With consultations for the masterplan of the site Lilestone Street occurring right now around Church St including the WAES facilities, it is worth remembering what was said and promised earlier on in the development process. 

The Masterplan presents Lilestone Street dedicated primarily to the Health & Wellbeing Hub, with a homes target of 50 for the site.  In the Cabinet Member report of 9/4/25 which signs off what is termed the ‘Lisson Grove Programme by local councillor Matt Noble as Cabinet Member for Regeneration ( no longer in post).  It mentions a target of “between 250-300 new homes across Orchardson Street and Lilestone Street”.

The attached table above lists all Masterplan development sites that demonstrates how the housing target figures have shifted over time. As the maximum number of homes agreed by Cabinet is 300 across both sites I entered the original figure for the site originally called “Lisson Grove” at Regent’s Canal: 200 and increased the figure for the development on Lisson Green to 100.

A number of questions arise from what has so far emerged about this site:

1. Do the drawings which include envisaged tower blocks for both sites actually depict 300 homes or a higher number?
2. Why were we not consulted about the plans for a 20+ storey tower (never depicted or mentioned previously) in June or July before they went out for consultation?
3. Why did the consultation focus on layout and function of the hub and not also on the very considerable residential part of the development?
4. If such a massive development, requiring the demolition of two existing blocks and the existing community centre, is indeed planned to take place right at the heart of Lisson Green estate, shouldn’t Lisson Green residents have a say?

Now Hunters Architects have set the gold standard for co-designing sites B and C with the local community, communicating clearly and transparently about all aspects of the development. By contrast, why then with Lisson Grove plans (which diverge enormously from the Masterplan), are being presented in a way that avoided key groups in Church St, in such a manner?

All local stakeholders concerned strongly object to the plans. They especially do not want to see a tower block which reduces the floor space available for the hub. They presented good reasons which the Council should respond to in any plans presented at future workshops. Interestingly the report mentions TARA (Tenants and Residents Association) among the consultees though not the Church Street Ward Neighbourhood Forum, which l am a member. 

In the meantime, some other sites have presented themselves in the locality.  With the recent fires at St Marylebone Sub-Stations along Orchardson St, NW1 has been inactive. The site is really not ideal and should be designated for housing particularly when we have the much bigger St Johns Wood sub-station, along Lisson Grove.  It should probably accommodate between 150-250 homes as well.  While Burne House has been around a lot longer, where its quite clear BT don’t really know what to do with it at all, as it holds a lot of old antiquated equipment in it still! I would of thought a site like that could accommodate a few hundred properties, if not another large hotel on this junction of Marylebone flyover and Edgware Rd should not go amiss. 

As other sites present themselves – St Marylebone Sub-Station &  Burne House just off Bell St – does all the increased density in the ward have to be piggy banked on ones which already have social housing on them? Not withstanding the questions, of how the increased density is going to be managed in the long run anyway in the most densely packed ward in the country.  I would of thought a site like that could accommodate a few hundred properties, if not another large hotel on this junction of Marylebone flyover and 

So finally staff members who tend to give short shrift to stakeholders’ concerns about over-densification, would do well to take on board these considerations urgently. 

Hundreds gathered in the Indian capital of New Delhi on Sunday to protest against a rising public health crisis brought on by air pollution, demanding government action. The Riot police dispersed the protesters and detained dozens, saying they did not have the right to demonstrate at the symbolic India Gate plaza.This all reflects on how reducing air pollution in New Delhi is a big challenge — it involves many sources, many stakeholders, and both short‐ and long‐term strategies. Here are some of the most promising measures, drawing on recent research, government plans, and expert recommendations.

To pick the best measures, we need to know what are the key sources and causes the pollution beginning with vehicular emissions (especially older diesel/petrol vehicles); dust from roads, construction & demolition (C&D); biomass/solid fuel burning in households; agricultural stubble burning in neighbouring states (Punjab, Haryana); industrial emissions; waste burning, landfill fires, etc and of course seasonal meteorological effects (winter inversion, low wind, etc.)

• Measure	Why It Helps / What Impact	Key Challenges / What’s Needed
  Stronger emissions standards + vehicle transition• Enforce vehicle emission norms (e.g. BS-VI in India) fully• Accelerate adoption of electric vehicles, especially two‐wheelers, three‐wheelers, buses• Incentives & restrictions (e.g. ban or tax older polluting vehicles)	Vehicles are a major source of PM2.5, NOx, etc. Cleaner cars + EVs reduce local pollution directly. (The Indian Express)	Infrastructure cost (charging stations, reliable power), cost of EVs for users, managing lifecycle emissions, ensuring enforcement so that retrofits or maintenance happen.
  Improve and expand public transport + non-motorised transport• More buses, better routes, last-mile connectivity• More metro rail, integration with buses / autos• Expand safe cycling & walking infrastructure	Reduces number of private vehicles, especially for short trips. Helps reduce congestion (which itself increases emissions per km). (ORF Online)	Requires investment, careful urban planning, removing barriers (e.g. safety, convenience), changing people’s behaviour.
  Control dust from roads & construction• Covering construction materials; using water-sprays / sprinklers• Mechanised sweeping, dust retardant pavements / greenery/verges• Greening roadside areas, planting trees to act as dust sinks	Dust is a large contributor (PM10 etc.), especially in the dry/windy seasons. Controlling dust gives immediate improvements. (The Indian Express)	Costs, enforcement (builders and contractors must comply), maintaining infrastructure, ensuring sufficient water supply for spraying, dealing with narrow and congested roads.
  Reduce biomass / solid fuel burning• Encourage clean fuels for cooking & heating (LPG, electric, biogas) for households, especially the poor.• Provide incentives & subsidies where needed.• Prevent burning of waste & leaves in urban & semi-urban areas.	Household and waste burning is a persistent source of fine particulates (PM2.5) and has serious health impacts. (The Indian Express)	Affordability, ensuring regular supply of clean fuel, behaviour change, enforcement. Some communities may lack infrastructure or awareness. Also winter heating demand is a factor.
  Address agricultural stubble burning• Provide alternatives (mechanised removal, happy seeders, bio-decomposers)• Incentives for farmers to alter crop patterns or harvest earlier• Regional coordination (since smoke drifts from outside Delhi too)	A big part of seasonal air pollution spikes. Mitigating this can reduce extreme pollution events. (Deutsche Welle)	Requires cooperation of multiple states, funding, logistics of equipment, changing traditional practices. Also needs policy incentives, possibly subsidies.
  Stricter industrial & power plant emissions control• Ensure industrial units use proper emission control technologies (filters, scrubbers)• Retire old / inefficient plants; enforce SOx/NOx control measures• Control emissions from brick kilns, coal‐fired plants	Industry & power plants contribute pollutants beyond what traffic does, often with continuous emissions. Long-term gains from controls. (ORF Online)	Big capital costs, regulatory and oversight challenges, political economy (industries may resist, need compensation or support), ensuring reliability of power supply while phasing out polluters.
  Better waste management• Collect, segregate and process solid waste properly to avoid open burning.• Prevent landfill fires; remediate old dumpsites.	Open burning of garbage is a direct source of toxic smoke, particulates. Landfill fires worsen air quality greatly. (Hindustan Times)	Institutional capacity, funding, coordination across municipalities, sustained political will. Also public cooperation in waste segregation.
  Policy & enforcement, monitoring• Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) to enforce temporary measures during high pollution (e.g. limit traffic, ban construction)• Improved air quality monitoring networks, real-time data, early warning systems• Stronger laws, penalties; making sure regulations are actually implemented	Even with good plans, lack of enforcement means they don’t work. Real-time data helps trigger timely actions. (ORF Online)	Requires institutional capacity, political will, avoiding corruption, making sure citizens are aware & involved, coordination across agencies.
  Awareness, behavioural change• Public education about the health effects of pollution, how to reduce exposure (e.g. masks, staying indoors on bad days)• Encouraging car‐pooling, avoiding unnecessary travel, reducing use of private vehicles • Consumer pressure on industry & services (restaurants, power plants)	Behavioural change can amplify the impact of technological measures. Also helps ensure public buy-in so policies are acceptable. (ETHealthworld.com)	Takes time; cultural, economic constraints; sometimes inconvenient or costlier. Need consistent messaging and trust.
  Green infrastructure• More trees, green belts, urban forests, green roofs• Green buffering around sources / highways• Landscaping to reduce dust, cool surfaces (heat islands contribute to pollution chemistry)	Helps absorb some pollutants, reduce dust, improve microclimate. Co-benefits for aesthetics, heat, health.	Space is limited in densely built city; cost; maintenance; selecting appropriate species; ensuring survival (water, soil).

It was good to see yesterday how keen professional were for the decarbonising of London, as it is committed to achieving net zero by 2030. The Mayor, London boroughs and local partners are driving action on housing retrofit, clean transport, and green infrastructure. However, l can not help but think current national regulations and fiscal rules limit local delivery. With existing powers, London government can influence only about half of the emissions reductions required. To bridge this gap, specific powers and funding flexibility must be devolved from central government.

So you will find below a list of key powers and policy asks for London from Central government. 

With Planning & Building Standards, devolve power to set higher local energy performance standards for new developments and refurbishments. Simplifying planning for solar PV, EV charging, and retrofits to fast-track local decarbonisation.

With Heat Networks & Local Energy Systems, grant statutory powers to designate Heat Network Zones and require building connections. So as to enable local and community energy suppliers through simplified licensing and local energy trading rights.

With Transport & Streets, extend powers for zero-emission zones, bus franchising, and road user charging to deliver a fully zero-emission public transport network by 2030 particularly clarify authority over kerbside assets for EV and micro-mobility infrastructure rollout.

With Homes & Retrofit, empower boroughs to enforce higher energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector. Providing long-term retrofit funding and borrowing flexibility for council-led and community retrofit programmes.

With Fiscal & Financing flexibility, devolve multi-year capital and revenue funding for net zero programmes. So as to permit green municipal borrowing and local climate bonds, supported by partial business rate retention or local levies.

With Data & Coordination, mandate open access to energy and building data for planning and heat zoning. So as to create a statutory duty for local climate coordination, aligning housing, transport, and energy actions.

The expected outcomes of all this devolution, is faster, cheaper decarbonisation aligned with national targets which should help unlocks £10–15 billion in private investment and 250,000 green jobs by 2030. Thus reducing the long-term national subsidy requirements.

This call to action should include a commit to a Net Zero Local Powers Settlement for London by 2026; embed heat zoning and local energy powers in forthcoming legislation and finally establish a joint GLA–DLUHC–DESNZ task force to agree a devolution roadmap

With the huge victory of Zohran Mamdani in the New York Mayoral contest this week, attention has been drawn to his tax policies in regards to getting those with broader shoulders to taking up more of the burden. His only real means would be raises in property taxes, which is worth discussing when compared to London. 

In New York City, annual property taxes are generally higher than in London, where homeowners pay relatively low annual Council Tax. Now New York City’s property tax system uses effective tax rates that are generally around 0.88% of the market value for residential properties (Tax Class 1: 1- to 3-family homes). However, the actual rates can vary by borough:

Brooklyn (Kings County): ~0.68%
Manhattan (New York County): ~0.98%
Queens (Queens County): ~0.87%
Staten Island (Richmond County): ~0.92%
Bronx (Bronx County): ~1.23%

Taxes are calculated based on an assessed value, which for Class 1 properties is fixed at 6% of the market value, subject to state law limits on how much it can increase annually (capped at 6% per year or 20% over five years). This system often results in a lower effective tax rate compared to the actual market value, and can be regressive, with lower-valued homes sometimes having a higher effective rate than high-valued ones.

London’s annual property tax, known as Council Tax, is significantly lower than typical US property taxes. The amount depends on the property’s valuation band, set by the local borough (e.g., City of London, Westminster, Camden). Average annual bills are generally within the range of £780 to over £1,500 per year. For example:

Westminster: ~£781 per year
City of London: ~£1,374 per year
Islington: ~£1,520 per year

So in comparison, we have two quite different property tax regime, on either side of the pond. In New York, the calculation basis of the assessed value (6% of market value for residential homes), is multiplied by a tax rate Property valuation band set by local borough. Typical this means in New York, the annual cost are significantly higher, with an average effective rate of ~0.88% of market value (e.g., a home valued at $500,000 might have an annual bill around $4,400) Whilst in London, we have significantly lower annual bills, typically ranging from £780 to £1,500+ per year regardless of current market value.  So the key difference is the higher ongoing annual costs. Much higher initial purchase taxes (Stamp Duty Land Tax – SDLT), but lower annual costs.

Overall, while London imposes much higher transaction taxes (Stamp Duty Land Tax) when a property is purchased, the annual property tax (Council Tax) is considerably less than the annual property tax burden in New York City

On my last trip to Chinese cities ( Beijing, Chongqing & Guangzhou) last month, l was amazed to see the progress made since my first trip to China in 2008 in their infrastructure particularly transport for their growing cities. It got me thinking how maybe land value capture via taxation or other forms may of helped this huge upgrade to their growing mega-cities. So l got asking around and found out the following. 

In mainland China, all urban land is owned by the state and rural land is collectively owned by villages. So there’s no private freehold landownership in cities, only leasehold “land use rights” (LURs), typically lasting 40–70 years. So clearly they don’t have entities like the Crown Estate and Grosvenor Estate dominating land holdings in their major cities. 

Since the 1990s, local governments in Chinese megacities (e.g. Shanghai, Shenzhen, Beijing, Guangzhou) have financed massive infrastructure expansion primarily through a system often called land finance (土地财政). This is not a classical land value tax like Henry George envisioned, but the economic effect is similar — it captures the increase in land value caused by urbanisation and public investment. This land financing is the core of their urban infrastructure growth. 

The mechanism involves the government converting rural land to urban land use by 
selling or auctioning the land use rights  to developers (residential, commercial, or industrial). Revenue from these sales (and related taxes/fees) is used to fund infrastructure such as subways, roads, and utilities. As infrastructure improves, land values rise, allowing further profitable land leases. This creates a feedback loop where infrastructure investment and land value capture reinforce each other. All of this is largely in response to over the last 30 years, rural migration to Chinese cities being the largest internal migration in human history,  with over 200 million people moving for economic opportunities, which drastically increased the urban population and labor force. 

While China doesn’t have a classical land value tax, it has land-related fiscal instruments that function similarly as outlined in the table below; 

A very good example is Shanghai’s metro system expansion (now one of the world’s largest) was largely financed by selling or leasing land parcels around new metro stations; using the proceeds to finance metro construction; and capturing land value uplift due to improved accessibility. This is essentially a land value capture model, similar in spirit to land value taxation, though implemented via lease auctions and development rights sales rather than annual taxes. 

So in summary the different aspects of their model in comparison to LVT can be highlighted as follows in the table below; 

While Chinese megacities have not implemented a formal “land valuation tax”, they have effectively used state control over land and land value capture mechanisms to finance urban infrastructure — achieving results that mirror the purpose of such taxation. In other words, China has practiced “land value capture without land value tax.”

 

 

As l spend one less hour in bed this morning as the clocks go back for winter, l wonder

 

what the benefits are for it any longer.  Indeed when at the London Assembly, this issue

 

had been brought up by other Assembly Members. 

 

 

Now the London Assembly does not have a direct role in changing the UK’s daylight

 

saving time (DST) laws, as these are determined by the UK government. The practice of

 

changing clocks for DST continues in the UK. 

 

 

Today we saw the clocks go back one hour from 2am to 1am. This follows the “spring

 

forward”  in March 2025, marking the end of British Summer Time and the return to

 

Greenwich Mean  Time (GMT)  for the winter.  So winter time begins, as the clocks go

 

back one hour on today, October 26, 2025, at 2am, turning back to 1am. This is

 

sometimes referred to as “fall back” and marks the end of British Summer Time. 

There is no recent London Assembly motion to end summer and winter time (daylight

saving), but there is a 2019 document from the Greater London Authority (GLA) that

discusses the  potential move to Single/Double Summer Time (SDST) and its implications

for London. The GLA  document highlights potential benefits and challenges, such as

fewer casualties from more rest  but disorientation for drivers from earlier darkness and

environmental, 80,000 tonnes of CO2 reduction annually. 

An analysis of the GLA Economics document called – Single/Double Summer Time: The

Time is Right for London  gives analyses of the theoretical implications of moving

to SDST, which would mean canceling the clock change in October and keeping the clocks

permanently on GMT+1 throughout the year.

For example on the transport front, increased rest for drivers might lead to fewer

accidents. Yet we have the challenge that the sudden onset of darkness an hour earlier

in the evening  during the winter could disorient drivers and make casualties more likely.

Transport timetables would require adjustment.

While there is no specific recent “motion” about ending summer and winter time, the

document serves as a policy analysis that could inform future discussions or motions by

Assembly members and Londoners more critically. 

This week we heard the previous PM Boris Johnson, say that when he was Mayor of London there were second and third generation Bangladesh children who could not speak English. Nothing could be further from the truth, given all of them would have attend primary and secondary school in the UK.

Boris Johnson was quoted as saying on the Telegraph TV channel “When I was running London it was disgraceful. There were parts of London where the Bangladeshi community, second or third generation were not speaking English, that was insane” 

The actual reality is that Bangladesh kids are been excelling themselves academically for a number of years now, as the Bangladesh High Commission annual awards for Academic achievement illustrate well. Since 2006, they have been running Outstanding Achievement Award: Since 2006, where the High Commission has annually recognised British-Bangladeshi students for outstanding GCSE and A-Level results. To be eligible, students must be of Bangladeshi origin and have achieved a minimum of 10 “A” grades at GCSE and/or 3 “A” grades at A-level and annually they would find around 100 girls and boys passing with such high colours. 

It should also be explained to him, that when he was Mayor of London he did not have any educational responsibilities, so it’s not quite clear how such info could have been made available to him at all.  He’s quite clearly losing it since being out of power now.

They is a proposal to put up a Tower on the way into Lisson Green Estate on the corner of the Estate designated for redevelopment for Health Services and other uses like Adult Education Services. The latest concerns of regeneration efforts in Church Street Ward of City of Westminster, are best represent in full from the joint letter of a number of residents groups below. 

“Lisson Green Tenants & Residents Association TARA, Four Rivers Tenants and Residents
Association (Four Rivers) and Church Street Ward Neighbourhood Forum (CSWNF)
Statement on the Westminster City Council’s latest ‘Lisson Grove’ development plans

1. We strongly object to the current plans of building a 20+ storey residential tower block right next to a town hall-style community hub on Lisson Green estate.

2. The tower block would create an unacceptably overbearing and oppressive environment for the hub and the nearby blocks of Lisson Green which are seven storeys in height.

3. TARA, Four Rivers and CSWNF support the concept of the Health & Wellbeing Hub between Lilestone Street and Mallory Street fronting Lisson Grove as presented in the Church Street Masterplan and previously being consulted on. We strongly oppose any more additional building developments without due community consultation.

4. These original plans are incompatible with a tower block that would limit the floor area available for the hub. The space between Lilestone Street and Mallory Street should be used in full for the hub to be built less tall than currently proposed.

5. TARA, Four Rivers and CSWNF recognise the need to build as many affordable homes as
possible but they have to be in keeping with the local area and must not reduce the green space available on Lisson Green estate.

6. Currently Greenside provides an ideal combination between a community hall and green outdoor space. This combination must be preserved in any new development. Any new green space must be no smaller than the existing one and suited to accommodating large community events.

7. The proposed residential accommodation to the east of the hub is welcome but should be of the same height as existing Lisson Green blocks.

8. People who are ill and wish to see their GP should not be forced to use the same entrance as the majority of hub users. Medical services should have a separate entrance and be located on the lower floors of the building, certainly not between the seventh and ninth floor.

9. It is essential that the Adult Education Service is also provided with a distinctive and
identifiable character and entrance from the rest of any development.

10. We acknowledge that a state-of-the art Health & Wellbeing hub is a costly investment that residential development has to contribute towards. Those funds should be generated across all development sites in the Church Street area, not primarily one tower block standing next to it.

11. Any new development must contribute towards an environmentally sustainable and
affordable communal heating system for the existing blocks on Lisson Green estate.

12. We have genuine concerns about the general impact of all the housing developments
planned and the tower in particular. The population density of Church Street is already the highest in London. If this population is to be increased, then the wider social and economic needs of the population must be taken into account. This includes the need for social spaces, green spaces and adequate medical, educational and social care services. We wish to see a genuine social regeneration plan sitting alongside the current development plans.” 

So let us now wait and see the response from the Council for what is seen as another overdevelopment in the Church St regeneration efforts of the Council.