For years after the financial crisis, the approach to mortgage regulation in the UK was even more focused on eliminating risk and tightening controls to avoid a repeat of 2008.

Now, however, that approach seems to be  changing. The Chancellor has tasked regulators to find ways to support growth as well as protecting consumers.

In response, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has pledged to “begin simplifying responsible lending and advice rules for mortgages” one objective of which is to make it easier to get onto the housing ladder.

As I write this, that’s about all we know – and given the typical duration of consultation processes on new rules, it may be some time before we get an idea of what this means in practice.

However, market participants have suggested areas that regulators may want to focus on to make it easier to get a mortgage.

One of these areas is stress testing, which exists to ensure that borrowers can still afford their mortgage in the event of a sharp rise in borrowing costs.

Currently, lenders must check that borrowers can afford mortgage payments at least 1% higher than their current reversion rate. If lenders expect interest rates to increase by more than 1%, they must take this into account when checking whether the borrower can afford the mortgage, now and in future.

Critics say this requirement is too restrictive and now less relevant when borrowing costs are falling or expected to fall, and so the stress testing rules should reflect that.

Commentators have also urged regulators to review rules limiting the amount of high loan-to-income (LTI) lending they can do.

Currently, lenders can have no more than 15% of their book on an LTI of 4.5 times income – above which a loan is deemed riskie given borrower affordability.

Due to this restriction, many lenders reserve much of their higher LTI lending to those with higher incomes.

Finally, some market observers claim that the rules surrounding interest-only mortgages are currently too restrictive and therefore need reviewing.

If the FCA does loosen the rules surrounding these areas, there’s no doubt that lending volumes will rise to a greater extent than normal.

In fact, Hamptons, the estate agent, estimates that transactions could increase by 100,000 to 150,000 annually – a 10-15% boost on current levels – if all the above lending controls were relaxed.

It’s easy to understand why this could be desirable for brokers, lenders and borrowers alike.

However, I would urge caution. I worry that unless we see a corresponding uplift in housebuilding, these changes could certainly leave first-time buyers worse off long-term.

Why? Because all it will do will pump up property values at a time when house prices are already eye-wateringly expensive.

I’m not alone in sharing these concerns. Savills, another estate agent, estimates that prices could rise as much as 4% – or £20,000 – in areas where affordability is most constrained, such as London.

If the point of watering down lending rules is to make it easier to get onto the housing ladder, I’m not sure inflating property prices, albeit an unintended consequence, helps to achieve that.

Admittedly, the Government wants to overhaul the planning system to boost the supply of new homes.

But there’s no guarantee it will succeed. Previous administrations have tried and failed to reform planning – so what makes this government any different?

Until we see progress on this front, my default position is scepticism and concern.

Even if the Government succeeds where others have failed, there are other barriers standing in the way of development, such as a shortage of construction workers and raw materials, not to mention much-increased costs of such.

Again, if both of those issues are resolved, it will take time to build the number of homes we need. Therefore, it is likely to be years before supply catches up with demand – if indeed it ever does.

Until then, introducing short-term resolutions to make it easier to get a mortgage could  make it even more difficult to get on the property ladder long-term.

I’m not against deregulation per se. Where there is proof that regulation is holding back the market for no discernible benefit, it should go.

However, equally, I don’t think that deregulation is the silver bullet that many people think it is – and if we treat it as one, we risk storing up problems for the future.

Therefore, rather than seeking quick wins, we should be seeking holistic solutions to what is a multi-faceted problem – starting with supply.

Rob Clifford is chief executive of mortgage and protection network Stonebridge