Housing is an emotive word and it should be; it is imperative for our survival. Lately, it has also become a political hot potato, with our local and national politicians constantly talking about a housing crisis. Their response to the problem is to talk about the number of housing units to be built over the next few decades. But merely talking figures is not enough. To devise a truly intelligent plan to cope with this crisis we must seriously consider other aspects of our housing problem, such as cost, size, outdoor space and of course, people.

In this sound bite generation, our politicians keep it simple and use the word housing to encompass any or all of the following types of housing: freehold and leasehold flats and houses, private rental accommodation, social housing, housing association housing, secure tenancies, short-term tenancies and affordable housing, which actually isn’t affordable. Our politicians talk about housing as if one size fits all and their knee jerk reaction to a lack of building in successive decades is resulting in a plethora of problems seen on developments and so-called regeneration programmes all over London and the UK.

In Cricklewood, the Hendon Football Club and Brent Cross developments are proposing hobbit-sized housing, very little family-sized housing, housing with very little (if any) outside space, housing built on our green spaces instead of on brownfield or derelict sites and mostly unaffordable housing.

In addition, in the case of the Hendon Football Club development, Fairview are refusing to publically divulge the percentage of affordable homes, leaving us to conclude that there are going to be very few, if any, being built.

In the case of the Brent Cross development, housing will be built at the very polluted and noisy A5/A406/M1 junction and much of this development will rely on the removal of mostly elderly people from their homes and community of 35 years. These housing units will not be affordable for the average person and there will be no social housing involved. So these developments will not benefit the people who need the housing; first-time buyers, people looking for larger accommodation for their families and people requiring social housing. If this housing does not even do what is required and only benefits developers and by-to-let investors, is it really worth the destruction of one of our Cricklewood communities and the misery that will be wrought?

Our housing crisis will not be solved by talking figures alone; 50,000 here and 20,000 there will not alleviate the problem if the housing units are too small, if they lack outside space, if the rents or mortgages are not affordable, if they are built on our parkland and if we cause suffering to others in our quest for a solution.

G Emmanuel

Address supplied