Why Keir Starmer’s Proposal to Lock Developers into Start Dates Before Planning Approval Is Problematic!

Right, I am not getting into politics. I have always avoided political chit chat and #thehardhattalks #podcast should also stay clear of politics, football and religion.  Let’s hope I can steer the podcast away from these emotive subjects however, Keir Starmer has floated a ludicrous proposal that developers should commit to start dates before receiving planning permission — an idea aimed at tackling the issue of land banking and perceived development delays. On the surface, this might seem like a pragmatic way to accelerate housebuilding. It’s a policy that risks creating more bottlenecks, discouraging development, and adding uncertainty to an already challenging planning environment.

Let me explain why I think the Proposal is ludicrous: -

1. It Misunderstands the Planning Process

Requiring developers to agree to a start date before planning consent is granted reverses the logic of the development process. The planning system exists precisely to assess feasibility, community impact, and infrastructure requirements. Committing to a date before these key factors are resolved is not only impractical — it's potentially reckless.

Every development is unique. Timelines can be impacted by:

• Local authority capacity and review times

• Environmental or heritage assessments

• Community consultations and legal objections

• Utility and infrastructure coordination

• Uncertainty over timelines to clear Planning Conditions

Expecting developers to schedule construction amid these unknowns ignores the inherent complexity of getting projects over the line.

2. It Penalises Responsible Developers

The assumption behind this policy is that developers intentionally delay projects for speculative reasons. While land banking can occur, it’s far from the norm. Most developers are under pressure to deliver quickly — both from investors and the market.

Punishing developers who are navigating legitimate delays (planning appeals, revised conditions, utility coordination, contractor availability) with rigid start dates will only stifle investment and drive risk-averse behaviour. The real culprits — where they exist — need targeted enforcement, not broad-brush restrictions.

3. It Increases Legal and Financial Risk

Committing to start dates without knowing what conditions will be attached to permission exposes developers to a minefield of risk:

• What happens if ecological surveys delay consent?

• What if local objections push the process into an appeal?

• What if utility providers can't connect until 6 months later?

Under Starmer’s proposal, developers could face penalties or reputational damage for missing deadlines through no fault of their own. This will almost certainly lead to more cautious land acquisition, fewer planning applications, and higher development costs — the opposite of what we need to boost housing delivery.

4. It Could Worsen the Planning System, Not Improve It

The underlying issue isn’t that developers are dragging their feet — it’s that the UK’s planning system is over-stretched, under-resourced, and highly inconsistent across local authorities. If the goal is to get homes built faster, we need:

• Better resourced planning departments

• Streamlined processes for standard developments

• Incentives for councils to approve and manage build-out

• Collaboration with developers, not confrontation

A top-down punitive policy won't fix these structural issues. It might just create a chilling effect where fewer developers are willing to bring forward proposals in uncertain jurisdictions.

Keir Starmer’s instinct to drive more housing delivery is absolutely right — but his proposed method misunderstands the challenges developers face on the ground. If we want more homes, faster, we need a planning system that works with developers to unblock delays, not a headline-grabbing policy that imposes rigid commitments before projects are even viable.   These topics have so far been explored over several podcasts.

Constructive dialogue, not constraint, is how we move forward.

I'd love to hear from fellow developers, planners, and policy thinkers. How do you think we can balance accountability and flexibility in the planning system? Let’s talk.