Primary

England delivered 199,300 net additional homes in 2024-25, down from 221,070 the previous year -the lowest since September 2016. This represents a cumulative deficit of 1.5 million homes between 2000-2024. Source: Savills Q1 2025 Housing Supply Update

Secondary

Planning permissions fell to 39,170 homes in Q1 2025 -the lowest quarterly figure since 2012, a 55% drop from Q4 2024. 94% of SME builders face planning delays, with 51% waiting over a year for permission. Source: Government statistics and HBF State of Play Report 2024-25

Context

Japan built 942,000 homes in 2018 vs UK's 194,000. Tokyo housing is more affordable than London despite being a larger city, primarily due to Japan's zoning-based planning system that allows by-right development. Major infrastructure in UK takes 4-7 years for planning approval vs 18 months in Japan. Germany approves residential developments in 6-12 months vs UK's 30+ months. Texas builds housing at 3x UK rate per capita using zoning. England's housing stock growth dropped from 1.9% annually (1856-1939) to 1.2% (1947-2019) after the 1947 Planning Act.

Discretionary Decision-Making Uncertainty

Unlike zoning systems where compliant applications must be approved, the UK system empowers planners with discretion to refuse based on subjective 'material considerations.' This creates unpredictability, extending timescales and raising costs. Developers cannot plan with certainty, while objectors can exploit this ambiguity at every stage. The system effectively rations housing case-by-case rather than setting clear rules upfront. International comparison: Japan, Germany, France, Texas, and most developed jurisdictions use rules-based zoning where applications meeting published standards receive automatic approval. UK's discretionary system is an outlier that treats every development as an exceptional case requiring adjudication -a 1947 anachronism inconsistent with modern housing delivery.

Incentive Misalignment for Existing Homeowners

House price growth benefits existing homeowners while development threatens their property values, views, and local character. With 67% homeownership and planning controlled at local level, councillors face electoral pressure to block development. The beneficiaries of new housing (young people, renters, those priced out) typically don't vote in the areas where housing is needed most, creating a democratic failure where concentrated opposition defeats diffuse benefits.

Statutory Timelines Without Enforcement

Government statistics claim 87% of minor applications are decided within 8 weeks, but this is misleading -LPAs ask applicants to agree to time extensions, making delays officially 'on time.' The real determination time averages 30 weeks, with no penalties for non-compliance. The system has no teeth to enforce its own deadlines.

Multiple Veto Points Architecture

Opponents can block development at numerous stages: local plan consultation, planning application, planning committee, Section 106 negotiation, conditions discharge, judicial review (with three attempts), and enforcement appeals. Each provides another opportunity for delay or defeat. Meanwhile, supporters have limited avenues to accelerate approval. This asymmetry is by design -the 1947 Act was explicitly intended to give communities power to stop development, not enable it. The system presumes development is harmful unless proven otherwise, inverting the property rights framework that existed before 1947.

Fiscal Externalization of Development Costs

Local councils bear the infrastructure and service costs of new residents but receive limited fiscal benefit (Council Tax is capped, and development often includes affordable housing mandates). This creates a fiscal disincentive for councils to approve development, exacerbated by central government austerity. Councils are rational to resist development that imposes costs without commensurate revenue.

Evidence For Reform

• ✓OBR calculates planning reforms will increase GDP by 0.2% (£6.8bn) by 2029-30 and over 0.4% by 2034-35 -the biggest positive GDP effect for any policy with no fiscal cost
• ✓Delivering 100,000 extra homes annually would create 200,000 jobs, boost tax revenues by £2bn+, and add 1% to long-term UK GDP growth
• ✓UK productivity growth averaged only 0.6% annually 2010-2019, down 1.5 percentage points from pre-GFC -housing constraints reduce labor mobility to productive cities
• ✓Appeals show system failures: 47% of major applications (10+ dwellings) succeed on appeal vs 23% for minor applications, indicating LPAs wrongly refuse viable schemes
• ✓International comparisons: Japan builds 942,000 homes/year (vs UK 194,000) using zoning system with by-right approval. Germany approves residential in 6-12 months vs UK 30+ months. France built 56 nuclear reactors in 15 years using statutory planning -UK built one in 30 years. Texas builds 3x UK housing per capita using zoning. Houston (pop 2.3M) approved 55,000 homes in 2023 vs entire UK 199,300. UK's discretionary system is a global outlier

Evidence Against Reform

• ✗Genuine infrastructure capacity constraints: Schools, GP surgeries, transport, and utilities genuinely cannot absorb rapid development in some areas without upfront investment -though this argues for better infrastructure delivery, not blocking housing. Japan and Germany face same constraints but fund infrastructure through taxation rather than blocking development
• ✗Brownfield first is logical: CPRE identifies 1.2 million potential homes on brownfield sites -developing these before greenfield makes environmental sense. However, many brownfield sites are contaminated, fragmented, or unviable. CPRE figure is aspirational, not deliverable capacity. International evidence shows no country meets housing need from brownfield alone -Tokyo builds on greenfield near stations while maintaining lower density than London
• ✗Environmental and biodiversity concerns: 90% of SME builders cite Biodiversity Net Gain regime as a barrier; only 4% believe councils have capacity to deliver 10% net gain. However, cumulative environmental requirements (50+ assessments) are excessive compared to consolidated European approaches. Germany achieves better environmental outcomes with single 6-month statutory process
• ✗Affordable housing crisis requires intervention: Private market alone won't deliver social housing -64,762 affordable homes in 2024-25 vs 1.3 million on waiting lists. But mandating 50% affordable on new developments makes sites unviable and kills total supply. Better approach: let market build, tax land value uplift, fund social housing separately. Vienna separates market and social housing to great effect
• ✗Local democracy legitimacy: 67% of public are 'MIMBYs' (Maybe In My Backyard) -conditionally supportive but wanting quality development, not blanket approval. However, local veto enables tyranny of the majority over those priced out. Young renters don't vote in areas blocking housing. Democratic failure, not democratic success. Japan has local democracy AND rules-based planning -not mutually exclusive

Contested Claims

• ?Land banking: CPRE claims 1 million homes have planning permission but aren't built; industry counters that large sites take 3-5 years from permission to completion and 2.8 years average to secure permission -so 'land banks' are normal working inventory, not hoarding
• ?Viability of grey belt development: 50% affordable housing requirement may make sites financially unviable, undermining reform objectives -but government argues this is necessary for social housing delivery
• ?Magnitude of NIMBY impact: Is opposition from 'vocal minorities' or legitimate democratic expression? Chesham & Amersham suggests broad electoral hostility in some areas, but RTPI found 67% are 'MIMBYs' open to development under right conditions
• ?Planning vs politics: Do planning committees wrongly block development, or do they correctly reflect democratic accountability? Government claims committees are obstructionist; councils argue they scrutinize poor-quality applications
• ?Developer delivery rates: Will faster permissions translate to faster building? Industry says yes, but critics note construction capacity constraints and economic cycles limit absorption rates regardless of planning speed

“Twenty years on from leading a review of housing supply it's depressing to find many of the problems identified still remain. A pragmatic rethink is overdue. Most indicators of housing market health are worse today than they were 20 years ago.”

“For too long, blockers have had the upper hand in legal challenges – using our court processes to frustrate growth. We're putting an end to this challenge culture by taking on the Nimbys and a broken system that has slowed down our progress as a nation.”

“From day one I have been open and honest about the scale of the housing crisis we have inherited. This mission-led government will not shy away from taking the bold and decisive action needed to fix it for good. I will not hesitate to do what it takes to build 1.5 million new homes over five years.”

“They will deliver some additional land on the margin, even despite the current 50 per cent requirement for affordable homes, but that will be just a tiny drop in the ocean of lack of housing supply. So on balance it is positive but far less positive than the political cost of making these changes probably is.”

“The delays in negotiating Section 106 agreements are a clear example of how a lack of capacity in local authorities and inconsistencies in the planning process are affecting the delivery of much-needed homes. With over £7 billion delivered through S106 agreements each year, we cannot afford for the system to keep failing.”

“Nimbyism is the single biggest barrier to tackling London's housing crisis. We need to build at least 66,000 homes a year to meet demand, but we have an acute shortage of land and local opposition to new development remains one of the biggest challenges we face.”