London is in the grip of a housing emergency
Christopher Worrall is a housing columnist for LFF. He is on the Executive Committee of the Labour Housing Group, Co-Host of the Priced Out Podcast, and Chair of the Local Government and Housing Member Policy Group of the Fabian Society.
London is in the grip of a housing emergency. Rents are soaring, homeownership is a distant dream for most, and the number of families trapped in temporary accommodation has reached unprecedented levels. Yet while some boroughs are stepping up to meet this crisis, others—including Wandsworth and Westminster—are actively making it worse.
The latest London Planning Committee Report 2025 lays bare the stark reality. Boroughs like Ealing (5,391 homes approved), Brent (3,266), and Greenwich (2,226) are doing their part, consenting large numbers of new homes. Meanwhile, Westminster (39 homes approved) and Wandsworth (181 homes approved, while rejecting 440) have effectively ground to a halt.
This is not just an issue of bureaucratic delay or financial challenges—this is a political failure. These councils have a responsibility to provide homes for their residents, yet they are deliberately obstructing development. This obstructionism has dire consequences: rising homelessness, unaffordable rents, and businesses struggling to retain workers.
It is time for serious reform. If boroughs refuse to approve the homes London desperately needs, the government must act. New proposals—including flexible zoning, brownfield planning passports, and density bonuses—offer a clear way forward. London can solve its housing crisis, but only if we take decisive action now.
The Good: Boroughs Leading the Way on Housing
Despite a challenging economic climate, some boroughs have recognised the urgency of the crisis and have prioritised new development.
Ealing has once again proven to be a leader in housing delivery, approving 5,391 homes in 2024—158% of its London Plan target.
Brent (3,266 homes, 106% of target) and Greenwich (2,226 homes, 86% of target) have also performed well, ensuring that new homes are being built where they are needed most.
The City of London (439 homes approved, 258% of its target) has shown that even traditionally commercial areas can play a key role in addressing housing shortages.
These boroughs are proof that large-scale development is possible when councils prioritise the public good over political expediency. They are embracing investment, cutting through red tape, and recognising that a functioning housing market is essential for London’s long-term success.
The Bad: Boroughs Blocking Development and Worsening the Crisis
While some boroughs are making real progress, others continue to obstruct housing at every turn.
Kensington & Chelsea, Islington, and Havering failed to deliver, consenting fewer than 100 homes each. But the worst offender is Wandsworth, having refused more homes (440) than it approved (181). Shockingly, 220 affordable homes were among those rejected—more than the total number of homes it approved. This comes as it takes further steps to increase tax on development through consultation on 50 per cent affordable housing on new schemes. While 13,000 households were on one of the Council’s Housing Waiting Lists, the authorities attitude to development has come under intense scrutiny.
An example of this has been Wandsworth’s refusal of a 50 per cent affordable housing scheme refused last year on the Springfield Hospital site. More recently, the council leader has opposed a 38-storey tower that has subsequently been reduced in height following public opposition from high profile figures such as Mick Jagger. It is argued this approach is deterring housebuilders and developers from bringing sites forward given their anti-development approach.
In a motion submitted to Wandsworth back in July 2021 prior to taking the council, Councillor Dikerdem (now Cabinet Member for Housing) and Councillor Hogg (now Leader) submitted a motion that “should be considered as a matter of urgency” titled “Tackling the Housing Crisis in Wandsworth”. The motion lamented “foreign” investors, the Government’s “slow action” post-Grenfell, and highlighting how the “housing crisis is pricing out local families” that is “fuelling homelessness”. It called on the then Conservative-run council to lobby Government to “drop unhelpful changes to planning rules” that the motion described as a ‘Developers Charter’. The motion also stated Government “should move more quickly” to resolve the “fire safety crisis”.
These views would remain out of kilter with the incumbent Labour government, who has since taken up changes to planning rules that seeks to ‘Get Britain Building’. Not to mention the fact that fire safety, at the time, appeared high up the then Labour oppositions agenda.
But fast forward almost three and a half years and a Labour incumbent later, it would appear Wandsworth council have received an appalling C3 grade grading following a planned inspection by the Regulator for Social Housing. It found “serious failings in the landlord delivering the outcomes of consumer standards” and that “significant improvement is needed”.
The judgement came in relation to fire safety and electrical testing, which were only occurring when properties became vacant. It was found to “not have up to date information on the condition of most of its homes”. This related to 1,800 fire safety remedial actions more than 12 months overdue. Only 6.5% of the councils 17,000 homes had been surveyed in the past 10 years, with the last survey being conducted in 2012. To note, the judgement states none of the actions were categorised as high risk by the London Borough of Wandsworth. While one-third failed to meet “no severity or best practice”. It also more worryingly stated following inspection the regulator found “limited evidence of oversight of health and safety performance by councillors or tenants”. It remains to be seen how with such damning failings and lack of oversight the Cabinet member responsible can remain in post.
Westminster, however, performed even worse when it comes to total overall planning consents, approving a dismal 39 homes in the entire year—less than 1% of its housing target. Recently having refused a second application in Baltic Wharf, Paddington relating to a student accommodation proposal. The refusal will only compound issues in the short-term for the wider housing market as students inevitably are left with fewer purpose-built options to choose from.
Yet in contrast to Wandsworth, the Labour-run administration in Westminster received commendation for its achievements in housing services. Receiving a commendable C1 judgement following its inspection from the Regulator.
The inspection found “effective examples of how it learns lessons when issues arise and puts plans in place to remedy and minimise recurrence, including tackling root causes”. It also has an “accurate record of the condition of its homes including physical surveys which encompass the Housing Health and Safety Rating System and has a process in place to keep this information up to date”. Before adding that the council is “working towards having a full up to date stock condition survey for all its homes by July 2025” and “was able to demonstrate that it uses a variety of supplementary data sources to enable a comprehensive understanding of the condition of its homes”.
It becomes the first Local Authority in London to achieve this rating, of which only a handful of services have achieved in the country. Following taking control of the council, Leader Cllr Adam Hug, and Cabinet Member for Housing Services Cllr Liza Begum, undertook a “deep-dive into housing” through the Future of Westminster Commission. This was in order to understand the key challenges faced by local residents before introducing a “Housing Improvement Programme”, focused on improving repairs, complaints, and support for the councils most vulnerable residents.
Notwithstanding the above, many of these boroughs are not simply “failing” to approve homes; they are actively blocking development. Whether due to local political pressure, outdated planning policies, or simple inertia, their inaction is directly contributing to London’s affordability crisis.
When boroughs refuse to build, the consequences are severe.
Higher rents: With demand massively outstripping supply, private rents in London have surged by double digits over the past year.
Longer social housing waiting lists: More than 1 million Londoners are currently waiting for social housing, yet Wandsworth and Westminster have turned down projects that would help address this crisis. The latter has seen the local Labour Party oppose a Berkeley Homes scheme on Paddington Green comprising of 38 per cent affordable rent in the past. Westminster Council have adopted pernicious policies that aim to make it a “retrofit-first” city, which have added further taxes on development at a time when viability has faced significant challenges already.
More homelessness: London councils are now spending £4 million per day on temporary accommodation, a 68% increase from the previous year.
This is not just bad governance—it is a betrayal of the people who live and work in these boroughs.
The Solution: Serious Reform, Not Empty Promises
To tackle this crisis, fundamental changes are needed to London’s planning system. The current model gives boroughs too much discretion to block development, and the result is a fragmented, dysfunctional housing market.
New research provides clear policy solutions that would unlock thousands of homes and create a fairer, more predictable system:
1. Implement a Flexible Zoning System
A report from Centre for Cities written by Anthony Breach argues that the UK’s discretionary planning system is one of the primary causes of its housing shortage. Unlike other countries with rules-based zoning, England’s system allows councils to block developments even when they meet policy requirements.
The government should introduce a flexible zoning system, where developments that comply with clear, pre-set rules automatically receive approval.
A national planning framework should replace local policies that vary wildly between boroughs.
Local discretion should be dramatically reduced, ensuring that planning officers—not politically motivated councillors—make final decisions.
This system has worked in New Zealand, Canada, and Australia, and would allow London to rapidly increase housing supply while reducing uncertainty for developers.
2. Fast-Track Brownfield Development with Density Bonuses
London has huge amounts of underutilised brownfield land, yet slow planning processes mean much of it remains undeveloped. The Brownfield Planning Passports proposal would fast-track approvals, removing the bureaucratic delays that hold up development.
Pre-approved planning permissions should be granted for brownfield sites, allowing developments to proceed without lengthy applications.
Growth Delivery Zones should be established, prioritising housing and investment in high-need areas.
Planning should be simplified to allow urban infill development without unnecessary restrictions.
Additionally, many housing projects stall because affordable housing requirements make them financially unviable. Rather than forcing developers to reduce the number of homes built, London should adopt density bonuses—a model used successfully in the United States.
Developers should be allowed to build taller and denser projects in exchange for higher affordable housing contributions.
Growth Zones should be designated in areas with high housing demand, where planning restrictions are eased to encourage development.
The Mayor of London should have stronger powers to approve projects in underperforming boroughs.
The 2012 Olympic Park transformation in Stratford showed what is possible when planning bureaucracy is streamlined. The same approach must now be applied city-wide.
3. Reform Local Planning Committees
London’s planning system is deeply politicised, with councillors often rejecting developments against professional advice. The Planning Reform Working Paper proposes reducing this discretion by moving towards a more objective, rules-based system.
Planning officers—not councillors—should have the final say on developments that meet zoning requirements.
Public consultation should be rebalanced, ensuring that pro-housing voices are heard just as much as objectors.
Councils that fail to meet housing targets should lose planning powers.
Too often, local planning decisions are driven by vocal anti-housing activists, rather than the needs of the broader community. This must change and include representative surveys, as recommended by Leeds Building Society and Public First, in particular when conducting local plan consultation.
Final Thoughts: The Time for Action Is Now
London’s housing crisis is a political choice. Some boroughs—Ealing, Brent, and Greenwich—have chosen to build the homes the city needs. Others—Westminster, Wandsworth, and Kensington & Chelsea—have chosen to block progress.
The question now is simple: will London finally fix its broken housing system, or will a handful of obstructionist councils continue to sabotage its future?
The choice is clear. If these boroughs refuse to do their job, the government must take action. London cannot afford more excuses. We must build—and we must do it now.
Left Foot Forward doesn’t have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
