Blog

Croydon: Comfortable hold for Labour in Norbury & Pollards Hill by-election

The contest followed the death of popular local stalwart Margaret Mansell
Lewis Baston

Labour successfully defended a seat in the Norbury & Pollards Hill ward of the borough of Croydon in a by-election yesterday (14 March 2019). The Norbury area is a good example of the long-term swing towards Labour in the band of territory that is in neither Inner London nor the wealthy suburban fringe of Outer London – “middle London” if you will. It provided a reasonably safe Conservative ward before the early 1990s, but Labour gained it in the 1994 borough elections on the way to taking overall control of Croydon Council for the first time.

Norbury remained marginal until 2006 when Labour took a decisive lead there, despite the Conservatives regaining control of the council that year and doing well in the elections across London. Labour’s margin in this ward widened steadily in successive borough elections, and by 2014 it was a safe seat for the party. Over the same period, Croydon North has become a Labour stronghold at parliamentary level despite the party not having won a seat in the area before 1992.

Croydon was one of four boroughs that had ward boundary changes in advance of the 2018 elections. The part of the old Norbury that is north and east of the main railway line was moved into a new ward called Norbury Park. The remainder, renamed Norbury & Pollard’s Hill, is a well-defined geographical area enclosed by the borough boundary, the railway line, and a line along Strathyre Avenue. It is in the north west corner of Croydon, by the tripoint where it meets Merton and Lambeth.

Norbury bears a fair resemblance to the parts of Streatham just across the boundary. The ward is a mostly inter-war suburban district, with residential areas either side of the older buildings along London Road that form the heart of the Norbury neighbourhood. It is a predominantly middle-class area – majority (54 per cent) owner-occupied and with only 11 per cent of households renting from the council. It is comfortable, with low crime and low deprivation, and an attractive area for middle- class black and Asian Londoners. In the 2011 census Norbury was a “majority-minority” ward with 43 per cent White British, 19 per cent black and 23 per cent Asian residents. In 2019, on new boundaries, it is likely to be significantly more diverse than that.

As with other similar suburban areas, there is development pressure in Norbury and schemes for densification – the replacement of low-density housing and commercial property with blocks of flats. The local blog Norbury Watch provides a roll-call of planning applications. Other issues for this area bordering two other boroughs include a feeling of being peripheral from Croydon Town Hall and the pressure that cuts are placing on public services such as the local library and park. These sorts of issue are prevalent in Middle London (as in the Thornton ward in Lambeth, where there was also a recent by election) but the way they influence party political campaigning and voting is far from clear and direct.

The by-election was caused by the death of long-serving Labour councillor Margaret Mansell. She was part of the team that achieved that electoral breakthrough back in 1994 and had previously served a term of representing West Thornton from 1986. She was a passionate supporter for the NHS, a stalwart of the Labour Party and an active local campaigner right up to the time of her death, and will be much missed by the community. 

Leila Ben-Hassel is her successor, winning a comfortable majority with 1,379 votes (64.5 per cent) compared to 324 (15.2 per cent) for her nearest competitor, Conservative Tirena Gunter. Ben-Hassel was an officer of the Croydon North constituency Labour Party without much factional allegiance to either the Progress or Momentum wings of her party. In her professional life she is a project manager working for the City of London Corporation.

There was a small net swing from Conservative to Labour (around 1.8 per cent) compared the 2018 borough elections, due to all the three parties (Labour, Conservative and Green) that contested the seat last year losing votes to the additional candidates who took part in the by-election – two Independents, a Liberal Democrat and a UKIP.  It was a stable, orderly sort of result despite the violent political storms that whipped around the Palace of Westminster this week. It is comforting, at least for this analyst, to see that at least some of the normal political rules still apply – in Norbury & Pollard’s Hill, at any rate.

Categories: Analysis
Tags: Croydon, Croydon Council, Croydon North, Lambeth, Leila Ben-Hassel, London Road, Merton, Norbury & Pollard's Hill ward, Strathyre Avenue, Streatham

Government announces £570m for London housing infrastructure

Brent Cross and Old Oak Common to receive funds for enabling construction of new homes, but a business affected by the plans has criticised them
Dave Hill

Two of London’s largest regeneration projects have been promised more than half a billion pounds by the government to facilitate delivery of thousands of new homes.

The success of bids for schemes at Brent Cross and Old Oak Common, both of them in the outer north west of the capital, was announced by Chancellor Phil Hammond in his spring statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday.

Barnet Council will have £320 million made available from the housing infrastructure fund (HIF) to spend on a new Thameslink Brent Cross West railway station, which is expected to lead to at least 7,500 dwellings being built in the Brent Cross Cricklewood development.

The Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC), created under Boris Johnson’s mayoralty to deliver the huge, 1,600 acre project straddling Brent, Ealing and Hammersmith & Fulham, has been awarded £250 million from the same source to facilitate housing development in the mostly industrial Old Oak Common area close to the forthcoming HS2 station.

The funding decision has been welcomed by OPDC chair Liz Peace, who said investment in infrastructure in Old Oak “sends the right message to the market” and will “unlock opportunities for public and private sector collaboration”, while Sadiq Khan said the money will usher in a “new stage” in the development of the Old Oak part of the project area. Early works will include the installation of utilities and drainage systems, and energy centre and a new street, to be delivered by 2023.

However, the provision of the HIF money has been challenged by Cargiant, the secondhand vehicle sales and refurbishment firm that currently occupies 46 acres of Old Oak land north of the Grand Union Canal.

Managing director Tony Mendes said that although both “the GLA and the OPDC have publicly stated that this money would unlock the delivery of 13,000 homes, it does nothing of the sort”. Claiming it is “widely accepted” that Old Oak land to the south of the canal cannot be developed because the Crossrail depot already there would need to be moved, Mendes said “the same is true of the cost of moving Cargiant”.

Last month, Cargiant called for a “pause” in further public investment and a “full inquiry” into the OPDC’s fitness for its task, though Liz Peace has insisted she is committed “working constructively and flexibly” with all landowners in the area and has told On London that she believes the challenges presented by the Crossrail depot can be overcome.

Cargiant had worked up its own plans for redeveloping its land and relocating its business operations, but the OPDC concluded in 2017 that they were not financially viable. The company is currently in discussions with the OPDC over the alignment of a proposed new road which it says would, as things stand, have a significant effect on its business. It warns that if the OPDC “intends to proceed on the basis of using CPO [compulsory purchase] powers to take operational Cargiant land, then we will, of course, be bound to challenge each step of the process”.

On London will be carrying a more detailed article about the dispute between Cargiant and the OPDC next week.

Categories: News
Tags: Boris Johnson, Brent, Brent Cross, Cargiant, Ealing, Grand Union Canal, Hammersmith & Fulham, Liz Peace, Old Oak Common, OPDC, Philip Hammond, Sadiq Khan, Thameslink, Tony Mendes

Brexit: How London MPs voted on the ‘no deal’ motion and amendments

Again, many shades of Tory opinion in the capital were displayed
Dave Hill

The most seasoned Westminster correspondents are still staggering around in shock following last night’s events in the House of Commons, where MPs voted in favour of ruling out a “no deal” Brexit by a clear majority of 43. This followed a much tighter vote in favour of the so-called “Spelman amendment” to the “no deal” motion, which turned it into a far stronger rejection of “no deal” than the government wanted. Another amendment, the so-called “Malthouse compromise”, named after its author Kit Malthouse, the former London Assembly Member for West Central and deputy mayor for policing under Mayor Boris Johnson, was defeated. How did London’s 73 MPs vote on the two amendments and the eventually motion rejecting “no deal” under any circumstances?

Labour. As with Tuesday night’s vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal, the capital’s 46 Labour MPs all did what you want have expected with one predictable exception. The 45 all voted for the Spelman amendment toughing up the main event “no deal” motion, against the Malthouse amendment and in favour of the amended “no deal” motion. The sole exception was dedicated Eurosceptic and Brexit-backer Kate Hoey (Vauxhall), who did the precise opposite.

Conservative. Again, the 21 London Tories were divided and subdivided in various ways. The predominant voting combination, chosen by 13 of the London Tory MPs, was against the Spelman amendment, in favour of the Malthouse and against the “no deal” motion. This meant backing the government in the first and third cases, but opposing it in the second and was the option of the most devoted Brexiters and some of the more flexible ones: Boris Johnson (Uxbridge & South Ruislip); Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford & Woodford Green); Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet); Andrew Rosindell (Romford); Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park); Julia Lopez (Hornchurch & Upminster); Bob Blackman (Harrow East); Greg Hands (Fulham & Chelsea); Chris Philp (Croydon South); Paul Scully (Sutton & Cheam); Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath & Crayford); Mark Field (Cities of London & Westminster); and Bob Stewart (Beckenham).

The other eight Tories did an array of different things. Communities secretary James Brokenshire (Old Bexley & Sidcup), Matthew Offord (Hendon) and minister for London Nick Hurd (Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner) were against Spelman and the “no deal” motion but abstained on Malthouse. Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) was against Spelman and abstained on Malthouse and the “no deal” motion. Ex-minister for London Jo Johnson (Orpington) abstained on everything, as did Mike Freer (Finchley & Golders Green). On London contributor Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst) voted against Spelman, Malthouse and the “no deal” motion, making him the only London Tory MP to vote the way the government wanted him to across the board. Finally, “people’s vote” advocate Justine Greening (Putney), voted for Spelman, against Malthouse and for the “no deal” motion, aligning her precisely with all the London Labour MPs except Kate Hoey. Tories division on Europe appear alive and well in the capital.

Liberal Democrats. Tom Brake (Carshalton & Walllington), Ed Davey (Kingston & Surbiton) and Vince Cable (Twickenham) all went “yes” to Spelman, “no” to Malthouse and “yes” to ruling out “no deal”. As expected, and the same as Greening and the Labour MPs bar Hoey.

Independent Group: Mike Gapes (Ilford South), Joan Ryan (Enfield North) and Chuka Umunna (Streatham) are London’s three TIG MPs. They did the same as the Lib Dems, Greening and nearly all the London Labour MPs.

Tonight, MP vote on extending Article 50. Can’t wait.

 

Categories: News
Tags: Andrew Rosindell, Brexit, Jo Johnson, Theresa May

Earls Court: We still stand ready to buy back ‘Peoples’ Estates’, says council leader

The leader of Hammersmith & Fulham has written a new letter to residents of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates
Dave Hill

Hammersmith & Fulham leader Stephen Cowan has underlined his offer to buy back two housing estates from the major property developer that took control of them as part of a stalled major regeneration scheme.

In a letter to estate residents, Cowan wrote that his Labour administration remains “willing and able” to return to Capital and Counties (Capco) the money it has so far been paid under the terms of a conditional land sale agreement (CLSA) signed in 2013 when the council was Conservative-run.

Cowan says the transfer of the money could be done “within ten days” if Capco would agree to his offer. So far, £90 million of the total of £105 million specified in the CLSA has gone into the council’s coffers.

The West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates form a substantial part of the wider, 77 acre Earls Court redevelopment project which received a green light from City Hall under Boris Johnson before Labour won the council from the Tories in 2014. The estates were lined up for demolition under the plans. Campaigners against this have dubbed them “the Peoples’ Estates”.

Capco has been seeking a buyer for its interests in the scheme, which has seen no significant development activity since early 2015 and no new homes built, despite consent to do so being secured.

In his letter, Cowan says he believes Capco’s “refusal to take my offer” is part of “a misguided attempt” to make their interests in the project area as a whole look more attractive to potential takers.

Another large section of the project area is formed by land on which the two Earls Court exhibition centre buildings stood prior to the closure in December 2014 and subsequent demolition. The land is owned by Transport for London (TfL), which formed a joint venture company with Capco in 2014 with a view to building housing on the site. TfL’s aim was to create a new income stream as well as add to the supply of new homes.

However, Sadiq Khan, who chairs TfL’s board, recently commented that his “patience is wearing thin” with Capco, a view understood to reflect strong feelings within TfL itself. The Mayor too has called for the two estates, West Kensington and Gibbs Green, to be returned to Hammersmith & Fulham under any new or revised plans for the area. Since the election of Mayor Khan, who was critical of the scheme during his successful 2016 mayoral election campaign, Capco have suggested they would submit fresh plans, but none have yet been forthcoming.

Last month, Cowan said the council was exploring using its compulsory purchase powers to take ownership of the former exhibition centre land and the adjoining, TfL-owned Lillie Bridge London Underground depot, which forms another large section of the original development area. In his letter to estate residents Cowan explains that this would be “a complicated legal process which takes time to get right” and that the council is “taking a thorough approach” to it.

Capco has been hit by the fall in prices at the top end of London’s property market, with sales of properties on the nearby separate site south of Lillie Road, called Lillie Square, going more slowly than originally hoped. In May 2018 the company announced plans for a “potential demerger” that would split its troubled Earls Court activities from its profitable holdings in Covent Garden to form two separate companies. Last month it said it was ready for a “prompt” execution of the move as the value of its Earls Court assets were written down by £101 million to £658 million.

Categories: News
Tags: Boris Johnson, Capco, Conservatives, Earls Court Project, Hammersmith & Fulham, housing, Labour, Lillie Road, Sadiq Khan, Stephen Cowan, Transport for London

Brexit: How London MPs voted on Theresa May’s deal

Most followed their party lines or independent inclinations, but the capital's Tories were instructively split
Dave Hill

London has 73 MPs, of whom 46 are Labour, 21 are Conservative, 3 are Liberal Democrat and three are members of the newly-formed Independent Group, all of them formerly Labour. Last night, Theresa May’s slightly-tweaked Brexit deal was defeated in the Commons by 391 votes to 242 – a bruising margin of 149. How did the capital’s MPs vote?

Labour. All 46 voted against the May deal, including Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar & Limehouse), who had said he would support it, and dedicated Brexiter Kate Hoey, MP for 70 per cent Remain-voting Vauxhall.

Conservative. London’s 21 Tories were far more divided over the May deal and were also divided among themselves. Most voted yes, but eight voted no. Of those eight, Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford & Woodford Green), Boris Johnson (Uxbridge & South Ruislip), Julia Lopez (Hornchurch & Upminster), Andrew Rosindell (Romford), Bob Stewart (Beckenham) and Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) are Brexit-backers and the other two – Justine Greening (Putney) and Jo Johnson (Orpington) – are Remainers.

Liberal Democrats.  All three opposed the deal. No surprise there.

Independent Group. All three opposed to deal. No surprise there either.

The Prime Minister’s defeat, though heavy, was not as huge as in January, when she put her deal before MPs for the first time. On that occasion she was defeated by a record-breaking 230 votes. Five London Tory MPs contributed to the reduction in her losing margin by supporting her last night having opposed her deal last time. They are: Bob Blackman (Harrow East), Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath & Crayford), Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park), Greg Hands (Chelsea & Fulham) and Matthew Offord (Hendon).

 

Categories: News
Tags: Andrew Rosindell, Beckenham, Bexleyheath & Crayford, Bob Blackman, Bob Stewart, Boris Johnson, Brexit, Chelsea & Fulham, Chingford & Woodford Green, Chipping Barnet, Conservatives, Greg Hands, Harrow East, Hendon, Hornchurch & Upminster, Iain Duncan Smith, Jim Fitzpatrick, Jo Johnson, Julia Lopez, Justine Greening, Kate Hoey, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Matthew Offord, Orpington, Poplar & Limehouse, Putney, Richmond Park, Romford, Sir David Evennett, The Independent Group, Theresa May, Theresa Villiers, Uxbridge & South Ruislip, Vauxhall, Zac Goldsmith

Sadiq Khan’s ultra low emission zone set to be mayoral election battleground

The Mayor's policy, which comes into force next month, is bold and will face strong opposition
Charles Wright

In just under a month’s time, on 8 April, Sadiq Khan’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) will come into force. It’s another ambitious City Hall move, tackling air pollution by bringing forward enforcement of the toughest vehicle emission standards of any city in the world.

The zone will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week across the same Central London area covered by the congestion charge, with a £12.50 daily charge for most vehicles, rising to £100 for buses, coaches and lorries if strict standards on nitrogen oxides and particulate pollutant emissions are not met. You can check if your vehicle will be liable to pay the charge here.

The figures on air pollution are stark – some 40,000 premature deaths every year across the UK, some 9,000 in London, illegally high pollution levels around more than 400 London schools, and an estimated cost to the capital’s economy of up to £3.5 billion annually. These underpin the Mayor’s “public health emergency” claims.

Air pollution is among the primary causes of cancer, increases the risk of asthma and dementia, and can stunt children’s lung development. Road transport is the greatest contributor to London’s air pollution, responsible for around half of air pollutants.

A curb on polluting vehicles was agreed in 2014 by Boris Johnson, for implementation in 2020. His successor has not only accelerated the timetable and toughened standards, but also confirmed a significant extension of the zone out to the North and South Circular Roads in October 2021.

The Central London ULEZ is forecast to reduce toxic emissions by around 45 per cent by 2020, with further reductions when the extension comes into force and all schools meeting legal pollution limits by 2025.

The timing of the extension inevitably makes London’s air pollution an issue for the 2020 mayoral election, with Conservative contender Shaun Bailey already pledged to “scrap the suburban driving tax”. Might we see a repeat of the Inner London versus Outer London aspect of the 2008 contest between Johnson and Ken Livingstone, with its battle over the congestion charge zone’s western extension? This had been introduced by Livingstone but was scrapped by Johnson after his election win after he promised to consult on it again.

With Labour’s Chingford & Woodford Green parliamentary hopeful Faiza Shaheen also warning the charge could be unfair to poor Londoners, Khan is marshalling heavyweight evidence that tackling air pollution is a “fundamental issue of social justice”.

He told the London Labour conference earlier this month that “those who suffer most from toxic air are the poorest Londoners who have the fewest cars.” City Hall studies suggest that the poorest Londoners are exposed on average to a quarter more nitrogen dioxide pollution than the least deprived, and that 65 per cent of the most deprived households do not own a car compared with 14 per cent of the least deprived households. 

Research released in January found that the ultra-low emission zone would address the exposure gap, reducing it by 72 per cent by 2030, and reduce exposure at all schools to legal levels or below, benefiting the poorest Londoners most.

“It is certain communities which are affected by filthy air the most,” Khan said at the report launch. “It cannot be right that your background and where you live determines the quality of the air you breathe and that is exactly why measures like the Ultra-Low Emission Zone are so vital.”

Khan is putting £48 million into a scrappage fund to help “micro-businesses” and low-income Londoners change to cleaner vehicles, and has also joined other city leaders in calling for £1.5 billion government investment to fund vehicle upgrades across the country.

Categories: Analysis
Tags: Boris Johnson, Chingford & Woodford Green, congestion charge, Faiza Shaheen, Inner London, Ken Livingstone, Outer London, pollution, Sadiq Khan, Shaun Bailey, ultra low emission zone

Decline of Outer London must be addressed, says think tank report

Poor housing and a lack of good local jobs seen as storing up problems for the future
Dave Hill

The Mayor and the suburban boroughs must do more to nourish “inclusive growth” in Outer London if mounting social problems are to be solved and a sense of division from more prosperous Inner London areas is to be avoided, according to a new report.

The Smith Institute think tank calls for an “urgent review” of what what it calls the “agglomeration” approach to economic development pursued by politicians and policy makers in recent years, whereby prosperity and wealth creation encouraged through a focus on clusters of business activity in Central and Inner London areas.

This “city-centralist” approach has downsides for much of Outer London according to the report, which draws on data analysis, themes explored in focus groups with low income Outer Londoners and discussions with practitioners and experts to explain why poverty, inequality and concerns about quality of life have been rising.

Both the number (1.4 million) and the percentage (60 per cent of London’s total) of poor Outer Londoners have risen in the past 15 years, leading to a convergence with the figures for Inner London areas where poverty has long been more marked. In 2004, Outer London contained 32 per cent of London’s most deprived electoral wards, but by 2015 this had risen to 47 per cent.

An increase in the disparity between higher Inner London housing costs and relatively lower ones in Outer ones, together with the impacts of welfare reforms “seem to have driven more low-income people into renting privately in Outer London,” the report concludes. It finds that housing benefit claims have bee rising in Outer London but falling in Inner London, with the list of London local authorities with the highest numbers of private rented sector claimants “dominated” by Outer London boroughs.

The number of jobs available to the working age population has fallen to below the UK average and low pay has become a bigger problem in Outer London than in Inner London over the past ten years. “Evidence suggests that local jobs matter for employment prospects” in these parts of the capital, with “low-income workers unlikely to commute to Inner London” for employment. The quality of work in Outer London is also more likely to be poor.

Many of these issues were raised in focus groups held in four different Outer London boroughs, with concerns expressed that their areas were becoming more like Inner London ones, including over crime. There were also worries that influxes of foreign migrants and young professionals were putting pressure on local housing markets and pushing up costs. Social housing tenancies were seen as desirable, but difficult for the young in particular to obtain.

There was a preference for more and better local jobs over improved transport links into the centre while mixed feelings were expressed about regeneration, including doubts that resulting changes would be of benefit to them.

The report recommends an “agenda for change” comprising a “new vision for Outer London” concentrating on poverty and inclusive growth and playing on the strengths identified by local people, such as strong feelings of community and a pleasure in diversity, while seeking to “rekindle” a dissipated view that Outer London areas can be places of opportunity.

It urges the Greater London Authority to “urgently review” the deployment of funding for Crossrail 2, whose benefits it regards as disproportionately favouring Inner London and says the Mayor should appoint a deputy for Outer London as its champion at City Hall. The revitalisation of town centres and the fulfilment of Outer London’s potential for more affordable housebuilding are also high priorities.

Read the full report, entitled The Unspoken Decline of Outer London, via here.

On London depends on donations from readers to keep going and growing and is now actively seeking funding from suitable organisations. Read more about that here.

 

Categories: News
Tags: affordable housing, crime, housing, Inner London, low pay, Outer London, poverty, private rented housing, Smith Institute

Oliver Jefferson & Jonathan Seager: London needs more Build to Rent homes to help meet its housing challenges

A more professional private rented sector would help the capital to meet its housing targets and reflect the ways in which it is changing
Oliver Jefferson & Jonathan Seager

London is becoming a city of renters. In 2017, 48 per cent of householders were renting – 21 per cent of these householders lived in some form of affordable housing and 27 per cent rented privately. And private renting is predicted to experience significant growth, forming just under 40 per cent of householders in the capital by 2025.

What lies beneath these statistics is a profound change in how Londoners live, as well as a clear guide to the types of homes the city needs to build for the future. But it is a change that politicians and decision makers are only just starting to get to grips with.

The need to build more housing in London, particularly affordable housing, is clear. Our research shows that if London is going to meet its housebuilding target of 65,000 homes a year it will need to find a whopping £8.6 billion of additional investment per annum. The Mayor has secured a record £4.8 billion of affordable housing funding from government to start building 116,000 homes by March 2020. Delivery will in large part be done by London’s housing associations, with a small but important role played by boroughs via direct delivery. Volume housebuilders continue to build but are constrained, as the Letwin Review highlighted, by the speed at which they can sell homes.

To help hit housing targets and to respond to the changing nature of housing tenure in London there needs to be a fundamental shift in the mix of homes we build. What the capital needs, but largely lacks at present, is the construction of high-quality, professionally managed, purpose-built homes for private rent – build to rent (BTR).

In London and across the UK, BTR is starting to gain traction. According to the British Property Federation, London now has close to 15,000 BTR homes with a further 19,000 under construction and 38,000 at various stages of planning. This growth is being supported by changes in public policy by both central and London government. The planning system and housing policy are now starting to reflect the fact that BTR is different from for-sale housing and requires a bespoke set of policies to support its growth.

To help promote a better understanding of BTR, London First, alongside London Councils and planning consultancy Turley, have just published our second edition of ​Everything You Need To Know About Build To Rent in London. The report acts as a short but comprehensive guide on BTR in London, highlighting why the sector is worth finding out about.

BTR has much to offer: it can increase the overall supply and accelerate the construction of new homes as it forms its own distinct housing market; support greater choice for renters, including through the provision of affordable housing; deliver a better quality rental option that is professionally managed; and, crucially, provide the public sector with an opportunity through joint ventures to generate a long-term income stream to invest in local priorities.

London’s private rented sector is currently dominated by small scale amateur landlords, and effective property management and security of tenure is far from a given for too many Londoners. This means that further regulation of the sector is always on the table. Should this come to pass – and there are arguments both for and against a range of interventions – careful thought must be given as to how the role of the BTR sector, as a distinct part of the general private rented sector, can be sustained and indeed enhanced.

The breadth of who lives in a BTR home continues to expand. While the sector holds appeal for the mobile professionals that London needs to remain globally competitive, it also offers homes for essential workers running key services. It is also not exclusively the domain of younger people, with families and older people also living in BTR homes. London’s challenge is to use BTR to help it deliver the city’s changing households needs. This will only be done if we fully understand how the sector operates and unleash its full potential.

Jonathan Seager is London First’s executive director, housing and Oliver Jefferson is associate director of Turley. This article originally appeared on the London First website.

On London depends on donations from readers to keep going and growing and is now actively seeking funding from suitable organisations. Read more about that here.

Categories: Comment
Tags: affordable housing, British Property Federation, housing, London Councils, London First, private rented housing, Sadiq Khan