Consultation Responses

Our response highlights concerns over the proposed EPC reforms and the timing of the minimum energy efficiency standards (MEES) consultation. Without clarity on the new domestic EPC metrics and methodology, it's impossible to provide a full response to key questions in the consultation. As such, we cannot support the Government’s proposals on future MEES at this stage. We want to see further consultation once both the EPC and MEES consultation responses have been published in full.

In our response to the Transforming Business Rates consultation, we highlight the need for Government to work towards a fairer and more responsive business rates system. This includes introducing more frequent revaluations, lowering and fixing the tax rate and ensuring that Empty Property Relief adequately reflects typical re-occupation periods.

Our response strongly supports no changes to non-domestic EPCs and highlights a range of challenges with the proposed changes to domestic EPCs. If the changes go ahead, we call for appropriate transitioning measures (including sufficient lead-in times and the “grandfathering” of existing EPCs) and ongoing engagement with the sector, particularly given the links to MEES.

In our response, we set out our thoughts on the Government’s proposals to introduce permitted insurance fees for landlords, freeholders and property managing agents. We support transparency, and easier access to challenging unreasonable charges, but express concerns about the loss of a portfolio approach and unintended consequences this may have on consumers. We also acknowledge that many members will already be regulated by the FCA and should therefore should not face these proposals. We caution heavily against a cap, which would lead to distortions in service provision or fees charged, and instead suggest greater data is made available on fees charged.

Our response to the Law Commission's review of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 recommends shifting to a contracted-in approach and removing security of tenure for leases of five years or less. We also highlight how reforming the Act would support redevelopment, refurbishment, decarbonisation and economic growth.

Our response raises concerns about the proposals to expand the scenarios whereby a landowner could be deprived of market value for certain forms of brownfield and land allocated for housing in a local plan. Our submission notes the proposals could have unintended consequences of increasing uncertainty in the land market, ultimately leading to fewer sites coming forward for housing development in overall terms.

We welcome the proposed new approach and support any measures which simplify and speed up the development process whilst protecting and restoring nature. Developers who want to use existing approaches, however, should be able to “opt out” of the new arrangements. Consultation with the sector will be key, including consultation on the design of the new developer contribution.

The BPF has submitted its 2025 Spending Review Representation, highlighting the property sector’s vital role in economic growth, housing delivery and clean energy. We call on the Government to remove barriers to investment, boost institutional funding and embrace PropTech innovation to support a thriving industry that contributes £110bn annually and sustains 2.5m jobs.

We welcome the opportunity to respond to the HM Treasury consultation paper on the case for a UK Green Taxonomy. Our response focuses on the fundamental question of whether a UK Green Taxonomy would help the real estate sector, and the UK economy more broadly, achieve its sustainability ambitions.

Our response notes that compliance with a new regulatory regime is likely to be more challenging for landlord-run heat networks and does not easily fit within existing landlord and tenant/housing legislation. We also call for certainty to allow existing property developers, landlords and other stakeholders to prepare for the impact of new regulation.

Our response welcomes the proposals to introduce a national scheme of delegation to create a more consistent approach to determining which applications go to planning committees, and which can be decided by planning officers. We also provide feedback on how councillor training can be made effective in practice as well as commenting on how the operation of planning committees can be improved more broadly.