Should the UK build a lot more new homes?
Monthly tracker. This referendum is asked every month, so you can see how opinion moves. See the trend →
New homes in England are delivered through the planning system, and the government has a target of 1.5 million net additional homes in England by the end of this Parliament (by 2029). An estimated 437,900 were delivered between July 2024 and September 2026, about 29% of the target. Completions in 2025-26 were around 143,000, the lowest since 2015-16. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and a 2026 default yes for homes near stations aim to speed building up. The Housing Secretary has described the target as a stretch target.
13 Opinions
Of course more houses need building, more council homes are required. There are houses being left empty for a variety of reasons, probate, not selling, no known owner, that does happen. Not forgetting empty buildings rotting away, for various reasons, that could have been turned into homes, but now need knocking down. Clean up the brown field sites, build housing on them. Are builders sitting on land hoping the value will rise before they build?
Torn, because I don't think it's the cure just a symptom of the real issues. Building more homes won't really move the needle. If it means diverting resources then I was close to a no.
We have a much lower housing density than most European countries. We should copy them and encourage high density development on brownfield sites. More council housing should be provided in that manner. No country should allow a situation where young people cannot afford a secure place to call home. Given the mismatch between house prices and wages more council housing is a necessity. Originally council housing was designed to house essential workers.
For whom these new homes are for? First time buyers -Yes Our veterans - Yes For our elders - Yes For whom did you say again? Nah, Nah, Definitely Not, Hell No
Just deport the undesirables and then we'll have a surplus.
Its a ‘no-brainer’. The guvmint should have been doing this all along … but it was in ‘someones’ interest to keep the supply short to increase value. I assume those ‘someones’ are also land banking
Obviously yes. But with careful considerations for the environment and not building on flood plains. The NIMBYs can shut up though.
Of course it should but Reeves' first budget killed any chance. By adding 10% on costs, she destroyed building firms' profit margin. So yes, it should but no, it can't
The housing market is completely broken and shutting entire generations out of homeownership. If the private market won't provide enough affordable homes, the state needs to step in and build them so regular families can actually afford to live.
House prices in the UK are so inflated because demand so outstrips supply. So we need to both increase the supply (build more houses) and reduce demand (reduce immigration and stop illegal entry).