![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.… Read more...
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).… 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:
How to petition Parliament
Old Kent Road development – update
High Value Council Tax Surcharge
![TBM 'Florence' [Photo: HS2 ltd]](https://i0.wp.com/www.londonforum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/HS2-Florence.jpg?fit=1501%2C1000&ssl=1)
HS2 Reset
The High Speed 2 railway has had numerous resets yet it clings on to its existence albeit in a truncated form. The latest announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport followed the publication of the Lovegrove report into what went wrong, and some interim recommendations from the on-going review of how the project should be reset that is being conducted by HS2’s CEO, Mark Wild. The Lovegrove report is useful because it finally nails the claim repeated over may years by politicians and many of those directly involved in the HS2 project, that its core aim is to increase railway capacity.… Read more...
Most Popular This Week
-
How Effective is Planning Enforcement?
📆 Mon 29th June | 18:30 - 20:30
🚩 77 Cowcross Street, EC1M 6EL (map)
How can we make it work better? Planning enforcement is important. Unless it’s done effectively, the integrity of the whole planning system is put at risk. But it’s one of the most frustrating issues for civic societies and local community groups. We’ll discuss this and related issues at this Open Meeting on 29th June. Please book here ( https://www.londonforum.org.uk/events/how-effective-is-planning-enforcement#booking ) Cases typically include: Large developments that grossly fail to meet planning conditions or even submitted drawings and plans; Illegal demolitions; Unauthorised residential alterations and extensions; Additional floors…