It's no secret that those in authority are frustrated with the current rate of housebuilding, but they aren't alone. So is everyone involved in development.

However, that frustration is unlikely to be addressed by launching a new publicly owned developer. It’s important to note that at this stage the government hasn’t officially commented on these reports or outlined any plans.

The more important question, in my view, is whether the issue is a shortage of developers, or whether the developers we already have are finding it increasingly difficult to bring viable schemes forward. From what we're seeing across the market, it's the latter.

We lack certainty, not developers

Speak to anyone in development and it's clear there is no shortage of experienced developers who want to move projects forward. The bigger issue is that too many viable schemes become harder to justify because of the uncertainty surrounding the planning process.

Decision making from planning departments is inconsistent, not just between different authorities but sometimes within the same authority. Too often, developers are left unsure how a scheme will be assessed, or whether the assumptions made at the outset will still hold true months later.

Planning uncertainty doesn't just slow projects down. It changes investment behaviour. Developers become more selective about where they commit capital because they have less confidence that the assumptions made at the start of a project will still hold true as it progresses through the planning system. The result is that fewer viable schemes come forward in the first place.

That's particularly true for SME developers, who have far less room to absorb additional uncertainty or prolonged delays than their larger counterparts.

A new developer, even one backed by the state, would do nothing to address this issue.

•   The Finance Professional Show 2025: The Video
•   HTB appoints development finance lending director
•   HTB strengthens development finance team with new lending director

Providing SMEs with the help they need

If we are ever to get close to the government's ambitions around housebuilding, then SME developers hold the key. They are the ones best placed to unlock brownfield land, take on smaller sites overlooked by PLC housebuilders and use their regional expertise to deliver homes that genuinely reflect local demand rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

But SMEs are struggling. The latest SME Developer Sentiment Survey from the Home Builders Federation found a marked deterioration in confidence among smaller builders, with most expecting to reduce land purchasing and the number of homes they start over the coming quarter.

That reflects what we found in our own SME developer research ahead of UKREiiF, where planning uncertainty consistently emerged as the biggest barrier to bringing forward new development. That should concern anyone serious about increasing housing supply because confidence ultimately determines whether viable schemes move forward.

The focus has to be on improving that confidence, rather than creating more competition for developers who are already finding it harder to invest.

What will make a difference?

Thinking creatively about how to boost housing delivery is welcome, but it needs to be targeted at the practical issues currently holding back developers.

We need planning departments that are properly resourced so decisions can be made more quickly. Just as importantly, those decisions need to be more consistent and predictable. Developers can usually plan for delays. What becomes much harder is planning for inconsistency, where assumptions and expectations change as schemes progress through the planning process.

Access to funding remains important, but finance alone won't unlock more housing delivery if viable schemes continue to become harder to justify because of planning uncertainty. From a lender's perspective, funding remains available for well-structured, viable schemes. The challenge is that fewer viable schemes are being brought forward because developers are becoming increasingly selective about where they commit capital.

Asking the right questions

If creating a government-backed developer is the answer, then I think we're asking the wrong question.

We don't need more developers working within an unpredictable planning system. We need a planning framework that gives the developers we already have the confidence to bring forward more viable schemes.

That's where I believe the greatest opportunity to increase housing delivery really lies.