2. General Questions to be Addressed
Project 1
How should density norms usefully be presented in the London Plan ? Given dual objectives of:
housing substantially more people within London
and securing sustainable residential quality
Project 5
What other substantial benefits could be secured from densification? e.g.:
higher productivity levels, lower transport emissions, facilitation of innovative housing types

3. Two Expressions of Density Policy in Current/Past London Plans
The Matrix: a formal/technical specification of acceptable ranges for 9 types of area context within London:
habitable rooms/ha. roughly approximated by dwellings/ha.
A more diffuse message: that densities simply have to be raised substantially wherever (and by whatever) possible

4. Particular questions about the formal standards
How rational / appropriate is their present basis ?
Ignoring rooms encourages smaller (non-family) housing
SRQ norms (from L-DP, 1997)derive from very different development forms than are actually being produced
but also
How /how far do they actually determine /influence outcomes?
Seems very doubtful / weak –from statistical evidence or interviews
Extremely high level of nonconformity in actual outcomes
Big increase in London densities mostly before the first Plan (PPG3 ?)
Cross-area correlation of achieved densities with matrix norm reflects the influence of character/accessibility on market behaviour (and LPA response) not the cruder matrix version
Monitoring has been simply content with density goals being over-achieved
Much higher densities have produced no more output – just less need to use-up pipelined land in the process – pointing toward a perverse effect (in relation to short/medium term objectives)

5. London Bedroom Densities 2008-14 relative to 2008 Plan standards (green area)

6. Our View (slightly simplified)
Increases in population densities across London largely reflect who comes to live here and their priorities/resources (notably recent poor country migrants + how much housing actually gets built
Increases in densities of new housing developments very largely reflect the interaction of a metropolitan growth dynamic with tight/tightened constraints on housing land availability across the Wider South East
The Plan’s traditional Matrix is a poor way of addressing trade-offs between metropolitan housing need and the quality of local residential environments

7. Main DPRP1 Recommendations
Grounding expectations of future housing capacity of sites on evidence from achieved outcomes rather than normative standards;
Continuing to specify minimum density standards in the Plan, though preferably expressed in terms of bedroom rather than dwelling counts;
Leaving responsibility for judging acceptable maxima to borough planning authorities, however, rather than the strategic authority;
Monitoring of outcomes should be more purposively pursued so as to enable learning from experience, in relation to Plan objectives, as well as the implications of non-conformity

8. DPRP5 (‘Why Else’) Conclusions [Compacted]
Macro level: densification across the London Met Region as a whole could significantly enhance both economic productivity and transport sustainability:
but leverage is weak and just a marginal reinforcement for the housing supply argument
Micro-level: intensification around (challenged) town centres and public transport nodes could also yield gains in these terms
rather more obviously salient, but already in Plan on own basis
Housing innovation: more complex issue (central/local etc.) but with some potential to boost housing productivity
modestly, especially in the short-run
Generally: density gains should really be seen strategically from long-term/metro-regional perspective
but harder to secure that kind of focus and persistence !!