Beyond the target: What’s holding back greater housing delivery?

By Danny BallPublished On: March 31st, 2026Categories: Top Stories

Public servants on the front line of housing delivery have spoken out on the government’s target of delivering 1.5 million new homes by 2029. Jonathan Parker, development director at Pagabo, dissects the latest nationwide survey report produced by the national procurement specialist – highlighting where the main blockers exist and how to fix a broken system.

Based on insights from respondents representing a broad cross-section of job functions across local government and housing associations, Building 1.5 Million Homes – Is It Achievable? reveals a deep-seated pessimism within the housing sector and a sobering reality for government.

Even with significant policy reform, less than one-third of the housing sector believes the national target for new homes is achievable.

When asked if they are satisfied with their organisation’s progress in relation to the delivery of affordable homes compared with the local target since the Labour party entered government, only a fraction over one-third of respondents said yes.

While the responses suggest that the government’s housebuilding target is more optimistic than realistic, the quantity of feedback proves a clear appetite to be able to deliver more homes.

Without greater understanding of the views and challenges being faced around the country by those tasked with delivery, it makes the additional task of finding appropriate solutions a lot more difficult.

The blockers

Our recent report reveals that the most critical factor holding back housing delivery is the lack of sufficient, flexible, and long-term funding, with 60% of respondents describing the availability of funding for housing projects in their area as being highly inadequate or insufficient.

Meanwhile a trio of interconnected issues surrounding land cost, site availability and developer profit expectations present widespread barriers to delivering more homes – with planning restrictions, community opposition and infrastructure constraints also cited as obstacles to overcome.

Those working in the housing and construction sectors will have found it difficult to escape headlines on the impact of the Building Safety Act and Gateway 2 approvals. While these regulations impact higher-risk buildings and the build-to-rent sector specifically, land development and the delivery of single dwellings remain more likely to have been impacted by construction costs and site viability. However, this does differ regionally, making the government’s funding strategy largely disproportionate.

Digging deeper into the issue of site availability, the survey revealed a pragmatic stance adopted by housing professionals despite an ideological preference for building on brownfield sites. Faced with the high costs of remediation, the main constraint in bringing forward brownfield land cited by respondents, 54% of those surveyed prioritise a balanced mix of both brownfield and greenbelt sites, while only 3% leant towards prioritising green belt land.

Respondents also drew attention to the nation’s existing housing stock, identifying a critical and growing tension beyond the headlines dominated by new homes. Results showed that for housing associations, which often manage the quality, safety and sustainability of vast property portfolios, refurbishment is a core strategic priority – particularly with the introduction of new legislation like Awaab’s Law in 2025. By contrast, local government bodies viewed refurbishment as secondary to the primary goal of planning and enabling new development.

Despite this strategic difference, across the sector there is a strong view that new housing must be supported by corresponding investment in social infrastructure. Respondents saw collaboration not as ‘nice-to-have’, but as a critical component of placemaking. An overwhelming 79% of all respondents view collaboration with other public sector bodies as either essential or important – especially for ensuring new homes are supported by the right physical and social infrastructure.

New housing delivery and existing housing refurbishment cannot be considered in isolation. Success is defined not by numbers alone, but by the creation of thriving places, underpinned by access to healthcare, education, transport and social infrastructure.

A broken system

Since Building 1.5 Million Homes – Is It Achievable? was published, the Home Builders Federation (HBF) has released new data revealing that the total value of developer contributions held unspent by local authorities in England and Wales has increased to £9 billion.

These findings are unsurprising, but disappointing nonetheless. The £9bn that local authorities have yet to reinvest comes from Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funds. Both of these agreements, made between local authorities and developers, are designed to ensure that essential infrastructure surrounding new developments is also included.

In theory, this process should help make sure development is sustainable and transformative, but too many of these contributions come from housebuilders that can only deliver new homes and not new schools and GP practices, for example. Housebuilders would rather give funding to local authorities, but currently these funds are not being allocated to the infrastructure surrounding the same housing schemes as they should be.

People are being failed across the country because examples of this process working effectively are few and far between. It’s not the fault of local authorities, housebuilders, or the government in particular; it’s a symptom of a broken system.

A broken system means those stakeholders involved are up against a mammoth challenge. Housebuilders do not have the abilities of general contractors; local authorities are made to move mountains before anything can be done; and the government is held back by a system which is brimming with bureaucracy.

Local authorities have pointed towards pre-allocated funding structures and limitations in staffing as the main reasons behind the increasing amount of unspent developer contributions. However, these are added complications and not root causes.

At the heart of the problem is an over-reliance on isolated, piecemeal improvements, which create an overwhelming number of moving parts. If more new homes were built by developers that have agreed a comprehensive and rigid masterplan with the local authority, Section 106 and CIL funds would not be necessary because the associated infrastructure has already been given equal attention and consideration. The remedy is the creation of more joint ventures between local authorities and developers that not only deliver new homes, but also placemaking through the provision of schools, medical facilities, commercial hubs and retail outlets as part of the same scheme – ensuring services are available to the larger population in the area.

Developer-led procurement of wide-ranging development schemes is a proven remedy for many of today’s problems, capable of increasing speed, improving value for money and enhancing outcomes, while also acting as a force behind positive community impact.

In the open market, the procurement process can take in excess of 18 months, before the scheme must be taken through design development and planning approval which may take another 12 months. This makes the entire process more time-consuming, more expensive, and riskier for local authorities. In comparison, developer-led procurement with early engagement and a more collaborative approach can reduce the procurement process to three to four months, while enabling developers to provide funding that ensures schemes achieve viability and deliverability.

The HBF’s findings combined with our own research into the housing sector’s thoughts on whether or not the government will meet its target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of this parliament have made it abundantly clear that the structure of traditional contracts involving land sales followed by housebuilder delivery is misaligned with public objectives.

This reinforces the need for a more collaborative and forward-thinking delivery model in which the public sector and developers share responsibility from the outset to accelerate delivery and maximise public value – but also ensures that communities are taken on that journey as well in order to truly be involved in shaping their own futures.