For too long we have failed to ask hard questions about the state of Britain’s housing benefit system. Growth in the cost of housing benefits has been relentless – with a nearly 20% increase in spending projected over just 5 years – and costs set to reach £44 billion by the end of the decade.

We have not asked if this is fair. Fair to taxpayers, paying their own rents and mortgages. Fair to housing benefit claimants in the private rental sector, where the generosity of housing benefits seesaws unpredictably through freezes and uplifts, with no ability to plan. Or fair to families who really and often urgently need a stable roof over their heads, stuck on council waiting lists whilst high earners – and even some foreign nationals – benefit from lifetime tenancies. 

This excellent paper asks these fundamental questions. It makes a compelling case that so much of our housing benefit system is failing. It sets out a range of thoughtful proposals for how government can control costs and build a better, fairer system. As we do the hard work in opposition to plan our reforms to housing benefits, I welcome contributions like this that add to this vital debate. 

Fixing housing benefits and social housing is a difficult but essential challenge. We must ensure our housing stock and the benefits that fund it support those most in need and enable opportunity, rather than incentivising people to remain stuck in homes that hard-up taxpayers can ill-afford to subsidise. Yet the most urgent pressure is to grip the system and end the inexorable rises in spending that form a growing part of our ballooning welfare bill. This package is a compelling solution to that pressing problem.

Helen Whately

Shadow Secretary of State for Work & Pensions

Introduction

Housing is the largest single living expense that most families face. Many people work and save for years to own their home outright to be freed from high housing costs. But another group is also living rent-free, with their costs met by the state. One in five households in Britain have their housing costs covered at least in part by the benefits system, through Housing Benefit or the Universal Credit housing element.[1] This is equivalent to all the households in England’s nine largest cities combined.[2]

Paying the rent of over 5.75 million households a year comes with a heavy price – one that is rising fast. Official forecasts suggest that by the end of the decade, the cost of housing benefits will be more than double the cost in 2018.[3] Even this alarming trajectory is severely under-pricing recent and upcoming policy decisions which will accelerate costs further. By the end of the next parliament, core housing benefits spending could exceed £52 billion, up from £30 billion today.[4]

This paper reveals that the current estimates for future housing welfare spending are implausibly low and builds a more realistic baseline for spending in the private and social rented sectors for households without additional housing support needs. It then looks at how this higher projected spending can be brought under greater control quickly and without the need for new primary legislation, saving £4.5 billion a year by the end of the next parliament in 2033/34.

Without the usual price signals that drive other renters to choose carefully a home in the right location they can afford, the benefits system creates an array of perverse incentives for claimants that are neither in their best interests, nor in taxpayers’. As well as addressing the unsustainability of housing benefits spending, this paper also considers ways to correct some of the underlying unfairness to those paying for both their own housing and their neighbours’.

Home truths

Housing benefits are paid by the Universal Credit (UC) housing element to most working age claimants or by Housing Benefit (HB) to pension age claimants, those with additional housing support needs and those still on legacy working age benefits.[5] These benefits are paid on different terms to those in the private rented sector and those in the social rented sector, creating a series of perverse incentives:

1. Geographic generosity – Claimants in the private rented sector can choose to live in more expensive areas and receive a higher value subsidy from the taxpayer to do so. Rates paid for housing benefits in the private rented sector are set based on the distribution of local market rents. In the social rented sector, properties are allocated via local lists that provide well below-market rents, which housing benefits can cover in full, linked to the shape of the property and labour market in 1999. 

2. Tenure security – Social housing is awarded based on an assessment of need at a particular point in time. A majority of social tenancies are awarded on a lifetime basis, even if the occupants no longer meet the allocation rules or are no longer eligible for housing benefits at all. Lifetime security at a highly subsidised rent creates an incentive to gain priority on local housing lists through crisis, often via statutory homelessness duties and temporary accommodation, which are the route to 28% of new social lettings.[6]

3. Labour mobility – Social housing allocation policies reward those with a continuous record of residence in the area. Local connection tests advantage those who stay within a council area, even if moving elsewhere may help to find work. While there is some incentive to earn enough to be exempted from the benefit cap, there is a stronger incentive to claim incapacity and disability benefits in order to be exempted from the cap if housing benefits do not fully cover rent.

The dynamics governing how claimants respond to housing benefits policy sit both within the housing benefits themselves, and in the wider structure of the benefit system and local government. This paper focuses on measures possible within allowances and rent-setting that could be implemented immediately at the start of a new parliament in 2029/30, without changing allocation policies, work conditionality, tenancy terms or other benefit eligibility.

With so many reasons to stay dependent on the welfare state or choose more expensive areas from which to draw housing benefits, the impact on the public finances should be no surprise. The latest 2026 Spring Forecast indicates that housing benefits spending will be the same proportion of welfare spending this financial year as it was in 2010/11 at 10.9%.[7] Against a much larger overall welfare bill, this stubborn constancy in share is concerning, especially as housing benefits were an area of spending restraint through much of the intervening period. 

After a period of cutting, capping and freezing affecting both tenures in the 2010s, housing benefits spending dipped to £20.7 billion by 2018/19. This was followed by two sharp increases when allowances were restored to the 30th percentile of local market rents in 2020 and again in 2024. In the current financial year, £38.8 billion is forecast to be spent on housing benefits.[8] By 2030/31, this is expected to exceed £43.5 billion – more than double the cost in 2010/11 or 2018/19.

Figure 1 – Housing benefits spending, 2010/11-2030/31

Source: DWP, Benefit expenditure and caseload tables 2026[9]

The increase across the forecast period shows that, even with an assumed continuation of the private rented sector freeze, there is no sign that spending will start to come down as it did during the freeze in the latter half of the 2010s. Likewise, in the social rented sector forecast, the increase in permitted social rent rises in the latest Rent Settlement will add an average of £300 million a year to housing benefits spending.[10] Even with the private rented sector freeze in place, total spending continues to rise sharply.

The deeper problem with this already bleak forecast for the public finances is that it does not even begin to capture the true extent of likely housing benefits growth within the forecast period and beyond. The section that follows explains why the forecast is implausible and seeks to build a more likely baseline from which savings from policy changes can then be measured.

Thawing private rented sector support

The forecast assumes that the current freeze in Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates that keeps rates at 2024/25 levels will continue at least until 2030/31. This is based on the 2026 Spring Forecast stating that LHA rates will remain frozen until at least March 2027.[11] The OBR simply takes the current policy and has no choice but to assume it continues, absent an affirmative policy decision beyond next March. To understand why the freeze being renewed in the next financial year is highly improbable, it is first necessary to understand how LHA rates are set in policy and legal terms.

LHA rates are the maximum weekly rate of housing benefits claimants in the private rented sector can receive. Claimant households receive benefits for the full amount of their rent if it is lower than this rate, or part of their rent up to this maximum. Households may receive less after their rate has been applied, such as if their total benefit award exceeds the benefit cap or if they have savings above certain thresholds. There are also national caps that apply to LHA rates in the most expensive areas.

The rate applied depends on which area a claimant lives in, known as the Broad Rental Market Area (BRMA), and the bedroom eligibility of the household. Size criteria for LHA rates usually allow one bedroom for each of the following: a couple; any other person aged 16 or over; two children of the same sex; two children under 10 regardless of sex; and any other child. Eligibility is capped at four bedrooms however large the household. A single claimant under 35 with no dependants is limited to the shared accommodation rate (the rate for a room in a shared house) rather than the one-bedroom rate, subject to exemptions for disability or vulnerability.

There are 192 BRMAs in Great Britain, varying in size and population. In England, rates are calculated by Valuation Office Rent Officers collecting a sample of rental information from letting agents, landlords and tenants about private market rents each year. In Wales, they are set by Rent Officers Wales and in Scotland by the Rent Service Scotland via a similar process. From these lists of rents, Rent Officers are bound by legislation to calculate the 30th percentile of local rents for each BRMA.[12] Secondary legislation is then laid each year for which a freeze is applied to override this policy.[13] These negative instruments can be “prayed against” in the House of Commons or the House of Lords, which can lead to debate on the issue. The statutory default remains to uplift rates to the 30th percentile in each area each year, not a continuous freeze.

Second, the current freeze has already eroded the value of LHA rates significantly, making even one further year of freeze difficult for the government to sustain. Shortly after the last uplift to the 30th percentile in 2024, 45.6% of private resented sector households on UC with a housing element were subject to an LHA rate that did not fully cover their rent.[14] In the latest month for which information is available, shortfalls stand at 58.2%. By April 2027, the number of claimant households with shortfalls is on course to have well exceeded the number with shortfalls directly before the last LHA rate uplift to the 30th percentile, and has likely surpassed one million already.[15]

Already, the size of the gap between LHA rates and the affordability of tenancies is significant. In 2026/27, out of the 960 different BRMAs and bedroom categories, 34% already have frozen LHA rates that are lower than the 10th percentile of local market rents in that year.[16] In the next financial year when the freeze or uplift decision comes, this is likely to exceed 55% of areas and bedroom categories, based on the ten-year average of ONS price index of private rents (PIPR).[17] By 2030/31, 95% are likely to be below the 10th percentile.

The extent of the shortfall between the default 30th percentile and a continuation of the LHA freeze at 2024/25 rates into next year is acute. The gap between the likely 30th percentile of market rents for 2027/28 and a continued freeze of LHA rates will leave an average shortfall of around £156 per month. For larger properties, the gap is even more cavernous, with four-bedroom frozen LHA rates an average of £241 per month below the 30th percentile. Even in the BRMAs with the median shortfall across all bedroom categories – Wigan and Barrow-in-Furness – the gap is around £135 per month. For claimant households, these mounting gaps represent a significant share of their total awards, making it difficult to bridge the shortfall from other parts of their benefits awards.

Claimants who entered private rented sector tenancies that were at or above the LHA rate at the 30th percentile in 2024 will likely have experienced a profound erosion in what their housing benefits cover. They would not have known when taking on the tenancy that their housing award would remain frozen for years afterwards as their rent increased. Tenants cannot make long-term decisions about which properties and areas are affordable for their family circumstances, including for sustaining employment, if housing benefits rates see-saw between generous leaps and punitive freezes at unpredictable intervals.

Figure 2 – Average monthly difference between 30th percentile and frozen LHA rates in 2027/28

Source: Onward analysis, MHCLG, Welsh Government, Scottish Government and ONS PIPR data[18]

Third and finally, there is the political likelihood of the freeze continuing into next year or longer. The current freeze has held LHA rates at the same cash level for three years already. If it continues into next year, it will be on par with the 2020/21 to 2023/24 freeze and one year off the 2016/17 to 2019/20 freeze.[19] Continuing to 2030/31, as per the OBR forecast assumption, would be the longest LHA freeze ever. Given how fiercely these long freezes were opposed by those now on the government side, it will be increasingly challenging to maintain discipline in support of this position.

The likelihood of the Government supporting another year of a freeze is reduced by the fact that Labour’s original LHA rates were far more generous than the 30th percentile. When LHA rates were introduced during the last Labour Government, they were set at the 50th percentile (median rent). In addition, if tenants chose tenancies with rents below the median, they were allowed to keep up to £15 per week of the cash difference to encourage them to choose cheaper properties than the maximum and avoid rent inflation up to the median. Claimants could also be eligible to claim for up to five bedrooms, rather than four. The case for reverting to these policy positions was made vociferously by opposition parties during the coalition and Conservative governments.

This historic position has not been forgotten. Ahead of the decision to freeze LHA rates last year, the then Labour Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee, Florence Eshalomi MP, lent her support to a coalition of forty organisations calling on the government to restore LHA rates to at least the 30th percentile and to assess the impact of returning to the median.[20] She is now a Minister of State in MHCLG. Early Day Motions were signed by Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green and Plaid Cymru MPs calling for LHA rates to be restored to the median.[21] The chorus of stakeholders calling for an end to the freeze has only become louder this year.[22]

The Prime Minister himself has repeatedly referred to the damaging impact of LHA freezes and the need for regular uplifts. In a major speech as the candidate to become the Labour leader in June 2026, three weeks before becoming Prime Minister, Andy Burnham stated:

“We are forced to chase rents in the private-rented sector through the benefits system. When governments try to control these costs by freezing Local Housing Allowance, it makes families homeless and places unfunded pressures on councils when they have to pay for temporary accommodation.”[23]

This landmark speech is consistent with his earlier calls for ending the freeze to reflect rental market conditions. A fortnight before the November 2025 Budget, while Mayor of Greater Manchester, he called for “restoring LHA to reflect real rental costs,” although he fell short of specifying whether this means median rents or another market link.[24] When the previous uplift to the 30th percentile was announced in the 2023 Autumn Statement, he issued a press release saying, “one of our biggest calls has been the urgent need to unfreeze Local Housing Allowance and I am pleased that the Chancellor has listened.”[25]

Recent Resolution Foundation analysis casts doubt on the Prime Minister’s claim about benefits chasing, or driving up, rents in the private rented sector. Findings indicate that only around 10p in every pound of uplift was fed through to higher rents at the bottom of the market after the April 2024 uplift.[26] This means the Prime Minister has less need to avoid the uplift out of a principled aversion to passing on the increase to private landlords.

Against this legislative, affordability and political backdrop, it is highly improbable that a freeze will continue into the next financial year, let alone through to the end of 2030/31 as the Spring Forecast assumes. This context is consequential for any incoming government after the next election. Housing benefits spending will almost inevitably be materially higher than is expected currently – and the imperative to exert spending restraint will be overwhelming. 

Resetting the private rented sector baseline

This paper models a plausible baseline for private rented sector housing benefits spending: it assumes that LHA rates are uplifted to the 30th percentile each year from 2027/28, in line with the legislative default. A list of the key assumptions is given below.

Figure 3 – Private rented sector baselines

Source: Onward analysis, DWP outturn and forecast, Spring 2026[27]

Assumption 1 – Distribution of rents

To create this baseline, the model analyses the latest Valuation Office lists of local market rents, known as the Shadow List of Rents, and the devolved equivalents, to commence with the latest snapshot of the distribution of market rents by BRMA on the same basis that LHA rates are set.[28]

Assumption 2 – Rent growth

The model then applies the ten-year average growth rate from the ONS’s PIPR to estimate how rents rise until the end of the next parliament in 2033/34.[29] At a national level, the compound annual growth rate is 3.81%. This aligns with the latest PIPR, which shows average UK monthly private rent increased by 3.8% in the 12 months to August 2026.[30] If more recent multi-year compound annual average growth rates were used, such as three or five years, the rate would be materially higher, at around 6% nationally. A ten-year average is used to avoid embedding distortion from the period following the Covid-19 pandemic when rents surged and to avoid possible local anomalies from taking single year values alone.

Assumption 3 – Caseload shares by bedroom rate

In order to model how many claimants are eligible for different LHA rates, it is necessary to estimate the proportions of claimants in each BRMA and each bedroom rate. For example, some areas will attract a higher proportion of younger claimants only eligible for the shared accommodation rate, whereas others will have more family homes at the lower end of the rental market and therefore attract a higher proportion eligible for three- and four-bedroom rates.

As UC household caseload data does not split by bedroom category, nor gives sufficient detail on household characteristics from which to estimate this, bedroom level caseload proportions applied for each BRMA are based on bedroom category proportions from 2018 Housing Benefit caseload data. While this is lagged, it is the last year before managed migration to UC began, giving the most up to date and reasonably complete picture of the general shape of the entire caseload by eligible bedrooms in each area.[31] At a national level, just over two thirds of the caseload were eligible for one or two bedroom rates, with the rest split between three bedrooms, the shared accommodation rate and four-bedroom rates in descending order of proportion.

Figure 4 – National share of private rented sector caseload by bedroom eligibility, April 2018

Source: Onward analysis, DWP Stat-Xplore[32]

Assumption 4 – Caseload growth

Next, the model assesses how much the caseload is likely to grow in each BRMA across the seven year time horizon, against which the bedroom shares for that area are applied. Caseload growth rates are calculated from the compound annual growth rate in caseload across those receiving housing benefits through UC and HB in each BRMA since April 2018.[33] Extreme outliers in caseload growth are capped to ensure that the total growth remains in line with the overall national rate.

Assumption 5 – Average award

There is no published breakdown of the amount of UC award claimants receive from just the housing element, let alone by each BRMA and for each bedroom category. Again, the model relies on HB, taking the latest month for which data is available for each LA (then converted to BRMA) and each bedroom category.[34] This is then calibrated against the 2026 Spring Forecast, which gives the only breakdown of how much is spent in total on UC housing element in the private rented sector as a separate component within awards to combine with private rented sector HB awards.[35]

Assumption 6 – Rent less than LHA adjustment

To reflect that housing benefits in the private rented sector pay the lower of LHA rates and rent, an adjustment factor is modelled to give an implied pass through of any change in rate. Claimants who already have a shortfall between their LHA rate and rent stand to benefit from a rate rise to the 30th percentile, whereas those for whom the frozen LHA rates still cover their rent will see no change from an uplift.

Those with rents that sit somewhere between the old LHA rate and the new one will gain part of the uplift amount. The model considers the number of claimants in each BRMA that have rents above the previous year’s LHA rate, the gap between old and new LHA rate and where rents are likely to sit between the old and new rates according to the local rent growth rate. At a national level, the model estimates a pass through to benefits of 56.3%.[36]

Social renting like it’s 1999

The UK still has one of the largest social rented sectors in Europe as a proportion of total dwellings, despite the stock declining steadily since the 1980s.[37] There are around 3.4 million homes for general needs social rent, and a further 400,000 for general needs affordable rent.[38] The almost three quarters of the sector that comprises general needs social rent is governed by a jumble of archaic rent policies, tied to the shape of the labour and property market in 1999.

Before the millennium, there was no single basis for setting social rents, with a series of policy changes through the 1970s and 80s having led to wide rent variation between both council housing and housing association tenants, as well as between newer tenants and longstanding ones. From 2002, a new rent-setting policy was introduced, called formula rent, which was meant to provide a single basis for the vast majority of social rents after a ten-year period of gradual adjustment.

The basic input values and caps for formula rent are based on 1999 figures, including individual property values, manual worker earnings and rent distributions from properties of different sizes. This snapshot means formula rent is comparatively lower than market rents in London, while it over-values rents in other areas that have experienced decline.

After a long period of social rent cuts and caps from 2015, only around a quarter of eligible social tenancies have converged up to formula rent. Just 0.1% of local authority social rents and 43% of private registered provider social rents have arrived at formula rent.[39] Lack of progress towards a single social rent-setting basis means that social rents and their associated housing benefits costs are still determined by a mismatch of legacy inputs. There are also discrepancies between housing benefits in the social rented sector and the private rented sector in how bedrooms are weighted in rent calculations, with more generous allowances for very large homes in the social rented sector compared to four in the private rented sector.

Soon after the 2024 general election, the new government consulted on changes to social rent policies. However, it declined to re-open the underlying basis of formula rent, citing a need to move quickly and avoid instability or uncertainty in the sector.[40] Instead, the scope was limited to the annual uprating basis (and some minor technical amendments).

In January 2026, the Government confirmed that convergence would resume over a ten-year period, stepping up to £1/week from April 2027, rising to £2/week from April 2028 onwards, on top of CPI+1%.[41] Social rents above formula rent and affordable rents can increase by CPI+1% only. Accelerating towards a rent goal linked indelibly to a formula based in conditions over a quarter of a century old will further embed distortion in the sector.

Splitting the social rented sector baseline

The array of different stock types, rent-setting bases and benefit eligibility means the trajectory of housing benefits in the social rented sector is far more complex to project into the future than the private rented sector. The Spring 2026 forecast for housing benefits in the social rented sector captures a reasonable baseline for this tenure type to 2030/31 in Great Britain. Crucially, it includes a significant policy change announced in January 2026, which will accelerate English social rent increases across the period, beyond the usual CPI+1%.[42]

Figure 5 – Social rented sector tenures and benefit eligibility

Housing benefits awards are a reserved matter, but rent setting policies are devolved. To assess the impact of the social rented sector rent policies discussed in this paper, it is therefore necessary to model a more limited baseline than the Spring 2026 forecast to exclude Scotland and Wales, service charges, supported housing (and the associated intensive housing management costs, or IHM) and temporary accommodation costs paid by DWP.

This paper’s baseline therefore only includes general needs social rented sector claimants in England whose rent type is social rent (excluding eligible service charges) or affordable rents. The starting difference in baselines between the 2026 Spring Forecast for the relevant combined categories and the modelled baseline is therefore largely down to service charges being excluded in the model. By 2030/31 the modelled baseline moves above the Spring 2026 forecast baseline due to more recent higher-than-expected inflation forecasts used for uprating purposes.[43]

Figure 6 – England general needs social rented sector baselines

Source: Onward analysis, DWP outturn and forecast, Spring 2026[44]

Assumption 1 – Stock splits

Stock, tenure and average rents by local authority and bedroom size come from the Regulator of Social Housing’s 2025 statistical data returns for private registered providers (PRPs) and local authority registered providers (LARPs).[45] The model calculates formula rent for each authority and bedroom size according to the methodology in the 2026 policy statement on rents for social housing and January 1999 property values.[46] It calibrates this to the Regulator’s published formula rents and compares it with actual rents. Homes below formula rent are treated as still converging.

Assumption 2 – Turnover and rent paths

Each April, social rents can rise by the previous September’s CPI+1%. For social rent, the different rent policies are applied for those above formula rent or still converging up to it across the period according to the 2026 Rent Settlement terms. Estimated turnover is calculated from official social housing lettings data, showing a national churn rate of 4.97% per year.[47] In line with modelling from the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Housing Federation and others, it is assumed that providers re-let vacant properties at formula rent.[48] Affordable rent is modelled using the Shadow List of Rents for local market rent data with CPI+1% applied.[49] Both paths use the latest CPI forecasts compiled by HMT or 2% for beyond that horizon (for 2029 uprating onwards).[50]

Assumption 3 – Stock growth

A new Social and Affordable Homes Programme was introduced in 2026, shifting the priority towards social rent homes.[51] Previous local stock growth rates are measured from the Regulator of Social Housing stock data between 2020 and 2025.[52] These rates are then scaled down for affordable rent and up for social rent to reflect the new planned tenure mix. While the new Prime Minister has indicated that he will expand social rent building further, there are not yet details sufficient to quantify this.

Assumption 4 – Housing benefits factor

As rents change, not all of this feeds through into housing benefits awards, because some tenants are not claimants and some claimants have deductions from their awards (such as the under-occupation deduction or the benefit cap). The draft Impact Assessment for the 2026 rent convergence policy notes that social security impacts are calculated as two thirds of the change in rental income.[53] This factor is applied to the model to scale the pass through to benefits of rent changes.

Going through the roof

By combining the private and social rented sector baselines, a substantial underestimation of the likely cost of housing benefits is revealed. By the end of the forecast period in 2030/31, spending on housing benefits in the private rented sector and the general needs social rented sector is set to exceed £40 billion, around £7.6 billion higher than the 2026 Spring Forecast indicates. By the end of the next parliament in 2033/34, it is on course to have more than doubled since 2023/24 if the likely private rented sector uplift occurs. 

Figure 7 – Combined baseline

Source: Onward analysis

Savings options

The policy options in this package are costed against the combined baseline above, using the same underlying basis from which to build the new policy scenarios. It is assumed that they are introduced at the start of a new parliament in the financial year 2029/30 and implemented over the five-year period to the end of 2033/34.

Recommendation 1: Uplift LHA rates to the 10th percentile each year.

Rates move from the 30th to the 10th percentile of local market rents and are uplifted to the 10th percentile every April thereafter. Existing claimants receive transitional protection that keeps their rate frozen in cash terms from 2029 until the yearly uplift to the 10th percentile overtakes it, or a new tenancy is signed. Claimants above state pension age may claim up to the 30th percentile.

The constant freezing and sporadic uplifting of rates to the 30th percentile is bad for tenants and taxpayers alike. The arbitrary and compounding impact of freezes on claimants, as demonstrated above, shows why this is a particularly regrettable way to achieve spending restraint. If LHA rates remain frozen in cash terms in line with the OBR forecast, they will erode to implausibly low rates, leaving many claimants exposed to growing shortfalls if they remain in their current tenancies or unable to find a property in a given area at all.

As the modelled baseline highlights, the 30th percentile is clearly an unaffordable long-term basis for uplifting housing benefits, and could see the total housing benefits bill quadruple from current levels by 2040 as the caseload continues to grow.[54] It is equally unfair to those who are not reliant on benefits to be priced out of some parts of the country while those on benefits can choose to live in more expensive areas and be subsidised to access effectively a third of the housing market there.

Shifting permanently down to subsidise only up to the bottom tenth of the market in each area is both fairer and more affordable for the government. To prevent further volatility for claimants who are already assumed to have seen LHA rates uplifted to the 30th percentile from 2027/28, a grandfathering arrangement is proposed. Existing claimants in the private rented sector would have their housing benefits awards frozen going into 2029/30 and held in cash terms until the yearly uplift to the 10th percentile overtakes their award. In areas with high local market rent growth rates, this protection will erode faster than in areas with slower growth.

Figure 8 – Mean year for 10th percentile overtake of frozen 2028/29 30th percentile LHA rates

Source: Onward analysis[55]

New claimants or those taking on a new tenancy are only eligible for the 10th percentile LHA rate, calculated on the same basis as the baseline. Claimants above State Pension age, who are less able to adjust their income and outgoings, remain able to claim up to the 30th percentile throughout the period. Over a five year period from 2029/30 to 2033/34, this recommendation is estimated to save a cumulative £6.9 billion. In 2033/34, the in-year saving reaches £1.9 billion. 

Figure 9 – 10th percentile LHA rate policy savings

Source: Onward analysis

Recommendation 2: Extend LHA rate-based caps to the general needs social rented sector

Eligible rent is capped at 10th percentile LHA rates for general needs social and affordable rent tenancies. Existing claimants have a maximum cash loss of £10 a week for the duration of that tenancy.[56] Pensioners are exempted from the cap.

Claimants in the social rented sector receive high effective subsidies from the state when compared to the full rental market value of the properties they are occupying. On top of this, there is no LHA-style maximum on eligible rent, so housing benefits can exceed private rented sector rates for that area. There is no equivalent to the shared accommodation rate for under 35s in the social rented sector. Extending 10th percentile LHA rates into the social rented sector as a cap on eligible rent creates a single, consistent maximum.

Eligible rent is currently set on a property basis rather than by household characteristics. This means that this policy would act as an additional underoccupancy penalty for those with rents hitting the LHA maximum. Almost a fifth (18.1%) of general needs social rented sector claimant households have one or more spare bedrooms.[57] As with the private rented sector, pensioners are exempted as they will be less able to adjust to this change in circumstances by increasing their income to cover any shortfall. To protect any claimants at the LHA maximum from sudden losses of housing benefits, a further cap is proposed to limit the weekly deduction to £10 per week.

Bringing LHA rates into the social rented sector was proposed previously at the Spending Review in 2015, but never took effect. According to analysis from the National Housing Federation, 18.2% of eligible households were expected to be affected by the cap.[58] A principal reason for this policy’s downfall last time was the inclusion of supported housing, which this recommendation excludes. As social rents have since been held low for so long, this policy only affects a much smaller proportion of total social rented sector properties, predominantly affordable rent tenants.

In 2029/30 when this policy is proposed to be introduced, just over 207,000 social and affordable rent homes are estimated to exceed a 10th percentile cap.[59] This is much lower than estimates for the 2015 cap, which was expected to affect around 800,000 homes in the long run.[60] Just over a third of those estimated to be impacted if this were introduced in 2029/30 are social rent properties, with the majority being affordable rent where the rents can be set up to 80% of market rents. In practice, many providers already use LHA rates as a guide for the maximum affordable rent to charge by number of bedrooms in the house, which is why the cap affects so few claimant households.[61]

As LHA rates only allow claims for up to four bedrooms, those with five or more bedrooms in the social and affordable rent sector would not be eligible to claim higher rates that account for additional bedrooms. There are around 12,500 social and affordable rent homes with five or more bedrooms, or around 0.34% of the total general needs stock.[62] There are only expected to be around 700 homes facing a further reduction at the cap due to having more bedrooms than they are eligible for under LHA rates.

The shared accommodation rate would impact those in the general needs social rented sector who are living alone and under 35 in the small number of areas hitting the LHA cap. As with the private rented sector, exemptions from the shared accommodation rate for disability and vulnerability would apply here too. The 2021 Census indicates that there are just under 89,500 households in England, or 2.1% of social rented sector households, with one resident under 35 with no disability or long-term health condition.[63] 44% of these households are also recorded as not in employment.[64]

Some of these single under 35s will be in supported housing or would be exempt from the shared accommodation rate by vulnerability criteria, such as being a care leaver under 25, a victim of domestic abuse or a former homeless hostel resident. As there is no equivalent to shared accommodation in the general needs social rented sector, the small number affected would need to move into the private rented sector if they cannot afford the shortfall, freeing up a one bedroom property for a couple or tenants over 35. 

This policy saves between £42 million and £45 million a year between 2029/30 and 2033/34. As this recommendation interacts with savings from Recommendation 3, these savings should not be summed and the total savings are given below.

Recommendation 3: Freeze rents in the social rented sector for five years.

Social and affordable rents are held at their 2028/29 cash level until 2033/34 while a new rent-setting basis is developed.

The basis for setting and uprating social rent is highly distorted. It is providing unreasonable effective subsidies to millions of tenants while private renters not on housing benefits are squeezed out of many desirable areas. Racing stock that sits below formula rent towards a calculation tied to 1999 does not to fix the underlying system for determining the value of social homes. As demonstrated by Recommendation 2, affordable rent is also distortionary, providing relatively generous rent levels in some areas compared to the local market.

As the consultation for the 2026 rent settlement acknowledged, preparing an entirely new system for rent-setting requires time for providers to adapt. It remains to be seen what the detail of the proposed devolution settlements will entail too, which could radically alter the structure of council responsibilities by 2029/30. Amidst this uncertainty, there remains a central fiscal imperative: to bring down the cost of welfare. As bringing LHA caps into the social rented sector is not enough to make significant savings on its own, a further step is proposed. A rent freeze should be brought in during the next parliament, while a new long-term rent-setting system is devised.

In addition to welfare savings, it is relevant to account for the loss of revenue to local authorities in the form of rent. The final saving is therefore given in public sector net borrowing terms, in line with the 2015 HMT assessment of the rent cut which includes this as a behavioural effect.[65] Housing associations were reclassified into the public sector in 2015 and then back into private sector classification from 2017, so they are not included in offset accounting.

Providers previously absorbed a 1% rent cut for four years from 2016/17 to 2019/20. The financial position of providers going into a freeze from 2029/30 is uncertain. The latest published forecasts from the Regulator of Social Housing do not include the 2026 Rent Settlement changes for convergence. There are also a number of new legal requirements on property standards and safety that increase costs to providers.

For local authority providers, previous analysis from Savills for the Local Government Association projects that a ten-year rent convergence policy would put Housing Revenue Accounts into a cumulative revenue surplus after around nine years and overall surplus (including borrowing for capital needs) after 30 years, while CPI alone deepens deficits.[66] A freeze from 2029/30 would arrive two years into convergence, before many HRAs are likely to have reached cumulative revenue surplus. The Regulator of Social Housing judged the majority of private registered providers to be financially robust in 2025, prior to convergence increasing their revenue.[67] Pre-convergence forecasts for private registered providers suggest that interest cover was due to go from 89.9% in 2026 to 118.8% in 2030.[68]

In recognition that the financial position of providers would deteriorate during a freeze, it is limited to five years while a new rent-setting basis can replace it that does not chase the outdated formula. There are existing hardship measures that allow an exemption where complying would jeopardise a provider’s viability.[69] Providers are also allowed to set rents for households with incomes above £60,000 at full market rent, so at least some of the windfall for non-claimant social tenants can be recouped.

Recommendations 2 and 3 interact with each other, as the rent freeze reduces the number of households subject to LHA caps as they are uplifted each year. Together, they are expected to save £7.5 billion by 2033/34, net of LA revenue loss. In 2033/34, the in-year saving reaches £2.5 billion. In addition to Recommendation 1, the three policies save a total of £14.4 billion over the five years, and an in-year saving of £4.5 billion in 2033/34.

Figure 10 – Total savings from recommendations 1, 2 and 3

Source: Onward analysis

Recommendation 4: Update national LHA caps to a 10th percentile-linked rate.

Update the national LHA rate caps to uplift with the 10th percentile of the highest outer London BRMA, plus 20%.

There are national caps on LHA rates which limit rates in more expensive areas where market rents are highest. When these were introduced in the 2010 Budget, they were based on the principle that those on benefits should not be able to live in areas that were out of reach to many people in work. Recent implementation of the caps has followed the 30th percentile rent of the highest outer London BRMA, plus 20%.[70] Current caps have been in place since 2024/25 and have likewise been frozen since. The shared accommodation rate national cap is the same as the one bedroom rate cap.

As LHA rates are moved to the 10th percentile, the national caps should also reflect the 10th percentile to remain in step. This prevents inner London LHA rates from becoming more generous in relative terms over the period. The current national cap policy is assumed to continue uprating with the 30th percentile plus 20%, along with LHA rates uprating to the 30th percentile. Changing to a 10th percentile-linked cap creates an additional saving of £120 million over the five years to 2033/34.[71] In 2033/34, it saves an extra £38 million in-year.

Figure 11 – Proposed weekly national LHA caps

Recommendation 5: Move additional bedroom eligibility and deductions to 18.

Raise same-sex sharing age threshold to 18 and apply the housing cost contribution or non-dependant deduction from 18.

The housing benefits system currently treats young people inconsistently. According to the official statistical measure of overcrowding, known as the bedroom standard, a household is considered overcrowded if any single person (not in a couple) aged 21 or over does not have their own room.[72] This minimum standard is referenced in social rented sector allocations guidance to local authorities for the purposes of determining household needs, but local allocations policies can vary.[73] At the same time, social rented sector households are not considered underoccupied for the purposes of a housing benefits under-occupation deduction if someone between 16 and 21 has their own room.

When a child in a private rented sector claimant household turns 16, their family becomes eligible to claim for a separate room if they are sharing with a same-sex sibling. If the family does not move house to take up this extra room, they simply receive this as a larger benefit award if their rent is above their previous LHA rate. In UC, a housing cost contribution only applies from the age of 21. HB applies a non-dependant deduction from age 18 for some households.

There is a clear mismatch between the statistical measure of occupancy which applies to all homes, including those not claiming benefits, and the benefit treatment of occupancy. Uneven thresholds make housing benefits more generous for families from 16, right at the point where childcare costs are diminishing and that young person could start contributing to household income. It incentivises moving or being allocated to larger homes that may then become unaffordable when that 16 year old leaves in just a few years when the housing cost contribution, non-dependant deduction or under-occupation deduction applies.

Adults can live independently making their own UC claim from 18, with individuals under 35 usually limited to the shared accommodation rate. Moving bedroom sharing rules all the way to the bedroom standard at 21 could therefore be more expensive if more young people moved out to start their own claim. Instead, this recommendation proposes aligning same-sex sharing rules up to 18 while bringing the housing cost contribution or non-dependant deduction to 18 too, aligning with the threshold for an independent claim.

These measures set a clear expectation for young people that having their own room (if previously same-sex sharing) requires contribution from them or their family. Making their own claim at 18 likewise comes with usual conditionality requirements. Claimant families will continue to be eligible for the UC child element for young people in the household until the August after they turn 19 if they are in non-advanced education or training.

Together with the harmonisation of housing-related age boundaries, these steps create a stronger incentive for young people to take on employment, education or training – or for their parents to work to meet the shortfall. Benefit savings are expected, but likely to be small. There are insufficient breakdowns of household composition available to quantify the effect.

Conclusion

This package presents a series of options to control a housing benefits bill that is likely to grow rapidly without reform. There are many other ways in which benefit eligibility, conditionality and tenancies can – and should – be changed to improve the housing benefits system, but most require significant time for primary legislation and implementation.

Despite many attempts to restrain spending through freezes, caps and cuts, the housing benefits bill risks spiralling to even more unsustainable levels if likely policy decisions are taken over the next few years. Making serious savings within a single parliament requires decisive action through existing powers and regulation changes.

Permanently uplifting LHA rates to the 10th percentile offers a more sustainable path that avoids the cycle of arbitrary freezes and sudden cost jumps in the future. Extending the same ceiling to general needs social housing creates a single, consistent maximum across tenures.  An immediate social and affordable rent freeze can keep spending under control while longer term reform is considered that leaves behind a rent formula crafted in the last century.

The final two measures on national caps and bedroom eligibility begin to address some of the geographic and contribution-related unfairness that offers choices to claimants that are not available to many working families. This package provides the starting point for rationalising housing benefits spending that is more predictable for claimants and more affordable for the state.

[1] Onward analysis of: DWP, Annual DWP Benefits Statistics Compendium, September 2026, link; ONS, Households by household size, regions of England and Great Britain constituent countries, April 2026 link.

[2] Onward analysis: ONS, Census 2021, Number of households, link.

[3] DWP, Benefit expenditure and caseload tables 2026, link.

[4] Onward analysis; Local Housing Allowance-bound private rented sector tenants and general needs social rented sector tenants only.

[5] The Universal Credit housing element and Housing Benefit are referred to collectively as “housing benefits.”

[6] MHCLG, Social housing lettings in England, tenants: April 2024 to March 2025, November 2025, link.

[7] DWP, Benefit expenditure and caseload tables 2026, link.

[8] DWP, Benefit expenditure and caseload tables 2026, link. 

[9] DWP, Benefit expenditure and caseload tables 2026, link.

[10] OBR, Economic and fiscal outlook – March 2026, Annex B, link.

[11] HM Treasury, Spring Forecast 2026, link.

[12] As per paragraph 2 of Schedule 3B to The Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997 (link) made under s.122 of the Housing Act 1996. Paragraph 2(2) sets the LHA as the lower of the 30th percentile, determined under sub-paragraphs (4) to (8), and the national cap. The same structure appears in Schedule 1 para 2 of the Rent Officers (Universal Credit Functions) Order 2013 (link) and in Schedule 3B of the equivalent Scotland Order (link).

[13] For example, the latest freeze year is set out under The Rent Officers (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit Functions) (Modification) Order 2026, link.

[14] Onward analysis, DWP Stat-Xplore, Local Housing Allowance indicator by Month, counting Households on Universal Credit, split by proportion with LHA that covers rent and LHA that does not cover rent.

[15] Onward analysis, DWP Stat-Xplore, Local Housing Allowance indicator by Month, counting Households on Universal Credit. By March 2024, claimants with LHA that did not cover rent was 1,009,604. In December 2023, the number of households with LHA that did not cover rent was 985,697, roughly the same as the volume in May 2026 of 985,372, meaning the climb took around three months.

[16] Onward analysis, 329 out of 960 BRMAs and bedroom categories fall below the 10th percentile, calculated from the Valuation Office Rent Officers’ Shadow Lists of Rents and their Scotland and Wales equivalents, link. 

[17] Onward analysis, as above with expected growth rate calculated from the ONS Price Index of Private Rents 10 year growth rate by local authority, applied to BRMAs by share of each local authority in each BRMA, link.

[18] Central London BRMA is omitted from the scale due to an extremely high gap of £1,538 per month. 30^th percentile comparison does not include national caps.

[19] The 2015/16 freeze started from below the 30th percentile when rates had been uprated by CPI and then 1% in the years previously. It also later included recycling some of the savings through Targeted Affordability Funding to raise LHA rates in areas that had fallen furthest below the 30th percentile.

[20] Chartered Institute of Housing, CIH among 40-strong coalition urging government to unfreeze local housing allowance, October 2025, link.

[21] EDM 2202: Freezing of Local Housing Allowance, link; also this year, EDM 616: Local Housing Allowance rates, link.

[22] See, for example, Crisis, No Home to Go To, July 2026, link; Resolution Foundation, Saving Private Renters, September 2026, link.

[23] Andy Burnham, Andy Burnham Speech at the People’s History Museum, Manchester, June 2026, link.

[24] PoliticsHome, Boost Local Housing Allowance To Tackle Rough Sleeping, Says Andy Burnham, November 2025, link.

[25] Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Statement from The Mayor on today’s Autumn Statement, November 2023 link.

[26] Resolution Foundation, Saving Private Renters, September 2026, link.

[27] Onward analysis, DWP, Benefit expenditure and caseload tables 2026, link.

[28] Onward analysis, DWP, Shadow List of Rents April 2026: collated 1st October 2024 – 30th September 2025, link; Scottish Government, Private Sector Rent Statistics, Scotland, 2010 to 2025, link; Wales does not publish a consistent shadow list of rents, but publishes this data by local authority under ad-hoc statistical requests, the latest of which contains information from 23 October to 3 November 2023 and is adjusted to align with the English and Scottish start years, link.

[29] Onward analysis of ONS, Price Index of Private Rents, September 2026, link.

[30] ONS, Price Index of Private Rents, September 2026, link; note that the PIPR figure is UK wide, while the model excludes Northern Ireland where this policy area is devolved. The national figure given is the average while the model itself uses local growth rates.

[31] Only small volumes of claimants migrated onto UC via natural migration (triggered by a change of circumstances), voluntary migration or new claims before this point.

[32] Onward analysis, DWP Stat-Xplore, Local authority, entitled Bedrooms (LHA only), April 2018. LA to BRMA proportions applied.

[33] HB data on Stat-Xplore is split by pre-April 2018 and post-April 2018, so this date was selected to give the longest possible view from single consistent extracts.

[34] Regional and national scaling factors are used for missing values where volumes are too low to show values.

[35] DWP, Benefit expenditure and caseload tables 2026, link.

[36] Onward analysis, DWP Stat-Xplore LHA covers rent and LHA does not cover rents and Shadow list of rents calculations.

[37] OECD, Social rental housing stock, 2022, link; MHCLG, English Housing Survey, Chapter 1: Profile of households and dwellings, July 2026, link.

[38] Regulator of Social Housing, Registered provider social housing in England – stock and rents, October 2025, link.

[39] MHCLG, How to implement Social Rent convergence, March 2026, link.

[40] MHCLG, Future social housing rent policy, Consultation outcome, January 2026, link.

[41] MHCLG, How to implement Social Rent convergence, Consultation outcome, March 2026, link.

[42] MHCLG, How to implement Social Rent convergence, Consultation outcome, March 2026, link; OBR, Economic and fiscal outlook – March 2026, Annex B, link.

[43] HMT, Forecasts for the UK economy, September 2026, link.

[44] Onward analysis, DWP, Benefit expenditure and caseload tables 2026, link.

[45] Regulator of Social Housing, Registered provider social housing stock and rents in England, link. Regulator of Social Housing, Local authority registered provider social housing stock in England, link; Regulator of Social Housing, Private registered provider social housing stock in England, link.

[46] MHCLG, Policy statement on rents for social housing, April 2026, link.

[47] MHCLG, Social housing lettings in England, tenants: April 2024 to March 2025, November 2025, link.

[48] Chartered Institute of Housing, Rent consultation analysis, December 2024, link; National Housing Federation, How to implement rent convergence, link.

[49] DWP, Shadow List of Rents April 2026: collated 1st October 2024 – 30th September 2025, link.

[50] HMT, Forecasts for the UK economy, September 2026, link.

[51] Homes England, Social and Affordable Homes Programme (SAHP) 2026 to 2036, November 2025, link.

[52] Regulator of Social Housing, Registered provider social housing stock and rents in England, link. Regulator of Social Housing, Local authority registered provider social housing stock in England, link; Regulator of Social Housing, Private registered provider social housing stock in England, link.

[53] MHCLG, Future social housing rent policy from 2026-36: CPI+1% plus convergence options, July 2025, link.

[54] Onward analysis.

[55] Aberdeen and Shire’s frozen 2028/29 30th percentile LHA rate does not cross the 10th percentile due to negative rental market growth.

[56] Onward analysis; this policy is costed for England only in line with the England only baseline.

[57] Onward analysis, DWP Stat-Xplore, February 2026 figures.

[58] National Housing Federation, Impact of applying Local Housing Allowance rates to general needs social tenants, October 2016, link. Note the analysis uses CORE data from 2012/13 due to lack of more recent breakdowns.

[59] Onward analysis, DWP Stat-Xplore, February 2026 figures.

[60] Institute for Fiscal Studies, The Budget and Spending Review: what do they mean for social housing?, December 2015, link.

[61] National Housing Federation, Considerations on rent, 2022, link.

[62] Regulator of Social Housing, Registered provider social housing in England – stock and rents, October 2025, link.

[63] Onward analysis, Census 2021, Lifestage of household reference person, number of people in household with no long-term health condition and tenure of household, link.

[64] Onward analysis, Census 2021, Lifestage of household reference person, number of adults in employment in household, number of people in household with no long-term health condition and tenure of household, link.

[65] HM Treasury, Summer Budget 2015: policy costings, July 2015, link.

[66] Savills for the Local Government Association, Housing Revenue Account Research Update, October 2024, link.

[67] Regulator of Social Housing, 2025 financial forecasts of private registered providers, January 2026, link.

[68] Regulator of Social Housing, 2025 financial forecasts of private registered providers, January 2026, link.

[69] MHCLG, The Direction on the Rent Standard, January 2026, link; MHCLG, Policy statement on rents for social housing, April 2026, link.

[70] Explanatory Memorandum to The Rent Officers (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit Functions) (Amendment) Order 2024, link.

[71] Onward analysis of impact in addition to Recommendation 1.

[72] MHCLG, English Housing Survey 2024 to 2025, Chapter 1: Housing quality, January 2026, link.

[73] MHCLG, Allocation of accommodation: guidance for local authorities, updated April 2026, link.

The post Through the Roof: How to reduce housing benefits spending appeared first on Onward.

A foreword by the Rt Hon. Sir James Cleverly TD VR MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, and Local Government

London succeeded because it combined ambition with opportunity. It is one of the world’s great cities because generations before us had the confidence to invest in its future, build for growth and create the conditions for people to succeed.

Today, that promise is under increasing strain. For too many Londoners, particularly younger people and families, finding a secure and affordable home feels further out of reach than ever before. That matters both for those individuals and for the long-term success of our capital and the prosperity of the country as a whole. A city that attracts talent from around the world must also remain a place where people can build a life, put down roots and look to the future with confidence.

This report brings renewed focus to the scale of London’s housing crisis and the consequences of failing to address it. It sets out a compelling case for how we can make better use of land, support regeneration, unlock brownfield sites and reduce the layers of red tape, regulation and complexity that have made it much harder to deliver the homes our city needs. Above all, it is a reminder that the decisions we make today will shape the opportunities available to future generations.

Successful development is about more than numbers alone. It is about creating places where people want to live, work and raise families. It is about supporting aspiration, widening opportunity and ensuring that economic growth is matched by improvements in people’s everyday lives.

Ben Hopkinson and Laurence Fredricks deserve credit for setting out a bold and ambitious vision for London’s future. At a time when the capital faces significant challenges, this report provides a detailed and thoughtful analysis of how we can build a more prosperous, dynamic and opportunity-rich city for the generations to come.

The Rt Hon. Sir James Cleverly TD VR MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

A foreword by Laila Cunningham, Reform UK’s mayoral candidate for London

Let me start by telling you the truth.

I should not be writing this foreword. You should not be reading this paper. In fact, this paper should not even exist.

A city as wealthy, dynamic and successful as London should never have had a housing crisis. Yet after decades of failure by both Labour and Conservative governments and mayors, that is exactly where we find ourselves today.

London’s population has grown dramatically, driven in large part by mass immigration, while housebuilding has failed to keep pace. The result was predictable. House prices soared, rents exploded, and an entire generation of Londoners found themselves locked out of home ownership.

Instead of addressing the issue, City Hall has made the problem worse. Housing projects are burdened with endless bureaucracy, planning delays and ideological obstacles. Housing development should be one of the most attractive investments in London. Instead, too many investors look elsewhere.

This cannot continue.

As Mayor, I will fight to Make London Affordable Again. That means increasing housing supply, reducing unnecessary red tape, encouraging investment, and ensuring that London’s housing policies put the interests of Londoners first. Social housing is a limited public resource and must serve British citizens and those who have contributed to our society.

The housing crisis was created by political decisions. It can be solved by political decisions.

I would like to thank Ben and Laurence for their work. Their analysis of London’s housing crisis provides an important contribution to the debate and will serve as valuable input as we develop the policies needed to restore affordability, opportunity and home ownership to our capital.

Laila Cunningham, Reform UK London Mayoral Candidate

A foreword by Laurence Fredricks, co-author of Fixing London Housing

When I first moved to London as a recent graduate, I had no idea that I would become homeless. But last autumn, I became a sofa-surfer – one of the approximately 167,000 homeless people in the capital.

This was not a consequence of losing my job, or any financial problems. There were just not enough houses. Despite months of desperately searching for a new place to rent, I could not find any decent options. Even when properties became available, far too few were being rented at a price I could afford, even on a good wage.

When I did eventually find a place to live, it was not the end of my problems. Like many other Londoners, my rent today is roughly half of my post-tax salary, even before transport and bills. The very idea that I could ever save up to buy a home is frankly preposterous. And I am not alone. Young people of our generation who have done everything right, from getting a degree to moving to London and getting a well-paying job, are unable to build a life. The other day, one of my friends casually mentioned that he had moved 14 times in five years. Like many of our generation, he is now considering leaving the UK.

There is one obvious cause of this: there is far too little housing being built. In 2024/25, only 4,170 homes started construction in London. During that same period, the capital’s population grew by just under 100,000.

The solution is not complicated: we need more homes to be built. The current Government and Mayor were asleep at the wheel as building fell to its lowest level since World War 2 and only recently enacted temporary, ‘emergency’ reforms. Temporary reforms will not solve a long-running crisis.

For too long, it has been made harder and harder to build in the capital. A toxic combination of regulations, delays and political hesitation have constrained supply while demand has continued to grow.

There have been attempts to grapple with this reality. The last government recognised the scale of the challenge to build in London and began the work on reform. The then-Secretary of State, Michael Gove, commissioned a review into the London Plan. But this was cancelled by Labour’s Angela Rayner. Progress has since stalled, and the fundamental issues remain unresolved.

The outcome is that London cannot build, but it also cannot afford further delay.

And the opportunity is clear. As we set out in this report, London has the capacity to densify while remaining one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Matching the density of cities such as Paris or Osaka across Zones 1-3 could deliver hundreds of thousands of additional homes. And aside from giving people a place to live, it would generate significant economic reward, contributing billions to the economy.

Reversing London’s housing decline is a political, economic and generational imperative. This report sets out how the next mayor and government can, should and must do so.

Laurence Fredricks, report co-author

Executive Summary

London is failing to build the homes it needs. In 2024/25, construction started on just 4,170 homes in the capital, even as the population grew by close to 100,000. This dramatic fall in starts means that London is facing its largest housebuilding challenge since the Second World War.

This has been caused not just by global economic forces, but by policy choices that have increased construction costs, restricted the land that can be built on, and added more regulatory hurdles to clear.

London has not built anywhere near the Government’s target of 88,000 new homes a year since the 1930s. Resolving London’s shortage by bringing the cost of housing closer to the cost of construction will require around 1.85 million additional homes, or roughly 100,000 a year over two decades.

This is achievable: cities like Tokyo and Austin already match or exceed that on a per-capita basis. But the consequences of failure are severe.

By the ONS’s definition of affordability, a household on the median London income cannot afford any property in the capital. House prices in London have risen 7.5 times faster than inflation since 1970. London’s failure to build is also raising house prices across the South East. This failure has national impacts: Public First estimates that meeting the 88,000 target would generate £14.8bn in annual GVA and over £6bn a year in additional tax receipts by 2034, enough to fund significant tax cuts.

For the Conservatives and Reform, the political logic points the same way. London is the region with the strongest local support for new building (59% in favour, 14% opposed) and inner London has relatively low centre-right support. The political cost of unlocking supply is therefore lowest precisely where the need is greatest. There is, in short, an unanswerable case for both parties to make a major London housebuilding programme central to their next manifestos.

This report sets out the case for such a programme, and a detailed prescription of how it could be delivered, along with clearly delineating which existing powers can be used and where they sit.

Chapter 1, on why London needs to build, establishes the scale of the shortage, its economic and social costs, and the case for treating London as the centre-right’s housing priority.

Chapter 2 identifies five categories of site capable of delivering the homes London needs:
 

• Three mayoral or urban development corporations, covering the most strategic areas. These are Southern Tower Hamlets between the City and Canary Wharf (potentially 300,000+ homes), the Bakerloo Line Extension corridor along the Old Kent Road (at least 40,000 homes), and the existing Old Oak and Park Royal development corporation with an expanded remit (130,000 homes). Shadow corporations should be stood up before the next election so delivery can begin from day one.

• Estate regeneration could deliver around 500,000 additional homes by roughly doubling the density of London’s low-rise post-war council estates, supported by an automatic-permission fast track for ballot-approved schemes, encouraging for-profit housing associations to build, and re-routing funding from the Social and Affordable Housing Programme.

• Strategic Industrial Land and Locally Significant Industrial Site designations within a kilometre of a Tube, rail or tram station should be removed, unlocking 2,293 hectares of well-connected land sufficient for around 250,000 homes.
   
• Use of public land should be optimised through five-year asset management pipelines, equal affordability treatment with private land, and Crown Development Orders for larger sites.
   
• Brownfield land should benefit from a strong presumption in favour of development within the London Plan, extension of full expensing to remediation and regeneration, an exemption from Biodiversity Net Gain, and higher EIA screening thresholds.

Chapter 3, on making the most of existing properties, explains how to sensitively densify and improve the housing London already has:

• To give homeowners greater choice over their properties, permitted development rights should be expanded to allow for full-size loft and rear extensions. Local authorities should create design guides for acceptable extensions within conservation areas. The Housing Secretary should also issue a statutory National Development Management Policy to create a national ‘yes unless’ route for household extensions that require a planning application, and should pass the necessary secondary legislation to implement ‘street votes’.
  
  
• The conversion of existing commercial properties into homes should be made easier through the removal of regulations that prevent conversions, stricter limits on councils creating Article 4 directions that stop easy conversions, and the introduction of a statutory National Development Management Policy that explicitly encourages conversions and bans councils from introducing onerous barriers.
  
  
• Around £18bn a year is spent subsidising people to live in London via the benefits system. This distorts the housing market and favours people who are out of work over working Londoners – at the taxpayer’s expense. We need to end absurdities like million-pound council homes and encourage more win-win transactions. The Housing Secretary should use existing powers to encourage councils to sell off expensive social housing when it becomes vacant, with the proceeds used to fund the construction of more homes. There should be a national cap on housing benefit and the Universal Credit housing component set at the median national rent for each house size for future claims. Finally, we should revive and improve the Right to Buy and expand it by including housing association properties.

Finally, Chapter 4 covers the policy and regulations choices that have constrained delivery:

• Housing targets should be set according to the gap between median house prices and basic construction costs, which would raise London’s target to around 145,000 homes a year while reducing pressure on regions where demand is weaker. The Housing Secretary should also use their powers to designate underperforming councils, rewrite their local plans of underperforming councils, and call in larger applications in such areas.
  
  
• Affordability requirements should be removed from the London Plan and replaced with a simpler unified Infrastructure Levy based on a share of development value.
   
• A series of specific rules within the London Plan – covering private outdoor space, minimum space standards, dwelling mix, affordable workplace and student accommodation, car parking, emission standards and accessibility – should be unwound.
  
  
• Nationally, second staircase requirements should be raised to 50 metres in line with France, Germany and Ireland, and Parts F, L, O and S of the Building Regulations loosened to pre-2021 baselines.
  
  
• The Building Safety Regulator, which has been one of the most significant causes of London’s housebuilding slowdown, requires structural reform – either through an alternative, insurance-based route through the system or by raising the height threshold to bring the regime into line with international practice.

London’s housing crisis is solvable. In most cases, the policy levers exist within current legislation – and the political conditions are more favourable than at any point in recent memory. What is required is a programme of action ready to begin on the first day of a centre-right mayoralty or national government taking office.

1) Why London Needs to Build

London housebuilding is facing its largest challenge since the Second World War. Despite the capital having clearly the highest demand for new homes in any region in England, it is now building the fewest homes per capita. The rest of England is building at four times the rate.^[1]

The Government has set London a housebuilding target of 88,000 homes a year.^[2] But last year, it managed to start less than 5,000.

This is not just a short-term problem – although the current situation is certainly catastrophic. London has not been close to delivering the necessary level of new homes since the 1930s. But it has worsened recently, with surging demand as London’s economic prospects improved from the 1980s onwards stymied by a lack of new supply.

The failure to build more houses in London is more than just a wobble, or the temporary consequence of the botched introduction of the Building Safety Regulator. It precedes the consequences of high interest rates and surging build costs in the wake of the pandemic. It is the product of a steady squeeze, over years, on the number of places that can be built on and the profits that can be made by doing so.

If you restrict land use, add regulation after regulation, and attempt to squeeze out every pound you can from a development – or force developers to build a large proportion of unprofitable housing as part of the development – it is no surprise that you do not get any housebuilding.

The Government, and the Mayor of London have recently agreed an emergency plan to boost housebuilding. These measures include temporary relief from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) where schemes meet affordable housing requirements; a time-limited planning route for developments meeting affordable housing requirements; and the removal of guidance in the London Plan that can constrain density – including limits on the number of flats that can be built around a building core. Affordable housing requirements were also temporarily downgraded from 35% to 20% of the project’s total in recognition of viability constraints.^[3]

These are welcome steps, but they do not go far enough to get London building the homes it needs. Moreover, if these are measures meant to get more houses built, why are they temporary rather than permanent?

These emergency measures amount to fiddling around the edges, rather than making significant progress on resolving the large shortage. Based on the existing population of London, the capital needs 1.1 million more homes to get to the Western European average of homes per capita.^[4] Yet even that understates the shortage. If we build more in London, workers from across the country will want to move to make the most of the higher-paying jobs. Getting the cost of housing close to the cost of construction should be the ultimate goal, as that is when the shortage would be resolved.

Ending London’s housing shortage therefore would require roughly 1.85 million new homes.^[5] Clearly this is a large number and will not be built within a single mayoral or parliamentary term. Instead, the goal should be to build around 100,000 homes a year over the course of two decades. Globally, this level of building already happens in other major cities. The core metropolitan region of Tokyo averaged 155,000 new homes a year over two decades, the equivalent (adjusted for population) of London building at 104,000 homes a year.^[6] Austin, Texas has recently liberalised its planning system and is now building 32,000 homes a year, the per capita equivalent of London building 113,000 a year.^[7] As a result of building, both Tokyo and Austin have seen rents become more affordable.

The consequences of London’s housing shortage are brutal. The average house in London cost £5,298 in 1970.^[8] Today it costs £554,000. Had house prices risen solely with inflation, the average London home would cost just £73,590. Instead, London’s house prices have outpaced inflation by over 7.5 times.

Had other goods increased in price as much as housing in the capital, a pint of beer would cost £17. A litre of petrol would cost £8, which means filling up an average tank would cost £400. A pint of milk would be over £5 and a dozen eggs would cost £24.

House price growth has also vastly outstripped wage growth. The average weekly wage for a full-time worker in 1972 was £32.^[9] Had wages matched London house prices, the average worker would be on nearly £175,000, instead of £39,000.^[10]

This is a catastrophe not just for the capital, but for the country as a whole. Yet it is felt most keenly by those young people who are trying to carve out a future for themselves.^[11]

Housing affordability in London has collapsed
Only the richest can afford even the cheapest houses.

Chart: CPS and Onward^[12]

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) classes any house as unaffordable if it costs more than five times a household’s income. As the chart above shows, this means that only the very cheapest houses are affordable – and then only to the very richest households. The average house is not affordable for anyone, even the top 10% of earners. By the ONS’s definition, a London household with a median income cannot afford any property, not even the cheapest 10%. As a result, the only people getting on the housing ladder are those with inherited wealth.

London’s high house prices are a disaster for aspiration and family formation. Given the cost of buying a home – especially a home suitable for families – it is of little surprise that London has the lowest fertility rate of the English regions.^[13] Indeed, in 2022, the number of babies born in London was 20% down on a decade before.

London’s housing shortage has a knock-on effect on the economy

London is the UK’s economic engine, generating 22.3% of the country’s total economic output.^[14] On an output per hour basis, the average Londoner is significantly more productive than someone living in the rest of the UK: GDP per person in London is £69,077 compared with £39,043 across the country.^[15]

London’s economic success benefits the rest of the UK. In 2022/23, London generated £216.4bn in tax receipts, but government spending in the capital was only £172.8bn. That is a surplus of £43.6bn, or nearly £5,000 per Londoner, to provide public services to the rest of the country.^[16] This means that the entire country does well when London is allowed to grow.

However, this growth is being artificially constrained. The number of jobs in London has grown far more quickly than the number of homes. Today, there are 61% more jobs in London than there were in 1996, but only 27% more houses. If London’s housing stock could keep up, the economy would grow much faster.

To see how extensive this shortage is, consider the following. The median London worker earns 17% more than the median UK worker. With those higher wages, people ought to be clamouring to move to the capital. However, once the rent of a one-bed flat is taken into account, the median London worker is actually 3% worse off than the median UK worker.^[17]

To put that another way, many people could earn significantly more in London but are better off staying in a worse-paying and less productive job because of unaffordable housing.

And of course, what you get for that rental money is worse value than the rest of the country. For the average cost of renting a one-bed flat in London, a couple could rent a three-bed house in any other UK region. The average home in London is 10m² smaller than the English average, despite costing 91%, or £264,000, more.^[18]

The scale of London’s contribution to the national economy means that increasing its economic capacity delivers significant national benefits. Analysis by Public First has estimated that achieving the Government’s target of 88,000 homes per year in the capital could generate £14.8bn in annual GVA, or £118.7bn by the end of the next Parliament, boosting London’s GDP by 2.4%.^[19] That includes potential benefits to the Exchequer of more than £6bn annually by 2034, including £4.1bn generated through the effects of more workers being closer to greater job opportunities in the capital.^[20]

By unshackling the housing market in London, the government can raise greater tax revenues and use that extra cash to pay for public services or reduce or even axe unpopular taxes.

For example, the fiscal benefits outlined above would be enough for the government to halve the rate of inheritance tax for £4bn and remove inheritance taxes on family farms too.^[21] Alternatively, the proceeds from enabling more housebuilding in London could fund 1p off of National Insurance Contributions or restore the personal income tax allowance for everyone, which would remove the pernicious 62% marginal tax rates between £100k and £125k.^[22]

Whatever the next Chancellor chooses, allowing more housebuilding in London will enable tax cuts or public service improvements.

The economic success of London is underpinned by the capital’s housing market and density

London’s economy is driven by agglomeration, where density facilitates interactions between people, spurring social and economic activity. London is by far the densest of the UK’s cities, with an urban core approximately twice as dense as the average British city.^[23] And this concentration delivers major economic returns: roughly 13% of the UK’s population is in London, but the city contributes 22.3% of the UK’s GDP.

Yet compared to many of its rivals, London is not actually that dense at all. Relative to Paris, London’s urban core is missing around 700,000 homes and almost 950,000 compared to Osaka in Japan.^[24] Just matching Parisian density in Zones 1-3 would add 500,000 more homes.^[25]

The underutilisation of land is visible across the capital. Take Tower Hamlets, the UK’s densest and one of the most economically productive boroughs.^[26] Despite having the highest GVA per hour worked in the country and supporting more than 160,000 jobs, densities within the borough vary dramatically: you can go from the skyscrapers of Canary Wharf to terraced housing in under 500m.^{[27] [28]}

In short, fixing London’s housing crisis is an economic necessity for Britain. But it is also a political necessity for the centre-right.

London’s housing failure has spread the housing crisis across the South-East

People would like to live in London for all sorts of reasons. But many of them cannot afford it and are forced further out. That means house prices rise in the towns and cities that surround London, like Guildford, Brighton, and Reading. That in turn pushes people further out and prices up in surrounding towns and villages and puts added pressure on the green belt.^[29]

The construction of new houses has historically been a complicated political area for the centre-right. While home ownership is foundational to building communities and giving the young a stake in society, new construction is less popular among right-leaning voters than left-leaning voters. Recent Ipsos polling shows that while 63% of 2024 Labour voters support building more in their local area, only 39% of Conservative and 27% of Reform feel the same.^[30] That’s compared to 33% of Conservative voters and 46% of Reform voters who oppose building more homes near them.

London, especially central London, is both the UK region with the highest support for new construction in the local area (59% in favour versus 14% against) and also a region with relatively low centre-right support. At the 2024 election, Reform did not win a single constituency in London. The Conservatives did not win a constituency that did not border the Home Counties. Chingford and Woodford Green was the closest to central London, and that’s nearly ten miles from Charing Cross.

In short, building more homes in London is popular with existing residents, less likely to anger existing centre-right voters – and dilutes pressures in the rural and suburban seats that centre-right parties traditionally hold.

The two following charts, from the 2024 election, show that the further a constituency is from central London, the more votes both Reform and the Conservatives tend to win.

To put specific numbers on that: within Greater London, there were 46 constituencies where the Conservatives received fewer than 10,000 votes in 2024, compared to 29 where they received more than 10,000. For Reform the numbers were even starker. There were only two constituencies where they won more than 10,000 votes (Hornchurch and Upminster and Old Bexley and Sidcup), and 73 where they received fewer than 10,000 votes.

This trend mostly continued with the 2026 local elections. The Conservatives and Reform achieved their best results in outer London boroughs while the Greens and Labour were more successful in inner London, except Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea.

Past attempts to reform the planning system and boost housebuilding levels have failed, in large part, due to political backlashes. Given the necessity of addressing the housing shortage, it is vital that any future government on the right prioritises unlocking development in areas where local opposition is weak and where the political cost of local opposition is the lowest. All of those factors point to London, where the housing shortage is most dire, local residents are most supportive of new building, and the centre-right faces the lightest political headwinds for more building. Building in London also reduces the pressure to build in the green belt, which is unpopular with centre-right voters.^[31]

In short, there is a pretty unanswerable case that both the Tories and Reform should prioritise a major housebuilding programme in London. But how many homes, and where?

2) Where to build

Perhaps the first question that comes to mind when thinking about increasing housebuilding in London is, where? That’s especially pertinent given the approximately 1.85 million homes London needs. Isn’t the capital full, with no land to build on?

There is, of course, some truth to this; London is by far the most built-up region in the UK.^[32]

But London is also full of opportunities to make better use of existing land. Existing land use policies have artificially restricted where new homes can be built. Social housing built in the 1950s through 1970s is both low density and in need of major regenerative work. For more strategic sites, co-ordination challenges and councils with limited incentives to drive forward change have stopped neighbourhood-scale new developments. Public land and other brownfield sites also provide significant opportunities but have been underdelivering.

We propose five different types of locations where London can and must build the homes it needs:

1. Mayoral or Urban Development Corporations should be established for the most important strategic sites.
   1. The first of these should cover the area between the City of London and Canary Wharf, which has the potential to be a global economic powerhouse with millions of square feet of office space and at least 300,000 new homes.
   2. The second would improve the effectiveness of the existing Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation, which is hobbled by restrictions around land use imposed by the current Mayor. This area is surrounded by Tube and rail stations, including the future HS2 megahub, and has the potential for 130,000 new homes in addition to retail and office spaces.
   3. Finally, a third corporation should cover the area along the Old Kent Road served by the planned Bakerloo line extension, which has the potential for at least 40,000 homes.
2. We should focus on renovating existing council estates that are built at low densities. By expanding the successful policy of estate regeneration with new planning and financing powers, the uplift in density at existing estates could deliver 500,000 additional new homes.
3. We should remove Strategic Industrial Location status from areas within a kilometre of an existing Tube, rail or tram station. This could provide the space for 250,000 well-connected homes.
4. Public land should be optimised for housing by requiring public bodies to identify developable sites and create clear five-year delivery plans, with Crown Development Orders used for larger sites.
5. A clear, strong presumption in favour of brownfield development should be introduced within the London Plan to resolve policy conflicts, combined with full expensing for brownfield land regeneration projects, and exemptions from biodiversity net gain. Brownfield reform is the foundation that makes the strategic sites set out above deliverable, and would additionally unlock substantial dispersed capacity on smaller brownfield sites across London.

Of course, identifying the land on which to build is only the first step and will not solve London’s housing shortage alone. In future chapters, we will discuss making the most of existing properties alongside new developments, high affordability requirements that destroy viability, the regulations and policies that need to be changed, and incentivising local councils to allow more construction.

But for now, we will focus on the parts of the city where the opportunities for densification and regeneration are greatest.

Special/Mayoral Development Orders and Development Corporations

Many of the recommendations in this report are about making the housing market work better. But to make the most of the biggest opportunities in London, government involvement is needed – if only to clear away the obstacles that are blocking development.

Development corporations have already proven themselves in the capital with the transformation of dilapidated docklands into Canary Wharf, one of the world’s great financial centres. Likewise, the Olympic Games led to the transformation of areas near Stratford from rundown industrial land into thriving new neighbourhoods.

Development corporations can be the organising force behind major regeneration projects. They can act as the local planning authority, which means creating both a local plan and approving planning applications, but they do not face the same financial pressures that local authorities are currently experiencing. They also have the power to resolve potentially thorny problems around land assembly, infrastructure provision, and development phasing.

Both the Secretary of State and the Mayor of London have the power to create development corporations. The London Docklands Development Corporation that drove the creation of Canary Wharf and the revitalisation of much of the East End was created by the Thatcher government. The London Legacy Development Corporation that cemented the success of the Olympic Games in regenerating Stratford was created by Boris Johnson when he was Mayor of London.

There are areas of central London where we can recreate this success. The three best options are the area between the City and Canary Wharf, the Old Oak Common and Park Royal industrial area, and along the Old Kent Road where the Bakerloo line extension is planned to run.

Old Oak Common and Park Royal already has a development corporation, but this is severely restricted by the land use policies that Sadiq Khan has applied. These policies and the resultant local plan can be changed by a future Mayor or Housing Secretary.

While development corporations are already powerful organisations, there is potential to further increase their powers to deliver at the scale needed. Any compulsory purchases at the beginning of construction will need to be funded from capital markets. This can all be self-funding given the large increase in land values if the development corporations are given the ability to borrow and are exempt from the fiscal rules.^[33]

One of the most important challenges with this solution is the time it takes to deliver. All three of our suggested projects are major undertakings that will outlast a single mayoral or parliamentary term. To have the best chance of success, work must begin immediately after an election. In the run-up to an election, whether it be mayoral or general, parties on the centre-right should establish a shadow development corporation for each of these areas. The shadow development corporation could outline the goals of the regeneration and begin creating the plans for redevelopment so that on the first day of the next Mayor or Parliament’s term, the development corporation could be created quickly.

To further speed up the planning process, a special development order or a mayoral development order could be applied to the plans that the development corporation draws up. This would quickly grant planning permission for developments that match the plan. Such a combination was used successfully in the 1980s to deliver a large-scale regeneration project around Cardiff Bay.

Southern Tower Hamlets

London contains two of the centres of global finance, the City and Canary Wharf. The Square Mile alone has a GDP over £110bn, which rivals entire countries like Kenya or Croatia.^[34] These are two of the most economically productive areas anywhere in the world. This level of economic activity is visible from London’s skyline too: one cluster of skyscrapers in the City and another in Canary Wharf. Yet there is a three-mile gulf between them.

In Tower Hamlets the skyscrapers of Canary Wharf are 300m away from two-storey terraced houses. More than 50% of the homes in this output area are socially rented

The drop-off is sudden. Some of the tallest buildings in the country are less than 300m away from two-storey terraced council homes. Instead of being full of mixed-use residential and office buildings, the area is mostly low- or mid-rise council housing. In some neighbourhoods, 55% of homes are socially rented.^[35] The existing housing stock is mostly from the 1950s and 60s and is increasingly in poor condition. This land has the potential to cement London’s status as one of the most important cities for the global economy, yet it is currently being let out at far below what it is worth.

An ambitious government has the potential to change this.

The areas of Poplar, Shadwell, and Limehouse should all fall under a new development corporation with the explicit mandate of maximising the economic productivity of this high-potential area. Mixed-use developments of new homes, offices, lab spaces and commercial buildings should be targeted. This area is prime for a new generation of high-rise buildings, which will complete London’s skyline and become not just an economic hub for London, but potentially for the country and world.

These Tower Hamlets sites are both within easy walking distance of the most economically productive area in the country

Given that existing land ownership is fragmented, which would make coherent redevelopment challenging, the next Government should introduce the primary legislation enabling land readjustment. This mechanism, used successfully in Japan, Spain and other countries, allows various owners of a fragmented area of land to pool that land so that it can be developed as one.^[36] The original owners are then compensated with a new parcel of land that has significantly appreciated in value given the redevelopment. The development corporation could function as the adjudicating body of the necessary land readjustment.

Existing residents should be given a right to return to newer, nicer properties or an option to cash out. This can be funded by the significant uplift in land values that the development corporation will create.

For such a large-scale redevelopment, new transport links will need to be developed. Already the Elizabeth line and DLR provide good connectivity, but more can be done. A forthcoming report by a group of transport policy thinkers and planners will lay out the possibilities around Crossrailing the line into Fenchurch St, which would provide rapid connections from Southern Tower Hamlets across central London.^[37] The report will detail the feasibility of self-funding this project solely through land value capture. This project would also allow the conversion of the existing railway arches corridor from Fenchurch St to West Ham to a DLR service with higher frequencies than the current national rail service.

This is a large and complex undertaking and will take time. Yet it also has the potential to reshape London’s economic and cultural geography for centuries to come. Because of the time involved, the broad strategic goals of the development corporation should be set in opposition and the primary legislation for land readjustment drafted, so that the development corporation can be created on the first day of a new government.

Old Oak Common and Park Royal

The Old Oak Common and Park Royal area provides the best opportunity within London to create a new neighbourhood.

When Old Oak Common station opens, this area in West London will have a credible claim to being the best-connected place in the entire country. HS2 trains will speed towards the Midlands, the North West, and Scotland. The Great Western Main Line will provide easy access to the West Country, South Wales and Oxford. The Elizabeth line station will mean Heathrow is 20 minutes away and central London a mere 10. That’s in addition to the 11 existing Underground stations on the Piccadilly, Central, Bakerloo and Overground lines that surround the site. If the West London Orbital goes ahead, there will be a third Overground line to connect the area to more parts of West and North London.

For such a well-connected location, the urban environment is distinctly underwhelming. The Park Royal area is made up of street after street of single storey warehouses. There are a surprisingly large number of Lebanese bakeries too, and a McVitie’s biscuit factory. The only reason that industry has continued to cluster here is that the land is legally protected by the London Plan from being redeveloped into a mixed-use neighbourhood. In effect, that results in large subsidies for the existing industrial uses.

A collection of scenes from Park Royal. This is all legally protected land that cannot be redeveloped into homes despite being surrounded by Tube, rail, Overground stations and soon HS2

Take Channel Gate, an industrial site between Willesden Junction and the future Old Oak Common station. Channel Gate is currently partially being used to construct the HS2 station, with the rest of the site being open storage land and a bus depot. In 2021, the nine-hectare site was valued at £92.8m given its existing uses.^[38] But if it were regenerated into 3,100 homes, the land value could go as high as £312.5m. That means because of the strategic industrial location designation, there is an implicit subsidy of around £220m for just this one site, or around £25m per hectare.

Within Park Royal there are 325 hectares of SIL that are within a kilometre of a station. By applying the Channel Gate rate of implicit subsidy, that’s £8bn of land value that could be unlocked if we liberalised planning in just this one small area of West London. At Parisian densities of 400 dwellings a hectare, this well-connected land provides enough space for 130,000 homes, plus at least 300,000 square metres of retail and office spaces.

Map showing the opportunity in Park Royal. The existing development corporation’s boundary is shown, alongside Strategic Industrial Locations (green), Locally Significant Industrial Sites (red), and a 1km radius around stations (12-minute walk).

Old Oak and Park Royal will also be the fastest area to deliver because it already has a development corporation set up. The existing development corporation is re-developing parts of the site, including a 28-hectare site near the HS2 station, however this is less than a tenth of the opportunity that this area brings.^[39] The challenge is that the Old Oak Park Royal Development Corporation does not have the ability to overturn SIL designation and has been very conservative in suggesting removal of SIL status. The corporation’s Local Plan commits

specifically to no net loss of industrial floorspace within the local area.

That is simply too limiting to take advantage of potentially the best opportunity in a generation to build a completely new area of London. The existing industrial land is absolutely not the best use of this well-connected Zone 2 site.

The arguments for banning new homes on SIL do not add up. While it is true that the workplaces for tens of thousands of Londoners are in a SIL, it does not follow that their jobs would disappear if the site was redeveloped. Some industrial users may move out of London to cheaper parts of the UK that are better connected to the strategic road network, while others may find ways of co-locating. The Mayor and Housing Secretary should actively encourage new industrial sites to come forward in and around London that are well-connected to the road network. Additionally, there would be opportunities for new businesses, such as life science labs or start-up offices, to move into mixed-use communities.

The Government should plan for the reprovision of industrial land where possible, especially by allocating new industrial sites in and around London that are well-connected to the road network. But it should not arbitrarily insist that it has to remain in the same location so close to central London.

Another argument is that having warehouses in central London means that delivery drivers have to drive fewer miles, helping traffic congestion. This is true, but it misses a wider truth. The environmental benefit of the shorter drive is vastly outweighed by the opportunity of giving over a hundred thousand families the chance to own a new home. Additionally, redevelopment of the area will involve people moving from outer London, closer to the centre where there is less need for them to drive or own a car, reducing congestion on the roads.

The Mayor of London should expand the remit of the existing Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation to include the Strategic Industrial Locations and amend the London Plan to remove the Strategic Industrial Location designation.

Alternatively, the Housing Secretary could resolve the issue of the existing industrial land through a two-part process. First, the Housing Secretary would need to remove the Strategic Industrial Location designation from the London Plan, which could be done through sections 340 and 341 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. That would direct the Mayor to make the necessary changes to the London Plan. Then, the Housing Secretary should use their powers under s15GA of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to revise the local plan of the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation so that it no longer treats the relevant land as SIL and instead allocates it for the intended regeneration-led use.

Either the Mayor or the Housing Secretary can resolve the issue of uneconomic warehouses subsidised to be in the best-connected area in the country. Having made the necessary changes to the local plan, the existing development corporation will then be able to build London’s newest neighbourhood surrounded by the existing and new HS2, National Rail, Elizabeth line, Underground, and Overground stations.

Old Kent Road and the Bakerloo Line Extension

Most Brits will know the Old Kent Road because it is the cheapest property on the Monopoly board. There are strong reasons for this. The current road is traffic-clogged and subject to a hodgepodge mix of new development, worn-out estates, big-box retail and dilapidated industrial sites. It is also the Monopoly board street furthest from a Tube stop.

The Bakerloo line extension (BLE) will change this. Proposals to extend the Bakerloo line from its Zone 1 terminus have been mooted since before the line even opened in 1906. The current plans for an extension along the Old Kent Road trace their origin back to 2006. Yet despite over a century of talk, we are no closer to delivery. Opening the BLE is an opportunity to connect the largest public transport desert in central London and build tens of thousands of homes at the same time.

The planned route of the Bakerloo line extension including new stations at Burgess Park and Old Kent Road and connections to the existing national rail stations at New Cross Gate and Lewisham (Source: Wikimedia)

Tying a transport project to a regeneration scheme has worked well in London before. Before the Northern line extension, Battersea Power Station sat empty. Though physically close to London’s centre, poor transport links made redevelopment an unviable proposition. Two new stations and a link to one of London’s most used Tube line changed that, allowing for 20,000 new homes, a new UK headquarters for Apple, and a vibrant tourist attraction. The construction around the power station generated enough business-rate growth and developer contributions to repay the borrowing used to build the Underground extension.

The BLE exists in similar circumstances: close to central London but poorly connected and rundown. The Old Kent Road is dying and the new cannot be born (until the BLE is delivered); in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms have appeared. The area is loud and congested, with a constant churn of buses and delivery vans. There’s a scattered mix of large retailers with massive car parks, warehouses and tired-looking parades of takeaways and betting shops. Patches of new development sit awkwardly beside neglected plots and ageing estates.

Scenes along the Old Kent Road. The first two surface car parks are the planned sites of future Bakerloo line stations

The Old Kent Road is also shockingly low-density, partially as a result of relying on buses rather than an Underground line. Despite being just 2.5 miles from the centre of London, the areas around the future stations average 46-57 homes per hectare, about the same as terraced housing.

Sadiq Khan has claimed that 20,000 homes could be built along the proposed Tube line. However, that is hugely unambitious. Getting the level of density around the stations up to 100 homes per hectare, about the same density as Greenwich, would unlock double the number of homes that the Mayor is planning. Even more homes could be unlocked with a local plan aimed at reaching Parisian densities of closer to 400 homes per hectare.

Within the area near the station there is significant opportunity for a development corporation to deliver these homes. There are 47 hectares of Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) and 17 hectares of Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIS) within walking distance of the proposed stations. If built at 400 dwellings per hectare, similar to Parisian densities, this land would host over 25,000 homes.

Likewise, there are 43 council estates within walking distance of the proposed stations. These were built at a time when London was depopulating and the primary concern was overcrowding. That means that despite some of these sites containing a tower block, they were actually built at relatively modest densities: 110 dwellings per hectare average in Southwark and 77 dwellings per hectare in Lewisham. Estate regeneration, discussed below, could net a further 15,500 additional homes by replacing the existing, outdated estates with higher-quality new homes.

A development corporation is the best vehicle for regenerating the area along the Old Kent Road. At the same time, the corporation could focus on raising money to deliver the extension through targeted land value capture. Currently, significant parts of land value capture go towards the provision of subsidised housing through affordability percentages and section 106 commitments. Instead, the corporation should be targeted specifically to maximise the amount of funding to help deliver the BLE. That means choosing contributions towards infrastructure over subsidised housing and encouraging developments that maximise land value. One of the reasons why the extension has yet to be delivered is squabbling over who is going to fund it. The development corporation model is the answer here.

Estate Regeneration

The Aberfeldy estate was built on bomb-damaged land near London’s docks. It used to be

poorly connected and economically isolated. However, with the arrival of the DLR and Jubilee line and the regeneration of the Docklands, the estate now has easy access to the City and the West End and is within walking distance of a global hub of finance at Canary Wharf. Yet the terraces and flats have fallen into disrepair and are built at a low density, meaning that this superb location could be redeveloped to benefit more working families.

A plan to regenerate the existing 330 council homes into 1,582 homes had overwhelming

support from residents. In a ballot, 93% voted in favour with a turnout of 91% because they

would receive newer, larger properties.^[40] These replacement social homes for current tenants would be paid for by selling most of the other new homes. The only hitch to this plan was that despite complying with the local plan, Tower Hamlets’ Planning Committee unanimously voted to reject the scheme on spurious grounds, including that local people would be ‘pushed out’ and that the buildings would be too tall.

While this project was ultimately called in and approved by the Mayor, the planning difficulties added two and a half years to the project’s timeline.

Aberfeldy Village in Poplar, before and proposed (Sources: Sawyer Fielding and NLA)

Aberfeldy is just one example of a much larger problem. Most council estates in London are

built at low densities while taking up prime real estate. Britain Remade suggests that the average council estate in London has approximately 70 dwellings per hectare, about three times less dense than some of London’s most beloved neighbourhoods like Maida Vale or Marylebone.^[41]

If existing London estates were roughly doubled in density to between 126 and 146 dwellings per hectare, more than 500,000 new homes could be delivered. So great is London’s housing shortage, and the lack of density of existing estates, that large-scale estate regenerations could produce an estimated surplus of more than £80bn.^[42] This could be spent on infrastructure upgrades, rewarding residents, or cutting council tax.

Estate regenerations are a rare example of housing policy where everyone wins, including existing residents, neighbours, and new residents. When estate regenerations do happen, they’re immensely popular with existing residents. Since Sadiq Khan made ballots mandatory for estate regenerations, there have been 41 successful ballots, compared to just two unsuccessful ballots. One of those two projects was then updated according to residents’ preferences and subsequently won their support.

Existing residents are so supportive because they get to move from existing, run-down flats into newer flats in an improved local area. Existing estates are often now in unacceptably poor condition; more than half do not meet new minimum energy efficiency standards and 54% lack any insulation. Of the 10 worst UK local authorities for damp and mould complaints, eight are in London.^[43]

Local people who live near the estate also benefit from renewal. The urban fabric in their area is improved by removing the eyesores of 1960s design and better integrating the estate into existing streets. Concerns over crime and antisocial behaviour is alleviated, as the renewed estate can be designed with CCTV, street lighting, and modern security systems. Plus, estates will no longer be concentrated pockets of destitution, but liveable, mixed-tenure communities.

Finally, more homes for private sale or rent means more people can live in the capital with easy access to well-paying jobs, boosting the economy.

To encourage more estate regeneration projects to happen quickly, the Government should introduce an estate regeneration fast track. If a majority of residents vote for a plan to densify their estate, they should get automatic planning permission, subject to confirmation from the Planning Inspectorate. This could use the primary legislation laid out in Section 106 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. In the interim, the Mayor of London or the Housing Secretary could commit to calling-in and approving every estate regeneration that passes a ballot.

Besides planning, one of the main reasons that estate regenerations do not go ahead is the financing challenge and lack of an incentive to deliver projects for cash-strapped local authorities or non-profit registered providers. That means councils tend to only have the capacity and resources to advance one or two projects at a time.

The solution to this financing challenge is boosting the ability of for-profit registered providers to deliver estate regeneration projects. Already, local authority estate residents have the power to request a transfer of their estate from the local council to a housing association. This power should be expanded through primary legislation to enable the transfer of an estate from a housing association to another housing association if the residents vote for it, subject to reasonable compensation to the original housing association.

To further ease the financing of estate regenerations, the Mayor should make estate regeneration projects the priority recipients of the £11.7bn Social and Affordable Housing Programme. Given that estate regeneration projects help to drastically improve the stock of existing social properties, the programme’s current focus on net additionality should be removed.

Alternatively, the Housing Secretary could add stipulations to future affordable housing programmes to encourage more money being spent on unlocking these projects. Delivering more homes is the most important way to drive affordability in the capital, which estate regenerations deliver while also greatly modernising the existing social rent stock in London.

Finally, the Social Housing Regulator should amend its Governance and Financial Viability Standard to allow for-profit registered providers to make more than 5% of their turnover from non-social housing activity. This would allow for-profit registered providers to generate revenue from selling a portion of the new homes built within an estate regeneration scheme. In turn the sale of these homes, if built in high enough density, can fund the wider project.

The Packington Estate, before and after regeneration

By getting the incentives right, we can encourage these registered providers to identify the estates that have the best opportunity to be renewed. In turn, they can make a compelling offer to existing residents, who will benefit from the value uplift that the regeneration provides. They also have a strong incentive to vote for more homes as the uplift funds larger homes for existing residents and nicer green spaces. If the plans pass a ballot, the sponsors should be allowed to get on with building.

Strategic Industrial Land

London’s industry flourished in the 18th century along its rivers and in the 19th century along its railways. Yet these historical patterns of industry have been frozen in place by our planning system. The River Wandle, which flows from Carshalton and Croydon to the Thames at Wandsworth, used to have 68 mills along its length, which manufactured textiles, paper and tobacco. The mills are long gone, but a large number of single-storey warehouses have taken their place.

Likewise, large industrial sites have grown up in West London, along the Grand Union Canal and sandwiched between the Great Western Main Line and the West Coast Main Line. East London has significant industrial land along the River Thames and North London has industrial land along the River Lee Navigation and West Anglia Main Line.

All of these sites are located where they are because of industrial geographies of the past, not the present day. Yet, the warehouses are legally protected against redevelopment by the London Plan’s Strategic Industrial Location (SIL) policy and by local councils designating Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIS). But the industry of today clearly does not need to be built around rivers, railways, or the tram stops that have been built near the Wandle. It needs to be near the strategic road network.

All stations in London that have either SIL (green) or LSIS (red) land within a kilometre (12-minute walk)

A designation as SIL or LSIS de facto bans the building of new homes. It also implicitly subsidises existing businesses at the cost of Londoners who struggle to find a place to live. Land in London with permission for homes is worth seven times more than the same hectare used for industrial uses.^[44] By continuing to ban new homes on existing industrial land, we are taking away the pressure and ability to regenerate these areas into new mixed-use communities.

This point is worth stressing, because of the sheer amount of land that is protected by the Mayor’s SIL policy and local councils’ LSIS designations. In total, there are 3,519 hectares of SIL and 1,098 hectares of LSIS across Greater London.^[45] That’s the same size as the boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea, Islington, and Tower Hamlets combined.

Left: This street is a three-minute walk from the Battersea Power Station Tube stop. The buildings on the left, not on SIL land, contain 853 student rooms and 44,000 sq ft of office space, while the building on the right is legally protected against redevelopment because of its SIL status. Right: The same buildings from a different angle

Partially as a result of industry historically concentrating near railways, a lot of this land is close to Tube, train and tram stops. Within a kilometre of existing stations, or about a 12-minute walk, there are 2,293 hectares of SIL and 800 hectares of LSIS, which is mostly made up of single-storey warehouses. Taken together, that’s an area 22 times the size of Hyde Park. If built at a gentle density, that land would be enough for 250,000 well-connected homes.^[46]

The amount of implicit subsidy here is equally massive. Given that land with permission for homes in London is worth seven times more than the same hectare used for industrial uses, the expected total subsidy of the 3,093 hectares of well-connected land that is off-limits for housing is upwards of £96bn. That £96bn is paid by Londoners in higher rents and house prices than if the land use was left up to the market.

Maps showing specific clustering of SIL (red) and LSIS (green) land within a kilometre (12-minute walk) of a station. In order, North, East, South and West London

The London Plan should be updated to remove SIL designation that is within walking distance of Tube, rail or tram stations. That could either be done by the Mayor of London or done on a direction from the Housing Secretary through Sections 340/341 of the Greater London Authority Act. While such a policy would unlock housing across London, there are particular benefits with the area around Park Royal within West London, which deserves special treatment as described above.

The same should be done in local plans with LSIS designations. The Housing Secretary should issue a statutory National Development Management Policy that overrides LSIS designations where the site is located within walking distance of a station alongside targeted changes to local plans using their powers under Section 15GA of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Under the current London Plan, housing built on former industrial land is expected to deliver 50% affordable homes, 15% higher than normal. Given the complex remediation work that has to be done to transform a site from an industrial use to one suitable for housing, this figure harms viability and actively stops new homes from coming forward. It also stops win-win redevelopments that increase the density of industrial space while unlocking land for homes. The London Plan should be amended to remove higher affordability requirements for industrial land.

These changes in policy do not mean that all of this land will or should be redeveloped. It simply means that these sites will no longer be barred from value-maximising redevelopment. Instead of City Hall determining the best land use for the existing warehouses and sheds, we should empower the owners of these sites to determine what is best. Given the high cost of housing in London, that will often mean new homes.

It is important to stress here that redevelopment does not have to mean a loss of industrial land. Where possible, either the London Mayor or the Secretary of State should proactively identify sites that are better connected to the strategic road network. Land near motorway junctions is ideal and better suited for modern industry than city centre sites. This land should then be redeveloped to house some of the displaced industry from the removal of SIL and LSIS designations.

Finally, to ensure that the sites are not redeveloped in a piecemeal manner – with individual warehouses turned into high-rise developments while other parts of the area maintain their industrial nature – a policy of land readjustment should be used. As mentioned above, this will replace the fragmented ownership model with a better-planned redevelopment, with each of the existing landowners compensated with a more valuable plot at the end.

Public Land

Publicly owned land – land owned, managed or held in trust by the state – typically houses key infrastructure and public buildings including, among others, schools, rail assets, and Tube stations. TfL alone has 2,250 hectares of public land in London.^[47] This land is rarely vacant, but is often relatively low-density, providing an opportunity to develop unused land and build above existing assets to deliver more housing.

The potential of public land in London is significant

The opportunity to deliver housing on publicly owned land that is not reserved for public parks or key infrastructure is substantial. More than a quarter of London’s land is publicly owned and approximately 7,300 hectares of this is potentially developable, spread over 20,000 sites.^[48] Of course, much of this land will be in use, and some will overlap with social housing estates that should be regenerated. But a number of sites could come forward for development through changing land use or site intensification. At average densities, hundreds of thousands of homes could be built on these sites.^[49]

Much of this land is located in central and inner London boroughs.^[50] The greatest opportunities to deliver more housing supply on publicly owned land are concentrated in Tower Hamlets and Southwark due to the presence of sites and the average densities surrounding them.^[51]

Under-developed public land is bad value for taxpayers

At present, taxpayers fund the management and maintenance of public land that remains economically underutilised and could be used for residential development. At the same time, London boroughs spend their taxes on attempting to mitigate the consequences of housing shortages, including an estimated £5m per night on temporary accommodation.^[52] Yet the same boroughs where development opportunities on public land are most abundant face the greatest housing pressures. In 2024, approximately 69,000 households in London were living in temporary accommodation – including 2.8% of households within Southwark, and 2.1% of households within Tower Hamlets.^[53]

Sadly, however, housing delivery on public land is consistently weak. Places for London, TFL’s property arm, has identified capacity on its estate for 20,000 homes.^[54] It has committed to start on all of these by 2031.^[55] But the track record of housing being built on these sites casts doubt on whether this will be achieved. In 2015, TFL released land for 10,000 homes across London,^[56] but just five years later it admitted that it could not achieve this target, having only started work on 1,500 homes.^[57][58]

This problem is not unique to TfL land: it applies to public land across the capital. The Royal Albert Dock in East London is a barren concrete patch, with overgrown shrubs. Owned by the Greater London Authority, it has the capacity for up to 2,000 homes as part of a broader mixed-use regeneration scheme that could deliver 36,000 homes across the Royal Docks as a whole. It is located in an area already well connected by road, rail and air.^[59]

Map showing the current development opportunity at Royal Albert Dock, East London

But despite these advantages, the site has failed to progress since the first phase of development was completed in 2019. Citing financial difficulty, the initial delivery partner was terminated in 2022 after failing to progress the site into the next phases of development.^[60] The site has been promoted as a development opportunity since July 2025 and has yet to formally procure a master developer.

This highlights a broader issue: even where land is available and well-located, delivery barriers persist that can significantly delay housing supply and deter investment in areas of significant opportunity.

Building on public land in London is hard because of affordable housing requirements which are dependent on public subsidy

Under the London Plan, public land schemes must meet a 50% affordable housing threshold to qualify for the fast-track route through planning.^[61] This is a 15% greater affordable housing requirement than on private land in London. Despite this more onerous requirement, public land is no more viable than private land, facing the same macroeconomic environment, and governed by the same planning framework.

The current rationale for this extra requirement on public land – apart from the fact that the state already owns the land, and the air rights above it – is that such developments are an opportunity to provide essential workers with homes close to their places of work.^[62]

However, in making development less viable, these extra requirements lead to fewer homes being built. Policymakers who justify these extra requirements are failing to consider how a greater supply of homes, subsidised or not, would lead to lower house prices and rents for all workers, including essential ones, if this land was viable for development.

Affordable housing requirements mean that developers who are willing and able to deliver housing on public land are dependent on public subsidy to do so. Indeed, even if the state were to deliver its land at below market rate for the development of more homes, it would not resolve the difficulty of meeting affordable housing requirements. Even with zero land costs, meeting these requirements would require substantial state subsidy.^[63] This is wasteful.

At Silvertown Quays, a 60-acre publicly owned site expected to deliver 6,500 homes, an £80 million subsidy from the Affordable Homes Programme will be required to support the affordable housing offer.^[64] This is despite the site taking nearly two decades to progress, with delays driven by remediation and infrastructure costs, and despite having developers willing to deliver much needed homes on the site.

As an unnecessary additional pressure inhibiting public land development, public land should be treated the same as private land for required affordability percentages. The merits of the additional housing supply alone make the economic case for doing so, while aiding London to deliver its annual housing targets.

Many public land sites are small, which carry their own challenges

Small publicly owned sites dominate the development pipeline. Of the 20,000 potentially developable sites identified, only ~1,300 are over 20 acres.^[65] So despite their scale, smaller sites remain important areas for housing delivery.

Many of these are able to benefit from an intensification of land use. Educational facilities across London’s municipal land, for example, tend to have surplus or underutilised brownfield, with ample connectivity and infrastructure.^[66] This is incredibly pertinent in the capital, where families being priced out by housing shortages have put schools in the capital at risk of closure.^[67] Acton and West London College is a successful example of small site public land being effectively densified to deliver 120 new homes on an underutilised school site, unlocked using a public street.^[68]

But smaller sites remain subject to significant regulatory expectations and demands. And these smaller sites, like Acton and West London College, are simply not worth enough for larger housebuilders to redevelop – leaving SMEs at the mercy of the many taxes and regulations we cover in our section on brownfield land.

How to identify and effectively bring forward more publicly owned sites for housing

To enhance the pipeline of publicly owned land available for development, all public bodies should be required to produce an asset management strategy that identifies underutilised sites that are vacant, partially vacant, particularly below local average densities, or no longer required for their current public use. This should culminate in a rolling five-year optimisation pipeline of sites to be brought forward for development, disposal, or partnership, with clear delivery timelines and progress updates. Where authorities fail to deliver on these sites, or progress on applications stall, the Secretary of State should call these sites in for determination.

Where underutilised land is identified, policy should shift from viability-challenging expectations on affordable housing quotas to a presumption in favour of development to encourage and support housebuilding. Especially where public land assets are underperforming, serving suboptimal local populations to the risk of closure, or within 1km of a Tube station, there should be a clear presumption in favour of publicly owned land development written into the London Plan.^[69] This would prioritise the intensification of public land through the provision of additional homes where they can sustain local services – including schools at risk of closure – and make best use of existing infrastructure. This presumption, essentially, must be paired with a reduced share of affordable housing requirements.

For larger sites there is another option: Crown Development Orders. The Housing Secretary should encourage larger public-owned sites to pass through the new Crown Development Order process, given that housing building in London is of importance to the national economy. That would shorten the time window by enabling developers to apply directly to the Secretary of State, who could jointly consent new public services alongside new homes.

Brownfield Land

Brownfield land is previously developed land. In a land-constrained city, shaped by low densities and Green Belt restrictions, derelict and empty brownfield sites present the opportunity to deliver housing in high-demand areas, with the capacity to deliver approximately five years’ worth of London’s housing targets.^[70]

London has historically delivered most of its new housing on brownfield land. Between 2006/7 and 2020/21, the percentage of new residential development completed on previously developed land ranged from 95.7% to 99.8%.^[71]

Policy encouraging the regeneration and intensification of brownfield land is explicit across national and London planning frameworks. The new National Planning Policy Framework puts substantial weight behind approving planning applications in already developed areas.

However, the NPPF will be less effective in London due to the variety of competing planning objectives that come with the redevelopment of brownfield land. The London Plan contains over 500 pages and 113 different policy areas; each of these are too often treated as absolute requirements rather than as guidance.^[72] This creates a system in which policies conflict with one another, limiting rather than supporting the extent to which brownfield can deliver more housing.

The delay of Shoreditch Works is a key example. This is a brownfield development with an application swelling to 9,084 pages demonstrating compliance with 42 separate Hackney policies, 75 separate London Plan policies, and national legislation and guidance.^[73] Among the reasons for the rejection are competing policy priorities. For example, the development will not deliver enough homes, because the borough of Hackney is already delivering too few homes. But the development must also be no higher to accommodate a greater number of units, because it is already too tall.^[74]

To address this, a clear, strong presumption in favour of brownfield development within the London Plan should be introduced to streamline decision-making and resolve policy conflicts, as called for in the 2024 London Plan review commissioned by then-Secretary of State Michael Gove. This mirrors the language in the new NPPF, but also helps to resolve the conflicting policies, which can stymie development.

The London Plan should include the following presumption:

‘There should be a strong presumption in favour of granting planning permission for residential development on previously developed (brownfield) land within Inner London Boroughs.

‘Where a proposal meets this requirement, substantial weight must be given to the benefits of delivering additional housing in the capital. Planning permission should be granted without delay, unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of development.

‘In applying this presumption, decision makers should take a flexible and proportionate approach to the application of policy requirements, including affordable housing, where it is clearly evidenced that such requirements would render development unviable or undeliverable.’ ^[75]

A presumption in favour of the development of brownfield land will not, on its own, go far enough to expedite the delivery of more homes in London. Brownfield sites are complex and capital-intensive: they require extensive remediation, added to by higher labour costs, and specialist contractor fees – alongside a steep 21.6% increase in landfill taxes in 2025.^{[76] [77]} These costs can only be recovered at sale.

There is too little financial relief to offset these costs of developing brownfield land, despite the public benefits associated with its development, including the remediation of contaminated land and additional new homes. Existing programmes, including the Brownfield Land Release Fund, have had little impact. The programme is applied nationally, utilising £68m to release enough land for 5200 homes; only about £12.4m went to London councils.^[78] But such a programme applied to the scale of brownfield needed to develop London’s homes would be at significant cost to the taxpayer.

The Government should expand full expensing to cover brownfield regeneration projects. This would enable homebuilders to fully deduct their eligible costs, such as land remediation, infrastructure, and construction, in the year that they were incurred rather than spread across multiple tax years. Full expensing will unlock investment into bringing brownfield land back into productive use and lower financing costs without reducing overall tax revenue.

Biodiversity net gain is a key challenge blocking the delivery of homes on brownfield land

Biodiversity net gain (BNG) is a prohibitively expensive policy requirement that reduces the potential for homes to be delivered on brownfield land. Introduced by the Environment Act 2021, it insists that developments covering more than 0.25 hectares of habitat must contribute to a minimum 10% increase in habitats.^[79] This came into force in early 2024 and is significantly disruptive on small sites.^[80]

Applying BNG equally to London as to the rest of the country does not simply risk constraining development where land is already scarce, but ignores the economic and social value of delivering housing in the capital relative to the marginal ecological gain achievable in London.

London already has 3,000 parks and a network of diverse green and blue spaces to facilitate biodiversity.^[81] Thwarting development on BNG grounds risks development spilling out into the countryside, incurring greater damage than if we allow London to build by exempting development from this restriction.

Further to the ongoing consultation considering a targeted BNG exemption for residential brownfield development, London brownfield should be exempt from BNG requirements.^[82] Building homes on a disused car park in London creates far less ecological harm than building homes on green fields. Yet both of them have to go through expensive surveys and monitoring that can add thousands of pounds to the cost of delivery.

Environmental Impact Assessment screenings add unnecessary burdens to the development of brownfield land

Brownfield developments in London involving more than 150 homes, or an area of at least 0.5 hectares, are subject to environmental impact screening requirements that are unusually stringent by international standards. In practice, this can generate documentation running to over 100 pages, alongside costly and time-consuming consultation processes, before a determination is even made as to whether a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required.^{[83] [84]}

While these requirements originate from an EU directive, the UK applies them far more stringently than comparable European countries. For example, in the Netherlands, residential developments typically only trigger environmental screening at a much higher threshold of 2,000 homes or 100 hectares.

This disparity imposes disproportionate costs on urban brownfield schemes in London, where sites are smaller and margins tighter. As a result, developers face significant upfront burdens even where the likelihood of meaningful environmental harm is limited.

For the whole of the UK, the Government should raise screening thresholds, particularly for brownfield development in high-density urban areas, reducing unnecessary administrative burden and maintaining robust environmental safeguards when they are most needed. This can be done under secondary legislative powers by the Secretary of State to reform Schedule 2, 10 (b) of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.

3) Making the most of existing properties

Giving homeowners greater choice

Much of this paper has been focused on finding sites for new, dense development. These sites will have a large role to play in delivering the homes that London needs. However, the truth is most of London’s developable land area, especially in outer London, is already built on by single-family homes.

Attempts to build more in such areas have faced backlashes in the past. Replacing some of these homes with flats would increase density, as seen in Croydon’s small site policy from 2019-2022. In this case, the council implemented a suburban design guide (SDG), which meant existing detached homes could be torn down and replaced by small blocks of up to 10 homes.^[85] The policy was a success: housing delivery in Croydon doubled while the Suburban Design Guide was in place, outstripping other London boroughs. Housing also became more affordable as a result of the extra supply.^[86] But this rate of development was unpopular with local residents. Ahead of the 2022 local elections, both the Labour and Conservative candidates for Mayor of Croydon stood on pledges to withdraw the SDG.^[87]

Fortunately, there are better ways of building upwards while reducing the potential for political fights. Loft extensions enable an extra storey to be built on existing family homes. Extra rooms increase the flexibility of the housing market. Homes could grow upwards alongside a growing family, or the additional room could be let out to a lodger or friend. This extra space could also help a family member who wants to move to London to work or study, a parent who needs care, or a relative whose job requires them to be in London a couple of days a week.

Sadly, the current system of permitted development rights (PDRs) leads to smaller and less useful extensions. For example, any extension may not be higher than the existing ridge line, which means the new rooms have low, cramped ceilings. Likewise, extensions are limited to just 40 cubic metres of additional loft space for terraced homes and 50 cubic metres for semi-detached and detached houses.^[88] That severely restricts the extra floor space that can be added, effectively eliminating the chance of adding two full double bedrooms.

The differences between an existing terraced home, the maximum current permitted development loft extension and a complete loft extension, also called a Great Green Loft. The green area on the right shows the potential uplift if we rationalised our permitted development standards (Source: Populo Living)

Extensions like the one above on the right have to go through the full planning process. Right now every local authority has their own rules relating to what sorts of extensions are allowed, which creates uncertainty and delay, and in many cases effectively bans these beneficial extensions.

To allow homes to grow up, the next Housing Secretary should amend existing permitted development rights to remove the cubic area restriction, give more flexibility around the ridgeline, and remove the arbitrary 0.2m set back requirement for where the loft starts.

In London, this tweak would provide the opportunity for between 450,000 and 900,000 additional bedrooms.^[89] This would provide a huge opportunity for small builders who have almost completely been pushed out of London housebuilding. This scale of project could be managed by a local builder who will know the area and be proud to improve it.

Similarly, the previous Government consulted on changes to permitted development rights.^[90] These included allowing larger and more useful extensions that rise to the roofline, better guidelines for loft extensions, and allowing permitted development rights to apply to older homes. But MHCLG has not made progress. The next Housing Secretary should implement the tweaks within the 2024 consultation which will allow Londoners, and the rest of the English, greater rights over their own homes. This will also enable more rear and side extensions.

One complicating factor is conservation areas. There are currently over 1,000 conservation areas in London. In some boroughs, like Camden or Hammersmith & Fulham, they take up half of the borough’s land.^[91]

However, conservation area status should not lead to an automatic ‘no’ towards any development. After all, historically these areas would grow. The Strand, for example, started as a street of one- and two-storey buildings, before gradually expanding upwards to the six to nine storeys we have today. Similarly, it was common for Georgian or Victorian homes to have roof or rear extensions if the family living there needed extra space.

Tower Hamlets provides a good example of allowing expansion while respecting the conservation area status.^[92] After campaigning by local residents, the council published guidelines permitting roof extensions within strict frameworks, and design guides meant to mirror traditional mansard extensions.

Examples of roof extensions within a Tower Hamlets conservation area that match traditional designs

Similar to the Tower Hamlets example, residents in South Tottenham demanded the ability to add space to their homes due to overcrowding. A new Supplementary Planning Document allowed the addition of all full storey and a loft extension while introducing visual requirements to ensure that the redeveloped properties matched the existing character of the neighbourhood. Over 200 households out of 1,000 eligible properties took this opportunity, which can pay for itself through the provision of valuable, extra floor space.^[93]

The Housing Secretary should confirm that historically appropriate roof and rear extensions do not constitute a harm to conservation areas within the National Planning Policy Framework and that extensions are useful both for creating additional homes and for adding additional residential space. The latter point is important because L2.1.D of the draft NPPF currently only encourages expansion of existing homes if it leads to additional homes. This text should be updated to ‘additional residential space’ to not restrict current homeowners unnecessarily. And in learning from the Tower Hamlets and South Tottenham examples, the Housing Secretary should encourage local planning authorities to create design guides for acceptable roof and home extensions within and outside of conservation areas.

This work could be accelerated through a statutory national development management policy (NDMP). The Housing Secretary should issue a statutory NDMP creating a national ‘yes unless’ rule for household extensions that require a planning application, while narrowing the scope for local plans to impose inconsistent tests or damaging regulations. That would tip the balance in favour of home extensions, helping empower existing homeowners to make their properties the best for their families. Such an NDMP should also explicitly state the reasons why an extension could be refused, which could include cases of a loss of privacy, failure to meet building safety requirements, or damaging a listed building.

Finally, the necessary secondary legislation for street votes should be passed. This will allow homeowners in London even more flexibility about the future of their homes and streets. Should a supermajority of residents vote in favour of a plan for gentle intensification, they should be allowed to grant themselves planning permission and capture the large uplift generated.

Change of use

Increasing the supply of housing in London goes beyond just building more new homes. The next government should also look to increase the flexibility of the buildings that we do have already, whether it be the many disused shops on London’s high streets or office buildings that are no longer used after the shift in working patterns post-Covid.

One of the authors of this report lives in a converted factory. The site was a booming Victorian centre of production, but by the 1970s had fallen into disrepair before finding new life decades later. The conversion has successfully brought the site back into use while providing hundreds of homes.

However, since the successful regeneration, the guidelines have changed in a way that would make such a conversion impossible. Due to its listed status, the factory could not now be modified to provide private outdoor space to every flat. The size of the buildings makes following the dual aspect rules (which hold that flats should have light from two sides) almost impossible. Similarly, the London Plan’s housing design standards would make it complicated to retain the large windows of the original factory, and would frown on the north-facing orientation of many of the single-aspect flats. This example shows how new regulation often either adds costs to regeneration projects or blocks them outright.

The Mayor or the Housing Secretary should change the London Plan to scrap regulations that prevent conversions such as private outdoor space, dual aspect, and stringent accessibility standards.

The previous government expanded permitted development rights to make it easier to convert certain buildings into homes. However, this power is limited in London by both local councils and the London Plan. Local authorities are able to create Article 4 directions, which force these conversions to go through a full planning application rather than being waved through automatically. These are often used to force developers into paying Section 106 contributions towards affordable housing, which they would not have to do under PDRs.

Additionally, the London Plan discourages new housing in the Central Activities Zone, which encompasses most of Zone One, if it impedes on the commercial and office-based nature of central London. This clause is used to oppose the reuse of these spaces as homes.

To boost changes of use and increase flexibility in the buildings that we already have, the Housing Secretary should limit councils from creating Article 4 directions that stop easy conversions within central London. The Mayor or the Housing Secretary should change the London Plan to encourage housing within the Central Activities Zone.

When conversions are forced to go through planning, local authorities are able to further frustrate the process. Certain councils like Camden and Tower Hamlets require office space to be on the market for two or more years before a conversion is considered.^[94] To force a property to be out of use for more than two years before even beginning the planning and construction processes makes these conversions uneconomic. The fact that the building owner wants to change its use should be proof enough that the market factors in favour of homes are stronger than those in favour of office spaces.

Finally, a statutory National Development Management Policy should be introduced to explicitly encourage conversions and to ban councils from requiring property to be vacant while awaiting a planning application for change of use. The desire of the property owner to change its use should be enough to demonstrate market demand.

Social housing

At 21.1%, London has the joint highest percentage of socially rented homes in England by region.^[95] With 807,000 total social homes, London also has the highest absolute number of dwellings of any English region. Of all the OECD countries, only the Netherlands, Austria and Denmark have a higher percentage of homes that are rented out at subsidised prices.^[96] Yet for all its ‘affordable’ homes, London is the least affordable of any of the regions in the UK and one of the most expensive cities to live in throughout the world.

The latest English Housing Survey puts the average London private rent at £368 per week, compared to £157 per week for socially rented homes.^[97] That equates to £10,972 a year in implicit subsidy to each socially rented home, or £9 billion a year across all of London’s social homes. Socially rented homes in the capital are also larger on a per resident basis than privately rented homes, so tenants are paying less to get more.^[98]

That subsidy figure is also an underestimate, because it does not take into account the amount that the Government spends on Housing Benefit or on the housing component of Universal Credit. The former has an average annual award of £11,087 and is awarded to 265,000 London households, which makes a total cost to the Exchequer of roughly £3 billion a year.^[99] Unfortunately, there is no regional breakdown for the housing component of Universal Credit, but assuming the breakdown in regional spending is the same as housing benefit, a further £6 billion a year is being spent.^[100]

Taken altogether, it is likely that the Government spends more than £18bn a year subsidising people to live in London. Given this staggering amount, and the dire housing shortage within London, is the current way that the state gives out social housing and subsidies in this country’s most expensive real estate market serving the national interest?

The commonly given justification is that social housing in London is provided to essential workers. But this is wrong. Just 59% of working age households in social housing are in any form of employment.^[101] That’s compared to 85% of those in privately rented housing and 95% of households with a mortgage. Of all social tenants, one out of every six have never worked.^[102] The push by councils like Westminster to award lifetime tenancies also cuts against the argument that social housing is for essential and low-paid workers.

There is also a political point here. The 2021 census showed that 47.6% of social housing in London is let to people who were born outside the UK.^[103] This is estimated to cost British taxpayers £3.6 billion a year in discounted rent.^[104] Now of course, a lot of the people will have since naturalised to become British citizens. But figures released by the ONS show that 120,000 social homes are headed up by someone who does not have a British passport.^[105] That equates to 15% of all social homes in London. If you asked British workers what they want their tax money spent on, they would almost certainly not say that it should go towards subsidising new arrivals (especially non-workers) to live in some of the country’s most attractive and desirable areas.

The next Mayor and Government should want London’s social homes to be allocated fairly. While at the same time, the huge implicit and explicit subsidies that the state provides to households living in the most expensive city in the UK must be recognised and reduced.

Sell expensive council homes when they become vacant

As London’s house prices have risen over the past half-century, so too have the values of social homes in the capital. This can lead to absurd outcomes, like million-pound council homes.

Social housing should not be a lottery for subsidised mansions. Buying a million-pound home would involve mortgage payments of roughly £4,500 a month, yet the median social tenant in London only pays £550 a month in rent.^[106] That means that the subsidy for such properties could be as high as £50,000 a year.

There is a way to solve this unfairness. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 gives the Secretary of State the power to mandate local authorities pay a sum equivalent to the amount of higher-value vacant council housing that comes up each year. In other words, it provides local authorities with a strong incentive to sell valuable council properties when they become vacant. The legislation also mandates that the revenue from such sales should go towards building more, better-value social and affordable housing.

The Housing Secretary should use this power to force the sell expensive social housing, with proceeds spent on building more homes for affordable rent. Expensive social housing should be defined as any social home that is valued at more than the London average price for a property with the same number of bedrooms.^[107] Before the 2016 Act, ministers suggested what these amounts might be in London.^[108] Adjusting for house price inflation, the numbers provide an indication of what higher-value council housing should be sold off once it becomes vacant:^[109]

• 1-bed: £400,000
• 2-bed: £460,000
• 3-bed: £570,000
• 4+ bed: £910,000

Savills estimated in 2015 that such a plan, implemented across the country, would raise £3.2 billion from 5,500 annual sales, with London contributing the most valuable properties.^[110] The money raised from the sale of these expensive properties can then be recycled into the construction of affordable homes to help tackle London’s growing number of people living in temporary accommodation.

A national cap on housing benefit

Housing benefit and the housing component of Universal Credit have become enormously expensive. Taken together, Great Britain is spending £37.3 billion on housing subsidies, which is by far the highest amount in the OECD as a percentage of GDP and almost double France, which is the next highest spender.^[111]

One reason for this high expenditure is that housing benefit is meant to cover the cost of rent for a property in the 30th percentile of market rates within a claimant’s local area. A claimant in Central London is entitled to four and a half times as much in housing UC as claimants in Durham when renting a two-bed property.^[112]

In addition to the staggering cost to the taxpayer, the current policy distorts the housing market. There is no incentive for claimants to move to cheaper areas, as the only result is a decrease in their benefit claim. Likewise, claimants are subsidised to live in areas with dire housing shortages, which drives up prices and rents. That harms working people who are not on welfare.

The next Housing Secretary should impose a national cap on future Universal Credit housing claims set at the median national rent. That would mean future claimants would receive either the 30th percentile rent in their Broad Rental Market Area or the median national rent, whichever is lower.We should not be subsidising people to live in properties that are more expensive than what the average British family can afford. Existing claimants should be grandfathered in on their existing rates to avoid any unfairness. But we would no longer be subsidising new claimants to live in the most expensive areas, while reducing Britain’s eye-watering welfare bill.

Revive the Right to Buy

We should want both to encourage property ownership and for social properties to bear the full weight of the implicit subsidy that they receive so that the homes go to the people who value them the most. Ownership is desirable both as an end in itself and as a means for individuals to gain a stake in their local community.

Ownership also has the added benefit of potential productivity increases through win-win transactions. Existing social tenants may feel that their home does not match their needs any more, or perhaps may want to cash in on some of the equity in their home by moving to a cheaper area. Likewise, perhaps a family may want to move to London to make the most of the job opportunities.

There’s a genuine win-win outcome here, where both the existing social tenants are better off and the buyers of the home are happy too. These win-win outcomes are only possible under the current system because of Right to Buy – yet the current Government has announced that it is clamping down further on Right to Buy, for example exempting newly built social homes from being eligible for 35 years.^[113]

Right to Buy has already helped two million families own their home. Reviving and expanding it would boost home ownership and give millions more a foothold on the property ladder.

The most basic step in improving the existing system is to reverse Labour’s changes to the Right to Buy and expand the existing Right to Buy from local authority tenants to housing association tenants as well. That would more than double the number of London social rent households who have the ability to buy their own property.

But to go further, the next Housing Secretary should introduce a new and better version of the Right to Buy, as proposed by Alex Morton for the Centre for Policy Studies.^[114] This would see every housing payment, excluding housing benefit, go towards paying off a mortgage secured against the property. A mortgage worth 60% of the value of the property would be secured on the property, backed by the government. Repayments would be set at the rent the year the mortgage was taken out, with the housing payments rising as social rents do (currently CPI +1%). The increase above the starting payment functions as the ‘interest’ payable on the mortgage.

Then as the tenant makes payments, they would build up equity. Once they paid off their 60% mortgage, they would obtain full ownership of the property. The existing equity could also cover housing payments if the tenant lost their job or had a change in personal circumstances. This would encourage more flexibility over the use and allocation of social properties in the future compared to the present system. The full details of this scheme are beyond the scope of this paper but can be found in Alex’s report.

This version of the Right to Buy has four main advantages for tenants compared to the existing right to buy system that makes it more attractive for gaining ownership:

1. The tenant has support if they lose a job or a relationship breaks down. Under the existing right to buy system, they run the risk of being dispossessed if they fail to keep up with mortgage payments.
2. The local authority or housing association would continue to cover large scale maintenance costs, while the resident would cover minor maintenance costs around their home like blocked sinks or broken appliances.
3. This system still enables access to housing benefit, although those payments do not go towards building up equity. The lack of housing benefit is a big disincentive to go through with a right to buy purchase.
4. And finally, initial costs are lower for the resident. Mortgages are most costly at the start given the bulk goes towards paying off interest as equity slowly builds. That provides a helpful boost for households to get on the housing ladder.

4) Policies and Regulations

In the previous two chapters, we have pinpointed specific areas where London should build, as well as outlining how we can make better use of the existing housing stock and spur extensions, densification and a better allocation of housing stock, in particular by ensuring that London is home to more homeowners and productive workers.

But there are a whole range of other policies, set at both local and national level, that need to be improved, from the inadequate housing targets set for London to the affordable housing targets that burden viability.

In this final chapter, we will examine those issues, before taking a granular look at the precise regulations that need to change at both a local and national level, and the role played by the infamous Building Safety Regulator.

Reforming housing targets to spur delivery

The Government has revised and strengthened the system of housing targets. But where they remain unmet, as is too often the case in London, they become meaningless.

London is building nowhere near its housing target. Between 2021-2024, London built just 36% of its old, planned 99,000 homes a year target on average. Every single other English region managed far more building compared to its target, with the average region building 94% of its goal. The East Midlands, North East, North West, and Yorkshire all exceeded their targets.^[115]

In fact, London has not built close to its new target of 88,000 homes in a year since the 1930s. Partly this is because, even when national targets are increased, the impact in London is limited.

Borough housing targets are not set directly by the national standard method, but by the London Plan, which in turn is used to inform borough plans. The current plan was published in 2021 when London’s housing target was 52,000 homes a year.

The new London Plan is not expected until 2027, potentially 2028. This enables boroughs to continue undercutting their share of the new target for the foreseeable future as local plans are able to be locked in for five years. This exposes London to a significant risk of underbuilding by tens of thousands each year even with proposed reforms to the housing targets and policies that would expedite planning permission. A solution is to ensure that as national targets increase, each borough increases its contribution in proportion to its current share of the target.^[116]

That said, targets only matter if there are consequences if a local authority fails to build. Without credible consequences for under-delivery, local authorities may simply plan for fewer homes or slow approvals in response to political pressure from local residents. Across the country, it is common that local authorities miss their annual housing targets. But in London, councils missing their targets compounds into significant losses for the capital.

In 2025, it was found that 10 London boroughs delivered less than 75% of their annual housing targets under the Housing Delivery Test. In the first quarter of 2025, 23 of the 33 boroughs across London recorded zero new housing starts.^[117]

London councils are also the least likely to decide an application on time. Only 12% of major planning applications were decided within the initial 13-week target in London, the worst performance of any region, and well below the English average of 20%.^[118]

To prevent this from happening and to ensure new homes are delivered across the capital, local authorities should be penalised for not meeting their housing targets where applications have been submitted. The planning system already contains mechanisms that could support stronger enforcement. The Housing Secretary should use their powers under s62A-B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to designate underperforming London councils. That allows applicants to choose to apply for planning permission directly to the Planning Inspectorate, rather than waiting for a response from a council that is already missing its planning decision goals and housing targets.

There are more policy levers to build homes in areas that are underperforming their targets. The Housing Secretary could choose to use their powers under s15GA of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to revise the local plan of underperforming London councils. Additionally both the Mayor and the Housing Secretary have powerful call-in powers which allow them to review and approve planning applications as they see fit. If there are significant housing or commercial developments that risk rejection or delay, the Mayor or the Housing Secretary should use their call-in powers and approve them.

The Government’s new housing target understates the number of homes needed in London

In 2024, the Labour Government introduced a new standard method to calculate housing targets. London is the only region where housing targets fell, from roughly 99,000 homes a year to 88,000. All other regions saw their targets rise. Given that London has the worst housing shortage of any of the regions, a reduced target is completely illogical and exposes an inadequate allocation mechanism.^[119]

The revised housing need method calculates targets in two stages. First, a baseline need is set at 0.8% of existing housing stock. Second, this figure is increased where housing is less affordable, using the house price-to-income ratio averaged over five years. While this affordability adjustment increases targets in expensive areas, London’s overall target fell compared with the previous method because the baseline calculation is now tied to existing housing stock rather than higher population growth projections. But in a city which has historically had housing delivery significantly lag behind population growth, the housing stock is an insufficient baseline.

A better approach would allocate homes according to median house prices minus bare construction costs. This method reflects a core market signal: where the gap between prices and build costs is large, there is strong demand and weak supply, and more homes should be built.

Housing targets should be set according to median price to build cost ratios, based on local authority house price data and estimated basic regional construction costs, multiplied by average floor area.^[120]

This approach would ensure London absorbs a greater share of national housebuilding. London currently absorbs 22% of the national housebuilding target. Under the new method proposed, London’s annual housebuilding target would rise to 145,000 homes, representing 39% of national housing delivery.^[121]

This will significantly increase the housebuilding targets applied to London and its individual boroughs. It will equally reduce the pressure on councils across the country, where demand is lower and less economically viable. Of course, there will still be a need to build homes in these areas – but this metric will be more sympathetic to the local economic circumstances.

Our housing targets let London off too lightly

Other regions have to build more than their share because the capital builds less.

Chart: CPS and Onward^[122]

Affordable housing requirements and developer contributions

The London Plan expects that every private housing development has 35% affordable homes.^[123] High affordability requirements might sound like a way to deliver more cheap housing – but they actually function like a tax on new development. When the Mayor or councils mandate that a given share of new homes must be let or sold at below-market prices, the cost of construction does not vanish. Instead, it is shifted onto the developer, who will then pass the cost on to the remaining market-rate homes.

In practice, this reduces the financial viability of projects, especially on marginal sites, and deters new supply. The effect is the same as imposing a tax: it makes building more expensive and less likely to happen. If a building cannot meet the 35% requirement, there are viability assessments, which can be used to allow a development to proceed with a lower contribution of affordable housing if a higher share would simply make the project unviable. But these mechanisms are neither automatic nor frictionless. They typically involve lengthy negotiations and complex financial disclosures which are difficult to predict in a turbulent market – while still carrying the risk of refusal. Countless large schemes have been held up or rejected by this hidden tax.

We call this a tax, because the cost is borne by working people who are forced to pay more for housing as a result. It is also borne by landowners in the form of lower land values, and developers in squeezed margins, which strongly discourages them from building homes in the first place.

Taken together, this is wealth redistribution through the planning system rather than through transparent public spending. If the government wants to build more subsidised housing, it should pay for it out of general taxation, not the distortionary affordability targets.

Even Steve Reed, as Housing Secretary, acknowledged that affordability requirements block delivery. After London’s annual housing starts dropped to fewer than 5,000, Reed ordered Sadiq Khan to temporarily lower the affordable percentage from 35% to 20% on most sites. The associated consultation said that ‘reducing the affordable housing thresholds…is designed to encourage development to come forward’.^[124]

These are welcome steps, but they do not go far enough. And as mentioned above, if these measures will get more houses built, why are they temporary rather than permanent?

Moving chains means new market rate housing benefits households of all incomes

Building more market-rate housing obviously benefits the people who move into the new homes. But the benefits ripple out further.^[125] The buyers of a new home move out of their existing house, which frees it up for someone else to move in to. That in turn frees up another home. This chain of moving can stretch across income divides. One study in Helsinki found that 55% of these chains reach households in the bottom half of the income distribution and 36% reach households in the bottom quintile.^[126] Another in Switzerland found that for every 100 new market-rate homes, there were 75 household moves among those below the median income.^[127] Put another way, the benefits of new construction helped working class families move into a better home 75% of the time.

An illustration of the moving chains that new supply opens up, which allow for moves across the income distribution and help to reduce overcrowding among the worst off (Source: Hauck and Kluser)^[128]

Supply and flexibility are what matters. If there’s anything close to an iron-clad law of land economics, it is that increasing housing supply makes housing more affordable.^[129] Homes England estimates that a 1% increase in the housing stock leads to a 2% reduction in house prices.^[130] By reducing the viability of new supply, affordable housing requirements can actually reduce affordability across the whole housing market.

Affordable housing requirements severely limit who is eligible

As mentioned above, most Londoners will see no benefit from new subsidised housing. The system prioritises acute distress rather than ordinary low-paid work. The result is that many working households are stuck in the worst of both worlds: too secure to reach the front of an ever-lengthening queue for social housing, but nowhere near affluent enough to comfortably afford the market rent, let alone get on the housing ladder.

A defender of social housing might suggest that intermediate rent properties, a subset of affordable housing, are more appropriate for working families. Yet, distortions in intermediate rent properties can lead to absurd outcomes. For example, one three-bed intermediate rent flat in the City of Westminster requires a minimum household income of £82,600 to be able to afford the rent, but a maximum household income of £90,000 to still be eligible for reduced rent – and the household cannot have more than £100,000 saved.^[131] Having such a narrow eligibility range is farcical, rewarding people with inside knowledge of the allocation system at the expense of working families.

The next Mayor of London or Housing Secretary should remove affordability requirements from the London Plan. This will spur more construction, unlock marginal sites, and with the filtering effects mentioned above provide more affordable housing for households across the income spectrum.

This should not prevent the central government, local authorities or housing associations from building their own subsidised homes if they would like. Similarly, there should be no restrictions on central government, local authorities or housing associations from partnering with developers to purchase a percentage of homes and subsidise them. But funding for this should come out of general taxation, not distortionary requirements.

Importantly, a significant percentage of the savings from removing the affordability requirements could and should go towards the provision of additional local and regional infrastructure. Contributions towards infrastructure mitigate the harmful externalities that new development brings, such as more congested transport networks. In turn, the provision of infrastructure can drive sales for new housing developments, as with the Tube extension to Battersea Power Station and Nine Elms.^[132]

Indeed, beyond the subsidised housing percentage, the whole framework of land value capture needs to be improved. London’s developer contribution system should be simplified and turned into a unified Infrastructure Levy, excluding affordable housing contributions. This should be based on a share of development value and replace the current fragmented system, with revenues split between boroughs and the Greater London Authority to support both local and strategic investment. This would reduce delays, improve certainty, and ensure that developer contributions are more productively deployed.

The existing system is a primary source of delay to the delivery of new homes. The average time to reach an agreement between developers and local authorities across the country in 2024/25 was 515 days.^[133] In London, around 50,000 homes consented between 2019 and 2025 had not started construction due to Section 106 delays.^[134] Rather than case by case negotiations, there should be clear contribution formulas devised with industry to simplify and expedite contribution agreement decisions, instilling greater certainty into the system.

The legal powers to introduce the system in principle already exist. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 provides the Secretary of State with the secondary legislative power to introduce a national Infrastructure Levy to replace s106 and CIL. A London-wide levy could be implemented within this framework.

Remove late-stage reviews

Another benefit of removing affordable housing requirements and simplifying value capture is the removal of late-stage reviews (LSR). LSR mechanisms allow authorities to capture additional developer profits where schemes outperform expectations – but offer no equivalent downside protection to developers who suffer amid the boom and bust of London’s housing market.

In effect, LSRs mean that local authorities and the Mayor capture most of any unexpected upside, while the developer carries the burden if the scheme faces any unexpected challenges. Put another way, heads the local council wins, tails the developer loses.

In the volatile macroeconomic conditions London finds itself in, characterised by construction cost inflation, higher interest rates, poor sale value growth, and delay after delay in the planning system, this asymmetric risk allocation is a disincentive to invest capital into housebuilding projects in the capital.^[135] LSRs also add to the cost of capital: the very investment required to fund housing delivery may demand a greater return to compensate for the risk, which ultimately could kill bids altogether by making the development unviable.^[136]

Late-stage reviews should either be removed and the initial agreement between the council and developer be maintained, or allow for downwards renegotiation if market conditions worsen after the initial agreement.

London Plan Rules

The London Plan 2021 is 542 pages, covering 113 policy areas. Each of these areas has individual policies associated with them, which taken together provide 541 different policies that applications can be assessed against.

There are many worthwhile regulations in the London Plan. It is right that we should use regulation to make well-functioning markets to internalise costs, guard our heritage and green spaces, and give homebuyers the assurance that they are buying well-made and safe new homes.

But the system as it stands is not working for anyone.

The London Plan’s policies, and housing regulations in general, can be divided into two categories. The first addresses genuine externalities, where new developments impose costs on others without compensation: noise, lost daylight, impacts on public services etc.

The second category, however, regulates costs that the developer and future occupiers already have every incentive to optimise themselves. A buyer who wants private outdoor space or a dual-aspect flat can simply refuse to pay for homes that do not meet these standards. Developers, who want to sell their houses, already have a commercial reason to deliver homes people want. Layering planning rules on top of these market signals does not correct a market failure. Rather, it overrides personal preferences, while reducing overall supply by pushing up construction costs and making sites unviable.

There are many regulations in the first category that we would amend. But as a priority for a new centre-right Government, we suggest that many if not most regulations in the second category should simply be eliminated, and replaced by a focus on the external impacts of construction. Indeed, New Zealand has explicitly adopted this externalities framework as the legislative basis for what planning can and cannot regulate. Their 2025 Planning Bill explicitly bans officials from restricting the internal layout of a building, dictating the provision of private outdoor space, or introducing tests of financial viability, among other examples.^[137]

The reason for this is simple. Each of these regulations functions like a straw on a camel’s back. Alone, they are easily managed by developers, and can even sound nice and sensible. But taken together, they impose significant costs that have held up the construction of much-needed new homes.

Some of these regulations even directly contradict others. For example, ventilation regulations and dual aspect requirements assume that windows are open to get a cooling draft. However, to meet noise regulations, buildings are assumed to have windows shut. Likewise, daylight requirements push for larger windows, while overheating guidance pushes for smaller windows.

Steve Reed already recognised that some of the regulations in the London Plan are too burdensome in his emergency measures for London housebuilding. Gone are dual aspect requirements, limits to the number of homes per core, and over-provision of cycle storage.^[138] These harmful regulations must not be allowed to be revived in future London plans.

But Reed’s de-regulatory push did not go far enough. Even with the removal of some of the most damaging regulations, the London Plan still weighs in on issues far beyond the reasonable level of regulation, with the result being fewer homes that cost more to build.

As the current Mayor prepares his second London Plan and the challengers in the 2028 Mayoral election start to think about what they may include in their own versions, it is worth studying the current plan to pull out regulations that are driving up costs and slowing down building.

Private outdoor space (D6.F.9)

If you look at recent new build developments in London, one of the most striking things about them is the preponderance of balconies that have been bolted on to the side. The reason for these balconies has not been an upswell of Londoners demanding them, but rather the addition of a policy in the London Plan to mandate a minimum of 5 square metres of private outdoor space per new home. The amount of outdoor space required rises as properties get larger.

Balconies or other private outdoor spaces are nice-to-have and many people would prefer to live in a place with one. However, this is not simply a costless regulation. The private outdoor space requirements are estimated to add between £10,000 and £20,000 to the cost of constructing a new home.^[139]

Private outdoor space requirements have broken the façade of this new building while adding thousands of pounds to the construction cost of each of the flats.

While many people may like a balcony, when given the option of having to pay that much more for it, it’s less clear that they would be willing to pay for it. After all, some of the most expensive and beautiful areas of London – like Mayfair, St James’s and Marylebone – tend not to have private outdoor spaces. Likewise, quintessential London architecture like mansion blocks rarely provide 5m² of private outdoor space, yet will still have significant buyer interest – especially if it is near to a park anyway.

This rule is especially damaging for conversions. Older buildings or office spaces were not designed to have private outdoor spaces, and as such, this regulation can significantly impede changes of use.

If people want to pay more for a balcony, housebuilders will build flats with balconies. If people would prefer not to spend £10,000 or more on a balcony, then they should be allowed to buy flats that do not have private outdoor space mandated.

Minimum space standards (D6)

Research from the GLA shows that the average renter in London consumes just 24.6m² of space.^[140] London flats are the most expensive in the country so it is not surprising that renters are not willing or able to pay for more space. Yet the smallest flats that can be built under the London Plan are 37m² for an individual or 50m² for a couple. That means the minimum space standard is 50% larger than what the average renting Londoner can afford. The Centre for Cities points out that this extra 12m² is almost exactly equivalent to the requirement to have a sofa and TV area from the London Housing Design guide.^[141]

The current minimum space standards restrict the options that renters have. Perhaps a young professional would like to live alone in her own flat, but there are not any at the size that she can afford. Because of the minimum space standards she is forced into a crowded flat-share. London’s 37m² is also above similar countries. France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, and Japan all set the figure at 25m² or below.^[142] The London Plan should be amended to follow suit.

Housing size mix (H10)

The London Plan requires developers to deliver a range of unit sizes, which is meant to be supported by local evidence of need or the London Strategic Housing Market Assessment. There is no reason why the London Plan has to weigh in on this and inadvertently distort the housing market. Developers are already very well-incentivised to deliver housing sizes that they think there is demand for. If they didn’t get the size of homes right, they are less likely to be able to sell them and make a profit.

Concerns about developers only building one- or two-bedroom flats are misplaced. If there is more demand for such flats, then developers should be allowed to build to meet it. Right now, when developers are not allowed to build enough one or two bed flats to meet demand, that demand does not go away. Instead it manifests in the conversion of existing ‘family-sized’ terraced houses into flats. To reduce this trend, which is unpopular with neighbouring residents, local authorities and the GLA need to avoid restricting what types of homes can be built.

Affordable workspace (E3) and affordable student accommodation (H15.A.4)

When building either office space or student accommodation, the London Plan requires a significant percentage to be given away at a rate far below market level. The affordable workspace policy caused significant amounts of confusion during the planning committee deciding the Shoreditch works scheme and was one of the reasons that it was deferred, rather than approved.^[143]

This is unlike almost any other type of transaction. A baker doesn’t have to give away a percentage of their bread. Plumbers can expect to be paid a market rate each time they’re called out. Pubs don’t have to provide some of their pints at a loss. Workspaces and student accommodation should be no different.

The current system also functions as a handout to less efficient businesses at the cost of actually increasing affordability across office spaces. If a business does not earn enough revenue to pay for its expenses, it should be allowed to go bust and be replaced by a more productive enterprise, not given a handout at the expense of the developer. As mentioned above, more supply leading to lower rents and land costs is as close as one gets to an iron-clad law of urban economics. By adding subsidy requirements, the London Plan is specifically making it more expensive to deliver this new supply.

Car parking restraints (T6)

The London Plan imposes restrictions on the amount of car parking that developers can include. This may make sense for central London, but it means that schemes in outer London do not have the level of car parking that future residents would like. In turn that makes it harder to sell the properties, which disincentivises the building of new homes in the first place.

For a lot of outer London, the standards mean that not every flat is able to have its own car parking space. When 45% of workers commute via car and 38% of all journeys are made in a car, not having a parking space is a significant disincentive to buy a house.^[144] The way to encourage public transport uptake is to make public transport better, not to level down the ability of households to have a car.

(We should also, as mentioned above, ensure that the temporary relaxation of restrictions on cycle space in Steve Reed’s emergency plan becomes permanent. In a world in which electric bicycles literally litter the streets of London, it seems increasingly silly to mandate that every building fill its ground floor or basement with bike racks.)

Minimising greenhouse gas emissions (SI-2)

London residents already have the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any region in the UK. This is driven by dense urban lifestyles with lower transportation and heating emissions. The London Plan’s requirements to reduce emissions by 35% beyond Building Regulations go past the point of diminishing marginal returns. Every new building in London will already be energy efficient, certainly far more than buildings that they replace. By requiring ever higher standards, new buildings become more expensive to build, leading to fewer of them, and an increased reliance on older, less-efficient buildings.

Accessibility (D7)

Part M of the Building Regulations lays out accessibility standards for housing. The London Plan chooses to go above and beyond the basic standards. It dictates that at least 10% of dwellings must be wheelchair user dwellings, which is reasonable as this level of accessibility might not be provided by the market. Yet the other 90% of dwellings have to have the second highest standard of accessibility.

This standard, M4(2), requires step-free access and additional circulation and layout requirements. As a result, many beloved London housing forms are impossible. Narrow, terraced homes cannot meet M4(2) because of the requirements to have wide staircases. Walk-up mansion blocks cannot be built because entrances have to be level without steps. Conversions become more difficult because the existing buildings were not designed with this level of accessibility in mind.

A mansion block like this cannot be built in London today, partially because of accessibility requirements, despite its popularity with potential residents as seen by its £1 million flats (Source: Winkworth Maida Vale)^[145]

With London’s small, brownfield sites, this level of accessibility is often excessive. We should want the provision of wheelchair-accessible housing, but the requirement to make every home step-free adds more costs than the benefits it produces.

National Regulations

Second Staircase rules

While not in the London Plan, second staircase requirements are among the most damaging regulations introduced recently on new housebuilding in London. Announced in 2023, the rule mandates that all buildings taller than 18 metres, or six storeys, have two staircases. The official impact assessment found that the costs of this regulation would be 294 times the benefits.^[146] Yet as the Centre for Policy Studies showed, even this was a very significant understatement, because the assessment assumed that builders could make buildings taller or wider to offset the floorspace reductions from the second staircase.^[147] Given the constraints set by our planning system and the London Plan, these offsets are rarely feasible.

Putting in two staircases raises costs for buildings by reducing the amount of floorspace that can actually be lived in, while increasing complexity in construction. In many cases, to add a second staircase requires removing a flat from each floor of the building, which meaningfully reduces the number of homes a development provides. One estimate suggested that 18,000 homes a year are not being built because of the second staircase requirement.^[148] That’s made up of projects that are no longer viable, a flat being dropped from each floor, or developers shrinking their buildings to keep them below the 18-metre threshold.

In one case, Pocket Living, a developer, had plans to build 50 flats on a plot in Hackney. After spending £1 million on the site and its planning application, the introduction of the second staircase rule made delivery unviable due to site constraints. Instead of those flats, a mortuary will be built on the site.^[149]

The costs of second staircases are especially high for buildings between 18 and 50 metres. Yet the impact assessment predicted that lowering the threshold under which they are compulsory from 50 metres to 18 would not even save a single life over its 70-year modelling period. At the same time, this rule would impose £1.8 billion in costs. The result was that for buildings between 18 and 50 metres, the costs end up outweighing the benefits by more than 1,200 to 1. It is unsurprising that other countries, like France, Germany and Ireland, all chose 50 metres or above as their single-stair height limit.^[150]

The next Government should raise the second staircase height limit to 50 metres. This is especially wise given that new lift regulations reduce the need for firefighters to use stairs during a fire in the first place.

Parts F, L, O, and S of the Building Regulations

The last Government introduced several changes to national building standards, with Net Zero being one of the central rationales. The main changes updated Part F, which deals with ventilation, and Part L, which covers energy efficiency and conservation. Ministers also introduced Part O, which handles overheating, and Part S, which deals with the provision of electric vehicle charging.

These regulations have added significant cost to construction. The Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) estimates that taken together, Parts F, L, O, and S have added 7.4% on average to the cost of construction for a new home since 2021.^[151] Combined with surging material costs and the regulations mentioned above, these changes have made new homes less viable.

Part O in particular has restricted the quality of new construction. Air conditioning is treated as a last resort for cooling, instead of a go-to way of dealing with overheating. Part O also forces either a smaller glazing area or expensive dynamic thermal modelling and mandates a height of 1.1 metres above the ground. These combine to make for significantly smaller windows and effectively ban sash windows.

Age of the property is the biggest single factor in energy efficiency of homes. Just 12% of homes built before 1900 in England have a high energy efficiency rating, compared to almost all homes built in the past decade.^[152] New buildings with modern insulation will always be more energy efficient and emit less carbon than older buildings that they replace. Making it more expensive to build modern buildings limits the carbon emission savings while also encouraging older buildings to remain in use.

With this further strengthening of the building regulations, the Government has increased the cost of construction at the same time as macroeconomic inflationary pressures are driving up costs. By making it more expensive to build new homes, these policies mean less building, and more reliance on older, less-efficient buildings. The next Government should loosen Parts F, L, O, and S of the building regulations to lower the cost of construction and bring forward more homes.

The Building Safety Regulator

The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) was created with noble intentions. Established by the Building Safety Act 2022 following the Grenfell Tower fire, its purpose is to strengthen oversight of building safety and restore public confidence in high-rise residential construction. But it has instead dramatically slowed down housebuilding by increasing uncertainty, adding delays, and making many new homes in London unviable.

The biggest two risks for building fires are the age of a building and overcrowding. This is especially true in London, where demand is high, overcrowding is a significant risk, and a third of unsafe buildings are concentrated. New buildings reduce all of these hazards, but the BSR has stymied new supply.

The BSR has resulted in uncertainty, delay and capital constraints

The BSR regime introduces substantial uncertainty and costs into the development process through its Gateway system. This is a three-stage approval process designed to ensure safety compliance throughout the development lifecycle which instead incurs significant delays.

This challenge is most acute at Gateway 2, which requires detailed safety documentation of consented developments to be reviewed and approved by the BSR before construction. The exact requirements of this documentation are uncertain, forcing developers to overprovide and, through no fault of their own, clog the system. In 2025 it was reported that 75% of submissions progressing through Gateway 2 were rejected owing to missing or flawed information.^[153] And this comes at a significant cost: developers report spending between £12,000 and £25,000 on applications that were later rejected.^[154]

Although statutory timelines suggest delivery should happen between eight and 12 weeks, actual decision times have often been far longer. Median processing times are approximately 43 weeks overall and around 48 weeks in London.^[155] These delays reflect the regulators early stage learning curve, staffing constraints and multi-disciplinary assessment requirements, and industry adaptation to a new and complex safety regime.

The consequence of this Gateway has been a brutal shortfall in the annual delivery of homes for Londoners. The number of homes in the capital above 18m between 2019 and 2025 that had received full planning permission but had not yet started construction was 139,000.^[156] This represents not just fewer people who will have a home in the capital, but a growing share of people who will face overcrowding in unsafe, older, lower-quality accommodation as a consequence of bureaucracy.

The introduction of the BSR has also distorted development heights across London. Developers are avoiding mid-rise schemes that fall within the regulatory threshold, of 18m or six storeys. Instead, projects either remain below 18m or seek significantly greater heights given that the economics of high-rise construction can justify the greater cost of compliance. This has had a direct impact on the ability to deliver a greater share of homes across London through gentle density; either new builds are short, or towers are built but are scattered across the capital.^[157]

Reforms have been introduced to alleviate the backlog, but they have not resolved the underlying delays within the Gateway system. Reforms have included increasing the BSR’s staffing and technical capacity, introducing fast-track approval routes, more thorough guidance for developers to improve applications, and restructuring the body as a standalone regulator. Only three legacy cases are now in the backlog of Gateway 2.^[158] But all new developments must still individually progress through Gateway 2, which remains liable to delays.

A new risk to the delivery of homes in London is Gateway 3. This stage is required for constructed and renovated high risk residential buildings to be checked before occupation can legally begin, meaning developers cannot release equity and must continue to service borrowing while awaiting approval. But similar delays are arising and, as of January 2026, no new build high risk developments had yet applied for Gateway 3 approval.^[159]

The cumulative impact of the Building Safety Regulator is a legacy of declining viability. Developers have reported incorporating risk into their project timelines accounting for delays of up to 15 months beyond planning permission. Simultaneously, the BSR has worsened access to finance: according to industry, developers are struggling to access project funding until they have cleared Gateway 2. These issues can render projects unviable feeding into the decline of housing starts between 2023 (when the BSR came into force) and 2025.^[160]

As long as the Building Safety Regulator has the sole duty to enforce regulatory standards across individual applications, there is a risk of delay, and slowed delivery of homes. This creates a structural bottleneck for the regulator: as applications increase, as they must for the delivery of more homes, the system will once again face backlogs. A more effective model would be to introduce an economic incentive for building safety that moves away from a case-by-case system toward industry-level risk reduction achieved through the market mechanism.

One explorable option could be an insurance model for what are currently designated as ‘high-risk buildings’. In this instance, the government could introduce an alternative route to the BSR, through a risk-based insurance framework for high-rise development construction. Developers would be required to hold comprehensive fire liability insurance, with strict fire liability for defects that compromise safety. The premium that the developers must be responsible for paying becomes the price of risk: better detailing, safer materials and proven contractors lower the price, and poor practice raises the premium.

Insurers – owing to their incentive to minimise risk and need for predictability – would play a central role in scrutinising building design, materials and construction practices before insuring projects. By establishing a market, this would create a faster, more efficient layer of oversight that incentivises developers to comply with regulation rather than relying on a strictly centralised approval process which is delaying delivery. Another approach, perhaps complementary, would simply be for the next Government to raise the height of buildings covered by the BSR regime, ideally to the 50m threshold set in many other countries.^[161]

Conclusion and list of policies

London is a city steeped in history and culture. But its housing crisis risks being the defining domestic policy failure of a generation – and without immediate action, for generations to come.

In the time it has taken to write this paper, the number of mothballed homes in the capital has climbed to 42,000, and one of London’s largest developers has announced that it is halting land acquisition in the capital altogether. Each month of delay risks locking the capital deeper into a crisis that compounds as housebuilding slumps and the population of London rises.

The lack of homes has lowered the productive capacity of the capital, locked young workers and families out of ownership, and pushed the people London depends on, across every career and walk of life, out to commuter towns, or out of the country altogether. The UK cannot afford this.

The alternative is a London of growth, opportunity, abundant homes for Londoners and homes for those who aspire to become one. There is a clear path to this, as we set out in this report, with the potential for tens of billions of pounds being added to the economy every year.

The scale of response must therefore meet the scale of the problem. The proposals we lay out in this paper – including three new Mayoral Development Corporations covering London’s strategically most important sites, expanded estate regeneration with new planning and financing powers, the release of strategic industrial land and the release of public land, all emboldened by brownfield reform – would alongside our other recommendations result in the most ambitious housing intervention in London since the post-war reconstruction.

This report lays out the levers of power possessed by the Mayor of London and Secretary of State to build the foundations for the market to deliver. The proper role of government is not to step back from London’s housing market, but to loosen its grip – removing the barriers that prevent builders from building and leading through intervention where they must for coordination and scale.

None of this is a question of resources or technology. It is a question of the political will to use the powers already held by the Mayor and Secretary of State. To not do so is a political choice, and a misguided one: building in central London makes absolute sense for the centre-right.

The next Mayor and the next Government will be judged by whether they make these choices – and they will reap the benefits of doing so. The homes that London needs can be, and must be, made deliverable.

^[1] Ben Hopkinson, ‘The City That Doesn’t Build’, Centre for Policy Studies, October 2025. Link

^[2] Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government, ‘New Standard Method’, February 2025. Link

^[3] London Assembly, ‘Explaining the emergency housebuilding measures’, January 2026. Link

^[4] Ben Hopkinson, ‘How many homes does the UK need?’, Centre for Policy Studies, June 2025. Link

^[5] CPS and Onward logarithmic calculation. Homes England estimates that a 1% increase in supply would lead to a 2% reduction in house prices. The average cost of a London property is £554,000 according to Land Registry Data. Construction costs are estimated at £3,000 per square metre, or £252,000 per the average 84m² home. There are 3,822,000 homes in London, according to MHCLG. Sources used: Homes England, ‘Housing affordability and productivity’, July 2025. Link; Land Registry, ‘House Price Statistics’, January 2026. Link; Robin Callister, ‘How much does it cost to build a house?’, Urbanist Architecture, March 2026. Link; MHCLG, ‘English Housing Survey 2018-19: Size of English Homes’. Link; MHCLG, ‘Table 100: number of dwellings be tenure and district, England’, May 2025. Link

^[6] Jim Gleeson, ‘How Tokyo built its way to abundant housing’, RPubs, February 2018. Link

^[7] CPS and Onward calculations, John Egan, ‘Austin booms as No. 6 metro for new homes being built in U.S.’ Culture Map, Jan 2026. Link and Census Reporter, ‘Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX Metro Area’, 2024. Link

^[8] Land Registry, ‘House Price Statistics’, January 2026. Link

^[9] Sam Jones, ‘The cost of living then: 20p a pint, and a Mini for £600’, The Guardian, 5 March 2004. Link

^[10] CPS and Onward calculations, Office for National Statistics, Employee earnings in the UK: 2025, October 2025. Link

^[11] There is one important caveat which bears mentioning. London has the highest percentage of leasehold properties in the country. Mainly as a result of post-Grenfell fire regulations, raised insurance premiums, and the inflationary spike in building materials, services charges have outpaced inflation. This rise in service charges has suppressed home values and even made some properties unmortgageable. The challenges in the leasehold system is beyond the scope of this paper, especially given the unannounced scope of Labour’s reforms. Labour have pledged to introduce a Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill as part of the King’s Speech. Should these reforms prove unsatisfactory, more will need to be done to ensure that leaseholders do not bear the full brunt of Government’s cost increasing regulation and that new and existing homes have an attractive management structure for homebuyers.

^[12] Office for National Statistics, Housing purchase affordability, by UK country and English region, September 2025. Link

^[13] Daniel Keane, ‘London’s birth rate tumbles 20% in a decade as cost of living crisis puts people off having children.’ The Standard, 16 May 2024. Link

^[14] Daniel Harari, ‘London’s contribution to the national economy’, House of Commons Library, July 2025. Link; Office for National Statistics, ‘Regional economic activity by gross domestic product, UK: 1998 to 2023’, April 2025. Link

^[15] Office for National Statistics, ‘Regional and subregional labour productivity, UK:2023, June 2025. Link; Office for National Statistics, ‘Regional economic activity by gross domestic product, UK: 1998 to 2023’, April 2025. Link

^[16] Daniel Harari, ‘London’s contribution to the national economy’, House of Commons Library, July 2025. Link

^[17] Ben Hopkinson, ‘Home many homes does the UK need?’, Centre for Policy Studies, July 2025. Link

^[18] James Gleeson, ‘Housing Research Note 6: an analysis of housing floorspace per person’, GLA Housing and Land, February 2021. Link. and CPS and Onward analysis of Land Registry data.

^[19] Public First, ‘Building Prosperity’, September 2025, Link

^[20] Ibid

^[21] Madeline Ross, ‘Rachel Reeves rakes in record inheritance tax haul’, The Telegraph, April 2025. Link; Andrew Teanby and Sarah Jackson, ‘The reformed inheritance tax remains unaffordable for large farms’, Savills, February 2026. Link

^[22] Fraser of Allander Institute, ‘National Insurance Contributions or income tax cuts’, March 2024. Link; Robert Joyce and Xiaowei Xu, ‘Options for cutting direct personal taxes and supporting low earners’, IFS, September 2019. Link

^[23] Maurice Lange, Anthony Breach, and Luka Kovacevic, ‘Flat Britain: The urban density gap and how to close it’, Centre for Cities, November 2025. Link

^[24] Ibid

^[25] Ibid

^[26] Office for National Statistics, ‘Lower layer Super Output Area population density (Accredited official statistics)’, November 2025. Link

^[27] Tower Hamlets Borough Council, ‘Tower Hamlets Borough Profile’, May 2024. Link

^[28] Tower Hamlets Borough Council, ‘Tower Hamlets moves to unlock 52,000 home pipeline’, March 2026. Link

^[29] For example, Katie Lam MP highlighted the impacts of London’s failure to build on her Weald of Kent Constituency in an X thread.

^[30] Ipsos, ‘Housing and planning reform’, May 2025. Link

^[31] Ipsos, ‘Housing and the green belt’, August 2023. Link

^[32] Department for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities, Land Use statistics: England 2021, August 2023. Link

^[33] James Howat, John Myers, and Kane Emerson, ‘Project Hawking: tripling the size of Ox-Cam by 2050’, Centre for British Progress, December 2025. Link

^[34] Jonathan Prynn, ‘Booming City of London’s GDP soars past the £100 billion mark for the first time’, The Standard, 17 April 2025. Link

^[35] ONS, ‘Tenure of household census map’, March 2021. Link

^[36] Phoebe Arslanagić-Little and Laurence Fredricks, ‘Building Consent’, Onward, March 2026. Link

^[37] A preview of the wider report is available here: Harry Rushworth, Benedict Springbett, Ben Southwood, and Samuel Hughes, ‘The government needs an infrastructure plan’, Baldwin, December 2025. Link

^[38] Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation, ‘Strategic Site Allocations Viability Assessment’, February 2021. Link

^[39] OPDC, ‘London’s biggest brownfield site unlocked as OPDC begins search for exemplar development partner’, May 2026. Link

^[40] HARCA and EcoWorld, ‘Help shape the Aberfeldy new masterplan’. Link

^[41] Sam Dumitriu and Ben Hopkinson, ‘Get London Building’, Britain Remade, February 2024. Link

^[42] Ibid.

^[43] Micken Patel, ‘Damp and Mould statistics in London and Hertfordshire,’ Damp and Mould Solutions, November 2025. Link

^[44] Yimby Alliance, ‘Location matters: price per square metre in England and Wales’, September 2024. Link

^[45] CPS and Onward calculations

^[46] The home calculation does not include the homes that could be developed by the development corporations mentioned above on SIL or LSIS land.

^[47] Katy Warrick, Sophie Rosier, ‘London’s housing crisis: is public sector land the answer’, Savills, January 2023, Link

^[48] Katy Warrick, Ed Hampson, ‘Unlocking development in the capital: how many homes could be built on London’s publicly owned land?’, Savills, July 2023. Link

^[49] Ibid

^[50] Ibid

^[51] Katy Warrick, Sophie Rosier, ‘London’s housing crisis: is public sector land the answer’, Savills, January 2023, Link

^[52] London Councils, ‘Update on London’s homelessness emergency’, December 2025. Link

^[53] Trust for London, ‘London’s temporary accommodation crisis – the latest data’, September 2025. Link

^[54] Transport for London, ‘Places for London sets out programme to deliver thousands of new homes and workspaces’, September 2023. Link

^[55]Ibid

^[56] Transport for London, ‘TFL releases land for 10,000 homes across the Capital’, October 2015. Link

^[57] London Assembly, ‘TfL Housing Commitment’, February 2021. Link

^[58] London Assembly, ‘TfL Land’, September 2020. Link

^[59] Royal Docks, ‘Royal Albert Dock – Development Opportunity’, July 2025. Link

^[60] Jack Mendel, ‘London’s Royal Albert Docks: PwC liquidators brought in after Chinese firm severed from development deal’, CityAM, July 2022. Link

^[61] Temporarily reduced to 35% by the emergency measures

^[62] Greater London Authority, ‘Threshold Approach to Affordable Housing on Public Land’, July 2018. Link

^[63] Homes for People We Need, ‘Making Social Rent Homes Viable’, October 2025. Link

^[64] The Housing Forum, Building Begins on First Affordable Homes in Silvertown Development’, July 2023. Link

^[65] Katy Warrick, Ed Hampson, ‘Unlocking development in the capital: how many homes could be built on London’s publicly owned land?’, Savills, July 2023. Link

^[66] Architecture Initiative, ‘Does central and local government have an obligation to develop public sector land in our cities to address the housing crisis?’. Link

^[67] Jess Warren, ‘Decline in London school pupil numbers to continue’, BBC News, 18 February 2025. Link; Architecture Initiative, ‘Does central and local government have an obligation to develop public sector land in our cities to address the housing crisis?’. Link

^[68] Ibid

^[69] Around 2500 hectares of publicly owned land (Savills)

^[70] SBA Property Management, ‘London’s brownfield sites could house nearly half a million new homes – what’s the hold-up?, June 2024. Link

^[71] London Assembly, ‘London Plan AMR tables’, Link

^[72] Christopher Katkowski KC, Cllr James Jamieson, Dr Paul Monaghan, Dr Wei Yang, ‘London Plan Review: Report of Expert Advisers Commissioned by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities’, January 2024. Link

^[73] Michael Hill, ‘Anatomy of a Planning Refusal’, Notes on Growth, February 2026. Link

^[74] Ibid

^[75] Altered from: Christopher Katkowski KC, Cllr James Jamieson, Dr Paul Monaghan, Dr Wei Yang, ‘London Plan Review: Report of Expert Advisers Commissioned by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities’, January 2024. Link

^[76] SMR UK, ‘New soil treatment innovation set to slash UK brownfield costs’. Link

^[77] Libby Stonell, ‘Landfill tax raised to £126.15 from 2025/26’, Lets Recycle, March 2024. Link

^[78] CPS and Onward analysis of: MHCLG, ‘Thousands of new homes to be built as government unlocks brownfield sites’, October 2024, Link

^[79] Anthony Breach, ‘Breaking the Bottlenecks: Reforming ‘anti-supply measures’ to support urban housebuilding’, May 2025. Link

^[80] Home Builders Federation, ‘Home building industry calls for reforms to Biodiversity net Gain’, April 2026. Link

^[81] London Assembly, ‘Parks and green spaces’. Link.

^[82] DEFRA, ‘Biodiversity Net Gain – considering a targeted exemption for residential brownfield development’, April 2026. Link

^[83] Sam Dumitriu, ‘Why Britain should copy the Dutch’, Notes on Growth, October 2025. Link

^[84] Barton Willmore, now Stantec, ‘CNWL Dollis Hill’, November 2022. Link

^[85] Croydon Council, ‘Suburban Design Guide’, April 2019. Link

^[86] John Burn-Murdoch, ‘What Texas can teach San Francisco and London about building houses’, The Financial Times, 23 February 2024. Link

^[87] Maurice Lange, ‘Croydon calling’, Centre for Cities, February 2026. Link

^[88] Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government, ‘Permitted development rights for householders’, September 2019. Link

^[89] CPS and Onward calculations

^[90] DLUHC, ‘Changes to various permitted development rights: consultation’, February 2024. Link

^[91] Camden Council, ‘Conservation Areas’. Link. Hammersmith and Fulham Council, ‘Conservation Areas’. Link

^[92] Tom Bage, ‘Mansards in Tower Hamlets’, Create Streets, March 2023. Link

^[93] Ben Southwood, ‘Learning from history’, Create Streets, December 2021. Link

^[94] Camden Council, ‘Marketing and use viability’. Link; Tower Hamlets Council, ‘Tower Hamlets Plan 2031, Section 3: Policies’. Link

^[95] MHCLG, ‘Table 109: by tenure and region’, May 2025. Link

^[96] OECD, ‘PH4.2.1 Social Rental Housing Stock’, April 2024. Link

^[97] MHCLG, ‘English Housing Survey 2023 to 2024: Chapter 2’, November 2024. Link

^[98] James Gleeson, ‘Housing Research Note 6: an analysis of housing floorspace per person’, GLA Housing and Land, February 2021. Link

^[99] CPS and Onward analysis of DWP, ‘HB1.1 – Region by Caseload’, Stat-Xplore, November 2025; DWP, ‘HB 1.2 – Region by average award’, Stat-Xplore, November 2025.

^[100] CPS and Onward analysis of DWP, ‘Benefit expenditure and caseload tables 2026’, April 2026. Link

^[101] CPS and Onward analysis of Census 2021 link

^[102] Ibid.

^[103] Full Fact, ‘Just under 50% of London’s social housing occupied by those born outside the UK’, February 2025. Link

^[104] Sam Ashworth-Hayes, ‘Half of London’s council houses occupied by people born overseas’, The Telegraph, 10 June 2025. Link

^[105] Reuters, ‘Fact check: foreign-born people, not necessarily foreigners, occupy 48% of London’s social housing’, March 2025. Link

^[106] Trust for London, ‘Monthly rent by sector’. February 2026. Link

^[107] Alex Morton, ‘Ending Expensive Social Tenancies’, Policy Exchange, August 2012. Link

^[108] Communities and Local Government Select Committee, ‘Council home sales’, February 2016. Link

^[109] CPS and Onward calculation using Land Registry Data.

^[110] Chris Buckle, ‘Impacts of policy changes’, Savills, November 2015. Link

^[111] DWP, ‘Guidance and methodology: Benefit expenditure and caseload tables’, April 2026. Link; OECD, ‘PH3.1 Public spending on housing allowances’, June 2024. Link

^[112] DWP, ‘Universal Credit Local Housing Allowance rates: 2026 to 2027’, April 2026. Link

^[113] Paul Seddon, ‘The key measures in the King’s Speech’, BBC News, 13 May 2026. Link

^[114] Alex Morton, ‘The Right to Own’, Centre for Policy Studies, June 2022. Link

^[115] MHCLG, ‘New Standard Method’, December 2024. Link

^[116] Sam Dumitriu, ‘The London Loophole’, Notes on Growth, March 2026. Link

^[117] The London Forum, ‘Housing Delivery Test failed in 9 boroughs’, March 2025. Link

^[118] MHCLG, ‘Live tables on planning application statistics’, Table P151a, April 2026. Link

^[119] Ben Hopkinson, ‘How Many Homes Does the UK Need?’, Centre for Policy Studies, June 2025. Link

^[120] The construction costs should avoid policy-driven costs such as planning obligations and new regulatory burdens to avoid the incentive for local authorities to increase these regulations as a means to lower their housing targets

^[121] Sam Dumitriu and Ben Hopkinson, ‘Where should we build 1.5m homes?’, Notes on Growth, September 2024. Link

^[122] Ibid

^[123] This has temporarily been lowered to 20%, but given its transient nature and the length of time it takes to buy, plan, get permission from both the local council and Building Safety Regulator, and then start construction the lower level will have little impact on new construction.

^[124] Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government, ‘Consultation on the proposed London Emergency Housing Package’, November 2025, p.13. Link

^[125] Samuel Hughes, ‘Filtering, or how building expensive homes can help people on low incomes’, June 2023. Link

^[126] Cristina Bratu, Oskari Harjunen, and Tuukka Saarimaa, ‘City-wide effects of new housing supply: Evidence from moving chains’, Journal of Urban Economics, January 2023. Link

^[127] Lukas Hauck and Frédéric Kluser, ‘Country-wide effects of new housing supply: Evidence from moving chains’, [manuscript submitted for publication], Link

^[128] Lukas Hauck and Frédéric Kluser, ‘Country-wide effects of new housing supply: Evidence from moving chains’, [manuscript submitted for publication], Link; Xiaodi Li, ‘Do new housing units in your backyard raise your rents?’, Journal of Economic Geography, December 2022. Link

^[129] Xiaodi Li, ‘Do new housing units in your backyard raise your rents?’, Journal of Economic Geography, December 2022. Link

^[130] Homes England, ‘Housing affordability and productivity’, July 2025. Link

^[131] City of Westminster, ‘53 Porchester Road, Royal Oak, W2 5DX’, March 2026. Link

^[132] See also Michael Hill, ‘The truth about the Preston Model’, Notes on Growth, March 2026. Link

^[133] Home Builders Federation, ‘What is the timeframe for local authorities to agree community investment’, June 2025. Link

^[134] Katy Warrick, Rob Pollock, ‘Gateways – the latest valve shutting off London’s supply of new homes’, Savills, September 2025. Link

^[135] Ibid

^[136] Chris Worrall, ‘Britain’s housing crisis is being worsened by outdated review mechanisms. It’s time to abolish them’, Left Foot Forward, October 2024. Link

^[137] Section 14 New Zealand Planning Bill 2025

^[138] Dual aspect requirements involved having windows on multiple walls facing different directions. Number of homes per core limited how many homes could be built on the part of a floor served by a bank of lifts and stairs

^[139] Under London Plan guidance flats are expected to provide at least 5m² for one to two person dwellings with an additional 1m² for each additional occupant. Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors data indicate that the construction cost per m² to be between £2,027 to £2,773 for flats. Applying those construction costs to the mandated size of balconies produces an estimate of between £10,000 to £20,000. See: BNP Paribas Real Estate, ‘London Borough of Croydon: Local Plan Viability Assessment’, Croydon Council, January 2024. Link

^[140] James Gleeson, ‘Housing Research Note 6: an analysis of housing floorspace per person’, GLA Housing and Land, February 2021. Link

^[141] Anthony Breach, ‘Breaking the Bottlenecks’, Centre for Cities. May 2025. Link

^[142] Ibid.

^[143] Michael Hill, ‘Anatomy of a Planning Committee’, Notes on Growth, February 2026. Link

^[144] CPS and Onward analysis of Census 2021. Link; Noah Vickers, ‘Twice as many journeys in outer London are by car than in centre of capital’, The Standard, 6 June 2023. Link

^[145] Winkworth Maida Vale, ‘3 bedroom flat’, On the market. Link

^[146] Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, ‘Impact Assessment on the introduction of Second Staircases’, March 2024. Link

^[147] Robert Colvile and Tom Cloughtery, ‘The future of regulation’, April 2024. Link

^[148] Tom Howard, ‘The staircase safety rule costing the UK 90,000 new homes’, The Times, 9 February 2026. Link

^[149] Ibid.

^[150] Anthony Breach, ‘Breaking the Bottlenecks’, Centre for Cities. May 2025. Link

^[151] BCIS, ‘Housebuilders estimate cost uplift for meeting Part L between 1.8% and 7%’, June 2022. Link

^[152] Office for National Statistics, ‘Age of the property is the biggest single factor in energy efficiency of homes’, January 2022. Link

^[153] Fire Protection Association, ‘Lack of understanding and backlogs delay Gateway 2 application approvals’, April 2025. Link

^[154] UK Government, ‘BSR in action: Regulating higher-risk buildings in England’, Link

^[155] Tegan Johnson, ‘Updates from the Building Safety Regulator – Unblocking the Gateways for Higher Risk Buildings’, Charles Russell Speechlys, November 2025. Link

^[156] Katy Warrick and Rob Pollock, ‘Gateways – the latest valve shutting off London’s supply of new homes’, Savills, September 2025. Link

^[157] Richard Brookes, Isabel Jones, ‘Towards a new London Plan: Urban intensification, tall buildings and heritage assets’, Turley, May 2025. Link

^[158] Dave Rogers, ‘Gateway 2 cases backlog virtually cleared as government responds damning Lords report on BSR’, Building Design, March 2026. Link

^[159] Dave Rogers, ‘Hold-ups now dogging gateway 3 building safety approvals, FOI reveals’, Building.co.uk, February 2026. Link

^[160] Chris Worrall, ‘Schrodinger’s Skyscraper’, The New Worrall Order, February 2026. Link

^[161] Anthony Breach, ‘Breaking the Bottlenecks’, Centre for Cities. May 2025. Link

The post Fixing London Housing appeared first on Onward.

The post Fixing London Housing: A centre-right plan to get London building again appeared first on Onward.

Achieving change is very difficult when it imposes concentrated costs on a group of people who have the power and motivation to resist it. 

When the Meiji Government came to power in 1868, they wanted to turn Japan into a centralised, industrialised, and fiscally modern state that could hold its own with the great powers of the West. One of the many problems they faced were the samurai, who received expensive and hereditary stipends that constituted over a third of government expenditure. The samurai strongly opposed the ending of these stipends, which were their primary income, a resistance which had teeth because of their monopoly on violence as the traditional warrior class. Instead of going to war with the samurai, the Japanese Government bought them out by replacing these stipends with government bonds, thus avoiding mass expropriation and an ensuing civil war, and turning their expensive liabilities into a manageable public debt. 

The lesson of the Meiji Government’s approach is that making these highly affected groups the key beneficiaries of a change can make that change possible. That is how land readjustment, a mechanism that allows fragmented land to be pooled, re-planned and re-plotted, works. Land readjustment attempts to reward those who are most supported by a proposed development – those whose land a scheme involves – by sharing the resulting value uplift of that development with them. 

The system of land readjustment, as proposed by this report, flows from the twin principles of consent and mutual benefit, aiming to give those who stand to lose the most from a development good reasons to support it. It is also a proposal that seeks to treat those who might oppose a development as rational people with real concerns who can be negotiated with. 

This timely exploration of the principles of land readjustment is essential reading for policymakers considering the challenge Britain faces in delivering the homes and infrastructure it needs.

– Lord Banner KC

Executive summary

This paper proposes the introduction of land readjustment to the UK, a land assembly mechanism in use in many other countries. The UK currently relies on two other tools to deal with the challenges of assembling land for development: negotiated sales and compulsory purchase. But both of these have their drawbacks as well as advantages. 

Negotiated sales are by nature fragile. A single holdout landowner in a key location, without which the development cannot proceed, can collapse a scheme by demanding a disproportionately high price or simply by refusing to sell. Compulsory purchase, while sometimes indispensable, is slow and legally fractious. As a form of expropriation, it must also be used sparingly. Land readjustment can be integrated into our system as a third way between these two tools, less fragile than negotiated sales and more democratic than compulsory purchase. 

Land readjustment means that multiple owners, working with a developer, can pool their plots so that their land is developed as a whole. After development, that land is redistributed back to owners in smaller but more valuable plots. These plots are smaller because some land is retained by the developer to sell as a profit and because some is necessary for new infrastructure, like parks or a new road system. To go ahead in the first place, a land readjustment scheme must have the support of a supermajority of landowners who own a supermajority of the land in question. 

In this paper, we demonstrate how a land readjustment scheme might unfold in the UK using the example of Park Royal, an excellently located industrial area in London. And we give further insight into how land readjustment is already at work in other jurisdictions with examples from Japan and Spain.

Introduction

Land is often divided into a jigsaw of small, irregular plots, each with its own owner. This fragmentation poses a major obstacle to development and existing tools to pool such land and permit development on it are inadequate. Projects are particularly susceptible to collapse by a small number of holdout landowners.

This paper describes the issue posed by fragmented land and outlines how land readjustment, a globally tried and tested urban planning tool, can help develop such land in the UK. Land readjustment allows multiple owners to pool their plots so that land can be redeveloped as a whole, before being redistributed back to owners in smaller but more valuable plots. There are two key principles at the heart of land readjustment and of the version this paper proposes. First, is that a large majority of the affected rights-holders, be they freeholders or leaseholders, must support the development. Second, the value created by that development is fairly shared back to those rights-holders.

As one walks through the English countryside, like the stretch of Cornish coast above, one crosses field boundaries that squiggle and snake. Thin strips of land sit alongside squat rectangles with bulging sides. One field here curves while its neighbour fans out like a skirt. This patchwork is the result of the piecemeal clearance of heath and woodland by neolithic and medieval farmsteads, of the solidifying process of enclosure, and myriad other events from the parcelling out of land between siblings to the selling off of strips to raise dowries or pay debts. 

Similar fragmentation characterises many significantly more built up areas. Fragmented and yet underdeveloped land is particularly common in former industrial areas – for example where streets and plots have evolved around long-vanished rail lines, depots and estates – and at the suburban fringes of cities. 

The complexity of these often well-located pieces of land now constrains development. Redeveloping these areas requires assembling numerous owners, coordinating the construction of infrastructure, and negotiating with landlords who are prepared to hold out indefinitely for a better deal. 

We have been in this situation before. The legacy left to us by the open field system, a medieval feudal farming system, was highly fragmented land burdened with a complex web of rights and ownership. The end of the open field system in England was achieved by what is easily recognisable as a type of land readjustment. This was crucial in unlocking land for more productive uses as the Industrial Revolution was beginning. In fact, in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, Parliament was extremely active in using its powers to assemble land for development. Every major railway was authorised by its own Act and given the power to assemble the land it needed and turnpike trusts and canal companies were given statutory powers to purchase land and to organise new infrastructure.¹ 

To address the challenges of fragmented land today, this paper sets out: how land readjustment works and our history of it; how modern land readjustment works in other countries; and how a revived UK version could unlock development in what are now highly challenging sites.

The challenge of fragmented land

To understand the challenge that land with fragmented ownership poses to development, consider the example of London’s Park Royal, pictured below. Though in easy reach of stations on the Piccadilly and Central lines, it consists mainly of warehouses, with an incoherent road pattern that is the legacy of attempts to accommodate now defunct rail lines and depots. Park Royal is a very valuable piece of land. A great number of homes could be built there, helping to ease London’s acute housing shortage. If the sections of Park Royal within a ten minute walk to a tube or train station alone were developed to Paris-level densities (400 dwellings per hectare), then 135,000 new homes could be built.² But to accomplish that, a would-be developer would need to consolidate Park Royal.

The alternative, redeveloping just one plot in the area, is much less desirable, both to developers and planning authorities. This is not only for reasons of fixed costs, economies of scale, and viability, but also because of infrastructure and access for the small strip of homes that might be fitted onto a single plot as it exists now.

Consider also that some vital pieces of infrastructure require odd bits of land to be assembled. To build a new road through Park Royal, connecting it better to other parts of London, a long thin piece of land must be acquired that will doubtless cut through the existing properties and land of many different owners. A similar problem is presented by other major bits of infrastructure that must be built.

Existing tools are inadequate

To assemble the land, the would-be developer of Park Royal has two options available: negotiated sales and compulsory purchase.

Negotiated sales

Negotiated sales mean that a developer – or a public body, if the development is being coordinated by a development corporation or a council –  must negotiate a deal with each landowner separately. If the pictured area of Park Royal was to be redeveloped, it would require the developer to successfully: establish who the owner is of every single bit of land; make contact with that person or entity; and persuade that owner to sell them that land for a price that is not so high that it makes the entire development project economically unviable.

Negotiating sales on an individual basis in an area like Park Royal, where there may very easily be over forty owners, will take a long time. But it also means that a small number of holdout landowners – and in some cases just one –  can collapse an entire project. For example, a landowner who owns a large warehouse in a crucial central part of a development may refuse to sell. Or a small group of landowners in certain key areas within a proposed development, knowing their land is key to that development’s viability, may hold out for so high a sale price that a developer cannot buy them off without making the venture unprofitable for themselves.

Compulsory purchase

This brings us to compulsory purchase, which is currently the UK’s primary planning tool to deal with holdout landlords in developments of regional or national significance. A Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) allows certain public bodies (such as local authorities and government departments) and some private companies with statutory powers that run essential infrastructure (like airports) to purchase land without the consent of the owner, when it is in the public interest to do so. A high profile recent use of compulsory purchase is in order to secure the land necessary to build HS2.  

Compulsory purchase is expropriation and there are a number of safeguards upon it. For a CPO to be compatible with the right to property under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as applied to UK law by the Human Rights Act, it must meet a legitimate public interest test and strike a fair balance between that public interest and the rights of affected property owners. Government guidance on that public interest test specifies that local authorities must show a “compelling case in the public interest”. CPOs must also be approved by the government via the relevant Secretary of State. The affected owners must be compensated so that they are not financially worse off than if their property had not been compulsorily purchased. Finally, the affected owners are able to object and have the proposed CPO independently adjudicated. 

Even with these safeguards in place, compulsory purchase remains a way for the government to legally violate private property rights in the aid of what it judges to be the greater good. As a result, it is unpopular and should be used sparingly. Furthermore, the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill will remove the safeguard that a local authority’s CPO must be approved by a Secretary of State.

Councils must often turn to compulsory purchase to assemble land in complicated multiowner brownfield sites. But for most local authorities, the process is very slow and extremely resource-intensive. The challenges of fragmented ownership, title constraints, viability tests, hope-value compensation and legal risk mean that CPO is treated as a last resort. There is a mismatch here: being able to assemble fragmented land for development is very valuable, but the power that is supposed to allow it to happen where there is a compelling public interest is excruciatingly difficult.

Our proposal: land readjustment

What is land readjustment?

Land readjustment is a legal mechanism that allows the various owners of a fragmented area of land to pool that land so that it can be developed as one. Currently, valuable areas on suburban fringes or in complex urban areas like Park Royal can be very challenging to develop because of fragmented ownership. Land readjustment, an urban planning tool that has been in use in countries all over the world for decades, offers a third way to realise such developments.

England’s history of land readjustment

“Common field arable usually lies, respecting the lots of individuals, in so scattered and divided a state, that every operation of tillage, harvest…is carried on at an expense considerably greater than in enclosures…” – Arthur Young, General Report on Enclosure (1808)

England previously developed a highly successful version of land readjustment in response to difficulties not unlike those we face with fragmented land today. Well into the nineteenth century, parts of rural England were owned and worked under the medieval manorial open-field and common-rights system, affected by a tangled burden of rights and duties that impeded development.

In terms of arable land, this meant fields that were physically divided into small strips. A field might be owned by a single freeholder but parcelled out into strips, each farmed by a copyholder with the customary right to work that land. Or, a single field might comprise strips owned by and farmed by various freeholders, with some strips leased out, and others farmed by copyholders though still owned by a freeholder. Similarly, pasture land was often grazed under the ‘stint’ system.³ A stint provided how many animals a local freeholder could graze on the piece of land in question and was generally attached to a particular tenement and were heritable. In some parts of England, stints or fractions of stints could be sold or traded separately.

This system could be inflexible and acted as a restraint on economic development. A stint-holder could not unilaterally put the land their animals grazed on to different and more productive uses without the consent of others who also held stints over the same piece of land. Scattered arable strips also impeded development and change of use, as any reorganisation required numerous small rights-holders to come together and agree. 

Efforts to reorganise such land, known as enclosure, were often carried out informally by local agreement. But after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, Parliament became significantly more active and so took on a much greater role in this process of land reorganisation.⁴ From the late seventeenth century, freeholders and small rights-holders began to respond to the problem of land with severely fragmented ownership by coming together to petition Parliament to reorganise the rights to specific pieces of land. As with modern land readjustment, a petition to reorganise a piece of fragmented land required the consent of a supermajority of the affected landowners to succeed, with a necessary threshold of somewhere between 75% to 80% of landowners by value.⁵ 

If successful in their petition, Parliament would pass a private Act permitting the reorganisation and development of the land and appointing commissioners to oversee it. The commissioners were charged with surveying the land in question to clearly establish who had what rights over it, deciding how the consolidated land should be thus shared out, and developing new infrastructure like drains or roads.⁶ 

The General Inclosure Act of 1801 standardised much of the content of these private Acts, but it remained the case that every enclosure required its own private Act of Parliament. The General Inclosure Act of 1836 made it possible to enclose land without a private Act, as long as two-thirds of affected landowners both in number and land value consented.⁷ Under the Inclosure Act 1845, the enclosure process was streamlined further and individual private Acts were replaced with Provisional Orders that were confirmed by Parliament in bulk. 

In this way, Parliament was able to dissolve the impediments of the common field system on demand from those it directly hindered, reorganising the rights over that land and giving individuals new rights over particular bits of land. This process of land readjustment was an “essential prelude to the Industrial Revolution”.⁸ It meant that commonly held agricultural land could be turned to new uses with new infrastructure, with housing and industry springing up where before only grazing or farming had been permitted.⁹ The difference even in agricultural terms between enclosed and open field land was highly observable. In an 1808 report for the General Board of Agriculture, agricultural economist Arthur Young wrote that the parish of Childersley, despite sharing “perfectly similar soil” with the neighbouring parish of Hardwicke, was significantly more productive than Hardwicke in terms of wheat, barley, oats and beans.¹⁰ 

Just like the modern land readjustment that takes place all over the world, this organically developed system was a way of consolidating highly fragmented land and allowing it to be put to more productive uses. Just like modern land readjustment, it required the support of a supermajority of the landowners affected to take place. And again just like modern land readjustment, it compensated those with a prior interest in the land by giving them new plots. 

How could land readjustment work in the UK today?

Section 5 explains how land readjustment works in two case study countries, Japan and Spain. But first, it is helpful to summarise step by step how the land readjustment works in general, which we illustrate with the example of Park Royal.

Park Royal and land readjustment: a hypothetical case study

The Mayor of London, looking for ways to densify and make better use of land in the city, asks Ealing Council to look into developing Park Royal. The various owners of Park Royal each possess only a small piece of land in the area, perhaps a warehouse or two, situated on a higgledy-piggledy road network. 

Ealing Council knows that Park Royal could be much more productively used than it is now. Land could be assembled to permit the development of a data centre, or the area might instead host new homes, within easy walk of the local tube station. But Ealing’s assessment is that the process of development would be slow and uncertain (using negotiated sales) or slow, controversial and legally fraught (using CPOs).  

Many of the Park Royal landowners themselves know that their land has great development potential. But they face a collective action problem. Each of their respective bits of land are near other warehouses, just as unsightly as their own. It makes little sense to attempt to develop their small, oddly shaped parcel of land with homes, right in the middle of an industrial estate. No developer approaches them with such a proposition. 

A new way forward emerges when land readjustment is introduced into the UK.

1. An area is designated and approved as a candidate for land readjustment. For an area to be eligible for land readjustment, it must be proposed as such by the local council and then approved by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Ealing Council proposes Park Royal be designated and it is approved for land readjustment by the Secretary of State.
2. A land readjustment scheme is drawn up. A developing agent, which can be a private or a public entity, is appointed by Ealing Council. The agent draws up a land readjustment scheme for Park Royal. The scheme proposes replotting the land, giving it a new road network, and developing it with homes or perhaps new infrastructure. If homes are proposed, the plan is likely to include amenities such as parks. 
3. That scheme is voted on by the affected landowners and can only go ahead if approved on a supermajority basis. This proposal is put to Park Royal’s landowners in a ballot. The scheme will only happen if a supermajority of landowners owning a supermajority of the land vote in favour of it. This democratic system prevents a large number of small landowners forcing a landowner with a large amount of land to develop. A minority of Park Royal landowners strongly oppose the scheme and do vote against it, but ultimately a supermajority of landowners who own most of the land vote in favour and so the scheme is approved.
4. The scheme receives planning permission. The developing agent submits an application for planning permission to Ealing council and an environmental impact assessment if required.  Approval from the Building Safety Regulator, if applicable, is also sought.
5. The approved area is redeveloped. The agent redevelops Park Royal. This includes knocking down existing warehouses and buildings to impose a coherent new road pattern and to create regular plots. The development will include the improvement of the area’s infrastructure in line with the approved plan.
6. The plots are shared back out to landowners but a percentage is retained by the developer. Now that the development is complete, the new plots are shared out to Park Royal landowners in proportion to what each contributed to the scheme. The Valuation Office Agency, which already exists and specialises in property valuation, assists in making sure that the plan gives owners back plots that are proportionate to what the land they contributed to the scheme. The plot of land each landowner receives is not necessarily in the same area where they had owned land before, and is also smaller than that they had because of space taken up by new infrastructure and because a portion is retained by developing agent to sell and so make a profit on the scheme. Yet though smaller, these new plots are much more valuable to the landowners. This is because, regularly shaped and now located with new and improved infrastructure nearby, they are ideal to be sold on for further development.
7. Landowners are now likely to sell their land on. The landowners are now likely to sell their plots, thereby realising the value uplift that their supermajority vote facilitated.

A third way between negotiated sales and compulsory purchase

Land readjustment sits between negotiated sales and compulsory purchase as a third way planning tool, more democratic and less intrusive than compulsory purchase and yet more efficient and less fragile than negotiated sales. Currently, the development of a fragmented area of land can be stymied by a small number of holdout landlords who, by refusing to support development, can collapse a whole project, even when the majority of landlords are in favour of it. Faster than individual negotiated sales, land readjustment allows landowners to negotiate and realise value uplift as a bloc. No single landowner can act as a veto player because if a supermajority of landowners who own a supermajority of the affected land support a scheme, it can go ahead.

But even under this system, a holdout landowner who votes against a land readjustment scheme but is overruled by the supermajority will be better off than if a CPO had been deployed against him. If his land had been compulsorily purchased, the holdout landowner would only have received cash compensation equivalent to his land’s market value. But because his land is part of a land readjustment scheme, the holdout landowner not only receives back a physical asset at the end of the development, he receives one that is worth more than what it was previously. This is reflective of how land readjustment allows urban planners to share the value uplist of development with those it asks most of, giving those people an incentive to cooperate in the creation of better amenities for all. These key differences between land readjustment and expropriative tools like compulsory purchase mean that land readjustment projects are much less likely to be held up by legal challenges, for example by challenges under Protocol 1, Article 1 of the ECHR.

Further positive data is provided by estate regeneration, to some extent a relative of land readjustment that is already working well in the UK. Estate regeneration concerns the development of low density post-war social housing in high-value areas like London. Under a regeneration scheme, an estate is re-developed only on the basis of a ballot of residents. If a proposed regeneration scheme wins the supermajority support of the residents, it goes ahead. In return for supporting the development, residents receive a new and much improved home and the developer is even able to add new social housing to the estate.¹¹ Developers are motivated to offer to undertake these schemes because the regeneration creates additional homes that they can sell at a profit. Between 2018 and 2024 alone, residents have voted in favour of forty estate regeneration schemes in London, demonstrating the willingness of tenants to support a scheme that allows them to share in the benefits created by development.¹² 

International case studies

Japan

In 1923, three strong earthquakes hit Tokyo in the span of around seven minutes. More than half of the city was destroyed and tens of thousands of people were killed in the quakes and the fires that followed. Land readjustment, which had already been used in Japan to consolidate farm land, was deployed on a large-scale to rebuild Tokyo. After the Second World War, it was again much used to rebuild Japan’s cities and in 1954 the government passed the Land Readjustment Act, systemising how land readjustment worked across the country. In addition to post-disaster rebuilding, Japan has also used land readjustment to develop new towns, regenerate urban districts, and build important infrastructure like railway stations.¹³ As of 2003, land readjustment has been used to develop roughly a third of Japan’s entire urban area.¹⁴

Step by step, this is how land readjustment works in Japan¹⁵:

1. An area is designated for land readjustment by a municipality or prefecture. This authorises the area for land readjustment but does not compel it.
2. A body is created to deliver the land readjustment project. The 1954 Act allows for several different types of delivery bodies to be created or brought into to manage the project:
   • A Land Readjustment Association, formed voluntarily by landowners and leaseholders. This is the most common delivery body;
   • The municipality or prefecture, often used for post-disaster reconstruction or new-town development;
   • A private corporation, authorised by the prefectural governor where public or association methods are impractical;
   • The Urban Renaissance Agency, for complex or multi-jurisdictional urban projects.
3. If the land readjustment project is government-led (by the Urban Renaissance Agency, the prefecture or the municipality) then it can proceed without the affected owners and leaseholders’ consent to the project. However, in practice, projects do not go ahead against substantial opposition. If the project is led by a Land Readjustment Association – as most are – then a proposed scheme must have the support of at least two-thirds of the affected landowners and two-thirds of the affected leaseholders, each representing at least two-thirds of the affected land area, in order to go ahead.
4. The delivery body creates a project plan, outlining how land parcels will be reorganised, how much land will be contributed for public use, and how costs will be financed through the sale of reserve land. The plan must be approved by the prefectural governor, unless the project is being delivered by the Urban Renaissance Agency in which case the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism must approve it.
5. The area is redeveloped according to the plan.
6. The replotted land is shared back out to landowners, each of whom ends up with a smaller but more valuable plot than what they owned previously. Where necessary, cash equalisation payments to a landowner can be used to correct discrepancies in the value of their new land in comparison to the old. The only land not shared back to landowners is that which now hosts public infrastructure and that which is sold by the delivery body to cover its costs.

The Misato Chūō land readjustment project

In the 1990s, the Japanese government approved plans for a new express train that would connect Akihabara in central Tokyo with the Tsukuba Science Park. The new line would pass through and build a new station at Misato, an area on Tokyo’s northern fringe with a mix of farmland and suburbia.  

Recognising that this development would give the area superb transport links straight into the heart of Tokyo, Misato’s municipal government proposed designating the land around the new station for land readjustment. The proposal was approved by the Saitama Prefectural Government, which holds statutory authority over such designations. 

Local landowners then together formed a Land Readjustment Association – the Misato Chūō Land Readjustment Association – which became formally established once the legally required two-thirds of landowners representing two-thirds of the land area had consented, and its founding documents were endorsed by the Saitama Prefectural Governor. The project covered about 115 hectares of farmland surrounding the future station, coordinating the replotting of roughly 3,000 parcels of land. Landowners contributed around 35-40% of their holdings to be used for public facilities and for reserve land. The project was majority financed by reserve land sales, but it did also receive government subsidies towards the costs of significant new infrastructure, like major roads.

Roads, sewerage, parks, and a community centre were laid out in advance of the railway’s 2005 opening, and existing buildings were either relocated or integrated into replotted parcels. Upon completion, each landowner received a smaller but more valuable plot, and cash equalisation payments to ensure that gains and losses were balanced across participants. Average land values hugely increased, from about ¥151,000 per m² before the project to ¥295,000 per m² after completion (an increase of roughly $1,700 per m² to $2,600 per m²)¹⁶, while the district gained schools, shops, and mid-rise housing linked directly to Akihabara in under 30 minutes. Today, the train services that run between Akihabara and the Park carry over 390,000 people daily, with many passengers boarding and alighting at Misato. ¹⁷

Valencia, Spain¹⁸

The Spanish region of Valencia has developed a very different model to Japan’s, forced to innovate after initially struggling to make the national land readjustment system work well. Under the reparcelación system that Spain first introduced in its 1956 Land Act, an area could be designated as a ‘developable’ for land readjustment by the local municipal plan. This designation gave landowners in that area development rights. But it also gave those landowners obligations: if they were to take advantage of the designation and redevelop, then they must also finance infrastructure and cede land for public uses. However, the land readjustment process introduced by the 1956 Act was burdensome and demanding of landowners.

In order to actually begin land readjustment and take advantage of their development rights, the Land Act required landowners to form an association called a Junta de Compensación. The formation of the Junta plays the role that the ballot stage does in the Japanese land readjustment system: the Junta could not be formed unless landowners owning at least 60% of the affected land agreed to participate. If this threshold was reached, the remaining 40% of the land was automatically incorporated into the development scheme, whether or not the landowners consented.

Once created, the Junta’s first job was to draw up two planning documents, one replotting the area and one making provision for new infrastructure and how it would be financed. Under the act, these plans would then need to undergo public consultation before being approved by the municipality. Pending the approval of these planning documents, the land would then be developed, the plots shared back out to landowners, and the land set aside for public use ceded to the municipality for development. 

Most small landowners are not developers and have no developing experience, but the land readjustment process introduced by the 1956 Act relied heavily on landowners to lead on the process and take major decisions. That meant landowners had to do the work of establishing who owns what bit of land in the designated area and creating a plan for replotting and redistribution. 

With few land readjustment projects initiating or completing, the Spanish government responded by revising the 1956 Act in 1976 to introduce the role of the agente urbanizador: the urbanising agent. The agent’s role was to redistribute the replotted land and create new infrastructure as part of the redevelopment. This relieved landlords themselves of the need to negotiate with one another and draw up plans themselves. 

However, while an improvement on the previous system, urbanising agents struggled to successfully negotiate with landowners, over whom they had little leverage. As with the typical negotiated sales process, individual landowners were often motivated to delay negotiations, holding out for the offer of a better plot or simply preferring not to cooperate with the land readjustment scheme at all. Agents had no way to compel landowners to cooperate or negotiate and so often came to an impasse.

In recognition of this problem and the subsequent dearth of land readjustment projects, the region of Valencia made several changes to its land readjustment process in 1994, including: 

1. Urbanising agents became able to get municipal approval for forced land readjustment if landowners refused to cooperate.
2. The use of an urbanising agent was made mandatory and the selection of agents through public tender became mandatory.

Would-be developers now competed in cost, quality and delivery times to win tenders to develop land in Valencia. Replacing amateur small landowners as the driving force behind readjustment projects, these professional developers could then negotiate with landowners knowing, knowing that the municipality could step in to break the veto of a holdout landlord. No more could certain landowners stall a project in the hope of forcing a better offer from the urbanising agent.

The effects of these changes were dramatic. The process of forming a junta had taken an average of three to five years prior to 1994. Post-1994, it took only an average of three to seven months from the start of the tender process for an agent to be chosen. The number of new land readjustment projects in Valencia per year rose from roughly 40 between 1990 and 1994 to 240 by 1998. Valencia’s success has influenced the rest of Spain, with the majority of other Spanish regions making similar reforms.

Conclusion

There is strong political consensus that Britain needs to build more homes and more infrastructure. But major projects of this kind will often generate strong and sustained opposition from the group of people most affected by it. Land readjustment seeks to win the cooperation of those most likely to oppose a development by giving them a fair share in the value uplift that it will create. It recognises them as rational actors who can be negotiated with and gives them a material stake in the development.

Such a system is not alien to Britain. As this paper has shown, England has its own history of using supermajority-backed land reorganisation to consolidate land rights and unlock land for more productive uses. Nor is it theoretical: in countries including Japan and Spain, modern land readjustment plays a key role in large scale urban and rural development projects. 

A modern British land readjustment system can help make developments in highly desirable areas more possible by turning opposition to such changes into support. Land readjustment cannot independently “solve” the problem of British planning – that it is consistently very difficult to get things built in many parts of the country – but it can help. And it can help in a way that is democratic and non-expropriative. It is time to revive this forgotten mechanism.   

1. “Private Acts”, UK Parliament, https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/transportcomms/roadsrail/overview/privateacts/, accessed 26 November 2025. ↩︎
2. Sam Dumitriu and Ben Hopkinson, “Get London Building”, Britain Remade, https://assets.nationbuilder.com/britainremade/pages/788/attachments/original/1708671597/Britain_Remade-Get_London_Building.pdf?1708671597 (2024). ↩︎
3. Angus J. L. Winchester and Eleanor A. Straughton, “Stints and sustainability: managing stock levels on common land in England, c.1600-2006”, British Agricultural History Society (2010). ↩︎
4.  Gregory Clark and Anthony Clark, “Common Rights to Land in England, 1475 – 1839”, The Journal of Economic History (2001); Julian Hoppit, Britain’s Political Economies, Parliament and Economic Life 1660-1800, Cambridge University Press (2017). ↩︎
5.  Philip Loft, “Petitioning and Petitioners to the Westminster Parliament, 1600–1788”, Parliamentary History (2019). ↩︎
6. Dan Bogart and Gary Richardson, “Property Rights and Parliament in Industrializing Britain”, Journal of Law and Economics (2011). ↩︎
7. Leander Heldring, James A. Robinson and Sebastian Vollmer, “The Economic Effects of the English Parliamentary Enclosures”, National Bureau of Economic Research (2023). ↩︎
8. “Agricultural Revolution”, Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/enclosure (accessed 21 November 2025). ↩︎
9. Dan Bogart and Gary Richardson, “Property Rights and Parliament in Industrializing Britain”, Journal of Law and Economics (2011). ↩︎
10. Arthur Young, General Report on Enclosure, The Board of Agriculture (1808), page 217. ↩︎
11. Samuel Hughes, “The Cambridge plan is a great idea – but it isn’t a model for solving the housing crisis”, CAPX, https://capx.co/the-cambridge-plan-is-a-great-idea-but-it-isnt-a-model-for-solving-the-housing-crisis (2023). ↩︎
12. “Estate regeneration projects where residents voted in favour of regeneration”, London Assembly, https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-05/Estate_regeneration_List_of_positive_ballots_31.12.24.pdf (2024). ↩︎
13. Felipe Francisco De Souza, “Land Readjustment: Solving urban problems through innovative approach” JICA Research Institute (2018). ↩︎
14. Felipe Francisco De Souza, “Land Readjustment: Solving urban problems through innovative approach” JICA Research Institute (2018). ↩︎
15. Felipe Francisco De Souza, “Land Readjustment: Solving urban problems through innovative approach” JICA Research Institute (2018). ↩︎
16. Felipe Francisco De Souza, “Land Readjustment: Solving urban problems through innovative approach” JICA Research Institute (2018). ↩︎
17. Matthew Bornholt, “More, better trains: lessons from the Tsukuba Express”, Greater London Project (2024). ↩︎
18. Demetrio Muñoz Gielen and Willem K. Korthals Altes, “Lessons from Valencia: Separating infrastructure provision from landownership”, Town Planning Review (2007). ↩︎

The post Building Consent appeared first on Onward.

This report provides a comprehensive, forward-looking assessment of how net migration levels will influence house prices and rents in England and Wales (E&W) through the 2025–2029 parliamentary term. Drawing on global and UK peer-reviewed research, it models two scenarios: a high-migration case (≥400,000 UK net annually, skewed low-skilled with real income drags from energy costs and net-zero policies) and a zero-net-migration case (Denmark-style, with productivity gains from reindustrialization and cheaper energy). 

Key assumptions incorporate September 2025 data: E&W dwelling stock 27.3 million (up from 27.1 million mid-2024, with 201,000 completions to Q2 2025); net migration year-ending June 2025 at 250,000 (down from 2023 peaks); natural population change mildly positive early but declining to negative by 2029 per ONS projections; annual supply growth at 0.8%. Income effects are factored via elasticities (0.6 median), with high migration depressing wages -0.5% annually and real incomes -1% (energy cap at £1,755/year, 50% above pre-crisis); zero migration boosting real incomes +1% via +0.5% productivity and energy relief.

Results: High migration yields +2.0–3.0% cumulative price rise and +1.7–2.5% rents (modest due to supply and drags); zero migration -1.0–1.8% prices and -0.8–1.5% rents (cushioned by income gains). Supply constraints amplify urban pressures. Policy must balance migration with housing delivery to mitigate affordability risks, leveraging reindustrialization for sustainable growth.

1) Introduction

The UK’s housing market faces persistent affordability challenges, exacerbated by population dynamics and supply inelasticity. As of September 2025, E&W house prices stand at £290,000 average (up 2.5% year-on-year), while rents have surged 7.8% to £1,235/month, outpacing wage growth at 4.2%. Net migration, which accounted for 90% of UK population growth in 2024, remains a pivotal driver – year-ending June 2025 net at 250,000, down from 745,000 in 2023 but still above historical norms due to student and work visas.

This research synthesizes peer-reviewed evidence to project impacts through 2029 under constrained supply (0.8% annual net additions). It contrasts a continuation of high migration (≥400,000 net, per government baselines) with a restrictive Denmark-style zero-net target, overlaying current trends like declining natural change and income effects from energy prices/productivity.

Forward projections are critical: ONS estimates UK population reaching 70 million by 2026, driven by migration amid natural stagnation. Without intervention, imbalances could widen inequality, with low-income renters hit hardest. This analysis employs causal elasticities from studies like Saiz (2007) and MAC (2018), adjusted for UK specifics, to deliver actionable insights for policymakers and investors.

2) Literature Review: Global and UK Evidence on Immigration, Incomes, and Housing

Peer-reviewed research underscores immigration’s demand-side pressure on housing, modulated by incomes and supply. Globally, a 1% population increase from immigration raises rents 0.6-1.2% and prices 1-2% (Saiz 2007, Journal of Urban Economics; Ottaviano & Peri 2007, Journal of the European Economic Association), with effects 2-3x larger in inelastic markets (e.g. UK’s planning constraints, supply elasticity 0.5-0.7 vs. US 1.5).

US studies highlight short-term spikes fading via native mobility: Monras (2020, American Economic Review) finds low-skilled inflows reduce rents 0.5-1% long-run due to out-migration, but +1% short-run. Research on “white flight” – the out-migration of white residents in response to non-white immigration – further explains these dynamics. Boustan (2010) estimates that white flight accounted for about 20% of postwar suburbanization in US cities during the ‘Black Great Migration’, redistributing demand and mitigating urban housing pressures. 

More recently, Pan (2024) documents similar patterns of white families leaving affluent California suburbs as Asian immigrants arrived, linked to school competition, which stabilizes local prices through reduced net demand. These mobility patterns contribute to persistent segregated housing, where ethnic enclaves form and influence rents and values over time. 

For instance, Saiz and Wachter (2011) analyse how Hispanic immigration growth led to increased segregation in US metro areas from 1970 to 2000, resulting in divergent price trajectories: rising values in white suburbs (+5-10% premium) and slower rent growth in immigrant-heavy neighbourhoods (0.5-1% annual dampening), perpetuating affordability gaps across racial lines. 

Canada and Australia show stronger persistence: Akbari & Aydede (2012, Regional Science and Urban Economics) estimate 0.8-1.2% price rises per 1% inflow in Toronto/Vancouver, driven by high-skilled immigrants; Stillman & Maré (2008, Economic Record) 0.9-1.1% in Sydney, amplified by urban concentration. European evidence aligns: Sanchis-Guarner (2017, LSE) reports 3.3% price and 1% rent increases per 1pp immigration rate in Spain, with +24% indirect amplification from native co-location. Gonzalez & Ortega (2013, Journal of Urban Economics) confirm 2% short-term prices in Spain; Mussa et al. (2017, Switzerland) null overall but +0.5% in high-flow areas.

UK-specific: MAC (2018) attributes 1% national price rise per 1pp population growth, 2-3x in the South East; Whitehead et al. (2011) links 20-30% of 1990s-2000s growth to migration. Sá (2015, Economic Journal) finds local -1.6% prices per 1% low-skilled inflow due to high-income native flight (0.85% outflow), but national net positive. Meta-analyses (Card 2009) affirm median 1% elasticity, higher for rents (quicker adjustment).

Shor-term spikes happen after an influx of immigrants (especially lower skilled workers) move into a city or neighbourhood; housing demand shoots up fast. More people mean more competition for rentals or homes, so prices and rents jump quickly. The reason natives (long-time residents) often pack up and move to nearby cheaper areas. This “out-migration” frees up housing supply, balancing things out and cooling price and rental growth. The initial jump does not last forever, as it eases off over time. 

In short, immigration causes a quick housing squeeze, but locals relocating to avoid the crunch eventually spreads out the pressure. This makes things more affordable again, but at what cost. It is like a crowded party, new guests arrive and it is packed, but some of the old-timers slip out the back door, so everyone gets more space. 

Incomes refine this: Housing demand elasticity 0.5-1.0 to income (DiPasquale & Wheaton 1996, Journal of Urban Economics). Immigration’s wage effects: -0.5–2% for low-skilled natives short-term (Dustmann et al. 2013, UK; Monras 2015, US) – dampen via reduced affordability, stabilising rent-to-income ratios (Card 2005, Journal of Economic Literature). 

In layman, immigration adds demand pressure by hurting low-skilled natives’ wallets (through higher housing costs), which leaves them with less to spend on housing. Perversely, it statistically takes the edge off the affordability crunch. It is not a fix. Prices still rise a bit, but it in effect prevents overheating. A native squeeze for market ease. But over time, say 3-5 years, people adjust (better jobs or moving to cheaper locations), and things balance out. 

If wages rose instead (from skilled immigration), it would still turn housing into a bidding war where low-skilled natives would lose ground the fastest. They would end up renting worse places further out, commuting longer, all the while feeling the pinch. Skilled immigration might supercharge the economy through improved GDP, but it comes with costs if policymakers do not build more homes fast. Otherwise, it is a rough ride for those at the bottom.

Yet although skilled immigration may exacerbate housing pressures for low-skilled natives – sparking a bidding war that pushes them to distant, subpar rentals and longer commutes – research shows it does not stoke anti-immigrant attitudes. Instead, it cools nationalist voting intention by 0.34 standard deviations per 3.1% population rise, namely through economic optimism. This is in stark contrast with low-skilled inflows that ignite fears over jobs and welfare, amplifying it by 0.73 standard deviations per 6.1% rise (Moriconi et al. 2019). 

Skill complementarities refer to the economic synergy where immigrants’ skills – particularly high skilled ones like engineers or managers – complement rather than compete with native workers. It allows low-skilled natives to specialise in routine or manual tasks while immigrants drive innovation and oversight, ultimately lifting overall wages and productivity across the labour market. This dynamic, as detailed in Peri and Sparber’s 2009 study in the Review of Economics and Statistics, generates modest but positive wage gains of 0.2-0.5% for natives through task reallocation, with no significant displacement for low-skilled groups. 

Similarly, Lewis & Peri 2015 handbook chapter quantifies productivity boosts of +1-2% from such inflows, as immigrants fill knowledge gaps that expand firm output and create spillover jobs. However, these benefits can be muted by countervailing fiscal drags, such as increased taxes to fund public services for newcomers (some of which never become net contributors), or external shocks like energy price hikes that erode real incomes by -0.5-1%, which mute demand elasticity through curbed household spending power. 

On the other hand, homeownership acts as a natural hedge, converting price appreciation into wealth effects equivalent to 6–8% of rental income (Ottaviano & Peri, 2007). This enables homeowners to offset affordability strains through equity extraction or psychological resilience, though this exacerbates intergenerational dives as renters – often low-skilled natives – bear the brunt without such buffers.

Recent UK trends: Post-Brexit, low-skilled skew depresses semi-skilled wages -0.5% (Dustmann et al.); net-zero policies add between £500-£800/capita tax burden, hitting real incomes amid 50% higher energy costs. Reindustrialization could boost productivity +0.5–1% (NIESR 2025), echoing Denmark’s wage stability under tight controls.

Synthesis: Base 1% elasticity adjusted +20-50% for constraints, -25-50% for wage drags. This informs scenario modelling, emphasizing targeted migration for balanced growth.

3) Methodology and Assumptions

Projections use a dynamic cohort model compounding annual changes in population, stock, and demand, grounded in elasticities from reviewed literature. Population = prior + migration + natural; effective demand shock = (migration % of pop * base elasticity 1%) * supply adjustment (+50% for inelasticity) * income elasticity (0.6). Prices/rents: +1% per 1% positive shock; symmetric negative for excess supply (Monras/Sá).

Updated Baselines (September 2025):

• E&W Population: 62.2 million (ONS mid-2025 estimate, up 0.6% from mid-2024 via 250k net migration year-ending June).
• Dwelling Stock: 27.3 million (England 25.8m, Wales 1.5m; +201k completions to Q2 2025, net additions 187k since July 2024 per MHCLG).
• Supply Growth: 0.8% annual (compounding; 218k/year average, aligning with 201k Q2 completions and Wales 4,631 for 2024-25).
• Natural Change: ONS 2022-based projections show shift to negative: +5k (2025), 0 (2026), -5k (2027), -10k (2028), -15k (2029) for E&W (cumulative -25k; fertility 1.45, aging-driven).
• Migration Share to E&W: 95% (ONS patterns).

Scenario Assumptions:

• High Migration: 400k UK net annually (baseline projection; 40% low-skilled skew). Wage drag -0.5% (Dustmann), real income -1% (energy cap £1,755 Oct-Dec 2025, +2.4% elec/+0.7% gas; 50% above pre-crisis). Demand adjustment: -0.6%.

• Zero Migration (Denmark-Style): Net zero; no low-skilled drag. +0.5% productivity (reindustrialization, ONS Q2 2025 +1.5% output/hour amid GVA +5.1%); +0.5% energy relief (falling caps). Real income +1%; demand boost +0.6%.

Household formation: Immigrants +1.5-2x initial demand (rental focus), converging. Regional: National averages, +2x South-East. No major shocks (e.g., recessions) assumed; sensitivity ±20% for extremes.

4) Scenario Results

High Migration Scenario

Sustains 0.61% annual pop growth (380k E&W net + declining natural), but 0.8% supply creates -0.18% average pressure pre-income. Low-skilled skew and energy drags (-1% real income) reduce effective demand to +0.37%, yielding +0.4-0.6% annual prices (cumulative +2.0-3.0%). Rents +0.3-0.5% annually (+1.7-2.5% cumulative), pressuring private sector (60% immigrants rent initially).

Cumulative: +1.90m pop (+3.05%); stock +1.10m (+4.02%). Urban amplification: London +4–6% prices.

Zero Migration Scenario

Pop flat to -0.02% (natural only), -0.80% pressure pre-income. Gains (+1% real income) offset to -0.20%, limiting declines to -0.2–0.4% annual prices (-1.0–1.8% cumulative). Rents -0.2–0.3% (-0.8–1.5%), enhancing affordability but risking underutilisation.

Cumulative: Pop -0.05%; stock +1.10m (+4.02%). Northern regions see sharper softening (-2–3%).

Contrast: High scenario adds £5,800–8,700 to average prices by 2029 (+£71-£118/month rents), but wage drags erode gains for low earners (rent-to-income +1-2%). Zero eases by £2,900-£5,200 (-£25-£42/month), boosted by productivity (ONS Q2 2025 +1.5% output/hour). Supply at 0.8% mitigates 40% of high-migration pressure vs. 0.2% supply (+6-9% prices).

Sensitivity: +10% migration → +0.5% extra prices; -20% supply → doubles impacts. Energy relief in zero (falling caps) sustains demand, per IPPR (2025).

5) Summary of Results

Evidence confirms immigration’s net positive on E&W housing costs (median 1% elasticity), but incomes and supply temper effects. High migration (400k net) drives modest inflation (+2-3% prices to 2029), cushioned by 0.8% supply yet strained by -1% real income drags – exacerbating inequality, as low-skilled renters face +7–10% effective costs (Sá 2015). Zero migration flips to deflation (-1-2%), with +1% income gains from reindustrialization (NIESR) and energy caps (£1,755, down slightly Oct 2025) restoring affordability, though risking stagnation (fewer construction workers, per my developments).

Broader dynamics: Declining natural change (-15k by 2029) heightens migration’s role; ONS projects 73.7m UK by 2036 without controls. Urban-rural divides persist. South East +4-6% vs. North -1-2% in zero scenario. Politically, low-skilled immigration risks fuelling nationalist tendencies among low-skilled natives through welfare fears and cultural unease, boosting anti-immigration votes (e.g. +1-2% for populist parties), while skilled inflows may temper such backlash by enhancing economic perceptions and reducing segregation-driven hostility. 

6) Investment, Policy, and Political Implications

For investors, the high migration scenario (i.e. lots of migration) means urban rentals would witness significant demand-side pressure, as more people move to urban areas, spiking demand for apartments in towns and cities. The zero migration (Denmark net migration targets) flips it, cheaper family homes in quieter regions (e.g. North or Midlands), as prices soften 1-2%. 

For policymakers, the findings demonstrate strong rationale for prioritising significant increases in housing supply (target 400k-500k/year via meaningful planning reform); skill-selective visas minimise drags (Ottaviano & Peri). Reindustrialisation (+0.5% productivity) and pragmatic net-zero (energy relief) unlock +1-2% real growth, balancing Denmark’s stability with UK’s dynamism. 

Rationale: matching migration-driven demand (e.g. 1 extra home per 2-3 new residents), clearing historical shortages, and addressing low-skilled natives concerns that have previously been left unaddressed. 

To achieve this, adopting a Danish approach to zero-net migration, coupled with its “parallel societies” legislation that would dismantle ethnic enclaves through mandatory integration and dispersal, offers a compelling justification for addressing the housing affordability crisis among low-skilled natives in the UK. Evidenced by the -1.0 to 1.8% cumulative price declines and -0.8-1.5% rent reductions by 2029 under restricted inflows, as illustrated in the analysis. 

By curbing low-skilled migration – projected to depress native wages by -0.5% and exacerbate real income strains – the model directly mitigates job competition fears, which research links to heightened nationalist voting (e.g. +1-2% boosts for populist parties like UKIP per Moricono et al 2019). This also counters white flight dynamics, where native out-migration (0.85% per 1% immigrant inflow, as per Sá 2015) perpetuates segregated housing and divergent price trajectories (Saiz & Wachter 2011). This is achieved by stabilising neighbourhoods and reducing cultural unease that amplifies welfare strain perceptions, which is twice as potent as labour concerns for low-skilled attitudes (Dustmann & Preston 2007). 

Outcomes for Danish policies show improved economic integration for dispersed residents, though with short-term displacement risks (Hangartner et al. 2019). UK adoption could foster balanced growth and simultaneously temper anti-immigration backlash (Edo et al. 2019). In doing so, Britain can avert the high-migration scenario’s urban rent surges, ultimately harnessing demographic stability that creates more inclusive housing markets. 

While these findings quantify the economic and political impacts of different migration paths, they also point to a deeper undercurrent that numbers alone cannot explain. Housing markets are, at their core, social organisms. All shaped by trust, identity, and the willingness of individuals to live alongside one another. To understand the full implications of a Denmark-style reset, it is necessary to examine the cultural and civic dimensions that underpin economic stability.

6A) Cultural Integration and Cohesion: The Social Capital Dimension

The housing and income effects of migration cannot be separated from their social impact. The question is not only whether Britain can build enough homes but whether it can remain a community that recognises itself. The phrase “island of strangers”, said by Sir Keir Starmer but later retracted, inadvertently captures a deeper unease: an enclosed kingdom come undone, its symbolic unity eroded by estrangement. This metaphor clarifies that demographic change reshapes not just markets but the civic contract that sustains them.

This sociological layer explains why white-flight and segregation dynamics are more than just economic. They reflect what Robert Putnam (2006) called the “constriction effect” of diversity. In Diversity and Community in the Twenty First Century, Putnam found that ethnic heterogeneity often reduces both bonding (in-group) and bridging (out-group) social capital. In diverse neighbourhoods, residents “hunker down”, trusting neither strangers nor neighbours. The short-term result is lower civic engagement and weaker reciprocity. Conditions mirrored in housing churn and urban unease across English cities.

Putnam’s framework helps explain the political feedback loop identified in this paper: rapid inflows of immigrants raise rents, fuel competition, and depress wages for the least mobile, while falling social trust magnifies grievance. Economic pressure becomes cultural dislocation. The “parallel societies” policies Denmark adopted, dispersing migrant communities and tying residency to integration, represent a conscious attempt to reverse this spiral by rebuilding the moral infrastructure of trust that markets quietly depend on.

Bhikhu Parekh’s Political Theory and Multicultural Society (1972) provide the theoretical foundation for that approach. Parekh argued that welfare states were design for cultural homogeneity, citizens sharing assumptions about duty, fairness, and contribution. When that consensus weakens, redistributive solidarity falters. His warning helps interpret Britain’s experience: even when migration is fiscally neutral, it strains perceptions of reciprocity. Denmark’s legislation seeks to restore that civic equilibrium, ensuring that shared benefits correspond to shared norms. In the British context, a similar principle could link immigration control to community integration, rather than simple restriction.

Benjamin Schwarz’s Unmaking England (2016) adds a cultural-historical perspective. Schwarz argued that mass immigration after 1997 dissolved the tacit consensus on English identity: “obliterating the national culture Orwell described”. While polemical, the insight is valuable. National identity functions as a form of social capital, and when it fragments, the housing market mirrors that division. Enclaves of concentrated ethnicity coexist with zones of anxious affluence, producing both material and symbolic segregation. The results of these findings quantify this through divergent regional price paths; Schwarz names it as cultural dislocation. 

Together these theories clarify the social consequences of the two migration scenarios. In the high-migration case, the model projects moderate price and rent inflation but falling real wages for low-skilled natives. Combined with Putnam’s constriction effect, this environment breeds distrust: the economic squeeze and the civic chill reinforce one another. Parekh would see this as a breakdown of reciprocity. The sense that “others take more than they give”. Schwarz would call it fragmentation. The zero-migration or Denmark-style scenario, by contrast, offers modest deflation in prices and rents and a potential stabilisation of trust, as demographic predictability allows institutions and communities to re-embed cohesion.

This is not an argument for isolationism. As Putnam notes, the long-run effects of diversity can be strongly positive once societies construct new, encompassing identities. The challenge is managing the transition, reducing the short-term “hunkering down” period through integration and spatial balance. Denmark’s dispersal policies attempt precisely that: converting diversity from a centrifugal to a centripetal force. For Britain, an equivalent would be aligning migration policy with housing delivery and civic planning so that affordability and cohesion advance together.

Ultimately, social trust is capital. When it erodes, the loss appears first in housing patterns: flight, segregation, resentment. And later in politics. Where trust is rebuilt, markets stabilise and divisions ease. Bridging Parekh’s moral theory, Putnam’s empirical sociology, and Schwarz’s cultural diagnosis with the quantitative findings of this report yields the following findings: demographic management and housing policy must treat integration as infrastructure. After all, restoring cohesion is as vital to affordability as bricks, wages, or supply.

These sociological insights reinforce the economic case made earlier: markets and communities rise or falter together. Cohesion, like affordability, is an outcome of design, not accident. The following conclusion brings these threads together, outlining how a balanced migration framework, anchored in both economic realism and civic renewal, can restore stability to Britain’s housing system.

7) Conclusion

A sustainable housing market and political settlement depend on managing both numbers and narratives. Economic pressures alone cannot explain the growing volatility around housing, migration, and trust. As shown throughout this analysis, demographic policy must be understood as part of a wider social architecture: one that aligns migration, wages, and energy with the deeper goal of civic balance.

The modelling demonstrates that high net migration sustains short-term price and rent inflation while depressing real wages for low-skilled natives, conditions that intensify inequality and social friction. Conversely, a Denmark-style zero-net migration framework moderate’s prices, eases rents, and restores affordability through productivity and energy relief. Yet its greatest potential lies not only in stabilising markets but in rebuilding confidence that the system is fair and reciprocal.

Britain’s challenge is therefore one of design. It must calibrate inflows to capacity, link immigration policy to housing delivery, and pursue reindustrialisation that raises incomes rather than merely expanding headcount. In this sense, the Danish model offers a blueprint for equilibrium: demographic restraint paired with deliberate integration.

It is like perfecting a recipe – overdose on one ingredient (unfettered low-skilled inflows) and the pie collapses into unaffordable crumbs for low-skilled natives, fanning nationalist flames amid job competition and welfare strains (Dustmann & Preston 2007; Moriconi et al. 2019). 

The wider reward is political and moral, not merely economic. By addressing the drivers of “parallel societies”, namely spatial segregation, wage stagnation, and mistrust. The United Kingdom can and must transform cultural anxiety into shared purpose. Migration management, when aligned with housing reform and civic renewal, becomes not an act of retreat but one of reconstruction.

The outcome is a market and a society that move together: affordable, stable, and cohesive. The objective is not isolation but balance. A nation that builds enough homes for its people, and enough trust to live within them.

Bibliography

1. Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2025). National population projections: 2022-based. ONS Bulletin, January 28, 2025 (updated September 2025). Retrieved September 2025, from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2022based
2. IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research). (2025). Inflation data: Time for immediate government measures to lower household energy bills. IPPR Media Release, June 18, 2025. Retrieved September 2025, from https://www.ippr.org/media-office/inflation-data-time-for-immediate-government-measures-to-lower-household-energy-bills-says-ippr
3. Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2025). Housing affordability in England and Wales: 2025. ONS Dataset. Retrieved September 2025, from https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/datasets/housingaffordability
4. Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2025). Long-term international migration estimates: Year ending June 2025. ONS Bulletin. Retrieved September 2025, from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingjune2025
5. Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2025). Population estimates for the UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: Mid-2025. ONS Dataset. Retrieved September 2025, from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates
6. Saiz, A. (2007). Immigration and housing rents in American cities. Journal of Urban Economics, 61(2), 345–371. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.07.003
7. Migration Advisory Committee (MAC). (2018). The impact of international students on local housing markets. MAC Report, UK Home Office. Retrieved September 2025, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-impact-of-international-students-on-local-housing-markets
8. Saiz, A. (2007). Immigration and housing rents in American cities. Journal of Urban Economics, 61(2), 345–371. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.07.003
9. Ottaviano, G. I. P., & Peri, G. (2007). The effects of immigration on U.S. wages and rents: A general equilibrium approach (CReAM Discussion Paper No. 13/07). Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, University College London. Retrieved September 2025, from https://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_13_07.pdf
10. Monras, J. (2020). Immigration and wage dynamics: Evidence from the Mexican peso crises. Journal of Labor Economics, 38(S1), S147–S192. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1086/707764
11. Akbari, A., & Aydede, Y. (2012). Effects of immigration on house prices in Canada. Applied Economics, 44(13), 1645–1658. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2010.548788
12. Stillman, S., & Maré, D. C. (2008). Housing markets and migration: Evidence from New Zealand (Motu Working Paper No. 08_06). Motu Economic and Public Policy Research. Retrieved September 2025, from https://motu-www.motu.org.nz/wpapers/08_06.pdf
13. Sanchis-Guarner, R. (2017). Decomposing the impact of immigration on house prices (SERC Discussion Paper No. 223). Spatial Economics Research Centre, London School of Economics. Retrieved September 2025, from https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/sercdp0223.pdf
14. González, L., & Ortega, F. (2013). Immigration and housing booms: Evidence from Spain. Journal of Regional Science, 53(1), 37–59. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12010
15. Mussa, A., Nwaogu, U. G., & Pozo, S. (2017). Immigration and housing: A spatial econometric analysis. Journal of Housing Economics, 35, 13–25. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2016.10.001
16. Whitehead, C. M. E., Scanlon, K., & Fernández Arrigoitia, M. (2011). The impact of migration on access to housing and the housing market: A project for the Migration Advisory Committee. London School of Economics for MAC, UK Home Office. Retrieved September 2025, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7caef840f0b6629523b290/lse-housing.pdf
17. Sá, F. (2015). Immigration and house prices in the UK. The Economic Journal, 125(587), 1393–1424. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12158
18. Card, D. (2009). Immigration and inequality. American Economic Review, 99(2), 1–21. American Economic Association. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.2.1
19. DiPasquale, D., & Wheaton, W. C. (1996). Urban economics and real estate markets. Prentice Hall.
20. Dustmann, C., Frattini, T., & Rosso, A. (2013). The effect of immigration along the distribution of wages. Review of Economic Studies, 80(1), 145–173. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rds019
21. Monras, J. (2015). Immigration and wage dynamics: Evidence from the Mexican peso crises (Working Paper No. 8924). IZA Institute of Labor Economics. Retrieved September 2025, from https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/8924/immigration-and-wage-dynamics-evidence-from-the-mexican-peso-crisis
22. Card, D. (2005). Is the new immigration really so bad? The Economic Journal, 115(506), F300–F323. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2005.01031.x
23. Peri, G., & Sparber, C. (2009). Task specialization, immigration, and wages. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(3), 135–169. American Economic Association. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.1.3.135
24. Lewis, E. G., & Peri, G. (2015). Immigration and the economy of cities and regions. In G. Duranton, J. V. Henderson, & W. C. Strange (Eds.), Handbook of regional and urban economics (Vol. 5, pp. 625–685). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-59517-1.00010-6
25. IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research). (2025). Inflation data: Time for immediate government measures to lower household energy bills. IPPR Media Release, June 18, 2025. Retrieved September 2025, from https://www.ippr.org/media-office/inflation-data-time-for-immediate-government-measures-to-lower-household-energy-bills-says-ippr
26. NIESR (National Institute of Economic and Social Research). (2025). National Institute UK Economic Outlook – Summer 2025. NIESR Report JC883. Retrieved September 2025, from https://niesr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/JC883-NIESR-Outlook-Summer-2025-UK-v6-1.pdf
27. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). (2025). House building statistics: England Q2 2025. Retrieved September 2025, from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/house-building-statistics
28. Ofgem. (2025). Energy price cap levels: October–December 2025. Retrieved September 2025, from https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-regulation-and-market-governance/energy-price-cap/levels
29. IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research). (2025). Inflation data: Time for immediate government measures to lower household energy bills. IPPR Media Release, June 18, 2025. Retrieved September 2025, from https://www.ippr.org/media-office/inflation-data-time-for-immediate-government-measures-to-lower-household-energy-bills-says-ippr
30. Boustan, L. P. (2010). Was postwar suburbanization “white flight”? Evidence from the Black Great Migration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 417–443. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.1.417
31. Pan, J. S. (2024). JUE insight: White flight from Asian immigration: Evidence from California public schools. Journal of Urban Economics, 141, 103541. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2023.103541
32. Saiz, A., & Wachter, S. M. (2011). Immigrants and the neighbourhood. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(4), 1–33. American Economic Association. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.3.4.1
33. Moriconi et al. (2019) ‘Skill of the Immigrants and Vote of the Natives: Immigration and Nationalism in European Elections’; Dustmann & Preston (2007); Kaufmann (2017); Edo et al. (2019); Hangartner et al. (2019). These studies highlight how low-skilled immigration amplifies nationalist voting through economic (welfare, jobs) and cultural (identity, segregation) fears, while skilled immigration mitigates it by fostering positive perceptions
34. Seemann, A. (2020). The Danish ‘ghetto initiatives’ and the changing nature of social citizenship, 2004–2018. Critical Social Policy, 41(1), 90–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018320978504 (Analyzes four major ghetto initiatives, showing how they construct residents as a problem, ethnicizing welfare access and increasing inequality without clear integration benefits.)
35. Andersen, I. M., et al. (2024). Multiscalar un-homing: Residents’ experiences of interventions for social mix. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 15(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.33134/njmr.646 (Explores residents’ experiences in Copenhagen’s Mjølnerparken, highlighting discursive, material, and psychological dimensions of un-homing, with multiscale and unequally distributed effects.)
36. Andersen, I. M., et al. (2023). Social relations and health in an ethnically diverse social housing area undergoing large structural changes. BMC Public Health, 23(1), 378. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15034-x (Describes demographics, social relations, and health in a Danish social housing area targeted for changes, linking structural interventions to poorer mental health and isolation.)
37. Sherwood, H. (2020, July 20). Denmark is a liberal paradise for many people, but the reality is very different for its minorities. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/20/europe/denmark-ghetto-relocation-intl (Discusses evidence that ethnic enclaves provide economic support for immigrants, but Danish laws risk dismantling these networks without addressing discrimination.)
38. Larsen, M. E., et al. (2024). Does enforcing dispersal policies prevent ethnic spatial concentration? Evidence from the Danish Integration Act. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2024.2404469 (Provides quasi-experimental evidence on the 1999 Danish Integration Act, showing reduced segregation but increased refugee mobility instability and mixed educational outcomes.)
39. Lundsteen, M. (2023). Displacing the other to unite the nation: The parallel society legislation and the production of national unity in Denmark. European Urban and Regional Studies, 30(4), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/09697764231165202 (Examines how ghetto legislation reinforces stigma and urban bordering, linking it to national unity rhetoric but practical displacement without resolving socioeconomic gaps.)
40. Parekh, B. (1972). Political Theory and the Multicultural Society. Political Studies, Vol. 20, Issue 3.
41. Putnam, R. D. (2006). Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174.
42. Schwarz, B. (2016). Unmaking England. The American Conservative, September 2016 Issue.

Addendum A: Robustness, Limitations, and Extensions of the Dynamic Cohort Model

Explanatory Note on Model Robustness

Dynamic cohort models, employed here to project population-driven housing demand through compounding annual changes in migration, natural growth, and supply, offer a transparent and flexible framework for medium-term (5-year) forecasting, particularly in stable demographic environments like the UK’s post-Brexit landscape. 

Rooted in cohort-component methods, they excel at disaggregating effects (e.g. low-skilled vs. skilled inflows) and reproducing aggregate trends with low error margins (<5% deviation in historical back tests, per ONS validations). 

However, their deterministic compounding, iteratively applying fixed rates, amplifies small input errors into potentially significant divergences over time, underscoring the need for cautious interpretation in volatile scenarios like policy shocks or economic downturns.

Key Criticisms and Caveats

While the model provides robust baseline estimates (e.g. -1.0–1.8% price deflation under zero migration), several limitations warrant transparency:

• Error Amplification in Compounding: Annual multiplicative updates assume linear progression, but real-world feedback (e.g. falling prices spurring native return migration) introduce nonlinearity. A 10% initial migration overestimate could cascade to 20–50% cumulative error by 2029, especially in tail risks like accelerated depopulation from natural decline.
• Assumption Sensitivity and Determinism: Fixed parameters (e.g. 0.8% supply growth, 0.6 income elasticity) overlook shocks, yielding point estimates without inherent uncertainty. This risks overconfidence; for instance, unmodeled behavioural shifts (e.g. upskilling in response to wage drags) could alter outcomes by ±15–25%.
• Aggregation and Scale Biases: Relying on ONS aggregates masks micro-variations (e.g., urban enclave effects from segregation, per Saiz & Wachter 2011), potentially committing ecological fallacies in regional inferences like South East amplification.
• Equity and Heterogeneity Oversights: Cohorts are treated homogeneously, underplaying disparities (e.g. low-skilled natives’ amplified strain from white flight, Boustan 2010), and ignoring equity metrics like rent-to-income ratios across skill levels.

These caveats do not invalidate the projections but highlight their directional utility; users should apply sensitivity bands (±20%) for policy application. 

Recommendations for Expansion and Scrutiny

To enhance rigor, the model could evolve into a hybrid framework:

• Incorporate Stochastic Elements: Integrate Monte Carlo simulations (e.g. via R’s demography package) for 1,000+ runs, generating 95% confidence intervals (e.g. zero-migration prices: -2.5% to +0.5%) to quantify compounding tails.
• Add Behavioural and Microsimulation Layers: Fuse with dynamic factor models (e.g. DYNAMIS-POP) for feedback like price-responsive migration and disaggregate by skill/income sub-cohorts to capture elasticities (0.5-1.0) more granularly.
• Validation Protocols: Back cast against 2015–2020 data and benchmark against ONS/OBR trials; include scenario trees (e.g. SSP variants for high/low fertility) for external peer review.

This expanded approach would transform the model from descriptive to prescriptive, standing up to academic and policy scrutiny while aligning with best practices in demographic-economic forecasting.

Addendum B: Full Dynamic Cohort Model: Detailed Specification and Implementation

The dynamic cohort model referenced throughout the report is a cohort-component projection framework adapted for housing economics, simulating population evolution and derived demand shocks over 5 years (2025–2029). It is not a pre-built software but a custom, transparent model built on standard demographic methods (e.g. UN cohort-component approach) with economic extensions for housing elasticities. 

Find provided below the full specification, including equations, assumptions, pseudocode, and a Python implementation (verified via simulation). This model was used to generate the report’s tables; it’s deterministic but can be extended stochastically as noted in the Addendum.

The model tracks two primary cohorts for simplicity: (1) Native population (affected by natural change) and (2) Immigrant inflows (disaggregated by skill in scenarios). It compounds annual changes to project total population, net housing pressure, and price/rent impacts via elasticities from the literature (e.g. Saiz 2007 for base 1%; DiPasquale & Wheaton 1996 for income 0.6). Key innovation: Income adjustments as multipliers to capture wage drags/boosts, ensuring realism for low-skilled natives.

1. Core Equations

Let ( t ) be the year (2025 to 2029).

• Population Update (Cohort-Component Core):  

P_t=P_t-1+M_t+N_t  

• P_t: End-of-year population (E&W baseline: 62.2m in 2025). 
• M_t = m_UK X 0.95: Net migration to E&W (95% UK share; m_UK = 400k high, 0 zero).
• N_t: Natural change (ONS-projected: +5k 2025, 0 2026, -5k 2027, -10k 2028, -15k 2029; cumulative -25k).  

• Growth Rates:  

gt= Mt+NtPt-1,   m%t= MtPt-1

• g_t: Total pop growth %.  
• m%_t: Migration contribution % (drives elasticity).  

• Housing Stock Update:  

St=St-11+s,  s=0.008

• S_t: End-of-year stock (baseline: 27.3m in 2025).  
• ( s ): Annual supply growth (0.8%; compounding additions 218k/year).  

• Net Pressure:  

npt=gt-s

• Positive npt: Upward housing pressure; negative: Excess supply (e.g. -0.8% in zero scenario).  

• Demand Shock (Housing Impact):  

dst=m%tebadjsei+(ia × gt)

• eb= 0.01: Base elasticity (1% impact per 1% mig pop).  
• adjs= 1.5: Supply inelasticity premium (+50% for UK constraints).  
• ei= 0.6: Income elasticity (0.5 to 1.0 range; midpoint).  
• ( ia ): Income adjustment (-0.6 high scenario for wage/energy drags; +0.6 zero for productivity/energy gains).  

• Price/Rent Impacts (Annual %):  

pit=dst ×100,  rit= pit×0.8

• pit: Price impact (rents lead slightly, 80% of price).
• Ranges: ±25% for robustness (e.g. +0.4-0.6% incorporates uncertainty).
• Cumulative: Compound annually (e.g. PIcum= 1+pit100-1)

Household formation implicit: Immigrants add 1.5-2x initial demand (rental skew), converging to 1x native rate; absorbed in m%t

2. Assumptions Recap (From Report)

• Baselines: ONS Sept 2025 (pop 62.2m, stock 27.3m).  
• Scenarios: High (400k UK net, 40% low-skilled skew, ia=-0.6); Zero (0 net, ia=+0.6).  
• Elasticities: Literature-derived (e.g., MAC 2018 for UK adjustments).  
• No shocks: Assumes steady state; sensitivities ±20% for extremes.

3. Pseudocode

Initialize: P = 62.2e6, S = 27.3e6, years = [2025..2029], natural = [5k,0,-5k,-10k,-15k]

For each year t in years:

    For each scenario:

        M_ew = mig_uk * 0.95

        g = (M_ew + natural[t]) / P

        m_pct = M_ew / P

        np = g – 0.008

        ds = (m_pct * 0.01 * 1.5 * 0.6) + (ia * g)

        pi = ds * 100  # Range: pi ±25%

        ri = pi * 0.8  # Range: ri ±25%

        Output: Year t, g%, m%, np%, ds%, pi_range, ri_range  

        Update: P += M_ew + natural[t]

        S *= 1.008

Cumulative: For prices, prod(1 + pi/100) – 1 over years

4. Python Implementation and Sample Output

The model was implemented and verified in Python (using pandas/numpy for tabulation):

import pandas as pd

import numpy as np

# Baselines (Sept 2025)

pop_start = 62200000  # E&W population

stock_start = 27300000  # Dwelling stock

supply_growth = 0.008  # Annual supply %

base_elasticity = 0.01  # 1% price/rent per 1% pop from mig

supply_adjust = 1.5  # +50% for inelasticity

income_elasticity = 0.6

# Scenarios: {name: {‘mig_uk’: int, ‘natural’: list, ‘inc_adj’: float}}

scenarios = {

    ‘High’: {‘mig_uk’: 400000, ‘natural’: [5000, 0, -5000, -10000, -15000], ‘inc_adj’: -0.006},  # -0.6% as decimal for scaling

    ‘Zero’: {‘mig_uk’: 0, ‘natural’: [5000, 0, -5000, -10000, -15000], ‘inc_adj’: 0.006}

}

ew_share = 0.95  # E&W migration share

results = []

for year in range(2025, 2030):

    for scen_name, scen in scenarios.items():

        mig_ew = scen[‘mig_uk’] * ew_share

        natural = scen[‘natural’][year – 2025]

        pop_growth = (mig_ew + natural) / pop_start

        mig_pct = mig_ew / pop_start

        net_pressure = pop_growth – supply_growth

        # Demand shock: Base from mig + income adj scaled to growth

        base_ds = mig_pct * base_elasticity * supply_adjust * income_elasticity

        inc_ds = scen[‘inc_adj’] * pop_growth  # ia as decimal, e.g., -0.006 for -0.6%

        demand_shock = base_ds + inc_ds

        price_impact = demand_shock * 100

        rent_impact = price_impact * 0.8

        # Ranges for robustness (±25%)

        price_low = price_impact * 0.75

        price_high = price_impact * 1.25

        rent_low = rent_impact * 0.75

        rent_high = rent_impact * 1.25

        results.append({

            ‘Year’: year,

            ‘Scenario’: scen_name,

            ‘Pop Growth %’: round(pop_growth * 100, 2),

            ‘Mig %’: round(mig_pct * 100, 2),

            ‘Net Pressure %’: round(net_pressure * 100, 2),

            ‘Inc Adj Demand %’: round(demand_shock * 100, 2),

            ‘Price Impact %’: f”{round(price_low, 1)}–{round(price_high, 1)}”,

            ‘Rent Impact %’: f”{round(rent_low, 1)}–{round(rent_high, 1)}”

        })

        # Compound updates

        pop_start += mig_ew + natural

        stock_start += stock_start * supply_growth  # Note: stock_start updated cumulatively

df = pd.DataFrame(results)

print(df.to_string(index=False))

The post Denmark’s Dagger: Zero Inflows to Pierce the Housing Heartache appeared first on Onward.

The post Making the case for a “purpose-built young professional accommodation” class appeared first on Onward.

The post Thinktank calls for new asset class to boost housing for young professionals appeared first on Onward.

This paper proposes the creation of a new sui generis (use of its own kind) residential building type for young professionals: Purpose Built Young Professional Accommodation (PBYPA). PBYPA will be exempt from certain key regulations, allowing the creation of compact studio or micro apartments for young professionals that prioritise affordability and central location over other amenities. 

The Government has pledged to build 1.5 million homes, but the urban housing crisis remains particularly acute and the solutions proposed by the Government fail to prioritise urban densification. This is contrary to the benefits of agglomeration and ignores the market of young people flowing into cities for work. PBYPA would fill this gap in economic hubs where demand from young professionals (aged up to 35) is great, including London, Manchester, Bristol, Bath, Brighton and Leeds.

The mechanisms to create PBYPA already exist. In London, Co-Living and Purpose Built Student Accommodation are exempt from Nationally Described Space Standards, or minimum space requirements, and have special affordable housing requirements. But neither of these existing classes serve or adequately serve young professionals. 

Beyond meeting housing demand, this new category, PBYPA, takes advantage of the filtering phenomenon to alleviate housing shortages (the process through which the provision of a new dwelling reduces pressure on existing stock by diverting demand), brings economic benefits, and adds practical weight to the YIMBY movement. It offers a realistic, supply-led response to the housing crisis, in the form of a new investable asset class, which could be achieved with public consultation, legal changes to the use classes order, and updates to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Introduction

This paper makes the case for a new sui generis¹ residential use for buildings: PBYPA. Designed for young professionals, PBYPA will be characterised by targeted regulatory exemptions to enable young professionals to trade certain amenities, such as space, for greater affordability and proximity to urban employment hubs, whilst providing a new residential asset class for investors.

The housing crisis is concentrated in cities and is acutely felt by the younger generations that live and work in them. But, there remains an absence of a targeted supply side solution to address their housing needs, especially in London where regulations and stringent design standards are particularly restrictive for supply. There has instead been a reliance on demand side solutions including the Help to Buy: Equity Loan Scheme, the proposed relaxation of mortgage lending rules for first time buyers, and shared ownership schemes.^{2 3} 

Figure 1: Private rental affordability ratios, by local authority, England and Wales, financial year ending 2024

Source: ONS⁴

Rents are least affordable in cities, as well as in the commuter areas around them.⁵ According to the ONS’ rental affordability ratios, which compares a household’s gross median income to rent for the average priced home, London, Bristol, Bath, Brighton, Manchester, and Leeds are all amongst the least affordable.⁶ Travel-to-work areas  around Manchester, including Oldham, Wigan and Bolton have also had rents surge 31% in the three years to 2025 alone.⁷ 

The Government does not currently have a sufficient plan to address the housing crisis in the areas where it is worst and is missing a key opportunity in not delivering for the young professional market. The current Government has pledged to deliver 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament, but it lacks a focus on cities and market opportunities having rolled back on the urban uplift⁸ despite reintroducing mandatory housing targets.⁹ 

The effect of the housing crisis is particularly pronounced upon younger generations. Young people are far less likely to own a home than previous generations and are more likely to rent privately. From 1989 to 2013, home ownership among 19–29 year-olds fell from 23% to 8%.¹⁰¹¹ Home ownership among young people did rise from 8% to just over 12% between 2013 and 2021, but this remains around half the rate of 30 years ago.¹² 

Young professionals find themselves ineligible for Purpose Built Student Accommodation, and many of them are unable to afford the premium Co-Living rents or to buy a home. This means they must compete with the rest of the market for the limited existing stock on offer to privately rent.   

The need for a new bespoke residential use 

2.1 There is great demand for young professionals to live in urban areas

Cities are the most popular place for graduates to move to, and although London remains the most powerful magnet for young talent, other cities are also major draws. Research finds that when young graduates are moving towns, 18% relocate to London (12% to inner London, 6% to outer London). But 23% of graduates move to other major cities, the top five outside of London being: Brighton & Hove, Manchester, Bristol and Leeds. The combined migration of graduates into these cities exceeded Inner London’s 33%.¹³ But the share of graduates remaining in their home city by age 24 was highest in London. 

Figure 2: Graduates tend to move from the places they sat their GCSEs to live in urban areas

Source: ONS¹⁴ 

In absolute numbers, shown in Figure 2, graduates being pulled into cities outside of London is evident, representing 41,000 graduates. Inner London alone attracts 21,155 people and outer London 11,170, combined to just over 32,000 people. London retains a significant volume of its own graduates too.¹⁵ 

There is a clear net movement away from smaller towns and small built up areas (BUAs) to larger urban areas, so there is a strong flow of demand of incoming young professionals to urban cores, not solely in London although predominantly there. This means young professionals are actively increasing demand on the general housing market in urban areas.

Urban population growth is greater than that of non-urban areas. Between 2001 and 2019 the population growth of cities has been greatest. Inner London’s population grew 27% in this period, outer London by 19%, and cities outside of London by 16%.¹⁶

Figure 3: Population growth in England and Wales, mid 2001 to mid 2019 (BUA = Built Up Areas)

Source: ONS¹⁷

It is unlikely that the flows of young graduates and non-graduates into cities and their surrounding areas will come to an end. Despite rents being on the rise, young graduates still want to move to cities, for reasons of work, amenities and convenience.¹⁸ This has significant agglomeration benefits, inducing growth.

2.2 The current offer to young professionals is inadequate

The current offer to young professionals unable to buy a home or live with family consists of shared living models including Co-Living, HMOs and privately rented flat shares.

Co-Living is a fairly new asset class and targets high-earning young professionals with an offer of all-inclusive bills, flexible contracts and high-quality on-site amenities.¹⁹ 

But it is a premium product. Average rents for Co-Living range between £1,550–£1,750, approximately 74% and 84% of a young professional’s monthly income.²⁰²¹ Consequently, the average age of Co-Living tenants is 28, and over a quarter of residents are aged 35 or older.²²  In short, it is out of the reach of and indeed not aimed at the vast majority of young professionals looking for accommodation in cities. 

The alternative option for young professionals outside of Co-Living and living with family is private renting. This often lacks affordability, consistency and predictability, which is particularly bad for new entrants to the labour market. Affordability is an acute issue, as rent inflation tends to outpace income, driven by high demand and sluggish supply, which places significant strain on tenants.²³ Approximately 40% of households in the private rental sector are in the lowest third of incomes.²⁴ The level of financial insecurity arising from a lack of adequate housing provision for young people contributes to their displacement. In 2023, 48% of renters in their 20s left London.²⁵ This coincided with a 16% rent surge.²⁶ This threatens the benefits of agglomeration that urban density brings to workers and the wider economy. 

More often than not, young professionals seek out house shares. Some of these fall into the legal category of a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), where three or more unrelated tenants share facilities such as a kitchen or bathroom. This is a growing asset class with the number of HMOs having risen 2.3% over the last year.²⁷ Alongside students and health care workers, young professionals are classed as this asset class’s primary market.²⁸ 

But, there is a clear lack of affordable supply driven by accommodation shortages. In London alone in October 2023, the house sharing website Spare Room recorded 76,898 people looking for a spare room, but only 16,803 listed on the website.²⁹ 

Furthermore, in combining resources to split rents in homes with multiple bedrooms in cities or within reach of cities, young professionals outbid families who could otherwise live in the space. In this way, they feed into urban affordability issues. The lack of a housing solution for young professionals therefore contributes to the broader housing crisis. As young professionals have nowhere specifically catering to them they must compete with the wider market for limited existing stock. In an already overcrowded housing market, this carries repercussions for renters born in the area, and families.

2.3 Overly restrictive regulations and standards constrain supply

Rigid regulations on design and safety standards are a significant constraint on housing delivery. But they are especially burdensome for urban development, and the delivery of purpose built rental models that rely on efficiency and density to attain both viability and affordability. While there are a significant number of regulatory burdens, for simplicity this discussion focuses on those that a new residential development may be exempt from as new builds.

A core issue for the delivery of density and affordability is the impact of minimum space requirements. The Nationally Described Space Standards are not a planning regulation, but simply a planning standard. In England, this sets a minimum space standard of 37m² for a one person apartment, despite the average space consumption being 25m².³⁰ Albeit not mandatory across the country, the London Plan³¹ automatically applies the standard to all developments as a requirement, and the space standard applies to all conversions via the permitted development rights route also. The 37m² minimum unit size described under Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) is around 50% larger than what the average renting Londoner can actually afford.³² And more than 75% of London residents can only afford to rent or buy property less than £700 per square foot, of which only 47% of the last 5 years of housing stock has delivered in London.³³ 

Existing sui generis use classes, namely PBSA and Co-Living, tend to be exempt from the severity of minimum space requirements. PBSA, for example, is exempt from minimum space standards, as is Co-Living; so long as the provided amenities compensate for smaller spaces.³⁴³⁵ This makes PBSA both much more viable as an asset class and an essential residential use classification for urban regeneration. 

Affordable, or more accurately, subsidised housing requirements also act to make developments less viable in the first place, and the homes that are built in factor more expensive overall. The current requirements for developers to deliver affordable housing, or housing priced at 80% of the market price, naturally require the developer to cross subsidise the cost of delivery via higher prices paid for by the end tenant of non-affordable housing units in the development.  This counters the market forces that enable greater supply to gradually reduce market prices. The target for developers to deliver 35% of their stock as affordable housing in London has recently been dropped to 20%, effective until March 2028 or the publication of the new London Plan, to boost urban housebuilding as an acknowledged barrier to delivery.³⁶

Design standards such as dual aspect add further limitations to the delivery of density. Dual aspect homes may have enhanced daylight and ventilation, but these come at the premium  of reducing deliverable units, increasing the cost of delivery and, consequently, raising rents. Although this measure has been temporarily rolled back as an emergency measure to kickstart housing in London, the return of this policy in future may thwart the efficient floorplate design of new developments.

Similarly the blanket application of emerging fire safety regulations threaten the viability of midrise developments. From September 2026, new regulations in England will require second staircases in all residential buildings over 18 metres in height, from the previously proposed 30m, which has been effectively enforced across London through the Greater London Authority’s planning system since 2023.³⁷ This move is intended to enhance the UKs world-leading building safety standards.³⁸ Yet the Government’s own impact assessment shows the costs of this measure are 294 times greater than its benefits. Indeed, as currently modelled, lowering the threshold for buildings between 18 and 50 metres will not save a single life over the 70 year modelling period.³⁹⁴⁰ This is partly because modern developments are typically equipped with sprinklers, smoke ventilation, and 24-hour management, so that this rule provides limited additional safety benefits while materially increasing costs and complexity. Having a higher, 50 metre threshold would keep England in line with comparable European countries including Ireland, France and Germany.⁴¹

2.4 Precedent shows new residential uses can alleviate housing need while being a viable asset for investment.

The example of Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) shows us how new residential use classes can increase housing supply. PBSA emerged as a distinct asset class in the 1990s as student numbers increased and was formally recognised as a type of specialist housing with exemptions from certain regulations in the 2010s. PBSA thrives in city centres owing to sustained demand driven by consistent flows of students and shortages in available housing. The top 20 major UK student cities currently need over 230,000 additional beds, with London alone requiring nearly 100,000 to meet demand.⁴² This supply gap is being addressed by PBSA and is supported by strong growth in the value of rents: in 2023/24, an average rental growth value rate of 8.02% was recorded, with the private PBSA sector achieving 9.39%.⁴³ 

The success of PBSA demonstrates that a purpose built asset class can alleviate pressure on the broader housing market in areas where a specific demographic composes a significant inflow of new residents per annum.⁴⁴ In major student cities like Nottingham, Leeds, and Manchester, students can make up over 30–40% of local renters.⁴⁵ Without purpose built accommodation, students would naturally enter the private rental market to compete with other local renters. PBSA significantly reduces this pressure, housing 31% of full-time students across the country in 2023.⁴⁶

Financially, PBSA investments offer net yields of 6–8%, and so outperform traditional build to let properties.⁴⁷ And institutional confidence is evident: approximately £3.87 billion was invested in the UK PBSA sector in 2024, up 14% on 2023.⁴⁸ Notably, PBSA offers passive, professionally managed income streams and occupancy rates often exceed 95%.⁴⁹

2.5 ‘Filtering’ means all will benefit.

A new sui generis residential use for young professionals will not only help those people find accommodation and work but help to alleviate the pressure of the housing crisis for everyone through the effects of filtering.

Filtering describes the way in which new housing, even if aimed at a specific group, enables mobility, freeing up housing stock in a way that reverberates throughout the housing market. For example, the building of luxury housing meets local and national opposition because of the perception that it does nothing to help people on lower incomes.  

But because of filtering, new luxury housing makes housing more affordable for all, because it allows higher income households to “move up” the housing ladder, freeing up their previous homes for others. This creates a chain effect: the wealthy move into luxury homes, middle income households move into the newly vacant properties, and lower income individuals gain access to more secure accommodation. The market, therefore, benefits from a cascading effect of availability.⁵⁰

A new, sui generis, residential use class aimed at young professionals would work in the same way. Far from only benefiting this particular cohort of people, this new asset class would work, through filtering, to ease pressure on HMOs and the wider private rental market, freeing up housing stock for families and other groups. But these benefits are not widely discussed and lack formal recognition in planning. 

Introducing Purpose Built Young Professional Accommodation 

Purpose Built Young Professional Accommodation (PBYPA) would explicitly target graduates and early career professionals moving into and within cities facing an increasingly constrained housing supply. PBYPA represents a natural and logical evolution of the PBSA and Co-Living models, with benefits not only for young professionals but for everyone by relieving pressure on the housing market. 

3.1 Who will live in Purpose Built Young Professional Accommodation?

The tenancy will be for young professionals only. This means that tenants must be: 

• employed full-time;
• Or, in part time employment and within two years of finishing a part-time bachelors, masters, PhD or post-doc;
• under the age of 35. 

Demand in this demographic that this new asset class targets is underpinned by affordability pressures in the mainstream private rental sector with few alternative options, as explained above. However, it may be that the operators of these buildings identify more effective criteria, and provision should be made for that. 

3.2 Who will build Purpose Built Young Professional Accommodation?

The assets will be built by developers under a build to rent (BTR) framework, but they will be bought by institutional investors and managed thereon. This will mean that, as an institutionally owned and operated asset, PBYPA will benefit from professional management, long-term capital alignment, and operational scale. This drives consistent service quality, stronger tenant retention, and stable income streams, while reducing exposure to individual unit sales. The model should enhance resilience, align investor and developer interests, and, in turn, deliver a scalable, income-producing asset class.⁵¹

Like PBSA and Co-Living, PBYPA would leverage operational efficiencies and professional management, offering investors stable occupancy and resilience to wider economic volatility, but would go further in the regulatory exemptions made for this new asset. Returns would be attractive: as PBSA and Co-Living exceed traditional residential returns PBYPA could achieve the same effect. PBYPA currently sits at the intersection of undersupplied rental housing and proven investment appetite, making it a viable and scalable model for city centres.

One of the key opportunities to develop PBYPA rests with the availability of underutilised brownfield land in urban areas.⁵² Where these areas fall in proximity to existing infrastructure and employment hubs, they should be earmarked for higher density living, led by PBYPA. In London, the approach to underutilised land for development could extend to include the selective and economically logical repurposing of Strategic Industrial Land (SIL). Such redevelopment could include mixed-use or managed residential models to be justified without loss of critical employment capacity.⁵³

3.3 The Planning Model

In order to deliver PBYPA, this asset should be introduced as a new sui generis residential use, with exemptions from minimum space standards, affordable housing requirements, and other key regulations such as the dual aspect rule. 

Importantly, sui generis status ensures that any change of use would require full planning permission, thereby protecting the integrity of the intended residential use and its intended social purpose; albeit a buffer on asset liquidity, it ensures retention where there is genuine need. But it also presents the opportunity for PBYPA to be exempt from the very regulations and requirements that block development and increase costs for renters. 

This classification should draw on precedents established for PBSA and Co-Living as unique uses within sui generis, allowing schemes to operate outside the Nationally Described Space Standards while maintaining robust quality and safety controls through design, guided by planning rules, and in management, ensured by institutional investor ownership. 

3.3.1 What regulations will PBYPA be exempt from?

PBYPA will form a distinct residential use with tailored regulatory exemptions designed to enable efficient, lower cost housing delivery, facilitated by virtue of being classified as a sui generis residential use. 

PBYPA will be permanently exempt from:

• Minimum space requirements, to enable the market to deliver the space that young professionals are willing and able to afford. 
• Affordable housing requirements, to facilitate lower rents via market delivery. 
• Dual aspect requirements, to facilitate greater density.
• The second staircase rule, where a PBYPA development is below a height of 50m. 

These exemptions are not unprecedented. They extend principles already accepted for PBSA, and Co-Living. But, PBYPA is different in that exemptions will go further to achieve the specific aim of high quality, lower cost purpose built living that is affordable to young professionals. The rationale for each exemption is described in greater detail below. 

Overall, the sui generis classification creates a balanced and deliverable model that can scale across UK cities. It combines planning control with flexibility, promotes affordability through existing policy mechanisms, and helps ease demand pressures on the broader private rental market.⁵⁴

Minimum space requirements

Exemption from space standards is already a practice for purpose built living models, but should go further. Although Co-Living and PBSA are exempt from minimum space standards, this is on the basis of them instead providing residents with quality amenity provision on-site, such as gyms, undermining the density delivery and rent saving benefits of smaller space provision. This is something that PBYPA, as an asset class in its own right, would be exempt from to enable the delivery, and choice, of lower rents. PBYPA would place less emphasis on on-site amenities in comparison with Co-Living, instead leveraging its urban context where residents can access local services, gyms, cafés, and social venues. This approach supports higher unit densities, reduces operational costs, and could translate into lower rents for young professionals, all while supporting the local economy. 

Affordable housing obligations

Owing to PBYPA’s single-tenure and purpose-built nature, the asset should be exempt from traditional affordable housing obligations. These exemptions inherently enable lower rents to be achieved through reduced build and operational costs, higher delivery efficiency, and the removal of internal cross-subsidy or complex tenure layering. This ensures that every unit contributes directly to affordability while strengthening overall scheme viability. At the same time, PBYPA can help ease pressure on HMOs and the wider private rental market by freeing up housing stock for families and other groups. By providing stable, well-located homes for young professionals, it supports urban productivity and workforce retention while enabling residents to rebuild financial resilience through savings for deposits, pensions, and other long-term goals.

Dual aspect rule

To further the unique status of PBYPA, there are design threats to the delivery of housing in London that PBYPA should be exempt from as an asset. For schemes like PBYPA, where affordability depends on efficient floorplates for density, mandating dual aspect could cut potential unit numbers. The resulting loss of supply raises build costs per unit and, ultimately, threatens the likelihood of lower rents. PBYPA should therefore be indefinitely exempt from this requirement. 

The second staircase rule

Forthcoming fire-safety rules requiring second staircases in all residential buildings over 18 metres pose a challenge to mid-rise viability, especially for PBYPA. Thus, for this asset, the proportionate threshold of 50 metres, consistent with European comparators, would maintain safety while supporting feasible delivery and thus should be exempt from the 18m threshold.

Conclusion

The UK’s housing crisis is predominantly urban. In cities, supply shortages and an overreliance on limited housing types have pushed rents to record highs. Yet the steady influx of young professionals into urban centres, combined with their stable incomes and long-term demand for rental homes, exposes the clear opportunity and need for a purpose-built housing model designed for them. This new type of housing can divert competition and relieve pressure on the broader urban housing market.

A Purpose-Built Young Professional Accommodation model would fill this gap. It offers an economically viable asset that can be delivered and managed by institutional investors, providing lower rents than Co-Living through higher-density design, targeted regulation exemptions, and reduced amenity costs. By focusing on affordability, efficient layouts, and professional management rather than luxury communal spaces, PBYPA can deliver high-quality, attainable homes for a generation currently priced out of city living.

Policy recommendations

1. Create a new sui generis residential use for PBYPA.
   Planning policy should formally recognise PBYPA as a distinct housing typology, alongside PBSA and Co-Living. This new sui generis use would protect the asset from conversion without new planning permission, provide planning certainty via regulatory exemptions, and establish the regulatory basis for investment at scale.
2. Exempt PBYPA from the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS).
   As with PBSA and Co-Living, smaller private units should be permitted where management standards are in place, but without the need for luxury amenity provision. This flexibility allows for higher density, lower rents, and better use of urban land without compromising quality for young professionals.
3. Exempt PBYPA from dual aspect.
   As a distinct asset class, PBYPA should be exempt from dual aspect requirements in order to maximise deliverable density.
4. Exempt PBYPA from the second staircase rule until 50m height has been met.
   PBYPA should be exempt from second staircase requirements in order to maximise deliverable density.
5. Streamline planning, delivery and affordability by exempting PBYPA from affordable housing provision.
   If investors are able to demonstrate that they can offer PBYPA units at a lower rent than the market price, they should be fast tracked for planning approval. But there should be no requirement for PBYPA to deliver affordable housing, given it is a threat to the delivery of affordability being effectively achieved through the market, and owing to the ability of PBYPA to ease pressure on the wider housing market as a planning gain.
6. Amend the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to recognise filtering schemes.
   The Government should acknowledge that specialist, purpose-built rental products such as PBSA and PBYPA help relieve pressure on the wider housing market by providing dedicated homes for defined groups. This would give local authorities a stronger basis for approving such developments within housing targets.
7. Prioritise brownfield regeneration.
   Local authorities should identify underused or derelict urban sites suited to higher-density, managed housing where development opportunities are rich but under utilised.
8. Enable conversions through Permitted Development Rights (PDR).
   Vacant offices and commercial buildings should be able to be repurposed into PBYPA. But, owing to minimum space requirements nationally applied to permitted developments, this is currently not possible. Exempting PBYPA from the regulation applied to permitted developments would help revitalise city centres while adding affordable homes close to employment without minimum space requirements thwarting their delivery.
9. Repurpose Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) where appropriate.
   In London, portions of under-performing SIL could be re-designated for mixed-use regeneration incorporating PBYPA, subject to no net loss of critical employment capacity. This would align housing delivery with urban intensification objectives.

Endnotes

1. Meaning: use of its own kind.
2. GOV.UK (2023) Help to Buy: Equity Loan scheme data to 30 September 2022. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/help-to-buy-equity-loan-scheme-data-to-30-september-2022/help-to-buy-equity-loan-scheme-data-to-30-september-2022 
3. GOV.UK (2025) Reeves to cut financial red tape to boost homeownership. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reeves-to-cut-financial-red-tape-to-boost-homeownership 
4. Office for National Statistics (2025) Private rental affordability, England. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/privaterentalaffordabilityengland/2024 
5. Office for National Statistics (2025) Private rental affordability, England. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/privaterentalaffordabilityengland/2024 
6. Office for National Statistics (2025) Private rental affordability, England: Affordability in English regions. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/privaterentalaffordabilityengland/2024#affordability-in-english-regions 
7. Zoopla (2025) Rents soar by 22.1% in 3 years to outpace mortgage rises. Available at: https://www.zoopla.co.uk/discover/property-news/rents-soar-by-221-3-years-to-outpace-mortgage-rises/ 
8. A 35% uplift on housing targets applied to the 20 largest cities and urban areas.
9. Urbanist Architecture (2025) Mandatory housing targets. Available at: https://urbanistarchitecture.co.uk/mandatory-housing-targets/ 
10. Resolution Foundation (2023) An intergenerational audit for the UK 2023. Available at: https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2023/11/An-intergenerational-audit-for-the-UK-2023.pdf 
11. This statistic is measured using family units, defined as a single adult or couple, together with any dependent children, counted as one unit.
12. Resolution Foundation (2023) An intergenerational audit for the UK 2023. Available at: https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2023/11/An-intergenerational-audit-for-the-UK-2023.pdf 
13. Office for National Statistics (2024) Geographical mobility of young people across English towns and cities. Available at: https://cy.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/educationandchildcare/articles/geographicalmobilityofyoungpeopleacrossenglishtownsandcities/march2024 
14. Office for National Statistics (2024) Geographical mobility of young people across English towns and cities. Available at: https://cy.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/educationandchildcare/articles/geographicalmobilityofyoungpeopleacrossenglishtownsandcities/march2024 
15. Knight Frank (2024) UK Cities DNA: Stemming the Flow – The Role of Housing in Reversing Regional Brain Drain. Available at: https://www.knightfrank.com/research/article/2024-11-11-uk-cities-dna-stemming-the-flow-the-role-of-housing-in-reversing-regional-brain-drain 
16. GOV.UK (2021) Trend Deck 2021: Urbanisation. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation 
17. GOV.UK (2021) Trend Deck 2021: Urbanisation. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation 
18. Higher Education Policy Institute (2022) What influences the geographical mobility behaviour of university graduates? Available at: https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2022/02/14/what-influences-the-geographical-mobility-behaviour-of-university-graduates/ 
19. Lichfields (2025) Co-living, PBSA and build-to-rent: alternatives to HMOs in London’s rental market. Available at: https://lichfields.uk/blog/2025/may/16/co-living-purpose-built-student-accommodation-pbsa-and-build-to-rent-alternative-to-hmos-in-london-housing-rental-market 
20. Savills (2025) Affordable rents in London co-living. Available at: https://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/229130/372282-0 
21. Onward analysis: Assuming a £30,000 salary; on a Plan 2 Student Loan (undergraduate degree only); a tax code of 1257L; and no pension contribution – an individual could be earning up to £2082 a month.
22. Lichfields (2025) Co-living, PBSA and build-to-rent: alternatives to HMOs in London’s rental market. Available at: https://lichfields.uk/blog/2025/may/16/co-living-purpose-built-student-accommodation-pbsa-and-build-to-rent-alternative-to-hmos-in-london-housing-rental-market 
23. Resolution Foundation (2025) Private rent rises still outpacing earnings. Available at: https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/private-rent-rises-are-still-outpacing-earnings-with-renters-in-london-and-the-welsh-valleys-facing-the-biggest-affordability-wedges-in-britain/ 
24. Nationwide Foundation (2018) Vulnerability report. Available at: https://nationwidefoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Vulnerability-report.pdf 
25. Bloomberg (2023) London rent hikes are forcing young professionals to leave. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-17/london-rent-hikes-are-forcing-young-professionals-to-leave 
26. Ibid.
27. Mortgage Strategy (2025) Number of HMOs in England rises by 2% over year. Available at: https://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/news/number-of-hmos-in-england-rises-by-2-over-year/ 
28. HMO Sales (2025) 10 reasons to invest in HMOs in London. Available at: https://www.hmosales.com/blog/hmo-investment/10-reasons-to-invest-in-hmos-in-london/ 
29. City A.M. (2023) The stories of young professionals ditching London for cheaper rents. Available at: https://www.cityam.com/the-stories-of-young-professionals-ditching-london-for-cheaper-rents/ 
30. Centre for Cities (2025) Breaking the bottlenecks: Minimum space standards for one-bed flats. Available at: https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/breaking-the-bottlenecks/minimum-space-standards-for-one-bed-flats/ 
31. The strategic spatial development framework for housing, transport, growth and environmental policy across Greater London.
32. Centre for Cities (2025) Breaking the bottlenecks: Minimum space standards for one-bed flats. Available at: https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/breaking-the-bottlenecks/minimum-space-standards-for-one-bed-flats/#:~:text=8,standard%20was%20set%20in%202010 
33. Savills (2025) Residential research article. Available at: https://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/229130/381005-0 
34. Centre for Cities (2025) Town and gown: The role of universities in city economies. Available at: https://www.centreforcities.org/publication/town-and-gown-the-role-of-universities-in-city-economies/ 
35. Greater London Authority (2021) The London Plan 2021. Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/the-london-plan-2021-online/chapter-4-housing#policy-h15-purpose-built-student-accommodation-170963-title 
36. GOV.UK (2025) New measures announced to ramp up housebuilding in London. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-announced-to-ramp-up-housebuilding-in-london 
37. Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists (2023) New buildings taller than 18m to require second staircase. Available at: https://architecturaltechnology.com/resource/new-buildings-taller-than-18m-to-require-second-staircase.html 
38. GOV.UK (2024) Calls for second staircases in all new tall residential buildings. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/calls-for-second-staircases-in-all-new-tall-residential-buildings 
39. HM Government (2024) Annex C – Impact Assessment. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6605c8cd91a320b20282b085/Annex_C_-_Impact_Assessment.pdf 
40. Centre for Policy Studies (2025) London briefing. Available at: https://cps.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/London-Briefing-FINAL.pdf 
41. Centre for Cities (2025) Breaking the bottlenecks: Dual staircase requirements. Available at: https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/breaking-the-bottlenecks/dual-staircase-requirements/ 
42. The Times (2024) Student beds shortage exceeds 230,000. Available at: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/student-beds-shortage-exceeds-230000-qsbjwqmcl 
43. Utopi (2025) PBSA demand vs reality. Available at: https://utopi.co.uk/news-and-insights/pbsa-demand-vs-reality/ 
44. Savills (2025) Towards a new London Plan: Balancing PBSA in London’s next growth chapter. Available at: https://www.savills.co.uk/blog/article/378092/residential-property/towards-a-new-london-plan–balancing-pbsa-in-london-s-next-growth-chapter.aspx 
45. Elavace (2025) Better family housing starts with better student living. Available at: https://www.elavace.co.uk/news/better-family-housing-starts-with-better-student-living-actually 
46. JLL (2023) Can improvements in PBSA provision for students help solve the rental crisis? Available at: https://residential.jll.co.uk/insights/research/jll-can-improvements-in-pbsa-provision-for-students-help-solve-the-rental-crisis 
47. Track Capital (N.D) Is PBSA a smart investment? Available at: https://www.trackcapital.co.uk/news-articles/is-pbsa-a-smart-investment/ 
48. Knight Frank (2025) PBSA investment hits £3.9bn. Available at: https://www.knightfrank.com/research/article/2025-02-12-pbsa-investment-hits-ps39bn 
49. Knight Knox (2025) Student property investment explained. Available at: https://knightknox.com/student-property-investment-explained/ 
50. CapX (2023) Filtration, or how building expensive homes can help people on low incomes. Available at: https://capx.co/filtration-or-how-building-expensive-homes-can-help-people-on-low-incomes 
51. GOV.UK (2012) National Planning Policy Framework: Annex 2 – Glossary. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/annex-2-glossary 
52. National Housing Federation (2019) Mapping brownfield sites in England. Available at: https://www.housing.org.uk/globalassets/files/resource-files/20191030briefingmappingbrownfieldsitesinengland.pdf 
53. Dumitriu, S. (2024) Does London really need to protect…? Available at: https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/does-london-really-need-to-protect 
54. Lichfields (2025) Co-living, PBSA and build-to-rent: alternatives to HMOs in London’s rental market. Available at: https://lichfields.uk/blog/2025/may/16/co-living-purpose-built-student-accommodation-pbsa-and-build-to-rent-alternative-to-hmos-in-london-housing-rental-market
    

The post Towering Ambitions appeared first on Onward.

The post Left-wing comedians blocking new homes? It’s beyond a joke appeared first on Onward.

The post Take it from someone homeless, cutting stamp duty will improve lives appeared first on Onward.

The post The Conservative party is at a crossroads appeared first on Onward.

The post New Zealand shows how UK can end housing crisis – we must fix fundamentals appeared first on Onward.