London scoping - ukcip

Final Report
127
future, as there is an acceleration of global environmental change. The political pressure
generated by many more refugees would be significant.
To summarise, the workshop concluded that climate change would not substantially effect the
net migration into and out of London. It could, however, accentuate the existing trends of
outward migration and, to a lesser extent, inward migration, though to what extent is very
difficult to assess, and possible effects are discussed in relation to the supply of labour for some
industries, in the Economic Impacts section below. If climate change did influence the overall
attractiveness of London as a global economic centre, then this could also influence netmigration.
6.10.5 Socio-Economic Scenario Differences
Under a GM world, the role of strategic planning and oversight of the development of land in
east London would be fairly limited. It would be more or less the prerogative of private
developers to decide on their own development strategies and priorities, within broadly
construed, but not overly prescriptive, guidance. Under the RS scenario, planning would
become much more important and there would be greater use of regulation and guidance, with
an emphasis on ‘appropriate development’ given flood risk and urban redevelopment priorities.
RS would favour ‘green corridor’ approaches (though in addition to, not at the expense of, green
belt) with some managed retreat of the existing defences in selected locations.
6.10.6 Adaptation Options
There is some discussion within the Thames Gateway partners and London planning community
of whether a green corridor alongside the south and north banks of the Thames could be
included as an integral part of the Thames Gateway. This would, inevitably, limit the area of
land available for redevelopment. Hence, there may be a need for more land to be made
available elsewhere within the target development area. One idea that has been mooted, is to
relax the Green Belt on the north easterly and easterly fringe of Greater London in certain
locations, but then to compensate for the loss of green land by the creation of ‘green corridors’
that radiate from the outskirts into the inner city. Such green corridors would follow river
valleys where possible (e.g. River Lee) and would have other social and environmental benefits
(e.g. recreational and leisure use).
A more radical way to allow high levels of urban development in areas at risk from flooding
might be to restrict the time span over which planning permission is granted. This would retain
the flexibility over future policy options which is desired by the Environment Agency, whilst
facilitating development which clearly has multiple economic and social benefits. Planning
permission in a new development could be permitted, but only for, say, 50 years into the future.
The construction and infrastructure would need to take full account of the limited time-span. In
practice, however, it is very difficult to imagine whether the population of an area would ever
accept the need to ‘move on’ and find somewhere else to live, especially since most of them
would not be the same individuals who invested in the area originally. The financial prospects
of investing in an area with a limited timespan is also doubtful, unless demand was extremely
high and no other credible alternatives existed. Why, in the last analysis, would any one wish to
buy or invest in a property in such an area, especially with elapse of time? Limiting the flood
defence protection available to the area (to reduce the expectation that flood protection would be
provided beyond the planning time horizon) would simply exacerbate the problem of ‘property
blight’.