UK housing crisis: Starmer unlikely to fix building backlog

Show summary Hide summary

• How big the shortfall really is and why it matters
• How the planning system chokes off building
• What Labour’s planning reforms promised — and how they were watered down
• Policy moves that will push building costs up
• Devolution and mayoral powers: potential gains and political pitfalls
• What change would actually unlock more homes

Keir Starmer is quietly preparing a follow-up planning bill after his government’s flagship reforms stalled in the House of Lords — a tacit admission that the first attempt hasn’t delivered. New figures show Britain is miles off the pace on housebuilding, and ministers are now scrambling to patch a strategy that has produced far fewer homes than promised.

The scale of the shortfall has turned housing into a political sore point that won’t go away. While Labour talks about being pro-development, critics say the party keeps pulling back when its proposals face resistance, leaving the country with rising prices, strained households, and a planning system that many describe as broken.

How big the shortfall really is and why it matters

Recent government data reveal a stark reality: Labour is projected to miss its pledge of 1.5 million homes by the end of the Parliament by roughly 480,000 homes. That gap matters not just for politicians, but for ordinary people who can’t get on the housing ladder.

• Backlog: The UK is estimated to have a housing shortfall of about 4.3 million homes compared with the European average.
• Affordability: The typical home in England now costs about nine years of average earnings, and in London that rises to fourteen years.
• Housing cost burden: Around 10 million people spend more than 40% of their income on housing — well above many European peers.

Those figures help explain why housing has become an urgent public-policy issue: without substantially more supply, prices will remain out of reach and millions will continue to be cost-burdened.

How the planning system chokes off building

The roots of today’s mess go deep into Britain’s planning regime. Where once land could be released for development with compensation for those blocked, successive rules have handed local authorities broad discretionary powers that enable long delays and outright refusal.

Key features of the system that hold back construction include:

• Local plans that run to hundreds or thousands of pages and require complex procedures to change.
• Planning committees whose members are often focused on short-term disruption rather than wider economic need.
• An effective local veto on development, created by statutory arrangements introduced after the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act.

Polling of planning committee members reveals a worrying mindset among some decision-makers: roughly a quarter say they are fundamentally opposed to any new development in their area. That posture makes getting projects through the system slow and politically fraught.

What Labour’s planning reforms promised — and how they were watered down

Labour’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill contained several headline measures aimed at speeding approvals and reducing political interference. The centerpiece was a proposed National Scheme of Delegation designed to let certain applications bypass councils and get approved by apolitical planning officers.

In practice, however, the government has narrowed the scope of that delegation to a much smaller category than originally hinted at. The key compromises and consequences:

• Delegation limited to minor developments: automatic delegation now targets projects of under ten dwellings, a threshold many argue is far too low to make a national difference.
• Local Plans made weaker: while there was noise about reintroducing mandatory housing targets, the enforcement mechanisms are thin — meaning targets could exist on paper but lack teeth in practice.
• Environmental mitigation rules tightened: a proposed Environmental Delivery Plan (EDP) mechanism — which would have let developers contribute to a nature fund rather than carry out expensive local mitigation — has been burdened with additional requirements after Lords pressure.

One often-cited example of the current rules’ absurdity: developers sometimes face demands for highly specific, costly local works — a headline-grabbing case described as spending large sums to create facilities to protect bats in situ — rather than allowing money to be pooled and spent more effectively at scale.

Policy moves that will push building costs up

Even where ministers want to speed up supply, other decisions are likely to raise costs and blunt the impact of reforms. A recent proposal to consolidate and extend the Landfill Tax would, in effect, see quarries taxed when they refill excavated land with inert materials required by environmental restoration rules.

• The proposed rate would be around £126.15 per tonne.
• Analysts estimate this could tack an additional £25,000 onto the cost of creating each new home.

Taxes on required restoration activity and other regulatory costs don’t disappear — they filter through supply chains and ultimately make land and homes more expensive.

Devolution and mayoral powers: potential gains and political pitfalls

Labour’s Devolution Bill seeks to shift more planning powers to city mayors and local authorities, including the ability for mayors to “call in” strategic projects for a direct decision and the power to establish new Mayoral Development Corporations.

These tools could, in theory, speed delivery by creating a single, accountable decision-maker for large schemes. But experience so far is mixed:

• In London, the mayor’s powers have sometimes been used to block or delay major projects on highly visible grounds, creating headlines but not homes.
• Mayoral Development Corporations in some cases have struggled to translate powers into new housing output and have been criticized for inefficient spending.

Giving the same mechanisms to other city-regions could either unlock supply or reproduce the same political gamesmanship in new places.

What change would actually unlock more homes

There is a common diagnosis among economists and housing experts: the system is overly discretionary and too easy for local interests to stall sensible schemes. A set of reforms that would directly address that problem includes:

1. Replacing discretionary blocks with a clearer, rules-based zoning system that defines what can be built where.
2. Enforcing housing allocations in Local Plans so that promised sites are deliverable, with meaningful consequences for non-compliance.
3. Expanding delegation thresholds and fast-track routes for developments that meet objective criteria — including those linked to affordable housing and infrastructure provision.
4. Simplifying environmental mitigation by allowing aggregated funds or national approaches where they are demonstrably more effective and efficient.

All of these steps would require political capital and a willingness to confront entrenched local opposition. That, more than technical tinkering, is the barrier that reformers must overcome if Britain is to close the housing shortfall and restore affordability to a stretched housing market.

You might also like:

• Housing crisis worsens as post-Grenfell safety red tape delays repairs
• In the landscape of construction in Britain, an unseen force seems to be at play
• Dutch Designers Innovate: Tiny Home Inside Recycled Wind Turbine Unveiled!
• Billionaires dump waste on neighbors after refusing to install septic tanks
• UK energy crisis: practical solutions to cut bills and secure supply