IN Brief:
- The Prosper UK Housing Commission proposes freezing new regulatory burdens on residential development for at least three years.
- The commission attributes about £38,030 of the estimated £76,000 increase in new-home delivery costs since 2020 to policy, regulation and tax.
- Recommendations also address Section 106 agreements, shared equity for first-time buyers, planning capacity and Build to Rent investment.
Prosper UK has called for a freeze of at least three years on new regulatory burdens affecting housing development, arguing that rising costs and weaker buyer demand are leaving schemes financially unviable. Its Housing Commission, chaired by former housing minister Gavin Barwell, published a package of recommendations on 12 October in the report Solving the Housing Crisis: A Plan to Make Homes More Affordable in Every Postcode. The commission wants existing obligations reviewed alongside planning, finance and development incentives, rather than treating planning permission alone as evidence that homes can be built profitably.
The report attributes approximately £38,030 per home to increases in regulation, policy and tax since 2020, within an estimated total increase in delivery cost of £76,000. Those figures draw on Home Builders Federation estimates used by the commission and should be read as a modelled comparison, rather than a measured cost borne by every individual development. Its breakdown assigns £10,200 to the Future Homes Standard, £7,770 to building regulation changes, £7,000 to nutrient neutrality, £5,700 to biodiversity net gain and £2,320 to the Building Safety Levy. Other identified pressures include taxation and Section 106 contributions; individual projects may face different combinations and sums.
The commission argues that additional obligations can change an appraisal after land has been bought or planning assumptions established. A residential viability calculation balances expected sales or rental income against land, finance, materials, labour, infrastructure contributions and other development costs. When selling prices do not rise alongside those expenses, the margin available to absorb further changes contracts. The report illustrates that sensitivity with a hypothetical 300-home Build to Rent project which it says would have moved from an £8m profit under 2020 conditions to a £6m loss. That is the commission’s illustrative scenario, not a verified account of an actual cancelled scheme.
Among the immediate proposals is a two-part test for existing regulatory and planning requirements. The commission wants policymakers to consider whether it is reasonable for a given cost to fall on new housing and whether the obligation is proportionate to its intended benefit. It also proposes restricting Section 106 agreements to mitigation needed by the development itself, rather than using those agreements as a general means of funding public services. Section 106 presently allows planning authorities to secure obligations connected with development, including affordable housing and infrastructure; any significant change would require careful consideration of how those needs are financed elsewhere.
A freeze on new burdens would not itself repeal current safety, environmental or building performance requirements. The report is a policy recommendation, with no government decision to suspend standards announced as part of its publication. Higher energy performance, biodiversity measures and building safety controls each pursue separate objectives, and the commission’s cost estimates do not establish that removing any one obligation would generate an equivalent increase in completed homes. Any revision would also have to account for the cost of complying with alternative arrangements and the consequences for residents and local authorities.
Demand receives equal attention in the proposed package. Prosper UK recommends a temporary shared-equity scheme for first-time purchasers of new energy-efficient homes, capped at roughly one fifth of sales on each participating site and financed through an industry access fee. The aim is to help support transactions where affordability constraints prevent buyers proceeding. The commission presents this alongside its viability proposals because additional purchasers may make a completed development easier to sell, while improved margins alone do not ensure a housebuilder will release land or start construction if demand remains uncertain.
The report also calls for a National Planning Service to handle major applications, a review of Green Belt boundaries that retains protection against settlements merging, and higher-density development as a normal consideration. In the rented sector it advocates changes including a cut in stamp duty on Build to Rent schemes, more standardised Section 106 arrangements and use of public land for a Public Build to Rent programme. The recommendations span different legal and administrative responsibilities, meaning they could not all be delivered simply by changing a single planning rule or departmental instruction.
As evidence of the scale of the problem, the commission points to planning permission being granted for 209,781 homes in England in the year to September 2025, which it describes as the lowest annual total since 2013. Permission figures indicate the future pipeline but are not a direct count of construction starts or completions. Build-cost consultant BCIS has separately noted that the report reinforces longstanding viability concerns and the need to consider demand and supply conditions together. The commission’s conclusions remain its own policy assessment rather than a finding that any specific regulation has caused a measured number of homes to be withheld.
The proposed regulatory pause is therefore one part of a much broader package whose financial effects depend on which measures are adopted, how quickly they could take effect and whether local infrastructure and affordable housing obligations are replaced or retained. No timetable for government implementation accompanied the commission’s publication. The immediate development is a detailed set of proposals for reconsidering how housing costs are distributed, at a time when planning consent and the commercial ability to build have increasingly become separate questions.
