The great exodus: the net number of 30-somethings leaving London just leapt by a quarter

Another family leaves the capital. (Okay, this was Gordon Brown, back in 2010.) Image: Getty.

For a certain type of British university graduate, moving to London is a rite of passage. If you aren’t qualified for a job that your granddad might recognise, be that lawyer, teacher or doctor, then your best hope for starting a career has long been the Big Smoke.

The internal UK migration figures collected by the Office for National Statistics bear this out, with more than 100,000 20-somethings descending on the capital each year.

But this is the only age group where arrivals to London outnumber the leavers. Once Londoners hit 30, they are more likely to move out of London than move into it – typically because they need space for their kids to run around in.

This is a trend as old as time. But in the past two years, something dramatic has happened: net emigration among 30-somethings has leapt by 25 per cent. In what is presumably not a coincidence, the same trend is visible among the under 10s.

What could explain this? Well, between 2012 and 2014, London’s house prices rose by 29 per cent, and rents by 6 per cent. In the rest of Britain over the same period, house prices rose 9 per cent and rents 2 per cent.

This accelerating exodus is the latest evidence that the housing crisis is starting to infect the wider economy.


London’s delights are well-documented: the parks, the public transport, the schools; the restaurants, pubs, museums, and theatres; the general excitement, the sense that anything is possible. And for many of us all our friends and family are here.

Yet it’s becoming harder to appreciate any of this – because, once your rent goes out, we have little left to spend on actually enjoying London. And if you’re preparing to move flat because, yet again, you picked a landlord who only cares about maximising his rent, or have given up on saving a deposit for a home whose value is rising faster than you earn money, you start to wonder if it’s worth being here at all.

It’s still a huge decision to up sticks, cut your social ties and take a chance on a different job market. Indeed, the ONS tells us that 64 per cent of London’s émigrés move to the South East or East of England regions, which are largely commutable for London workers.

But more than a third – nearly 100,000 people – are leaving for other parts of the UK. Some aren’t even making that decision, with councils relocating homeless families to cheaper parts of the country.

Migration to London by age group. Image: Generation Rent/ONS.

There are winners in this flight from London. The north should benefit from an influx of skilled workers, and those workers will be able to spend more of their earnings on things other than their landlord.

But for London, the result is a disaster. Communities lose neighbours, support networks are eroded and employers will have a harder time attracting talent. Teachers and doctors will generally find it easier to find work elsewhere, which puts greater pressure on schools and healthcare in the capital.

And because any given job pays more in London than elsewhere in the country, those shunned by the capital’s housing market will be getting by on a lower salary, paying less in income tax. The whole UK economy thus depends on London being affordable.

London’s success is built not only on its rite of passage for graduates, but the idea that incomers and native Londoners alike can build a life here. For now, 20-somethings continue to flock to London; but if their numbers start to drop, the city’s creative energy and, in turn, its wider appeal will decline.

The next London mayor’s job will be to stanch the outflow of families by throwing everything they can at bringing down housing costs. If they fail to do this, they’ll find that London’s success is all too fragile.

Dan Wilson Craw is policy and communications manager at the Generation Rent. The campaign group is comparing Mayoral candidates’ housing policies here.

 
 
 
 

Here’s how we plant 2 billion more trees in the UK

A tree in Northallerton, North Yorkshire. Image: Getty.

The UK’s official climate advisor, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), recently published a report outlining how to reduce the 12 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions that come from land use by two thirds by 2050. Alongside recommending cutting meat and dairy consumption by 20 per cent, the report calls for the annual creation of up to 50,000 hectares of broadleaf and conifer woodland for the next three decades. This would increase forest cover from 13 per cent to at least 17 per cent – a level not seen in Britain since before the Norman invasion.

Reforestation at that rate would mean creating roughly the area of the city of Leeds every year for the next three decades. At typical stocking densities of 1,500 stems per hectare, the ambition is to establish some 2.25 billion additional trees. Given that the UK, as with most of Europe, is in the grip of ash dieback, a disease likely to prove fatal for many millions of native ash trees, the scale of the challenge is massive.

On a crowded and intensively farmed island like Britain, unlocking a million and a half hectares of land will be no mean feat. But it’s not impossible – and is an unprecedented opportunity not only to tackle the climate crisis but also the biodiversity crisis that is every bit as detrimental to our wellbeing.

Trees and farms

One million and a half hectares is just 6 per cent of the mainland UK’s land area. To give some sense of perspective on this, 696,000 hectares of “temporary grassland” were registered in 2019. So if land supply is not the problem, what is? Often it’s cultural inertia. Farmers are firmly rooted to the land and perhaps understandably reluctant to stop producing food and instead become foresters. But the choice need not be so binary.

The intensification of agriculture has caused catastrophic declines in many species throughout the UK by reducing vast wooded areas and thousands of miles of hedgerows to small pockets of vegetation, isolating populations and making them more vulnerable to extinction.

Integrating trees with the farmed landscape delivers multiple benefits for farms and the environment. Reforestation doesn’t have to mean a return to the ecologically and culturally inappropriate single-species blocks of non-native conifers, which were planted en masse in the 1970s and 1980s. Incentivised under tax breaks to secure a domestic timber supply, many of the resulting plantations were located in places difficult or in some cases impossible to actually harvest.

Productive farmland needn’t be converted to woodland. Instead, that 4 per cent of land could be found by scattering trees more widely. After all, more trees on farmland is good for business. They prevent soil erosion and the run-off of pollutants, provide shade and shelter for livestock, a useful source of renewable fuel and year-round forage for pollinating insects.

The first tranche of tree planting could involve new hedgerows full of large trees, preferably with wide headlands of permanently untilled soils, providing further wildlife refuge.


Natural regeneration

Where appropriate, new woody habitats can be created simply by stopping how the land is currently used, such as by removing livestock. This process can be helped by scattering seeds in areas where seed sources are low. But patience is a virtue. If people can learn to tolerate less clipped and manicured landscapes, nature can run its own course.

A focus on deliberate tree planting also raises uncomfortable truths. Most trees are planted with an accompanying stake to keep them upright and a plastic shelter that protects the sapling from grazing damage. All too often, these shelters aren’t retrieved. Left to the elements, they break down into ever smaller pieces, and can be swept into rivers and eventually the ocean, where they threaten marine wildlife. Two billion tree shelters is a lot of plastic.

The main reason for using tree shelters at all is because the deer population in the UK is so high that in many places, it is all but impossible to establish new trees. This also has serious implications for existing woodland, which is prevented from naturally regenerating. In time, these trees will age and die, threatening the loss of the woodland itself. Climate change, pests and pathogens and the lack of a coordinated, centrally supported approach to deer management means the outlook for the UK’s existing treescape is uncertain at best.

An ecologically joined-up solution would be to reintroduce the natural predators of deer, such as lynx, wolves, and bears. Whether rewilding should get that far in the UK is still the subject of debate. Before that, perhaps the focus should be on providing the necessary habitat, rich in native trees.

A positive response would be to implement the balanced recommendations, made almost a decade ago in a government review, of creating more new habitat, improving what’s already there, and finding ways to link it together. Bigger, better, and more connected habitats.

But the UK is losing trees at increasing rates and not just through diseases. The recent removal of Victorian-era street trees in Sheffield and many other towns and cities is another issue to contend with. As the climate warms, increasing urban temperatures will mean cities need shade from street trees more than ever.

Trees aren’t the environmental panacea that the politicians might have people believe – even if they do make for great photo opportunities – but we do need more of them. Efforts to expand tree cover are underway across the world and the UK will benefit from contributing its share. Hitting the right balance – some commercial forestry, lots of new native woodland and millions of scattered trees – will be key to maximising the benefits they bring.

Nick Atkinson, Senior Lecturer in Ecology & Conservation, Nottingham Trent University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.