On London's Housing Shortage....
There is a chronic shortage of housing across Britain, particularly in London, where demand just keeps on outstripping supply....
Official ambitions to build 80,000 homes a year are not being achieved: only 71,000 were even started in 2023–24—and only 3,160 in the fourth quarter. This is a system not merely underperforming but on the brink of collapse.
At the root of the crisis lies a combination of the Green belt building ban, and too many bureaucratic hurdles to get through in both the planning and development phases where we are allowed to build. The late has got much trickier following the Grenfell disaster.
The newly established Building Safety Regulator, well-intentioned, now requires case-by-case sign-off for any development over seven storeys.
In fairness to the local planning officers, I do get why it takes so long, literally any development is going to face several objections. These poor sods have to sit in the middle of developers and MIMBYSs, any mistake is going to get lept on by one party or the other. And no one wants to be mistakenly signing off the next Grenfell!
I think we need to streamline the rules, probably if we employ more officers, they'll just go even more in-depth.
The downsides...
Lack of housing in, and around, the capital are clear problems for London. It's a problem for businesses who need to attract employment: they have to pay a premium simply to allow their employees to be able to afford to rent, or at least cover the cost of an annual season ticket if people legitimately choose to live outside of the capital, which can easily add on several thousands of pounds to a salary.
And obviously it's bad for just anyone at any stage of life: younger people cram into shared housing, families have to make do with one bedroom less and no garden, people looking to retire may simply not be able to afford the London option once their salaries disappear.
Potential solutions
Some have suggested we need to streamline the planning system, that could mean making it less complex, requiring fewer hoops, or employing more planning officers to speed things up.
Another solution is to allow some building on greenbelt land, personally I don't mind this too much, it'd take the smirks off some of those Surrey Mums' faces as new blocks of flats overlook their pony paddocks, no problem with that.
Or let's just Vest in other cities outside of London and make them more attractive to business, London is too crowded already, the last thing it needs is MORE people!
Final thoughts....
Just speed it up, it can't be that hard!
Posted Using INLEO
Housebuilding boost hugely welcome but ...
It's something, but even that staggering about of money probably isn't going to make that much of a difference, once it's split!
Agree. We have a tiny project which has just started working with Borough Housing Departments to look at alternative housing options.
Is it really viable to keep making London bigger? There are other areas of the country in need of a boost and they may have spare capacity. I'm happy not to work in London any more, but I never lived there. Hundreds of houses are being built around us and I expect some will go to people doing the commute to the capital as we are less than an hour away.
With so much lost industry there must be plenty of brown field land, but some will be polluted. There's all those old factories Chops explores for a start.
We do need better housing that is more efficient as much of it is ancient.
I know what you mean, commuting makes more sense, but then... trains!
I honestly don't get where the demand is coming from when fewer jobs are place based and there's plenty other decent places to live.
There's also a lot of snobbery around WHERE one lives in London too of course!
I read somewhere that Slough, UK, might become part of Greater London. I'm not sure how accurate this is or if it has already happened, as I didn't pay much attention at the time since I'm from East Anglia, which isn't that close to London. However, I've also noticed some unofficial mock-ups and discussions about expanding the Elizabeth Line beyond its current eastern terminus at Shenfield. At this point, some even jokingly suggest Chelmsford could be included.
There is a lot of unused space in Norfolk and Suffolk. I'm not familiar with land ownership laws, but there is currently a housing project underway in Norwich city centre following the demolition of an office building. According to a quick Google search, it will provide 443 new homes
I can't imagine London sprawl getting as far as Chelmsford, that's way out, and in any case I think there would be so much classic NIMBY resistance along the way that sprawl would be minimised.
East Anglia for sure could take a few hundred thousand more homes, but isn't much of it quite low lying.... longer term flood risk?
Yh Chelmsford seems to far as for East Anglia, it floods quite easily, especially towards the coast that and coastal erosion is causing issues in seaside towns in an area that already receives a lack of investment.
Same thing here in Canada, too little affordable housing, more tent communities and repurposed hotels yet my government decide to continue to import more immigrants with no place to house them nor any jobs left to fill. Rent rates are unaffordable with the cost of living rise faster than incomes.
It really needs longer term thinking by the sound of it!