Affordable Housing

MQT on 2000-12-20
Session date: 
December 20, 2000
Question By: 
Andrew Pelling
GLA Conservatives
Asked Of: 
The Mayor


Your support for reserving 50 % of all of London's housing sites for the development of affordable housing has been decribed as being unworkable because of the financial burden this will place on developers. The proposal is likely to discourage rather than encourage much needed house building in London.

How do you intend to make it worthwhile for developers to develop land while at the same time observing the minimum 50 % affordable housing requirement? .


Answer for Affordable Housing

Answer for Affordable Housing

Answered By: 
The Mayor

The report from my Housing Commission has identified the need for 28,000 new affordable homes in London to meet the requirements of Londoners on low and moderate incomes who cannot afford market homes, with a particular focus on the needs of public sector workers vital to the viability and economic success of London. Current provision is far below this level and I agree with the Commission that we must seek to agree a broad portfolio of policy approaches to address the housing crisis in London. I agree with the Commission that much more challenging targets must be set for the provision of affordable homes in my Spatial Development Strategy and in Borough UDPs. Many Boroughs are already taking the lead in this and requiring up to 50% of new housing developments to be affordable. I have also accepted the Commission's recommendation that there should be a comprehensive financial impact assessment of the planning policies, to ensure that any targets set are as robust and firmly based in evidence as possible and that we maximise the contribution from the private sector without jeopardising the supply of land for housing. The GLA has commissioned consultants to carry out this assessment in co-operation with London Boroughs, developers and housebuilders, and Registered Social Landlords. This process will enable policy to be founded firmly on evidence rather than self-serving scare stories and anecdotes.