Andy Burnham’s proposal for the biggest council housebuilding programme since the post-war period sits within a much wider national debate about housing supply, affordability and the capacity of the planning system to deliver homes at scale. The central argument behind the proposal is that Britain has become too reliant on an expensive and insecure private rental sector, while the number of council homes has fallen significantly since the 1980s. Burnham has argued that Britain has lost almost 1.5 million council homes over that period, with a similar number of people now on social housing waiting lists, and has suggested that public land, higher-density urban development and stronger devolved delivery could form part of the solution. 

The wider context is important. England has already been grappling with an ambitious national housebuilding objective, with recent government planning reforms aimed at supporting the delivery of 1.5 million homes over the course of the Parliament. Those reforms include mandatory housing targets, a stronger expectation that councils maintain up-to-date local plans, a greater focus on “grey belt” land, and additional funding for planning officers. Yet even this general housebuilding target is widely regarded as overstretching. Delivering 1.5 million homes would require a major increase in output compared with recent delivery levels; England has not delivered 300,000 additional homes per year on record, even during the high-building years of the 1970s. 

Burnham’s proposal therefore raises a practical question that goes beyond party politics: can the existing planning system realistically support a council housebuilding programme of that scale? On balance, the answer is likely to be no — at least not without substantial reform. The current system is highly discretionary, meaning that many decisions are made on a case-by-case basis through local planning authorities, committee processes, statutory consultation and negotiation over site-specific impacts. This allows local democratic oversight and detailed assessment, but it can also create uncertainty, delay and cost for developers, including councils themselves. 

A major council housebuilding programme would need a far more reliable pipeline of land. Burnham has specifically referred to using vacant public land to reduce costs and bringing higher-density residential development into towns, both of which imply a more interventionist approach to land assembly and spatial planning. In practice, this could require a stronger national or regional mechanism for identifying public sites, assessing infrastructure capacity, resolving ownership constraints and bringing land forward more quickly. Without that, local authorities could find themselves with political responsibility for delivery but insufficient control over the land, funding and statutory processes needed to make delivery happen. 

Planning reform would also need to address the relationship between local plans and major public housing schemes. At present, local plans are intended to provide certainty about where development should happen, but many councils do not have up-to-date plans, not to mention demonstrable 5-year housing land supplies. The government has previously noted that only around a third of councils had a plan less than five years old, and has said it is prepared to intervene where authorities fall behind. A large council housebuilding programme would struggle if it depended on slow plan-making cycles, particularly where sites need to be allocated, infrastructure requirements assessed and local opposition managed. One possible reform would be to give certain publicly led housing schemes a clearer route through the planning system where they align with strategic housing need, design standards and infrastructure provision. 

There would also be pressure to streamline the planning application process itself. Large housing schemes can require numerous surveys, assessments and consultations covering transport, ecology, drainage, viability, heritage, design, affordable housing contributions and infrastructure impacts. These requirements often serve legitimate purposes, particularly where development affects sensitive environments or existing communities. However, when applied cumulatively, they can slow delivery and increase costs. The government has already moved towards planning reform based on faster decision-making, more planning officers and a more rules-based approach in some areas, including proposed support for development near transport hubs. Burnham’s proposal would likely need to go further, especially if councils were expected to deliver homes at a rate comparable with the post-war era. 

This is where the question of deregulation becomes unavoidable. Deregulation does not necessarily mean removing all safeguards. A more balanced interpretation would be selective simplification: reducing duplication, standardising requirements, setting clearer national rules, and allowing compliant schemes to progress more quickly. For example, development on publicly owned brownfield land, in town centres or near public transport could be given a more predictable planning route, provided it meets minimum standards on design, environmental performance, infrastructure and affordability. That would not remove planning control altogether, but it would shift the system away from open-ended negotiation and towards clearer upfront rules.

However, the risks of deregulation should not be understated. Planning is not only a barrier to development; it is also the mechanism through which communities secure infrastructure, protect heritage, manage flood risk, safeguard environmental assets and influence the quality of new places. Removing too many checks could deliver homes faster in the short term but create poorer outcomes over the long term. This is particularly relevant for council housing, because public housing programmes are often judged not just by the number of homes built, but by the quality, durability and liveability of the neighbourhoods they create. A neutral assessment must therefore recognise that reform would need to improve speed without undermining public confidence.

The capacity of local government is another major obstacle. Even if the planning rules were simplified, councils would still need the officers, surveyors, housing teams, procurement specialists and project managers to bring schemes forward. The Local Government Association has argued that the UK is not building enough homes, while commentary on council housebuilding has highlighted pressures on local authority housing budgets, construction costs and departmental capacity. This means planning reform alone would not be sufficient. A successful programme would also require investment in local authority delivery teams, stronger public-sector procurement, and long-term certainty over grant funding and borrowing powers. 

There is also a governance issue. Burnham’s plan appears to place strong emphasis on devolution, with delivery led through local areas rather than central government departments. That could help tailor housing delivery to local markets, infrastructure constraints and regeneration priorities. But it would also require a clearer division of responsibilities between central government, combined authorities, local planning authorities and housing providers. If regional leaders are expected to deliver housing numbers, they would likely need stronger powers over land assembly, infrastructure coordination, transport planning and strategic spatial planning. 

Ultimately, the significance of Burnham’s proposal is that it exposes a wider structural problem in the UK housing system. A post-war-scale council housebuilding programme cannot be delivered through existing processes. It would require a planning system that is faster, clearer, better resourced and more strategically aligned with public housing objectives. That would almost certainly involve major reforms, including more predictable approval routes for public-sector housing, stronger mechanisms for land assembly, greater density in urban areas, and selective deregulation where existing processes add delay without improving outcomes.

Whether one supports or opposes the proposal politically, the practical conclusion is the same: a council housebuilding programme of this scale would require the UK planning system to operate very differently. The challenge would be to deregulate intelligently — removing unnecessary delay and uncertainty — while retaining the safeguards that ensure new homes are well located, properly serviced and built to a standard that can endure for generations.