please empty your brain below

Odd that the waterways map completely ignores the docks. Neither the West India or Royal Docks complexes are shown.
Last night I cheered when I thought that I'd never have to cut the grass again having read the ES banner headline, "NOW BUILD IN YOUR BACK GARDENS".

However, this morning, DG has informed us that Sutton (and Richmond) are excluded. I am confused as our gardens are much larger here than in the inner suburbs.

Reading the ES article, it also says replacement properties, so what I envision is wholesale demolition with rows of four-storey blocks of flats.

This is akin to the Continental model where there are streets of seven-storey buildings all around the town centres, but there the streets are much wider, allowing greater height.

This plan will certainly change London's character, sadly, I don't think it will be for the better.
You point out that the lost River Westbourne is included on the waterways map. It's even stranger than that. The map makers seem to have shown the upper part of the lost River Tyburn and the lower part of the same river but then joined them in the middle to the part of the Westbourne that forms the Serpentine.
I can't help reading "Wogebourne" as "Woebegone" :)
Thanks for the e-shootershill link; I love a good Lost River.
Wot, no Effra?
Thanks for all the maps DG. I like maps
Ridiculous. So boroughs with already a high population and density are ones with the highest targets. Think he has lost his marbles or common sense!
Surely Gallions Reach has been mis-filed as "International.
I once took great pleasure in pointing out to a manager at the retail centre who spouted that everyone knows Gallions Reach, that Gallions Reach was part of the Thames, that they had adopted for their shopping centre brand name built on an old gas works and marshes. The area does not, (and has no future plans) for "Internationally recognised leisure, heritage, cultural or tourism destinations". Nor does it have good public transport links - 4 bus routes looping around the area, and the stub end of a DLR line.
London is going to end up a lost cause. Khan encouraging it to end up an over populated dump. DG you have hit the nail, why is places such as Richmond not having it's share of this dense high rise housing?
Richmond has the 6th highest % increase in homes target of any London Borough, Sutton is 5th.

Not sure where you are getting they are exempt from plans? They are both relatively small borough population wise; almost half the size of Barnet and Croydon.

Many very dense boroughs which have delivered lots of new homes actually have lower targets eg Islington, hackney and Southwark. The places with biggest increase in targets are either large in area (so lots of space) or already have big populations so the % increase is proportionate or most importantly have lots of opportunity for development. The housing targets are based a review of potential locations of development so it’s is a mixture of supply and demand led. That’s why newham, Croydon, Barnet and tower hamlets have the highest targets.
Aren't there six manmade channels on the map? You haven't counted the Duke of Northumberland and Longford Rivers.

dg writes: Likewise there aren't only 18 rivers, but the key in Chapter 9 says there are.
@scrumpy Gallions Reach is currently a district and the plan thinks it could become a major centre (I presume as part of a redevelopment and new DLR link to Thamesmead/Abbey Wood.

The international centre near the label is Stratford - map isn’t very clear!
Housing Targets - is Sutton "hemmed in" by the Green Belt? Sutton's areas of Green Belt are relatively small but they form a vital link between Epsom & Ewell GB in the west and Croydon's GB in the east (source - London Green Belt map Sutton's residents value the Green Belt and don't want to see it covered in houses. At the same time there is very little undeveloped land in the borough (without building on parks or other public open spaces). In the Local Plan the Government's Planning Inspector has agreed with the Council's policy of 'Presumption against back garden land development'.

For the forseeable future the attraction of London means that there will always be more people wanting to live here than there are houses to accommodate them. At the same time it is important that quality of life for those already living here is not destroyed by building over back gardens, parks, playing fields and the Green Belt. It is a question of balance.
I like the Rivers map.
There are plans to improve assess to the River Crane.
"why is places such as Richmond not having it's share of this dense high rise housing?"

Land values, I would expect. More efficient to build on the cheaper bits and upgrade failing stock than try to alter areas that are working well and have become desirable.
It may well be more "efficient" to cram the extra houses in areas with lower (for which read "not quite so absurdly high") land values.

But it's not fair. If London has to cram in loads more housing (and it probably does), then the resulting misery to existing residents should be spread evenly and equitably all around.
Malcolm - define 'fair'. Some would say that it is unfair that the residents of Richmond that, on average, pay more in tax than they receive in value of services should pay 'twice' for new housing - firstly on their tax bill and secondly by having their quality of life ruined by increased population density in their local area.
Some would indeed say that. Keeping one's existing quality of life (or even improving it) is desired by all, but is typically more achievable if you have plenty of money.

By "fair" I meant spreading any misery going over all financial strata. Other definitions are available.
Another fascinating post - thank you.
I have never heard of the Woebegone River; without its second vowel it would surely become even more lost than the other lost rivers of London.
@Malcolm - Indeed it is just crass to dump all this new high density homes on existing densely populated boroughs while places such as Richmond 'get away with it'. Money talks there is no fairness.
@Malcolm. I suppose I'm a bit more of an optimist than you. New housing and investment could actually improve some of the more deprived bits of London, as long as it benefits the existing population rather than displacing (or 'decanting' in the phrase of our age) them.
Increasing the density of housing doesn’t have to be negative. Whilst the building works can be disruptive in the short term, longer term the increased population should mean better services (shops, amenities and transport) as well as more opportunities to meet likeminded people.
Something's gone terribly wrong with the roadmap background for the Designated Strategic Views map. Look at the white (ie main) road at the north end of the border of Islington and Camden (next to label 2B), it crosses into Camden, hits the border with Haringey (this is the Archway Road between Archway and Highgate Stations, where it goes under Hornsey Bridge)... and disappears. Meanwhile the exact same road heading southeast through Haringey hits the Islington border and disappears - far to the east of the other point!

At a closer look, you can see this in many places on the map - however the common resolution would be an eastward shift for the northern portions and/or a westward shift for the southern portions. In the Archway Road case, this would only exacerbate the problem.

Only a draft indeed!

TridentScan | Privacy Policy