As of early 2026, Greater London operates three Mayoral Development Corporations (MDCs). These are special-purpose vehicles created by the Mayor of London under the Localism Act 2011 to fast-track the regeneration of strategically significant areas by taking over planning and development powers from local councils.

While they share a common legal framework, they differ vastly in their age, scale, and the “flavour” of regeneration they are pursuing.

1. Origins and Strategic Purpose

LLDC (The Veteran): Created to ensure the multi-billion pound investment in the 2012 Olympic Park wasn’t wasted. Its focus has shifted from “games delivery” to “place-making,” building a new cultural and educational heart (East Bank) for London.

OPDC (The Long-Hauler): Established to capitalise on the massive transport interchange at Old Oak Common (where HS2 meets the Elizabeth Line). It is one of the UK’s largest regeneration sites, aiming to create a “new Canary Wharf in the West.”

OSDC (The New Arrival): Unlike the others, OSDC was established in 2026 to solve a specific political and commercial impasse. Its goal is the “surgical” transformation of Oxford Street—specifically its pedestrianisation—to reverse the decline of the West End’s retail dominance.

2. Scale and Type of Regeneration

Area-Wide vs. Surgical: LLDC and OPDC are “traditional” regeneration cases covering vast swathes of formerly industrial or underused land (650 hectares for OPDC). OSDC is far more targeted, focusing on a specific corridor and its immediate surroundings.

Housing vs. Commercial: LLDC and OPDC have massive housing targets (thousands of homes). While OSDC will influence the upper floors of Oxford Street buildings, its primary focus is the public realm and “world-leading” retail/leisure experience rather than new residential neighbourhoods.

3. Governance and Local Friction

A core feature of an MDC is that it takes planning powers away from the local councils.

Collaboration vs. Conflict: LLDC has matured into a collaborative relationship with East London boroughs. Conversely, the OSDC was born out of significant friction; the Mayor established it specifically to bypass Westminster City Council’s historical opposition to full pedestrianisation.

Planning Authority: LLDC and OPDC are fully-fledged planning authorities. OSDC is scheduled too officially take over planning determination from Westminster and Camden on April 1, 2026.

4. Funding and Economic Models

The “Legacy” Model (LLDC): Funded through a mix of GLA grants, land sales, and a unique Fixed Estate Charge (FEC) paid by residents and businesses on the Park to maintain the high-quality public realm.

The “Transport-Led” Model (OPDC): Heavily reliant on national infrastructure timelines (HS2) and GLA funding to unlock complex, fragmented industrial land.

The “Commercial Hub” Model (OSDC): Expected to be funded by the GLA and potentially through partnerships with major West End landowners (like the Crown Estate and Great Portland Estates) who see pedestrianisation as essential for property values.

Summary of Differences

While LLDC is currently in a “handover” phase (gradually returning powers to boroughs as its work nears completion), OPDC is in the “heavy lifting” phase of building infrastructure. OSDC is in the “sprint” phase, with the Mayor aiming for rapid, high-visibility changes to the West End public realm before the next election cycle.

On the radio this morning we heard that recent audits and parliamentary investigations, particularly by the National Audit Office (NAO) and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), have severely criticised UK government-backed home insulation programmes—specifically the Energy Company Obligation (ECO4) and the Great British Insulation Scheme (GBIS)—describing them as a “catastrophic failure” and a “broken system”.

Criticism of government insulation programmes in 2025 and early 2026 focuses on “systemic failures” that have left tens of thousands of homes with severe defects, including damp and black mould.

The primary criticisms involve:

1. Extreme Failure Rates

External Wall Insulation (EWI): A “damning” National Audit Office (NAO) report in October 2025 found that 98% of homes (approximately 23,000) that received external wall insulation under the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) scheme require remedial work.
Internal Wall Insulation: Roughly 29% of homes with internal insulation (up to 13,000 properties) also need significant repairs.

2. Poor Oversight and Design

Weak Regulation: Critics, including the NAO and consumer groups like Which?, blame “weak government oversight” and a “complex web of organisations” that allowed installers to “game the system”.

Unskilled Workforce: Substandard work is attributed to businesses “cutting corners” and using uncertified subcontractors who lacked the skills for complex materials.

Failed Protection System: The government-endorsed TrustMark scheme was criticised for failing to flag these issues until late 2024, after major media reports had already exposed the crisis.

3. Fraud and Financial Loss

Falsified Claims: Ofgem estimated that businesses may have falsified claims for as many as 16,500 homes, potentially defrauding energy suppliers of between £56 million and £165 million.
Cost to Homeowners: Some families have been left with unmortgageable properties or repair bills exceeding £100,000 for damages caused by botched work.

4. Health and Safety Risks

Severe Damp/Mould: The botched insulation frequently traps moisture, leading to “toxic” mould growth that has been linked to deteriorating health, particularly in vulnerable residents.
Immediate Hazards: About 6% of EWI cases posed immediate safety risks, such as blocked boiler ventilation or exposed electrical cabling.

The current government has described the situation as a “broken system” inherited from previous administrations. In January 2026, ministers committed to:

Remediation: Requiring original installers to fix all faulty solid wall insulation at no cost to the consumer.

Suspensions: As of January 23, 2026, 39 businesses have been suspended from government insulation schemes.

Reform: Establishing a new Warm Homes Agency to provide centralized oversight and simplify consumer protection

With all the high level diplomacy between the Russians and Trump’s set-up, let us not forget that The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) between the United States and the Russian Federation is scheduled to expire on February 5, 2026.

The treaty, which is the last remaining pact limiting US and Russian nuclear forces, was signed in 2010 and received a five-year extension in 2021. It cannot be extended again., that is it is the final expiration already! 

The current status is that while Russia announced a suspension of its participation in February 2023, both sides have generally continued to observe the central limits of 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles/bombers through early 2026. With the expiration date approaching fast, the two nations have not held formal talks on a successor treaty, raising concerns about a potential, unconstrained nuclear arms race.

There was a proposed extension. In late 2025, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed observing the treaty’s limits for another year beyond February 2026 to avoid an immediate arms race, but this proposal has faced debate regarding whether it serves U.S. national security interests.

The UK government, under the current administration, has significantly updated the roadmap for energy efficiency in the rental sector. The primary goal is to shift the minimum standard from the current Band E to Band C to reduce fuel poverty and carbon emissions.

As of early 2026, here are the key proposed changes and the expected timeline:

1. The Core Requirement: EPC Band C

The government is proposing that all privately and socially rented homes must achieve an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating of C or equivalent. This replaces the previous administration’s decision to scrap such targets and forms a core part of the “Warm Homes Plan.”

2. Implementation Timeline

The transition is planned to be phased to allow landlords time to budget for upgrades. So from 2028, all new tenancies must meet the EPC C requirement.

By 2030, all existing tenancies (regardless of when they started) must meet the EPC C requirement.

3. The 2026 EPC Reform

A major overhaul of the EPC system itself is scheduled for the second half of 2026. The way “efficiency” is calculated is changing:

From Cost to Performance: Instead of measuring how much it costs to run a home (which often favoured gas over electricity), the new system will focus on fabric performance (how well the building retains heat) and heating system efficiency (prioritising low-carbon options like heat pumps).

Dual Metrics: Landlords will likely be assessed on a “Fabric First” approach, ensuring insulation and windows are upgraded before moving to high-tech heating solutions.

4. Financial Caps and Penalties
To prevent “unlimited” costs for landlords while ensuring compliance, the following thresholds are proposed:

Increased Cost Cap: The maximum amount a landlord is expected to spend on energy improvements is set to rise from the current £3,500 to £15,000 (inclusive of VAT).

New Exemptions: If a landlord spends £15,000 and the property still doesn’t reach Band C, they can apply for a 10-year exemption.

Stricter Fines: Penalties for renting out a non-compliant property are proposed to increase from £5,000 to up to £30,000 per property.

5. Support: The Warm Homes Plan

To help with these costs, the government has introduced the Warm Homes Plan, which aims to offer grants and low-interest loans for insulation and low-carbon heating. This is intended to mitigate the financial impact on smaller landlords and prevent them from exiting the market.

While the government has kept the most sensitive technical details classified, the following specific conditions and mitigations have been made public or discussed in Parliament:

1. The “Consolidation” Mandate

One of the primary security conditions is the mandatory consolidation of China’s diplomatic presence. Currently, China operates out of seven different buildings across London.

• The Condition: China must move all its various functions into this one site.

• The Security Logic: British intelligence argued that monitoring one large, centralized hub is significantly more efficient than tracking activity across seven disparate locations. It effectively “shrinks the map” for UK counter-espionage teams.

2. Protection of Critical Infrastructure (Data Cables)

The most controversial aspect of the site is its proximity to a major BT telephone exchange and the fiber-optic “veins” of the UK’s financial sector.

• The Mitigations: Though not fully disclosed, the government has implemented “red lines” regarding the basement and underground works. Reports indicate that specific “no-dig” zones or reinforced “buffer layers” have been mandated to prevent physical tapping or electronic interference with the cables running beneath the Royal Mint Court.

• The “Hidden Chamber”: Intelligence services reportedly scrutinized plans for a 200-room basement and a “hidden chamber” close to these cables to ensure they could not be used for signal interception.

3. Public Access and Protests

A major point of friction was how the embassy would handle public space, given that the Chinese government wanted to restrict movement around the perimeter for “security.”

• The Resolution: The UK government mandated that the site must allow for public access and peaceful protest. This was a “red line” to ensure that the embassy did not become an unreachable fortress that suppressed the rights of Hong Kong, Uyghur, or Tibetan protesters who frequently gather at Chinese diplomatic sites.

4. Vetting of the Supply Chain

As part of the planning process, the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) was involved in reviewing the technical specifications.

• The Condition: There are strict limits on the types of integrated technology allowed in the construction. The UK government has been wary of “embedded” surveillance tech within the building’s own infrastructure that could be used to monitor the surrounding Tower Hill and City of London areas.

5. “Quid Pro Quo” Security for the UK

A diplomatic “security” condition also existed in reverse. China had effectively blocked the UK’s own plans to renovate its embassy in Beijing as a retaliatory measure for the London delays.

• The Agreement: A condition of this approval is a reciprocal agreement that the UK’s diplomatic mission in Beijing is granted the same permissions to modernize its own secure communications and facilities.

Summary of the “Red Lines”

Despite these measures, the approval remains highly controversial, with the opposition and local residents’ associations already preparing a judicial review to challenge the decision in court later this year. 

As l put in my views on the TfL consultation on the proposed pedestrianisation of Oxford St, l was left thinking what pedestrianisation? As we have five car traffic crossing between the Marylebone and Mayfair sides of Oxford St, the major one of course being through Oxford Circus along Regents Street.  

The proposed pedestrianisation of Oxford Street covers a stretch of about 0.7 miles  (1.1 kilometers), running from Orchard Street (near Marble Arch) across Oxford Circus to Great Portland Street (near the eastern end/Tottenham Court Road area), aiming to transform this busy section into a car-free zone to improve shopping and public space.  Yet during this very short passage of road, we will have up to five North-South vehicle route access across Oxford Street as indicated in the diagram. These are at :  

• Duke Street (for traffic heading northbound only)
• Davies Street and Stratford Place
• Vere Street and New Bond Street (for traffic heading southbound only)
• Holles Street and Harewood Place (for traffic heading northbound only)  

Now of these crossings are going to be closed across Oxford St though the direction of travel may do. 

As for Regents Street proposal of works by Westminster City Council and Crown Estate –  something l welcome and feel is more relevant to the movement of residents at least in from the City – the proposed pedestrianisation of Oxford consultation does not really mention the interaction with these critical works at Oxford Circus. 

So what is the extent of a pedestrianisation proposal when you look at it more properly – not much in reality! 

One of the major bonuses for London in the last budget was the Tourist Tax for the major cities of the UK. The question which immediately arises is how that new Tourist Tax is apportioned between the Regional government and their local councils. Now the  impact of tourism on Central London councils is a complex “balancing act.” While tourism is the lifeblood of the local economy—generating £95bn in economic output (GVA) in Westminster alone—it creates significant “hidden costs” that councils often struggle to fund. So we need a breakdown of the impact across various sectors.

Most stay in hotels but increasingly in short term lets (STLs) as well. There is of course a massive disparity in how these two types of accommodation hotels and short-term lets (STLs) contribute to council coffers. Hotels are major contributors to local finances through Business Rates. They are regulated, provide predictable employment, and generally manage their own waste and security within their premises. While STLs on platforms like Airbnb have created a fiscal headache. Many STLs operate under the threshold for business rates and pay only standard Council Tax (or nothing if they are “hollowed out” secondary homes).  In London, it is illegal to let a whole property as an STL for more than 90 nights a year without planning permission. However, 2025 data shows that over 50% of STLs in Westminster consistently breach this limit. Councils like Westminster City Council spend significant resources on “digital detectives” to track down illegal lets, as platforms have historically been slow to share data, thus in enforcement costs. 

The most severe impact of tourism on councils is the depletion of the Private Rented Sector (PRS). Supply Depletion: In 2025/26, roughly 1 in 32 homes in London are used as short-term lets. In Central London boroughs like Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea, this ratio is much higher. So because so many long-term rentals have been converted into more profitable STLs, councils have fewer places to house homeless families. London councils currently face a £740 million annual shortfall in spending on temporary accommodation. This forces councils to move residents further away from their communities, increasing social care and transport costs.

Central London councils bear the brunt of maintaining the “stage” for the UK’s tourism industry without receiving a direct cut of the VAT generated. The operational pressures of the “tourism premium” can be outlined as below across services in Waste & Cleaning;  Noise & Anti Social Behaviour; 

Therefore, one major indicator for the apportionment of the new Tourist Tax, would have to be the combined nights tourist ( serviced and short-term) sleep in the varies boroughs particularly in Central London where most tourist stay and use the facilities of London predominately serviced by the local councils. 

Obtaining the figures of occupancy of hotels and short-term lets, would suggest the following apportionment to local councils, judging by where the tourists stay in Greater London.

Now let us see how the negotiations go between the Treasury, London Councils & the GLA go now for the 2026/27 contribution of this new tax on Tourists in London, to the services of local government in Central London. These percentages in the above table would be useful starting points for discussion. The percentages along for Central London boroughs make their case quite clear to all. 

The final document for a postal ballot paper in the 2026 Parliamentary Election in Bangladesh on the 12th of February where Voters are being asked one main question, as a result of course of the the student protests of July/August 2024 

Whether they agree with constitutional and electoral changes made by the government.

The changes include:

• Ending the caretaker government system and holding elections under the current constitutional system.

• Changing how Members of Parliament are elected, including adding 100 seats chosen proportionally.

• Increasing women’s representation in Parliament and improving the role of opposition parties.

• Strengthening democratic institutions, such as courts, parliamentary committees, local government, and protection of basic rights.

• Implementing these changes with participation from all political parties represented in Parliament.

Voters must choose Yes if they support these changes or No if they do not, by marking one box.

So this should explains the postal ballots that have been sent out aboard to all NRBs registered on their App and the dilemmas facing them as voting day approaches. In the meantime, you will be seeing a lot of support for the referendum as illustrated in the flyer below which is saying  “Yes means Bangladesh. No means slavery.” 

Now that the Bangladesh General Election has been set for the 12th of Feb 2026, many are getting ready to vote, including Non-resident Bangladeshi (NRBs). 

For many years, NRBs have been campaigning to get the right to vote and also sort out the process for them to vote from aboard via the High Commission. This is not unlike many other nationals in London, like the Poles and Colombians in recent time who have voted from their respective embassies. So it was welcomed that the Electoral Commission of Bangladesh sorted out an App for this to happen unlike on previous occasions when many promises had been made by civilian governments but never delivered. 

As a result of registering via the App, many of those who have registered to vote for the 12th February have received their ballot for the General Election and referendum question response, as show above and below. Yet if we have a good look at the ballot, there are no names of candidates nor the parties standing against the various symbols.  Just a whole series of drawing of objects !  Now the parties of Bangladesh are often associated with objects like the Party at liberation in 1971, the Awami League which has been banned by the interim government from standing is associated with the boat “নৌকা” (Nouka).  The same with BNP which is associated with a sheaf of Paddy “ধানের শীষ” (Dhaner Shish) and the Jamaat Party with the scales of Justice “দাঁড়িপাল্লা” (Dãṛipallā) which are on the ballot form but it does not mention the party associations to the symbols and also buried amongst over 100 symbols. 

With the election so soon now, l am not sure the authorities could send out  a booklet explaining which parties are representing by the various objects on the ballot form at least.  In these circumstances l suspect many will no doubt just vote, “Not to vote” as the ballot permits them to do. Please see the last box at the bottom right hand corner. 

The final document is a postal ballot paper for the 2024 Parliamentary Election in Bangladesh where Voters are being asked one main question:

Whether they agree with constitutional and electoral changes made by the government.

The changes include:

• Ending the caretaker government system and holding elections under the current constitutional system.

• Changing how Members of Parliament are elected, including adding 100 seats chosen proportionally.

• Increasing women’s representation in Parliament and improving the role of opposition parties.

• Strengthening democratic institutions, such as courts, parliamentary committees, local government, and protection of basic rights.

• Implementing these changes with participation from all political parties represented in Parliament.

Voters must choose Yes if they support these changes or No if they do not, by marking one box.

So l hope this all explains the postal ballots that have been sent out aboard to all NRBs registered on their App and the dilemmas facing them as voting day approaches.