This week in Greater London Authority:

Fly-Tipping Crisis: London's Environment Committee Tackles Rising Tide of Illegal Dumping

London's battle against fly-tipping is intensifying, with the Environment Committee meeting on Wednesday, 15 July 2026, to confront a problem that has seen incidents rise by nearly 50% since 2018-19. While experts suggest improved reporting may be a factor, the environmental and social costs are undeniable. Fly-tipped waste pollutes waterways, harms wildlife, and blights communities, contributing to feelings of anger and embarrassment.

The committee heard from organisations like Keep Britain Tidy and Harrow Litterpickers, who highlighted that while national figures are rising, local data collection methods vary, making precise measurement difficult. Inner London boroughs consistently show higher rates, attributed to higher population density and older properties not designed for modern waste management.

Poverty and deprivation are intrinsically linked to fly-tipping. Lack of resources for bulky waste collection, limited transport for disposal, and inadequate bin provision in rented accommodation all contribute. Language barriers and digital exclusion can also prevent residents from accessing vital information.

Practical solutions were explored, including community skips and free bulky waste collection services, with Richmond Council's community skip programme cited as a highly popular success. Harrow Litterpickers highlighted their borough's free bulky waste collection and drop-and-go services, which engage residents and raise awareness.

The debate around CCTV and naming and shaming revealed a mixed response. While acknowledged as a deterrent, fly-tippers can simply move to unmonitored locations. Consistent enforcement throughout the year, not just before elections, was stressed as essential.

Organised crime is a significant driver, with an estimated 35% of large-scale dumping attributed to criminal gangs seeking quick profits. The Environment Agency faces challenges in prosecuting these groups due to low perceived risk and weak penalties. The committee also discussed the environmental impacts, including soil contamination, waterway pollution, and localised fires caused by decomposing waste.

A key takeaway was the urgent need for better coordination and information sharing between boroughs, the Environment Agency, and other enforcement bodies. Volunteer-led evidence gathering models, like the one in Harrow, were praised for extending enforcement reach through local intelligence. While the government's Waste Crime Action Plan and additional funding are welcomed, concerns remain about the speed of legislative changes and the resources needed to tackle organised waste crime effectively. Prevention, alongside enforcement, is crucial, with a call for greater public awareness of the duty of care when disposing of waste.

• Environment Committee meeting details

Autonomous Vehicles: London's Transport Future Hangs in the Balance as Safety and Equity Concerns Dominate

London's transport landscape is on the cusp of a revolution with the potential introduction of autonomous passenger vehicles (APVs). However, the Transport Committee's meeting on Tuesday, 14 July 2026, revealed that this future is far from certain, with significant concerns surrounding safety, regulatory frameworks, and the equitable integration of this technology. Transport for London (TfL) officials, Christina Calderado and Danny Price, presented a cautious outlook, emphasizing the need for a robust, London-centric approach.

TfL's role as a consenting authority for APV services is critical, but their limited ongoing influence once consent is granted is a major point of contention. TfL is advocating for licensing powers to be returned to them, arguing that managing APVs alongside other transport modes is essential for integrated planning. Their proposed 2025 framework, while a starting point, will evolve as more comprehensive guidance for services on London's streets is developed. TfL is not rushing to publish this guidance, conscious of the interest and the need for thoroughness, but anticipates being ready to process applications by September or October, pending DVSA processes.

A central concern is the potential for APVs to exacerbate congestion, making buses less efficient and deterring passengers, disproportionately affecting lower-income Londoners. TfL is considering measures like geographical operating areas and fleet sizes, and advocating for short initial permit durations to allow for oversight and intervention. The distinction between fully autonomous services and those with safety drivers was clarified, with applications for the latter following existing licensing routes.

Assembly Member Hina Bokhari OBE highlighted the lack of data sharing from current AV trials, a concern TfL shares. Data sharing will be a core requirement for future consent. The impact on taxi and private hire jobs was acknowledged, with TfL believing there will always be a place for driver-led services, particularly for luggage and accessibility needs. However, the potential workforce impact requires a government-level conversation.

TfL's stance on road danger reduction is clear: APVs must meet a Vision Zero standard of safety, exceeding the government's careful and competent driver benchmark. They seek more stringent requirements, including the power to suspend operations if safety issues arise – a power they currently lack. Concerns about APVs obstructing cycle lanes, interfering with emergency services, and impacting passenger drop-off locations will be addressed in TfL's guidance.

Accessibility for disabled Londoners is a major focus. TfL plans to set clear accessibility requirements, including provisions for wheelchair users, assistance dogs, and accessible booking channels, and will require operators to demonstrate engagement with accessibility groups. Passenger safeguarding is also paramount, with expectations for robust measures, including immediate voice contact with UK-based, DBS-checked support centres, and protocols to manage harassment or criminal activity. TfL is considering a minimum age of 18 for unaccompanied travel during pilot phases.

The economic impact of APVs remains debated, with skepticism about government figures on job creation. TfL believes true economic benefits will stem from improved connectivity, especially in outer London. The committee's discussions underscore the need for a phased introduction of APVs and support for affected workers.

• Transport Committee meeting details

Grooming Gangs: Met Police Acknowledge Past Failures, Vow to Rebuild Trust with Survivors

The Police and Crime Committee met on Wednesday, 15 July 2026, to address the persistent and deeply concerning issue of grooming gangs in London. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Kevin Southworth of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) acknowledged past failings in handling child sexual exploitation cases, admitting that a societal paradigm that placed undue value judgment on victims' lifestyles contributed to higher no further action rates. He apologised for these past shortcomings, emphasizing a significant cultural shift within the MPS since 2022.

Operation Beaconport, a national review of historic cases, is underway to identify past safeguarding failures and reinvestigate cases where justice may not have been served. Southworth stated that approximately 12,000 offences are being reviewed, encompassing intra-familial abuse, peer-on-peer abuse, institutional abuse, and child sexual exploitation involving an asymmetry of power. While the MPS is not fully resourced for this extensive work, efforts are being made to maintain numbers in critical areas.

The committee heard that the MPS prefers the term organised group-based child sexual exploitation over grooming gangs for precision, though they acknowledge the public's understanding of the latter. Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, Kaya Comer-Schwartz, stated that while all forms of child sexual abuse are abhorrent, London has not seen the specific pattern of grooming gangs seen in places like Rochdale and Rotherham, though cases closest to the public's understanding do exist. This statement was met with skepticism by Assembly Member Emma Best, who felt the Deputy Mayor was not directly answering whether the Mayor's previous statement that such gangs did not exist in London was incorrect.

The MPS is improving its data flagging system, aiming for near 100% accuracy, and is working with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to increase charging rates for sexual offences. The committee also heard about MOPAC's victim support services, including The Lighthouse, a centre of expertise for child sexual abuse, which is being rolled out nationally. MOPAC is increasing the capacity of these services by 20% with additional funding related to Operation Beaconport.

The discussion highlighted the vital role of Multi-Agency Child Exploitation (MACE) meetings, with efforts underway to ensure consistency across London. The Child First strategy, developed with young people and experts, aims to be trauma-informed and victim-centred. For survivors, the message is clear: the MPS is committed to rebuilding trust and encouraging reporting, emphasizing that it is never too late to come forward.

• Police and Crime Committee meeting details

Mayor's Question Time: Housing, Transport, and the Cost of Living Dominate Assembly Agenda

Mayor Sadiq Khan faced a barrage of questions from Assembly Members during Mayor's Question Time on Thursday, 16 July 2026. Key issues dominating the session included the new draft London Plan, the persistent problem of tube noise, the Mayor's transparency regarding his diary, and the use of policing technology.

The Mayor announced the publication of the new draft London Plan, a strategy focused on good growth to increase affordable housing and boost economic development, particularly in future industries like AI and life sciences. He acknowledged the current challenges facing house-building, including high interest rates and rising construction costs, but expressed optimism that the plan would provide a framework for recovery.

Assembly Member Elly Baker raised concerns about the ongoing issue of tube noise and vibration, questioning TfL's progress and transparency. The Mayor committed to ensuring TfL provides more detailed information on rail grinding activities, track renewal programmes, and noise complaints by constituency.

Transparency was a central theme, with Assembly Member Lord Bailey of Paddington repeatedly pressing the Mayor on the delayed publication of his diary. While the Mayor asserted he is the most transparent mayor, the lack of publication for two years led to accusations of hypocrisy. The Mayor apologised for the delay and promised to investigate the reasons for the hold-up.

The use of policing technology, including live facial recognition (LFR) and artificial intelligence (AI), was also discussed. The Mayor highlighted LFR's contribution to over 2,000 arrests and its planned rollout in central London. He assured the Assembly that robust oversight and ethical scrutiny are in place.

Assembly Members also debated the Mayor's approach to housing delivery, with concerns raised about the proposed reduction in affordable housing targets for fast-track planning routes. The Mayor defended these as temporary measures to address market difficulties. The issue of pensions for elected members was resolved with the approval of access to the Local Government Pension Scheme.

For Londoners, these discussions highlight the ongoing efforts to address housing shortages, improve transport, and ensure public services are delivered effectively and transparently. The Assembly's scrutiny of the Mayor's actions remains a vital part of holding him accountable for the future of the capital.

• London Assembly (Mayor's Question Time) meeting details

Upcoming Meetings

• Economy, Culture and Skills Committee: Monday 20 July 2026, 00:00. Topics include proposals for an Overnight Visitor Levy in London, the London Stadium, and the committee's work programme.
  • Economy, Culture and Skills Committee meeting details
• Environment Committee: Wednesday 15 July 2026, 00:00. Topics include London's fly-tipping problem, the committee's work programme, and administrative items.
  • Environment Committee meeting details
• Transport Committee: Tuesday 14 July 2026, 00:00. Topics include autonomous passenger vehicles in London, the committee's work programme, and procedural items.
  • Transport Committee meeting details
• Police and Crime Committee: Wednesday 15 July 2026, 00:00. Topics include grooming gangs in London, a question and answer session with MOPAC and the MPS, and the committee's work programme.
  • Police and Crime Committee meeting details
• London Assembly (Mayor's Question Time): Thursday 16 July 2026, 00:00. Topics include the Mayor's Report, questions to the Mayor, and proposals regarding pensions for elected members.
  • London Assembly (Mayor's Question Time) meeting details
• Budget and Performance Committee: Wednesday 16 September 2026, 10:00. Topics include the committee's work programme and scrutiny of budget and performance issues.
  • Budget and Performance Committee meeting details
• Housing Committee: Wednesday 02 September 2026, 14:00. Topics include the committee's work programme and a review of empty homes in London.
  • Housing Committee meeting details
• GLA Oversight Committee: Wednesday 02 September 2026, 10:00. Topics include the committee's work programme and a review of the GLA's finances.
  • GLA Oversight Committee meeting details
• Planning and Regeneration Committee: Thursday 03 September 2026, 00:00. Topics include the committee's work programme and a review of London's planning policies.
  • Planning and Regeneration Committee meeting details

This week in Greater London Authority:

Fly-Tipping Crisis: London's Environment Committee Tackles Rising Tide of Illegal Dumping

London's battle against fly-tipping is intensifying, with the Environment Committee meeting on Wednesday, 15 July 2026, to confront a problem that has seen incidents rise by nearly 50% since 2018-19. While experts suggest improved reporting may be a factor, the environmental and social costs are undeniable. Fly-tipped waste pollutes waterways, harms wildlife, and blights communities, contributing to feelings of anger and embarrassment.

The committee heard from organisations like Keep Britain Tidy and Harrow Litterpickers, who highlighted that while national figures are rising, local data collection methods vary, making precise measurement difficult. Inner London boroughs consistently show higher rates, attributed to higher population density and older properties not designed for modern waste management.

Poverty and deprivation are intrinsically linked to fly-tipping. Lack of resources for bulky waste collection, limited transport for disposal, and inadequate bin provision in rented accommodation all contribute. Language barriers and digital exclusion can also prevent residents from accessing vital information.

Practical solutions were explored, including community skips and free bulky waste collection services, with Richmond Council's community skip programme cited as a highly popular success. Harrow Litterpickers highlighted their borough's free bulky waste collection and drop-and-go services, which engage residents and raise awareness.

The debate around CCTV and naming and shaming revealed a mixed response. While acknowledged as a deterrent, fly-tippers can simply move to unmonitored locations. Consistent enforcement throughout the year, not just before elections, was stressed as essential.

Organised crime is a significant driver, with an estimated 35% of large-scale dumping attributed to criminal gangs seeking quick profits. The Environment Agency faces challenges in prosecuting these groups due to low perceived risk and weak penalties. The committee also discussed the environmental impacts, including soil contamination, waterway pollution, and localised fires caused by decomposing waste.

A key takeaway was the urgent need for better coordination and information sharing between boroughs, the Environment Agency, and other enforcement bodies. Volunteer-led evidence gathering models, like the one in Harrow, were praised for extending enforcement reach through local intelligence. While the government's Waste Crime Action Plan and additional funding are welcomed, concerns remain about the speed of legislative changes and the resources needed to tackle organised waste crime effectively. Prevention, alongside enforcement, is crucial, with a call for greater public awareness of the duty of care when disposing of waste.

• Environment Committee meeting details

Autonomous Vehicles: London's Transport Future Hangs in the Balance as Safety and Equity Concerns Dominate

London's transport landscape is on the cusp of a revolution with the potential introduction of autonomous passenger vehicles (APVs). However, the Transport Committee's meeting on Tuesday, 14 July 2026, revealed that this future is far from certain, with significant concerns surrounding safety, regulatory frameworks, and the equitable integration of this technology. Transport for London (TfL) officials, Christina Calderado and Danny Price, presented a cautious outlook, emphasizing the need for a robust, London-centric approach.

TfL's role as a consenting authority for APV services is critical, but their limited ongoing influence once consent is granted is a major point of contention. TfL is advocating for licensing powers to be returned to them, arguing that managing APVs alongside other transport modes is essential for integrated planning. Their proposed 2025 framework, while a starting point, will evolve as more comprehensive guidance for services on London's streets is developed. TfL is not rushing to publish this guidance, conscious of the interest and the need for thoroughness, but anticipates being ready to process applications by September or October, pending DVSA processes.

A central concern is the potential for APVs to exacerbate congestion, making buses less efficient and deterring passengers, disproportionately affecting lower-income Londoners. TfL is considering measures like geographical operating areas and fleet sizes, and advocating for short initial permit durations to allow for oversight and intervention. The distinction between fully autonomous services and those with safety drivers was clarified, with applications for the latter following existing licensing routes.

Assembly Member Hina Bokhari OBE highlighted the lack of data sharing from current AV trials, a concern TfL shares. Data sharing will be a core requirement for future consent. The impact on taxi and private hire jobs was acknowledged, with TfL believing there will always be a place for driver-led services, particularly for luggage and accessibility needs. However, the potential workforce impact requires a government-level conversation.

TfL's stance on road danger reduction is clear: APVs must meet a Vision Zero standard of safety, exceeding the government's careful and competent driver benchmark. They seek more stringent requirements, including the power to suspend operations if safety issues arise – a power they currently lack. Concerns about APVs obstructing cycle lanes, interfering with emergency services, and impacting passenger drop-off locations will be addressed in TfL's guidance.

Accessibility for disabled Londoners is a major focus. TfL plans to set clear accessibility requirements, including provisions for wheelchair users, assistance dogs, and accessible booking channels, and will require operators to demonstrate engagement with accessibility groups. Passenger safeguarding is also paramount, with expectations for robust measures, including immediate voice contact with UK-based, DBS-checked support centres, and protocols to manage harassment or criminal activity. TfL is considering a minimum age of 18 for unaccompanied travel during pilot phases.

The economic impact of APVs remains debated, with skepticism about government figures on job creation. TfL believes true economic benefits will stem from improved connectivity, especially in outer London. The committee's discussions underscore the need for a phased introduction of APVs and support for affected workers.

• Transport Committee meeting details

Grooming Gangs: Met Police Acknowledge Past Failures, Vow to Rebuild Trust with Survivors

The Police and Crime Committee met on Wednesday, 15 July 2026, to address the persistent and deeply concerning issue of grooming gangs in London. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Kevin Southworth of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) acknowledged past failings in handling child sexual exploitation cases, admitting that a societal paradigm that placed undue value judgment on victims' lifestyles contributed to higher no further action rates. He apologised for these past shortcomings, emphasizing a significant cultural shift within the MPS since 2022.

Operation Beaconport, a national review of historic cases, is underway to identify past safeguarding failures and reinvestigate cases where justice may not have been served. Southworth stated that approximately 12,000 offences are being reviewed, encompassing intra-familial abuse, peer-on-peer abuse, institutional abuse, and child sexual exploitation involving an asymmetry of power. While the MPS is not fully resourced for this extensive work, efforts are being made to maintain numbers in critical areas.

The committee heard that the MPS prefers the term organised group-based child sexual exploitation over grooming gangs for precision, though they acknowledge the public's understanding of the latter. Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, Kaya Comer-Schwartz, stated that while all forms of child sexual abuse are abhorrent, London has not seen the specific pattern of grooming gangs seen in places like Rochdale and Rotherham, though cases closest to the public's understanding do exist. This statement was met with skepticism by Assembly Member Emma Best, who felt the Deputy Mayor was not directly answering whether the Mayor's previous statement that such gangs did not exist in London was incorrect.

The MPS is improving its data flagging system, aiming for near 100% accuracy, and is working with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to increase charging rates for sexual offences. The committee also heard about MOPAC's victim support services, including The Lighthouse, a centre of expertise for child sexual abuse, which is being rolled out nationally. MOPAC is increasing the capacity of these services by 20% with additional funding related to Operation Beaconport.

The discussion highlighted the vital role of Multi-Agency Child Exploitation (MACE) meetings, with efforts underway to ensure consistency across London. The Child First strategy, developed with young people and experts, aims to be trauma-informed and victim-centred. For survivors, the message is clear: the MPS is committed to rebuilding trust and encouraging reporting, emphasizing that it is never too late to come forward.

• Police and Crime Committee meeting details

Mayor's Question Time: Housing, Transport, and the Cost of Living Dominate Assembly Agenda

Mayor Sadiq Khan faced a barrage of questions from Assembly Members during Mayor's Question Time on Thursday, 16 July 2026. Key issues dominating the session included the new draft London Plan, the persistent problem of tube noise, the Mayor's transparency regarding his diary, and the use of policing technology.

The Mayor announced the publication of the new draft London Plan, a strategy focused on good growth to increase affordable housing and boost economic development, particularly in future industries like AI and life sciences. He acknowledged the current challenges facing house-building, including high interest rates and rising construction costs, but expressed optimism that the plan would provide a framework for recovery.

Assembly Member Elly Baker raised concerns about the ongoing issue of tube noise and vibration, questioning TfL's progress and transparency. The Mayor committed to ensuring TfL provides more detailed information on rail grinding activities, track renewal programmes, and noise complaints by constituency.

Transparency was a central theme, with Assembly Member Lord Bailey of Paddington repeatedly pressing the Mayor on the delayed publication of his diary. While the Mayor asserted he is the most transparent mayor, the lack of publication for two years led to accusations of hypocrisy. The Mayor apologised for the delay and promised to investigate the reasons for the hold-up.

The use of policing technology, including live facial recognition (LFR) and artificial intelligence (AI), was also discussed. The Mayor highlighted LFR's contribution to over 2,000 arrests and its planned rollout in central London. He assured the Assembly that robust oversight and ethical scrutiny are in place.

Assembly Members also debated the Mayor's approach to housing delivery, with concerns raised about the proposed reduction in affordable housing targets for fast-track planning routes. The Mayor defended these as temporary measures to address market difficulties. The issue of pensions for elected members was resolved with the approval of access to the Local Government Pension Scheme.

For Londoners, these discussions highlight the ongoing efforts to address housing shortages, improve transport, and ensure public services are delivered effectively and transparently. The Assembly's scrutiny of the Mayor's actions remains a vital part of holding him accountable for the future of the capital.

• London Assembly (Mayor's Question Time) meeting details

Upcoming Meetings

• Economy, Culture and Skills Committee: Monday 20 July 2026, 00:00. Topics include proposals for an Overnight Visitor Levy in London, the London Stadium, and the committee's work programme.
  • Economy, Culture and Skills Committee meeting details
• Environment Committee: Wednesday 15 July 2026, 00:00. Topics include London's fly-tipping problem, the committee's work programme, and administrative items.
  • Environment Committee meeting details
• Transport Committee: Tuesday 14 July 2026, 00:00. Topics include autonomous passenger vehicles in London, the committee's work programme, and procedural items.
  • Transport Committee meeting details
• Police and Crime Committee: Wednesday 15 July 2026, 00:00. Topics include grooming gangs in London, a question and answer session with MOPAC and the MPS, and the committee's work programme.
  • Police and Crime Committee meeting details
• London Assembly (Mayor's Question Time): Thursday 16 July 2026, 00:00. Topics include the Mayor's Report, questions to the Mayor, and proposals regarding pensions for elected members.
  • London Assembly (Mayor's Question Time) meeting details
• Budget and Performance Committee: Wednesday 16 September 2026, 10:00. Topics include the committee's work programme and scrutiny of budget and performance issues.
  • Budget and Performance Committee meeting details
• Housing Committee: Wednesday 02 September 2026, 14:00. Topics include the committee's work programme and a review of empty homes in London.
  • Housing Committee meeting details
• GLA Oversight Committee: Wednesday 02 September 2026, 10:00. Topics include the committee's work programme and a review of the GLA's finances.
  • GLA Oversight Committee meeting details
• Planning and Regeneration Committee: Thursday 03 September 2026, 00:00. Topics include the committee's work programme and a review of London's planning policies.
  • Planning and Regeneration Committee meeting details

This week in Greater London Authority:

Housing Crisis Deepens: GLA Land Holdings Under Scrutiny as Delivery Lags

The Budget and Performance Committee met on Thursday, 9 July 2026, to scrutinise the performance and finances of GLA Land and Property Limited (GLAP), the Greater London Authority's (GLA) wholly-owned subsidiary responsible for developing its land holdings. The committee heard stark warnings about the slow pace of housing delivery, persistent issues with loan repayments, and a lack of transparency surrounding GLAP's financial operations.

The core of the committee's concern lies with GLAP's forecast to deliver 68,000 new homes over 25 years. Between 2016 and 2025, only approximately 29,000 homes were started, with two-thirds completed. This slow progress has directly impacted the repayment of a £300 million loan from the GLA to GLAP, originally intended as seed funding. While £85 million has been repaid, £215 million remains outstanding, and questions were raised about why the loan amount has not decreased significantly over more than a decade.

Assembly Members expressed frustration over the lack of public access to GLAP's business plan, citing commercially sensitive information as the reason for its confidentiality. This lack of transparency is particularly concerning given the substantial public funds involved. The committee heard that assumptions in the original business model have been significantly challenged by rising interest rates and inflationary pressures in the construction industry, making the current market incredibly difficult.

Concerns were also raised about GLAP's governance. The GLAP Steering Group, established in 2021, was found to lack formal terms of reference and minutes of meetings, despite meeting quarterly for two years. Auditors noted these issues in 2023, leading to questions about the oversight of informal discussions and decision-making processes. While GLAP directors stated the steering group is advisory, Assembly Members questioned the accountability of these discussions.

The committee heard that GLAP's financial sustainability relies on land receipts, not direct GLA support. However, the business plan forecasting surpluses and loan repayment ability is not publicly available. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for the Assembly to assess the true financial health of GLAP and its impact on the GLA's overall finances.

The slow delivery rates on major projects like Greenwich Peninsula and Barking Riverside were highlighted, with agreements dating back to 2002 and 2013 respectively. These historical agreements lack the controls on delivery pace expected in current contracts, contributing to the overall lag in housing output.

The committee also noted the Mayor's Decision Lists and GLA Group monitoring reports, but the primary focus remained on GLAP's performance. The Budget and Performance Committee's work programme indicates a continued scrutiny of budget and performance issues, with the next meeting scheduled for 16 September 2026.

For Londoners, the slow progress on housing delivery and the lack of transparency surrounding GLAP's finances mean that the promise of new homes, particularly affordable ones, remains uncertain. The committee's findings underscore the urgent need for greater accountability and a more robust approach to ensuring that public land is used effectively to meet London's housing crisis.

• Budget and Performance Committee meeting details

Empty Homes Crisis Worsens: GLA Housing Committee Demands Action on Vacant Properties

The Housing Committee met on Tuesday, 7 July 2026, to address the alarming rise in empty homes across London. The committee heard that the number of vacant properties has surged by 81% since 2016, reaching over 105,000 in 2025. This crisis disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, exacerbating the housing shortage and impacting community well-being.

Dr. Jonathan Bourne, an expert from UCL, described London's housing market as increasingly a financialised commodity market, attracting global investment that contributes to the growing number of empty homes. While local authority empty homes have increased by 60%, privately owned empty properties have seen a more substantial rise. Hannah Brown, Head of Housing Strategy at the GLA, noted that many council homes are empty due to refurbishment or estate regeneration, which are lengthy processes.

The committee heard that current policy interventions, such as the council tax premium, have had limited success in bringing properties back into use. Owners of high-value empty properties are often willing to pay the premium rather than let their homes. Experts suggested that a more impactful measure, like Vancouver's 1% empty homes tax, could be considered, but acknowledged the legal challenges in the UK for identifying property ownership. A more effective approach, it was argued, might be to change what is built, focusing on properties less appealing to investors and more suitable for Londoners, particularly family-sized homes.

The lack of granular data on empty homes was a recurring concern. Dr. Bourne highlighted that definitions of empty can be unclear, and councils possess detailed data that could provide a clearer picture if aggregated. This lack of transparency hinders effective policy-making and makes it difficult to understand the true scale and nature of the problem.

Tom Copley, Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development, outlined the Mayor's actions, including the Council Homes Acquisition Programme and the Right to Buyback scheme, which have helped councils acquire thousands of homes. However, data on how many of these were previously empty is not recorded. The Mayor is also committed to the Homes Off The Streets programme to bring empty social rented properties back into use for former rough sleepers.

For Londoners, particularly those on housing waiting lists, the sheer number of empty homes represents a missed opportunity to alleviate the housing crisis. The committee's discussions underscore the urgent need for more robust data collection, stronger policy interventions, and increased resources for local authorities to tackle this growing problem.

• Housing Committee meeting details

Upward Extensions: A Potential Solution to London's Housing Shortage, But Hurdles Remain

The Planning and Regeneration Committee met on Wednesday, 8 July 2026, to explore the potential of upward extensions as a means to address London's housing needs. While experts highlighted significant spatial potential, the committee heard that technical, regulatory, and financial barriers are hindering the widespread delivery of these developments.

Dr. Rieta Usthuisen of HTA Design estimated that rooftop developments alone could yield around 180,000 homes in London. However, post-Grenfell fire safety regulations, such as the requirement for second staircases and sprinklers in buildings over 18 metres, add complexity and cost, making many projects unviable. Nicholas Boyes-Smith of Create Streets presented research suggesting a potential of 140,000 to 320,000 new homes through upward extensions, but stressed that the current planning regime, with its inherent uncertainty and high costs for obtaining permission, is a significant barrier.

Claire Brady from Historic England acknowledged that heritage assets do not necessarily preclude upward development, citing examples of sensitively designed extensions on listed buildings. However, she emphasised the importance of design quality and integration with the existing character of an area. The committee also heard that basements, while technically feasible, are often costly, disruptive, and can lead to habitability issues, making them a less desirable option compared to upward extensions.

Michael Holland of Populo, Newham Council's housing company, noted that while upward extensions can help families stay in their boroughs and address overcrowding, preserving local character has been a challenge, requiring significant council resources and detailed design codes. He also pointed out that new-build development on brownfield land is currently more economically viable for Populo than upward extensions on existing council housing stock.

Concerns were raised about the potential for upward extensions to lead to more Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) or for corporate investors to flip properties, driving up prices. Local authorities like Tower Hamlets and Haringey have implemented specific policies, such as Article 4 directions and prohibitions on subdivision, to mitigate these risks.

The discussion highlighted the need for more resources, knowledge sharing, and clearer guidance to unlock the potential of upward extensions. While there was broad support for this form of intensification, the committee recognised that overcoming the existing barriers requires a concerted effort from national and local government, alongside developers and residents. For Londoners, particularly those struggling with housing affordability and overcrowding, the promise of more homes through upward extensions remains largely unrealised without significant policy and regulatory changes.

• Planning and Regeneration Committee meeting details

GLA Oversight Committee: Workforce Diversity and Budgetary Concerns Under the Spotlight

The GLA Oversight Committee met on Wednesday, 8 July 2026, to review the GLA's workforce report and budgetary performance. The committee heard that while overall staff diversity is improving, representation at senior levels remains a challenge. Budgetary underspends were also noted, prompting questions about financial management and future funding.

The GLA Workforce Report for the year ending March 2026 indicated that Black, Asian, and minority ethnic staff representation stands at 40.4%, the highest recorded. However, representation at senior grades (12 and above) remains at 28%, a figure that has seen little improvement. Concerns were also raised about the increase in the disability pay gap, which requires further investigation beyond increased declaration rates. Dianne Tranmer, Executive Director of Corporate Resources and Business Improvement, noted that the report excludes changes from the Savings and Efficiencies Programme, with an update to follow.

The committee also discussed proposed new posts within the Specialist Housing and Services (SHS) unit. These posts are intended to meet increased demands due to new Mayoral priorities and external funding streams. While the proposals are to be covered by existing budgets, the long-term sustainability of these roles, particularly those on fixed-term contracts, was questioned.

The London Assembly Quarterly Budget Report for 2025-26 Quarter 4 showed an underspend of £562,000. This underspend was attributed to staffing vacancies, the conclusion of the Secretariat internship programme, and delays in recruitment. While no draw on the Assembly's reserve was required, the committee sought assurances about future funding and the impact of these underspends on service delivery.

The committee also authorised the engagement of an external recruitment agency for the London TravelWatch Board, with costs anticipated to be around £25,000. For GLA staff, these reports offer insights into the organisation's commitment to diversity and financial prudence. However, the persistent underrepresentation at senior levels and the reliance on fixed-term funding for crucial services highlight areas requiring continued attention and strategic planning.

• GLA Oversight Committee meeting details

This week in Greater London Authority:

Grooming Gangs: Harrowing Testimonies Expose Deep-Rooted Failures in Protecting London's Children

The Police and Crime Committee convened on Wednesday, 1 July 2026, to confront the devastating reality of grooming gangs operating in London. Investigative journalists shared harrowing accounts of child sexual exploitation, detailing how these criminal networks prey on the most vulnerable. The committee heard that while the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is reviewing cases, the overall response has been criticised as inadequate, with a particular lack of prosecutions and a significant trust deficit among survivors.

Journalists highlighted that these crimes have been occurring for decades, with perpetrators exploiting vulnerabilities such as neglect and a craving for attention. Children in care are particularly at risk due to fewer advocates and an overwhelmed system. The methods used by gangs are evolving, with an increasing reliance on social media platforms like Snapchat for initial contact. Crucially, the discussion stressed that this is not an issue confined to specific ethnic groups or demographics, reflecting London's diverse population, and that both boys and girls are victims.

A significant concern raised was the lack of transparency from public institutions, including local authorities and the MPS, in addressing and reporting on grooming gangs. Journalists found that while individual cases were sometimes documented, there was a lack of inter-borough coordination and a tendency to downplay or deny the extent of the problem in London. This institutional failure, coupled with a lack of trust from survivors, has created significant barriers to reporting and achieving justice.

The MPS's response was heavily criticised, with journalists citing a lack of prosecutions, inadequate victim support, and instances of victim-blaming. While acknowledging dedicated officers, the overall track record was described as not good enough. Concerns were also raised about the MPS's data collection practices, with reports indicating a historical shambles in recording ethnicity and other relevant details.

The committee heard that while £6.5 million has been invested by the Mayor of London into violence and exploitation support services, and a further £2.4 million package to expand services for victims and survivors, concerns were raised about their availability, accessibility, and capacity to deal with the sheer scale of the problem. The journalists stressed the need for a trauma-informed approach to victim support, emphasizing the importance of advocates and long-term, consistent support.

The committee was urged to push for greater transparency from public institutions and to advocate for a more robust and proactive approach from the MPS. The discussion underscored the critical need for increased investment in early intervention and prevention services, alongside long-term, trauma-informed support for victim survivors.

• Police and Crime Committee meeting details

Audit Panel: Scrutinising Financial Controls and Risk Management Across GLA Services

The Audit Panel met on Wednesday, 1 July 2026, to review the Greater London Authority's (GLA) financial health and operational controls. The panel examined external audit plans, internal audit reports across various departments, and the corporate risk register, ensuring accountability and value for money for Londoners.

The external auditors, EY, presented their planning report for the 2025-26 financial year. While no significant changes in audit risks were noted from the previous year, concerns were raised about the financial sustainability of the Oxford Street Development Corporation's pedestrianisation plan, which relies on unmaterialised commercial sponsorship. The auditors identified a risk of significant weakness in relation to financial sustainability, highlighting that the cost of this ambitious project could ultimately fall back on the GLA's core budget if funding is not secured.

Internal audit reports revealed a generally Reasonable internal control environment across the GLA, with most areas operating effectively. However, specific areas for improvement were identified. In the audit of Creditors and Debtors, findings included inconsistent completion of SAP user access declarations and a lack of clear thresholds for CHAPS payments. The annual report to the Mayor on debt write-offs has also ceased, reducing transparency.

A follow-up review of Disability Working Practices showed improved monitoring of mandatory disability training, but completion rates remained below the 90% target, particularly for managers. This is a concern for ensuring an inclusive workplace for all GLA staff. The Digital Experience Unit also maintained a Reasonable Assurance rating, with the Data, Digital and Technology Strategy not yet finalised and project costing and financial controls requiring further strengthening.

The panel also noted the corporate risk register, which will be updated before the next meeting. Monitoring of expenses and taxable benefits for the Mayor, Assembly Members, and Senior Staff was also reviewed, showing an increase in expenses largely due to foreign travel.

For Londoners, these audits are crucial for ensuring that public funds are managed responsibly and that services are delivered efficiently and effectively. The panel's scrutiny helps to identify potential weaknesses and drive improvements across the GLA's operations.

• Audit Panel meeting details

London Assembly Plenary: Debating Transport Policy and Community Issues

The London Assembly (Plenary) met on Thursday, 2 July 2026, to discuss a range of policy matters, including transport and community issues. A key debate centred on a motion to amend the motorcycle theory and hazard perception testing process, aiming to improve safety for new riders.

The Assembly also considered a motion expressing gratitude to former Assembly Member Zoë Garbett, acknowledging her contributions. The meeting included the presentation and update of petitions, consideration of motions, and noting mayoral commitments. These discussions reflect the Assembly's role in scrutinising the Mayor's actions and shaping policy for the capital.

• London Assembly (Plenary) meeting details

Other Matters

• The Environment Committee meeting scheduled for Tuesday, 30 June 2026, was cancelled.

This week in Greater London Authority:

Fire Safety in Social Housing: Urgent Action Needed as Vulnerable Residents Remain at Risk

The Fire Committee met on Tuesday, 23 June 2026, to address critical fire safety issues in London's social housing. The meeting exposed a stark reality: despite years of warnings and new regulations, many disabled residents still lack accessible fire safety information and adequate evacuation plans. This failure puts them at significant risk, a concern amplified by the slow pace of remedial works on unsafe buildings and persistent gaps in current regulations.

The committee heard from Adam Gabzy, co-chair of Inclusion London, who highlighted the fundamental issue of inaccessible formats. Disabled people are not a homogenous group, he stated, emphasizing that fire safety measures must cater to individual needs. Nine years after the Grenfell Tower fire, the lack of large-print information or flashing alarms for deaf individuals remains a critical oversight. Pamela Newman, vice chair of the G15 Residents' Group, added that residents often rely on trust rather than understanding technical fire strategy documents, and that disabled individuals can fear raising complaints due to being perceived as a problem. This fear is exacerbated when costs for remediation might be passed on to leaseholders, creating a chilling effect on reporting vital safety concerns.

The pace of remediation for buildings with fire safety defects, particularly cladding, was a major point of concern. Newman shared her personal experience of living in a building undergoing six years of remedial works, feeling trapped. While communication from landlords has improved, the use of technical jargon like fire stopping continues to fuel resident anxiety. Ruth Davison, Group Chief Executive of Newlon Housing Trust, detailed innovative blackout testing her organisation undertakes, revealing significant failings even in buildings that had passed individual equipment tests. She stressed the need for a culture of curiosity rather than compliance. However, a significant funding gap for works not covered by the Cladding Safety Fund, and an arbitrary 11-metre height threshold for eligibility, leave many high-risk buildings below this height excluded from crucial support.

Dominic Johnson, Chair of the London Councils' Housing Directors Fire Safety Group, identified delays in the Building Safety Regulator's Gateway 2 process and a lack of skilled contractors as major bottlenecks. Karen Doran, Director of Regulatory Engagement at the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH), explained that while the RSH inspects providers and issues grades, progress is slow. She acknowledged that landlords are accountable for resident safety, even if not the principal accountable person for remediation, but stressed that there is still a long way to go.

The effectiveness of the new Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) regulations, introduced in April 2026, was also debated. Gabzy criticised the legislation as watered-down, citing limitations like the primary residence restriction and reliance on reasonable endeavours rather than best endeavours for identifying residents needing PEEPs. Pamela Oparach, Assistant Commissioner for Prevention and Protection at the London Fire Brigade (LFB), acknowledged the PEEPs legislation as a useful reminder but noted that landlords have always had this obligation. The LFB expressed a desire to measure confidence rather than compliance and for more accessible ways for residents to share information directly.

The committee heard that while progress is being made, the current pace is insufficient to guarantee the safety of all residents. The need for improved communication, accessible formats, and a faster, more accountable approach to remediation is paramount. The potential for co-funding a London Office of Building Safety Officers was discussed as a way to bolster capacity and attract skilled personnel, a collaborative approach that could help address the significant resource challenges faced by various bodies.

• Fire Committee meeting details

Autonomous Vehicles: London's Transport Future Hangs in the Balance

The Transport Committee met on Wednesday, 24 June 2026, to scrutinise the potential introduction of autonomous passenger vehicles (APVs) in London. The discussion revealed a stark divide between the technology's proponents and those concerned about its impact on safety, accessibility, congestion, and employment. While APVs promise enhanced mobility, particularly for disabled individuals, significant questions remain about their equitable integration into London's transport ecosystem.

Representatives from companies like Waymo and Lyft/FreeNow presented their visions, emphasizing rigorous testing and adherence to regulations like the Automated Vehicles Act 2024. They highlighted potential safety benefits, arguing that eliminating human error could reduce accidents. However, Assembly Members raised concerns about the real-world applicability of these claims in London's complex urban environment. Caroline Russell AM questioned the assertion that APVs would not increase congestion, pointing out that empty vehicles circulating could worsen traffic.

Accessibility was a central theme, with Rebecca Posner of the Research Institute for Disabled Consumers and Navi from Transport for All stressing the need for inclusive design from the outset. They warned that without it, APVs could exacerbate existing transport inequalities. While acknowledging the potential for increased independence for some, they also highlighted the loss of human assistance provided by current drivers. The lack of a standardized approach to accessibility criteria for APVs was a significant concern.

The impact on employment for taxi and private hire drivers was a major point of contention. While industry representatives suggested APVs would augment existing services, committee members expressed deep concern about potential job losses. Keith Prince AM specifically asked about the possibility of a contingency fund for retraining drivers, a question that received a mixed response.

The committee also delved into operational aspects, including parking, data privacy, and interactions with emergency services. Waymo confirmed dedicated depots and strict adherence to parking regulations, while assuring GDPR compliance for data collection. However, the discussion around the potential for bias in AV detection systems – with vehicles being more likely to detect adults than children, and white people than those of colour – raised serious ethical questions. Siddhartha, a guest speaker, acknowledged these concerns but stated that regulators are actively working to ensure training data sets are representative.

The regulatory framework itself came under scrutiny, with Transport for London (TfL) officials advocating for greater devolved authority to manage safety and network impacts effectively. The committee's extensive discussion underscored that the successful integration of APVs into London hinges on proactive policy-making that prioritises safety, accessibility, and the needs of all residents, not just commercial interests.

• Transport Committee meeting details

Economy, Culture and Skills Committee: Strategic Licensing Pilot Could Reshape London's Nightlife

The Economy, Culture and Skills Committee met on Wednesday, 24 June 2026, to discuss a proposed strategic licensing pilot in London. This pilot, enabled by amendments to the Licensing Act, aims to grant the Mayor of London greater powers over premises licensing, potentially reshaping the city's vibrant nightlife and entertainment scene, particularly in the West End.

The committee received a report outlining the pilot's potential benefits, including more standardised licensing and extended operating hours. However, concerns were also raised by boroughs, residents, and businesses regarding the implications of these changes. The discussion focused on how to measure the success of any alterations and the level of support from businesses. Invited guests included Alun Thomas, Partner at Thomas and Thomas Partners, and Justine Simons OBE, Deputy Mayor for Culture and Creative Industries.

The committee also noted the Mayor of London's response to its previous letter on credit unions. Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan acknowledged the vital role of credit unions in providing financial services and highlighted the government's Financial Inclusion Strategy and the £30 million Credit Union Transformation Fund. His officers are exploring opportunities in London, and the Mayor is promoting credit unions through his Cost of Living Hub and the Good Work Standard.

The committee reviewed its work programme for the 2026/27 Assembly year, which includes topics such as the Strategic Licensing Pilot, the Overnight Visitor Levy, and Galleries and Museums Entrance Fees. For Londoners, the strategic licensing pilot could mean changes to the hours and types of venues they can visit, impacting the city's cultural and economic landscape. The committee's work programme signals a continued focus on issues that shape London's economy, culture, and skills development.

• Economy, Culture and Skills Committee meeting details

Other Matters

• The Fire Committee also met on Tuesday, 23 June 2026. In addition to the critical discussions on fire safety in social housing, the committee noted the London Fire Brigade's (LFB) response to its report on fire contaminants and the well-being of firefighters. The LFB's work programme was also reviewed, indicating a continued focus on operational performance and prevention strategies.
  • Fire Committee meeting details