Planning our future London

No towers or any build should be allowed, unless it is self cooling without air conditioning, in heatwaves of 40 degrees and over. And there is an urgency to face logic and realise that a population cannot be allowed to increase, now  all resources are exhausted.  Worldwide, billions are displaced and have no food or water. UK, notably London, is already bursting and cannot take more people. 

In some cases, home insulation finance  would be available as a top up mortgage or similar. In other cases, as a loan guaranteed by being lodged as a 'charge' against the property, at the Land Registry. Cost can be paid back later, when the property is sold. It would be wrong for people with no homes to subsidise those who have improved the value of theirs, and also gained lower bills.

I had to put 'none of the above' on a few of the survey replies, as the choices/options didn't allow you to select more than one or parts of one answer I didn't agree with...

e.g. Why give the option of using a heat pump against insulating your home - should you not be doing both?

I live in a conservation area and understand that there are limitations to what I can do with my property, but the tech being offered these days is such that even I should be able to update my flat to be energy saving.

uOne kg cement = 260 kg CO2. Using concrete and steel must stop. Knock down must stop. Pretending it is possible to build homes faster than millions arrive to fill them must stop. Making city centres a solid mass of tower blocks must stop. In extreme heat which is now normal, even the lower levels of buildings are hot, and flats are unventilated ovens, not habitable. Retrofitting  a cooling stream of air is impossible. Air conditioning is ecologically unsustainable and unaffordable. Tower blocks cannot be habitable in climate extremes. Even if an air flow were possible, the filthy air would kill. Pretending battery cars are the one size answer to air pollution must stop.

One kg of buried foodwaste = 2 kg of methane, a gas 60 times worse than CO2. Stop landfill, it poisons water, land and air. With the single exception of purpose built rubbish incinerators made to generate electricity from waste, all burning of all kinds must be banned, because the air pollution in cities is killing people. Ban vapes, ban bbqs, candles, log burners, fireworks, bonfires or anything else involving fire.

Ban leaf blowers and plastic grass. Use more greenery particularly green walls, more sustainably watered than tree saplings. Clean the air with more and higher and mixed hedging and encourage climbers. No statues, instead have a plaque and something natural. Don;t allow plastic grass

Paint roofs white. Use solar film on windows. Demand triple glaze for new build. Use external shutters and blinds. Solar panels on roofs, solar roof tiles, solar panel windows are all available. Property owners should not have free gifts from the tax purse, just loans secured as a charge on the land registry deeds. Homes are always assumed to be owner occupied houses, when inventing insulation or any other schemes. Millions rent privately. Millions live in flats.  

Try to use greenery to avoid uninhabitable Urban Heat, using ideas such as in  Positive News magazine 15.8.22 Growing Green Cities

As other comments have stated, proper insulation (especially walls and roofs) cuts heating costs, maintains property values, and most importantly makes it harder for buildings to get knocked down and replaced with new-built homes, which is not feasible in the long run due to the scarcity of land, cost of resources, and grey energy embodied in existing housing stocks. London and the UK would massively benefit from properly insulated homes through the synergetic effects that people are not yet thinking of but that will surface within the next decades of climate adaptation.

I think the first would be to ensure homes are insulated effectively.  This includes wall and underfloor insulation.  This should be fully funded by government grants and LAs required to ensure its implementation.  Second, reinstate the grant to encourage homes to move to more efficient forms of heating.  However this time the grant should be much more generous and landlords required to implement changes and given tax breaks for doing so.

I think thought needs to be given to how to install energy efficient measures in multi-owner properties such as a converted house where the flat owners also share the freehold. If one flat owner wants to install solar panels on the roof, or a heat pump, he should be given the right to do so at the service of his own flat, regardless of whether the other owners sharing the freehold want this for themselves.
As for the cost of these measures, I think some form of tax incentive might be helpful.
In a conservation area, I think a balance needs to be struck between appearance and emissions, but I think it should be possible to do a lot by installing new wooden sash windows that incorporate double glazing, and replacing external doors with an insulated version. I also think it's possible to insulate ceilings by putting insulation in between joists, The difficulty is insulating brick walls which may not have a cavity, but I think that old buildlings tend to have fairly thick walls. If some form of internal insulation that doesn't reduce space too much could be devised and approved, that would be helpful. For instance, do we still need plastering over a lathe? Can we devise insulation panels that are the thickness of plaster and have a surface that looks similar to plaster, but can just be painted on directly without plastering?

Yes, I certainly think that new buildings should be built to the highest environmental standards available today (which might be surpassed in future years), because we are in an emergency not only with climate change but also with air quality and pollution. In the long run there should be a way to pass on the savings in heating and cooling costs, as well as saving water, healthcare costs and so on. This is the purpose of using measures like impact bonds. If BedZed could be built to a high environmental standard, why not elswhere in London?

Heat pumps, solar panels, better insulation will all help to reduce our carbon footprint, make London cleaner and help us manage both our energy costs and our energy consumption. Purchase and installation costs should attract tax breaks, subsidies and interest free or low-interest long term loans. 

I don't think we can pretend any more that we don't see the consequences of our inaction, but i also know that it is not possible to ask people to take on more costs to put these solutions in place.

I think the cost of installing insulation, better double glazing and more environmentally efficient heating should be paid for by homeowners and leaseholders but using interest free long period loans or adding a charge onto the properties so that the cost is paid on sale. Private rental landlords could pay by the same mechanisms. Local authority and Housing Association landlords can access low cost loans and recoup the cost from rents over a very long period - 25-35 years.

Bulk purchase of these solutions will also reduce the costs to individual households.

It's essential that we make some basic changes to the way in which listed buildings and conservation zones are managed to allow housing to be upgraded. Planning officers should focus on creating a list of "permitted" changes which can be done without further permission for the main types of housing in the area that are under these kinds of protection. For example, in my area (Kennington) the vast majority of all the listed buildings and conservation areas are of a single type, with 19th century brick houses with sash windows. Planning officers should proactively set out what sort of secondary glazing measures will be permitted for these buildings, what kinds of insulation, which outlets (and where) for new heating systems etc. This isn't about damaging the external appearance of homes, it's about speeding up and reducing the costs of the listed building system for everyone (noting it is supposed to be free). For the 5% or so of buildings that are truly unusual, or for more radical changes, a separate process could then be applied. 

Given the cost of living crisis and the government's goal to be net-zero by 2050, ensuring energy-efficient housing should be prioritised. Within the first month, it will immediately create savings for families and individuals while reducing their carbon footprint, especially during winter. Better insulation also reduces the risk of mould, which is good for the occupant's health and well-being.

GLA need to ensure that any roll out is fair across the board. Social housing should not get free upgrades (solar panels, energy efficient windows, insulation etc) for nothing. When homeowners have to fork out thousands of pounds for the same upgrades. Schemes need to be made available to all under the same cost regardless of ownership.

You cannot expect homeowners to fork out when those in Social housing don’t pay.

What will the next interpretation be for the survey I have just completed.
I am waiting for the catch. How many people's lives will be turned upside down with the new ideas the GLA will put into motion. 

The most worrying part about your surveys from the Mayor of London is the fact that most of them are "closed" questions which are translated into acquiescence of what suits the local government.
The last one I did was to prompt a massive expansion of ULEZ.
The responsible way to achieve cleaner air is to provide the infrastructure first. 

I'd love to have an electric car but I don't have anywhere to plug it in. I am about 100 yards away from where I can park.

I am worried what you are going to come up with.

Regular, annual windfall taxes on Power utility suppliers to offer a long term programme of free or near-free solar panel installation in streets on large scale to maximise power generation.

Grants to allow replumbing that recycles shower/bath water to flush toilets (more of which is happening now people are working from home.)

Allowing adjoining neighbours to collectively install maximum KW systems.

Our street has houses with good sized roofs and we all get along. Willing neighbours should be incentivised to help maximise power generation. Smart meters can be used to analyse and determine usage and billing across households.

Old housing stock is overpriced and NO ONE will do the retrofit at a cost as a HOUSE is not seen as a HOME in the UK it's seen as an INVESTMENT.

With annual price increases of 4-7% why on earth would you invest in making the asset better?

We have an EPC ENERGY PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE for every property sold which the buyer has access to immediately.

On this report it outlines all the areas the ASSET/HOUSE can be improved to get a better energy efficiency rating.

MAKE IT MANDATORY THAT LIST PRICE IS REDUCED BY FULL INVESTMENT COST FOR RETROFIT PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 20% FOR INFLATION ON MATERIAL AND LABOUR COSTS. THIS IS A BILL THAT CAN BE PASSED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS IMMEDIATEY.

Home owner/New investor is given 5 years to make the changes or before they resell the home or assett no cheap profiteering or flipping. Another EPC audit is undertaking and notable improvements needed to have been made.

Whatever money was taken off at point of sale for retrofit of solutions home owner or investor will be taxed if changes have not been made.

Very simple and as it's mandatory all homes will need to do this.

There are many solutions out there for retrofitting including TCosy Deep Retrofit System which is basically putting a cosy round your home and insulating it from the outside.

New build like Norway need to be delivering net zero. Cost saving on energy outweight cost of installation from new.

The owner of a Passive House outlined recently thaat a home of 8000sq ft which is 4 times bigger than an average 3 bedroom house cost just £150 to heat and light in the last year. Compare this to a 1950 3 bed home which costs £2500 in the past year and is 25% of the size. Why would thuis not be an initiative to get behind?

The main reason housing is expensive is scarcity of land. It should not be an excuse for housebuilders to cut corners on energy efficiency. These decisions have an impact for decades.

Retrofitting can be disruptive so you need to make it easy for people. E.g. combine loft insulation with a loft clearing service, target people when they buy property or are making cosmetic improvements. But it's a tricky balance because public money should support people in need not subsidise wealthy homeowners. 

Climate change is a crisis. Bad housing is a crisis. It is so important and urgent to tackle both.

Have you ever had a chance to walk the streets of London and stumble across cylinders of nitrous oxide gases?

I saw that some councils like Spelthorne joined The  Anti-Social  Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, Part 4, Section 59 a Public Space Protection Order is in place.

This penalizes gas users (only).

Could you please tell me what measures were taken by the cylinder manufacturers?

What penalties are companies receiving, since companies are aware of the effects of gases on the population, what measures are being taken for manufacturers and suppliers of nitrous gas? I called a recycling company to come and collect more than 20 cylinders that were thrown on the public road, recycling companies are not interested in this type of material. What are we going to do with so much aluminium?