Housing: build more homes and protect tenants, at the same time

In short

Housing debates in Europe are usually framed as a choice: build more (the supply side) or protect renters (the tenant side). A radical-centre approach treats both as correct and designs for both: faster permission for homes where people want to live, paired with predictable, rules-based protection for tenants, so that new supply and security reinforce each other rather than compete.

Key points

Supply advocates are right that scarcity drives prices; tenant advocates are right that insecurity harms people now.

Faster, rules-based planning permission can raise supply without removing local voice.

Predictable tenant protections (notice periods, indexed rent changes) can coexist with investment if the rules are stable.

Success should be measured by rents relative to income and by how long renters can stay in their homes.

Two camps, both partly right

In most European cities, the housing argument runs along a familiar line. One camp says the problem is supply: not enough homes are built where people want to live, so prices rise. The other says the problem is power: tenants face sudden rent hikes and evictions, and need protection now.

Both are describing something real. Scarcity does drive prices up over time. And insecurity does harm people today, long before any new building is finished.

Designing for both

A radical-centre housing agenda starts from the claim that these goals can reinforce each other:

Faster, rules-based permission. If a proposal meets clear, published standards (height, density, design, affordability share), it should be approved within a fixed time. Local voice shapes the rules; it does not re-fight every application.
Predictable tenant protection. Rent changes tied to a public index, longer notice periods, and clear grounds for ending a tenancy. Investors can price predictable rules; what deters investment is constant change.
Public land and patient capital. Where markets will not build at the price people can pay, public and non-profit builders should be able to, on publicly owned land.

Who pays, who waits

Some existing owners will see slower price growth. Some neighbourhoods will see more density than they would choose. Some landlords will face tighter rules. These are real costs, and this proposal says so: the trade is lower housing costs and more security for the many people who rent or want to buy.

How we would know it is working

We would track two numbers above all: rents relative to local incomes, and the average length of tenancies. If supply rises but tenancies get shorter, the protection side is failing. If tenancies lengthen but new building stalls, the supply side is. Either signal should trigger a revision.

Questions and answers

Doesn't rent regulation reduce housing supply?

Strict, unpredictable rent freezes can discourage investment. Predictable rules, such as indexed rent increases and long notice periods, aim to give tenants security while keeping investment viable. The design and stability of the rules matter more than the label.

Is building more homes enough on its own?

It is necessary but slow. New supply takes years to affect prices, while tenants face insecurity today. That is why the radical-centre approach pairs supply reforms with protections in the meantime.