Metro Labour demonstrates it hasn’t a clue on how to boost house building and has bought the developers playbook and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

For example:

Developers in the UK hold planning permission for a substantial number of homes, with the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) reporting in February 2025 that over 1.4 million homes with existing planning permission have not been built over the past two decades. This situation is the result of developers “land banking” or slowing construction to maintain high house prices and increase land value before selling it, according to the IPPR.  

Dr Maya Singer Hobbs, senior research fellow at IPPR, said:

“The government doesn’t need to rip up the planning system to build 1.5 million new homes. Many of the blockers to housing and infrastructure delivery are not planning related. Reasons include water shortages, private developers slowing delivery to maintain profits, and a lack of strategic oversight of large infrastructure projects.  

“Market driven house-building is broken, and won’t deliver the 1.5 million homes the government has promised.  

“Years of deregulation and cuts to organisations like the Environment Agency means the planning system now operates as the last bastion of defence against bad design, nature degradation, pollution and over extraction of our waterways. We must support local, regional and national planners to do their job.

“This is not about pitting NIMBYs against YIMBYs, it is about ensuring the government achieves its ambitious targets whilst also maintaining local support and high quality.”

Then there is the  question of whether the UK has the skilled labour force to meet the government house building target that was  discussed at the turn of the year: UK ‘doesn’t have enough builders’ for Labour’s 1.5m homes

Labour needs to take note of what EDDC is doing.

Ministers tell Environment Agency to wave planning applications through

Helena Horton, Kiran Stacey www.theguardian.com 

The Environment Agency has been told by ministers to wave through planning applications with minimal resistance as part of a regulatory shakeup designed to increase economic growth and plug the government’s financial hole.

Officials at the agency say they have been told to do as little as legally possible to prevent housing applications from being approved and the government has drafted in senior advisers from the housing department to speed up the process.

Some believe the existence of the agency is under threat given Rachel Reeves’s push to eliminate government quangos as part of her dash for growth. Government officials insist this is not the case.

There is a wider push from the chancellor to inject more urgency into housing and infrastructure development, which she is hoping will help her fill a multibillion-pound hole at the next budget.

But environmental campaigners warn that clipping the wings of the Environment Agency could harm wildlife and the natural world.

One agency source said the staff from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) were “pushing development at any cost”.

They added: “We are taking a step back from planning and the organisational steer is to do the minimum required to fulfil our legal duties but nothing more. They are seeking legal advice as to what the minimum they can get away with is.”

They added: “There are lots of examples of where nature and development happen together, but going forwards, the EA doesn’t seem to want to be part of it.”

An Environment Agency spokesperson said they did not recognise the claims, but acknowledged that MHCLG staff had been brought into the agency. They added: “The EA continues to provide robust technical advice to ensure that environmental protections are considered in planning decisions.

“The government’s ambitious target for building 1.5m new homes is vital. To support this, we have rapidly reformed our planning service, now provide advice consistently within the 21-day deadline and use our technical expertise to achieve the best outcomes for the environment and economic growth.”

Reeves has told ministers to make a fresh push to cull quangos that their departments oversee, with sources indicating that the environment department has been singled out.

The department, whose new secretary of state, Emma Reynolds, was previously a Treasury minister, controls 37 agencies, including Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Office for Environmental Protection.

Ministers in this government and the previous Conservative administration have expressed frustration at the ability of some of the environmental regulators to hold up development. The chancellor has blamed them for choking economic growth by demanding developers build expensive wildlife protections such as the infamous £100m “bat tunnel” over the HS2 high-speed rail line.

The Environment Agency polices nutrient neutrality rules which ban developments in dozens of regions across the country if they are predicted to add to nutrients to nearby rivers.

The rules are in place to prevent the buildup of algae and other plants, which can choke off aquatic life, but have been blamed for the lack of housebuilding in certain areas.

The agency’s role in judging planning applications is enshrined in law, but Reeves is working on a planning and infrastructure bill that could rip up many of the rules around permitted developments. New rules could also be included in the forthcoming water bill.

Environmental campaigners say removing the agency entirely from the planning process could damage British wildlife.

Ali Plummer, the director of policy and advocacy at Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: “Deregulation won’t speed up nature recovery; it will just leave us with poorly designed developments, increased pollution and lower access to nature. Weaker regulation is not the foundation to build from for the next generation.”

Alexa Culver, a lawyer at the ecological consultancy RSK Wilding, said: “Properly funded and independent regulators are an essential part of any thriving economy. Choking the role of the Environment Agency and fettering their independence goes against all principles of good regulation.”