KPF’s John Bushell outlines why Labour’s housing pledge must go beyond numbers—calling for better homes, diverse tenures, and global ideas to create places where people truly thrive.


The Government’s announcement to invest billions of pounds into affordable housing delivery marks a move of generational importance. It’s a bold step to support Labour’s manifesto pledge to build 1.5 million new homes—a commitment that previously seemed difficult to realise given the current challenges of viability, slow planning timelines, and constrained construction resources.

 

However positive this news may be, we’re starting from a very low base. A recent report from Savills revealed that most London boroughs saw no affordable housing starts, and there has been a 75% fall in residential-led planning applications. As delivery ramps up, we must continue to explore how the residential market can innovate and evolve.

 

Build-to-Rent (BTR) will play a vital role in shaping the housing landscape of the next decade. Its accessibility—removing the need for a mortgage—and its ability to soften the potential unintended consequences of a rapid surge in sales-led delivery (such as market devaluation) make it a key component. Price adjustments need to happen gradually, and BTR offers a stabilising mechanism.

 

The current planning pathway often requires 35% to 50% affordable provision—preferably at social rent—which can push up rents in the rest of a scheme to achieve viability. We’ve proposed an alternative in Southwark: linking the rent of most units to average local incomes. This creates affordability with a small “a”, opening access to far more residents. While the Bermondsey Biscuit Factory may have been ahead of its time in 2019, this “blended rate approach” has transformative potential.

 

With unaffordable housing comes the risk of homelessness and joblessness. We’re inspired by those offering hope and practical help. In our Vinegar Yard and Shoreditch Works projects, we’ve partnered with Good People, an organisation connecting young people with job opportunities in their local area. We aim to expand this to include support for homeless individuals through data-driven placement strategies—integrating social assistance into Section 106 agreements.

 

Are we really building good flats? While the GLA minimum standards aimed to ensure accessibility and quality, they were never intended as a blueprint for great living. More recent guidance offers improvement, but we can take inspiration from the sophistication of Parker Morris standards, which considered how people actually use space.

 

We should encourage new typologies and embrace experimentation, as seen in HafenCity in Hamburg or London’s own 1970s legacy. A mix of flat sizes on the same site better supports the evolving needs of residents over time.

 

London’s high value per square foot leads to smaller flats. We supported Paul Finch’s call for a “minimum dwelling” standard—offering enough space for real living. European and US examples show that larger flats with deeper floorplans and more storage are possible. We should aim higher.

 

London has the opportunity to learn from cities around the world—something NLA champions through structured conversations and knowledge exchange. Examples include:

 

Boston: Innovation Districts that combine housing, academia, and shared living models with up to eight-bedroom units.

New York: Developments offering communal “party rooms” and bookable guest rooms to enrich everyday life.

Singapore: Requirements for elderly housing and mixed-age developments through shared weekday and weekend uses.

Shoreditch: Restoring the Webb Terrace live-work design—an early typology we should reintroduce into planning policy.

 

Large residential schemes can be overwhelming unless broken into smaller communities—research suggests a community unit should ideally be no more than 180 people. These communities thrive with shared spaces, active ground floors, and roof gardens. Planning policy should encourage or require mixed-use developments to avoid the dullness of single-use zones.

 

Related, a leading US developer, began by delivering affordable rental housing and subsidised retail to uplift communities. After a decade, they transitioned schemes to sales, creating stable and evolving neighbourhoods. Their BTR flats—designed with equal-sized bedrooms and social layouts—often outperform traditional sales products. Related’s Essence company continues delivering affordable housing, proving that success lies in both physical design and social infrastructure.

 

 

We may have moved away from architectural manifestos in recent decades, but there is a growing body of good practice and thoughtful innovation that can form the basis of a new one—this time with a clear social purpose. If we take inspiration from what’s already working, champion diverse tenures, and commit to quality, we can raise the standard for housing delivery across London and beyond.