I’ve been testing the mood amongst those who follow housing and planning policy in the wake of the recent publication of the draft revised London Plan, which was distinguished by being launched not to the media and the public, but to a meeting of City Hall staff.

What’s interesting is that some very significant facts have been largely obscured by the odd way it was launched and the inevitably greater interest in the draft transport strategy, published on the same day.

The Tory line is – and has been throughout – that Boris Johnson’s affordable housing policy is ‘more flexible’ as it moves from an allegedly rigid percentage-based approach to a numerical approach agreed with each of the boroughs, and that this will deliver more affordable housing. Yet so far little or no real evidence has been offered to support this argument, including in the draft London Plan. It is a question that should now be tested during the Examination in Public (EIP).

The actual policy for negotiation on individual sites in the draft plan is basically the same as the existing policy: “to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing (taking account of various factors)”. This may seem to be welcome but check out the small print. The numerical targets for affordable homes in the draft plan add up to 13,200 new homes per annum set against an annual provision target of 33,380: or 39.5 per cent of the total overall supply.  Thus the upshot is that, although you have to cross-reference the figures in the draft document, if you dig into the draft London Plan it is clear that Boris Johnson has reduced the strategic affordable housing target by 10.5 per cent from fifty per cent.

He has carried out this cut by stealth but it is there if you look for it. Contrary to the claim that Boris Johnson has no percentage target, unlike Ken Livingstone, he does: it’s considerably lower, but it is there.

Furthermore, the new affordable housing target of 13,200 per annum implies 39,600 new homes over three years. That means the new target is ten thousand affordable homes lower than Johnson’s manifesto commitment to provide fifty thousand.  There has been some debate in the past about whether he was backing away from his election promise but there is no getting away from it here. It is a substantial cut in the proposed number of new cheap homes.

It goes on. The new draft London Plan sees a reduction in the social housing element of the overall affordable housing figure from seventy per cent to sixty per cent.

And the intermediate housing threshold has risen from £61k to £74k per household, in line with the Conservatives’ London manifesto pledge. So effectively you can be on a higher household income and qualify for intermediate housing – placing greater pressure on the supply of this housing by allowing those with higher incomes to qualify.

Planning experts will look at the new document as a whole and may find good and bad. That’s inevitable. The issue however is to identify that which is going backwards, because there ought to be no case for taking a step in the wrong direction. On affordable housing in particular that is clearly what is happening.

One might also point to the fact that there is little by way of concrete studies or evidence to support many of the proposed changes in the new draft plan. This must leave Johnson’s proposals quite exposed at the EIP. The feeling among those who know this area intimately is that it reads rather like Johnson’s team wants it to look good, but don’t appear to care enough to assemble the evidence. They may simply shrug their shoulders when the ‘good’ policies get defeated at the EIP; then hope no one notices that they have reduced the impact of things like the pressure for affordable housing, or policies such as on-site renewable targets or green roofs.

(And then there is the contentious issue of the proposed new opportunity area for west Kensington and the extension of the White City opportunity area to Shepherds Bush. But that’s an argument for another occasion).

Overall, the draft London plan crystallises Boris Johnson’s plans: less than forty per cent affordable new homes as opposed to Ken Livingstone’s policy of pushing for fifty per cent; ten thousand fewer new homes planned, formally tearing up another election promise; a bigger squeeze on intermediate homes by allowing families with higher incomes to qualify; cutting the target of social rented accomodation; and real question-marks over whether many of the apparently positive policies will survive the examination in public. A good example of some key characteristics of Boris Johnson’s general approach – a big attack on the least well off, combined with elements of incompetence.

It’s unspurprising that the way some of this information is presented in the document and its perverse launch means that so far much of it has not received the attention it deserves but this is unlikely to save it from controversy once the implications filter through.