London: Population, Jobs and Growth, 1945 - 2030MICHAEL WARD

LONDON AND THE NATION CONFERENCE

BIRKBECK, 10 JULY 2015

Which London?

Summary 1 diagram – population change

1 policy change: from an old to a new consensus

Issues for the future

London’s Population 1971-2036

London’s Population: IIPopulation fell to 1980s:

1931 8,098,9421941 7,987,9361961 7,781,3421981 6,608,513

And then rapid growth resumed:1991 6,887,2802001 7,172,0362011 8,174,000

Population – London and the nation: I – regional comparison  1971   1981   1991   2001   2011  Region   As %   As %   As %   As %   As %North East

2679 5.8 2636 5.6 2587 5.4 2519 5.1 2595 4.9

North West

7108 15.3 6940 14.8 6843 14.3 6767 13.7 7049 13.3

Yorks & Humber

4902 10.6 4918 10.5 4936 10.3 4971 10.1 5284 10.0

E Mids 3652 7.9 3853 8.2 4011 8.4 4183 8.5 4532 8.5W Mids 5146 11.1 5187 11.1 5230 10.9 5283 10.7 5600 9.5

East 4454 9.6 4854 9.6 5121 10.7 5401 10.9 5848 11.0London

7529 16.2 6806 14.5 6829 13.1 7308 14.8 8204 15.5

South East

6830 14.7 7245 15.5 7629 15.9 8021 16.2 8638 16.3

South West

4112 8.9 4381 9.4 4688 9.8 4937 10.0 5292 10

TOTAL 46412   46821   47875   49390   53014  

Population in thousandsSource: ONS (various)

Population – London and the nation: II

Population – London and the nation: III2014: FASTEST POPULATION GROWTH IN UK

% change 2013/4

1 City of London 5.54

2 Tower Hamlets 4.08

3 Westminster 2.84

4 Forest Heath 2.56

5 Islington 2.48

6 Coventry 2.31

7 Hackney 2.24

8 Camden 2.23

9 Oxford 2.08

10 Exeter 2.08

2014: GREATEST POPULATION DECREASE IN UK

% change 2013/4

1 Richmondshire - 2.15

2 Ceredigion - 0.71

3 Blackpool - 0.64

4 Harrogate - 0.61

5 Inverclyde - 0.56

6 Eilean Siar - 0.55

7 Argyll and Bute - 0.44

8 Blackburn with Darwen - 0.42

9 Oadby and Wigston - 0.35

10 North Ayrshire - 0.34

From one consensus to another

1934-1977: London’s too big: disperse and decentralise

2000 - : Invest to cope with London’s growth

Broad agreement between national and London government, and between Labour and Conservative

London-wide government

1889 – 1965 London County Council (LCC)

1965 - 1986 Greater London Council (GLC)

1986 - 2000 Interregnum

London Planning Advisory Committee (LPAC)

2000 - Mayoralty

2000-2008 Ken Livingstone

2008-2016 Boris Johnson

2016 ?

London-wide plans1943 – 1965 County of London Plan

1965 – 1986 Greater London Development Plan (GLDP)

2000 - London Plan

The old consensus: I: Life cycle

1934 Depressed Areas reports 1936/7Labour Party Commission on Distressed Areas 1940 Barlow Report 1942 Beveridge Report 1943 County of London Plan (Abercrombie) 1944 Employment White Paper 1944 Reith report on New Towns 1945 Distribution of Industry Act – introduction of Industrial Development Certificates 1946 New Towns Act 1952 Town Development Act (Expanded Towns) 1960 Herbert Commission report on London government 1964/5GLC replaces LCC; GLDP replaces County of London Plan 1964 Introduction of controls on London office development 1973 GLDP finally approved 1977 Inner Cities White Paper marks end of dispersal and decentralisation policy, and of New Towns policy

The old consensus: II : Barlow & Abercrombie

Public policy originating in 1930s, lasting until 1970s

London planning linked to decline of traditional industrial regions

‘distressed areas’/ ‘depressed areas’/ ‘special areas’/ ‘intermediate areas’/ ‘assisted areas’

Barlow Report of 1940 – Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population

Abercrombie – main author of County of London Plan – also member of Barlow Commission

Decentralise and disperse people and jobs from London

The old consensus: III“The most outstanding example of the movement of population to a new area is the industrialisation and consequent rapid growth of greater London. The evils, actual and potential, of this increasing agglomeration of human beings are so generally recognised as to need no comment.”

(Ministry of Labour Reports of investigations into the industrial conditions in certain Depressed Areas; Durham and Tyneside; Cmd 4728, November 1934; p107)

The old consensus: V“…under the existing conditions of laissez-faire, new industries do not go where they should. Of 488 new factories in 1935 in England and Wales, 213 were established in Greater London and only two in the Special Areas; while of 182 extensions, fifty-one were in Greater London and only six in the Special Areas. From the point of view of defence, apart from all other considerations, this is stark lunacy.”

(‘A Programme of Immediate Action’; Interim Report of the Labour Party's Commission of Enquiry into the Distressed Areas; January 1937)

Barlow: I1932 – 1937: new and extended factories:

“Of the net increase of 644 during the six years in question in the number of factories in Great Britain employing 25 or more persons, no less than 532, or five-sixths, were located in Greater London. In addition, nearly one third of the extensions to existing factories occurred in Greater London.” (Report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population, Cmd 6153, 1940)

London and the UK economy 18

Barlow: II“London acts as a continual drain on the rest of the country both for industry and population, and much evidence points to the fact that it is already too large.”

(Report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population, Cmd 6153, 1940)

Barlow: IIIBarlow recommendations:

Decentralisation of people and jobs from congested urban areas

Establishment of a central authority for this purpose

Abercrombie argued for new ministry

County of London PlanSuccessive versions, in line with Barlow, urged:

Dispersal of population and jobsLower residential densities

1951 objective for industry and commerce:

“To secure the decentralisation of industry and commerce in correspondence with the reduction in population, so as to reduce travel to work, and facilitate reconstruction of the inner congested Boroughs.”

(Admin County of London Development Plan 1951 Statement)

Theory to practice, 1940s to 1960s: I

“The Minister of Town and Country Planning feels strongly that London is already far too large and crowded, and that our policy should be firmly to resist any further expansion”

(Dalton to Attlee, 1945)

“The aim of the policy (IDC control) is to get out of London all the industry that can be got out without damaging industrial efficiency or without depriving London of necessary and reasonable services;”

(Board of Trade evidence to Herbert Commission, 1960)

Theory to practice, 1940s to 1960s: II

“It cannot be too often or too strongly stated that the central and overriding need is still to reduce employment in London, particularly in the centre, to a level appropriate to the size of the resident population.”

(Town and Country Planning Association, (TCPA) 1964)

“…the strategy, as I see it, is to continue the extreme restraint on London of which the ban on further office building is the latest manifestation. Further than this I would say there ought not to be any major projects for London of the character, for instance, of the Victoria tube. I believe this is totally unproductive in simple economic terms. It makes London more attractive for firms to come in…”

(Wyndham Thomas, head of TCPA, at a seminar on the South East organised by the Department of Economic Affairs in December 1964)

End of the old consensus: I

The 1977 Inner Cities White Paper:

“Some of the changes which have taken place are due to social and economic forces which could be reversed only with great difficulty or at unacceptable cost. But some of the movement of jobs and people has been facilitated by policies aimed at reducing the overcrowding of the older parts of the cities. In the post-war years this was an essential part of public policy, but in most cities it has largely been achieved. It should be possible now to change the thrust of the policies which have assisted large scale decentralisation and in course of time to stem the decline, achieve a more balanced structure of jobs and population within our cities, and create healthier local economies.”

(Cmnd 6845 1977)

End of the old consensus: II

1977 White Paper:

Relaxed IDC and ODP control

Began wind-down of New Town programme

The new consensus: I Structure

- Mayor and Assembly

- Statutory spatial and economic development strategies

- Increased powers as institutions seen to succeed

Population

- Rising population trend not confirmed till after 2001 Census

The new consensus: IIPublic policy since 2000: accept growth and invest to match it

Accepted by London and national government, Labour and Conservative Mayors – and business

Origins:◦ Long term decline of manufacturing◦ Transformation of finance◦ Urban Task Force◦ Restoration of London government

The decline of manufacturing

London manufacturing jobs, 1971-2026

Transformation of finance: I

The Square Mile is not what it was…

Big Bang

A club no more

Canary Wharf

Wimbledonisation

“Wimbledonisation - the notion that Britain is the winner even if none of the economic players are actually British - became official dogma.”

(Robert Peston, 2009)

Manhattanisation

Manhattanisation

Transformation of finance: II

Not just banks –other London sectors growing:

‘Finance and business services’ – insurance, law, accountancy, consultancy

Property and real estate – architects, engineers, surveyors, agents, developers

Creative, media and digital

Silicon roundabout

The new consensus: III – The London Plan

Successive London Plans:

2004 – Livingstone

2011, 2015 – Johnson

Key assumptions of London Plans:Population, employment, and housing growth to be contained in

1964 boundariesInvestment in infrastructure and housing

Cross party, London and central government consensus

But unlike 1934 – 1977, the London settlement delegates these decisions to London

Since 2010 London the only English region with a strategic plan

The London Plan 2004The Livingstone Plan

“The Mayor believes that London’s future will be significantly shaped by a number of factors driving change…The most significant of these, at least for a spatial development strategy, is the projected rapid growth of people and jobs, driven by powerful market and demographic forces.”

“The London plan cannot realistically reverse these strong, deep-rooted factors driving change, nor does the Mayor wish it to do so. This plan sets out policies to accommodate that growth in a sustainable way…”

The London Plan 2011The first Johnson Plan“The only prudent course is to plan for continued growth. Any other course would either require fundamental changes in policy at national level or could lead to London being unprepared for growth. The projections we have used are not targets, and for the most part it is not a question of choosing growth. There is no policy to decentralise population within the UK, and it does not appear that this is likely to change in the near future.”

…unchanged in 2015 version…

The new consensus: IV – The World City Narrative

Emergence after Big Bang of:“a new agenda to develop London as a world city; London was acquiring new international functions and these must be championed and supported, underpinned by improved infrastructure, amenity, and quality of life. London’s competitors were seen as New York, Tokyo, Paris, and just before 1992 and the Single European Market, the emergence of Frankfurt, Brussels, and Berlin was seen as striking.”(Demos, 2012)

Mission of London First:“keeping London as the world’s best city in which to do business.”

(London First,2013)

World city narrative rapidly endorsed by business, government, and first 2 London Mayors. But completely new as London policy.

Issues for the future Equity and social justice

Housing affordability

Infrastructure

Crossrail, Crossrail 2, airports…

Employment land

For how long can growth be contained within 1964 boundaries? And at what environmental cost?