‘Levelling up’ may have been a Conservative slogan, but it remains an objective for the Labour government. It concerns those where markets have failed to deliver, which depend too heavily on government support and where private sector investment is lacking. This is particularly relevant in the case of the ‘Red Wall’ – the places Labour can least afford to lose.
In the 2025 local elections, Reform won 677 council seats and control of 10 councils; in 2026 it went further, winning 1,453 council seats and securing control of 14 councils. This was a more direct blow, as Reform took or damaged long-held Labour control across northern England, including Sunderland, Gateshead, South Tyneside, Barnsley, Wigan and Tameside.
It would be too simple to attribute this only to migration or culture. Much of the discontent in these places is rooted in the cost of living, weak local economies and a sense that work no longer offers the security it once did. Regeneration cannot solve every household pressure, but it can address some of the conditions that make those pressures harder to bear: poor housing choice, limited employment prospects, declining high streets and places where private investment has been slow to follow need.
The new buzzword – ‘Manchestersim’ – describes how the new prime minister Andy Burnham has enabled regeneration to succeed in Manchester, with BTR paying a key role, and his commitment to addressing inherent problems throughout the north and Midlands through applying ‘Manchestersim’ more widely.
So how can this be achieved? If levelling up is the political objective, regeneration is one of its principal delivery mechanisms. It is the process by which places that have suffered from weak investment, poor housing choice and declining town centres begin to recover economic purpose.
To deliver regeneration, viability matters: if the development economics do not work in less prosperous places, levelling up cannot move from slogan to delivery.
Why viability is a political issue
Regeneration is judged locally: a better high street, affordable homes, visible construction and reasons for younger households to stay. Viability reform is technical, but in many less affluent areas it is the difference between successful regeneration and another stalled site.
The planning system often assumes that development can absorb a growing list of public goods: affordable housing, community infrastructure, transport improvements, biodiversity net gain, design quality, public realm and remediation. These are all important but their cost in relation to value is not evenly distributed across the country.
In high value markets, there may be enough margin for a scheme to carry demanding obligations and still proceed. In lower-value markets, especially on brownfield or town centre sites, many costs are similar but end values are lower. Making regeneration successful requires more flexibility in the negotiable elements of planning gain.
The regeneration role of BTR
Build-to-rent (BTR) should be part of the answer, particularly in towns and cities where regeneration needs long-term capital rather than short-term sales. BTR is not a substitute for affordable housing: its value is different. It can bring institutional investment, professional management, faster absorption and a long-term interest in the quality of the place after completion.
The scale is now material. Real Estate:UK’s Q1 2026 analysis found that the BTR sector had more than 147,670 completed homes by Q1 2026, including 85,357 in regional markets. BTR accounted for 8% of the 210,000 new homes delivered in Great Britain in 2025. Yet starts fell sharply, with only 5,619 in the 12 months to Q1 2026. Demand for rental housing is clear, but the pipeline is not converting quickly enough.
For less affluent areas, the attraction of BTR is not simply the number of homes. A well-located scheme can bring residents into a town centre, support local services, increase footfall and give confidence to other investors. Single-family BTR can help on larger urban extensions and regeneration sites where open-market sales alone may not support early delivery.
But BTR is sensitive to uncertainty. It carries upfront costs, relies on long-term income and is funded in a market where investors compare places, risks and returns. If contributions are unpredictable or front-loaded, capital will choose easier locations. That is commercially rational, but currently it is not well suited to the areas most in need.
What needs to change
The government should start by making viability more place-specific and more transparent. Standardised inputs can help reduce argument, but they must not become national assumptions imposed on very different markets.
Section 106 should be shorter, quicker and more certain. Standard templates would help. So would specialist support for local planning authorities and a clear route for resolving disputes when negotiations drag on. Affordable housing policy needs a delivery test too. If registered providers are not bidding for Section 106 units, insisting on a theoretical tenure mix is counter-productive.
Flexible cascades, grants, commuted sums in defined circumstances and tenure models that suit institutional capital should be treated as delivery tools, not concessions. Biodiversity net gain should be robust but practical, with strategic off-site habitat creation available where it would produce better ecological outcomes than trying to force every gain onto constrained urban sites.
Finally, government, combined authorities and Homes England need to use public land, infrastructure funding and the National Housing Bank to share early risk. Private capital cannot carry every abnormal cost in weaker markets. If the public sector wants regeneration in places where values are lower, it must help make those places investable.
Delivery is the test
Labour cannot simply promise to care more about post-industrial towns than the Conservatives did. The government must show visible improvement if it is to win back voters in these areas. Housing is not the only measure of that improvement, but it is one of the most tangible. New homes bring people, spending, confidence and a reason to improve infrastructure and in the right locations, BTR can help bring that forward.
Do you have a legal & professional story you want to share with your built environment colleagues and peers? Do you have a comment piece you are keen to write? Is there a legal & professional story you think we should be covering?
Discover:
The government must make levelling up viable
By
Allison Thompson
Share this:
‘Levelling up’ may have been a Conservative slogan, but it remains an objective for the Labour government. It concerns those where markets have failed to deliver, which depend too heavily on government support and where private sector investment is lacking. This is particularly relevant in the case of the ‘Red Wall’ – the places Labour can least afford to lose.
In the 2025 local elections, Reform won 677 council seats and control of 10 councils; in 2026 it went further, winning 1,453 council seats and securing control of 14 councils. This was a more direct blow, as Reform took or damaged long-held Labour control across northern England, including Sunderland, Gateshead, South Tyneside, Barnsley, Wigan and Tameside.
It would be too simple to attribute this only to migration or culture. Much of the discontent in these places is rooted in the cost of living, weak local economies and a sense that work no longer offers the security it once did. Regeneration cannot solve every household pressure, but it can address some of the conditions that make those pressures harder to bear: poor housing choice, limited employment prospects, declining high streets and places where private investment has been slow to follow need.
The new buzzword – ‘Manchestersim’ – describes how the new prime minister Andy Burnham has enabled regeneration to succeed in Manchester, with BTR paying a key role, and his commitment to addressing inherent problems throughout the north and Midlands through applying ‘Manchestersim’ more widely.
So how can this be achieved? If levelling up is the political objective, regeneration is one of its principal delivery mechanisms. It is the process by which places that have suffered from weak investment, poor housing choice and declining town centres begin to recover economic purpose.
To deliver regeneration, viability matters: if the development economics do not work in less prosperous places, levelling up cannot move from slogan to delivery.
Why viability is a political issue
Regeneration is judged locally: a better high street, affordable homes, visible construction and reasons for younger households to stay. Viability reform is technical, but in many less affluent areas it is the difference between successful regeneration and another stalled site.
The planning system often assumes that development can absorb a growing list of public goods: affordable housing, community infrastructure, transport improvements, biodiversity net gain, design quality, public realm and remediation. These are all important but their cost in relation to value is not evenly distributed across the country.
In high value markets, there may be enough margin for a scheme to carry demanding obligations and still proceed. In lower-value markets, especially on brownfield or town centre sites, many costs are similar but end values are lower. Making regeneration successful requires more flexibility in the negotiable elements of planning gain.
The regeneration role of BTR
Build-to-rent (BTR) should be part of the answer, particularly in towns and cities where regeneration needs long-term capital rather than short-term sales. BTR is not a substitute for affordable housing: its value is different. It can bring institutional investment, professional management, faster absorption and a long-term interest in the quality of the place after completion.
The scale is now material. Real Estate:UK’s Q1 2026 analysis found that the BTR sector had more than 147,670 completed homes by Q1 2026, including 85,357 in regional markets. BTR accounted for 8% of the 210,000 new homes delivered in Great Britain in 2025. Yet starts fell sharply, with only 5,619 in the 12 months to Q1 2026. Demand for rental housing is clear, but the pipeline is not converting quickly enough.
For less affluent areas, the attraction of BTR is not simply the number of homes. A well-located scheme can bring residents into a town centre, support local services, increase footfall and give confidence to other investors. Single-family BTR can help on larger urban extensions and regeneration sites where open-market sales alone may not support early delivery.
But BTR is sensitive to uncertainty. It carries upfront costs, relies on long-term income and is funded in a market where investors compare places, risks and returns. If contributions are unpredictable or front-loaded, capital will choose easier locations. That is commercially rational, but currently it is not well suited to the areas most in need.
What needs to change
The government should start by making viability more place-specific and more transparent. Standardised inputs can help reduce argument, but they must not become national assumptions imposed on very different markets.
Section 106 should be shorter, quicker and more certain. Standard templates would help. So would specialist support for local planning authorities and a clear route for resolving disputes when negotiations drag on. Affordable housing policy needs a delivery test too. If registered providers are not bidding for Section 106 units, insisting on a theoretical tenure mix is counter-productive.
Flexible cascades, grants, commuted sums in defined circumstances and tenure models that suit institutional capital should be treated as delivery tools, not concessions. Biodiversity net gain should be robust but practical, with strategic off-site habitat creation available where it would produce better ecological outcomes than trying to force every gain onto constrained urban sites.
Finally, government, combined authorities and Homes England need to use public land, infrastructure funding and the National Housing Bank to share early risk. Private capital cannot carry every abnormal cost in weaker markets. If the public sector wants regeneration in places where values are lower, it must help make those places investable.
Delivery is the test
Labour cannot simply promise to care more about post-industrial towns than the Conservatives did. The government must show visible improvement if it is to win back voters in these areas. Housing is not the only measure of that improvement, but it is one of the most tangible. New homes bring people, spending, confidence and a reason to improve infrastructure and in the right locations, BTR can help bring that forward.
Allison Thompson is chief lettings officer at LRG
LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL
Do you have a legal & professional story you want to share with your built environment colleagues and peers? Do you have a comment piece you are keen to write? Is there a legal & professional story you think we should be covering?
REGISTER TODAY
to get our daily newsletter, with all the latest news, views and analysis, delivered straight to your inbox – for FREE!
BE CONNECTED
We offer a wide variety of business-critical content and networking services to suit every budget
BE
SOCIAL
RELATED
STORIES
The government must make levelling up viable
MEES delay highlights stark reality, but the important question is: where now?
The future for Assets of Community Value