The Planning and Regeneration Committee met on Friday 4 September 2026 to discuss the Draft London Plan. Key topics included the feasibility of meeting housing targets, the optimisation framework for development, the use of Green Belt land, tall buildings, data centres, and strategies for managing heat risk in new homes. The committee also reviewed the progress of previous actions and noted the upcoming work programme.

Housing Targets and Deliverability

A significant portion of the discussion revolved around the proposed housing target of 558,000 homes within the draft London Plan, a figure considerably lower than the Government's assessed need of 830,000 to 850,000 homes. Deputy Mayor Jules Pipe CBE explained that the 558,000 figure represents a theoretically plausible number of homes that could feasibly be delivered within the 10-year timeframe, acknowledging that achieving even this target is contingent on substantial economic improvement, sustained investment in public transport (including the DLR extension to Thamesmead and the Bakerloo line extension), and a significant increase in affordable housing grant. Without these conditions, the higher government targets are considered unrealistic for a 10-year delivery period.

The committee explored the mechanisms the GLA can employ to boost housing delivery beyond the London Plan, including the Atlas London initiative and the New Homes Accelerator, which provide expertise and support to boroughs to unlock stalled sites. The feasibility of the Government's 1.5 million homes target was questioned, with the Deputy Mayor suggesting it is very ambitious.

Optimisation Framework and Development Standards

The committee scrutinised the new Optimisation Framework, distinguishing it from the previous Density Matrix. Officials explained that the framework offers a more nuanced approach by incorporating both density and height ranges, aiming to steer development towards mid-rise buildings (four to nine storeys) and prevent underdevelopment. The framework sets minimum density expectations but does not include maximums, allowing for justified deviations based on site-specific circumstances and design quality.

Concerns were raised about the Sustainable Access Measure (SAM) replacing PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) as the primary measure for determining development appropriateness. While SAM assesses access to amenities and services more broadly, questions were posed about its potential to create isolated bubble developments and its effectiveness in areas with less developed local transport networks. Mitigation strategies are expected to be detailed in transport policies and addressed at the local plan level.

The discussion also touched upon car-free and car-lite developments, with concerns raised about the lack of nuance in balancing these objectives with the practical needs of residents, including disabled individuals and for deliveries. The general principle is higher densities near transport hubs with tapering off further away, accommodating some car parking.

Green Belt and Tall Buildings

The necessity of utilising Green Belt land to meet housing needs was discussed, particularly in light of national planning policy changes. While acknowledging that Green Belt development is a last resort, the GLA has identified broad locations for growth where brownfield land alone is insufficient. The process involves extensive review and assessment, with boroughs invited to participate. However, the terminology of working with was questioned, with some suggesting it implies cooperation that may not fully exist, appearing more like an imposition. The Mayor provided an undertaking that the London Plan would support refusing permission for development on Green Belt parks unless it enhances greenbelt areas and provides accessible green space.

The definition of tall buildings and mid-rise development was clarified, with the draft London Plan proposing a pan-London definition of tall buildings at 30 metres (approximately 10 storeys) and mid-rise between 12 to 30 metres (four to nine storeys). This aims to promote mid-rise development, which is seen as offering a balance between density and quality of life, with lower construction costs and development risks, and generally being less controversial than very tall buildings. Concerns were raised about the potential for incentivising taller buildings in central London due to higher affordable housing targets, but the viability evidence suggests tall buildings are unlikely to be viable in outer London currently.

Data Centres and Mixed-Use Developments

A new data centre policy has been introduced, distinguishing land for general industrial use from data centres to prevent competition for space. The overarching strategic policy aims to ensure data centres do not undermine London Plan priorities. However, concerns were raised about the potential for data centres to strain electricity and water resources and their increasing unpopularity. The GLA will provide a framework and guidance, but local authorities will be responsible for identifying suitable locations. The policy will operate alongside a forthcoming national planning policy statement on data centres.

The issue of mixed-use developments with low levels of affordable housing was also discussed. While the London Plan has strong expectations for affordable housing, the viability of housing in London is generally challenging, particularly on constrained sites where housing is not the primary objective.

Heat Risk and Cooling

The report highlighted the increasing risk of overheating in London due to climate change, with temperature records being broken and heatwaves becoming more frequent. The Urban Heat Island effect in London exacerbates this challenge. The Committee found that much of London's housing stock, both old and new, is ill-equipped to cope with rising temperatures.

The London Plan's cooling hierarchy, prioritising passive cooling measures like shading and ventilation, was discussed. However, evidence suggested that passive measures are often omitted in new developments due to cost and perceived aesthetic concerns, and that current standards may not be sufficient for future climate projections. The draft London Plan's updated approach to Policy GHR4, with a greater emphasis on external shading, was welcomed, but the need for accompanying guidance was stressed.

The debate around air conditioning also featured prominently. While passive cooling is prioritised, the growing use of inefficient portable units and the increasing need for active cooling, especially for vulnerable residents, were acknowledged. The potential of reversible air-to-air heat pumps for both heating and cooling was highlighted, and the Government's inclusion of these in the Boiler Upgrade Scheme was seen as a positive step.

Concerns were raised about the limitations of Approved Document O (ADO) of the Building Regulations, particularly its exclusion of homes created through Permitted Development Rights and major retrofit works. The Committee recommended that the Government review ADO to ensure its scope is extended.

Finally, the importance of community engagement in communicating heat risk was emphasised. The GLA's Heat Ready Plan was noted, but the Committee called for more robust co-design of communication strategies with Londoners to ensure messages are trusted and effective. The potential for naming heatwaves to increase public awareness was also discussed.

The committee concluded by noting its work programme and upcoming meetings, including further scrutiny of the Draft London Plan.