Read next
The latest news, updates and expert views for ambitious, high-achieving and purpose-driven homeowners and property entrepreneurs.
Ask AI to summarise this article
This article is the on-site edition of Urbanist Architecture’s monthly newsletter.
Over the last few years, the economics of housebuilding have tightened sharply. Construction and financing costs, alongside the post-Grenfell building safety regime, have forced many developers to reassess what genuinely stacks up, how much delay a scheme can absorb, and what is realistically deliverable.
With the draft 2025 NPPF now out for consultation, the policy context is shifting as well. It is being read by some as a routine update, but it is better understood as a recalibration in how planning decisions are made. The direction of travel is towards clearer parameters and fewer subjective refusals, with decisions expected to rest on evidenced harm rather than instinct, politics, or procedural manoeuvring.
That shift is already feeding through into market sentiment. We are starting to see momentum beyond our own projects across the wider property development industry. The year has kicked off at speed, and there is a growing sense that decision-making may become more predictable, which is exactly what delivery has been missing.
Last week, RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) invited me to contribute to a new feature on the draft NPPF, where I set out what I see as the key shift: a move towards limiting subjective refusals and tightening the decision parameters that planning authorities are expected to rely on. More importantly, I explored what that change may mean in practice for architects, developers and councils trying to move schemes from consent to delivery.
None of this removes the viability challenge overnight. Costs are more likely to stabilise than fall sharply, and building safety requirements will continue to add scrutiny and upfront work. What planning reform may do, however, is reduce avoidable delay and uncertainty, which is often the difference between a viable scheme and a stalled one.
This is not a build anything anywhere moment. It is a design accountability moment. In 2026, the advantage will sit with schemes that are properly evidenced, design-led, and set up for delivery from day one.
