What can academic evidence and expertise contribute to the UK's housebuilding targets?

Download a copy of Anthony Breach's presentation.

Given historical precedents, the 1.5 million-home target looks ambitious. There is a record of under-delivery: previous Conservative governments failed to meet their lower target to build even 1 million homes. As a result, housing has become increasingly unaffordable – in 1997, the average UK house price was 3.5 times the median income; by 2024, this had risen to 7.7 times the median income, which is even worse in London and the southeast. The Centre for Cities estimates that the UK is now missing 4.3 million homes since 1955 compared to the west European average. The intertwined problems of insufficient and increasingly unaffordable housing supply presents severe consequences for intergenerational mobility and the demand for growth powered by cities.

There are many reasons for the stagnation in housebuilding. So-called ‘NIMBYs’ have significant influence on planning decisions through the powers over zoning and development granted to local authorities. Anthony Breach particularly highlighted the impact of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA). While this provided for an expansion in housing in the immediate years afterwards, from the 1960s the regime it introduced oversaw an era of stagnation in housebuilding. By providing greater powers to local authorities to decide on local development, the act imposed a slow tightening on the planning process, with building rates ultimately detached from local house prices. This in turn points to a need to pay greater attention to the emotional, political, and sociological reasons why local authorities resist national policies for housing. The language of planning policy may be a weak lever to deliver substantial change.

The panellists suggested a number of tools to accelerate progress towards the 1.5 million target. While not in itself sufficient, planning reform has an important role to play, particularly by providing clearer definitions and accountability. For example, panellists advocated greater flexibility with biodiversity net gain requirements, recognising that there will be knock-on costs from planning decisions but that it is necessary to make decisions about what to prioritise. A flexible zoning system, similar to that in Japan, and replacing the TCPA might also help to unlock housebuilding.

Furthermore, a broader conversation about land value capture and taxation could offer an avenue to delivering local infrastructure and value. However, it is important to be transparent about where money raised will be spent so that local communities get on board, and to be wary about excessive burdens that might stop further development. Finally, greater investment in social rented housing would be a step to address the crisis of affordability.

If there was one clear message from the CSaP panel, it was that solving the UK’s housing crisis demands more than just targets – it requires structural change, political will, and a deeper understanding of both the system and the society it serves. Research has an important role to play in meeting this gap. Further research should explore how levers actually work, rooted in their geographic context. Studying international comparisons is an important avenue for understanding successes and failures, although policy makers should be conscious of the institutional and legal differences that limit the relevance of international examples. And with all research, it is important to pay attention to the social context amid such an emotive issue as housing. In order to successfully reach the 1.5 million homes target, policy makers need to understand the drivers behind local attitudes towards developments, and to consider how decision makers can develop trust with the communities they serve.