Five Government interventions that could reshape residential development

As explored in an earlier briefing, the prime minister has made council housebuilding a defining pledge of his government.  In his Manchester Speech in June 2026, he said that "No 10 North will oversee the biggest council house building programme since the post-war period". This pledge was reinforced in Burnham's party conference speech in Liverpool in September 2026 in which he explained that he specifically meant housing delivered and owned by local authorities as opposed to other social housing providers, on the basis that he believes in a "need to restore stronger democratic control over our housing stock.”

As a first step in meeting this promise, the Government has held back a portion of the first wave of funding under the £39bn Social and Affordable Homes Programme for councils instead of housing associations or housebuilders, and is said to be considering whether to make councils eligible for the £2.5bn low-cost loan scheme which was originally meant for registered providers.

Some have questioned these decisions, on the basis that registered providers have the capacity to build homes now whereas councils are generally seen as not being ready for the challenge at present.  For example, in 2024/25, councils built fewer than 2% of the new homes in England, and around half of councils owned no social housing stock.  Rebuilding the skills and organisational capacity needed to scale up delivery will therefore be a major test for Burnham's Government, particularly given ongoing fiscal pressures and workforce shortages.

Many councils themselves point to the financial difficulties that they are experiencing with their current housing stock, such as the costs of repairs exceeding rental income, the high cost of complying with housing regulations such as building safety and the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards, and the upfront costs of development.  However, none of these barriers are insurmountable - possible partial solutions include the Government's Capacity to Build programme, and Steve Reed's proposals for a new state-owned developer which could borrow at lower rates than private developers and housing associations.

There is also a planning law dimension to direct council delivery. A local authority wishing to develop its own housing still requires planning permission to do so. Where the council is both applicant and local planning authority, proper governance separation of powers between the landowner applicant arm and the decision-making arm is essential and sensitive to navigate. In practice, politically contentious self-development proposals may be called in by City Mayors or the Secretary of State. This means that council-led delivery is not necessarily faster than private-sector delivery through the planning system.

The Social Housing Bill was introduced in May 2026, and is currently at Committee Stage in the House of Commons.  The legislation aims to protect existing stock, increase affordable supply, and enhance tenant safety.  In particular, it will reduce the number of social homes sold through the Right to Buy scheme, removing a disincentive for councils to build new supply, while maintaining a route to homeownership for eligible longstanding tenants through the 'Right to Acquire'.  The mechanisms for reducing this loss of social housing include increasing the qualifying period to buy a social home from 3 to 10 years; adjusting the percentage discount off the home's open market value; exempting tenants if they or their spouse owns other residential property; and introducing a 35-year exemption for newly built social homes.

The Bill also introduces a new requirement for private providers of social housing to notify the local authority and other registered providers in the local area before selling a home, in order to maximise opportunities to retain homes in the social housing sector.  The House of Commons Public Bill Committee has completed its line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, which is expected to become law in the first half of 2027.

Empty Dwelling Management Orders (EDMOs) are statutory powers created under Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Housing Act 2004 in England.  They allow councils to take over the management (but not the ownership) of long-term empty homes for up to seven years to bring them back into occupation.  The EDMO regime involves several layers of protection for property owners, for example there are special rules for when homes are empty following bereavement; and the council must always get approval to make an interim EDMO (which is the first stage of the process) from a tribunal.  The tribunal must be satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of occupation. EDMOs have not been used frequently and tend to be seen as a ‘last resort’ where talks between councils and property owners have failed.

On 27 September 2026, the Government announced reforms to EDMOs intended to decrease the number of empty dwellings.  The changes will reduce the period a property must be empty before it becomes eligible for an EDMO from two years to six months; and streamline the application process by removing evidential requirements for councils relating to issues such as anti-social behaviour or community support for intervention.  The Government presented the reforms to Parliament in September in the form of the Housing (Empty Dwelling Management Orders) (Prescribed Period of Time and Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Order 2026 and these came into force on 5 November 2026.

These reforms represent a change to eligibility timing but landowners should not assume that the new regime will open the door to local authorities taking controls of high numbers of vacant homes  - the tribunal will still need to be satisfied that the requisite statutory conditions have been met. In addition, the new regime will not apply to applications for authorisation of an interim order submitted to the tribunal before 5 November 2026, which means that the change in empty dwelling management practice may only become visible after councils reassess and review their policies and cases post implementation.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is the national planning policy published by the Government. It contains the Government’s planning policies for plan-making and for making decisions on development proposals in England, and sets out how these are expected to be applied on a local level. The NPPF is a material consideration for local planning authorities when they create local plans and make decisions about planning applications. Decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan (which includes the local plan) under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, unless material considerations – including the NPPF – indicate otherwise.

A revised version of the NPPF was published by the Government in August 2026 and introduced a key change which seeks to fast-track housing construction around England's transport hubs and stations, formally introducing into policy what the Government describes in its press release of 17 August 2026 as: “a default ‘yes’ for homes within reasonable walking distance of well-connected stations, alongside new minimum expectations for how much housing should be built in these areas”.  A "well-connected station" is defined by the new NPPF as a railway station or underground, tram or light rail stop which satisfies both of the following requirements:

1. Top 80 TTWAs: It is located within a top 80 Travel to Work Area located partially or fully within England, ranked by Gross Value Added; and
   
   
2. Minimum service frequency: In the normal weekday timetable, it is served — or has a "reasonable prospect" of being served due to planned upgrades or through agreement with the rail operator — throughout the daytime by at least four trains or trams per hour overall, or at least two trains or trams per hour in any one direction.

Once a station qualifies as "well-connected", the NPPF permits residential and mixed-use development where all four of the following limbs are satisfied:

1. The development would be within "reasonable walking distance" of the well-connected station — defined as around 800 metres, or around 10 minutes' walk time if topography, route availability and quality, or physical barriers would prevent or discourage walking from up to 800 metres away. Where only part of a site falls within the reasonable walking distance, these provisions apply only to that part;
   
   
2. The development would be "physically well-related" to the station or the settlement within which the station is located;
   
   
3. The development would be of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructure; and
   
   
4. The development would not prejudice any proposals for long-term comprehensive development in the same location.

Where those four conditions are met, a minimum density of 35 dwellings per hectare must be achieved within the net developable area of the site. A higher minimum of 45 dwellings per hectare applies where the service frequency is at least twice the minimum required for a well-connected station. Those minimum densities should be exceeded where possible, particularly in areas of high connectivity. Exceptions to both thresholds are limited to: (i) sites falling below the major development threshold (fewer than 10 dwellings or under 0.5 hectares) where meeting the standard can be demonstrated to be inappropriate or not possible; and (ii) traveller sites.

Where such sites fall within or adjacent to designated Green Belt, proposals are also likely to need to satisfy the NPPF "Golden Rules" for development on Green Belt and Grey Belt land. Under those rules, sites released from the Green Belt are expected to deliver at least 50% affordable housing, with a specified proportion as social rent, alongside infrastructure contributions and improvements to public access to green space. The interaction of this affordable housing requirement with the minimum density standards and transport-infrastructure contributions may create acute viability pressure on qualifying Green Belt sites.

Andy Burnham's well-publicised commitment to devolution means that the role played by local and regional authorities in delivering infrastructure may increase over time. England has yet to feel the impact of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, which will shift planning powers away from locally driven decision-making towards a more strategic, regional approach to growth, infrastructure, and land use.

For example, a recent study suggests that England’s devolution programme could boost the delivery of affordable homes in rural communities, provided that rural priorities are embedded in local strategies and supported by national safeguards. This is because devolution will give local leaders new powers over housing, planning, and investment.

Strategic Authorities, of which Mayoral Strategic Authorities will have the most far reaching and flexible powers, will be required to develop 'Spatial Development Strategies' (SDSs) to enable strategic planning across local authority boundaries. It is thought that this will allow greater scope for bringing forward larger-scale projects, but developers will need time to adjust to a new tier of strategic authorities and varying local rules. Seen alongside the new National Scheme of Delegation, the new regime may also be perceived as weakening democratic scrutiny of planning decisions.

The legal status of SDSs within the development plan hierarchy is critical. The London Plan provides the established precedent: it forms part of the statutory development plan for every London borough under the Greater London Authority Acts and must be given primacy in decision-making under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. If SDSs adopted by other Mayoral Strategic Authorities are given equivalent status – forming part of the development plan for each constituent local authority area – this will fundamentally restructure decision-making outside London. Strategic site allocations in an SDS would carry development plan weight, not merely the weight of a material consideration. For land promoters, securing recognition of a site as a strategic growth location at the SDS stage will therefore be decisive.

The National Scheme of Delegation will also have practical implications for decision-making. By shifting a wider category of planning applications from committee to officer-delegated decision, the Scheme is intended to reduce delays and inconsistency. For developers, this reduces the risk of committee override of officer recommendations on policy-compliant schemes, but also removes a political pressure point that can sometimes be used to secure consent for marginal proposals. It will also change the decision-making record that is available for judicial review, as challenges to officer-delegated decisions involve a different factual and procedural matrix than challenges to committee decisions.

The policy direction is towards a more interventionist housing market, with a stronger role for councils, mayoral authorities and strategic planning bodies. Investors should prioritise early engagement with public-sector partners, re-test development and lending assumptions for policy-driven delays and infrastructure costs, and maintain active management of vacant assets. The most attractive opportunities are likely to arise where schemes deliver clear public-policy outcomes: transport-led density, affordable housing, brownfield regeneration and infrastructure-led growth.