Despite its youthful pretensions, London is an ageing city. On London’s publisher and editor Dave Hill has helpfully triggered a much-needed debate about how it serves older Londoners. By 2035, one in four of us, including Sir Sadiq Khan, will be well over 60, forming the fastest-growing age group.
While the capital can be attractive for some who are already past 50, it is unclear how good it is at meeting all their needs. Surveys by Age UK London show that only a fifth of older Londoners agree that “London is a place where older people are valued”, highlighting a worrying gap between the city’s image and many people’s lived experience.
This over‑50 population is increasingly diverse in background, health, finances and attitudes, so it cannot be treated as a single, homogeneous block. The affluent London retiree has become a popular stereotype, yet this masks the reality that many others are struggling. One in four older Londoners experience poverty with a precarious later life.
How effectively are London’s policies addressing the needs and potential of older residents? In January, the Greater London Authority (GLA) published its Towards an Age Friendly Progress Report 2025, a long-awaited evaluation of its November 2023 Age Friendly Action Plan.
Age Friendly status is supposed to improve older people’s quality of life, support independence and reduce social isolation. Regrettably, only 11 of London’s 32 boroughs have achieved this designation. Critics argue that City Hall’s own journey towards becoming truly age friendly has been slow and tortuous. Covid understandably disrupted priorities, but it was noteworthy that lobbying for a dedicated Older People’s Mission within the London Recovery Programme failed.
The GLA’s progress report is well intentioned and largely lists outputs from various programmes, but it ducks the tougher questions about whether these improve outcomes for older Londoners.
Take housing. The report cites figures for supported and specialist homes (though these are not exclusively for older people), but doesn’t show the difference they make to older Londoners’ lives. London has the highest proportion of older people living in homes blighted by condensation, damp or mould, yet this is not mentioned. We are, though, told that 151 lucky older Londoners were able to move out of the capital through the Seaside and Country Homes scheme for social housing tenants.
On employment, we get to know about adult training provision and learn that 26 employers signing up to the Centre for Ageing Better’s Age-Friendly Employer Pledge. Yet there is nothing about measures to help the large share of older Londoners working in low‑paid or precarious jobs, nor the high numbers who are economically inactive and would sooner not be. Worryingly, though, it reveals a fall in the number of 50 to 59‑year‑olds employed by the GLA. Only five per cent of its staff are over 60.
This raises a broader question about the priority given to age in London’s policy playbook. Within the GLA, it is treated as one of several “protected characteristics” and sits within the City Hall equalities team. But other issues tend to gain more visibility and attention.
At present, the GLA appears to lack a robust long-term strategy for addressing demographic change. Its action plan is not strategic enough to realise the growth benefits of ageing or capture the wider opportunities for social and economic vitality in the capital. For example, the Inclusive Talent Strategy of the London Growth Plan, a joint initiative with London Councils, acknowledges employment barriers facing older people doesn’t give them a sufficiently detailed policy focus.
London needs to be a global leader in managing demographic change if it wants to unlock future economic growth. This means moving away from seeing ageing purely as a burden and a cost. It should instead be reframed as a source of assets, skills, spending power and social input.
There is a need for a new narrative about ageing in London’s policy thinking – one that explicitly aims to secure an economic dividend from demographic change.
The broad priorities are well known. Keeping people in employment for longer depends on flexible working and retirement options. Alongside this, it involves lifelong learning and skills development tailored to older workers and determined action to combat workplace ageism.
Supporting healthy ageing by focusing on prevention in health and social care and by integrating health and care facilities within neighbourhoods will help older people continue to contribute.
This, in turn can, ease pressure on services and reduce long‑term costs. Ensuring good housing for older people, including better use of existing stock and homes that support independent, healthy living, is another essential pillar.
Finally, providing the right infrastructure for older people, from transport to neighbourhood design, will help stimulate local economies. The importance of the so called grey pound is often forgotten.
But this new policy thinking will require a cross‑sector partnership, bringing together policymakers, health services, education providers, employers and businesses, community organisations and older people’s groups. Together they should co‑design policies that harness an older population as a driver of growth rather than just a problem to be managed.
Tim Whitaker is an older age employment consultant, a Trustee of Wise Age and member of the London Age Friendly Forum. Photograph from Age UK London.
OnLondon.co.uk is funded by sales of publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra. To start receiving it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s personal Substack. Thanks.
This is a most timely comment. Over forty years ago I did a study for the Wellcome Foundation on the economics of turning the former St George’s Hospital (facing Hyde Park Corner) into a world class retirement complex for those who wished to spend their last decades within easy travelling of ballet, museums and theatre, with on-site hospitality for friends and relatives as well as intensive care and/or hospice for their final days.
The UK regulatory regime did not (and does not) did allow for such an integrated and humane and approach to looking after the elderly (whether rich or poor) however much it might save with an end toe expensive end-of-life shuffle between home, retirement complex, care home, nursing home, hospital and hospice … each regulated separately for care.
Then add the different regulations for health and safety. I had to advise that such an approach was impossible within the UK. Hence the basic reason the GLA plans were and are cloud cuckoo land unless and until we take a pensioner-centric approach.
If being older is a ‘protected category’ for the GLA, how did it let the Mayor of London and his Oxford Street pedestrianisation team get away with designing-out access to, from, and along Oxford Street for less-able visitors and residents?
Perhaps that issue will be addressed as the plans become more fully-developed.
Very relevant article. Same in Paris. Reframe and rethink the city organization with old people, especially with low incomes, is a huge challenge in front of us, moreover with global warning more and more unbearable the summer for vulnerable people.