This is a copy of a letter first published in Property Week, 04 March 2016
It was fantastic to see you focusing on housing in your coverage of the recent LandAid Mayoral Debate (‘Battle for Mayor of London heats up’, 24 February) - and rightly so when one stops to consider the challenges facing our Capital. However, it is also frustrating that all of the candidates again refused to look beyond the status quo in terms of the options available for delivering both an uptake in housing numbers, and indeed a choice of means of housing.
Sweating public assets, as Sadiq Khan suggests, or Zac Goldsmith's focus on regenerating housing estates, are both worthy policies, but they will not go far enough to build the level and breadth of homes that Londoners need. Moreover, they are already being relied upon by boroughs to meet their housing targets.
Inevitably, not all families will want to live in apartment blocks. Sadiq Khan was right to point out that families often want a house with a garden – the very accommodation that both main candidates are fortunate to call home. But they are masquerading the public to suggest that these homes will be provided through a sole reliance on brownfield land within the tightly constrained urban fabric of London. If this debate were to be about planning and not politics, the laudable objective of delivering an urban renaissance on brownfield land would be complemented by a careful assessment of the settlement limits of the Capital. This does not mean concreting over our countryside; however, it does mean adopting a managed, sustainable release of land. A poll taken by Property Week last year (‘Open up the Green Belt to housebuilding, 4 September) demonstrates that 74% of the industry are in agreement on this point, which may not make for great political capital, but it does reflect the stark reality of the situation.