Category: Front Page News

  • sale of the century: Minister & Mayor’s DeputIES SMOOTH privatisATION OF public land

    sale of the century: Minister & Mayor’s DeputIES SMOOTH privatisATION OF public land

    Minister for Planning Matthew Pennycook MP joined Jules Pipe, London’s Deputy Mayor for Planning, and Tom Copley, London’s Deputy Mayor for Housing, to announce yet more gifts to developers to increase their bank balances

    The three people charged with responsibility for responding to the housing affordability crisis in London – and the plight of hundreds of thousands of homeless families and children, as well as the entire planning system – met with thousands of developers and assorted hucksters in the UK’s largest sale of public land in the UK at Leeds earlier this month, known as UKREiiF.

    The three politicians were there to explain to their wealthy hosts that the next London Plan will be “streamlined”, jettisoning numerous detailed policies and protections, in an effort to make profitable development easier.

    Developers have consistently insisted that the minimum 20% profit which they expect on all projects is jeopardised by requirements to build safe and useful homes. They are particularly annoyed by the Mayor’s attempt to get even a meagre proportion of affordable housing: but they are also keen on removing high standards of quality (such as dual aspect homes, essential in the current heatwave) and post-Grenfell safety requirements.

    The Deputy Mayor said that the London Plan would reduce and simplify the rules for developers, making schemes more profitable. The oligarchic housebuilders – who control much identified housing land in London, which they leave empty to keep house prices high – have almost stopped building over the past 18 months, in order to clear the glut of inappropriate yet expensive 1 and 2 bed which they insist on building.

    The government blames the Mayor and boroughs for demanding too much from developers and not meeting the government’s imposed target of 88,000 newly built homes a year, a level of build which has never been achieved in the past 100 years.

    Jules Pipe explained on behalf of the Mayor that the new London Plan will be “clearer and easier to navigate for the housing industry and councils, stripping away duplication and simplifying policies that have been interpreted oppressively by boroughs”.

    Mr Pipe claimed that “building more homes, particularly social and affordable homes, is a top priority for the Mayor. It’s a moral duty for us all to tackle the crisis in
    homelessness and make housing more affordable for working Londoners” although he promised no new public funds for the essential social infrastructure of council housing; nor did he propose any pressure on the oligarchic landbanking housebuilders to build out the 500,000 homes for which they already have permission.

    At the conference, Deputy Mayor for Housing Copley claimed that new powers secured through the English Devolution and Community Act passed last month will allow City Hall a lower threshold for calling in applications. It will also give the Mayor renewed powers to grant planning permission through Mayoral Development Orders. It is understood that officials have been instructed to scope out major brownfield sites near transport hubs that could benefit from this.

    Minister Matthew Pennycook concluded that “the case for fundamentally transforming the housing system that we inherited is unarguable. By any metric, it has been an abject failure” – but then promised more of the same “build, build, build” policies pursued by the previous Conservative government, but with rocket boosters attached.

  • New councils form

    New councils form

    A Just Space members meeting on 19 May discussed the novel and complex process under way in many of the London boroughs as Labour cedes seats but tries not to cede control. Members reported on the coalition-building prospects for a number of boroughs and we shall be adding links to useful analysis as we come accross it. Do use the comments below if you have suggestions.

    It is enormously important that we get copies of the Alternative Plan for London as a Caring City in to the hands and minds of newly elected councillors. Members went away with bags full of copies.

    The discussion was introduced by a short talk from Michael Ball, coordinator.
    Download his slides here which contain valuable results, data and maps.

    At the end of the week, in which all the bargaining between party groups was completed, the Prime Minister surprised us by banning Labour Councillors from doing deals with Greens

    The meeting also heard and discussed a talk by Sarah Goldzweig on the third anniversary of POP – Protect Our Places – a campaign to defend valued community services, including traditional retail markets, many of whom are Just Space members. Download PDF.

  • LAMBETH IS FOR SALE!!

    LAMBETH IS FOR SALE!!

    The Great British Carve-up with Lambeth’s public land on the menu

    London boroughs including Lambeth were fully represented at the UK’s very own public land sale in Leeds all this past week. 15,000 developers, landowners, and asset extractors have been mixing it up with senior officers, Mayors and councillors at UKREiiF, a 3-day swank’n’swill where public land is sold off.

    Despite the devastating local elections a fortnight ago, Lambeth have been fully represented with senior officers Dipti Patel, Corporate Director of Growth, Matthew Dibben, Regeneration, and Rob Bristow, Head of Planning. The Greens, who form the largest party in Lambeth, promised in their manifesto that they would:

    “Stop the sell off of void properties and council land… Pause and review all housing demolitions… [and] Review all current development schemes based on what benefits they bring to local communities”

    Prospectuses of sites in ‘Opportunity London’ included 8 sites in Lambeth selling for up to £6bn. Six Lambeth housing sites were initially valued at £400m but sold to Vistry for £250m last summer.

    Lambeth Council are still touting a £2.3bn development of offices and replacement homes beside St Thomas’ Hospital – despite funders Baupost pulling out, and strenuously opposed by local residents and small businesses evicted from Old Paradise Yard. Also on the menu was the ‘Waterloo Station Masterplan’ developed by Lambeth with Network Rail and valued at £3bn.

    UKREiiF is the UK’s equivalent of the European MIPIM which descends on Cannes in the south of France each year, where City Mayors and local council leaders procure development of public land. In a flurry of industry buzzwords, UKREiif is described by the owners as:

    “Supporting the UK’s property, infrastructure and built environment sectors… driving industry growth through meaningful connections and market insight: UKREiiF provides a unique platform… convening public and private sector leaders we help accelerate development pipelines…; and shaping strategic decision-making through thought leadership”

    The Leeds UKREiiF swank started just 7 years ago but has proved enormously profitable: it was sold for £76m in July 2024.

  • Launch of Caring City

    Launch of Caring City

    Launch speech by Peter Apps, plus Interviews with participants at the launch of
    The Alternative London Plan for a Caring City

    Thanks to Doug Bounds for the video

    More on the Caring City Plan

    Full transcript of Pete Apps’ talk and of the rest of the meeting. https://justspace.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/JS-Caring-City-launch-checked-transcript-14-Apr-2026.docx

  • PECKHAM IS NOT FOR SALE!

    PECKHAM IS NOT FOR SALE!

    A 6-year by campaign by Aylesham Community Action (ACA) has beaten one of the most successful wealth extractive machines in the country.

     On Tuesday a government Inspector refused to allow the destruction of central Peckham by Berkeley Homes, who wanted to demolish the Aylesham Centre and construct towers of unaffordable housing.

     The Inspector was called in by Berkeley Homes when Southwark Council failed to approve their plans to tear down the 1980s shops at the very heart of Peckham and build 790 unaffordable homes (along with a niggardly 77 ‘affordable homes’ – just 12%) in a phalanx of towers with fewer shops.

    The developers had been in closed discussion with the Council for several years, giving time for the ACA to build a campaign which raised £55,000 – essential to fund full participation as a ‘Rule 6 party’ at the planning inquiry last autumn. They were supplemented by Southwark Council, who got off the fence and opposed the scheme, as did thousands of petitioners and local MP Miatta Fahnbulleh.

    The campaign was powered by local people who were determined to stop Berkeley Homes and their plan to destroy Peckham with “gentrification on steroids by displacing communities and local traders, thereby wrecking Peckham’s heritage, economy and heart.”

     The planning Inspector agreed that Berkeley Homes’s plans breached the site allocation and policies around design, heritage, tall buildings, and protection of small businesses, and was  damning in his condemnation. The proposals would

    “rise cliff-like in the townscape… would tower over its setting, dwarfing Purdon House and would forcefully preside over the open bus station… its elevational articulation would be monolithic and unrelenting. The height and massing of the building would be damaging to the townscape from public vantages… I attribute high levels of harm to the Conservation Area, the locally listed Clocktower, 86-88 Peckham High Street and 98-104 Peckham High Street”

     The Inspector acknowledged that the affordable housing would be a benefit, but in a stinging conclusion he said

     “The circumstances of the case do not lead me to accept new housing and other associated betterments at all costs. [There is] a generational opportunity for Peckham which should be carefully managed to ensure a more optimally designed scheme for future generations.

     “For clarity, even with 35% affordable housing as initially proposed in the planning application process and accepting a worsening housing land supply position of less than 5 years… I would still have found that the level of harm in this case would not be overridden.”

     The Inspector noted that the site allocation “entails a generational opportunity for Peckham which should be carefully managed to ensure a more optimally designed scheme for future generations”.  He noted the how ACA position around affordable housing was “well-intended” and “with residents welfare in mind”.

    This decision will be a blow to those who hoped the Secretary of State’s pro-developer pronouncements to just “build, baby, build” and the government’s attempted neutering of planning would lead to a developer’s free-for-all. It shows that local councils can still refuse terrible schemes – but in this case they only seemed to find the will to do so after the local community had mounted massive protests. Without this, unfortunately, councils from Ealing to Barking and Croydon to Enfield will go on approving thousands of badly designed buildings offering little to the local community.

     ACA were very fortunate to have legal and professional support from Jed Holloway at Southwark Law Centre, and Barrister Hashi Mohamed, along with a fantastic team of locals who acted as witnesses covering Planning, Heritage, Viability and S106.  They also had support from Southwark Housing and Planning Emergency (SHAPE), Peckham Vision, Peckham Heritage, Latin Elephant, Plush SE15, The 35% Campaign, No price on Culture, Southwark Defend Council Housing and many others.  

    Ann Lalic, Aylesham Community Action said ‘This is a great victory, and we need it to push for changes in a planning system that doesn’t work for anyone but greedy and voracious developers!’

     Siobhan McCarthy, Aylesham Community Action said ‘The inspector, puts it in black and white: this a generational opportunity for Peckham.  So there now must be real, comprehensive, lasting, grassroots input from the community on any future plan for the Aylesham site.’

  • The London Slowdown

    The London Slowdown

    Damned by a Trickle – 26 April 2026

    Over the last couple of years construction of new housing in London has, in the words of John Burn-Murdoch, slowed “to a trickle”. The building spree which has seen clusters of new residential towers sprouting around the city has stopped or, as The Telegraph noted in March 

    …housebuilding has collapsed. Just over 4,100 new homes were started in the capital in 2024-25, down 72pc on 2023-24. Developers have warned that without stronger buyer appetite, London’s new-build pipeline will continue to shrink. 

    Plans for many more towers exist of course but economic conditions are no longer right for backers to execute them. The government hopes with deregulation work will resume. 

    Although its fall from grace seemed final in the 70s, high rise housing has made a big comeback since the early 2000s. Planning permission for hundreds of residential towers in London has been granted in the 21st century. Building homes (and student accommodation) in high rise blocks on big, windfall sites is the signature of a growth coalition between developers and politicians. The aims are 

    • more homes on less land
    • economic growth 
    • foreign direct investment (FDI)

    High rise is a key marker of an investable project for foreign investors. The shape of modern London is linked – some might say “obviously” – to the willingness of foreign investors to buy off plan, and their appetite to do so is strengthened by perceived liquidity of standardised residential high-rise. Jeb Brugmann lamented this commodification in the book “Welcome to the Urban Revolution” (2009)

    …industrial batch production has been taken to its logical conclusion: growing numbers of large and small investors have participated in the commodification of the city, producing, purchasing, and flipping generic units (i.e., square feet) of “city” for speculative purposes

    Selling UK assets to foreign buyers is what Mark Carney called “relying on the kindness of strangers”. Without it, the pound could devalue sharply. Given the UK’s reliance on energy and food imports for example, building towers all over London might be said to keep Londoners warm and fed because it safeguards the buying power of the pound in their pocket. However, Carney was not recommending relying on the practice.

    Postwar high rise had nothing to do with FDI or shoring up the pound. The difference is more than economic. Today’s clumps of residential towers are closely packed contradicting the postwar commitment to using towers to free up the ground as parkland or for low and mid-rise family homes, often including houses, a practice known as “mixed development”. Mixed development is exemplified by anonymous estates built in Camden before Sydney Cook came along with his principled rejection of tall buildings. West Kentish Town, Wendling, Bacton, Denton, plus the better known Barrington Court, are estates in Gospel Oak which feature a single tower block or slab surrounded by low-rise. 

    Although mitigating the trade deficit with capital inflows from foreigners buying up London’s formulaic residential “product” is not an explicit aim of planning policy, it surely affects the regulatory and political environment in which decisions are taken about development. 

    There are complicated issues here that are beyond my powers of analysis. But, there are some things worth saying if only because they beg questions of those with answers. First of all, the complicated construction of high rise residential towers relies a lot on imported goods which lessens the benefit of selling the end product to foreign buyers. In other words, there’s a growing UK trade deficit in construction materials and components. The Stay Club building on Holmes Road in Kentish Town provides accommodation for foreign students (good for the balance-of-payments) but all its 358 lettable student rooms were imported as pre-fabricated, pre-furnished bedroom pods from China. The same company’s 19-storey Colindale complex has nearly 600 pods.

    Secondly, UK cities hawk their “investable projects” to foreign investors all the time. The bizarre Opportunity London website hints at desperation for international capital. Meanwhile, the recent Centripetal Cities report on Manchester’s residential densification shows foreign asset ownership generates revenue which does not make Mancunians richer even as the sale of UK land for development might mitigate the trade deficit.

    Lastly, there is a question about spatial planning and UK industrial policy. Current orthodoxy focuses on “site optimisation” but leads to the failing high rise model. The impasse should be recognised as a function of the complexity of high rise buildings which rely on ever more imported finished products, and our town planning culture which lacks a prescription for sensible urbanisation for our times.

    A shift away from high rise densification with its import-intensity towards a new housing stock based on simplified construction and a different approach to urbanisation is needed. We need a new idea about an appropriate domestic building type for a new wave of urbanisation in our country – a robust formula to fit our budget .

    And before the “compact city” is used to argue for sticking with commoditised residential high rise, we might acknowledge that consumption is the issue, not built form. In other words, the densification of London won’t deliver more sustainable life-styles but guarantees construction becomes more expensive and more difficult. 

    Our town planning is productivist without either an industrial strategy or a plan for sensible and achievable urbanisation.

    [Editor adds: this post by Tom Young starts what we hope will be debates on key issues raised in the Just Space Alternative Plan for London as a caring City. Submit via email or comment below. ]

    Left image by Tom Young, right image from a developer’s marketing site.

  • NATIONAL HOUSING DEMONSTRATION

    NATIONAL HOUSING DEMONSTRATION

    Thousands of protesters from across the UK marched through central London on Saturday 18th April to demand respite from the ever deepening housing affordability crisis.

    Banners and placards from hundreds of estate and borough campaigns were on display, including many Just Space members and supporters from Southwark and Lewisham to Hackney and Haringey, as well as pan-London campaigns like the London Gypsy & Travellers and Refurbish Don’t Demolish.

    The impact on Oxford Street’s shoppers of our most reasonable demands – housing affordable to all, rent controls and a national council housebuilding programme – was evident, with one couple pictured eagerly reading our Alternative London Plan for a Caring City!

    Keynote speakers included Zara Sultana MP (Your Party), Sian Berry MP (Green), Zoe Garbett (Assembly Member, Green), relentless campaigner Kwajo Tweneboa and Paul Burnham from Haringey Defend Council Housing.

    As Zoe concluded “this is what community looks like!” – and even King Charles II joined in.

  • launch of just space’s alternative london plan for a caring city

    launch of just space’s alternative london plan for a caring city

    This is the first account of the launch meeting. A full transcript is now available as well.

    Over 50 Just Space members from communities across London attended the launch of our alternative plan on Tues 14th April, which has taken nine months of focused meetings and re-writing to emerge as a collective vision for a Caring City. We were joined by Peter Apps, contributing editor of Inside Housing and acclaimed author of ‘Homesick’ and ‘Show Me the Bodies: How we let Grenfell Happen’

    This is an edited version of the speech and discussion held with Peter Apps on the launch of Just Space alternative London plan – thanks to Peter and all who joined us

    What we are launching is the result of collective work — community groups, campaigners, researchers and residents coming together, sharing knowledge, and coordinating across the networks you all belong to. This alternative London Plan shows what becomes possible when communities take the lead and set out a strategic vision for the city we want.

    We are at a moment of real transition in London’s housing system. The development model that has shaped the city for the last decade — driven by domestic and international investment — is breaking down. Housing delivery has collapsed, and there is clear anxiety in government because the old model no longer works, even on its own terms. Yet instead of accepting this, there are attempts to shock the same failing system back to life. We need to be honest: that approach has failed. New ideas are urgently needed.

    The private rented sector has reshaped London — how people live, how communities form, and what it means to have any stability. Section 21 evictions have pushed rents up and pushed people out. That system is now faltering too, but what replaces it could be even more extractive, as we’ve seen with the rapid expansion of short‑term letting platforms. Without intervention, the pressures on renters will intensify.

    We are also in a period of political change. New parties and independent candidates are gaining ground across London. They may win councils, but they will still inherit authorities with limited resources and limited powers. Without a clear alternative vision, they will face the same constraints that have shaped London for years.

    At the same time, we are seeing the re‑emergence of far‑right narratives around housing — particularly around who is “allowed” to live in council homes. Real frustration about housing shortages is being channelled into division and racialised blame. This makes it even more important to set out clear explanations of what has gone wrong and to identify the real structural drivers of the crisis. There are powerful interests shaping London’s housing system, and they are rarely named.

    Housing has always been a challenge in London, but since the pandemic every indicator has worsened. Homelessness and long‑term temporary accommodation have risen sharply. Councils are now spending extraordinary sums — millions of pounds every day — simply to keep people housed. The current trajectory is unsustainable. The status quo cannot continue.

    And the pressures ahead are significant. Climate change will reshape London: hotter summers, flood risk along the Thames, clay soils that crack, and a built environment full of glass buildings that overheat. These are not abstract risks — they are already affecting people’s homes and health. We need planning that responds to these realities.

    This is also a moment to challenge the dominant economic story that has shaped housing policy for decades. One example is the so‑called vacancy‑chain effect — the idea that building any home, at any price, will eventually “filter down” through a chain of moves until homelessness is solved. This belief remains influential among most economists and policy advisers, even though it ignores spatial realities, second homes, investment properties, and speculative demand. It treats housing as a commodity first and a human need second. And it has been used to justify policies that have deepened the crisis rather than solved it.

    Meanwhile, the housing lobby — developers, mortgage lenders, estate agents — remains extremely powerful. Their interests are often treated as economic common sense, while community‑led alternatives are dismissed as unrealistic. But other cities show that different systems are possible. In places like Zurich, housing cooperatives are embedded directly into local plans. Non‑speculative housing is mainstream, not marginal.

    London’s viability system has long been used to argue that developments cannot afford affordable housing, even when they are profitable. Now, with rising construction costs and fragile supply chains, viability is failing again. Even with reduced affordable housing requirements, the numbers do not work. We need a model that is not driven solely by profit.

    So the question is: what do we do next? This alternative plan is not just a document; it is a tool for organising. There are several concrete steps we can take together:

    1. A London‑wide meeting in late May

    We should set a date — ideally late May, after the 7th May local elections — for a London‑wide gathering. The aim would be to bring newly elected councillors together with community groups and planning officers from the GLA, to build understanding and momentum around this alternative plan. In the last we were able to organise events at the City Hall — with community groups leading sessions on different themes and where members of the Mayor’s team were able to engage with the ideas proposed. A large, open, city‑wide event would help bring these proposals into the mainstream of London planning.

    2. Parliamentary engagement

    There is scope to work with the All‑Party Parliamentary Group on Housing, alongside organisations such as Shelter and Defend Council Housing. There is research from a few years ago on the state of council housing that could be revisited and linked to this plan. This would help bring the issues raised here into national discussion.

    3. European networks

    We are part of a wider European coalition on housing, including partners in cities like Bologna. Sharing this plan through that network strengthens the case for non‑speculative, community‑led housing models across Europe.

    4. International advocacy

    The document can be shared with the UN Special Rapporteur on Housing in Geneva, accompanied by a cover letter. A statement timed for the London elections would help highlight the international relevance of London’s housing challenges.

    Planning is often invisible — even to many people working within it. That invisibility allows the system to be shaped without public scrutiny. With new councillors arriving after May 7th, we have an opportunity to change that. We can hold local discussions, help them understand planning in London, and support them to use the powers they have. Power is lost when it isn’t exercised. Too many decisions are made by a small group, with others simply following. We need to break that pattern.

    New councillors will need to understand planning. Communities need to be connected to decision‑makers. And together we need to build a different future for London.

    This alternative plan is a step toward that future.

    Download a copy of the new Alternative Plan for a Caring City here: https://justspace.org.uk/caringcity/

    Daniel Fitzpatrick, UCL

    A later version of this report is here and that will be the place where onward links and discussions are placed.18 April 2026

  • New NPPF – worse than ever

    New NPPF – worse than ever

    10 March 2026 Just Space has submitted strong objection to the government’s proposed draft NPPF

    “… by appearing to destroy the core mechanisms at the heart of planning since 1947, it is an intensely disturbing document that seems contemptuous of planning itself. It certainly goes far further even than the previous Tory government in its utter determination to wreck the cornerstone of the planning system, local decision-making.”

    Download the full Just Space response.

    Thanks to Southwark Law Centre for their work in the following briefing, circulated earlier:
    https://justspace.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/NPPF-Consultation-2026-JS-Briefing.

    Government proposals:

    National Planning Policy Framework: proposed reforms and other changes to the planning system – GOV.UK

    Other organisations’ responses: (thanks for sharing them, especially to Duncan Bowie.)
    Highbury Group on Housing Delivery
    Housing Forum NPPF-consultation-response-from-The-Housing-Forum.pdf
    RTPI response to the proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system | Championing the power of planning
    CIH responds to the National Planning Policy Framework consultation (December 2025)
    LGA submission to MHCLG NPPF reforms consultation March 2026.pdf
    British Property Federation
    London Forum
    London Councils
    HBF
    NPPF Changes | London Assembly
    Stephen Hill
    Community Land Trusts Network
    Community Planning Alliance

  • Too biased, too late

    Too biased, too late

    The GLA’s plans for the impact appraisal of the next London Plan are strongly criticised by Just Space and many of its member organisations.

    If the GLA were serious about impact they would have started their analysis right at the beginning of making the plan. Then the assessments could alert them to bad policies with likely poor outcomes and could test improvements. In fact this Impact Assessment has yet to start and plan making is well under way.

    The GLA has been consulting on the scope and design of the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) and we find it to be weak in many respects and biased in ways which would make it blind to the downsides of many controversial policies. Policies will gain plus points for growth and plus points for almost all extra density. How can density policy and tall building policy be evaluated if increases in density are the measuring rod for success?

    Another weakness of the approach is the lack of analysis of why earlier plans have failed – especially failed over 25 years to produce anything like enough low-rent social housing. The need for it is unchallenged but the backlog of unmet need mounts. Without much better monitoring, evaluation and explanation it will be next to impossible for the Assessment to point towards better policies.

    Many of the criticisms of the London development process come down to the effects of prioritising developer and land owner profits in the assessment of projects, captured in the phrase ‘subject to viability’ and its application to everything in the plan.

    Is there no alternative? The regulations require a strategic assessment of the plan against reasonable alternatives which have been explicitly or implicitly rejected. Just Space is working on an Alternative Plan for London which differs radically from the Mayor’s and the GLA has no excuse for not exploring some of the main alternatives that Londoners call for: less pressure for growth, a more polycentric metropolitan region with less need to travel, more care and support for existing enterprise.

    Read our consultation response in detail. Download here.It has been prepared by a group of JustSpace members and others have been consulted on drafts. Particularly valuable inputs have come from the Southwark Law Centre.

    CPRE London has submitted a strong critique aimed at evaluation professionals. Reading it is educational. Download here.

    For the previous London Plan City Hall planners got the IIA seriously wrong and were required to go back and do a lot of extra work. Earlier posts have the details.