Category archive
We respond to consultations from central government, the GLA and other bodies in consultation with, and on behalf of members, and we categorise these under ‘What We’ve said’. This is the category archive for these narratives, each with a link to the related formal response in the archive. There’s a comprehensive archive of all formal consultation responses. in pdf format.
Response to Heathrow Expansion Consultation
The London Forum has submitted a highly critical response to the Government’s consultation on Heathrow expansion policy – link below.
The economic appraisal which forms part of the consultation shows that the relevant costs taken together, including environmental costs, greatly exceed the expected benefits. We cover many other issues in our response; but for that reason alone, we cannot support the draft policy statement.
You only have until 1st September to respond – our previous article has some useful guidance.
Our response is in the What we’ve said archive as usual.
![Crews Hill Station [Photo: Enfield Society]](https://i0.wp.com/www.londonforum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Crews-Hill-station-1024x614-1.jpg?resize=1024%2C614&ssl=1)
Response to New Towns Draft Programme Consultation
We’ve responded to the government’s New Towns Draft Programme Consultation.
The Forum does not support the classifying inner-urban developments or Green Belt extensions as ‘New Towns’. We argue that proposals like Chase Park/Crews Hill (Enfield) and South Barking do not possess the geographic or socioeconomic separation required to build a ‘clear and distinct identity’. Instead, we view these as vehicles designed to accelerate housing delivery while bypassing standard national Green Belt protections and planning scrutiny.
Major Concerns & Recommendations
-
Green Belt & Infrastructure: Locating a new town in Enfield’s Green Belt risks encouraging urban sprawl and destroying an existing horticultural economic base.
Planning Fees consultation response
We’ve responded to the government’s consultation on planning application fees.
While the proposal to set a National Default Fee Schedule at 90% of estimated costs is a step in the right direction, we argue that it’s too blunt an instrument. London’s planning costs are significantly higher than the national average — due to heritage requirements, high-density development complexity, and staffing costs — yet the consultation lacks transparency about how the funding shortfall is distributed across local planning authorities (LPAs). For each category there should be a comparable average or median cost for London LPAs so that the shortfall is apparent.… Read more...
Planning Committee Reforms: Stop the Attack on Local Democracy!
The London Forum has issued a scathing response to the Government’s recent consultation on Planning Committee reforms.
The proposals were branded as authoritarian and anti-democratic
Despite claims that these changes will focus committees on complex cases, the draft regulations actually prevent many significant, contentious applications from ever being seen by elected members.
Under the new “Schedule 1” and “Schedule 2” system, the overriding assumption is that almost all applications will be decided by officers. The Forum is particularly concerned that conservation areas have been excluded from special consideration, and that major phased developments—which can impact communities for decades—will lose essential public scrutiny.… Read more...
National Planning Policy Framework consultation response
We’ve responded to the December 2025 NPPF consultation, which closed on 12th March 2026. This substantial piece of work, contributed to by many subject matter experts, is posted in the ‘what we’ve said‘ archive as usual, and directly linked below for your convenience. It is now fully indexed for searching too.
We are critical of some of the new decision making policies.
Response to ‘Towards a new London Plan’
We’ve formally responded to the consultation on ‘Towards a new London Plan’, which closed yesterday evening, following on from the presentation by the Deputy Mayor, Jules Pipe, at London Forum’s event on 13th May.
We used some AI tools to help summarise our answers to the long set of questions in a readable format, with the detailed summary now held in our ‘What we’ve said’ archive here.
A shorter summary can be found below:
Section 1: Introduction
London Forum expresses strong reservations about the imposed Government’s housing target for London of 88,000 new homes per year, arguing that it was accepted by the Mayor without a proper assessment of London’s actual needs.… Read more...
DCMS Inquiry: Protecting Built Heritage
We’ve responded to the recent DCMS inquiry on Protecting Built Heritage, the response is posted in the ‘what we’ve said‘ archive as usual, and linked below for your convenience.
London Forum commented on the need for funding for English Heritage and Historic England, the importance of grants from the Heritage Lottery Fund and the deployment of enough skilled heritage practitioners.
Consultation Responses
We’ve responded to a couple of recent MHCLG and GLA papers, the responses are posted in the ‘what we’ve said‘ archive, and linked below for your convenience:
Didn’t find what you’re looking for? Try a new search:
![Sewage in the Thames {Photo: Chiswick Calendar]](https://i0.wp.com/www.londonforum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Sewage-in-the-river-Thames.jpg?fit=150%2C100&ssl=1)
Rebuilding trust in the water sector
The Independent Water Commission published its report with 88 recommendations on restoring public and investor confidence in the water sector ...
Planning in London, Issue 139, Oct-Dec 2026
Issue 139 of Planning in London (Oct-Dec 2026), the journal of the London Planning and Development Forum, has been published.
...
Community engagement in growth
London Forum's President, Ben Derbyshire, has written an article on his conclusions from the work of the Historic Places Panel.
...
Draft London Plan response – linked policy by policy
The GLA’s consultation on the draft London Plan 2026 closed on 15 October 2026, London Forum submitted a 39-page response. This is the short version: the main points, then in Our Comments policy by policy, a one or two-line summary of key ...
Most Popular This Week
Member News
-
Annual General Meeting 2026
📆 Wed 28th October | 18:30 - 20:30
🚩 77 Cowcross Street, EC1M 6EL (map)
Wednesday 28 October 6.30pm at The Gallery, 77 Cowcross Street, EC1M 6EL Notice is hereby given to member societies of the 2026 AGM of the London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies. Doors open for networking, drinks and nibbles from 6.00pm. Please book your place(s) using the booking facility ( https://www.londonforum.org.uk/events/agm-2026#booking ). Agenda Welcome and Introduction Approval of the Minutes of the AGM of 16 October 2025, available here ( https://www.londonforum.org.uk/agm-papers/ ) Chair’s Report – Chair Michael Jubb Financial Report – Treasurer Ali Dezyanian Approval of the Annual Report and Accounts for 2025-2026, available here ( https://…
Featured Pages