Key information
Date: Thursday 13th February 2025
Time: 10:00am
Motion detail
Thomas Turrell AM moved and Alessandro Georgiou AM seconded the following motion:
“The Assembly notes the publication of the Government’s new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in December 2024, and the housing need figures published alongside it, including a total of 87,992 homes per year in London. The Assembly is concerned about the significant increases imposed on many London boroughs, and whether these are deliverable, in view of the availability of land, material and labour.
The Assembly is concerned as to whether such high targets would be achievable on brownfield sites alone, and notes that the Greater London Authority (GLA) has already started contacting London boroughs about undertaking reviews of the Green Belt. Whereas the current and previous Mayors have been strongly supportive of protecting London’s Green Belt through the London Plan and in planning decisions, it is notable that in a recent submission to a planning inspector on a local plan, the GLA has said that Green Belt land release “appears unavoidable given the changes to national policy”.
In addition, such top-down targets do not take into account the type of housing Londoners need, especially family-sized homes in many areas, focusing instead on overall unit numbers. The Assembly also notes that, according to the Planning London Datahub, there are over 800,000 homes in London with planning approval that have not yet been completed, including over 500,000 that have not yet been started.
The Assembly therefore calls on the Mayor to lobby the Government to:
- Ensure that London’s housing targets are deliverable on brownfield land and do not put the Green Belt at risk.
- Replace blanket unit-based targets for each area with housing-type targets, such as habitable room targets.
- Bring forward measures to incentivise, and remove obstacles from, schemes with planning permission being built out in a timely manner, including social, accessible and affordable housing schemes.”
Following debate and upon being put to the vote, the motion was agreed with 11 votes in favour and 7 against.