The Mayor's Outer London Commission: Report - Greater London ...

partnershipforyounglondon.org.uk
  • No tags were found...

The Mayor's Outer London Commission: Report - Greater London ...

Greater London AuthorityJune 2010Published byGreater London AuthorityCity HallThe Queen’s WalkMore LondonLondon SE1 2AAwww.london.gov.ukenquiries 020 7983 4100minicom 020 7983 4458ISBN 978-1-84781-378-7Photographs:cover picture © TfL Visual Image Service.Copies of this report are available fromwww.london.gov.ukPrinted on Evolution Satin paper:75 per cent recycled fibre content;25 per cent virgin fibre, 10 per cent FSC sourced;FSC and NAPM certified.


Foreword5Dear Mr MayorI have pleasure in submitting the final report ofthe Outer London Commission. It outlines thework we have undertaken and the research andconsultation responses on which we have drawnin coming to our conclusions, and then sets outour findings and recommendations.It is clear that outer London has many strengthsand huge potential on which it can build inensuring it takes its place in supporting thefuture prosperity of those living and workingthere and, indeed, of the capital as a whole.Among its key assets are the imagination andhard work of those working on the ground,many of whom we have met during our work.In submitting this report I would like to thankmy fellow Commissioners – and those in the GLAgroup, who supported them - for all their hardwork and commitment in enabling this report tobe presentedWilliam McKeeChair, Outer London Commission


11we are pleased to see the concept takenforward in the draft Plan’s policy on‘strategic outer London Developmentcentres’.Extending into the Green Belt?18 The Commission considered whetherstrategic extensions of provision forbusiness activity in to the Green Belt wasnecessary to realise the economic potentialof outer London. We have concludedthat as a strategic principle this wasunnecessary and wasteful in terms of theuse of land and existing infrastructure.Making the most of existing places19 As well as exploring new types ofbusiness location, the Commission alsoinvestigated the performance of existingplanning structures and ways in whichthey could more effectively realise outerLondon’s potential to contribute to themetropolitan economy. An over-archingtheme was the importance of using a‘star and cluster’ based approach tocoordinating development, and within thisto ensure that town centres develop as itsfundamental building block.Inter and intra-regional working20 The Commission was very consciousthat London is part of a much wider cityregion and of the need for the planningsystem to address this in a concrete wayif outer London is to realise its potential.This is most apparent for transport - aswell as the need for strategic coordinationof limited transport capacity, there isparticular growth in out-commuting whichmust be encouraged to move towardspublic transport. It extends to the widercoordination of land use and transportinvestment for the benefit of the cityregion as a whole, as well as to morespecific issues like waste management,logistics coordination, more positive useof the Green Belt and establishment of alevel playing field for parking policy (inline with government’s regional policy).With some notable exceptions, and whilerecognising the uncertainty over regionalworking outside London, cross borderarrangements to address these (especiallyalong strategic ‘Corridors’) appear torequire rejuvenation.21 It will be important to ensure thatouter London makes the most ofthe development and regenerationopportunities that may arise fromnational and regional transport andother infrastructural investment (withprojects like Crossrail or High Speed 2,for example). Similarly, the importanceof airports will remain a major economicdriver for outer London. As alreadyindicated, joint local and strategic workingis vital to resolve local environmentaland other concerns with wider strategiceconomic objectives.22 Within London, it must be recognisedthat there is no hard and fast dividingline between its inner and outer parts.Irrespective of administrative boundaries


12 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportit is essential that for policy purposesboundaries are regarded as permeable.The Commission supports the Mayor’spositive response in the DRLP to itsrecommendation that, on balance,Newham is more properly considered to bepart of inner London.Sub-regional structures23 The Commission supports the view thata ‘one size fits all’ structure to coordinatesub-regional activity would not be fitfor all economic development purposes.However, it did stress the importance ofsustaining an effective sub-regional facilityto support and inform the importantstep down from pan-London policyprinciples to the geographically specificdetail required at local level. It noted thevariety in current arrangements and theneed to ensure that they remained fit forpurpose as well as providing the strongleadership necessary to respond positivelyto changing circumstances.Town Centres24 The Commission’s work showed that60 per cent of employment in outerLondon took place in its main towncentres. Coupled with the other rolesof these centres, this supports the viewthat they should be developed as thesingle most important set of businesslocations outside central London; and thatthe focus here should be on promotingaccess to a competitive selection of goodsand services, foregrounding the use ofmore environmentally-friendly modesof transport. The Commission stressedthe need for tempering ambitions forlocal centres with economic realism andrecognition of the different roles eachcentres plays in the broad town centrenetwork. Its recommendations to supportthis included:• the need for real partnership working,including possible use of land acquisitionpowers to assemble sites:• measures to enhance their quality andoffers:• guidance on a creative approach to mixeduse development including increasedtown centre related residential provision;• the importance of a sensitive approach toparking policy:• maintenance of London’s distinctapproach to the ‘sequential test’:• closer integration of the investmentpriorities and initiatives of the GLAGroup and other agencies such as theHomes and Communities Agency, aswell as the boroughs and other relevantstakeholders; and,• the potential to develop emerging resultsfrom GLA research on use of the planningsystem to secure small shop provision sothat large new retail developments cancontribute to relevant aspects of localtown centre renewal.Opportunity Areas and Areas ofIntensification25 The Commission supports these asmechanisms to bring forward capacity fordevelopment in an integrated, sustainableway. The GLA should continue to work


13with boroughs and other stakeholdersto investigate whether the concepts canbe extended elsewhere. However, theCommission was concerned at the slowrate of progress in bringing forward someOpportunity/Intensification Area PlanningFrameworks.Industrial Land26 Careful management of strategic andlocal industrial capacity remains essential,especially to accommodate the relativelylow-value but vital functions which itsupports. The Commission has madespecific recommendations over policy tosecure an adequate quantity of provisionas well as the need to place greateremphasis on quality, including improvedlocal road access.The potential for growth in differenteconomic sectors27 The Commission identifies four maingrowth sectors for the outer Londoneconomy: office-based work (includingthe public sector); knowledge-basedindustries; leisure, tourism and culture;and retail. Each of these will require aparticular set of approaches, which weoutline below:Office based sectors28 The Commission recommends a realisticand proactive approach to officedevelopment where increased economicpotential can be clearly identified - thefocus needs to be on the most competitivelocations for future growth complementedby recognition that structural change inparts of the outer London office marketlooks set to continue.29 The Commission’s report provides detailedsuggestions on how the release of surplusoffice provision might be managed,taking into account the continuing needfor some lower cost accommodation, thesignificance of phasing in this process,the importance of an attractive businessenvironment as part of a broader mix ofuses, a sensitive approach to car parkingand the role of re-positioning and rebrandingthe most competitive elementsof outer London’s office offer. This mightbe supported by use of the mixed-use‘swaps’ concept in competitive locations.‘Knowledge based’, ‘Creative’and ‘Green sectors’.30 While many consultees lauded thepotential of these sectors it was noted thatthere did not appear to be a universallyagreed definition of the terms (andindeed, some overlap between them). TheGLA could usefully address this, linking itas far as possible to the planning process.31 Looking at these sectors raises thequestion of whether outer Londonlacks information and communicationstechnology infrastructure and whetherthe public sector or effective planningcan help address this. Taking this further,there may be scope to encourage home(or near-home) working, with new forms


14 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportof infrastructure or locally based businesssupport services (local ICT “hubs” givingSMEs and individual workers accessto the kind of sophisticated ICT thatthey could not economically afford tobuy themselves, for example). We havesuggested that public libraries or ‘touchdown’ centres with provision for meetings,possibly provided by large, centrally basedfirms, might have a role in this. In additionBoroughs could take a more proactiveapproach to extending fibre optic cableor WIFI networks to enhance capacity toserve such centres – the London Chamberof Commerce and Industry would behappy to work in partnership to progressthis.32 The GLA group could usefully reconsiderif there is a case for public sectorintervention to support the provision ofinnovation parks so that similar, relatedsmall or medium-sized businesses cancluster together, and this might requireactive public intervention.Public sector33 While recognising central government’sviews on dispersal of its activities, outerLondon is clearly a cost-effective placefor government and other public sectorfunctions, such as health, judicial andeducation functions of greater thansub- regional importance – and can bepromoted as such. This might includebuilding links to existing central Londoninstitutions and to local labour markets.The potential here is to use highereducation institutions and hospitals as afocus of regeneration. Putting HE and FEinstitutions (or satellites of institutionsbased elsewhere) in outer London hasthe further benefit of developing thelocal labour market by helping people toimprove their skills and employability.Leisure and culture34 There is considerable potential for growthin the spectrum of leisure activitiesincluding arts and culture, tourism andlocal leisure activities. These both makeouter London an attractive, ‘liveable’place for Londoners and offer potentialfor development of a visitor economyfollowing successful examples such asKew Gardens. The Commission welcomesstrategic support and encouragementto identify more hotel capacity in outerLondon, especially in and around towncentres.35 The Commission has noted the imbalancebetween the number of cultural facilitiesin outer London and the amount ofpublic funding available (most of whichin the capital goes to central London). Itrecommends that this imbalance should bereviewed. This should be complemented bymore positive marketing of outer London’sdistinct attractions, particularly its leisureand cultural clusters. Local regenerationcan be prompted by a more proactiveapproach to the ‘cultural quarter’ concept.36 The possibility of large scale commercialleisure, perhaps of international


15significance could also be explored. At theother end of the scale, we believe thereis scope for the rejuvenation of many ofouter London’s medium-sized theatres,and extending their use for purposes suchas art house cinemas.37 Some parts of outer London have seen arapid growth in the night time economy.It is important to remember, though, thatareas with a night time economy requireeffective management and promotion toensure that they remain attractive andsafe, and that potential negative impactson local residents and businesses aremanaged effectively.Retail38 Consumer spending will be a vitaleconomic driver in outer London,underscoring the importance of retail here.New retail should be focused on towncentres and provided in ways that seekto enhance their distinct characteristics –there is no reason why even a centre witha large number of national stores shouldbe a “clone town”, and places with adistinct feel and character are likely to bethose that will thrive. At neighbourhoodand more local centre level there isscope to integrate new retail provisioninto larger, predominantly residentialdevelopments to support place shaping aswell as providing essential services.39 The Commission believes that efficientmanagement of town centres is vitalparticularlywhen combined with targetedinvestment and regeneration of particularcentres. The London Development Agencyhas a particular role to play both inhelping support the extension of modelslike Business Improvement Districts andmore directly through supporting siteassembly. Transport issues need to begiven particular emphasis, especiallyencouraging access to and within centresby walking and cycling.40 There is a need to understand and buildupon the distinctive character and role ofdifferent types of centre, ranging from theMetropolitan centres, with their particulartransport needs, through to smallerDistrict and Neighbourhood centres.Each has an important part to play, andmaintaining the kind of network that hasbeen one of outer London’s real strengthswill require careful and realistic planning.The tools that could be used to achievethis include policies to encourage a diverseand vibrant retail mix across centres, suchas supporting the provision of affordableshop units, and promoting street marketsto enhance vitality of town centres.Greater encouragement of walking andcycling as more environmentally soundand healthier means of getting into andgoing around town centres is also essentialThe Outer London labour marketSkills41 In terms of school-age education, outerLondon out performs inner London - itsresidents have higher rates of employment


16 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportand lower rates of worklessness thaninner London residents. It has moreeconomically active people than that innerLondon – partly because it has a large,albeit slowly growing, employment baseof its own, and partly because it is hometo many Londoners who work elsewhere,especially in inner London.42 To build on this success, it is vital that thedistinctive skills needs of outer Londonare addressed. Public sector investment inskills is targeted on need not geography,and this tends to result in broad-brushapproaches tackling broad-based areasof need. Outer London should not beoverlooked. The Commission recommendsthat the LDA should adopt an approach tocommissioning training and skills provisionwhich will provide further opportunities forlocally driven responses while deliveringstrategic outcomes.Transport and outer London43 Transport is a huge issue for outer London.Before summarising the Commissionsconsiderations for different issues, itagreed some general principles to informits detailed recommendations:44 Most importantly, the Commission hastaken seriously the need to ensure thatwhat it says about transport is realistic –public sector resources are tight and likelyto be tighter. Investment in transportinfrastructure will require a strongbusiness case. For outer London thiswill mean considering the extent of thebenefit it will bring whether in transportterms (such as travel time savings) or inthe development it can support. Thesejudgements will have to be informed bythe distribution and density of population,jobs and development. Having enteredthese caveats, the Commission considersit is essential that investment in transportinfrastructure specific to outer London,its unique character and distinctive needsis not neglected. Outer London doesbenefit from pan-London and radialimprovements, however, and these shouldnot be seen as polar opposites locked in azero-sum game.45 These considerations were weighed bythe Commission in considering the casemade by a number of stakeholders for ahigh-speed, contiguous orbital transportsystem. It concluded that a “star andcluster” model (see Figure 1) offers a moreeffective and practical model to meet theneeds of the constellation of centres andemployment locations characterising outerLondon. Orbital movement around Londoncan also be facilitated by developing andimproving strategic interchanges andensuring the most is made of existinglinks.


18 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportdealing with things like ensuring aliveable public realm and easy accessto local services. There is particularpotential to encourage cycling andwalking to and in town centres, whichwill have health and environmental aswell as transport and health benefits andshould be promoted as modes of choice.There is a particular case for leadershipby boroughs in developing cycle hubsand promoting cycling. The Commissionsupports a combination of incentivesand investment to encourage thesesustainable modes, and to give a realchoice not to use private cars.• The car is likely to remain a key modefor many trips in outer London, however.The Commission recommends moreeffective road management and crossboroughwork to address congestion.These should include ways of improvingfreight transport and servicing andreducing the need for “school runs”. Italso supports speeding up the processfor approval of highway projects. Thereis scope to reduce local traffic throughbetter integration of land use andtransport planning, especially in relationto local retail centres, and for somelocal enhancements to road capacity toaddress particular congestion problems.Alongside these steps, the Commissionconsiders there is a role for demandmanagement measures, potentiallyincluding road user charging in the longerterm. Consideration should also be givento more effective ways of managing roadworks.Car parking policy in outer Londonshould be developed on an individual andlocal basis – a “one size fits all” approachis not appropriate to such a diversearea. A balance must be struck betweenpromoting new development andpreventing excessive parking provisionwhich can discourage sustainable modesand increase congestion.The Commission suggests a flexibleapproach. It recognises the point madeby many developers that the lack ofonsite parking for office developmentsin outer London puts them at adisadvantage compared with centresoutside London. There is also a casefor liberalisation in town centres inneed of regeneration. The Commissiontherefore recommends a selective reviewof parking policies. It also supportspark and ride schemes where these willreduce congestion and journey times andpromotion of car sharing and car clubs.• Freight: Increases in the density ofcommercial activity across London,including outer London, will requirelogistics premises to support theassociated demand in freight andservicing vehicles. This may includethe need for consolidation centres,but the case for them still needs tobe understood further. In addition tomanaging congestion at key locationsin outer London, increasing the role ofrail and river in freight movements willrelieve some of the pressures on the roadnetwork. However, it is essential to takerealistic account of the primary role of


19road transport in sustaining London’sindustrial and other business locationsso that they can realise their potentialcontribution to the wider metropolitaneconomy.Outer London as a place to live47 The Commission is clear that economicissues cannot and should not beconsidered in a vacuum, and throughoutits work it has taken account of the rangeof likely benefits of a more polycentricapproach to development, while avoidingsimplistic links between populationgrowth and job creation. It makes clearthe importance of “place-shaping” andensuring new development fits in withlocal needs and heritage, so places areattractive to live in as well as work in.This will require encouragement of mixeduse development and support for localcapacity-building, high quality design andappropriate development densities.48 While it is important to encourageaffordable family housing, there is alsoa need to accommodate the needs ofsmaller households. All housing shouldbe of high quality; the Commission alsorecommends that a closer look shouldbe taken at the links between housingdensity, accessibility and parking provision– all things that form the sense of placeand neighbourhood and can help makebetter places to live.49 As its ‘pure’ economic recommendationsabove make clear, the Commissionwas conscious that improving housingprovision to meet local needs and tosupport the wider London economy doesnot mean relegating outer London to a‘dormitory’ role – an important concern forsome of its respondents. Indeed, increasedhousing provision can, coincidentallyincrease local jobs. One element in thiswould be a more consistent approachto implementation of housing densitypolicy. Emerging density policy appearsto place greater emphasis on respectinglocal context by responding sensitively todifferent local circumstance. This shouldenable boroughs to enhance capacityin appropriate locations such as towncentres, while supporting lower densitydevelopment in neighbourhoods servedless well by public transport. High qualitydesign is an essential complement to this.It is clear that housing policy cannot focussolely on numbers, and the Commissionstresses the importance of looking at hownew homes should be planned for, builtand supported with the social and otherinfrastructure which new and existingneighbourhoods need if they are to besustainable.50 Ensuring development of sustainablecommunities is likely to require newdelivery models. There may be particularscope for community-based initiatives.It will also be vital to make sure mayoralstrategies and their implementation are


20 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportcarefully coordinated to ensure publicinvestment secures the maximum benefit.Quality of life51 Maintaining and improving the quality oflife for those living and working in outerLondon is vital to realising its potentialcontributions to London as a whole.While the Commission’s recommendationssupport more development, it is alsoclear that it is important to ensure growthcan be harnessed and influenced to helpimprove the quality of places in outerLondon, and the quality of life for thoseliving there. In practice, this means takinga neighbourhood-based approach topromote and support local functions. Asalready mentioned, it strongly supportedapplication of the concept of “placemaking”and reinforcing the importanceof town centres. It also supported theidea of “lifetime neighbourhoods” – thosemeeting the needs of residents at allstages of their lives.52 The Commission would agree with itsmany respondents concerns over theneed to secure appropriate local socialinfrastructure (such as schools andhealthcare), to give greater attentionto London’s “green suburbs” and toenhance the semi-public realm and toensure its maintenance. As part of this, itsupports a general presumption againstdevelopment of back gardens where thisis a problem, and continued and vigorousprotection of the open spaces so vital topreservation of the quality of life in outerLondon. The Commission recommendsthat further work on these issues shouldbe undertaken at strategic level, includingupdating of the Mayor’s “Toolkit forTomorrow’s Suburbs”. There is a particularneed to develop new ways of enablinggreater community identity and cohesionto help foster a sense of ownership andempowerment in taking decisions aboutgrowth and development.53 The Commission noted the historicjustifications for targeting resourceson inner London because of theconcentration of problems of deprivationthere. It considered that if a more finegrainedapproach is taken, more localisedconcentrations of chronic deprivationcould be identified in outer London andthat there might be benefit for the capitalin considering the reallocation of some(but by no means all) social and localrenewal to realise the potential of thosewho are still disadvantaged, but not to theextent of those in the most acute need. Italso disagreed with the view that the lackof national funding programmes and ofstrong market drivers means that strategicmeasures to address outer London’s socialand physical infrastructure needs would bedifficult. The Commission recognises thatfinancial constraints limit the potential formajor infrastructure investment, but thisdoes not mean that it is not needed insome places, nor that innovative solutionscannot be found to address some of theseconstraints.


21The governance of change54 The Commission recognises that theLondon Development Agency (LDA)and Transport for London (TfL) arenow working to make outer London ahigher spatial priority in their investmentstrategies and plans. To support this, theLDA in particular should encourage localpartnerships by, for example, facilitatingland assembly, helping create capacity fortown centre management and identifyingdistinct outer London skills needs.55 The Commission supports streamliningof the development process in order toreduce the time spent on the planningpermission process and speed upthe production of local developmentframeworks. It supports boroughsretaining part of the national nondomesticrates paid by businesses in theirarea, and allowing them to borrow againstfuture Council Tax income. There is alsoroom for changes to national governmentpractice – in speeding up the identificationand disposal of surplus public land, forexample.some areas where further work shouldbe done – aspects of quality of life,institutional arrangements (especially interms of cross-boundary working), whatclimate change might mean for the areaand, in particular, the resources availableto help it realise its economic potentialand the scope to make London’s ‘spatialstrategy’ more effective in coordinatinginvestment beyond its traditional landuse, transport and environmental areasof concern. There are also some specificissues for further research, like thedefinition of ‘knowledge-based’ and‘green’ industries.57 In conclusion, the Commission suggeststhat consideration be given to maintaininga forum for outer London to advise onimplementation of the recommendationsin this report and, perhaps separately,to provide the basis for occasional, highlevel engagement with key stakeholdersin the outer London economy to identifyand assess emerging challenges andopportunities.The future56 This report marks the end of theCommission’s formal task. In looking backover its work, it reflects on the huge andincreasing diversity of outer London,and the many talented people it has inits businesses, voluntary organisations,communities and boroughs. It highlights


22 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report


1: Introduction231.1 The Outer London Commission (OLC)was formally established by the Mayor ofLondon in February 2009 as a small, highlyexperienced and focused group, to advisehow outer London can play its full part inthe city’s economic success. In short, itstask was to see how outer London couldbe given “a shot in the arm”, redressingwhat has been seen as an imbalance inthe attention given to outer London andrefocusing attention on a part of thecapital that plays so important a role inthe life of our city.Overall purpose of the report1.2 This is the Commission’s final report. It:• Examines the extent to which outerLondon has potential to contribute to theeconomic success of London as a whole• Identifies the factors which are holding itback from doing so, and• Makes recommendations on policies andmechanisms to enable to enable it to playits full part in London’s future success.The report addresses the fundamentalreasons for establishing the Commissionin the first place – to identify the capacityto grow the outer London economy ina sustainable way, removing barriersto growth for competitive, establishedsectors and to attract new ones; explorethe potential contribution of a fewlarge “growth hubs”; secure the widerrejuvenation of outer London’s towncentres and other business locations;improve outer London’s quality of life,business and residential environments;examine the relationship betweenpopulation, housing and economicgrowth and the infrastructure necessary tosupport this.Methodology1.3 The Commission has taken pains toensure its discussions, conclusions andrecommendations are based on credibleand robust evidence. Starting from a‘First Thoughts’ paper based on initiallyavailable information, the Commissionset out to establish a base line data setshowing as far as possible economicperformance and other trends over twobusiness cycles. It has gratefully usedpast research and studies (includingthat prepared for the GLA by RobinThompson) and has commissioned newwork where needed. It has also engagedin the evolution of the joint evidence basedeveloped by the GLA Group to supportthe draft replacement London Plan andthe Mayor’s draft Economic Developmentand Transport strategies.1.4 The Commission was clear from theoutset that the experiences, views andideas of those who have engaged withouter London and its issues over theyears would be an essential resourceon which it would need to draw. Withthis in mind the second step it tookwas an extensive series of consultationmeetings with outer London boroughs,business groups, civic amenity societies


24 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 1.1: Locations of OLC public meetings.and others to address the aspirationsof outer London and the priorities forpolicy intervention. The starting pointfor this was responses to a set of writtenquestions published on the Commission’swebsite (see Annex 2). In addition to theprovision of written questions, there weremore than thirty meetings of one to one/small group discussions with stakeholdersand ‘meetings in public’ in the quadrantsof outer London. Figure 1.1 shows thelocations of the public meetings:1.5 The next stage was to draw on the evidenceand views the Commission had gatheredto consider the spatial opportunities forouter London growth, taking particularaccount of the likely levels of investment intransport and accessibility.1.6 Finally, the Commission reached itsconclusions and made recommendations.As requested in its terms of reference, itprepared an interim report in June 2009 tohelp inform the draft replacement LondonPlan and other mayoral strategies issued


25Figure 1.2: The work of the Commission: a timelinefor consultation in October. This interimreport and evidence submitted to theCommission can be found at:http://www.london.gov.uk/olc/docs/interim-conclusions.pdf.1.7 This is our final report, which drawsour conclusions and recommendationstogether, and shows how these have beendeveloped, and the evidence on whichthey are based. This process has broadlyfollowed the “survey – analysis – plan”approach familiar to town planners indrawing up strategic policy.1.8 The period over which this work wascarried out is shown in Figure 1.2. Thisalso shows the relationship between theCommission’s work, and the processes forrevising the London Plan and the Mayor’sEconomic Development and Transportstrategies:The Commission1.9 The Commission was chaired by WilliamMcKee CBE, who has extensive experiencein both the public and private sectors. Itsmembership comprised representatives fromdiverse backgrounds including business,boroughs, architecture and design,developers and the voluntary sector:Chair: William McKee CBESir Terry Farrell, Adviser on architecture andcivic design


26 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportColin Stanbridge, London Chamber ofCommerce and IndustryCllr Mike Fisher, LB Croydon (nominated byLondon Councils)Cllr Clyde Loakes, LB Waltham Forest(nominated by London Councils)Cllr Serge Lourie, LB Richmond-upon-Thames (nominated by London Councils)Robert Heskett, Land SecuritiesTony Pidgley, Berkeley GroupNigel Keen, John Lewis PartnershipPeter Eversden, London Forum of Amenityand Civic SocietiesCorinne Swain, ArupProfessor Ian Gordon, London School ofEconomicsPeter Rogers/Peter Bishop, LondonDevelopment AgencyPeter Hendy/Michele Dix, Transport forLondonSecretariat: John Lett, Rob Coward, HannahPhillips (GLA), Peter Wright (TfL).Terms of Reference1.10 The Mayor set the Commission thefollowing terms of reference:“Identify the extent to which outer Londonhas unrealised potential to contributeto London’s economic success, identifythe factors which are holding it back andrecommend policies and proposals for thefuture development of outer London to theMayor for inclusion in the London Plan andother GLA group strategies and guidance.These should include:• Ways of encouraging employment growthin outer London.• Ways of identifying, and supporting thedevelopment of economic growth hubs inouter London.• The role of town centres and towncentre based initiatives such as businessimprovement districts and town centrepartnerships.• The role that heritage and urban designissues might play.• The links between housing, retail, officebased and other types of employmentand development in outer London.• Links between economic success andimproving quality of life in outer London,and ways of managing these effectively.• Infrastructure and other supportinginvestment required to support economicgrowth in outer London.• Methods of funding such infrastructureand investment.• Identify issues that are presented by therelationship between outer, inner andcentral London.1.11 The Commission was also requestedto make general and place specificrecommendations about implementing thepolicies and initiatives, including:• Improving the current arrangements forsub- regional working.• Encouraging more effective joint actionby boroughs, the GLA Group, otherpublic sector agencies and the privateand not- for- profit sectors.• Ways to make public, private and thirdsector partnerships to secure investment


28 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportThis report1.12 Following the “survey – analysis – plan”approach, this report is divided intosections as outlined below:Chapter 2: ”Survey” summarises keyparts of the evidence gathered by theCommission and taken into account inits work. It briefly outlines the historicbackground to the development of theouter London economy and highlightselements of the Commission’s evidencebase relating to its size and importance,its role in the wider London economy,its structure and geography. It also setsout information about outer London’sworkforce and its resources of land andinvestmentChapter 3: “Analysis” draws on theevidence in the previous chapter todevelop recommendations and proposals.It examines:• The possible scale of economic growth inouter LondonThe kinds of economic sectors that mightsupport growth in the area• The case for a hub-based approach topolicy• Ways of making the existing economicgeography of outer London – towncentres, strategic industrial locations,Opportunity/Intensification Areas etc.work better to support growth in outerLondonThe importance of quality of life andenvironmental quality issues• The question of linkages withneighbouring regions outside Londonand the “outer metropolitan area”• Transport issues that will have to beaddressed. : Existing policy approachesand drivers of economic success,including the historic approach ofthe London Plan and development ofLondon, the current economic recession,additional analysis for transport and landuse options and economic viability.Chapter 4: “Plan”/Recommendations– sets out our final conclusions andrecommendations:This is followed by a list of key referencesused in preparing the report, togetherwith a series of Annexes providing furtherinformation.


30 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report2.5 The Commission sought to assess theseviews, and its own, through independentanalysis. This work was undertaken inan iterative way, initially testing thepropositions in its ‘First Thoughts’ paper 10 .This is set out in full as an annex to thepresent report because it shows ‘wherethe Commission was coming from’ when itbegan its work.2.6 As it progressed the Commission soughtto make the most effective use ofintegrated material being prepared toinform the draft Transport and EconomicDevelopment Strategies as well as theLondon Plan. Thus the Commission wasable to influence and benefit from theresults of large scale ‘number crunching’exercises assessing long term trends inLondon’s demography and economy aswell as testing different approaches totransport investment.2.7 However, it began its work by firstevaluating the demographic, economicand investment assumptions which hadunderpinned the 2008 Plan, and movingon to assessment of emerging analysis,such as then new historic employmenttrends prepared by CambridgeEconometrics, Oxford Economics andBusiness Strategies Limited (Annex 3A)before exploring what were to becomethe 2009 London Plan base trends andprojections 11 (Annex 3B). These aresummarised in iterations of the JointStrategies Evidence base 12 .2.8 GLA Economics 13 and the LDA 14 prepareda series of statistical analyses of some ofthe individual issues and areas identifiedby the Commission. They are raised below,together with the results of relevant‘one-off’ studies, such as the LondonOffice Policy Review 15 (which includeda bespoke analysis of the outer Londonand Metropolitan Area office markets);the London Town Centres Health Checkand retail need study 16 , the StrategicHousing Land Availability Assessment/Housing Capacity Study 17 and boroughlevel sectoral refinements to the 2009Plan’s economic projections 18 . TheCommission also reconsidered some ofthe evidence which underpinned the2008 London Plan 19 . It was fortunate inbeing able to draw on the expertise ofone of its members involved in preparingthe most recent edition of the City ofLondon’s annual ‘London’s Place in theUK Economy’ report 20 , which includes aseparate section on outer London.2.9 In taking account of such a range ofsources covering a long period, theCommission encountered a range ofdefinitional issues, not least geographical.As far as possible, it conducted itsanalysis on the basis of the area of outerLondon defined in its brief (see Figure1.1) – which inter alia contributed to itsrecommendation that Newham was moreappropriately defined as an inner Londonborough (see Figure 1.3). Where this wasnot possible, the definitions used arenoted in the text/footnotes.


31Outer London: historic context2.10 Outer London is a mixture of old and new.The capital’s outward growth embracedancient towns and villages – the firstwritten record mentioning Croydon isan Anglo Saxon will dating from 962and parts of Ealing have been occupiedfor at least 700 years. But other areasand much of the area’s “connectivetissue” is much more recent – most ofsuburban north west London was builtin the years between the world wars,and photographs of the areas from theearly thirties around new Undergroundstations in places like Edgware show smallrural villages unrecognisable today. Theterm “connective tissue” is an appositeone; London’s outward surge followedimprovements in public transport andthe construction of new infrastructurewhich made it possible to work in centralLondon while living in places with many ofthe conveniences of urban living and thequality of life of more rural areas.2.11 The administrative County of Londonestablished in 1889 covered the arearoughly encompassed by Travelcard zones1 and 2. The continuously built-up areaextended a little further out into the areasaround the docks to the east, Hackneyand Hampstead to the north and HerneHill to the south. Cheap workmen’srail fares helped the city spread to thenorth and east from the 1860s. Theconsolidation of previously privatelyownedand competing tram networksby the London County Council between1896 and 1906, and provision of servicesby local authorities like East Ham helpedsupport further expansion. These are thesuburbs marked by terraces of Victorianand Edwardian houses in places likeBrixton, Tottenham and West Ham.2.12 The greatest expansion, though, came inthe period between the two world wars.This was when what is now north-westLondon was developed, seeing hugepopulation growth (north-west Middlesexgrew by 800,000 in this period) supportedby new rail lines and services. Perhapsthe best known example of this is theMetropolitan Railway, which established adevelopment subsidiary to build houses inplaces like Harrow and Pinner.2.13 The 1930s saw a range of new industriesmove to outer London where largersites with easy access to the large andgrowing markets of the London area – forexample Fords in Dagenham in the 1920sand Hoover building its iconic works onthe Western Avenue. Outer London wasnot only a place where more and morepeople lived, but also a place where manyworked and made things. By the 1950s,for example, Fords were producing arounda quarter of a million vehicles each yearat Dagenham and London as a wholeaccommodated a quarter of the country’smanufacturing jobs, most in outer London.Particularly after the second world war,outer London experienced substantialgrowth in office based jobs, providing


32 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report‘back offices’ for central London’s businessand financial services, administrativeand headquarters functions for firmswhich wanted a London location withoutcentral London costs, central governmentadministrative functions, and somespecialist activities such pharmaceuticalsand the emerging IT sector.2.14 Manufacturing in London started todecline in the early 1970s. In 1971, therewere over a million manufacturing jobsin the capital, many of them in outerLondon. There are now 224,000, with theprospect of further decline to 89,000 by2031 21 . The large factories in outer Londonclosed as production was moved to otherparts of the United Kingdom where larger,cheaper sites were available – or out ofthe country altogether. Exacerbated bytechnological and organisational changeand government dispersal policy, a similarprocess also affected some of outerLondon’s large post-war office occupiers.2.15 However, at the same time new, morelocally based jobs were being createdin the service sectors like retail, leisure,personal and business services andthe creative industries, especially tomeet the local needs of an increasinglyaffluent population. The result is a hugelyvariegated one, with some parts of thearea still coping with the consequences ofthe first shift to a post-industrial economyor with the first set of post-industrialchanges as large scale office occupationcontracted in the 1980s and 1990s, whileothers have seen traditional strengthsin services reinforced and built uponas sectors change and new ones comeforward. The remainder of this chapterseeks to map this variety.Outer London economy: demand sideHow big is the outer Londoneconomy?Output2.16 In workplace output terms, outer Londonaccounted for a third (32.6% – £83,064million) of London’s £254,621 millioneconomy in 2007 22 . While this was littlemore than half (54%) of that of the ‘homecounties’ as a whole (Essex, Bedfordshire,Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire,Surrey and Kent), its was substantiallylarger than any individual county e.g. Beds& Herts £36,310 million, Essex £28,349million, Surrey £26,992 million, Kent£26,519 million). The outer West &NorthWest ONS London sub-region accountedfor 47 per cent of the outer Londontotal, with the outer East & North Eastcontributing a further 27 per cent andouter South 26 per cent.2.17 Between 1995 and 2007, outer London’sworkplace based output grew at asignificantly slower rate (86%) than thatof inner London (138%), with the outerE & NE (72%) and outer S (76%) growingmore slowly than outer W and NW (101%).This rate of growth was also slower thanthat recorded for the ‘home counties’ as


33Figure 2.1 Gross average weekly household income 2007/8a whole (103%), and at individual countylevel only Buckinghamshire had a slowergrowth rate (79%).2.18 It must be borne in mind that these areworkplace not residence based measuresof output. The high levels of outcommutingby outer London residents toinner London and, to a lesser extent, tothe ‘home counties’ (see below) createa rather different pattern. A rough proxyfor this distribution is provided by thatfor average resident household incomein Figure 2.1, which shows the boroughstowards the west of outer London aspart of a more extensive distribution ofwealthier districts across the westernparts of the Outer Metropolitan Area,and conversely, the less affluenteastern boroughs as part of a similarlycharacterised area beyond London’sboundaries, especially towards the southeast. However, as more detailed analysislater in this report demonstrates, as an


34 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportindication of the incomes of different typesof household, this broad brush impressioncan be misleading: a finer appreciationshows a much more complex picture.Employment2.19 In workplace employment terms, Annex 3Bshows that outer London accounted fortwo fifths (42% – 1.97 million) of London’s4.67 million jobs in 2007. This was morethan half (60%) of that of the ‘homecounties’ as a whole (Essex, Bedfordshire,Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire,Surrey and Kent), and was substantiallylarger than any individual county e.g. Kent635,000, Essex 625,000, Surrey 506,000,Berkshire, 462,000)2.20 Over time, employment growth in outerLondon has been relatively slow, butsteady. This is in contrast to the moreboom-to-bust cycle that characterisesemployment in inner London. In fact,employment has been largely steady acrossouter London for several decades, althoughemployment growth over the two lasteconomic cycles has been lower in outerLondon than in London as a whole.2.21 Peak to peak across two economic cycles(1989 – 2001 and 2001 – 2007) outerLondon employment grew by an average0.14 per cent pa or 2,800 pa, comparedwith 0.46 per cent pa in inner London 23(5,100 pa) and 1.23 per cent pa (36,000pa) in the ‘home counties’. More recentlygrowth has been slower, with outer Londonemployment growing by 0.17 per cent or3,200 pa 1989 – 2001 and 0.10 per cent pa(1,900 pa) 2001 – 2007. This compares with0.49 per cent pa (5,300 pa) in inner London1989 –2001 and 0.41 per cent pa (4,600pa) 2001 – 2007, and in the ‘home counties’respectively 1.71 per cent pa (50,000 pa)and 0.28 per cent pa (9,000 pa) over thesame periods 24 . See Annex 3C for the ‘homecounties’ employment figures 1989-2007.How is employment growthdistributed?2.22 Figures 2.2 and 2.3 and Annex 3B show thatover the two cycles spanning 1989 – 2007,outer London employment growth was farfrom homogeneous. At borough level:• Five outer boroughs exceeded the pan-London total average growth for theperiod (8.9%) and the inner Londonaverage (8.6%): LB Hillingdon (50.6%);LB Richmond (41.0%); LB Barnet (18.4%);LB Haringey (13.5%) and LB Bromley(12.9%).Of the remainder• Four boroughs were above the outerLondon average (2.6%): LB Kingston(8.5%); LB Merton (7.4%); Redbridge(6.4%) and LB Harrow (6.3%).• One borough was below the outer Londonaverage but had positive growth: LB Sutton(1.1%); and• Nine outer boroughs had negative growth:LB Havering (-0.2%); LB Ealing (-4.9%);LB Bexley (-6.2%); LB Enfield (-6.4%); LBBrent (-11.0%); LB Croydon (-13.8%); LBWaltham Forest (-14.0%); LB Hounslow(-16.2%) and LB Barking & Dagenham(-27.1%).


35Figure 2.2 Average annual change in employment over economic cycles 1989-2001 and 2001 – 2007Source: Roger Tym & Partners, 20102.23 Analysis of annual average change inemployment in Figures 2.2 and 2.3 showsthat for outer London as a whole therewas a slight difference in employmentgrowth rates between the cycles, 0.17 percent pa 1989-2001, compared to 0.10 percent pa 2001-2007, compared to the innerLondon respective averages of 0.46 percent pa and 0.36 per cent pa respectively.2.24 In outer London, the pattern at boroughlevel however reveals significantvariations. Five boroughs in outer westand south London (Harrow, Hillingdon,Kingston, Merton and Richmond)experienced positive average annualemployment growth across both cycles.Employment growth rates were particularlystrong across the two cycles 1989-2001and 2001-2007 in Hillingdon (3% paand 0.9% pa respectively) and Richmond


36 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 2.3 Average annual % change in employment over economic cycles(2% pa and 1.8% pa respectively). Fourboroughs (Barnet, Havering, Redbridgeand Sutton) experienced positive annualaverage employment growth 1989-2001 but negative annual averageemployment growth in 2001-2007.Three boroughs (Bromley, Ealing andHaringey) experienced negative annualaverage employment growth 1989-2001 but strong positive annual averageemployment growth in 2001-2007. Sevenboroughs (Barking & Dagenham, Bexley,Brent, Croydon, Enfield, Hounslow andWaltham Forest) experienced negativeaverage annual employment growth acrossboth cycles.2.25 Figures 2.2 and 2.3 highlight this variationin employment growth. To some extent thevariation in growth rates reflects the stateof industries located in different boroughs.As noted below, some industries areconcentrated in small geographies. Barking& Dagenham has historically been an areaassociated with manufacturing, an industrythat has been in decline for decades,whereas employment in Richmond is muchmore heavily concentrated in finance andother service industries. These industrieshave been growing rapidly in the last threedecades.2.26 Figures 2.4a and 2.4b show that Boroughlevel analysis can distort appreciationof the distribution of growth. A finergrained approach to London’s economic


37Figure 2.4a London’s Economic GeographyFigure 2.4b London’s Economic Geography: shares of employment in key economic activities 2002Source: Annual Business Inquiry, GLA Economics. Based on ONS definition of outer London


38 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportgeography highlights what GLAEconomics 25 call the ‘pillars’ of the outerLondon economy focused on Heathrowand Croydon, together with ‘corridors’of development that offer potential foremployment growth and ‘wider urbanareas’.2.27 Sectors shown in Figure 2.4b make uparound 60 per cent of total employmentin outer London (sectors includingconstruction, hotels and parts of thepublic sector were not included in theanalysis).2.28 Heathrow is notably dominated bypassenger transport, freight and storageactivities, reflecting the position ofthe airport in the local economy. As aresult, the area has very small shares ofemployment in local activities and inschools and hospitals – employment thatcan be viewed as serving the needs of thelocal community.In comparison the outer urban areasgenerally have larger shares of employeesengaged in local activities and in schoolsand hospitals (further details on thisbelow).2.29 Also of note are relatively large shares ofCroydon’s and south eastern London’semployment in financial services. Amongstouter London areas, creative jobs are mostpredominant in the western and southwestern zones and wholesale activitiesprovide large shares of employmentin the western wedge. The data showsthat the Thames Gateway area of outerLondon was most reliant on traditionalmanufacturing activities as of 2002.2.30 The 2007 Annual Business Inquiry showsthat the two largest outer London areas ofemployment in absolute terms are Croydon(with 92,000 employees) and Heathrowand its immediate surrounds (with 91,000employees). To put this in context, the Cityof London (which is, in terms of land mass,less than a sixth of the size of Croydon)accounts for over 300,000 employees(or just under a seventh of all the jobs inouter London). Other Outer Metropolitancentres (as defined in the London Plan)with large clusters of employment includeUxbridge (around 35,000 employees),Bromley (27,000 employees) andKingston (23,000 employees). Most otherMetropolitan and Major centres in outerLondon have fewer than 20,000 employeejobs.To test this distribution further, GLAEconomics have undertaken more detailedspatial analysis:Employment in outer Londontown centres2.31 Employment density in outer Londonis far lower than in central London andso much of the geographic variation indensity within outer London is hiddenif it is examined as part of employmentdensity across London as a whole (Figure2.6). Figure 2.5 below therefore examinesemployment density in outer London onlyand so uses a scale that explicitly shows


39Figure 2.5: Employment density in outer London by Middle Supper Output Area.Town Centres are shaded in red and blue. Source: GLA Economicsthe finer variation in employment acrossouter London. If employment in outerLondon was only located in town centresthis map would show a number of darkerpatches that correspond to town centres.But it does not. There are many areas ofemployment that are outside town centresand sometimes the number of peopleworking here is quite substantial. In total,around 60 per cent of outer Londonemployees work in town centres and about40 per cent work outside these centres.2.32 Places where people work outside centresinclude industrial parks like Park Royal, theThameside sites in East London, and sitesin Enfield. Or they are smaller industrialsites, such as in New Addington. Theyinclude hospitals, for example in BromleyCommon, or universities, like in CoombeHill. And around Heathrow airport there


40 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportare a number of industrial sites and officeparks. Office parks are not uncommon inWest London.Method2.33 This analysis was conducted usingdata from the Annual Business Inquiryat Middle Supper Output Area. Thisgeography was used because there areover 900 MSOA, about 50 per centmore than wards. This helped increasethe granularity of the analysis. MSOAsthat contain any part of a town centre,including those that merely share aborder, were assumed to be part of atown centre to allow for any instanceswhere town centre boundaries followretail patterns rather than class B uses asdefined by DCLG (PPS4). All employmentwithin these MSOAs was aggregated andassumed as ‘town centre’ employment.Any employment in the other MSOAs wasnot defined as town centre employment.This analysis did not attempt to estimateemployment in individual town centres.2.34 This is an important point for theCommission and perhaps one whichruns counter to the perceptions of someof its consultees. Employment in outerLondon is not concentrated in a fewsmall areas, but is actually spread widelyacross the region, with generally morepeople working in the western half. TheMetropolitan Town Centres make up onlya small amount of total employment butare significantly clusters relative to theirsurroundings. Together with the Major andDistrict centres, the 119 town centres inouter London account for around 60 percent of employment in outer London. Theremaining 40 per cent is located outsidethese town centres, in industrial areas,business parks or in smaller local centres.2.35 Employment in the town centres varies asmuch as across outer London as a whole.For example:• Much of the employment in Croydonis split across three broad economicsectors. Financial and business servicescurrently employ around 27,000. Publicadministration, education and healthactivities provide 25,000 jobs and thebroad distribution, hotels and restaurantssector employs a further 21,000.• In Uxbridge, public administration,education and health services accountfor around 10,500 jobs. The otherlargest sources of employment are thedistribution, hotels and restaurantssector (just over 9,000 jobs) and businessservices (7,000 jobs).• In Bromley, financial and businessservices accounts for 11,000 employees,with around half of these jobs infinancial services. Distribution, hotelsand restaurants account for almost6,000 and only slightly less are in publicadministration, education and health.• Finally, in Kingston, retail and wholesaleis the largest sector of employment,providing around 7,000 jobs. Othereconomic activities in this area are publicadministration, education and health with


417,000 jobs and business services witharound 4,000 jobs.The GLA is advised to examine the typesof work occurring in out of centre as wellas these town centre locations and ifpossible to explore their relative growthrates.What are the key clusters of economicactivity in outer London?2.36 While it is useful to examine thecomposition of employment in outerLondon this only compares areas againstareas. It is also worthwhile to consider thelocation of employment within specificindustries. By examining the location ofspecific industries it is possible to identifyindustrial clusters where significantnumbers of employees within the industryare located. Some sectors benefit morethan others by being located near to oneanother. These clusters may then continueto attract the same type of industry.Other sectors tend to locate together inareas where there is a natural advantageto them. For example, businesses movinglarge amounts of goods between citiesmay locate near a motorway because ofthe transport infrastructure usually, ratherthan because they benefit from being nearone another.2.37 It is possible to identify sectors that aresignificantly located within outer London.So even though employment in thesemay be small – causing the activity to‘disappear’ when looking at borough-leveldata – a substantial proportion of it maybe located there, as an sector cluster.2.38 Data from the annual business inquiryshows that clusters of employees existin outer London in a number of sectors.These range from manufacturing toinsurance activities. 262.39 West London is home to a number ofindustrial clusters, particularly in whatis known as the ‘western wedge’ fromHeathrow to central London. These includemany ‘creative’ industries, including:• Motion picture, video and televisionprogramme production, sound recordingand music publishing activities;• Programming and broadcasting activities;and• Advertising and market research.There are also a number of west Londoncentres where Scientific Research andDevelopment is concentrated.2.40 It was noted above that many morepeople are employed in financial servicesin Croydon than in other parts of outerLondon. This is largely because of asignificant cluster of insurance andreinsurance activities and a smaller clusterexists in nearby Bromley.2.41 Notable clusters in manufacturing andwarehousing employment exist elsewherein outer London, particularly neartransport infrastructure. Manufacturingis most prominent near Heathrow, Park


42 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 2.6 Employment density in LondonSource: Annual Business Inquiry 2007Royal and in the Upper Lea Valley.Warehousing follows a similar pattern,with additional clusters near London CityAirport, Croydon and along the Thames inEast London. The Commission was mindfulthat employment is only one measureof economic activity. It did, for example,identify functionally important clusters ofmanufacturing related activity elsewheree.g. at Biggin Hill and in south Kingston.The GLA and more local stakeholderscould usefully work together to identifyother such functionally important clusters,including those in other sectors such asleisure and culture.How does outer London relate to thewider metropolitan economy?2.42 Within London as a whole the accessibilityand agglomeration advantages make theCentral Activities Zone the prime locationfor businesses and there is very highcompetition for space there. Indeed it isthis competition for limited space that


43Figure 2.7 Industrial structures: comparative geographySource: Annual Business Inquiry, 2007drives up land values and acts, alongsidecongestion and other diseconomies ofspatial concentration, as a check onfurther concentration 27 . As in most cities,land prices are highest in the centre andgenerally decline with distance from thecentre, reflecting the appeal of centrallocations when compared to peripheralones. Firms that benefit most fromagglomeration are most willing and ableto pay for offices in central London andso the most productive jobs are locatedin the centre. This is reflected in bothproductivity and wages earned 28 , as well asemployment densities (see Figure 2.6)2.43 Where agglomeration benefits do notamount to enough to compensate forhigher rents, for instance in activities thatare more space intensive, firms locateelsewhere, either in outer London orother towns and cities in the wider region.By and large (but not exclusively) thesebusinesses tend to be suppliers to otherbusinesses, often those in the centre, andbusinesses serving local communities. Thetypes of business that might provide amore supportive role to other businessesinclude those involved in catering,cleaning, logistics and security. To thisend the proportion of jobs associatedwith serving the population (like retailor health and education for example)and jobs in what might be referred to as‘support business services’ is higher inouter London than in inner London. As aresult, the composition of the economy inthe outer boroughs more closely resemblesthat of the rest of Great Britain than innerLondon, as shown in Figure 2.7. Healthand education account for 18 per cent ofjobs in outer London and 23 per cent ofemployment is in retail and leisure. Thiscompares to only 11 and 20 per cent,respectively, of jobs in inner London.Businesses providing supplies or services


45Figure 2.9: IDBR VAT registered enterprises by industry, outer London boroughs, 2007Source: DMAG Focus on London borough statistics, ONS. Based on ONS definition of outer London2.45 Croydon and the outer areas of theremaining four corridors have shares ofjobs in local activities and in schools andhospitals between 13 per cent and 18 percent. These comparatively lower sharesreflect greater levels of employment inother economic activities as shown inFigure 2.5.What are the distinct featuresassociated with outer Londonbusinesses and other employers?2.46 The nature of economic activity inouter London boroughs can also begauged from the composition of firmsin those boroughs. Figure 2.9 shows theproportions of firms in broad sectorsdefined by the ONS inter departmentalbusiness register (IDBR) for outer Londonboroughs.


46 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 2.10: IDBR VAT registered enterprises by employment size band, outer London boroughs, 2007Source: DMAG Focus on London borough statistics, ONS. Based on ONS definition of outer London2.47 Figure 2.9 shows that proportions ofconstruction firms are highest in Havering(24.6 per cent) and Bexley (22.4 per cent).Meanwhile, Richmond upon Thames hasthe highest share of firms in the propertyand business services sector (49.9 percent) followed by Barnet (45.1 per cent),Kingston upon Thames, Harrow andMerton.2.48 IDBR data also shows the prevalence ofsmall firms in the outer boroughs. Figure2.10 here is restricted to micro firms(those with less than 10 employees)because employment in these firms ismost likely to be located close to theirplaces of registration in outer boroughs(unlike employment in larger firms). Figure2.10 shows that the largest number ofmicro firms are located in Barnet, Ealingand Richmond. Of all the outer boroughsthe fewest number of firms with less than10 employees are located in Barking andDagenham.2.49 Figure 2.11 shows the break down ofprivate businesses by broad industrialcategory in each of the outer Londonboroughs and makes clear the variation inemployment type between the different


47Figure 2.11: Business units in outer London by broad industrial groupSource: Annual Business Inquiry, 2007boroughs, though even this masks verylocal differences. This analysis looks onlyat business units and so overstates thesize of the private sector in outer Londonas public bodies like schools, hospitals andborough councils tend to employ largenumbers of people.


48 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportOuter London economy:supply side issuesWhat are the key demographic issuesrelevant to the Commission?Historic trends2.50 While outer London currently contains42 per cent of the capital’s jobs it ishome to 60 per cent of its 7.6 millionresidents. The historic demographic trendsunderpinning the present population/employment structure have a fundamentalbearing on the issues and perceptionswhich the Commission was asked toaddress.2.51 Figure 2.12 shows how outer London’shistoric role in accommodating the city’spopulation has changed. While London’soverall population declined from WWIIuntil the mid 1980’s, this contraction wasconcentrated in inner London, with outerLondon experiencing a mix of modestexpansion or relatively lower rates ofdecline. The mid 80s was a cathartic timefor London in demographic as well aspolitical and economic terms. London’spopulation began to stabilise and thenexpand but this process was focusedon inner London, with generally lowerrates of growth in outer London. As withemployment growth, Table 2.1 shows thatthe pattern of population change was byno means even, with:• no boroughs growing at the same ora higher rate than the inner Londonaverage (19.1%),• eight boroughs growing above the outerLondon average (8.7%) – Hounslow17.6%, Merton 17.3%, Haringey 16.3%,Redbridge 15.6%, Kingston upon Thames15.5%, Richmond upon Thames 13.0%,Brent 12.1% and Enfield 11.0%,and• eleven boroughs growing below the outerLondon average – Barnet 10.3%, Barking& Dagenham 8.9%, Hillingdon 8.3%,Ealing 8.2%, Sutton 8.1%, Croydon 6.2%,Harrow 5.7%, Waltham Forest 4.5%,Bromley 1.2%, Bexley 0.6% and Havering-3.8%.2.52 The factors underpinning this pattern ofchange are complex and have implicationsfor the economy of the wider city as wellas that of outer London itself. On theone hand, the 2001 Census 1 showed thatcompared with inner London, outer Londonis still relatively strongly characterised byindicators of ‘familism’ and social stability.It has relatively fewer single personhouseholds, more economically activeresidents as well as those over retirementage, less over-crowding, better healthand higher educational attainment (seebelow).2.53 However, outer London is changing.There is already a well established trendfor migration of families and older peoplefrom outer London, especially to the homecounties (from which the economicallyactive may return to London to work).Conversely, the historic exodus of innerLondoners to outer looks set to continue,


49Figure 2.12: Annual population change: inner, outer and Greater London: 1971-2008Figure 2.13 Change in high socio-economic group (Social Occupation Class 1-3) 1991 – 2001


50 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 2.14 Percentage change in ethnic minority population 1991 - 2001perhaps partially offset in the futureby reverse migration of younger outerLondoners seeking more urban lifestylescloser to the centre. Figure 2.13 showsthat the ethnic composition of outerLondon is also changing with particulargrowth in west, north and parts of eastand south outer London. So too is itssocial status, with downward or statictrends among the higher socio economicgroups across most boroughs (Figure2.14).Projected trends2.54 Like London as a whole, Tables 2.1 and 2.2show that the outer suburbs are projectedto experience a substantial increase in bothpopulation and households in the periodup to 2031. Outer London’s populationis expected to grow by 520,000 to over5.1 million. On an annualised basis, this issignificantly higher (23,000 pa) than thatrecorded in the previous 23 years (16,000pa), but much lower than that projectedfor inner London (32,000 pa). Figure 2.15shows this projected growth between 2011


51and 2031on a ward by ward basis. Theprojected increase in household numbers(17.6%) is expected to be significantly lessthan in other parts of London, but will stillproduce a challenging increment of 330,000.2.55 This is partly because the tendency towardssmall households will be slightly morepronounced here than in the rest of thecapital. In the period to 2031, one personhouseholds are expected to comprise agreater component of growth in outerLondon (78%) than inner (59%) as thesuburbs undergo some of the demographicchanges which characterised inner Londonin earlier decades. While the numbers ofmarried couples are expected to decline,numbers of co-habiting couples, loneparents and ‘other adult’ households areexpected to increase.Nevertheless, relative to inner London,growth in the younger age groups isexpected to be less and in the oldergroups greater.Table 2.1: Outer London Population Change: 1985 – 20311985 2008 2031 % growth 1985-2008 % growth 2008-2031Barking and Dagenham 157.9 171.9 237.6 8.9 38.2Barnet 294.7 324.9 414.5 10.3 27.6Bexley 217.3 218.5 225.8 0.6 3.3Brent 246.3 276.1 310.1 12.1 12.3Bromley 296.9 300.5 315.4 1.2 4.9Croydon 317.2 336.8 379.4 6.2 12.6Ealing 290.5 314.3 347.4 8.2 10.5Enfield 262.6 291.5 308.3 11.0 5.8Haringey 201.2 234.0 273.8 16.3 17.0Harrow 205.6 217.3 211.8 5.7 -2.5Havering 238.5 229.4 272.2 -3.8 18.7Hillingdon 232.6 251.9 280.1 8.3 11.2Hounslow 195.6 230.0 254.0 17.6 10.5Kingston upon Thames 132.5 153.1 165.8 15.5 8.3Merton 166.7 195.6 200.7 17.3 2.6Redbridge 217.9 252.0 285.0 15.6 13.1Richmond upon Thames 162.4 183.6 195.3 13.0 6.4Sutton 170.6 184.4 186.3 8.1 1.0Waltham Forest 216.1 225.8 249.0 4.5 10.3Inner London 2544.0 3030.6 3756.2 19.1 23.9Outer London 4223.1 4591.5 5112.5 8.7 11.3Greater London 6767.1 7622.2 8868.7 12.6 16.4


52 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportTable 2.2: Outer London Household Change: 2008- 20312008 2031 % growth 2008-2031Barking & Dagenham 71.5 103.9 45.3Barnet 132.7 180.2 35.8Bexley 92.1 99.3 7.8Brent 106.0 129.8 22.4Bromley 130.8 143.9 10.0Croydon 145.2 176.4 21.5Ealing 123.2 142.8 15.9Enfield 117.6 130.0 10.6Haringey 97.2 115.3 18.6Harrow 85.0 93.9 10.4Havering 95.6 121.9 27.5Hillingdon 102.1 119.2 16.7Hounslow 90.8 103.4 13.9Kingston upon Thames 64.5 72.9 13.0Merton 83.0 90.8 9.4Redbridge 97.8 116.0 18.6Richmond upon Thames 79.7 85.6 7.4Sutton 79.9 85.4 6.8Waltham Forest 94.1 111.4 18.4Inner London 1345.3 1775.4 32.0Outer London 1888.9 2221.9 17.6Greater London 3234.2 3997.3 23.6


53Figure 2.15: Ward Level Population Change: 2011-312.56 These projections are based on recenttrends and national assumptions inmortality and fertility, together withmigration largely determined by housingdevelopment. While susceptible to policy,social and technology changes e.g. interms of migration, social cohesion ormedicine, and subject to continuousmonitoring, they at present look deepsetand are considered to provide a robustbasis for planning London’s future.Age2.57 The age of the resident population hasparticular implications for the economicconcerns of the Commission, including theway these relate to quality of life throughinfrastructure provision. In 2006 outerLondon as a whole had larger shares of itspopulation in the 45-64 and 65 and overage cohorts compared with inner London,although these shares were still lower thanthose for the wider UK (Table 2.3). OuterLondon also had slightly higher shares ofresidents 15 or under than inner London.


55Density2.59 Also of relevance to the Commission isthe density of outer London’s populationwhich affects not just the nature of marketareas but also bears on the economics ofinfrastructure provision. Table 2.4 showspopulation densities for outer Londonboroughs and inner London (based onONS definitions) in 2006. The mostdensely populated outer boroughs wereBrent (6,277 per km2), Waltham Forest(5,712 per km2) and Ealing (5,517 perkm2).The sparsest populations were in the outerboroughs of Bromley (1,992 per km2),Havering (2,025 per km2) and Hillingdon(2,161 per km2). Population density inouter London as a whole was almost athird of that recorded for inner London.Table 2.4: Population density, mid-2006Area (Km2) Population (thousands) Density (Pop/km2)Barking & Dagenham 36 165.7 4,591Barnet 87 328.6 3,788Bexley 61 221.6 3,659Brent 43 271.4 6,277Bromley 150 299.1 1,992Croydon 87 337.0 3,895Ealing 56 306.4 5,517Enfield 81 285.3 3,529Greenwich 47 222.6 4,702Harrow 50 214.6 4,251Havering 112 227.3 2,025Hillingdon 116 250.0 2,161Hounslow 56 218.6 3,904Kingston upon Thames 37 155.9 4,186Merton 38 197.7 5,257Redbridge 56 251.9 4,466Richmond upon Thames 57 179.5 3,127Sutton 44 184.4 4,206Waltham Forest 39 221.7 5,712Inner London 319 2,972.9 9,311Outer London 1253 4,539.4 3,624London 1572 7,512.4 4,779Source: DMAG Focus on London 2008, ONS Based on ONS definition of outer London


56 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 2.16 Average population turn over rates 2001 - 2006Population ‘churn’2.60 Population turnover or ‘churn’ is also ofrelevance to the Commission. Turnover ismeasured as the population inflow plusoutflow excluding within-borough moves.Flows include both migration within theUK and international flows (Figure 2.16).rates of population churn over the 2001-2006 period were in the outer Londonboroughs of Sutton, Bromley, Bexley andHavering.2.61 Highest turnover rates amongst the outerboroughs are in those to the south andwest of London, namely Merton, Kingstonupon Thames, Richmond upon Thames,Hounslow, Ealing and Brent. The lowest


57Figure 2.17: Areas of London with employment to population density ratio > 1What are the characteristics of theouter London workforce?2.62 The relationship between numbers ofresidents and the numbers of jobs inouter London bears on the Commission’sremit. GLA Economics have assessed thisusing 2001 employment and populationdensity data 2 . Results displayed in Figure2.17 show wards where the ratio ofemployment to population density isgreater than unity.2.63 While areas with the highest ratios ofemployment to population density arefocused in the centre of London, reflectingan agglomeration of business activities inthe centre and commuting to central areas,the blue wards coinciding with Metropolitantown centres and other major employmentfoci e.g. Heathrow also have high ratios.Despite having lower accessibility theseouter London areas maintain high relativelevels of employment, presumably sustainedto a greater extent by the local residentpopulations.


58 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report2.64 When the population: employmentrelationship is presented at boroughlevel (Table 2.4), Hillingdon (includingits airport related employment) emergeswith the highest ratio, with slightly morethan 4 jobs for every 3 residents. Kingstonis the only other outer borough wherethe number of jobs exceeds the residentpopulation.2.65 Boroughs with the lowest jobs densityratios are Waltham Forest (0.55), Barkingand Dagenham (0.57) and Redbridge(0.58). These low ratios are likely to reflectboth commuting and workless individualsliving in the borough (both of which arecovered by analysis below).Table 2.4: Jobs density in outer London boroughs, working age, 2006Barking and Dagenham 0.57Barnet 0.82Bexley 0.63Brent 0.72Bromley 0.80Croydon 0.78Ealing 0.76Enfield 0.67Greenwich 0.63Harrow 0.74Havering 0.74Hillingdon 1.37Hounslow 0.98Kingston upon Thames 1.03Merton 0.71Redbridge 0.58Richmond upon Thames 0.88Sutton 0.69Waltham Forest 0.55Greater London 1.02United Kingdom 0.88Source: ONS Based on ONS definition of outer London


59Figure 2.18: Flows of workers within, into and out of London2.66 Whilst residents outnumber jobs in all buta small number of outer London areasnamely Heathrow and outer town centresFigure 2.18, showing absolute flows ofworkers, indicates that the majority ofthose who do work in outer London arealso residents of outer London boroughs.2.67 Figure 2.19 shows proportions ofworking residents that are employedoutside of boroughs in which they live,and the proportions of each borough’sworkers that live outside that borough’sboundaries.2.68 The top section of the chart showsthat in inner London boroughs receivelarge shares of workers from other areas(typically 70-90 per cent of the totalworkforce). In contrast, outer LondonBoroughs tend to be more “self contained”in so far as more of their local workforceis made up of local residents. However,even outer London boroughs depend


60 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 2.19: Fluidity of workforce by boroughSource: Census 2001.significantly on non-resident workers– 39 per cent of Croydon’s workers donot live in the borough, 50 per cent inKingston. Hillingdon (not shown on thischart) sourced 63 per cent of its workersfrom outside of the borough. Accordingto 2001 data Hillingdon was also the onlyborough in which less than half of workingresidents did not work outside of theborough boundary (reflecting employmentopportunities offered by Heathrow).2.69 Aside from commuting to work, residentsalso travel for leisure and other purposes.Data from TfL’s London Travel DemandSurvey (LTDS) breaks down trips bypurpose that are taken within andbetween outer London, inner London andcentral London. Results are shown in Table2.5.2.70 Table 2.5 shows that the largest totalnumber of trips per day are taken withinouter London (ONS definition used by


61TfL). The majority of these trips are takenfor shopping or leisure purposes.2.71 Around half of all trips between outerand central London are for commutingpurposes. In comparison a lower shareof trips between inner and outer Londonareas are for commuting, the largest sharebeing for leisure purposes.2.72 Additional data from the LTDS indicatesthat of all outer London boroughs (ONSdefinition) residents of Kingston uponThames make the greatest number of tripsper day on a per person basis, followed bythose in Richmond upon Thames, Barnetand Bromley. Total distance travelled perperson per day is highest for Bromleyfollowed by Kingston, Havering andRichmond.Table 2.5: Trip purpose shares by origin-destination areas 2007/2008Tripsper day Trip purpose(thousand)Commuting Other work EducationShopping/personal Leisure OtherbusinessWithin central London 742 20% 8% 2% 32% 32% 6%Within inner London 4,478 11% 5% 9% 35% 26% 14%Between central andinner London1,247 33% 11% 7% 23% 20% 6%Within outer London 8,757 12% 4% 9% 34% 25% 16%Between central andouter London719 51% 15% 3% 11% 17% 3%Between inner andouter London1,779 22% 11% 6% 20% 31% 9%Between GreaterLondon and rest of GB690 16% 17% 3% 17% 40% 7%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 ReportFigure 2.20: Employment in inner and outer London, expenditure-based sectors, 20052.73 The patterns of commuting for work andleisure shown in Figures 2.17 and 2.18and Table 2.5 reflect the concentrationsand occupational makeup of jobs in outerLondon and central areas. Residentsof outer London boroughs commonlycommute to work in agglomeratedbusiness and financial services in the CBD,leading to higher overall employmentdensities in the centre. Employment datain Figure 2.20 3 illustrate these patterns ofemployment in outer and inner Londonusing a range of expenditure-basedsectors. This categorisation differs fromtraditional industrial classification in that itaims to understand the role products andservices play in the economy rather thansimply categorising the output created.So, for instance, instead of classifyingbars and catering as part of ‘hotels andrestaurants’ they are split into ‘consumersspending their money’ (bars) and ‘supportbusiness services’ (catering).2.74 In contrast to inner London, commercein the outer London boroughs (with the


63Figure 2.21: Average point score by candidates achieving GCE/VCE A/AS and key skills at Level 3 qualificationexception of Heathrow) has proportionallygreater focus on leisure, shopping andlocal activities required by local residents.Qualifications2.75 School achievement provides a foundationfor Londoners to succeed in the region’slabour market, which employs a greaterproportion of highly skilled people thanother parts of the UK. Outer London hasa 78 per cent participation in post 16education compared to 70 per cent ininner London and 71 per cent in England.2.76 Figure 2.21 compares outer London (ONSdefinition) with inner London, London as awhole and England in terms of the averagepoints score of candidates achieving Level3 qualifications (A level or equivalent).The chart shows that the average scorein outer London is higher than in innerLondon and just below the Englandaverage.2.77 Department for Children, Schools andFamilies (DCSF) data for 2006/07 show asimilar out-performance of outer London


64 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 2.22: GCSE (5+ A*–C) attainment including English and Maths by London Borough 2005/06 (%)over inner London in GCSE results, withthe percentage of outer London pupilsachieving 5+ GCSEs with A*-C gradeshigher than the England average.2.78 It is also possible to compare theperformance of pupils across outerLondon boroughs. This is done in Figure2.22, a chart modified from a previousGLA Economics report to focus on outerLondon areas (ONS definition of outerLondon used) 4 .2.79 Figure 2.22 shows that attainment atGCSE level is better than the Londonaverage across the majority of outerLondon boroughs with the top performingouter borough being Sutton in which 63.1per cent of pupils achieved 5+ GCSEs withA*–C grades including English and Maths.Only three outer London boroughs postedweaker attainment than the inner Londonaverage, Waltham Forest (38.6 per cent),Barking and Dagenham (37.7 per cent)and Greenwich (31.4 per cent).


Table 2.6: Destinations of secondary school pupils, outer London boroughs, 2007Outflows of pupils Inflows of pupilsPupilsresiding inboroughfromoutside ofLondonPupilsattendingschools inboroughto otherboroughsto outsideof Londonfrom otherboroughsNetdifference 1Turnoverratio 2Richmond uponThames5,809 1,400 205 2,666 108 1,169 6,978 0.75Sutton 10,934 2,105 865 4,187 887 2,104 13,038 0.74Kingston uponThames6,929 1,594 550 2,013 582 451 7,380 0.68Hounslow 12,448 2,887 1,047 3,726 186 -22 12,426 0.63Merton 8,689 2,857 96 2,051 137 -765 7,924 0.59Barnet 15,625 3,115 479 4,040 315 761 16,386 0.51Brent 14,493 3,769 74 3,180 334 -329 14,164 0.51Greenwich 13,187 3,778 112 2,744 47 -1,099 12,088 0.51Bexley 14,699 2,054 604 3,810 633 1,785 16,484 0.48Croydon 19,807 4,648 956 3,536 323 -1,745 18,062 0.48Harrow 10,700 2,962 584 1,295 113 -2,138 8,562 0.46Bromley 16,228 2,555 656 3,888 276 953 17,181 0.45Havering 14,881 1,800 1,107 2,336 909 338 15,219 0.41Redbridge 15,975 2,240 945 2,428 578 -179 15,796 0.39Hillingdon 15,149 2,278 953 2,107 510 -614 14,535 0.39Ealing 15,473 3,417 207 1,804 32 -1,788 13,685 0.35Enfield 17,928 2,373 442 2,902 324 411 18,339 0.34Barking andDagenham11,505 1,821 43 1,042 83 -739 10,766 0.26Waltham Forest 13,970 1,656 142 774 64 -960 13,010 0.19Outer London 254,429 49,309 10,067 50,529 6,441 -2,406 252,023 0.46Inner London 124,131 35,336 436 30,273 219 -5,280 118,851 0.53Total London 378,560 84,645 10,503 80,802 6,660 -7,686 370,874 0.48651 Positive figure indicates borough is a net importer of pupils. Negative figure indicates borough is a net exporter of pupils2 Turnover ratio is the sum of inflows plus outlows of pupils divided by number of pupils residing in the boroughSource: DMAG Focus on London 2008, DCSF Based on ONS definition of outer London2.80 Many pupils attend schools that are notmaintained by the borough in whichthey live, commuting to other boroughsor outside of Greater London. This mayreflect relative attractiveness or scarcityof schools relative to where a pupil livesor the ability of a pupil to travel. Table2.6 provides details of the movements ofsecondary school pupils across boroughsand London’s boundaries. Figures are forpupils attending maintained mainstreamsecondary schools, City TechnologyColleges and Academies (not includingthose attending independent schools).2.81 The table shows that some outer Londonboroughs are net importers of secondaryschool pupils relative to numbers of pupilsin residence and other boroughs are netexporters of pupils. Overall the numberof pupils attending secondary schools inouter London boroughs (ONS definition) isapproximately 2,400 less than the numberof pupils residing in those boroughs. Theturnover ratio is a measure of the fluidityof pupils in the boroughs – the sum ofinflows and outflows divided by residentpupils in the borough. Richmond andSutton are the boroughs with the highest


66 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 2.23: Economic activity rates, working age, 2006turnover of pupils and are also the biggestimporters of pupils.2.82 Table 2.6 does not include pupilsattending independent schools. For 2007DCSF data shows that the most pupilsattending independent schools were in theboroughs of Richmond (3,529), Croydon(3,000), and Barnet (2,388). The fewestattendants of independent schools werein Bexley, Barking and Dagenham, andHavering.How extensive is worklessness andpoverty in outer London?2.83 Worklessness and poverty are bothinfluenced by whether people aresupplying or wanting to supply theirlabour to produce goods and services –that is those in the population who areeconomically active. Economic activityrates for the outer London boroughs,London as a whole and England and Walesare shown in Figure 2.23.2.84 The chart shows that in 11 of the outerLondon boroughs economic activity ratesare above the average rate for England


Figure 2.24: Employment and unemployment rates in London boroughs, 2005Source: GLA DMAG Borough67


68 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportand Wales and the average outer Londonactivity rate (77%) is above that ofinner London (75%). However, Annex4 shows that in broad terms, growthin the economically active population(10,900 persons pa 1991 – 2008) hasoutstripped historic employment growth(2,800 jobs pa 1989 – 2007) and isprojected to do so in the future (averageeconomically active population growth2008 – 2031 is expected to be 8,900 pawhile employment growth 2007 - 2031is projected to be 6,000 pa). To set thisin a wider perspective, the economicallyactive population of London as a wholeis projected to increase by an average of26,000 people pa while employment inLondon is projected to increase by 32,000pa 2007 – 2031 5 .2.85 This provides a fuller context for concernsexpressed to the Commission over theperceived ‘decline’ of the outer Londoneconomy – while it is widely recognisedthat locally based employment is notgrowing as fast as in inner London (seeabove), this is not always balanced byan appreciation that local residents ofworking age are more likely to be inemployment, partly because two fifthsof them commute elsewhere. Thuspolicy must recognise the importance ofcommuting to outer London residents aswell as the need to generate additionallocal employment.2.86 However, it must also be borne in mindthat in a number of outer boroughsclustered together in north easternLondon there are far lower rates ofeconomic activity – notably Newham(65.0 per cent), Barking and Dagenham(70.2 per cent) and Redbridge(71.5 per cent).2.87 Employment and unemploymentrates are displayed in Figure 2.24. Themaps show a clear pattern with highemployment and low unemploymentrates in outermost boroughs to the SouthWest, South East and East of London.There are mixed rates of employment andunemployment in the North and NorthWest outer boroughs.Barking and Dagenham and Newham arethe outer boroughs that suffer the lowestemployment and highest unemploymentrates. According to latest ONS data for2007, the unemployment rate in Newhamstood at 11.3 per cent.Poverty Indicators2.88 Boroughs with the highest rates ofworklessness are also, not surprisingly,those with the greatest incidence ofpoverty and low income households.2.89 Taking firstly the income distribution,Figure 2.25 shows for outer Londonboroughs the shares of householdsreceiving incomes in four bands rangingfrom less than £15,000 to £60,000 ormore.2.90 The data are equivalised, meaning thatincomes are adjusted to reflect household


69Figure 2.25: Household income distribution, equivalised, % of households, 2008Source: DMAG from 2008 PayCheck dataset. Outer and inner London distributions based on ONS definitionssize, taking into account both thegreater income needs of larger familiesand economies of scale achieved whenpeople live together. The data relatesto household income from earnings andbenefits but does not include outgoingssuch as tax payments and housing costs.2.91 Boroughs with the highest shares ofhouseholds with incomes of under£15,000 are Newham and Barking &Dagenham (around one-quarter ofhouseholds in both boroughs). These arealso the only two outer boroughs whereproportions of residents with incomesof less than £30,000 are greater thanthe corresponding proportion for GreatBritain (59 per cent).2.92 The outer boroughs with the greatestproportions of residents with incomesof above £60,000 are Richmond (26per cent), Kingston (20 per cent), andBromley (18 per cent).2.93 Aside from income thresholds, whichcan be considered an absolute measureof poverty, benefits data offer a usefulsource of information about the degreesof poverty and low incomes across


70 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportTable 2.7: People of working age and children in families on key benefitsPeople of working age on key benefits,November 2007Children in families on key benefits, August2007Claimant rate (%) Rank in Great Britain Claimant rate (%) Rank in Great BritainBarking and Dagenham 20.4 32 33.3 14Greenwich 17.8 73 32.5 17Waltham Forest 16.9 86 33.2 15Enfield 16.2 99 30.1 27Brent 15.6 111 32.6 16Ealing 13.4 164 27.7 38Croydon 13.3 166 23.0 82Redbridge 13.0 172 23.6 78Hounslow 12.8 181 27.0 39Hillingdon 11.9 216 22.4 92Havering 11.7 221 16.5 183Barnet 11.3 235 18.8 140Bexley 11.3 236 14.8 213Harrow 11.0 245 17.5 167Bromley 10.3 267 15.8 190Sutton 9.8 285 14.4 224Merton 8.7 318 20.3 118Kingston upon Thames 7.1 369 10.8 300Richmond upon Thames 6.9 380 8.6 350Outer 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 LondonNotes: Rates are calculated as a percentage of all those of working age and aged 0-18 years respectively from the ONS2007 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 2.7shows, for outer London boroughs (ONSdefinition), people of working age andchildren in families on key benefitsincluding jobseekers allowance, incapacitybenefit, disability allowances, incomesupport and working and child tax credits.2.94 The table shows that in outer London(ONS definition) the highest proportionsof both working age population and


71children in families on key benefits are inthe borough of Barking and Dagenham.In close proximity and also scoring poorlyon these benefits indicators is WalthamForest (ranked second-worst overall inouter London based on the ONS definitionin terms of children in families on keybenefits).2.95 Not included in the table is Newham dueto the borough not being in the ONSouter London definition of outer Londonused by this dataset. Child poverty isespecially acute in Newham, with 41 percent of children in families on key benefits(ranked fourth out of all Local Authoritiesin Great Britain).2.96 For all of the outer London boroughsthe proportions of children in familieson key benefits ranks higher out of allLocal Authorities in Great Britain than theproportions of all people on key benefits.This reflects a greater extent of childpoverty in London compared with the restof the country. However, claimant rates inouter London boroughs are significantlylower than those in inner London –the gap between the two areas beingparticularly marked for children in familieson key benefits.What is distinct about outer London’sincomes and lifestyles?2.97 Household incomes and expenditures, tobe considered below, in part reflect thetypes of households in which individuals inthe outer boroughs live. Figure 2.26 showsthe proportions of different types ofhouseholds in the outer London boroughs(ONS definition) and in inner London andEngland for comparison.2.98 Outer London as a whole has lowerproportions of one-person households(32 per cent) and households formed oftwo or more unrelated adults (9 per cent)compared with inner London (for whichthe proportions in these categories are40 per cent and 14 per cent respectively).In contrast there is a markedly greaterproportion of married couple householdsin outer London (42 per cent) comparedwith inner London (24 per cent).2.99 Comparing outer London boroughs withone another, the largest proportions ofmarried couple households are in Harrowand Havering (making up 51 per centof households in both boroughs). Thehighest proportions of households formedof two or more unrelated adults are Brent(14 per cent) and Ealing (12 per cent).2.100 The greatest proportions of lone-parenthouseholds in outer London boroughsare in Barking and Dagenham (13 percent), Greenwich (13 per cent), WalthamForest (11 per cent) and Brent (11 percent). These are the only outer Londonboroughs with proportions of lone-parenthouseholds above the proportion forinner London boroughs combined (ONSdefinition).


72 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 2.26: Households by type, outer London boroughs, 20042.101 Household income distribution in theouter London boroughs has been analysedpreviously above. Also of interest areaverage incomes and earnings in the outerLondon boroughs and comparisons withinner London. Figure 2.27 maps medianaverage equivalised household incomesand median average weekly pay forindividuals.2.102 The outer boroughs with the lowestaverage equivalised household incomesare Newham (£23,600), Barking andDagenham (£23,900), and Brent(£26,600). These same three boroughsare also those with individuals on thelowest average weekly pay (Newham with£449, Brent with £475, and Barking andDagenham with £494).2.103 The highest average incomes and levelsof weekly pay in outer London are in theboroughs of Richmond upon Thames andKingston upon Thames.2.104 Occupations are a key driver of incomesand earnings. Evidence of this for outerLondon is the occupational mix inboroughs with the highest and lowestaverage household incomes and earnings.2.105 Outer boroughs with the top three averagehousehold incomes are also those withresidents on the highest average weeklypay (Richmond upon Thames, Kingston


74 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportupon Thames and Bromley). And threeboroughs with lowest average householdincomes are also those with lowestaverage weekly pay levels (Newham,Barking and Dagenham, and Brent). Forthese two groups of boroughs, Figure 2.28shows proportions of residents in differentoccupational groups from all those inemployment. Also shown for comparisonare the occupational shares in all outerLondon and inner London boroughs.2.106 In the boroughs with lowest householdincomes and earnings there is a spreadof residents working across the majoroccupational groups, with over aquarter of people employed in whatcan be termed low skill jobs; elementaryoccupations, process, plant and machineoperatives, and sales and customer serviceoccupations. Just over 40 per cent ofworking residents in these boroughsare employed in one of the high skillcategories; managers and senior officials,professional occupations, and associateprofessional & technical occupations.2.108 The occupational mix of residents living inouter boroughs with the highest incomesand earnings is closer to that of innerLondon. The occupational mix in boroughswith the lowest incomes and earnings ismore akin to that of outer London as awhole, but with higher shares of residentsemployed in low skill occupations.2.109 Geographically, this provides a finergrained appreciation of the broaddifferences in income distribution shownin Figure 2.1, which outlined a greaterconcentration of wealthier outer Londonhouseholds towards the south westand, with some exceptions, a greaterconcentration of the less well-off towardsthe east.2.107 In contrast, greater proportions of workersliving in boroughs with the highestincomes and earnings are employed inthe high skill occupations – likely to be inhigher-end business and financial servicesagglomerated centrally and thought of asspecialist areas for London. Only 13 percent of workers living in these boroughsare employed in the aforementioned lowskill occupations.


Figure 2.28: Occupational shares in boroughs with the top three and bottom three average householdincomes and earnings, 200775


77Table 2.8: Dwelling stock by tenure and condition, 2006Total% Unfit % UnfitDwelling Stock % Private Sector % Public Sector Private Sector Public SectorBarking and Dagenham 69,137 67.6 32.4 4.8 5.0Barnet 134,105 86.4 13.6 5.6 0.9Bexley 93,773 87.4 12.6 3.5 0.0Brent 105,424 75.7 24.3 15.3 0.2Bromley 131,834 88.3 11.7 3.1 4.6Croydon 139,366 83.3 16.7 8.3 1.0Ealing 122,484 80.0 20.0 0.9 1.7Enfield 117,446 84.5 15.5 3.8 0.8Haringey 98,838 70.4 29.6 9.8 4.5Harrow 83,567 89.3 10.7 3.9 8.9Havering 96,904 86.0 14.0 3.9 2.7Hillingdon 101,593 82.3 17.7 5.7 0.8Hounslow 90,964 77.7 22.3 3.5 0.1Kingston upon Thames 62,982 88.5 11.5 4.4 0.0Merton 80,403 86.4 13.6 5.7 2.4Newham 98,169 69.3 30.7 15.2 3.2Redbridge 96,638 90.7 9.3 5.9 0.0Richmond upon Thames 79,949 88.0 12.0 5.0 0.4Sutton 77,734 84.7 15.3 4.2 0.0Waltham Forest 95,026 78.2 21.8 5.8 3.3Outer London 1,976,336 82.3 17.7 5.8 2.1Inner London 1,239,656 65.1 34.9 7.1 4.7Greater London 3,215,992 75.7 24.3 6.2 3.6South East 3,535,792 85.6 14.4 3.7 0.9East of England 2,421,804 83.7 16.3 3.9 0.5England 22,085,741 81.5 18.5 4.8 2.5Source: GLA DMAG 2009 London Borough Stat-pack Based on GLA definition of outer London2.116 Over the past 20 years London’spopulation has been rising which, togetherwith declining average household size,has led to increased demand for housing.The result has been a rise in both the priceand stock of housing, with these trendsexpected to continue in the medium tolong term. This follows economic theory.There are many things that affect priceand dwelling numbers but increasing


78 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 2.29: Proportions of households living in social housing by ward, 2001household numbers is one of the mostfundamental of them. This can be inferredfrom the market assessments and NHPAUreports.2.117 Annex 5B shows that until the early90’s, outer London housing output wasconsistently above that of inner London,but since then, with few exceptions, ithas been below, usually by a significantmargin. However, this headline concealsconsiderable local variation. Figure2.30 shows net conventional housingcompletions over time in outer Londonsub-regions (left hand axis) and innerLondon for comparison (right hand axis) 1 .2.118 Housing supply in the outer SouthEast (Bexley and Bromley) has been ingeneral decline since the late 1980s,although picked up somewhat since 2003.Completions in the outer North, outerSouth West and outer West all fell duringthe 1990s but have risen since the start ofthe current decade, with the sharpest rateof growth in this period in the outer South


79Figure 2.30: Net conventional housing completions, 3 year moving averages 2West. Housing supply in the outer NorthEast rose strongly from 1999 to 2002 buthas rather plateaued since then.2.119 Housing output is partly a function ofthe density of development. However,simply raising densities across the boardis not a solution to increasing output,much less sustaining the distinct qualitiesof suburban London. High housingdensities in inappropriate locations werean important concern for many of therespondents to the Commission, especiallywhen they resulted in developmentwhich is out of scale and character withthe residential heartlands. Thus, whileaverage density of new developmentin outer London is less than half thatin inner London 3 (Figure 2.31), 50 percent of output is still above the rangefor a particular location which mightbe expected from London Plan densitypolicy (compared with 56 per cent ininner London – Annex 5C). The policyitself 4 , based on ‘Sustainable ResidentialQuality’ (SRQ) principles originally


80 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportdeveloped by the boroughs themselves,appears reasonable (subject to someminor modifications – see below). Theproblem would seems to be much more inits implementation, with the ‘SRQ’ matrixbeing interpreted mechanistically and notenough attention being paid to the needto respect local context and to take properaccount of public transport accessibility.Annex 5C also shows that even taking thisinto account, the policy does not seem tobe being interpreted consistently acrossouter London. Though it is intended toprovide flexibility to respond to differentlocal circumstances, the character of outerLondon would not appear to vary so muchas to justify one outer borough havingan average new development density of35 dwellings/ha 5 (implying significantoutput below the national 30 dwellings/ha minimum benchmark), while densitiesin most outer boroughs are at least doublethis.2.120 The Commission recognises thatimplementing the policy more effectivelywill require a more complex decisionmaking process and will place pressureon Development Control resources –however, this is essential to deliver the‘Sustainable Residential Quality’ outcomesoriginally anticipated. It should be backedby refinements to the 2008 Plan whichplace greater emphasis on optimisingrather than maximising output by takingproper account of local context and accessto public transport, and by measures toensure that in higher density developmentin particular, new homes are of a highstandard.2.121 According to data from the Land Registry,average house prices rose in every outerLondon borough in every year from 1997to 2007. It is of interest to examine themagnitude of house price increases acrossdifferent outer London boroughs duringthe residential property boom.2.122 Figure 2.32 shows percentage increases inaverage house prices in the latest two fiveyearperiods for which data is available(1997 to 2002 and 2002 to 2007). Datais shown for the outer London boroughs(ONS definition), outer and inner Londonand the East and South East regions forcomparison.2.123 The chart shows that across all areasgrowth in house prices was sharper in theperiod 1997-2002 compared with 2002-2007. During the 1997-2002 period pricesin outer London underwent a sharperpercentage increase (96 per cent) thanthose in inner London (90 per cent), thewider South East (90 per cent) and East(89 per cent) regions, and the whole ofEngland and Wales (74 per cent). Thesharpest rises in outer London occurred inWaltham Forest, Brent and Redbridge.2.124 From 2002-2007 the percentage increasein average prices in outer London (50 percent) was slightly less marked than thatin inner London (53 per cent), the Eastof England (53 per cent), and England


Figure 2.31: Density of residential development by boroughApprovalsCompletions81Inner London 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07Camden 136 116 227 227 141 106City of London 330 1,263 525 505 558 423Greenwich 136 246 161 123 148 170Hackney 201 240 275 236 183 266Hammersmith and Fulham 187 227 160 197 143 116Islington 259 256 319 288 235 226Kensington and Chelsea 138 164 170 147 164 135Lambeth 127 216 203 173 163 141Lewisham 163 173 142 137 123 109Newham 366 347 269 261 293 163Southwark 321 277 285 229 263 268Tower Hamlets 311 481 348 312 299 248Wandsworth 171 151 154 172 135 169Westminster 154 254 160 261 207 259213 274 208 215 181 189ApprovalsCompletionsOuter London 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07Barking and Dagenham 80 146 165 144 125 95Barnet 113 79 78 115 66 66Bexley 99 51 87 75 48 44Brent 133 149 199 150 106 113Bromley 36 49 44 35 54 54Croydon 130 106 115 98 72 78Ealing 160 113 121 162 140 195Enfield 66 82 52 70 95 75Haringey 114 173 136 163 138 175Harrow 59 90 111 71 79 93Havering 55 41 60 72 63 55Hillingdon 91 69 85 60 54 49Hounslow 164 95 156 120 102 120Kingston upon Thames 77 60 45 59 115 86Merton 74 94 64 46 96 93Redbridge 87 116 150 114 132 126Richmond upon Thames 58 60 83 82 58 74Sutton 92 118 70 89 53 60Waltham Forest 119 128 130 132 125 14090 96 87 85 83 87All boroughs 136 151 129 130 118 123Note: Figures are based on gross residential units in schemes for which a site area is available


82 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 2.32 Percentage changes in average house prices, 1997 to 2002 and 2002 to 2007and Wales (59 per cent). However, outerLondon’s increase was again sharper thanthat in the South East (47 per cent).The sharpest increases in outer Londonbetween 2002 and 2007 were in Barkingand Dagenham, Waltham Forest andMerton.2.125 In 2007 (i.e. close to the peak of therecent housing boom) the average houseprice in outer London was £301,000compared with £440,000 in inner London(ONS definitions). Average prices in outerLondon boroughs varied widely from£512,000 in Richmond to £193,000 inBarking and Dagenham. The ranks of outerboroughs in terms of their average houseprices changed little over the last ten yearswith a few notable exceptions. Averageprices in Brent and Redbridge were thetenth and thirteenth most expensive inouter London respectively in 1997. By2007 Brent was the sixth most expensiveborough and Redbridge the tenth mostexpensive borough.


83Figure 2.33: Number and main mode share of residents’ trips (all purposes) within and between central, innerand outer London, 2001What are the distinct features oftransport in outer London?2.126 Information already presented coverscommuting aspects of transport. Figure2.33 shows the main mode shares oftrips taken for all purposes within outerLondon and to inner and outside ofLondon. Also shown on the map are totalnumbers of trips in millions. The ‘private’mode represents car or other automobilejourneys.2.127 The main mode shares displayed on themap indicate that of trips taken within outerLondon over half were taken by car andaround a third were walking or cycling trips.Car journeys represented an even largershare of trips between outer boroughs andoutside of London (around 80 per cent).2.128 In contrast, public transport was used foraround 80 per cent of all trips betweenouter and central London, with theremainder of journeys between the twoareas by car.


84 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportTable 2.9: Main mode of travel to work, Autumn 2006Source: ONS Labour Force Survey from TfL 2007 London Travel Report Based on ONS definition of outer LondonTable 2.10: Travel times to work by main mode, Autumn 2006 21 Includes modes not listed (e.g. taxi). 2 Comparisons with earlier years results (reported in previous editions) are subject tosampling error and should be treated cautiously.Source: ONS Labour Force Survey from TfL 2007 London Travel Report Based on ONS definition of outer London2.129 Between outer and inner London carjourneys were again the most widely usedform of transport, representing slightlymore than half of all trips. The vast majorityof non-car trips between outer and innerLondon were taken by public transport.2.130 Data gathered by TfL also allows closerinspection of modes of travel to workfrom and to outer London areas (and innerLondon). This information is shown inTable 2.9.


85Figure 2.34: Estimated traffic flow densities, flows for all motor vehicles (million kilometres) per sq kmAlmost half of all journeys to workby residents of outer London (ONSdefinition) are by car, reflecting a largeproportion of work commutes that arewithin outer London (see Table 2.5). Thethree principal modes of public transport(bus, rail and underground) are usedby approximately equal shares of outerLondon residents to get to work.2.131 Travel to work times, shown by mainmodes of transport in Table 2.10, aresignificantly shorter for workers in outerLondon compared with inner Londoncommutes. Shorter journeys are likely tobe taken by those that live and work inouter London and outer areas containlower employment densities comparedwith central London, meaning thatcongestion is not as great.2.132 As shown above car journeys make up asignificant proportion of all trips taken byresidents of outer London. It is thereforeof interest to examine which outerboroughs contain the most car traffic, andto compare boroughs of different sizes it


86 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 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 squarekilometre of area.2.133 Figure 2.34 shows firstly that traffic flowdensity is much lower in outer Londoncompared with inner London. It also showswhich outer boroughs receive the highestand lowest traffic flow densities, withdensities likely to reflect traffic volumeand the location of major thoroughfaresand motorways (M4 and M11 forexample).2.134 Without accounting for area, outerLondon contains higher absolute flows oftraffic compared with inner London. Totalabsolute traffic (vehicle kilometres) overtime in the two areas is shown in Figure2.35. Traffic has increased steadily in outerLondon from just over 21 billion vehiclekilometres in 1993 to just under 23 billionvehicle kilometres in 1999, and has sinceremained at about the same level. Trafficin inner London increased from 1993 to1999, and has since fallen.2.135 Freight and servicing vehicles make upan important component of the tripsundertaken across London by road, railand river. Despite the large number of railfreight movements along the corridors tothe north, west and east of London, roadfreight makes up 89 per cent of freight bytonnage and furthermore it is expected


87Figure 2.36: HGV freight flows across Londonto grow to meet the demands fromLondon and the rest of the country. Figure2.36 shows HGV freight flows acrossLondon. Within the M25 freight flowsare high predominantly on radial routesthrough outer London, as well as alongthe orbital north circular road. AcrossLondon, freight accounts for 17 per centof kms travelled. A 10 per cent increasein freight mileage would be more thanall bus mileage in London. Commercialvehicles, such as those used for deliveriesand waste collection, facilitate the day today activities taking place in London. Thenumber of vans (LGVs) is forecast to growby 30 per cent between 2008 and 2031with some growth in HGV activity.


88 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportQuality of Life2.136 Outer London scores strongly on moststatistical indicators of life and environmentalquality. However, as Thompson 1 noted,opinion polls suggest that while around fourfifths of outer London residents are satisfiedwith their neighbourhood as a place to live,polls also indicate that residents have somespecific concerns, with crime, the local streetenvironment and anti-social behaviourcoming at the top of factors that theyregarded as needing improvement 2 .Crime2.137 Crime is cited as the main cause of concernfor residents. While rates are higher thanfor the country as a whole, they are lowerin outer London, and historically havebeen falling faster, than in inner London.Table 2.11 shows rates for particular typesof crime. Newham and some other outerboroughs with significant ‘inner London’characteristics, tend to have higher levelsof crime, but this is by no means universal– Ealing, for example, experiences motorvehicle and burglary offences above theinner London average.2.138 Rates of the four categories of crime shownin the table are consistently low in theborough of Sutton. Richmond has some ofthe lowest rates in outer London with theexception of burglary offences (which areapproximately average). Kingston has one ofthe three lowest outer London rates in threeof the crimes listed but is middle ranked forviolence against persons.Open space2.139 Access to open space is relatively good.Every outer London borough has moreopen space per capita than any innerborough 3 . The Mayor’s Green CapitalReport also indicated that most ofLondon’s important biodiversity is in theouter boroughs. Almost all of London’sNatura 2000 sites, designated underEuropean Union directives, are in outerLondon. All but four of London’s 38Sites of Special Scientific Interest are inthe outer London boroughs, along withthe majority of Sites of MetropolitanImportance, much of its MetropolitanOpen Land, many of its allotmentsand all of its Green Belt. Figure 2.37illustrates London’s strategic open spacenetwork. Figure 2.38 shows the numberof allotment sites per 10,000 people forLondon.Atmospheric emissions2.140 Figure 2.39 suggests that carbonemissions per resident are generally higherin outer London and especially in theboroughs on London’s boundary. Thismay be linked to relatively higher privatevehicle usage (see paragraph 2.105).2.141 The two main pollutants of concern forGreater London are particulate matter(PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).Ambient air quality in outer Londontends to be better than in central andinner London apart from in the vicinity ofHeathrow or very busy roads.


Table 2.11 Crime rates in outer London boroughsMotor vehicleoffences per1,000 populationRobberyoffences per1,000 populationViolence againstpersons per1,000 populationBarking and Dagenham 20.0 4.7 32.1 16.7Barnet 19.3 3.8 19.6 20.7Bexley 12.8 2.2 19.9 13.3Brent 18.0 8.8 30.8 22.4Bromley 16.2 3.0 18.4 16.4Croydon 13.2 5.4 22.8 16.1Ealing 21.5 6.6 26.0 25.2Enfield 15.3 5.2 18.8 21.0Haringey 22.3 9.0 30.9 28.2Harrow 13.2 4.1 14.3 18.8Havering 18.7 2.0 18.5 11.7Hillingdon 18.2 3.5 25.2 18.1Hounslow 19.9 4.0 30.3 20.8Kingston upon Thames 8.4 2.2 21.3 9.8Merton 11.9 3.3 19.1 12.2Newham 28.2 10.1 34.0 27.3Redbridge 18.0 5.4 16.1 22.6Richmond upon Thames 10.6 2.5 12.8 17.2Sutton 13.2 2.3 17.8 8.7Waltham Forest 21.6 10.8 30.8 20.4Outer London 17.3 5.1 23.0 18.9Inner London 20.7 7.9 32.9 21.4Greater London 18.5 6.1 26.6 19.8England and Wales 13.5 1.8 19.7 13.5Source: Home Office Based on GLA definition of outer LondonBurglaryoffences per1,000 households89Figure 2.37:London’sStrategic OpenSpace Network


90 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 2.38:Number ofAllotment Sitesper 10,000peopleFigure 2.39Carbon DioxideEmissions perCapita


91Figure 2.40 PM 10annual averageconcentrations(mg/m 3 ) 2008Figure 2.41 NO 2annual averageconcentrations(mg/m 3 ) 2008


92 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report2.142 Figure 2.40 shows that the vast majorityof London already meets the EU LimitValue for the annual mean PM10 in 2008(shaded blue, green, yellow and orange).Figure 2.41 shows that there are areasthroughout Greater London that exceedthe NO2 annual mean EU limit value(shaded yellow and red in Figure 2.41).The Mayor recently published his draft AirQuality Strategy for public consultationthat includes London wide and centralLondon focused initiatives to reduceemissions of these harmful pollutants andthus improve the health of Londoners.2.143 Ambient air quality in outer Londontends to be better than in central andinner London apart from in the vicinity ofHeathrow or very busy roads, althoughthe Government’s health based air qualityobjectives are unlikely to be met in at leastpart of every London borough. Ambientnoise maps show a similar picture withouter London tending to be less noisythan central and inner. This is largely dueto less noise from the transport network.Household recycling rates are higher inouter London at 23.5 per cent, comparedto 17.9 per cent in inner London.Housing quality2.144 The Commission noted that the 2008London Plan was prepared before the‘place shaping’ agenda had been fully set.There is now extensive advice on this fordifferent types of locality, not least towncentres and residential neighbourhoods. Itcan make a key contribution to enhancingthe quality of life for outer Londoners andshould be reflected in the replacementPlan for implementation in light of localcircumstances, playing to the strengthsof local places – one suggestion was thatit could help lead to the ‘rediscoveryof London’s lost towns’ (Figure 2.42)to provide stronger foci and sense ofplace for established as well as newcommunities. This would complementthe more sensitive approach to housingdensity and quality required to supportincreased housing output outlined in para2.119Social Infrastructure2.145 While outer London anticipates lowergrowth than inner London, this growthwill still be substantial: 890,000 morepeople, 330,000 more householdsand 140,000 more jobs up to 2031. Tosupport this, and maintain quality oflife for existing residents, more socialinfrastructure is required, especially interms of health and education facilities.Historically, coordination of this functionhas sometimes been problematic. Thisis due to a range of factors, includingthe tendency for national educationinvestment to take a short termperspective; fragmentation betweenthe commissioners and providers ofhealth services (and the distributionof infrastructure which underpins thisprocess); the weight accorded to boroughbased Community Strategies, and therelatively isolated role of the StrategicHealth Authority. For the longer term the


93Figure 2.42: London’s ‘lost towns’Source: FarrellsPlan would appear to have scope to takea more proactive part in coordination ofsocial infrastructure provision.2.146 For the interim, to inform this process,the Commission has engaged in workto provide strategic gross provisionbenchmarks to help local stakeholdersassess their net need for different typesof social infrastructure in light of existingprovision. Annex 6a, developed bythe Healthy Urban Development Unit(HUDU) shows potential gross demandfor additional health infrastructure arisingfrom an increase in population generatedfrom future housing supply. These broadrequirements take into account anexpected shift in activity from acute toprimary and community care settings, butdo not address the capacity of currenthealth services and facilities. Annex 6bsets out projected education/school


94 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportage populations to enable boroughs totest whether they have made provisionto meet future education requirementsin LDFs. Interpretation of parts ofthese tables should be informed by theassociated TfL maps showing accessto facilities. Consideration should begiven to extending use of this materialin a more formal planning context, forexample through Supplementary PlanningGuidance.Broader Quality of Life issues2.147 The Commission’s economic remit, andthus its approach to quality of life issues,differed from Robin Thompson’s brief forhis work 4 on the 2008 Plan, which hada stronger social emphasis. However,from the evidence it has considered theCommission would agree with him that “onmost indicators, outer London is healthier,wealthier and greener than inner Londonand indeed most urban areas in the UK. Itsresidents like living there, although someare voicing some concerns with the qualityof the local environment”.2.148 The Commission noted his view “Thismay, to an extent, reflect ‘private wealthand public squalor’. As the quality of theprivate domestic environment grows,dissatisfaction is focused on the relativelypoor quality of the external environmentas manifested by poor paving, graffiti,abandoned vehicles, anti-social andcriminal behaviour and the like”.2.149 The Commission also noted hisobservation that “some polls suggestthat outer London residents identify farmore strongly with their local area thanwith London as a whole. Phenomenasuch as traffic congestion, high housingcosts and more intensive developmentmay give residents the feeling that innercity characteristics are intruding into thetraditional suburban styles of living. Tothis could be added a sense of a “slide”in the perceived status and position ofouter London as the outer Metropolitaneconomy out-performs it and the innerLondon regeneration powers on”.2.150 In considering quality of life issues, theCommission would agree with Thompsonthat “this presents policy makers withdifficult issues. The changes that areoccurring in the economy and demographyhave deep rooted structural causes suchas de- industrialisation, concentrationof global finance and business growthsectors in the centre city and the growingpopularity of inner city living with youngprofessional people. These structuralchanges are by no means unique toLondon. They can be seen in, for example,New York and England’s next two largestcities, Birmingham and Manchester.They can only be managed by long-termstrategies that address the deep-seatednature of some of these trends”.


95Statistically, what are outer London’slong term economic prospects?General trends2.151 Despite the lengthy recession, it is likelythat long-term economic growth will return.At the time of writing it was expected thatLondon would emerge from recession eitherat the end of 2009 or the first half of 2010.GLA Economics then forecast that GVAgrowth would be –3.5 per cent in 2009and –0.2 per cent in 2010. On an annualbasis it was the thought that GVA growthmight not resume until 2011, at 1.5 percent. Employment normally lags outputand so it was expected that the number ofpeople working in London might declinethrough 2011. The then latest forecast issummarized in Table 2.12 below.2.152 While London has performed better thanthe rest of the UK during this recession, itis expected that in the recovery London’sgrowth will lag that of the rest of thecountry, if only because it has not fallenas far. An unknown factor that may have astrong influence on London’s economy ischange to the regulation of the financialservices sector. Since this does notnormally occur after typical recessionsit may affect historical patterns. Thoughthis sector is concentrated in centralLondon and employs a relatively smallnumber of people, it is an integral part ofthe larger economy. But experience overtime suggests economic growth after therecession may be above trend.2.153 The same reasons that have made Londona desirable place for business in the pastremain so today. The recession has notchanged London’s strategic positionin the global economy – an importantconsideration for outer London. Table 3.1illustrates the factors that are consideredimportant to businesses, emphasising thatLondon scores highly with a variety offactors.Table 2.12: Economic forecasts for London (2009-2011)Annual growth rates (per cent) 2008 2009 2010 2011London GVA (constant 2003 £ billion) 1.4 -3.5 -0.2 1.5Consensus (average of independent forecasts) -3.6 -0.4 2.1London civilian workforce jobs 0.7 -3.4 -2.3 -0.6Consensus (average of independent forecasts) -3.6 -2.1 -0.1London household spending (constant 2003 £ billion) 2.8 -3.0 -1.9 0.5Consensus (average of independent forecasts) -3.5 -0.6 1.3London household income (constant 2003 £ billion) 3.1 -2.3 0.6 1.7Memo: Projected UK RPI (Inflation rate)Projected UK CPI (Inflation rate)-1.11.71.81.62.21.4Sources: GLA Economics’ Autumn 2009 forecast and consensus calculated by GLA Economics.


96 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report2.154 GLA Economics projects that by 2031London’s economy will add 775,000 jobsover 2007 levels (Annex 3). Of thesearound 140,000 will be in outer London,which equates to some 6,000 new jobsper year. On these trends conventionalmanufacturing employment looks setto continue to decline, by 224,000 jobsacross London and by 2031 may be onlya marginal employer. In contrast financialand business services are expected togrow by 360,000 while the hotels andrestaurants industry is projected to add235,000 jobs 1 – the latter sectors area key consideration for outer Londonbecause they are less closely associatedwith central London. Within outer London,office based employment is projected toincrease by 70,000 2007 – 2031, broadlydefined industrial type jobs are expectedto decline by 94,000 and ‘other’ (mainlylocal service based) jobs to expand by167,000 (see Annex 3B).Future office demand in outer London2.155 As a result of structural change in itshistoric occupier base (see above), officebased development and employment inFigure 2.43 Average annual completions of office floor space (gross sqm) 2000/01 to 2008/09


97much of outer London have not beenclosely related over at least two economiccycles. This is partly because office basedemployment growth (see Annex 3A) hasnot been sufficiently ‘value added’ tojustify strategically significant new officedevelopment across outer London (Annex7). To be viable such development typicallyrequired rentals of more than £25/£28per sq ft in historically ‘normal’ economicconditions (and more realistically £30 sqft) 2 . While these rents have been achievedin a relatively few, attractive locations(mainly in west London), demand tosustain them has not been sufficientlywidespread to lead to extensive, structuralrejuvenation of the outer London officestock. Figure 2.43 (and more specificallyAnnex 7) shows that with some notableexceptions there has been relatively littleoffice development in much of outerLondon over the last economic cycle. Theseries of London Office Policy Reviews forthe GLA and London Planning AdvisoryCommittee suggest that this inactivity alsocovered the previous cycle 1989 – 2001.2.156 This position has been exacerbatedby the scale of the existing stock(7.1 mll sq m or 25 per cent of theLondon total), most of which is availableat significantly lower rents than thoserequired to support new development.In some cases, these rents may not evenbe enough to justify investment formodernisation, or retention of the spacein office use when faced with competitionfor scarce land resources from highervalue development, especially housing.In addition, nearby parts of the widersoutheast (the Outer Metropolitan Area –OMA), especially towards the west, haveoffered competitive advantage to potentialoccupiers (Figure 2.44), providingmodern new space at around the samerental threshold as might apply in outerLondon but with lower other businesscosts, especially those generated bylabour market related factors. Such OMAlocations do not incur the wider costs oftrying to do business in an extensive anddensely urbanised area while still garneringsome of the agglomeration benefitsarising from proximity to it. It is arguablethat such new office development as hasbeen proposed within London but outsideCAZ/Canary Wharf, has been following asimilar pattern – in strategic terms little isplanned to come forward in town centres;most is at best in edge of centre locationsand much is out of centre 3 .2.157 The mismatch between office employmentand development prospects was centralto the work of the Commission (see next‘Analysis’ section of this report). It is nowalso recognised by the Draft ReplacementLondon Plan, which strongly qualifiesapplication of conventional workerfloorspace density assumptions to officeemployment projections when comingto a view on future office floorspacedemand in the distinct circumstances ofouter London. Thus, while the draft Plandoes provide consistent, pan-Londonmonitoring benchmarks produced on


98 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 2.44 Office Floorspace 2008 London & Outer Metropolitan Areaan employment/density basis, it makesclear that in outer London in particularthese should be qualified by other marketindicators e.g. development trends,density, rents, take-up, vacancy.2.158 While acknowledging the limitations ofworking just on an employment/densitybasis, the 2009 London Office PolicyReview (LOPR09) 4 showed that it could onthis basis suggest demand for some5.3 million sq.m of office floorspace acrossLondon over the period 2007-2031. Ofthis total demand, some 940,000 sq.m(18%) was attributed to outer London.Figure 2.45 illustrates the geographicaldistribution of this projected demandfor office floorspace in outer Londonat borough level, and compares it withfloorspace in the planning pipeline(including offices under construction orwith planning permission).2.159 Relative to other parts of outer London,the strongest demand for officesis anticipated in the West (notably


99Figure 2.45: Employment density based projected demand for office floorspace (gross) in outer Londonboroughs 2007-2031 and identified capacity, sq.m.Hillingdon, Hounslow and Brent) andparts of outer North London (Barnet).The supply-demand balance in Figure2.45 shows however that identifiedcapacity exceeds forecast demand innine outer London boroughs and mostnotably in Croydon, Havering, Barking &Dagenham and Barnet. Whilst this supplydemandanalysis can be useful whenconsidering potential approaches to officedevelopment, the review warns againstusing this data too prescriptively.2.160 LOPR09 illustrates the great variability inthe attractiveness and success of outerLondon office markets and supports theconcept of focussing demand on themost viable and competitive businesslocations. The study considered thepotential growth prospects of outerLondon centres based upon a range offactors including current and prospectivelevels of economic activity, clusteringadvantages, diversity of offer, impactof infrastructure improvements andstrategic site availability. The consultants


100 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 2.46 Outer London Office Development Guidelines (DRLP Annex 2)considered that there may be a case forencouraging office-led development inthe next economic cycle at Park Royal,Chiswick, Brentford, Hounslow, Heathrowperimeter, Uxbridge, Stockley Park,Croydon and Wimbledon (see Figure2.46). The assessment identified a casefor office-led mixed use development in anumber of other centres in outer Londonincluding Barking, Bexleyheath, Romford,Wembley, Ealing, Southall, Feltham,Bromley, Kingston, Surbiton, Richmond,Twickenham, Sutton and Brent Cross.2.161 As the Commission was sitting, theconsultants also examined the relativeperformance of outer London (OL) and theOuter Metropolitan Area (OMA), between2003 and 2007, according to a numberof economic performance measures. Theyfound that the simple perception that OL is‘under-performing’ OMA to be misleading.Rather, it has changed structurally over thelast twenty years due to a range of factorsincluding the degradation of central Londonsalary weightings and the effects of ‘newtechnology’ on traditional central London


101‘back office’ functions, resulting in a majorreduction in the ‘relocation’ market – theresidual of this market may now well gooverseas. Perhaps counter-intuitively, theconsultants’ assessment of performancemeasures suggested that there was noclear pattern of out-performance by OMA.In addition to its labour market and lowerland cost advantages, the consultantsfound there were was some evidencethat OMA performed better on quality ofenvironment measures – a potential lessonfor outer London. The consultants alsonoted that liberal parking regimes mightoffer advantage in some circumstances,but qualified this by noting that oneof outer London’s most successfulbusiness parks (Chiswick Park) is firmlyembedded in its urban environment. Theyconcluded that “the fundamental issueof competition between east and west isprobably the much more significant issueand strategic challenge (than between OLand OMA).Future industry/warehousingdemand in outer London2.162 Together, the outer London boroughsin 2006 contained an estimated 4,000hectares in industrial, warehousing andrelated uses such as waste managementand utilities. This represents some73 per cent of the London total 5 . Over450 hectares of industrial land in outerLondon was identified as vacant or11.3 per cent of the total, compared tothe inner London vacancy rate of16.5 per cent.2.163 Like office demand in outer London, thatfor industrial capacity is complex. Whiletraditional metal based manufacturing,particularly on a large scale, looks set tocontinue its well documented decline,other types of occupier may have a morepositive future. These range from smallscale providers of ‘services for the servicesector’, through larger scale industrial typeservices such as waste management, tothe complex logistics networks essentialto provide goods for a post industrial city.What most have in common is a need forrelatively cheap land protected throughthe planning system. Though ‘top end’industrial rents of slightly more than £15sq ft (but more usually £10 - £12) maycompete with some other commercialfunctions, in most economic circumstancesthey are challenged by a substantialmargin (a factor of five or more) byresidential land values. At the otherend of the scale, it is environmentallydesirable and economically necessary forthose firms which need to compete froma £5 sq ft (or less) rent base to remain inLondon to provide it with their specialistservices. While it is essential to be morerealistic in accommodating the needsof commercial vehicles, further growthin ‘white van’ traffic (already the mainsource of commercial traffic growth)should not be exacerbated by forcingthese firms to relocate beyond London.Thus, when coming to a view on using theplanning system to accommodate businessactivities which ‘need to be in London’,account should be taken not just of issues


102 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportassociated with economic linkages/supplychains, but also indirect environmentaland transport capacity costs, as well as toproviding more positively for the efficientmovement of commercial vehicles on theroad system.2.164 Based upon a strategic assessmentof supply and demand for industrialuses, London Plan SPG indicates thatthe outer London boroughs where thesupply-demand balance for industrialland is tightest include Croydon, Sutton,Merton, Bromley, Richmond, Kingstonand Hounslow. In Bexley, Havering andBarking & Dagenham the supply-demandbalance is less restrictive, but a managedapproach to industrial land reconfigurationand transfer to other uses will be essential.Strategic and local employment landreviews will continue to play a key rolein assessing the quality of sites andidentifying opportunities to enhance theattractiveness and competitiveness forindustrial type activities.The Commission’s views are informing anLDA review of industrial land in London,the results of which are anticipated inJune 2010.Other services including retailand leisure2.165 In 2006, estimated consumer expenditureon comparison goods retail in the outerLondon boroughs stood at £13.9bn andwas projected to rise to £38.3bn in 2031,an increase of 176 per cent, comparedto the London average of 190 per cent.Estimated household expenditure onconvenience goods retail in the outerLondon boroughs in 2006 stood at£7.2bn and was projected to rise to£10bn in 2031, an increase of 39 percent, compared to the London averageof 46 per cent. Household spending onleisure in outer London was also expectedto rise from a base of £31.6bn in 2006to over £42.3bn in 2031. The outerLondon borough distribution of growth inhousehold convenience, comparison goodsretail and leisure spend 2006-2031 is setout in Figure 2.47.2.166 Taking into account growth in commuterand tourist spending, retailers makingmore efficient use of existing space andnew forms of retailing like buying on line,London has a ‘net additional’ need for1.3-2.2 million sq.m comparison goodsretail floorspace by 2031. About 40 percent of this need is identified in outerLondon (excluding Newham), or 50 percent if Newham is included. Figure 2.48illustrates estimated comparison goodsretail floorspace in the planning pipelineand how the additional demand to 2031is distributed across the outer Londonboroughs. The largest comparison goodsretail developments in the pipeline inouter London are listed in Table 2.12 withschemes over 35,000sqm at Brent Cross/Cricklewood, Kingston, Bromley andCroydon town centres. Definitions of outerLondon including Newham would raise thepipeline figure significantly, with around


103Figure 2.47 Growth in household convenience and comparison goods retail and leisure spend,outer London boroughs 2006-2031 (£m).Source: Experian Business Strategies, 2009Figure 2.48 Comparison Goods Retail Floorspace in the Planning Pipeline andNet Additional Need to 2031, sqm.


104 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportTable 2.12 Comparison Goods Retail Floorspace in the Planning Pipeline in outer London(largest schemes at 2009)Borough Site Name Additional Comparison RetailFloorspace (sqm)Barnet Brent Cross Cricklewood 60,776Kingston upon Thames Eden Walk Shopping Centre, Eden Walk 50,000Bromley Bromley Town Centre 38,000Croydon Park Place, Park Street 36,707Bexley B & Q Plc Sidcup, Sidcup-By-Pass 30,261EnfieldEdmonton Green Shopping Centre & Adjacent, 17,472The BroadwayEaling Arcadia Centre, The Broadway 16,360Haringey Tottenham Hale Retail Park, Broad Lane 15,863Brent Oriental City, 399 Edgware Road 14,677Hounslow Blenheim Centre, Key Site One (Phase 2), High St. 13,266Source: Experian Business Strategies, 2009112,000sqm comparison goods retailunder construction at Stratford City.2.167 Identification of capacity to accommodategrowth in retail and leisure is a key issuein outer London and the recent LondonwideTown Centre Health Check providedan indication of town centres where suchcapacity might exist, such as at Croydon,Kingston, Woolwich, Wembley, Ealingand Ilford. The Health Check report notedhowever, that evidence of capacity waslimited, and that it will be important toidentify such capacity in more local retailand leisure assessments within and on theedges of town centres where appropriate.


105Stakeholders views: summary2.168 From the outset, the Commission hassought to gather a range of views onpast and possible future directions forthe outer London economy, which couldboth complement and inform its owninvestigations. To facilitate this, theCommission set out a series of questionsunder three broad themes: Economy,Transport, and Quality of Life, and invitedstakeholders to respond to these andadd their own additional comments. Aswell as acting as an invitation for writtencomments, the questions were used as abasis for discussion at the public meetingsheld by the Commission. The questionsinvited respondents to, for example,identify present and previous barriers toeconomic development, suggest ways ofovercoming these and comment on possibleconfigurations for development. There wasscope to identify generic issues as wellas matters specific to a particular area orstakeholder, and the questions acted as auseful stimulus to the debate. The full list ofinitial questions is reproduced in Annex 2.2.169 Responses were welcomed from anyquarter, and we were pleased to see arange of respondents: London boroughs,partnerships, developers, business groupsand other government bodies. There were52 written responses in total, and a listof respondents is given in Annex 8. Asdescribed in Chapter 1, the Commission heldsix public meetings, which are listed in thetable above:Table 2.13: Public meetings held by the OLCLocation London region Date1 City Hall Central 3 February 20092 Haringey North 18 March 2009Civic Centre3 Kingston South 15 April 2009Guildhall4 Romford East 13 May 2009Town Hall5 Ealing West 17 June 2009Town Hall6 City Hall Central 7 July 20092.170 This section of the report identifiescommonly-raised issues and is notintended to be a comprehensivedescription of all the matters covered inthe responses – almost all the respondentsdescribed the conditions, needs andaspirations of their particular borough orsub-region. Copies of all written responsesare available online at the OLC website.The Commission was heartened by theenthusiasm and commitment whichrespondents showed in their vision forouter London.Economy2.171 In response to one of our first questions,there was some consensus on what havebeen the historic barriers to developmentin outer London. One was the legacy ofthe industries with which outer Londonhas often been strongly associated andwhich now either have been in long-termdecline, face competition from locationsoutside London, or both. These includemanufacturing and heavy industry,


106 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportback office functions and ‘traditional’waste management, as well as logistics,distribution and retail. There is sometimesa perception that, even as these sectorshave declined, ‘this is what outer Londondoes’, and an apparent reluctance to reevaluatethis.Additionally, many of the jobs in thesesectors are low-paid, and the relativeaffordability of commuting into highervaluejobs in central London, or to townsbeyond the Capital, has contributed toslower growth in outer London. It wasnoted that outer London competesmuch more with the Outer MetropolitanArea (OMA) than with inner London. Inparticular, the retail sector in town centresand on the high street has had to competewith bigger, more attractive out-of-townlocations, which are well connected bothfor public transport and, more importantly,the private car. Consider, for example, thecompetition from Bluewater in Kent orLakeside in Essex for shopping (all thatparking space!) or Reading for modernoffices. As office-based jobs have movedout, the office stock available, and itsquality, has declined. Furthermore, thehigher value of residential developmentin outer London means that available landis often diverted from business and officesectors to housing.2.172 Respondents identified a need, then, to“re-brand” and reinvent outer Londonas part of our quest to secure futureeconomic growth. Some suggested thatthere needed to be active ‘marketing’ ofouter London or particular locationswithin it.Some respondents noted that theplanning regime can act as an inhibitor toinvestment. They noted the many bodiesinvolved in local development and theneed to align expectations and aspirationsin order to give a clear message aboutthe future of the areas to attract andreassure investors. Similarly, any plansproposed by the Commission must haveregard to existing policies and frameworksput in place by local responsiblebodies (eg through Local DevelopmentFrameworks). There was also a call torelease land, especially public sector land,for development. It was suggested thatthe existing London Plan has enabledcentral London to dominate the economyof London by focusing new growth in thisarea, a pattern reinforced by good radialtransport links, and the assumption thatwhile outer London is a desirable place tolive, the centre is where the jobs are.2.173 Related to this, many respondentshighlighted that there is a highly-skilledworkforce living in outer London, but that,with notable exceptions, many commuteto the centre or outside London forwork. There are pockets of outer Londonwhere the potential or existing workforcehas lower skill levels, and worklessnessis a problem. Local jobs may often belower-paid, and the cost of commutingcan be a barrier, as can the lack ofaffordable childcare. Most identifiedthe positive effects of local further and


107higher education institutions, and therelatively low number of universities inouter London. Not only can educationserve to upskill the local workforce, but itcan help to attract innovative and hightechemployers to the area, and benefitsboth research and the economy. Otherinstitutions, such as specialist hospitals orlarge public sector organisations, can alsoact as a ‘magnet’ for related industries.Similarly, it was suggested that somecentral government functions could berelocated to outer London. One means ofrevitalising some locations, then, could beto site a new HE or FE institution there,or re-locate public sector institutions fromcentral London.In the London economy, the demand for workrequiring low skills and/or qualifications hasshrunk greatly and will continue to [do so]University of East London2.174 Respondents also suggested that thereneeded to be business support for small tomedium enterprises and recognition thatmuch economic activity was now micro-,often home-based businesses. Therecould be better support for them via, forexample, office support centres in towns,with cheap and flexible services and rents.Respondents said that futureemployment sectors needed to be highvalue,and with a long future life. Theseinclude knowledge-based and creativeindustries, innovative technology (forexample pharmaceuticals), and ‘green’sectors. Also highlighted was the need toreinvent some of outer London’s historicalroles to reflect the needs of the 21stcentury, and in particular to respond toconcerns about the environment andclimate change. Waste managementwould continue to be an important sector,but should continue to re-focus onrecycling and enhanced energy recoveryand alternatives to landfill. Distributionand logistics would also remain a keypart of the outer London economy;again with potential to make these moreenvironmentally beneficial, for exampleby freight consolidation. A couple ofrespondents said that decentralisedenergy provision should be part of thearea’s future; as could leisure and tourism.Naturally, many respondents outlined insome detail the particular strengths andopportunities for economic developmentin their area.2.175 There was a strong consensus, though,that growth should be based upon adiverse base of sectors and with a rangeof employers, to mitigate the impacts offuture economic downturns. In the past, itwas suggested, there has been too muchconcentration on a few areas, such asfinancial and business services. Spreadingthe growth over a wider base would helpto ensure the economic resilience ofLondon as a whole. The London Plan, andthe other strategies, need to support this.2.176 As stated earlier, views about thepotential for ‘growth hubs’ identified


108 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportin the Commission’s initial questionswere mixed. Many noted that Croydonand Stratford had already developed aseconomic centres with good transportlinks, and that there were already plansin place to enhance these, meaning thatplans for new growth hubs would besuperfluous. More importantly, though,respondents stated clearly that the overalleffect of the Commission’s work shouldbe to benefit the London economy as awhole. Any growth hubs must benefit theirsurrounding area, and fit in with existingand potential growth areas. In particular,it was felt that growth must not be to thedetriment of town and district centresor attempt to create centres where nonewould naturally exist. There could be a riskof re-creating the central/outer Londoneconomic and transport dichotomy withinouter London, if hubs were to grow at theexpense of the wider region.2.177 Some suggested that a more naturalpattern would be growth ‘ribbons’or corridors, which would reflect andenhance current residential, travel andemployment configurations. Industriesalready cluster in different parts of outerLondon – creative industries in White City,say, or support for the Olympics aroundStratford – and these should be enabled togrow. Future development should similarlybe around ‘anchors’ of natural growth,allowing similar and related businesses tobenefit from co-location. Whatever theconfiguration, growth should be ‘organic’and build on existing strengths rather thanstart from scratch.2.178 It was also suggested that the definitionof outer London should be permeable,and that the Commission should take intoaccount the strong inter-dependenciesbetween inner and outer boroughs in theCapital, as well as London’s place in thewider South East. One of our respondentssums this up particularly well:There should be an elastic definition of outerLondon reflecting economic characteristics,opportunities and needs rather than thetraditional planning based designation....Thames Gateway London Partnership2.179 There was significant debate around thedefinition of outer London. At the startof its work, and in accordance with thegeneral definitions uses, the Commissionincluded the London Borough of Newhamas an outer London borough. In theborough’s response to the consultation,its Mayor, Sir Robin Wales, stated thatthe borough had long contested thisdesignation and set out reasons for itsre-definition as an inner London borough.In subsequent discussion and analysis,the Commission used this designation,and similarly in the development of thethree Mayoral Strategies, Newham wasconsidered an inner London Borough.However, in our work we have recognisedthat some places in “inner” London(perhaps Stratford in particular) are closely


109linked with more outer areas – and havethe potential to support their futuredevelopment.Transport2.180 There is, of course, a strong associationbetween economic growth and increasedcar use, and respondents stated thatareas identified for future economicgrowth must offer sustainable transportalternatives. Otherwise, growth in outerareas would most likely increase car use.Also, capacity on the road network isconstrained, and while traffic managementmeasures have a role to play, it is notfeasible or desirable to accommodateincreased demand for travel simply byincreasing car use. There were concernsabout traffic emissions and the wideradverse health impacts of car reliance:for example, children not getting enoughexercise because they are driven to schoolrather than walking or cycling locally.2.181 Traffic congestion was perceived asprobably the most significant problem,with an adverse impact on both economicperformance and local quality of life.Respondents suggested a range ofmeasures to address this issue, rangingfrom workplace parking levy, increasesin public transport capacity through toencouraging more walking and cycling.Some respondents wanted to see moreconsideration of park and ride facilitiesand others drew attention to the realtimetraffic management measures thathave been successful in central London.Also mentioned were co-ordinated signaltimings and the potential removal orshutdown of some signals.[T]he underperformance [of outer London]...can be attributed in part to two interlinkedfactors: rising levels of congestion andskill deficiencies.BAA Heathrow2.182 That said, it would not be feasible toprovide public transport links to alldestinations in outer London and thatthe car would remain important for many,although opportunities to enable andpromote the use of public transport,walking and cycling, should be maximised.Several respondents said that there shouldbe a package of measures to reduce cartravel; for a few this included road useror parking charges. More generally, it wasfelt to be important to offer attractivealternatives. It was noted that manyfamilies retained a car for non-worktrips that would be difficult to make bypublic transport. Overall, there was aclear message that the car would remainimportant in outer London, and planningshould recognise this.2.183 Smarter Travel programmes cropped upoften as a success story. TfL has, withboroughs, run programmes in Sutton and,more recently, Richmond upon Thames.The scheme uses a range of measures– personal, school and workplace travelplanning, promotion of car clubs and car-


110 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportsharing – to encourage people to choosepublic transport, walking and cycling.The success of Smarter Travel in shiftingcar users to more sustainable modes wascited by many respondents and therewas enthusiasm for the programme beingavailable more widely. Also, it is importantto ‘lock in’ the benefits of the scheme,otherwise suppressed demand will reclaimthe road capacity. Some respondents saidthat schools and hospitals, in particular,would benefit from enhanced travelplanning.2.184 However, the potential transport (andenvironment) benefits of greateremployment growth in outer London werewelcomed: enabling people to work andaccess key services closer to home wouldreduce the amount of overall travel aswell as enabling people to choose moresustainable modes. Obviously, it’s easierto walk or cycle to work if your office isin your local town centre. But also crucialto people making this choice is a pleasantand safe environment, in which peoplefeel confident to walk, cycle or use publictransport. Some respondents reiteratedthe benefits of mixed-use developmentand the added value of having, forexample, education and health services inthe same location.New employment generating developmentneeds to be based on principles of reducingthe need to travel (through provision of localemployment opportunities and encouraginghome working) and through ensuring newopportunities further from home areaccessible by public transport.LB Richmond upon Thames2.185 It was recognised that additional resourcesfor transport are limited. In this context,respondents were keen that existingservices and infrastructure were fullyutilised, for example by increasing servicefrequencies and passenger capacity.Respondents suggested that cyclingroutes should be concentrated aroundtown centres rather than attemptingoverall coverage. There is also potential toget greater value from transport servicesvia ‘reverse commuting’, as outer London’srole as an employment destination grows.Under this scenario, residents would travelfrom home in one outer London locationto another (spreading the load on publictransport on the roads), rather thaneveryone taking a similar route tothe centre.2.186 In the short to medium term, additionalpublic transport is most likely to comefrom buses and transits and severalhighlighted the need to make buses morereliable and attractive. This could includebus priority measures on the roads.Other relatively inexpensive measures toencourage the use of public transport,


111like better information provision, werealso identified. Furthermore, well-placed,user-friendly interchanges could help tosqueeze the most value from the existingnetwork. Being able to access up-to-dateand understandable travel informationis also seen as key. It was noted that insome instances, people use the car simplybecause they are put off by having tomake connections and join up differenttimetables.2.187 There was also a call to look at theprovision of cross-boundary bus and othertransport services (covering London andnon-London services), since outer Londonresidents do not, of course, only travelwithin the Capital. All transport servicesneed to be co-ordinated in order to makethem easier and more attractive to use;and to squeeze maximum benefit from theexisting systems.2.188 Respondents gave detailed proposalsand suggestions for particular transportimprovements in their area. While it’s notappropriate to list these here, we canpull out some key messages. In general,it was felt that there should be links to,from, and within town and district centres,and historically deprived areas shouldbe enabled to access public transport toget to work. Also important was orbitalconnectivity, and links between the‘spokes’ of the town centre hubs. Therewere various suggestions for extendingUnderground, DLR and Tramlink lines,as well as increasing services on the railnetwork. A few identified the need toelectrify parts of the network; othersemphasised the need for additional rivercrossings. Trams were identified as anattractive alternative to car use in someparts of London.2.189 Public transport costs are perceived ashigher in outer London, potentially puttingoff users. Fares between destinations inouter London needed to be affordablein order to have a mobile labour market;and the price of public transport needs tocompare favourably to the cost of runninga car. There was a suggestion for an ‘outerLondon travelcard’ to make it cheaper totravel within this area. Some respondentssuggested that the Mayor’s lack of controlover National Rail is an inhibitor to fullyintegrated and affordable services inouter London, where there is heavierdependence on this mode. This is an issuewhich the Mayor is partly addressingthrough the integration of Oyster ticketingon National Rail services.2.190 Respondents recognised that therewould be a need for greater residentialdensity in order to justify public transportinvestment, although many hopedthat this could be achieved withoutcompromising quality. There wereexamples of how this could be achieved,by strong urban design standards andgreen spaces, for example. There was anoverarching concern that the suburbsremain an attractive place to live as well aswork. Further to this, respondents noted


112 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportthat outer London residents not only needtransport provision for employment, theyalso need it to access education, leisureand social/family events.Outer London will become a more attractiveplace to work if employment centres are easilyaccessible by public transport. Thereforeincreased traffic congestion and pollutionneed not be an inevitable consequence ofemployment growth if planned correctly.Some of the proceeds of economic growthneed to be reinvested into the PT system toensure this virtuous circle is maintained.LB Barking & DagenhamQuality of Life2.191 Overwhelmingly, respondents were clearthat increased economic activity in outerLondon should not be at the expense ofretaining the different local characteristicsof each area and the many advantages itoffers to residents. While the Commissionhas, of necessity, had to talk about ‘outerLondon’ as a generality, we’ve alwaysbeen mindful that this definition containshundreds of unique locations, each withtheir own particular heritage and features.The fantastic attraction to London is itsdiversity. One size does not fit all and weshould, therefore, endeavour to giveflexibility in our recommendationsTony Pidgley, OL Commissioner2.192 In addition, development must besustainable (in all the senses of that word)and have regard to its environmentalimpacts, particularly in terms of mitigatingthe extent of future climate change andadapting to its consequences. Manypeople make a choice to live in outerLondon because it is less intensivelydeveloped and offers a pleasant andattractive place to live, particularly forfamilies. If development is not mindfulof these considerations, there is a riskthat those who can, will choose to leaveLondon altogether. However, there wassupport for having more ‘self-contained’centres in outer London, where people donot need to travel long distances for workor shopping.2.193 There was a clear message regardingthe need to support and revitalise townand district centres, which may havebecome rundown and are less attractiveand accessible as shopping destinationscompared with out-of-town alternatives.Several noted that town centres needto have a mix of quality jobs, shops andservices in order to remain viable. Theyare also important for social cohesion,allowing people to access services nearerto home. Co-location of key services, likehealth and education, can bring benefitsin terms of reduced need to travel andenhanced accessibility. It is also importantto be able to access cultural and leisurefacilities near to home, avoiding the needto travel to the West End or out-of-townleisure parks. In fact, many of these


113facilities already exist, we just need to bemore aware of them and give them thesupport they deserve.It is essential that good quality socialinfrastructure is provided to support existingand future needs. Healthy, well-educatedand skilled citizens will have a competitiveadvantage in the labour market. Thesefacilities should be co-located and providedat the heart of the communities they serve inorder to minimise the need for travelLB Barking & Dagenhamvital to provide an increasing residentialpopulation with the right health andeducation services, some of which (forexample primary education) are alreadystruggling to meet demand.We have a duty to ensure that local peopleshare in any wealth generated in the area,that jobs are available to the many that theyreceive the skills training and good qualityhousing which they need to improve theirliving standardsLB Newham2.194 The issue of the night-time economy intown centres was widely discussed: somefelt it was important to encourage this toavoid centres becoming deserted at night.But this was accompanied by a concernthat there were measures to prevent crimeand anti-social behaviour at night. Fear ofcrime, as well as actual crime rates, is a keyconcern of residents.2.195 Housing was often raised as an importantissue, and this relates to the matterof residential intensification as well asissues of affordability. It was noted thatthe housing stock in suburban Londonwas ageing. Several said that there wasa need to re-focus development awayfrom one or two-bedroom flats towardsbigger homes where families could settle.With caveats regarding quality and space,intensification was acknowledged as away forward. But housing is not the wholestory. Respondents noted that it was2.196 Respondents strongly identified a needto improve the urban realm, particularlyin town centres. There was a variety ofsuggestions for achieving this, includingde-cluttering streets, shared space, andgreen spaces. Since traffic affects thequality of the environment, there weresuggestions for traffic calming and, fromsome, limitation: 20 mph zones, prioritymeasures for cyclists and public transport,and shared space schemes. These couldalso help to promote walking and cyclingas well as attracting new, high-valueemployment to town centres. Trafficcongestion was said to have a stronglynegative impact on quality of life in outerLondon.2.197 Development needs to be respectful ofthe heritage and natural characteristics ofthe area. The existing features of the area– for example waterside space – should bemaximised. Again, this recalls the ‘organic’


114 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportgrowth that respondents talked about withregard to the economy of outer London.Access to green spaces was seen as veryimportant and many said that the GreenBelt must remain sacrosanct.


115Chapter 2 footnotesSurvey1 White J. London in the 20th century. Vintage,20082 e.g. Saint A. London’s suburbs. Merrell Holberton,English Heritage, 19993 e.g. Buck Nick, Gordon I. Turbulence andSedimentation in the London Labour Market, inGary Bridge , Sophie Watson, A Companion to theCity, Blackwell Publishers, 20034 Hall P, Pain K. The Polycentric Metropolis:Learning from Mega-city Regions in Europe, 20065 Solutions – Sustainability Of Land Use andTransport In outer Neighbourhoods, 2008. Seehttp://www.suburbansolutions.ac.uk/6 LSE London group – see http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/researchHome.aspx7 Mayor of London. outer London: Issues for theLondon Plan. GLA 20078 London Assembly Planning and SpatialDevelopment Committee. Semi-Detached:Reconnecting London’s Suburbs. GLA 20079 OLC. The Mayor’s outer London CommissionInterim Conclusions July 2009 http://www.london.gov.uk/olc/questions/interim-conclusions.jsp.10 OLC Initial Questions for the Commission – see:http://www.london.gov.uk/olc/questions/initialquestions.jsp11 the final iteration of which is: Roger Tym &Partners. GLA Employment Time Series. TechnicalReport. GLA, 201012 GLA. Economic Evidence Base GLA, October2009 http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/economic-evidence-base-october-2009-version.13 outer London Commission, GLA Economics.Working Paper 34: outer London - Economic Dataand Statistics, GLA, March 2009 http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/working-paper-34-outer-london-%E2%80%93-economic-data-andstatistics14 Innovacion, LDA. Working Paper: Understandingthe economy of outer London- Early Thoughts.LDA, 2009Innovacion, LDA. Working Paper to Support theouter London Commission. Economic Profile ofKey Locations in outer London. LDA, 2009Innovacion, LDA. Working Paper to Supportthe outer London Commission. Sources ofEndogenous Growth in outer London. A CaseStudy of South West London. LDA, 2009Innovacion, LDA. Working Paper. Heathrow –International Gateway and Cluster of TransportServices. LDA, 2009Innovacion/LDA. Working Paper to Support theouter London Commission. Data on key Locationsin outer London (Potential Criteria for Hubs).LDA, 2009.LDA, Innovacion. Working Paper. Economic Profileof Bexley. LDA, 200915 Ramidus Consulting, Roger Tym & Partners.London Office Policy Review, GLA, 200916 Mayor of London, 2009 London Town CentreHealth Check Analysis Report, GLA 2009;Mayor of London: Consumer Expenditure andComparison Goods Retail Floorspace Need inLondon, GLA 2009


116 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report17 Mayor of London. The London Strategic HousingLand Availability Assessment and HousingCapacity Study 2009, GLA, 200918 Roger Tym & Partners. London Employment TimeSeries, GLA, 201019 GLA Economics. More residents, more jobs? Therelationship between population, employmentand accessibility in London. GLA, 2005.Batty M. More residents, more jobs. Therelationship between population, employmentand accessibility in London. A review of the reportfrom GLA Economics. GLA, 2007URS. Industrial Land Release Benchmarks.GLA, 200720 Ian Gordon, Tony Travers and ChristineWhitehead, with Kathleen Scanlon: London’sPlace in the UK Economy 2009-10, City ofLondon, 200921 Annex 3B22 ONS. Regional, sub-regional and local gross valueadded. ONS Statistical Bulletin, 2009 (workplacebased).23 Excluding CAZ and the Isle of Dogs24 Note that the data for the ‘home counties’includes the relevant unitary authorities andcomes from three sources (Census of Employment(1987-2001), Annual Employment Survey (1991-1998) and ABI (1998-2007). Comparabilityof these datasets over time is imperfect so thefigures should be treated with caution.25 GLA Economics. Our London, Our Future.Planning for London’s Growth II. GLA, 200526 This analysis was conducted using 2008 ABIdata with the new industrial classificationsystem introduced in 2007 (SIC 2007). This newclassification breaks up the previous ‘BusinessServices’ classification into a number ofcomponent industries. It also removed publishingfrom the manufacturing class.27 Krugman P, What’s new about the new economicgeography?, Oxford Review of Economic Policy,Vol 14, No.2.28 The Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2009:median gross earnings for all residents in Londonwas £28,100; £30,000 for inner London residentsand £27,000 for outer London residents. Foronly full-time employees the median acrossLondon is £31,900, with £33,400 in inner Londonand£31,200 in outer.Outer London economy1 GLA DMAG. 2001 Census Ward Atlas of London.Vols 1 & 2. GLA, 20062 More residents, more jobs? The relationshipbetween population, employment andaccessibility in London, GLA Economics, January2005.3 GLA Economics Working Paper 25: Anexpenditure-based approach to employmentsectors in London, November 2007.4 Chart originally presented for all Londonboroughs in ‘Globalisation, Skills andEmployment: The London Story’, GLA Economics,October 2007.5 Annex 3B


117Housing in outer London1 Boroughs contained in outer areas of the subregions are as follows; outer North East includesBarking and Dagenham, Havering, Newham,Redbridge and Waltham Forest; outer Northincludes Barnet, Enfield and Haringey; outerSouth East includes Bexley and Bromley; outerWest includes Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdonand Hounslow; outer South West includesCroydon, Kingston, Merton, Richmond andSutton.2 Data from 2003-04 was collected using adifferent method and is therefore not strictlycomparable with data from previous years.3 Mayor of London. London Plan AnnualMonitoring Report 6. GLA, 20104 Mayor of London. The London Plan Consolidatedwith |Alterations since 2004, Policy 3A.3. GLA,2008.5 Mayor of London. Annual Monitoring Report2010 op cit3 ODPM. Generalised Land Use Database. ODPM,20064 Thompson R. Outer London: issues for the LondonPlan. GLA, 2007Long term economic prospects1 The full projections are detailed in “WorkingPaper 38: Employment projections for London bysector and trend-based projections by borough”,GLA Economics, Nov 2009.2 Ramidus, Roger Tym & Partners 2009 op cit3 Ramidus, Roger Tym & partners 2009 op cit4 Ramidus, Roger Tym & Partners 2009 op cit5 URS Industrial Land Release Benchmarks 2007Transport in outer London1 Includes modes not listed (e.g. taxi).2 Comparisons with earlier years results (reportedin previous editions) are subject to sampling errorand should be treated cautiously.Quality of life1 Thompson R. 2007 op cit2 MORI. Dystopian Suburbia. Mori, 2006IPSOS MORI. Annual London Survey 2006. FinalTopline Results. GLA, 2006


118 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report


3: Analysis1193.1 This chapter draws on the evidencein the previous chapter to developrecommendations and proposals. Itexamines:• The possible scale of economic growth inouter LondonThe kinds of economic sectors that mightsupport growth in the area• The case for a hub-based approach topolicy• Ways of making the existing economicgeography of outer London – towncentres, strategic industrial locations,Opportunity/Intensification Areas etc.work better to support growth in outerLondonThe importance of quality of life andenvironmental quality issues• The question of linkages withneighbouring regions outside Londonand the “Outer Metropolitan Area”• Transport issues that will have to beaddressed.Potential scale and sources of growth3.2 The European Cities Monitor publishedannually by Cushman and Wakefield,Healey and Baker identifies and ranksthe factors considered to be attractive tobusinesses when deciding where to locate.These are:• Availability of qualified staff• Easy access to markets• Quality of telecommunications• External transport links• Cost of staff• Climate for doing business• Language spoken• Office space – value for money• Internal transport• Availability of space• Quality of life• Freedom from pollution3.3 They use these criteria to ask businessesto rank European cities as places to locatetheir activities. As Table 3.1 shows, Londonhas consistently scored highly againstmost of these, performing poorly relativeto other cities only against cost of staff,value for money office space and freedomfrom pollution:


120 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportTable 3.1: London’s performance against factors attractive to business2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 LeaderAvailability of qualified staff 1 1 1 1 LondonEasy access to markets 1 1 1 1 LondonQuality of telecommunications 1 1 1 1 LondonExternal transport links 1 1 1 1 LondonCost of staff 22 16 25 29 WarsawClimate for doing business 6 5 2 5 DublinLanguage spoken 1 1 1 1 LondonOffice space - value for money 24 29 18 24 LeedsInternal transport 2 1 1 1 LondonAvailability of office space 3 1 2 5 BerlinQuality of life 13 7 11 14 BarcelonaFreedom from pollution 27 26 29 27 Oslo3.4 London as a whole scores well. In someof the areas where it does less well, outerLondon is likely to be able to demonstratestrengths. Wage levels tend to be lowerthan in central London; office rents arealso lower. Much of outer London alsoenjoys a high quality of life, includinglower pollution levels in most parts. Ifthese are combined with the benefits thearea gains from being part of London,there is clearly much to play for.3.5 Drawing on the employment projectionsprovided for us by GLA Economics,projections from a number of independentforecasters and the information providedto us by stakeholders, we consider thereare four possible growth scenarios forouter London, and we have appliedthese as sensitivity tests in consideringour recommendations (Table 3.2). Inusing them we have been guided bythe principle of it being “better to bebroadly right than precisely wrong” – auseful axiom when considering anyprojection. We were also mindful thatwe were interpreting these figures notas statisticians (though we did of coursewant them to be as ‘right’ as possible) butas an aid to formulating planning policy(in which it is prudent to make provisionwhich enables rather than constrainsgrowth). In addition we were consciousthat these projections are subsets of thosefor London as a whole and thus subjectto wider debate: not just as to whetherthey were constraining outer London’sgrowth (a concern among some of theCommission’s respondents), but alsowhether they were part of a broader viewthat, historically at least, some projectionsfor London as a whole might have erredtowards the economically optimistic.


121Table 3.2 : Possible scenarios for employment growth in outer LondonScenario 1 Continuation of 1989-2007 historic trendscould result in an average of 2,800 morejobs, made up of 4,800 more ‘office’ jobs pa,5,400 more ‘other’ jobs’ and a loss of 7,400‘industrial’ jobs pa.a static view of how employment might change,taking no account of the changing futureimportance of different sectorsScenario 22008 London Plan projection based on atriangulation of now dated historic trends =10,000 more jobs pa, made up of 8,600 more‘office’ jobs pa, 3,400 more ‘other ‘ jobs and aloss of 1,700 ‘industrial’ jobs paassumes London will grow in line withnational trend and takes account of changingrelationships between different sectors but doesnot reflect the most up-to-date information oneconomic trendsScenario 3 Oxford Economics Forecast =10,500more jobs paa more up-to-date, top-down, macro-economicview but does not reflect local infrastructureinvestment and development capacity. Sectoralinformation not available.Scenario 4New Draft London Plan projection based on atriangulation of new employment, developmentcapacity and public transport data = 6,000 pa,made up of 2,900 more ‘office’ jobs pa, 7,300more ‘other’ jobs and a loss of 4,000 ‘industrial’jobs pa.assumes London will grow in line with nationaltrend and incorporates data which takesaccount of the onset of the recent recession.Note: these figures are only broadly indicative due to rounding and because definitions vary.Where could growth come from?We have concluded that there are twofundamental sources for future growth.3.6 The first is endogenous growth, basedon existing sectors and sources ofemployment. These, of course, havecontributed to the underlying trendsexamined earlier in this report, butthere may be scope for them to performmore effectively if constraints on theirperformance, competitiveness and growththat exist in outer London were addressed.These sources include:• Office-based private sector activities• Retail• Leisure/tourism• Local/central government• Other public sector activity, such ashealth, community safety etc• Industry and logistics• Creative industries• Other sectors, such as construction.


122 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report3.7 Some growth from these sources canbe expected from increased residentialpopulation, increasing demand for goodsand services locally. Peer group reviewedwork 1 for the 2008 London Plan suggestedthat every extra 1000 population mightgenerate 230 more local jobs.3.8 The second is exogenous growth. Thismeans either wholly new sources ofemployment on a strategically significantscale or step changes in the scale or natureof existing sources which might be possibleif constraints on outer London’s competitiveposition can be addressed. These mightinclude:• Central government functions (along thelines of the Home Office’s operations inCroydon)• Other governmental and related functions(European Union agencies, for example)• National or regional level health orcommunity safety facilities• Sources arising from, or supportedby, new national or regional transportinfrastructure, such as Crossrail or a HighSpeed rail terminus• Environmental industries• Attracting back “back office” and otherkinds of employment that have movedin recent years from outer London to thesurrounding Outer Metropolitan Area.3.9 More generally, in considering bothexogenous and endogenous sources ofgrowth, we have been alive to the need tobe realistic about what might be possible,and to avoid making undue reliance onmultiplier effects or double counting.3.10 The Commission considered at somelength whether it would be realistic toinclude new, large scale, commercial officeoccupiers in the above list as a distinctelement of potential exogenous expansion.Clearly, it would be desirable to attractthese back to outer London as a source ofsustainable growth. Paragraph 3.4 aboveshows that outer London may be able tooffer them competitive advantage, andfrom the representations made to theCommission, there are certainly stronglocal ambitions to support this. In addition,major office proposals at Chiswick Park,Stockley Park, Park Royal, Brent Cross andCroydon suggest that the developmentsector has not discounted the possibility.However, with some notable exceptionsthe tendency over the last two economiccycles (at least) has been for such firmsto leave rather than migrate to outerLondon. This suggests that while theremay not be sufficiently robust evidence tojustify a change of policy to make specificstrategic provision across outer Londonas a whole for such occupiers, this doesnot mean that local stakeholders shouldnot continue to work to develop theircompetitive advantages to attract themto viable locations. The targeted approachto management of the office stock andits selective renewal set out in paragraphs2.155 to 2.160 should support this, aswell as making provision for other types ofoccupier.


1233.11 We particularly want to highlight twopossible sources of growth. The first,which is likely to be mainly exogenous,is based on those activities associatedwith the environmental sectors. Onethe one hand, there is a view that, atleast for the manufacturing componentof green industries: “why should theycome to a relatively high cost locationlike outer London when they can findlower cost bases, and possibly subsidy,in other places?” However, on the otherhand, outer London is well-positionedto play a leading role in the researchand development of ‘green industries’,perhaps building on the progress Londonis making to be the global market leader incarbon finance and its strengths in areasassociated with low carbon activity andresearch. It is a global centre with very highlevels of investment in new technology.London is well placed to develop expertisein sectors that are able to respond tothe growing market opportunities inthe areas of climate change mitigationand adaptation; outer London wouldbe well suited to contribute to suchdevelopment, for example associated withthe decarbonisation of the residentialproperty sector (including both the 3.1million existing homes in London and the33,000 pa planned for the future). Thedraft replacement London Plan requiresa significant proportion of London’senergy to be supplied by decentralisedenergy by 2025; this will provide a marketopportunity in London that the ‘Prospectusfor London, the Low Carbon Capital’ reportof March 2009 estimates could generateover 800 jobs per year.3.12 Outer London, with its proximity to theenvironmentally oriented finance andbusiness services in the centre, its range ofsites and workspaces and access to a skilledworkforce, could be well placed to benefitfrom job creation and investment in thearea as the capital shifts to a low carboneconomy.3.13 The second potential source of growth isthe public sector which has both exogenousand endogenous components. While theCommission was mindful of governmentpolicy to relocate its administrativefunctions away from London, it did notethat locating government, health andhigher/further education functions ofgreater than sub regional significance inouter London would bring many benefits,including links to existing central Londoninstitutions and local labour markets, lowercosts, skilled labour force and relativelygood communications. Higher educationinstitutions and hospitals in outer London(see figures 3.1 and 3.2) have a potentialbeyond the direct employment they bringas focii of regeneration, both because of thedirect employment they bring, the scopefor helping employees gain experience andskills (the “skills escalator effect, particularlymarked in the Health Service), the indirectbenefits they bring to local economies andthe scope for harnessing “spill over” effectsin encouraging emerging sectors. In thenext section, we take this line of thought


124 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 3.1:Higher/ FurtherEducationinstitutionsas a focus ofregenerationFigure 3.2:Hospitals asa focus ofregeneration


125further in examining whether it is possibleto attract or support exogenous growth inparticular places.3.14 While there is understandable scepticismabout the historic effectiveness of thepublic sector looking at economic sectorsin this way (or ‘picking winners’), theCommission was also conscious that this iswhat the private sector tries to do all thetime. A pragmatic partnership of publicand private stakeholders might be moreeffective in realising synergies betweensectors than the top down interventions ofthe 1960’s and 1970’s.3.15 The Mayor’s London Plan is a spatialdevelopment strategy. That is, it cancoordinate all the investment and otherinterventions that affect the locationaldecisions businesses make. We can makesure that there are sufficient workspacesin the right places and with the rightenvironment, supported by the transport,information/communications and otherinfrastructure and easily accessible by aworkforce that has been provided withthe skills and training support it needs.We can also make sure that policy doesnot disadvantage development inside theGreater London boundary as comparedwith that outside (in car parking policy, forexample). Getting this spatial developmentframework right means ensuring the rightmix of mutually supportive planning,transport and economic developmentpolicies Londonwide and locally, andcoordinating the investment and operationsof the GLA Group as a whole, boroughsand the whole range of public, private andvoluntary sectors with a part to play in thesuccess of places in outer London.3.16 For the future, the Mayor may wish toexplore how the London Plan can helpmake a step change in the effectivenessof private and public investmentcoordination. So far the Plan does notappear to have fully flexed its institutionalmuscles as a ‘spatial strategy’, insteadstaying close to the planners’ traditionalcomfort zone of land use, transport andthe environment. The Commission hassuggested incremental extensions to thisto provide more specific coverage of socialinfrastructure. Potentially it could perhapsgo much further, providing a strategiccontext to add value to the Total Placeand Total Capital concepts which haverecently been tested at borough level,and extending the ‘localness agenda’ toembrace the city region. A start mightbe made by investigating how it mightimprove services and drive savings byadding a strategic dimension to deliveryof the ‘health agenda’, and exploringhow this can contribute to achievementof the Mayor’s wider objectives. Forexample, could it help to coordinate moreeffectively the infrastructure neededto support integration of strategic andlocal health and complementary servicedelivery, possibly between boroughs oracross wider areas of London, linked toOpportunity Area or town centre renewalinitiatives?


126 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportA new spatial structure for growth?3.17 As a key part of our terms of reference,we were asked to consider the concept ofeconomic growth hubs in outer Londonand the contribution a concept of this kindcould have in helping outer London toreach its full economic potential. We alsoexamined the related question – raised bymany of those we spoke to - of whetherand how more polycentric growth shouldbe encouraged, with a view to informingthe development of the revision to theLondon Plan, and subsequent strategies.Polycentric development:Polycentric development, as defined byHague & Kirk, 2003 (ODPM) is a spatial andfunctional form of development in whichthere are many centres and not just one largecity that dominates all the others. Polycentricdevelopment helps to encourage increasedcompetitiveness, cohesion and regionalbalance, equality of access to infrastructureand knowledge and sustainable development,and is a concept promoted, for example,in the European Spatial DevelopmentPerspective.3.18 The Commission asked for views on theconcept of ‘super hubs’ or ‘growth hubs’- places that could form the focus of, andcatalyst for, more general above-trendgrowth in outer London. It started withfour broad locations identified as potentialgrowth hubs: Stratford, Croydon, BrentCross/Cricklewood and Heathrow (onein each quadrant of outer London) as abasis for this discussion. At the same time,it was made clear that the Commissionhad an open mind on this issue, and thatother options would also be considered.Any future land-use options would ofcourse need to be examined in the light ofeconomic viability, transport interventionsand projections of employment andpopulation growth.3.19 This question probably caused morecontroversy than any other of the issueswe considered. Fears were expressed thatidentified hubs would receive the bulkof transport and other investment at theexpense of other parts of outer London,and that they would see the most of anyadditional growth. As set out below, it alsobecame clear from our consideration ofpast and likely future trends in the outerLondon office market that it was veryunlikely that there would be sufficienthigh ‘added value’ private office demandto support the scale of growth hubs of thiskind would require.3.20 Thus, as part of its initial work theCommission considered just what a ‘superhub’might comprise. The Commission’sbrief and its early consultations andanalyses suggested that in terms of corefunctions, ‘super-hubs’ should have awider than sub regional ‘reach’; that thesefunctions should be capable of beingaccommodated at high enough densitiesto justify public transport investment (tocreate a virtuous, self reinforcing circle of


127public investment and wider growth); andthat they should generate sufficient valueto justify private development investment.This pointed to office based functionscapable of generating rental values of morethan about £27 sq ft (in the same generalorder as those in nearby parts of the OuterMetropolitan Area and indeed in much ofprovincial Britain), backed by substantialhigh value residential development and anattractive range of supporting services.3.21 To generate the desired step change inemployment over and above historic orcurrently projected trends, the scale ofsuch office development would have to besignificantly greater than that anticipatedin the emerging London Plan. As an initialproposition for testing, it was suggestedthat in broad brush terms this might entaildevelopment at, say, twice the scale of thatusually considered necessary to generateits own mass and identity as a strategicallysignificant office quarter - say, doublethe 300,000 – 400,000 sq m which in thepast has been considered for such quartersat Brent Cross or Earls Court. At averageLondon Plan densities this would providecapacity for at least 50,000 office workers.Variants on this model suggested thateven if densities were reduced from 12 sqm person to 18 sq m (which would haveimplications for development viability) andapplied to the smallest office ‘super-hub’option (600,000 sq m), this would stillcreate capacity for over 30,000 more officeworkers.3.22 The 50,000 employment growth fromthis variant of the ‘super-hub’ model isequivalent to more than a third of theDraft London Plan’s projected employmentgrowth for all sectors across outer London(Table 3.2 Scenario 4) i.e. if successful,a ‘super-hub’ would certainly achievethe desired ‘step change’ in employmentopportunities. On this basis, it mightabsorb much of the office employmentgrowth projected for the whole of outerLondon under Scenario 4, about half thatprojected under Scenario 1 and a quarterof that expected under Scenario 2.3.23 The Commission also consideredother models for the ‘super hub’concept. For example, was it usefulto use the Heathrow area as a proxy?This accommodates 90,000 jobs, andwhile specific growth data was notavailable, the Commission was mindfulthat Hillingdon, in which much of thisactivity is concentrated, has had by farthe greatest employment growth of anyouter borough (68,000 more jobs 1989– 2007). Though Heathrow does have adistinct core set of airport related activities(stemming in part from very substantialpublic investment), geographically theseare quite dispersed, most are not officebased (Annex 3B) and arguably they donot form the tightly focused nexus whichmight be characterised as a ‘super-hub’.More importantly, the area is quite unique– realistically it is doubtful whether itcould be used as a model for replicationelsewhere in London.


128 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure: 3.3: Office based employment 20073.24 However, dispersed areas of growth,sometimes clustered around pockets ofmore intense activity, do exist elsewhere inLondon. The employment density maps inChapter 2 provide a static picture of these,and the borough level tables in Annex 3Bprovide a broad brush impression of thescale of their growth. Richmond (27,000job growth 1989 – 2007) and Barnet(21,000) are the most graphic examples.In terms of scale, doubling their historicperformance would apparently put themin the same league as the notional ‘superhub’described above, but much of thisgrowth was not office based and wasgenerated by a fairly dispersed geographicstructure, with all that that implies fortransport investment.3.25 The Commission also considered whetheroffice hubs in the Outer Metropolitan Areacould serve as models – after all, OMA as awhole had grown by 36,000 jobs pa acrosstwo economic cycles while outer Londonhad managed only 2,800, and the OMAoffice market is a more realistic comparatorfor outer London ‘super-hubs’ than that ofinner London. But the employment growth


129headline across the ‘Home Counties’ beliesthe scale of office growth in each of itsown ‘hubs’. The nearest proxy to a ‘superhub’there is Reading, with some 30,000office jobs and nearby Wokingham withsome 22,000 jobs. Wokingham grew by850 jobs pa across two cycles, and growthin Reading was erratic but, on average,negative i.e. very different to the 2,500jobs pa required over 20 years to reach a50,000 target for a London ‘super-hub’.Moreover, a significant part of this area’soffice economy is based on a set of moredispersed, car based spatial structuresthan the dense, public transport basedconfiguration posited for the distinctcircumstances of London. Other OMAcentres outlined in Figure 3.3 do not haveeven half the level of office employmentsuggested for a London ‘super-hub’ – onlyBracknell has more than 15,000 jobs.Moreover, as independent consultants forthe London Office Policy Review 2009concluded, “when looking at office-basedemployment specifically, the performanceof OMA centres is marginally stronger(than those in outer London) but …. therange of growth rates across the two typesof centres precluded any definitive andover-arching conclusions”.3.26 It was tempting to use Canary Wharf as anexemplar of a successful London ‘superhub’.Early phases of development thereprovided capacity for some 50,000 workerswhich have now grown to more than90,000, with development capacity toexceed 200,000 jobs. As with some of theother models, this development requiredsubstantial public subsidy from a rangeof sources, including very significant railinfrastructure. Thus, from this perspective,the scale of the ‘super-hub’ conceptoutlined above does not appear immodest.However, it is misleading because CanaryWharf serves a very different market fromthat which might be attracted to outerLondon. Historic prime rents there havebeen in the order of £40 sq ft i.e. roughlythe same as central London’s ‘Mid Town’,not far above those sometimes achievedin parts of Hammersmith but well abovethose in the Outer Metropolitan Areawhich serves a market more analogousto that which might be created in outerLondon.3.27 These of course are not wholly validcomparators, not least because much ofthe projected employment growth in outerLondon is likely to be essentially ‘lowvalue added’ while the new exogenousgrowth required for a ‘super-hub’ wouldrepresent a ‘step change’ to a new ‘highvalue added’ type necessary to justify thedevelopment investment. Nor do theyaddress concerns as to the balance ofprobabilities of outer London attractingsuch exogenous employment on thisscale, or recognize differences in themarkets served by other office locations.However, they do provide a context forunderstanding what a ‘super-hub’ mightentail, and, not least in light of otherevidence submitted to the Commission,beg questions as to the realism of


130 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportTable 3.3: Potential locations for ‘strategic outer London development centres’ and their strategic functionsStrategic function(s) SitesLeisure/tourismWembley; and parts of Greenwich; Richmond; Hillingdon; Wandle ValleyMedia (also food-related) White City; Park RoyalLogisticsParts of Bexley; B&D; Havering; Hillingdon0; HounslowOther transportHillingdon; Royal Docks-City airport; Biggin HillOfficeCroydon; StratfordHigher/Further Education Uxbridge; Kingston; Greenwich and possibly Croydon; Stratford; RomfordIndustryUpper Lee Valley; Bexley RiversideRetailBrent Crosspredicating a major change in London Planpolicy on the basis of such development.While this testing of the ‘super-hub’concept did not lead to its endorsement,it did provide useful lessons for the widerwork of Commission.3.28 We also considered whether substantialplanned extensions of existing urbanareas, perhaps based on release of GreenBelt or Metropolitan Open Land, wouldbe a viable way forward. We came to theconclusion that this would be unnecessaryand wasteful in terms of the use of landand existing infrastructure. There is veryconsiderable capacity for developmentand a good deal of “sunk” investment inbuildings and infrastructure within theexisting urban envelope. There is not,therefore, the justification for large-scalerelease for development of land which weaccept is extremely important for a rangeof policy reasons and to quality of life.3.29 Informed by the Survey results showingthat while 60 per cent of outer London’semployment is concentrated in itsmain town centres, 40 per cent is moredispersed, the Commission instead cameto the conclusion that a more clearlynuanced approach would be moreconstructive – one that made clear thatit was based on smaller nodes or clustersof activities of greater than sub-regionalimportance which could be developedeither by building on existing strengths orthe capacity to attract new activities notfound elsewhere, and which recognisedthe potential of a wider range of places.This was the origin of the “strategic outerLondon development centre” which wepropose in this report.3.30 The London Plan should draw on thislist, and our work more generally, toidentify specific locations in outerLondon with specialist strengths,existing (“endogenous”) or potential(“exogenous”). Other centres could beadded as necessary (the Commission’stable is not intended to be exhaustiveor preclude other configurations). We


131hope to see a commitment to developingthese and other centres, with a focus onboth the business environment and thepublic realm. This should include ways ofattracting investment for infrastructure,and measures to help Londoners to accessemployment.3.31 To avoid any misunderstanding,recommendations for outer Londondevelopment centres are intended to meanexisting town centres and other centres ofgrowth, and not the 4 ‘growth’ or ‘super’hubs originally envisaged. The meaninghas broadened and, could include differentclassifications, including relatively smalldistrict and neighbourhood centres aswell as non- town centre locations such asStrategic Industrial Locations identified inthe London Plan. The planning guidanceand proposals would, of course, need tobe adapted for different classifications asappropriate.Making the most of existing places3.32 Considerable attention has been givento new kinds of places that could beembodied in spatial policy. Many of thosewe spoke to quite rightly pointed to theneed to make the most of existing spatialstructures identified in the London planand elsewhere, and particularly towncentres. We strongly agree with thesepoints. Any new spatial designationsshould complement and not replace orendanger the success of existing placesand centres. We briefly consider some ofthe key spatial designations relevant toouter London, and flag their potentialfor both kind of economic growth weidentified earlier.Town centres3.33 Though outer London’s larger towncentres already support 60 per cent of itsemployment there are other reasons whythe draft replacement London Plan shouldidentify them as the most importantspatial designation outside the CentralActivities Zone to provide the main focifor commercial development, new retailand housing. We support the developmentof London’s town centres to providea constellation of the most importantbusiness locations beyond the centre,providing the basis for transport and otherlinkages binding outer London togetherand providing a source of future strength.Doing this means ensuring that all ofthose concerned with particular centreswork together to ensure each provides a


132 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 3.4: London’s Town Centre Networkcompetitive choice of goods and services,that they are accessible increasingly bysustainable modes of transport, that eachcontains a range of locations suitable tosupport growth and development and thatbarriers to development are addressed.3.34 There is also a need for targetedregeneration action coordinated by allthe agencies involved, including thoseinvolved in site assembly and makingbetter use of under-developed towncentre sites. We believe that increasingthe number and density of housing intown centres is increasingly importantto ensuring their success, and thisneeds to be a particular regenerationobjective. Consideration should be givento addressing the needs of groups andindividuals who may particularly enjoy the‘buzz’ of town centres such as students, orsome types of smaller households, perhapseven including some older people. AreaAction Plans as part of borough LDFswill be an important part of this process.These can provide a framework for more


133Figure 3.5: Opportunity and Intensification Areasspecific work to improve the public realmof streets and spaces, possibly as partof initiatives to enhance civic pride andquality of life such as local variants of theLondon Festival of Architecture.Opportunity and Intensification AreasThese are London Plan designations:3.35 Opportunity Areas are London’sprincipal opportunities for accommodatinglarge-scale development to providesubstantial numbers of new employmentand housing (typically more than 5,000jobs and/or 2,500 homes) with a mixedand intensive use of land and assisted bygood public transport accessibility.Intensification Areas are places withsignificant potential for increases inresidential, employment and other usesthrough development of sites at higherdensities with more mixed and intensiveuse but at a level below that which can beachieved in Opportunity Areas.3.36 We support the principles behind thesedesignations, which we note have stoodthe test of time since the first publicationof the London Plan. We also support theidentification of new areas of these kindsin outer London. However, based on whatwe were told we do think there is a needfor greater coordination of investmentin them by the Homes and CommunitiesAgency, the London DevelopmentAgency and other organisations. Thereis also a need to improve their social andenvironmental infrastructures to helpestablish and sustain their attractivenessas places to live and work.Industrial land/clusters3.37 It is important that London retainsand then makes the most of the landresources it has for industrial purposes inorder to secure the capital’s capacity toaccommodate activities that are relativelylow value, but which play an essentialpart in maintaining the city’s metabolism


134 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 3.6: Distribution of industrial land within and outside Strategic Industrial Locations in London– manufacturing and maintenance, wastemanagement and recycling, wholesaleand logistics and the range of supportactivities a service economy relies upon.These sectors are often important to outerLondon’s economy and to providing arange of employment opportunities there.The debate about these places alltoo often begins and ends with thequestion of quantity; we believe thatmore attention should be given to waysof improving their quality. In particular,there is a need to look at their physicalaccessibility, both for workers and forfreight.Growth and coordination corridors3.38 The London Plan recognises twonationally-designated growth corridors(the Thames Gateway and the London-Stansted-Cambridge-PeterboroughCorridor) and three corridors connectingLondon with the wider city region (theWestern Wedge, Wandle Valley andLondon-Luton-Bedford corridor). Weagree with those who suggested to us that


135Figure 3.7: London’s growth corridorsthe full potential of these corridors hasnot been realised. There is clearly a needfor more active work and coordination byauthorities on either side of the GreaterLondon boundary on a range of issues,but perhaps particularly on transport.Delivering this means putting practicaljoint planning arrangements in placefor each corridor, and focussing on theopportunities providing the most potential– the nodes within each of the corridors,rather than the spaces between. The WestLondon Partnership provided a particularlySource: GLAilluminating illustration of how this mightbe approached in refining the ‘WesternWedge’ concept.London’s sub-regions3.39 The draft replacement London Plan setsout a new sub-regional structure and amore flexible approach to sub-regionalworking which enables the formation ofpartnerships across borough boundariesaccording to the nature of the issue underconsideration.


136 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 3.8: London’s sub- regions3.40 We welcome the approach taken to subregional coordination in the draft Plan.It will allow the sound foundation ofwork carried out by established subregionalpartnerships to be built uponand developed, providing a valuable linkbetween the London-wide and the local.This could be taken further by looking atways in which working at a sub-regionallevel can add value in delivering servicesand ensuring the kind of coordinated,targeted regeneration activity we haveidentified as being essential.Regional/national/internationallinkages3.41 The London Plan rightly makes much ofLondon’s place as part of Europe’s urbanframework and the United Kingdom’snetwork of core cities. We have hadto be mindful of this wider context inconsidering our recommendations andto the contribution that policies on thiswider scale will have for outer London. Forexample, there is the scope for maximisingthe benefits from national transportinfrastructure investment like High Speed


137Figure 3.9: London’s cultural facilitiesRail. Access to international transportlinks is an important factor in businesses’locational decisions, and airports willremain an important economic driver inouter London (particularly perhaps in westand south London – see Figure 3.7).3.42 Addressing these and similar issues in waysthat support growth while not puttingquality of life, environmental and otherobjectives at risk requires close workingby all the agencies concerned at strategicand local level, within London and acrossregional boundaries. This reinforces theneed to develop arrangements for thiskind of joint work mentioned earlier.Cultural quarters and areas3.43 Outer London already has a range ofhigh quality leisure, arts, culture andtourism facilities. We believe there isconsiderable scope to build on this, bothto make the most of what already exists,and to identify the opportunities for newfacilities. In doing so, we have notedthat most of the funding for culturalfacilities and activities goes to centralLondon – even though one third of theapproximately 3,500 cultural facilities inthe capital are in outer London. There isclearly a case for funding bodies torethink this.3.44 We believe there are things that shouldbe done more locally and immediately tomake the most of these sectors in outerLondon. First, there is a need for moreeffective marketing of the area’s culturalassets, particularly where these fall withinidentifiable clusters. This may mean jointmarketing efforts by groups of authoritiesor agencies on a cross-boundary basis.3.45 There is scope for taking a more proactiveapproach to management of areas ofcultural importance, and we commendthe concept of “cultural quarters” –places able to accommodate new arts,


138 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportcultural and leisure activities and whichcan be managed so they contribute moreeffectively to regeneration – identified inthe London Plan. This could be used asthe basis for exploring the potential forvery large scale commercial leisure facilitiesable to provide a regional, national orinternational scale offer (as has been doneat Wembley, or at North Greenwich withthe 02 Centre). At the other end of thescale, consideration could be given torejuvenation of medium-sized theatres andother facilities.3.46 Allied to this is the need for effectivemanagement of the night time economy,which can on the one hand help supportthe vitality of town centres, but can alsomake them unpleasant places to be. Thismeans looking at ways of broadening therange of night-time activities and linkingthem to cultural facilities and other leisureuses, as well as ensuring effective crossagencyworking.Mixed use development3.47 The Commission noted that mixed usedevelopment can play an important part in:• shaping places;• securing a more efficient and sustainableuse of outer London’s scarce stock ofdevelopment capacity;• enabling different land uses to beaccommodated on the same site or in thesame neighbourhood; and• reducing the need to travel betweendifferent activities (such as living andworking or shopping and healthcare).3.48 However, if promoted simply as a blanket‘good thing’, it can also raise tensions withother planning objectives, not least whenit is used as a ‘back-door’ to replacinglower value but still functionally importantactivities hitherto protected by theplanning system. Its application must betailored to local circumstances.3.49 The London Plan already provides supportfor mixed use development in differenttypes of location: some policies promoteand manage mixed use development inparticular areas (2A.5 Opportunity Areas,2A.6 Intensification Areas, 2A.8 TownCentres, 2A.9 The Suburbs, 5G.3 CAZ) andsome in relation to particular uses (3A.2housing targets, 3A.10 affordable housing,3B.3 offices, 2A.10 and 3B.4 industry).Others support it generically (notably2A.1 sustainability criteria and 4B.1 designprinciples for a compact city – see below).3.50 The Commission considered that, withinthe context of its terms of reference,further guidance is required onimplementation of these general policiesto ensure that the concept delivers whatis expected of it and does not haveunintended consequences. This bearsparticularly on mixed use redevelopmentwhich involves housing – at strategic levelthe highest value use in outer London,and one which, while meeting an essentialneed and potentially contributing tosuburban renewal, can also compromisewider planning objectives. It thereforesuggests that when developing guidance


139on implementation of mixed use policyconsideration be given to the approachesoutlined below for development whichentails:• conversion/redevelopment of surplusoffices• town centre redevelopment• industrial landMixed use development and thechanging outer London office market3.51 As already noted, the office marketbeyond central London is subject to acomplex combination of factors which,over the long term, look likely to reducestrategically significant office investment.Of particular importance are decliningdemand from historically importantlarge scale occupiers, such as ‘backoffices’ to serve CAZ businesses andcentral government or for commercialheadquarters and administrative activitieswhich in the past sought a London butnot a central London location. Againstthis decline must be set strategic andlocal initiatives to re-invent and re-brandsome of these areas as attractive andcompetitive business locations, as well asto retain existing occupiers. In addition,population expansion is likely to generatenew demand for local business servicesand justify retention of some lower costoffice space. However, overall, whilelocally based office employment beyondcentral London is projected to expandsubstantially its ‘added value’ may notbe sufficient to prompt strategicallysignificant new office development acrossouter London or to generate investment tomaintain and improve the quality of all theexisting office stock.3.52 The Commission noted that the LondonPlan anticipates that housing-led,mixed use re-development could playa major part in helping to consolidateand modernise part of the office stockbeyond central London while at the sametime adding significantly to housingcapacity. A downturn in the office market,accelerating release of surplus officecapacity, coupled with new opportunitiesfor significant investment in affordablehomes (see London Housing Strategy)may provide particular opportunitiesfor such mixed use renewal. However,to ensure that the viability of existingoffice occupiers and investment is notcompromised this must be approachedsensitively through local strategies tailoredto local circumstances. General principleswhich these strategies could usefully takeinto account include:• Recognising that unlike mixed usedevelopment in central London, whichis mainly office-led, in the remainder ofLondon retail, leisure and, in particular,housing are usually higher value usesand are likely to be the main drivers ofchange.• Depending on local and strategiccircumstances (see below), the highervalues associated with these can alsoprovide scope for partial renewal of theoffice stock which should be in line withthe locational and other requirements,


140 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportincluding coordinated conversion ofsurplus offices to residential (or to otheruses).• Phasing of the office renewal/replacement process will be critical toensure that the viability of existingoffice occupiers and investment is notcompromised – given the importance ofmanaging change in the outer Londoneconomy, housing objectives shouldgenerally be a consequence of economicconcerns when developing officeconsolidation strategies in this regard.3.53 This phasing should take into accountthe capacity of the existing stock forinterim renewal to accommodate newoffice occupiers e.g. sub division toaccommodate small firms – this may delayresidential led mixed use redevelopmentof some sites.Because much office space outsidecentral London is in or around towncentres, local initiatives to manage officecapacity could usefully be integrated intowider town centre strategies. Mixed use,housing-led, partial renewal of the officestock can help achieve the objectives ofthese.3.54 Boroughs are strongly advised to take abroader than local perspective in analysingtheir office markets (and as the context forsubsequently realising potential housingcapacity). Office locations outside towncentres should be considered (includingthe environmental as well as the economicsustainability of these) as should trends inthe overall office market beyond centralLondon. The Commission noted that tohelp provide a wider picture, the GLApublishes strategic reviews of the officemarket across London 2 which suggestedcategorising significant office locationsbeyond CAZ and Canary Wharf accordingto whether:• speculative office development couldbe promoted, possibly in the context ofsome loss of less attractive capacity;• some office provision could be promotedas part of wider residential/other useled schemes in the context of moresignificant loss of less attractive officecapacity; or• they are unsuitable for/there is nostrategic case for encouraging officedevelopment.3.55 The Commission welcomes the DRLP(Annex 2) proposal to take forward acategorisation along the lines of theabove recommendation and summarisedin Figure 2.43. In view of the changingnature of the office market beyond centralLondon, it is particularly important thatborough analyses of their office markets(and their approach to housing led mixeduse renewal) is in the context of the‘Plan, Monitor and Manage’ approachproposed in the London Plan (paragraph3.150). To inform the scope for housingledmixed use development, as well asfor office renewal, it will be important totest and revise the above categorisationsfor individual centres. This should informany guidance on Town Centres and the


141GLA Town Centres Healthcheck, as well asfurther revision of the London Plan.3.56 Significant office renewal and new officedevelopment should be consolidated inthe most competitive locations wherea market can be developed for existingand new occupiers. In several of thedifferent types of location identified inthe London Plan (paragraph 3.148), mixeduse development with a strong residentialcomponent could play an important partin the office renewal process. These typesof location include:• strategic office centres, currentlyCroydon and Stratford, and elsewhere ifjustified by demand;• town centre based office quarters;• locally oriented, town centre based officeprovision, which can be consolidatedeffectively to meet local needs, or wherenecessary changed to other uses; and• existing linear office developments suchas the ‘Golden Mile’.3.57 Other types of location for suburban officerenewal identified in the Plan are likely tobe less suitable for a mixed use, residentialled approach:• mid-urban business parks such as thatdeveloped at Chiswick;• conventional business parks beyond theurban area, such as those at StockleyPark and Bedfont Lakes, which shouldbecome more sustainable in transportterms; and• innovation parks ranging from urbanincubator units to more spaciousprovision.3.58 Mixed use conversion of surplus officebuildings, especially to residential, canpose particular challenges. Schemescan vary significantly and in somecircumstances, while the intent ofinternal space, sound insulation andenergy efficiency standards must bemaintained, an imaginative approach totheir application may be required. Housingled conversions and surplus office sitere-development must also be set in thecontext of the supply of local amenities,services and social and environmentalinfrastructure. In areas deficient in these,DPDs should ensure that some of thedevelopment capacity represented bysurplus offices addresses such needs.This may require sensitive planning andentail partnership action to facilitatecomprehensive, or at least partial, arearenewal.3.59 The physical configuration of somesurplus office buildings may make themunsuitable for the provision of onsiteaffordable housing for some clientgroups, though this should not excludethem from affordable housing policyrequirements (including off site or cashin lieu contributions where this providesmore appropriate housing than on siteprovision).


142 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportMixed use development and towncentres3.60 Outer London’s strategically recognised(Figure 3.4), and many more locallydesignated, town centres will be theprimary geographical focus for most of its520,000 new residents expected to 2031,and for much of the £38 billion growthin outer London household expenditureprojected to be spent on comparisongoods by 2031 (see paragraph 2.165).These trends will help drive substantialmixed use development. Housing isexpected to form an important partof this development, capitalising onthe accessibility of town centres whichalso underpins their capacity for higherdensity development. Housing can alsocomplement other town centre activities- physically in terms of utilising air spaceabove commercial uses, functionallyin terms of adding to their vitality andviability and perceptually by strengtheningthe ‘sense of place’ and quality of lifewhich they provide for local communities.3.61 As the main nodes on London’s publictransport network, town centres typicallyhave higher ‘PTAL’ scores, capable ofsustaining housing densities up to 400units per hectare or more dependingon dwelling size. Opportunities for playand other amenity spaces tend to bemore constrained in town centres thanelsewhere so a lower proportion of familyhomes may be appropriate in theselocations. A combination of smaller homesand good public transport accessibilityreduces the need for car parking provisionand provides scope to move towards ‘zero’provision, further increasing housingcapacity (Policy 3C.24 and Annex 4).Higher densities also enhance the viabilityof car sharing schemes.3.62 A real commitment to partnership working,backed where necessary by the Mayor, willbe needed to realise this potential. Thismay include innovative approaches to landassembly, possibly using the compulsorypurchase process, perhaps with LDAsupport. A range of partners includingboroughs and the LDA have explored howa design led approach to developmentin and around medium sized and smallertown centres 3 can increase housingcapacity there. This work suggests designand development principles to securehigh quality, high density development aswell as providing illustrations of ways tobalance the need for homes of differentsizes.3.63 In some circumstances, implementationof mixed use policy will require flexibleapplication of affordable housingpolicy providing this flexibility does notcompromise achievement of the broadstrategic objective to maximise provision.It is noted that the Mayor’s new InterimHousing SPG 4 recognises the need fora more flexible approach to the balancebetween social housing and intermediatehousing.


143Mixed use development and surplusindustrial land3.64 Historically, surplus industrial landhas been a key source of new housingcapacity. By 2006 the stock of industrialland had fallen to an estimated 5,500hectares, a reduction of 440 hectaressince 2001. London’s manufacturingsector is projected to continue to contractand new industrial type activities areexpected to make more effective useof existing industrial land, freeing upsurplus industrial capacity for otheruses, especially housing. However, it isessential that the process of industrialland release is managed sensitively sothat provision is still made for essentialindustrial functions, especially logistics,waste and transport, emerging new sectorssuch as green industries and the myriadsmall industrial type firms which rely onthe planning system to protect affordablebusiness space. The introduction of newuses, including housing, to industrialareas should not compromise continuingindustrial activities there.3.65 The Commission notes that the LondonPlan states that “there is scope for anannual net release of 41 ha (of industrialland) 2006 – 2026, mainly in parts ofNorth East and South East London. Thisshould go to other priority uses, notablyhousing and social infrastructure a higherlevel of release is appropriate in the earlypart of the plan period (48 ha per annum2006 – 2016)”. This release should beundertaken on a selective and carefullymanaged and monitored basis to ensurethat the needs of the full range of bonafide industrial type occupiers are takeninto account, including transport, logisticsand, in particular, waste.3.66 In line with PPS3, PPS4 and governmentguidance on employment land reviews 5 ,policies and decisions to retain businessland, including that for industry, must bejustified by realistic demand assessments.The Industrial Capacity SPG 6 setsout quantified industrial land releasemonitoring benchmarks for individualboroughs in North East and South EastLondon and more general release/retention guidance for all boroughs(the Commission notes that the Mayorproposes to include this guidance withinthe body of the DRLP). For the period2006 – 2026, annualised benchmarks tomonitor release (including for housing) atsub regional level are:NorthNorth EastSouth EastSouth WestWest9 hectares per year18 hectares per year7 ha per year3 ha per year3 ha per year3.67 It is anticipated that, outside east London,subject to demand and other assessmentcriteria, most industrial land releasesto housing should come from smallerindustrial sites. The main reservoir ofindustrial capacity will continue to beprotected as Strategic Industrial Locations


144 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 3.10 Strategic Industrial Locations(SILs) and where formally designated, asLocally Significant Industrial Sites.3.68 Among SILs, especially in east London,there will still be some scope forstrategically coordinated intensification,consolidation, locational substitution and/or mixed use development which will yieldcapacity for other uses, especially housing.Where significant land is to be releasedfrom SILs, notably in parts of East London,this should be managed through individualplanning frameworks and coordinatedthrough the successor to Sub RegionalImplementation/Development Frameworks(the proposed Implementation Plan).Smaller scale releases from SILs shouldnot compromise the integrity and viabilityof the remainder of the SIL. These aretypically small parts of SILs which aresequestered from the main body of theLocation by a road or railway, often closeto a town centre. Boroughs are advised todraw on the criteria to manage the releaseof these and other small sites are set outin the SPG.


145Quality of Life/Environmental Issues3.69 Although our focus has primarily been onouter London’s economic development,it was clear to us from the start that wecould not ignore the things that makemuch of it somewhere that is pleasantto live and work. These are the reasonswhy outer London has a skilled residentworkforce. They are why the peoplewho support local shops and businesseschoose to live there. They are why manybusinesses decide to locate there. Thequality of life that is enjoyed in much ofouter London is crucial for its economicsuccess – and that of London as a whole.3.70 We believe that development need notdetract from what is one of the keystrengths of the area. Making sure thishappens depends on our taking theconcepts of “place making” and, onoccasion “place shielding”, and realisingthem on the ground - applying the bestof contemporary design and buildingstandards, and tailoring them to localcircumstances. This means taking aneighbourhood-based approach to designand development, taking local contextinto account in ways that address strategicpolicy objectives while also enablinglocal needs to be met. To be effectivein a city like London, with a growingand changing population means takingaccount of the needs of people at allstages of their lives and enabling them tomake the most of the places where theylive. We strongly endorse the concept of“Lifetime Neighbourhoods”, and are gladto see it has been taken up in the draftreplacement London Plan.3.71 This approach to ensuring strong andsustainable (in all senses of that term)neighbourhoods also means we have tobe more proactive in identifying the rangeof social infrastructure (everything fromschools, clinics and hospitals throughcultural and leisure facilities throughto prisons) that are needed for civilisedurban living. We think there may bevalue in the London Plan giving moreguidance on identifying appropriatelevels of social infrastructure in particularplaces, perhaps by providing benchmarkslinked to particular levels of developmentand growth– we have suggested someof these, together with illustrations ofrelative accessibility to some types offacility, in Annexes 6A and 6 B, but thesecould be extended e.g. to cover librariesand facilities for the elderly.3.72 One way of taking these principles andtranslating them into action might bethrough providing more strategic adviceand guidance. The GLA has published“Tomorrow’s Suburbs”, a toolkit forsustainable suburban development tosupport the London Plan. We thinkthis could be refined and updated,informed by our research, findings andrecommendations. In particular, it shouldset out approaches to help engendergreater community ownership, cohesionand choices – all things that are integral to


146 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportthe creation of the kind of neighbourhoodwe think will help support delivery of thekinds of growth we want to see.3.73 Civic groups report developers ‘cherrypick’ profitable parts of developmentareas without making commensuratecontributions needs to provide the socialinfrastructure required to secure qualityof life in the areas as a whole. They havealso suggested a ‘shopping list’ of thesorts of cumulatively important small scalemeasures which quality of life policiesshould cover including:• Manning of stations in the evenings• Designing out crime• Eliminating street clutter and improvingthe public realm• Maintaining visible Police presence• Reducing gang culture and associatedviolence• Providing good special needs education• Encouraging apprenticeships for youngpeople• Providing leisure facilities for both youngand elderly people• Dealing with worklessness in certaingroups• Achieving community cohesion• Developing borough outreach andengagement of communities• Ensuring local democratic decision making• Introducing an effective third party rightof appeal• Improving capacity and reliability ofpublic transport and user information• Realigning bus routes for effective usage• Positioning bus stops for ease ofinterchange• Improving Dial-a-Ride• Maintaining street trees and open spacesto acceptable standards• Protecting local shops• Developing loyalty purchase schemes• Eliminating graffiti, flyposting anddumping• Encouraging development of live/workunits and serviced offices• Supporting street markets, farmers’markets and food growing• Providing community and businessmeeting space, including asset transfer• Protecting heritage and conservationareas• Managing the night time economy• Reducing air pollution• Managing noise problems• Preventing more front garden parking3.74 All these approaches are, we believe,important if we are to be able to makesure that growth in outer London is to goahead in ways that enhance the qualityof living in outer London. This is essentialif growth is to be acceptable in the firstplace, and then effective in supportingouter London’s success. They must bebacked by a consistent and rigorousapproach not just to timely translationof strategic policy to the local level(slippage in LDF preparation timetablesis reported to be common) but also in itsimplementation – civic groups report thatall too often they find that the policieswhich are in place to secure quality of life


147are not accorded appropriate weight inplanning decisions.3.75 So far, we have focussed on newdevelopment and growth. We mustnot forget the huge contribution ofthe suburban heartlands – the placesbetween town centres that give thearea its unique feel and character. Theseplaces are important to outer London’ssuccess as well, and we should nurtureand support the capital’s “green suburbs”,which are one of the city’s key assets.It is important that policy supports thepublic and semi-public realm in this area– the green and open spaces providedby parks, sports clubs, playing fields andgardens. These have a value that goesbeyond protecting pleasant places – theyare important to the quality of life, healthand well-being of all Londoners and,perhaps at a more mundane level, are avital part of the outer London “offer” toinvestors and developers. We welcomethe strong support for protection of thesespaces in the draft replacement LondonPlan, its support for local presumptionsagainst development of back gardensand the proposal to extend the “greengrid” approach to ensuring a coordinatednetwork of green and open space beyondeast London.Transport issues3.76 It was clear from the outset that one ofthe key considerations in assessing thefeasibility of growth in outer London, letalone ‘growth hubs’, was the transportdemand and associated capacity requiredto facilitate it. Our consideration of theissue was supported by scenario testing ofthe effects of different patterns of spatialdevelopment carried out as part of thedevelopment of the draft London Plan andMayors Transport Strategy by Transport forLondon. .3.77 Two principal scenarios were considered:• Scenario A, with the focus ofemployment growth in central Londonwith population growth largely in innerand East London (as per the February2008 edition of the London Plan) – inother words, a continuation of existingtrends• Scenario B, a more dispersed growth,with higher levels of growth in outerLondon, centred on the four ‘strategicouter London development centres’ 13.78 Each of these basic scenarios, and anumber of variations on them, weretested against the possible transportinterventions required to support theirsustainable development. In addition tothe four potential hubs, a further scenarioconsidering the 11 “metropolitan” outerLondon town centres identified in thecurrent version of the London Plan, wasalso tested. These 3 main scenarios, then,


148 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 3.11: Matrix of land-use and transport changes modelledwere examined against the followingscenarios of transport intervention:• TfL Business Plan (to 2017/18) andfunded rail schemes as defined by HLOS 7• With a dedicated orbital linkpredominantly in outer London• With further interventions3.79 Figure 3.11 illustrates the matrix ofland-use planning options and transportinterventions modelled as part of theevidence base for the OLC report and theMayoral strategies.3.80 Different configurations within each ofthese 3 main transport interventions


149were also relevant. For example, insupporting outer London developmentcentres, possible transport interventionscould include maximising the use ofproposed cross-London strategic links(eg Crossrail); developing ‘chordal’ linksbetween inner London and outer Londoncentres via direct services or interchanges;and improving radial connections intocentres, which would then connect up toform orbital links. Figure 3.12 illustratesthese models and was also presented inthe Statement of Intent for the Mayor’sTransport Strategy issued for consultationwith the London Assembly and functionalbodies.3.81 Furthermore, the transport modellingindicated that a new dedicated,segregated orbital link in outer Londonwould not be viable, due to the lack ofsufficient potential patronage. However,it would be important to provide other,enhanced orbital connections in someparts of London where demand is higher.These could be achieved, for example,by making better use of interchangesand joining up existing links. We believethat doing this in a way that focuses onlinks to, and between, centres in outerLondon (what we have termed a “star andcluster” approach, and presented in therecommendations) will result in a densernetwork of interchanges and orbitalservices that will enable investment to beconcentrated where it will have the mosteffect.Figure 3.12: Possible configurations for connectingdevelopment centres in outer London throughenhanced orbital connections.Congestion3.82 The transport modelling indicated thatwithout changes to public transportcapacity and connectivity, growth inouter London would lead to more roadcongestion with associated increasesin CO2 emissions. This result is largelyaccounted for by the relatively highdependence on private car journeys inouter London (50% of all resident tripsare currently made by car). In this respect,outer London is much more similar toother UK metropolitan centres than it isto inner and central London, where publictransport has a much greater share.3.83 We have to act to prevent developmentand growth in outer London simply addingto road congestion and the problems oftraffic emissions and the wider adverse


150 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reporthealth impacts of car reliance: forexample, children not getting enoughexercise because they are driven to schoolrather than walking or cycling locally.Congestion will also adversely affectquality of life for residents and for thosedriving. Unsurprisingly, this was an issuethat was raised with us extensively in ourdiscussions with stakeholders.3.84 It would not, of course, be feasible toprovide public transport links to alldestinations in outer London. The caris likely to remain important for many,although opportunities to enable andpromote the use of public transport,walking and cycling, should obviouslybe maximised. This is the situation thatthose devising strategic policies for outerLondon will have to face.We have identified four areas to whichattention should be given:3.85 Rail services (both those provided byTransport for London and National Rail).These have a proportionately greatersignificance for outer London comparedto inner and central parts of the Capital.Particularly in south outer London, thereis less Tube coverage and more publictransport journeys use National Rail orTfL Overground services. With this inmind, and an awareness that there isunlikely to be significant funding for newinfrastructure available in the short-term,we think there is considerable scope tomake the current system operate moreeffectively. This should include a focus onimproved connectivity and interchangebetween rail and other services suchas buses and cycling. We welcome theintegration of Oyster cards into the NRnetwork and the continued promotionof the system as an overall network –after all, passengers are more concernedwith completing their journey than whoprovides the service.3.86 Buses will continue to be a vitalcomponent of public transport in outerLondon, but integration with otherservices is crucial. Allowing passengersto complete the whole journey by publictransport where possible, either throughimproved services, information ormarketing.3.87 Cycling and walking we share themayor’s enthusiasm for ensuring arevolution in cycling, and believe it isimportant that opportunities to increasecycling in outer London are identified andtaken up. This links to emphasis we haveput on a liveable public realm and easyaccess to local services. We particularlysee potential to encourage cycling andwalking to and within town centres. Thisin part needs to be facilitated throughimprovements in land use planning,which has the potential to encourage ordiscourage the take up of walking andcycling in outer London, e.g. out of towncentre developments lead to an increasein car travel. There are of course additionalhealth benefits of promoting active modes


151like cycling and walking, and these mustbe promoted as modes of choice. Theyare also cheap and have minimal negativeenvironmental impacts. There is a role forlocal authorities to take a lead in outerLondon, developing cycle hubs in andpromoting local cycling.3.88 Demand management given thelikelihood that outer London is likely tocontinue its reliance on the car, moreeffective management of the road networkis crucial to ensure that congestion doesnot act as a barrier to economic growthCar parking3.89 Car parking policy in outer London needsto be developed on an individual andlocal basis- a “one size fits all” approachis not appropriate here. Our view is thata balance needs to be struck betweenpromoting new development (which isgood for the economy) and preventingexcessive car parking provision (that candiscourage cycling, walking and publictransport). Adopting a flexible approach tocar parking in outer London is required sothat a level of accessibility is maintainedwhilst being consistent with the overallbalance of the transport system at thelocal level.can often put them at a disadvantagecompared to centres outside London.In town centres where regeneration isneeded, there may be justification forsome liberalisation.Freight3.91 With road freight currently comprisingnearly 90 per cent of London’s freightby tonnage, it is clear that managing thedemands and impacts of road freightare an essential part of the package ofdelivering growth in outer London. Whilstthe key driver of growth in freight is likelyto be the significant population growthover the next ten years and beyond, itis the various functions associated withthis growth that will lead to an increaseddemand for goods and essential materials.This will require significant freightand servicing activity across Londonand towards the east, for example inconstruction. If the potential of outerLondon’s business locations to contributemore effectively to that of the capitalas a whole, it will also need realistic andlocally sensitive acknowledgement of thetransport requirements of road basedfreight.3.90 We have heard that developers often viewthe lack of onsite car parking for offices inouter London as a disincentive to developoffices here, and this is not desirable froman economic point of view. We also knowthat parking policies in outer London


152 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportChapter 3 footnotesAnalysis1 GLA Economics. More residents, more jobs. Therelationship between population, employmentand accessibility in London. GLA, 20052 Ramidus, Roger Tym & Partners 2009 op cit3 Urhahn Urban Design, Urban Progress Studio,GVA Grimley. Housing Intensification in sevensouth London town centres. LDA, 2009Urhahn Urban Design, CBRE. TEN: town centreenhancement in north London. LDA, GOL 20074 Mayor of London. Interim Revised HousingSupplementary Planning Guidance. GLA, 20105 ODPM. Employment Land Reviews GuidanceNote. ODPM, 20046 Mayor of London. Industrial CapacitySupplementary Planning Guidance. GLA, 20087 High Level Output Statement – the programmefor investment on the national rail network


4: ‘Plan’– Recommendations153This chapter sets out our recommendations,drawing on the evidence presented in chapter2 and the analysis in chapter 3. They arepresented here.Spatial structures: The approachto promoting regeneration andemployment growth in outer London:recommendations for strategicapproaches4.1 In this section we make sevenrecommendations about the spatiallybasedpolicies that should be pursued withregard to strategic ways of encouragingouter London’s development. They addressparticularly those parts of our terms ofreference dealing with the question ofeconomic growth hubs and the role oftown centres, but our conclusions on thesepoints have also been influenced by theevidence and discussion in earlier sectionsdealing with issues like:• demography and housing;• the potential for growth in differenteconomic sectors;• transport;• the labour market• institutional and legislative changes/initiatives• quality of lifeSpatial Structures4.2 The spatial structure of a city can havea large influence on its regeneration andgrowth potential. We considered a varietyof new spatial structures with a view toascertaining which could best help torealise the economic potential of outerLondon. Listed below are some examplesof the options we looked at:4.3 The definition of outer London:many outer London boroughs have‘inner characteristics’ and vice versa (andsome parts of the Outer MetropolitanArea are very similar to outer London).It is therefore important that for policypurposes the boundaries of outerLondon are considered to be ‘permeable’so boroughs are not constrained byadministrative boundaries in drawing onthe Commission’s conclusions if theseare relevant in addressing the needs andchallenges of local neighbourhoods.4.4 ‘Super- hubs’ – the original propositiontested by the Commission was that thesecould be based on a very large scaleexpansion of a few already successfulbusiness locations to develop their ‘greaterthan sub-regional offer’. It was thoughtthat a benefit of these might be theirpotential to provide further agglomerationeconomies and so justify the substantialinvestment required to support them.However, it was soon realised that if theconcept was to be widely ‘owned’ byboroughs, even if the potential growth tosustain them might come forward in thefuture they would need to be developedwithout having a negative impact onexisting business locations. This possiblespatial structure was rejected by the OLC,as the potential particularly for privateoffice demand on this scale is doubtful


154 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportand there was also strong oppositionfrom numerous stakeholders because itwould compromise the prospects of otherbusiness locations within sub regions.4.5 Substantial Green Belt/ MetropolitanOpen Land (MOL) based urbanextensions (including the potential touse farms and other open land)- thisspatial structure was rejected by the OLCin principle. There is already significantdevelopment capacity and potential tofor intensification to make more effectiveuse of transport infrastructure within theurban area, and this should be our firstport of call. However, it may be possibleto explore this option if there is no netloss of Green Belt/MOL as a result ofdevelopment.4.6 Strategic Outer London DevelopmentCentres – this idea as a potential spatialstructure is supported as a more realisticand feasible type of hub. It is more suitedto accommodating the scale and nature ofgrowth likely to occur and to minimise thenecessity of travel whilst complementingexisting structures. Some locations wererecommended as potential areas forgrowth and influence beyond the areaswithin which they are located; for example,Wembley, Greenwich and Richmond assites for leisure and tourism; White City forMedia and Industry in Upper Lee Valleyand Bexley Riverside. There is furtherinformation on locations and specialisationgiven in Chapter 3, section 5 of thisreport.4.7 Reconfiguration of linkages betweenexisting business locations – aparticular focus here was with growthcorridors in east and west London, makingmore effective use of transport linkages,enhancing agglomeration economiesand support specialisms. Our view is tosupport this potential spatial structureas a more realistic and feasible structurewhich accommodates the scale and natureof growth expected to come forward,whilst making appropriate use of existingtransport facilities and available futuretransport investment. It also emphasisesthe relationship between growth areaswithin London and those at the corridorsbeyond London.4.8 Having considered these and otheroptions, we reached a general conclusionthat we should ensure the best use shouldbe made of outer London’s existing spatialstructures, building on (and in some casesdeveloping) its current strengths, andmaking the most of the investment thathas already been made there.4.9 This approach leads us to recommendthat the development of outer Londonshould be modelled on a “star and cluster”approach. This would make specific useof the existing town centre networkwhilst recognising other importantbusiness locations. It is also likely to bethe most sustainable and cost-effectiveapproach to transport infrastructureinvestment. There are many variantswithin this broad approach: Figure 4.1


155Figure 4.1: Some variants on the ‘star and cluster’ structureillustrates schematically one which reflectsthe perception of a ‘Central ActivitiesZone-centric’ structure for London (the‘centripetal city’); one which representsLondon as a ‘city of villages’ (the‘polycentric city’; and one which seeks tomarry ambitions for greater local growth inouter London with a realistic appreciationof outer London residents’ dependenceon access to the opportunities of themetropolitan labour market as a whole(the model which seemed most plausibleto the Commission). These are refinedfurther in Figure 4.2.4.10 Ways of refining the existing spatialstructures listed in the London Plan tomore effectively support this structureare listed below. As can be seen, the listincludes ‘pure’ spatial structures (like towncentres) and instances where developmentis clustered around, or stimulated bysignificant economic institutions (like anairport or a university).4.11 Town Centres: While the Commissionwas mindful that two fifths of outerLondon’s employment was not in its maintown centres, it supports the Mayorsview that these centres should be the


156 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportsingle most important set of businesslocations outside central London; and thatthe focus here should be on promotingaccess to a competitive selection of goodsand services, foregrounding the use ofmore environmentally-friendly modes oftransport. The Commission was impressedby the ambitions of stakeholders for theirtown centres and would only cautionthat aspirations should be tempered withrealism – there may be scope to secure astep change in the performance of someby enhancing their specialist functions ofwider than sub regional significance, butfor most it will be a matter of playing totheir existing strengths in serving theirexisting and future local communities– there is substantial potential growthin their consumer expenditure bases.Bringing forward capacity to accommodatethis in an already built up area willinevitably be a sensitive process, requiringreal partnership working and imaginativemeasures to enhance their quality andoffers, especially improving their publicrealm to create a more attractive andcompetitive business environmentand to develop a stronger and moreappealing sense of place and focus forlocal communities; possible use of theCPO process for site assembly; a creativeapproach to mixed use development;a sensitive approach to parking policy;and maintenance of London’s distinctapproach to the ‘sequential test’, within-centre development continuing tobe the first choice, but a more liberalapproach to edge of centre developmentthan in the rest of the country. Conversely,inappropriate out-of-centre developmentshould be resisted rigorously. Increasedtown centre related higher density, highquality residential provision can play akey part in town centre rejuvenation,coincidentally reducing pressure onestablished, predominantly residentialneighbourhoods to meet housing needs.This approach should inform the policies,investment priorities and initiatives ofthe GLA Group and other agencies suchas the Homes and Communities Agency,as well as the boroughs and otherrelevant stakeholders. The Commissionnoted that GLA research on use of theplanning system to secure small shopprovision could have wider implicationsto contribute to different aspects of towncentre renewal providing they does notconflict with competition legislation. Thiscould usefully be taken forward throughSupplementary Planning Guidance.4.12 Opportunity Areas and Areas ofIntensification: We consider thesespatial designations do continue tofulfil a valuable role in identifyingthose areas with the greatest potentialfor development. Indeed, we believethere is scope for designation of newareas, and we welcome the fact thatthe draft replacement London Plan has,for example, proposed a new area forintensification at Harrow and Wealdstone.Within these structures, the social andenvironmental infrastructure typicallyneeds to be improved so as to enhance


157their attractiveness as places to liveand work. Given the success of someOpportunity Area Planning Frameworks inidentifying and helping to bring forwarddevelopment capacity, the Commission isconcerned at the slow rate of progress inprogressing some of these Frameworks.4.13 Industrial Land: The reservoir ofstrategically important industrial landin the London Plan provides securecapacity for low- value but vital functions.Implementation of historic industrialcapacity policy raises two sets of issuesconcerned with quantity and quality ofprovision. While the principles of themethodology underlying the policy formanaging London’s diminishing stockof land and its changing occupier baseappear to be sound, release rates seem,for the most part, to be significantly abovethe relevant benchmarks. The Commissionnotes that hitherto, this process has beencoordinated through SPG and thereforesupports the greater weight given tomanagement mechanisms by includingthem within the body of the LondonPlan. There is also a need to put greateremphasis on the quality of these sites (thiswill help ensure the debate about quantitydeals with the fundamental issues). Withinthis, particular attention needs to be givento local road access. The economic roleof farms within outer London should alsobe given further attention, to ensure thebenefits they could bring to the outerLondon economy – and the wellbeing ofthe capital as a whole – are maximised.4.14 Growth/Coordination Corridors: Thepotential of these have not been realised.Experience shows that this is not likelyto be redressed without more active jointwork and coordination across the GreaterLondon boundary, bringing in local, subregionaland regional actors on either side.Comparison of ideas for taking forwardthe Croydon – Gatwick and West LondonCorridors suggest that a ‘one size fits all’approach is not likely to be appropriate.This work now needs to be taken forwardmore vigorously – early signs (in relationto the London-Luton-Bedford corridorfor example), are encouraging. But thereis clear scope for more, and we wouldurge the Mayor to work with agencies inthe wider metropolitan area to see howthis agenda can be taken forward mosteffectively. There is a particular need forjoint work of this kind on transport issues.4.15 Sub regions: We welcome the moreflexible approach to sub-regionalworking that has been taken in the draftreplacement London Plan. The sheervariety of outer London is a theme thatruns through this report, and in view ofthat, a rigid sub regional framework isclearly unlikely to be relevant or helpfulin delivering the objectives we describehere. There is a need for work at a levelbelow the citywide; a key aspect here isto build on established partnerships whichare vital for creating linkages betweenLondon and local areas and a revisionof implementation plans to coordinatefunding and other initiatives such as cross


158 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportborder working. We also believe there isscope to consider how working at this levelcan complement work and service deliveryat the regional and local levels, providingscope for cost efficiencies and addingvalue.4.16 Regional/National/Internationallinkages: Particularly given the likelyshortage of public resources in the nextdecade, it will be important to ensurethat outer London makes the mostof the development and regenerationopportunities that may arise fromnational and regional transport andother infrastructural investment (withprojects like Crossrail or High Speed 2,for example). Similarly, the importanceof airports will remain a major economicdriver for outer London. As we havealready indicated, joint local andstrategic working is vital to resolve localenvironmental and other concerns withwider strategic economic objectives.Recommendation 1- Spatial Structures:a) We recommend that outer London’s existing spatial structure should be developed asnecessary to support its future development and regeneration. The development of outerLondon should be modelled on a “star and cluster” structure focused on the existing towncentre network. We support the concept of strategic outer London development centreswhere 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, andrecommend that the process of preparing planning frameworks for them should beaccelerated 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 stockof industrial land and suggest that more attention should be given to ways of determining itsfuture and improving its quality and accessibility to ensure it can make a real contribution toouter London’s success.d) We recommend that more attention is given to ensuring effective cross-boundary work onissues like realising the potential of growth and coordination corridors and transport.e) We recommend that the Mayor, boroughs and other agencies work together to developsub-regional working arrangements, in particular to identify opportunities to improve costeffectivenessand add value in service delivery at this level, including through Multi AreaAgreements.f) We recommend that everyone concerned with planning for outer London works togetherto identify, and then realise, opportunities for development and regeneration arising fromnational, regional and local transport and other infrastructure investment


159Demography and Housing4.17 Economic growth cannot be consideredin a vacuum, and in looking at outerLondon’s economic potential we werealways mindful of the likely knock-oneffects of more polycentric development.With this in mind, we consider that itis important to avoid making simplisticlinks between population growth andjob creation – it is essential that growthis sensitive to the quality of the localneighbourhoods. We would like to seemuch stronger emphasis on ‘place shaping’and on ensuring that development fitsin with local needs and heritage, so thatplaces are attractive to live in as well aswork in. To this end, we advocate mixeduse developments and capacity buildingat a local level coupled with high qualityurban design and appropriate density ofdevelopment in accordance with LondonPlan policies.4.18 In terms of housing, we would drawattention to the need for both affordablefamily housing and responding to theneeds of smaller households. At the sametime there will be more younger and olderLondoners; there is also likely to be amove towards more one- or two-personhouseholds. Housing provision needs toreflect these trends. Whatever its tenuretype, housing should be of high quality.4.19 We would also recommend a closer lookat the link between housing density,accessibility and parking provision. All ofthese elements form the sense of placeand neighbourhood and can help to makebetter places to live. For example, theremight be less need for parking spaces ifneighbours could car-share, which couldalso have benefits in terms of public realm,air quality and a sense of community. Wealso recognise that some respondentsperceive housing density to be an issue inits own right. While the 2008 London Planpolicy does require some refinements tomake clear the importance of respectinglocal context and of the need for effectivecoordination with public transportaccessibility, in essence the policy doeshave the flexibility to respond to thedifferent types of neighbourhood foundacross outer London. It does howeverneed to be complemented by a strongercommitment to quality, both within thehome and in the neighbourhood – this isparticularly important for higher densitydevelopments. With over 60 per centof developments above the densitythresholds for particular types of location,there does appear to have been a realproblem with policy implementation- those proposing and controllingdevelopment must take into account therange of factors which bear on optimisinghousing output and not just use densitymatrix mechanistically but to secureSustainable Residential Quality – whatthe boroughs who authored the conceptoriginally intended.4.20 Again, policy cannot simply focus onnumbers. Particularly if new homes are


160 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportto be provided in ways that respect thequality of existing neighbourhoods, andmake a contribution to improving thequality of life of existing as well as newresidents, attention will have to be givento looking at how new homes should beplanned for, built and supported withthe social and other infrastructure newneighbourhoods need if they are tobe sustainable. Annexes to this reportprovide potential benchmarks to informthis, possibly through SupplementaryPlanning Guidance. We recommend thatfurther consideration also be given toways of improving the quality of newhomes and of the public realm in whichthey sit (looking at questions such asthe pooling of section 106 contributionsfor investment). This is likely to requirenew delivery models, and we believethat there may be particular scope forcommunity-based initiatives and models.It will also be extremely important toensure that mayoral strategies and theirimplementation are carefully coordinatedto ensure that GLA Group and Homesand Communities Agency investment cansecure the maximum benefit.Recommendation 2- Demography and Housing:We strongly urge that simplistic links should not be made between population growth and jobcreation. There are other factors which need to be considered such as the concept of ‘placeshaping’ and provision of adequate and affordable housing.In planning for new homes it will be important to bear in mind the changing patterns ofdemand – the need for more family homes, meeting the particular needs of more young andolder Londoners and the growth in smaller households. Quality should be given far greateremphasis.We recommend that attention be given to the way in which new homes are planned for, builtand supported. In particular, we believe that community- based initiatives can help to createsustainable neighbourhoods. It will also be important to ensure better coordination acrossmayoral strategies and the GLA Group to ensure that its investment and programmes, andthose of the Homes and Communities Agency, secure the maximum benefit.


161The potential for growth in differenteconomic sectors4.21 We have identified four main growthsectors for the outer London economy:office-based work (including the publicsector); knowledge-based industries;leisure, tourism and culture; and retail.Each of these will require a particular set ofapproaches, which we will outline below.4.22 For offices, we recommend a realisticand proactive approach to developmentwhere there is scope to increase economicpotential - the focus needs to be on themost competitive locations for futuregrowth complemented by recognitionthat structural change in parts of theouter London office market looks set tocontinue. We have provided more detailedsuggestions on how the release of surplusoffice provision might be managed,taking into account the continuing needfor some lower cost accommodation, thesignificance of phasing in this process,the importance of an attractive businessenvironment as part of a broader mix ofuses, a sensitive approach to car parkingand the role of re-positioning and rebrandingthe most competitive elementsof outer London’s office offer. We havebeen mindful that some (but not all) of therelatively few recent proposals for officedevelopment in London beyond CAZ/Canary Wharf have come forward in out-ofcentre,or at best, edge of centre locations.With this in mind, we note that, while localand environmental concerns are important,so are the strategic economic needs of thesub-region and the London economy as awhole and each of these aspects should beweighed carefully – in considering them,particular attention should be paid tomaximising public transport use. Furtheruse of tools like mixed-use ‘swaps’ incompetitive locations; allowing developersto negotiate with local authorities sothat they can provide more or less officespace as appropriate in any particulardevelopment would help support the kindof focus on the most competitive locationsfor future growth.4.23 We have heard much about the potential of“knowledge-based industries”. The problemwith this term is that there is no universallyagreeddefinition, and we feel that thedebate around the contribution that couldbe made by the kind of economic sectorcommonly brought under this headingwould be greatly advanced if such adefinition could be developed and adopted.We consider that there is scope to developthe various activities which are basedon knowledge, the media and creativebasedwork, including aspects of what hasbecome known as the environmental or“green collar” sectors (concepts which alsosuffer from imprecise definition, and towhich our earlier recommendations equallyapply). Looking at these sectors raises theurgent question of whether outer Londonlacks information and communicationstechnology infrastructure and whether thepublic sector or effective planning can helpaddress this is also required. Taking this


162 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportfurther, there may be scope to encouragehome (or near-home) working, with newforms of infrastructure or locally-basedbusiness support services (local ICT “hubs”giving SMEs and individual workers accessto the kind of sophisticated ICT that theycould not economically afford to buythemselves). It has been suggested thatpublic libraries or ‘out offices’ for large,centrally based firms might have a rolein this. It has also been suggested thatBoroughs could take a more proactiveapproach to extending fibre optic cableto enhance capacity to serve such centres– the LCCI would be happy to work inpartnership to progress this.4.24 There may be a case for public sectorintervention to support the provision ofinnovation parks so that similar, relatedsmall or medium-sized businesses cancluster together in a distinct, attractivebusiness environment, and this mightrequire active public intervention. Theseneed to be considered carefully andon a case-by-case basis, to see if thereis a suitable market for their services,and we would recommend that there isactive brand management of any suchcentres. We know from past experiencethat without ongoing interest in suchcentres, they can easily become moribundand unattractive, and we recognise thatfunding specialist buildings can poseparticular challenges.4.25 Outer London should also be promotedas a cost-effective place for governmentand other public sector functions, such ashealth, judicial and education functionsof greater than sub- regional importance,whilst including links to existing centralLondon institutions and to local labourmarkets. The potential here is to use highereducation institutions and hospitals as afocus of regeneration. Putting HE and FEinstitutions (or satellites of institutionsbased elsewhere) in outer London has thefurther benefit of developing the locallabour market by helping people to improvetheir skills and employability.4.26 In our view, there is considerable potentialfor growth in the leisure and retail sectors,both of which have an important role toplay in outer London. In the first categorywe need to consider a wide range ofactivities, including arts and culture,tourism and local leisure activities. Theseboth make outer London an attractive,‘liveable’ place for Londoners, as well asoffering potential for a visitor economy– and are usually cheaper than in centralLondon.4.27 We have been struck by the imbalancebetween the number of cultural facilitiesin outer London (some 3,500) and theamount of public funding available (mostof which in the capital goes to centralLondon). We think this imbalance shouldbe reviewed. We recognise that this isnot something that is likely to changequickly, however, and we recommend amore positive marketing of outer London’sdistinct attractions, particularly where


163clustering occurs, as it does in severaltown centres. The Strategic Cultural Areasalready identify the strategically mostimportant clusters but there is scope torealise the potential of others, possibly bybranding and marketing them as groupedattractions. More local regeneration can beprompted in outer London through a moreproactive approach to the ‘cultural quarter’concept (which supports coordinatedapproaches to planning for and managingimportant clusters of cultural assets andrelated uses); these can also provideinputs to more effective strategic and localcoordination and marketing of attractionsin outer London.4.28 The possibility of large scale commercialleisure with possible internationalsignificance could also be explored. At theother end of the scale, we believe thereis scope for the rejuvenation of many ofouter London’s medium-sized theatres, andtheir use for purposes such as art housecinemas.4.29 Some parts of outer London have seen arapid growth in the night time economy.It is important to remember, though, thatareas with a night time economy requireeffective management and promotion toensure that they remain attractive and safe,and that potential negative impacts onlocal residents and businesses are managedeffectively.4.30 Consumer spending will be a vitaleconomic driver in outer London, and thisunderscores the future importance of retailhere. New retail should be focused on towncentres and should be provided in ways thatseek to preserve their distinct characteristics– there is no reason why even a centre witha large number of national stores should bea “clone town”, and places with a distinctfeel and character are likely to be thosethat will thrive. At neighbourhood andmore local centre level there is scope tointegrate new retail provision into larger,predominantly residential developments tosupport place shaping as well as providingessential services.4.31 We believe the evidence is clear thatefficient management of town centres isvital- particularly when combined withtargeted investment and regenerationof particular centres (and the LondonDevelopment Agency has a particularrole to play both in helping supportthe extension of models like BusinessImprovement Districts and more directlythrough supporting site assembly).Transport issues need to be given particularemphasis, especially encouraging access toand within centres by walking and cycling.4.32 There is a need to understand and buildupon the distinctive character and role ofdifferent types of centre, ranging from theMetropolitan centres, with their particulartransport needs, through to smaller Districtand Neighbourhood centres. Each has animportant role to play, and maintaining thekind of network that has been one of outerLondon’s real strengths will require careful


164 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportand realistic planning. Consideration shouldbe given as to how they can become moredistinct destinations not just for retailingbut also for business, leisure, civic, socialand wider functions, complemented byenvironmental improvements which play totheir particular strengths and characters.The tools that could be used to achievethis include policies to encourage a diverseand vibrant retail mix across centres, suchas encouraging the provision of affordableshop units, and promoting street marketsto enhance vitality of town centres. Greaterencouragement of walking as a moreenvironmentally sound and healthier meansof getting into and going around towncentres is also an essential aspect of thisdevelopment. Safety considerations are akey part of this.4.33 A strong, vibrant and diverse retail sectoris a key component of successful andeffective town centres. It will help toattract other employment, which willin turn help drive retail footfall. Whenmanaged well, a lively retail and leisuresector in Metropolitan town centres cancontribute to the vitality and viability ofthe whole area and complement the morelocal offer of smaller centres.Recommendation 3- Economy:a) We recommend that particular attentionshould be given to four key employmentsectors in outer London:• office-based employment and“knowledge industries”• the public sector• leisure arts and culture• retailb) There should be a focus on the mostcompetitive locations for future growthin the office-based sectors and somedevelopment should be allowed whereincreased economic potential exists.There is a need for an agreed definitionof “knowledge industries”, and there maybe a case for public sector support forscience/innovation parks. More widely,attention should be given to the extent ofICT infrastructure in outer London and tothe scope of new business supportservices to support home or near-homeworking. Outer London should bepromoted as a cost-effective place for thepublic sector to do business.More attention should be given to therole of leisure, culture and arts in outerLondon – and to the funding they receive.The effective marketing of cultural assetsin outer London and a more positiveapproach to the ‘cultural quarter’ conceptshould be adopted. Opportunities toattract large-scale leisure uses, and torejuvenate medium-sized theatres shouldbe pursued.A vibrant and diverse retail sector in arange of centres should be encouragedin outer London. There is a need foreffective town centre management tocomplement investment and improvement


165Transport4.34 Transport is a huge issue for outer London.We will summarise our considerations fordifferent aspects in turn: rail (includingboth TfL and NR-provided services);cycling and walking; buses and the roleof private car transport and parkingpolicy. Before doing this, however, thereare some general principles we haveagreed upon which inform our detailedrecommendations.4.35 Most importantly, we have takenseriously the need to ensure that ourrecommendations have to be realistic.This is especially important at a timewhen public resources are tight, with theprospect of matters becoming tighterover the next few years. With this inmind, we have recognised that Transportfor London cannot (and should not)commit investment without a strongbusiness case. In outer London this willmean consideration of issues includingthe extent of benefits that investmentwill bring (such as how much time will besaved by how many people) or the sizeof the development and regenerationdividend. These assessments will in turn beaffected by the sale, massing, distributionand density of different parts of the area.We have also had to bear in mind that TfLhave to plan across the city-region as awhole.4.36 That said, it is essential that investmentspecific to outer London, its uniquecharacter and distinctive needs is notneglected. We recognise, however, thatouter London benefits from pan-Londonand radial improvements, and that theseshould not be seen as polar oppositeslocked in a zero-sum game (see Figure 4.2).4.37 These are the considerations that haveled us to accept that a high-speed,contiguous orbital public transport systemis unlikely to address outer London’sneeds, and that our variant on the “starand cluster” model offers a more effectiveand practical approach to meet theneeds of the constellation of centres andemployment locations outlined in thisreport. We recommend that in addition tomaking the most of existing links, strategicinterchanges are used to both relievepressure on central London and facilitatemore orbital movements in outer London(see Figure 4.2).Figure 4.2 : “Star and cluster” structure enhancingexisting links and strategic interchanges (yellow)


166 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report4.38 Rail has a proportionately greatersignificance for outer London comparedto inner and central parts of the Capital.Particularly in south outer London, thereis less Tube coverage and more publictransport journeys use National Rail or TfLOverground services. With this in mind,and taking account of the likely shortageof funding for new infrastructure availablein the short-term, we recommend thatthere is an emphasis placed on makingthe current system operate moreeffectively. This should include a focus onimproved connectivity and interchangebetween rail and other services suchas buses and cycling. We welcome theintegration of Oyster cards into theNational Rail network and the newemphasis on promotion of the system asan overall network – after all, passengersare more concerned with completingtheir journey than who provides theservice. This must be extended to thoseparts of the system which are still notcovered. We would still like to see moreimprovements made to the quality ofstations, which can at present be variable.This should include improvements whichhelp travellers feel more secure, such asbetter lighting and security in and aroundstations, improved information (not justin terms of timetabling but also of usingthe suburban rail system more effectivelyas an integrated network), and moreeffective coordination with other modesincluding buses and cycling.4.39 There is a case for medium-scaleinvestment (such as upgrading/buildingstrategic interchanges (see above) whichcan provide significant benefits forrelatively modest levels of investment.We also need to ensure there is the scopefor further new infrastructure in thefuture by considering whether unusedrail alignments and infrastructure can besafeguarded.4.40 Buses will continue to be a vitalcomponent of public transport in outerLondon. As we have already said, theremust be a better integration with railservices so that passengers can completethe whole journey by public transport.Both buses and coaches could be usedto improve orbital connectivity in outerLondon, including the possible provisionof coaches or express services where thereis sufficient demand. We would like tosee the opportunity for strategic coachhubs investigated further. Some peopleare put off using buses by uncertaintyabout timetables and reliability, and wewould like to see measures to addressthis, such as better information provisionand marketing of the services available.TfL has explored the initial suggestionthat there may be scope for more limitedstop and express service bus services– while these cannot be justified in itsown budget, other providers may wish todevelop their potential.4.41 The Mayor has made very plain hisenthusiasm for cycling and walking. We


167share this and particularly advocate thatopportunities to increase cycling andwalking in outer London are identifiedand taken up. There are clear synergiesbetween this and our advocacy for aliveable public realm and easy access tolocal services, and we think that thesemore healthy and sustainable modesare brought within the mainstream oftransport and spatial planning and sonot seen as “nice to have” add-ons. Weparticularly see potential to encouragecycling and walking to and within towncentres. There are of course additionalhealth benefits of promoting activemodes like cycling and walking, and thesemust be promoted as modes of choice.They are also cheap and have minimalnegative environmental impacts. Thereis a role for local authorities to take alead in outer London, developing cyclehubs in and promoting local cycling.We would like to see a combination ofincentives and investment to encouragethese sustainable modes and give peoplea real choice not to use their cars. Wehave noted the success of Smarter Travelprogrammes in Richmond and Sutton andhope that these can be used more widely.4.42 That said, we do recognise that withinouter London the car is likely to remaina key mode for many trips. Given thisfact, we would like to see more effectiveroad management and collaborationbetween local authorities to addresscongestion pressures on our roads. Thisshould include measures to improvethe efficiency of freight and servicingmovements, as well as those which willreduce the need for ‘school runs’. Wewould also like to see the approvalsprocess for highways projects whereappropriate speeded up. There is anopportunity to reduce local traffic byhaving more local retail centres (which, aswe have seen, have other benefits), andmore use of freight consolidation centres.There would seem to be to be scope forsome local enhancements to road capacityto address particular points of congestion- and which should not compromise theoverall thrust of the emerging TransportStrategy. Alongside this, we do see a rolefor some demand management measures,potentially including road user charging inthe longer term. Naturally this would needmuch greater consideration, especiallywith regard to local circumstances, thanwe are able to provide here. However wewould like to note in principle our supportfor a consideration of such measures.These could take a very wide range offorms. Consideration should also be givento a more effective way of managing roadworks, especially those occasioned byutility providers.4.43 Car parking policy in outer London needsto be developed on an individual andlocal basis – a “one size fits all” approachis not appropriate here. Our view is thata balance needs to be struck betweenpromoting new development (which isgood for the economy) and preventingexcessive car parking provision (that can


168 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportdiscourage cycling, walking and publictransport and increase congestion).Adopting a flexible approach to carparking in outer London is required so thata level of accessibility is maintained whilstbeing consistent with the overall balanceof the transport system at the local level.4.44 We know that some of our respondentsoften view the lack of onsite carparking for offices in outer London as adisincentive to develop offices here, andthis is not desirable from an economicpoint of view. We also know that parkingpolicies in outer London can often putthem at a disadvantage compared tocentres outside London. In town centreswhere regeneration is needed, there maybe justification for some liberalisation.There is a case for selective reviewof parking policies, which in casesoutside London may necessitate centralgovernment involvement. We reiteratethat a balance needs to be achievedso that development is encouragedwithout prompting unacceptable levels ofcongestion and pollution.4.45 The use of Park and Ride schemes inouter London is supported where it can beshown they will lead to overall reductionsin congestion and journey times. Wewould also ask TfL and the boroughs toexamine the capacity to incentivise lowerCO2 emitting vehicles, and also promotecar sharing and car clubs.4.46 Increases in the density of commercialactivity across London, including outerLondon, will require logistics premisesto support the associated demand infreight and servicing vehicles. Thismay include the need for consolidationcentres, but the case for them still needsto be understood further. In addition tomanaging congestion at key locationsin outer London, increasing the role ofrail and river in freight movements willrelieve some of the pressures on the roadnetwork. However, it is essential to takerealistic account of the primary role ofRecommendation 4- Transport:We do not consider that a single, high-speed orbital public transport system is likely to addressouter London’s needs. Rather we support a “hub and spoke” approach.Improved connectivity and interchange and better integration between bus and rail services isneeded, in order to enable orbital and local travel in outer London.Better marketing and information relating to public transport should be accompanied by activeencouragement of cycling and walking, especially to and within town centres.For cars, we advocate both more effective road traffic management and a consideration of demandmanagement measures. There is a case for selective review of local parking policies.


169road transport in sustaining London’sindustrial and other business locationsso that they can realise their potentialcontributions to the wider metropolitaneconomy.4.47 Finally, the question of fare affordabilitycropped up throughout our discussions.There is a view that travel in outer London,necessitating as it often does considerabledistance and ‘changing’ of services andmodes, is disproportionately expensive.We would like to see an exploration ofticketing measures, for instance based onOyster type products, to address this.London’s Labour Market4.48 Over the past thirty years or so, manyLondoners have prospered. At the sametime, too many have not. The reasonsfor this disparity and its persistence havemuch to do with how different groupsand individuals fare in the labour market.London as a whole faces the challenge ofensuring its workforce has the necessaryskills to participate fully in the economyand enjoy its success, particularly as theeconomy continues to change towardsone based on services demanding higherskill levels.4.49 There is already a firm foundationin outer London for this. In terms ofschool-age education, outer Londonout performs inner London; outerLondon residents have higher ratesof employment and lower rates ofworklessness than inner Londonresidents. Additionally, younger, higherskilledworkers from the rest of the UKand abroad are attracted to live and workin London. One of the often forgottenfacts about the outer London labourmarket is that it contains significantlymore economically active people thanthat in inner London – partly becauseit has a large, albeit slowly growingemployment base of its own, and partlybecause it is home to many Londonerswho work elsewhere, especially in innerLondon.


170 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report4.50 To build on this success, it is vital that thedistinctive skills needs of outer Londonare addressed. Public sector investment inskills is targeted on need not geography,and this tends to result in broad-brushapproaches tackling broad-based areasof need. Outer London should not beoverlooked - to give an example, eventhough Crossrail is essentially an innerLondon scheme, we would anticipatethat it would draw its skilled workersfrom across London. We recommend thatthe LDA should adopt an approach tocommissioning training and skills provisionwhich will provide further opportunitiesfor locally driven responses to the deliveryof strategic outcomes.Recommendation 5- Labour Market:Ensure appropriate skills are attainedby London’s workforce for successfulinvolvement in the economy. The LDA’scommissioning should take account of thedistinctive skills needs of outer London’speople and economy, and should focus onensuring that there are opportunities forlocally driven responses to the delivery ofstrategic outcomes.Institutional Changes4.51 It will be more than apparent by nowthat we recommend that the LondonDevelopment Agency (LDA) and TfL givegreater recognition to outer London as aspatial priority.4.52 The LDA in particular should providesupport for local partnerships by, forexample, working to facilitate landassembly, helping to create capacity fortown centre management and identifyingdistinct outer London skill needs. It willalso have a role in supporting the Mayorin leading inter-regional discussions andworking.4.53 Some of the initiatives we would like tosee would require a legislative change.We would like to see a streamlining ofthe development process to reduce thetime spent on the planning permissionsprocess and to speed up the productionof local development frameworks.Boroughs should be able to retain partof the revenue from the national nondomesticrates paid by businesses in theirareas, and consideration should be givento permitting local authorities to borrowagainst future Council tax income. Thereis also scope for changes to governmentpractice – in speeding up the identificationand disposal of surplus public land, forexample.


171Recommendation 6- Institutional:The recognition of outer London as aspatial priority is essential. Support forlocal partnerships working to facilitateland assembly, town centre managementand outer London skill needs is required.Streamlining of planning permissions andother processes should be explored, withthe case made for appropriate changes tolegislation.Quality of Life4.54 As we have seen, maintaining andimproving the quality of life available tothose living and working in outer Londonis a vital consideration for its overallsuccess. In fact, a sound approach tothe quality of life here will improve thewhole of London and the south east moregenerally. This report advocates furtherdevelopment in outer London, and werecognise how important it is to ensuregrowth can be harnessed and influencedin ways that improve the quality of placesin outer London and the quality of life ofthose living there.4.55 Taking a practical approach to theseissues ties back to many of the questionsdiscussed earlier with regard to outerLondon’s spatial structure. We considerthat a neighbourhood- based approachis essential to promote and support localfunctions. The London Plan needs tosupport and enable this local approach; itsrole here is to facilitate local developmenthappening in line with local needs whilerecognising that, cumulatively, thisdevelopment contributes to the strategicneeds of the whole city region. Part ofthis is ensuring there is sufficient access toservices across the various centres of outerLondon.4.56 Our interim report recommended thatthe London Plan should place greateremphasis on the concept of ‘place making’as well as on town centres being the focus


172 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportfor neighbourhoods and the importanceof ‘life time neighbourhoods’ that canmeet the needs of a population growingat either end of the age range. We areglad to see that the Mayor has respondedto these in the draft replacement LondonPlan.4.57 Of course, a balance needs to be struckbetween providing appropriate local socialinfrastructure (e.g. schools, healthcare– see proposed benchmarks in Annex6A and 6B) whilst accommodating thenecessary economic growth. An emphasisshould be placed on London’s ‘GreenSuburbs’ whilst enhancing the semi-publicrealm and securing its maintenance. Theremust be a general presumption againstback garden development where this is aproblem and the continued and vigorousprotection of open spaces in order topreserve the quality of life in outerLondon.4.58 There is room for further work on theseissues at a strategic level. The previousMayor issued a “Toolkit for Tomorrow’sSuburbs” to support the London Plan. Thiswas well-received, and we think it wouldbe worthwhile to produce an updatedversion reflecting changes since 2004 andthe approaches we have recommended inthis report. In particular, there is a needto develop thinking on ways of enablinggreater community identity and cohesionas a first step in encouraging a sense ofownership and empowerment in takingdecisions about growth and development.This will require borough implementationof national policy to facilitate andencourage public participation.4.59 In Chapter 2, the Commission notedhow it found itself in agreement withmany of Robin Thompson’s views onthe importance of quality of life in outerLondon 1 , which informed the 2008London Plan. Where the Commissionwould have some reservations with himis in fully accepting the status quo overthe distribution of historic investment toaddress deprivation in London because“inner London still has far more peopleand places with more serious problemsthan those of outer London. This isreflected in national (and European) policyand funding, which is strongly orientedtowards inner cities.”4.60 In response, the Commission would notefirstly that a more fine grained approachto identifying neighbourhood deprivationshows that it is much more dispersedthan the ‘blockier’ methodology use inthe 2008 Plan, which concealed somechronic, if more localised concentrationsof deprivation in outer London. Secondly,and partly as a reflection of theCommission’s wider remit to enable outerLondon to realize its potential contributionto London as a whole, it would questionthe orthodoxy of placing such a highpriority on focusing social/communityregeneration funding in the areas with themost acute need (which for the most part,it is acknowledged, lie in inner London).


173Instead, it would ask whether there maybe benefit for the capital in reconsideringthe re-allocation of some (but by nomeans all) social and local renewal torealize the potential of those who are stilldisadvantaged but not to the extent ofthose in most acute need. This is perhapsa philosophical question for the LDA andits emerging Economic DevelopmentStrategy.4.61 As Thompson notes, “many of theproblems relating to the social andphysical infrastructure of outer Londonrequire ‘soft’ measures such as reskillingand the regular improvement andmaintenance of the very local environment…. They need detailed, local, day to dayattention spread over very wide areas,which will generally need to be done atthe local rather than the strategic level…... there are real challenges in fundingdevelopment and infrastructure in outerLondon, where national programs suchas the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund aregenerally not available and where somemarket drivers (other than residential) areweak and where most local authoritiesmay have less access to networks ofdevelopers and funding bodies.”the preceding sections of this report,the Commission recognizes that financialconstraints do of course limit the potentialfor major infrastructure investment, butthat does not mean that in some areas it isnot required, nor that innovative solutionscannot be found to address some of theseconstraints.Recommendation 7- Quality of Life:A good quality of life is vital to both outerLondon’s residents and its businesses.We recommend a neighbourhood basedapproach to help strike a balance betweensocial infrastructure provisions and necessarygrowth, retaining an emphasis on ‘placemaking’ and ‘life time neighbourhoods’.4.62 Where the Commission perhaps disagreeswith Thompson is in his views on moredirectly realising the potential of the outerLondon economy and his suggestion thatthis potential is “not readily addressedby big infrastructure measures or bytargeting priority areas”. As is clear from


174 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportThe Future4.63 While this report marks the end ofthe formal task the Mayor gave us,our work has left us with a number ofoverwhelming impressions. Outer Londonis hugely diverse, and is becoming evermore so. It has seen huge changesover the past century, and again thislooks set to continue. It is fortunate inhaving very many talented people in itslocal authorities, businesses, voluntaryorganisations and communities whohave a wealth of experience and ideasabout how their area can make its fullcontribution to London’s success and indoing so improve the prosperity and wellbeingof those living and working there.4.64 Against this background, a report ofthis kind can only be a partial view at aparticular point in time. We are consciousthat while we have addressed the coreeconomic issues identified in our terms ofreference, there are others which bear onthem which merit further investigation.Among these, aspects of quality of life,institutional arrangements (especiallyin terms of cross border working), whatclimate change may mean for outerLondon and, in particular, the resourcesavailable to help realise its economicpotential, and the way London’s spatialstrategy could add value beyond itsconventional land use remit by moreeffectively coordinating these to developrelevant aspects of ‘localness agenda’at the city region level. There are alsosome more specific economic pointswhich require further analysis, especiallythe definition of ‘knowledge based’ and‘green’ industries.4.65 We have deliberately made the reportaction-oriented, dealing with questions ofimplementation as well as ideas and policyproposals. We believe the Mayor was rightto set the Commission up, to bring a focuson outer London that was missing before.For the same reasons, there is room for thecontinued existence of a forum for outerLondon to advise on the implementationof the recommendations in this report,and, perhaps separately, to provide thebasis for high level engagement with thekey stakeholders in the outer Londoneconomy to identify emerging strategicchallenges and opportunities.We have enjoyed the process ofresearch and consultation that haveled to this report, and commend ourrecommendations to the Mayor – and toLondon.Chapter 4 footnotesQuality of life1 Thompson R. outer London: issues for the LondonPlan. GLA, 2007


Annexes175Annex 1:Commission’s First Thoughts PaperOuter London: realising its potentialFirst thoughtsBackground1. While employment in London as a wholerose by 6 per cent between the cyclicalpeaks of 1989 and 2001 (and by 3%between 2001 and 2007), employment inouter London rose by only 1 per cent 1989– 2001 and by 2 per cent between 2001and 2007. In the counties surroundingOuter London, employment grew by11 per cent 1989-2001 and by 4 per cent2001-2007 1 .2. Outer London is far from homogeneousand this general trend conceals significantlocal variations. Some outer boroughsrecorded strongly positive employmentgrowth, especially between 1989 and2001: Hillingdon’s employment increasedby 39 per cent or 54,000, Richmond grewby 26 per cent (17,000) and Barnet by17 per cent (20,000). Against thesemust be set significant declines in the1989-2001 period for Barking (-21 %or -15,000), Waltham Forest (-13%,-11,000), Croydon (-10%, -17,000) andHounslow and Brent each -9 per cent and-15,000 and -12,000 respectively. Moresubstantively, Figure 1 shows that belowthese headline boroughs is a raft of otherswith lower levels of decline or, at best,only modest growth.3. There are local as well as broad strategicreasons why many areas of the outerLondon economy have been at best littlemore that economically static. Thesereasons are further complicated by thecurrent macro economic downturn, whichwill affect the whole of the UK and couldbear particularly hard on the London’sservice dominated economy.4. Long term employment projections over20 years, extending beyond this, andprobably other recessions, suggest thatthe number of jobs in outer London mightgrow by 11 per cent if account is takenof significant (albeit often unfunded andtherefore hypothetical) public transportinvestment and substantial identifieddevelopment capacity. This is a markedimprovement on historic trends but doesnot compare well with 21 per cent incentral London and 32 per cent in the restof inner London. Though the projectionssuggest growth may take place in all outerBoroughs to 2026, the rate of growth in asignificant number is not expected to besubstantial: 3 per cent over two decadesrespectively in Sutton and Kingston, 4per cent in Croydon and 5 - 6 per cent inBromley, Enfield and Richmond.5. Most of outer London’s employmentgrowth over the next 20 years is expectedto be in office based sectors (+170,000)and to a lesser extent ‘other’ sectors(+68,000) while industrial type activitiesare expected to continue to decline(-35,000). However, when examined in


176 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportFigure 1: Employment levels by year, outer London boroughs.greater detail and locally, the picture ismuch more complex. The overall declinein ‘industrial’ employment jobs masks asignificant contraction in manufacturingand an expansion in logistics. TheCommission should bear in mind that whileheadline net figures may suggest littleor no change in local economies therecan in fact be significant changes goingon between sectors, and there is someevidence to suggest that such changes canlead to future net growth.6. The Outer London Commission willof course take into account currentrecessionary factors. However, its coretask is to identify and address longerterm structural challenges which haveled to what appears to be a fundamentalimbalance in London’s economic geographyoutlined above.7. It is anticipated that after considering theLDA’s statistical profile of outer London(see Item on this Agenda) the Commissionmay need more detailed economicassessments e.g. what kinds of officejobs (financial services, public sector, etc)are forecast to grow. What is the overallpublic sector/private sector split? Has


177any attempt been made to assess ‘new’employment opportunities such as greenand creative industries etc? Is the growthof employment opportunity constrainedby any factors (skill sets, lack of clusterdevelopment, infrastructure deficits etc).Some of this material is to hand withinthe GLA and some is in the process ofpreparation (retail needs assessment,town centres healthchecks, London OfficePolicy Review, Housing Capacity Study).The Commission would like to express itsappreciation for the work the LDA hasalready done and also to flag that futurecontributions will add significantly to itseffectiveness in addressing the Mayor’sobjectives.Is there a problem?8. As a first step, an independent Commissionmust ask itself whether this apparentgeographical imbalance really matters ineconomic terms. There is a view that it maynot. Such a view is predicated on the widergeographical context of outer London.It is part of the wider South East, a cityregion of 21 million people accounting fortwo fifths of overall national output andmuch of its net growth. Closer to homeit has improving links and access to themain growth areas of the 4.5 million jobLondon economy which over the long termis generally expected to grow at least atnational trend (2.5% GDP). Outer Londonalso has a substantial employment base ofits own (almost 2 million jobs or two fifthsof the London total) and while it has notexpanded to a significant degree in thepast, one model suggests that it might doso in the future.9. Given this economically positive contextthere is a view that the main thrust ofpolicy for outer London should be to playto its core, modern strength as an attractiveplace to live, uniquely located to access themain motor of the UK economy. Moreover,enhancing this core strength, especiallyby increasing housing provision, will ofitself lead to local growth in demand forgoods, and more importantly, services,approximating perhaps to 230 more localjobs for every extra 1000 residents.10. Such a view might also hold that attemptsto intervene further to secure additionallocally based economic growth mightcompromise the thrust of such a corepolicy by moving resources away from keypriorities: much needed environmentalimprovements, expanding housing outputincluding affordable housing and forgingbetter links to more competitive areaswithin London.11. There are some telling points in the abovearguments but they do not represent a full,much less a particularly positive, vision ofthe economic roles outer London couldor should play in London and the widerSouth East to achieve the Mayor’s andgovernment objectives. These are thatouter London is not just a dormitory and itshould:• optimise its contribution to the regionaleconomy,


178 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Report• ensure that this economic contributioncomplements broader objectives e.g.minimising the need to travel, and• better meet local aspirations in terms ofchoice of local employment opportunities.12. More generally, elimination of theimbalance must matter, because if wecan raise the growth rates to the Londonaverage or the OMA average then thewhole economy must grow. This particularaspiration underpins, for example,Government’s justification for the ThamesGateway initiative. There is also a strongargument that fostering economic growthand residential enhancement are notmutually exclusive.Towards a new vision for the outerLondon economy13. As a basis for discussion at the firstmeeting of the Commission, it is suggestedthat consideration be given to developing avision for the outer London economy whichmore effectively addresses the Mayor andgovernment’s objectives than one whichis based predominantly on residential ledregeneration.14. This vision could be predicated on theproposition that recommendations on thefuture of any area (including outer Londonand/or its constituent parts) must startby ensuring that the area is ‘economicallysound’. It is suggested that this means thatit needs to satisfy the following:• Employment, both existing and proposed,should have a long term future andreasonably expect to be still there intwenty years.• Employment which is mainly based on thewillingness of the private sector to invest,while recognising that in many parts ofouter London the public sector is and willcontinue to be the single most importantemployer.• A workforce with the skills and trainingto take advantage of the employmentopportunities, or, in the case of new orexpanding opportunities, capable ofbeing trained to take the jobs• Employment that is physically accessible– it does not even have to be in the areaitself, it can be in central or inner Londonor even outside the London boundary.What matters is that jobs are easy to getto, offer the prospect of getting peopleoff benefits and into the work cultureand, within the bounds of economicrealism, are located to meet localaspirations and broader policy objectivese.g. reducing CO2 emissions.Does quality of life have a role in outerLondon’s economic regeneration?15. It is also suggested that economicregeneration cannot be separated fromlocal quality of life and quality of theenvironment. One of the historic virtuesof many London suburbs lay in theirsense of community and place. Economicrejuvenation must be part of wider placemakingand community regenerationaround facilities and services requiredto meet the changing needs of outerLondon – schools, hospitals, cinemas –


180 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportresearch and the labour market, possiblywith ‘seed corn’ public sector infrastructureinvestment to support science parks;or something wider e.g. finding outwhether outer London is competitivelydisadvantaged in terms of IT infrastructurelike fibre cable or local ‘hubs’?The existing economic structure20. It is also suggested that as well asidentifying relatively new growth sectors,the Commission should explore howto make sectors which are already wellrepresented more competitive. Thiswill not be a clear cut exercise becauseemployment is more evenly distributedacross sectors than in other parts ofLondon. It is suggested that, afterconsidering the LDA statistical report, theCommission comes to a view as to whetherfurther sectoral analysis is required andwhether this is most usefully portrayed‘peak to peak’.In and out of centre development: afalse dichotomy?21. 8 per cent of outer London’s employmentis in comparison retailing and 10 per centin leisure related activities. Historically,both were strongly concentrated in towncentres but became more dispersed withdevelopment of out of centre locations.While London tends to have less out-ofcentredevelopment than the rest of thecountry it is nevertheless still significant.22. The Mayor has made clear his commitmentto a ‘town centres first’ policy. Addressingthe unique circumstances of London, theLondon Plan is more rigorous than nationalpolicy both in resisting inappropriate outofcentre development and in encouragingpartners to work together proactively toidentify and bring forward developmentcapacity in or on the edge of towncentres. It also notes that there is alreadysignificant out of centre capacity on whichpartners should work to ensure that itbecomes more sustainable in terms ofpublic transport access and, in appropriatelocations, evolves into functionallybalanced town centres.23. It is suggested that the Commission couldprovide useful guidance on implementingthese complementary policies in thecontext of its broader economic remitand the Mayor’s town centre strategy.In light of the importance of car basedtrips in outer London it could investigatehow parking policy bears on the vitalityand viability of town centres relative toout of town, and indeed out of London,development.Orbital movement24. It is suggested that while there is a stronglocal demand to revitalise public transportin outer London, an elaborate strategicorbital system may not be justifiable per se.The Commission could usefully investigatewhether a more realistic way of meetingdemand for movement could be a systemof hubs on the strong radial routes withspokes linking neighbouring centres andcommunities.


181Does outer London need a newregeneration geography?25. The London Plan already sets out aflexible and relatively sophisticatedgeographical structure to guideinvestment across London, including outerLondon. However, there is concern thatthis may not be making the most effectiveuse of scarce regeneration resources.It could usefully be supplemented byenhancing the competitive strengths of asmall number of key hubs, developmentof which will benefit outer Londonas a whole, especially if backed bycomplementary initiatives for smallercentres (see elsewhere in this paper).26. It is suggested that the Commissionexplore the hub concept, focusing mainlybut not entirely on elements of the towncentre network. Possible criteria foridentifying such hubs as being of subregional or greater significance couldinclude those set out in Figure 2. Thisseeks to test the criteria against a numberof possible hubs using as a benchmark theestablished global hubs of the City andWestminster.Figure 2: Possible criteria to define hubs of sub regional or greater significanceCriteria City West End Stratford Croydon HeathrowareaSub regional+historic growthBrentCrossWembleyY Y N N Y Y N YSub regional+ scale Y Y (UC) Y Y Y Y YSub regional+ Y Y Y Y Y ? Y NaccessibilitySub regional+ retail Y Y Y (UC) Y N Y Y (P) YfunctionSub regional+ Y Y Y (P) Y Y? Y (P) N Noffice clustersSub regional+ Y Y N? N Y N N YacademiaSub regional+ Y Y N N Y N N NhealthSub regional+ Y Y Y? Y N N N NcultureSub regional+ Y Y Y (UC) N? N N Y Y?leisureSub regional+ Y Y Y? N N N Y ?heritage/ tourismSub regional+ govt Y Y N Y N N N YStrategiccommercialcapacityY Y Y Y Y Y Y NKingston


182 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportAnnex 2:Initial Consultation QuestionsEconomic(1) Why has outer London growth inemployment lagged behind that of innerand central London and that of the SouthEast?(2) What factors have contributed to theuneven performance of economic sectorsand geographic areas in outer London?Why have some economic sectorsprospered and others declined? Why havesome areas done better and others worse?(3) Overall, what are the main barriers toeconomic and employment growth inouter London and what factors need tobe addressed to allow the region to fulfilits economic potential? In particular,what investments are needed (particularlytransport, both private/public, andeducation/skills and business support) tobest ensure employment growth to 2031either in existing or new sectors?(4) Which of the current employment sectorsin outer London will be thriving in 2031and will any new sectors have emerged bythen? Should we be actively encouragingparticular sectors or focusing more onbarriers that could be holding back growthin outer London?(5) The Commission’s ‘First Thoughts’paper outlines some ideas on theform ‘superhubs’ might take andpossible locations. Do you consider thedevelopment of 4 or 5 super-hubs in outerLondon would enhance the outer London’soverall employment growth potential?What form do you think they might take?What role could mixed use developmenthave there?(6) Which super-hub locations would youconsider best meet the aim to improveouter London’s economic performance andwhy? What can be done to ensure thatthe super hubs are sufficiently attractiveto business that businesses would wantto base their operations there? Whatis required to ensure that a sufficientemployment base is created for a superhub; in particular, could growth beachievable with or without infrastructureimprovements (specify the infrastructureimprovements needed)?(7) If super-hubs are created, what role wouldyou envisage for other town centres andother business locations/hubs (eg ParkRoyal) in outer London and how can thoseroles be enhanced alongside the creationof super-hubs?(8) What do you consider would be theoptimal balance of employmentopportunity for outer London betweenlocal opportunities, those in central orinner London, or those outside Londonin nearby growth corridors? What are theimplications for these other areas?


183Quality of Life(9) In absolute and relative terms (comparedwith central and inner London and theSouth East) how has the residentialenvironment changed (good or bad) inouter London over the last 25 years andhow has this affected its attractiveness asa place to live, work and do business.(10) What improvements would bring aboutthe greatest improvements to the qualityof life for outer London residents, workersand businesses? How would thesebear on the economic objectives of theCommission?(11) How could super hubs affect the qualityof life in outer London for residents,workers and businesses?(12) How important is the provision of localsocial infrastructure to the quality of livingin outer London? (schools, health or otherspecific infrastructure). How does thisbear on the economic objectives of theCommission?(13) What are the factors that give your orother districts in outer London a sense ofplace and community ownership? Howwill these bear on the economic objectivesof the Commission?(14) What improvements would you like to seein the quality of the public realm eg openspace quality and provision? How willthese bear on the economic objectives ofthe Commission?Transport(15) How would you make the super-hubsyou have indicated more generallyaccessible to residents and workers fromacross London and outside? What isan acceptable balance between publictransport and provision for cars? Will thisvary in different parts of outer London egin the Thames Gateway relative to WestLondon?(16) What approach should be taken to trafficmanagement including car parking,congestion and pollution and the bearingthese have on climate change? How couldthis bear specifically on super-hubs, andmore generally across outer London ifemployment growth rose above historictrends and travel patterns changed asouter London became a more attractiveplace to work?(17) Where traffic demand exceeds capacity inouter London, what tools would be mosteffective for smoothing traffic aroundtown centres (and managing crowding) inaddition to or where there is not scope forinfrastructure improvements?(18) Extensive radial public transport networksalready exist to town centres and somesuper-hubs, what needs to change tomake them the modes of choice?(19) The development of super-hubs is likely torequire public transport improvements tomake them more accessible. That in turnis likely to need residential densities to be


184 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission Reportoptimised around and within the superhubsto justify the necessary transportinvestment. Is this trade-off acceptableto secure better public transportaccess and employment growth and isthere a particular, economically viable,balance to be struck between residentialintensification, transport investment andemployment growth?(20) Do super-hubs need to evolve into‘hub and spoke’ networks serving theneighbouring areas to make the most ofopportunities for local residents? Howcould a hub and spoke network servicethe more geographically extensive labourmarkets required to support super-hubs(and provide accessible opportunities tomore workers within and outside London)?If these networks are road based systems,should options for further demandmanagement be considered?(21) More generally, what are the keydestinations/services which people inouter London want access to?(22) How important is the provision of localtransport infrastructure to the quality ofliving in outer London? How does thisbear on the economy of outer London?


Annex 3A: Outer London Commission Interim Employment Projections: Cambridge Econometrics, Oxford Economics, Business Strategies LtdOxford Economics Experian Business Strategies1989 to 2001 2001 to 2007 1989 to 2007 1989 to 2001 2001 to 2006 1989 to 2006‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s %Camden 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%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 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%H&F 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%Hackney 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%Islington 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%Kensington and Chelsea 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 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%Lewisham 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%Southwark 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%Tower Hamlets 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 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%Westminster 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%187.64 8.11% 140.71 5.63% 328.36 14.20% 243.91 10.58% 35.72 1.40% 279.63 12.13%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 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%Bexley 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%Brent 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%Bromley 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%Croydon 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%Ealing 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%Enfield 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%Haringey 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%185


186 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportOxford Economics Experian Business Strategies1989 to 2001 2001 to 2007 1989 to 2007 1989 to 2001 2001 to 2006 1989 to 2006‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s % ‘000s %Hillingdon 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%Hounslow 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%Kingston upon Thames 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 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%Newham 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%Redbridge 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%Richmond upon Thames 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 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%Waltham Forest 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%71.07 3.66% 25.56 1.27% 96.63 4.97% 43.06 2.17% 18.79 0.93% 61.86 3.11%Central London Total 108.92 6.31% 71.14 3.87% 180.07 10.43% 167.59 9.67% -24.85 -1.31% 142.73 8.23%East London Total 54.09 6.66% 59.31 6.85% 113.40 13.97% 27.04 3.27% 50.43 5.90% 77.47 9.36%North London Total 10.59 3.48% 2.20 0.70% 12.79 4.20% 16.11 5.32% 6.35 1.99% 22.47 7.42%South London Total 24.13 3.51% 29.30 4.11% 53.43 7.77% 19.54 2.81% 12.52 1.75% 32.06 4.61%West London Total 60.99 8.41% 4.31 0.55% 65.30 9.00% 56.69 7.74% 10.06 1.28% 66.75 9.12%London Total 258.72 6.08% 166.27 -3.68% 424.99 9.98% 286.97 6.69% 54.51 1.19% 341.49 7.96%


Volterra1989 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%187Central 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 ReportAnnex 3 B: Historic and projected employment in outer London boroughs2007-2031Annual %Borough 1989 2001 2006 2007Barking and Dagenham 70,100 55,900 52,100 51,100 -1.74% 51,400 51,800 52,500 53,700 56,200 0.40%Barnet 112,800 136,600 134,400 133,600 0.94% 136,200 140,100 138,900 144,700 149,800 0.48%Bexley 80,100 76,200 75,000 75,100 -0.36% 73,600 74,100 73,000 76,500 79,000 0.21%Brent 124,200 114,100 111,700 110,500 -0.65% 112,000 115,700 115,200 118,900 123,800 0.47%Bromley 116,000 115,900 124,100 130,900 0.67% 129,100 128,900 127,500 132,300 137,300 0.20%Croydon 173,700 159,100 150,500 149,700 -0.82% 146,300 145,200 144,000 148,800 155,000 0.15%Ealing 146,000 133,000 137,300 138,900 -0.28% 137,200 138,100 143,000 147,800 153,900 0.43%Enfield 117,000 114,900 110,600 109,600 -0.36% 108,900 110,700 113,100 117,800 120,600 0.40%Haringey 74,600 70,300 82,000 84,600 0.70% 86,700 89,300 91,500 95,100 97,800 0.61%Harrow 77,300 79,800 83,000 82,200 0.34% 81,700 83,300 82,300 85,800 88,400 0.30%Havering 85,000 87,100 90,800 84,800 -0.01% 82,700 82,200 83,300 86,800 89,400 0.22%Hillingdon 134,800 192,300 203,400 203,100 2.30% 200,700 202,000 201,600 209,800 217,400 0.28%Hounslow 159,600 147,400 132,000 133,800 -0.97% 130,100 128,900 128,600 133,300 138,300 0.14%Kingston 80,100 83,500 85,500 86,900 0.45% 84,700 83,300 83,300 85,800 89,400 0.12%Merton 75,700 80,600 80,300 81,300 0.40% 82,700 83,300 84,300 85,800 87,400 0.30%Redbridge 71,700 80,300 75,400 76,300 0.35% 73,600 73,100 75,100 78,500 81,100 0.25%Richmond Upon Thames 65,400 82,800 92,500 92,200 1.93% 89,800 88,300 87,400 90,900 94,600 0.11%Sutton 72,000 75,300 72,900 72,800 0.06% 71,600 72,100 71,000 74,400 77,000 0.23%Waltham Forest 79,600 69,200 73,500 68,500 -0.83% 67,600 67,000 67,900 70,300 72,800 0.25%Outer London 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%CAZ incl IOD 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%Inner (excl CAZ/IoD) 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%Total 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%1989-2007Annual % 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031


Historic and projected employment in outer London boroughs by broad economic sector2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2007-2031Annual %Borough/Sector 1989 2001 2006 2007 1989-2007Annual %Barking & Dagenham 70,100 55,900 52,100 51,100 -1.74% 51,400 51,800 52,500 53,700 56,200 0.40%Office 5,100 5,900 5,400 5,400 0.32% 5,700 6,000 6,200 6,600 7,000 1.09%Industrial 32,200 21,000 17,000 17,200 -3.42% 16,200 15,100 14,200 13,500 13,200 -1.10%Other 32,800 28,900 29,600 28,400 -0.80% 29,500 30,700 32,000 33,600 36,000 0.99%Barnet 112,800 136,600 134,400 133,600 0.94% 136,200 140,100 138,900 144,700 149,800 0.48%Office 21,800 33,300 35,400 34,100 2.52% 35,500 37,300 37,400 39,500 40,900 0.76%Industrial 18,100 16,700 14,600 16,700 -0.45% 15,900 15,000 13,700 13,100 12,500 -1.20%Other 72,900 86,700 84,500 82,700 0.70% 84,800 87,800 87,700 92,100 96,400 0.64%Bexley 80,100 76,200 75,000 75,100 -0.36% 73,600 74,100 73,000 76,500 79,000 0.21%Office 12,100 11,700 10,000 9,400 -1.39% 9,400 9,800 9,900 10,600 11,000 0.66%Industrial 23,400 18,200 16,800 18,100 -1.42% 16,600 15,500 14,200 13,900 13,500 -1.21%Other 44,600 46,300 48,200 47,600 0.36% 47,500 48,800 48,900 52,000 54,500 0.57%Brent 124,200 114,100 111,700 110,500 -0.65% 112,000 115,700 115,200 118,900 123,800 0.47%Office 18,900 20,400 20,600 19,900 0.29% 20,900 22,500 23,000 24,400 25,800 1.09%Industrial 40,000 33,200 27,600 29,500 -1.68% 28,000 26,700 24,700 23,700 23,200 -1.00%Other 65,300 60,600 63,500 61,000 -0.38% 63,000 66,500 67,500 70,700 74,800 0.85%Bromley 116,000 115,900 124,100 130,900 0.67% 129,100 128,900 127,500 132,300 137,300 0.20%Office 30,200 27,400 25,200 27,400 -0.54% 27,200 27,500 27,300 28,600 29,700 0.34%Industrial 17,600 16,800 16,100 16,300 -0.43% 14,900 13,600 12,400 11,800 11,300 -1.51%Other 68,200 71,700 82,800 87,200 1.37% 87,000 87,900 87,900 91,900 96,300 0.41%Croydon 173,700 159,100 150,500 149,700 -0.82% 146,300 145,200 144,000 148,800 155,000 0.15%Office 42,800 41,600 44,700 44,000 0.15% 42,900 42,600 42,000 43,400 44,900 0.08%Industrial 35,900 24,900 19,900 20,000 -3.20% 18,500 17,300 16,200 15,800 15,600 -1.03%Other 94,900 92,600 85,800 85,700 -0.56% 84,800 85,300 85,800 89,600 94,400 0.40%189


2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2007-2031Annual %190 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportBorough/Sector 1989 2001 2006 2007 1989-2007Annual %Ealing 146,000 133,000 137,300 138,900 -0.28% 137,200 138,100 143,000 147,800 153,900 0.43%Office 24,400 28,500 31,700 30,800 1.30% 31,600 33,200 35,400 37,500 39,700 1.06%Industrial 42,700 31,900 32,500 34,900 -1.11% 31,800 28,900 27,200 25,500 24,200 -1.51%Other 78,900 72,600 73,100 73,200 -0.42% 73,800 76,000 80,500 84,800 90,100 0.87%Enfield 117,000 114,900 110,600 109,600 -0.36% 108,900 110,700 113,100 117,800 120,600 0.40%Office 18,900 19,500 19,300 19,100 0.06% 19,300 20,000 20,600 21,700 22,300 0.65%Industrial 39,900 28,000 22,300 22,300 -3.18% 20,800 19,400 18,400 17,800 16,900 -1.15%Other 58,200 67,400 69,100 68,100 0.88% 68,900 71,300 74,100 78,300 81,400 0.75%Haringey 74,600 70,300 82,000 84,600 0.70% 86,700 89,300 91,500 95,100 97,800 0.61%Office 10,000 13,200 14,800 16,800 2.92% 17,700 18,600 19,300 20,300 20,900 0.91%Industrial 19,100 13,400 14,100 14,400 -1.56% 13,600 12,600 11,800 11,200 10,700 -1.23%Other 45,500 43,800 53,100 53,400 0.89% 55,500 58,100 60,400 63,500 66,200 0.90%Harrow 77,300 79,800 83,000 82,200 0.34% 81,700 83,300 82,300 85,800 88,400 0.30%Office 17,900 21,200 21,500 20,200 0.67% 20,400 21,200 21,200 22,300 23,000 0.54%Industrial 14,900 13,900 11,500 11,700 -1.33% 10,800 10,100 9,300 9,100 8,800 -1.18%Other 44,600 44,700 50,100 50,400 0.68% 50,500 51,900 51,800 54,400 56,600 0.48%Havering 85,000 87,100 90,800 84,800 -0.01% 82,700 82,200 83,300 86,800 89,400 0.22%Office 9,300 12,400 11,600 10,000 0.40% 9,900 10,100 10,400 11,100 11,500 0.58%Industrial 21,400 17,900 18,400 18,600 -0.78% 17,000 15,700 14,800 14,300 13,700 -1.27%Other 54,300 56,800 60,900 56,300 0.20% 55,800 56,400 58,100 61,400 64,200 0.55%Hillingdon 134,800 192,300 203,400 203,100 2.30% 200,700 202,000 201,600 209,800 217,400 0.28%Office 17,000 33,900 37,300 38,400 4.63% 39,500 41,500 42,800 45,900 48,400 0.97%Industrial 29,900 33,300 32,200 32,800 0.52% 30,500 28,500 26,500 25,700 24,900 -1.14%Other 87,900 125,000 133,900 131,900 2.28% 130,700 132,000 132,300 138,200 144,000 0.37%Hounslow 159,600 147,400 132,000 133,800 -0.97% 130,100 128,900 128,600 133,300 138,300 0.14%Office 23,100 43,200 36,000 37,200 2.68% 37,800 39,400 40,900 44,200 47,400 1.01%Industrial 47,400 31,000 25,500 27,200 -3.04% 24,900 22,900 21,200 20,400 19,600 -1.36%Other 89,100 73,200 70,500 69,400 -1.38% 67,400 66,700 66,500 68,800 71,300 0.11%


2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2007-2031Annual %Borough/Sector 1989 2001 2006 2007 1989-2007Annual %Kingston 80,100 83,500 85,500 86,900 0.45% 84,700 83,300 83,300 85,800 89,400 0.12%Office 21,200 22,400 20,600 20,100 -0.30% 19,800 19,500 19,600 20,200 20,900 0.16%Industrial 15,000 13,100 11,100 11,700 -1.37% 10,600 9,500 8,700 8,200 7,900 -1.62%Other 43,900 48,000 53,900 55,100 1.27% 54,400 54,200 55,100 57,400 60,600 0.40%Merton 75,700 80,600 80,300 81,300 0.40% 82,700 83,300 84,300 85,800 87,400 0.30%Office 8,700 15,700 18,900 19,200 4.50% 20,100 20,900 21,600 22,300 22,800 0.72%Industrial 26,200 19,500 16,000 17,400 -2.25% 16,400 14,900 13,700 12,700 11,800 -1.61%Other 40,800 45,400 45,300 44,700 0.51% 46,200 47,500 49,000 50,800 52,800 0.70%Redbridge 71,700 80,300 75,400 76,300 0.35% 73,600 73,100 75,100 78,500 81,100 0.25%Office 12,800 18,200 14,100 13,700 0.38% 13,400 13,600 14,100 14,900 15,500 0.52%Industrial 15,500 11,600 10,100 10,700 -2.04% 9,600 8,800 8,300 8,000 7,600 -1.42%Other 43,400 50,400 51,200 51,900 1.00% 50,600 50,700 52,700 55,600 58,100 0.47%Richmond Upon Thames 65,400 82,800 92,500 92,200 1.93% 89,800 88,300 87,400 90,900 94,600 0.11%Office 17,600 27,900 32,200 32,400 3.45% 31,900 31,800 31,500 32,700 33,700 0.16%Industrial 10,100 9,600 8,600 8,900 -0.70% 7,900 7,100 6,400 6,100 5,900 -1.70%Other 37,700 45,400 51,700 50,900 1.68% 49,900 49,500 49,500 52,100 55,100 0.33%Sutton 72,000 75,300 72,900 72,800 0.06% 71,600 72,100 71,000 74,400 77,000 0.23%Office 17,700 16,900 17,100 16,100 -0.52% 15,900 16,200 15,900 16,700 17,200 0.28%Industrial 13,100 14,600 11,900 11,600 -0.67% 10,700 10,000 9,200 9,000 8,700 -1.19%Other 41,300 43,800 43,900 45,100 0.49% 44,900 45,900 45,900 48,700 51,100 0.52%Waltham Forest 79,600 69,200 73,500 68,500 -0.83% 67,600 67,000 67,900 70,300 72,800 0.25%Office 7,400 9,000 9,600 8,700 0.90% 8,900 9,100 9,300 9,800 10,300 0.71%Industrial 23,700 17,600 14,600 13,500 -3.08% 12,400 11,200 10,500 10,000 9,600 -1.41%Other 48,600 42,600 49,300 46,300 -0.27% 46,400 46,700 48,000 50,400 52,900 0.56%191


2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2007-2031Annual %192 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportBorough/Sector 1989 2001 2006 2007 1989-2007Annual %Outer London 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%Office 336,900 422,300 426,000 423,100 1.27% 427,900 440,700 448,400 472,800 492,700 0.64%Industrial 486,100 386,200 340,700 353,400 -1.76% 327,100 302,800 281,400 269,700 259,800 -1.27%Other 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%CAZ incl IOD 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%Office 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%Industrial 140,300 102,100 88,800 88,000 -2.56% 86,500 84,300 82,900 79,000 76,800 -0.57%Other 504,600 561,900 578,400 584,800 0.82% 620,000 655,500 694,700 720,600 753,000 1.06%Inner (excl. CAZ/IoD) 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 204,700 292,900 294,500 311,600 2.36% 324,500 340,700 360,200 374,300 386,500 0.90%Industrial 178,800 158,500 133,100 135,400 -1.53% 132,900 127,900 124,100 119,200 114,200 -0.71%Other 679,600 675,600 708,300 708,100 0.23% 739,200 776,300 820,600 853,200 889,200 0.95%Greater London 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 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%Industrial 805,200 646,700 562,600 576,800 -1.84% 546,500 515,100 488,400 467,900 450,900 -1.02%Other 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%Source: Roger Tym & Partners, 2010. Projections are consistent with draft replacement London Plan (2009)


Annex 3C: Home Counties Employment 1989-20072001-2007% annualave growth2001-2007% Growth2001-2007Growthaverage pa2001-2007Growth1989-2001% annualave growth1989-2001% Growth1989-2001Growthaverage pa1989-2001Growth1989-2007% annualave growth1989-2007% Growth1989-2007Growthaverage pa1989 2001 2007 1989-2007GrowthHome CountyGroupsBedfordshire 304,172 355,502 377,033 72,861 4,048 24.0% 1.20% 51,330 4,278 16.9% 1.31% 21,531 3,589 6.1% 0.98%Berkshire 344,843 464,229 462,163 117,320 6,518 34.0% 1.64% 119,386 9,949 34.6% 2.51% -2,066 -344 -0.4% -0.07%Buckinghamshire 173,380 215,151 203,209 29,829 1,657 17.2% 0.89% 41,771 3,481 24.1% 1.82% -11,942 -1,990 -5.6% -0.95%Essex 506,968 588,346 625,304 118,336 6,574 23.3% 1.17% 81,378 6,782 16.1% 1.25% 36,958 6,160 6.3% 1.02%Hertfordshire 393,543 504,460 491,525 97,982 5,443 24.9% 1.24% 110,917 9,243 28.2% 2.09% -12,935 -2,156 -2.6% -0.43%Kent 524,935 610,560 634,574 109,639 6,091 20.9% 1.06% 85,625 7,135 16.3% 1.27% 24,014 4,002 3.9% 0.65%Surrey 400,589 506,545 506,422 105,833 5,880 26.4% 1.31% 105,956 8,830 26.5% 1.97% -123 -21 0.0% 0.00%2,648,430 3,244,793 3,300,230 651,800 36,211 24.6% 1.23% 596,363 49,697 22.5% 1.71% 55,437 9,240 1.7% 0.28%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 (1991-1998) and ABI (1998-2007). Comparability of these datasets over time is imperfect so the figures should be treated with caution.193


194 TheAnnexMayor’s4: EconomicallyOuter LondonActiveCommissionPopulationReport1991 to 2031 Table A: Projected Resident Labour Force1991 2008 2031City of London 3.5 5.8 8.4Camden 97.1 109.4 128.0Greenwich 101.4 113.0 161.8Hackney 87.7 106.0 136.7Hammersmith & Fulham 87.7 100.8 112.1Islington 89.5 107.0 129.8Kensington & Chelsea 79.8 90.1 103.4Lambeth 137.1 162.9 185.6Lewisham 124.0 143.2 170.2Newham 97.5 117.0 171.6Southwark 114.6 143.4 191.2Tower Hamlets 73.0 109.9 166.8Wandsworth 148.9 171.0 198.8Westminster 101.3 119.0 133.0Barking & Dagenham 71.9 79.1 112.6Barnet 147.9 165.5 207.0Bexley 111.8 112.7 115.9Brent 124.7 136.6 147.9Bromley 150.2 155.2 144.8Croydon 166.8 173.7 189.1Ealing 149.0 163.1 176.1Enfield 131.5 143.2 140.5Haringey 108.7 122.2 146.5Harrow 103.1 113.8 113.6Havering 115.7 117.8 142.5Hillingdon 124.2 131.1 144.1Hounslow 107.7 121.0 128.9Kingston upon Thames 72.3 83.8 87.7Merton 90.1 105.1 104.5Redbridge 110.5 122.5 140.3Richmond upon Thames 89.1 100.3 104.1Sutton 88.5 99.7 96.8Waltham Forest 109.4 111.5 119.1London Plan Inner 1343.1 1598.6 1997.4London Plan Outer 2172.9 2357.8 2562.1GREATER LONDON 3516.2 3956.5 4559.5Source: GLA 2009 Round Demographic Projections: London Plan


Annex 5A: Housing Trends Net Approvals for Inner and Outer London 1987-2008Inner 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TotalCamden 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 18,834City 293 0 162 123 125 5 14 234 322 345 964 763 494 565 47 38 81 105 160 143 72 379 5,434Greenwich 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 44,714Hackney 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 29,059H & F 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 12,255Islington 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 27,163K & C 642 676 542 227 596 224 241 850 645 610 750 464 865 1,897 99 522 293 477 322 743 413 513 12,611Lambeth 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 28,760Lewisham 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 24,734Newham 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 39,316Southwark 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 44,025T 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 67,153Wandsworth 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 37,266Westminster 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 28,122Total 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 30,812 419,446Outer 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TotalB & D 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 24,006Barnet 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 32,710Bexley 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 12,493Brent 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 23,552Bromley 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 18,776Croydon 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 32,958Ealing 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 16,314Enfield 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 24,153Haringey 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 14,293Harrow 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 11,831Havering 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 14,951Hillingdon 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 17,545Hounslow 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 17,734Kingston 539 434 205 90 227 760 438 272 603 624 203 711 429 349 1,020 430 408 598 424 406 361 709 10,240Merton 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 15,069Redbridge 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 20,008Richmond 548 669 704 312 572 377 314 293 219 426 494 345 222 681 1,171 1,142 601 414 454 618 375 571 11,522Sutton 966 1,947 1,770 591 403 608 575 710 548 262 467 626 189 231 485 260 761 814 533 872 882 535 15,035W Forest 999 924 972 459 592 358 638 581 -257 762 110 185 -48 158 367 301 512 830 790 906 1,214 753 12,106Total 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 18,227 345,296LondonTotal 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 49,039 764,742N.B. estimates are highlighted in white195


196 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportAnnex 5B: Net Completions for Inner and Outer London 1987-2008Inner 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TotalCamden 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 13,260City 2 24 2 18 1 9 3 6 45 136 229 222 458 298 106 272 186 -26 48 37 75 118 2,269Greenwich 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 17,428Hackney 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 21,343H & F 582 744 797 204 143 120 165 313 393 428 215 193 171 220 100 179 310 822 361 445 715 623 8,243Islington 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 18,045K & C 482 508 407 171 447 106 181 638 484 460 563 348 649 220 100 179 452 239 244 236 200 135 7,449Lambeth 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 19,349Lewisham 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 18,875Newham 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 21,184Southwark 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 26,444T 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 43,007Wandsworth 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 17,006Westminster 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 18,383Total 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 15,044 252,285Outer 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TotalB & D 129 258 366 467 478 196 331 318 125 374 551 660 818 332 637 466 348 713 280 644 592 476 9,559Barnet 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 21,995Bexley 358 361 1,026 551 1,162 348 460 508 425 470 209 386 116 883 109 137 149 788 177 124 294 319 9,360Brent 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 15,523Bromley 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 15,629Croydon 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 17,169Ealing 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 12,153Enfield 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 17,452Haringey 572 432 478 261 523 343 620 849 547 269 177 206 287 233 85 243 307 939 544 568 962 740 10,185Harrow 499 401 419 322 327 333 237 318 148 122 161 279 99 41 309 199 346 765 628 300 507 578 7,338Havering 410 344 408 374 340 282 459 396 306 309 112 210 304 148 375 313 396 654 396 626 730 639 8,531Hillingdon 1,526 941 1,044 538 587 185 292 512 868 701 257 454 206 622 355 317 265 259 665 358 424 724 12,100Hounslow 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 15,567Kingston 238 579 300 315 192 135 143 376 319 714 726 329 280 428 456 272 435 330 557 290 415 305 8,134Merton 726 1,083 340 298 330 279 252 347 297 373 132 218 134 177 218 482 199 331 696 474 727 256 8,369Redbridge 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 13,349Richmond 278 349 434 357 219 360 204 257 387 304 90 479 552 473 162 349 209 534 445 780 369 399 7,990Sutton 366 934 695 692 459 736 390 639 568 652 447 319 208 243 172 208 337 570 662 154 387 764 10,602W Forest 578 1,057 728 237 428 370 503 235 112 780 -97 558 143 736 548 75 141 157 665 465 978 697 10,094Total 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 12,623 231,099LondonTotal 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 27,667 483,384N.B. estimates are highlighted in white. The completion figures for 2002/03 are taken from ODPM returns not estimated by the GLA


Annex 5C: Compliance with the London Plan Housing Density Matrix(Percentage of Gross Residential Units Approved) 2008/2009All UnitsSchemes of 15 units or moreInner Within Above Below Within Above BelowCamden 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 UnitsSchemes of 15 units or moreOuter Within Above Below Within Above BelowBarking 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 available197


198 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportAnnex 6A: The broad requirements for future health infrastructure by borough from the total estimated housing capacity.Primary &communitycare space(High)Primary &communitycare space(Low)No of GPs(High)No of GPs(Low)Mentalhealthbedspacem 2 (High)Mentalhealthbedspacem 2 (Low)Acutedaycarespace m 2(High)Acutedaycarespace m 2(Low)Acute nonelectivespace m 2(High)Acute nonelectivespace m 2(Low)Acuteelectivespace m 2(High)Acuteelectivespace m 2(Low)PopIncrease2011-2031(High)PopIncrease2011-2031(Low)1BoroughOuter LondonBarking &Dagenham 39600 57600 245 360 1530 2240 125 185 225 325 22 32 6380 9305Barnet 66780 92580 395 555 1470 2055 230 320 1250 1730 37 51 9095 12640Bexley 9175 12295 70 100 325 440 40 55 205 275 5 7 1470 1980Brent 33260 48980 310 455 955 1410 125 185 720 1050 18 27 5015 7390Bromley 17150 22110 180 235 620 805 85 110 355 455 9 12 2825 3660Croydon 35645 49225 245 340 1210 1680 130 185 680 935 20 27 5545 7665Ealing 24765 36025 200 300 840 1240 115 170 335 480 14 20 3915 5730Enfield 16730 22270 90 115 395 525 60 80 510 680 9 12 2305 3065Haringey 22345 33020 145 210 685 1015 95 145 1090 1585 12 18 3370 4985Harrow 10125 14190 65 95 240 340 40 55 230 325 6 8 1410 1995Havering 31215 45800 250 375 1550 2340 135 205 155 230 17 25 5665 8420Hillingdon 20790 26460 190 240 630 805 85 105 285 360 12 15 3180 4050Hounslow 13045 19220 90 135 430 645 45 70 165 240 7 11 2010 2975Kingston upon Thames 11115 13775 120 150 400 500 40 50 270 340 6 8 1815 2255Merton 5400 12270 35 85 175 400 20 45 105 240 3 7 830 1885Newham 73240 110440 475 725 2315 3500 260 395 1885 2845 41 61 11080 16750Redbridge 21515 28980 140 190 815 1115 85 115 180 245 12 16 3465 4700Richmond upon Thames 6070 8485 60 85 175 250 20 25 145 205 3 5 910 1285Sutton 5270 7770 40 60 175 270 20 30 100 150 3 4 815 1225Waltham Forest 21665 30565 150 210 760 1080 90 125 195 275 12 17 3415 4840Total 484900 692060 3495 5020 15695 22655 1845 2655 9085 12970 270 383 74515 106800


Primary &communitycare space(High)Primary &communitycare space(Low)No of GPs(High)No of GPs(Low)Mentalhealthbedspacem 2 (High)Mentalhealthbedspacem 2 (Low)Acutedaycarespace m 2(High)Acutedaycarespace m 2(Low)Acute nonelectivespace m 2(High)Acute nonelectivespace m 2(Low)Acuteelectivespace m 2(High)Acuteelectivespace m 2(Low)PopIncrease2011-2031(High)PopIncrease2011-2031(Low)1BoroughInner LondonCamden 18460 26375 125 175 615 885 70 105 985 1405 10 15 2855 4090City of London 2600 3500 25 35 105 115 10 15 145 190 1 2 515 545Greenwich 70525 101740 575 840 2420 3495 310 450 2020 2890 39 56 11175 16140Hackney 35870 49425 315 440 1065 1475 110 155 1935 2655 20 27 5405 7470Hammersmith &Fulham 16325 26050 105 170 555 905 55 90 225 355 9 14 2525 4065Islington 31130 42525 210 290 1090 1500 130 180 1885 2570 17 24 4905 6720Kensington & Chelsea 16685 21630 165 215 410 535 60 75 915 1190 9 12 2415 3135Lambeth 35030 51250 230 340 1145 1685 130 190 1190 1740 19 28 5370 7870Lewisham 31395 44175 225 315 1060 1500 145 205 1065 1485 17 24 4915 6935Southwark 58270 82400 370 525 1835 2600 210 295 1385 1945 32 46 8800 12460Tower Hamlets 86380 133970 445 695 3195 5000 255 400 3245 4995 48 74 13565 21120Wandsworth 34280 47850 325 470 1045 1490 115 165 740 1040 19 27 5250 7400Westminster 22525 29730 200 265 600 795 80 110 745 980 12 16 3310 4375Total 459475 660620 3315 4775 15140 21980 1680 2435 16480 23440 252 365 71005 102325Source: The London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and Housing Capacity Study (SHLAA/ HCS) and the HUDU Model.199


200 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportAnnex 6B: Social Infrastructure MapsPTAL and ATOS combined


201Primary School Roll projectionsSecondary School Roll Projections


202 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportTertiary School Roll Projections


203Inner North East London Polysystem Hubs with Population ProjectionNorth Central London Polysystem Hubs with Population Projection


204 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportNorth West London Polysystem Hubs with Population ProjectionOuter North East London Polysystem Hubs with Population Projection


205South East London Polysystem Hubs with Population ProjectionSouth West London Polysystem Hubs with Population Projection


206 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportAll Social Infrastructure Maps Further EducationAll Social Infrastructure Maps GPs


207All Social Infrastructure Maps Primary SchoolsSocial Infrastructure Maps Food Shopping


208 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportSocial Infrastructure Maps Secondary Schools


Annex 6C: Borough School Roll Projections Ages 4-10District 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Barking 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 24,968Barnet 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 29,794Bexley 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 21,921Brent 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 25,204Bromley 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 25,481Camden 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 11,515City of London 200 205 202 208 211 216 220 222 224 224 228 228 226 228Croydon 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 32,228Ealing 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 28,150Enfield 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 29,891Greenwich 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 25,360Hackney 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 16,433Hammersmith 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 9,441Haringey 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 22,008Harrow 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 19,689Havering 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 20,648Hillingdon 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 24,564Hounslow 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 20,823Islington 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 12,339Kensington and Chelsea 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 6,335Kingston upon Thames 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 12,848Lambeth 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 19,963Lewisham 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 25,465Merton 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 16,022Newham 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 33,540Redbridge 21,448 21,559 21,915 22,170 22,590 23,290 24,222 25,322 26,544 27,622 28,381 29,099 29,651 29,881Richmond upon 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 15,112Southwark 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 23,920Sutton 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 15,625Tower Hamlets 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 22,982Waltham Forest 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 25,220Wandsworth 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 18,985Westminster 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 11,081TOTAL 564,905 564,175 567,163 565,254 568,873 576,527 587,190 601,240 618,208 635,613 649,847 662,016 671,506 677,664209


210 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportAnnex 6C: Borough School Roll Projections Ages 11-15District 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Barking 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 12,191Barnet 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 19,003Bexley 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 15,039Brent 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 15,815Bromley 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 16,468Camden 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 8,620City of London 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Croydon 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 18,941Ealing 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 15,260Enfield 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 18,865Greenwich 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 12,555Hackney 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 8,791Hammersmith 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 5,852Haringey 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 12,886Harrow 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 11,078Havering 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 14,807Hillingdon 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 15,264Hounslow 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 14,853Islington 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 8,192Kensington and Chelsea 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 2,962Kingston upon Thames 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 7,899Lambeth 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 10,166Lewisham 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 12,794Merton 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 8,826Newham 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 18,860Redbridge 15,881 16,037 16,352 16,210 16,313 16,312 16,390 16,442 16,455 16,442 16,793 17,127 17,543 18,180Richmond upon 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 7,182Southwark 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 12,290Sutton 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 12,826Tower Hamlets 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 14,864Waltham Forest 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 13,931Wandsworth 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 9,812Westminster 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 7,248TOTAL 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


Annex 6C: Borough School Roll Projections Ages 16-19District 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Barking 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 1,935Barnet 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 4,600Bexley 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 2,674Brent 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 3,855Bromley 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 4,292Camden 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 2,651City of London 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Croydon 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 2,549Ealing 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 2,464Enfield 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 3,358Greenwich 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 3,115Hackney 475 457 534 599 617 631 641 660 671 671 668 671 671 669Hammersmith 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 1,383Haringey 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 2,865Harrow 25 33 34 15 27 26 26 25 25 26 25 25 25 24Havering 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 1,012Hillingdon 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 3,242Hounslow 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 3,406Islington 317 341 323 340 329 327 329 324 332 339 337 336 339 340Kensington and Chelsea 488 509 509 490 490 490 496 509 529 535 534 536 542 555Kingston upon Thames 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 2,296Lambeth 603 702 723 829 828 816 823 823 839 848 829 808 791 765Lewisham 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 1,888Merton 632 682 673 624 669 670 664 656 648 665 670 656 643 637Newham 944 667 703 745 707 699 697 689 704 714 706 700 701 695Redbridge 4,483 4,607 4,788 5,018 5,171 5,140 5,077 5,035 5,035 5,066 4,990 4,894 4,859 4,819Richmond upon Thames 15 2 15 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 10 10 10 10Southwark 644 764 845 776 784 783 775 768 760 768 776 782 796 808Sutton 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 3,091Tower Hamlets 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 1,774Waltham Forest 700 748 768 844 853 844 851 826 814 833 848 846 843 839Wandsworth 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 2,047Westminster 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 1,626TOTAL 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 66,284211


212 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportAnnex 7: Office Development Trends Total Completed Office Floorspace for Inner and Outer London (Financial Years 2000 to 2008) (Gross SQM)Inner London FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 TotalCamden 0 166,401 4,774 17,436 57,823 4,469 1,338 26,400 18,289 296,930City of London 447,367 237,396 188,525 425,937 323,995 32,507 18,633 236,539 375,200 2,286,099Greenwich 0 5,215 0 0 4,119 1,958 0 0 1,763 13,055Hackney 4,041 2,635 5,227 77,555 33,958 12,438 7,852 8,275 37,183 189,164Hammersmith and Fulham 3,590 11,385 0 17,048 44,166 3,484 2,341 0 0 82,014Islington 6,618 21,043 64,321 31,922 6,426 17,326 24,178 14,348 43,721 229,903Kensington and Chelsea 1,167 0 2,462 16,035 5,477 1,025 6,400 4,121 10,568 47,255Lambeth 0 0 0 1,820 14,078 0 20,355 4,250 4,304 44,807Lewisham 0 1,499 0 24,780 0 0 3,659 0 0 29,938Newham 10,000 3,500 5,457 0 0 3,302 26,400 3,716 0 52,375Southwark 26,089 10,752 16,719 110,389 11,932 8,192 106,237 7,310 149,897 447,517Tower Hamlets 12,541 30,923 9,623 24,958 27,817 109,118 5,104 12,189 17,596 249,869Wandsworth 7,462 0 0 11,350 5,851 6,742 5,511 11,274 2,939 51,129Westminster 121,945 61,802 135,973 126,794 261,474 16,149 119,228 99,420 33,681 976,466Total 640,820 552,551 433,081 886,024 797,116 216,710 347,236 427,842 695,141 4,996,521


Outer London FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 TotalBarking and Dagenham 0 2,640 0 0 0 0 7,345 0 1,200 11,185Barnet 0 11,218 15,472 0 10,720 3,024 1,008 0 0 41,442Bexley 1,384 0 0 1,860 0 1,770 4,133 0 0 9,147Brent 1,000 0 2,480 790 8,780 10,290 1,164 4,570 4,603 33,677Bromley 1,068 0 0 10,600 0 1,467 0 1,040 0 14,175Croydon 0 5,274 2,756 0 0 0 0 0 5,554 13,584Ealing 1,858 0 2,323 12,077 10,693 0 3,340 5,749 12,410 48,450Enfield 0 6,323 0 0 0 0 0 3,088 1,668 11,079Haringey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,372 1,372Harrow 0 1,485 0 2,347 0 0 0 0 0 3,832Havering 0 2,230 1,040 13,385 0 0 0 0 0 16,655Hillingdon 7,646 22,087 13,133 1,404 1,734 1,330 9,362 1,129 4,916 62,741Hounslow 74,460 3,253 12,080 9,285 0 2,042 35,562 3,165 5,038 144,885Kingston upon Thames 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Merton 3,329 0 2,500 1,004 12,992 3,561 1,840 0 1,344 26,570Redbridge 1,425 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,425Richmond upon Thames 3,260 1,115 6,203 5,754 2,797 2,242 0 0 4,269 25,640Sutton 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,200 3,200Waltham Forest 1,012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,012Total 96,442 55,625 59,987 58,506 47,716 25,726 63,754 18,741 43,574 470,071London Total 737,262 608,176 493,068 944,530 844,832 242,436 410,990 446,583 738,715 5,466,592213


214 The Mayor’s Outer London Commission ReportAnnex 8: Respondents to the Outer London CommissionFormal (written) responses were received from the following (52 respondents):ArupBAA HeathrowBerkeley Group (AW Pidgley)Campaign for Better Transport, London CyclingCampaign and Living StreetsCity of LondonColin Buchanan & PartnersDaniel Nolan-Neylan (member of public)East London Line GroupHillingdon Motorists ForumLand SecuritiesLondon Borough of SuttonLondon Assembly Liberal Democrat GroupLondon Borough of Barking & DagenhamLondon Borough of BarnetLondon Borough of BexleyLondon Borough of BromleyLondon Borough of CroydonLondon Borough of EnfieldLondon Borough of GreenwichLondon Borough of Hammersmith & FulhamLondon Borough of HaveringLondon Borough of LewishamLondon Borough of MertonLondon Borough of NewhamLondon Borough of Richmond upon ThamesLondon CouncilsLondon FirstThe London Primary Care TrustsLondon South East BusinessLondon Thames Gateway DevelopmentCorporation (LTGDC)London TravelWatchMotorcycle Industry AssociationNorth London Strategic Alliance (NLSA)Peter Eversden (member of public)Places for PeopleQuintain EstatesRegional Airports LtdRICS London (Royal Institute of CharteredSurveyors)Royal Borough of Kingston upon ThamesSouth East England Regional Partnership Board(formerly SEERA)South London Partnership & South LondonBusinessSurrey County CouncilSustransThames Gateway London Partnership (TGLP)The Theatres TrustTransport for LondonTravelodgeUniversity of East LondonWest London AllianceWest London BusinessWestfield Shoppingtowns Ltd (WSL)White City Landowners with the support ofLondon Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham(submitted by Jones Lang LaSalle)


215Annex footnotesBackground1 Counties are currently the smallest areassurrounding Outer London for which robusttime series employment data are available.The employment data are sourced from theExperian Business Strategies Regional PlanningService (RPS) and are not official GLA longrunemployment data which are currently beingupdated.


Other formats and languagesFor a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape versionof this document, please contact us at the address below:Public Liaison UnitGreater London Authority Telephone 020 7983 4100City Hall Minicom 020 7983 4458The Queen’s Walkwww.london.gov.ukMore LondonLondon SE1 2AAYou will need to supply your name, your postal address and state theformat and title of the publication you require.If you would like a summary of this document in your language, pleasephone the number or contact us at the address above.ChineseHindiVietnameseBengaliGreekUrduTurkishArabicPunjabiGujaratiMoL/June10/MR D&P/GLA1510

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines