Here’s how Labour can work with NIMBYs to fulfil its 1.5m homes promise

Labour has placed economic growth at the top of its mission-driven agenda for the next five years. A key pillar of this vision is an ambitious plan to deliver 1.5 million homes. A necessary if challenging-to-reach target, as chronic under-supply has contributed to rising house prices and unaffordability. To achieve this, the planning system has been highlighted as both the lever for transformative change and the main obstacle to progress.

Keir Starmer identified communities as a barrier to delivering homes. He took aim at the “the NIMBYs, the regulators, the blockers and bureaucrats” that “Britain says yes… whether you like it or not”. The forthcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill echoes this stance, promising to speed up house building by asking, “How, not if, homes and infrastructure are built.” This will effectively limit the ability of communities to object to specific sites – raising concerns about eroding democratic accountability and legitimacy.

Community participation is often equated with NIMBYism. While local resistance can hold up development, there is also a rational and necessary role for communities in shaping their neighbourhoods. Dismissing all local resistance as NIMBYism overlooks valid concerns about infrastructure capacity, environmental impact, and design quality. Labour must navigate this tension carefully: working with communities rather than alienating them is essential to delivering quality homes.

Trust in the planning system is at a historic low. When it comes to large-scale developments, “only 2% of the public trust developers and just 7% trust local authorities.” A major challenge, therefore, is rebuilding a culture of trust and participation. The current participatory system contains inherent barriers. These barriers – adversarial participation, legal defensibility over accessibility, and resource constraints – perpetuate negative engagement for everyone involved in the process. Without clearer processes, adequate resourcing, and a shift toward inclusive, measurable engagement, participation will remain tokenistic and defensive.

A recent London School of Economics policy report, Planning with Purpose: A Values-Based Approach to Planning Reform, offers recommendations for how the government can effectively collaborate with communities to deliver housing and foster trust in the process.

A mission-driven government requires public co-creation and participatory decision-making structures. One way to achieve this is through adopting a national strategic plan in the upcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Utilising public assemblies to help set plan objectives and define accountability mechanisms could provide a space for “politics that are done with communities, not to them”. This would also reinforce the legitimacy of planning decisions, increase the quality of schemes through local knowledge and strengthen community well-being.

Planning often requires communities to engage through highly technical, evidence-based processes, excluding many from meaningful participation. As one regional government representative noted: “People should be able to tell us, ‘This is what I want,’ and that should be enough. We don’t have to ask, ‘Well, what are the projected nitrous oxide values for this road?’”

Labour should lower the threshold for community engagement, allowing residents to express their priorities without excessive bureaucratic hurdles. This would reduce inequities in engagement, allowing those with less time and expertise to still get a say in their areas. Moreover, it could decrease friction from misunderstandings between local authorities and communities, building confidence in planning processes.

Additionally, the newly formed strategic authorities need to be resourced and trained to engage with communities to ensure homes and infrastructure are delivered in the right places. Devolving fiscal powers and hiring more planning officers are essential steps to rebuilding trust between local authorities and communities. As a combined council representative explained: “They [development management colleagues] are drowning with apps and regulations… It’s not that they don’t want schemes to be better, but how do you make that fit.”

• The uncomfortable answer to Labour’s building problem might just be immigration
• How investing in one-stop shops to fix UK’s horror homes could pay for itself
• Would 1.5m landlords selling up and leaving the rental market really be a bad thing?

Local councils with more long-term power in financial decision-making have a greater capacity to address local priorities and provide tangible outcomes in the public’s interest. Offering communities clear, upfront guarantees to demonstrate the benefits of proposed developments, such as GPs, schools, and other social infrastructure funded through planning obligations reduces resistance to development and strengthens social wellbeing. Building homes is not enough; economic growth also requires investment in green spaces, transport, and local businesses to create sustainable, thriving places.

Moreover, the potential of communities to contribute directly to Labour’s house building mission should not be underestimated. A report published in 2023 revealed that up to 278,000 community-led homes could be built in England and Wales if the right mechanisms were put in place. Indeed community ownership should be championed by this government to ensure that neighbourhoods are shaped by those who know them best.

Labour’s ambitious housing agenda must recognise that community participation is not a roadblock but a vital component of successful development. By aligning a national strategic vision with genuine, accessible engagement, the government can build not just homes but stronger, more resilient communities. Empowering local councils and local voices supports long-term investment in communities and will ensure that new housing contributes to vibrant, affordable places where people want to live and work.

Liz Williams is an academic researcher and the co-author, alongside Meg Hennessy and Olexiy Pedosenko, of Planning with Purpose: A Values-Based Approach to Planning Reform.

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. Big Issue exists to give homeless and marginalised people the opportunity to earn an income. To support our work buy a copy of the magazine or get the app from the App Store or Google Play.