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.

 

 

Green Party statement on the situation in Iran - solidarity with people of Iran who are risking their lives and opposition to US military intervention

Responding to the the repressive and violent crackdown on protesters by the Iranian regime, Dr Ellie Chowns MP, leader of the Parliamentary Green Party, said:

The Green Party stands in solidarity with the people of Iran, who are demonstrating extraordinary courage, putting their lives at risk, in order to protest against the despotic Iranian regime.

We defend the right to peaceful protest and demand that Iranians are granted freedom of speech; we acknowledge that these are human rights that the people of Iran – women and girls in particular – have spent many years fighting to achieve. Their determination and bravery in the face of brutality is nothing short of heroic.

The scale of repression and bloodshed with which the regime has responded to protests – killing hundreds of protestors, and cutting off Iranian citizens’ access to the internet and global communication – is intolerable, and we welcome the UK Government’s new sanctions against the regime. We urge the government to use every possible diplomatic, economic, and legal lever available to hold those responsible for the persecution of protestors to account.

The right to freedom of expression and the right to protest are fundamental. Enabling those rights to flourish unhindered inside Iran is essential if voices and parties who support democracy and human rights are to survive and shape the country’s future.

We strongly oppose US military intervention as this is likely to result in more deaths and chaos. The US record of interference in the Middle East is a sorry one, be it invading Iraq under false pretences with no post-war governance plan, or failures at proper nation-building in Afghanistan; American intervention has nearly always led to intensified regional instability. Instead, every effort should be made to use all other available levers to sanction Iran and to support those campaigning for human rights and freedom in Iran.

'Vote for Your Neighbour - Don't Vote Labour' Independents launch Brent Council election campaign

 

Independents did  comparatively well in the 2024 General Election, often as a result of publlic revulsion againt Labour's support for Israel's actions in Gaza.  Could that be followed through in the May 2026 Council election in Brent?

 Azif Zamir and James Rossi last week launched their campaign as Independents for Stonebridge with a challenge to Labour: 'Vote for Your Neighbour, Don't Vote Labour'. The campaign is based in the St Raph's Estate where Asif Zamir is a community activist. However, another estate, Stonebridge,  on the other side of the North Circulart, is also part of the ward and has seen the controversy around the future of the Bridge Park Complex. Can the pair build support there, too?

There have been Independent candidates in Brent in the past, some with a particular campaign theme such as support for motorists, others with a more personal following. None have succeeded in breaking through the three party monopoly.

But the times are different, the Labour Party has never been so unpopular nationally and its local candidates were chosen by outsiders,  depressing the rank and file. Brent Tories are engaged in open internal warfare and the Green Party with burgeoning numbers is preparing for its most serious campaign yet in Brent. Reform has been lurking in the shadows of our tube stations and Your Party is trying to get organised. Lib Dems have adopted a 'steady as it goes' approach concentrating on failing local services.

There have been Independents sitting on the Council previously, but these have always been as a result of suspension or expulsion from their party. John Duffy, acted as an Independent, even when a Labour councillor! However,  recently, in several parts of the country, councillors have resigned from Labour to form their own Independent Group while others have crossed the floor to the Greens.

Elsewhere Residents' Associations have stood candidates but this is unusual in London, although with matters so fluid it is a possibility - the council is not popular with many such bodies.

In Brent it is likely that parties to the left of Labour (everyone but Conservatives and Reform) will be speaking to each other so as not to split the vote against Labour and unwittingly allow Reform in. 

There is much to play for and interesting times ahead. 

 

 

Green Party Shows Strongest Broadcast Momentum of Any UK Political Party Under New Leader Zack Polanski

 From Be Broadcast

New analysis of more than 220,000 UK broadcast mentions shows the Green Party is the only political force to have increased its airtime since early September - with visibility, tone, and membership all rising under new leader Zack Polanski.

The findings come from Mission Control, a broadcast monitoring project by Be Broadcast with political analysis by Cast From Clay, tracking coverage between 1 September and 20 October 2025.

This period continues the Who Gets Heard? study released in early September - but with one major change: the appointment of the Greens’ new leader.

While every other party’s coverage fell by between 55% and 85% during the period, the Greens rose by 44%, the only positive trend recorded. Over the same timeframe, party membership surged to over 126,000, overtaking the Conservatives and more than doubling the Liberal Democrats.

“Broadcast is often the first indicator of public movement - and that’s exactly what we’re seeing here,” said Josh Wheeler, founder of Be Broadcast. “The Greens’ rise on air mirrors their rise in membership, showing how people are shifting, not just parties.”

A New Phase for Green Coverage

Between 1 September and 20 October, the Green Party achieved 13,728 broadcast mentions, with Polanski personally referenced 8,648 times - more than Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey (4,543) and close to Opposition Leader Kemi Badenoch (10,074).

Despite leading a party with only four MPs, Polanski’s media presence now rivals senior figures from the major parties.

Mission Control’s language analysis shows a distinct tonal shift in how broadcasters discuss the party.

Before September, the Greens were primarily framed around protest, climate, and activism; since Polanski’s appointment, that focus has moved to fairness, jobs, prosperity, and the future.

This change has coincided with a dramatic rise in constructive coverage. Forty-one percent of mentions involving the Greens are now solution-focused or positive in tone - the highest of any national party - compared with 22% for the Conservatives and 19% for Reform UK.

“Audiences respond to clear, consistent communication,” said Tom Hashemi, CEO of Cast From Clay. “Polanski has reframed the Greens’ message from activism to aspiration - jobs, fairness, and prosperity. That’s not the language of protest, it’s the language of ambition.”

Comparative Party Performance (1 Sept – 20 Oct 2025)

Party	Broadcast Mentions (Sept–Oct)	2024 Vote Share %	MPs (2024)	Mentions per MP
Reform UK	83,776	14.3	5	16,755
Labour	43,431	33.7	411	106
Conservatives	18,695	23.7	121	155
Green Party	13,728	6.4	4	3,432
Liberal Democrats	9,468	12.2	72	132

 
 

The Greens’ per-MP broadcast ratio now outperforms Labour by more than 30 to 1 and the Conservatives by 22 to 1 - a striking change since the last report.

Their growth also came during conference season, a period usually dominated by the largest parties - suggesting that the uplift is structural, not seasonal.

“Broadcast acts as a national pulse,” Wheeler added. “When stories about fairness, cost of living, and the future start to dominate airtime, it signals something wider happening in public sentiment.”

Change Since the Last Report

Mission Control compared the September–October data with the earlier dataset covering 1 January–3 September 2025 to measure changes in relative broadcast share.

Although the timeframes differ in length, the comparison highlights which parties are gaining or losing momentum.

Party	Mentions (Jan–3 Sept)	Mentions (Sept–Oct)	% Change	Key Insight
Green Party	31,053	13,728	+44.2%	Only UK party to increase broadcast visibility since last report.
Labour	924,693	43,431	–84.7%	Attention plateau after initial post-election dominance.
Conservatives	121,251	18,695	–84.6%	Decline despite leadership speculation.
Reform UK	353,660	83,776	–76.3%	Still strong, but tone softening.
Liberal Democrats	46,468	9,468	–79.6%	Consistently underexposed.
SNP	45,308	7,373	–83.7%	Consistent but contained.
Plaid Cymru	2,194	969	–55.8%	Local strength, national quiet.
DUP	5,925	2,451	–58.6%	Static presence.
Sinn Féin	6,081	2,001	–67.1%	Focused on diplomacy over domestic debate.

 
 

While most parties lost ground, the Greens increased their broadcast footprint by 44%.
Polanski’s leadership coincided with this growth, supported by a membership surge and the party’s increased focus on social and economic issues.

“The same political climate that has opened space for Reform has also opened space for the Greens,” Hashemi added. “People are looking for something different. The question is whether Polanski can convince them that ‘different’ means Green, not Farage.”

 

Tone and Visibility by Party Leader

Leader	Mentions (Sept–Oct)	% Constructive Tone	Dominant Frame
Keir Starmer	42,385	29%	“Administrative stability.”
Kemi Badenoch	10,074	22%	“Internal reset.”
Nigel Farage	41,173	19%	“Provocation fatigue.”
Ed Davey	4,543	31%	“Community voice, limited cut-through.”
Zack Polanski	8,648	41%	“Fairness and prosperity.”

 
 

While Polanski’s tone is the most positive, other leaders show a different picture.

The Conservatives’ constructive tone sits at 22%, suggesting their recent focus on cultural and identity issues has not translated into broader resonance.

“Broadcast rewards clarity and originality,” said Hashemi. “Imitation doesn’t cut through.”

 

The Big Picture

• +44% increase in Green Party broadcast mentions since September
• 13,728 total mentions (party), 8,648 mentions (leader)
• 126,000 members, up 80% since leadership election
• Highest constructive tone of any UK leader (41%)
• Per-MP broadcast visibility 30× that of Labour

 

Together, the findings suggest that momentum and message discipline - rather than parliamentary size - are shaping modern broadcast visibility.

 

In a landscape where every major party saw its share of airtime fall, the Greens’ combination of consistency, tone, and public resonance stands out as the clearest measure of political momentum this autumn.

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.

 

UPDATED WITH VOTE RESULT: This House Believes Trump is a 21st Century Fascist | Cambridge Union - Zack Polanski speaks for the motion

 

 Zack Polanski, Deputy Leader of the Green Party, speaks for the motion 'This House Believes Trump is a 21st Century Fascist'  at the Cambridge Union. 

RESULT OF VOTE:

Ayes - 219 

 

Abstain - 118 

 

Noes - 160

Green Party: Expanding Heathrow in the face of a climate emergency is the definition of irresponsible.

 

Responding to the news that Rachel Reeves is backing the expansion of Heathrow Airport, Green Party MP, Sian Berry MP said:

 

The Chancellor talked about the ‘costs of irresponsibility’ but expanding Heathrow in the face of a climate emergency is the definition of irresponsible.

 

Worst still, we’re also expecting formal planning decisions from ministers on Gatwick and Luton airport expansion, which the Chancellor pre-empted today. Giving these permissions in the month before vital new advice is expected from the Climate Change Committee, today’s speech is nothing short of reckless.
 

The carbon cost of expanding Heathrow, Luton, and Gatwick together will cancel out the benefits of Labour’s keystone clean energy plan, making Net Zero minister Ed Miliband’s task almost impossible.
 

The Chancellor’s stated goal is ‘raising living standards in every part of the UK’ but more and bigger airports will serve only the very richest aviation bosses and the most frequent flyers whose wealth doesn’t help people’s daily lives get better.
 

Tackling inequality and building a greener future should go hand in hand. That must mean investment in warmer homes, green energy and the local transport people use every day, not these bleak proposals.

Hope for London's public toilet deserts as TfL announces toilet expansion and improvement plan following Green Party pressure

 

Green Assembly member Caroline Russell is able to make fun at herself over a seeming obsession with toilets but in truth it is her campaigning  success that will have an impact on the lives of many Londoners and visitors to London. 

She deserves congratulations because her persistence has paid off with  the London Mayor announcing plans to expand and improve toilet provision. We know that many people are put off using public transport for longer journeys because they fear that they will not find a toilet when needed.  As an ex-teacher who has taken hundreds of primary age children on trips into London I also know how important it is to be able to find a toilet at short notice for a desperate child!

In it Press Release announcing a programme of expansion and improve TfL said:

Transport for London (TfL) has announced its ambitious programme to increase and improve toilet provision on London's transport network, in support of TfL's Equity in Motion plan to make London's transport network more accessible, fair and inclusive. The plan will see new accessible toilets delivered across the network, and improvements made to many existing facilities.

Earlier this year, the Mayor announced the biggest dedicated investment in toilet provision that London's transport network has seen, totalling £3million per year over five years. This will be invested in improving and increasing the number of accessible toilets on the network.

TfL is committed to making toilets more accessible for everyone and closing the gap in existing toilet provision so that Tube, Overground and Elizabeth line customers are always within 20 minutes of a toilet without having to change train. Following engagement with customers, campaigners and staff, a new programme has been developed to ensure new toilets benefit customers who need them most. Stations were then chosen according to a number of factors, including whether the location is a terminus station, operates night services, has step-free access, high passenger footfall, proximity to other toilets on the network, and onward connections. 

TfL is committed to creating new facilities and enhancing existing facilities, including reopening closed facilities, and improving the cleaning of facilities. Following the study, TfL has shortlisted a number of locations for new toilet provision in the first round of works:

• Camden Road Overground station
• Clapton Overground station
• New Cross Gate London Overground station
• South Tottenham London Overground station
• White Hart Lane Overground station
• Morden Underground station
• Hammersmith Underground station

TfL and the Mayor recognise that the provision of toilets is critical to many customers, sometimes determining whether a customer can travel by public transport at all. This is why TfL is also looking to convert a further four existing non-accessible toilets to accessible facilities within this first phase of the project at Amersham, Green Park and Sudbury Hill Underground stations and Seven Sisters Overground station, improving availability at other busy toilets that are currently misused or vandalised. TfL has also made improvements to more than one-third of London Underground stations with toilet provision in recent years, including repairing faults and re-painting areas.

Construction work to deliver new and accessible toilets at these stations is expected to start at several locations within the next year, following detailed assessments to determine viability.

TfL have a map of existing toilet facilities HERE although I would treat with caution as they may not be available due to vandalism or  misuse, particularly in the evening. This is an extract for our area. The Bakerloo/Overground is particularly poorly served:

 

There is also a searchable site for the whole of the UK which is very much a work in progress with users able to add toilets in their area. LINK

The Brent Council website has a short list of public toilets in the borough LINK:

Public toilet - Brent Civic Centre

Address: Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ  

Public toilet - Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre

Address: Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre, Brentfield, Harrow Road, London NW10 0RG  

Public toilet - Douglas Avenue

Address: Douglas Avenue junction with Ealing Road, Alperton, Middlesex, HA0 4PY HA0 4PY  

Public toilet - Empire Way

Address: Empire Way Toilets, Empire Way, Wembley  

Public toilet - Oakington Manor Drive / Harrow Road

Address: Junction of Harrow Road and Oakington Manor Drive, Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 6QU HA9 6QU  

Public toilet - Roundwood Park

Address: Roundwood Park, Harlesden Road, London, NW10 3SH  

Public toilet - St John's Road

Address: St John's Road (junction with Elm Road), Wembley, HA9 7HU  

Public toilet - Sudbury and Harrow Road Station

Address: Outside Sudbury and Harrow Road Station, Harrow Road, Wembley  

Public toilet - Tavistock Road

Address: Car park, Tavistock Road, Harlesden, London, NW10 4ND  

Public toilet - Vale Farm Sports Centre

Address: Vale Farm Sports Centre, Watford Road, North Wembley, Middlesex, HA0 3HG  

Queens Park and  Roundwood Park have toilets connected with their cafes and Barham Park has limited access via the Community Library. King Edward VII toilets near the Park Lane entrance were demolished years ago due to drug misuse  but publicly accessible toilets are planned for the Stonebridge Boxing Club facility if it gets off the ground.

Brent Green Party has previously argued for a Brent Toilet Scheme that would incentivise cafes and retail premises to allow public access to toilets, perhaps through a reduction in business rates.

Camden are advertising for more businesses to join their Community Toilet Scheme:

Join our Community Toilet Scheme

We are looking to expand our Community Toilet Scheme, and work with more local businesses that would allow the public to use their facilities during normal opening hours (without the need to buy goods or services).

We’d welcome interest from anywhere in the borough, but especially from businesses in Kilburn, Camden Town and Bloomsbury.

We would pay an annual fee to members of up to £750 (including VAT).

Email street.environment@camden.gov.uk to find our more and apply.