Housing supply and affordability in England
What should England’s principal strategy be for increasing housing supply and making housing more affordable?
Compare combined planning and public-housebuilding reform, flexible zoning, and a social-rent-led council programme.
Leading proposals
Combine planning reform with a major social and affordable housebuilding programme
Use clearer planning rules alongside long-term public funding, stronger council delivery and more social and affordable homes.
Reconstruction: increase supply through clearer rules and faster strategic development while funding a ten-year social and affordable housebuilding programme. Strengthen council capacity and use the £39 billion Social and Affordable Homes Programme for 2026–36.
Caveat: £39 billion is funding, not a homes or affordability forecast; the programme does not ring-fence a national tenure total.
Source: MHCLG — Social and Affordable Homes Programme · Open reference
Replace discretionary planning with flexible rules-based zoning
Set clear rules by area so compliant schemes receive permission, with planning focused on infrastructure and strategic change.
Reconstruction: move from discretionary planning toward flexible zoning. Local plans specify permitted form and intensity; compliant proposals receive permission. Use design codes and suburban intensification where demand is high.
Caveat: zoning does not itself fund social housing, infrastructure or construction; effects vary by place.
Source: Centre for Cities — Planning for the future · Open reference
Lead with 90,000 new social-rent homes a year and rebuild council capacity
Make social rent central, delivering about 90,000 homes annually for ten years and enabling councils to build at scale.
Reconstruction: centre policy on around 90,000 social-rent homes yearly for ten years. Rebuild council skills, land, finance and direct delivery, alongside housing associations and acquisitions.
Caveat: 90,000 is Shelter’s advocated requirement, not a guaranteed forecast.
Source: Shelter — Roadmap to the future of council homes · Open reference
Compare proposals
| Shared metric | Combine planning reform with a major social and affordable housebuilding programme | Replace discretionary planning with flexible rules-based zoning | Lead with 90,000 new social-rent homes a year and rebuild council capacity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Government cost | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Housing waiting lists | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Planning speed | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Homelessness | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| House-price affordability | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Rent affordability | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Social-rent homes | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | About 90,000 per year for ten years (advocated requirement) |
| Total homes completed | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
arguments
Arguments
Addresses permission and delivery
Planning reform expands sites while funding supports below-market homes.
Supports: Combine planning reform with a major social and affordable housebuilding programme
Long-term funding supports capacity
Ten years helps providers plan land, staff and supply chains.
Supports: Combine planning reform with a major social and affordable housebuilding programme
Multiple tenures may dilute social rent
Broad affordability products may not reach low incomes.
Opposes: Combine planning reform with a major social and affordable housebuilding programme
Funding does not guarantee completions
Land and construction constraints remain.
Opposes: Combine planning reform with a major social and affordable housebuilding programme
Creates predictable permission
Rules reduce time and case-by-case negotiation.
Supports: Replace discretionary planning with flexible rules-based zoning
Lets supply respond to demand
More sites in high-demand cities reduce scarcity.
Supports: Replace discretionary planning with flexible rules-based zoning
Permission is not construction
Finance, infrastructure and build-out still matter.
Opposes: Replace discretionary planning with flexible rules-based zoning
Rules can create local costs
Services and amenity require design and infrastructure.
Opposes: Replace discretionary planning with flexible rules-based zoning
Directly targets rent affordability
Social rents reach households market supply may not.
Supports: Lead with 90,000 new social-rent homes a year and rebuild council capacity
Can reduce homelessness costs
Permanent stock reduces temporary accommodation reliance.
Supports: Lead with 90,000 new social-rent homes a year and rebuild council capacity
Capacity cannot be rebuilt instantly
Councils and builders need time to scale.
Opposes: Lead with 90,000 new social-rent homes a year and rebuild council capacity
Requires sustained public investment
Grant, land and borrowing compete with other priorities.
Opposes: Lead with 90,000 new social-rent homes a year and rebuild council capacity