Planning our future London

Studies worldwide show the a far bigger cause of air pollution in cities is construction - both the construction work itself and the use of various vehicles and machines in construction.   According to the Centre for Low Emission Construction (http://www.clec.uk/about/how-polluting-construction-industry) 34% of particle emission is due to construction compared to 27% from ALL road transport, and this does not include the emissions generated by the construction supply train (i.e. vehicles and plant).  

I wonder why this receives no publicity?

Of course "we" need more homes, but "we" don't get them.   Local councils should be permitted to deal in land and property without limits but on condition that they retain ownership of the properties and let them to residents who can prove they are entitled AS RESIDENTS.    Two things have caused this crisis - the selling off of council properties and the concurrent lowering of interest rates on borrowing which encouraged people to buy properties - many of which they could not realistically afford, or which were built so badly they could not raise money or sell.  

In my small area alone no less than four blocks of flats have been constructed in the last 18 months.  None of them are "affordable" (they start at £650K) and  the majority have been sold to people who have bought as investments and either don't let them or want to charge so much in rent that they remain empty anyway.   What is the point of this?   It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with solving the housing problem.

This is a fairly affluent area of London, yet there are properties everywhere which are either empty or in appalling condition.    Who is checking on these buildings to ensure they are habitable, or who is living there, or whether they have been empty so long or are in such poor condition that they could be compulsory purchased?     I for one very much lament the passing of the Borough Surveyor!

I sympathise with all those people who are struggling to find affordable housing in London.  In my opinion, there is no need to expand London outwards.  We should preserve the green belt.  However, there is no need to biuld more and more tower blocks.  They make it difficult for communities to form and can leave lots of people feeling isolated.  There are far too many empty properties in London which could be occupied by Londoners.  It would require legislation, but either Council taxes should be made so expensive for empty properties that it is no longer attractive to buy flats and leave them empty, or, better still, a compulsory purchase order should become automatic on any property that it left empty for more than a year without good reason (such as a debilitating accident).  Also, delapidated properties should be refurbished and empty office space repurposed as living accommodation.  Furthermore, there should be standards set to ensure that families have enough space to live in.  Too many new builds have tiny rooms and too many homeless familes are squashed in one hotel room.  Also, a long hard look is needed at allowing market forces to dictate housing shortages.  I would be in favour of banning the purchase of property as an investment in London, and for setting a limit on how much those offering mortgages can charge by way of a deposit or in interest rates.  There should also be a limit on exhoritant charges for rent, and security of tenure for renters.  As a londoner born and bred, I love my city and think it is being ruined by allowing the continual building of ugly tower blocks with no regard for the character of London's many individual areas.  I also value London's green spaces and think they should be preserved for the sake of the climate and preventing air pollution.  All new builds should be in keeping with their environent, fit for purpose, environmetally friendly and accompanied by green space and facilites such as shops, launderettes, doctors, etc.

Build no higher than 6 storeys and no lower than 4.
 

No more single family houses especially not the fully detached sort should be built.
 

The climate and ecological crisis demand that we end car based sprawl and share more resources and efficiencies.

This Mayor seems only interested by his headline legacy achievements, rather than the nuts and bolts of good policy, city planning and preparing for the future. 

Where I live in south London, several obscenely inappropriate housing developments have been put forward with the Mayor’s backing. Millions of pounds are being bunged to developers and development is all but assured, because the Mayor’s Plan takes away any powers for local people to decide / culture of localism. 
 

Because these plans are as obscenely inappropriate as they are - eg. tower blocks only before seen in central London that are being put forward (by the Mayor) for sites off narrow suburban streets that already can’t cope with the services that need to use them, and that will thereby throw the whole area into shadow and that come with no play areas for children, walking areas for dogs or any other necessary infrastructure - residents then go to councillors to ask why these badly planned buildings have got as far as they have. At which point councillors tell residents that their hands are tied, because the Mayor’s Plan undermines their elected roles and responsibilities. 

This is how the Mayor is creating a legacy of ugly, inappropriate, shambolic and in all other ways poorly planned homes that are being made only for the sake of making new homes and not for the sake of providing a good life and by greasing the hands of developers with financial inducements, so that they will ignore their misapprehensions about these sites being incorrectly chosen. 
 

Shame on you, Sadiq Khan. Londoners deserve much better than this shambles. 
 

Far too many 'luxury' unaffordable homes are built. Since there is a lack of housing, only UK residents should be able to buy and not foreign investors 

More social housing needs to be built too , but it needs to go UK residents that been in the country for a number of years, because at the moment new arrivals get at the front of the queue and that's insane and unfair

I'm in my mid 50s, single , no chance for a mortgage, renting all my life. I'm dreading the day I have to move out from where I am, I can't afford today's crazy rent prices and I'm not expecting any help for housing. 

In a few years time, many of us will be generation homeless

We can’t keep building like this. There is a problem with the amount of homes in London for sure, but just building more flats is not te answer. We need to start moving work out of London to many of the large towns and cities across the rest of the country. In the modern computer world you do not need to have all the office and technology jobs in one over crowded city. Move them out to the rest of the country where good well paid jobs are needed and stop over populating London.

As a renter, with no option to live with my parents, I spend over half of my paycheck every month on rent. With the cost of living crisis, this is making it harder to enjoy all of the wonders that london has to offer and causes me great worry regularly. 

London needs more homes over all types. Affordable and social homes for those on waiting lists are essential, but so are he higher end homes that help to fund affordable housing and other benefits that come with them. 

Much of the beauty of London is in its growth. I love seeing the mix of homes across the city and want to see more high rise apartment buildings, as well as new homes on brownfield sites, including on the "greenbelt". Car parks must also be a key area to develop as London has fantastic rail and bus infrastructure, so homes should be prioritised over car parking.

Speed up the planning process and make it harder for people who are lucky enough to have bought their homes at a low price to block housing for the younger generation who just want a chance to own somewhere. 

People who have no choice but to commute because they can't WFH - many of them key or public sector workers (on moderate incomes) that London desperately needs - need affordable homes in zones 2-3. It's ridiculous that people in their 30s on moderate incomes are still forced to rent one room in a shared house in these areas, often for in excess of £1000pcm, because it's all they can afford within a reasonable commuting distance.
We need rent control on private lets to stop the continued outpacing of London rents with the rest of the UK, and more schemes to rent flats to people with at least 5 years of residing in a borough at a discount and on fair terms. This should include eradicating developers' pointless 'minimum household income' if tenants can show they earn enough to cover the rent and have previously paid at least the same amount in rent for 2 years or more. These additional 'minimum income' requirements are cruel and stop single people on sufficient wages from accessing their own home even when they can afford rent and maintenance charges.

Building more homes in London across different areas is important as more homes are needed across. There is a need for lower-cost homes (as opposed to luxury flats) and more homes for social renting. I'm not against building taller buildings as long as public services are also improved to handle the added residential capacity. Traffic and parking spaces also need to be managed as this can be a pain point when an area becomes overpopulated. It's also important to build communal spaces and maintain parks to allow communities to have a centre-point for meeting/socialising and relaxing.

Add more surveys and articles on freehold vs leasehold homes, pros and cons of shared ownership vs full ownership.

And protection for renters in the London market as the market is designed to give more protection to landlords in the current climate 

This form is long. I haven’t read it because it’s not inviting. It also seem very directed like the survey ms not providing solutions in a holistic manner. What’s the budget?? Rewilding sounds great but at what cost? And will brew homes be social homes? Council flats or low cost homes for particular fields? Budget information and moving image would be more inviting to engage with

Planning is too slow and expensive. We need a lot more homes and businesses in my borough but getting permission to build and extension or convert the use of a building is incredibly bureaucratic and subject to the whims of nimby pandering local councillors. Let’s build quality homes and workplaces quickly - how about a target for speedy opinion and super low cost for permissions? 

I think I’d argue for renovating existing buildings and blocks and making them greener / better. Using the space better with more efficient design etc. as it is there’s lots of low rise, low quality buildings that could be replaced with much better ones. 

To effectively tackle London's housing crisis, it is crucial to focus on the development of high-quality social housing. Vienna stands out as an inspiring example, where over 60% of residents live in social housing due to its abundant availability and exceptional quality, often on par with private rentals. Barcelona, Lisbon and Lyon are looking to elements of Vienna’s strategy for inspiration.
 

By increasing the supply of social housing and limiting the sale of it, we can not only prioritise support for those in greatest need but also start to bring down the costs faced by private renters. This, in turn, will contribute to lowering the overall expenses associated with purchasing new homes. By emphasising the importance of ensuring high quality in social housing, we can address both affordability and livability concerns simultaneously.

One immediate and actionable step that can be initiated as early as tomorrow is to improve the existing social housing stock. By investing in renovations and enhancements, we can prioritise the well-being of the most vulnerable members of our society. It is crucial to recognise that by addressing the housing crisis, we can create a positive ripple effect, impacting various other societal challenges. Fixing the housing situation lays a solid foundation for progress in other key areas.

Tell us where you think new homes should go and what sort of homes you’d like to see. Think about: 

• What kind of places do you think are most suitable for building new homes in London? 

Current industrial areas closely connected by rail or tube for creating huge new housing estates with a real focus towards greenery, community and architectural beauty. Designing these estates and housing in conjunction with student architects from London universities and local residents.

• What is most important for new homes to offer – more space, a lower price or a location close to jobs and services? 

A mix of both should be on the table, while sufficient space should be required, a lower price is extremely important. The location doesn’t matter as much as long as there is an east and reliable link to other areas of the city, including by rail BUT most importantly by BUS as that is what the lowest income people rely on. Stop cutting and trimming bus routes especially in inner London would be a start and adding bus lanes to existing roads would make it better, along with bus priority taking lead over cycling infrastructure. Im going to be honest, we aren’t Amsterdam, however London is known for its buses. Why can’t we make them the icon and lead the way with priority instead of these space hogging cycle lanes that many disadvantaged Londoners WONT use?!

• Would you rather more new buildings that are taller (leaving more space at ground level for other uses) or more new buildings that were lower but took up more space?

Again a mix of both would be good.

• What facilities are needed in your local area to support more new homes? 

Land not being sold to developers and retained by the council.

I am a renter a pay too much money each month. That said, I STRONGLY oppose rent controls and stronger renters rights? 

Why?

They don't address the primary issue renter's face: AFFORDABILITY. 

Until supply of new housing can meet or exceed demand, growing house prices are rents are inevitable. 

We need denser, smaller homes to suit the growingly nuclear living needs of people today. We need more creative destruction, removing low-density, space inefficient buildings to unlock London's potential. There will be trade offs, and some change will be uncomfortable. 

Only when housing restrictions are removed and a real market for construction allowed to exist can Londoners get something they've long lived without: CHOICE. 

1. Prioritise retro-fit and material re-use over complete building replacement.
2. Can material re-use be coordinated over Greater London?
3. Use land in existing built-up places and fund service improvements (including small sites and brownfield land)
4. Tall buildings can be good when delivered with high quality green space, public realm and good connectivity.
5. 6-10 storeys are ideal for urban communities — residential blocks with ground floor shops and services.
6. Consider issue of overheating and poor ventilation in new-builds.

There is basically one solution that can fix all the above problems. 

This solution won't be the one any council or government would like, as it will not make them the money they are greedily looking for. 

But, if these governing bodies put themselves aside and think purely what's best for the citizens the answer is simple: Abolish CIL, Section 106 and relax planning rules. 

Currently, when a good intentionally human tries to help his area by risking his money and time to develop some new houses. The council come running and try to amplify any kind of hardship and then add another whole new amount of hardships. The average small developer had to rethink so many times before he actually decides if he should take on this massive task.

Instead of the council helping these small developers they straight out try to sanction him. £50,000 for each new unit you try to build, some councils will say. Article 4 will be introduced to take away all your current rights others will.

Thinking about it you may wonder whom these councils really have in mind. 

What will happen if a developer trying to build gets a tax relief instead of having to pay these fines? Don't you think that might produce some new homes?

Affordable housing will happen when the supply of these new homes will surpass the demand. The more houses built the less the demand will be and the more affordable it will become. 

There is a lot more to say but it will not all fit in to this limited textbox. But to write it in one paragraph the answer is: Allow the FREE market to sort this out. Free market means one that doesn't restric the seller or buyer.

If the planners think that this kind of development doesn't align to the character of the surrounding area, maybe it's time for the character of the area to change.

Roads and transport is a whole other issue where the government are doing so much more harm then good. But that will have to wait for another opportunity to explain. 

First, let's talk about how much it costs to buy / rent in London

1. For owned homes, we've got to stop seeing 'affordable' as a market-value minus - it has to be cost-plus.   So, if it cost £100K to build, then the sale price is a mark up on that of an agreed percentage.

2. For private rentals, a cap should be placed, also relating to an agreed percentage mark-up the price paid by the landlord for the property.  At the moment landlords are reaping windfall profits - totally unfair and completely exploitative.

Now, what should be being built / brought into use - and where...

1. Brownfield sites close to transport hubs should be the number one sites

2. We should be building completely affordable apartment complexes for a mix of tenants (single / couples / families) in these locations.  Not houses.

3. Unoccupied houses that are left derelict (unoccupied / unused) for more than 5 years should revert into public ownership, then refurbished from the public purse and used to house social tenants, refugees / asylum seekers / homeless people / vulnerable people needing refuge

Next, right-to-buy...in other words, the transfer of public property into private ownership at a favourable price... has to end - these properties must remain in public ownership, always!

Finally, the right to social housing.  This must be means tested.  As soon as occupants start to earn more than is allowed by the means test, they must be given notice and moved out to create space for those needing social housing.

We do need to increase housing density, but it can and should be done with low- and mid-rise housing. We don't need a lot of high rises.

We also need more small builders.

We don't need to build on green space. There are already plenty of unbuilt sites with planning permission