Sophie Horgan, managing director of Horgan Homes, explains how the government needs to provide clear direction and support for the industry if there is any chance of coming close to the 1.5 million homes target.
What do Prince William and Vistry have in common? On the surface, very little.
One is the heir to the throne announcing a landmark change in how the Duchy of Cornwall manages its vast land holdings. The other is the subject of headlines about leaked instructions from “Labour’s favourite housebuilder” to subcontractors telling them to stop building.
What they do have in common is this: both are symptoms of a housing system that is under profound stress. One is trying to release land into a system that can’t use it properly. The other is a business that ministers held up as a delivery blueprint, now pulling back. Together, they tell the story of a sector where ambition and reality have never been further apart.
The government needs 300,000 homes built every year to hit its 1.5 million homes commitment by the end of this parliament. In 2024-25, the actual figure was 208,600. That’s down 6% on the previous year. So not only are we short, we’re moving in the wrong direction.
The planning reforms, though, are welcome. Reintroducing hard targets for local authorities and pushing through changes to the National Planning Policy Framework were the right things to do. But good policy on paper and delivery on the ground are two very different things. And right now, the gap between them is widening.
Take the Thurrock Airfield case. A developer proposes 750 homes on previously developed land. The government’s own housing secretary acknowledges it qualifies as grey belt and that the council’s housing delivery is “woeful”. He admits there’s no five-year housing supply plan. And yet the appeal is refused on green belt grounds.
The policy exists. The land exists. The need is undeniable. But the system still says no. That’s the backdrop against which this recent news needs to be read.
Let’s start with Vistry. Vistry has been described as “Labour’s favourite housebuilder” – namechecked by ministers as the model for delivering on the government’s housebuilding ambitions. Its entire business strategy is built around partner-funded housing, much of it dependent on Labour’s £39 billion affordable homes programme coming good.
However, the Sunday Times revealed leaked documents saying the company has ordered subcontractors to stop building on privately funded developments to preserve cash. Its share price has fallen sharply and its chief executive has stepped aside.
Ministers held this company up as a blueprint for delivery. That tells you something about the gap between government ambition and market reality.
Then there is Barratt Redrow, the country’s largest housebuilder, announcing it is scaling back land purchases. From a planned 10,000 to 12,000 plots down to 7,000 to 9,000. That’s approximately £100million less investment from an £800million to £900million budget. The reason? What the company describes as “a less certain backdrop” driven by the Iran war, rising material costs and energy prices that will feed through into building costs well into 2027.
Barratt isn’t in crisis. It still expects to complete between 17,200 and 17,800 homes and make profits of around £570million. But when the largest housebuilder in the country pulls back on land acquisition, it sends a signal. It says the conditions for investment have shifted and committing capital to long-term development programmes carries risks that weren’t there 18 months ago.
Now back to Prince William. His announcement that the Duchy of Cornwall will sell 20% of its property over ten years, raising £500million, with plans to deliver 12,000 homes by 2040, a third of which will be affordable, is on lot of levels, brilliant news. (Not least that his CEO’s background in retirement living means there’s an appreciation of the need for single-story homes and as a developer of bungalows, Horgan Homes would be very happy to have a chat with Will Bax!).
The focus on social impact, on communities and on affordable housing in areas where the duchy has a significant presence seems genuine and well-intentioned.
But the reality is that the Duchy is proposing to release land into a system that is currently struggling to use the land it already has. Planning contradictions are blocking development on grey belt sites. The largest builders are scaling back. Labour’s preferred delivery partner is in serious difficulty. Energy costs, material costs and employment costs are all rising.
Both stories, in their very different ways, point to the same underlying problem. Land supply is part of the challenge, but only part of it. You can release land until you run out of countryside, brownfield and all the colours in between, but if the economic conditions don’t support development, if the planning system contradicts itself, if the businesses tasked with building are under the kind of pressure we’re currently seeing, the homes still won’t get built.
At a moment when the housing sector needs clear direction, decisive policy and genuine engagement with the realities of delivery, Westminster is consumed by its own internal drama. Leadership speculation, a re-debate of Brexit and what feels increasingly like a slow-motion build-up to the coronation of a Manchester import all mean that the housing crisis is not top of anyone’s agenda and it shows.
So here is what I’d ask.
Of government: recognise the environment in which the sector is operating. Unblock the planning contradictions that are preventing development on land that has already been identified as suitable. Support efforts to bring land forward in a way that the system can actually use. Stop creating conditions that discourage investment and then expressing surprise when investment doesn’t materialise.
Of the sector: there are things we can control and things we can’t. We can’t control geopolitical uncertainty or mortgage rates or the Iran war. But we can work together better. We can build the partnerships and collaborative relationships that make delivery more resilient. We can invest in skills and training so that when conditions do improve, we have the workforce to respond.
The homes this country needs will not be built by targets or announcements or well-intentioned royal land releases. They will be built by businesses and people working in conditions that make delivery possible. I do hope someone is listening.
