London cannot resolve its entrenched housing shortage by relying on institutional developers alone. That is the stark warning issued by Propertymark in its response to the Mayor of London's draft London Plan, which sets out an ambitious target to deliver capacity for approximately 558,000 new homes between 2027/28 and 2036/37. While City Hall envisions half of these homes becoming genuinely affordable over the longer term, the professional lettings body argues that sidelining the traditional private landlord risks worsening an already acute supply crisis.

The planning framework heavily prioritises large-scale Build to Rent schemes. Yet, as the industry submission highlights, treating institutional apartment blocks as an outright replacement for private individual landlords misinterprets the mechanics of the rental market. Individual landlords cater to distinct tenant profiles, family structures, and income brackets that corporate developments rarely accommodate.

The Limits of Build to Rent

Build to Rent has undeniably expanded across major metropolitan hubs, but it serves a specific demographic. Propertymark pointed out that corporate developments operate at an entirely different scale and price point. In practice, institutional schemes frequently target young professionals willing to pay premium rents inclusive of amenity spaces, gyms, and concierge services.

"Propertymark members are seeing private landlords leave the market in London, including in areas where there is already strong rental demand, while Build to Rent tends to operate at a different scale and can serve different parts of the market," the industry body stated. It urged policymakers to monitor the aggregate availability of rented homes rather than celebrating headline Build to Rent completions in isolation.

When private individuals exit the sector, the properties they leave behind do not simply transfer to alternative rental providers. Instead, they are sold off to owner-occupiers or removed from the letting pool entirely. A newly built institutional tower block rarely compensates for the loss of terraced family homes or mid-market suburban flats in outer boroughs. Monitoring gross pipeline figures while ignoring net sector departures creates a misleading picture of housing availability.

The Ripple Effect Reaching Kent

What occurs in the capital rarely remains confined within its boundary lines. The systematic contraction of London's private rented sector creates a direct structural ripple into the Home Counties, and Kent sits squarely in the path of that pressure.

As London rents surge and choice diminishes, tenants inevitably re-evaluate their geographic boundaries. Commuter corridors across West and Mid Kent - through hubs like Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells, and Sevenoaks - regularly absorb households displaced by inner-city shortages. When working professionals and families discover that London options are either priced out or entirely unavailable, they turn to well-connected regional commuter routes offering superior square footage and mainline rail access.

For buy-to-let investors in Kent, this displacement dynamic has reshaped local market fundamentals. Regional yields have shown resilience, with portfolio lenders reporting improving returns across regional markets outside the capital. Meanwhile, tenant competition across Kent's towns remains intense. An undersupply of private stock in London does not dampen tenant demand; it simply redistributes it down the railway tracks.

Unlocking Empty Stock and Council Headwinds

Beyond new development, City Hall has eyed the capital's dormant residential stock as a potential remedy. Bringing vacant homes back into active occupation could inject much-needed capacity into the market without the multi-year delays inherent in site acquisition and construction. Yet the reality on the ground is rarely that straightforward.

Legal disputes over ownership, inheritance complications, and steep financial barriers frequently stall refurbishment work. Bringing a long-term empty dwelling up to modern letting standards demands substantial capital outlay, an investment that many owners are unwilling or unable to make. At the same time, local authorities find themselves ill-equipped to step in.

Local councils face unprecedented budgetary pressures. Depleted housing teams lack the operational staff, legal resources, and capital reserves required to pursue compulsory purchases or enforce empty dwelling management orders effectively. Relying on vacant properties to bridge a half-million home deficit remains, at best, an optimistic supplementary measure rather than a foundational solution.

The Affordability Chasm

Compounding the problem is the widening gap between state support and actual market conditions. Frozen Local Housing Allowance rates have severely curtailed options for lower-income households seeking accommodation within the private sector. When housing benefits fail to reflect genuine market rents, landlords face narrowing options if they wish to cover rising mortgage costs, property maintenance, and local service charges.

"We support the need for more genuinely affordable and social housing. However, the policy needs to take greater account of the financial reality of development," Propertymark noted in its consultation submission. "Affordability should be considered against local incomes, rents, Local Housing Allowance levels, service charges and the wider cost of living. Members report particularly strong pressure in parts of East London where there is a shortage of properties available within Local Housing Allowance levels."

East London's affordability squeeze serves as a bellwether for surrounding regions. When households reliant on housing support are squeezed out of inner-city zones, secondary rental markets in north and west Kent experience heightened demand for accessible stock. Local authorities outside London then encounter increased pressure on their own housing registers and temporary accommodation budgets.

Balancing the Equation

A functional housing strategy requires balance rather than ideological preference for specific delivery models. Build to Rent provides modern, professionally managed accommodation, but it is one pillar of a much larger structure. The small-scale private landlord remains the backbone of the UK rental supply, providing varied, geographically dispersed, and often more accessible accommodation than corporate developers can deliver.

Attempting to build 558,000 homes while presiding over an environment that pushes existing landlords toward the exit is counterproductive. Policy must account for the real costs of operating residential rental property, from regulatory compliance to financing. Until strategic plans value the preservation of existing private tenancies as much as the ribbon-cutting of institutional high-rises, rental shortages will continue to spill across county lines, leaving tenants and landlords in markets like Kent to navigate the fallout.