Will the next London Plan rise to the city’s real challenges?

You could be forgiven for thinking, following Sadiq Khan’s volte face on building in the green belt, that Londoners would be all over this issue like a rash. Far from it, if the mood among members of the London Society and the London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies at a meeting convened on 13 May is anything to go by.

The two leading London societies wanted to give members the opportunity to respond to the emerging strategy by the capital’s planners, set out in the recently published mayor of London’s consultation document, Towards a New London Plan. Our meeting was the first public presentation in the roll-out of consultation by the mayor’s planning team – quite a coup.

I took the chair, and we heard from Jules Pipe, deputy mayor of housing and  regeneration and Lisa Fairmaner, head of London Plan and growth strategies at the Greater London Authority. Both were frank about the challenges facing the capital and open to views from Londoners.

Indeed, the consultation does not seek reactions to a draft plan, rather it sets out a wide range pf possibilities to stimulate discourse. There were expert challenges from planners Dr Riette Oosthuizen and Mike Kiely and of course some trenchant reactions from our audience.

The planning process lags behind market changes and seems incapable of delivering the homes that meet perceived need

You will be hearing a lot about the emerging London Plan reflecting the national government’s priorities for housing and driving the economy. In the capital, that translates to 880,000 new homes over a 10-year period with the prospect of significant urban extensions into the green belt and development on metropolitan open land – golf courses in particular.

The occasion was a chance for knowledgeable citizens from diverse backgrounds, who share a concern for the wellbeing of Londoners and an understanding of the impact of development in their neighbourhoods, to air their views and hereis a taste of what we heard. The pent-up frustration was palpable.

We were told that 23 of the 33 London boroughs had zero housing starts in the first three months of this year. Faced with that, Londoners need to know that the plan will translate to delivery of outcomes which meet their needs.

We heard that standards and regulation in the capital are ill-suited to the task of getting the right kind of housing built in the right place – or worse, are actually stymying development.

The meeting heard profound scepticism that the new homes target reflects reality and whether there is the industrial capacity to deliver the numbers. The planning process lags behind market changes and seems incapable of delivering the homes that meet perceived need.

What developers can stack up, and what tourists and overseas investors can afford, seems a far cry from Londoners’ needs, aspirations and lived experience.

Challenged on the delivery of improved public transport infrastructure, the GLA clearly acknowledges that planned improvements can sometimes seem like a moveable feast. There is acute awareness of the creaking nature of London’s supply of power and water too.

Londoners are increasingly impatient about under-investment from our statutory undertakings and the intrusions on their lives of failures and upgrade work. In any event, there is a widespread clamour for improvements.

Aside from doubts about delivering on housing supply, some audience members clearly felt there is anyway too much emphasis on building new homes. There needs to be more focus on occupying and reusing existing buildings and on improving the way in which the population fits existing stock, rebalancing overcrowding and under-occupation.

In any event, it was pointed out that the market has run away from affordability and the time for reintroduction of rent control has already passed.

We heard dismay from some at the high-rise clusters emerging in their neighbourhoods and at the concentration of new neighbours, especially students, living in them. A less exaggerated differential was called for between the extreme densities in some “opportunity areas” and surrounding suburban streetscapes where more interwoven intensification might be possible. The idea of reviving Croydon’s “small sites supplementary planning guidance” across London was welcomed. 

There needs to be more focus on occupying and reusing existing buildings and on improving the way in which the population fits existing stock, rebalancing overcrowding and under-occupation

Among all this, there was an acceptance of possibly substantial urban extensions into the green belt. The importance of sustainable density and suitable infrastructure provision was noted, but the necessity of such development had clearly been understood among members of our societies long before it was accepted by London’s planners. It was suggested that we should manage the expectation that London should expand a little in a well-planned way.

Wrapping up, Leanne Tritton who chairs the London Society, called on members to work together on a vision of how we want our capital city to be. As president of the London Forum, I reiterated this point, urging a positive campaign amongst civic and amenity societies identifying ways in which their neighbourhoods should develop in the future.

Jules Pipe spoke of a diverse polycentric city – and we owe it to ourselves to help London’s planners clarify how that should be.