Boris should be 'ashamed' of house building record
London mayor Boris Johnson should be ‘ashamed’ about the lowest house building completion figures in the capital for nearly 20 years, according to his predecessor Ken Livingstone.
Newly released Communities and Local Government department figures show that 11,490 homes were started in 2009, the lowest figure since 1991.
A total of 4,190 affordable homes were started in 2009, significantly down on the pre-recession figures achieved when Mr Livingstone was mayor, with 7,290 started in 2006.
Affordable home completions have also fallen from 7,970 in 2007, to 6,780 last year.
Mr Livingstone said the mayor’s policies, including the removal of the 50 per cent rule for affordable housing in new developments, were the reason for the slowdown in activity.
Mr Livingstone said: ‘Mr Johnson should be ashamed that there were fewer homes being built in London last year than at any time in the past 20 years.
‘Mr Johnson is failing to meet his manifesto promises and failing the hundreds of thousands of Londoners who are being denied the chance of an affordable home to buy or rent because of his refusal to act on this critical issue for London.’
A spokesperson for the mayor responded by pointing to another set of Communities and Local Government department statistics showing a 3 per cent increase in the capital’s net housing supply in the 2008/09 financial year.
He said: ‘During the worst recession for a generation, the mayor has ensured house building continues in the capital, delivering 26,000 affordable homes already and on track to deliver a record 50,000 by 2012.’
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (28)
Sidney Webb | 27/08/2010 5:17 pm
Well, Boris was honest when he said that he would provide the model for the next Tory government - and as if by magic we have Shapps falling over himself to make more gaffes and build less houses than Boris.
But, back to London - where did the £5BN for house building go exactly if Boris did not spend it building houses?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Outside Housing | 27/08/2010 5:20 pm
The most shameful thing of all is the amount of column imches given to the egomaniac and famous loser you quote here so many times. He has already been given a regualr platform by LBC on which he does nothing but try to reignite his former career surrounded by union type cronies and you further indulge him here.
Whatever Boris does or doesn't do and its wisdom, is up for debate. But the other man belongs to yesterday. Why not get a quote from someone with relevance. Try Oona King.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 27/08/2010 5:26 pm
Ken Rocks
Oona's more Disco
Boris - totally Garage
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Outside Housing | 27/08/2010 7:17 pm
Rocks are old, unattractive and usually of little or no use.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 27/08/2010 10:48 pm
Diamonds, Emeralds, Rubies, Saphires - all rocks
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 28/08/2010 2:25 pm
So Boris didn't agree with the Newt's resurrection of the housing policy of that other old London Labour Leader, Herbert Morrison. "We will build the Tories out of London" he said. The Newt, unsurprisingly, agreed. Boris, unsurprisingly, didn't. The electorate concurred with Boris. Deal with it Sparts. The national average for social housing is 18%. The London average is 26%. On that basis the allocation for new social housing in London should be: zero. Boroughs with more than the London average should be encouraged to sell their stock, pay down their debt, and reduce their council tax. I want to live in Eaton Square. I don't earn enough money to. I have to deal with that. One cuts one's suit according to one's cloth, as they say....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Junior | 28/08/2010 2:50 pm
Why we need a Mayor I do not understand none have got it right and listen to p.a. team instead of listening to the people.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave Hollins | 28/08/2010 7:05 pm
The problem with ILAG's Herbert Morison quote is that he never said it. It's an urban myth, much used by Tories to defend Shirley Porter. Just not true. The rest of ILAG's views are just as inaccurate and similarly without foundation.
Livingstome transormed housng in London even though he had few housing powers. The clever use of planning powers and setting clear rules for developers, got London housebuilding moving again. Boris has undermined it all, giving in to the nimbies and the uber-right in places like Hammersmith who want to remove as many social tenants as possible and certainly don't want to build more social rented homes.
Livingstone is the best Labour candidate and will give hope to badly-housed Londoners when he wins again in 2012.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 28/08/2010 11:50 pm
Are you sure you should not be posting as Dave Spart? In what sense are my statistics inaccurate? In what sense am I without foundation in saying that I am unable to live in Eaton Square due to not earning enough money to do so? Pray do tell as I would love to move there if you have a cunning lefty plan to enable this...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave Hollins | 29/08/2010 9:55 am
Ah the Dave Spart line again! ILAG's lack of originality never ceases to amaze. Borrrrring.
The London housing market is very different from the rest of the country. Affordability prioblems are much greater here. The gap between incomes and house prices is much greater. It is therefore no surprise that London has, and needs, many more affordable rented homes.
Livingstone had a very balanced housing programme. He encouraged development of homes for market sale, shared ownership, intermediate rent and social rent. The London Plan helped the public sector get tremendous value for money from the capital subsidies that went in. Developers were pushed hard but generally liked the clear policies that he pursued, which helped them plan their developments. Public and private sectors worked well together for the common good.
The point about Johnson is that he says all the same things - he is also committed to 50,000 affordable homes over hiis mayoralty - so it is not much of a political point. Dave Spart and Boris Johnson agree about what is needed - it's ILAG that is hopelessly out of line with all mainstream assessments of what is required. Johnson's problem is that he is so much in hoc to the Tory boroughs that there is no chance he can deliver.
Johnson has also come out strongly against the Tory/Lib housing benefit changes because he knows that London's success depends on people of all income groups. I almost feel sorry for him that he has to deal with the Tory boroughs and 'supporters' like ILAG. Almost.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment