In the long argument over how to make homes more affordable, the British Conservative Party has placed a number on what it believes regulation costs: £50,000 per new home. The promise, made by shadow chancellor Andrew Griffith, is to strip back the rules that govern how homes are built — from infrastructure levies to energy standards — and return that sum to the market. Yet the deeper question, as it so often is in matters of public policy, is not whether costs can be removed, but where they go when they are.
Can Conservatives' deregulation plan really cut new home costs by £50,000?
You're not eliminating the cost; you're shifting it elsewhere
Mark
So the Conservatives say they can cut £50,000 off the price of a new home by cutting regulations. Where does that number actually come from?
Mimi
It's based on estimates from the housebuilding industry itself. The Home Builders Federation has calculated that regulations and taxes added about £42,000 to building costs since 2020. The Conservatives are claiming slightly more—up to £50,000—but they haven't provided a detailed breakdown of how they got there.
Luke
Right, and that's worth flagging. The BBC asked them for the full accounting and didn't get it. So we're working partly from the industry's own numbers, which obviously have an interest in lower regulations.
Mark
What regulations are they talking about scrapping?
Mimi
Three main ones. The Community Infrastructure Levy, which funds local infrastructure. The Future Homes Standard, which requires heat pumps and better energy efficiency. And Section 106, which requires developers to include affordable housing. Those three alone account for most of the claimed savings.
Luke
But here's the thing—the Future Homes Standard was actually proposed by the Conservatives themselves back in 2019. So both parties have been adding these costs while in power.
Mark
If they cut these regulations, does the money actually reach homebuyers?
Mimi
That's the assumption the Conservatives are making—that builders will pass the savings on rather than keeping them as profit. But there's no guarantee of that.
Luke
And even if they do, you've got a second-order problem. If developers aren't paying for schools and roads through Section 106, the government has to pay for them some other way. You're not eliminating the cost; you're shifting it to the taxpayer.
Mark
What about the energy efficiency stuff? Is that actually saving people money?
Mimi
That's what the research suggests. Heat pumps cost more upfront, but they're supposed to lower energy bills over decades. But if you weaken those standards, households could end up with much higher energy costs for a very long time.
Luke
The key word there is "supposed to." The savings depend on the standards staying in place and on households actually being able to afford the upfront cost. It's not automatic.
Mark
So the £50,000 is real, but it's not the whole story.
Mimi
Exactly. The regulations do cost money. But they also deliver things—affordable housing, functioning infrastructure, lower energy bills. The question is whether removing the costs removes the benefits too, and who ends up paying for them.
Le Pouls
- The Conservatives are promising to cut £50,000 from the cost of building a new home by scrapping regulations like the Community Infrastructure Levy, the Future Homes Standard, and Section 106 affordable housing requirements.
- The construction industry's own figures lend partial credibility to the claim — the Home Builders Federation estimates regulations and taxes have added £42,000 to £76,000 per home since 2020 — but the Conservatives have not provided a detailed breakdown of how they reached their number.
- A critical tension runs through the plan: there is no guarantee builders will pass savings on to buyers rather than pocket them as profit, and the assumption that they will remains entirely untested.
- Housing and infrastructure experts warn that scrapping developer contributions for schools and roads doesn't make those needs disappear — it simply transfers the bill to government and, ultimately, taxpayers.
- Energy specialists caution that weakening environmental building standards could lock households into high energy costs for decades, turning a short-term saving into a long-term burden for the very people the policy aims to help.
In the long argument over how to make homes more affordable, the British Conservative Party has placed a number on what it believes regulation costs: £50,000 per new home. The promise, made by shadow chancellor Andrew Griffith, is to strip back the rules that govern how homes are built — from infrastructure levies to energy standards — and return that sum to the market. Yet the deeper question, as it so often is in matters of public policy, is not whether costs can be removed, but where they go when they are.
Andrew Griffith, the Conservative Party's shadow chancellor, has promised that a returning Conservative government would cut £50,000 from the cost of building a new home in England and Wales by rolling back building regulations. The target regulations include the Community Infrastructure Levy, which charges developers for local infrastructure like roads and schools; the Future Homes Standard, which mandates higher energy efficiency and heat pumps over gas boilers; and Section 106, which requires developers to include affordable housing in new developments. The BBC asked the Conservatives for a detailed breakdown of how they arrived at the £50,000 figure. None was provided.
The Home Builders Federation, representing the construction industry, has done its own accounting. Since 2020, it estimates that new regulations, taxes, and inflation have added £76,000 to the cost of building a single home — roughly a fifth of the average new home's value. Stripping out the £37,000 spike in material and labour costs, regulations and taxes alone account for around £42,000. The Conservative figure sits slightly above that, though the party has not committed to scrapping every measure the HBF included in its calculation.
The plan carries a significant untested assumption: that builders will pass savings on to buyers rather than absorbing them as profit. Noble Francis of the Construction Products Association acknowledged that regulatory burdens do constrain housebuilding — Labour is far short of its 300,000-homes-per-year target, with only around 203,000 completed in the year to June — but he also noted that both major parties have added costs to construction while in power. The Future Homes Standard itself originated under Boris Johnson's Conservative government in 2019.
Housing expert Anna Clarke identified the deeper problem: if developers no longer fund schools and infrastructure through Section 106, someone else must. That someone is the government — and ultimately the taxpayer. Upfront construction savings could simply become higher public spending down the line. On energy, Dr Richard Lowes of the Regulatory Assistance Project warned that weakening environmental standards without careful thought could leave households facing very high energy costs for decades, since heat pumps paired with solar and batteries deliver the lowest running costs only when the standards requiring them remain in place.
The £50,000 figure reflects real, documented costs. But it counts only what regulations cost to comply with — not what they deliver in safer neighbourhoods, affordable housing, lower energy bills, and functioning local infrastructure. Whether the savings will reach homebuyers, or simply move the burden elsewhere, remains the question experts across housing, energy, and infrastructure are pressing — and the one the policy has yet to answer.
Andrew Griffith, the Conservative Party's shadow chancellor, has promised that if his party returns to power, it will shave £50,000 off the cost of building a new home in England and Wales by rolling back building regulations. The figure comes from estimates made by the housebuilding industry itself, which has tallied up the costs imposed by rules introduced in recent years. But when you press on the details—when you ask what happens to the money saved, and who actually bears the cost—the picture becomes more complicated.
The Conservatives have identified specific regulations they say are driving up construction expenses. The Community Infrastructure Levy charges developers for local infrastructure like roads and schools. The Future Homes Standard requires new homes to meet higher energy-efficiency standards and use heat pumps instead of gas boilers. Section 106 requires developers to include a proportion of affordable housing in new developments. Scrap or reform these, the party argues, and you unlock £50,000 in savings per home. The BBC asked the Conservatives for a detailed breakdown of how they arrived at that figure. They have not provided one.
The Home Builders Federation, which represents the construction industry, has done its own accounting. Since 2020, it estimates that new regulations, taxes, and inflation have added £76,000 to the cost of building a single home in England and Wales—roughly a fifth of the average new home's value. Break that down: Section 106 accounts for £985, the Future Homes Standard for £10,200, and environmental protections like nutrient neutrality and biodiversity net gain for £12,700. If you exclude the £37,000 spike in material and labour costs, regulations and taxes alone have added around £42,000. The Conservative estimate of £50,000 sits slightly above the industry's own figure, though the party has not committed to scrapping all the building regulation changes the HBF included in its calculation.
There is a gap between what regulations cost to impose and what savings actually reach homebuyers. The Conservative plan assumes that builders will pass the full benefit to purchasers rather than absorbing it as profit. That assumption is untested. Noble Francis of the Construction Products Association acknowledged that regulatory costs and the time spent navigating them do constrain how many homes get built. The Labour government is nowhere near its target of 300,000 homes per year—only about 203,000 were completed in the year to June. But Francis also noted that both major parties have added costs to construction while in power. The Future Homes Standard itself was first proposed in 2019 under Boris Johnson's Conservative government.
The harder question is what disappears when regulations do. Housing expert Anna Clarke pointed out that if developers no longer have to fund new schools and infrastructure through Section 106 contributions, someone else has to pay for them. That someone is the government—and ultimately, the taxpayer. The upfront savings in construction costs could translate into higher public spending down the line, simply shifting the burden rather than eliminating it.
There is also the matter of energy. Environmental building standards like heat pumps are designed to reduce household energy bills over time. Dr Richard Lowes of the Regulatory Assistance Project warned that if those standards are weakened without careful consideration of the long-term implications, households could face very high energy costs for decades. Heat pumps paired with solar panels and batteries typically deliver the lowest running costs, but that calculation depends on the standards being in place to begin with.
The £50,000 figure is real in the sense that it reflects genuine costs the industry has documented. But it is also a partial picture. It counts what regulations cost to comply with. It does not count what those regulations deliver—safer neighbourhoods, affordable housing, lower energy bills, functioning schools and roads. The Conservative plan rests on the belief that removing those costs will unlock home building and lower prices. The construction industry agrees that regulations are a constraint. But experts across housing, infrastructure, and energy are asking whether the savings will simply move the costs elsewhere, and whether some of those costs will end up being paid by the people the policy is meant to help.
Citations marquantes
If you don't get developers to pay for new schools and infrastructure you need to pay for them some other way— Anna Clarke, housing expert
Both the Conservatives and Labour have been in power in the last five years and have added extra costs to house building— Noble Francis, Construction Products Association
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur BBC News ↗