Planning London’s future

Make more secure parking space for motorcycles and scooters - and encourage modal shift from cars to MCs. This will help to reduce congestion because of the smaller road space they need, and in turn reduced congestion means reduced emissions. MCs are not suitable for everyone, but if just a few people shift from cars it would make a big difference. They should have access to all bus lanes and have parking in all new developments.

I live in the suburbs, they are being ruined with high-rise buildings masses of apartments total lack of infrastructure, overcrowded roads, we cannot get doctors appointments for 4 weeks unless it is an emergency and to get a hospital app takes a lot longer. Improve London? You have ruined it over the last 10 to 15 years, I can’t wait to get out. No youth clubs, nothing for the youngsters to do now, far more crime, police who don’t have enough resources and only deal with really serious crime now and not a lot nearly so much for the older people to do in their spare time.So much has closed down and nothing to replace it. Nothing suitable being built for older people, they are just stay in a big house or have the choice of an apartment which they don’t want. You continue building, not improving infrastructure and think a few green spaces and cycle lanes ( which incidentally have made traffic worse in many roads) will improve London? Think again.

More affordable housing for families on low incomes as the "affordable homes" being built are still not affordable. More green spaces, more youth centres available to access for young people. Stop closing services down and integrating them as this causes more access issues to vital services such as mental health and adds more pressure to the staff who have to run these facilities.

The survey on London's future was limited in its choices. If London has to expand (I don't see why it does, but assuming it does) then why was there was no option for utilising the worst bits of the green belt for more housing? I cannot see why we are ever increasing the density in Inner London with taller and taller building, reducing the amount of green space per person every time, whilst the outer suburbs still have great access to large amounts of open space in the green belt which is protected.

There were no options to explain one's choices either. some people may not use the local shopping centre because of transport issues or lack of parking, others because of the lack of the type of shops they want, other because of disabilities and so. The solutions to each of these would different.

Similarly with parks: I used to use ours a lot. However since they have upgraded the play areas, it is too noisy to sit and read and watch the wildlife, so I don't. I don't begrudge the young people (it is mainly teenagers) their play at all. They probably wouldn't use the park if it didn't have the play areas. It's just the solutions for both of us are very different and the survey doesn't have enough granularity to deal with it. A very crude tool.

Why does London continually need to expand? Policy should be on promoting other towns and cities around the UK. London is already too big and sucks in too many resources and skills from elsewhere where they could be well used. All that is happening is that London is become an ever worse place to live as the drive to pack more people into increasing number of tower blocks remains the policy. Let's look at promoting places with lower house prices as good places to live and work.

I proposed my project to City hall few years ago before the pandemic! My project was about to use the empty spaces owned from TFL to create a space where kids can go and do FREE mediation classes, FREE music classes, FREE cocking classes, FREE martial art classes and during weekend using the space for Art and Music event.

To start the project I would have found the teacher that would volunteer for the classes for FREE! The only thing I need is a space from the Mayor of London!

Please help me to make this project reality and to support our future our kids!

Thank you

Going around my area of SW London, there are so many under-utilised sites, most in locations convenient to shopping and travel. The owners need to be encouraged to rebuild. Planning needs to be more flexible and we should consider building a little higher where appropriate. Mixed developments should should be considered to provide the 15 minute centres to cut down on need to travel. In 50 yrs time we will look upon cars in the same way as we now view smoking - but only if public transport is massively improved. Little pocket parks should be built, or even say a planted area the size of a car space (as in Marylebone High St). Safer cycling would also help

majority of Londoners can not afford the cost or rent for homes, this must change. The investment towers especially those sold outside the UK must stop. Any homes empty for 6 months, and there are many empty for year as just investment tas avoiding, should be seized the LAs

Private cars, but not blue badge cars must be prohibited. Commercial vehicles should go to hub on the outskirts and use electric vehicles and/or cargo bikes move goods into the city. Paris is banning privates cars so no reason for London not to do so.

We need to be honest and admit that the reason that so many people cannot find suitable housing is a lack of money, not a lack of houses. London does not have an innate need for a certain number of houses: people will fill however many you allow to be built. I have to admit I am one of the guilty ones -- I had enough money to move to London about 40 years ago. We need to tax the rich more, and use the money to encourage people to live elsewhere, by moving the jobs elsewhere. I know this is not within the powers of the mayor, but until it is done, there will never be enough housing. I don't think we should be building housing and encouraging more people to live in London -- it is already too crowded.

Priority must be given to increasing local authority rented homes since this is where there is the greatest demand, and the size of these homes should reflect the local need, which is most boroughs is predominantly large family size homes. Most low income Londoners renting privately only do so because they cannot access the social housing sector. But meeting the demand for social housing by new build alone is incompatible with meeting carbon reduction targets. We must therefore also look to acquire existing homes for social rent, including using existing powers to bring empty homes back into use and to take homes away from rogue (criminal) private landlords. Local authorities should also be supported in making stronger demands to increase the proportion and type of social rented homes within private developments. Local authorities should also be supported to build on existing sites in their ownership and penalised for selling them off.

(1) If local high streets are less well used because of the shift to on-line shopping, new homes can increase demand for the remaining facilities eg restaurants, and so help revive an area rather than see the spiral into charity and betting shops.
(2), (3). There's a tradeoff. I favour not being too prescriptive about housing types. House prices in London tell us that there is excess demand for every type of housing. Building more (say) 3 bedroom homes doesn't only help the families who want 3 bedroom homes; it enables people who want 3 bedroom homes to move out of 2 bedroom homes and so frees up that part of the market as well. The exceptions are at the top of the market, where it may be pointless to build too many large/luxury homes that those lower down the ladder can't afford, and at the bottom, where we should resist building too much very small or low spec stuff in an attempt to be affordable but which may be the ghettos of the future.
That suggests adding a bit across the board to different types of area. The counterargument is that this incrementally creates problems of congestion and pressure on local services; there are advantages in purpose build larger developments with the necessary infrastructure built in simultaneously, provided they are sufficiently mixed to allow for social diversity and eg to allow people to continue to live in the area as their housing needs change, which may help real communities to develop.

London could have major new pedestrian-friendly public places at Hyde Park Corner, all along Park Lane, and at Marble Arch.
But the current standard of "Planning" of public realm in London ranks below dismal.
London needs to sharpen up - big time.
"Planning" is currently embarrassingly bad, and highly unprofessional.
TfL's 2017 written response to Mayfair Forum Consultation on their Neighbourhood Forum Plan is an example of just how unprofessional these people are.
They are currently harming London, and need to be stopped.
Throughout the pandemic, Park Lane could have had 1000 metres of outdoor hospitality potential to attract visitors and help West End businesses under severe pressure.
'Thanks' to TfL there were zero metres of outdoor hospitality potential - a disgrace.

By reinstating 2-way traffic on the historic primary route East Carriage Drive (current northbound), all motor traffic can be removed from the Mayfair side - creating a major new pedestrian-friendly promenade all the way from Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner, and on to Green Park, Buckingham Palace, St James's Park, The Mall, and Trafalgar Square.
If you search "1957 BFI film Summer in Mayfair" you can see video of 2-way traffic before the creation of the very damaging Park Lane traffic gyratory in the 1960s.
If you search "Future Streets Prophet - New London Architecture" you can see a recent interview with Terence Bendixson OBE, President Emeritus of Living Streets where he talks about how Hyde Park Corner, Park Lane, and Marble Arch should be changed, to New London Architecture's Peter Murray OBE.
Reinstating 2-way traffic is the key, and all could be trialled in a matter of weeks using temporary traffic lights.
It isn't rocket science, but it needs people who haven't demonstrated their unprofessionalism.

A safe home is one of the most basic human needs and rights. We must curb the greed of developers and work towards making housing affordable - currently it simply isn't possible for the majority of people to own their own home. If property prices are to stay this high then there should be a huge rise in wages to enable people to own their own homes.

We must ban all development which impacts on heritage sites, community assets and green spaces - Councils in my area are selling off vital libraries, green spaces etc - this is unacceptable given the climate crisis and social inequality in the city.

Development should be wherever possible confined to building on existing sites - there is a huge amount of derelict and unused property - these sites must be used first before expanding into new sites. We can increase 'meanwhile use' projects to help community enterprises and new businesses get started in unused spaces such as shops.

We must stop discriminating against self-employed professionals in housing requirements for rentals and mortgages - excessive and highly invasive requirements are demanded that do not apply to employees.

New builds need to be in keeping with existing areas if these have an important heritage style and include green space both communal and private.

The pandemic is an opportunity to reflect on what a healthy society actually is - we need a lot more than just rampant consumerism to live happy, healthy lives. Existing high streets need imaginative and sustainable planning, building and landscaping - centred around wellbeing and community - eg youth centres, parks, rather than retail. It has been shown in various countries that providing our young people with healthy after school activities of their choice can cause significant decreases in knife crime.

All new builds must now be genuinely sustainable - eg energy efficiency, use of solar panels.

Abundant trees and greenery everywhere will protect our planet, peace and wellbeing.

Less demolishing, more refurbishment. It isn't normal to demolish structurally sound buildings which are 50-60 years old.