London scoping - ukcip

Final Report
120
Temperature Change
Under GM, we would envisage more individualistic lifestyles. More ‘private’ and individual
solutions to hotter buildings would be sought. Hence, the richer households would simply
install AC systems, and the waste heat from these would be distributed locally, increasing the
problem of over heating for those (presumably less well off) without AC. Climate change
would, therefore, indirectly increase inequality between the better- and worse-off. The high
economic growth rate would ensure that AC is provided as standard in many new properties. It
would also mean that AC could be retrofitted into much of the existing building stock.
However, there would still be much cheaper property where AC is not installed for financial
reasons, with potential increases in inequality.
More privately-owned open spaces would also be fenced-off and protected to prevent use by
others. There would be an increasing tendency for private purchasing of parks and gardens in
squares or other local areas, for example; these would then be closed-off to members of the
public and only available to members with property rights or who are prepared to pay fees.
Disputes over noise pollution might be heightened under GM and there would be more recourse
to ‘private’ mechanisms for dealing with social conflict, e.g. use of the legal system for the
wealthier members of society.
Under RS, by contrast, there would be a stronger tradition of communal living and a greater
willingness to engage in outdoor social activities with neighbours. Also, the risks of crime
would be reduced through neighbourhood watch schemes, etc. On the other hand, under RS
there would be less resource available for the retrofit design of older properties, due to generally
lower wealth and less disposable income in this scenario. There would be a preference for using
natural ventilation for cooling of domestic and less prestigious commercial buildings, not only
because it is deemed to be more sustainable, but also because of the extra costs imposed by AC,
which are less readily absorbed in RS.
There is likely to be a greater demand for new housing under GM than RS, because of more
single-occupancy (a consequence of the continued trend towards individualistic lifestyles) and
more inward migration. Hence, the overall density of development would increase and potential
problems of urban heat islands would become more severe. Under RS, however, more of the
new build would probably be communal and there would be a preference for higher urban
density in order to free-up more land for green spaces. The thermal mass of such development
could, potentially, increase the heat discomfort experienced. Inclusion of natural ventilation in
the design would assist the alleviation of high temperatures. It is not known (with out more
detailed modelling) whether such approaches would work adequately with a lower level of
climate change. Natural ventilation approaches would probably not be sufficient in an RS
scenario for London with high climate change.
6.9 Education
6.9.1 Context
Educational performance varies considerably across London, with lowest performance in the
inner city boroughs of Islington and Haringey, and the highest performance in the boroughs of
Sutton, Kingston and Redbridge (LHC 2002).