Small Sites: Unlocking Housing Delivery In U.K
Introduction
This report, Small Sites: Unlocking Housing Delivery in the UK, by Lichfields & Pocket Living (via ACASH), investigates why Unlocking Housing Delivery through small urban sites has not performed as strongly as it might, and what can be done to improve that. It focuses on planning permissions for small developments (between about 10–150 homes, on sites under 0.25 hectares) in London over a recent three-year period. The core aim is to shed light on the barriers and delays to Unlocking Housing Delivery via small sites, and to inform policy reforms that can accelerate housing supply across the UK. Lichfields+3Lichfields+3Acash+3
This report analyses why small sites are not playing a more meaningful role in the UK’s housing delivery. Based on a sample of 60 developments across London, 10% of the small sites granted planning permission in the Capital in the last three years, it considers the journey of developments on small sites through planning and the constraints and challenges that they encounter.
As the Government looks to reform the planning system, increase housing delivery and increase the role of urban land, the research and its findings have nationwide relevance and provide the evidence to help inform discussions on planning reform.
What are “Small Sites” & Why They Matter
-
“Small sites” are urban infill or redevelopment plots capable of accommodating smaller housing schemes (10-150 dwellings). Because of their size, these sites often avoid many of the complexities faced by large strategic developments. The potential for Unlocking Housing Delivery lies in their capacity to contribute incrementally, with less land assembly, shorter lead-times, and suitability for small and medium-sized developers (SMEs). Lichfields+1
-
The report sampled 60 small-site permissions in London, representing over 2,600 homes, which is about 10% of small-site permissions in that period in the city. The analysis seeks to understand how many sites begin and complete development, what happens in-between, and what prevents more of them from delivering. Lichfields+1
Key Findings: Barriers to Unlocking Housing Delivery via Small Sites
The report identifies several interlinked constraints that impede Unlocking Housing Delivery using small sites:
-
Planning Delays & Unpredictability
-
Smaller sites still face long decision times. The time from application submission to planning permission can be quite protracted, especially where objections, local policy issues, or infrastructure requirements come into play. Lichfields
-
Variability across local authorities in how fast decisions are made, and in how planning policies are interpreted. This unpredictability increases risk for developers, especially SMEs. Lichfields+1
-
-
Viability & Cost Pressures
-
Small sites often have higher per-unit cost because economies of scale are lower, construction mobilization is more expensive, and fixed costs (legal, design, surveying) are spread over fewer units. This makes Unlocking Housing Delivery on small sites financially marginal. Lichfields
-
Infrastructure costs (connection to utilities, roads, etc.) can be relatively high. Also, affordable housing requirements or planning obligations (like Section 106) can further squeeze margins. Acash+1
-
-
Regulatory / Policy Barriers
-
Local policies sometimes don’t specifically support small-site development (e.g. zoning, design codes, minimum thresholds). Lack of local plan designation for small sites increases friction. Lichfields+1
-
Requirements for affordable housing or design quality may exact higher costs for small sites relative to their returns. These regulatory prescripts can discourage developers unless there’s flexibility or support. Acash+1
-
-
Land Availability & Ownership Complexity
-
Many small urban sites are fragmented, underused, or held in ownerships that are complex—making them hard to assemble, negotiate, or purchase. This restricts supply of suitable sites for Unlocking Housing Delivery. Lichfields+1
-
Some sites are held by public sector bodies but are under-utilised; bureaucratic or transactional barriers may prevent small-site development. Lichfields
-
-
SME Capacity Constraints
-
Smaller developers often have less capital, less ability to absorb risk, and less negotiating power compared to large developers. This limits how many small sites they take on. Lichfields+1
-
Also, skills, experience, or access to finance can be limiting, especially for sites that require complex design or remediation works. Lichfields+1
-
Opportunities & Enablers for Unlocking Housing Delivery
Despite the barriers, the study identifies several levers and policy recommendations that can help in Unlocking Housing Delivery via small sites:
-
Planning System Reform
-
Faster, more predictable decision-making processes for small sites: shorter determination times, fewer consultees or lighter requirements where appropriate. Lichfields+1
-
Local planning authorities should include policies specifically encouraging small-site development in local plans. Zoning regulations or permitted development rights that favour smaller infill sites can help. Lichfields+1
-
-
Viability Support & Finance Innovation
-
Financial incentives, grants, or reduced obligations for small sites to offset high cost burdens (e.g., infrastructure, planning fees). Lichfields
-
Tools to improve viability assessments and reduce risk for small developers—for example, better up-front clarity on planning obligations, infrastructure costs, and service connections. Lichfields
-
-
Public Sector Land & Asset Utilization
-
Using surplus public land for small-site housing can reduce land-cost barriers. Public bodies can proactively assemble or dispose of land suited for small developments. Lichfields+1
-
-
SME Developer Support & Capacity Building
-
Training SMEs in navigating planning, design, and construction for small sites. Facilitating partnerships or pooling capability. Lichfields
-
Creating programmes or support vehicles tailored to small-site developers; reducing administrative and compliance burdens. Lichfields
-
-
Innovation & Design Flexibility
-
Allowing more flexible design standards for small-site projects where full standards may be overly burdensome, without compromising essential quality. Lichfields
-
Encouraging modular or prefabricated methods which may reduce cost and time, and be more viable on small sites. Lichfields
-
-
Infrastructure & Services Alignment
-
Ensuring that utility, transport, and service provision (water, roads, electricity) is planned in advance or in sync with housing delivery. Without this, small-site development can be stalled by lack of infrastructure. Lichfields
-
Policy Implications & Strategic Recommendations
The report argues that to significantly improve Unlocking Housing Delivery, government and policy actors must take concerted action:
-
National government should set clear targets for small-site housing delivery, and propose reforms (eg in planning legislation) that reduce friction for small projects. Lichfields+1
-
Local authorities should audit their land portfolios to identify small brownfield or under-used sites that could be released or re-purposed to support Unlocking Housing Delivery. Lichfields
-
Financial mechanisms (public grants, affordable housing cross-subsidies) need to account specifically for the cost profile of small sites. Policies that assume large economies of scale will disadvantage small-site development. Lichfields
-
Planning reforms should embed “small-site friendly” design guidelines, simplify submission requirements, reduce fees, streamline regulations where consistent with environmental, safety, and design standards. This helps ensure that Unlocking Housing Delivery does not come at a compromise of quality. Lichfields
Case Study Insights & Empirical Evidence
-
In London, the sample of 60 small-site planning permissions shows varied times for planning approvals; some projects are delayed significantly due to planning conditions or negotiation demands. This empirical evidence helps illustrate what inhibits Unlocking Housing Delivery in practice. Lichfields
-
Smaller sites tend to contribute a modest share of total housing permissions (around 10% in London in the studied period), but they are under-leveraged given their potential. The report suggests that scaling up small-site developments could contribute meaningfully to national housing supply. Lichfields+1
Limitations & Risks
The report also notes risks and trade-offs:
-
While small sites can be quicker and less complex, sometimes higher per-unit costs or constraints in meeting affordable housing or quality standards may still apply. If not managed, Unlocking Housing Delivery through small sites could lead to lower standards or overburdened services.
-
Local opposition or NIMBYism may block small-site developments, especially in established neighborhoods.
-
Over-reliance on small sites alone won’t meet UK’s large housing targets; they must complement larger strategic sites.
-
Without sufficient capacity (finance, technical skills, local authority staff), the potential of small sites may remain unrealized.
Conclusion
Overall, the Small Sites: Unlocking Housing Delivery in the UK report underscores that Unlocking Housing Delivery does not mean building everywhere indiscriminately, but making better use of small-site potential in and around existing urban areas. The report’s central thesis is that removing regulatory, financial, and planning barriers for small sites can contribute significantly to increasing housing supply in the UK.
By focusing on small sites, the UK can improve housing supply in a more distributed, incremental way—reducing pressure on infrastructure, avoiding sprawl, and enabling SME developers to participate more meaningfully. For real progress in Unlocking Housing Delivery, policy reforms need to address planning delays, viability challenges, land costs, design flexibility, and capacity building.