Perspectives on London's housing emergency - affordable homes supply and threshold, CIL relief for developers, reduced powers of councils

 Below are three different perspectives that feed into the debate about how to address London's current housing emergency.

From the London Assembly

Rising costs, funding constraints and a lack of strategic focus are slowing the delivery of the affordable homes Londoners need most, particularly family-sized and accessible homes.

A new report from the London Assembly Housing Committee – Assessing delivery, needs and challenges of the Mayor’s Affordable Homes – warns that London’s affordable housing system is failing to keep pace with need, despite public investment through the Mayor’s Affordable Homes Programme. Delivery under the current programme has been slow, with 64 per cent of homes still to be started as of September 2025, less than a year before the programme is due to end in March 2026.

The Committee found that certain types of homes are in particularly short supply. Family-sized social rent homes and accessible homes for Deaf and Disabled Londoners are not being delivered at the scale required, leaving many families trapped in overcrowded or unsuitable accommodation. The report also raises concerns about the lack of progress in delivering sites for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and the growing pressure on supported housing providers.

To address this, the Committee calls for a more targeted approach to funding affordable housing. Key recommendations include increasing grant rates and setting clear targets for family-sized and accessible homes under the 2026–36 Affordable Homes Programme, so that public investment better reflects London’s most urgent housing needs.

Other recommendations in the report include:

·          improving support for councils to acquire existing homes for social rent, as a faster way to increase supply

·           requiring better monitoring and reporting on homes delivered for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, to ensure commitments translate into delivery

·          securing sustainable funding for supported housing, including revenue funding alongside capital investment

Chair of the London Assembly Housing Committee, Zoë Garbett AM (Green Party), said:

London’s housing crisis is hitting families and disabled Londoners hardest, yet the homes they need most are the ones least likely to be built. The report highlights that delivery has slowed sharply since 2023, at the same time as demand for genuinely affordable housing continues to rise.

Evidence to the Committee showed that rising construction costs, high land prices, increased borrowing costs and new building safety requirements have all reduced the capacity of councils and housing associations to bring forward new homes. Without changes to how funding is allocated, the report warns that delivery under the next Affordable Homes Programme risks falling further behind.

Menwhile Brent Council reacted to Government and London Mayor proposals on the Housing Emergency that included reducing the affordable housing threshold and temporary relief on the amount of Community Infrastructure Levy required from developers.

Councillor Teo Benea, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Property published a statement on the Council's position:

While we support urgent action to unblock housing delivery, the current proposals risk doing the opposite in places like Brent, reducing the number of affordable homes delivered while significantly cutting the funding that pays for the infrastructure that our borough relies on.

Brent currently has 2,054 households living in temporary accommodation, and tens of thousands of residents on our housing register who will face waiting decades for an affordable home; unless grant funding for building new council homes is increased.

Lowering the effective affordable housing threshold and introducing substantial reductions in borough level Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) would remove vital investment in schools, future transport schemes like the West London Orbital, public realm improvements, as well as community and medical facilities, without addressing the real barriers to delivery.

Our submission is clear that Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) makes up only a small proportion of overall development costs, and that cutting it would have a disproportionate impact on Brent, particularly in areas that are already growing.

We want to work with Government to help realise their ambition of 1.5 million new homes, getting more families into secure and genuinely affordable housing, and supporting first time buyers onto the housing ladder.

That means introducing policies that increase delivery without undermining affordable housing, or stripping out the funding needed to support growing communities. We have submitted our formal response to both consultations, urging a rethink so we can deliver homes, infrastructure and opportunity together.

The Just Space Alliance, the campaign against the dominance of developers and landowners in planning, have written a detailed response that you can read HERE 

Here is a key extract:

Part 1: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Relief
 

We note that;

 Local authorities already set CIL levels to ensure developments can be viable and can choose not to charge CIL.
 

 Local authorities can already give Exceptional Circumstances Relief (ECR), if a scheme is unviable. This proposal would effectively over-ride local authority discretion.
 

 CIL is not cited as one of the causes of ‘non-viability’ (causes are Covid, high interest rates, construction and labour costs, new regulations, fall in demand for unaffordable housing).
 

 There is a danger that CIL relief will not be time limited, once introduced it will become the norm for financing developments.

We strongly object to the proposals for the following reasons

 If the Government allows both a significant reduction in CIL payments alongside consents that provide only 20% affordable housing this simply benefits landowners and developers with no corresponding public benefits. Land values will rise, driving up house prices and rents.

 These proposals would reduce the money that local authorities have to spend on essential improvements to the local area and providing social infrastructure for new and existing residents. Councils do not have the money to make up this shortfall, so it would have a long term impact on communities across London.
 

 The measures give priority to the delivery of ‘units’ rather than the sustainable development of appropriate homes addressing identified need – which is for social housing, not more unaffordable housing.
 

 The consultation contains no evidence of its necessity or effectiveness. It is extraordinary that the government has not provided its own financial modelling to support these proposals. The developer’s lobby have done so. It is deeply concerning that the affordable housing requirement may be reduced based on untested evidence provided by developers.

 If the govt wants to encourage developers building the homes we need, they could propose a reduction in CIL for schemes that commit to providing at least 35% affordable housing and for this to be the primary approach.
 

 The proposed £500,000 threshold discriminates against small schemes and the potential contribution of SMEs, which the Government purports to encourage.
 

 There would be no cut to Mayoral CIL. It is not clear why the boroughs are bearing the burden.

 The proposal for applications for CIL reductions to provide sufficient and truthful evidence to support viability modelling is welcomed. Information provided should be put into the public domain and the approach extended to apply to viability assessments used to reduce affordable housing contribution in planning applications.

Part 2: increasing Mayor’s powers to approve applications

The proposal is firstly to extend the Mayor’s power to ‘call in’ much smaller schemes of over 50 homes, but only if the borough intend to refuse the application – and the Mayor could then approve. Secondly it is proposed that the Mayor would be given additional powers to‘call in’ applications to build on the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) .

These powers are designed to over-ride potential refusals by local councils of inappropriate schemes – all too rare an occasion anyway (many boroughs haven’t refused any major
schemes for years).

Local decision-making by local planning authorities (and local planning committees) is essential for transparency, legitimacy, and local democracy. We do not consider it appropriate for the Mayor to be given the power to over-ride the local authority’s democratic decision making process for schemes smaller than 150 homes, which are essentially local matters. Similarly it is not appropriate to give the Mayor specific additional powers of approval over-riding boroughs in relation to sites which are within the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land. This would fundamentally upset the relationships set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

For these reasons we do not support a further extension of the Mayor’s call in powers.

In conclusion, we believe that the whoe package of measures - including those being concurrently consulted on by the Mayor - are fundamentally flawed, unevidenced, contradictory to the core principles and policies set out in the statutory London Plan, and therein fundamentally improper and open to legal challenge.

 

 

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.

Zoë Garbett AM demands answers from Met over Palestine policing

Police wave people through but later arrest them

 

From London Green Party Assembly member Zoë Garbett

Following this weekend’s disgraceful policing tactics from the Metropolitan Police against protestors organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) to urge the British government to stop arming Israel, Green Party London Assembly Member Zoë Garbett issued the following statement:

I’m outraged at the way the Met handled this weekend’s protest. Policing is about choices, and it was the Met’s choice to arrest peaceful protestors at such unnecessarily high rates. 

The Met cannot have it both ways: repeatedly changing where and how protests can occur, arresting people for breaching overly complex protest restrictions, and posting misleading public statements after the fact is not the way to facilitate protest.

The Met complains when protest groups don’t engage with them, yet when groups like Palestine Solidarity Campaign do work with them in good faith, it seems the Met can’t do the same.

I plan to confront the Met Commissioner directly over this weekend's events the next time he sits before the Assembly. Londoners deserve to know exactly who their police officers are protecting and serving.