City AM, on UK Politics, 27 October 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

Developers urge Labour to cut red tape and boost housebuilding

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.2 findings

The government has been urged to slash red tape and boost housebuilding in the UK as the rate of construction of new homes falls well behind Labour’s own targets. A group of property and investment leaders have handed a set of proposals to the government which they say will get stalled housing schemes moving and tackle the burden of building regulation. The proposals, led by King’s Cross developer Related Argent and the Institute of Directors, come as housebuilders including Taylor Wimpey and Berkeley warn that building in London is becoming increasingly unviable.

Tom Goodall, chief executive director of Related Argent, said: “It costs more to build a home in Bristol than in Paris, Los Angeles or Sydney. “The bricks, steel and concrete are not fundamentally different here; what compounds the cost is the time, complexity and regulatory burden involved in getting homes built.” The proposals emerging from the roundtable, which was also attended by experts from the Building Safety Regulator, the Ministry of Housing, Barclays and the Greater London Authority, focus on .

The government should introduce time-limited stamp duty relief for new-build homes to accelerate sales and in turn make these projects more viable for developers, the group said. Last month, Andy Burnham announced a revived Help to Buy scheme which offers equity loans to help first-time buyers pay the deposit on a new-build home. Housebuilders welcomed the programme but property experts warned that more is needed to boost housing supply.

Planning reforms ‘only the start’ The property developers, led by Related Argent, have also urged the government to ensure that all new build-to-rent homes are . This would give institutional investors better certainty when committing to projects, they said. The government has also been urged to offer VAT on service charges for new-build homes, set up a ring-fenced fund for local authorities to access planning expertise, and ensure greater certainty around the costs of regulation.

Related Argent’s Goodall said: “Government is right to reform planning, but consent is only the start. If schemes cannot be financed, sold or delivered with confidence, they will not move from paper to construction. “We can grant all the permissions we like, but unless we tackle the economics of delivery, we will continue to fall short.” The developers’ proposals come as London lags behind housebuilding targets. In the 2024-2025 financial year, work was started on only five per cent of the 88,000 homes which are supposed to be built in the capital each year.

Nationwide, the government has pledged to build 1.5m homes by the end of this Parliament but housing secretary Angela Rayner has admitted that this was always a “stretch target”. John German, managing director at investment management firm Invesco, said: “What is compelling about these proposals is that they are focused on enabling delivery rather than simply creating new subsidy. Relatively targeted changes that improve certainty, reduce avoidable friction and strengthen viability can allow private capital to do more of the heavy lifting.

“Getting more housing built is also about much more than the homes themselves. It unlocks investment, construction activity and jobs and supports wider economic growth.”

Read the original article on cityam.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (2)

City AM reports a set of proposals from developers and investors to speed up housebuilding, and mostly attributes their claims to them. In one sentence it adopts the developers' term "red tape" for building regulation in its own voice. It gives the case for a 25-year exemption from rent controls only from the developers' and investors' side, with no voice for renters.

  1. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “slashing the red tape facing developers”

    Why this matters
    In its own voice City AM calls the regulation the proposals target "red tape". The same sentence says the Building Safety Regulator attended the roundtable.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes it that the rules in question are needless paperwork, as a settled fact.
    The context
    Elsewhere the article attributes this view to the developers. In S2 it is what "they say" about the burden of regulation. Whether building rules are needless red tape or necessary safety standards is the developers' argument, not an established fact.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“tackle the burden of building regulation”

    Show it in the article

  2. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “exempted from rent controls for a quarter of a century”

    Why this matters
    City AM reports a call to exempt all new build-to-rent homes from rent controls for 25 years. The only reasoning it gives is the developers' own.
    The impression it gives
    A reader sees only the benefit to investors and none of the cost to the people who would rent these homes.
    The context
    Every voice quoted in the article is a developer, an investor or a housebuilder. No renter, tenant group or critic of the proposal is quoted on a measure that would directly affect tenants.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“give institutional investors better certainty”
    • Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “tenant” and “renter”.

    Show it in the article

What it gets right

  • “which they say will get stalled housing schemes moving”

    It attributes the developers' central claim about their proposals to them rather than stating it as fact.

  • “housing secretary Angela Rayner has admitted that this was always a “stretch target””

    It sets the government's 1.5m homes pledge against the minister's own admission, giving the reader context on the target.

  • “led by King’s Cross developer Related Argent and the Institute of Directors”

    It names who is behind the proposals, so the reader knows these are industry lobbying positions.

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from City AM

  1. 27 OctAutumn Budget 2026: In defence of cheaper gherkins, nature’s Ozempic0.0
  2. 27 OctPension reform means Brits don’t have to wait for billionaires to give them shares0.0
  3. 27 OctPossible tax hikes for LLPs in Budget may ‘distort’ the market and push firms overseas3.0
  4. 27 OctICAEW chief: Britain can’t build a better economy one Budget at a time0.0
  5. 27 OctBudget 2026: Will the real John Healey please stand up? 0.0

Everything we scored from City AM