Planning for a better London

Why is the Mayor talking about building on the Green bBelt when there are ~1,000 significant development projects in London with planning permission that are not progressing.  Before we sacrifice the Green Belt, let's understand what is stalling those projects and get them going. 

Ultimately I believe the solution is that real estate and housing need to be de-financialised. However this is not something solvable at the council level, ( well, unless you do smething about the City financiers...) 

Housing is for living, not investment. 

I definitely think mid rise is the way to go. These clumps of small suburban houses are massively space-inefficient. The focus should be on quality and sustainable buildings, making them look pretty is secondary and can be enabled by smart architecture, like the barbican development. The current explosion of build to rent flats are clearly investment vehicles, and this should be avoided at all costs. I believe the council should be an intermediary, or the landlord itself, to control rents and allow some to be bought at reasonable prices.

Until now I have always respected and admired Sadiq Khan, but to even suggest building on any Green Belt land is a massive and unacceptable step too far (in the wrong direction) in my opinion. The Green Belt was initiated for the benefit of all Londoners and the surrounding countryside. To just weep aside that protection is a crime against nature and another headlong step forward into destroying the planet and making an untenable place for humans to live.  

There are TOO MANY PEOPLE and we should be taking humane steps to reduce the birthrate. Human beings ARE NOT more important than nature and the other creatures and plants on this planet and building on Greenbelt Land is WRONG in every possible way and must not be allowed.

PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS - it is a one way street towards further destruction of our county and our environment.

If the Government and the Mayor stopped foreign buyers from purchasing new properties, it would bring down the price and allow more lower paid people to buy. In my area there is a lot of new builds with horrendous service charges, again the government should force both developers and management companies to treat people fairly but we know that won't happen. Expanding London is not the answer.

We are not building enough affordable homes for lower paid workers who tend to try and live near their jobs to cut down on (very expensive) travel costs. Wealthy folk tend to prefer to live out of town, so there is less need for those people. Mid rise is as high as buildings should go. London already dwarfs our famous landmarks! 

Look at empty offices and shops. Convert them! And where are all these people coming from. Barely a word of English is being spoken.

Literally thousands of flats have been built around me. All full iimmediately !!!!!!! Yet not 1 new doctors surgery or dentist or school. We are swamped!!!!! 

We must reduce housing demand by reducing the population.  We must stop all immigration whether legal or illegal.  We must end the "indefinite leave to remain" racket.   There is no point in building new homes because we do not have the infrastructure to support any new homes.  Schools, hospitals, water, electricity, doctors, dentists, roads, public transport are all insufficient to support any new homes.

New affordable homes need sufficient play and greenspace associated with them. London needs to be a green and welcoming city - access to nature for wellbeing is vital when creating new homes and new neighbourhoods. These places need to be nurtured and cared for involving the community. Servicing and secure cycle parking for a sustainable future is also necessary. 

Increasing supply of housing and flats is good, but there are three key things to ensure that housing becomes cheaper.

1. As far as possible, the new housing built should be publicly owned and controlled, and designed for low-price renting. This will provide competition against private landlords to lower rent prices.
2. Leaving properties vacant should be penalised. A favourite solution of economists of all political persuasions is a Land Value Tax, which taxes the value of the land owned if there was no developments on it whatsoever. This would force landlords to lower rent prices to a point where they have to have a tenant, so otherwise they are financially penalised. It encourages building stuff to pay the tax rather than leave it vacant and pay tax. Anyone owning one home can be exempted, but a Land Value Tax of 10% would also reduce the total mortgageable value by 10%. Check studies in Denmark on the policy's feasibility and lack of effect on rent prices.
3. There should be some form of rent control with regards to how much landlords can raise rents, year on year. This has worked in other countries with a supplementary increase in housing.

Flats are fine provided the rooms are a decent size and there are lifts which work. No balconies which encourage young tearaways. 

My son loves and works in Kenya, but he is not allowed to own land there because he is not a Kenya citizen.  The land on which he and his wife have built their house belongs to her, because she is a Kenya citizen.  

When the Library in Willesden Green was rebuilt a few years ago, half the land was sold to pay the cost of the rebuilding.  It was bought by investors who are not UK citizens, who have built expensive rental flats there.  The UK should have the same law as Kenya has.  We should not allow foreigners to buy land here.   

It is important for people’s mental health and well-being for them to be able to access undeveloped land (eg fields, woodland etc) to walk in near to where they live. Also for those people living in flats or other types of homes without their own outdoor space to be able to walk to and spend time in safe outdoor space that includes green areas as well as play equipment.  

In designing new housing, developers need to make sure there are green spaces accessible to local people, and green walkways and cycle paths to join up such green spaces to create safe places to exercise away from street traffic.

Affordable homes should be big enough for families with three or four children, so each such home should have at least 3 bedrooms.  Blocks of affordable flats should not be more than 3 storeys high.

First buyer homes seem crucial. Many new developments end up being entirely held up for rent and that firstly destroys communities by ensuring that noone sticks around for long enough, but also makes the bridge into buying a home much more difficult as there are few opportunities.

Buying is insentivised for multiple home owners who then rent these out at a premium, allowing the richest in London to remain rich, while the poor end up paying their salaries

Top priority should be given to making empty council owned properties (sometime employ for decades) available for redevelopment. 

Building should never be on greenfield land or the greenbelt.  There is already plenty of disused space on London streets.  The new homes should all be for rent - and affordable rent.  

Climate change is accelerating. It's crucial to bear that in mind, together with other key crises like loss of biodiversity and air/water pollution, so there's a need to plan for mitigation and adaptation (increased resilience). Sealevel rise/flooding will mean parts of London will become uninhabitable. There's a need for more community buildings in London, more greenery to help absorb heat waves and flooding (as well as take up carbon and increase wildlife, including precious pollinating insects), more features for wellbeing such as free outdoor gyms.  

The first requirement of housing is that it should be safe. Regulations must not be scrapped or skimped in the rush to build. The first requirement of developers and landlords is that they should be honest and  fair and that builders should be competent . Is that too much to ask?