Now the dust has settled on the outcomes of local elections across the country (aside from the evolving situation in Westminster), one thing is clear: the UK is in a new era of seven-party politics. It must adapt accordingly to keep delivering the homes, infrastructure and growth needed to thrive.

The record number of local authorities now without any party in overall control demonstrates the complexity this new status quo creates, which runs the risk of slowing progress in the property and construction sectors even further.

With less and less common ground between parties, a stable, strategic framework for development that endures political change is essential. Relentless churn through electoral cycles does little to enhance the UK’s ability to deliver the homes, infrastructure and regeneration projects we urgently need, which run to much longer programmes than any one term of office.

Each new administration brings new priorities, resulting in planning delays, inconsistent regulation and stop‑start turbulence. It is becoming a structural barrier to growth: investors hesitate, projects stall and communities wait longer for the homes and infrastructure they need.

Stace recently hosted a round table discussion on this topic with industry representatives, including local authorities and private developers, to consider the solutions that could work.

From our position working across sectors and locations across the UK, we see that long-term certainty continues to be a key missing ingredient. It could help in tackling some of the sector’s biggest challenges, including slow decision-making, a sluggish planning system, cost inflation and investor reticence.

From conversations at MIPIM, UKREiiF and elsewhere this year, it is clear that capital is available. However, the risk stack is becoming unmanageable – we have heard parallels drawn between UK development and a casino. Well-documented planning and regulatory complexity, combined with political uncertainty, can mean the risk becomes too high for investors to tolerate.

Residential development is perhaps the most acute example of this. FLOS regulations were intended to offer clarity and consistency when introduced in 2022, but their contradictory requirements have caused confusion, delays and additional costs. Further cost and regulatory burdens have been layered on since – for example, with the Building Safety Act’s Gateway system and the upcoming Building Safety Levy.

Combined with a completely new planning landscape across many local authorities, it is this inconsistency and uncertainty about what is coming in one, three or five years’ time which signals to investors that the UK cannot offer a predictable environment for long-term projects.

One way to address the country’s stuttering approach to project delivery would be to establish a cross-party group to develop a long-term strategic framework for real estate and infrastructure delivery. This is not about removing democratic accountability; it is about ensuring continuity where the national interest requires it.

There are global examples where long-term strategic planning sees certainty locked in. At our roundtable, Linda Thiel from White Arkitekter pointed to Stockholm – the Swedish capital has adopted a decade-long structured development process, along with long-term policies and agreements that sit beyond political cycles. Damien Sharkey from HUB highlighted Singapore, where there is a committed programme of centralised and data-driven strategic planning with a 50-year Long Term Plan and 10 to 15-year masterplans reviewed every five years.

A UK framework could provide clarity on national priorities for at least a decade, align planning and regulatory systems to reduce risk, and ensure major projects are insulated from increasing political volatility and split representation. This would give investors the confidence that decisions made today will still be in place for the duration and completion of major projects.

The result would be faster delivery of housing, regeneration schemes and infrastructure, along with the fostering of a more competitive UK market – one that can continue to attract global investment. The effect would be to create a built environment sector able to plan, invest and innovate with confidence.

The UK cannot afford another decade of stop‑start development. With the local elections behind us, a general election in three years’ time, and seven parties legitimately in play, this is the moment to build consensus. While it is not a new request, it is more urgent now than ever before. A long‑term strategic framework for development created by a cross-party group would give investors, developers and communities the certainty they need.