Labour slash affordable homes while boosting developer profits

Labour claim they want to fix the housing crisis. But their latest package of reforms for London proves yet again whose side they really are on – and it’s not the millions of people priced out of a safe, secure home.

The joint paper from the Labour Government and London’s Labour Mayor is a developer’s charter. Fast-track rules will now apply to schemes with just 20% “affordable” housing – down from 35%. In practice that means fewer than one in eight homes will be for social rent, with the rest falling into the elastic category of “affordable” that still leaves most Londoners shut out. In my ward the average one-bed prices are £659,000, an “affordable” flat still costs over £527,000. That’s 16 times the average Southwark salary. Completely out of reach for the vast majority.

Worse, the Community Infrastructure Levy – the money developers must pay to councils to fund parks, safer streets and sustainable transport – will be halved. Southwark Liberal Democrats successfully fought to release £20 million of these funds to benefit local communities. Labour are now ripping up that principle and leaving boroughs weaker while protecting the Mayor’s own levy.

But the most outrageous element is the new subsidy regime. Labour plan to hand over vast sums of public money – £220,000 per home for social rent, and tens of thousands more for other tenures – directly to private developers to “improve viability.” This is not investment in public housing; it is a taxpayer-funded boost to private profits. And with a “gain-share” mechanism that only kicks in years down the line, there is little guarantee communities will see a fair return.

Meanwhile, the Mayor is being handed sweeping new powers to overrule borough decisions on schemes over 50 homes. Local communities and councils will be pushed further to the margins, while Labour centralises power at City Hall.

This is not a plan to solve the housing crisis – it is a plan to bake in low levels of affordable housing, strip communities of infrastructure investment, and funnel public money into private developer coffers.

In Southwark we’ve already seen how weak Labour is when it comes to standing up to developers. They recently waved through a scheme in my ward with only 17% social rent. Now that weakness is being written into national policy.

Liberal Democrats know that building the homes we need means more than cutting deals with big developers. We need to empower councils to build again and work with other providers to deliver genuinely affordable homes, built to high standards, with communities benefiting from the growth around them – not another Labour handout to the private sector.

* Cllr Victor Chamberlain is Leader of Southwark Liberal Democrats, Vice Chair of Federal Council and Liberal Democrat Vice Chair of the Neighbourhoods Committee at the Local Government Association

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

6 Comments

  • Katharine Pindar 27th Oct '25 - 2:39pm

    Thank you for this, Victor. I think the time is coming for our party to agree to demand a new plan of this Labour government including emergency powers to facilitate building of new homes nationwide, not only in London. Our party’s demand for social houses will only be addressed I believe if the government also rapidly advances the development of at least three new towns, and if everywhere developments include support for building rapidly modular, factory-built affordable houses and flats which single people and childless couples can buy or rent.

  • Jenny Smith 27th Oct '25 - 3:33pm

    Is that figure for average one-bed costing £659,000 the average for new build one-bed flats or the average for all one-bed flats in your ward? I ask because second hand housing usually has a large range of prices though I’m sure many people don’t want to buy the cheaper flats that are available.

  • Peter Martin 27th Oct '25 - 4:30pm

    There are already more affordable homes in the North. Fo example, there is a 3 bed house for sale just a few doors up from my own house which is on the market at £120k. There’s scope for this to come down because it’s not sold for the last six months. It probably needs another £40k or so to bring it up to an acceptable standard.

    But there aren’t a lot of jobs around here. So instead of having an over-emphasised South East affect which pulled everyone in that direction the government could intervene positively to encourage more job creation in the North and have a population drift in the opposite direction.

  • We need to build a lot more houses in London – of all types – so that prices come down for everyone, via standard supply and demand.

  • Peter Davies 29th Oct '25 - 8:31am

    I think Peter and Tim make a compelling case for genuine devolution within England. London needs more homes. The North needs more jobs. Free them up to pursue their own priorities.

  • Peter Davies 30th Oct '25 - 6:55am

    D66 seem to have achieved a surprise win in The Netherlands by promising to build ten new cities.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Tom Bailey
    Daniel Walker, I'm fully aware of how the EU elective system works, and the point is that European voters are not allowed any direct access to that process. [ p...
  • Daniel Walker
    @Tom Bailey "instead of the white/black smoke system used to choose Pope von der Leyen" The President of the European Commission is nominated by the European...
  • Tom Bailey
    I like the sound of STV elections. Why not start the process by convincing the EU to use that system instead of the white/black smoke system used to choose Pope...
  • Matt (Bristol)
    Mark, I notice other comments have not made it and in truth there is no reason for me to derail this thread. But I genuinely believe there are a significant num...
  • Hywel
    Paul - what was this. It isn't on the wikipedia page of polls. Not surprised by the lack of commentary - the slow but noticeable down-tick in reform poll rati...