That all sounds rather muddled Katie. A few comments:
Developers wouldn’t want to build until such time as they know sales are ensured. A great many homes are sold off plan, well before construction has commenced. Only small developers rely on site-by-site finance rather than a revolving facility.
It sounds as though the developer of the site you mention either hasn’t costed the site properly, or the requirement for road improvement works only kicks in once a certain number of homes are occupied (not uncommon). Some developers then try to renegotiate the requirement, mothballing the site by way of blackmail. It sometimes works to their advantage.
It is frequently the case that an initial outline planning permission is granted, with approval of details such as access (often contentious for reasons such as safety and access for emergency vehicles), drainage and materials reserved for approval. The provision and approval of technical details can take some time but is not something on which corners should be cut.
When you say ‘less (sic) planning restrictions would lower the land cost’, you seem to be arguing for a ‘build them anywhere, anyhow’ system. That sort of approach resulted in insanitary, unsafe, Jerry-built back to backs in the past.
Interestingly, shares in two of the country’s largest house builders, former clients of mine, have risen significantly this morning. That would indicate that the market doesn’t share your views.
