After hours spent at this year’s UKREiiF, Sarah Fitzpatrick, Shoosmiths’ Head of Planning, heard more than just headline promises. Conversations across the sector, and close attention to ministers, revealed where planning is enabling progress, and where viability is still holding delivery back. She outlines the key takeaways.

Published: 02 June 2026
Authors: Sarah Fitzpatrick

In the UK there is a demand for housing, but demand is not the problem. There are developers, both SMEs and volume house builders, who want to develop homes but there are challenges which are preventing them from doing so. Most of these relate to viability. Delivery costs must come down. This problem is most acute in the capital, but housing is not the only sector impacted by viability there. Elsewhere in the UK homes can be viably built but this is dependent on many variables such as lower land values, swiftly granted consents and supportive LPAs.

London’s affordability stalemate

Within London we now have the ability to reduce affordable provision to 20% or below. However, even with 20% provision residential schemes are still unlikely to be viable. Planning consultants are awash with developers seeking to make s73 applications to reduce affordable provision to 10% or even 5%. The recent example of the Greater London Authority (GLA) approving 9% affordable housing at Canada Water is seen as a positive message. Since the local elections in May, however (and some even before that), there are a number of LPAs who are refusing to consider anything less than 35% affordable housing. Lewisham and Tower Hamlets have been singled out in that regard although there may be others.

We understand the Mayor of London already has a list of circa 50 schemes he’s preparing to call in for his own determination where LPAs are reluctant to follow policy on affordable housing reductions, but he is likely to be busy getting London LPAs to toe the line. Perhaps a carefully worded letter to the LPA asking them if they really want to fail to follow policy (and be made an example) because he’ll just call the scheme in if they don’t comply and grant permission anyway would be more appropriate. That could sweep a few schemes through the system quicker at LPA level and reduce the Mayor’s list. It’s taking the GLA about three months to process call in requests. Many developers we understand are simply eyeing up appeals both in and outside London relating to members’ refusal to accept genuine viability positions.

Government intent needs traction

It remains unclear how the government intends to improve development delivery, particularly in housing. Matthew Pennycook, the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, was at pains to remind delegates about all the good things the government has done for the planning system – but in terms of what it will be doing given the current headwinds, there was silence.

Joanna Avery was asked to advise what measures the development industry could expect to see coming forward to help them viably deliver development. She said the government was “listening carefully”. She was asked again to point to a specific policy or measures and repeated her answer. To be fair history tells us she probably doesn’t know. Meanwhile, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced big money for schemes in the north (all great news) and an infrastructure task force (good idea), but nothing on policy reform, fiscal reform or regulatory reform to provide an economic stimulus for development.

The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is promised this summer. The draft contains weaknesses that the development industry will expect to see addressed and even the positives in there really need fleshing out. Hopefully a revised PPG will be issued simultaneously putting flesh on the bones.

Nonetheless, developers think that now is the time to apply for planning permission. Given the positive policy environment being created by the government many (particularly residential) developers see this year as being the year to obtain consent. It doesn’t mean they will build out the schemes of course, but they might as well bank the consents whilst the going is good. They’ll then have a minimum of three years to implement (and can reassess viability in that time). Alternatively, if towards the end of that period viability is still difficult they can do a technical implementation of their permission to save the consent, so that it can be built out later once financial conditions improve.

Infrastructure is leading the way

The only sectors who were bullish about developing in the UK now remained solar, battery energy storage systems (BESS), onshore wind and data centres. Given that all of these can be described as infrastructure and, as a result, can demonstrate need, enjoy some important policy support, and importantly attract investment, this is not surprising.

Data centre developers bemoaned the cost of power in the UK versus the US, but nonetheless this sector is still attractive and growing. Struggles with grid connections remain an issue so private wire connections (from solar / BESS) are seen as a great option. Former industrial sites are seen as a good option locationally as these would have historically had a good power connection, plus these sites are expensive to remediate.

Data centres do not necessarily need arable grade land and are one use that can afford to pay the upfront costs of remediation. Beautifying data centre sites is an issue for many LPAs, but landscaping as well as green walls are definitely options. Data centres do not necessarily need to be new build; the conversion of the former Gordon’s Gin Distillery in Shoreditch and former Financial Times print works in the Docklands have both been successfully converted.

Grey belt remains the doyenne of many a developer, as well as LPAs struggling to find a five-year housing land supply within existing settlements. While seen as a good thing, it is also potentially only with us for another few years with a general election to take place in August 2029 at the latest. Again, a reason to bank those consents now.

Mixed signals, familiar challenges

In summary this year’s UKREiiF was something of a ‘parson’s egg’, with the chances of getting planning permission this year viewed positively by many sectors, and locations. In terms of delivery, viability challenges remain with only limited sectors bullish about commencing build out in the near future.

The lack of signposting from the government on fiscal, policy or regulatory reform was disappointing, and they need to try harder if they want to stimulate private sector delivery.

It was as always, exhausting, insightful, but enjoyable and I look forward to a return visit next year, perhaps the last UKREiiF in Leeds if the rumour mill is correct.