The government must reform the planning system to build more homes. This blunt assessment, echoed repeatedly by ministers and housing campaigners, reflects a growing consensus that the current rules are a primary obstacle to tackling the housing crisis. Without fundamental change, the ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes over this Parliament will remain just that – an ambition.
Reforming a system that frustrates progress
Steve Reed, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, has made planning reform the centrepiece of Labour’s approach. His mantra “build, baby, build” signals a determination to accelerate construction, and his proposals are among the most far-reaching in decades. Under the reforms, the number of housing schemes that local councillors can scrutinise would be reduced, with fewer opportunities for block or delay. Legal challenges against infrastructure projects could also be streamlined. In a significant shift, councils that refuse planning permission for developments of 150 homes or more will be required to notify central government, which retains the power to take over the decision. Meanwhile, housebuilding near train stations is set to receive a default “yes”, effectively fast-tracking development in transport corridors.
Yet it is the frustrations embedded in the existing system that explain why these changes are so urgently needed. The planning process in London, in particular, is notoriously complex and slow. Developers routinely cite a cascade of barriers: high interest rates that make borrowing expensive, rising construction material costs, acute labour shortages, and the regulatory burden imposed by the Building Safety Act. Together, these factors have rendered many schemes unviable. The result is a historic slump in housing starts. In the first nine months of 2025, only 3,248 private housing starts were reported in London – a record low. The government’s annual target for the capital stands at 88,000 new homes, a figure that has long been missed.
At the heart of the problem lies the so-called viability assessment, a process intended to ensure developments are financially sound but which has become a flashpoint for delay and dispute. Developers often must prove that a scheme is viable before being granted permission, and the process can be lengthy and opaque. Under the new plans, however, builders who commit to delivering 20% social and affordable housing can qualify for fast-track status without undergoing a viability assessment – a measure designed to cut red tape while still securing homes for those in greatest need.
Backing councils and communities to deliver
Reforming the system is only half the battle. The government also needs councils and communities to embrace development, even when local opposition is fierce. Research into why residents resist new housing projects reveals a pattern of concerns: fears that extra population will strain roads, public transport and healthcare; worries that new developments will change the character of a neighbourhood; anxiety about noise and safety during construction; and, at times, reservations about “outsiders” moving into the area. There is also a deep lack of trust between residents, developers and local authorities – exacerbated by the very complexity of the planning system that ministers now seek to untangle.
Political opposition adds another layer. Labour has accused the Green Party of blocking thousands of new homes, including social and affordable housing. Steve Reed has claimed that Green Party councillors have blocked 42,000 homes across Britain, of which 13,000 were social or affordable. The Green Party has dismissed this as “nonsense”, but the charge reflects a broader frustration that local representatives can stall development through committee votes and legal tactics. The Greens’ own policies – including “Abolish Landlords”, abolishing Right-to-Buy, introducing rent controls, taxing landlords more heavily and ending Buy-to-Let mortgages – are explicitly aimed at reducing private ownership. Some Green Party leaflets have suggested that an increase in privately owned units negatively affects the value of existing flats, a stance that critics say amounts to defending housing scarcity.
Steve Reed has stressed the need to support councils that are willing to build, even where there is opposition. His predecessor, Angela Rayner, championed the same principle. The message is clear: if communities want to solve the housing crisis, they must accept that building homes involves difficult decisions. That means backing councils and communities to deliver, not allowing a vocal minority to veto progress.
The inescapable need to build
Ultimately, all the planning reforms and council support in the world count for nothing if homes are not actually constructed. The government’s 1.5 million homes target is underpinned by a 10-year, £39 billion Social and Affordable Homes Programme, with social rented housing prioritised. But the scale of the challenge is staggering. In London alone, over 183,000 people – including nearly 90,000 children – are homeless and living in temporary accommodation. London boroughs spent approximately £114 million per month on temporary accommodation in 2023-24. Meanwhile, the number of empty homes in the capital has been rising: 93,602 were recorded in 2024, equivalent to 2.5% of the total dwelling stock.
The housing crisis is not a theoretical problem. It is a daily reality for hundreds of thousands of families. Steve Reed has acknowledged that building is not easy. It requires reforming a planning system that too often frustrates progress. It means backing councils and communities to deliver, even when there is opposition. Above all, it means being honest: if you want to solve the housing crisis, you have to build. The reduction of affordable housing targets in London from 35% to 20% – with 60% of that 20% required to be at the cheapest social rents – was a controversial step. Homelessness campaigners and some MPs criticised the move as undermining pledges to tackle homelessness. Reed defended it bluntly: “20% of something, or 35% of nothing.” Developers, he noted, were not submitting applications under the previous, higher threshold. The same logic applies to the entire enterprise: without a functioning planning system, the nation will continue to build far too little. The question is no longer whether reform is needed, but whether the government can deliver it before the crisis deepens further.
