Have your say on the draft London Budget for 2023-24

The draft budget feels like a sound-bite release from the communications team, rather than something that is seriously being implemented. Nothing cultural, feels utterly disconnected from what we want to see.

The unwanted ULEZ expansion in outer London, is conveniently left out of this budget statement, we see an ever increasing cost burden on London without tangible accountability on where and how that is spent. 

Is the mayor suggesting that the £6.9 billion being spent on housing and associated infrastructure will not cause pollution and be carbon neutral? It feels like there is hope that the polluting machinery used will contribute to his budget via the ULEZ expansion or no one would notice the contradiction?

What consideration has there been to levelling up and building / expanding population densities elsewhere in the country?

The £84 million being provided to assist Londoners during the cost of living crisis, is in sharp contrast to the £200 million+ it's costing to implement the ULEZ expansion / traffic enforcement cameras. Is the £200 Million+ deemed to be unsavoury news by the communications team and left out of the "budget"?

Why are the projected revenues from Traffic Enforcement, ULEZ, Parking and other such schemes not included within this budget statement? Why is there a lack of openness on the known/planned sources of funding?

Many of the cycling lanes being provided are not safe or fit for purpose. When will there be some enforceable planning standards to ensure the safety of cyclists?

With respect to the “An additional £94.4 million to ensure we can maintain a world-class transport network”, does this not deserve some explanation on how that will be spent? The next level of breakdown would be welcome and to keep the world class transport system running!

Unless these consultations are run properly and listened to, why waste our taxes on them?

Local planning authorities specify a percentage of affordable housing that developers have to provide. But these policies are not all-powerful: developers use measures called financial viability assessments (FVAs) to challenge them. FVAs evaluate the financial health of a development, ensuring that it will not lose the company money ie, it will be ​‘viable’ – when it fulfils its S106 contributions, by calculating the cost of a development against its income.This calculation produces a ​‘residual land value’ (RLV): the price that can be paid for the development’s land, which is compared to the ​‘benchmark land value’ (BLV), set by the local planning authority as an appropriate value the private landowner should receive for their land being used in the development. Where the BLV is greater than the RLV (frequently being the case), the development will not generate a surplus, so the developer does not have to fulfill its S106 obligations.

When developers argue that their developments will be ​‘unviable’, they address this by trying to reduce affordable housing. This is because, unlike removing parking or green space, reducing affordable housing does not impact the value of the surrounding residential units. In essence, financial viability assessments provide a loophole for developers to escape their affordable housing obligations. It is reasonable to say that FVAs underpin local planning authorities' powers. Planning permission for an increased number of private units was granted on the basis of financing the relevant percentage of social rent units. However, soon after the developer suggested a slump in the housing market and applied to the Homes & Communities Agency for a grant to build the social rented units. In other words, taxpayers' financed what was supposed to have been financed by private funds.

Local planning authorities and the Mayor need to adopt a more transparent and accountable system for private developers' funding.

I voted for ULEZ along with thousands of others who recognise and live with daily breathing problems caused by traffic pollution. I drive for my work and have had to change my car to comply  but found one, a Peugeot 206 2004 model, that complied with the regulations and is much like my previous car. It cost about 1k more than the last one but it is an investment worth making for the future.  What the Mayor is doing is very brave, braver than the government, as it swings in the face of the doctrines of all our media since Thatcher's days. We live in a culture very much shaped and FOR the car. If there is to be a future, we must adjust that fundamental. It will be for the best but boy does it make people cross. That is not a reason not to do it when the majority recognise it is the only way forward.

There is nothing for Music and CULTURE here.  We have to see that culture has to be part of the solution for all our cities problems and part of the whole- not an added extra - if and when there is extra money hanging around !! Music and Culture promotes community too. 

58 billion is generated from culture alone in the city and 1 in 6 jobs in London are in the cultural sector. 

Each person that attends a concert or a cultural event 2x a year saves the NHS £37.40 

Supporting young people with music and culture will help to no -end lower crime, better economy, better health and well-being

We also desperately need to support our young people and have youth facilities and cultural facilities all over the city. 

Imagine a place with no music and no imagination - Please add MUSIC and CULTURE into your budget and although the mentoring programme is brilliant - more emphasis is also needed on children and Young people and community. 

Cycling. The budget is at a high level, and I can't see anything at all specific about cycling. However, I think the provision of Santander bicycles should be greatly increased, as a much preferable healthy and environmentally friendly mode of transport. The introduction of LTNs has made the streets even safer for cycling and it would be a good idea to build in this potential.

I am not happy with the various provate provision of cycles (Lime etc) as these are poorly regulated and the machines are often left lying around on the street or pavement. The Santander scheme, in contrast, is well looked after.

So a strong plea to increase the Santander network very susbstantially.

What is the point in commenting constructively when this mayor just goes ahead and does what he wants in the face of popular opposition to his plans? We don't want ULEZ in outer London!

Generally I like it.

The Met Police are in crisis though, if they are to get more money (or even any money) I think it should come with a lot of strings attached. I don't think more police is going to make me feel any safer. Maybe better lighting and better community would be more effective. Certainly being tough on crime has a long history of not working, it's basically too late once the crime has been committed. It's more effective to get involved earlier so that people don't need or want to turn to crime.

It isn't mentioned here, but the silvertown tunnel is not compatible with the priorities

All Ok and sensible, BUT The Mayor has  still kept in place his "TEMPORARY, JUNE 2020" later start time for Pensioners Freedom passes. Why does he not stop this restriction now that he has all this extra Budget money?

 I have written several time, pointing out politely that this restriction is no longer necessary or  relevent as Covid 19 spacing has been discontinued on all buses, trains and everywhere in Society too. 

I and many other Pensioners find this restriction (not being able to use our Passes until after 9.00 am) very difficult if we need to set off early (pre 9.00 am) to get to a Medical appointment at the Doctors or the Hospital. Please ask the Mayor to take this opportunity now, to end the restriction, which would be also very helpful in spreading the times Pensioners use the trains and buses. Many thanks.

934 million on police that only deal with crimes after they happen is ridiculous, we need more crime prevention schemes and investment in mental health if we want crime prevention.

Also, investment in the arts would be a great way for people to get off the streets, thinking creatively, and would improve the standards of the youths mental health.

We also need investment in reducing the costs of public transport and increasing the efficiency of them - giving them the pay rise to keep going.

The climate emergency is the biggest medium-term challenge facing London followed by health and income inequalities.  Overall, the plans are sensible but there needs to be a major shift to measures that both meet these chalennges and support people throught the cost of living crisis and will reduce long term spending pressures:

- A new focus on community policing with dedicated police teams in each ward (at least 1 PC and 1 PCSO per councillor) with local visible bases whgerever possible (ther are plenty of free units in High Streets, community centres etc) - no abstraction of the police teams and a commimtne to long-term knowldege and engagement with residents.  Also, more police that live in London and reflect our population mix - maybe a special scheme for police housing to help police stay in London.  A real change to focus on preventing crime and ASB to reduce the wider pressures on the criminal justice system.

- A shift from spending on new housing in soulless high-rise developments with very litttle family accommodation to spending on retrofitting our current housing stock to meet the 100% EPC C rating by 2030 in London.  Landlords could access invetsment in retrofitting and upgrading their houses and flats where required in exchange for a commitment to rent out at London Affordable Rent.  At same time, examine policies to reduce wasted housing (empty, second homes, dilapidated and housing just for letting on a daily basis).

- A huge shift in streets policy seeting a standard of all roads apart from bus routes being Living Streets; a congestuion charge for Heathrow Airport; charging for Rotherhithe Tunnel and Tower Bridge crossing and repurposing the Blackwall or Silvertown bores to walking/cycling and buses/taxis to ensure no additioonal; capacity to meet the Mayor's traffic reduction objectives. Wide application of bus gates and part-time bus lanes on strained bus routes struggling with congestion. 

I would like more money allocated to making streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

I would like more money raised from the congestion charge, ULEZ and parking.  These fees should be higher, and the additional revenue should be invested in walking, cycling and public transport.

There is no evidence the mayor is considering our feedbacks here.My biggest concern is the effect of planned ULEZ expansion-the daily charges which millions of Londonors are imposed to pay against their will for using their cars to commute  are more than unaffordable. It is an imposed burden on family budgets which has never been planned and will drive into poverty and desperation most London residents. How does the mayor reconcile this super-burden with his other strategy to help residents with living costs for workers, pentioners, unemployed and people in poverty?

If the mayor proceeds with ULEZ expansion in those hard to live years, my only option is to advise my familly of 8 to vote against labour in all forthcoming elections and we will do it as we are furious!

I also appeal to all Londoners to do the same because of the inconsiderate and anti-social measures imposed!

I would like to see some funds allocated to supporting mental health strategies and food banks. These next years are going to be very tough for the most in need. Let’s make your budget reflect that reality and fill in some of the gaps that central government have left. We need to reflect these values in the spending of our resources.

Also, more subsidies/rebates for frontline workers - health, fire, police. 

Why not even fund a war, like many others do? Stop wars and we all have a lot to give. 

First and fore most you are going get alot of Londoner leave London with the expenses increasing coming into high cost of living and transport i.e is clean air coming on the boundaries and you making people close business because the EV can't be sustained due to distance delivery, It won't able to travel those distance to work due to the transport issues I want space in front of my house to park an electric vehicle but spaces are taken up by someone else's car so can't park to charge ev because the facilities are not available, electric grid local area and surrounding London mayor needs to go he making it very expensive by expensive trips to USA he not signing off the Elizabeth line and trying to get work carried on the completion waste money on delaying projects, Adding additional cost surrounding council where they can't affordable i.e Croydon council bankruptcy trying to keep up and people living in streets and drugs are being traded but police don't attend thief reporting or eventually people will take law into their hand might be serious problem to people community are walking into properties while getting to state police isn't attending the sighting of know offender.paying all these up keep of pavement hasn't been meet and local charter hadn't been meet building very high rises building make the area has a wind tunnel and it going alot of injuries of falling debris high winds elderly can't walk in those area for shopping at raising cost don't work and parking isn't helping not helping shopping centres is becoming a ghost towns. So this need to address I wouldn't buy many things on line due to fake and products are not genuine so I prefer doing the shopping in the shop.Local government is direct government control and too many councillors talking back handers some are being paid to pass bye laws for parking bicycle on pavements which is for walking need pavement clear of bicycle and electric scooter are dangerous and need to removed.

I am 32 yo single employed male, who pays nearly half of a salary to rent a bedroom in Zone 3. 

Please explain how can I afford buying or at least renting private property (not a bedroom) in London, not Cuffley or Croydon (too far from work, relatives and friends). 

You propose spending more year after year yet there is little sign of improvement. You increase costs without any efficiencies to avoid conflict. Try producing a budget that doesn't see an increase in 23/24 if you truly want to help Londoners.

Buildings need to be well insulated and draft proofed every new build should have had solar panels years ago that was in your remit.

Safer you have done nothing to make busses and the underground and our streets safer for women.
as for buses its far from safe for many with mobility problems 50% wont stop and the ones that do move off so fast people fall. 
The crime rate is appalling.

Fairer for whom? not the people on low incomes.

Greener you wont halt the removal of mature trees by developers they  destroy our hedge rows,fields and build on flood plains so we get flooding that's not climate change it's greed.

Have you looked to nature to assist you? willows in flood area's air scrubbing plants and trees.

NO why not oh yes its not a tax You can grab.

Prosperous that's a joke how many will lose there jobs, business due to ULEZ do you care?
Affordable homes that most can't cant afford we need      We Need Council Homes

World class transport  we have not had that in years

Boldest action on air pollution and the climate but You didn't like the report we paid for so you ignore it. 

This consultation will be worth nothing if you don't like the response as with ULEZ it will be ignored

Your comment on ULEZ was its not a referendum.

The mayor is obliged to consult but not to  take a scrap of notice.
 

The proposal to spurlge £200,000,000 on spy cameras and yet more unproductive state spies and another £100,000,000 on a 'scrappage scheme' to remove viable vehicles from the roads shows the complete detatchment of this incompetent mayor from the financial realities of our time. Hundreds of thousands of londoners judged 'too poor to be allowed to own a car' by a poisonously divisive mayor who claims to be a socialist. 'roads for the rich', stabbings and terrorism being 'all part and parcel of having khan as mayor.

Disgusted.