London’s Unused Land Could Feed Its Communities—If Bureaucracy Gets Out of the Way
Walk through any London borough and you will find it: strips of neglected public land, corners of estates gone to bramble, alleyways where soil collects litter instead of vegetables. A growing coalition of campaigners argues these forgotten spaces hold a partial answer to one of the capital’s most quietly persistent problems—its dependence on imported food and a chronic shortage of places where residents can grow their own.
The proposal is called Right to Grow, and it is disarmingly simple in concept: give communities legal access to unused public land so they can convert it into food gardens, allotments, orchards, and community growing spaces. Several London councils have already adopted versions of the policy. Hounslow, Southwark, and Hackney have each taken steps to turn wasteland into productive green space. In Hounslow, for instance, a soil border along an alleyway in Isleworth was transformed into a flowerbed under the borough’s Right to Grow scheme—a small but tangible example of what the policy looks like on the ground.
Now, campaigners want the Greater London Authority (GLA) to take the idea borough-wide—indeed, city-wide—by developing a standardised framework that all 32 London boroughs and the City of London could adopt. The argument is that without a unified model, adoption will remain patchwork, and communities in boroughs without supportive leadership will continue to miss out.
The Scale of the Problem
To understand why campaigners are pushing this now, it helps to look at the numbers. Demand for growing space in London dramatically outstrips supply. According to a 2023 Freedom of Information request published by Greenpeace, at least 30,500 Londoners currently sit on allotment waiting lists. Sixteen boroughs have closed their lists entirely to new applicants. In Camden, waiting times can stretch up to 12 years. In Islington, the situation is similarly stark: just 106 allotment plots serve a borough where approximately 17,000 households lack access to a garden.
These figures tell a story of frustrated demand. People want to grow food. The space exists. What is missing, campaigners argue, is the institutional machinery to connect the two.
Kalpana Arias, one of the driving forces behind the Right to Grow Campaign, told the Local Democracy Reporting Service that adopting the policy at the GLA level would be an “easy win” for City Hall. The infrastructure, she suggests, is already there in the form of underused public land. What stands in the way is administrative inertia.
“We want the GLA to implement Right to Grow within its food and housing policies so it’s easier for boroughs to sign on to the framework,” Arias said. “We have a lot of ambition, but institutions need to match that and get rid of the red tape that’s still there. We need to strengthen biodiversity and improve food security within London.”
Arias is clear-eyed about the limits of what urban growing can achieve. London is not going to become self-sufficient in food. But she points to a striking statistic: the capital imports roughly 94% of its food. Even modest local production, she argues, could build resilience, shorten supply chains, and reconnect residents with where their food comes from.
“We’re never going to make London completely food independent,” she acknowledged, “but we’re looking to shed a light on the fact that the capital imports 94% of their food.”
A 12-Point Plan for a Greener, More Edible London
The push for a city-wide Right to Grow framework is part of a broader campaign outlined in a new report from the London People’s Assembly on Food, Nature and the Right to Grow. The report lays out 12 demands aimed at making the capital “greener and more edible” by 2035.
Among the specific proposals: dedicated community growing officers in every borough, and the embedding of food growing into future health and planning strategies. The first demand speaks to a practical gap—many community groups lack the expertise or institutional support to navigate land access, planning permissions, and long-term site management. A designated officer in each borough could serve as a liaison, a problem-solver, and an advocate.
The second demand—integrating food growing into health and planning policy—reflects a growing body of evidence linking access to green space and food growing with improved physical and mental health outcomes. Planning policy, in particular, shapes what gets built where and whether space is allocated for community use. Without explicit provisions for food growing in planning frameworks, the argument goes, such spaces will remain an afterthought.
What City Hall Says—and What It Doesn’t
The deputy mayor for environment, Mete Coban, addressed a People’s Assembly meeting and framed the issue in terms of equity. Increasing access to green space, he said, is “a matter of social and environmental justice.”
Coban highlighted existing initiatives, noting that City Hall has planted 640,000 trees and is empowering communities to transform areas through the mayor’s £12m Green Roots Fund. “The benefits of nature should be for everyone and we are committed to making this the reality as we build a greener, healthier and more resilient London for everyone,” he said.
However, City Hall did not confirm whether it would draw up a Right to Grow framework. That silence is significant. Campaigners see the GLA’s existing environmental commitments as laudable but insufficient without a specific, standardised mechanism for opening public land to community food growing. Tree planting and green space access are not the same as food sovereignty, and the distinction matters to those who want to see London take a more deliberate approach to urban agriculture.
Why This Matters Beyond London
London is not the only city grappling with these questions. Across the UK and internationally, urban food growing has gained traction as cities confront intersecting crises: food insecurity, biodiversity loss, social isolation, and the mental health toll of dense urban living. The Right to Grow concept echoes similar movements elsewhere, from community garden networks in North American cities to urban agriculture policies in places like Havana and Paris.
What makes the London campaign distinctive is its emphasis on a standardised framework across a complex governance landscape. London’s 32 boroughs plus the City of London operate with significant autonomy, meaning that a policy adopted in Hackney may be entirely absent in neighbouring boroughs. A GLA-level framework could, in theory, set a baseline—ensuring that no Londoner is denied access to growing space simply because of where they live.
The 2035 target gives the campaign a clear horizon. Whether City Hall chooses to meet it with the specific policy campaigners are asking for remains an open question.