Page 58

HOUSING DISTRIBUTION AND PLANNING | PAUL CHESHIRE

RIGHT: Growth in England and Wales

>>>

58

Planning in London

England and Wales

0.03 - 0.06

0.17

0.24

0.38 - 0.41

growth11_01

0.07 - 0.08

0.18

0.25

0.42 - 0.47

-0.41 - -0.37

0.09 - 0.10

0.19

0.26 - 0.27

0.48 - 0.54

-0.36 - -0.16

0.11 - 0.12

0.20 - 0.19

0.28 - 0.29

0.55 - 0.62

-0.15 - -0.06

0.13

0.20 - 0.21

0.30 - 0.31

0.63 - 0.80

-0.05 - -0.01

0.14

0.22

0.32 - 0.34

0.81 - 1.01

0.00 - 0.02

0.15 - 0.16

0.23

0.35 - 0.37

the proportion of local homes that are empty as well making people who work in the area commute further: the absolute opposite of what advocates of the policy want to achieve. It is the mismatch between the preferences of households and the housing stock on offer that leads, other things equal, to higher vacancy rates in the more restrictive – typically more desirable – places. Such constraints will likely cause a significant welfare loss. This is because too much housing

stays empty in the most regulated, most desirable and, by implication, most productive places with the strongest demand and highest valuations for living space. So people are induced to commute further, while living in the ‘wrong’ places. The policy lesson is that planners should not allocate less land for development on the grounds that there are empty houses; nor should they make it more difficult to build or adapt houses. Rather they should encourage more flexibility

Profile for brianwaters1

PLANNING IN LONDON 105 April 2018  

PLANNING IN LONDON 105 April 2018

PLANNING IN LONDON 105 April 2018  

PLANNING IN LONDON 105 April 2018