The Government’s June 2025 consultation, “Speeding up Build Out”, signals a decisive shift in planning policy. Moving beyond the question of granting permissions, it ventures into the territory of how, when and by whom those permissions are delivered.
While this consultation takes the form of a non-technical working paper, the legal and commercial implications for developers, particularly those delivering larger schemes, could be significant. If the proposals are implemented, developers may face new obligations to build at pace, alongside financial and reputational consequences for falling short.
Here we take a closer look at the government’s working paper, and assess what it could mean in practice for developers in the future.
Why delivery is in focus
At the heart of the consultation is the persistent problem of delivery lag. The Government argues that while planning permissions have increased over the past decade, housing completions have not kept pace. This, it claims, undermines trust in the planning system, weakens the credibility of local plan-making, and frustrates communities promised new homes that never materialise. As a result, the working paper sets out a series of options intended to speed up delivery after planning consent is granted. These range from new planning conditions and enforcement powers, to changes in how applications are assessed and decisions made.
Performance-based planning
One of the most prominent proposals is that local planning authorities should be able to impose delivery-focused conditions on permissions. This could include requirements for faster commencement, staged delivery benchmarks, or adherence to a build out trajectory agreed at the point of consent. For developers, this would represent a fundamental change in how permissions operate. Where historically there has been some commercial flexibility in how and when a scheme is implemented, the reforms could mean that delays become grounds for legal challenge or even loss of permission. Development strategies may need to be front-loaded with greater implementation detail, and delivery schedules could become enforceable commitments rather than indicative aspirations.
Track records and risk
The Government is also considering allowing planning authorities to assess developers’ track records as part of the decision-making process. Under this approach, a developer’s history of delivering, or failing to deliver, on previous schemes in the area could become a “material consideration” in determining future applications. This could significantly alter how developers are perceived by local authorities, and may give rise to a need for organisations to publicly defend their past performance. For newer entrants to the market or smaller developers with less volume output, it raises questions of how fairness will be maintained when delivery history becomes a gatekeeping tool.
New sanctions under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act
These proposals intersect with new powers introduced under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Under section 113, local authorities may soon be able to decline to determine applications from developers, or linked entities, who have failed to build out earlier permissions in the same area at a reasonable rate. This introduces a direct legal sanction for under-delivery, and will require developers to monitor how their group structures, joint ventures, and past consents may influence future applications.
In a similar vein, reforms under section 112 of the same Act are set to modernise completion notices. These reforms will remove the requirement for the Secretary of State’s consent, replacing it with a streamlined appeals process. The aim is to make it easier for authorities to withdraw permissions where development is not being completed within a reasonable timeframe, signalling a shift toward a “use it or lose it” principle in planning law.
Commencement notices and delivery reporting
Alongside these enforcement mechanisms, the consultation builds on the March 2024 technical consultation on build out transparency. Together, these consultations aim to increase visibility and accountability. Developers may be required to submit a commencement notice before starting development and to provide annual progress reports showing how delivery aligns with their original build out trajectory. These new reporting obligations would provide a structured and consistent dataset to local authorities for the first time, enabling closer scrutiny of developer behaviour post-consent. While designed to encourage confidence in delivery, they also increase compliance obligations and expose developer schedules to greater political and public attention.
Financial consequences
A further, and potentially more controversial, proposal is the introduction of a financial sanction for underperformance, dubbed the “Delayed Homes Penalty.” This would apply to larger sites where the delivery of housing falls significantly below an agreed threshold, proposed at 90% of the build out schedule in any given year.
Developers who cannot justify the shortfall on external grounds, such as severe weather or supply chain disruption, could be charged a penalty per uncompleted unit. The penalty might be benchmarked against house prices or linked to council tax equivalents, reflecting the fiscal cost to local authorities of delayed occupation.
While described as a measure of last resort, the proposal is an indication of the Government’s willingness to consider direct commercial consequences for delayed build out.
Mixed tenure thresholds
In addition to performance and pace, the working paper proposes structural changes to housing delivery models through tenure diversification. Specifically, the Government is exploring a mandatory mixed tenure requirement for larger sites, with potential thresholds set at 500 or 1,500 units.
The objective is to encourage more developers to work in partnership with housing associations, build-to-rent providers, and other delivery vehicles in order to accelerate delivery and spread risk. This could have material implications for land valuation, design, sales strategy and funding models, particularly for developers accustomed to phased private sale schemes.
Strategic land and CPO reform
Developers holding or promoting strategic land should also pay close attention to proposed reforms to the compulsory purchase regime. Where land has been subject to long-term inactivity, such as repeated planning permissions that are never implemented, local authorities may be empowered to use a new “conditional confirmation” mechanism.
This would allow them to confirm a CPO in principle but defer its activation, giving landowners a final chance to deliver. If they fail to do so within a specified time, the CPO would proceed without restarting the process.
For developers, this reform could increase pressure to build on stalled sites or risk being compelled to release land, particularly where alternative proposals exist on paper but lack real viability or intention.
What developers should do now
Taken together, these reforms point toward a rebalancing of the planning system. Developers are not just being asked to design schemes that are policy-compliant, they are being expected to deliver them at pace, on schedule, and under ongoing scrutiny.
The commercial, legal and reputational implications are substantial. From a risk management perspective, developers may need to reassess how they approach planning applications, how they structure their development vehicles, and how they communicate with local authorities throughout the life of a scheme.
While the consultation remains open until July 2025, and no immediate policy change is imminent, the trajectory is clear.
The Government is moving towards a model of planning based on performance as well as permission. For developers, this brings both challenge and opportunity. Those who can demonstrate strong delivery capability, transparent operations, and an ability to work collaboratively with authorities may find themselves better positioned in the next era of housing policy.