Prime Minister Keir Starmer has despatched a transparent warning to housebuilders: “Should you promise properties, it’s a must to construct them.”
Backed by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, Labour’s new housing coverage introduces robust penalties for builders who delay building – together with potential land seizures, public reporting necessities and hundreds of kilos in “delayed properties” fines.
However whereas the federal government positions itself as cracking down on trade inertia, countryside charity CPRE argues the proposals miss the mark and danger weakening native democracy, whereas failing to deal with the true structural drawback behind Britain’s housing disaster: builders allegedly “hoarding” land with planning permission to inflate income.
And now, builders are preventing again, defending their position in a risky, over-regulated housing market they are saying is way extra complicated than politicians or campaigners admit.
That is my message to housebuilders: get on with it. Should you promise properties, it’s a must to construct them. As a part of our Plan for Change, we’re introducing penalties when you don’t construct them quick sufficient.Might 25, 2025
CPRE ‘Builders are sitting on 1,000,000 unbuilt properties’
In a brand new briefing paper, CPRE claims that giant builders are intentionally holding again housing supply by sitting on websites with planning permission – greater than 1,000,000 properties, in line with their estimates – whereas trickling costly, poor-quality builds onto the market.
“The true drawback lies with huge housebuilders, which maximise their income by hoarding planning permissions,” the charity stated. “We’re not dealing with a planning drawback – we’re dealing with a revenue drawback.”
CPRE warns that the federal government’s proposed planning reforms, notably those who cut back the position of native planning committees, may erode public accountability and lead to low-quality, car-dependent sprawl with little native enter.
Carry your dream house to life with professional recommendation, the right way to guides and design inspiration. Join our e-newsletter and get two free tickets to a Homebuilding & Renovating Present close to you.
Paul Miner, CPRE’s head of coverage, added: “Blaming planning committees is a smokescreen. Curbing native democratic oversight whereas letting builders dominate the method will solely make issues worse.”
Authorities response: Construct or lose the land
The federal government insists its reforms are about supply, not deregulation. Builders shall be required to publish annual progress stories, decide to reasonable build-out timelines, and ship on them – or face fines.
Angela Rayner, housing secretary, defended the measures: “No extra websites with planning permission gathering mud whereas a era struggles to get on the housing ladder. We’re backing the builders – not the blockers.”
Councils may even be given powers to reclaim land if builders constantly delay initiatives underneath new NPPF modifications, whereas massive developments will default to “combined tenure” to encourage sooner, extra inclusive builds.
Are builders to be blamed?
Whereas the political warmth has been turned on builders, many within the trade say they’re being unfairly vilified.
The Residence Builders Federation said: “The planning system is stricken by delays, under-resourcing, and anti-development sentiment inside some native authorities. But builders are constantly blamed for gradual build-out. That’s a distraction from the foundation causes.”
Nevertheless, in response to the Competitors and Markets Authority’s (CMA) report they recognised “the planning system is a basic barrier to supply and provides pointless delay and value into the event course of”.
The place does the reality lie?
This tug-of-war raises key questions for the way forward for UK housing coverage:
- Can the federal government penalise gradual builders with out discouraging funding?
- Are planning committees defending communities – or obstructing properties?
- And the way will we make sure that what will get constructed isn’t simply quick, but additionally honest, inexpensive, and sustainable?
Whereas Labour’s “Plan for Change” goals to ship properties at tempo, critics like CPRE warn that with out structural reform of the housing market itself, Britain dangers constructing extra of the incorrect properties, within the incorrect locations, for the incorrect costs.
Within the center are the builders – underneath strain to ship sooner, however dealing with what they are saying is an more and more unsure and politicised surroundings.
As the federal government guarantees to “get Britain constructing once more,” the query stays: construct what, the place, and for whom?
