Ben Arrowsmith, head of the planning team at national law firm Roythornes Solicitors, reviews the good and the bad of Labour’s first year in parliament
This time last year, both Labour and the Conservatives were promising to fix Britain. The economy was on life support, the planning system was paralysed, and the housing crisis showed no sign of easing.
Since moving into No.10, Keir Starmer and his party have certainly had their hands full: broken public services, record-high NHS waiting lists, an outdated planning framework and, of course, the so-called £22bn ‘black hole’ apparently left by the Conservatives.
Still, there’s no denying Labour has made progress – but is it enough to lift the UK out of its “sluggish” economic slump? Let’s take a closer look and review what they’ve achieved in planning and development over the past 12 months.
The target: Will 1.5m homes be delivered this parliament?
In short, no. And the government seems to know it. Back in March, Labour appeared to have quietly revised the headline housing pledge of 1.5m new homes, with Rachel Reeves suggesting to MPs that the government would get “within touching distance” by creating 1.3m new homes by 2029, and this being further suggested in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report following the Spring Statement. However, the government’s manifesto pledge remains at 1.5m new homes. Where did the original number come from?
To put it into perspective, 1.5m homes by 2029–30 means delivering around 300,000 homes per year in England alone – 1.3m would equate to 260,000. It’s ambitious – and arguably arbitrary. Has the government taken a page from Yamasa Toki’s book, pulling numbers from the same source as the infamous 10,000 steps a day? What started as a marketing slogan is now a universally accepted benchmark – but that doesn’t make it evidence-based.
There’s little publicly available data to show how this figure was calculated, and no clear empirical foundation to back it up. 300,000 new homes was originally set out as a recommendation by Dame Kate Barker in The 2004 Barker Review of Housing Supply. However, in her follow-up report, the Beyond Barker published in April 2024, Dame Kate said: “The prospect of 300,000 new homes a year seems as far off today as it did in 2004.” Still, bold targets can be useful to kick-start reform and grab headlines – even if reality is already lagging behind. Instead of 10,000 steps, benefits accrue at 7,000 with the new fashion comprising even fewer steps with 30-minute interval walking.
A wobbly start or steady foundations?
Change is never easy – especially when you’re trying to fix a system as entrenched and clunky as planning. Labour deserves credit for taking on a challenge that’s been ducked by successive governments. They’ve shown real commitment to reshaping the planning process, starting with its messy methodology – but progress will take time.
This isn’t a quick fix. Labour is opting for long-term, systemic reform – and meaningful change comes slowly. Consultation, legislative changes and structural overhauls rarely result in overnight success. It’s no surprise, then, some estimates put the number of which will have been delivered come the first anniversary of Labour in power at around 215,000.
But some early wins can’t be ignored. Barriers have been removed, processes are being simplified and the foundations for future delivery are being laid. If the next four or five years go to plan, things should start to accelerate – and Labour’s proposed 12 new towns (“well-designed beautiful communities”) for England could play a key role.
Planning reform: is the overhaul working?
Changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the introduction of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill represent, arguably, the most meaningful overhaul of planning in decades.
Key changes include the introduction of grey belt development, affordable housing reforms, updates to Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs), a shake-up of planning committees and, crucially, the reinstatement of mandatory housing targets.
The grey belt policy allows certain low-quality green belt land – defined as “land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b) and (d) in paragraph 143 of the NPPF.” Land on the edge of existing roads or settlements may fall under this new category, but the final decision lies with local councils. If implemented properly, this could reduce pressure on protected green belt areas and unlock thousands of new homes.
Affordable housing has also seen a shift. Developers building on grey belt land will be required to deliver 15% more affordable housing than the local baseline – so if policy requires 30%, developers must hit 45%. And half of all homes built on any green belt land must now be affordable.
The revamped Affordable Homes Programme – backed by an £11.5bn budget – also aims to deliver tens of thousands of new homes by 2026. This sits alongside the NPPF’s removal of minimum requirements for First Homes, offering more flexibility and making it easier for developers to deliver social rent. Higher percentages of social rent are also being supported by the NPPF, bringing policy closer in line with actual need.
On that note, the quiet axing of a compulsory minimum of First Homes from the NPPF is a welcome move. Councils previously struggled to agree on whether they counted toward affordable housing quotas, which created inconsistency and confusion.
Labour has also reinstated mandatory housing targets, replacing previously advisory figures. These targets now carry legal weight, alongside a revised standard method for calculating housing need. The method aims to remove arbitrary caps and base delivery on a percentage of existing housing levels – a more proportionate and arguably fairer approach. Whether this will be properly enforced remains to be seen.
A recent publication, Speeding Up Build Out (along with the government’s accompanying technical consultation), as its title hints at, sets out measures to speed up the build out process. A key tenet of this publication is the Transparency and Accountability Measures provided for in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. The build out framework will include measures such as the issuing of completion notices to developers who have stalled on building out and the issuing of what is termed a “delayed homes penalty”. Developers will agree a build out timetable with the LPA and in the event the developer falls “substantially behind” the agreed build out schedule, i.e. by 10% or more, they will be required to pay this penalty.
Planning committees are also getting a refresh, with a focus on standardisation, training and streamlining. Smaller, more targeted committees could lead to more professional decision-making and fewer delays – and perhaps even push back on ‘NIMBY-ism’.
But not all reforms have been welcomed. Environmental concerns have been raised around the Planning and Infrastructure Bill – specifically, how developers meet their ecological obligations. Part three of the bill focuses on ‘development and nature recovery’ and introduces a new ‘Nature Restoration Fund’.
Rather than handling environmental protections themselves, developers can now pay into the fund as a form of compensation, potentially releasing them from certain duties around protected sites or species. Labour has called this a “win-win” – but is it really? Or does it risk letting developers buy their way out of environmental responsibility with a fraction of their profit margins?
Whether this turns into a progressive solution or a loophole depends on how it’s managed – and how seriously developers take their environmental duties.
Biodiversity Net Gain: Noble idea or easy cut?
Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) isn’t going anywhere – on 28 May 2025, the government opened its consultation on BNG applying to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects from May 2026 – but it is vulnerable. It is one of the few areas where the government may be tempted to trim obligations if housebuilding rates falter. Developers already face multiple financial pressures, from education and highways to wider community infrastructure. If things get tight, BNG might be seen as expendable although it is enshrined in legislation and, so would require further legislative changes.
There’s a growing sense that, while BNG is well-intentioned, it could fall behind other priorities like schools or NHS capacity. The scheme’s effectiveness may also be diluted by a shift away from meaningful local offsetting towards the centralised funding pots mentioned earlier. The BNG metric is, in essence, quantitative meaning that certain habitats score more highly than others, even where a habitat may not be the most suitable for the local environment. Further, even with a “discount” for more localised provision of BNG, developers may buy land elsewhere – such as the north of England, for example – where the cost of land is that much cheaper that, even with the BNG metric’s “penalty”, it still makes economic sense. However, such a scenario, surely, defeats the purpose of the BNG rules.
A breeding ground for case law
From a legal perspective, this is where things get interesting and busier. The reforms will need careful navigation, especially as local authorities and developers work through what the new policies mean in practice.
There’s always a risk that progress is slowed not by the reforms themselves, but by the arguments they provoke. Legal clarity takes time, and in the meantime, some projects may stall while definitions and requirements are tested in court.
A cautious recovery
The first half of the year was tough with the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse making their presence felt. Global instability, including the Trump effect, shook market confidence and dampened activity. But there are green shoots. In the past month or so, developer activity has begun to pick up again.
One of the big drivers is the revised standard method. Several local authorities now face dramatically higher housing targets, some which have seen a 400% increase, largely due to affordability adjustments. That’s good news for developers already working in those areas. But land acquisition is still cautious. There’s optimism, but it’s cautious optimism.
Local authorities: can they keep up with reform?
Policy reform is one thing and delivery is another. Under-resourced planning departments are the silent challenge. No matter how progressive the policy is, it won’t work without the people and systems to deliver it.
The ambition is clear, and the building blocks are being put in place. But planning departments are stretched. Chronic underfunding, staff churn and limited capacity mean that even the best-intentioned reforms risk faltering at ground level.
It’s not always policy that delays applications; it’s the lack of officers to move things forward. And while there’s been a lot of talk about high-level reform, there’s been far less visibility around structural support for local planning authorities. Reform in principle only works if it’s backed by execution in practice. Without real investment in local capacity, even the most forward-thinking framework risks stalling.
Small developers: still on the sidelines?
SMEs currently remain at a disadvantage. While large housebuilders can weather delays and fund legal support, smaller firms often can’t. Tight margins and cashflow pressures make them more vulnerable to a system that still feels costly and complex.
The revised housing targets and standard methodology could open new doors, but that doesn’t mean smaller developers are better equipped to walk through them. Reducing red tape and clarifying the NPPF would help. So would faster planning decisions and a more digitised system. But again, all of this depends on whether local authorities have the tools and people to deliver.
SMEs are also more exposed to additional “cost” burdens. BNG, Section 106 agreements and, where it has been introduced, the Community Infrastructure Levy, all add up. If the system remains complex and frontloaded with costs, smaller players will continue to struggle.
One year in: is it enough?
The ambition is welcome and it’s refreshing to see a government trying to overhaul the system rather than tweak around the edges. But more could have been done earlier, particularly around consultation on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
The real test will be whether Labour can convert ambition into delivery. That means homes built, not just policies published. The danger is being judged too soon, or solely by numbers. Planning reform is complicated, and one year is a relative drop in the ocean.
Labour’s success depends on staying the course and maintaining consistency. This can’t be another cycle of change for change’s sake. The foundations are in place but what’s needed now is follow-through.
The point is: vision is welcome. But now comes the hard part – making it real. In the words of Horace: “Dum loquimur, fugerit invida aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.”
The post Labour’s first year review: Building the future or falling short? appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
