1 / 11

Housing Preferences and Densification: Maximizing Land Use Efficiency for Future Development

Explore the MORI for CABE findings on housing preferences, urban densification, and infrastructure gaps in housing development. Learn about density requirements for public transport, the impact of densification on land savings, and strategies to bridge the infrastructure deficit. Discuss the potential of Planning Gain Supplement (PGS) versus Section 106 agreements in addressing housing crises and infrastructure gaps at regional and local levels. Discover insights on urban clusters, orbital connections, and the need for better integration between government departments for efficient development.

rachelthompson
Download Presentation

Housing Preferences and Densification: Maximizing Land Use Efficiency for Future Development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 30-40 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 10 40.0 46.3 20 20.0 20.0 50.0 50.0 25.3 21.0 45.4 45.4 30 13.3 6.7 16.7 66.7 17.9 7.4 15.9 61.3 40 10.0 3.3 8.3 75.0 14.3 3.6 7.8 69.1 50 8.0 2.0 5.0 80.0 12.1 2.2 4.8 73.9 60 6.6 1.4 3.5 83.5 10.6 1.5 3.2 77.1 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 30-35 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…

More Related