The Housing Committee met to discuss the Draft London Plan 2026, focusing on housing targets, affordable housing policies, and the necessary infrastructure to support new developments. Key discussions revolved around the realism of housing targets, the breakdown of affordable housing tenures, and the critical need for infrastructure investment to precede or accompany new housing developments.

The Draft London Plan 2026 and Housing Targets

The committee engaged in a detailed discussion regarding the housing targets outlined in the Draft London Plan 2026. Councillor Stephen Cowan, Leader of Hammersmith and Fulham and Chair of London Councils, acknowledged the necessity of targets but highlighted challenges in the housing sector, including affordability, viability for developers, and regulatory hurdles. He stressed the need for government action at all levels to stimulate house-building growth. Jason Perry, Mayor of Croydon, found Croydon's overall housing target increase of 4% to be realistic but strongly objected to the imposition of 5,600 homes within the Green Belt, arguing that Croydon could meet its targets on brownfield sites. Liam Shrivastava, Mayor of Lewisham, stated that while targets might be realistic, boroughs need the tools to deliver, emphasizing the importance of infrastructure investment, particularly the Bakerloo line extension. He also expressed concern about the location banding proposal, arguing it could create uncertainty and a race to the bottom in affordable housing targets.

The panel also discussed the impact of external factors such as Brexit, the war in Ukraine, and economic uncertainty on house building. Councillor Cowan noted that Brexit had increased labour and material costs and reduced skilled labour supply. Mayor Perry highlighted inflexibility within the system, particularly around funding for affordable homes and restrictions on local authorities building council homes due to outdated housing allowance rates. Mayor Shrivastava agreed that market pressures and externalities demonstrated the limits of the viability model and stressed the importance of government enabling council house-building.

Affordable Housing and Tenure Mix

A significant portion of the discussion focused on the breakdown of affordable housing targets, particularly the balance between social rent, affordable rent, and intermediate housing. Mayor Shrivastava argued for a stronger emphasis on social housing, stating that his borough needed a minimum amount of genuinely affordable social rent homes. He also expressed concern about shared ownership, describing it as in no way affordable and a potential leasehold crisis. Councillor Cowan suggested that while targets can be set, the delivery of different tenures should be determined by individual boroughs based on their local needs and assessments. He advocated for flexibility within the system, including potential clawback mechanisms within viability assessments to secure more affordable housing if schemes become more profitable.

The committee also debated the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and its calculation of housing need. Councillor Cowan expressed sympathy with the difficulty of accurately gauging need and noted a historical underestimation of need. He argued for building homes to meet the needs of the poorest and the middle, which would require addressing investment challenges. Mayor Shrivastava highlighted a lack of family-sized homes (three-bedroom plus) in developments, stating that schemes often focus on one- and two-bedroom units due to viability. He noted that Lewisham has over 11,000 people on the housing waiting list and a significant number of families in temporary accommodation. Mayor Perry stated that Croydon's focus was on three-bedroom homes, but they also considered larger two-bedroom homes as appropriate for families.

Infrastructure and Transport Connectivity

The importance of infrastructure, particularly transport, was a recurring theme. Mayor Perry advocated for an infrastructure-first approach, arguing that a plan where development precedes infrastructure is a recipe for disaster. He stressed that infrastructure needs to be developed first, with homes following. Mayor Shrivastava echoed this, highlighting the need for schemes to be linked to infrastructure like the Bakerloo line extension and local overground stations, and also mentioned the need for other infrastructure such as doctors' surgeries and pharmacies. Councillor Cowan pointed to the extension of the DLR to Thamesmead, the Bakerloo line upgrade, and the West London Orbital as crucial measures, but noted that Crossrail 2 had been cancelled. He argued that infrastructure planning must go hand-in-hand with house building and that places south of the river are significantly behind those in the north and west in terms of transport links.

Green Belt Development

Mayor Perry's objection to building on Croydon's Green Belt was a significant point of discussion. He argued that the plan's proposal to build 5,600 homes in the Green Belt was unjustified, as Croydon could deliver its targets on brownfield sites. He emphasized that Green Belt land, once lost, cannot be recovered and is crucial for biodiversity and preventing urban sprawl. Jules Pipe CBE, Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Fire Service, explained that the Green Belt was being considered as a last resort due to the inability to meet housing need through brownfield sites alone. He stressed that any Green Belt development would be targeted, focused on areas with good public transport accessibility, and would require significant infrastructure investment and enhancements to green spaces and biodiversity.

Affordable Housing Thresholds and Viability

The committee discussed the reduction of the affordable housing threshold to 20% and the introduction of three 'Location bands' in the Draft London Plan. Lucinda Turner, Assistant Director for Planning and Regeneration at the GLA, explained that these bands were based on viability and sales values, aiming to incentivize developers to provide higher levels of affordable housing. She acknowledged concerns about cliff edges between boroughs and the potential for increased high-rise development, but stated that the approach aimed to balance navigability with the need to embed affordable housing in land values. The discussion also touched on the potential loss of Section 106 (S106) contributions due to emergency measures, with a general level of 50% potential loss noted, though this remains subject to government consultation.

The meeting concluded with a discussion on the mix of housing sizes, with a particular focus on the perceived over-emphasis on one- and two-bedroom units in the SHMA, contrasting with the demand for family-sized homes. The panel acknowledged the complexity of balancing different housing needs and the limitations of current data.