Can devolution unlock London’s housing crisis? Article by Niamh Piercy, associate partner, Carter Jonas (London).
The government’s target of delivering 88,000 new homes each year in London is bold, and rightly so. It reflects the scale of the challenge facing the capital. Yet as any planner knows, ambition alone does not build homes. In my experience, delivery is held back by viability problems, layers of regulation and an uneven set of priorities between boroughs.
It is encouraging to see ministers finally acknowledging this. The recent package of measures for housebuilding in the capital including temporary relief from CIL, relaxed design standards and a fast-track planning route at 20 per cent affordable housing all suggest a willingness to get things moving. But for me, the real question is not only how London can build more homes, but who should be leading that effort.
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, introduced last year, may provide part of the answer. It proposes new Strategic Authorities with expanded powers over housing and planning. The Greater London Authority (GLA) is expected to fall into the most powerful category, giving the Mayor of London scope to request further devolved powers and take greater control of major planning decisions.
One of the most significant changes is the ability to prepare spatial development strategies. These would enable long-term planning across borough boundaries, linking housing with transport and infrastructure in a way that could make the London Plan more agile and responsive.
The Bill would also give Strategic Authorities the right to call in or refuse key planning applications. This could help overcome local political resistance where projects have stalled for years despite clear housing need.
Alongside this, there are new powers around land acquisition, regeneration and infrastructure coordination. Combined with stronger partnerships with developers and housing associations, these tools could help unlock some of London’s most complex sites such as brownfield land or underused public assets that require significant investment and coordination.
If delivered properly, these reforms could change the way London builds homes. The GLA would be able to streamline decisions, tackle borough-level blockages, coordinate infrastructure and attract investment on a larger scale.
The London Assembly’s Planning and Regeneration Committee has already argued that housing should sit at the top of the policy hierarchy in the next London Plan. The Bill could give the GLA the authority to make that shift a reality.
Meanwhile, the Mayor’s Building More Homes programme, backed by £3.45 billion in capital funding, aims to deliver 40,000 new council homes and 6,000 rent-controlled homes for key workers by 2030. The Bill could give that effort greater momentum by removing layers of bureaucracy and allowing more strategic action.
Still, I have some reservations. Centralising more planning power in the hands of the Mayor could easily strain relations with boroughs. Local democracy matters, and residents will expect a say in how their areas develop. There is also the question of whether the GLA has the staff, expertise and funding to exercise these new powers effectively. Without investment in planning capacity, the best ideas will remain on paper.
So, can devolution unlock London’s housing crisis? I think it can help, but it will not solve it alone. The Bill provides a framework for better coordination and leadership, yet success will also depend on investment in infrastructure, genuine political commitment and sustained collaboration between the public and private sectors.
London’s housing shortage was decades in the making. Devolution may finally give the city the tools to tackle it, but how those tools are used will determine whether ambition turns into delivery.
© London West (powered by ukpropertyforums.com).
This article and its contents are the intellectual property of UK Property Forums and may not be reproduced, distributed, or used in any form without prior written permission. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not constitute legal or professional advice.
