This site uses cookies, as explained in our cookie policy. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Privacy Policy

Planning matters

Our award winning blog gives a fresh perspective on the latest trends in planning and development.

Planning Challenges: Decarbonising the UK Transport Network

Planning Challenges: Decarbonising the UK Transport Network

Ryan Barrett 29 Apr 2025
The delivery of a Carbon Net Zero economy has been an objective of the UK Government for many years, and the latest target - Net Zero by 2050 –was reiterated in the latest version of the National Planning Policy Framework, issued in December 2024.[1] This reflects the broader aspiration, set by the Paris Climate Agreement – a legally binding international treaty on climate change dating back to 2015 –to limit global warming to no more than 1.5°C.
To move towards this, the Government is aiming for carbon emissions in 2030 to be reduced by 45% when compared to 2010 levels[2] – and many local authorities around the UK, including my home city of Leeds, have declared climate emergencies.
The shift towards electric vehicles from petrol and diesel vehicles is a key element of the strategy to decarbonise the UK transport network[3]. Research by The Guardian, claims that life cycle emissions for EU electric cars are three times lower than for petrol cars[4] and therefore the comprehensive adoption of electric vehicles will have a significant impact in terms of reducing our climate impact.
In recognition of this, in 2022, the UK Government unveiled a target to deliver 300,000 public electric vehicle charging points on our roads by 2030[5]. The Government does, however, also recognise the challenges associated with meeting this target – and the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Strategy (also published in 2022) highlights how the lack of existing charging infrastructure is acting as barrier to the adoption of electric vehicles, identifying the rollout of new charge points and the availability of good quality public charging facilities as two of the key challenges behind this[6].
Whilst some progress has been made towards the 300,000 target, as of 1 January 2025, there were only 73,334 public electric vehicle charging devices installed in the UK[7]. Of these public chargers, only 10% comprised ultra-fast charging points (150kW+), and only 9% of chargers were in ‘en route’ locations, providing facilities to enable recharge and the continuation of a journey. Whilst the Government has introduced permitted development rights for EV charging upstands in off-street locations, this is effectively targeted at domestic and private properties rather than general public use.
On this basis, therefore, unless existing permitted development rights can be extended, a high volume of planning permissions will still need to be granted if we are to reach the 2030 target and facilitate the wide-spread adoption of electric vehicles.
Delays in obtaining planning permission are often cited as a major brake on the rollout of EV charging facilities. Whilst there are other significant obstacles - particularly in relation to the availability of power-  our recent experience unfortunately supports the view that, at present, the planning system is failing to provide effective support for the transition to EV, with application determination timescales for new public charging facilities being regularly in excess of statutory target timescales regardless of whether a local climate change emergency has been declared or not. Indeed, on the basis of our experience, it can take around two years to navigate an EV charging scheme proposal through the planning process from an initial pre-application enquiry through to a grant of planning permission, and the discharge of associated planning conditions. This is a reflection of a range of factors, from slow and poorly resourced local planning functions, through to excessive application validation requirements, painfully slow responses from consultees, and applications being determined via committee rather than by officers under delegated powers.
This will be of no surprise to those who regularly submit planning applications – delays have unfortunately become all too common across the planning sector, regardless of the strength of the planning case or urgency of the need for the development – and changes / further reform is undoubtedly needed to address general failures in the operation of the planning system as a whole.
However, perhaps there is also scope to consider specific policy and regulatory changes which might ensure that the rollout of EV charging infrastructure is better supported?
An obvious starting point would be for the Government to introduce much stronger and clearer support for EV charging infrastructure in national planning policy. The Government published a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework in December, but – despite the introduction of express support for other emerging infrastructure requirements such as data centres – remained strangely silent in relation to EV charging infrastructure. 
At minimum, the NPPF should recognise the important role that new EV charging infrastructure will play in supporting the transition away from fossil fuels. However, it could and perhaps should, go further e.g. by placing a new requirement upon local authorities to assess the need for EV charging facilities in their areas, and to plan for new infrastructure, where needed, through the next generation of Local Plans. Linked to this, there could be a policy presumption in favour of new EV infrastructure unless there are clear and compelling reasons why a proposal is not acceptable.  
Whether through revised national policy, or via other means the Government should also be looking to offer stronger and clearer guidance to statutory consultees – particularly National Highways (given that significant improvement in EV infrastructure is needed on or close to the strategic road network) – in relation to the importance of EV infrastructure in supporting the transition to clean energy. This would ensure that such infrastructure is seen as a strategic priority - and help to ensure that other agencies of Government work positively and collaboratively with local authorities and the private sector to deliver the facilities required.
Finally, local planning authorities also have a key role to play – whether through Local Plan policymaking or development management. Planning applications for EV infrastructure are rarely given priority – despite the wider aspirations of Government and the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Strategy – and are treated as commercial applications like any other, despite their potential to support the delivery of essential infrastructure. Indeed, they are often determined over time periods of 12 months or longer even in areas where a Climate Emergency has been declared. This will need to change if we are to have any prospect of delivering upon the Government’s aspiration to deliver 300,000 public EV charging points by 2030.

 

Footnotes

[1] National Planning Policy Framework, 2024

[2] United Nations, For a livable climate: Net-zero commitments must be backed by credible action

[3] HM Government, Net Zero Strategy: Build Back Greener, 2021

[4] The Guardian, Do electric cars really product fewer carbon emissions than petrol or diesel vehicles? 2023

[5] Gov.UK, Tenfold expansion by 2030 as government drives EV revolution, 2022

[6] Gov.UK, UK electric vehicle infrastructure strategy, 2022

[7] Department for Transport, Electric vehcile public charging infrastructure statistics, 2025 

Image credit: BP Pulse

CONTINUE READING

Housing in Scotland: Is it time for cautious optimism?

Housing in Scotland: Is it time for cautious optimism?

Kenny Mitchell 14 Apr 2025
Following on from our blog ‘Celebrating 10 years of Lichfields in Scotland’, which focused on what we’ve learned and what’s next, this blog will discuss the outlook for housing policy and delivery.
It is fair to say that Scotland’s housing system has faced some critical challenges in recent years. How have changes to the planning system contributed to this, and is 2025 a year where we can look forward with a sense of cautious optimism?
In May 2024, in the run up to the 2024 UK General Election, the Scottish Government declared a national housing emergency. This followed similar local declarations by five Scottish Councils and was subsequently a further eight Councils declared emergencies in the months following. These thirteen Councils account for over 55% of Scotland’s population. While these declarations of housing emergencies were a welcome acknowledgement of a growing problem, the declarations themselves have no legislative power.
In March 2025, the Scottish Government also released housebuilding statistics which made for sobering reading. New build housing starts and completions across all tenures fell by 17% overall year on year with affordable housing starts reducing by 5% and affordable housing completions reducing by a staggering 25%. This level of house building activity is Scotland’s lowest since 2013 (aside from 2020 where construction activity temporarily ceased due to Covid-19 related lockdowns).

 

Policy issues
The implementation of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) has not helped to relieve existing housing pressures and has arguably contributed to the doom and gloom since its adoption in February 2023. While having a laudable focus on addressing the climate and nature crises, NPF4’s housing policies have not significantly supported the delivery of new homes for people who need them either in the private of social sector.
NPF4 removed the presumption in favour of sustainable development (and the tilted balance in its favour in decision making) which formerly allowed for the delivery of housing on unallocated sites where other plan policies could be met and, at the same time, moved away from a system that required the maintenance of a five-year housing land supply. These were previously a key avenue to ensure housing delivery was maintained even where local development plans (LDPs) were out of date or where a local authority had not allocated enough effective housing land within its LDP.
Instead, NPF4 marked a move towards a system which placed allocation above all else.  This has made the delivery of housing on unallocated sites acceptable only in a very narrow range of exceptional circumstances therefore making housing delivery on unallocated strategic land an almost impossible task given the age of adopted LDPs and the fact they do not align with the new policy approach.
The key issue with this, is that there are no transitionary arrangements in place relating to old style LDPs and with ‘new style’ LDPs having a deadline for adoption of September 2028 in many areas there will be a policy vacuum until then. This could mean that some areas of the country will not see any housing delivery on currently unallocated sites until potentially 2030.
Given such an extended timeframe, it would be logical to assume that transitionary arrangements would be put in place in the interim to allow for housing delivery on unallocated sites. This position was put forward by Miller Homes in in the ‘Mossend Case’ (Miller Homes Ltd v Scottish Ministers) where Miller Homes unsuccessfully argued that previous housing release policies in extant LDPs should apply until the adoption of ‘new style’ LDPs. This position was dismissed by the court and effectively solidified the position that housing delivery on unallocated sites would be practically impossible for some time. (See our more detailed blog on Mossend from last year).
Further complications also arose from NPF4’s introduction of the Minimum All-Tenure Housing Land Requirement (MATHLR). This set out a 10-year land requirement for the delivery of housing across all housing tenures in each local planning area. While this is intended to be used to inform ‘new style’ LDPs and their Local Housing Land Requirements (LHLRs), which in turn are designed to take an ambitious approach and exceed the MATHLR, this has become the de facto housing target for each local authority until the adoption of ‘new style’ LDPs.
While on the face of it, this should not pose an issue, Lichfields’ previous research on this shows that the MATHLR sets minimum housing delivery targets approximately 25% below the housing supply targets that were previously set within LDPs across Scotland and, more worryingly, this number also falls below the rate of housing delivery in the years leading up to the adoption of NPF4.
So, where is the optimism?
So, given that context, you might be inclined to ask: where is the cause for optimism?
Thankfully, the housing emergency has moved towards the top of the political agenda and there is now a strong political consensus in favour of finding ways to address it. All major political parties within Holyrood appear to agree that something must be done to encourage housebuilding although there isn’t agreement on exactly what those measures are yet. This consensus has come about at a key time as Scotland approaches the 2026 Scottish Parliamentary Elections.
The planning reforms made by the Labour Government in Westminster have largely set the tone and provide some context for the policy debate within Scotland on stimulating housing delivery. As part their reforms, Labour in Westminster have made changes to England’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which focused on delivering housing and removing policy barriers to housing delivery. (See our more detailed analysis on the NPPF changes)
While it remains to be seen if those reforms will have their intended impact, Labour has begun its tenure boldly by making the housing crisis in England a priority. The immediate change in tone and direction of travel for planning and development under a Labour Westminster Government was welcomed by the housebuilding industry and may influence proposals in Scotland in the run up to the 2026 Holyrood elections.
Likewise, the growing emphasis on housing was demonstrated in the Scottish Government’s Programme for Government 2024/25 published in September 2024, which placed housing as a key political priority over the coming parliamentary period. The programme included a vow to continue existing support to local authorities in developing their development pipelines, as well as pledging to increase the right mix of housing supply in the right place. While these were largely reassertions of existing policy and focusses, a new Planning Hub was also announced which is intended to support housing development and will likely focus on the delivery of homes on larger, legacy, and stalled sites. Certainly, the formation of a specialist national hub focused on housing delivery is welcomed in principle but how it will operate in practical terms remains uncertain. Significant resourcing and funding will be required to assist Councils in addressing their backlog of major housing applications which currently take over 35 weeks on average to determine (far beyond the target of 4 months).
The publication of the Planning and the Housing Emergency – Delivery Plan in November 2024 provides further cause for optimism by setting out in more detail how the Scottish Government will approach housing and its relationship with the planning system. The delivery plan notes four key areas for action to address the housing emergency for planning:
  1. Policy – While the plan disappointingly offers no suggestion of a substantive policy change, an emphasis in ensuring consistency in policy application is positive as is the vow to identify further mechanisms to stimulate housing delivery and the build out of sites.
     
  2. Delivery – The key aspects of this are in the implementation of Masterplan Consent Areas (see our blog on the draft regulations from last year), the aforementioned new Planning Hub to support housing delivery, supporting the formation of housing pipelines, support for SME builders and reforms to the compulsory purchase system. While on the surface these are positive and welcome, the detail of these will be vital to their success or failure.
     
  3. Efficiency – Much of the focus of efficiency appears to reassert existing long-term priorities which have long been issues within the planning system – namely inconsistent approaches to: validation standards; the use of planning conditions; and Section 75 agreements. While these are welcome, it is unclear how these will be achieved now given how long these have been issues in Scotland. One key positive identified in this area however is the stopping of work in relation to the infrastructure levy which has been sought by the housing industry since it was first proposed.
     
  4. Capacity – The key emphasis on capacity largely relates to developing skills and increasing capacity through recruitment and encouraging new pathways into the planning profession. Planning fee increases are also indicated with the intention that these are reinvested into service delivery; however, there are no mechanisms to ensure that the additional funds are retained for planning or any suggestion of full cost recovery.
The Scottish Government is also looking at alternative mechanisms to stimulate housing growth including a recent consultation on permitted development rights. While this may or may not be an ideal solution and is unlikely, in isolation, to deliver the number of homes required to address the housing emergency, it is positive to see a range of options being considered and reviewed as a means to stimulate housing delivery.
Funding for the Affordable Housing Supply Programme (AHSP) has also been increased to £768m in the Scottish Government’s 2025/26 Budget. The AHSP provides funding for social rent housing by registered social landlords (RSLs) and local authorities, housing for affordable home ownership and mid-market rented housing (i.e. housing above social rent levels but below market rent levels). This is a positive step to ensure that the programme is appropriately funded throughout the next parliamentary session prior to the Scottish Parliamentary Elections of 2026 and to support the delivery of much needed affordable housing. Importantly, this budget increase not only provides a real terms increase in the AHSP budget when compared to the 2024/25 budget but also reverses significant AHSP budget cuts within the previous budget. While it is disappointing that these figures remain below the AHSP budget levels of 2021/22 and 2022/23 in real terms, it is encouraging that the Scottish Government appear to accept the error in their 2024/25 cuts to this programme’s budget and the importance of the programme in aiding the delivery of affordable housing.
Next Steps
As the 2026 Scottish Parliamentary Elections grow closer, we will hear more detailed proposals for how to ensure housing is delivered in numbers that will address Scotland’s housing emergency. It will be for politicians of all political parties to develop bold and practical ideas to encourage the building of the homes Scotland needs.
The growing political emphasis on the need for housing delivery in Scotland to help to alleviate the housing emergency makes this seem to be an achievable reality as the public increasingly sees housing as a key priority. The hope is that this pressure amongst the electorate and the contrasting mood surrounding housing delivery in England will renew focus on pursuing worthwhile reforms to encourage more homes to be delivered throughout Scotland and address the crisis head on.
However, to deliver the number of homes needed will require bold changes in policy. While the planning policy shift in Westminster will set some context for proposals within Scotland, the political and policy circumstances differ in Scotland so it is unlikely that there will be an exact replication of those reforms in Scotland regardless of which party is successful in the 2026 elections. It will however be exciting to see the policy proposals to encourage the delivery of much needed homes in Scotland from all political parties in coming months.

CONTINUE READING

The Presumption: a London Focus – A Complex Outlook for Calculating Land Supply

The Presumption: a London Focus – A Complex Outlook for Calculating Land Supply

Paddy Hynes & Harry Bennett 08 Apr 2025
This is the first in a mini-series looking at the presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 11d) in London: focusing on how recent policy changes will impact Boroughs and what opportunities might arise.
This first blog looks at the how Five-Year Housing Land Supply (‘5YHLS’) will be calculated in London noting the interplay between (1) the recently adopted NPPF (Dec 24); (2) the adopted London Plan (Mar 2021); and (3) adopted and emerging Local Plans prepared by Boroughs themselves.
Moving through 2025 and into 2026, the outlook of 5YHLS in London is going to be nuanced and, given the introduction of the concept of Grey Belt, 5YHLS in London is now likely to be far more important than it has been in the past.

 

Why is the outlook more complex?
Currently, the setting of a 5YHLS requirement for London Borough’s has been quite simple. If the Borough has adopted a plan since the London Plan (2021), use that requirement. If not, then use the London Plan (2021) Policy H1 requirement as the basis.
But the current London Plan will soon be more than five-years old and it only set requirements to 2029. Furthermore, from July 2026 onwards a new 20% buffer might apply. To explore how these factors will influence different Boroughs’ 5YHLS position, they can be split into two groups:
 
  • Type A – have (of will likely soon have) adopted a Borough plan post the London Plan (2021); and
     
  • Type B – have not adopted a Borough plan since the London Plan.

 

Type A: (currently 13 London Boroughs + 6 Boroughs soon to adopt)
These Boroughs can continue to use the housing requirement in their adopted Local Plan until such time as they become more than five-years old.
Then, if the Plan is still less than five-years old in July 2026, it may be necessary to apply the new 20% buffer as defined at paragraph 78c. However, given that the 20% buffer already applies to these Boroughs, owing to existing poor HDT measurements, paragraph 78c will not materially change the dial. Our initial analysis suggests that it might only impact two Boroughs (one no longer being able to demonstrate a 5YHLS and one having an existing shortfall increase).
However, some of these Type A Boroughs might soon become Type B Boroughs ahead of the new London Plan being adopted. Our analysis suggests that by 31st December 2026, five Borough’s are expected to move from a Type A to a Type B. This movement might provide a window of opportunity in which the new standard method would apply for assessing these Boroughs’ 5YHLS. Noting that the new standard method in London is 81% higher on average than current London Plan requirements[1] the effect on these LPA, invariable these Borough’s 5YHLS will be impacted.

 

Type B: (currently 13 London Boroughs + The City)
These are the Boroughs that adopted a local plan prior to the London Plan (2021) and/or do not have new a plan nearing adoption. As such, their strategic housing requirements for 5YHLS purposes is and will continue to be set by Policy H1 in the London Plan, until they adopt their own Local Plan or a new London Plan is adopted.
The key issue facing these Boroughs is that the London Plan will be more than five years old in March 2026 ahead of a new London Plan being adopted. The position at that time could be one of the following scenarios:
 
  1. If the GLA either (a) did not undertake a review the London Plan or (b) reviewed it and concluded the requirements were not up to date; then all Type B Boroughs will need to apply the new standard method figure. The standard method figures are generally greater than the current London Plan requirements and they would continue to apply until the Borough adopts a new Local Plan or the New London Plan is adopted. Meaning, many of these Borough’s existing shortfalls will increase or those with a 5YHLS might not be able to demonstrate one.This would present a clear opportunity for a more positive approach on applications, as the weight given to the provision of housing in these Boroughs should invariably increase; or 
     
  2. If the GLA did review the London Plan and conclude the requirement is up to date (in our view, highly unlikely given revised national policy and general sentiment around housing delivery in London), then Policy H1 only sets a requirement to 2029. 5YHLS positions with a base date of 1st April 2025 will look a year beyond this period. Arguably, this would mean applying the London Plan figure to the end of the plan period and then the standard method beyond it: but policy and guidance is not clear on what to do in such a situation. It might also mean the new paragraph 78c buffer applies (as it only applies where a local plan requirement is used to calculate 5YHLS).
Final thoughts
Moving ahead then:
 
  • For those Type A Boroughs, reliant on their own Plan to set a 5YHLS requirement, the key will be to monitor whether some might become Type B’s and need to apply the new standard method ahead of a new London Plan being adopted: potentially opening up a 5YHLS window and/or increasing an existing shortfall in supply; and
     
  • For Type B Boroughs, this will hinge on the GLA’s next steps (timing) on the London Plan. However, for now, many Boroughs cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS now and existing shortfalls in supply will likely increase once the London Plan becomes more than five-years old and the new standard method would apply. This would open another window of opportunity where the weight in favour of applications should increase.
As a result, there will be new opportunities arising in London, where the weight in favour of residential applications should significantly increase due to a shortfall in the 5YHLS as the new standard method begins to take effect and prior to any new London Plan being adopted. How and if this takes effect will be a Borough specific matter, but it is likely to be of particular relevance in those Boroughs with green / grey belt land. It may also have an influence on planning decisions on urban schemes, as the shortfalls in 5YHLS invariably increase.
But, there remain some uncertainties looking ahead:
 
  • The GLA recently stated at the Enfield Local Plan examination that it was (1) mindful the plan is about to become more than five-years old and (2) intends to publish revised draft housing figures extending further than 2028-29 before the London Plan has expired. This position was backed up in a response to a question to the Mayor[2]. We will have to wait and see what transpires, but on face value it is not clear how any GLA review of current London Plan could extend its current requirement beyond the plan-period or propose draft requirements to be used for the purposes of 5YHLS ahead of a New London Plan being adopted;
     
  • Notwithstanding any review of the London Plan, whether NPPF footnote 88 means a review of the London Plan is not necessary at all and the London Plan requirement to 2029 should always be considered up-to-date for the purposes of calculating 5YHLS as it is for plan-making? Potentially a stretch, but this maybe argued by someone; and
     
  • If the current London Plan requirement were reviewed by the GLA and found to be up-to-date to 2029 for 5YHLS purposes, what would happen when five-year periods look beyond this date?
All things to monitor going forward and to consider when applications for residential development in London are being prepared, as they could/should have a bearing on the determination of applications.

 

Footnotes

[1] Note this is still 11 lower than it was prior to the December 2024 NPPF.

[2] Mayor of London, London Assembly _ London Plan Housing Targets 

 

CONTINUE READING

Affordable: A Smarter Way to Showcase Affordable Housing

Affordable: A Smarter Way to Showcase Affordable Housing

Rhiannon Harrop-Griffiths 03 Apr 2025
For decades, the UK has failed to provide enough affordable housing, leaving millions on waiting lists and living in unsuitable accommodation (there are c.1.29 million households in England[1], 139,000 in Wales[2] and 100,000 in Scotland[3] on housing waiting lists). Such situations create instability in terms of education, employment and social wellbeing. A reliance on temporary accommodation can have adverse physical and mental health implications for residents whilst also adding further pressure to already stretched local government resources.
The need to increase affordable housing delivery is recognised in policy across the UK:
  • The next Labour Government will deliver the biggest boost to affordable, social and council housing for a generation, as supported by their target to deliver of 1.5 million homes over the Labour government term (Angela Rayner, 2023)
  • The estimated annual additional homes are split almost equally between affordable housing (social housing or intermediate) and market housing. This represents an average of approximately 3,500 (48%) affordable homes per year (Future Wales 2040)
  • Scottish Government is committed to delivering 110,000 affordable homes by 2032 (Affordable Housing Supply Programme, Scottish Government)
An implication of the greater emphasis on affordable housing provision being pushed at the national level (across the UK, but particularly England following the election of the Labour Government) is that the weight that this is being afforded in determining planning applications and appeals is increasing. In October 2024, Inspector A. McGlone allowed two appeals for housing in Tamworth and Lichfield[4] (two applications for the same development which fell across the boundary of two local planning authorities), concluded there is a demonstrable need for housing and that this is “only greater than the housing registers and a national affordable housing crisis… Therefore, there would be no dis-benefit of providing affordable homes in this location, particularly as an insufficient provision of affordable homes affects people” (para 81).
What is also increasingly recognised is the benefits provided by affordable housing delivery. In reaching their decision on the Tamworth / Lichfield appeal the Inspector noted “being able to live in a good home is a foundation for everyday life. Homes provide stability and offer financial security, help physical and mental health, reduce social mobility and adverse effects on children’s education and development” (para 81).
The same sentiment was shared by Inspector J P Longmuir for a scheme in Southampton that will provide 84 dwellings, 35% of which will be affordable[5]: “the affordable housing would also contribute to the social objective, particularly as 35% of the dwellings would be affordable which is a significant proportion. This would help towards the pressing local need and support the wellbeing of the community as a whole” (para 102) (Lichfields emphasis).
Whilst private sector affordable housing providers and local authorities are usually well aware of these benefits, many planning applications fail to articulate the scale of the need for affordable housing or the magnitude of the benefits of its delivery. This means that they can be downplayed in the exercise of planning balance for the application.
Given the significant need to boost housing delivery and the importance of emphasising the case for the provision of affordable housing, Lichfields is pleased to launch Affordable. This new product is designed to identify the need for and benefits of affordable housing delivery. Its release comes just a week after the Chancellor in England announced a £2 billion injection of new grant funding to deliver up to 18,000 new social rent and affordable homes – a timely launch for a product that can be used to provide a robust evidence base to demonstrate the case for such accommodation. Indeed, Affordable could be also used to as part of bids to access some of this newly announced funding.
Affordable builds on our extensive experience in working with both housebuilders and local authorities with regards to affordable housing – both in terms of supporting the case for development and identifying opportunities to maximise the benefits of affordable housing to councils and local communities. The benefits identified are far ranging and include economic benefits for the local authority in respect of savings for temporary accommodation, the NHS in respect of improved health, and residents in respect of improved job opportunities, reduced fear of crime, and living in safe and secure housing. An example infographic is provided below.
Although the most recently published affordability data in England and Wales (released on 24 March 2025) has pointed towards a slight reduction in the housing affordability ratio, this has had no discernible impact on the need for affordable housing. Whereas the England, Wales and Scotland Governments have all set ambitious targets, either for overall housing delivery to increase at a significant rate or for affordable housing to account for a higher proportion of overall delivery, homelessness continues to rise to record levels and social and affordable homes only account for around 16% of the total housing stock in England[6].
We welcome the fact that some decision makers are now recognising the acute shortfall in affordable housing provision and the acute need to boost supply, and that this has translated into increased weight being given to the provision of affordable housing in planning applications and appeals. However, there is much more that can and should be done to demonstrate the case for affordable housing delivery and the wider benefits it provides. Affordable provides robust evidence that is underpinned by the latest statistics and presented with a clarity in a way that allows decision makers to focus on the challenge that exists and to understand the extent to which individual developments can make a tangible difference to the local need for affordable housing, whilst also delivering a wide range of social-economic benefits to the local community.

 

Footnotes

[1] Governement UK: Social housing lettings in England, tenants: April 2022 to March 2023 
[2] FOI Requests from BBC, later published by Shelter Cymru
[3] Scottish Government: Scottish Household Survey 2023
[4] Address: Land north of Browns Lane, Tamworth, Staffordshire Appeal refs:efs.: APP/K3145/W/24/3340089 & APP/Z3445/W/24/3340094 Decision date: 4 October 2024
[5] Address: Land to the rear of former St Mary’s College, Midanbury Lane, Southampton, Hampshire, SO18 4HE Appeal ref.: APP/D1780/W/24/3347358 Decision date: 19 February 2025
[6] UK Parliment: Affordable housing in England

Header image credit: Pillar Land Securities Ltd

CONTINUE READING

Subscribe

Receive our latest thinking direct to your inbox.

I want to receive…