Planning for a better London

The over reliance on private companies to build and often manage housing stock is one of the root causes behind their unaffordable nature to most communities they are built in. Only 30% of affordable housing is a requirement too low to meet the needs of the city and it’s a plain example of the power those companies have to extort the highest profits from something that’s very much a human right and public good - the crisis won’t end until the companies stop profiting from it and the care returns to the local government and community.

Housing co-ops and other form of communal ownership and community land trusts should not only be encouraged by actively supported as an equitable alternative to the exploitative systems we endure.

Estates like Barbican - pedestrianised and community-centred aren’t built but estates filled with separated gated buildings are causing further strain on the fabrics of the communities and encourage focus on the individual alone rather than care for the greater community of their estate and area. 

I think it’s really important to build more housing- but specifically social housing in the right and the best places. I understand that in the UK we are really desperate to build new housing, and rightly so. However, I do worry that if we don’t build socially rented housing in all fare zones then this may lead to displacement and isolation. I think that building in the green/grey field is probably a necessary evil, but we need to make sure that we’re building new communities and not just new homes - with good public transport, and local centres with amenities and placemaking. Ideally, these should be built in areas adjacent to exiting good transit e.g rail or tube stations. If you look at Sweden’s ‘Miljonprogrammet’ in the 60s, they built loads of affordable housing (>1m units) on the edges of their cities, which has eventually led to segregation and spatial isolation, and I hope that we try and do what London did post war - building social housing in central locations first, so that we don’t end up with peripheralisation, or car dependency. What makes London so special is having a mixture of communities and classes in each area, it’s what makes me so proud to be a Londoner! Avoiding having the sprawl of cookie cutter homes would be really important - poor urban planning is hard to fix - just look at American car dependent suburbs! I think having really strong placemaking, public transport  inclusive design and social housing principles in all developments would make such a difference. Thank you for your time

Archway is under threat of a tower block for luxury student housing, which would meet no local need (and given the fall in overseas student numbers unlikely to meet demand at all) with the excuse that the tower would fund the required affordable housing. 

But on examination, the claim of 51% affordable housing turns out to be no such thing - the 'affordable student housing' turns out to be non existent because described as off site with no defined location - code for a cash payment - while the proposed affordable housing is mostly only one bedroom when the need in Islington is for families - two primary schools have had to close because of falling demand. 

To fudge the figures, the undersized affordable units (at 80% of market rate actually barely affordable) are calculated as equivalent to much larger units proposed for private sale. If you calculate by bed spaces, the percentage of affordable drops to as low as 22%. 

What is even more galling, the affordable units eouldn't even meet requirements for amenity space and, even worse, daylight standards. 

In the private units, extra floors inserted would mean flats with windows at the residents' feet or over their heads. 

Meanwhile, the proposed tower would be a slab block facing the prevailing wind. Archway already knows  all too well what that means given the problems created by the much shorter Archway Tower. A structure more than double the height would make the area around the bottom, including the centre of Archway, more or less unusable for significant periods of time. 

This is truly shoddy development, set to be the slums of the future - no solution to creating a functional city - though of course maximising private profit. 

And yet, the scheme has been called in by the GLA, which has a track record of approving all such large schemes with the excuse that they provide much needed new housing. 

The message received loud and clear by all private developers is that really bad schemes are perfectly acceptable. 

While this is a matter for central government rather than just London, leaving responsibility for provision of housing in the hands of private developers is never going to resolve matters. They will never release the quantity of housing needed because that would impact their profits. We need to bite the bullet and invest public money in building housing. 

Please give priority to first time house buyers after through checking there background like none of there parents own house in UK. 

STRICTLY FOR FIRST TIME HOUSE BUYERS FOR SELF USE ONLY.

Building on green belt will destroy a legacy left for us.  It's not necessary and there's plenty of empty shops and offices, retail parks and industrial estates that can be used for housing. Golf courses are an insult to nature and need to be reverted back to urban forests and parks but could contain small amounts of housing.  They're also an insult to humans who need these spaces to live and or the city to breathe.  They consist of thousands of acres of land exploited by a handful of wealthy people.  Instead, ordinary people are losing the green belt, built for them and built for nature.

There are many many brownfield sites in London - these should be prioritised as closer to public transport. 

Building on Greenbelt would be an environmental disaster and must be avoided at all costs.

Prefabricated Homes.

New homes should only seek to address the issues facing working class and unemployed British nationals.

Developers create expensive and extravagant buildings that are costly, time-consuming, and make inefficient use of space. Councils accept the piecemeal offerings for the growing line of deserving residents seeking social housing. When - or even if - residents are moved in, these spaces are costly and difficult for councils to maintain.

Local councils can not be trusted with balancing a budget and implementing sustainable long-term solutions, even when they can be as simple as re-investing profits on selling council houses back into developing council houses.

Private landlords seek to expand profit margins as more people want to move to London. More homes that are affordable by their very nature provide a balance to the private market and those who rely on social housing.

Aestheticism should not be fundamental to developing houses. Permanent houses grant no additional or separate legal right to residents.

Accessibility is paramount to those in need. Prefabricated housing empowers councils, residents, and homeowners to adapt and maintain their homes to individual requirements and desires at a low cost.

London can and should address the needs of housing for residents and empower them to make choices in their lifestyles, helping reduce inflation and unearned and immoral profits.

If you start building on green belt land, it’ll be the biggest mistake you’ll ever make. Once this land is used to build homes, it can never be returned to its original use. If you, like me, can’t get to see a doctor or park outside your own home, it’s only going to get much, much worse. God help us. 

Gentrification is sucking the soul out of this city and in turn the impact can be seen on smaller minority businesses. We’re seeing people be priced out of the areas where they have always operated and pushed further out of London in order to make way for large corporations. This has caused the loss of an insane amount of cultural hubs and businesses that have served communities for years. This can be seen with large scale cultural events for example Notting Hill Carnival and City Splash which gentrifiers have tried time and time again to shut down, and can be seen through the court proceedings that have happened this week. London is the most diverse city in this country and all business types need to be respected not just that of the people who move in and gentrify lively areas. More small minority businesses should have the opportunity to open in areas that benefit from tourism and and in turn serve the communities that are responsible for London operating. Do we really need more Pret’s and McDonalds? 

I have commented in the past and on other sites that the current footfall on many high streets is getting lower by the week because so many retail businesses are closing branches. My suggestion is that in pedestrianised areas and tired and empty shopping malls, we should try setting up stalls that can be rented on a daily basis for any citizen who would like to trade. It is noticeable that boot sales are usually well attended and draw large crowds. Perhaps this might encourage the larger firms to keep their shops in operation where footfall increases.

I know city hall are promoting a lot of homes building at the moment but can we look at making it easier to downsize from large houses too. I know people who still live in large houses despite the kids moving out decades ago and having their own  houses nearby. Part of the issue we have is high stamp duty which discourages moving. Could city hall lobby for stamp duty reduction on A to B moves possibly in conjunction with a higher tariff on second homes and  6 beds plus mansions. You may find that you get more tax revenue that way as people will move more. Why build much more on the green belt when there are so many unused rooms?

If you are going to have things open for longer you need to make sure that transport runs regularly and on time with no issues, this way people feel safe going home afterwards. We will also need a way to make sure littering doesn't happen as much at night/ antisocial behavior, we need more public toilets open etc ...

The way to create jobs is to do the opposite of what the mayor wants to do:

1. Stay out of people’s way instead of get in the way.
2. Stop pursuing idiotic initiatives that are not only costly but literally snarl traffic preventing people from working and making their commute more expensive. Example: putting a bike lane on park lane which reduced the size of park lane and was expensive. Especially when there is literally a massive park parallel to park lane where a bikes can cross or the modification of said park is much easier. 
   
   There is a reason high earners are moving from london in droves right now. Paying extremely high taxes for an unsafe substandard city with high cost of living  is just not worth it. 

Developing London as a capital that never sleeps, with a 24 hour business development, I believe anyone who lives and owns a business in the capital, should be able to pay low taxes and low business rates, those who live elsewhere in the UK and own a business in the capital should be faced with a medium to low tax and business rate. But foreign companies should face higher tax and business rates. 

This will allow Londoners who own their own business to invest more in the capital, and perhaps invest in a new property development, and ease the pressure off social housing. Others who don't live in the capital their tax and business rates will also allow London to grow faster, due to the tax and business rates they would've contributed, to develope London's growing demand. 

We really ought to be redeveloping large car parks near to high quality public transport nodes as soon as possible. The most egregious example I know of is the Sainsbury's in Whitechapel which has a huge car park in a very dense area with excellent transport links but there are many others

Been really interesting to read the comments so far. I would like to observe that the current consultation document is very light on culture, which appears to be a pivot away by the GLA? Appreciate housing is critical but it doesn't sit in a void and people need local workspace and the GLA state 1 in 5 jobs are creative so where is the strategy for areas of production?

The Thames Production Corridor is admirable but not funded. I have had a project to build 45,000 sq ft of production space at RIBA II for two years but there is no available funding.

The CEZ's - can the GLA state the amount of truly affordable workspace the CEZ's have delivered? I operate space in two CEZ's and no additional affordable workspace has been delivered despite it being the CEZ number one priority?

Within one of the CEZ's I am trying to buy a council asset, private finance, slow response from the council doesn't cover it. The space would deliver 50 self contained workspaces that would be delivered at rates local people can afford and meet the council's pre defined planning permssion for the location.

The GLA stated 26th October 2016 that the Creative Land Trust was being created primarily to deliver funding to studio providers. To my knowledge no funding has been loaned? but the CLT has had £11m of investment, yet delivered not even 150 studios? When will this policy be acknowledged as an interesting, costly experiment and time to step away?

The consultation document doesn't appear to continue the concept of 10% of developments over a certain size to deliver affordable workspace? What is the learning on this? what is the alternative? 

Artists and makers give true cultural context to our capital. They will not live among us if we cant offer them genuinely affordable, high quality workspace? Where is the GLA strategy to deliver this? the GLA dont appear to have hosted any meetings on affordable workspace for some years?

Nichole, CEO and co-owner of Second Floor Studios & Arts.