Mayor consults on new draft London Plan

Featured in the Future Transport London Newsletter October 2026

After several delays, a draft London Plan has emerged from County Hall to replace the one drafted in 2017 and finally approved after government interventions in 2021. 

The Mayor hopes this one will be implemented in time for the next Mayoral election in May 2028.

At first sight the new plan is slimmer than the current edition, but much is removed into Annexes.  Annex D deals with transport.

The main changes reflect the government targets for house building.  It seems no-one is able to see the Emperor’s clothes.  Building homes is not just a matter of granting planning permission.  It requires money in the hands of those who want to build rather than those who exist to maximize profit.  It requires land on which to build, construction materials, and construction workers, but the latter needs immigration and that might drive voters into the arms of Reform.

The Plan recognizes that substantial new housing development requires supporting infrastructure, including transport.  There is an emphasis on developing around existing railway stations, even if they are in the green belt, but Annex D contains a wish list with no indication of cost, potential support for new housing, or hurdles to be overcome.  Worse, there is nothing to address the potential impact elsewhere.  A bigger station accommodating more people on the outskirts has no net benefit if people already living further in are crowded out of their trains.

The dates by which schemes might be implemented are vague and in some cases extremely distant.  Mayors always seem to favour glamorous schemes over little noticed ones, and they have a place as the Elizabeth line demonstrates.  But the Northern line extension was much easier to implement and is also successful.  I find it extraordinary that the Piccadilly resignalling scheme does not feature.  It requires no land acquisition or lengthy planning process, and achieves a massive 33 per cent increase in capacity.  As well as facilitating new homes, it addresses the need to reduce car travel to Heathrow (with our without another runway).

PTALs – the means by which places are ranked for public transport accessibility – are discarded.  They were too broad brush (e.g. the Parcel Yard at King’s Cross was equal with the triangle site north of King’s Cross ten minutes’ walk away).  However, the new system is no better and may be worse.

As happened in Chelsea when Crossrail2 was the subject of consultation, there is a danger that public opinion will turn against a handy new railway station for fear that it will be accompanied by over development.

There is some evidence that population growth has stalled and perhaps gone into reverse.  It has always been cyclical; growth from 1901 to 1939, decline from then until 1983, growth again until Covid.  If homes were affordable, the people leaving London could be replaced by those working in London but forced to live outside. 

The requirement to minimize the distances people have to travel, or the development of the 15 or 20 minute city are absent from the plan.  It is difficult to see how the target of 80 per cent of journeys by sustainable means is to be achieved by 2041. 

The Mayor’s transport strategy is seriously out of date and does not reflect current conditions, despite the acknowledgement by TfL that a 10 per cent fall in bus speed produces a 6 per cent decline in passenger numbers.

There are of course many things in the Plan that we need to welcome.  Apart from Just Space and the London Forum, most lobbying for change is likely to come from developers.  The support for Healthy Streets and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, and the opposition to Heathrow’s proposed third runway will have widespread support among environmentalists.

Andrew Bosi