I see strong appetite for well-run rental homes, but far less appetite for a delivery process that can drift, change shape and accumulate cost without warning. Investors can price construction risk and market risk, but they struggle to price system risk.

BTR starts with an advantage because it is long-term money meeting long-term need. Yet BTR still sits inside the same planning and infrastructure environment as every other tenure. If the government wants capital to flow in at the scale necessary to meet housing targets, it should focus on removing the unknowns that sit outside any investor’s control.

Predictability is key

When people talk about viability they often concentrate on the visible aspects such as build costs, finance costs, affordable housing targets and environmental requirements. These are important, of course, but the most corrosive risks are those that cannot be modelled with confidence, such as delayed grid connections, Section 106 negotiations that drift, a late shift in local interpretation of policy, or a change in national policy partway through the planning process.

Recent attempts to resolve the housing crisis, such as the Homes for London rescue package and the recently revised National Planning Policy Framework, have focused on concessions as the answer to viability. I understand why, but this is a blunt instrument. It can help an individual scheme stack up on paper, but it does not fix the reason behind a lack of investment: a stable pipeline comes from predictability.

Planning certainty

If I could pick one lever that would change sentiment quickly, it would be planning certainty. Not a promise of speed, but a system that instils investors with confidence.

That starts with capacity — planning teams are currently woefully under-resourced. The process also needs standardisation. Too much time is spent reinventing legal structures and negotiating similar clauses from scratch. Model Section 106 clauses, clearer review triggers and a straightforward route for resolving disputes would reduce friction without removing local judgement.

The other aspect is accountability. If developers are expected to submit complete applications and respond promptly, local planning authorities should be expected to determine within realistic timeframes – which again comes back to resourcing.

•   The Finance Professional Show 2025: The Video
•   Planning policy must catch up with how people actually live
•   How will the new homes market be impacted by leasehold reform?

Infrastructure plans

Power and water constraints are now routine on major schemes, and in some parts of the country these have even resulted in planning moratoriums that destroy confidence.

Government does not necessarily need to provide the funding, but it does need to make infrastructure investable. We need to see credible regional capacity plans so that promoters can see what is feasible and when. Growth areas must be aligned with network upgrades and the sequencing must be transparent. Where constraints are genuine bottlenecks, guarantees or co-investment are necessary to bring forward schemes.

Tenure as a delivery tool

I have argued previously that a 30:30:30 model (a third market sale, a third affordable housing and a third BTR) can widen the capital base while maintaining a serious commitment to affordable delivery. This is where BTR can turn around an otherwise-unviable scheme. BTR is not constrained by absorption in the same way as market-sale housing is. It can be forward funded, it can build and let at a pace, which keeps contractors moving, and it brings residents into a place more quickly.

Policy should lean into that. On complex sites, a mix that includes BTR can widen the pool of capital and reduce reliance on one market cycle. It can also support earlier infrastructure commitments because cashflow is both upfront and more predictable.

This is not an argument for weakening affordable housing commitments — it is an argument for structuring schemes so that delivery is more resilient.

For that to work, BTR needs consistency. Specifically, local plans should be clear about where it is supported and how it sits alongside other tenures. Affordable tenure definitions should be applied consistently, including where discounted market rent is delivered through a professionally managed BTR offer. Obligations should recognise that BTR is built to be owned and managed for decades.

The way forward

My request for the government is not to lower standards but to offer a clearer route to delivery: stable policy over a parliamentary term, planning that is resourced and more standardised, infrastructure plans that are transparent, and a consistent place for BTR in local policy so that mixed-tenure schemes can be structured with confidence.

As a result, we will see a further increase in investment in BTR. Our sector is already proving that it can bring patient capital into the property market, improve build-out rates and create places that are looked after over the long term.

With a more predictable delivery system, there is no reason why it cannot play a larger role in meeting the country’s housing needs.