The Nature of the Problem

Housing has been discussed in supply-and-demand terms.  The “supply side” argument calls for more housing to be built, while the “demand side” likes to blame the whole problem on immigration.  Adherents to both give incomplete, surface-level answers to the housing crisis, while ignoring the real cause: the financialisation of housing.

The Real Housing Crisis: Corporate Landlords & Investment Firms. 

Housing isn’t just a supply-and-demand issue anymore; rather, housing is now an asset class for global investors. Instead of being built for people to live in, housing is now:

• Bought up by hedge funds, private equity, and investment firms (BlackRock, Vanguard, etc.). Between 2016 and 2021, investment funds bought up £25 billion worth of UK property.

• Turned into rental stock for long-term profit.  Corporate landlords are buying entire neighbourhoods and turning them into rental estates—forcing young people into lifetime renting.

• Used as a speculative asset, driving prices up artificially.

• Left empty as a store of value, worsening shortages.  In 2023, over 250,000 homes sat empty - not because of a housing shortage, but because corporations treat them like stocks.

Why Both Left and Right Get It Wrong:

The Left’s Solution: "Build More Houses"

• Sounds good, but doesn’t work if investment firms keep buying them up and hoarding supply.

• The UK could build a million homes, and they would still be snapped up by corporate landlords, foreign investors, and hedge funds, thus not solving the problem.

• London has thousands of luxury flats sitting empty - building more doesn’t solve the problem when investors treat housing like stocks.

The Right’s Solution: "Reduce Immigration"

• Yes, demand plays a role, but population growth is not the root cause of the crisis.

• Countries with low immigration (e.g. Canada) also have housing crises due to investment firms.

• Even if immigration stopped tomorrow, prices would still remain high as long as housing is controlled by financial institutions.

The Freedom Alliance Solution: Take Housing Back from Financial Predators.  We believe that housing should be for people, not investment firms.

• Ban investment firms from bulk-buying residential homes - only individuals, families, or small businesses should be allowed to purchase housing.

• Tax empty homes owned by foreign investors and hedge funds - if they sit empty, they must be rented out or sold.

• Reform the rental sector - make it easier for people to own their homes instead of being lifelong renters.

• Break up corporate landlord monopolies—if a handful of firms control housing, prices will never be fair.

Reducing Government Overreach regarding Homeowners

The Climate and Nature Bill in particular has serious implications for homeowners, particularly regarding retrofitting mandates, energy efficiency requirements, and restrictions on land use.  While environmental responsibility is important, Freedom Alliance stands against this type of government overreach, especially where that results in excessive costs on homeowners and top-down interference in private property rights.

• No forced retrofitting mandates: Homeowners should not be forced via fines or other penalties to make expensive modifications (e.g. heat pumps, insulation, replacing gas boilers) at their own cost just to meet arbitrary energy targets.  Homeowners who choose to improve the energy efficiency of their homes can be appropriately incentivised to do so.

• Reject land use restrictions that harm homeowners: We oppose laws that restrict homeowners or farmers from using their own land due to climate-related zoning rules.  We reject any attempts to allow in the UK rules in existence elsewhere preventing homeowners from growing food or even collecting rainwater on their property.

• Transparency in environmental regulations: Any environmental restrictions on property use should be voted on locally, not imposed by unaccountable bureaucrats.

• No green levies that drive up home energy bills: Ensure government policies do not increase energy costs for ordinary homeowners through excessive “green” taxes.

• Allow choice in home energy sources: Protect the right to use gas boilers, gas fires, open fireplaces, coal fires and solid fuel, Agas and wood-burning stoves, instead of forcing costly and unreliable alternatives.  We will oppose any efforts to ban open fireplaces in private homes under emissions regulations.  Ensure that solid fuels remain affordable and accessible, especially for low-income, remote rural and off-grid homes.  The government should not be at the behest of powerful lobby groups trying to dictate how people heat their own homes.

• We support pragmatic, cost-effective energy policies rather than extreme measures that make home ownership unaffordable.

• Reduce unnecessary energy efficiency regulations that create burdensome bureaucracy and drive up housing costs.

Defending Property Owners from Overregulation and Forced Sell-offs.  We oppose “backdoor” policies that undermine home ownership.

• No land grabs for climate policies: Ensure farmland and private land are not forcibly repurposed for rewilding or climate targets without owner consent.

• No financially punitive building regulation mandates: We oppose any regulations that impose crippling fines or forced upgrades on homeowners, pushing them towards selling.

• No retrospective energy efficiency fines: No homeowner should face fines or forced upgrades just for living in a house that does not meet the latest “green” standards.  Many rural and elderly homeowners cannot afford constant energy-efficiency upgrades.  They must be protected against excessive government interference.

• Legal protections against state-mandated sales: Stop the government from using regulatory pressure to force people to sell homes they have owned for decades or generations. Does this include for care home costs?

• We oppose the globalist push towards a “rent everything” model.  We would seek to beef up freeholder rights to protect against such initiatives.

• Prevent creeping state control over private rentals: Stop policies that make it impossible for small landlords to operate, forcing properties into large corporate hands.

• Reducing regulatory and financial pressures on homeowners: We support tax breaks for homeowners, not developers.  Ensure tax relief benefits ordinary property owners, not just large investors and corporate landlords.

Prioritising Local People

• Councils often face pressure to accommodate people from outside their local authority area, but we believe local ties should come first.  We would work to end “cross-border dumping”, where councils offload their housing obligations onto other areas.

• Devolve housing decision-making to local councils and communities.

• Stronger local control: Allow councils to set stricter criteria for social housing allocation to ensure fairness for local residents.

• Freedom Alliance would prioritise housing applicants who have local community ties through residency, family, or work.  A housing points system could weight allocations according to length and strength of local community ties.

• Allow communities to opt out of rigid national policies that do not fit their needs.

• Support locally driven initiatives like community land trusts and cooperative housing models.

• Migrants should not immediately qualify for council housing unless they have a proven work record and lawful residency.  Longstanding residents and taxpayers should not be pushed down the list in favour of recent arrivals.  Migration levels should be managed to ensure that the housing market is not artificially overburdened.

Tackling Homelessness

• Prioritise funding for charities and voluntary organisations and community driven efforts to address homelessness first rather than relying directly on government bureaucracies.

• Provide tax relief for businesses who support housing initiatives for rough sleepers.

• Local authorities to prioritise bringing long-term empty homes back into use.

• More local authority support for homeless persons to claim welfare entitlements and access medical services.

Encouraging Cohesive Communities

• Encourage long-term letting over short-term lets: Offer tax breaks for landlords who commit to long-term rentals (e.g. 3+ years) rather than short tenancies.  Short-term tenancies create instability, weaken community ties, and lead to areas becoming transient and impersonal where whole neighbourhoods have turned into temporary rental zones where there is no incentive to get to know one’s neighbours or put down local ties.

• We would restrict the conversion of entire blocks into short-term rentals.

• Give local councils more control over Airbnb-style lets or tenancies lasting only months in high-demand areas.

• Encourage housing associations and landlords to priorities tenants with local connections for long-term rental properties.

• We support local residents’ groups and neighbourhood associations to build stronger, more stable communities through local involvement initiatives.

• Tie housing policy to local schools and services: Ensure stable housing policies support families, preventing constant turnover in schools and services.

Landlord and Tenant

• Scrap excessive regulations that drive small private landlords out of the market.

• Introduce long-term rental incentives to stabilise the market and offer security to tenants.

• Small private landlords should not be hit with cripplingly expensive upgrade requirements to meet green targets.  The current energy certification schemes create unnecessary costs.

• Make it easier for landlords to offer rent-to-own schemes and long-term secure tenancies.

• Tenant security without over-regulation: Encourage voluntary long-term rental agreements, rather than forcing landlords into restrictive contracts.

• Tax relief for small landlords to encourage more rental properties and reduce costs for renters.

• We would investigate current rent controls to explore how tenant rights could be better balanced with market dynamics, ensuring protections against exploitative rental practices whilst maintaining a healthy rental market.

• We would crack down on “slum landlords” by enforcing existing legislation.

Leasehold Reform

• All new-build houses to be freehold by default, stopping developers from trapping buyers in leasehold arrangements.

• Address soaring ground rents and service charges.  All charges (service charges, lease terms, and other potential costs) to be fully transparent at the contract stage to prevent hidden charges surfacing later.  Landlords and management companies to be obligated to justify all service charges.

• Make it easier to challenge unfair charges: Strengthen leaseholder rights to dispute service charges imposed by bureaucratic property managers etc. through a fast-track tribunal system.

• Right to self-management: Allow leaseholders in blocks of flats to take control of management companies more easily, preventing exploitation by distant corporate investment companies etc.

• Encourage commonhold ownership for flats: Promote commonhold (resident-owned) structures instead of leasehold for new apartment buildings.

• Make lease extensions and freehold purchases by leaseholders cheaper by simplifying legal processes and administrative costs.

• End unfair restrictions on property use: Stop unnecessary landlord approvals for home improvements, pets, or renting out spare rooms.

Social Housing Abuse

• Illegal subletting is a major issue in social housing, leading to unfair allocations, potential housing shortages, and wasted public resources.  In extreme cases, it can mean clandestine subletters can lose their lives and remain unaccounted for – it is quite possible the Grenfell toll was more than 72.

• Enforce stricter penalties for illegal subletting or misuse of council housing.

• Ensure councils can immediately reclaim properties being illegally let out and place these homes directly back into use for those on waiting lists.

• Where an individual’s circumstances clearly no longer warrant social housing (an MP who could afford private rental or purchase still living in a council flat, for example), their tenancy should be reviewed.

Home Ownership

• As a Party we believe that property rights form part of the foundations of individual freedom.  We will fight against any attempt, through regulation, taxation, or coercion, to make private ownership unviable.

• We support “Right to Buy” including for housing association tenants.  However, this must also be balanced with responsible replacement of council and housing association stock.  Moreover, Right to Buy does not necessarily mean “Help to Buy”.

• Revenue from Right to Buy to be reinvested into new community housing to replenish social housing stock.

• Encourage home ownership over perpetual renting by prioritising local policies that help renters transition to buying.  Give long-term tenants the option to buy their rental home after a set period, helping them transition to ownership.

• Allow more flexible mortgage lending criteria to support responsible buyers, particularly first-time buyers.

Restrictions on Foreign Buyers

• No more bulk purchasing “off plan” by foreign investors before local people even see the built properties to purchase them.

• Foreign individuals can purchase UK properties if they intend to live in them.  Stricter criteria to apply to investments.

Planning, Development and the Environment

Planning laws are in urgent need of overhaul.  As a nation we should be looking at smarter housing solutions rather than arbitrary national building targets.

• We would undertake to reform current planning laws and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to reduce government bureaucracy and place more decision-making responsibility in the hands of local councils.  We support local urban renewal rather than government-driven mass housing schemes.

• We support neighbourhood planning where communities shape their own housing growth.

• Make public consultation mandatory for major housing projects to ensure local support.  Local referenda should be permitted where a development is particularly large or impactful upon the local community.  Investigate reforming tort law to give local residents’ groups the ability to oppose disruptive development proposals through the courts.

• Self-build initiatives to be looked upon favourably where the development is sympathetic with the local character of the proposed plot.

• Where individuals wish to build or extend their own homes, these proposals should be considered first before large-scale developments to minimise red tape and planning decision waiting time for individuals and families.

• We oppose building on designated green belt land.  Proposals for building on green belt land and open greenfield sites should be refused where brownfield sites are available.  Agricultural land and wildlife habitats should be protected against housing developments.

• Encourage redevelopment of derelict urban sites rather than encroaching on green spaces.  Encourage local authorities to prioritise applications for urban regeneration projects designed to revitalise declining urban areas rather than just expanding housing stock on undeveloped land.

• Both residential and commercial newbuilds should be required to meet stricter criteria to ensure they remain in keeping with the character of the local area, in terms of their design, scale, etc.

• Ensure large developers cannot “buy” planning permission in all but name by taking councils to court for planning refusal.

• Community veto on large developments: Residents should have a say in whether large developments go ahead if infrastructure is inadequate (see section on local infrastructure).

• Full transparency on housing plans: No more hidden agreements between developers and councils – local people must be fully informed before approval.

• We are concerned at developments that flood because they have been built on ground historically part of the floodplain of local rivers and streams. Combined with concreting and tarmacing over open ground leaving fewer places for surface water to drain away, and failure to clean the drains and sewers or dredge the rivers for rubbish and detritus, this leaves homeowners with the devastation of flooded homes, sometimes more than once.  The result of this lack of foresight and maintenance is then often conveniently blamed on “climate change”.  We believe developers should carry out much more comprehensive flood risk surveys before any planning application can be accepted.

While on the subject of planning, it is worth looking at intimidation, coercion, or underhanded tactics designed to clear land, acquire it cheaply, and force property owners to sell.  Suspicious fires often lead “conveniently” to land redevelopment.  While arson is already illegal, it often goes unsolved or unpunished, and properties mysteriously lost to fire often result in the land being cleared for profitable housing estates.

We call for tougher penalties and investigations for “convenient” fires and to ensure that arson-for-profit is properly investigated, punished severely, and never rewarded.

• Make suspicious arson cases automatic high-priority investigations.  Any fire that occurs before a major land sale or development project should trigger a full criminal investigation with forensic audits.

• Developers and investors must be investigated in suspicious cases.  If land is cleared by fire and then developed, those who profit should be subject to automatic scrutiny.

• Harsher penalties for arson with financial motives – strengthen laws so that anyone found guilty of arson for financial gain faces severe sentences and asset seizure.

• No forced land sales due to fire damage: If a property is damaged by arson, the owner must have the right to rebuild and cannot be pressured into selling.

• Temporary development moratoriums on fire-damaged land: Prevent instant redevelopment after fires to remove financial incentives for arson.

• Compulsory Public Inquiry for large-scale fire clearance: If a fire clears a large area of land that is later developed, there must be a full, transparent investigation before any planning permissions are granted.

• More protection for owners who refuse to sell: Provide legal assistance and police support for those facing threats or intimidation for refusing to sell their land.

Large new developments and local infrastructure

A major issue with large-scale new housing developments is that housing is built without other important local amenities, leaving communities struggling with overcrowded schools, gridlocked roads, parking shortages, and overstretched local healthcare provision.  Developers thus profit while residents suffer the consequences.  Developer profits should not come before community wellbeing.  We call for large-scale projects to be required to meet minimum infrastructure standards to ensure that developments are genuinely sustainable and beneficial for local communities.

• Minimum service requirements: New developments must meet strict local service standards before approval, including:

• Adequate road capacity: No approval unless local roads and parking provision can handle increased traffic.

• Healthcare provision: New developments must include GP surgeries and dental clinics, etc. if their size would put strain on existing local provision.

• School places: Developers must ensure enough local school places before selling homes.

• Shops and amenities: Large developments should include space for shops, post offices, and community facilities.

• No “Build First, Fix Later” Planning: Developers must fund and deliver essential services before homes are sold, not years later when problems have already escalated.

• Introduce a Local Infrastructure Levy: Large developers must contribute directly to local infrastructure, rather than leaving councils to cover the costs.

• Legal obligations to deliver promised services: Stop developers from getting approval based on “planned” amenities that never materialise.

• Councils should be able to block developments if schools, roads, and healthcare services cannot support large numbers of new residents.

Minimum Space Standards

Overdevelopment is a serious problem, with densely packed, tiny homes being built to maximise developer profits while reducing occupants’ quality of life.  Freedom Alliance believes in high living standards, proper amenity space, and protecting local character, not cramming people into shoebox homes with no green space.

• Prevent developers from shrinking new homes by enforcing strict space requirements, including bedroom sizes large enough for real furniture and movement, living areas and kitchens designed for comfort, not just function, and adequate storage space – no more cluttered, impractical homes.

• Legally require homes to meet nationally designated space standards – developers should not be allowed to build substandard “rabbit hutches” below these minimums.

• No more unliveable “micro flats” that cram families into tiny spaces just to hit housing quotas.

• Minimum requirements for green spaces and play areas: Every new development must have parks and green spaces within walking distances, safe play areas for children, and proper separation between houses – no more overcrowded estates with no breathing space.

• Adequate parking must be provided: Stop approving high-density housing without enough parking, leading to overcrowded streets and resident disputes.

• Prevent “garden grabbing” and overcrowding: Developers must not be allowed to replace gardens and open spaces with even more housing units.

• Preserve the character of existing towns and villages: Ensure that new developments respect the scale, style, and density of the local area.

• Give local communities a say: Residents should have real power to reject overdevelopment and demand quality over quantity.

Scrapping Stamp Duty (SDLT)

Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) is a burdensome and distortionary tax that penalises property transactions, restricts mobility, and artificially inflates housing costs.  Freedom Alliance therefore advocates for its outright abolition as part of our commitment to economic freedom, property rights, and a fairer tax system.  SDLT is an unnecessary barrier to home ownership, an obstacle to a dynamic housing market, and a fundamentally unfair levy on aspiration.  Scrapping SDLT therefore is a bold, pro-freedom policy that aligns with our values of low taxation and personal property rights.  Scrapping SDLT would:

• Encourage mobility: By removing barriers to housing mobility such as SDLT, people can move more freely without being penalised, helping when relocating for work, helping retirees who wish to downsize, or moving to more suitable housing.

• Boost home ownership: Lower upfront costs when purchasing a home would make it easier for buyers to move up the property ladder.  Families and individuals would have greater financial flexibility, leading to a higher standard of living.  Thus the UK’s home ownership rate could increase, promoting personal financial security and investment.

• Stimulate the housing market: Increasing the number of property transactions would create more activity in real estate, renovation and related industries.  It would boost economic activity in the property sector and create consumer confidence, leading to higher spending and investment in housing.

• Facilitate a fairer tax system: SDLT is a tax on moving that penalises people at the point of purchase, rather than wealth and ability to pay.  Removal would ensure taxation is based on earnings, spending, or consumption, rather than homebuying decisions which may be a necessity for many due to work or life circumstances.  Furthermore, it would prevent market distortions where transactions cluster just below SDLT thresholds to avoid higher tax rates.

• SDLT removal could be paired with planning reform to encourage more brownfield development.

Freedom Alliance’s policy position on housing is unique:

• We as a Party are not just blaming easy targets (immigration or low supply), we are exposing the actions of the financial elites behind the housing crisis.

• We are not wedded to Left versus Right ideology and will strenuously reject false solutions.

• We will make housing affordability a key battleground against global corporate power.