The London Housing Crisis: Questioning the ‘Build, build, build’ narrative

 

The first stage of the huge Northwick Park development taking shape. Photo taken today from Northwick Park station platform

 

Earlier this month the CPRE held an-online meeting entitled,  'Is Government taking London's housing crisis seriously?' with Zoe Garbett (Green Party AM and former London Mayoral candidate) and Michael Ball of Just Space speaking. 

With London's housing crisis likely to be a major local election issue in 2026 and the subject of much debate on Wembley Matters I thought it was worth posting the video of the CPRE meeting. 

The video begins with a  presentation by Alice Roberts and Grace Harrison-Porter of the CPRE, followed by a talk by Zoe Garbett at 10.18 and presentation and talk by Michael Ball at 26.00.

In my view the video is well worth watching as a contribution to the debate. It covers issues including affordability, fiancial viability assessments, council house sales, rent controls, estate demolition versus refurbishment and much more. A discussion of Land Value Tax would have been a useful addition. 

Some challenging issues are raised and potential solutions suggested. PDFs of the presentations are available CPRE HERE and JUST SPACE HERE

 

At the same time the CPRE published a very challenging list of 'Housing Crisis Myths'. Thanks to CPRE for this information and video LINK.

 

Myth 1: There are not enough houses for everyone

The census has shown there is more than enough property for the population. In Croydon, the total number of dwellings has increased by 39% since 1971, despite population growth of just 13% over the same period, but house prices have still gone up.

Existing housing stock is not always well distributed – for example, some homes are underoccupied, some are overcrowded, some are second homes, many are empty. Also, some parts of the country have more demand pressure than others. But actually, the crisis is about the price of homes, not the quantity.

 

Myth 2: Building more homes will solve the housing crisis

House prices have spiralled as a consequence of high demand, fuelled by low interest rates, public subsidies, such as Help to Buy, and the purchase of property for investment.

At the same time, the selling-off of social housing has forced many people into the private rental sector. In the absence of rent controls, this has pushed rental prices up too.

Successive governments have allowed, even helped, housing to become ‘financialised’, meaning it is treated as an investment, with an expectation that it will deliver a return. This means homeowners can profit but it also means housing ultimately become unaffordable. Most countries regulate their housing markets to avoid homes being treated as assets, on the understanding that housing is essential and it’s not in the common interest that it becomes too expensive.

 

Myth 3: Building more houses will drive down house prices

The ‘supply and demand’ argument is often used to bolster this myth. But one study suggests that building 300,000 homes a year in England for 20 years would reduce prices by only 10%.

The fact is this logic doesn’t work if demand stays high. And, despite years of adding to housing stock, prices are not coming down. They continue to go up because, in the absence of market intervention, people will pay whatever they have to because they need a home.

 

Myth 4: The planning system is broken

Actually, the planning system is working well. Planning permissions are being granted. London Councils, which represents London boroughs, highlights the 283,000 potential new homes already granted planning permission in London and waiting to be built. The build rate for the past five years is roughly 38,000 so that’s seven and a half years’ supply.

Politicians like to blame the planning system, but in reality it is doing its job. In fact, giving councils more powers and capacity to work with developers could help bring appropriate development forward more quickly.

But the real solutions to the housing crisis have nothing to do with planning. This narrative is a red herring. The real solutions lie in building social housing, ending Right to Buy, bringing empty homes back into use and controlling the private rented sector. In other words, the real solutions lie in tackling the real causes.

 

Myth 5: There isn’t enough land – we need to build on green fields

Local authorities are allocating sites in their Local Plans – many more than can be built on in the next 20 years. So, allocating more land does not translate into more houses being built. It just gives developers a wider choice of sites.

Plus, urban land is constantly recycled, so brownfield sites are available. CPRE research shows there’s space for at least 1.2 million homes on previously developed land and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

Myth 6: Private housebuilders will build affordable housing

Housebuilders are often required to provide a quota of ‘affordable’ housing (not necessarily social rent) in a development. But the number they end up building is usually scaled back when developers say their costs have risen.

Some affordable housing can be delivered via private sector housebuilding. But realistically, the building of social housing will have to be publicly funded if we are going to come close to solving the housing crisis.

This is the only way to reduce the vast sums of money councils are spending on temporary accommodation – a situation that is not just costly but will have lifetime impacts on the people in it. Government can make this more financially viable by building on land already in public ownership (see myth 8 below).

 

Myth 7: Building on the Green Belt will solve the crisis

Building on Green Belt won’t lead to more houses being built and it won’t speed up house building. The speed at which the market delivers is related to what it thinks it can sell, as well as constraints like lack of labour, materials and financing.

And it won’t deliver affordable housing. Green Belt developments are rarely affordable – they are expensive ‘executive homes’ in unsustainable locations, marketed for people on high incomes who can afford cars. New roads, and new water and power infrastructure all have to be built, so there’s no money left for affordable homes.

Building on Green Belt is the worst of all worlds – we tear up the countryside, with a massive environmental impact, and fail to solve the housing crisis.

 

Myth 8: Parts of the Green Belt are grey

Even where Green Belt is unattractive, “low-value scrub land”, there is no reason it can’t be restored. Planning authorities are required to improve sites that require it and even scrubland is a much-valued wildlife habitat.

This kind of misleading statement hinders progress by driving speculative purchase of Green Belt, which pushes land prices up further. Plus, the Green Belt is increasingly valuable in tackling the climate and nature crises.

Also, there is a real grey belt – car parks and road layouts, often in town centres, that take up huge amounts of space while underpinning car-centred travel. This forces disinvestment in public transport and has social, health and environment impacts.

Ironically, the real answer to the housing crisis lies in the real grey belt – national and local government owns 7,555 hectares of surface car parks. That’s enough land to build 2.1 million low-cost homes. Crucially, there is no cost for the land, so new homes are much cheaper to build.

Housing developments on town centre car parks could be built without car parking, so won’t worsen traffic further. People who don’t drive or own a car can live close to amenities. The reduction in car parking encourages more people onto buses. This makes them more financially viable, so more frequent services and new routes can be introduced. A win-win scenario.

 

Myth 9: Those who challenge the housebuilding policy are NIMBYs

CPRE London, like others given this label, strongly agrees that we need to build new homes. But the crisis is one of affordability, so we challenge the idea that increasing housing supply (building more houses) alone will bring down the cost of rent or house prices. This does not make us ‘NIMBYs’.

 

Myth 10: There’s nothing I can do to help

Yes, the housing situation in London is dire. And it might seem like there’s little we can do. But by learning more about the real causes and the real solutions, talking to people and encouraging them to challenge the build, build, build narrative, slowly we might be able to affect change.

Comments that keep to the topic welcome.

Charities Commission: 'No further action at this time' on Barham Park Trustees but concerns remain on file

 A member of the public has received the following response from The Charities Commission after expressing concern about the sale of the restrictive covenant to George Irvin by Barham Park Trustees.  I understand that this is not the first complaint made to the ommission about the conduct of the trustees.

 

The covenant sale and Baham Park operational matters are the subject of a Scrutiny Call-in by opposition councillors on Thursday.

A petition to Brent Council on these matters had reached 510 signatures  at the time of publication of this article.  PETITION

Thames Water Chief Finance Officer Quits Days After Citizen’s Arrest

 From Citizens Arrest Network

It was announced on Friday that Thames Water Chief Financial Officer, Alastair Cochran, has quit his post at the private utility company with immediate effect just ten days after he was placed under citizen’s arrest.

On Tuesday 18 March, Rachel Whyte, accompanied by two other women from Citizens Arrest Network, entered Thames Water headquarters in Reading and informed staff they were there to place Cochran, as well as Thames Water CEO Chris Weston, under citizen’s arrest for multiple counts of Public Nuisance. The charges related to unsafe infrastructure and drinking water, mismanagement of customer funds, as well as the illegal discharge of sewage. Cochran and Weston refused to come down and speak with Whyte. However, Citizens Arrest Network informed Thames Valley police of the citizen’s arrests and they attended the scene, taking draft indictment papers and an evidence dossier detailing the accusations against Cochran and Weston upstairs to deliver to the two executives.

Thames, which supplies drinking water for around twenty-five percent of the UK, has been accused by staff members of knowingly withholding funds for essential water treatment chemicals, thereby placing drinking water supplies for their customers in peril and forcing employees to break their professional contracts to protect customers, with Cochran specifically named in the accusations. 

The arrest took place as households across the UK expect an average 25% increase in their water bills, while in 2024 Cochran was paid £1.3m, including a bonus of £446,000. 

Rachel Whyte, who placed Cochran under citizen’s arrest and is now, along with Citizens Arrest Network, pursuing the charges of public nuisance against him, said:

 

Last week I placed Alastair Cochran under citizen’s arrest for causing a public nuisance, by polluting our rivers and putting our drinking water at risk. I did it because I wanted Alastair, and other executives of the biggest polluting companies, to know that even if the government won’t hold them to account, ordinary people will.

The fact that Alastair has quit as Thames Water Chief Financial Officer, is a big win for Citizens Arrest Network but it doesn’t end here. Our legal system needs to do its job and hold these people to account, no matter how big their salaries or how influential they are. No one should be above the law.

The statement from Thames Water announced that Cochran would be out of post by Monday 31 March, though they did not offer any explanation for his abrupt departure.

The citizen’s arrests on the two Thames Water executives were followed by a further six citizen’s arrests on the leadership of four of the UKs biggest oil and gas companies, including Serica Energy Corporate Affairs Officer, Stephen Lambert, Chief Executive Officer Harbour Energy and former Shell Gas & Power CEO, Linda Z Cook, Enquest Chief Financial Officer, Jonathan Copus, Enquest CEO, Amjad Bseisu, Perenco CFO, Gilles d'Argouges and Perenco Group General Council, Jonathan Parr. [4] [5]

Draft indictment papers and evidence dossiers detailing the accusations against all eight of those placed under citizen’s arrest were submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service. Further Draft indictment papers and evidence dossiers relating to accusations of public nuisance against other oil and gas company executives have also been submitted, including for the CEOs of Shell and BP.

Brent SEND provision receives positive Ofsted report with some significant areas for improvement

 Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission inspected Brent children's special needs and disability provision  between 27th January and 31st January 2025 and their report has now been published.

Generally the service is doing well but there are significant areas for improvement including long waits for children needing neurodevelopmental assessments, diagnosis and provision,  delays in home equipment assessments  needs and the timeliness and uptake of the mandated antenatal check and six- to eight-week reviews.

SUMMARY

The local area partnership’s special educational needs and/or disability (SEND)

arrangements typically lead to positive experiences and outcomes for children and young people with SEND. The local area partnership is taking action where improvements are needed.

 

What is the area partnership doing that is effective?

 

◼ Leaders across the partnership understand very well the needs of children and young people with SEND and their families. They have high ambitions and a relentless focus to continue to improve services for children and young people who have SEND. They frequently review the experiences of children and young people and take swift action to address and manage need. There is a strong strategic partnership working, and leaders take highly effective innovative approaches to planning and supporting needs.

One example of this is the development of a new continence service, as this was previously lacking in the offer for children and young people with SEND.

◼ Leaders across the local area partnership work extremely collaboratively with children and young people with SEND, parents and carers, and key stakeholders to develop and review key strategies, policies, action plans and services. These include the Brent parent carer forum (BPCF), SEND information, advice and support service

(SENDIASS) and education partners. Leaders greatly value their feedback, contributions and involvement to improve services for children and young people with SEND. For example, the local area partnership invested to develop a fully inclusive social club requested by children and young people with SEND. The young people’s forum identified resources in the community to provide many inclusive social and leisure activities.

◼ Leaders across the partnership work well to plan and commission services jointly to meet the increasing needs of children and young people in the local area. They use data effectively to help the wider partnership identify and respond to need. This makes sure that there is a robust service to support children and young people with SEND across education, health and social care. For example, there has been significant investment in resources which includes new education provision, increasing the speech and language offer and improving the social care transitions pathway.

◼ Children and young people with SEND who access the disabled children and young people’s service receive a highly effective offer. Social workers understand the needs of children and young people with SEND very well. They provide individualised care to help keep children and young people with SEND in their local communities. When needs escalate, children and young people with SEND are provided with the right care in specialist residential settings.

◼ There is a strong commitment from leaders across the local area partnership to address health inequalities for children and young people with SEND in Brent. The local area partnership works cohesively with Brent Health Matters to provide targeted interventions to engage with families. An example of this is the proactive approach by leaders to provide information to communities for whom education is harder to access so they can educate them about SEND with the aim of reducing stigma. Further work has been carried out to improve access to oral hygiene services and raise awareness about the benefits of vaccinations for children and young people with SEND.

◼ The dynamic support register is well established and embedded across health, education and social care systems to support children and young people with SEND who are most at risk of hospital admission. Professionals from multi-agencies have effective discussions to share knowledge and raise awareness of wider support networks. These contribute to making sure the needs of children and young people with SEND are supported in a timely and appropriate manner. Children and young people with SEND who are at risk of admission to hospital or placement breakdown are referred for support from a key worker and the positive behaviour service, which are transformational for children and young people with SEND.

◼ For children and young people with SEND who are electively home educated or are educated otherwise than at school, there is a very well-coordinated approach between professionals from multi-agencies to secure positive outcomes. For example, the portage team works very effectively with the early help team to support children and their families to access services. This includes providing support to access health appointments, food banks and assessments. Children and young people with SEND who are educated otherwise than at school have a good range of packages in place to support their learning and development, which includes therapeutic support where needed.

◼ There are a range of services and support groups within Brent that provide families with support and guidance. For example, the family well-being hubs provide a range of community-led services for families and their children in areas such as education, health and well-being. SENDIASS, along with the BPCF, provide invaluable advice and support to parents they greatly appreciate.

 

What does the area partnership need to do better?

 

◼ Case officers do not update most children and young people’s education, health and care plans (EHC plan) in a timely way after annual reviews except for the most vulnerable. This means that children and young people’s plans do not accurately reflect their current needs. In most cases, any potential negative impact on children and young people with SEND is mitigated by case officers ensuring updated assessments and relevant information on a child or young person’s progress, such as social care and health reports, including annual review paperwork, are appropriately shared across the system to ensure that effective decisions are made. The lack of updating does not negatively impact the support a child or young person with SEND receives, including when they move to a new setting. Leaders have suitable plans in place to address this issue.

◼ Children and young people with SEND experience lengthy wait times for neurodevelopmental diagnostic assessments and specialist therapeutic interventions.

CAMHS have made progress to reduce the time that children and young people with SEND wait through investment in resources such as additional clinicians. For example, they use artificial intelligence to reduce the administration time taken to produce reports. Further to this, they have developed a post-diagnostic website to support those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Leaders across the partnership have suitable action plans in place to reduce the time children and young people with SEND wait for support from CAMHS.

◼ Children and young people with SEND wait too long for assessment of their home equipment needs by social services occupational therapists. This means they do not receive specialist equipment in a timely manner.

◼ Children who require an assessment by the community paediatric service experience long waits to have their needs assessed. Those who are assessed and require a neurodevelopmental diagnostic assessment, experience a further wait. Although parents are signposted to the Local Offer for parenting groups and support services, they still wait too long. Despite leaders’ efforts to reduce wait times, the current service remains unable to meet current needs.

◼ Due to capacity issues in the health visiting team, the service is not reaching desired levels of antenatal or six-week checks. This limits the opportunities for health clinicians to swiftly identify need at the earliest opportunity, although an action plan is in place to address this.

 

Areas for improvement

 

The local area partnership should update EHC plans in a timely manner after annual reviews and at significant points of transition to make sure that EHC plans reflect the current needs of the children and young people with SEND accurately.

 

The local area partnership should improve the timeliness and uptake of the mandated antenatal check and six- to eight-week review.

 

NHS North West London ICB should reduce the lengthy wait times that children and young people with SEND experience for neurodevelopmental diagnostic assessments, specialist therapeutic interventions in CAMHS, and community paediatrician assessments. The local area partnership should reduce the lengthy wait times that children and young people with SEND experience for assessments of their home equipment needs.

Barham Park Trustees' deal with George Irvin to enable building in Barham Park at Scrutiny Committee on Thursday

 

The pair of park workers' cottages purchased by George Irvin in 2011

 The four 3 storey houses given planning permission by Brent Council on the site
 

The decision by Barham Park Trustees Committee, consisting wholly of Brent Cabinet members, to apply to the Charity Commission for removal of the restrictive covenants on development in Barham Park goes to Brent's Resource and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee on Thursday April 3rd. Some operational matters will also be under consideration.

The development is of two park workers'  cottages purchased by fair ground owner and developer George Irvin for £310,000 in 2011. The property included restrictive covenants designed to protect the park left by Titus Barham for the benefit of the people of Wembley.

Subsequently Irvin put forward several schemes for the redevelopment of the site and the above was approved by Brent Planning Committee - but subject to the covenants.

Barham Park Trustees then negotiated with Irvin on the modification or discharge of the covenants to enable the development to go ahead and agreed a sum of £200,000 to go to Trust funds.

That agreement is subject to approval by the Charity Commissioners.

Opposition parties have called in the issues for further consideration by the Scrutiny Committee which is able to approve one of three possible outcomes:

1. The Committee does not wish to refer the matters back to the decision maker or to the Barham Park Trust Committee, at which point the decision is deemed to be confirmed and takes effect immediately following the call-in meeting; or

2. The Committee decides to ask the Barham Park Trust Committee to reconsider the decisions made, in light of any observations of the Committee; or

3. Having had regard to the advice of the Director of Law or Corporate Director of Finance & Resources, the Committee considers the decision is contrary to the Council’s Budget or Policy Framework, at which point it refers the matter to the next practicable meeting of the Council, subject to the provisions of Standing Orders.

 

Members of the public at Barham Park Trustees meeting in September 2023 where Chair of Trustees, and Brent Council Leader, Muhammed Butt refused to hear speakers on the development and covenant issues.

 

Concerns have been expressed that other Brent parks could come under threat of development if this scheme goes  ahead so proceedings will be watched closely. The Barham family have supported the campaign against development and 481 people had signed the Support Barham Park petition below at time of publication:

We the undersigned petition the council to listen to local residents, users and supporters of Barham Park and for the Barham Park Trust and Brent Council to respect the wishes of Titus Barham who gifted his home and gardens for our recreation, by upholding the Covenant which prevents the building of extra houses on the site of 776/778 Harrow Road and to continue to refuse any attempts to modify or discharge the restrictive covenants to increase the numbers of homes on the site of 776/778 Harrow Road. 

The two cottages were built for the purpose of housing park keepers (gardeners and other staff) working in the Park and not to provide general housing. As the existing houses have not been used for that purpose for years we the undersigned feel there is a valid argument for their removal and for the park land to be reinstated with no valid justification to expand the number of houses from 2 to 4.

 

The 2011 Land Transfer to George Irvin that includes reference to the covenants:

 

The meeting will be in the Grand Hall, Brent Civic Centre at 6pm on Thursday April 3rd  and livestreamed HERE.

Save East Lane Theatre, Wembley, from destruction. Don't delay - sign the petition today.

 

East Lane Theatre in Wembley faced with closure after a  proposed giganic rent increase by Brent Council has launched a petition:

 

We the undersigned petition the council to reconsider the rent increase of circa 5000% on the current rent of £1,500 per annum on our small, volunteer run theatre. An affordable rent for East Lane Theatre Company (ELTC), a valuable community asset, would ensure it can continue to serve the community of Brent.

 

East Lane Theatre Club (ELTC) has been in residence at the Vale Farm Tennis Pavilion since the early 1960s. ELTC have developed a theatre on the site and maintain & insure the buildings with no council funding. Although recognising the obligations on ELTC under the current lease to maintain the site on which the theatre is located, it is the theatre rather than the Council which has ensured the site remains in good order for many years.

 

ELTC were in negotiation over our lease renewal with Brent prior to their new Property Strategy being published with the Strategy having subsequently led to what the Club now feels is an unjustifiable high increase in their rental charge.

 

We the undersigned feel that Brent’s new Property Strategy should therefore make allowance for buildings that have a specific role and are used by the community also, in the case of ELTC, recognising the link to Brent’s Cultural Strategy.

 

The Club provides theatre at an affordable price, it supports its members’ wellbeing and provides a safe place to explore new skills. It entertains and supports residents unable to afford West End ticket prices or travel to the West End, with other similar local theatres in Greater London and other areas supported by their Councils.

 

We urge the Council to reconsider the way in which the Property Strategy has been applied to ELTC in order to avoid the theatre being destroyed by a rent hike it just cannot afford.

 

This ePetition runs from 09/02/2025 to 11/05/2025.

 

SIGN HERE

 

 

UPDATE: Brent Council's housing companies report tonight - positives and risks

 UPDATE: I hoped to report on the discussion of this item at last night's meeting but the live stream was not resumed for some time after a break in the meeting. The 'silent' period was when the discussion of the items below took place so I shall have to wait for the minutes to record any key points.

 

Brent Council owns two companies that act in the housing market on the Council's behalf. Tonight they report at the Standards and Audit Committee on their activities and financial position.

Elsewhere in London such companies have had financial difficulties so the Committee will be interested in their situation.

 

i4B (Investment for Brent) report:

At our last meeting in September, we raised the issue that i4B was likely to use up its remaining funding by the end of the financial year, and both then and since, received helpful signals that further funding would be available to support good acquisition prospects. Assuming that is still the case, the company will continue to look out for such prospects

 

With a profit forecast, excluding tax, for the year, the company is in a healthy cash position, so there is no risk of insufficient liquidity to carry out its normal business activities. However, if i4B Ltd is to engage in future refurbishment projects, e.g. Granville, they will require a cash injection from the London Borough of Brent  as the business plan for 2025/26 onwards shows a risk that the company’s cash position could be overdrawn.

 

As of January 2025 i4B has housed and discharged the Council’s housing duty to 504 families and 1138 children. The majority of these families were previously housed in stage one TA [Temporary Accommodation]. The number of families housed is higher than i4B’s PRS portfolio due to a number of families moving on to other accommodation, with new families moving in.

 

The main risks the company faces are detailed below:

 Poor rent collection performance due to unaffordability of rent for tenants

 High void turnaround times, costs and rent loss lead to financial losses for i4B

 High capital programme costs, including stock condition, energy efficiency and decarbonisation expenditure, adversely affect the company business plan

 Company cash flow (capital and revenue) is insufficient to manage expenditure

 i4B does not effectively manage its contract for the remote management of Home Counties properties, leading to poor performance and risk to tenant satisfaction

 Challenges in the regulatory and external environment

PRS is Private Rented Sector

I queried the figures below as they clearly do not add up but I had not had a reply from Brent before delayed publication. Possibly 4 bed+ should be 156 but that is subject to clarification. UPDATE: Brent Council confirmed today March 26th that the correct 4 bed figure is 56 making the overall figure if 465 correct.

i4B has a profit forecast of under £1m for 2024-25 compared with £1.39m  the previous year. It has a net rental income of £10.279m.

First Wave Housing has similar risks:

The main risks the company faces are detailed below:

 Poor rent collection performance due to unaffordability of rent for tenants

 High void turnaround times, costs and rent loss lead to financial losses for FWH

 High capital programme costs, including stock condition and energy efficiency expenditure, adversely affect the company business plan.

Brent Council has agreed the acquisition of 294 units of the Fulton Road development that is currently under construction. 118 of the units will be leased to First Wave subject to financial review and approval by the First Wave Board. They will be let at London Living Rent. 

First Wave  has an operating surplus of £0.508m and a net rental income of £3.41m. 

 

I asked about the 'Settled Homes' category above and was told that:

Settled Homes are a form of long-term temporary accommodation. They are let on assured shorthold tenancies, and have a target rent of the affordable rent level (80% of market rent).

So very few of the homes above are at social rent and none at council rent.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you bit for wildlife! Hedge Planting at Bush Farm, Kingsbury this weekend Noon to 4pm

 

From Bush Farm Collective

 

COME ALONG TO BUSH FARM 

On the 22nd and 23rd of March in-between 12 and 4pm
For our community planting project
All ages welcome!

This will be our 1st project of the year and certainly a special one as it will provide new homes for our beloved wildlife.

Get to know what's coming up this year and how you can get involved!! Community is the key!

Cakes and refreshments on site 

Don't forget your wellies, we can supply spades but they are limited so please feel free to bring your own.

We advise walking or getting public transport, 302 or 83 bus.

We look forward to planting and meeting you! 

 

Purple pin marks the path into Fryent Country Park and Bush Farm. Bus stops on Church Lane, NW9.

 

 

Greens: London’s housing market is broken. It’s designed for the wealthy to profit while Londoners suffer. Overseas investment makes it worse.

During today’s Mayor’s Question Time (MQT), Zoë Garbett, Green Party London Assembly Member, raised concerns about the Mayor’s London Growth Plan – published last month – specifically highlighting his heavy reliance on overseas investment to address the city’s housing crisis. Zoë told the Mayor that this would only continue to exacerbate the issue of housing inequality in the city. 

In response, the Mayor defended his position, saying, “we do want foreign investment for the simple reason that there has not been enough investment from the Government.”

Reflecting on the Mayor’s response, Zoë Garbett AM says: 

London’s housing market is broken. It’s designed for the wealthy to profit while Londoners suffer. Overseas investment is not a solution to the housing crisis – in fact, it’s made the situation worse.

It’s telling that the Mayor has admitted he’s forced to rely on overseas investment while the Labour government refuses to provide essential public funds for housing. What kind of message does that send about priorities? Londoners deserve better than to be left at the mercy of speculative overseas money.

With 40% of Londoners’ wages going to rent, 60,000 families stuck in temporary accommodation, social housing waiting lists at a ten year high and 300,000 homes approved but not built, it’s clear the current system is not working.

Sky-high rents and the cost of living crisis are leaving schools struggling to stay open and driving families out of the city they call home. 

Without a meaningful shift in government policy and funding, London’s housing market will continue to serve the interests of a wealthy few.