Planning & Housing
Community Control • Non-Destructive Planning • Off-Grid Rights
Alternative Dwellings • Park Home Reform • Hempcrete
Infrastructure First • Brownfield First • Build to Last
The Problem
The planning system in England does not serve communities. It serves developers. It was designed to balance the interests of landowners, builders, residents, and the public. In practice, it has become a machine for converting land into profit, overriding the objections of the people who will live with the consequences, and producing housing that is too expensive, too small, too poorly built, and too far from the services that make a place liveable.
When a developer wants to build 1,300 houses on a greenfield site, the local community has almost no power to stop it. They can attend a planning committee meeting. They can submit objections. They can write letters that are logged, acknowledged, and ignored. And if the local authority refuses permission — because the roads cannot cope, the schools are full, the GP surgery has closed its list, the drainage will flood existing homes — the developer appeals to the Planning Inspectorate, a national body that overturns local decisions based on housing targets set by central government. The community said no. The council said no. A planning inspector in Bristol said yes. The houses get built.
Meanwhile, the person who buys a piece of woodland and wants to put a cabin in it — a structure that harms nothing, destroys nothing, fells no trees, disrupts no ecology — is told they need planning permission, which will be refused because the site is in the open countryside and there is no ‘special justification’ for residential use. A farmer who wants to put a static caravan on their own land to live near their livestock is refused because the caravan is not a ‘permanent dwelling’. A family living in a static home on a licensed site — paying council tax, sending their children to local schools, registering with the local GP — cannot access a single government grant for solar panels, insulation, or a replacement boiler because their home is not classified as a dwelling.
The system has its priorities exactly backwards. It enables developments that communities do not want while prohibiting uses that harm no one. It treats a housing estate on a flood plain as acceptable and a cabin in a forest as unacceptable. It classifies a £500,000 new-build with paper-thin walls and a ten-year snagging list as a dwelling, and a well-maintained static home where a family has lived for twenty years as something less.
BUILD will rebuild the planning system from the ground up. Communities will decide what gets built. Households that are affected will be consulted directly, not through a notice pinned to a lamppost that nobody reads. Alternative dwellings will be recognised as homes. Off-grid living will be a right, not a concession. And the structures that go up will be built to last a century, not to maximise a developer’s quarterly profit.
Pillar 1: Planning Reform — Every Household Heard
The planning consultation system is a performance. Notices on lampposts. Documents on council websites that nobody visits. Public meetings held at 2pm on a Wednesday when everyone affected is at work. The system was designed to create the appearance of public engagement while ensuring that development proceeds regardless. BUILD will replace it with something that actually works.
1.1 — Direct Notification: What, When, Why
For any planning application that would affect existing residents, the local planning authority must write directly to every household within the impact zone. Not a notice on a lamppost. Not a line in the local paper. Not a PDF buried on a website. A letter, through the letterbox, addressed to the household, explaining in plain English:
What is being proposed — the nature, scale, and appearance of the development, described in language that a normal person can understand, not in planning jargon. A ‘mixed-use development comprising 1,300 residential units with associated infrastructure’ is meaningless to the person who lives next door. ‘A housing estate of 1,300 homes on the fields behind your house, with two new road junctions on your street’ is not.
When it would happen — the proposed timeline, including construction phases, expected start and completion dates, and the period during which disruption (noise, traffic, dust, road closures) would occur.
Why it is being proposed — the applicant’s stated reasons, the planning policy context, and any relevant local plan allocations. If the site was allocated for development in the local plan, the letter must say so and explain when and how that allocation was made.
The letter must include a clear deadline for responses and a simple, accessible method for responding — by post, by email, by phone, or online. The response period will be a minimum of 42 days, not the current 21 days that conveniently expires before most people have worked out what is being proposed.
1.2 — Legitimate Objection: One Household Can Stop It
If even one household within the impact zone raises a legitimate objection, the application cannot be approved without that objection being fully addressed and resolved. A legitimate objection is one that identifies a specific, material impact on the objecting household or community. This includes but is not limited to:
Flood risk — the development would increase surface water runoff, overwhelm drainage, or place the objector’s property at greater risk of flooding. Traffic and road safety — the local road network cannot safely absorb the additional vehicle movements. School and GP capacity — local services are already at capacity and the development includes no binding commitment to expand them. Environmental damage — the development would destroy habitat, harm protected species, or degrade air or water quality. Loss of agricultural land — the site is productive farmland (see Farming & Agriculture Charter). Noise, dust, light, and amenity — the construction and operation of the development would materially harm the living conditions of existing residents.
A legitimate objection is not: ‘I don’t like change.’ ‘It will spoil my view.’ ‘I don’t want those people living near me.’ The test is material impact, not personal preference. But where a material impact is identified, it must be resolved before the application proceeds. Resolved means fixed — not ‘mitigated’ by a planning condition that the developer ignores, not ‘addressed’ by a paragraph in an officer’s report that acknowledges the concern and recommends approval anyway.
1.3 — Strip the Planning Inspectorate
The Planning Inspectorate’s power to overturn local planning decisions on their merits will be abolished. Appeals will be permitted only on procedural grounds — the local authority did not follow due process, failed to consult properly, or applied policy incorrectly. An appeal will not be permitted simply because the developer disagrees with the decision.
The current system allows developers to treat local refusal as a minor inconvenience on the way to approval on appeal. They know the inspector will weigh national housing targets more heavily than local objections. They know the council fears the costs of a lost appeal. So they apply, get refused, appeal, and win — and the community that said no discovers that its opinion was never more than advisory.
Under BUILD, a community that says no means no. The developer can redesign, reduce, relocate, or withdraw. They cannot override.
Pillar 2: Non-Destructive Planning
If you own a woodland and you want to put a cabin in it, and the trees stay, the soil stays, the streams run clean, and the wildlife is undisturbed — why does the state get to say no? BUILD’s answer is: it doesn’t.
2.1 — The Principle
Non-destructive planning is a new category of permitted development that applies specifically to privately owned woodland. The principle is simple: if a proposed structure or use causes no measurable harm to the ecological integrity of the woodland, it is permitted without the need for a full planning application.
This means: no trees are felled or fatally damaged. No watercourses are diverted, dammed, or polluted. No protected species habitat is destroyed or materially degraded. No significant ground disturbance occurs beyond the footprint of the structure. The character of the woodland as a functioning ecosystem is maintained.
If those conditions are met, a woodland owner may erect a cabin, shelter, workshop, or similar low-impact structure within their woodland under a non-destructive planning notification — a simplified process that requires the owner to demonstrate compliance with the ecological criteria, but does not require them to justify the ‘need’ for the structure or to prove ‘special circumstances’ for residential use in the countryside.
2.2 — What Is Permitted
A single cabin or dwelling of modest scale, built from natural or sustainable materials where practicable, with a footprint that does not exceed a reasonable proportion of the woodland area. The structure may be used for residential occupation, forestry work, craft or workshop use, or quiet recreational use. It must be serviced in a way that does not harm the woodland — composting toilet, rainwater harvesting, solar or wind power, or other off-grid solutions are expected and encouraged. Mains connection is not required and cannot be used as a reason to refuse the notification.
Access tracks must be minimal and permeable — no tarmac roads through ancient bluebell woods. Fencing must be wildlife-permeable. External lighting must be minimal and downward-facing to prevent light pollution and disruption to nocturnal species.
2.3 — What Is Not Permitted
Non-destructive planning is not a licence to build an estate in a forest. It does not permit: clearance of trees to create building plots; drainage works that alter the hydrology of the woodland; commercial-scale development, multiple dwellings, or holiday let complexes; any structure or use that would require felling mature or veteran trees; hard surfacing, concrete foundations, or other permanent ground sealing beyond the structure footprint; or any activity that would harm a Site of Special Scientific Interest, ancient woodland designation, or protected species.
The non-destructive test is exactly what it says. If the woodland is harmed, the permission does not apply. If a subsequent inspection reveals that the woodland has been degraded — trees felled, habitat destroyed, watercourses polluted — the structure must be removed and the woodland restored at the owner’s cost.
2.4 — Assessment and Enforcement
Non-destructive planning notifications will be assessed by the local authority with input from the relevant ecological body (which, under BUILD’s reforms, will be locally accountable rather than a distant national agency). The assessment is a simple pass/fail against the ecological criteria. There is no subjective judgment about whether the countryside ‘needs’ another dwelling or whether the structure is ‘appropriate to its setting’. If the woodland is unharmed, the notification passes. If it would be harmed, it fails.
Compliance inspections at 12 months and 36 months after construction will verify that the woodland remains ecologically intact. Non-compliance results in an enforcement notice requiring removal of the structure and restoration. This is not negotiable. The quid pro quo for easy permission is strict ecological accountability.
Pillar 3: Statics, Boats, and Alternative Dwellings
If you live in it, it is your home. The material it is made from does not determine your rights. A family in a static home deserves the same access to grants, support, and recognition as a family in a brick house. BUILD will end the two-tier system that punishes people for living in alternative dwellings.
3.1 — Reclassify as Dwellings
Static caravans, park homes, mobile homes, houseboats, narrowboats, widebeam boats, converted vehicles, and other structures used as a person’s primary residence will be legally reclassified as dwellings for all purposes. This means:
Full eligibility for every government grant, scheme, and support programme available to conventional dwellings. Solar panel grants. Insulation grants. Boiler replacement schemes. Energy efficiency improvements. Disabled adaptations. Flood resilience measures. If a scheme is available to a house, it is available to a static. If it is available to a flat, it is available to a boat. No exceptions. No small print that excludes ‘non-permanent structures’. No bureaucratic classification that treats a home as something less than a home because it was built in a factory rather than on a foundation.
Right to a postal address for voting, banking, benefits, official correspondence, and all other purposes. A person’s home is their address, regardless of its construction type.
Council tax banding appropriate to the dwelling, not business rates or a hybrid classification that costs more while providing fewer services. If you pay council tax, you receive council services — bin collection, road maintenance, street lighting, social services — at the same standard as any other council tax payer.
Eligibility for mortgage-like finance. The current mortgage market largely excludes static homes and boats because they are classified as depreciating assets rather than property. BUILD will work with lenders to establish a regulated finance framework for alternative dwellings that reflects their actual value and longevity, not a classification system designed around bricks and mortar.
3.2 — The Grant Gap: What This Fixes
Right now, a person living in a static caravan — paying council tax, using local services, sending their children to local schools — cannot claim a single penny toward solar panels, insulation, a replacement boiler, or any other home improvement grant. The same person in a terraced house on the same street can access thousands of pounds in support. The only difference is the material their walls are made from.
This is not an oversight. It is a policy gap that actively discriminates against people in alternative dwellings, many of whom are on low incomes, in fuel poverty, or disabled. A static caravan is harder to heat than a brick house. It needs insulation more, not less. It benefits more from solar panels, not less. Excluding these households from energy efficiency support is not just unfair — it is counterproductive. It costs more in winter fuel payments and health consequences than it would cost to insulate the home properly in the first place.
BUILD will close this gap completely. If you live in it, you can improve it, and the government will help you improve it on the same terms as everyone else.
3.3 — 32-Amp Minimum for Static Sites
Most static caravan sites in England provide a 16-amp electrical supply to each pitch. Sixteen amps is approximately 3.6 kilowatts — enough to run a kettle or a small heater, but not both at the same time. In a conventional house, the standard supply is 60 to 100 amps. The disparity is enormous, and it has real consequences for the people who live on these sites.
Sixteen amps means you cannot run an electric shower. You cannot run a washing machine and a heater simultaneously. You cannot charge an electric vehicle. You cannot install a heat pump. You cannot run the kind of modern electrical appliances that every household in a conventional dwelling takes for granted. In winter, when a static home needs heating most, the electrical supply is least capable of providing it.
BUILD will mandate a minimum 32-amp supply to every residential pitch on a static caravan or park home site. Thirty-two amps is approximately 7.4 kilowatts — still less than half the supply to a conventional house, but enough to run essential appliances simultaneously, support a small solar and battery installation, and operate modern heating systems. Site owners will be given a reasonable transition period to upgrade their electrical infrastructure, with access to capital grants where necessary. The cost of the upgrade will not be passed to residents through pitch fee increases.
Pillar 4: Park Home and Static Site Reform
Park home sites should be communities, not fiefdoms. The site owner provides the land and the infrastructure. They do not own the residents, and they should not be able to exploit, overcharge, bully, or obstruct the people who live there. BUILD will reform the system so that it works for residents, not for site owners.
4.1 — Solar, Battery, and Wind: Take Sites Off-Grid
Every park home and static caravan site in England has a collection of rooftops pointing at the sky and, in most cases, enough open ground for a small wind installation. The site owner controls the electrical infrastructure. Under the current model, residents pay for electricity through the site owner, often at rates higher than the domestic tariff, because the site owner buys in bulk and marks it up.
BUILD will require site owners to fund the installation of solar panels on every residential unit’s roof, a centralised battery storage system for the site, and where feasible, a small wind turbine to supplement generation. The objective is to take the site off the grid as its primary power source, with mains grid connection retained as backup for periods of low generation.
The cost of installation will be borne by the site owner, not by residents. The site owner already profits from the pitch fees, and in many cases profits from the electricity markup. Investing in on-site generation is an infrastructure improvement to the site — it is the site owner’s responsibility, just as maintaining the roads, drainage, and communal facilities is the site owner’s responsibility.
Once installed, residents will receive their electricity at cost — the actual cost of generation and maintenance, not a retail markup. In periods where the site generates more power than it consumes, the surplus will be exported to the grid and the revenue shared between the site and its residents. A park home site that generates its own power is cheaper for residents, more resilient against price shocks, and better for the environment. There is no argument against it except the site owner’s reluctance to invest.
4.2 — Pitch Fee Caps
Annual pitch fee increases on park home and static caravan sites will be capped at the rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index. The current system, where pitch fee reviews are nominally linked to the Retail Price Index but in practice subject to negotiation and tribunal proceedings that residents cannot afford, allows site owners to ratchet up fees year after year, pricing out residents who have nowhere else to go.
A pitch fee is rent. It should be predictable, affordable, and proportionate to the services provided. It should not be a mechanism for extracting maximum revenue from people whose homes are physically attached to the site and who cannot simply move if the price becomes unreasonable.
4.3 — Standardised Site Rules
Site rules on park home and static sites will be standardised nationally. The current system allows site owners to impose arbitrary, inconsistent, and in some cases deliberately punitive rules on residents — restrictions on visitors, on pets, on external appearance, on washing lines, on children’s play, on vehicle parking — that would be unenforceable in any other residential context. A site owner is a landlord, not a dictator. Site rules must be reasonable, proportionate, clearly stated, and enforceable through a transparent process, not through the threat of eviction or licence revocation.
4.4 — Right to Sell Without Interference
Park home residents have the legal right to sell their home. In practice, site owners frequently obstruct sales — by refusing to approve buyers, by imposing unreasonable conditions, by charging excessive commission on the sale, or by simply delaying the process until the seller gives up. BUILD will strengthen the right to sell by capping the site owner’s commission at a reasonable fixed percentage, requiring site owners to process sale approvals within 28 days, and prohibiting the refusal of a buyer except on grounds that would be lawful for any other residential letting (affordability, conduct, not personal prejudice).
4.5 — Site Licensing: Lose It for Exploitation
Park home and static caravan sites operate under a site licence issued by the local authority. BUILD will reform the licensing regime so that a site owner who persistently exploits, overcharges, harasses, or neglects residents can have their licence revoked. Grounds for revocation will include: persistent failure to maintain site infrastructure; charging above the regulated electricity rate; imposing unreasonable site rules; obstructing residents’ right to sell; harassment or intimidation of residents; and failure to comply with the 32-amp electrical standard or the solar and battery requirements.
Licence revocation will trigger a managed transfer of the site to an alternative operator, a residents’ management company, or a community trust. Residents will not be displaced because their site owner lost their licence. The site continues. The bad actor leaves.
Pillar 5: Off-Grid Living as a Right
Off-grid living is not an eccentricity. It is not a phase. It is not something to be tolerated while the authorities work out how to bring you back into the system. It is a legitimate, sustainable, and increasingly rational choice that the planning system must support, not obstruct.
5.1 — The Right to Disconnect
Any person living in a dwelling — whether conventional, static, park home, boat, woodland cabin, or any other type — has the right to disconnect from mains electricity, mains gas, mains water, and mains sewerage, provided they can demonstrate that their alternative arrangements meet basic health and safety standards. This is a right, not a concession. The state does not get to compel you to purchase services from a utility company if you can provide for yourself.
A household that generates its own electricity from solar panels and a battery system, collects and filters its own rainwater, and manages its own waste through a composting toilet or a properly maintained septic system is not a problem to be solved. It is a solution to be supported. That household is not draining the grid, not consuming treated mains water, not loading the sewage system, and not generating a utility bill that it cannot afford. It is self-sufficient, and self-sufficiency is a virtue, not a planning violation.
5.2 — No Mains Connection Is Not Grounds for Refusal
The current planning system routinely refuses residential use for structures that are not connected to mains services. A cabin with solar panels, a rainwater system, and a composting toilet is refused because it ‘lacks adequate services for residential occupation.’ A static caravan on farmland is refused because there is no mains drainage. A boat moored in a rural location is denied residential recognition because it is not connected to mains electricity.
This is absurd. The test should be whether the occupant has adequate services — not whether those services are provided by a utility company. A well-designed off-grid system provides cleaner water than most mains supplies (particularly after BUILD’s RO + UV programme, as set out in the Water Charter). Solar and battery systems provide reliable electricity. Composting toilets, when properly maintained, produce no pollution and generate a useful soil amendment. These are not inferior alternatives to mains services. In many cases, they are superior.
BUILD will amend planning policy to explicitly state that the absence of mains service connections is not, in itself, grounds for refusing residential use. The test is adequacy of provision, not method of provision.
5.3 — Composting Toilets, Rainwater, and Grey Water
Composting toilets will be recognised as a legitimate and permanent sanitation solution for residential use, not as a temporary or emergency measure. Building regulations will be updated to include composting toilets as a compliant option for all dwelling types, with clear guidance on installation, maintenance, and inspection standards. The same applies to rainwater harvesting systems used as the primary or sole water supply, and to grey water recycling systems.
These technologies are not experimental. They are used in millions of homes worldwide, including in countries with higher regulatory standards than the UK. Germany, Sweden, Australia, and New Zealand all permit composting toilets and rainwater-only supply for residential use. England’s refusal to do so is not a safety decision — it is an institutional failure to update regulations that were written when the only acceptable answer was a pipe to the sewer and a pipe from the reservoir.
5.4 — Off-Grid Support, Not Obstruction
BUILD will establish a dedicated off-grid advisory and support service within the planning system. Households seeking to go off-grid or to establish a new off-grid dwelling will receive practical guidance on system design, regulatory compliance, and available grants — not a wall of objections and a list of reasons why it cannot be done. The default posture of the planning system toward off-grid living will be supportive. If someone wants to live sustainably without dependence on utility companies, the state’s job is to help them do it safely, not to prevent them from doing it at all.
Pillar 6: Farmers and Statics
6.1 — The Problem
A farmer who wants to live on or near their land — to be close to livestock during calving and lambing, to respond to emergencies, to reduce commuting costs and time, to simply live where they work — is routinely refused planning permission for a dwelling on their own farm. The planning system treats agricultural land as a place where you work, not where you live, unless you can prove ‘essential need’ through a bureaucratic process that requires years of financial evidence, business plans, and consultant reports.
A static caravan on farmland provides a simple, affordable, immediate solution. It does not require foundations, does not permanently alter the land, and can be removed if circumstances change. It is the obvious answer for a young farmer starting out, for a farmer who has sold the farmhouse but retained the land, for seasonal workers who need accommodation during lambing or harvest, and for any farmer who simply wants to be where the work is.
6.2 — Permitted Development for Farm Statics
BUILD will introduce a permitted development right for agricultural statics. Any working farm — defined as a holding that is actively producing food, raising livestock, or managing land for agricultural purposes — will be permitted to site one static caravan or park home for residential use by the farmer, farm workers, or their immediate family, without the need for a full planning application.
The static must be sited within the curtilage of the farm buildings or on land that is already developed (farmyard, yard area, existing hardstanding). It must be connected to adequate services — which, under BUILD’s off-grid provisions, includes self-sufficient systems. It must not be sited on prime agricultural land that would otherwise be in production.
Additional statics for seasonal or permanent farm workers will be permitted subject to a simplified agricultural notification process, with the Regional Farmer Alliance providing the assessment rather than the local planning authority. The Alliance knows whether a farm needs workers and whether the request is genuine. A Whitehall-designed ‘essential need’ test applied by a planning officer who has never visited the farm does not.
6.3 — Temporary to Permanent
Where a farm static has been in continuous residential use for five years, the occupant will have the right to apply for permanent residential status on a simplified basis. The test is simple: has the static been lived in continuously? Has it caused any planning harm? Has the farm continued to operate? If the answers are yes, yes, and yes, the permission is granted. The current system, which forces farmers to reapply, appeal, and justify their existence on their own land every few years, is abolished.
Pillar 7: Hempcrete Construction
Hemp-lime construction is one of the most compelling building materials available. The reason it is not widely used in England has nothing to do with performance. It has everything to do with industry lobbying and outdated building regulations.
7.1 — The Case for Hempcrete
Hempcrete is carbon negative. The hemp plant absorbs CO₂ while growing and locks it permanently into the building fabric when constructed. A typical hempcrete house sequesters several tonnes of carbon in its walls. The material is naturally insulating, breathable, moisture-regulating, fire-resistant, pest-resistant, and mould-resistant. It provides excellent acoustic dampening — a 300mm hempcrete wall achieves sound reduction of 40–50 decibels, meeting or exceeding building regulation requirements for party wall sound insulation between homes. It regulates interior humidity naturally, virtually eliminating damp and condensation problems.
Hemp grows in approximately four months in the UK climate, on marginal land that does not need to be prime agricultural soil, with minimal water requirements and no pesticides. The entire supply chain can be domestic — hemp grown in Britain, lime quarried in Britain, mixed and built in Britain. No imports required. Full sovereignty over construction materials.
7.2 — Why It Isn’t Used
The current barrier is regulatory, not technical. While industrial hemp cultivation was legalised in 1993, the Home Office licensing regime remains deliberately onerous. Domestic processing infrastructure barely exists. Building regulations have not been updated to accommodate hemp-lime construction as a standard approved material, making approval for hempcrete builds a bureaucratic ordeal that most developers will not attempt. The regulations were written around conventional materials by committees whose industry contacts sell conventional materials.
The construction materials industry opposes hempcrete for obvious commercial reasons. A single material that provides structural infill, thermal insulation, acoustic insulation, moisture regulation, and fire resistance displaces five separate product lines from five separate suppliers — cement, brick, insulation board, acoustic membrane, and chemical damp-proofing. BUILD does not design policy to protect incumbent suppliers from better alternatives.
France builds thousands of hemp structures per year and has included hempcrete in its national building standards for decades. The material works. It has been proven at scale. Britain simply refuses to update its rulebook.
7.3 — What BUILD Will Do
Update building regulations to include hemp-lime construction as a standard approved material with clear compliance pathways. Simplify the Home Office licensing regime for industrial hemp cultivation. Invest in domestic hemp processing infrastructure to create a full UK supply chain from farm to wall. Require all publicly funded new-build housing to evaluate hempcrete as a primary construction material, with a presumption in its favour where technically suitable.
The construction of a hempcrete home should be no more bureaucratically complex than the construction of a brick home. The material is proven. The performance data exists. The only obstacle is a regulatory system that has not been updated because the people who write the regulations have no incentive to change them.
Pillar 8: Build to Last — 100-Year Homes
8.1 — The Current Standard Is a Disgrace
New-build homes in England are, by any objective measure, among the worst in Europe. Thin walls. Poor insulation. Inadequate sound separation — you can hear your neighbour’s television through a party wall that cost the developer £200 to build. Cheap fittings that break within months. Kitchens and bathrooms designed to look impressive on a show-home tour and fall apart under actual use. Tiny rooms. Tiny gardens. No storage.
The average new-build home in England is 76 square metres — the smallest in Europe. The European average is approximately 100 square metres. In Denmark it is 137. The reason is not that British people need less space. It is that British developers are incentivised to maximise the number of units per hectare, and the planning system allows them to do it because housing targets are measured in numbers, not quality.
8.2 — The 100-Year Standard
BUILD will introduce a mandatory minimum build quality standard for all new residential construction. A new home must be designed and built to last a minimum of 100 years without structural intervention. This means: structural walls thick enough to provide genuine thermal and acoustic insulation; foundations designed for the specific ground conditions of the site, not a generic specification applied everywhere because it is cheapest; roofing materials rated for a minimum of 50 years; plumbing and electrical installations to a standard that does not require replacement within 25 years; and windows and doors rated for a minimum of 30 years.
If a developer cannot build to that standard and still make a profit, they are welcome to find another industry. The country does not need more £350,000 houses that start leaking in year five and need re-rendering in year ten. It needs homes that families can live in for generations, that do not require constant costly repairs, and that retain their value because they were built properly in the first place.
8.3 — Minimum Space Standards
BUILD will adopt a minimum internal space standard for all new dwellings. A one-bedroom home must provide sufficient space for a bed, a sofa, a dining table, and storage, without requiring the occupants to choose between furniture and floor space. A family home must have a garden large enough for children to play in and for the household to grow food — linking directly to BUILD’s Dig for Victory and One Tree in Every Garden programmes.
The current practice of marketing a cupboard under the stairs as a ‘study nook’ and a paved area the size of a bath towel as a ‘patio’ is not housing. It is packaging. BUILD will not permit it.
8.4 — Character Objections and Architectural Cladding
One of the most common grounds for planning refusal is that a proposed building is ‘not in keeping with the character of the area.’ In plain English, this means it does not look like the other buildings. In a Cotswolds village, it does not look like Cotswold stone. In a Kent village, it does not look like ragstone and tile. In a Victorian terrace, it does not look like London brick. The objection is visual. It is about what the building looks like from the outside, not how it performs, how long it lasts, or how liveable it is.
The problem is that the materials which define local character are often the most expensive to build with. Cotswold stone costs a fortune. Handmade Kentish tiles cost a fortune. Period brick in matching bond costs a fortune. This means that ‘local character’ objections are, in practice, wealth tests. If you can afford to build in Bath stone, you can build. If you cannot, you are refused — even if your hempcrete or timber frame building would outperform the stone original in insulation, durability, sound dampening, and carbon footprint.
BUILD will resolve this with a simple principle: what matters is performance and appearance, not the raw material. If a building meets the 100-year durability standard, achieves the required thermal and acoustic performance, and presents an external appearance that is visually compatible with its surroundings, the material underneath the surface finish is not a legitimate ground for refusal.
Architectural Cladding and Vinyl Wrapping
Modern architectural cladding and vinyl wrapping technology can replicate virtually any surface finish — stone, brick, tile, render, timber — at a fraction of the cost of the original material. A hempcrete wall with a stone-effect cladding system looks indistinguishable from a stone wall to any passer-by. A timber frame building with a brick-slip facing looks like a brick building. The building underneath is better insulated, more breathable, lighter in weight, and cheaper to construct. The outside looks exactly like the planners want it to look.
BUILD will amend planning policy to explicitly accept architectural cladding, vinyl wrapping, brick slips, stone-effect render, and other surface treatments as legitimate methods of achieving visual compatibility with local character. A planning officer will not be permitted to refuse a building because the stone is a cladding system rather than a solid block, provided the appearance meets the visual standard and the cladding system itself meets durability and fire safety requirements.
This is not about allowing cheap, ugly buildings. It is about separating performance from appearance and recognising that modern materials can achieve both. A self-builder who wants to put up a hempcrete house in a stone village should not be priced out by a requirement to use solid stone when a stone-effect finish achieves the same visual result at a tenth of the cost. The character of the street is maintained. The building inside is superior. Everybody wins — except the quarry that wanted to sell you £80,000 worth of stone.
Pillar 9: Infrastructure Before Houses
9.1 — Build the Services First
No housing development will be approved without a binding, enforceable commitment from the developer to deliver all necessary infrastructure before or concurrent with construction. This includes: roads and footpaths capable of absorbing the additional traffic; drainage and flood management systems designed for the specific site, not a generic calculation that underestimates surface water runoff; school places — either through expansion of existing schools or construction of new provision; GP and healthcare capacity; public transport connections; green space and play areas; and broadband and utility connections.
The current model — approve the houses, collect the Community Infrastructure Levy, and hope the infrastructure appears eventually — has produced sprawling estates with no services, gridlocked roads, overwhelmed schools, and GP practices that cannot accept new patients. The CIL money often disappears into the council’s general fund, spent on things that have nothing to do with the development that generated it, while the new residents wait years for the promised school, road, or surgery that never materialises.
9.2 — Phasing and Enforcement
Section 106 agreements and CIL payments will be replaced with a simple, enforceable phasing requirement. Phase one of any development is infrastructure. Roads, drainage, school provision, healthcare capacity, and green space are delivered and operational before the first house is occupied. Not ‘commenced’. Not ‘foundations laid.’ Operational.
Non-compliance will result in a construction stop order — no further houses may be built or sold until the infrastructure obligations are met. Developers who fail to deliver infrastructure will forfeit their planning permission, and the local authority will have the power to require the developer to fund completion of the infrastructure regardless, or to seize the uncompleted development and appoint an alternative builder.
This is not punitive. It is the bare minimum that any community should expect when a developer proposes to build on their doorstep. If a developer cannot afford to build the school and the road as well as the houses, they cannot afford to build the houses.
9.3 — One Allotment Per Household
Every new housing development must include one allotment plot per household. Not a token communal garden. Not a landscaped strip with a ‘growing area’ sign stuck in it. A proper allotment — large enough to grow food, allocated to the household, and available from the day of occupation.
If providing one allotment per household means the developer builds fewer houses on the site, they build fewer houses. The allotment is not optional infrastructure that gets squeezed out when the developer wants to maximise unit density. It is mandatory provision, the same as roads, drainage, and green space. A home with an allotment is a home that can feed itself. A housing estate without allotments is a dormitory.
The allotments will be managed by the neighbourhood — a residents’ allotment association formed by the households on the development — not by the developer and not by a management company. The developer provides the land, prepares the plots, installs water supply, and hands them over. After that, the community runs them. No management fees. No annual charges. No developer subsidiary extracting rent from people who want to grow their own potatoes.
This connects directly to BUILD’s Dig for Victory programme, the one-tree-per-garden policy, and the Food Charter’s commitment to food sovereignty. A housing estate where every household has an allotment is a community that grows food, builds relationships, teaches children where meals come from, and reduces its dependence on supermarkets. The developer who says ‘we can’t fit allotments and 300 houses on this site’ will be told: then build 250 houses with allotments. The allotments are not negotiable.
Pillar 10: Brownfield First, Greenfield Last
10.1 — Use the Land We’ve Already Used
England has approximately 26,000 hectares of brownfield land — former industrial sites, disused commercial premises, abandoned utilities infrastructure, and other previously developed land that is currently unproductive. Much of it is in urban areas where infrastructure, services, and transport links already exist. Building on brownfield land does not destroy countryside, does not take farmland out of production, does not generate the same level of community opposition, and does not require the same investment in new infrastructure because the infrastructure is already there.
BUILD will direct development to brownfield land as an absolute priority. Greenfield development will only be permitted where all available brownfield options within the local authority area have been exhausted, and even then only with full community consent and infrastructure-first conditions. The green belt will be protected as national policy, not treated as a land bank for developers who find brownfield sites inconvenient or less profitable.
10.2 — Protect Agricultural Land
Agricultural land that is currently in food production or capable of food production will be reclassified as a protected national asset. No planning permission will be granted for the conversion of productive agricultural land to residential, commercial, or energy development unless the applicant can demonstrate that equivalent or greater food production capacity has been established elsewhere within the same local authority area. This links directly to the Farming & Agriculture Charter’s provisions on farmland protection and speculative land banking.
10.3 — Contaminated Land Remediation
One of the reasons brownfield land is underused is that remediation of contaminated sites is expensive and complex. Developers prefer the simplicity and lower cost of building on a clean greenfield site. BUILD will establish a national brownfield remediation fund, financed from a levy on greenfield development permissions, to subsidise the clean-up of contaminated brownfield sites and make them viable for housing, community facilities, and green space. If developers want to build on greenfield, they pay to clean up brownfield. The incentive structure corrects itself.
Pillar 11: Self-Build and Community-Led Housing
11.1 — Plot Registers and Land Access
Local authorities will be required to maintain a register of available plots for self-build and community-led housing projects, and to allocate a minimum proportion of developable land for this purpose. The current self-build register exists in law but is widely ignored in practice — councils maintain the list but make no meaningful effort to match registrants with available land.
BUILD will require local authorities to actively identify and release land for self-build, including surplus public land, small infill sites, and individual plots within larger development allocations. Land will be offered at fair market value for residential use, not at the inflated price that reflects hope value for large-scale development.
11.2 — Streamlined Planning for Self-Build
Planning permission for self-build projects will be streamlined, with a presumption in favour of approval for projects that meet basic safety and design standards. The current system treats a family building their own home on a single plot with the same procedural weight as a developer building a 500-home estate. The scale of bureaucracy should reflect the scale of the project.
Self-build homes built from hempcrete, timber frame, or other sustainable materials will receive preferential treatment in the planning process, reflecting BUILD’s commitment to sustainable construction. A self-builder who proposes a hempcrete home on a registered self-build plot should receive permission within weeks, not months.
11.3 — Community Land Trusts
Community land trusts will be supported and promoted as a mechanism for delivering permanently affordable housing. A community land trust acquires land and retains ownership, leasing it to residents at affordable rates in perpetuity. The homes can be sold, but only at values linked to local incomes, not to the speculative property market. This means the housing stays affordable forever, not just for the first buyer.
BUILD will provide start-up funding, legal support, and planning assistance for community land trusts in areas with acute housing affordability problems. Where a community identifies a need and a site, the planning system will facilitate, not obstruct.
Pillar 12: Homes, Not Assets
A home is shelter. It is where you sleep, eat, raise your children, and live your life. It is not a financial instrument. It is not an investment vehicle. It is not a speculative asset that doubles in value while the person who needs it watches from a waiting list. BUILD will remove the profit motive from housing and return homes to the people who live in them.
12.1 — Land Banking: Use It or Lose It
Across England, developers hold planning permission on hundreds of thousands of plots and do not build. They have the permission. They have the land. They choose not to construct because the longer they wait, the more the land is worth. Every year they sit on a permitted site, the surrounding area develops, infrastructure improves, demand increases, and the value of their unbuilt plot rises. They profit from doing nothing while the housing crisis worsens. This is not a development model. It is a speculation racket.
BUILD will end it in a single sentence: use it or lose it.
Any developer holding planning permission who is not actively constructing will have 30 days to demonstrate that construction is underway — foundations in the ground, materials on site, workers building. Not ‘pre-commencement conditions being discharged.’ Not ‘enabling works programmed.’ Actual, visible, physical construction.
If the developer cannot demonstrate active construction within 30 days, the land is forfeited. No compensation. No compulsory purchase payment. No negotiation. The planning permission was a public grant — the community, through its planning authority, gave the developer the right to build. If the developer chose to sit on that right instead of using it, they have abused the grant and they forfeit the asset. The land is transferred to a local developer, small builder, community land trust, or housing association who will build.
This is not confiscation. It is consequence. Planning permission is given for a purpose: to build homes that people need. If the developer’s business model depends on hoarding land rather than building on it, their business model is the problem, and BUILD will not protect it.
12.2 — Homes at Cost
New homes built under BUILD’s planning system will be sold at cost, not at market value. The sale price reflects what it actually cost to build the house — land, materials, labour, infrastructure, reasonable overheads, and a fair margin for the builder. Not cost plus whatever the market will bear. Not cost plus the ‘development premium.’ Not cost plus the estate agent’s valuation based on what someone might be desperate enough to pay.
A house that costs £150,000 to build gets sold for approximately £160,000–£170,000 — the build cost plus a reasonable builder’s margin. Not £350,000 because the postcode commands it. The builder makes a fair profit on the work. The buyer gets a home at a price that reflects its actual cost. Nobody makes a fortune from the gap between what a house costs and what a desperate buyer can be forced to pay.
This model works because BUILD’s other reforms remove the incentives for inflated pricing. Land banking is eliminated, so land prices fall to productive-use values. Leasehold is abolished, so there is no ground rent revenue stream to capitalise. The 15-year price lock (section 12.3) prevents speculative resale. The entire chain of extraction — from land speculator to developer to estate agent to buy-to-let landlord — is broken.
12.3 — The 15-Year Price Lock
New homes sold under BUILD’s cost-price model are subject to a 15-year price lock. For the first 15 years after purchase, the home cannot be sold for more than the original purchase price. The house is a home, not an investment. The buyer bought it to live in, not to flip.
From year 16, the permitted resale price increases by 1% per year. A home purchased for £165,000 can be sold in year 16 for £166,650. In year 17 for £168,317. In year 20 for £173,354. Slow, steady, controlled growth that roughly tracks inflation and reflects the gradual aging and maintenance of the property. Not the 10–15% annual increases that have turned the housing market into a casino.
If the owner needs to sell within the 15-year lock period — due to job relocation, family circumstances, health, or any other reason — they sell at the original purchase price. They do not lose money (the house has not decreased in value). They do not make money (the house has not been permitted to increase in value). They get back what they paid, and the next buyer gets the same opportunity they had: a home at a fair price.
This price lock applies to the property in perpetuity. It is not a one-generation restriction that expires and returns the home to the speculative market. Every subsequent buyer purchases at the controlled price. The home stays affordable forever — not just for the first buyer, but for every buyer after them.
12.4 — Rent to Buy: Ownership Without Banks
BUILD will introduce a rent-to-buy pathway that allows people to purchase a home without a traditional mortgage, without a credit check, and without the financial gatekeeping that currently locks millions of people out of home ownership.
How it works
The buyer enters a rent-to-buy agreement directly with the developer or housing provider. Monthly payments are set at a level comparable to local rent. Every payment builds equity in the property. After the first five years, the buyer has accumulated a significant ownership stake. The agreement runs for a term similar to a standard mortgage — typically 20–25 years — at which point the buyer owns the home outright.
Qualification
Twelve months of bank statements demonstrating the ability to meet the monthly payments. Mandatory redundancy insurance to protect against job loss during the agreement. That is it. No credit scoring. No CCJ checks. No affordability stress tests designed by banks to protect their lending book rather than to help the buyer. No deposit.
The current mortgage system is designed to serve banks, not buyers. A person who has paid £900 per month in rent for ten years without missing a payment is deemed unable to afford £700 per month in mortgage payments because their credit score is 12 points too low or because they had a CCJ for a disputed phone bill five years ago. The system excludes people who can demonstrably afford a home from owning one, because the bank’s risk model treats them as numbers rather than people.
BUILD’s rent-to-buy model removes the bank entirely. The buyer pays the developer. The payments build equity. The redundancy insurance provides a safety net. If the buyer falls on hard times, the insurance covers the gap. If the insurance period expires and the buyer still cannot pay, a hardship review determines the appropriate response — extended payment terms, temporary reduced payments, or in extreme cases, a managed exit that returns the buyer’s accumulated equity to them. Nobody is thrown out of their home without their equity being honoured.
12.5 — Abolish Leasehold
Leasehold is abolished. Completely. Every new home sold in England will be freehold. The buyer owns the house and the land it stands on. No ground rent. No service charge to a management company. No permission fees. No forfeiture clauses. No escalating ground rent that doubles every ten years. No ‘estate management fees’ for maintaining roads and green spaces that should be adopted by the local authority.
The leasehold system is a medieval relic that allows freeholders — often investment funds, offshore companies, or developer subsidiaries — to extract rent from homeowners in perpetuity for the privilege of living on land they were told they were buying. A family who paid £300,000 for a house discovers they do not own the land under it, cannot make alterations without the freeholder’s permission (and fee), and must pay a ground rent that increases automatically regardless of inflation, wages, or the value of the property.
This is not property ownership. It is a tenancy dressed up as ownership. BUILD will not permit it. Every home is freehold. Every buyer owns the land. No exceptions.
For existing leasehold properties, BUILD will legislate a right to acquire the freehold at a fair, regulated price — not at the inflated prices currently demanded by freeholders who know the leaseholder has no choice. The ground rent revenue stream is not a legitimate asset — it is an extraction mechanism. Its capitalised value should reflect that.
12.6 — No Management Fees
New housing developments will not be permitted to impose management fees, estate charges, or service charges on homeowners for the maintenance of roads, green spaces, drainage, lighting, or other communal infrastructure. These are public infrastructure, and they will be adopted and maintained by the local authority, funded through council tax — the same mechanism that funds road maintenance and street lighting everywhere else.
The current model, where developers build a housing estate, create a management company (often a subsidiary of the developer), and charge residents £200–£500 per year to mow the communal grass and sweep the shared road — while simultaneously not maintaining those areas to any reasonable standard — is a profit extraction scheme. The developer saves money by not building roads and green spaces to adoptable standard, transfers the maintenance liability to a company it owns, and charges the residents for a service it does not properly deliver.
If a developer cannot build roads and green spaces to a standard that the local authority will adopt, the developer cannot build. It is that simple. The infrastructure must be built to public standard, handed to the council, and maintained through the normal public funding mechanism. The homeowner pays council tax. The council sweeps the road. No middleman. No management company. No £400 annual fee for a service that consists of a man with a mower visiting once a month.
Pillar 13: Rental Reform
The rental market is broken not because renting is wrong but because the system around it punishes tenants for being tenants. Credit checks that exclude people who have never missed a payment but once had a bad month. Housing benefit that takes four months to reach the landlord, giving landlords a reason to refuse UC tenants. Deposits stolen through fabricated damage claims. Section 21 evictions served because the landlord’s cousin ‘needs the property’ when the real reason is the tenant asked about the mould. BUILD reforms every part of this.
13.1 — Housing Benefit: Direct to Landlord, Week 4
Housing benefit is paid directly to the landlord. Not to the tenant who then pays the landlord. Not through a processing system that takes four months to set up while the landlord receives nothing and the tenant accumulates arrears they did not cause. The tenant signs the tenancy agreement on day one. The landlord receives the first housing benefit payment at week four. Guaranteed. Automatic. No forms. No delays. No four-month processing gap that gives landlords a financial reason to refuse UC tenants.
This single change removes the biggest barrier to UC tenants accessing private rental housing. The landlord’s objection was never ‘I don’t want a UC tenant.’ It was ‘I can’t afford to wait four months for the first payment.’ Remove the wait and the objection disappears.
13.2 — Government-Backed Repairs for UC Tenants
If a UC tenant causes damage to a rental property, the government covers the repair cost. The landlord is not left with a damaged property and an unpayable bill. The property is repaired to the standard documented in the council stock survey (see 13.4). The cost is recovered from the tenant’s UC at £20 per month — a rate that is manageable and does not push the tenant into hardship.
This removes the second-biggest landlord objection to UC tenants: ‘What if they damage the property and can’t pay?’ The state says: we will fix it and recover the cost proportionately. The landlord gets a repaired property. The tenant does not get a CCJ that destroys their ability to rent anywhere else. The damage gets fixed instead of argued about for two years in a county court.
13.3 — No CCJ, Bank, or Credit Checks
Landlords and letting agents will not use CCJs, bank statements, or credit scores as criteria for tenant selection. A credit check does not tell you whether someone will be a good tenant. It tells you whether they have ever been poor. A person who missed a phone bill payment in 2019 because they lost their job is not a bad tenant. They are a person who had a bad year. The credit score system punishes people for circumstances, not character.
Tenant suitability is assessed on: affordability (can the tenant’s income or housing benefit cover the rent — verified through a simple income declaration, not a credit check); and previous landlord reference (one reference from the most recent landlord, confirming the tenant paid rent and left the property in reasonable condition). That is sufficient. If the rent is covered and the last landlord says they were fine, the credit score is irrelevant.
13.4 — Council Stock Survey: Day 1 and Day Last
The Tenancy Deposit Scheme is reformed with a council-verified property inspection at the start and end of every tenancy. On day one, a council housing officer conducts a full photographic survey of the property with the tenant present. Every room. Every surface. Every mark, stain, crack, and scratch. Both parties — tenant and landlord — sign the record. The photographs and report are held by the council, not by the landlord or the letting agent.
At the end of the tenancy, the same process is repeated. The council officer inspects the property and compares the condition against the day-one record. Discrepancies that constitute damage beyond fair wear and tear are identified. The cost of repair is deducted from the deposit based on the council’s assessment, not the landlord’s claim. No discrepancies means the full deposit is returned within 14 days.
This eliminates deposit theft. The landlord cannot claim the carpet was pristine when the day-one photographs show it was already stained. The tenant cannot claim the hole in the wall was already there when the day-one survey shows a clean wall. The council’s independent record is the evidence. The dispute is settled against the evidence, not through he-said-she-said in a deposit tribunal six months later.
13.5 — Section 21 Reform
Section 21 no-fault evictions are reformed. A landlord may not serve a Section 21 notice without providing a genuine, evidenced reason for requiring possession. ‘My cousin needs the property’ is not sufficient without evidence that the cousin exists, has a genuine need for the property, and intends to occupy it (employment contract in the area, for example). ‘I want to sell’ is a valid reason if the property is listed for sale. ‘I want to renovate’ is a valid reason if planning permission has been granted.
The purpose is to prevent revenge evictions — where a tenant reports disrepair (mould, broken boiler, damp) and the landlord responds by serving a Section 21 notice to remove the complaining tenant rather than fixing the problem. Under BUILD’s reform, a Section 21 notice served within 6 months of a tenant’s formal complaint about property condition is automatically presumed to be retaliatory and is void unless the landlord demonstrates otherwise. The burden of proof is on the landlord, not the tenant.
The Circular Model
These thirteen pillars form a single, integrated system.
Planning decisions are made by communities, not overridden by inspectors. Every affected household receives a letter explaining what is proposed, and a single legitimate objection stops it until the problem is solved. Woodland owners can build cabins that harm nothing. Farmers can live on their land. Static homes, park homes, and boats are recognised as dwellings and their residents receive every grant and support available to any other household.
Park home sites generate their own power from solar and wind, with battery backup and grid connection as a safety net. Electrical supplies are upgraded to 32 amps so that residents can heat their homes, charge their vehicles, and live without the constant fear of tripping the breaker. Site owners who exploit residents lose their licence. Pitch fees are capped. Site rules are standardised. The right to sell is protected.
Off-grid living is a right. The absence of mains connections is not grounds for refusal. Composting toilets, rainwater harvesting, and solar power are recognised as legitimate, permanent solutions. The planning system supports self-sufficiency instead of punishing it.
New homes are built from hempcrete where suitable — carbon negative, naturally insulating, acoustically superior, and built from materials grown and processed in Britain. Every home is built to last 100 years. Every home has a garden. Every development delivers its infrastructure before the first house is occupied. Brownfield land is used first. Agricultural land is protected. Self-builders and community land trusts have access to land and streamlined permission.
And the entire financial model of housing is rebuilt. Land bankers lose their land. Homes are sold at cost. Prices are locked for 15 years and rise at just 1% per year after that. Leasehold is abolished — every buyer owns their home and the land under it. Management fees are banned — roads and green spaces are built to public standard and maintained by the council. And rent to buy gives everyone a path to ownership without credit checks, without deposits, and without banks doubling the cost of the house through interest. Homes are shelter, not speculation.
Every pillar supports the others. Every reform connects to the next. The planning system stops serving developers and starts serving the people who live with the consequences of its decisions.
Your home is your home. The material it is made from does not determine your rights. The planning system exists to protect communities, not to serve developers. And if you can live sustainably without depending on the grid, the state’s job is to help you do it, not to stop you.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
BUILD UK
builduk.club
August 2026
Download this charter as a document (.docx) — the paper as written. What follows is the same text, readable.