The new delivery challenge in social housing: managing uncertainty 

Across the social housing sector, the pressure to increase delivery remains intense. However, the barriers preventing schemes from progressing are becoming increasingly interconnected. 

At our recent Breakfast by the Sea event, we brought together registered providers, developers, consultants and other professionals involved in residential development to explore the practical challenges shaping social housing delivery today. 

Throughout the session, attendees participated in a series of live survey questions designed to identify where schemes are slowing down, where time is being lost, and what the sector believes would have the greatest impact on delivery over the next 12 to 24 months. 

While the responses covered a range of issues, one clear theme emerged throughout (and with no real surprise to us all): uncertainty is now affecting almost every stage of the development lifecycle. 

The key findings at a glance 

The survey highlighted several clear trends: 

• 67% of respondents identified cost and programme risk as the single biggest constraint on starting new schemes in the next 12 months 

• faster and more predictable planning was ranked as the factor most likely to increase delivery output 

• 89% of respondents said the greatest loss of time occurs in getting schemes bid ready, including land control, design progression, and planning position 

• the average confidence score in meeting 2026 to 2027 starts on site targets was just 5.3 out of 10. 

Taken together, the results suggest that the sector’s biggest challenge is creating enough certainty within the development process to allow schemes to progress confidently. 

Cost and programme risk remain the defining constraint 

When asked about the single biggest barrier to starting new schemes in the next 12 months, 67% of attendees identified cost and programme risk as the primary challenge. Planning and policy constraints ranked a distant second at 22%. 

The prominence of programme risk is particularly significant. Rising costs are not new, but the survey results suggest the sector is lacking predictability and delivery confidence alongside affordability. 

In practice, uncertainty around programme timelines, procurement sequencing, planning outcomes and regulatory approvals can be just as disruptive as cost escalation itself. In the current UK housing market, delays, redesign and late-stage changes are being driven by a combination of factors: protracted and increasingly unpredictable local planning authority decisions; evolving regulatory requirements (particularly around nutrient neutrality, biodiversity net gain and building safety compliance); utilities providers struggling to confirm capacity and delivery programmes; and ongoing shifts in sales risk appetite from housebuilders and funders. These pressures often cascade through the development lifecycle, resulting in repeated design iterations, changes to layout or density at a late stage, and revised infrastructure strategies. As a result, delays, redesign and late-stage changes are now having a material impact on scheme viability and delivery confidence, with risk being pushed back and forth between landowners, developers, promoters, contractors and the public sector rather than being clearly allocated at the outset. 

This has important implications across the delivery chain. Organisations are increasingly being required to: 

• prioritise certainty and deliverability alongside value when structuring procurement strategies 

• build more realistic programme assumptions into delivery timelines 

• strengthen early-stage coordination between legal, planning, technical and commercial teams 

• identify delivery risks earlier in the lifecycle of a scheme. 

Planning predictability is now more valuable than planning speed 

When asked what would have the greatest impact on increasing housing delivery, respondents ranked faster and more predictable planning processes above increased grant funding, land availability and pricing adjustments. 

While planning delays have long been recognised as a challenge, the survey responses suggest that unpredictability may now be causing greater disruption than the length of the process itself. Where planning outcomes remain uncertain, it becomes harder to sequence and procure funding, secure approvals, finalise procurement strategies and commit to delivery programmes with confidence. 

By contrast, a more predictable planning environment allows organisations to make earlier decisions, manage risk more effectively and progress schemes with greater certainty. 

For many organisations, this means moving away from planning assumptions based on best case scenarios and instead building delivery programmes around realistic planning risk. 

Section 106 pressures are exposing viability tensions 

Section 106 delivery continues to play a central role in residential development, but the survey results highlighted growing pressure points within the process. 

When asked why Section 106 units stall or fail to progress as expected: 

• 50% of respondents identified local authority negotiation constraints 

• 40% pointed to pricing and viability gaps. 

These issues are closely connected. As viability pressures increase, negotiations become more complex and more difficult to resolve within existing assumptions. 

The findings suggest many schemes are struggling to adapt quickly enough when market conditions, funding assumptions or delivery costs change during the lifecycle of a project. 

This is creating a growing need for: 

• earlier engagement between stakeholders 

• more flexible approaches to tenure mix, pricing and timing 

• clearer mechanisms for revisiting assumptions where viability positions materially change. 

Regulation and compliance are adding cumulative delivery pressure 

Respondents were also asked to rank the regulatory and policy factors creating the greatest friction across delivery. The top ranked issues were: 

• the building safety regime and gateway requirements 

• building regulations and associated compliance obligations 

• net zero and retrofit pressures impacting delivery capacity. 

The challenge identified by respondents was not any single requirement in isolation. Rather, it was the cumulative effect of multiple overlapping compliance obligations across the lifecycle of a scheme. As regulatory expectations continue to evolve, organisations are having to dedicate increasing amounts of time, coordination and resource towards compliance management. 

The implication for delivery teams is clear. Compliance can no longer be treated as a separate downstream exercise. It must be integrated into programme planning, consultant coordination and delivery sequencing from the outset. 

Bid readiness is where the sector is losing the most time 

One of the clearest findings from the survey related to grant funded schemes. When asked where the greatest loss of time occurs in the development process, 89% of respondents identified the period before a scheme becomes bid ready, including land control, design maturity and planning position. 

This is particularly revealing because it suggests delays are often occurring long before formal procurement or construction stages begin. In many cases, schemes are entering funding conversations before key delivery foundations are sufficiently advanced. This can create delays later in the process where planning positions remain uncertain, legal issues are unresolved or designs require further development. 

The findings suggest that improving delivery will require a stronger focus on pipeline discipline and early-stage scheme preparation. 

Bid readiness is no longer simply an administrative milestone. It has become a measure of how robustly a scheme has been developed from the outset. 

Confidence levels point to a cautious market 

Attendees were also asked how confident their organisations were in meeting starts on site targets for 2026 to 2027. The average score was 5.3 out of 10, with most respondents selecting the midpoint. 

While this does not indicate outright pessimism, it does suggest a market operating with limited confidence in its ability to convert existing pipelines into completed starts without disruption, the issue being about the complexity , duration and risk inherent in bring forward consented sites to deliver.  

Many organisations still have active development ambitions, but the survey results indicate that viability pressure, planning uncertainty and delivery risk are continuing to affect confidence levels across the sector. This is perhaps the clearest indication that uncertainty itself is now becoming one of the biggest barriers to delivery. 

The Birketts view: what can organisations do now? 

The survey findings point towards several practical actions organisations can take to improve delivery confidence and reduce avoidable delay. 

1. Build delivery programmes around realistic planning risk 

Planning assumptions based on best case scenarios are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Organisations should build increased flexibility into programmes, approvals and sequencing from the outset. 

2. Prioritise delivery certainty alongside cost 

Procurement strategies should place greater emphasis on programme resilience, early coordination and realistic risk allocation, rather than focusing solely on headline cost. 

3. Revisit Section 106 assumptions earlier and more frequently 

Viability positions are shifting more quickly than many agreements were designed to accommodate. Earlier review points and more collaborative engagement can help schemes adapt before delays become embedded. 

4. Treat bid readiness as a strategic delivery capability 

The survey results suggest that significant delay is occurring before schemes even reach procurement or construction. Stronger early-stage coordination across land, planning, legal and technical workstreams is becoming increasingly important. 

5. Integrate compliance into programme planning from day one 

Regulatory obligations are now a core delivery consideration rather than a separate compliance exercise. Organisations that integrate compliance planning earlier are likely to reduce downstream disruption and duplication. 

Final thoughts 

The survey results from our Breakfast by the Sea event suggest the sector’s biggest challenge is no longer identifying demand or ambition. The demand for housing delivery remains clear. 

The greater challenge is creating enough certainty within the development process to allow schemes to progress confidently from concept to delivery. Until greater predictability exists across planning, viability and compliance, delivery pipelines are likely to remain slower, more fragile and more difficult to convert into starts on site than policymakers and the sector would like. 

The conversations taking place across the room reflected a sector that understands the challenges clearly. The next step will be finding more effective ways to reduce uncertainty and restore confidence across the delivery lifecycle.