Wandsworth City of London Westminster Croydon Ealing Enfield Greenwich Hackney Hammersmith and Fulham 8,629 8,543 8,627 8,536 8,529 8,626 8,730 8,806 8,904 9,031 9,172 9,299 9,392 9,441 Haringey Harrow Havering Hillingdon Hounslow Islington Kensington and ChelseaKensington 6,435 6,398 6,454 6,287 6,224 6,144 6,158 6,163 6,168 6,187 6,218 6,256 6,308 6,335 Kingston upon Thames upon Kingston 10,439 10,504 10,519 10,402 10,535 10,704 10,928 11,255 11,618 12,037 12,376 12,596 12,735 12,848 Lambeth Lewisham Merton Newham Redbridge 210 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report 16,455 16,442 16,793 17,127 17,543 18,180 00000000000000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 7,349 7,413 7,531 7,457 7,439 7,444 7,447 7,527 7,682 7,851 8,040 8,254 8,457 8,620 9,543 9,518 9,713 9,459 9,358 9,209 9,211 9,167 9,189 9,138 9,286 9,388 9,541 9,812 7,110 6,988 7,072 6,942 7,065 7,085 7,063 7,075 7,066 7,000 7,024 7,111 7,133 7,248 6,986 6,946 6,986 7,098 7,322 7,392 7,542 7,579 7,621 7,751 7,982 8,203 8,495 8,791 7,666 7,717 7,784 7,634 7,675 7,657 7,660 7,757 7,735 7,695 7,763 7,864 8,001 8,192 7,496 7,708 8,112 8,303 8,683 8,900 9,114 9,321 9,348 9,376 9,541 9,765 9,919 10,166 7,933 7,937 7,965 7,836 7,874 7,901 7,928 7,992 8,062 8,056 8,119 8,282 8,513 8,826 16,853 16,771 16,879 16,709 16,639 16,629 16,545 16,602 16,582 16,730 17,248 17,773 18,332 19,003 12,139 12,231 12,348 12,098 11,955 11,746 11,529 11,354 11,293 11,190 11,260 11,521 11,873 12,290 16,625 16,540 16,689 16,498 16,401 16,237 16,038 15,731 15,398 15,125 15,010 14,902 14,934 15,039 12,802 12,945 13,151 13,105 13,241 13,321 13,211 13,091 12,944 12,627 12,495 12,488 12,608 12,826 13,505 13,709 14,213 14,148 14,164 14,236 14,302 14,556 14,694 14,763 15,008 15,260 15,438 15,815 12,743 12,932 13,217 12,813 12,880 13,029 13,049 12,964 13,089 13,247 13,544 14,008 14,428 14,864 17,992 17,897 17,783 17,477 17,321 17,078 16,909 16,733 16,574 16,307 16,230 16,217 16,278 16,468 13,330 13,324 13,376 12,971 12,953 12,798 12,710 12,889 12,973 12,998 13,158 13,366 13,588 13,931 18,996 18,840 18,959 18,482 18,209 18,058 17,845 17,824 17,941 18,080 18,265 18,421 18,689 18,941 13,544 13,756 14,112 14,126 14,235 14,350 14,351 14,484 14,613 14,660 14,701 14,778 14,967 15,260 18,669 18,677 18,694 18,467 18,430 18,419 18,335 18,345 18,229 18,010 18,003 18,107 18,433 18,865 12,712 12,437 12,433 11,902 11,631 11,421 11,275 11,211 11,191 11,185 11,265 11,499 11,946 12,555 10,803 10,887 11,190 11,045 11,098 11,112 11,135 11,302 11,569 11,849 12,170 12,468 12,683 12,886 10,834 10,850 10,930 10,720 10,683 10,664 10,615 10,626 10,611 10,530 10,575 10,658 10,782 11,078 15,404 15,460 15,550 15,395 15,431 15,410 15,349 15,202 14,991 14,718 14,607 14,526 14,639 14,807 15,045 15,099 15,171 15,029 14,952 15,073 15,027 15,004 14,951 14,794 14,685 14,753 14,918 15,264 13,416 13,266 13,490 13,291 13,382 13,425 13,551 13,675 13,878 13,904 13,992 14,120 14,413 14,853 11,445 11,370 11,518 11,205 11,341 11,401 11,471 11,549 11,505 11,453 11,597 11,892 12,211 12,794 17,484 17,623 17,915 17,666 17,818 17,778 17,855 17,889 17,805 17,706 17,886 18,051 18,352 18,860 15,881 16,037 16,352 16,210 16,313 16,312 16,390 16,442 378,582 378,911 383,348 377,536 377,742 377,180 376,459 376,812 377,007 376,347 379,828 385,015 392,213 402,320 Thames 7,299 7,163 7,185 6,924 6,762 6,730 6,784 6,775 6,849 6,899 6,966 6,999 7,076 7,182 TOTAL Annex 6C: Borough School Roll Projections Ages 11-15 Projections School Roll Annex 6C: Borough District Barking and Dagenham 10,720 10,908 10,990 10,793 10,878 10,815 10,646 10,518 10,499 10,574 10,782 11,133 11,656 12,191 Richmond upon Barnet Southwark Bexley Sutton Brent Tower Hamlets Tower Bromley Waltham Forest Waltham Camden Wandsworth City of London Westminster Croydon Ealing Enfield Greenwich Hackney Hammersmith and Fulham 5,736 5,546 5,593 5,411 5,315 5,241 5,267 5,336 5,393 5,442 5,548 5,653 5,760 5,852 Haringey Harrow Havering Hillingdon Hounslow Islington Kensington and ChelseaKensington 3,032 3,004 3,019 2,956 2,957 2,949 2,911 2,883 2,856 2,835 2,833 2,877 2,913 2,962 Kingston upon Thames upon Kingston 7,490 7,412 7,428 7,366 7,337 7,360 7,394 7,409 7,421 7,412 7,452 7,551 7,694 7,899 Lambeth Lewisham Merton Newham Redbridge 211 5,035 5,066 4,990 4,894 4,859 4,819 00000000000000 25 33 34 15 27 26 26 25 25 26 25 25 25 24 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 644 764 845 776 784 783 775 768 760 768 776 782 796 808 700 748 768 844 853 844 851 826 814 833 848 846 843 839 475 457 534 599 617 631 641 660 671 671 668 671 671 669 317 341 323 340 329 327 329 324 332 339 337 336 339 340 603 702 723 829 828 816 823 823 839 848 829 808 791 765 632 682 673 624 669 670 664 656 648 665 670 656 643 637 944 667 703 745 707 699 697 689 704 714 706 700 701 695 4,061 4,074 4,304 4,309 4,258 4,213 4,233 4,280 4,280 4,357 4,446 4,535 4,628 4,600 2,663 2,864 2,994 3,119 3,095 3,026 3,016 2,979 2,908 2,818 2,734 2,727 2,732 2,674 3,185 3,216 3,303 3,361 3,368 3,362 3,397 3,392 3,333 3,314 3,262 3,170 3,146 3,091 3,595 3,642 3,678 3,721 3,796 3,825 3,822 3,798 3,794 3,878 3,913 3,872 3,871 3,855 1,473 1,444 1,505 1,672 1,686 1,633 1,611 1,647 1,656 1,699 1,718 1,714 1,733 1,774 4,436 4,582 4,681 4,754 4,740 4,704 4,647 4,577 4,518 4,508 4,462 4,404 4,347 4,292 2,438 2,536 2,604 2,604 2,627 2,602 2,596 2,567 2,530 2,530 2,565 2,592 2,620 2,651 1,849 1,966 2,013 1,999 1,996 1,988 1,957 1,946 1,945 1,993 1,999 2,024 2,046 2,047 1,491 1,414 1,442 1,542 1,528 1,535 1,565 1,596 1,625 1,654 1,633 1,597 1,616 1,626 1,726 1,742 1,924 2,385 2,591 2,543 2,487 2,461 2,438 2,466 2,509 2,551 2,567 2,549 2,308 2,283 2,307 2,408 2,488 2,517 2,550 2,510 2,478 2,506 2,532 2,533 2,507 2,464 3,467 3,467 3,702 3,596 3,606 3,601 3,527 3,452 3,452 3,498 3,486 3,427 3,376 3,358 2,517 2,723 2,890 3,003 3,015 2,961 2,901 2,857 2,838 2,876 2,929 2,981 3,055 3,115 1,340 1,498 1,809 2,217 2,614 2,737 2,739 2,694 2,673 2,720 2,764 2,809 2,852 2,865 1,159 1,148 1,152 1,196 1,179 1,161 1,162 1,153 1,132 1,111 1,085 1,081 1,055 1,012 3,016 3,190 3,369 3,385 3,481 3,393 3,355 3,308 3,259 3,292 3,338 3,317 3,287 3,242 3,257 3,319 3,347 3,284 3,303 3,291 3,283 3,268 3,265 3,378 3,433 3,481 3,477 3,406 1,651 1,705 1,984 1,915 1,842 1,817 1,778 1,782 1,802 1,840 1,852 1,851 1,881 1,888 4,483 4,607 4,788 5,018 5,171 5,140 5,077 5,035 59,965 61,453 64,305 66,247 67,267 66,859 66,450 65,974 65,710 66,405 66,587 66,519 66,634 66,284 Thames 15 2 15 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 10 10 10 10 TOTAL Annex 6C: Borough School Roll Projections Ages 16-19 Projections School Roll Annex 6C: Borough District Barking and Dagenham 1,650 1,723 1,847 1,928 1,958 1,949 1,966 1,915 1,907 1,935 1,934 1,925 1,908 1,935 Richmond upon Barnet Southwark Bexley Sutton Brent Tower Hamlets Tower Bromley Waltham Forest Waltham Camden Wandsworth City of London Westminster Croydon Ealing Enfield Greenwich Hackney Hammersmith and Fulham 1,251 1,238 1,238 1,247 1,289 1,262 1,217 1,216 1,235 1,259 1,284 1,327 1,371 1,383 Haringey Harrow Havering Hillingdon Hounslow Islington Kensington and ChelseaKensington 488 509 509 490 490 490 496 509 529 535 534 536 542 555 Kingston upon Thames upon Kingston 2,106 2,167 2,297 2,315 2,324 2,305 2,254 2,253 2,277 2,299 2,316 2,337 2,339 2,296 Lambeth Lewisham Merton Newham Redbridge 212 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report 0 82,014 0 29,938 0 52,375 0 1,763 13,055 0 0 0 0 20,355 4,250 4,304 44,807 0 3,659 0 0 3,302 26,400 3,716 0 4,119 1,958 0 0 0 17,048 44,166 3,484 2,341 0 1,820 14,078 0 24,780 0 11,350 5,851 6,742 5,511 11,274 2,939 51,129 0 2,462 16,035 5,477 1,025 6,400 4,121 10,568 47,255 0 0 0 166,401 4,774 17,436 57,823 4,469 1,338 26,400 18,289 296,930 0 5,215 0 0 1,499 4,041 2,635 5,227 77,555 33,958 12,438 7,852 8,275 37,183 189,164 6,618 21,043 64,321 31,922 6,426 17,326 24,178 14,348 43,721 229,903 1,167 7,462 10,000 3,500 5,457 26,089 10,752 16,719 110,389 11,932 8,192 106,237 7,310 149,897 447,517 12,541 30,923 9,623 24,958 27,817 109,118 5,104 12,189 17,596 249,869 447,367 237,396 188,525 425,937 323,995 32,507 18,633 236,539 375,200 2,286,099 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 Total 121,945 61,802 135,973 126,794 261,474 16,149 119,228 99,420 33,681 976,466 640,820 552,551 433,081 886,024 797,116 216,710 347,236 427,842 695,141 4,996,521 Annex 7: Office Development Trends Total Completed Office Floorspace for Inner and Outer London (Financial Years 2000 to 2008) (Gross SQM) to 2008) (Gross Years 2000 London (Financial for Inner and Outer Floorspace Office Total Completed Trends Development Annex 7: Office Inner London Camden City of London Greenwich Hackney Hammersmith and Fulham 3,590 11,385 Islington Kensington and Chelsea Kensington Lambeth Lewisham Newham Southwark Tower Hamlets Tower Wandsworth Westminster Total 0 213 0 41,442 0 9,147 0 14,175 0 3,832 0 16,655 0 0 1,425 0 1,012 0 1,200 11,185 0 0 0 5,554 13,584 0 1,372 1,372 0 0 0 0 1,344 26,570 0 0 4,269 25,640 0 1,200 3,200 0 0 1,040 0 0 3,088 1,668 11,079 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,345 0 0 3,340 5,749 12,410 48,450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,770 4,133 0 1,467 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,042 35,562 3,165 5,038 144,885 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,720 3,024 1,008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,860 0 10,600 0 0 0 2,347 0 0 0 0 0 2,480 790 8,780 10,290 1,164 4,570 4,603 33,677 0 0 2,323 12,077 10,693 0 0 0 2,500 1,004 12,992 3,561 1,840 0 0 2,000 0 0 2,640 0 11,218 15,472 0 5,274 2,756 0 6,323 0 0 1,485 0 2,230 1,040 13,385 0 0 1,384 1,000 1,068 1,858 7,646 22,087 13,133 1,404 1,734 1,330 9,362 1,129 4,916 62,741 3,329 1,425 3,260 1,115 6,203 5,754 2,797 2,242 1,012 74,460 3,253 12,080 9,285 96,442 55,625 59,987 58,506 47,716 25,726 63,754 18,741 43,574 470,071 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 Total 737,262 608,176 493,068 944,530 844,832 242,436 410,990 446,583 738,715 5,466,592 Outer London Outer Barking and Dagenham Barnet Bexley Brent Bromley Croydon Ealing Enfield Haringey Harrow Havering Hillingdon Hounslow Kingston upon Thames upon Kingston Merton Redbridge Richmond upon Thames Richmond upon Sutton Waltham Forest Waltham Total London Total London 214 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report

Annex 8: Respondents to the Outer London Commission Formal (written) responses were received from the following (52 respondents):

Arup London South East Business BAA Heathrow London Thames Gateway Development Berkeley Group (AW Pidgley) Corporation (LTGDC) Campaign for Better Transport, London Cycling London TravelWatch Campaign and Living Streets Motorcycle Industry Association City of London North London Strategic Alliance (NLSA) Colin Buchanan & Partners Peter Eversden (member of public) Daniel Nolan-Neylan (member of public) Places for People East London Line Group Quintain Estates Hillingdon Motorists Forum Regional Airports Ltd Land Securities RICS London (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors) London Assembly Liberal Democrat Group Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames London Borough of Barking & Dagenham South East England Regional Partnership Board (formerly SEERA) South London Partnership & South London Business London Borough of Bromley Surrey County Council London Borough of Croydon Sustrans London Borough of Enfield Thames Gateway London Partnership (TGLP) London Borough of Greenwich The Theatres Trust London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Transport for London London Borough of Havering Travelodge London Borough of Lewisham University of East London West London Alliance London Borough of Newham West London Business London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Westfield Shoppingtowns Ltd (WSL) London Councils White City Landowners with the support of London First London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham The London Primary Care Trusts (submitted by Jones Lang LaSalle) 215

Annex footnotes

Background 1 Counties are currently the smallest areas surrounding Outer London for which robust time series employment data are available. The employment data are sourced from the Experian Business Strategies Regional Planning Service (RPS) and are not official GLA long- run employment data which are currently being updated. Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:

Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority Telephone 020 7983 4100 City Hall Minicom 020 7983 4458 The Queen’s Walk www.london.gov.uk More London London SE1 2AA

You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.

If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above.

Chinese Hindi

Vietnamese Bengali

Greek Urdu

Turkish Arabic

Punjabi Gujarati

MoL/June10/MR D&P/GLA1510 1 Ipsummy nosto consequis non er sis acil June 2010 The Mayor’s OLC Report