Some people think Ken Livingstone already has too many powers over the capital’s housing. Now he’s about to get a whole lot more…

London mayor Ken Livingstone’s reception is one of the key events of Mipim. This year, Livingstone is taking a break from the property show, allowing his deputy Nicky Gavron to strut her stuff on the Croisette instead, but he’ll still be on a lot of delegates’ minds. While the annual property jamboree is taking place in the south of France, MPs back at home will be deliberating over whether to grant the London mayor extra powers (see box, below). What difference will these powers make?

Unlike surrounding regions, London has been hitting the planning targets for new housing, which have recently been increased by the government to more than 30,000 dwellings a year. But the number of homes being built has not been keeping pace with the number of consents granted. According to London Development Research’s recently published Blue Book, the number of housing starts in 2006 was 25,658 – that’s 7% below the mayor’s target.

The book also shows that 2006 saw a 34% downturn in the number of undetermined applications (those applications that receive consent but are not built), resulting in the first contraction in the development pipeline since Livingstone entered City Hall. There were 51,000 homes given planning consent in 2006 – almost twice the number actually built.

The mayor is already concerned that the boroughs’ planning performance is patchy. Tower Hamlets, for example, gave consent for more than 10,000 homes last year alone, but many others are allowing far fewer. The picture in the affluent outer boroughs is particularly mixed. Whereas Hillingdon and Hounslow are meeting their targets, Liberal Democrat-run Kingston-on-Thames has granted enough planning permissions to meet its GLA housing targets for just the next six months. London Development Research concludes: “The mayor’s housing targets are achievable across London, although the ability of individual boroughs to meet their target varies widely.”

Another headache for Livingstone is the wide discrepancy in the proportion of affordable housing being developed across the capital. At one extreme, just 18% of the 1,800 homes developed in the outer east London borough of Havering was affordable, far short of the GLA’s 50% target. Barnet, Kingston-on-Thames, Redbridge, Richmond-on-Thames, Wandsworth and Westminster also all failed to hit 25%. All of these boroughs are either located in outer London or are run by Conservative or Liberal Democrat councils.

Just four boroughs met the 50% target. The two highest proportions of affordable housing were developed in Hammersmith and Fulham (69%) and Brent (64%). But both authorities slipped out of Labour control at last year’s council election. The row late last year over the redevelopment of the Prestolite factory in Hammersmith, where the now Tory-run council has tried to force Genesis Housing Group to provide less affordable housing, offers a taste of the battles that Livingstone is likely to face in the coming years.

The government has concerns about streamlining planning, but this is just adding another stage

Spokesman, London Councils

In this particular case, Livingstone has threatened to refuse planning in order to bring Hammersmith into line. But in the longer term, the mayor has been lobbying to gain more control over such decisions, which he looks likely to win. London Labour MPs are backing the mayor, which means the bill looks likely to become law within the next couple of months, despite Lib Dem and Tory opposition. Nevertheless, the capital’s councils have mounted a vigorous fight to hold on to their planning powers.

A spokesman for the lobbying organisation London Councils argues that the mayor’s new powers will hinder efficient decision-making. He says: “It’s adding another stage to the planning process. The government has concerns about streamlining the planning process, but this is just adding another stage.”

Few in the development community agree. London Communications Agency director Jonny Popper says: “You have to give credit; the GLA has been very well managed to date. They have stuck to their E E deadlines. Almost all property companies and planning advisers would say that the planning decision unit is well run.”

He welcomes the extension of the mayor’s powers. “It’s a positive move. It will unlock schemes stuck between the boroughs and the mayor.” Brendan Sarsfield, chief executive of the Family Mosaic Group housing association, agrees: “I hope it will take the local politics out of planning decision-making.”

Michael Gallimore, a planning partner at the law firm Lovells, says developers are likely to short-circuit the local planning process. “If they have schemes that fall just below the decision threshold, people may make them a bit bigger if they think they are going to get a more sympathetic hearing from the mayor.”

But there are concerns that the GLA will become a victim of “mission creep” as it seeks to get involved in more and more schemes. Architect Brian Waters, who chairs the London Planning and Development Forum, says: “When the mayor first got the powers under the act of parliament to call things in, we were told he was going to look at 30-40 decisions a year. Now it’s 10 times that. I suspect the actual number will be a lot higher than we expect.”

A lot of sites have planning consent for tower blocks that nobody is proposing to build

Brendan Sarsfield, Family Mosaic

Livingstone declared at last November’s Thames Gateway Forum that he is prepared to compromise on the amount of affordable housing that he requires in return for better, but more costly, environmental performance. A paper published last November, setting out pointers on how Livingstone intends to use his new powers over the Housing Corporation budget, says the mayor wants all new social homes developed in London to be as “close to carbon-neutral as possible”.

But feedback from those dealing with the GLA’s planning decisions unit indicates that City Hall is still playing hard ball on affordable housing. Planners are insisting, for example, that 50% of the private development meant to help cross-subsidise the provision of replacement social housing on estate regeneration schemes should also be affordable.

And, prompted by the capital’s overcrowding crisis, the GLA is investigating how it can use its new housing and planning powers to secure more family accommodation and bigger space standards.

Housing associations have been lobbying the mayor behind closed doors on these issues. Sarsfield says: “A lot of sites have planning consent for tower blocks that nobody is proposing to build. That gives higher land values than we can pay because the value for a plot of land with three-bed houses is lower than one with a lot of one- and two-bedroom flats.” Howard Hughes, development director at Circle Anglia Housing Group, says that as a result registered social landlords are often having to pay over the odds for sites.

But Popper warns that by going down this route, the mayor could be putting at risk his good relationship with the development industry, which will in turn make it harder to achieve his affordable housing goals. He says: “This is an area that is very dangerous. It’s not just the mayor, it’s the government starting to determine what can be built. We are potentially in real trouble. The developers have real experience of what can be delivered. If you get too much interference in dictating mix, you are going to see far fewer homes provided.”

And although Livingstone still looks the best bet to win next year’s mayoral election, another 15 months of negative Olympics headlines and mounting council tax bills could prove a turn-off for voters. Waters says: “As much as we love to hate him, Ken has been pro-development. If we have an anti-development mayor, it could be devastating.”