The planning framework is now broadly in place. Labour’s task at conference is to create the economic, political and professional conditions in which development can happen

Lawrence Turner, Director, Boyer

Labour arrived in government with a clear diagnosis: Britain was not building enough because its planning system was not releasing sufficient land or determining applications quickly enough. Much of its response has therefore been directed at planning reform – housing targets, Grey Belt, new towns and a revised National Planning Policy Framework.

While that focus was long-overdue, the issue has now moved on. The question for Labour Party Conference is no longer simply how to secure more planning permissions but how to turn those permissions into homes, workplaces and infrastructure.

The Government’s own figures show the scale of the challenge. England delivered 208,600 net additional dwellings in 2024-25, 6% fewer than in the previous year, and a very long way from the rate required to meet the Government’s housing ambitions.

Has planning reform reached its useful limit?

There is a risk that we have reached ‘peak’ planning reform. The new NPPF is a substantial recasting of national policy which must be absorbed and understood by local authorities, developers and communities so that they can prepare plans and apply its policies consistently.

Further reform may be tempting, particularly when housing numbers remain disappointing. But repeated changes can delay decisions as councils rewrite evidence, officers absorb new guidance and applicants reconsider schemes. Policy stability is now as important as policy ambition.

That does not mean the planning system is fixed, or that further improvements are unnecessary. But the reforms already introduced need time to work, and their success will depend as much on effective implementation as on the policies themselves

Permission is not the same as delivery

Planning can create the opportunity to build but it cannot ensure that buyers can afford the homes, that lenders will lend, that infrastructure is funded or that a scheme remains viable once construction, finance and affordable housing costs have been taken into account.

This is a distinction we see regularly in our work with housebuilders. Securing planning permission can take years, but it does not remove the commercial challenges of actually building a development. A scheme may be acceptable in planning terms yet still struggle to proceed because of infrastructure costs, financing arrangements or the rate at which new homes can be sold.

Build costs and contractor capacity are frequently cited as reasons for current market weakness or polarisation. House prices, sales rates, affordable housing expectations and viability are also prominent concerns, but following the substantial reforms undertaken by the Labour Government since the general election, planning policy is no longer identified as the principal constraint.

So it is vitally important that the Government considers targeted demand-side support, particularly for first-time buyers purchasing new homes. We are not recommending that it reproduces the former Help to Buy scheme without alteration – any successor should be carefully designed, regionally sensitive and protected against unnecessary price inflation – but helping creditworthy households overcome the deposit and affordability barriers would support purchasers while giving housebuilders greater confidence to start and accelerate sites.

The mortgage market alone cannot be expected to close that gap. Recent FCA lending data shows that the proportion of gross advances accounted for by first-time buyers remained lower at the end of 2025 than a year earlier. Supply-side reform is unlikely to achieve its purpose without credible demand.

Give local politicians confidence to support development

The Government also needs to make a stronger public case for development. National politicians cannot set ambitious targets and leave councillors to defend every difficult decision locally.

Communities need to understand what development will provide: affordable homes for local families, better transport, school places, healthcare capacity, jobs and investment. That argument must be supported by infrastructure funding which is visible, timely and credible. Too often, residents experience additional development before they see the promised public benefits.

For councillors, that creates a difficult position. They are being asked to support development today while some of the infrastructure and community benefits that might help secure local support may not materialise for years.

Local political confidence grows when councillors can show that development is part of a plan for a place rather than simply a number imposed upon it.

Growth requires more than housing

Housing dominates the debate but a functioning economy also needs industrial, commercial, logistics, laboratory and data-centre space. New communities need employment and services as well as homes.

Planning policy must not create a hierarchy in which housing is treated as the only development of national importance. A successful growth strategy should plan for the places where people work, the infrastructure that serves them and the supply chains on which housing itself depends.

Back good planners to solve problems

Finally, the Government should focus on the quality and capacity of planning services. The best planning officers do much more than process applications: they understand policy, exercise judgement and work constructively with applicants, councillors and communities to resolve difficult issues.

We see marked differences between authorities where experienced officers engage early and seek solutions and those where stretched teams can do little more than administer the process. More rules cannot compensate for insufficient capacity or the loss of professional judgement.

Labour has spent two years rewriting the planning framework. Its conference message should now be that delivery depends on the whole development system: confident buyers, viable schemes, timely infrastructure, productive local politics and skilled planners. Without those conditions, more permissions will remain permissions on paper.