Planning permission for homes in England falls to record low
Labour's plans include giving councils new powers to seize land and speed up building.The number of decisions on housing, included those rejected, was also at a record low in 2024.The figures cover the number of permissions granted, not the number of individual homes. They include minor projects of fewer than 10 homes and major projects of 10 or more.
Data analysed by BBC Verify suggests the number of completed new homes also decreased during the second half of 2024.Every council in England has been given a target for new homes that they should help deliver each year. In some areas, this means more than five times as many new homes as they typically add.You can see the figures for your area in the BBC's housing tracker.
Geoff Keal of Planning Portal, which is used by councils for people to apply for planning permission, said there needed to be a "substantial" increase in planning applications being made, to make up for applications that get rejected and those where no development takes place.But he added: "The government has an intent to build and that's really powerful for [developers], knowing they're going to be supported and they're going to remove blockages."I think there are reasons to be optimistic, for sure."
Plan to make it easier for councils to seize land for housingHousing tracker: Find out about new homes in your area
Housing market analyst Neal Hudson, of BuiltPlace, said: "It can take longer to turn the planning pipeline around than a container ship, and developers are currently squeezed on both sides by high interest rates and constrained viability."The government said it was bringing forward "pro-growth" measures to fix a "broken" planning system.A spokesman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: "These figures show the scale of the housing crisis we inherited along with a broken planning system that stunted growth."That's why we're already bringing forward pro-growth measures to fix this and deliver the 1.5 million new homes we need, including mandatory housing targets through an updated National Planning Policy Framework and our newly introduced landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill that will overhaul planning committees to fast track and streamline decisions."This is alongside an additional £100m to bolster local resources with increased planning fees to cover costs, and funding to recruit 300 planning officers, making sure councils have the staff and capacity needed to approve homes for local people."
What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
It is time to release prisoners trapped by inhuman endless jail terms
The Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence, introduced in 2005 under the Labour government, was intended to protect the public from serious offenders deemed too dangerous for a fixed-term release. But nearly two decades on, this law stands as one of the most egregious stains on Britain's criminal justice system. Abolished in 2012 for its inherent flaws, it nonetheless continues to trap thousands of people in a cruel legal limbo, as a debate in the House of Lords today will no doubt highlight. It is long past time that every person still serving an IPP sentence be resentenced. The continued use of this now-defunct punishment is both unjust and, arguably, inhumane. At its core, the IPP sentence allowed judges to hand out indeterminate prison terms for offences that did not justify life imprisonment but were deemed serious enough to warrant extended supervision. Offenders were given a 'tariff' – the minimum time they must serve before being considered for release. Many of these tariffs were shockingly short, some as low as two years. Yet thousands remain in prison long after these tariffs have expired. Why? Because release is dependent not on time served, but on proving to the Parole Board that they are no longer a danger to the public – a nebulous, subjective, and often unreachable standard. This flips the basic presumption of justice on its head. In a fair system, the state must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt to imprison a person. Under IPP, once the tariff is served, the burden of proof shifts unfairly to the prisoner. It is no longer the state's job to justify incarceration; it is the prisoner's burden to earn freedom. This is particularly problematic when access to rehabilitative programmes, often required for parole, is limited or unavailable – especially in overcrowded prisons. The system sets people up to fail and then blames them for not succeeding. Moreover, the psychological toll of such indefinite punishment is catastrophic. Suicide and self-harm rates among IPP prisoners are significantly higher than average. Many live in a state of constant uncertainty and despair, unsure if they will ever be released, even decades after their offence. It is not unusual to find individuals still imprisoned for minor crimes – such as theft or assault – that would today warrant only a few years behind bars, yet they languish without a release date. The punishment no longer fits the crime, if it ever did. The injustice of the IPP system has been widely recognised. The House of Commons justice committee labelled it "irredeemably flawed" and called for all remaining IPP prisoners to be resentenced. The European Court of Human Rights has also condemned aspects of the sentence as incompatible with human rights obligations. Yet the government has so far refused to act decisively, citing public safety and political sensitivity. This is a failure of courage and leadership. Protecting public safety does not require trampling basic rights or holding people indefinitely for crimes long past. Dangerous individuals can be managed through proper risk assessment and robust parole conditions – not through perpetual punishment without end. Resentencing every IPP prisoner is not only fair, it is necessary. It would give judges the opportunity to reconsider the nature and severity of each offence and impose a proportionate, fixed sentence with clear guidance for release. For many, this would mean immediate or imminent freedom; for others, it would offer clarity, rehabilitation goals, and hope – something the current system wholly lacks. Justice demands consistency, proportionality, and transparency. The IPP sentence undermines all three. Some argue that resentencing might release dangerous individuals back into society. But the risk can be responsibly managed without recourse to indeterminate detention. Modern sentencing tools, community supervision, mental health support, and parole frameworks are all capable of mitigating risk. Perpetual incarceration without due process is not a solution – it is a violation. Britain prides itself on the rule of law, but this chapter of penal policy betrays that principle. IPP sentences should not only be consigned to history – they must be actively undone. Every person still caught in this Kafkaesque trap deserves a proper sentence, a path to rehabilitation, and a chance at freedom. Anything less is a continuation of a deep and unforgivable wrong.
Evening Standard
43 minutes ago
- Evening Standard
Keir Starmer's first-year scorecard: Has the Prime Minister kept his promises?
Labour promised not to raise taxes on 'working people' and pledged not to raise the rates of NI, income tax, or VAT. Reeves told Sky News in late May 2024: 'There is nothing in our plans that requires any further increases in taxes, I have confidence in that. Voters can have confidence.' She also said on Kuenssberg that Labour 'won't be increasing income tax or national insurance if we win at the election.' The manifesto contained only £8 billion of revenue-raising taxes.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Labour's first year: from voter opinion to market reaction
It is a year since Labour's landslide victory on 4 July 2024, with Keir Starmer promising 'to end the politics of performance and return to politics as public service … it is now time for us to deliver'. After a rollercoaster week in which the prime minister suffered a large Commons rebellion and caused bond markets to spike when he appeared not to back the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, we consider his government's record in Westminster, Whitehall and across the country. In the first year since the general election, Labour's stock with the electorate, as measured by opinion polls, has fallen considerably. After a honeymoon period, during which few polls were conducted, the party's polling has steadily declined. Then came a very strong Reform performance in the 1 May elections, in which Nigel Farage's party took more than 600 council seats, and won a mayoralty and a byelection. Since then, Reform has continued to surge in the polls, while Labour has languished. The most high-profile piece of legislation in this parliament so far has probably been the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill, but that was not a manifesto commitment and was put forward as a private member's bill, without party whipping. The government has laid 28 bills in this session of parliament. Many of its pledges rely in part on passing this tranche of legislation: the commitment to reduce the number of people arriving in small boats is targeted with stronger sentences for people smugglers in the asylum bill, and the promise of more housing is bound up in an overhaul of planning rules. The table below shows all the government bills in this session. To become law, proposed legislation has to pass three readings in both Houses of Parliament. There are numerous stages at which amendments may be made and voted upon, chiefly between the second and third readings, during the committee stage. When a bill has passed through a third reading in both Houses it is returned to the first (where it started) for any amendments made by the second to be considered. If MPs do not accept amendments made by peers, or vice versa, the bill can 'ping-pong' between the Houses until consensus on the exact wording is reached. After that, the bill receives 'royal assent' and becomes law. After Starmer failed to voice strong support for Reeves at prime minister's questions on Wednesday, yields – in effect the interest rate – on UK bonds rose sharply, which was interpreted as concern in the markets that the chancellor might not stay in the job, and the government's record for financial discipline be undermined. This was all the more surprising since the markets had barely reacted the previous day when the welfare bill was amended to substantially reduce its financial impact. Over the past year, the bond markets' response to Labour's administration has been fairly stable, although it is also true that they are lending to this government at higher interest rates than they did to Rishi Sunak's. And despite a heated afternoon on Wednesday, there has not been a repeat of the wild swings of Liz Truss's and Kwasi Kwarteng's time in Downing Street. The attitude of the bond markets is possibly explained by the struggle led by Reeves to retain a grip on the national finances. With greater spending on public sector wages, and uncertainty about improved tax receipts from growth, the government has so far struggled to keep the lid on. Whether it can continue, especially after the savings expected from the universal credit bill were slashed by this week's rebellion, and without raising taxes, remains to be seen. The picture here is mixed; overall international migration is down, and the government is having some success at continuing an effort under the last Tory administration to reduce the backlog in asylum applications. Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion On the other hand, the number of people arriving in the UK on small boats is at a record high, with more than a thousand arriving in a single day on some days. Nearly a year into the term, it was only this week that the government unveiled its 10-year plan for the NHS, based on a move to local health centres, better use of technology and a focus on prevention. In the interim, it has signed off improved pay for NHS staff and abolished NHS England. But at a day-to-day level, the health service seems to be continuing a trend of slight improvement that began under Sunak. The government is under pressure from campaigners and its own MPs not to balance the books at the expense of Britain's most vulnerable people. It has postponed its child poverty strategy and just this week narrowly saw off defeat on its universal credit bill. But as the Resolution Foundation thinktank has pointed out, child poverty is rising while the government prevaricates, and abolishing the two-child benefit cap would greatly reduce the number of children living in poverty.
