London Environment Strategy consultation

all new and redevelopment planning permits need to require a "green plan" in which developer explains how to go to zero impact (trees on top of building, green areas, green cladding, buying CO2 permits). Based on quality of Green Plan the permit will get faster approval and possibly better tax benefits

The London National Park City is a great idea. I would like my local authority to get involved with the initiative.

Like other posters I agree that developers need to be forced to plant more trees and have better green spaces. In my local area the many new developments lack trees and decent green spaces. Some developments stick a few trees in concrete planters and seem to think that is good enough. I know from my discussions with people that most people dislike these 'tree in a concrete box' plans.

Another major problem is the lack of green play spaces for kids.

A very welcome idea. An urban national park would help promote London as a pleasant place to live, work and walk.

The focus should be on community groups seeking to preserve green public open space, as our city becomes more densely populated. We need to rethink how we plan strategically - eg smaller communities grouped around individual existing and new (in less green areas) spaces, particularly for toddler and children's play (including dog-free areas); long distance footpath's and cycleways such as Bromley to Barnet, Redbridge to Richmond and Southall to St Mary Cray; many more trees/min-Hollands, as well as the green roofs that are being proposed.

Now also to strengthen our green infrastructure for a low carbon, pollution free city: to challenge our drainage systems (more SUDS), our roads (more cul de sacs please to stop the rat runs), our residential and industrial waste etc (much more recycling), eco-labelling (carbon content), etc

Also I do not think there should be more building of flats in London
More people more pollution.
Restrict the population
We do not have the infrastructure to cope.
Near Southgate/ North Circular hindered of flats are being built but no development of roads or shops or parking
We will soon be like Mexico City with the developers laughing all the way to the bank.

Well I agree that vehicles should be less polluting but to do it gradually.
I am in favour of hybrid vehicles, gas, ethanol/mix and electric.
I believe that all MP's should switch to some form of alternative fuel as well as buses and taxis in all cities. If dual fuel then the cc of say a petrol engine should be reduced. Ethanol mixed with petrol would reduce emissions. With development of frugal engines also helps. Problem is instead of developing a city electric car people want all cars to do 0-60 in 5 seconds which is not needed in a city.
Buy all means tax high emmision vehicles more but not immediately. Having all electric vehicles is going to put high demands on its production and increase in costs. I also think that a £10 difference between hybrid and normal cas is not enough and hybrid should be taxed at £100
In fact even zero rated vehicles should pay road tax as they use the roads!!

"Already greenest city" just what developers love to hear, they wave the statement at weak-minded planners and another plot of council owned land with mature trees is gifted to developers in return for the hollow promise of a couple of "affordable" units.
Trees should be a planning requirement on and surrounding all main routes.

All for greening of the city, as long as it doesn't become a 'Greenwash' Trojan horse for stealth privatisation of public space by rapacious developers/organisations who will exploit this for their own agendas.
This should be publicly funded for all, and organisations who promote private activity/development as a quid pro quo for providing greenery should be treated with the utmost caution and suspicion cf. the ongoing scandal of the Garden Bridge.

Most importantly, when developments are approved, I think it should be compulsory to plan - and not fail to implement later - tree lined roads and small playing areas (developers seem driven to keep their 1/3 profit ratio to the expense of this).
Secondly, I think that we shouldn't be trying to build our way out of the housing crisis: or at least, it doesn't seem to be working around me.
Making London green seems to be in reverse around me. I've noticed that several small green spaces, locally, have been built on in the last two years. This trend looks like continuing as my local authority (Bromley) is building on 17 green spaces (in it's Local Plan) to provide services for hoped-for additional households (aka units) allocated to the borough by the Mayor. I'm not sure this is going to help the housing crisis (too expensive for locals and the developers stagger selling these flats/houses so that there are only about 300 a year per area to keep the prices high) The problem of 'slow release' is not improved by the council seeking to build most of it's housing allocation (1000's a year) in the small area of the town centre. I'm told the Mayor feels that Bromley, rather than asking for it's allocation to be decreased (as over 1/2 of the borough is green belt / green space) feels that Bromley should take on an even higher number of new houses/flats.

Sadiq Khan's proposal is wonderful.
You have probably thought of my suggestion, which is to create more pedestrian areas and plant trees in them.
Would pedestrian areas be a better approach to protection than the lozenge shaped bollards that are being installed in so many places? Trees, once established, are as hard to ram or drive round as bollards. Also, a vehicle entering a pedestrian area would stand out immediately. Could trees and shrubs replace or disguise bollards where there is traffic?
I was surprised when I visited China to see mature trees all the way down the centre of wide roads in cities. Their parks are stunningly beautiful, too.
Thank you.

2) In my experience all of London's parks and green spaces have become 'ruined' by the enormous increase in the numbers of dogs over recent years, and the fact that with few exceptions dogs are allowed to roam throughout the entirety of the parks / green spaces. This leads to large quantities of dog mess, large numbers of out-of-control dogs, with the result that all parks now feel to me as if they are there first and foremost for peoples' dogs, not for people . . . so if the aim is simply to increase the amount of green space I fear the result will just be to please the dogs. In my view dogs should be confined to small areas within parks, and banned altogether from smaller greens and green spaces, and this should be 'policed' with fines actually imposed on those breaking such rules. And further, all dogs should have to be registered, and it should be mandatory for all dog owners to take dog owning / controlling classes, which should involve tests, both written and practical, before anyone is permitted to own a dog, especially in a City. Whilst owning a dog is not like driving a car there are a lot of parallels in terms of how much nuisance, and sometimes damage / injury, both can inflict when not controlled or driven properly. And these days one sees far too many dogs who control their owners rather than vice versa. As a former dog owner I speak from experience of getting to know how dogs 'work' and thus how to prevent them from being a nuisance to other people, but one sees very little evidence of this around in the City today and the results are especially felt in all the parks.

As I have posted elsewhere on the Talk London feedback site:

1) All the recent redevelopments in the centre of London, involving pedestrianising areas, are totally devoid of trees, or indeed any other plants. To my mind this makes these areas feel 'dead' and unnatural, and unpleasant. it also seems likely to me that there isn't sufficient soak-away ground to cope with any heavy rainfall. If the land underground is too crowded with utilities installations to cope with new trees being planted then it would still have been possible to plant small trees or large shribs inside large troughs or containers, and I can't understand why this wasn't part of the development plan. This type of planting also forms a very effective barrier against the latest form of terrorist attack by driving vehicles into people - you can't drive through trees or large plant containers. Also, aside from all their other obvious environmental benefits, trees bring birds, and birds (bar pigeons) bring birdsong, and birdsong brings joy to people, whereas concrete (and glass) do not.