UKREiiF 2026: Delivering Homes and Infrastructure Requires More Than Planning Reform

“Before we start, we have one rule on this panel: no doom-loops and no blaming others. Is that okay?”

Those were the opening instructions from the chair of a panel discussion in the Lloyds Bank tent at this year’s UKREiiF 2026. It was Thursday morning, energy levels were beginning to dip, and — to be fair — most speakers across the conference had mentioned the macroeconomic backdrop at least once every half an hour.

Yet, true to their word, the panel — featuring Standard Life, Assured Guaranty UK and Lloyds — struck a surprisingly upbeat tone. Capital remains available, particularly for infrastructure projects with the right fundamentals, and there was a broad sense that government is at least pulling some of the correct policy levers.

Still, optimism in property and infrastructure tends to be relative. And if there was one clear takeaway from this year’s UKREiiF, it was that planning reform alone will not solve the UK’s housing and infrastructure challenges.

The viability squeeze

Across a number of sessions, there was broad agreement that the development sector is operating in an increasingly constrained environment. Build costs have risen sharply, with the average cost of delivering a home estimated to have increased by roughly a third over the past five years. House prices, meanwhile, have not kept pace.

The result is predictable: tighter viability margins and growing pressure on delivery across all tenures.

Importantly, many discussions suggested that planning itself is no longer viewed as the single greatest obstacle to housing delivery. Instead, concerns are shifting towards viability, affordability and market demand. Put simply, securing permission is only part of the challenge; delivering schemes profitably and at scale is becoming considerably harder.

Why SME housebuilders matter

One recurring theme was the continued decline of SME housebuilders.

Smaller developers play an important role in diversifying housing supply and bringing forward medium-sized sites, yet many continue to face barriers around financing, planning certainty and delivery timescales. Several speakers argued that a more predictable planning system, alongside greater use of delegated powers, could help improve confidence and speed up decision-making.

There was also recognition that the sector needs a stronger pipeline of medium-scale development opportunities, rather than relying overwhelmingly on major strategic sites delivered by a relatively small number of volume housebuilders.

The missing first-time buyer

Demand-side weakness emerged as another major concern.

The end of Help to Buy continues to affect market absorption rates, particularly among first-time buyers. Previously accounting for around 21% of new-build purchases, first-time buyers now reportedly make up closer to 12%, with many instead turning to the second-hand market.

That matters because reduced absorption rates directly affect delivery. Developers can only build and sell homes at a pace the market can sustain.

There was considerable discussion around the prospect of a replacement demand-support mechanism. A government review of Help to Buy is expected, while the Home Builders Federation continues to advocate for a successor model that could include developer contributions. In the Lloyds tent, some were calling for the return of a PFI-like model for infrastructure projects – perhaps based on the mutual investment model in Wales which has greater public oversight.

For many in the sector, targeted support for first-time buyers is increasingly viewed not simply as a housing policy issue, but as a delivery issue too.

Affordable housing under pressure

Affordable housing providers are also facing mounting pressure.

Registered Providers are reportedly becoming more reluctant to acquire Section 106 affordable housing, creating additional uncertainty for schemes already operating on tight margins. Concerns were also raised about proposals to mandate social rent through changes to national policy, with some warning that this could unintentionally reduce overall delivery where schemes become financially unviable.

The tension is becoming increasingly familiar: policymakers want more affordable housing, but the economics of delivering it are becoming steadily more difficult.

Can the planning system cope?

Alongside viability concerns were broader questions around the future structure and resourcing of the planning system itself.

A genuinely plan-led system will require significant investment in local authority planning teams — both in funding and professional capacity. There were also questions about whether the profession itself is sufficiently valued, with some suggesting that the return of Chief Planner roles could help strengthen strategic leadership within councils.

The proposed implementation of Spatial Development Strategies (SDSs) attracted significant attention too. Many supported the principle of strategic planning at a larger-than-local scale and see it as a big opportunity to establish a framework to deliver the aspirations in Local Growth Plans. But there was apprehension about how to agree long-term infrastructure priorities. After all, over a 20-year timeframe, some places may benefit before others. At the same time, the need for social infrastructure to support both new and existing communities has arguably never been greater.

Beyond bricks and mortar

Beyond housing numbers and infrastructure pipelines, UKREiiF also hosted valuable conversations around inclusion and public engagement within the built environment sector.

During a panel discussion hosted by Sheffield Property Association, there was a strong emphasis on improving equality, diversity and inclusion across the profession, alongside calls for more meaningful public participation in planning decisions. Citizens’ Assemblies — including proposals to compensate participants for their time — were discussed as one potential way to improve trust and broaden engagement.

These conversations may sit outside the traditional viability debate, but they increasingly form part of the same wider question: how do you build places that communities will genuinely support?

More than planning reform

Overall, this year’s UKREiiF reinforced a growing reality within the sector: solving the housing crisis and delivering critical infrastructure will require far more than planning reform alone.

Delivery depends on viability, investment confidence, public-sector capacity, market demand, public-private partnership models and community trust all working together. The challenge is not simply approving more homes on paper, but creating the economic and political conditions in which those homes can actually be built.

Which perhaps brings us back to that opening line in the Lloyds tent. Avoiding “doom-loops” is sensible advice, and many speakers were keen to highlight the innovative ways regeneration, new homes and infrastructure are already being delivered. More importantly, much of the conversation focused on solutions rather than simply rehearsing familiar problems. Overall, UKREiiF 2026 showed that realism — rather than optimism alone — is shaping the debate about how the UK delivers the homes and infrastructure it needs.

Attending the conference from DLP were Matthew Gregg and Kirsten Ward, both Directors in the Sheffield office, who spent the week speaking with developers, local authorities, investors and infrastructure specialists across a wide range of sessions and events.