In this viewpoint, Residential and Regeneration leads at AtkinsRéalis reflect on the discussions at this year’s London Real Estate Forum (LREF). Drawing on insights from over 240 voices across the housing sector, they explore what it will take to deliver 1.5 million homes this Parliament, and the practical steps that can turn ambition into action.

240 voices, one question: How do we build 1.5 million homes this Parliament? 

Today in London, an equivalent of one child in every classroom is without a permanent home. That’s one of the human costs of years of under-delivery. The government’s pledge—1.5 million homes this Parliament—is a mandate to rectify that and fundamentally change how we plan and deliver. But hitting that target means moving to an average of about 350,000 homes a year—a step-up of 35–40% from current levels. The pressing question is how to fix what’s going wrong, quickly and lastingly. 

At the London Real Estate Forum (LREF) in September, we put that challenge to roundtables of planners, developers, funders, local government and authorities, designers and more, divided across four lenses: Pace, Planning, Partnerships, People. 

The conversation was noisy, hopeful, occasionally exasperated—yet remarkably aligned on the practical moves that will turn promise into keys in doors.

Making planning deliverable, not debatable 

“Give us capacity and clarity—and you’ll get pace.” - roundtable participant 

Participants kept returning to capacity, consistency and clarity. Planning teams are working hard, but the pipeline we want requires more hands, steadier guidance on what ‘good’ looks like, and proportionate, risk-based routes through all stages, including building-safety gateways so projects aren’t redesigned mid-flight. 

Infrastructure has to be ‘in the room’ from day one. Many sound schemes are undone not by placemaking, but by constraints in power, water, access and enabling works. Aligning spatial planning with utilities planning—early load assessments, clear connection timelines, transparent queues—lets promoters design to reality, not optimism. 

Several tables also argued for more national consistency on defined classes of development; others stressed preserving local discretion where character matters. The common ground was predictability: fewer surprises, more pre-agreed standards, and early utilities sign-off that sticks. 

Close the affordability and viability gap 

“We’re not short of sites; we’re short of investable propositions” - roundtable participant 

If planning unlocks time, viability unlocks money. With costs high, values uneven, and the economic case rapidly evolving, too many consented schemes don’t stack when shovels are ready. 

The fixes are pragmatic. Patient capital and targeted gap-funding can tip marginal projects over the line—if the triggers are rules-based and transparent, not discretionary. Risk-share needs to be explicit and priceable: enabling infrastructure and policy risk sit where they’re best managed; delivery performance, quality and lifecycle costs sit where they can be controlled. The numbers don’t work at scale without a confident affordable housing pipeline, with clear grant rules, stable rent policy, and tenure mixes that reflect local need. 

Confidence also comes from pipeline visibility. Manufacturers, developers and lenders invest when they can see beyond the one-off. Publishing multi-year, regionally phased pipelines, with agreed typologies (especially for mid-rise and small sites), gives factories and funders the signal to scale. And because infrastructure can dwarf on-plot costs, front-loading enabling works is crucial. When those works unlock more than one site, treat them as public goods. 

There’s also a near-term pressure valve: conversion and reuse. It isn’t a silver bullet, but where the fabric allows, it delivers faster, with lower carbon and often lighter infrastructure demands than new-builds. 

Build like we mean it 

Pace requires above all a steady programme. The delivery discussion converged on industrialised construction: standardised components, repeatable details and digitally coordinated supply chains that compress time while lifting quality. The point is not to stifle design; it’s to standardise elements like cores, MEP risers, wet rooms, façade systems, so teams stop relearning the same lessons, while keeping flexibility where it creates value. 

“Small sites are a big opportunity. Clear templates for the repeatable stuff would let firms deliver in dozens, not ones and twos.” - roundtable participant 

Factory schedules slip when logistics are an afterthought: crane locations, road space, utilities corridors, delivery windows. Plan them early and collaboratively—often best done under an alliance—and manufacture-to-assembly flow follows on site. And none of this works without competency: apprenticeships and upskilling aligned to industrialised methods and the safety regime, because compliance isn’t just paperwork—it’s people.

Innovate to accelerate 

“If ever there was a time to be innovative, this is it.“ - roundtable participant 

The session produced no shortage of fresh thinking. Ideas ranged from clearer routes to market—pre-approved detail libraries, standard product sets, and regulatory sandboxes for modern methods and multi-tenure schemes—to new models of working, such as alliancing that shares risk and reward while keeping outcomes in focus. Participants also pointed to bolder local government, curating renovation at scale and shaping private capital rather than regulating it. And, where speed outweighs discretion, some argued for centralising specific decisions to give consistency across asset classes. 

Change the tempo, not the tone 

The day produced dozens of ideas, but what stood out was how much common ground there was. Across all four themes—Pace, Planning, Partnerships, People—the same themes recurred. Strip away the nuance and three clear asks stood out: 

1.     Resource planning and utilities upfront. Expand local capacity and bake in utilities from the first sketch, with proportionate, risk-based routes through safety and consent.

2.     De-risk the capital stack. Patient capital, gap-funding and honest risk-share—especially on enabling infrastructure—so marginal schemes become investable.

3.     Industrialise delivery. Standardise components, publish pipelines and align skills to methods so productivity compacts time without trading off quality. 

These aren’t novel ideas. What’s new is doing them together, consistently, at scale, in partnerships founded on trust and knowledge-sharing. 

“Across the tables, the strongest consensus was simple: trust. Create predictable pathways and dependable partnerships, keep outcomes for people front and centre, and we can build well and build now.” - Rosie Andrews, Head of Business Development for London and the South East. 

Change doesn’t happen overnight—trust, clarity, and investment must replace blame, churn, and inertia. It will be complex. But those 240 people around the LREF tables clearly proved one thing—we’re not short of excellent ideas to turn problems into solutions, slogans into programmes, and children without a home into children with one. Having gathered this feedback from this wide range of voices, we will be sharing with Tom Copley, Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development.