Samer Bagaeen: Housing delivery requires alignment across the system
Posted on: 30 April, 2026
By Professor Samer Bagaeen
Head of the School of Town Planning
The ‘Inside Housing: Build More Homes’ summit in London offered a timely opportunity to reflect on the current state of housing delivery, and on the system that underpins it.
What stayed with me most was the sense that the conversation has shifted. There is now broad agreement on the scale of ambition required, and on the urgency of delivery. The more difficult question, and the one that came through repeatedly across the sessions I attended, is how that ambition is translated into outcomes on the ground.
Housing insecurity a ‘systemic issue’
At the centre of this is housing insecurity. Too many households remain only one setback away from it, and with over 100,000 children in temporary accommodation in London alone, this is clearly a systemic issue that extends across generations. Addressing it requires sustained effort over time, and a level of coordination that is not always easy to achieve.
Delivering housing at scale depends on cooperation. It needs a whole lot of people to work together and a whole lot of organisations to work together, and in practice that coordination can be difficult, even within government itself. For example, the Department for Transport (DfT) may object to schemes for housing on the grounds of lack of access, accessibility and roads infrastructure. But the DfT should work with other Government departments to put those in place together, rather than be a blocker.
This question of alignment also extends to the different visions that shape places. One of the more interesting aspects of the conference was listening to political perspectives, including that of Chris Curtis, MP for Milton Keynes North, and reflecting on how these interact with those of local authorities and communities. These perspectives do not always align, and in the absence of a shared framework it can be difficult to establish a coherent direction for development. The process of bringing these viewpoints together requires time, effort and energy, and although that work is not always easily quantified, it remains central to the creation of places that are viable and successful.
‘Funding alone does not determine delivery’
There is, of course, significant funding attached to current housing ambitions, including the Affordable Homes Programme and associated investment. However, funding alone does not determine delivery. The presence of financial resources does not guarantee that projects will move forward if the wider system lacks the capacity to support them.
That capacity rests on several interrelated elements. There is the need for well-structured projects and secure funding over the full duration of delivery. There is the need for skills across the entire lifecycle, from planning and design through to construction, project management and long-term operation. These are areas where the sector can plan and respond.
Political will
Alongside this sits a less predictable factor, which is political will and continuity. Housing projects often extend beyond electoral cycles, and without a degree of consistency in political support it becomes more difficult to keep a project on track. Changes in leadership, shifts in policy direction and the wider economic context all have the potential to influence outcomes over time.
If you think of HS2, for example – the spiraling cost and the community opposition leading to toing and froing of where the route should extend to – Manchester, Birmingham, Euston in London and so on. These decisions are also affected not just by finance but also the changing political landscape. These are things that accompany projects all the way through and they’re the unknowns in that equation. Skills we can plan for because that’s what we do, but political will and the continuity of vision that transcends political administrations – that’s a difficult one.
Planning needs a rules-based approach
Planning reform sits at the centre of many of these discussions. One of the themes that emerged during the conference was the shift from guidance-heavy systems towards more rules-based approaches, particularly in relation to design coding and development parameters.
Guidance allows for interpretation, which can be useful, but it also introduces uncertainty. A rules-based system provides greater clarity in terms of what is acceptable and what is not. In a planning context, if a scheme has been approved, there is a reasonable expectation that it should proceed. At present, that is not always the case. It is common for developments to receive outline approval, only to encounter further challenges when they return with detailed proposals, and this can lead to delays that affect delivery more broadly.
The move towards clearer rules, particularly within designated areas, has the potential to reduce that uncertainty and to support a more predictable process. This is not about prescribing architectural outcomes, but about establishing consistent principles around layout, density and the quality of place, so that schemes which meet those criteria can move forward with greater confidence.
How AI can combat planning application complexities
Alongside this sits the growing complexity of planning applications. The range of technical requirements has expanded considerably, encompassing areas such as flood risk, ecology and heritage, and while each serves a legitimate purpose, the cumulative effect can be to slow progress. There is an ongoing question as to whether more of this work could be addressed at the level of plan-making, rather than being revisited at each stage of the application process.
Another area that generated considerable interest was the role of data, digital tools and artificial intelligence in supporting planning and delivery. Planning is fundamentally an information-driven process, and many of the inefficiencies within the system relate to the way that data is structured, accessed and used. Establishing common standards has the potential to improve consistency and reduce friction.
Artificial intelligence introduces a further dimension to this discussion. Rather than relying solely on fully curated datasets, AI tools are able to draw from multiple sources simultaneously, which may allow for faster analysis and more efficient decision-making. This has implications for how planners allocate their time, potentially shifting the focus away from administrative tasks and towards design, place-making and professional judgement.
At the same time, digital capability across local authorities remains uneven. Some are actively engaging with new tools and approaches, while others are still developing the capacity to do so. There is an opportunity here for authorities to take a more proactive role in defining their requirements and shaping the development of these tools, rather than responding to what is available.
Housing challenge needs ‘alignment’
Across these discussions, whether focused on planning reform, skills, funding or digitalisation, a consistent theme emerges around alignment. The housing challenge is complex and interconnected, and progress depends on the extent to which the different elements of the system operate together in a coherent way.
The ambition to deliver housing at scale is clearly established. The question that remains is whether the system can support that ambition over time, and whether it can do so in a way that leads to the creation of well-functioning, sustainable places.
Ready to make a change? Explore our MSc Urban Planning – University of the Built Environment
