Planning our future London

It is a really sad sight seeing disused brownfield and derelict sites in London. In a city with such high housing demand, there is no excuse for these vacant plots of land which are prime for building affordable housing. Brownfield sites are infinitely better than building on greenfields and should be prioritised. Existing buildings, especially those of historic value should be retained as much as possible, this is better for the streetscape and also the environment. Either way, city hall need to properly utilise the vacant/disused spots in the city. There should be none really.

It is a travesty that a rich country like the UK has people who are either homeless or cannot afford to buy / rent due to a number of reasons:

* A disconnect between the industry and the workforce in terms of skills required by the industry and skill void workforce;

* Allowing corrupt leaders from developing countries to buy up properties in London that shoot up prices and create an influx of migration from those countries which in turn creates the need for more housing. If the stolen money was spent in those countries then we would not have economic migrants;

* To solve our problem, we need to have a two-tier school system:

One for those who wish to continue their education to Further and Higher levels;

And the other is for those who have no interest in education. They have to be equipped with skills that are non-academical via apprenticeship etc.

Both groups would have to be taught skills in handling finances responsibly, so they don't end up in a financial hole.

We need to remove the permitted development rights (PDR) for change of use from family homes to small HMOs. At present landlords and developers are using this as a loop hole to develop large HMOs. Small HMOs are being developed without planning or input from local residents. There is no control over where they are located, indeed in some areas they are being developed next to each other. There are plenty of brownfield sites and unused office blocks which could be used to develop lost cost housing, without the need to loose existing family homes.

While there is the mechanism of the Article 4 Direction (A4D) that counsels could use to revoke the PDR, there has to be a significant HMO problem in the area before this can be put in place, otherwise the secretary of state will reverse the A4D. The HMO problem cannot then be reversed, and the local area becomes blighted and family homes lost forever.

Landlords and developers are not interested in maintaining/improving the character and amenity of an area, only profit. HMOs are a lucrative business which is preventing families buying family homes.

What types of places are most suitable for building homes in London?

Brownfield land and Green belt parks which were the back gardens of #Theroyals need to be considered to build for Londoners.

The majority of Londoners who have been waiting for LA, and RSL housing & have been neglected unfairly.

What is more important for new homes to offer  1. More space 2. A lower price /or location 3. Close to jobs or services

1 & 2 

Would you rather have more new buildings that are taller ( more space at ground level)  or more new buildings that are lower, but took up more space?

New buildings that are lower like the best awarded European eco-social housing examples, Amsterdam, Spain, France 

What facilities are needed in local areas 2 support new homes?

Accountability to existing residents to inform LA what their housing environment needs. Mute student accommodation investment into resident housing making use of empty council commercial/properties. 

The LA has a duty of care to provide affordable accommodation instead of using grants for social housing in build to sell off to the highest bidder such as :

#AylesburyEstate

#LendLeaseElephantAndCastle 

#NHGRSL

It's just another fake survey.

A. you'll tick the box of the "public hearing" and carry on what ever you wants to do.

B. you'll filter out the responses to justify your needs / vision or whatever.

I just popped in to say, no more fake survey.

Cheers

Should extend the Seaside and Countryside scheme to private renters. Exempt Londoners in need of housing from local connection rules for other parts of the country so can join social housing lists. Also prioritise older Londoners for social housing in London or anywhere else as less able to get a mortgage when older and been in need for longer. Social housing lists in London should also be like everywhere else and be region wide instead of borough only as Londoners move boroughs a lot especially private renters, and should allow everyone to join even if currently low priority circumstances change and lots of people fall through gaps. 

There’s not point building new homes big or small to be sold on an asian market first. Let’s start there. That’s the current business model in boroughs where the housing crisis is at its worst.

many developers including labour local authorities are at it. Will you do different?

let’s talk a bout the mess that was the heygate estate.  How many of the 3000 social housing units were replaced? 0 Where did all those families go? And how has that contributed to the breakdown and wellbeing of working class communities. What has been done since to avoid that happening again? Nothing.

you can make all the plans you want but if you keep following the same process over and over again then the same things gonna happen. 

Stop asking for ideas unless you’re ready to really tackle the issues within the built environment which are equally problematic for the building of new homes. 

Different people have different housing needs.  There is no single solution.  Families need accommodation with outdoor space. Single people don't need this.  All new housing needs to be affordable.  People should be able to remain living in their own communities.  In inner areas this means higher density building.  People who live in places like Islington don't expect four bedroom properties with gardens. Older people with no families should be actively encouraged to move to smaller homes. There seem to be masses of unused flats, above shops for example, where I live. Making these available for homeless folk should be a priority.

Too many accommodation is built for rich or overseas people. We have enough of those. While we built high end accommodation that most Londoners cannot afford, we convert houses into HMOs resulting in no accommodation available for new married couples or families or people staying in abusive relationship as they cannot move if they have a child with them.

How come £33K is not enough to rent a 1-bed flat on the outskirts? And you cannot access the homes for London either with that wage meaning you pay high rent for poor accommodation. 

The other thing is that it is usually rough landlords who turn houses into HMOs and sometimes those HMOs are not even registered properly with the council.

There should be a minimum standard for HMOs and landlords should be inspected and tenants given some rights too.

With more people working from home there's now vast amounts of empty offices in London which should be converted into affordable homes. We don't need any more luxury accommodation. We need to discourage the use of housing as an investment opportunity which is contributing to making London unaffordable for most people. 

I would like to see a less developer led housing and more social housing with a mix of affordable housing for sale.   This would reduced the density levels seen in a lot of recent  developments although there are lessons to be learnt in terms of building neighbourhoods with mixed used rather than monolithic tenures.  Different groups used be prioritised in terms of waiting lists and more locally responsible RSLs and not the national giants.  Compulsory purchase of unoccupied properties in central London could be used to establish temporary uses with Housing Co-ops for younger people. If social care was focused on retirement communities this could incentivize vacation of under used properties for family housing.  Using Greenbelt land should be an option if the green space is not open to the public or clearly  environmentally useful.  However the principle of the green belt is a good one and higher rise on brown field sites would my preference. 

Building new homes won't solve the issue if the costs stay as high as they are now. People that need these home still wont be able to afford them. maybe imposing an enforced private rent cap per area will bring housing back to an affordable standard. To reflect the unrealistic current local housing allowance rates for exemple. 

We desparately need more housing that is affordable. It appears the only way to achieve this involves public subsidy (either public ownership or taxpayer contribution to the costs of land and building).  My area (Rotherhithe and Southwark more generally) has a lot of house building in progress, but much of it contiues the imbalance between private development at prices that will be unaffordable for many and push those who work in the middle and lower paying jobs into the periphery where they must pay additional costs for commuting and have a lower quality of life (since these peripheral areas are not as well planned with regard to amenities such as parks and recreation).  Good progress has been made in the last 20 years at converting disused warehouse and industrial land, but again there is an imbalance favouring housing that is less affordable.  London can maintain its diversity and inclusiveness (a major source of its dynamism) by offering a better balance between housing that reflects the cost of land and high spec building and housing that is medium spec in quality constructed on land acquired for social housing purpose.  It would also help to restrict the use of properties for AirBnB type uses and as empty flats storing value for overseas investors.  We need to pay more tax and this is best achieved by raising council tax at double or triple the annual rate of increase (uncomfortable for me as a pensioner) because ultimately the affordable housing shortage can only be remedied by public investment.

Building individual blocks of flats here and there in already built up areas is really inefficient. We need to expand London outwards, building on the surrounding land. People always cite concerns about "the green belt" whenever this is proposed, but such concerns are completely unfounded. According to fullfact.org, "Estimates of how much of the UK isn’t built on range between 88% and 99.9%". In other words, we're not likely to run out of green land any time soon, not even in the South East. Expanding London outwards also doesn't mean trashing existing parks and green spaces within London - Hampstead Heath, Richmond Park, etc.; no-one is proposing to concrete these over, and there is no reason why we shouldn't demand that new parks and green spaces are included in developments that expand London outwards.

There is a desperate need for more social housing in my area and across the city as a whole. While we need more truly affordable housing,  a lot of existing social housing stock is badly in need of refurbishment and insulation which requires major funding to providers. As a member of a housing co-op with just over 80 units I'd like to see the GLA remember us when issuing grants for improvements. There has been no funding from central government for years and the smaller organisations seem to get forgotten as the G15 hog the limelight.

It's The housing that matters most with people on average or below average income. If you wanted to see a better place, well, start by providing a house that is affordable to rent at low prices. That's all I can say. I saw a lot of empty establishments that's been built probably 5 or more years ago and are still empty with promo ads "For sale/To Lease" and still no one can able to afford them due to their huge prices. What a waste of land. Help to buy scheme, come on.