Sophie O’Boyle, External Affairs Officer at Centre for London, gives her take on what this year’s conference season means for the capital.

Conference season ’26 is wrapped up and London featured much more heavily this time round. As growth was also a popular talking point, we hosted three panel events to ask how the capital’s homes, infrastructure and fiscal powers play into helping achieve the government’s growth mission.

Here’s a roundup of those discussions, along with what the parties’ policy announcements mean for the capital.

Labour Party Conference

In his first speech as PM, Burnham put party politics aside to offer a candid assessment of the country’s challenges and a call to restore civic pride. It was a refreshing moment in a political era rarely defined by optimism, and the audience were onboard, with reportedly 11 standing ovations within the hour.

There was also no shortage of headline-grabbing policy announcements, but for Centre for London, one stood out: the decision to end Right to Buy for newly built council homes. For the capital, this could be a game changer. Right to Buy continues to cast a shadow over London’s housing supply. Today, more than 40% of former council homes in the capital are now in the hands of private landlords. With the social housing waiting list standing at 340,000 households, the move won’t solve the crisis. But it does signal a commitment to defend the role of council homes in our housing system, and the Londoners who need them.

Beyond housing, Burnham set out an ambitious vision for reshaping public services. First up was an NHS-style care service, funded through changes to the state pension triple lock. This could be transformative for the city. Adult social care costs local authorities in the capital over £3 billion annually, and this is in the context of a £5bn funding gap from now until 2030. Coupled with plans for a government-backed GB Grid and reforms that could bring water companies back into public ownership, we need to ask: with nationalisation back on the agenda, who genuinely holds the responsibility for our public services? And what levers are the government prepared to pull to enforce these changes?

Unlocking London’s Growth: Fiscal devolution and strategic investment

In partnership with BusinessforBakerloo and Central London Forward

Our three events at Conference tapped directly into this conversation – with our first of the series asking how fiscal devolution and strategic infrastructure investment can help drive long-term growth for the capital.

For this session, we were joined by Elly Baker, Deputy Chair of Transport Committee at GLA, Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, Chris Hogwood, BusinessForBakerloo Patron and Chief Corporate Affairs Officer at Landsec and Mark Williams, Director at Central London Forward.

The panel was confident London has the opportunities to drive growth on its doorstep – but is held back by the lack of powers and funding certainty needed to make them a reality. With a fiscal devolution roadmap from national government fast approaching, final calls were made by panellists to ensure London can move away from its reactive state to a sustainable funding pipeline. As Chris Hogwood put it, ‘as soon as you give businesses the certainty, investment will follow, and so will growth’.

While the benefits of unlocking growth projects were made clear, the panel didn’t shy away from discussing the challenges to deliver them in practice. Cllr Butt called for a reality check on the ability of councils to harness new funding for the full benefit of their residents. He illustrated how, although fiscal devolution is not something councils would turn away, with capacity and resource at an all-time low: “If we’re going down the route of devolution, we need the resources that allow us to use those powers effectively”.

Ultimately, this panel reaffirmed how funding and powers need to come hand in hand, and if government is serious about growth, councils need the ability to actually deliver.

Delivering the Homes London Needs: New ideas for Growth and Prosperity

In partnership with G15 and Barratt London

Our next panel was a reminder of one of the capital’s biggest barriers to growth: housing. Joined by Dawn Butler MP, MP for Brent East, Craig Carson, Regional Managing Director at Barratt London, Ian McDermott CBE (he/him), Chief Executive of Peabody and Chair of G15 and Dame Siobhain McDonagh MP, MP for Mitcham and Morden, the panel explored findings from our latest flagship report, Delivering the Homes London Needs, to shift the conversation from targets and planning reform to the real-world consequences of the crisis for Londoners.

Our MPs on the panel, Dawn Butler MP and Dame Siobhain McDonagh MP, shared testimony from their residents: key workers being priced out of the city, families trapped in temporary accommodation, and a social housing waiting list higher than the population of Leeds. But with the human cost evident, the discussion reminded the audience it’s an economic one too.

Ian McDermott highlighted how the capital’s housing system is not fit for purpose when it comes to investing in our future neighbourhoods. While around 86% of public housing funding in the 1980s went towards building new homes – today, that figure is closer to 8% – with the rest accounted for in housing benefit. Combined with viability pressures and growing need for investment in existing stock, the result is a system that is spending more to deliver less. Our report sets out to remedy this ,with a partially devolved and progressive Proportional Property Tax: scrapping Council Tax and removing Stamp Duty, while raising funds for reinvestment in social and affordable housing.

As the impact of the housing crisis deepens, the case for radical reform becomes harder to ignore. We urgently need a system that supports Londoners, rather than handing them the bill for its failures.

Tackling London’s Housing Crisis: The Road Ahead

In partnership with L&Q

By the time our final panel got underway, there was little debate about whether London needs more homes. The spotlight was on why, despite years of consensus, we are still struggling to build them.

Our speakers Tom Copley Hon FRIBA, Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development, Florence Eshalomi MP, MP for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green and Minister of State in MHCLG, Fiona Fletcher Smith, Chief Executive of L&Q and Dame Meg Hillier MP, MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch and Chair of Treasury Committee, returned to the growing complexity of the housing system itself. Rising construction costs, stretched local authority finances and an increasingly tangled web of funding arrangements have made delivery harder than ever. As Meg Hillier MP pointed out: “We’re trying to solve today’s housing challenges with a system that no longer reflects reality”.

Unsurprisingly, fiscal devolution resurfaced. Just as it had during our discussion on growth and infrastructure, panellists argued that long-term investment decisions remain difficult when funding is tied to short-term political cycles and spending forecasts. Panellists called for a package which allows greater certainty and flexibility with a renewed focus on delivery.

Remember: housing providers got much of what they asked for from Starmer’s spending review, in the form of a 10-year, £39bn funding settlement. But speakers were clear that delivery will also depend on tackling wider pressures, from viability constraints to skills shortages.

There was no doubt or confusion about what is required to speed up housing delivery. In a room full of experts on this issue, everyone was aware of the challenges, and aligned on needing to create the conditions to overcome them. After all, it will be housebuilders, housing associations and local authorities at the forefront of delivery, not central government – and it’s their job to create a system that enables these actors to build.

Competing visions for the capital

Labour managed to dominate conference season this year, with a new leader, headline-worthy policies, as well as the polls on their side. However, they weren’t the only ones with a vision for the capital. Housing emerged as one of the clearest dividing lines, with all parties agreeing we need more homes, but with starkly different views on how to get there.

Conservatives: Less regulation to build more

The Conservatives’ answer to the housing crisis was a streamlined planning system. Given the UK’s notoriously complex process to get homes built, their proposal to replace Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy with a single levy has an immediate appeal, with reportedly £50k savings in developer costs and a simpler route through the planning process to get homes built.

But it does raise the question of how thea ffordable homes and community infrastructure that these levies currently support, would be funded instead. Our report, Delivering the Homes London Needs: what will it take?, took a closer look at the impact such changes could have. Our findings pointed towards a streamlined system for S106 and CIL with the caveat that any replacement would need to finance the infrastructure that turns new developments into working neighbourhoods: schools, GPs and transport links.

So, it depends on what we’re trying to build. If the goal is simply more houses, the argument has merit. But we know that new homes also need the infrastructure to support them. For London, we need to get that balance right. Faster delivery is important, but so is the infrastructure that ensures these same places are places for communities to thrive.

Reform: London Without a London Plan

Reform went even further, proposing to scrap affordable housing requirements, biodiversity measures, infrastructure contributions from developers and perhaps most notably, the London Plan itself. The implication here is a planning system with greater local discretion, but less strategic oversight.

While interconnectivity is one of the capital’s greatest strengths – it’s also a challenge when coordinating development. We know housing delivery, transport investment and major infrastructure projects do not stop at borough boundaries, and the London Plan exists to provide this city-wide framework. Any move away from it would need to explain what system would take on that role instead.

Liberal Democrats: Back on the Green Belt

Meanwhile, Ed Davey decided to weigh in on one of London’s longest-running policy debates: whether the capital should look to the green belt to help tackle its housing crisis. He argued the real question is not homes versus green belt, but whether development comes with the infrastructure to support it.

As discussion around the next London Plan gathers pace, the challenge will be ensuring that any new homes, whether on brownfield sites or parts of the grey belt, are matched by the infrastructure and investment needed to create thriving communities.

The Green Party: Putting affordability first

While other parties focused heavily on supply, the Greens put affordability at the heart of their offer, through rent controls. In a city where more people rent than own, it’s easy to see why the idea resonates. But rent controls alone won’t solve the bigger problem behind London’s housing crisis.

We hosted a fringe roundtable event in partnership with L&Q at the Conference to widen the conversation, where discussion looked beyond building more homes to how making the most of our existing stock and ensuring affordability is prioritised.

The Bigger Picture

Looking across the party conferences, what stood out was not a lack of ideas for the capital, but a lack of joined-up thinking.

All parties had plans for housing, many spoke on growth and conversations on infrastructure, taxation or devolution were plentiful. Yet few were able to join the dots with them. London’s experience shows these issues cannot be treated in isolation. Housing delivery depends on the infrastructure to support it. Growth relies on housing to support the people driving it, and devolution is necessary to ensure the benefits of both are experienced fairly.

My take is that there was far more consensus this year across conference season than it may have seemed. Most parties want growth, more homes and stronger public services. The challenge is recognising that none of these can be delivered in isolation. For London, progress will come from building a system where these policies work together, for the benefit of people across the capital and country.