The official site ofthe Mayor of Londonand the London Assembly

This idea is excellent but currently there are not properties that matches this price. So, the challenge is to find a way to build homes that can be sold by £350,000. And a definition of Londoner has to be established.

I would be very much in favour of ensuring that homes are used for occupation rather than kept empty for investment/money laundering. I would also favour homes going to British residents rather than wealthy purchasers living abroad.

However, I have to ask: what is a Londoner? For centuries now London has drawn people from all four corners of Britain and beyond, and to me, all these people and all those who aspire to live and work in the capital are Londoners. Above all, we have to ensure that the demand that Londoners be housed first should not be used in a way that panders to racism and xenophobia.

Another important issue that I must raise here is the need to ensure that people who are settled in a particular area of London and have put down 'roots' in a particular locality; living their lives; raising children; holding down jobs and with possibly myriad connections to the area in terms of support and friendship networks are not forcibly moved far away by means of social cleansing. All too often council estates are demolished with no balloting of, or consultation with, tenants and with no alternative housing available at a rent they can pay, at the behest of private developers. Many dwellings constructed by these developers have rents that are unaffordable to those on low or modest salaries and too many of them end up permanently empty, having been purchased by individuals or companies based abroad. This is totally unacceptable and the Mayor must take steps to ensure that it ends.

Surely £350,000 is on the low side, especially in London, for a bar on buying properties as investment ? In fact, the only socially just course of action would be to introduce a ban on anyone, regardless of their country of residence, buying a property for investment purposes. Housing exists to be lived in, used, nothing else. A key factor in the present crisis is that housing is being used as a means of private investment, not social utility. Why is not the Labour Party shouting this from the rooftops ? Why are Labour local authorities not demanding that they be allowed to operate as housing authorities as they did in the past ?

As well as lobbying the government for more funds, the Mayor should lobby for controls over sales to overseas buyers. This means doing the numbers and making a really strong case, drawing on the experience of other countries that have done this e.g. Australia.

For Shared ownership the restriction to apply is that you have to live or working in the borough, although I'd add 'and have family or history in the area',

And yep agree that £350k is too low it should be closer to the help to buy limit of £600k.

Allowing properties to remain vacant while their value increases should be illegal in a city where housing costs are beyond the reach of many even with reasonably paid jobs.

£350.000 wont buy much in London at all. I suggest at least £100 000.

It's a major injustice that overseas "investors" can play the Free Market at al. There have been many public examples of tax dodgers or even kleptocrats find it so easy to shelter their assets.
That developments can be marketed first in areas not subject to British law, is utterly outrageous. Even owners who actually live in the UK can disguise their beneficial interests behind a smokescreen HMRC allows these wheezes.

I agree with the idea that homes in London should be available to Londoners first, ahead of overseas buyers, but favour Rdutton87's idea that the limit should be raised to £600,000 in line with the London Help to Buy limit, or Jes's idea that there should be no limit.

Good Idea, however it would be nice to build homes that are functional so that people could live decently particularly if they chose to have a family.

There is a dreadful fashion in the UK for building little tiny box rooms and then calling them the master bedroom. People should not feel depressed in their own home because each room that they need is no larger then a prison cell.

Your idea assumes that 1. There are properties worth less than 350k and 2. Foreign buyers are interested to buy them.

Do you have any figures to support your assumptions? Please can you publish them. If you implemented this idea how many people will benefit ?

To me the idea sounds like more like an interesting slogan but I very much doubt it will deliver any results.

there should not be a limit of £350,000. There should be a total moratorium on overseas buyers of Property in London until the market is fixed. All UK nationals should be allowed to buy property in London.

New homes represent c1% of the total London housing stock. There were less than 47K built in 2016 and the prediction is that much less will be built in the future due to the economical uncertainty. With how things are going, the developers may give them up very cheaply anyway, without government intervention.

There are already thousands of properties worth less than £350,000 in London (4K listed on Rightmove) but it does not mean that anybody will actually buy them, most of them flats, almost none houses. Whoever can afford to rent in Central London will never move to a 1-2 bed flat in Enfield or Thamesmead or even some parts of East London for the sake of owning a flat worth £350,000. If they have a family they would move out of London. Family homes should be made affordable.

The focus should be on existing stock and not only on overseas buyers. Many UK companies (including private pension funds) invest in property as well. I don't think there is a clear evidence on number of empty properties, by that I mean occupied less than 6 months per year.

A quarter of all properties in London or almost 800K, represents social housing thus already affordable. There is also financial support (Housing benefit) to help people meet the cost of their private rent (£260 per week for 1 bed).

Almost half of the social houses are occupied by 1 resident and a quarter of them have 2 residents (70% in total). Less than 800K persons from a population of 9M in London occupy two thirds of all social houses. Of these 60% are economically inactive (300 – 400K) and the remainder are retired, full-time carers, long-term sick or disabled. Relatively few social houses are actually occupied by families with children.

As part of the wider discussion I would like to understand the criteria of awarding 200 – 250K social houses to a population of 300 – 400K who are economically inactive without being retired or having a health issue. To put things into context, there are less than 7K new affordable homes being built in London per year.

Personally I do not think that the existing stock is used efficiently at all and new builds will not solve a deeper problem if anything it will exacerbate it.

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2015/nov/18/who-lives-41-mil...

London should take example from Geneva and other Swiss cities where only residents are allowed to buy. You have to be a residence permit holder to acquire any property in Geneva or Zurich f,ex.

London is awash with foreign buyers who are just parking money , often of undeclared and illicitly gained provenance.
This is what has pushed prices up and born and bred Londoners out of their home city.

Properties belonging to opaque offshore structures should become fully transparent and physical beneficial owners disclosed ,fully taxed, or otherwise seized and auctioned to Londoners only.

I am forced to work in London but sleep outside London as I can not afford to rent anything in London for my family.
I feel Londoner but as per sleeping location I am considered as not living in London. This I consider as clear discrimination as I live outside London by force not by choice. This should be taken unto account in the new housing strategy to give the same chances for those who live in London (as they can now afford it) and those who work in London and are forced to live (sleep) outside London).

Majority of new built houses (80-90%) in London should be for first time buyers and house who do not own any other house. Those who own a house in UK, companies (speculating on market) foreign investors, those who do not live/work in London should not have right to buy in London unless they are willing to rent the house/flat to social housing organisations for low rent, regulated and long term (e.g, 20 -30 years) which will then rent it to social housing tenants.

I think an effort should be made to ensure that there aren't tonnes of empty 'holiday' homes in London. An effort should be made to ensure homes are owned by those who will actually live in them. This would involve not selling off tonnes of property to overseas buyers. Greater protection of property would be good to see. Essentially these things just drive up prices for those who live here

Perhaps the value should be aligned with the Help to Buy (London) limit of £600,000.

As others have said, the important thing is to have the homes lived in. For reasons given below it would be difficult to prioritise Londoners over others.

how many homes in central London cost £350K? None. It's either social cleansing, forcing people to move away, or meaningless.

so how do you differentiate between someone whos a londoner and who is not? wont work the one whos not will just register here anyway or get someone to do it for them

Property developers are not charitable organizations, they invest significant sums of money to create properties for sale, whether these go to social landlords or the private market.
the obscene cost of property is not the fault of foreign investors but a product of our own greed; we believe that all property must be owned and must keep on increasing in value. in old money a mortgage could only be raised at 3 times your annual salary, this is then affordable and the market sustainable.
it would however lead to market prices increasing only in line with wage inflation, are we ready for that to happen or are we too greedy and going to view property as investment opportunities.

Where in London can you buy a property for three hundred and fifty grand?