Response to London Plan Consultation

In its response to the consultation on the new London Plan, the Society questions the arbitrary assumptions which have led the Government to set a target of building 880k new homes across London in the next ten years. We stress that the target is not based on any assessment of housing need, and we urge the Mayor to undertake such an assessment before any new Plan is submitted to the Government for approval. We also express concern about the feasibility of building so many new homes, at a time when rising costs, funding shortages, the supply of skilled workers, new building and fire regulations and other issues have led to developments amounting to more than 300k homes have been granted planning consent but remain unbuilt.

We support the emphasis on building on brownfield sites, and we agree with the Mayor that investments in infrastucture, especially public transport, are needed to unlock the possibility for new homes on large sites. But the results of the Government’s Spending Review mean that such investments will be difficult to achieve.

We also support the priority given to new affordable homes, especially for social rent; and we stress the importance of providing more family-sized homes, rather than the small one-bedroom units that are cheaper to build but do not necessarily meet the needs of London’s population as a whole, or the need to build and sustain balanced and cohesive communities.

On key issues such as tall buildings and their location; housing for students, people who are disabed, and older people; developments in town centres and on high streets; and other issues where local character and knowledge is of the utmost importance, we stress the need for the Mayor to avoid a dirigiste one-size-fits-all approach that does not meet the varying needs of London’s communitieis.

We comment on a wide range of other issues including logistics, freight and commercial deliveries; parking; e-bikes; open spaces and environmental issues; and much more. You can read the Society’s response in full here.