Why ‘quick wins’ are key to solving the housing crisis

Palma Oxley is a researcher at the Fabian Society, working at the Fabian Housing Centre

Andy Burnham’s new government has rightly kept housing at the top of its agenda. Angela Rayner has reiterated the commitment to build 1.5m new homes over the parliament and to oversee the ‘biggest council-housebuilding programme since the post-war period’. But to meet this challenge, they must go further. Standardising some aspects of housing design could help boost numbers without compromising on quality.

Starmer’s administration had undertaken significant reforms to boost housebuilding by rewriting outdated planning laws – including through the newest National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – and committing £39bn for new social and affordable homes. 

But the Fabian Housing Centre has estimated that every region failed to meet its housebuilding target last year and that England will fall far short of building 1.5 million new homes over the next five. Even Angela Rayner has made it clear that the target is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve. Clearly, the government must go further if its commitment to building thousands of good-quality homes every year is to materialise in neighbourhoods and communities across the country.

One of the ‘quick wins’ for government would be to standardise housing frames. High-quality, well-designed homes are essential, if meeting the new homes target is to genuinely improve the lives of people across the country. However, what constitutes a good home in the eyes of local authorities varies from one area to the next without good reason. Housebuilders are left without clear guidance on what kinds of homes and designs are needed and where. 

This lack of clarity is damaging for all builders, including housing associations. Every minor change adds administrative delays, paperwork, and extra material costs. But it particularly impacts small and medium-sized builders who cannot easily absorb the impact of delays and shifting design requirements. When a builder is forced to make unexpected changes to designs of homes and sites, they lose the ability to achieve economies of scale across their supply chain.

The current approach also fails to protect the architectural character of our towns, despite its intention, as what is deemed good design can shift even within localities. And a lack of building, stalled sites, and planning refusals can lead to the decay of local areas.  This approach has also failed to lead to interesting, well-designed homes that garner public support. In the absence of a clear definition of what makes a good home in a local area, innovation is risky, rather than rewarding. As a result, developers prefer design choices that are ‘safe’ and can pass planning.

Instead, the government could require local authorities to adopt standardised housing frames and local design guides for developments in their area. This would support local identity and architectural character, while supporting innovation, and offering builders clarity and predictability about acceptable forms of development from day one.

In a recent Fabian Housing Centre report, we recommended two changes. First, the government should establish a diverse set of England-wide standardised housing frames for different types of homes, perhaps following a competition which consults the public. Councils would be required to select a few frames that best suit their area. Second, local authorities should be required to establish a clear design code within their local plan, covering height, density, site layout, and distances between homes for light and privacy. 

When housing developments adopt the local authority’s chosen frames and comply with these local design codes, they should be automatically fast-tracked through the planning system. Other unique styles could still be approved, but they wouldn’t qualify for this fast-tracked route. This could cut the cost of development by around two percent.

England would not be the first to adopt this approach of standardised housing frames and design guides. In Ireland, standardisation is being used as part of a programme to boost the number of social homes by 50 per cent. New South Wales in Australia adopted these policies to deliver 112,000 homes over the next five years. Croydon saw delivery on small sites double after the introduction of a suburban design guide for small sites. 

As the new administration beds in and the next election comes into view, housebuilding is only going to become more important, as waiting lists rise and the market struggles. The temptation will be to compromise on quality, so that developers can build more.

But fast-tracking planning permission for compliant homes would both cut the cost of development and create great places to live. These small changes could transform how we build homes and help tackle the housing crisis in every community.