Submitted by Bill Fernie
8th August 2026
Britain's housing crisis is no longer a matter of debate. House prices remain out of reach for many first-time buyers, rents continue to rise, and employers in many parts of the country struggle to attract workers because of housing shortages.
Successive governments have responded by setting ambitious housing targets, but achieving those targets remains a significant challenge.
The central question is simple: can England and Scotland build the homes they need without substantial reform of the planning system?
The evidence suggests that doing so will be difficult.
The Need for More Homes
Governments of different political persuasions have accepted that housing supply needs to increase significantly. In England, national policy has been built around annual housebuilding ambitions of around 300,000 homes or more, while recent reforms have sought to strengthen local housing delivery and plan-making requirements.
The consequences of undersupply are well understood. Housing shortages contribute to affordability pressures, overcrowding, reduced labour mobility, and growing barriers to home ownership.
Yet despite widespread agreement that more homes are needed, delivery consistently falls short of ambition.
The Planning System Dilemma
Planning exists for a reason. New developments can affect traffic, flooding, environmental quality, local services, landscapes, and historic buildings. Communities deserve the opportunity to raise legitimate concerns and ensure that development takes place responsibly.
However, the current system often creates tension between national housing needs and local opposition.
Many developments face prolonged delays as objections are lodged, consultations extended, appeals pursued, and decisions challenged. Some objections are entirely justified and improve the quality of schemes. Others are driven primarily by resistance to change rather than genuine planning concerns.
The challenge for policymakers is distinguishing between the two.
How Delays Reduce Housing Supply
Planning delays have real consequences.
First, they increase uncertainty. Developers, housing associations, and investors are less likely to commit resources when approval processes are lengthy and unpredictable.
Second, delays increase costs. Land must be held longer, financing costs rise, and inflation can make schemes less viable before construction even begins.
Third, homes are delivered later—or not at all. Some projects are abandoned because the risks and costs become excessive.
The cumulative effect is a lower rate of housing delivery than would otherwise be possible.
England and Scotland: Different Approaches
England and Scotland have pursued different planning reforms.
England has increasingly focused on strengthening housing delivery, including reintroducing mandatory housing targets for councils, requiring up-to-date local plans, and exploring opportunities for development on suitable land.
Scotland, by contrast, has focused more heavily on strategic planning through National Planning Framework 4, with greater emphasis on climate objectives, sustainability, and long-term spatial planning.
Despite these differences, both systems face a common challenge: balancing local influence with the wider public interest in increasing housing supply.
What Reform Might Look Like
Planning reform does not require eliminating public participation. Rather, it should focus on creating a system that is both democratic and efficient.
Possible reforms include:
Making adopted development plans more binding once sites are allocated for housing.
Setting stricter deadlines for planning decisions and appeals.
Providing councils with greater planning resources and staffing.
Focusing objections on material planning considerations such as flooding, safety, and environmental impacts.
Creating faster approval routes for developments that fully comply with agreed plans.
Expanding digital planning systems to improve efficiency and transparency.
Reducing opportunities for repetitive challenges once issues have been properly considered.
Such measures would not remove local voices, but they could reduce unnecessary uncertainty and delay.
The Real Debate
The housing debate is often framed as a conflict between developers and local communities. In reality, the more important question is whether land that has already been identified as suitable for housing should remain vulnerable to years of further challenge.
Few would argue that genuine environmental, infrastructure, or safety concerns should be ignored. Equally, it is difficult to meet ambitious housing targets if every major development faces prolonged opposition regardless of its merits.
The goal of planning reform should not be to silence communities. It should be to ensure that legitimate concerns are heard while preventing a system designed for scrutiny from becoming one that routinely frustrates delivery.
If Britain is serious about solving its housing shortage, it must find a better balance between local control and national need. Without that balance, housing targets may remain ambitions on paper rather than homes on the ground.
Note
Bill Fernie was formerly a councillor on Highland council representing Wick and East Caithness for 14 years up to 2017. In that time he sat on the North Planning committee as well as a variety of positions in various other committees. He was also a volunteer director on a housing charity that build also 40 homes in Highland.