Planning for a better London

Londoners need housing that puts them first. Affordable costs is a big issue, many new builds are too expensive for the average Londoner and greedy landlords take advantage of that. Rent control would be fantastic as it wouldn’t price people out of the neighbourhoods they grew up in and allow gentrification to take the soul out London as it has been doing. Greater control over how people rent spaces is also needed, we’re all stuck in shared housing that has people over the legal limits and dodgy contracts and landlords but have no choice as rent prices are ridiculous. More housing with social spaces so that those of us that do have to share houses aren’t confined to tiny rooms. More work on helping those living with damp and mould would be good because finding a house in London without damp or mould is like winning the lottery and those living with it (which is a lot of people) are putting their health at risk again for cheap rent. Trying to live in this city feels like the soul is being sucked out of you and for some people there’s no other choice especially if you grew up here and your family and friends are here. Moving cities doesn’t solve the problem of gentrification and a cost of living crisis.

We need more traditional social housing stock that belongs to councils and doesn't get sold off to multimillionaire companies. 

For a city with happier and healthier people, build houses that promote people's well-being, and you will see the economy grow and the city flourish both economically and in terms of social well-being.

Of those with no access to a living room:

• Almost a third (32%) estimate the discount on their rent is less than 20% compared to the average rent for their area; but 43% believe their rent isn't any cheaper.
• More than half (54%) think not having a living room has negatively affected their relationship with their housemates.
• Close to half (46%) never socialise with their housemates.
• More than four in 10 (44%) believe not having a living room may have affected their mental health.

• Alternative locations to hang out include the kitchen (55%), someone's bedroom (14%) and the garden (9%), while 11% go out to socialise.

   

Dear planning team, remember to build houses for human beings to live in.

Half of UK flatsharers now have no access to living rooms

• The odds of UK flatsharers having access to living rooms is now 50:50.
• More than four in 10 (44%) believe not having a living room may have affected their mental health.
• But more than a third (36%) of people renting in shared properties would willingly forego a living room for cheaper rent.

Almost half (49%) of 2,000+ renters living in shared homes, surveyed by flatshare site SpareRoom, say the living room in their current home is now being used as a bedroom.

A large majority-80%-say this was the landlord's choice, while only 7% say it was a decision made by housemates (11% weren't sure). Landlords, too, are facing increased costs and, in a recent survey, 88% said they had lost confidence in the rental market, with 71% citing reduced profitability as a contributing factor.

Many residents in London are facing huge problems such as the cost of living. Building affordable homes in the capital will simply be out of the price reach for many Londoners, which will only enable foreign investors to be able to afford any planned new property developments. 

Building on the green belt should most certainly be a no, no, as the green belt should remain a protected area, especially as we are facing a global crisis with global warming and climate change.

Rather full emphasis should be placed on redeveloping what has already been built, and to ensure the buying of any social housing is not permitted and remains as part of the social housing stock.

What social housing which is still in place, needs to be maintained, as many of the social housing properties have many disrepair issues and also issues with sound quality. As the sound quality in many properties are causing many problems with antisocial behaviour and intimidation from others who simply don't appreciate the roof over their head's. 

A home owner can apply for planning permission to extend their home to enable space for a growing family etc. Why would ideas not also be used to extend existing buildings to allow for the growth of the demand on social housing. 

Londoners need more fire safety regulations, that are reflected for both landlords and tenants. If a tenant is accused of hoarding their belongings by the London Fire Service, as a potential fire risk. Then a landlord then wants to place all the tenants belongings which the tenant has been accused of hoarding into one single room, then the same fire safety regulations should still be applied. 

Fire safety regulations, are fire safety regulations, and they have been introduced for a reason, and should be used for both tenant and landlord, and not used as and when the landlord sees fit. 

Any potential fire risk should be treated with all severity, and not simply brushed under the carpet. As any fire risk may not just cause damage to buildings, but can also cause casualties too. Anyone trying to flout fire safety laws should instantly be prosecuted, whether they are a landlord or a tenant. 

There are many large carpark sites which could be used for housing. Build housing with the car park moved underground. I also agree "affordable" housing is a meaningless term. Build the housing as social housing then the stock will be maintained and with controlled rents.

The focus on “affordable “ housing is a mistake. There is no definition of “affordable “ and in reality developers just keep prices high.  Affordable really shared owner ship.  

There is no shortage of 2 bed flats for £650k being sold as shared ownership. 

Focus on building social housing at scale 

Affordable Homes - a meaningless phrase. What we need is more SOCIAL HOUSING with low rents so that people can save towards buying their own home.

It's all very well saying "Developers must include a certain number of affordable homes in their new developments" but they negotiate them down and down... look at Nine Elms - hardly any "Affordable" and even fewer at Social rents...

AND there are too many empty buildings going to waste - tax empty buildings!!! What we need is a London Government with the balls to get things done, rather than just talk about getting things done...

Sick to death of the jabber jabber - we need actrion and we need results.

I've been living in Bayswater for more than 20 years and I'm still renting privately. I am disable but the Westminster Housing system makes it incredibly difficult to just be added to a waiting list. With rent prices rising every week now and the usual few, dirty and old choices in my area, what is out there for me?

Highly edited for space these are bullet points that could take London toward the autonomy its governance needs if it is to be part of the C21 when it is likely metropolitan areas across the world could take on the mantle of city states in part replacing the nation state that become a global norm only after 1945. Housing would come under city state governance and democratically voted on through elections to the city wide assembly. However the following bullet points start from the present.

Amending laws to enable the compulsory purchase of land and property held for profit, the compulsory takeover of underused office blocks and other commercial properties, and their conversion to housing, along with longer-term laws regulating minimum and maximum floor space per person to prevent the wealthy from having oversized properties in London, would significantly contribute to meeting housing targets. Beyond that, governance in London should be changed by abolishing existing Borough Councils and replacing them with an adequately sized London Assembly, led by a First Minister (replacing the Mayoral role), equipped with tax-raising powers and operating on a legal par with the Governments of Wales and Scotland. Such a body, autonomous from Westminster regarding all domestic responsibilities and powers, could pass legislation setting its own targets for population and housing. 

I live in an area where there is considerable residential building taking place. it does seem that a significant majority of new homes being constructed here are for single people and couples. Very little is being developed for families. More emphasis should be put on building family homes, with multiple bedrooms, play space and gardens. Frankly, whether they are built on brownfield, greyfield or greenfield sites doesn't bother me. But they should have access to public transport, active travel, healthcare, education, retail, sporting, cultural and employment opportunities.

The Mayor definitely needs to push back against government demands for so many more homes in London. Having reduced pollution levels, building on Green Belt is not the way forward. As less offices are needed in London these, empty shops and other brownfield sites should be where any homes should be created. London is overcrowded already and lacks the infrastructure (schools, hospitals, dentists, etc.) to cope with any more people living here. The government is moving thousand of civil servants out of London, so who will use their current homes? London should not be expected to absorb such a big proportion of the net migration, which needs to be drastically reduced as the country hasn't got room for so many.

I believe there is an issue with new build flats being purchased for investment purposes and not being rented out, resulting in many flats sitting empty. 

Before building on green belt land, the opportunities to build on brownfield sites should be exhausted. There are many empty former office blocks,  department stores and other buildings that should be prioritised for redevelopment, using compulsory purchase if necessary. Also, there is too much emphasis on building flats without any commensurate increase in green spaces and other resources for those residents to access.

Under no circumstances should new builds be on green belt land. You have halved the pollution in London with ULEZ and made London the best city in the world so please do t reverse all of your good work in relation to the environment by destroy g green space. It would make the city less desirable for existing home owners and the people moving to the newly built homes. Please find another way by building further out and improving transport links making them more affordable and faster for people on low incomes to commute cheaply and faster. These the people that keep the city working and we need them but not at the cost of destroying the greenest city - this can never be reversed. Lisa (Dobinson Hampton)

I appreciate and welcome the opportunity to have a say!

As they say, "the devil is in the detail". You mention specific figures of how many "homes" the government says London needs, and how many "homes" will be built over the next ten years (although it is not mentioned specifically when, where and how).

Then you say "Developers must include a certain number of affordable homes in their new developments." but you don't mention what "certain number" is or looks like. As long as this is hazy, this will continue to be muddy waters. And as many people already have stated, what "affordable" means is a completely different story for many people.

The next London Plan has to be clear on this, and although I am not familiar with the "social rent homes", I would very much welcome this initiative, because it sounds as that may only be the only option left in my personal case for example.

I am 49, I live in London for 25 years and I live in the same one bedroom rented flat since 2009. It is one out of 14 flats in a house previously owned by a wealthy individual who converted several houses into flats for rent. In 2022 he sold the whole house to an investment company, and now they want to evict me - they are literally taking me to court, because the law allow them, despite me being a good tenant and never being in arrears etc. I have explored the possibility of 'shared ownership' but the developers have the last word and they decide the 'affordability' required for each buyer, and according to several of them I cannot buy because I cannot afford the desposit they mention or because the monthly payments would exceed a percentage of my salary or because the bank would not offer me a good loan at this stage, etc. So I am in a catch 22 situation.

But I think I am not the only one. Sometimes bodies like the GLA, or the local councils, talk about the "communities" and I wonder which ones will be left when developers and real estate agents have more decision-making power and influence.

'Affordable Homes'? Affordable to whom? What exactly within the mayoralty context of building these homes does 'affordable' mean as well as what 'home' or 'homes' mean for the 'Londoners' that the London mayor who we have to believe in all honesty appears to be referencing and aiming at ~ i.e. that exclusivity of 'true Londoners' having affordable homes built for them and not built, because of urgency due to immigration, for fly-by-night-freeloaders, interloping investing foreigners all of whom, and others, will impact the London mayor 'suspiciously taking up his unreliable trowel' to build his affordable London homes? Obviously, what is affordable to one person of means is not affordable to another person with less or no means. Likewise, a home or homes might mean to one the need for a castle or well-appointed penthouse while to another a studio flat or apartment would be quite sufficient notwithstanding the needs of families of varied affordable means or none. The term 'affordable homes' with all the above is a meaningless nonsense.