Master Planning

The UK's future through
strategic regeneration

Alexandra Conway

_{Managing Director}
_{Residential Private Sector}
_{Kier Property}

Also on this panel:

Mike Keaveney

_{Director of Land & Development,
Granger}

Emma Burke

_{Managing Director of Development Finance Origination,
Maslow Capital}

Philip Barnes

_{Advisor, Planning & Development, Savills (formerly Group London Planning Director, Barratt)}

Quick read

Strategic regeneration is being constrained less by ambition and more by viability, cost certainty and the pace of the planning system.
Panellists agreed that private capital alone can no longer carry large‑scale regeneration without earlier public‑sector intervention.
Viability assessments and delivery phasing were repeatedly cited as barriers that need to become more transparent and realistic.
Long‑term regeneration schemes struggle to attract debt without clearer political continuity and earlier infrastructure funding.
The decline of SME housebuilders was highlighted as a planning‑led problem rather than a lack of appetite or capability.

This session focused on the practical realities of delivering strategic regeneration at scale, at a time when the need for new homes, infrastructure and economic growth is widely acknowledged but increasingly difficult to realise. Chaired by Alexandra Conway, the discussion brought together perspectives from development, planning and development finance to explore why delivery has slowed and what needs to change.

A consistent theme was that regeneration is being tested by viability rather than vision. Philip Barnes, set the context by outlining the gap between policy ambition and on‑the‑ground delivery. While recent planning reforms and the renewed focus on new towns were welcomed, he argued that rising build costs, flat revenues and higher regulatory requirements were placing disproportionate pressure on strategic sites. In his view, the challenge is no longer whether regeneration is desirable, but whether it can be made to work financially under current conditions.

That point was reinforced by Mike Keaveney, who described viability as the issue that underpins many of the sector’s wider problems. He argued that the current approach often assumes that regeneration can absorb ever‑increasing obligations, creating expectations that are misaligned with actual cash flows. Without greater openness around viability and phasing, he suggested, the planning system risks stalling schemes rather than shaping them. The discussion highlighted that long‑term regeneration often involves early phases that run at a loss, with value only emerging later, a reality that is not always recognised in decision‑making.

From a lender’s perspective, Emma Burke explained how uncertainty around planning timescales, phasing and political continuity affects the availability of development finance. While lenders can support phased schemes, they typically underwrite much shorter horizons than the lifespan of a major regeneration project. Delays, design changes and unclear obligations all translate directly into cost, making it harder to commit capital with confidence. Cost certainty, particularly around infrastructure and regulatory requirements, was identified as a key factor in unlocking funding.

Cost certainty is one of the most important things – and in today’s environment, that’s very, very difficult to achieve.

Emma Burke, Maslow Capital

^{Mike Keaveney}^{from Granger discusses regeneration viability challenges, with}^{Emma Burke}^{of Maslow Capital pictured behind}

The panel also returned several times to the role of the public sector. There was broad agreement that the idea of private capital funding strategic regeneration on its own is no longer realistic. Early public investment, particularly through Homes England, was seen as essential to smoothing cash flows, bringing forward infrastructure and enabling affordable housing to be delivered in a viable sequence. While recent funding commitments were welcomed, speakers suggested that scale, speed and coordination will be critical if they are to have a meaningful impact.

Another area of consensus was the decline of SME housebuilders and its implications for regeneration. Philip and Mike both argued that this is primarily a planning problem rather than a market failure. Smaller developers struggle to navigate complexity, uncertainty and long decision‑making periods, particularly on sites below strategic scale. Simplifying consent routes for smaller schemes was seen as one of the most direct ways to restore diversity, pace and choice in the market.

There were also differences of emphasis. While Philip stressed the importance of meeting household aspirations, including access to private space, Mike cautioned against over‑reliance on any single model of delivery. In his view, new towns, urban density, SME‑led schemes and build‑to‑rent all need to play a role if housing supply is to increase meaningfully. No single intervention, the panel agreed, will resolve the current constraints on its own.

The discussion closed by looking ahead. The panel expressed cautious optimism that with clearer narratives around the purpose of development, more transparent viability discussions and stronger public‑private collaboration, regeneration can regain momentum. However, the message was clear: without changes to how risk, cost and time are shared, delivery will continue to lag behind ambition.

_{Illustrated highlight from the panel discussion - by}_{David Lewis}

Key take-aways

Strategic regeneration will stall unless viability, phasing and infrastructure funding are addressed more realistically.
Public‑sector investment needs to arrive earlier to unlock private capital and long‑term delivery.
Simplifying planning routes for smaller schemes could have an immediate impact on housing supply and regeneration pace.