Copyright standard
The GLA is rightly determined to get homes built faster. Last week’s joint announcement with MHCLG is a helpful collection of emergency measures which, alongside central government's brownfield passports, new homes accelerator programme and other initiatives, are intended to fast-track a planning route for developers to "build, baby, build". But when you look more closely, the system remains difficult, slow and riddled with contradictions. The temporary CIL relief for brownfield sites applies only to certain qualifying types of development and within specific timeframes. Why is grey belt land, which could deliver thousands of homes, excluded? At the same time, developers are facing a new Building Safety Levy, due to take effect on 1 October 2026, and which could add up to £100 per square metre in extra costs for new build in some boroughs in the capital. Is the government giving with one hand and taking it straight back with the other? The problem isn’t a lack of initiatives; it's a failure to look holistically at the challenges faced. We’re reforming planning in fragments, layering new conditions onto a system that’s already overstretched. Each change adds complexity, but none have yet to tackle one of the core issues – that local authorities lack both the financial resources, in terms of people and funding to deliver. The government’s plan to fund 300 new planning graduates sounds ambitious, but in practice it barely scratches the surface. With 317 local authorities across England, that’s fewer than one additional planner per council, and not at the senior level required. Even with the temporary emergency measures, the cumulative ask for developers remains too big. Every scheme carries the cost of affordable housing, sustainability, infrastructure, employment and workspace commitments, all against stagnant values and double-digit build cost inflation. The basic economics no longer work, and as councils rely increasingly on these contributions – not to mitigate the impact of the development but simply to close their own funding gaps – the cycle reinforces itself. Add to this growing evidence that, while housing need is high, demand for market units under construction has weakened. Local authorities should not be blamed for pushing hard in negotiations or taking time to process applications. With budgets at record lows, councils face an impossible balance between scarce resources, community needs and keeping development viable. Funding the foundations So, what's the solution? The temporary emergency measures are welcome, but we must also look more closely at the funding gap. Planning reform will never succeed without properly resourced local authorities and genuine public–private collaboration. Graduates and short-term measures help, but the system needs senior planners, legal expertise and consistent capacity. Central government and the GLA must also recognise that every additional policy demand adds time, cost and risk unless councils are funded to deliver it. London faces a harder equation than most regions. A national, one-size-fits-all approach often has limited impact. Higher resource needs – whether for temporary housing costs or other demands – mean boroughs are less able to apply a flexible approach to planning matters. Elsewhere, councils can apply greater flexibility in their planning obligation asks, with lower affordable quotas and fewer other requirements such as affordable workspace or retail. Other solutions Two further steps could make a real difference. The first is to expand the use of Mayoral Development Corporations so that public bodies can pool land, expertise and funding to drive coordinated regeneration. When that structure works, as past experience in Stratford and the Olympic Park shows, it creates the governance clarity and delivery power the system currently lacks. Crucially, those places succeeded because the land structure, the mandate and the incentives to make things happen were all present – the right conditions for long-term investment and delivery. The Olympics at Stratford helped, of course, but an Olympics isn't essential for success. The key is all parties working towards the same goal. The second is to agree priorities for commitments. With limited budgets and difficult viability, there should be a focus on priority obligations, with a short-term freeze on other requirements including viability reviews and levies such as the Building Safety Levy. With a reduced ask and more certain returns, this should give the market some breathing room and help restore investor confidence. London’s history shows that when the balance is right, the system works. Clear governance, land control and partnership between the public and private sectors have consistently unlocked long-term regeneration. But where ownership is fragmented, funding uncertain and the regulatory load too heavy, delivery inevitably slows – no matter how strong the political will. The direction of travel is right. There is genuine commitment to get London and the rest of the country building again. But until policy and resource are aligned – with local government properly funded and the development ask brought back into economic balance – fast-track planning will remain more of a slogan than a solution. Just as you can’t buy the dress, hat, bag and shoes on a £20 budget, the decision makers need to accept they can’t have everything, all at once. Nicholle Kingsley in a partner in the real estate team at Mishcon de Reya
