Skip to content

The Government’s Planning Reform Working Paper proposes a series of bold measures to accelerate housing delivery, including stronger local authority powers, penalties for delayed build outs, and new transparency requirements for developers. While the paper aims to streamline planning, support SME builders, and promote tenure diversity, there are concerns about its focus on developer accountability without addressing root causes of delay such as planning discharge complexity and housing association viability. Brookbanks welcomes transparency but warns that added reporting burdens and penalties may hinder rather than help delivery, particularly where delays are outside developers’ control.

  • A bold plan seeking to break the ‘housing delivery deadlock’
  • Stronger local authority powers for faster build out and penalties for developers
  • Continuing the mantra of a focus on housebuilding from Government but fails to direct attention to the root causes of delays to delivery such as increasingly onerous planning discharge requirements and instability in housing association tenders to deliver new affordable housing
  • Consultation is open until 7th July 2025

The Government’s Planning Reform Working Paper lays out a determined approach to speeding up the delivery of new homes, aiming to address what they view as a persistent problem of slow build out rates that frustrate both local authorities and communities. The paper recognises that while planning permissions have increased, the actual pace at which homes are built lags behind what is needed to achieve their ambitious targets.

To address these challenges, the paper proposes a five-part strategy. It prioritises planning system reforms to which we are now well familiar, such as mandatory housing targets and a modernised Green Belt policy, to streamline approvals and increase land supply. The government also aims to boost demand through measures like a permanent ‘Mortgage Guarantee Scheme’ to help first-time buyers. Supporting SME developers and small sites is another key focus, as these typically deliver homes more quickly. The strategy further encourages faster build out by promoting mixed-tenure developments and higher levels of affordable housing, whilst there is no doubt that diversity in tenure can be a positive for accelerated delivery, this is not an approach that can be realistically transposed in every locality. Finally, it strengthens Local Planning Authority (LPA) powers with reforms to the Compulsory Purchase Order process and introduces a ‘Delayed Homes Penalty’ for developers who fall significantly behind schedule, the most significant and controversial of the proposed measures.

There may be a small number of scenarios where these penalties may be justified, but how will responsibility for delays be reliably determined?

The Delayed Homes Penalty has been designed to act as a last resort, to be imposed on developers, when sites fall significantly behind on agreed schedules. This punitive measure aims to unlock stalled sites caused by inaction, ensuring that planning permissions are translated into completed homes more efficiently. Our experience is that inaction in delivery deliberately caused by a developer is extremely rare.   There may be a small number of scenarios where these penalties may be justified, but how will responsibility for delays be reliably determined? Large-scale developments often face complex challenges and involve multiple stakeholders, meaning delays are not always within the developer’s control. If the Government choose to move forwards with a penalty, it will be imperative to ensure that there are procedures to ensure they are applied fairly with an independent challenge or review process being in place and consider the full range of potential causes for delay.

In terms of overcoming absorption constraints, the paper’s emphasis on mixed-tenure developments, higher proportions of affordable housing, and support for SMEs, directly addressing factors that slow build out. By encouraging models where homes are pre-sold to institutional landlords or housing associations, and by diversifying the types of developers active in the market, the strategy aims to reduce reliance on the traditional sales-driven approach that limits annual delivery. However, the effectiveness of these measures will depend on their implementation and the extent to which they can be balanced against scheme viability, particularly in lower-demand areas where market risks are higher.

Looking ahead, the paper signals further changes that could benefit the development industry and the planning system. The move towards more ‘rules-based’ national policies for development management, a more proportionate statutory consultee system, and the finalisation of a National Scheme of Delegation for planning committees are all intended to reduce bottlenecks and provide greater certainty for developers. The recent technical consultation on the reform of planning committees contains some proposed alterations including:

  • Delegating the decisions of most Tier A and B applications;
Tier A Householder Development
Minor Commercial Development
Minor Residential Development
Reserved Matters Approvals
Non Material Amendment Applications
Approval of Conditions including Schedule 5 Mineral Planning Conditions
Approval of a BNG Plan
Approval of Prior Approvals
Lawful Development Certificates
Certificates of Appropriate Alternative Development
Tier B

*Subject to a gateway test through which the chief planning officer (or equivalent officer in LPAs without a chief planning officer) and chair of planning committee must mutually agree that they should go to committee if they are to depart from the assumed delegation*

Applications for planning permission not in Tier A
Notwithstanding Tier A, any application for planning permission where the applicant is the local authority, a councillor or officer
Section 73 applications to vary conditions
Review of mineral planning conditions
  • Mandatory training for planning committee members, and
  • Smaller, dedicated committees to deal with strategic development applications.

If implemented effectively, these changes should help streamline decision-making and reduce the delays that currently hamper delivery, though care will be needed to ensure local context and community input are not lost in the process.

Technical consultation on implementing measures to improve Build Out transparency​

  • New build out transparency rules: Brookbanks urges practical approach to avoid delays
  • Developers face increased reporting demands under government’s build out proposals
  • Brookbanks: Build out reforms must balance transparency with real-world delivery challenges

The government’s proposals introduce a statutory framework that will require developers to submit build out statements alongside planning applications, issue commencement notices prior to starting on site, and provide annual development progress reports. While these measures are designed to offer LPAs and communities greater transparency regarding housing delivery and progress, Brookbanks believes there are several important practical considerations that must be addressed for these reforms to achieve their intended objectives.

We recognise that the systematic collection of more comprehensive data on build out rates will enable LPAs, central government, and communities to better understand the progress of residential development. In principle, this should facilitate more informed decision-making, highlight bottlenecks in the delivery process, and promote greater accountability among all parties involved. The shift towards digital submissions and standardised reporting is also a welcome step towards modernising the planning system.

There is a genuine risk that this additional workload could inadvertently slow down the planning process rather than accelerate the delivery of new homes.

However, we are concerned that these new requirements will significantly increase the administrative burden for both developers and LPAs. Developers will be required to allocate additional resources to prepare detailed build out statements, and annual progress reports for each eligible scheme. Simultaneously, LPAs—many of which are already facing capacity challenges—will be responsible for assessing and monitoring a higher volume of technical documentation. There is a genuine risk that this additional workload could inadvertently slow down the planning process rather than accelerate the delivery of new homes.

In addition to this, the new build out rules, which require detailed reports and notices for every application, could prefer to submit smaller applications (50 dwellings or less) to avoid the extra requirements. This could lead to less certainty about when and how bigger housing sites get built.

“…it is essential to acknowledge that delays in build out are frequently caused by factors beyond a developer’s control.”

A particular area of concern is the proposed power for LPAs to decline to determine planning applications from developers who are deemed not to have built out previous permissions at a reasonable rate. While we understand the intention to incentivise timely delivery, it is essential to acknowledge that delays in build out are frequently caused by factors beyond a developer’s control. It is therefore vital that LPAs are required to consider these legitimate factors before exercising this potential new power.

Meet our Associate Director within our Planning Team

Associate Director

Annabel Le Lohé

Read Profile

More News

UK Housing Market Update – April 2025

May 8, 2025

UK Housing Market Update – April 2025: April brought a mixed picture for the UK housing market, reflecting both positive momentum in some areas and persistent structural challenges in others. From house price trends to construction sector performance and regulatory hurdles, here’s a comprehensive round-up of the month’s key developments.

Read More