Property and investment leaders are calling on Government to consider five targeted reforms to get stalled housing schemes moving, tackling the viability pressures, costs and uncertainty holding back delivery.
A new paper convened by Related Argent argues that, while recent Government action on planning and support for buyers is welcome, the housing crisis cannot be addressed without tackling the supply-side pressures preventing otherwise deliverable schemes from progressing.
Unlocking Housing Delivery: Practical Reforms to Get Britain Building sets out five measures intended to reduce avoidable costs, risk and uncertainty while maintaining high standards of safety, quality and sustainability.
The proposals were developed following a roundtable convened by Related Argent, with organisations represented including Barclays, Invesco, the Institute of Directors, London Councils, Long Harbour, Mace, Peabody, Related Argent, the Royal Borough of Greenwich and Sovereign Network Group.
There was also participation in the discussion from Charlie Pugsley, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Building Safety Regulator; Joanna Averley, Chief Planner and Head of the Planning Profession at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; Tom Copley, Deputy Mayor of London for Housing and Residential Development at the Greater London Authority; and Alison Flight, Deputy Head of Development Management at the Greater London Authority.
The proposals have also been subject to indicative economic and fiscal modelling, examining their potential impact over 12, 24 and 36 months. The analysis uses Office for Budget Responsibility parameters and assumptions wherever possible and has been informed by Anna Leach, Chief Economist at the Institute of Directors, giving the recommendations a clearer evidence base for further Government and Treasury consideration.
The intervention comes as housing starts remain 25% below 2022 levels and 43% below the rate required to meet the Government’s 300,000 homes-a-year target in England. In London, just 600 new homes were sold to individual buyers in the first quarter of 2026, while the capital is now the second most expensive city in the world in which to build, behind only Geneva. Only 4,170 homes were started in London in 2024/25, less than 5% of the capital’s official annual target of 88,000 homes and 95% below the target.
The paper argues that latent demand for homes exists, but too often is not translating into viable development because of the cumulative cost and uncertainty involved in bringing schemes forward.
The five proposals are:
- Time-limited Stamp Duty Land Tax relief for new-build homes, targeted at eligible purchasers of primary homes, with the potential for an incentive for downsizers also to be tested. The measure is intended to accelerate new-build sales and enable the financial viability of schemes currently unable to commence construction due to lack of buyer demand.
- Following the introduction of the Renters Reform Act, a 25-year exemption from any future rent controls for new purpose-built rental homes, alongside robust renter protections, giving institutional investors greater long-term certainty when committing capital to Build to Rent.
- VAT relief on eligible service charges and operating costs for new-build homes for 25 years, with the saving passed on to residents. The measure would apply across market sale, Build to Rent, shared ownership, affordable and social housing to reduce the cost pressure on maintaining a new home.
- A rapid, ring-fenced fund for local authorities to access specialist technical and legal expertise on complex planning applications, including issues such as viability, infrastructure, ecology and Section 106 negotiations to accelerate the resolution of complex issues that can delay housing schemes from starting on site.
- Greater regulatory cost certainty for projects ready to start on site, establishing a clear regulatory baseline so that specified requirements and their associated costs do not change during delivery, except where genuine safety issues require intervention, providing more investment certainty for global capital.
Indicative analysis informed by Anna Leach, Chief Economist at the Institute of Directors, suggests that a three-year new-build stamp duty relief could support around 3,600–7,200 purchases that are additional or materially accelerated over three years.
The analysis estimates a static fiscal cost of around £0.3–£0.6 billion a year, or £1.0–£1.9 billion over three years and calls for the OBR to test this against the potential impact on additional housing starts, jobs and wider economic growth.
A 25-year exemption from future rent controls could, indicatively, support around 2,000–4,000 additional or accelerated Build-to-Rent homes over three years, with between £100 million and £300 million of construction activity potentially moving forward within the first 12 months.
The proposed VAT relief could meanwhile reduce service charges by around £640–£970 per home each year, equivalent to approximately 9–14% of a typical £7,000 annual charge. For Build-to-Rent, the paper estimates that the saving could equate to around £14,000–£21,500 of additional value per home supporting lower rents and directly reducing ongoing costs for residents.
Tom Goodall, Chief Executive Director at Related Argent, said:
“Targets don’t build homes – viable and deliverable schemes do. And the uncomfortable reality is that it is simply too expensive to build in too many parts of Britain today. It costs more to build a home in Bristol than in Paris, Los Angeles or Sydney. The bricks, steel and concrete are not fundamentally different here; what compounds the cost is the time, complexity and regulatory burden involved in getting homes built. Too often those costs are simply not proportionate to the risk in delivering new homes in Britian today.
“Government is right to reform planning, but consent is only the start. If schemes cannot be financed, sold or delivered with confidence, they will not move from paper to construction. We can grant all the permissions we like, but unless we tackle the economics of delivery, we will continue to fall short.
“These five proposals are deliberately practical. They are about reducing avoidable cost and friction, improving viability and giving investors and developers greater certainty – without lowering standards. And this is about more than housing; getting schemes moving means investment, jobs and growth which are essential to the success of London and the UK’s future.”
John German, Managing Director, Head of Living Investments at Invesco, said:
“The UK has substantial private capital ready to invest in housing. The challenge is creating the conditions in which that capital can be committed with confidence and over the long term.
“What is compelling about these proposals is that they are focused on enabling delivery rather than simply creating new subsidy. Relatively targeted changes that improve certainty, reduce avoidable friction and strengthen viability can allow private capital to do more of the heavy lifting.
“Getting more housing built is also about much more than the homes themselves. It unlocks investment, construction activity and jobs and supports wider economic growth. That is why creating a more predictable environment for investment should be seen as part of the growth agenda.”
Rebecca Taylor, Managing Director of Multifamily at Long Harbour, said:
“The housing crisis is fundamentally a supply-side challenge. There is demand for good-quality homes, including apartments, but too many schemes are being held back by viability and by the rising cost of owning, renting and operating them.
“We already zero-rate the construction and first sale of a new home, yet VAT on many of the eligible costs of running that home ultimately becomes a permanent cost for residents, landlords and housing associations. This feeds directly into service charges (the cost of maintaining and managing a building), which have risen sharply and are now a real source of pressure for people living in apartments. Reducing that burden would lower costs for households while also improving the economics of development.
“Combined with greater long-term certainty for investment in new rental housing, measures like this could make a meaningful difference to whether schemes proceed. Crucially, they are about improving the conditions for new supply rather than relying on an ongoing demand subsidy.”
The paper calls on Government and industry to consider and further test the proposals alongside the planning-capacity, building-regulation and housing-delivery reforms already under way. It argues that reducing controllable costs and uncertainty could help create a more investable housing pipeline while supporting jobs, investment and long-term economic growth.