Planning for a better London

Homes shouldn't be investment assets for funds and private companies to exploit for profit.

How many flats in London have little to no maintenance and are put up for rent at obscene prices?

Be brave and set limits to who can own residential property. Rents extract a huge portion of wealth from Londoners who own nothing and have little left to spend.

Building more will help but it will be low quality at obscene prices, as seen in many boroughs, where flats have problems a couple of years after being built because everything is about maximizing return and profits.

Basic necessities should not be exploitable by ruthless and faceless corporate entities.

London does not need 88,000 new homes a year. The demand for ever increasing housing comes from the immigration crisis - i.e. uncontrolled and unnecessary immigration which PM Starmer has admitted to and he is now seeking to reduce, apparently.

Building homes is just a Labour policy designed to appease the housing developers who want to profit at the expense of current and future generations who will be deprived of clean air and green belt land to visit. This is a shameful policy that should be strongly opposed.

With the allowing of that despicable, I would even say 'evil', Tory policy initiated by Tory leader Margaret Thatcher all those years ago which Labour's national government and Labour councils continue to initiate with the selling off of our Council Houses and other public housing assets, shows that Labour is no better than the Tories. Absolutely shameful! 

My current flat owned by a housing association, was full of disrepair since the day I had moved in, including issues with raw sewage located in my back garden and rotten flooring through out my flat. It took 11 months from during a heatwave for my housing association to fix the sewage issue and do repairs in my flat. I was decanted and placed in temporary accommodation. When I had returned home, not all the repairs were done including issues with exposed wiring. My flat has new disrepair issues including those which were not repaired previously, and further issues with sewage again in the garden. My housing association are not wanting to offer me a permanent decant, or place any of my belongings into storage so they can carry out all the necessary repairs needed in my flat. As they want to carry out repairs in my sitting room whilst I sit around, then place all my belongings in my flat into the sitting room, then place a lock on the door then hand me the key. I have explained to my housing association, I have a disability, which they are aware of. I have also shown images that all my belongings in my flat will not all fit into one room, but this is being ignored. I have also not been given clear details of any temporary accommodation I would be staying in, as well as other details relating to being decanted. I am very much aware my housing association are facing financial difficulties and have downsized there head office. But this does not give them the right to act unfairly. I believe City Hall should be intervening, or should at least be in more control of housing in the Capital, not just offering affordable housing but perhaps being head of all housing association's, and still allowing housing association's to operate, but only under City Hall's control. This I believe would enable funds to be generated where needed the most especially with valuable repairs needed. Then the building of new affordable homes for the capital could then be established.

I fear that the rush to hit the target will result in cheap, poorly designed homes that are not really affordable. I hope that London will build for 21st century - not those of the past e.g.  developments not dependent on private cars, regeneration of biodiversity in private and shared green spaces, more shared green spaces, energy efficient housing etc. There is space on brownfield sites. 

i imagine a future were all green belt is gone and all open spaces gone then all houses will be replaced by ugly tower blocks. with ALL space maximised will we still keep over developing??

The Mayor needs to push back against government demands for so many more homes in London. The country needs more investment outside London and Londoners need better quality homes, not more tiny flats. We also need stronger measures to ensure there are fewer places left vacant for long periods. The Mayor should press the government to carry out the long overdue property revaluation so that people are encouraged not to hold on to underused large houses. 

London is very overbuilt and overcrowded and needs the greenbelt. Instead of a lot of new housing being built, Londoners should be allowed to join housing lists outside London. Also the majority of new housing built should be council housing and any current unsold new builds should be bought by London councils with funding from the government to use for council housing. 

Growth needs to be sustainable. Not growth at any cost. Growth that creates extra pollution is a step backwards. Growth needs to not be at the expense of decent pay & working conditions. Extra taxes on high value property could help to fund training schemes so that young people can develop rewarding careers.

Using brownfield sites is the best way to increase the housing stock. On Kingston Road in Raynes Park a site has been cleared & not developed for a decade. Why? It is a waste of a valuable space.

my priorities would be:

1. preserve and extend the green spaces - for our own wellbeing and that of future generations.
2. build affordable housing
3. make new builds available with the caveat that they cannot be bought to rent or by foreign investors.
4. If newbuilds are at the expense of green spaces then that, to me, is a deal breaker despite all else Mr Khan has achieved.

London does not need more homes. The population has risen a lot in the last 20 years.  You can't keep expanding for ever

London's economy has been decimated by a combination of:

• LEZ, ULEZ driving small businesses into early retirement, unable to meet costs or move out of London. It's simply an ungreen policy (no carbon footprint calculations) designed to raise taxes, with a lack of accountability on how this is then spent.
• The mass of 20MPH and even lower limits, making travel in London slower than ever. Again this introduced a staggering amount of aluminium signs at enormous densities. 
• Humps have invaded many streets, making resurfacing much more expensive. But no problem, as there is a lack of road maintenance and an abundance of potholes.
• Councils removing free/cheap parking and added complex differential pricing in the guise of "green policies".
• London has a ring of random experimental road schemes with poorly placed signage that cannot be read, enforced with penalty cameras - why remove a lucrative source of revenue. Every year more street furniture is added.
• A mass of poorly planned cycle lanes regularly forcing vehicles and cycles into the same space.
• Public transport is expensive, unreliable and in outer london infrequent and inbound to London. Regular rebranding sees the same services "renamed" as if new. One weekend train that normally takes 45 minutes, took 2 hours as creative re-routing took place to run less trains.
• Business rates are at record levels. The high street is invaded by the tax free charity shops.
• The new taxes on companies are causing investment and employment to shrink.
• Planning delays make any commercial developments much riskier and expensive.
• It's easier to travel out of London than into it.
• Key services on the high street have been decimated by out of town online companies plaguing London with a mass of delivery vans.
• The Mayor's own office was tasked with building 38,000 affordable homes with 4 Billion secured from government. That was revised down to 23,900 homes, but only just over 2,100 were started.

Ask yourself why are businesses struggling?

Given the predictions of future flooding in London and the obvious lack of council plans in this space, other than something will be done at some time, should we not plan to ensure housing is not built in near future areas of flooding? There is no point in building affordable homes which have a built-in "climate emergency" moment.

When we talk of levelling-up the UK, is the plan to continue growing London or perhaps to move money elsewhere. Is it so important to have a mega city that we can sacrifice the green spaces?

We should plan to grow other cities and have them well connected with reasonably priced and reliable public transport. Give people a realistic choice.

I think that green belt should be kept for people to enjoy these spaces near their homes, instead of expecting a regular exodus from London to surrounding areas to experience it, with the least privileged possibly unable to afford it.

We hear of a backlog of 300,000 planning applications stuck in idealistic planning negotiations on existing brownfield sites. Make an effort and release these.

I think unless you stop purchases from foreign investors then the type of homes doesn't matter. 

We need more green space.. 

We need less tourists destroying and littering. This would also increase potential for conversion of this type of accommodation to homes.