Categories
Blog Post Class of 2024

Standardising Section 106 agreements is overdue. Making it stick will be harder.

Anyone involved in housing delivery knows that negotiating and agreeing Section 106 has become one of the biggest drags on the system. It’s not because planning obligations are wrong in principle. Quite the opposite. Done well, they secure affordable housing, infrastructure and mitigation that make development acceptable and sustainable. The problem is the process.

I was pleased to host the recent launch of the Land, Planning and Development Federation’s work with Town Legal and Lord Banner KC on simplifying and standardising Section 106 agreements. Their report sets out a compelling case for reform, backed by hard evidence on delays. Data from the Home Builders’ Federation shows that average S106 timelines are now stretching well beyond a year, with some agreements taking several years to conclude. That’s time when homes that already have a resolution to approve are simply not being built.

There is a straightforward and sensible solution to addressing this delay. Introduce a national template for small and medium-sized schemes, reduce the endless re-drafting of boilerplate clauses and focus negotiations on what actually matters on a site; the local context and local need. A national template will deliver faster decisions and result in lower legal costs, improving viability, and removing friction from the process. For SME builders in particular, these delays can be the difference between a viable scheme and one that never gets delivered.

sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

But we should be clear-eyed. Standardisation alone will not fix the problem.

I have seen first-hand how even well-designed standard documents can get picked apart in practice. We have been here before in the construction sector. NEC contracts were meant to simplify delivery and drive collaboration. PAS 91 was designed to streamline pre-qualification for public schemes. In both cases, lawyers across the system found ways to add caveats, amendments and bespoke wording until the standard became anything but.

There is no reason to think Section 106 will be immune from the same behaviour.

That is why Government has a critical role to play if this reform is to land properly. Guidance matters. The National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance needs to go further than warm words about engagement and efficiency. They should actively promote the use of standardised Section 106 templates, set clear expectations that deviation from agreed boilerplate should be the exception not the rule, and require local planning authorities to justify where and why they depart from national templates.

Centralising this element of planning will not strip councils of discretion. Local variation will always be needed and possible. But predictability, proportionality and pace are essential if we are serious about the delivery of 1.5 million homes. A standard starting point, backed by firm national guidance, gives councillors confidence, reduces risk for developers, and helps officers manage stretched workloads.

If our Secretary of State Steve Reed MP, and Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook MP are serious about building more homes, which I believe they are, especially through SME builders, then fixing the Section 106 process is essential. Simplifying and standardising is the right direction of travel. But without Government being explicit, consistent and firm in policy and guidance, the system will default back to complexity.

The opportunity is there. We should take it, and make sure it sticks.

Categories
Blog Post

Labour’s Commonhold Bill is the start of the end of the leasehold nightmare

New apartment complexes overlooking the Woodberry Wetlands, London by Geoff Henson is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0

Last week Labour published its Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill. It is an unquestionable triumph. Ground rents are capped at £250, commonhold is reinvigorated as a realistic tenure, and issues around forfeiture are put to rest.

Most importantly, it sets out a new mechanism for leaseholders to convert to commonhold without the previous requirement to have unanimity between all residents. 

This week is the start to the end of this nightmare, but it is a complex route. It will be up to leaseholders to transition buildings over to commonhold one-at-a-time, and this will be easier on some sites than others.

The Government has also clearly set out a different strategy for reform than their Conservative predecessor. While the Tories set out most of their reforms in two pieces of legislation, the Ground Rent Act (2022) and the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act (2024), Labour’s programme is running on bespoke tracks, with varied primary and secondary legislation to address the wide variety of issues within leasehold.

So, taking a step back, what is Labour doing to end the leasehold nightmare and what will these changes mean for residents?

sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

What is Commonhold? And how does Labour’s Bill change it?

Currently, most flat owners in the UK are leaseholders. They own everything within the walls of their home, but the overall site is owned by a ‘freeholder’, usually a larger company like a developer or a pension fund. This freeholder is responsible for shared communal areas, and the overall building.

Freeholders can appoint whatever organisation they want to manage the building (a ‘managing agent’), who often charge high fees while delivering a poor service. And freeholders themselves are often unresponsive and fail to act proactively to respond to leaseholders’ needs.

Commonhold is an alternative model introduced by Labour in 2002. Homeowners collectively own the whole site, and decide on things like which managing agents to appoint collectively.

However, a number of issues with commonhold mean that it was not widely adapted. It requires the consent of all leaseholders and their mortgage lenders, and there are a number of governance issues with commonhold that make it difficult for homeowners to manage buildings effectively.

Finally, without any incentive to build commonhold sites, developers have almost never done this, and instead can either keep the freehold to take some income themselves, or sell this off to another organisation.

Labour’s Bill fixes commonhold in three key ways:

  1. It bans all new leasehold flats except in exceptional circumstances, on which the Government is consulting currently.
  2. It introduces a new mechanism by which leaseholders can convert to commonhold with 50% of leaseholders consenting (or with unanimity if less than 50% of residents are ‘qualifying leaseholders’, such as in shared ownership blocks or where a freeholder lets out flats within a block).
  3. It has a wide array of fixes to commonhold which sort out its governance issues, from helping to appoint directors, to regulating dispute resolution and ensuring more responsible governance.

This will allow substantially more blocks across the UK to convert to commonhold, as thousands of sites have already reached the 50% threshold for other mechanisms within leasehold, such as collective enfranchisement and obtaining the Right to Manage.

What else is Labour doing on leasehold?

Within the Bill there is a lot more to be excited about. The ground rent cap will lower costs for nearly a million leaseholders paying over the £250 level, as well as eliminating the issue of homeowners being unable to sell properties with escalating ground rents. The new framework for forfeiture will prevent freeholders from being able to repossess homes for minor breaches of contracts or debts as low as £350.

The Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook also confirmed further primary legislation to make it easier for leaseholders to renew or ‘buy out’ their lease through reforms to the process of setting valuation rates.

And, outside of the Bill, Labour is acting to fix leasehold.

In order to tackle escalating service charges, new regulations are pending which will see a new regulatory regime for managing agents, increased transparency and scrutiny of costly major works, and a ‘right to veto’ managing agents which will make it easier for leaseholders to both request a change of managing agent and to decline a freeholder’s suggestion.

And a response is also pending to a consultation held over the winter period for freehold owners paying service charges on unadopted communal infrastructure (otherwise known as ‘fleecehold’).

After this – what will the challenges be?

Three main challenges exist for the Government less in enacting this reform.

First are the courts, the major residential freeholders are famously litigious and have already successfully held up delays to leasehold reform over the past year through launching a judicial review. While the appetite for further action is uncertain, the risk is present for freeholders to attempt this again, particularly over measures retroactively capping ground rent and overriding existing leases.

Second will be ensuring a smooth transition for the leaseholders who do want to move to commonhold. Getting rid of often distant, unresponsive and exploitative freeholder will be a huge improvement in the lives of millions of leaseholders. But shifting to making complex decisions about building management and safety in partnership with your neighbours also has difficulties. Reems of advice and support will be needed for new commonholders, particularly in blocks which do not have a long history of collective enfranchisement.

And finally will be what remains for the leaseholders who cannot convert. Even the reinvigorated commonhold, shared ownership will still be a separate permitted lease, and many blocks struggle to reach the threshold of 50% support for changes such as the Right to Manage because a large portion of the block are buy-to-let landlords. The Government does have an extensive reform programme to make leasehold fairer for these cohorts, but it will be worth monitoring the conversion process to see what more can be done for them.

Labour’s Commonhold Bill is the biggest change to housing law in years, and fundamentally challenges the concept of land and housing as an asset which underpins much of our problematic housing system. Such a bold change will require political will and expert attention to get right, and it is up to all of us in the Labour movement to get it over the line.

Categories
Blog Post

Delivering 1.5 million homes: transforming the vision into reality with a Target Operating Model

What is a Target Operating Model and Why is it Needed

A Target Operating Model (TOM) is a comprehensive strategic framework designed to align an organisation’s structure, functions, and processes with its overarching vision and mission. It serves as a blueprint for organising resources, workflows, and capabilities in the most effective way to support long-term goals, operational excellence, and the delivery of value to stakeholders.

The Government’s New Towns Task Force’s report in September 2025 identified 12 potential New Towns and proposed these are delivered by Development Corporations. A Development Corporation charged with delivering a large-scale urban development should at the very onset put in place a robust TOM before commencing a delivery programme to ensure strategic cohesion, operational readiness, and delivery efficiency.

Key Benefits of Implementing a Target Operating Model:

In the context of large-scale urban development, particularly in homebuilding programmes that include infrastructure and community infrastructure a well-structured TOM delivers a wide range of benefits that directly contribute to the success and resilience of an urban development delivery body such as a Development Corporation by proving for:

  • Strategic Alignment: Provides vision and direction that aligns with long-term goals and investment plans.
  • Operational Efficiency: Maps out processes and procedures aligning development, planning, construction and asset management.
  • Enhanced Governance and Risk Management: Defines roles and responsibilities, compliance and risk management.
  • Better Stakeholder Management: Customer focused, improving delivery for residents, investors, and government partners with consistency of standards and transparency improving trust with public and private stakeholders.
  • Agility and Scalability: Responds to market shifts, supports growth and innovation.
  • Improved Financial Management: Implements cost control and creates investment ready opportunities.
  • Talent and Capability Optimisation: Building a workforce that is aligned with business needs, with skills development.

A Target Operating Model Framework for Urban Development

An effective Target Operating Model (TOM) for an urban development organisation comprises a set of integrated components that collectively guide delivery, performance, and long-term value creation.

1. Strategic Foundation

A strong strategic foundation anchors the TOM. The organisation must articulate a clear vision and mission focused on delivering mixed-use, well-serviced communities supported by high-quality infrastructure and amenities.

2. Core Operating Pillars

a) Business Capabilities
The organisation requires end-to-end capabilities across the development lifecycle, including planning, land acquisition, infrastructure delivery, design and construction management, procurement, marketing, and long-term asset stewardship. Effective community engagement, strategic partnerships, and sound financial structuring are also essential to creating sustainable, people-centred places.

b) Organisational Structure and Governance
A central leadership team typically sets strategic direction, oversees finances, and develops business cases, while regional or project-based units manage local delivery. A clear governance model supported by roles such as CEO, CFO, and Head of Development, along with investment, audit, and compliance committees enables accountable, timely decision making and transparent reporting.

c) Key Processes
The TOM should establish a structured development lifecycle, with stage gates from feasibility through approvals, design, construction, and post-completion operations. Supporting processes include investment appraisal, regulatory compliance, stakeholder reporting, and customer engagement.

d) Data and Digital Infrastructure
A modern TOM relies on strong digital architecture. Integrated systems including GIS, BIM, CRM, and project management platforms should feed into a centralised data environment. This enables real-time monitoring of project progress, financials, ESG metrics, and operational KPIs, supporting accurate forecasting and evidence based decision making.

e) People and Culture
Workforce strategy should blend a skilled core team with flexible, project-based resources and specialist third-party partners. The culture must champion innovation, inclusivity, and sustainability, reflected both in internal practices and in how communities are engaged.

f) Performance Management
Performance must be routinely monitored through metrics such as Internal Rate of Return (IRR), schedule and cost performance, ESG outcomes, and customer satisfaction. Monthly and quarterly reviews provide insights that enable course corrections and reinforce continuous improvement.

Target Operating Model Implementation Roadmap

A TOM will require an implementation Roadmap delivered in stages before its considered as being effected.

  • Current State Assessment: Conduct a diagnostic review of existing capabilities, systems, and workflows, supported by a gap analysis to identify areas for transformation.
  • Design of the Future-State Model: Develop a tailored TOM framework that reflects the unique context and objectives of the organisation, drawing from proven models where appropriate.
  • Stakeholder Alignment: Engage key internal and external stakeholders to validate the model and ensure their support through structured consultation and co-design.
  • Implementation Planning: Develop a detailed, phased rollout plan, potentially organised by function, geography, or project type. Pilot programmes may be used to test and refine the model before full deployment.
  • Monitoring and Continuous Improvement: Establish a feedback loop using KPIs, data analytics, and stakeholder insights to refine the TOM on an ongoing basis and embed lessons learned.

Conclusion

A well-designed Target Operating Model is essential for any urban development delivery body such as a Development Corporation seeking to deliver complex, long-term infrastructure and housing programmes effectively. It not only aligns people, processes, and systems with strategic intent but also fosters transparency, trust, and agility in delivery.

The House of Lords Built Environment Committee’s recent Report, ‘New Towns: Laying the Foundations’ published in October 2025 has a Chapter on Governance and Stewardship covering Development Corporations. The report sets out many recommendations to encourage success and establishing Development Corporations with robust TOM’s can greatly support this success.

Categories
Blog Post

The Future of Home Buying: Can the government finally fix England’s broken housing transaction system?

Image by Alena Darmel licensed under Creative Commons

After years of half-measures and failed initiatives, the government has again turned its gaze to one of Britain’s most frustrating institutions: the home buying process. It’s a system that is broadly recognised as broken – and one that successive governments have repeatedly promised, and failed, to fix.

The average home move now takes a staggering 205 days from listing to completion. One in three transactions collapses before completion, and £1.5 billion is lost each year through failed sales. These figures represent families stuck in limbo, renters unable to move, and buyers forced to reapply for mortgages as chains collapse around them.

This time, though, there are hopes across industry that the government appears serious. A  consultation on reforms to the system has been launched, and with cross-party consensus that the housing market’s inefficiency acts as a brake on growth, it marks the most significant modernisation attempt in decades. Whether it succeeds may depend less on political will and more on whether the government is ready to embrace the kind of digital innovation that transformed markets abroad.

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

A long road to reform

For years, the conveyancing process has been defined by paperwork, disconnected systems and inconsistent protocols. Each party – agents, lenders, conveyancers, surveyors, local authorities, and HM Land Registry – operates in its own digital silo, with limited interoperability. The result is predictable delays, duplication, and error embedded in almost every transaction, leaving Britain’s homes stuck as trapped liquidity in the housing market.

The consultation sets out an ambitious vision: a digitally enabled home buying and selling system with consistent use of upfront information, stronger regulation for estate agents, and better consumer protection. It also hints at exploring binding offers and AI-assisted conveyancing, though both remain long-term ambitions rather than immediate reforms.

Ministers argue that reform will “increase transparency, reduce fall-throughs, and improve trust”. It is language that feels familiar. In 2010, the last major reform attempt – the ill-fated Home Information Packs (HIPs) – collapsed under political pressure and technical confusion. Many in the industry fear history could repeat itself.

This time, there’s one crucial difference: the technology now exists to make reforms work.

Proven solutions from abroad?

Australia’s experience offers a compelling glimpse of what the UK could achieve. Over the past decade, the introduction of electronic conveyancing and a digital completion platform has transformed the buying process there.

PEXA is a digital property exchange platform that modernises the process of buying and selling property by allowing solicitors, conveyancers, and lenders to complete property transactions electronically, replacing traditional paper-based systems. Originating in Australia, its UK bespoke platform connects lenders and conveyancers in a secure shared digital environment, improving collaboration, automating financial settlement, and expediting title lodgement.

Through PEXA as the core infrastructure, all parties in a transaction – conveyancers, lenders, and land registries – can transfer funds securely, and validate and register title in real time.

The results are stark. The average settlement in Australia takes five weeks. [CD1] [LM2] [CD3] Settlement fraud has been virtually eliminated, requisitions (manual errors delaying registration) have fallen significantly, and there is consumer confidence in the process.

It is, in short, a working model of what a digital property market can deliver.

In the UK, PEXA has now built a platform specifically for the challenges of the UK market. NatWest is currently implementing PEXA with a view to transacting remortgage transactions by the end of the first half of 2026 and facilitating sale and purchase transactions down the line. The platform is the seventh regulated payment scheme in the Bank of England, and the first built specifically for property transactions. There is growing acknowledgement and excitement that secure, instantaneous completions are now possible on our shores too.

Whether government reforms can align with this kind of digital infrastructure remains uncertain. The consultation makes limited mention of payment and completion reform – a notable omission given that the key moment in a property transaction, when the money moves and title is transferred, remains the moment of greatest risk. Though measures like binding contracts might help prevent fall throughs, the government must ensure it focuses on fixing the act of buying and selling a home, the core transaction, not just the supporting processes.

The fraud problem

It’s a vulnerability that costs consumers and law firms dearly. Fraud is rising across the sector: 65% of law firms have faced cyber incidents and 30% of buyers have experienced property fraud, driven by payment diversion scams, bogus law practices and identity theft.

The structural problem is clear: money and title still move on separate tracks. Funds are manually transferred through generic banking rails, while title changes are lodged with HM Land Registry at some point after completion. In this gap – sometimes hours, sometimes days – the system is at its weakest.

A move towards centralised, regulated digital completion platforms, integrated directly with the banking system, would close that gap. It is a reform that goes beyond convenience; it’s a question of national financial security.

For now, though, fraud prevention appears only lightly referenced in the consultation – folded into broader ambitions around transparency and consumer protection. Many in the industry believe that’s a missed opportunity.

The politics of progress

With successive governments preoccupied with housing supply, conveyancing reform rarely tops the agenda. Yet 42% of buyers report mental health impacts from the stress of moving, and the workforce is under strain too: the number of lawyers practicing in conveyancing in England and Wales has fallen by 15% (from just over 13,000 in Sept 2021 to 11,140 in Jan 2025), reflecting burnout in a system burdened by outdated processes, extra administration, stress and delays.

The challenge, as ever, is sequencing. The financial transaction should sit at the centre of these reforms, not as an afterthought.

For the first time in years, there is genuine momentum. With digital infrastructure now being put in place, a coalition of reformers spanning government, fintech and conveyancing could finally deliver the modernisation that buyers and sellers have long been promised.

For a housing system long stuck in the 20th century, this consultation is a moment of truth.

Categories
Blog Post

Labour’s shift to homelessness prevention is a crucial opportunity for councils

Image from the Centre for Homelessness Impact's open access library of non-stigmatising images of homelessness

Homelessness has rapidly become a key challenge facing local authorities. Spending by councils in England on temporary accommodation has reached £2.8 billion a year, up from £1.7 billion a couple of years ago.

This is causing great harm. There were 132,410 households staying in temporary accommodation in June 2025 because they risked homelessness, a record high. Almost two thirds are families with children.

Evidence shows us that children who experience homelessness do less well at school, have poorer health and are more likely to be impacted by homelessness in adulthood.

Costs are soaring but outcomes are worse. The reason? Homelessness spending is heavily skewed towards responses once individuals and families reach crisis. Our system reacts rather than prevents. Our aim must be to drive this system towards prevention upstream.

sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

There are challenges in embracing prevention. Many local authorities are losing their institutional memory of what effective homelessness prevention involves; things like tenancy sustainment, legal support, advice on debt. Resources and capacity have been sucked into crisis interventions.

We also lack evidence of which prevention programmes work and provide value for money. This requires experimentation, coupled with independent evaluation.

Investing in prevention requires an up-front cost. Councils have to meet current demand and fund preventative services whose benefits take longer to emerge.

That’s why it was significant that Rachel Reeves, in the Spending Review in June, allocated £100 million over the next two years specifically for homelessness prevention. Its purpose is to ‘prevent homelessness through investing in early intervention measures’. Most of the money will come from the Transformation Fund to support fundamental reform of public services, overseen by the Cabinet Office.

Ideally, this should endow a national fund for research and development of early prevention initiatives to create change at a system level. Without national scaffolding – shared data, common evaluation standards and support for implementation – we risk repeating the “pilot malaise” that has held back progress for a decade.  It appears, however, that the Government’s preference is to pass this additional funding to local areas.

If so, it is critical that this additional funding does not top up councils’ current day-to-day homelessness spending, which will be drawn inexorably towards reactive crisis responses. More of the same will produce the same bad outcomes.

Local authorities should use part of this money to adopt or test promising early interventions.

This will require leadership. Prevention work is often less visible than crisis services. Polling evidence shows public support stronger for tangible things like emergency shelters, hostels and refuges than for prevention activity, although this still has majority support. When asked what would make the greatest difference in reducing homelessness, between 82% and 84% say refuges, safe houses and emergency housing, while 56% say investing in prevention services.

It will also require support. Some councils have shown they can innovate: the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, for instance, used data it holds on residents’ financial stress, such as council tax arrears, to offer them targeted support such as a debt repayment plan.

Such initiatives are very much the exception, however, not the rule. Councils vary enormously in capability. Expecting each to design, procure and evaluate interventions independently leads to duplication, slow progress and uneven quality.

And, for local authorities that do develop effective prevention approaches a big question remains about how this learning can be shared and scaled across the system.

This is where metro mayors and combined authorities can advance the devolution agenda by stepping up and leaning in to this homelessness prevention challenge. Combined authorities provide an appropriate scale for rigorous testing and shared learning: large enough for unified datasets and specialist expertise, small enough to stay rooted in place. They can take on the capabilities individual councils cannot realistically build alone – intervention design, behavioural science, predictive analytics, flow management, and evaluation methodology – and help ensure prevention becomes the norm, not the exception.

The rigorous evaluation and learning that determines what truly works must be coordinated. Combined authorities can ensure councils are not left to reinvent the wheel, and that learning can be generated once and shared many times. Councils should be held to account for investing in prevention, but not for running their own isolated R&D functions.

And city mayors and combined authorities have the heft to build approaches that sit well beyond the homelessness sector and embed primary prevention within mainstream public services, such as health settings, schools, and the criminal justice system.

It is also why national government must play a role as a catalyst: not delivering services, but providing the enabling infrastructure – data architecture, evaluation capability, shared procurement routes and implementation support – that allows the strongest approaches to spread with fidelity and pace. With national scaffolding behind them, combined authorities can turn individual successes into system-wide progress.

Labour’s manifesto for the 2024 general election promised a new strategy ‘working with mayors and councils across the country, to get Britain back on track to ending homelessness’.  The £100 million allocated from the Transformation Fund for homelessness prevention offers them the opportunity to do that. They must seize it.

Categories
Blog Post

The homelessness strategy must tackle surging rough sleeping

Image by Garry Knight licensed under CC BY 2.0

New data released this week shows that rough sleeping surged to over 9,500 in July 2025. Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) analysis shows this is a 94 per cent increase compared to the same period in 2021.

One of the most disturbing trends in this week’s data is the entrenchment of long-term rough sleeping. In September 2025, nearly 4,000 people had been seen sleeping rough for multiple months, an increase of over a quarter (28 per cent) since September 2023. Long-term rough sleepers are now the largest group of people sleeping rough on our streets.

The Labour government inherited much of this mess – but on its watch the problem has only gotten worse. Rough sleeping hasn’t fallen in the government’s first year, just the Minister and Secretary of State.

Charity groups have been told the homelessness strategy is imminent. This is the government’s chance to tackle these trends head on and bring about the change and renewal it has promised.

Alongside an expected emphasis on prevention and temporary accommodation, the homelessness strategy must also contain a plan to reverse rough sleeping numbers, particularly the growing number of people who have been living on our streets long-term.

More of the same won’t cut it. Often people who have been homeless for years, or have complex problems like drug addiction or mental illness, cannot access housing through the current system. Many live their lives drifting, being passed between prisons, hospital wards, and hostels – at risk to the public and to the dangers of life on the streets.

Alongside Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram, the CSJ has outlined a fully costed plan which would tackle these trends head on: a national rollout of Housing First. This approach has been successfully piloted in Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region and the West Midlands, where 84 per cent of clients sustained long term housing after three years.

Housing First begins with a simple but powerful principle: a permanent home. From that solid foundation, people can access the tailored, wraparound support they need to address deep-rooted challenges. It’s an approach grounded in common sense, recognising that no one can rebuild their life whilst trapped in an endless cycle of homelessness, emergency accommodation, and crisis services.

The evidence is resounding and for a government strapped for cash, it has a 2:1 return on investment. Our plan is also fully funded. For just £100 million, the government could take over 5,500 people off the streets by the end of the Parliament, paid for by scrapping expensive relocation expenses for civil servants and cutting back the programme which moves them to the regions.

For a government seeking national renewal, it is hard to imagine a better place to begin than by ending the visible symbol of state and societal failure that is rough sleeping. If the homelessness strategy doesn’t fix this, it will be judged a failure, no matter what else it achieves.

Categories
Blog Post

Lessons learned from Australia: maximising the economic benefits of the £39bn Social and Affordable Homes Programme

The New Affordable Homes Programme

Announced in June 2025, the new Affordable Homes Programme replaces the previous scheme with a landmark £39 billion investment to deliver around 300,000 new social and affordable homes over the next decade. At least 60%, or approximately 180,000 homes will be for social rent, linked to local incomes. This represents the largest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in over 50 years.

Maximising Economic Benefits

Given the scale and importance of this programme, there is significant potential to drive economic growth and ensure strong value for public money. Drawing on my experience with a similar initiative in Australia, I’ve highlighted key lessons that could inform the UK Government’s approach to maximising economic impact.

Lessons Learned – The Australian Experience

In 2009, the Australian Government launched a A$5.25 billion Social Housing Initiative as part of its response to the global financial crisis. Over three years, it delivered approximately 20,000 new homes and refurbished 70,000, stimulating the economy, creating jobs, and helping Australia avoid the recession that impacted most Western nations.

Based on that experience, four key areas offer valuable insights for the UK’s housing programme:

  1. Capacity Building
  2. Strengthening the Supply Chain
  3. Streamlining Planning Processes
  4. Maximising Value through Modern Methods of Construction (MMC)
Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

Key Recommendations to Maximise Economic Impact

1. Capacity Building

In Australia, government housing agencies needed external support to meet the demands of rapid programme expansion. In New South Wales, delivery was led by Housing NSW, where I observed that many new contractors and consultants lacked public housing sector experience. This led to steep learning curves, inconsistent delivery, and capability gaps.

Recommendation:
Introduce a phased integration of non-residential contractors and consultants, such as those experienced in student housing, military accommodation, or aged care accommodation sectors via pilot projects. This gradual approach will help scale up industry capacity effectively. A centralised Project Management Office (PMO) led by Homes England and staffed with housing specialists should coordinate delivery, support local authorities, share knowledge, and manage nationwide quality.

By expanding the initiative so that it involves the wider industry and not just the current public house building niche operators, public money is spread more evenly and further within the economy with minimal waste if integration is phased with PMO oversite.

2. Strengthening the Supply Chain

Australia’s programme faced delays and cost pressures due to shortages in materials such as insulation and bricks. Sourcing imported materials added further complexity and with limited or non-existent local content policies in place many products were imported i.e. plaster board from China.

Recommendation:
Develop a nationwide procurement strategy with flexible frameworks that support strategic bulk purchasing and distribution especially of Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) components. Development corporations or other delivery agencies could manage aggregated orders using bulk buy purchasing supply, achieving value for money while ensuring consistent supply.

Standardised yet adaptable design guidelines should prioritise UK manufactured materials, avoiding international supply chain risks and boosting local economic multipliers.

3. Streamlining Planning

To meet deadlines, some Australian states fast-tracked planning, but faced a backlash for reduced community input especially in established neighbourhoods areas. In some cases, developments proceeded that wouldn’t have under regular planning regulations.

Recommendation:
Pilot the UK’s recent planning reforms in established neighbourhoods, particularly on infill or ‘pocket’ sites. Retaining standard planning processes in sensitive areas can preserve public trust and reduce opposition. Community backing is vital, as developing within existing urban areas often leverages current infrastructure more efficiently than building on new sites.

While fast-track approvals may suit new, undeveloped locations, these often require major infrastructure investments (e.g., roads, schools), which can delay delivery and increase costs.

According to the IMF Paper Construction Planning Reforms for Growth and Investment published in 2024 the UK’s complex planning regulations can add 10% to any development costs. Therefore, any strategy to reduce costs for planning will allow more public funding to be spent on building more homes.

4. Maximising Value Through Modern Methods of Construction

Although MMC was adopted in Australia’s programme, its benefits were not fully realised due to the short-term nature of the initiative and lack of coordinated investment in design and manufacturing infrastructure.

Recommendation:
The UK’s 10-year Affordable Homes Programme offers a major opportunity to realise MMC’s potential. Unlike Australia’s 3-year initiative, the UK version can support a stable, regionally distributed pipeline of products over a longer period, giving manufacturers confidence to invest.

Past MMC challenges including manufacturer insolvencies stem largely from volume inconsistency and weak supply continuity. A national MMC strategy is essential, building on Homes England’s existing experience with MMC through its pilot schemes, funding models, and research.

This strategy should include clear commitments to long-term supply pipelines across regions. Strong coordination between planning authorities, housing providers, and MMC manufacturers is critical to unlocking sector growth and ensuring resilience.

According to a 2024 Report by Constructing Excellence/ BRE Benefits of Modern Methods of Construction in Housing costs could fall by a third if demand is grown and the sector scales up.

Conclusion

In delivering 300,000 new social and affordable homes in the next decade the Affordable Homes Programme offers the UK an opportunity to tackle housing shortages while simultaneously stimulating economic growth, job creation, and industrial innovation. However, to maximise the economic benefits, the government must act strategically in building capacity across the industry, strengthening local supply chains, streamline planning, and embracing MMC.

By learning from international examples and implementing structured, scalable policies, the UK can ensure that this investment delivers not only homes but long-term national prosperity.

Categories
Blog Post

Abolish Private Landlords?

It seems that the big winner of the party conference season was housing. Among the big stories were Kemi Badenoch’s announcement that the Conservatives will remove stamp duty of primary residences, the Green’s vote to “Abolish Landlords,” not mention Steve Reed’s distribution of ‘Build, baby, build’ caps.

I want to focus on the Green plans. There has been a knee-jerk response on both sides to this proposal with little meaningful analysis. Firstly, it is important to note the difference between the headline and the policy (reflecting the dissonance we see between some newspaper stories and the headlines). As the ex-leader and Bristol Central MP Carla Denyer noted, the policy does not ‘abolish landlords.’ The main thrust of the policy is to expand council housing through new build, buy back and the abolition of the right to buy and to bring in a raft of measures which removes the financial incentive to be a landlord by introducing rent controls, adding national insurance to rental income, bringing in a land tax, changing tenancies so they can only be ended by tenants and ending buy to let mortgages. 

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

The Green Party believes that these measures combined will reduce waiting lists as councils build more homes and squeeze private landlords and landlordism out of the housing market. The objective is clear but is it practical?

I think it is useful to look at the most affordable capital city in Europe with the largest council housing stock on the continent, namely Vienna. In Vienna, the council owns over 200,000 homes (and growing) and social housing is the tenure of choice for the vast majority of residents. However, council housing on its own does not create an effective housing system even here. There are also around 200,000 homes owned by housing association equivalents (which are completely ignored in the Green motion and in the Party Policy set out on their website) and a thriving private rented sector. While someone who has lived in Vienna for two years can apply for social housing, the place they wait (owner occupation is less than 20% of the stock) or if they are living there for a short period, is the private rented sector. There are rent controls on private rentals built before the war but not on newer properties, this ensures that there is still an incentive for the equivalent of the build to rent sector to provide new homes in the city. Vienna’s housing system would not work without a private sector element.

The Green Party website correctly notes that there are over a million households on council waiting lists and the party is committed to building 150,000 social homes in a year (again it is silent on housing associations, although the resolution only commits to finance for councils). The general churn in social housing tenancies is falling behind of demand but let us assume for this argument that it neutral, i.e. that the number of people joining the waiting list matches the numbers rehoused in social housing relets. To clear the current waiting list would be 7 years. Where will people live for those seven years if there is no private rented system, assuming, I think completely reasonably, that they cannot afford to buy.

Where will people who do not qualify or will not be a priority for council housing and who cannot afford to buy live? This includes students, mobile workers, single men, childless couples etc.

While I understand the motivation for the policy, I honestly have no understanding of how this produces a workable practical housing system. If the road to hell is pathed with good intentions, this is that road. In the short to medium term this policy would result in massive levels of homelessness, much worse than now. And as a postscript I would love to know what the Green Party policy position on housing associations is, the current one seems to assume a false dichotomy of council housing (with maybe some cooperative and community led housing thrown in) and private landlords. It is just not that simple.

Categories
Blog Post Class of 2024

The Retrofit Challenge: Why Leasehold Flats Risk Being Left Behind

As legally-binding zero carbon emissions targets for 2050 approach, the urgency to decarbonise the built environment has never been greater. Our homes account for 20% of national greenhouse gas emissions, largely due to reliance on fossil fuels for heating and hot water. Around 80% of today’s housing stock will remain in use by 2050, so retrofitting existing homes is key.

The scale of this challenge is immense. Retrofitting 29 million homes within 25 years demands not only technical innovation but also a coherent policy framework. Without decisive action, the UK risks falling short of its climate commitments, with significant implications for the environment and the cost of living.

High energy bills continue to place pressure on household finances. More than three million households in England currently live in fuel poverty. Retrofitting offers a clear and measurable solution. Citizens Advice estimates that upgrading all homes to at least Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) Band C by 2030 could result in nearly £24 billion in direct savings on household bills. These savings would ease financial strain for millions of residents and contribute to broader economic gains, bringing close to £40 billion in benefits to the economy by 2030 alone.

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

Decarbonising leasehold flats is vital

Among our housing stock, leasehold flats represent a substantial and often overlooked segment. Approximately 4.83 million homes in England are under leasehold arrangements – nearly 20% of all dwellings. Many of these (3.5 million) are flats, which pose unique retrofit challenges.

The importance of including leasehold flats in our national retrofit strategy cannot be overstated. Leaseholders in these homes already bear a disproportionate financial burden, particularly in relation to building safety issues stemming from remediation of historical construction flaws and the new regulatory regime. In addition, leaseholders often face dual energy charges, paying not only for their individual flat but also contributing to communal energy expenses. This layered financial responsibility means leaseholders typically incur significantly higher costs than the average resident.

Special attention required

Retrofitting leasehold blocks presents distinct physical and logistical challenges that set these properties apart from detached or semi-detached houses. The shared nature of these buildings – walls, roofs, staircases, floors, etc. – means that energy efficiency upgrades cannot be carried out by singular good-faith actors in isolation.

For example, installing cavity wall insulation in a single flat is often impossible – the cavity runs the full height of the building and thus must typically be installed in an entire block. Similarly, fitting solar panels on the roof of a leasehold block requires collective consent, as the roof is a communal asset. The same applies to replacing communal windows, installing heat pumps, or undertaking any structural changes that affect shared areas. Coordination across all leaseholders and the freeholder is essential, and often difficult to achieve.

Legal and financial constraints

Legal and financial constraints also present significant obstacles to retrofitting leasehold flats. Many leases contain restrictive clauses that prevent leaseholders from independently undertaking energy efficiency improvements. These provisions, often designed to safeguard the structural integrity of the building and protect other residents, inadvertently block even modest upgrades such as installing insulation or replacing windows. As such, many retrofit initiatives affecting communal infrastructure, or one flat, must navigate a complex web of permissions and approvals.

Meanwhile, in most cases, leaseholders are only responsible for paying for routine repairs and maintenance, not for enhancements or improvements. This distinction means that retrofit improvements usually need to be funded entirely by the freeholder. While this arrangement shields leaseholders from incurring unnecessary costs for unwanted building enhancements, it also creates a significant retrofit barrier.

The cost of retrofitting, then, is another major hurdle. Energy efficiency improvements can be expensive. Existing government funding schemes often overlook the unique challenges posed by multi-occupancy buildings, leaving leasehold flats underrepresented in national retrofit efforts and often blocked from accessing funding.

The role of the APPG for Future Homes, Skills and Innovation

Even with consensus and financing, retrofit delivery is often delayed by shortages of skilled tradespeople and materials, making improvements time-consuming and resource-intensive.

Thus, retrofitting leasehold flats demands more than technical fixes. Namely, investment in skills and a culture of innovation. This is where the APPG for Future Homes, Skills and Innovation comes in.

With 70% of the 2030 retrofit workforce already in employment, we must upskill existing workers, expand apprenticeships and align technical education with industry needs. Faster adoption of new technologies and a clear vision for housing delivery are critical.

The APPG is calling for targeted training to close the retrofit skills gap, funding schemes that support collaboration on leasehold properties, and joined-up policy across housing, skills and climate adaptation. It also champions UK-led innovation to improve housing quality and energy efficiency, ensuring homes are both warm and healthy.

Government intervention is essential

Without reform, this significant segment of our housing stock risks being left behind in the Net Zero transition.

The forthcoming Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill presents a timely opportunity to address these issues. By introducing implied terms that exempt energy efficiency upgrades from restrictive lease clauses, leaseholders would be empowered to take action. These reforms, together with skills and innovation, will be key to creating sustainable, future-ready homes.

Under the current system, the leasehold sector cannot be ignored on the race to Net Zero. The Government is already making real progress towards its Net Zero 2050 target and tackling fuel poverty through its Plan for Change, which is driving up housing standards and cutting energy bills by requiring all private landlords to meet EPC Band C or higher by 2030. The forthcoming Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill is the next chance to turn that momentum into lasting change, bringing an end to the feudal leasehold system and removing barriers to energy efficiency upgrades.

By taking decisive action, the Government can ensure that leaseholders are not left behind. The benefits – lower energy bills, improved living conditions, and a healthier planet – are too important to ignore.

Categories
Blog Post

Autumn Budget 2025: Five priorities to turn the corner on the housing crisis

This year’s Autumn Budget comes at a pivotal moment for housing. The government’s Spending Review made welcome commitments to boost social and affordable housing supply – with a £39 billion, 10-year investment programme that gives the sector much-needed certainty – particularly now that the Social and Affordable Homes Programme (SAHP) prospectus has been published. And the recently passed Renters’ Rights Act marks a turning point for the experience of private renters. But while these lay the groundwork for progress in the years ahead, the pressures facing millions of households right now are urgent and growing.

Homelessness is at record levels. More than 131,000 households – including 170,000 children – are trapped in temporary accommodation, often for years. Supported housing is at breaking point, squeezed by rising costs and shrinking funding. Meanwhile, one in five private rented homes still fail to meet basic standards, and many housing providers are struggling to balance investment in their existing homes with plans for new supply.

Against this backdrop, CIH is calling on the government to use the Autumn Budget to back a long-term plan for a sustainable, fair and healthy housing system.

sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

1. Invest in supported housing and housing-related support

Supported housing enables more than 600,000 people – from older residents to those recovering from homelessness or domestic abuse – to live safely and independently. It saves the NHS and social care system millions by preventing hospital admissions, supporting discharge, and reducing pressure on overstretched services.

Yet this vital sub-sector is under severe threat. Six in ten supported housing providers have closed services in the past year, and many more warn they could follow without sustainable funding. CIH, alongside sector partners, is calling for an emergency fund to prevent further closures, together with a dedicated, long-term funding stream for housing-related support, similar in ambition to the former Supporting People programme.

2. Reform welfare to prevent homelessness

Far too many people are being pushed into homelessness simply because they can’t afford their rent. Frozen local housing allowance (LHA) rates are leaving fewer than three in 100 private homes affordable to those on housing benefit. Councils spent £2.8 billion on temporary accommodation last year – a 25% rise in 12 months – while nearly half of private renters on universal credit now face rent shortfalls.

Restoring LHA rates to cover at least the 30th percentile of local rents from 2026/27 would prevent thousands from losing their homes and save public money in the long term – a call echoed by housing organisations and charities across the UK.

We’re also urging government to scrap the shared accommodation rate for young people and care leavers, review the benefit cap, and remove the two-child limit, which pushes hundreds of thousands of children into poverty and overcrowded housing.

Alongside this, extending energy bill support beyond winter 2025/26 is critical to protect low-income households from rising costs and prevent a further wave of fuel poverty.

3. Confront the homelessness emergency

Whilst new supply is on the horizon, right now homelessness services are overwhelmed: record numbers of families are stuck in unsuitable temporary accommodation, while frontline charities and councils warn of a funding cliff edge. The latest Homeless Monitor England highlights the scale of the challenge.  

CIH is calling for a multi-year, ringfenced homelessness strategy, backed by sustainable funding and reform of the temporary accommodation subsidy system – unchanged since 2011. Uprating the subsidy to reflect current market rents would provide councils with breathing space and reduce the risk of bankruptcy.

We argue the government should also scale up Housing First as the default offer for people with complex needs. Evidence from pilots in Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region and the West Midlands show tenancy sustainment rates above 80% and substantial savings to public services.

A cross-departmental approach is vital too – bringing housing, health, and immigration policy together to end the use of costly and unsuitable “asylum hotels” and ensure local authorities have the resources to provide sustainable accommodation.

4. Drive up the quality of existing homes

The government’s proposed new Decent Homes Standard and its long-term rent policy mark real progress. But without the right investment and social rent convergence set at an appropriate level, landlords will struggle to deliver the improvements required.

Social landlords face competing demands: decency, net zero, damp and mould remediation under Awaab’s Law, building safety and wider compliance duties – all while managing significant financial pressure, most notably for local authorities given deficits in over a third of Housing Revenue Accounts. The financial squeeze risks forcing councils and housing associations to divert funds from new development to meet minimum standards.

We’re urging ministers to establish a long-term, modernised Decent Homes Programme, bringing together quality and safety into a single funded framework. Investment in existing homes is not just about compliance – it’s a matter of public health and economic value. Poor housing costs the NHS £1.4 billion each year. Warmer, safer homes would improve wellbeing, cut bills, and support the transition to net zero.

5. Make housing taxation fairer

Finally, we’re calling for a comprehensive review of the tax system related to housing, to be more progressive and effective.

The current system entrenches inequality and distorts the market. Council tax remains based on property values from 1991, making it regressive and regionally unbalanced. Stamp duty discourages mobility and downsizing. Meanwhile, recent tax changes to curb buy-to-let activity have had a positive impact on first-time buyer access – demonstrating that fiscal levers can be used strategically to rebalance the market.

It’s time for a fundamental redesign of property taxation that supports fairness, efficient use of housing, and long-term affordability.

A moment for leadership

The government’s long-term ambition to build 1.5 million homes and boost economic and social growth is to be lauded, but will not be achieved through new supply alone, as our recent UK Housing Review briefing demonstrates. Without tackling homelessness, investing in existing homes, and reforming welfare and taxation, we will continue to treat the symptoms of the housing crisis rather than its causes.

This Autumn Budget and the promised long-term housing and homelessness strategies are a chance to act decisively – to protect vital supported housing, lift families out of poverty, and create the conditions for a sustainable housing system that supports health, growth, and opportunity; now and for decades to come.