The Government has announced plans for a new public register requiring developers to disclose land options and other agreements giving them control over development sites. The aim is to increase transparency in the land market, discourage “land banking”, and make it easier for SME housebuilders to identify available land.

Transparency itself is hard to argue with. The land market can be opaque, and greater visibility over who controls potential development sites could help smaller developers avoid wasting time pursuing land that is already tied up.

But the key question is whether this will actually build more homes.

The reality is that land control is not what is slowing housing delivery. Sites stall because of planning delays, viability pressures, infrastructure requirements, high interest rates and rising construction costs. Developers rarely sit on land for the sake of it; they do so because the planning system is uncertain or the economics do not yet stack up.

Seen in that context, the policy looks less like a solution to the housing crisis and more like a response to a familiar political narrative. “Land banking” has become a convenient explanation for slow delivery, particularly when councils struggle to meet housing targets.

A register of this kind allows government to claim it is tackling the issue. In political terms, it risks becoming a familiar political tactic (sometimes described as throwing a “dead cat on the table”) where a new announcement shifts the conversation without addressing the underlying problem.

As with many planning reforms, there is a risk this becomes another example of tinkering around the edges. Transparency in land agreements may change the conversation, but it will not speed up planning decisions, improve viability or reduce development costs. Those are the issues that ultimately determine whether homes get built.