The GLA has commissioned four reports into development density that it will use to inform the London Plan, due for release in spring 2017.
Recommendations include density allowances based on local amenities, not on the definitions of planners; a minimum level of densification, increased scrutiny for schemes of more than 500 dwellings per ha, and an evolution of the methods of density allocation.
While the density of housing development in London has increased markedly over recent years, the number of homes being built has not, implying that there is more land available for development. The GLA is looking for ways to encourage more being built.
However, when the reports were discussed at a London Assembly planning meeting, Conservative councillor Andrew Boff slammed them for looking at only the economic and practical sides of densification.
“Did we ask to see what the health and social outcomes were for the different typologies of building?” he asked the GLA’s planning team.
He also said that he was astonished one of the reports did not suggest a maximum density for development, saying one of the of reasons for lower density was health related, and that it risked turning London into a favela.
The reports:
1. Defining, measuring and implementing density standards in London, LSE
What: The report looks into the methods of measuring density used by the GLA to ensure housing is available, suitable and has access to services.
It says: While density in the capital has increased since the introduction of the London plan, its attempts at a density matrix and definitions high-density areas have had only partial success and have more been the result of shifts in market pressures. Furthermore, while density has increased, the number of homes being built has not increased.
It recommends:
■ a new flexible method of density measurement, based on people’s behaviour, rather than what is defined by planners;
■ encouraging higher densities than those set by planners, with minimum density standards, and no need for a maximum limit;
■ accepting that the GLA cannot enforce density, and that the responsibility of decisions should rest on local decisions.
2. Lessons from higher-density development, Three Dragons
What: The report looks at schemes that have been completed in London that are above the general accepted levels of density, and identifies problems with them.
It says: Densities above the set density matrix are achieved through a wide variety of buildings, and there are no systemic problems with high-density schemes, provided they are well planned from the outside. Key is external design, how they sit within their environment, and their management.
It recommends (in part):
■ that the GLA not prescribe a set format for high-density buildings;
■ there should be additional scrutiny once schemes reach a density of 500 dwellings per ha;
■ active commercial frontages should be encouraged and management quality should be ensured.
3. Exploring character and development density, ARUP
What: An examination of the use of the SRQ Matrix in the London Plan and the character map in the London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment to help define levels of density.
It says: The SRQ matrix provides density ranges based on transport links and the setting of an area, while the character map is essentially a map of the same characteristics. Both are used in conjunction to guide density, and should continue to be, though there should be an evolution.
It recommends:
■ the character map should be evolved to current standards for buffer zones around town centres;
■ factors being used to the inform the matrix should be simplified.
4. Why else is density important? LSE London
What: Density is currently being studied as a way of increasing the number of homes in London while maintaining quality and accessibility, but other benefits from density should also be studied.
It says: Other advantages should include enhancing economic productivity, making travel more sustainable, a better mix of new dwellings, and more productive workforces. These can be gained across the city as a whole, and on a micro, urban centre, basis.
It suggests:
■ on a macro basis, there are reasons to believe increased employment in the metropolitan economy enhances national productivity, but this growth can be modest and offset by extra costs such as pollution and congestion;
■ on a micro basis, although there is evidence to suggest that densification in particular zones works, it is hard to judge what effect it has because it reflects market choice as much as policy steer. Density policies should be about longer-term development, and in this case it cannot be substituted for taking a spatially wider view.
To send feedback, e-mail alex.peace@egi.co.uk or tweet @egalexpeace or @estatesgazette
