Guest post: Concerns about contaminated land plansand airborne carcinogens in a densely populated area

 

This guest post by a local resident draws readers' attention to an issue of concern happening just over Brent's border.

 

PROJECT FLOURISH is a proposed housing development by Ballymore/Sainsburys in partnership with the Berkeley Group. But the small parcel of highly contaminated ex-industrial land at Kensal's old Gasworks site, at the northern top of Ladbroke Grove London W10, presents multiple serious health concerns. After a badly handled Southall gasworks site which was approximately 88 acres, the Kensal site is a tiny 12 acres, therefore the area of land contaminated, waste-pits and underground waste-tanks, is likely to be far more highly concentrated within this small space.
 

Airborne toxins, at this scale, are believed to continue to have a detrimental impact up to 7km away, depending on wind speeds/directions. So draw a circle, starting at Hendon, northwards, then clockwise to Highgate, Islington, Hoxton, Liverpool Street, Lambeth, Brixton Wandsworth, North Sheen, Kew, Ealing, Wembley, Kingsbury, then back to Hendon, don't forget to include everything within that circle.

PLEASE USE THE TEMPLATE below to write to your MP. Please inform your friends in other parts of London.

 

Ballymore were investigated by the Financial Times in 2021 for a disreputable history of shoddy workmanship, with many expensive repairs needed, post-construction and occupation, paid for by the new lease-holding residents, who then could not sell-on their properties. Further, Conservative MP and (then) Levelling-up Minister, named and shamed Ballymore as one of the building firms who refused to sign the “safe building register,” post-Grenfell. 

 

THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE POINTS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS PARTICULAR GASWORKS SITE MAY BE THE MOST CONTAMINATED OF ALL OF THE UK's OLD GASWORKS SITES – due to its industrial urban location, the area that it covered and its tiny size. 

 

At least 16 toxins are found in old gasworks sites.

 

Sainsburys, Ballymore's other partner, intend to keep either the current or their new, planned bigger store, open throughout the soil remediation and construction processes. 
 
The Sainsbury store at the top of Ladbroke Grove is built, along with it's extensive car-park, on what is likely to be the most heavily contaminated portion of the site (currently capped

 

The new development planned is for housing density, with multiple mega-towers (29 storeys, 98 metres from the ground). 2,500 new homes, no social housing.

 

LAWS CONTRAVENED OR BREACHED:

Environmental Protection Act 1990

The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea's own “Climate Emergency Action Plan” -Written as a policy for protecting certain areas from over-population.

Sustainable Markets Initiative, as Prince of Wales (now King Charles) launched TERRA CARTA in 2021 – a mandate that puts sustainability at the heart of the public sector. “The TERRA CARTA offers the basis of a recovery plan that puts nature, people and planet  first,

Whole Life-Cycle Carbon (WLC) Planning Regulations (Greater London Authority) as set out in London Plan Policy S1

Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Protection Act 1990. Part 2A Contaminated Land – Statutory Guidance.

The current plans to remediate the toxic soils of the Kensal Gasworks site is full of very serious health hazards. Dirty work, done cheaply, in a densely populated area, with an ancient Cemetery and listed Nature Reserve nearby.

 

The official planning process only considers objections from that borough's own residents, before granting planning permission. Located about as far north of Kensington & Chelsea Borough as possible, near the boundary, in a place where many boroughs meet, the toxic winds will not stop at Borough nor Constituency borders. This plan will impact severely and, here and there, to the cost of their health and well-being, on residents from all of the nearby boroughs. Considering that a north wind is relatively rare, the most-part of the Royal Borough, to the south, will be minimally impacted, it may well impact MORE on those living, to the north, west and east (driven by prevailing winds), in Brent or  Middlesex, and to the west, Hammersmith & Fulham (the Park) and Ealing.

After the Grenfell Tower disaster, after the following Inquiry, and after many promises from the Royal Borough, they should know, and do, much better than this.

 

Please check these 2 websites, with informative videos: keepkensalgreen.com johnclarkson@futureofenergycollege.com  

PLEASE USE THE TEMPLATE below to write to your MP adding information as above or from the websites.

 

Dear  MP

 

I would like to draw your attention to plans involving an inevitable cocktail of dangerous airborne volatile toxins, contravening laws, aims and promises, in a densely populated area. 1 km from London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham's listed Nature Reserve,  (Wormwood Scrubs Park) and spreading across London.

 

Project Flourish is planned by Ballymore/Sainsburys to excavate and remove by lorry, the heavily poisoned soils, underground chemical waste-tanks and spoil-pits from the dirty ex-industrial Kensal Gasworks site at the northern end of Ladbroke Grove. The worst of it is believed to be currently capped-off underneath Sainsburys car-park. 

 

With a Shang-Hei style housing density on the 12 acre site, the plans contain multiple serious health and safety concerns. Firstly, that Dublin-based building company, Ballymore, were investigated by the Financial Times in February 2021 for a record of shoddy workmanship.

 

The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea have supported and promoted the plans throughout, including gifting the developers some parcels of land and some of our roads (Canal Close and Canal Way). A valuable local community resource will disappear when the building used by many genuine community-based charities, gets demolished.

Sincerely.......

Willesden Green Gaudiya Mission expansion planning application refused permission

 

A delegated decision has been made by Brent Council planners to refuse planning permission for a major expansion of the Gaudiya Mission, in Cranhurst Road, Willesden Green.

The application for changes to the Edwardian suburban house was opposed by 25 residents. The modifications included partial demolition of existing kitchen and temple room, a proposed basement extension with rear lightwell and railing, a single-storey side-to-rear extension, a rear dormer extension, alteration to side fenestration, a single-storey outbuilding in rear garden and installation of 2 front rooflights, and refuse storage to the front and cycle storage to the rear of the mixed use place of worship and dwelling house.

The reasons for refusal of planning permission were:

1. The accommodation proposed at loft floor level does not align with the space standards as outlined under policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and consequently would not provide an adequate standard of accommodation and internal amenity for future occupants. As a result, the proposal is therefore contrary to policy DMP1 of Brent's Local Plan (2019-41) and policy D6 of the London Plan (2021).

 

2. The proposal by not offering sufficient natural daylight to the basement of the premises is deemed to offer a poor level of internal amenity for future occupiers, contrary to policies DMP1 & BD1 of the Brent Local Plan (2019-2041) and the guidance contained within Basement Supplementary Planning Document (2017).

 

3. The proposal by reason of the insufficient provision of information regarding soft landscaping and planting fails to demonstrate how that the scheme will achieve a satisfactory urban greening factor on the site and provide sustainable urban drainage. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy policies BD1, BGI1 & BGI2 of Brent's Local Plan (2019-2041) and policies G5 and G6 of the London Plan (2021).

 

The final decision notice sets out the regulations regarding appeals and purchase notices.

UPDATED WITH VITAL INFORMATION: Changes to the Barham Park restricted covenant for payment of £200,000 goes ahead allowing the building of four 3 storey houses in the park

 

 Planning Committee  preliminaries and the section on the restrictive covenant.      (Video by Brent Council including  rather irritating facial focus. Captions by Wembley Matters)

At last night's Scrutiny Committee it was interesting to see Muhammed Butt, as chair of Barham Park Trustees sitting on the opposite side of the table to his brother Cllr Saqib Butt, a member of the Scrutiny Committee that was scrutinising the Trust's actions.

In the event, as the video shows, Cllr S. Butt, along with Cllr Dixon and Clr Maurice were excluded from the section of the meeting regarding the restrive covenant because they were members of the Planning Committee that had approved George Irvin's planning application to build four 3 storey houses in Barham Park. A decision that could only implemented by removal/amendment of the restrictive covenant, an action subsequentally approved by the Barham Park Trustees on payment of £200,000. Cllr S. Butt is vice chair of the Planning Committee. Legal officers felt that the three should not take part because of how a possibe conflict of interest could be perceived by the public.

Cllr Lorber declared an interest but continued to take part as a member of the Scrutiny Committee after being warned by legal officers that a complaint might be made about his participation.

Sorry if this is confusing, it is complicated, but Philip Grant's address to the Committee, read for him by former Labour councillor Gaynor Lloyd, sets out the issues:

The Report to the 24 February Trust Committee meeting states:

‘The restrictive covenants were imposed in August 2011 to preserve the area's character and limit development.’

Those aims are just as important now as they were in 2011.  Barham Park is one of Brent’s Historic Parks and Landscapes, a heritage asset which  the Council promised to protect.

The covenant does that by prohibiting ‘any development in or upon the Property’, which is inside the park and a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. Planning Committee were misled into granting the development consent in 2023 and I’ll explain why if you ask, so the covenant is the last line of protection.

The Trust’s February decisions appear to mirror the Council’s Property Strategy, which Cabinet approved last year. They do not reflect the charitable aims of the Trust, or the wishes of residents who are meant to be its beneficiaries.

The Charity Commission recommended local people should have a voice in the Trust’s decisions, and two years ago I suggested to Debra Norman how this could be achieved. My idea was ignored in the Governance review later that year, and the Chair refused to allow my suggestion to be heard by the Trust Committee in September 2023.

Other residents and councillors have also had requests to speak refused. Brent Council is the sole Trustee, and as the Trust Committee are not acting in the Trust’s best interests, I would ask you, please, to refer the matter back for further consideration.

When officers were challenged by Paul Lorber to publish Charity Commission advice on the covenant removal they referred to Commission's inquiries after a complaint from a member of the public. They had sent a response and the Commission was satisfied with the Trust's processes.  They appeared to be referring to the letter published on Wembley Matters  where the Commission said they were taking not further action 'at this time' but would keep the complaint on file in case there were other concerns in the future. LINK.

The detailed discussion included much confusion, particularly over whether the proposed development was car/garage free or not and comments made by the Planning Legal Officer that statements could have been drafted more clearly, can be heard in the video.

The final decision, made by the the Scrutiny Committee's three members left standing - Cllr Long, Mitchell and Malloy, plus Chair Cllr Daniel Kennelly voted NOT to refer the matters covered in the Call-in back to the decision maker, Barham Park Trust, or Full Council. Cllr Lorber voted to refer it back.

The decision took immediate effect so the changes to the restricted covenant and its purchase goes ahead and the four houses will be built.

 

 UPDATE WITH COMMENT FROM PAUL LORBER

 This comment was too long for the normal comment word limit so published here instead: 

Anne Wade (comment below the article) explains very clearly how important Barham Park is to local people and why it is important to keep up the fight to preserve it for the benefit of local people and not of private developers or Councillors who simply do not care.

If the Labour Councillors who act as Trustees or Council Officers managed the affairs of the Barham Park Trust ( a charity) effectively there would be no issues and no need to carry out any Scrutiny.

As I have pointed out for some time (and Wembley Matters has covered my concerns) the Barham Park Trust is managed very badly by both the Labour Trustees and by Brent Council Officers. I will give you some examples:

1. When Labour closed the Public Library in Barham Park they brought in a tenant who took over the Library space and most of the rest of the building. The Council claimed that dealing with just one tenant would make things simpler.

Over a number of years that tenant failed to pay their rent and built up arrears of over £60,000. A large amount is still outstanding today - this has cost the Council/Trust thousands of pounds in lost interest.

2. Most tenants occupying the building have Leases which state their rent and the service charges. The rents are subject to regular reviews. Council Officers working on behalf of the Trust failed to carry out rent reviews (until I pointed it out to them) and failed to charge service charges. This has cost the trust many thousands of pounds.

 

3. The Trust was persuaded to employ consultants at a cost of over £20,000 to undertake a major feasibility study to upgrade the buildings to generate commercial rents. The proposal is to replace the space occupied by long standing community organisations with Hotel Rooms and Shops. The Trust was told that a Silver Option would cost £3,162,000 and the Labour Trustees gave this a go ahead. While the consultants said that to deliver this option would require 'vacant possession' NO one bothered to ask when vacant possession could be achieved. As  the Barham Community Library lease does not expire until October 2031 and much can change in 7 years this was a pointless exercise.

 

BUT it gets worse. Having told the trustees that the Council and not the Charity would pay the £20,000 consultancy fee - they charged the £20,000 to the Charity anyway "because the Council had no authority to pay it". Yet it is the same Councillors and same Officers who advise and make decisions for the Trust and for the Council.

 

AND to top it all - 2 years after the £20,000 was spent on the consultants and the Trustees accepted the £3 million option it turns out that the £3,162,000 cost is exclusive of VAT and that the  Barham Park Trust would have to cough up over £600,000 in VAT extra on top if the daft project was proceeded with.

I could go on listing a catalogue of disasters inflicted on the Barham Park Trust as a result of poor management and poor  oversight by the Trustees but I will save that for another day.

I will however say something about the saga of the Covenant.

The first point to make is that it was put in place to prevent further building work in the Park. It was part of the deal with George Irvin and he knew full well what the restrictions were when he bought the two existing houses. That was it - NO more!

If he does not like it he could always sell the two houses back to the Council - after all the Council has two Companies specifically buying up properties in the open market and there is nothing to stop the purchase of these two with the restrictive covenant in place.

The Council has now been dealing with the Covenant issue for 4 years. Council officers have spent vast amount of their time on this. Their time has not been costed but it won't be cheap and is met by Council Taxpayers and not by George Irvin.

Almost two years ago Council Officers advised the Trustees that it is normal for the development gain arising from varying the Covenant to be split on a 50/50 basis. The Trustees agreed to proceed on the basis of this advice.

The Trustees were presented with a 'revised' (it is not clear why it was revised) valuation showing the Development Gain/Profit that would arise after all the demolition, rebuilding and other costs at their meeting in February 2025. They have decided to keep the valuation and the figures confidential from the eyes of the public.

Members of the Scrutiny Committee were provided with a copy of the valuation a few days before the Scrutiny Meeting.

At the Scrutiny meeting I challenged Councillor Butt, Chair of the Trustees and Councillor Officers about the 50/50 advice and why the Trustees (all members of the Labour Cabinet) were prepared to accept a gross payment of £200,000 when this was a very long way from a 50/50 split. While I cannot disclose the exact figures I can say that my intervention at the Scrutiny Meeting was because the difference is MASSIVE! - and it is the Barham Park Charity which is the big loser.

On a final point it is important to stress that the £200,000 selling price is the 'gross' amount before expenses of the valuation and much more. The Trust will therefore benefit by much less than £200,000 although through another 'oversight' this is not mentioned in the Trustee Meetings either.

I (and others) have now been challenging Brent Council about the mismanagement of the Barham Park Trust and the neglect of Barham Park since at least 2011 (the year they closed Barham Park Library). Vast amount of money has been wasted on mismanagement and pointless consultants reports.

I am sorry to say that Barham Park is not safe in the hands of Brent Council or its self appointed group of Labour Councillors as Trustees.

It came as no surprise that the Labour Councillors on the Scrutiny Committee voted on block in support of their Leader.

There is however only so much that can be covered up. Watch this space.

 

 

MPs' recommendations on the homeless family crisis will provide a challenge for Brent

The report, published today and outlined below will have  major implications for local councils, including Brent, if the Government  implements its recommendations. The section on the devastating impact of out of area placements is particularly relevant to Brent where the Council is unable to find afford accommodation in-borough and is recommending that families out of the area to find affordable private rental housing. LINK

 

A crisis in temporary accommodation in England is leaving record high numbers of children without a permanent home. Many of these children are living in appalling conditions, with significant impacts to their health and education, says the cross-party Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. 

 

The report points to the rising costs to local councils of providing this accommodation - local authorities spent a combined £2.29 billion on temporary accommodation in 2023/24 – with over 164,000 homeless children currently living in temporary accommodation. 

 

The Committee’s report sets out a series of recommendations for the Government and for local authorities and highlights the shocking conditions of some temporary accommodation.  

 

The report also outlines the damaging impact of unsuitable accommodation to the development, wellbeing, education, and health of children and flags safeguarding concerns around instances of children and families sharing communal facilities with strangers, including those with a history of domestic abuse.  

 

The report points to egregious hazards present in some temporary accommodation, including serious damp and mould, excessive cold, and mice infestations, and overcrowding which results in cases of older children sharing beds with their parents or siblings, and children without the floor space to crawl or learn to walk.  

 

The report also states that some temporary accommodation sourced by local authorities is of such poor quality that it may pose a severe risk to children's health. The Committee highlighting the “shocking” data that temporary accommodation contributed to the deaths of at least 74 children, of whom 58 were under the age of one, in the last five years. 

 

Florence Eshalomi, Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government (HCLG) Committee said: 

 

It is utterly shameful that so many families are living in B&Bs, bedsits and hotels that are completely unsuitable to their needs; having to travel for hours simply to get to school or work, not having basics like cots and radiator covers, not even having the space to learn to walk or crawl. When 74 children had their deaths linked to temporary accommodation in the last five years, it’s clear we need to act urgently to bring an end to this crisis before any more young lives are ruined or lost. 

 

The devastating reality is that over 164,000 children are stuck in a situation where they don’t have a permanent roof over their own head, and that many families will be stuck in so-called temporary accommodation for years. This isn’t temporary and it isn’t acceptable. We cannot expect children to have the best outcomes in life if they spend so long being forced to live out of suitcases and without basics like a private kitchen and bathroom. 

 

Our committee is clear that more must be done to ensure children do not fall through the cracks into appalling conditions, including by carrying out regular checks on the quality of accommodation and making safeguarding a top priority when placing families. 

 

Beyond the appalling impact on children and families, this crisis doesn’t deliver value for money for taxpayers. Councils in London alone are spending £4 million a day on this form of accommodation, while billions are spent nationwide every year. That’s why our solution to the housing crisis must include enough social housing and genuinely affordable homes to ensure every child has a permanent place to call home.

 

Recommendations

 

The report’s key recommendations include: 

• All local authorities in England must carry out mandatory inspections of housing before it is first used as temporary accommodation, and whenever new residents are moved in. Currently many councils do not carry out regular inspections of the conditions of temporary accommodation used to house families, which the report states is “unacceptable”. 
  
• The Government should establish a formalised notification system, so that a child’s school and GP are alerted when they move into temporary accommodation. The report highlights that currently schools, GPs, and other public bodies are often unaware when children in their care become homeless or change school due to a move into temporary accommodation and this prevents schools offering additional support. The Committee calls for the Government to bring about a more joined-up approach between public services to support families experiencing homelessness. 
• The Government should introduce a new requirement for local authorities to notify a host authority before they make an out of area placement. Rising demand for temporary accommodation has led some local authorities to resort to relocating families, placing them in temporary accommodation 'out-of-area'. The distance of these placements can be significant: the Committee heard cases which included a family from Camden being placed in North Manchester, and a family from Oldham being placed in Hastings. The report finds that out-of-area placements have a devastating impact on families, leaving them far from their extended family, friends, and support network, and causing disruption to children’s education. Some local authorities are currently falling short of their legal duties with regards to out of area placements, by failing to notify the host authority appropriately. 
• The Government should work with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to ensure the Ombudsman has sufficient resources and powers to investigate complaints of unsuitable temporary accommodation, and take appropriate action. The report notes a striking rise in the number of families placed in B&B temporary accommodation for more than six weeks unlawfully. The Government already requires that families are only housed in B&Bs as a "last resort”. However, the report finds that for too many families, the legal six-week limit on families being placed in B&B accommodation is meaningless, as their local authority does not adhere to it and there are no effective sanctions for breaches. 

 

The report also calls on the Government to publish its strategy on ending homelessness by July 2025 to help ensure that Government, homelessness organisations, and local authorities can make meaningful progress towards tackling the crisis in temporary accommodation during this Parliament. 

Read the Report

Dawn Butler backs a 'Bolder, Fairer Climate Plan' at Portcullis House meeting with Brent FoE

 

 

 From Brent Friends of the Earth

Brent East MP, Dawn Butler,  met with five members of Brent Friends of the Earth at Portcullis House, Westminster, on March 31st 2025, to discuss Friends of the Earth's campaign for a Bolder, Fairer Climate plan, as well as no new North Sea Oil drilling at Rosebank/Jackdaw, and our opposition to airport expansion.

 

Dawn listened carefully and agreed with our points. A summary of what we told her can be found here. Dawn was happy to have her picture taken with our poster calling for a Bolder, Fairer Climate Plan. She told us that she also opposed Heathrow expansion, and would look at the FoE research documents which we left with her. We also gave her petition cards we had collected at public events, signed by constituents supporting FoE's call.

 

Brent West MP Barry Gardiner is due to speak to our meeting in May, and we hope to meet with Georgia Gould MP at some point.

 

Carey Group face £2.4m claim for alleged over-charging

 

The old Carey Group Office in Wembley

Anyone driving or taking the bus around the back of Wembley Stadium will be familiar with  acres of Carey Group plant, now much of it moved to Aston Clinton in Buckinghamshire.

The company was started in 1969 by three Irish brothers and is now a huge multi-faceted company but still privately owned:

 

In 2023 Carey Group  owned T.E. Scudder Ltd was fined for colluding in illegal rigged bids for demolition and asbestos removal contracts. Ten firms were fined a total of nearly £60m. 

Now Circadian Limited, a Hong King based developer, has started a legal action against the Group alleging that it was over-charged £2.4m for demolition work at Lots Road Power Station in London.

The claim states, 'the Cartel Arrangements caused the price of construction services to be higher that they would have otherwise have been.'

The Carey Group have undertaken building work for Quintain Group and also own the Seneca waste processing plant in Wembley Park. They operate a charitable arm, the Carey Foundation and at one stage expressed interest in running the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre.

In September 2023  the Group made a profit of just £9m  after a loss of £38m the previous year.

Muhammed Butt takes on Number 10 Task Force role

 As it is after Noon on April 1st I can confirm that this was an April Fool.

Muhammed Butt poses for the cameras after being offered new role

 

Brent Council leader, Muhammed Butt,  was yesterday appointed to a part-time role as head of a government task force on 'mobile entertainment'.

Government sources said that funfairs, circuses and outdoor pop festivals were a neglected area of potential growth that could add thousands of pounds to local economies and utilise under-used parks and open spaces.

 

A Brent funfair that took place last summer

 

Butt's experience in Brent was cited as a key factor in his appointment. He told Wembley Matters, 'Fortunately I have direct access to one of the most experienced and successful entrepreneurs in the field and I am sure they will help me add value to my role. I look forward to the Brent model spreading across the country and contributing to Labour's commitment to growing the UK economy.'

 He added, 'It is an honour to work for Sir Keir who I think is the greatest Labour leader since Sir Stafford Cripps.'

Recently Brent Council came close to securing a lucrative contract with a Korean Pop Festival company. Although the K-Pop  Festival was postponed, Stage 1 Licensing Permission was granted by Brent Licensing Sub-committee and subject to conditions is expected to take place in 2026. LINK

Muhammed Butt's appointment is not expected to affect his role as Leader of Brent Council.

 

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.