Blog

London business event in upbeat mood as government spending review draws near

Industry leaders, politicians and a mayoral deputy expressed optimism about the capital's economy at a BusinessLDN conference
Charles Wright

Has London “got it’s mojo back”, as one speaker told BusinessLDN’s Future London conference yesterday? Certainly, if not unbounded optimism, there was a real sense among delegates that, in the words of Sir Sadiq Khan’s business deputy Howard Dawber (pictured), the city is “in a good place”.

The capital – “very much the engine of the UK economy” –  was outperforming expectations, EY chief economist Peter Arnold told the gathering. “There are some green shoots out there,” he said. London’s familiar attributes, its capital markets, legal system and talent pool, now coupled with political stability, in Westminster and City Hall, were increasingly making the city a business destination of choice.

The Mayor had already declared June London’s “biggest ever” month for business, with investors attending major events including the SXSW technology, media and creative industries get- together, the Concordia Europe growth summit and London Tech Week, the biggest event of its kind in Europe. And there were plenty more markers of the city’s global status, the conference heard.

London’s economic output amounts to more than 20 per cent of the entire UK economy, delegates were reminded. The city is the top destination in Europe for inward investment by volume, vies with New York as the world’s top financial centre, is third in the global league for video game, film and TV production, and hosts the headquarters of 100 of Europe’s 500 major companies.

West End theatres are outselling Broadway, London was this year declared by Tripadvisor the world’s top tourist destination, and the city is becoming a leading life sciences hotspot too. Furthermore, it remains a manufacturing centre, said Dawber, with, for example, at least 12 million digestive biscuits being produced every day by one West London factory.

In the face of increasing global economic turbulence, he added, London, with “all the ingredients to start up, scale up and internationalise”,  is “looking like one of the places where the world is going to come and do business”.

But if this was now a moment to talk up the city, to “celebrate and champion” what London had to offer, it was also, said BusinessLDN chief executive John Dickie, a time for “urgent action” by government, to support the capital to remain globally competitive and drive growth across the UK. “When London succeeds, the country succeeds,” he reminded the conference. Dawber’s message was similar: “Money spent on London is an investment in growth.”

With just a week to go before the government’s spending review announcements, three familiar areas were singled out. The capital’s housing crisis and the challenge of meeting Whitehall’s 88,000 new homes a year target topped the list, along with transport investment and skills training.

Planning reforms alone would not be enough to boost housebuilding, said Dickie, while Stevan Tennant from developers Ballymore confirmed that current delays in the system meant “honest conversations” were needed to get stalled developments underway. That would mean more grant funding and reducing or even temporarily suspending affordable housing requirements to make schemes viable again, he said.

Legal & General’s Pete Gladwell called for more effort to get pension fund investment into affordable housing, where risk, and returns, could be lower. “That money is in the city, but we are shutting ourselves off from it,” he said. Loan guarantee arrangements as well as grants were likely to feature in housing funding settlements too, he forecast.

With major transport schemes, including Transport for London’s proposed Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo line extensions effectively “shovel-ready” to “unlock” thousands of new homes, the long-sought multi-year funding deal for TfL was a second key demand. “These are not just transport schemes, they are growth catalysts,” said Dickie.

There was also a call to freeing the city to implement new ways of financing investment, such as the “land value capture” arrangements which funded the Northern line extension to Battersea. Private finance arrangements, despite their chequered history, had a role to play, said Kensington & Bayswater MP and leading Labour Growth Group member, Joe Powell. “We must not be held hostage by the failures of the past,” he said.

Powell was confident about the spending review outcomes for the city. “There are constraints on day-to-day spending, but huge capital allocations will be made,” he said. “This feels like an exciting moment for London.”

OnLondon.co.uk provides unique coverage of the capital’s politics, development and culture with no paywall and no ads. Support it for just £5 a month or £50 a year and get things for your money other people won’t. Details HERE. Follow Charles Wright on Bluesky. Photo from BusinessLDN X feed.

Categories: News
Tags: Business LDN, Howard Dawber, John Dickie

News: Borough sums for SEND children ‘don’t add up’

Growing demand for tailored support for London children found to have special educational needs and disabilities is adding to the financial strains local councils face
Dave Hill

Inadequate government funding to help schools support children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) is leading to severe budget deficits, leaving half of the capital’s local authorities at risk of bankruptcy, according to London Councils.

The cross-party organisation, which represents all 32 boroughs and the City of London Corporation, says deficits for SEND provision are on course to reach £500 million by the end of the financial year 2026-27 as the element of the Dedicated Schools Grant from national government provided to ensure legal obligations to SEND children are met fails to keep pace with need.

London Councils estimates that “up to 16” boroughs would already be “unable to meet their projected deficit” were a government “statutory override” provision allowing them to run them for longer not already extended until next March.

Ian Edwards, the group’s executive member for children and young people, said “the sums don’t add up” and that “government funding has failed to keep pace with rising levels of SEND support need, leading to major deficits”. He called on the government’s spending review, due next week, to “recognise these pressures and help us restore stability to the system”.

The number of London schoolchildren found to fall into one or more of the four different categories of SEND has risen by nine per cent, from 85,601 in 2023 to 93,487 in 2024, according to government figures. An education, health and care plan must be put in place for these children, requiring additional resources. Shortfalls have led to local authorities having to take money from other areas to cover these costs, London Councils says.

An increase in SEND support demand in recent years has been largely attributed to better diagnosis and understanding of the help children need, especially the youngest.

Other financial pressures, notably caused by rising costs of social care and housing homeless households temporarily, have already led to seven boroughs having to rely on “exceptional financial support” from the government to make ends meet.

OnLondon.co.uk provides unique, no-advertising and no-paywall coverage of the capital’s politics, development and culture. Support the website and its writers for just £5 a month or £50 a year and get things that other people won’t. Details HERE. Follow Dave Hill on Bluesky.

Categories: News
Tags: education, London Councils, schools

Dave Hill: The politics of The North versus London help no one

Governments have to make choices between competing interests, but appeasing regional grievances at the expense of the greater good would be unwise
Dave Hill

The government’s fast-approaching comprehensive spending review is being previewed in assorted ways, including with stories that areas “outside south-east England” will receive “billions of pounds of extra spending”.

The telling of this story bears the ingrained insinuation that such monies, being “extra”, will demonstrate a recognition that a regional “rebalancing” needs to take place away from the part of the UK London sits at the heart of. After all, London is rich and “gets everything”, doesn’t it, leaving everywhere “outside south-east England” poor?

Not true, of course, although to say so in public is to dive into a rip tide of grievance, moral outrage and parallel worlds. Furious come the tirades, complete with miss-the-point graphs, about tax spend “per capita”. Pungent are the claims, complete with maps stitched from hubris, that, released from the leech of England, the Braveheart spirit would soar free.

Thick and fast flow the denials of hardboiled fiscal facts that taxes raised in London (and the wider south-east) have been subsiding the rest of the UK for decades, no matter how hard any government has tried to change those facts with this or that regional programme or “levelling up” wheeze.

Look at it this way – if, unlike regular readers over several years, you don’t already.

Close to a quarter of the entire UK’s economic output comes from Greater London, in particular from the City, the West End and Canary Wharf. Don’t take it from me, take it from the Office for National Statistics.

Over a fifth of all UK public sector revenue – government income, of which taxes are a major part – is raised in Greater London, which covers one third of one per cent of the UK’s land mass and contains about 13 per cent of its people. During the tax year ending 2023, £216.4 billion out of the UK’s £1,029.3 billion of such revenues were raised in London, or £24,000 for every Londoner. Don’t take it from me, take it from the ONS.

Yet only £172.8 billion, equating to £19,500 for every Londoner, was spent in London in that tax year. In other words, London and Londoners as a whole contribute more than they receive. Don’t take it from me…

Meanwhile, in the North West of England, region of Liverpool and Manchester, less money is spent per person – £17,300. However, the North West also raises less than London does – far less at only £12,800 per person.

It’s a similar story with the West Midlands, containing Birmingham, with the nation of Scotland and with everywhere else except the South East (and, almost, the East).

How come London gets more spent on it per person (“per capita”) than other places? Is it because London gets preferential treatment, as some say? No. In large part, it is because everything in London is more expensive – in some cases vastly more – than everywhere else. It costs more to fund services, to build houses, to pay for just about everything.

So, how come London and Londoners generate more than they have spent on them?  Because without the “net fiscal surplus” London (and the south-east) comes up with, year after year after year, everywhere else would have it harder. They don’t have surpluses. They have deficits. They need London to help them out.

That isn’t bragging. It’s not complaining. It is just saying what’s true, and will remain true for a long time to come. And, no, that does not make it a good thing. On the contrary, the concentration of national economic power in London, a state of affairs that has existed since long before Margaret Thatcher turned up and hurried some of it along, is widely recognised as problematic. What should be done about it?

The first thing not to do is what a certain sort of person in the North, in the Midlands and in Scotland do, which is to hide from reality behind bluster, bravado and fixed false beliefs.

If we’d had something like Crossrail, the argument goes, big multinationals would be moving north. Don’t think so. A less attractive London would, instead, prompt closer looks at Paris, Berlin or New York. (And, by the way, London effectively paid for the Elizabeth line by itself).

Scottish Nationalists habitually insist that their country’s potential to thrive economically if independent is concealed by revenues from North Sea oil and gas being attributed to London because that’s where the sector’s head offices are. Not so.

No, no, no. What’s required are proper solutions: remedies for the long term whose starting point is reality. That means dumping the populist concept of “north-south divide”, which poisons and deceives, and accepting instead that there is wealth north of Watford and hardship in Westminster.

It means recognising that the economies of the capital and everywhere else are interdependent and linked, not inherently hostile rivals.

And it means accepting that unless London’s economy is kept strong, in part through public investment in transport, housing and local authorities that currently can barely cope, the new railways that northern cities have wanted for years won’t be built because there won’t be the money to pay for them.

That’s how progressive redistribution works. But the goal must be to move away from it, to make the rest of the country more productive and self-sufficient.

For national government, that means carefully-targeted, sustained support for all major cities and regions, tailored in partnership with devolved government leaders, who are allowed to get on with their jobs. It means rejecting half measures designed to wean Runcorn off Nigel Farage. And it means resisting any urge to slight London, by crowd-pleasing word or investment deed, which would amount to the same foolish thing. The politics of The North versus London help no one.

London is sometimes likened a goose that lays the nation’s golden eggs. Starve the goose, what do you get? No goose. No eggs.

OnLondon.co.uk provides unique, no-advertising and no-paywall coverage of the capital’s politics, development and culture. Support the website and its writers for just £5 a month or £50 a year and get things that other people won’t. Details HERE. Follow Dave Hill on Bluesky.

Categories: Comment
Tags: Devolution

V&A East Storehouse is latest London 2012 legacy success

The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park continues to add new dimensions to the east of the city's regeneration triumph
Dave Hill

Another piece of the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics legacy was slotted into place this morning with the ten o’clock opening to the public of V&A East Storehouse. The new space occupies an end of the larger of the two buildings next to the Lee Canal at Hackney Wick that originally formed the Games-time media centre, and now has a whole new life as Here East, a research, innovation and start-up complex.

The Storehouse – clue in name – is the famous South Kensington museum’s ingenious and accessible solution to the problem of what to do with its vast reserve collection. This had to be re-housed after the government made known in 2015 that it intended to sell Blythe House, a former Post Office Savings Bank building in West Ken, where the roughly 250,000 objects not displayed at the V&A itself were kept, alongside those of the Science Museum and Natural History Museum.

Moving east had a certain logic for the V&A, which was already committed to founding a new branch, to be called V&A East, as part of the unfolding East Bank culture and education complex across the park adjacent to Stratford. The approach it took broke boldly with precedent.

The idea was that, rather than being kept hidden from view to all but a select few, the reserve collection would be opened up to all, either by putting it on display or by making it available for free individual viewings if ordered from an online catalogue (the service also extends to objects at the South Ken V&A).

Img 5437

The design of V&A Storehouse, by New York-based architects Diller Scofidio and Renfro, combines a warehouse feel with a welcome, and you can linger at your leisure before star items such as Frank Lloyd Wright’s film noir-ish Kaufmann Office (above) a 1920s Frankfurt Kitchen (below) and the 500 year-old Torrijos ceiling. I especially liked the vases. There is a strong local history strand, too. A room is set aside for the David Bowie collection. Its doors are set to open on 13 September.

Img 5442

You can read more about it in the article I was pleased to write for The Wick newspaper and for my piece for On London about a preview visit in October. I went to another preview last week, when architecture critics were shown round. They can be a snotty lot, but their write-ups have been roundly approving.

Img 5440

That was nice to see. It was nice to see, too, as I stood in perfect sunshine watching the queue stretch down the outside of the massive building, that Tim Reeve, deputy director and chief operating officer of the V&A, was there to enjoy the moment, having led the twin-track expansion to the east of the city. He was joined by Gavin Poole, chief executive of Here East, who is enthused by the arrival of the Storehouse, which will bring a further and exciting dimension to the Here East mix.

As people filed in I took my leave – I will be back soon, probably with grandchildren – and walked to Stratford station, past the park’s latest new housing under construction, along Tessa Jowell Boulevard opposite East Bank and across the Waterworks River into Westfield. The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park is a product of political will, design ingenuity and urban vision that still leaves any other Games legacy for dead. The V&A East Storehouse opens a chapter in that story of great British triumph.

Dave Hill is the author of Olympic Park: When Britain Built Something Big, which you can buy direct from On London. Follow Dave on Bluesky.

Categories: Culture
Tags: Here East, Olympic Park, Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, V&A East Storehouse

John Vane: Strand songs

It's an inspiring sort of street
John Vane

The Strand, or just Strand to be official, is a remarkable London street, linking the City and the West End, its name derived from the Old English word for “beach” or “shore”. The tidal Thames, of course, is nearby. The three bits of popular culture below are all inspired by it, directly or otherwise. They span about 70 years of the 20th Century and a bit before.

*

The music hall song Let’s All Go Down The Strand was written by performer Harry Castling and composer Charles William and apparently sung by Castling in the 1890s, though it wasn’t published until 1909. It was popular with British soldiers during WW1 and it had staying power – the Stanley Holloway version below was recorded in 1958, by which time the world had Elvis and Lonnie Donegan.

A year following Holloway’s rendition of the song, in 1959, the famous TV commercial for Strand cigarettes was released. It is famous for its look and location and for its failure to persuade people to purchase that brand of smoke.

The ad’s allure lingered, though. Apparently, it was an inspiration for Roxy Music’s Do The Strand, performed with great assurance on the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1973.

I’m trying to find a way to insert Roxy Music into my next novel. It passes the time while I’m failing to come up with a plot. Perhaps I’ll get the Strand into it too.

John Vane is a pen name used by Dave Hill, editor and publisher of On London. Buy his London novel Frightgeist: A Tall Tale of Fearful Times here or here. This article originally appeared on the John Vane Substack.

Categories: John Vane's London Stories
Tags: culture, The Strand

Sadiq Khan commission recommends ‘decriminalisation’ of small amounts of cannabis for personal use

The long-awaited report concentrates on reducing harms done by the drug itself and the way it is policed in the capital
Dave Hill

Possession of small amounts of natural cannabis for personal use should be decriminalised as part of a wider strategy for reducing harms associated with the drug, according to the London Drugs Commission set up by Sir Sadiq Khan three years ago, whose long-awaited report is published today.

The report, described by City Hall as resulting from “the most comprehensive international study to date of the use, impact and policing of cannabis”, makes 42 recommendations for London and for national policy, covering education and healthcare and the use of stop and search powers.

It stops short of calling for the legalisation of cannabis, arguing instead that control of the drug should be governed by the Psychoactive Substances Act rather than, as at present, by the Misuse of Drugs Act, which would enable the limited decriminalisation advised.

The report of the commission, which has been chaired by former Secretary of State for Justice, Lord Charlie Falconer, comes to five broad conclusions a set out by City Hall:

  1. Cannabis can be addictive and more explicit provision of services focused on problematic use and addiction to the drug is needed, alongside greater join-up across health services.
  2. Possible gains from legalisation, including tax revenues and reductions in criminalisation, can be realised early. However, the extent of harms, particularly with respect to public health, as well as personal and societal costs, take longer to emerge and are not yet well understood.
  3. Inclusion of cannabis as a Class B drug in the Misuse of Drugs Act is disproportionate to the harms it can pose relative to other drugs controlled by the Act. The sentencing options currently available, especially for personal possession, cannot be justified when balanced against the longer-term impacts of experience of the justice system, including stop and search, or of serving a criminal sentence can have on a person.
  4. Cannabis policing continues to focus on particular ethnic communities, creating damaging, long-lasting consequences for individuals, wider society, and police-community relations.
  5. The content and timing of education about cannabis and its use, for both young people and healthcare professionals, is inadequate. It fails to acknowledge drivers of use and, in school settings, is often led by providers who lack sufficient credibility and insight.

Responding to the report, the Mayor said: “The London Drugs Commission report makes a compelling, evidenced-based case for the decriminalisation of possession of small quantities of natural cannabis, which the government should consider. It says that the current sentencing for those caught in possession of natural cannabis cannot be justified given its relative harm and people’s experience of the justice system.”

Falconer said, “It is clear that a fundamental reset is required” and that “the criminal justice system response needs to focus only on the dealers and not the users”. He stressed the need for “reliable, consistent medical and other support” for those suffering from “the averse effects of cannabis use”.

The commission’s deputy chair, Janet Hills, a former Metropolitan Police detective sergeant and former chair of the National Black Police Association, said, “It is time for a shift in our approach to cannabis enforcement to create a more equitable and just system”, adding that the proposed reforms “highlight the need for a more balanced and compassionate approach to policing in our city.”

City Hall says the report will “set the scene for a robust national debate” about how best to reduce the harm done by the drug and would also “help address ongoing disproportionality in the operation of stop and search, which particularly impacts London’s black communities”.

OnLondon.co.uk provides unique, no-advertising and no-paywall coverage of the capital’s politics, development and culture. Support the website and its writers for just £5 a month or £50 a year and get things that other people won’t. Details HERE. Follow Dave Hill on Bluesky.

Categories: News
Tags: drugs, Metropolitan Police, Sadiq Khan

Dave Hill: Is ‘gentrification’ in London emptying its schools? Maybe not

It may be tempting to blame "luxury flats" for falls in demand for primary school places in the capital, but what if the story isn't that simple?
Dave Hill

For most of this century at least, a conspicuous strand of opinion has declared that everything precious about London is being destroyed by big money, especially from abroad. These narratives construct causal connections between property development, especially of housing, and neighbourhood changes that bearers of those narratives dislike, such as the replacement of council-built housing, rises in rent levels and house prices, or the closure of entertainment venues.

They are deployed to explain demographic shifts judged undesirable. They assert, for example, that the building of “luxury flats” leads to local people on lower incomes being “pushed out” of areas, forced to go and live somewhere else they like less. And now this “gentrification” is held to explain recent falls in demand for places at London primary schools. It is declared that the phenomenon has “hollowed out” areas where families used to live but can no longer afford to.

Is the story that straightforward? Or are the reasons for the merging and closing of schools for younger children in several inner boroughs more varied and elusive than that?

The assertion that “gentrification” is directly responsible for the capital’s recent spate of primary school closures has, not for the first time, been made in the Guardian, which has long been a vehicle for “anti-gentrification” polemics, with London usually its focus.

In this case, particular attention is directed at the Elephant and Castle area of Southwark, scene of some of the biggest demolitions of post-war, municipal housing over the past 20 years, and of political protests against them. Already accused of causing “social cleansing”, one of those projects is now found guilty of bringing about the end of a local primary school.

The contention is very similar to one recently made about the ongoing regeneration of the Woodberry Down estate in Hackney, and the coming loss of a primary school near it. However, Census figures showing a rise in the number of under-10s living in the Woodberry Down ward during the regeneration period, an increase in the number of family-sized dwellings in the parts of the estate footprint nearest the school in question, and the fact that a different primary school located on the estate footprint itself sustains a three-form entry, suggest the case for blaming the regeneration might not be all that strong.

Does that mean there is no problem? I wouldn’t go that far. What is the problem, though, exactly? And how can it best be solved?

If dwindling pupil numbers in inner London cannot necessarily or convincingly be blamed on other things that people who campaign against school closures tend to dislike – such as estate regenerations – we might look at London-wide, nation-wide and, indeed, worldwide declines in birthrates, which are happening for a range of reasons, not least more women choosing to have fewer children.

That does not explain, however, why primary schools in inner London boroughs are closing while the same isn’t happening – not yet, anyway – in outer London. The difference is to do with housing costs and availability, yet a blanket characterisation of this as “a larger story of the extreme gentrification” of London, brought about by the arrival of “luxury apartments” obscures a more complicated picture.

For example, the 2021 Census hinted at the emergence of what Richard Brown, in his analysis for On London, cautiously identified as a possible inner borough “boomer belt” – a sharp rise in the percentage of people in their late fifties, and older, living in places like, well, Southwark. Have they sailed in on a tide of hostile foreign investment and “pushed out” the less well off? Or have they been there for decades and turned out to be less likely than predecessor generations to move to the suburbs or Home Counties for a quieter life, vacating dwellings that households with children or couples wishing to have them might move into? Inner London is nicer than it used to be. And their children have outgrown primary school.

Such trends don’t interest polemicists against “gentrification”, though. They prefer to contend that falling primary school rolls result from the “displacement” of poorer households as a result of the appearance of “luxury flats”. And sometimes, as with Southwark’s expunged Heygate estate, it is literally true that plots of land on which social rented homes once stood are now occupied by more expensive dwellings, with former residents having had to move.

However, although London as a whole has seen a net loss of homes for social rent over the past 30 years, the overall figure has remained at around 800,000. Inner London boroughs still contain high proportions of council or housing association rented homes – over 40 per cent in Hackney, almost as much in Southwark – and the tenants living in them, perhaps especially those with young children, are highly unlikely to move, even if they’d like to. Waiting lists for social homes are long. Availability is low.

So maybe the strongest links between Londoners’ accommodation circumstances and falling primary school demand are to be found in other, less stable parts of the housing landscape.

As everybody knows, buying a house or flat in inner London, like renting one privately, has become increasingly, incredibly expensive. Except for the very wealthy, first-time buying there is impossible for younger people, Londoners or otherwise, without some sort of help from the fabled Bank of Mum and Dad. If you can’t get such help, you have no chance. And even if you can, your only option may be to look at relatively cheap outer London, probably the east – Waltham Forest, Redbridge, Newham or beyond.

This is the group being “displaced” from inner London areas they might have been born and brought up in, and also the group that might want to move into London, but can’t afford to move very far into it. Too affluent for social renting, not affluent enough to get a mortgage anywhere near the centre, they are the ones who have their babies in the suburbs or “middle London”, rather than in Zones 1, 2 or even 3, unlike older generations of Londoners.

And even that isn’t entirely new. Households have been moving out of inner London and into home ownership, perhaps to start or enlarge a family, for decades, just maybe not as soon, not as far out or in the same numbers as they are now. Their “down from London” migration to the seaside isn’t novel, either – Brighton has been teasingly known as Hackney-on-Sea for at least a quarter of a century.

Still, no one wants to see primary schools shut, with all the heartache, worry and disruption it entails. And if we can agree that it is not desirable for the core of the capital to be unaffordable for a large section of the population, we need to think about how to turn the situation round.

We need more social and other low-cost rented homes, whether for households with children or not, and regardless of anything else, because London’s homelessness crisis has become a desperate, intolerable, unbearable emergency. But we also need more homes that are affordable for young middle-income households, whose lack of options is contributing to their delaying having children, having fewer of them than they might like, or moving further afield than they might wish to before they have them.

How will such supplies of housing come about? Well, perhaps there will be a housing market crash, as there was in the late 1980s, allowing more people on to “the ladder”. Failing that, there needs to be land, there needs to be a speedy planning system and there needs to be money.

There is no substitute for government funding, the more of it the better. But, equally, there is no getting away from the inconvenient, unpalatable, almost unmentionable reality that a great deal of the newer social and middle income “affordable” housing in London has come from, and will continue to come from, profits generated by the sale of more expensive homes, derived as a condition of planning consents.

If we want more little children living in inner London, we might need more “gentrification” and “luxury flats” there too. Still strange to many, but still true.

OnLondon.co.uk provides unique, no-advertising and no-paywall coverage of the capital’s politics, development and culture. Support the website and its writers for just £5 a month or £50 a year and get things that other people won’t. Details HERE. Follow Dave Hill on Bluesky.

Categories: Comment
Tags: education, gentrification, schools

Talk About London: Alexander Jan on transforming Oxford Street

The latest edition of On London's podcast collaboration with The London Society features a guest who sees clearly the many issues to be addressed if Sir Sadiq Khan's plan is to succeed
Dave Hill

Eight months have passed since Sir Sadiq Khan, backed by national government, announced his intention to revive his plan to bring pedestrianisation to Oxford Street by taking control of the “the nation’s high street” away from Westminster Council through the creation of a Mayoral Development Corporation, which would put City Hall in charge of its future.

Since then, many words have been spoken and written about the project, and a public consultation has taken place. But there is still a long way to go before work can begin on changing this legendary retail avenue in the ways Mayor Khan is hoping for. And if one thing has become clear since his dramatic intervention last September, it is that converting Oxford Street into a tranquil, leisure and retail boulevard will entail a great deal more than simply banning motor traffic and putting down paving slabs.

The guest for the latest edition of Talk About London, a join podcast venture by On London and The London Society (of which I am a trustee), is Alexander Jan, formerly chief economist with Arup, now chief economic adviser to the London Property Alliance, chair of the Central District Alliance and Hatton Garden business improvement districts and also an On London contributor.

Alex talked me and my co-host, London Society chair Leanne Tritton, through the different and legitimate interests of local businesses and local residents, the challenges of crime, maintenance and traffic management, and the question of who will pay for it all – an array of problems to be addressed, dilemmas to be resolved and circles to be squared if Oxford Street is be transformed in a way that works well for its neighbourhood, for London as a whole and for the good of the country too.

You can listen to the podcats here or here or watch it below. Many thanks to Alex for taking part and being so eloquent, clear and comprehensive.

All previous episodes of Talk About London can be heard here and watched here.

The other strand of The London Society’s podcast output is a series called London Explained, comprising scripted documentaries researched, written and presented by me, and produced by BBC Radio 4 producer Andrew McGibbon. Our latest is about the past, present and possible futures of Brick Lane.

Both types of London Society podcast can be heard and enjoyed here.

OnLondon.co.uk provides unique, no-advertising and no-paywall coverage of the capital’s politics, development and culture. Support the website and its writers for just £5 a month or £50 a year and get things that other people won’t. Details HERE. Follow Dave Hill on Bluesky.

Categories: Analysis
Tags: Alexander Jan, Oxford Street, Sadiq Khan