Housing Delivery in 2026: Opportunities Rising, Barriers Still Standing

With the next Housing Delivery Test (HDT) results expected imminently, many predictions suggest that an increased number of London boroughs will fall below the required thresholds and will be “presumption authorities”. Some may fall significantly short. If this materialises, it will intensify pressure on authorities already grappling with ambitious housing targets, constrained land supply and complex policy environments.

The implications of HDT underperformance will also need to be viewed alongside the Government’s recent announcements, particularly proposals for automatic approvals for new homes close to well-connected train stations. While the rhetoric signals a desire to accelerate delivery, the practical impact will depend heavily on how far the Government is willing to go in reducing existing barriers.

Planning policy already strongly supports housing in sustainable locations. The notion of an automatic permission risks being more headline driven than transformative unless the site qualifying criteria are unambiguous and accompanied by meaningful adjustments to the wider policy framework covering matters such as affordable housing, density, and viability, issues that often present greater obstacles to delivery than land use considerations alone.

If automatic permissions are to make a genuine difference, they would need to address these friction points, clarifying how competing policy objectives should be balanced and, crucially, reducing some of the discretionary elements of decision making that currently limit or prevent development. I am certainly not suggesting that development should be approved at all costs, nor that professional judgment should be overridden. However, without meaningful changes, the intended impact could be restrained.

The introduction of Grey Belt has had a significant impact on planning decisions. However, a recent Grey Belt appeal decision should provide the Government with caution when drafting and introducing the next policy changes. The Inspector found that heritage concerns were not a strong reason for refusal, but because heritage constraints restricted the quantum of development, the land did not qualify as Grey Belt. I was not involved in that appeal and do not know the full details, but the outcome demonstrates how vague policy definitions or caveats can frustrate the underlying intention.

Taken together, a surge in presumption authorities and the Government’s push for transport linked housing could create a more permissive environment for well located development. But the real test will be whether policy evolves to remove the obstacles that have kept delivery below required levels. As ever, the detail and not the headlines will determine whether 2025 and 2026 mark a genuine turning point for housing delivery.

2026 could be very interesting.

Writer: Anthony Frendo, Planning Director