In 2023-24, private renters spent 34% of their income on housing, the highest share of any group. That means for every £100 earned, £34 goes straight to rent before anything else — food, bills, or savings. For those on the lowest incomes, that figure jumps to 63%. I’ve been watching this pattern tighten for years, and the numbers keep telling the same story: the system isn’t working for the people who need it most.
The government wants to build 1.5 million homes this Parliament, but barely 200,000 were built last year. That gap isn’t just a statistic — it’s the reason 1.5 million households in England now contain someone who would move out if they could afford to. The debate about localism — giving communities more say over what gets built and where — keeps coming up as a potential fix. But does it actually work? Here’s what you need to know.
What localism actually means for housing
When people talk about localism in housing, they usually mean giving councils and communities more power over what gets built in their area. That sounds good in principle — who doesn’t want a say in their neighbourhood? But the way England’s planning system works right now, that local discretion often becomes a bottleneck. Every planning application is decided case by case, which means even projects that meet all the rules can be rejected by councillors. That uncertainty discourages builders from starting in the first place.
What I’ve noticed over the years is that the debate tends to get stuck in a false choice: either central government dictates everything, or local communities block everything. The real answer sits somewhere in the middle. Countries like Germany and Japan use rules-based zoning — if your proposal follows the local plan, it gets approved. That gives communities a say in writing the rules, but once the rules exist, developers know where they stand. My first move would be to look at how that balance works in practice, not just in theory.
Why the current system is failing renters and first-time buyers
The housing crisis isn’t spread evenly. The worst shortages are in the most economically successful cities and towns, where jobs draw people in but the planning system disconnects housing supply from local demand. That mismatch hits renters hardest. In 2023-24, 32% of private renters reported difficulty affording their housing costs, compared to just 14% of mortgagors. For social renters, it was 28%.
Consider a young couple in London, both working, earning just enough to rent a one-bedroom flat. They’re part of the 1.5 million concealed households — people living with family or flatmates because they can’t afford a place of their own. Over half of those in concealed households are aged 16 to 24. That’s not a lifestyle choice; it’s a structural failure. The system isn’t just slow — it’s actively preventing homes from being built where they’re needed most.
What I’d say to anyone feeling stuck is this: the problem isn’t that you’re not earning enough. It’s that the system isn’t building enough homes in the places where you need to live. And until that changes, the pressure on rents will keep building.
Where the localism argument goes wrong
The most common mistake I see is assuming that local control automatically means less building. That’s not what the evidence shows. The problem isn’t localism itself — it’s the type of planning system we’ve layered on top of it. England’s discretionary system means every application is a fight, even when it follows the local plan. That uncertainty pushes up costs and delays projects for years.
Mistaking discretion for democracy
Giving councillors the power to reject compliant applications isn’t democratic — it’s unpredictable. Developers can’t plan around a system where approval depends on who shows up to a meeting. That’s why France, Germany and Japan all build more homes than England does, despite having strong local input. Their systems are rules-based: follow the plan, get permission.
Ignoring the density question
Many local objections focus on preserving “character” — which often means blocking any development denser than detached houses. But Britain needs more homes in its cities, not just on greenfield sites. The Centre for Cities data shows that densification needs to happen in urban areas where employment is concentrated. Blocking that just pushes development further out, increasing commuting and carbon emissions.
Treating all communities the same
The housing shortage varies hugely by region. In London, 8% of households contain someone who can’t afford to move out, compared to 4% in the North East. A one-size-fits-all approach to localism ignores these differences. What works for a rural village won’t work for a city centre, and pretending otherwise just delays solutions.
| Housing cost burden by tenure | % of income on housing | % reporting difficulty affording costs |
|---|---|---|
| Private renters | 34% | 32% |
| Social renters | 26% | 28% |
| Mortgagors | 19% | 14% |
What I’d flag here is that the mistake isn’t made by communities alone. National policymakers have also failed by not providing a clear framework. If you tell local councils to build more homes but give them no tools to manage density or design, you’re setting everyone up for conflict. The fix isn’t less localism — it’s better localism, with rules that everyone understands upfront.
How to make localism work for housing supply
Writing about topics like this takes real time and research. If you buy something through an Amazon link on this page, I may earn a small commission — at no extra cost to you. It’s one of the things that makes it possible to keep BritWealth free to read. I only link to products that are genuinely relevant to the article.
Replace discretion with flexible zoning
The single most effective change would be moving from England’s discretionary system to a flexible zoning system. Under this model, local communities still write the plan — deciding where homes go, how tall buildings can be, and what types of housing are allowed. But once the plan is in place, developers who follow it get automatic approval. That’s how Germany and Japan do it, and they build more homes as a result. The government has already started moving in this direction with changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, but it needs to go further.
Target densification in cities
Britain doesn’t just need more homes — it needs them in the right places. That means building up, not just out. Centre for Cities research shows that densification needs to happen in urban areas where jobs are concentrated. If you’re a local councillor, that might mean approving four-storey apartment blocks near train stations instead of only detached houses. If you’re a resident, it might mean accepting that your neighbourhood will change — and that change can bring better services and shorter commutes.
Use land value capture to fund infrastructure
One reason communities resist development is that they bear the costs — more traffic, pressure on schools — while developers take the profits. Land value capture changes that by taxing some of the increase in land value that comes from planning permission, then using that money for local infrastructure. It’s not a new idea, but it’s rarely used effectively in England. Done right, it could turn opponents into supporters by making sure new homes come with new schools, parks, and transport links.
Learn from successful experiments
Croydon’s Suburban Design Guide, a rules-based planning experiment from 2019 to 2022, showed that clear design standards can speed up approvals while maintaining quality. The approach gave developers certainty about what would be accepted, and the result was faster decisions without worse outcomes. That kind of pilot could be expanded nationally. If you’re involved in local planning, pushing for similar design guides in your area is a practical step you can take right now.
- 1Understand your local planCheck your council’s local plan online. It sets out where development is allowed and what types of housing are prioritised. Knowing this helps you engage meaningfully in consultations.
- 2Support rules-based reformWrite to your MP or councillor asking for a move toward flexible zoning. Point to the Croydon experiment or international examples as evidence that it works.
- 3Attend planning committee meetingsThese are public. Hearing how decisions are made — and where they get stuck — gives you a clearer picture of what needs to change locally.
What I’d do if I were advising a local council is start with the data. Look at where demand is highest, where infrastructure already exists, and where density can increase without harming quality of life. Then write a local plan that reflects those priorities — and stick to it. Certainty is what unlocks investment, not more meetings.
Frequently asked questions about localism and housing
Does localism mean fewer homes get built? ▾
How many homes does England actually need? ▾
What’s the difference between discretionary and rules-based planning? ▾
Can local communities still object under a zoning system? ▾
Why don’t developers just build on brownfield land? ▾
The housing shortage isn’t going to fix itself. But the evidence is clear: localism can work if it’s built on rules, not discretion. The countries that build more homes don’t ignore local voices — they give communities a say in writing the plan, then stick to it. That’s the shift England needs.
If this was useful, you might also want to read why UK first-time buyers are struggling and what can be done.
Sources and Further Reading
Is co-living the answer to the UK’s affordable housing crisis? — Explores an alternative model that could ease pressure on traditional housing supply.
English Housing Survey 2023-24: Experiences of the housing crisis. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2024.
Centre for Cities: Housing research and data. Centre for Cities, 2024.
