Renting can be a stable, long term housing choice. Build To Rent (BTR) offers professional management, consistent standards and homes that remain in excellent condition because the owner expects to hold them for decades.

So it is frustrating that, in many places, the main constraint on delivery is not a lack demand, a lack of capital or even a lack of sites: it is politics – the everyday politics of town halls, Local Plans and planning committees, where perception often carries more weight than evidence.

BTR must play a bigger role in solving the housing crisis, and so we have to address this. Importantly, we have to meet it head on, not with lobbying slogans but by changing how the sector explains itself and how local government makes decisions.

Correction erroneous impressions of BTR 

The first hurdle is misunderstanding. Too often, BTR is treated as buy to let at scale, or bundled into a single story about the private rented sector. Some of that story is fair. Small parts of the market have underperformed on standards and consumer outcomes, which is why reform has gathered pace.

But purpose built BTR is something very different: a single owner model with long term stewardship, clear accountability and an incentive to keep residents satisfied because vacancy is costly and reputation matters. That difference is fundamental and it rarely gets the airtime it deserves in local debate.

I still hear BTR described in loaded terms, as if it were a social problem waiting to happen rather than a housing product designed for modern demand. I have heard co-living dismissed as a “glorified HMO”. I have heard BTR characterised as the “ghettos of the future”. Those phrases can be rooted in poor quality conversions or outdated experiences, but they are then applied to schemes that are quite the opposite.

Unfortunately once a label is attached, it sticks. And on this basis, a planning committee may refuse a policy compliant application not because the evidence is weak but because the narrative has turned.

Politics rewards the loudest voices, not the future residents

The second hurdle is electoral. Local councillors will hear from existing residents who fear change. They rarely hear from the households who would live in the homes being debated. Future residents who live elsewhere in the country do not attend consultations, do not write to the ward councillor – and if they did, their views would carry little weight because are not on the local electoral register.

This helps explain why renting is politically awkward, unlike home ownership. And whereas affordable housing has a clear moral story, renting is still framed as transient, even though many renters are raising families, working locally and putting down roots.

It is also why some planning committees struggle to understand the benefits of three-way tenure diversity (market housing / affordable housing / BTR). Yet the 30:30:30 split is now fundamental to many large sites. A scheme that relies solely on build to sell will only move at the pace of sales absorption; whereas BTR can help unlock earlier phases and support upfront infrastructure because it is not dependent on individual sales completing one by one.

Policy gaps turn every application into a fresh argument

Misunderstanding is manageable when policy is clear. The problem is that BTR rarely features in many Local Plans. The planning system exists to reduce uncertainty and when policy is silent, uncertainty becomes the norm.

And yet BTR is far from a nascent sector. The sector has demonstrable scale and momentum, although delivery is uneven. The latest BPF analysis of BTR shows over 146,700 completed BTR homes nationally with a further 50,600 under construction and 101,500 in the planning pipeline. That takes the total sector to almost 300,000 homes. Investment volumes reached a record £5.3 billion in 2025, with nearly £2.7 billion invested in the final quarter alone.

Yet starts remain subdued. London is the starkest example, with a sharp fall in new starts since 2022 and many boroughs recording none at all in 2025. 

The planning committee problems

All too often, schemes supported by planning officers are then refused in committee because of concerns that are not grounded in policy or in operational reality. Unit sizes are judged against build for sale expectations. Parking standards are applied without reference to resident profiles or local transport patterns. Heating and energy strategies become proxies for wider anxieties about density, residents or change.

The underlying issue is that many of the elected members who make these decisions do so without a clear baseline of knowledge about how BTR works. And every election cycle brings new councillors who lack the necessary knowledge to make good decisions.

How we get past the politics

In my view, five changes would make the biggest difference.

First, local authorities should define BTR in Local Plans, with clear expectations on affordable housing, design, management and residents’ amenities. This reduces argument at application stage and makes decision making more consistent.

Second, councils should invest in member training that covers viability, phasing and tenure. BTR is not complicated but it is different, and elected members should not be forced to learn it through contentious applications.

Third, the sector should be more transparent. We should explain how long residents stay, how complaints are handled, what happens when repairs are needed and how community is supported. If we want trust, we have to show how accountability works in practice.

Fourth, developers should engage earlier and more locally. A glossy consultation can still fail if it does not answer the question residents are actually asking: “What will this mean for our area day to day?”

Fifth, national policy should treat BTR as a mainstream tenure rather than a niche. Clarity at the centre gives confidence locally and reduces the risk that each authority re-invents the wheel.

BTR will succeed when politicians judge it on what it delivers: well managed homes, a stable rental offer and a practical route to getting more housing built. 

David Wilson is Chief Operating Officer at estate agency group LRG