Show the Working

Build 1.5 Million New Homes and Reform Planning

Labour · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Labour’s policy “Build 1.5 Million New Homes and Reform Planning” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Affordable housing — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy sets out the most ambitious and wide-ranging housing supply push in decades, with planning reform, grey belt land release, and compulsory purchase reform all pointing toward more homes. However, there is a broad consensus among forecasters that the 1.5 million target will likely be missed, and the benefits to affordability — especially for lower incomes — depend on delivery that past governments have consistently failed to achieve.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether planning reform and grey belt release can actually translate into completed homes at scale, given that over 1.4 million homes with permission already sit unbuilt and housebuilding starts remain far below the required rate.

Our reading: The policy combines several mutually reinforcing supply-side interventions: mandatory local targets backed by a presumption in favour of development, grey belt land release with a 50% affordable homes requirement, brownfield prioritisation, CPO reform to reduce land acquisition costs, and additional planning capacity funded by the stamp duty surcharge increase. Taken together, these represent a structural shift in the planning system toward higher output, and the grey belt golden rules are specifically designed to improve affordable tenure — not just aggregate supply. That is a genuine improvement on the status quo for O1. However, the magnitude must be tempered. The current delivery baseline is just 208,600 homes per year, and the required run-rate is roughly 300,000 — a gap that has defeated every government for decades. Planning applications are running at less than half the rate needed. The OBR's own forecast relies on a sharp back-loaded acceleration that industry bodies privately call too optimistic. Over 1.4 million consented homes sit unbuilt, confirming that unlocking permissions is necessary but not sufficient. The 50% affordable requirement on grey belt, while welcome in principle, is flagged by credible analysts as potentially viability-killing — which would suppress both total supply and affordable supply simultaneously. The lack of new affordable housing funding (noted by the Resolution Foundation) is the sharpest constraint on whether this policy improves affordability for lower incomes, as opposed to just adding market-rate homes. On balance, the direction is 'improves': the policy moves every relevant lever — supply, affordable tenure, land costs, planning capacity — in the right direction. But the magnitude is moderate rather than major because credible forecasters expect the headline target to be missed, delivery risks are substantial, and the affordability benefits for the lowest-income households depend on funding commitments that are not yet in place.

Personal liberty & free speech — Hurts

minor · moderate confidence

Reforming compulsory purchase rules reduces what landowners receive when the state acquires their land, which is a real interference with property rights. The effect on personal liberty is real but narrow, touching mainly landowners near public schemes rather than the general population.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether courts or future legislation constrain the scope of hope-value disapplication, which would limit the property-rights impact.

Our reading: O10 covers property rights against arbitrary state interference and freedom from state coercion. Two elements of this policy bear on it. First, the compulsory purchase reform is the most direct liberty issue. Disapplying hope value means landowners whose land is compulsorily acquired receive only existing-use value, not the market-reflective uplift that previously applied. This is a state power to acquire private property on terms materially less favourable to the owner. It is not arbitrary — there is a statutory framework and a stated public-interest rationale — but it does reduce the property-rights protection landowners previously held. The effect is real but narrow: it falls on landowners near designated public interest or affordable-housing schemes, not the general population. Second, stripping local councils of planning decision-making powers when they miss targets is a shift of discretionary authority upward to central government. For individual residents and local democratic actors this reduces the local veto over development affecting their area. This is a mild coercive centralisation, though it operates on institutions rather than directly on individuals. Other elements — NPPF updates, stamp duty surcharge increases on non-UK buyers — have no material O10 content: a tax on a transaction category is not a liberty restriction within this framework's scope. Overall the direction is a modest worsening of property rights and local autonomy, not a sweeping coercive regime. Magnitude is minor because the compulsory purchase change affects a limited class of landowners and the planning-power shift is procedural rather than a new enforcement or surveillance power. Confidence is moderate because the compulsory purchase reform is already enacted (Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025) but its practical scope and judicial interpretation remain uncertain.

Prosperity & living standards — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

Building significantly more homes would boost labour mobility, productivity, and living standards over time, but the target is ambitious and likely to be partly missed — meaning the gains are real but probably smaller than promised.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether housebuilding can actually accelerate fast enough to approach the target, given current completions running well below the required pace and industry warnings about feasibility.

Our reading: The core mechanism linking this policy to O13 is well-grounded: a materially higher stock of housing reduces the housing cost drag on labour mobility, allowing workers to move to higher-productivity areas, and improves real living standards by relieving the supply constraint that has inflated house prices and rents over decades. Policy Exchange and the evidence on labour mobility both support this channel. The policy deploys several real instruments — mandatory targets with teeth (councils falling below 75% face loss of decision-making powers), grey belt land release, compulsory purchase reform removing 'hope value', and additional planning officer funding — so this is not merely aspirational. These are committed mechanisms, not soft verbs. However, the magnitude is constrained by credible delivery risk. Current completions (208,600 in 2024/25) are roughly 30% below the annual run-rate needed, and planning applications are running at less than half the required monthly pace. The OBR's own forecast only reaches the target if housebuilding nearly doubles by 2029-30 from a projected trough. Industry bodies privately regard the target as too optimistic. The 50% affordable homes requirement on grey belt land introduces viability risk that could reduce total completions. The direction is nonetheless 'improves' because even partial delivery — say, 1.0–1.3 million homes — would represent a meaningful step-up from the counterfactual of continued decline, with real long-term gains to living standards and economic opportunity. Effects are long-term: the labour-mobility and productivity dividends accrue as the housing stock builds up, not within the parliament. Confidence is moderate because the mechanisms are real but delivery uncertainty is substantial and well-evidenced.

Inequality & fair shares — Mixed picture

moderate · low confidence

The policy has real pro-equality mechanisms — land-value capture, a 50% affordable-homes rule on grey belt, and a supply push that could ease housing costs for renters and non-owners — but delivery shortfalls and a lack of new affordable-housing funding mean the gap-narrowing effects may not materialise at scale. Whether the richest-versus-rest gap actually narrows depends almost entirely on how many genuinely affordable homes get built.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the 50% affordable-homes requirement on grey belt land is achievable in practice and whether overall completions approach the 300,000/year needed — both are disputed by independent institutions.

Our reading: O14 asks whether the gap between the richest and the rest narrows. Housing is central to that gap: wealth inequality in the UK is substantially driven by house-price appreciation benefiting owners over renters and non-owners. A large supply increase, if delivered, would moderate house-price and rent growth, narrowing the asset-wealth divide. The 50% affordable-homes golden rule on grey belt land and the CPO land-value-capture reform are specifically redistributive in design — transferring value from landowners (concentrated at the top of the wealth distribution) to affordable-housing occupants and public infrastructure. These mechanisms, if they fire, would improve O14. However, the pro-equality effects are conditional on delivery at scale, and the evidence gives serious grounds for doubt. Current completions are at 208,600/year — barely two-thirds of what is needed. The OBR's own forecast (which independent bodies call optimistic) relies on a sharp late-parliament acceleration. The Resolution Foundation flags no new affordable-housing funding. The CPS warns the 50% rule may be self-defeating — too onerous to allow viability on grey belt sites, meaning fewer homes overall. Historically, only 5% of greenbelt housing has been social housing, so precedent does not support the redistributive claim without a step change in enforcement. The result is genuinely mixed: the stated mechanisms lean clearly pro-equality (land-value capture, affordable-homes requirements, supply pressure on prices), but the measurable delivery baseline and independent projections cast real doubt on whether these mechanisms will fire at the scale needed to move the Gini or the wealth gap. The direction of the policy's design is toward 'improves,' but the direction of likely outturn is uncertain enough, and the countervailing risks (affordable-housing target failure, no new funding) concrete enough, to warrant 'mixed' rather than 'improves.' Confidence is low.

Clean environment & nature — Mixed picture

moderate · moderate confidence

The policy prioritises brownfield land first, which limits harm to nature, but the 'grey belt' concept could open up green spaces and scrubland habitats to development at scale. Whether the environmental safeguards ('golden rules') hold in practice is the critical unknown.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the 'golden rules' on grey belt development — including accessible green space requirements — are robustly enforced, or whether commercial viability pressure leads to weaker habitat protection and sprawl.

Our reading: On O6, this policy presents a genuine two-sided picture. The brownfield-first commitment is environmentally sound: existing sourced evidence shows sufficient brownfield capacity for 1.2 million of the 1.5 million target, meaning the majority of new homes could in principle be delivered on previously developed land with limited net harm to habitats or greenfield nature. This is the main environmental upside. However, the grey belt mechanism introduces real downside risk. The definition includes scrubland — which CPRE (an advocacy source, flagged) notes can constitute valuable habitat. The scale is potentially large: industry analysis suggests grey belt could theoretically accommodate millions of homes if applied at scale. Environmental groups credibly argue that the concept risks weakening Green Belt protections more broadly, enabling speculative development beyond the intended 'ugly wasteland' parcels. The 'golden rules' — including accessible green space requirements — are the main safeguard, but their enforceability is contested. The Centre for Policy Studies (advocacy, flagged) and LSE both raise doubts about whether the 50% affordable housing rule and green space requirements will hold under commercial viability pressure. If they don't, grey belt release could deliver habitat loss without the compensatory green infrastructure. Near-term, planning reform and grey belt release are likely to produce some biodiversity loss on marginal green spaces. Long-term, if the brownfield-first approach genuinely predominates and golden rules are enforced, the net environmental harm is moderate and bounded. If grey belt expands in practice and protections erode, long-term harm to nature and green space could be more significant. On balance: mixed, with the near-term environmental cost of greenbelt incursion offset partially by brownfield prioritisation, but with meaningful long-term risk depending on enforcement.

Compare all parties on affordable housing →Compare all parties on personal liberty & free speech →Compare all parties on prosperity & living standards →Compare all parties on inequality & fair shares →Compare all parties on clean environment & nature →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home