1. Housing Prefrences: MORI for CABE, 2005
Over half the population want to live in a detached house
22% prefer a bungalow
14% a semi-detached house
7% a terraced house
Detached house most popular choice, regardless of social status or ethnicity
Period properties (Edwardian, Victorian, Georgian) most desirable overall: 37%

2. New Households, New Homes
80% one-person
But only about one-third “single never married”
Will demand more space per household: Separate kitchens/bathrooms/loos, Spare rooms, Work spaces
Land saving reduces as densities increase:
30 dw/ha yields 60% of all potential gains, 40 dw/ha 70 per cent
So biggest gains from minimising development below 20 dw/h, not increasing 40 dw/ha+
So: go for dw/ha with variations: higher close to transport services (Stockholm 1952!)
But won’t achieve same person densities as before!

3. Densification: Effects
Land needed to accommodate 400 dwellings
Density Area required, ha.
Dws./ha Net Gross
(with local facilities)
Land Saved % % Land Saved % %
Total Cumu- Total Cumu-
Saving lative Saving lative
Source: Llewelyn Davies

4. Density Gradient (Rudlin & Falk)
Source: D Rudlin, N Falk (1999) Building the 21st Century Home

5. Lessons from Land Use Public Transport needs minimum density:
Bus: 25 dw/ha
LRT: 60 dw/ha
Exceed recent densities
Big gain from dw/ha
Plus “pyramids” up to 60 dw/ha round rail stations
Urban Task Force
Traditional – Stockholm, 1952!
Or Edwardian suburbs!

6. Urban Clusters

7. The Infrastructure Gap (1) Orbital Connections
Polycentric structure - reinforce
So: orbital as well and radial links
Stressed in SE RSS
But: where’s the plan?
DfT not interested

8. The Infrastructure Gap (2) Growing the South into the North

9. The Infrastructure Gap: Roger Tym Report

10. Making it happen: The 2004 Act
Radical change – biggest for 35 years
Working through at regional strategic level
Still to work through at local level
Planning Gain Supplement
Can it solve the “infrastructure deficit”?
The major issue in solving the housing crisis!
But also: the NIMBY factor – will get worse?

11. Planning Gain Supplement v. S106
Planning Gain Supplement (i.e. development land tax) on windfall gains by developers
Could vary locally: brownfield v. greefield
Can it meet the “infrastructure gap”?
Or are existing mechanisms as effective?
MK, Bedford…
So retain “Section 106” as an alternative?
Local versus regional investment: ‘local gain’ for ‘local pain’ (retention of PGS; higher proportion of Council Tax receipts from new housing)
But problem of regional infrastructure: Bypasses v. new rail connections…
Need for better integration ODPM/DfT! SE Orbirail, Manchester Metrolink, etc, etc…