The Housing Crisis and the Revolving Door: Why Innovation Demands Stability

The Labour administration’s ambitious pledge to “restore the dream of homeownership to families” and oversee the “biggest housing boom” in a generation arrives at a critical moment.

With plans to build 1.5 million homes and create genuinely affordable pathways for first-time buyers, the government faces a challenge that has defeated multiple predecessors. But perhaps the most telling statistic isn’t about house prices or building targets – it’s that the UK has seen 16 housing ministers since 2010, with an average tenure of just 47 weeks.

This revolving door at the heart of housing policy represents more than administrative instability. It symbolises a deeper malaise in how the UK approaches its housing crisis. The recent resignation of Angela Rayner as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in September 2025, just 14 months into the Labour government, with her replacement by Steve Reed, underscores that this instability transcends party lines. How can we expect to develop sophisticated homeownership products, coordinate between public and private sectors and manage complex risks when leadership changes so frequently?

The Perfect Storm: Multiple Crises Converging

The housing crisis isn’t occurring in isolation. It’s being exacerbated by a confluence of factors that make solutions exponentially more complex. The construction industry faces its worst skills shortage in decades, with an ageing workforce and insufficient apprentices entering the trades. Brexit has compounded this, reducing the flow of skilled European workers who previously filled gaps in everything from bricklaying to project management. The Construction Industry Training Board estimates we need 251,000 additional workers by 2028 just to meet current targets, let alone ambitious new ones.

Material costs present another headache. Since 2020, construction materials have experienced unprecedented volatility. Timber prices surged by over 80% at their peak, steel costs remain elevated and even basic materials like concrete face supply constraints. The war in Ukraine has disrupted supply chains further, whilst domestic production capacity hasn’t kept pace with demand. Developers report project costs increasing by 15-20% during construction periods, making viability assessments obsolete before ground is even broken.

Climate change adds another layer of complexity that previous generations of policymakers didn’t face. New homes must meet stringent environmental standards – aside from the Future Homes Standard, there’s a requirement to retrofit existing stock to meet EPC requirements by 2030 and this demands billions in investment. Flood risk affects increasing numbers of potential development sites and insurance costs spiral for properties in vulnerable areas. These aren’t peripheral concerns, but fundamental constraints shaping where and how we can build.

The Scale of Transformation Required

The housing sector faces challenges that demand nothing less than fundamental reimagining. Traditional models of homeownership have become increasingly divorced from economic reality. When the average first-time buyer needs to save for around 12 years for a deposit, when mortgage payments consume over 65% of net income (and when parental wealth determines access more than individual effort), we’re not dealing with market fluctuations but systemic failure.

The current Labour government, to its credit, acknowledged this crisis with concrete funding commitments. The £500 million top-up to the Affordable Homes Programme announced in October 2024, bringing total investment to £3.1 billion, represents a significant intervention. Combined with the broader £5 billion housing investment and the integration of housing into the £725 billion 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy, these commitments signal serious intent. Housing associations now have greater certainty through the new 10-year rent settlement, allowing CPI+1% increases that provide the stability needed for long-term investment planning.

Yet funding alone won’t solve the complexity of creating new homeownership products. Enhanced shared ownership models need reformed legal structures, Financial Services Authority compliance for rent-to-own elements, and careful navigation of tax implications. Build-to-rent-to-buy schemes require coordination between planning authorities, mortgage lenders, and management companies. These aren’t initiatives that can be conceived, developed, and implemented within the typical ministerial tenure. They need years of careful nurturing, testing, and refinement.

The Planning System: Death by a Thousand Delays

Beyond ministerial instability lies an equally problematic issue – the planning system itself. Despite numerous attempts at reform, securing planning permission remains a process that can take years and cost millions. The average major residential development takes 5.5 years from initial application to first completion. In London, this extends to seven years or more.

Local politics also compounds these delays. Councillors face re-election every four years, creating cycles where pro-development stances become electoral liabilities. NIMBY campaigns, while often raising legitimate concerns, can delay projects indefinitely through judicial reviews and appeals. The system incentivises objection over collaboration, creating adversarial relationships between developers, councils, and communities.

The legal framework adds further complexity. Section 106 agreements, Community Infrastructure Levy calculations, affordable housing negotiations – each requires specialist expertise and lengthy negotiations. A typical major development might involve 20+ different consultants, from daylight/sunlight analysts to wind microclimate specialists. The cost of navigating this system favours large developers with deep pockets, squeezing out smaller, often more innovative players who might deliver the diverse housing products the market desperately needs.

The Cost of Instability

The rapid succession of housing ministers creates cascading problems throughout the sector. Between 2020 and 2024 alone, we’ve witnessed a particularly acute period of instability. Christopher Pincher served from February 2020 to September 2021. The role then passed through multiple hands including Stuart Andrew (who lasted just 148 days), Rachel Maclean (sacked after nine months) and Lee Rowley (who served twice). Michael Gove’s return to the role in 2022 provided some continuity, but even his tenure was marked by the broader political turmoil of three different Prime Ministers.

Each new appointment brings fresh priorities, different interpretations of policy and often a desire to make their mark with new initiatives rather than continuing existing programmes. This creates what one senior civil servant described as “policy whiplash” – where the sector spends more time adjusting to new directions than actually delivering homes.

The financial implications are equally severe. Institutional investors, particularly pension funds and insurance companies that the government hopes will provide billions in funding, require stability and predictability. They’re being asked to commit capital for 15-30 year periods, yet the policy framework shifts with each ministerial change. Is it any wonder that despite apparent appetite for investment in affordable housing, actual deployment of capital remains frustratingly slow?

Local Authority Capacity Crisis

The hollowing out of local authority planning departments represents another critical failure exacerbating the housing crisis. A decade of austerity saw planning departments lose 40% of their staff between 2010 and 2020. Those remaining are overwhelmed, underpaid, and often lack the specialist expertise needed to assess complex modern developments.

This capacity crisis manifests in multiple ways. Pre-application discussions that should take weeks stretch to months. Some planning committees lack the expertise to properly evaluate innovative proposals, defaulting to refusal when uncertain. S106 negotiations drag on as councils lack experienced negotiators to match developer teams. Even when permission is granted, discharging conditions becomes another bottleneck as skeleton teams struggle with workload.

The irony is palpable – at precisely the moment we need planning departments to enable transformative change, they lack the resources to process even routine applications efficiently. Some progressive councils have tried to rebuild capacity, but they compete with private sector salaries that dwarf public sector offerings. A senior planner might earn £45,000 in local government versus £80,000+ in consultancy. The expertise drain continues.

Innovation in a Vacuum

Innovation in the range of homeownership products highlights another casualty of systemic instability. Departing from current products and creating news ones requires risk-taking, experimentation and learning from failure. It needs champions who understand the complexities and can navigate the inevitable setbacks. When ministers barely have time to grasp existing programmes, can they provide the leadership needed for genuine innovation?

The regulatory framework itself could be stifling innovation. Financial Conduct Authority rules written for traditional mortgages struggle to accommodate hybrid products. The Prudential Regulation Authority’s capital requirements don’t recognise the lower risk profile of shared ownership mortgages, making them more expensive than they should be. Tax treatment remains inconsistent – stamp duty on shared ownership staircasing creates multiple transaction costs that don’t exist for traditional purchases.

The sector needs products that reflect how people actually live and work in 2025. Graduates facing £50,000 of student debt and gig economy workers with variable incomes need different solutions than the traditional mortgage designed for steady career progression. Community-led housing models, fractional ownership schemes and employer-assisted programmes all show promise. But each requires regulatory adaptation that moves at glacial pace.

The Land Market Dysfunction

Beneath all other challenges lies perhaps the most fundamental – the dysfunctional land market. Land banking by major developers creates artificial scarcity. Option agreements tie up sites for years without development. The hope value attached to agricultural land near settlements distorts the entire market. A field worth £10,000 per hectare for farming might sell for £1 million per hectare with planning permission – yet capturing this uplift for public benefit remains politically contentious.

Local authorities, stripped of funding, sell public land to the highest bidder rather than the best user. The NHS, schools, transport authorities – all dispose of surplus sites individually, missing opportunities for comprehensive development. Meanwhile, brownfield sites that could accommodate thousands of homes sit idle, their remediation costs exceeding greenfield development economics.

Small and medium developers, who historically delivered diverse housing types and local innovation, find themselves priced out. They can’t compete with listed housebuilders in land auctions, lack the capital to hold sites through planning delays, and can’t achieve the economies of scale that make S106 obligations viable. Market concentration increases, innovation decreases, and homogeneous estates proliferate.

The Mixed Economy Challenge

The government’s vision of a “mixed economy of investors and providers” acknowledges that public funding alone cannot solve the housing crisis. This recognition is welcome, but implementation demands sophisticated orchestration that current structures struggle to deliver. Traditional housing associations must evolve without losing their social purpose. For-profit providers need frameworks that enable reasonable returns whilst delivering genuine affordability. Local authorities require powers and funding to act as strategic enablers rather than just planning authorities.

The 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy’s explicit inclusion of housing as infrastructure represents a paradigm shift in thinking. By treating housing with the same strategic importance as transport or energy networks, the government acknowledges its fundamental role in economic growth and social stability. The National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority’s coordination role could, in theory, provide the cross-departmental integration that individual ministers have struggled to achieve.

Yet coordination remains elusive. Transport for London plans new stations without integrated housing strategies. The Department for Education builds schools without considering teacher housing needs in expensive areas. The NHS struggles to recruit in high-cost regions but doesn’t link workforce planning to housing provision. These silos perpetuate inefficiency and missed opportunities.

Technology and Cultural Resistance

The potential for technology to transform housing delivery remains largely unrealised, stymied by cultural resistance and regulatory inertia. Modern Methods of Construction could reduce build times by 50% and costs by 20%, yet account for less than 10% of new homes. The reasons are manifold – mortgage lenders remain sceptical, insurers charge premiums, and planning committees view them with suspicion.

Building Information Modelling could revolutionise project delivery, yet adoption remains patchy. Blockchain could streamline conveyancing from months to days, but the legal profession resists change that threatens traditional revenue streams. PropTech platforms could democratise investment and enable fractional ownership, yet regulatory frameworks designed for physical deeds and wet signatures create almost insurmountable barriers.

This isn’t just about efficiency – it’s about enabling entirely new models of homeownership that better match modern life patterns. Digital nomads, portfolio careers, and fluid household formations demand flexibility that traditional ownership models can’t provide. Yet we remain wedded to systems designed for single-earner households buying homes for life.

Beyond the Political Cycle

The housing crisis transcends party politics. Whether Conservative or Labour, all recent governments have recognised the need for more homes and better affordability. Yet the ministerial merry-go-round continues regardless of which party holds power. This suggests the problem lies deeper than political ideology – in how we structure government itself.

The recent resignation of Angela Rayner, despite Labour’s electoral mandate and clear housing commitments, illustrates how even senior ministers with genuine commitment struggle against systemic pressures. Cabinet reshuffles have taken precedence over policy continuity. The sector’s reaction – which resembles weary resignation rather than surprise – perhaps speaks volumes about diminished expectations.

Housing needs a different approach entirely. The Bank of England model – operational independence within democratically set parameters – could provide inspiration. Imagine a National Housing Delivery Authority with a 10-year mandate, stable leadership, and freedom to innovate within agreed frameworks. The recent commitment to a 10-year rent settlement for social housing demonstrates that longer-term thinking is possible when political will exists.

The Path Forward

As sector leaders gather to discuss widening opportunities for first-time buyers, they face challenges beyond any single roundtable’s capacity to solve. The solutions increasingly clear – innovative products, mixed funding models, sophisticated risk management, quality standards, professional management – require an enabling environment that doesn’t exist. The funding commitments are now in place, with the government pledging the “biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation.” What’s missing isn’t ideas or even resources, but the systems and stability to deliver them.

Success requires addressing not just ministerial instability, but the deeper structural issues that perpetuate crisis. Planning reform that actually speeds up delivery rather than adding complexity. Local authority capacity building that creates genuine expertise. Land market interventions that capture value for public benefit. Regulatory frameworks that enable rather than constrain innovation. Technology adoption that transforms rather than digitises existing processes.

The mixed economy of providers offers genuine potential. Institutional capital stands ready to invest, with firms like Legal & General, Blackstone, and M&G committing billions. Technology enables new approaches. Communities increasingly understand the need for development. Yet without addressing the fundamental instabilities and structural barriers, these opportunities risk being squandered.

The housing crisis demands nothing less than generational change. It requires products that didn’t exist before, partnerships that cross traditional boundaries and patience that extends beyond electoral cycles. Most fundamentally, it needs systems capable of sustained delivery regardless of ministerial changes, political cycles, or individual crises.

As the sector contemplates transformation, perhaps the most radical innovation needed isn’t in financial products or construction methods but in governance itself. Until we solve not just the revolving door problem but the deeper structural issues that perpetuate crisis, even the best ideas risk becoming just another set of initiatives abandoned when the next crisis hits. The dream of homeownership for millions depends not just on building more homes but on building systems capable of sustained, strategic action. That’s the real challenge facing everyone committed to solving Britain’s housing crisis.

The irony is stark – we know what needs doing, we have increasing resources to do it, yet we lack the institutional architecture to deliver. Until that changes, we’re condemned to repeat the cycle of crisis, intervention and disappointment that has characterised British housing policy for generations. Breaking that cycle requires courage to confront not just the symptoms but the disease itself. The question is whether any government, of any colour, has the vision and stamina to see it through.

This is a personal blog post.  Any opinions, findings, and conclusion or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Centre for the New Midlands or any of our associated organisations/individuals.

ABOUT OUR AUTHOR:

Joanna Lee-Mills is an Equity Partner at UK Top100 law firm, Ward Hadaway LLP, leading the Birmingham office’s Affordable Housing Development Team.

As an affordable housing lawyer with nearly 25 years’ experience advising the sector, Joanna has been heavily involved in the strategic growth and direction of social housing teams within various national law firms, with her expertise in real estate positioning her as a trusted advisor to housing associations, local authorities and developers across the UK.

Dedicated to fostering collaboration, Joanna works closely with planning, construction, residential development and other specialists to deliver comprehensive and innovative solutions for her clients. Joanna regularly authors thought leadership pieces on critical sector issues, and her insights have been published in prominent industry publications including Inside Housing and Social Housing magazines.

An active participant in both the housing sector and local business community, Joanna serves on the Board of Directors at Auxesia Homes and Colmore BID, bringing her considerable expertise to bear on strategic decisions that shape the future of social housing.  Joanna is also a Member of the Centre for the New Midlands’ Housing and Communities Leadership Board.