The sharpest nettle is the Town and Country Planning Act.

Replacing the UK’s Town and Country Planning Acts with a more liberalised, market-led zoning system would represent a radical shift - probably the biggest planning reform since the 1947 Act itself. It would move the UK from a discretionary system (where every application is judged on its individual merits) to a rule-based or zoning system (where what you can do is largely predetermined by land use zones).

Under a zoning system, land is divided into zones (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial), and development is permitted as of right if it complies with the rules for that zone. This involves fewer restrictions, streamlined approval, with a greater role for developers and landowners in determining land use.

It is market-led, designed to respond to economic demand signals rather than bureaucratic or political gatekeeping. Think Tokyo rather than London or Oxford. 

In practice this would mean faster development because developers wouldn't need individual planning permission if projects fit the zoning rules. It would reduce housing delays significantly and bring about an increased supply of housing

If zoning allows greater density or automatic approval near transit hubs, housebuilding could scale up rapidly, especially in high-demand areas. Areas could adapt more quickly to economic shifts e.g., turning old retail into housing or industrial areas into tech parks.

There would be predictability for Investors with lower risk and greater clarity encouraging long-term investment and innovation in construction.

Tokyo has liberal zoning but strong building codes and national coordination. These have resulted in high housing supply and relatively affordable rents. If the UK went this route, it would need to adapt to local conditions, combining zoning reform with infrastructure planning so growth is actually supported.

 Mandatory design codes could prevent low-quality outcomes, with national coordination to avoid fragmented, inefficient zoning. Such a move could supercharge housing supply and reduce costs if well designed.

There would be divided support for such a radical policy shift. Younger generations would love it because they would have access to abundant housing, cheaper rents, and vibrant, mixed-use living.

Older generations would probably be split. Some would embrace development, while others might mourn the loss of ‘character’ and feel pushed out of transformed neighbourhoods. The balance between market freedom and public oversight would continue to be politically fraught especially in scenic or historic areas.

Could it happen? The answer is probably ‘Not yet.’ But in the longer term it would promise to solve so many problems that it just might.

Madsen Pirie