Last week I joined 1,600 other Londoners, Sadiq Khan and even an LBC presenter at Indigo at the O2 for the now annual ‘State of London Debate’. The event offers a rare opportunity for members of the public to pose questions directly to the Mayor of London, and his deputies.

To be expected, much of the debate centred on the recent tragic events at 05 and the rise in terror attacks in London. Sadiq Khan said it best – “We live in unprecedented times”. The high level of security at the O2, reminiscent of an international airport, was testament to this.

In light of Grenfell Tower we would have presumed Khan to be cautious when it came to high-rise buildings, but unexpectedly, he wasn’t. He stated his position emphatically– tall buildings are not a problem when they are designed well.

At a time when tower blocks across the country are failing safety tests this was a bold stance to take and shows the pragmatism of a Mayor who recognises the scale of the capital’s housing crisis. With London constrained by the Green Belt; taller, higher-density buildings on brownfield sites will be an essential part of London’s growth plans. However, it was clear that the Mayor would be looking for stricter safety measures to be made standard.

One brave participant from the audience (a housing developer no less) moved the debate onto a topic dear (or not so dear) to many planner’s hearts - local planning authorities. His frustration was evident; the industry wants to build houses but the process isn’t letting us. In this instance he had been waiting three months for a pre-app meeting. It was a frustration that appeared to be shared by James Murray, the Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development, but Murray saw it is a problem with national government not for the Mayor.

A common thread from the Mayor, his deputies and large parts of the audience was clear at this point – there isn’t enough funding. In what was albeit a left leaning audience, frustration over local government cuts was tangible, and this is an emotion rife within planning departments. Whether or not all the blame should be passed to national government is another question.

This was by no means the extent of the discussion on housing; affordable housing, social housing and green infrastructure were all discussed. But at the end of the debate, it felt like the same conclusion was reached for all topics - frustration.

Perhaps I was too optimistic for solutions or too naïve to the inevitable political wrangling that any high profile event encourages. But, to my mind the story remains the same. High-density mixed use developments, preferably near transport hubs, are still the name of the game. But how we start building this tenure, on a mass scale, is not yet clear.