Categories
Blog Post Class of 2024

Ending out-of-borough temporary accommodation must be a key part of Labour’s mission

Image from the Centre for Homeless Impact's image library

Before the 2024 general election, the housing crisis in Britain had reached truly critical levels, with one of the most visible and harmful symptoms being the increasing use of out-of-borough placements. These occur when local councils, unable to find suitable or affordable accommodation within their own boundaries, place households—often vulnerable families with children—in temporary housing far from their local communities, family, and connections. 

The root causes of this phenomenon are clear. Between 2010 and 2024, successive Conservative governments oversaw a sharp decline in the construction of social housing, despite rising demand and a growing need for decisive action. A recent report by Shelter emphasises that between 2014-2024, we’ve seen a net loss of 260,000 social rent homes. Combined with the erosion of local authority budgets and a creaking planning system, out-of-borough placements became the defining symptom of a deeply ineffective national housing strategy. 

These placements often have severe and negative consequences. Families are torn away from schools, jobs, and support networks, placing an enormous strain on mental health and family dynamics. Children must often change schools with little notice, and parents may lose access to childcare, employment, or vital community support structures.  

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

Out-of-borough placements provide no solution to Britain’s housing crisis—they simply shift the pressure elsewhere. Receiving councils often lack the resources to accommodate incoming households, while the demand artificially drives up local rents and reduces availability for residents. I’ve seen this first-hand both as a local councillor and now an MP in my own constituency, Gillingham and Rainham.  

That is why, since taking office in July last year, this Labour government has taken strategic steps to address both the immediate harms and the underlying causes of out-of-borough placements. At the heart of this effort is a dual approach: reducing the need for such placements by increasing the supply of affordable homes and improving oversight and coordination between councils when they do occur. 

Paramount to this strategy, is the government’s commitment to building 1.5 million new homes by 2029, including a substantial expansion of social and council housing. Alongside nearly £40 billion for affordable and social homes announced at the recent spending review, we are introducing local housing targets, streamlined planning, increased ‘land value capture’, devolved housing responsibilities, collaboration with private investment, and the strengthening of tenancy rights through the transformative Renters’ Rights Bill. Combined, these measures will enable us to deliver the biggest boost in social and affordable housing in a generation.  

As a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government (HCLG) Select Committee, I have repeatedly called for increased data tracking and measurement tools to give us greater insights into this problem. Currently, no centralised record exists, making it difficult to understand the true scale of displacement and to plan appropriate interventions. Without this shared measurement platform, it becomes increasingly difficult to form an effective national strategy. Therefore, I am pleased that the government has announced it will make data more publicly accessible, as well as working with local authorities and MHCLG’s expert homelessness advisors closely to ensure data quality and reporting practices improve. This is an important first step. 

I have also advocated for a review of the funding allocation model for local authorities, having seen first-hand the inefficiencies of our current system as a local councillor. Presently, host councils are often penalised for hosting out-of-area placements, as housing benefit and homelessness support funding are tied to the placing authority. In November 2024 the Government announced that from 2026/27 it will move gradually towards an updated allocation system for council funding. This will build on the proposals set out in the previous Government’s Review of Relative Needs and Resources (the ‘Fair Funding Review’). 

Critically, the HCLG committee have proposed strengthening communication protocols between local authorities, requiring councils to notify and consult with each other when placing families beyond their borders. This measure aims to reduce friction, increase accountability, and ensure that vulnerable families are not abandoned in unfamiliar locations with no authority to turn to for support. 

Whilst these are initial steps, they are vital in allowing us to build a coherent plan of action to tackle the scale of out-of-borough placements. With local authorities’ use of temporary accommodation increasing by 9% in London, 50% in the South East of England, 73% in the South West, and 216% in the North East, the need to undertake more formalised monitoring of the use of out-of-borough placements is key. The government’s focus on data, coordination, and housing supply is beginning to shift the conversation. Local councils and housing charities have reacted positively to the renewed emphasis on long-term solutions rather than temporary fixes, but there is still much work to be done. 

Alongside this, the strengthening of tenants’ rights through new legislation will also help us to combat the problem. This Labour government’s new Renters’ Rights Bill, which abolishes Section 21 “no fault” evictions, will help reduce the flow of households into temporary accommodation in the first place. Many out-of-borough placements stem from sudden evictions, especially in parts of the country where the rental market is unregulated and highly competitive. By removing the means by which rogue landlords evict families at short notice, we can prevent even more people from entering this negative cycle or relocation. 

The broader housing strategy fundamentally lays essential groundwork for reducing out-of-borough placements over time. The Prime Minister’s ‘Get on and Build’ mantra is epitomised by recently announced new powers for councils to keep housebuilders on track, and a promise for housebuilding timeframes to be set before planning permission is granted. Developers who repeatedly fail to build out or use planning permissions to trade land speculatively could face new ‘Delayed Homes Penalty’ or be locked out of future permissions by councils. The message from this government could not be clearer, it’s time to build at scale. 

The HCLG’s recent report investigating the ‘Crisis in Temporary Accommodation’, gives key insights and recommendations for how we can combat the national housing emergency. The initial steps mentioned are key, but there are future changes which should be considered to meaningfully reduce out-of-borough placements and restore housing stability. 

As highlighted, the creation of a national database would be significant. By introducing a central record of out-of-borough placements, local and national authorities will be better equipped to identify trends, coordinate responses, and evaluate the effectiveness of current policies. This should help to prevent families from falling through the cracks and ensure that vulnerable households receive appropriate follow-up care. 

We should also ensure that housing targets are matched by delivery mechanisms. This means reforming the planning system to prioritise affordable and social housing, empowering local authorities with land-buying powers, and enabling councils to borrow and build at scale.  

Lastly, the voices of those with lived experience should be central to policy design. Families who have been moved miles away from their communities know better than anyone the emotional and practical toll this system imposes. Their insight can help shape both placement policy and housing strategy for a more effective system overall. 

Out-of-borough placements are a stark symptom of a housing system that has long failed to meet people’s needs. The previous government’s inaction allowed thousands of families to be displaced from their communities—isolated, unsupported, and increasingly dependent on temporary housing. But with a renewed focus on building homes, reforming placements, and restoring local capacity, this Labour government is beginning to chart a new course. 

It won’t be fixed overnight. But by championing a ‘build now’ principle and improving oversight and coordination between local authorities, we can ensure that housing policy no longer uproots lives—but helps people plant roots instead.

See more from:

Categories
Blog Post Class of 2024

Safe as houses: how this Government is putting building safety at the top of the agenda.

Image by Okeanweb licensed under Pixabay

The UK has a housing crisis. After 14 years of failed Tory government, the symptoms of this crisis will be all-too-familiar to so many of our constituents. From skyrocketing rents to unaffordable homes, the housing shortage is having a huge impact, and this Government has rightly prioritised addressing this.

But there is another side to the housing crisis that is equally important: building safety. Events of recent years have put this issue at the forefront of our national conversation about housing. It has been eight years since that terrible night in June 2017 when the fire tore through Grenfell Tower due to unsafe flammable cladding and claimed at least 72 lives. It seems scarcely believable that after all this time so much vital safety work has not even begun. How can it be that thousands still live in fear of another cladding fire?

This is a problem that I know only too well. My constituency of Southampton Itchen has one of the highest number of high-rise buildings with unsafe cladding in Hampshire. Shockingly, remediation work has started at barely a third of these properties. My casework inbox and surgeries are full of heartbreaking stories from residents, including from leaseholders who cannot sell because banks will not offer mortgages on their properties. Those in this unenviable position tell me they feel like prisoners, trapped in homes where they do not feel safe. Others are finding themselves suddenly evacuated from their homes when their buildings fail long-delayed safety assessments. When, shortly after the election, I organised a meeting for constituents who had been affected by cladding, our large meeting room was filled by more than 60 constituents, each with their own story of stress and uncertainty stretching back months and years. Enough is enough. My constituents – and others across the country – have lived with this nightmare for too long.

sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

I am pleased that after years of dither and delay, we are finally seeing some meaningful action in this area. The government’s strengthened Remediation Acceleration Plan should help to overcome the most serious barriers that have slowed down the process to a snail’s pace. More stringent target dates for making buildings safe and tougher penalties for developers and landlords who do not meet their obligations are long overdue.

It is a fundamental principle of fairness that homeowners and tenants should not have to carry to cost of fixing building safety issues. Why should my constituents who bought or rent their homes in good faith be penalised for something that is not their fault? They should not – and I am pleased that this government agrees, as shown by its determination to bring forward the introduction of the new Building Safety Levy to Autumn 2026. This is a levy on new residential buildings that meet certain criteria, and it will raise revenue to be spent on building safety. It is a vital measure to ensure that the industry that holds collective responsibility for long-standing building safety issues make a fair contribution, and that ordinary hardworking people aren’t left out of pocket.

It is right and fair that we extract a fair contribution from the housing industry, and by bringing the levy into effect in Autumn 2026, the government is giving registered Building Control approvers time to prepare for the levy; and housing developers who will pay the levy will have reasonable time to factor levy cost into their financial planning. It may be that we need to go further in ensuring that housing providers are not rewarded for failure, and as we look forward to an uptick in construction activity, I think that many of my constituents would agree that any housing providers that do not comply with their obligations to homeowners and tenants should be firmly out of the running for any new contracts or funding.

These are all steps in the right direction that will be welcomed by constituents. But we need to do more. When I met with the Building Safety Minister Alex Norris recently, I suggested several policy priorities that have emerged from and been shaped by the many conversations which I have had with those affected. Some of these focused specifically on cladding and fire safety – for example, further work to support leaseholders living in developments below the 11-metre threshold. But others spoke to the increasingly common opinion among my constituents that our archaic and centuries-old leasehold system is no longer fit for purpose. With so many leaseholders suffering delays to remediation and other fire safety works due to unfair and unreasonable practices from managing agents and landlords, it is little wonder that so many of my constituents feel that it’s high time for more radical change.

The Labour Government has rightly pledged to get Britain building again and finally deliver the new homes that are so desperately needed. But surely one of the lessons from this long-running crisis is that speed and cost-cutting cannot be at the expense of safety. That is why my constituents have supported my call for measures to ensure the long-term quality and standards of future housing developments.             

Many long-suffering constituents – especially leaseholders, who bought their homes in good faith – tell me that they have heard too many promises before. While this scepticism is understandable, the onus is now on all of us across Westminster and beyond to show that actions speak louder than words. While there is still much to do, our first year in power has seen this government clearly signal its intention to get to grips with building safety, and I hope this gives my constituents the confidence that the action they have waited so long for is finally on its way.

See also:

Categories
Blog Post Class of 2024

Can building homes help Labour beat populism? 

Image by Mikael Blomkvist licensed under Pexels

Populist politics thrive when people feel the system is not working for them. Nowhere is this clearer than in the housing system, which has failed too many for too long. Over 1.3 million homes currently sit empty, rents are at record highs, and many young people are forced to live with their parents well into adulthood. If Labour is to win against the populist Right, we must show that we can make the basics work for ordinary people. And being able to put a warm, safe, affordable roof over your head is surely the most of basic of rights.

Labour’s commitment to building 1.5 million homes within this Parliament represents more than just housing policy – it is a political opportunity. It is a chance to demonstrate that we can deliver real change. To show that we can tackle the cost-of-living crisis, drive economic growth, and equip a new generation with the skills they need to thrive. And in doing so we can undercut the populist playbook, help to repair some of the lost faith in mainstream politics, and provide the job opportunities that give people hope for the future.

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

We know the previous Conservative government failed to invest in council or social housing, failed to make the case for housebuilding, and failed to align our education system with the skills needed to build the homes we so desperately require. Not because the challenge was insurmountable, but because of a lack of political will. The consequences of this are stark. In 1991, 67 per cent of 23 to 34-year-olds in the UK owned a home. By 2024, that figure had fallen to around 15 per cent. Meanwhile, the private rented sector became unbalanced against renters, and our social housing stock was decimated from the Thatcherite Right to Buy policies of the 1980s. 

Housing was never a problem that was going to be solved with a few tweaks. It needed a bold solution, and thankfully the new Labour government is committed to delivering that through both practical support and strong political messaging. I frequently say that skills underpin the ability of Labour to meet all its five missions in Government, but nowhere is this more obvious than in the goal to build 1.5 million new homes to finally deal with the supply problem that has characterised the housing crisis for decades.

So, what is Labour doing to support construction skills? 

Firstly, we have allocated funding for 120,000 extra educational places for young people to gain construction skills. Providing opportunities for young people who are not academic, and holding technical training and qualifications in the same esteem as university, was an important pillar of Keir Starmer’s messaging in the lead up to the General Election. I was delighted to hear how much he valued technical education when announcing the skills mission at Mid-Kent College in my constituency last year, drawing on his father’s employment experience as a toolmaker. There is still more to do to improve people’s attitudes towards technical skills and knowledge of the career opportunities they can lead to. The Government’s planned overhaul of the National Careers Service, which will be more integrated with local Job Centres, gives us the opportunity to do this but we must start reaching young people earlier – ideally in primary school.

We have also created Skills England, a new body within the Department for Education, that I hope will be more nimble and responsive to business needs, and which will have clear Ministerial accountability to the Education Secretary. This link to business is important – we must make sure that we are giving people the training that will lead to a job at the end of it. Thankfully, our other reforms, such as scrapping the failed Apprenticeship Levy, will make it easier for businesses to engage with our currently complex and fragmented skills system. More details will follow from Ministers about how the new Growth and Skills Levy, which replaces the Apprenticeship Levy, will work. But we do know that it will be designed to be simpler and more flexible to business needs, two principles which have been hugely welcomed by employers, skills providers, and trade bodies, and particularly those in the construction sector.

I am particularly keen to see that the Growth and Skills Levy works for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). In Medway, which includes my Rochester and Strood constituency, over ninety per cent of all businesses are SMEs. This is a common situation outside our major cities. I know from my visits to local businesses and roundtable discussions that many SMEs do not engage with the apprenticeship system, although they would like to, because they have had bad experiences in the past trying to navigate it. While larger businesses have Human Resource departments that help with this, smaller businesses struggle both with the paperwork involved and the loss of a staff member for extended periods from the “shop floor” during training. It is imperative that Labour’s new system works for all types of businesses. Otherwise, areas like mine, whose economies and labour markets are dominated by SMEs, will not be able to see that extra money for construction skills translate into local jobs and economic growth.

It is giving people opportunities and a better quality of living that will help us tackle the threat of populist parties like Reform. The skills policies I have outlined above, combined with the £3.9bn per year for the next decade allocated to a new Affordable Homes Programme in the Comprehensive Spending Review, are major steps towards achieving that goal within this parliament. But this is about more than policy – it is also about persuasion. We must take the British people on a journey with us. We must win the argument that housebuilding is not just necessary – it is the right thing to do. It is right for jobs, for growth, for small and medium-sized businesses, and for the future of our communities.

Many of the UK’s think-tanks are analysing the recent local elections results that saw Reform do so well. One of the correlations with a high Reform turnout was a low percentage of people with degrees. One hypothesis is that opportunities for non-graduates are poor, and that this translates into a lack of social mobility and feelings that the system does not work for them. Well paid, skilled jobs, like those in construction, are a straightforward way that Labour can tackle this. Doing so will not only provide the opportunities that people from non-graduate backgrounds want and need, it will also help us build the decent quality homes that many people feel have fallen out of reach. By tackling these twin concerns around jobs and homes, we can start to make people feel the system is working for them again thanks to a Labour government.

See more from:

Categories
Blog Post Class of 2024

New Towns are a Labour success story – now these young towns need Labour again

I owe a big part of my identity to the New Towns Act 1946. I was born and raised in Telford; it’s integral to who I am, and being a New Town is integral to what Telford is.

Towns like Telford, Milton Keynes, Northampton and Washington have a unique story to tell, and it’s a story not enough people know. We’re living, breathing embodiments of the aspiration and social mobility that characterised Attlee’s and Wilson’s Britain. New Towns made a new life possible for families like mine: it wasn’t just a massive increase in the housing supply – though that was significant – it was access to jobs, education and training, high-quality green space and nature, new communities. New Towns were a new vision for a new Britain.

To this day, if you take a visit to Telford you can see that vision. Telford & Wrekin Council builds homes at a faster rate than almost any other local authority in the country – with more than 1,200 new homes built last year alone – and the design of our town means there’s no conflict between housebuilding and protecting green spaces. Quite the opposite: access to green space is one of the most important assets a new home can have, and Telford was designed with that in mind. The work of the Labour-run council, including during my time as Leader, has given our town 20 designated nature reserves (with three more proposed) covering over 600 hectares, and more than 300 protected green spaces – comfortably above the national average. The great strength of New Towns is that they’re built to facilitate community, giving residents access to schools, education, retail and other key infrastructure on their doorstep.

Existing towns, cities and villages have a tendency to entrench inequality and deprivation. Living in a poorer area – an area with higher crime rates, worse transport connectivity, fewer schools, fewer jobs – can deny you opportunities, and without those opportunities it can be hard to escape the area that’s holding you back. New Towns – or, as we call ourselves now, young towns – like Telford offered a fresh start, and in a time when living standards were rising and families could dream of a better future for their children, that new start was an opportunity to forge a better life.

There’s an all-too-familiar twist in the New Towns fairytale, though: like with most of what’s great about this country, it all changed when the Tories got their hands on it. New Towns aren’t a fait accomplit; you’re trying to recreate the centuries of development that most towns have under their belts in just a few decades, so you need continued investment and attention to sustain the rapid growth.

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

Instead, the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s did what Conservatives do best: wash their hands of all responsibility, and turn growth into decline. New Town Development Corporations – key to successful building, planning and growth – gave way to inert quangos and private corporations, which served to block growth rather than facilitate it.

Every New Town MP and council leader will tell you the same thing: all our housing and infrastructure was built at the same time, and a lack of regeneration means it’s all crumbling at the same time. Population growth, job creation and urban development have all stagnated because there hasn’t been the drive from central government to grow them, despite the obvious opportunities to do so. Starting with Thatcher, successive governments grew complacent; they saw the rapid growth of New Towns, and concluded that they were a complete project which would take care of themselves. They should have inferred that even more growth was possible if the effort was sustained.

Thanks to the new Labour Government, we’re seeing renewed focus on New Towns. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister both appreciate the massive role New Towns can play in fixing the housing crisis, and in kickstarting the growth and social mobility that we haven’t seen for far too long. Britain today isn’t the aspirational nation it once was, thanks to the Tories’ age-old approach of managed decline. Inequality has widened and solidified, and it’s grown much harder for parents like me to imagine greater prosperity and security for our children. New Towns can help fix that, offering parents stuck in deprived areas the chance of a safer, friendlier community, with better access to jobs, schools and more.

Given the scale of the housing crisis – and the nature of the solutions – we need to get to work quickly, and the Government has done that. The New Towns Taskforce has been fully established and begun its work, and the first step of the process – identifying potential sites – is well underway. Building New Towns is far from a quick fix, but ambition and urgency will make a major difference to the timescales we’re looking at. The Prime Minister has pledged that construction will start before the end of this Parliament – that’s exactly the kind of ambition we need.

What’s even more encouraging – but not appreciated enough – is that the Government understands the roles young towns can play in delivering new ones. New Towns have never been built from scratch; they’ve always been expansions of existing villages. When looking for sites, it would be foolish to overlook the towns with the highest rates of housebuilding and growth, and the greatest potential for more building – that’s New Towns, many of which are awash with space and boast strong track records of delivering high-quality homes at speed and scale. To that end, the reports that the 12 sites selected will include some young towns are very welcome.

What I and other champions of New Towns are at pains to stress, though, is that this isn’t all young towns have to offer when planning for new ones. The questions of how to resume growth of existing New Towns and how to successfully deliver the next generation of New Towns are one and the same. As I said earlier, the current generation of New Towns remain a work in progress; similarly, the success of the next generation won’t just be measured 20 years from now, it’ll be measured 60 years from now, when we’ll see whether these New Towns unlocked their full potential, or just became like any other towns.

In Telford, Stevenage, Basildon and other young towns, we have a blueprint for the next generation – and in some cases, we have the structure around which the next generation will be built. Now is the perfect opportunity to revive the political will of our Labour forebears and make our New Towns the major urban centres they can be, so that when the next generation of New Towns have been set up, they’ll know where to go – and they’ll know that the sky’s the limit.

And in more practical terms, if we want to deliver exponential regional growth – which is an imperative given the anaemic growth outside the South-East we’ve seen over the last few decades – we need to create new hubs around which to build future settlements. One of the most important variables in the trajectories of existing New Towns has been their proximity to a town or city that itself has been growing. Milton Keynes, for example, has benefitted from having London on its doorstep; Telford is likewise better off for having Birmingham as a neighbour. It’s much easier to entice people to a New Town if you can offer the jobs and opportunities of a thriving population centre a short drive or train journey away. Now, what London was (and is) to Milton Keynes, Milton Keynes can be to the rest of Bedfordshire; what Birmingham is to Telford, Telford can be to Shropshire and Mid-Wales. If we create jobs, wealth and vibrant communities in our young towns, it’ll become much easier to create new settlements in areas around them with the potential to build.

2024 wasn’t quite 1945 – there’s been no world war, no destruction, no big reset – but we can see that same need for optimism and aspiration today that drove Attlee’s governments back then. Building a New Jerusalem meant making what had previously been pipe dreams possible for people who had previously been trapped in poverty or insecurity, and while the scale might be smaller today, New Towns are part of the New Jerusalem that’s needed. New Towns symbolise that aspiration and the chance of social mobility, and they symbolise turning decline and inequality into growth and opportunity. This Government must be a successor to Attlee, not to Thatcher, and deliver that New Jerusalem.

These clusters of housing and economic growth, created by Labour and protected by Labour, now stand ready as confident young towns – with the ability, the aspiration, the hunger to once more contribute to the re-building of Britain.

See more from:

Categories
Blog Post

The Supported Housing Act needs to back good providers

Image from Age without limit's Age-positive image library

In February, the Government announced detailed proposals to take forward the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act, including new national standards, a licensing regime, and changes to Housing Benefit.

The Act went through Parliament in 2023 in response to the emergence of rogue, poor-quality landlords in the sector, charging high rents but providing little meaningful support for residents.

The Act’s aim is to ensure consistent, high-quality standards across the country, whether the supported housing is for those who have experienced homelessness, older people, people with learning disabilities, or other groups in need.

While the introduction of national standards and a push towards higher quality is much-needed, the Act needs to get the balance right in driving out rogue providers, while ensuring good-quality providers do not face negative consequences.

There are several areas where we think the government needs to think again.

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

An important drive towards national standards

The overall ambition of the Act – to ensure only providers who meet new standards are given a licence to operate – is the right one.

In its initial proposals, the government has set out principles to guide the supported housing sector, plus seven different standards that providers will be measured against. These include standards focused on person-centred support, empowering residents, protecting the environment, staff and safeguarding, and meeting local need.

As part of Emmaus UK’s response to a government consultation on these measures, we surveyed 161 residents and staff at our own supported housing charities and heard strong support for the standards, averaging at 93% agreement for the seven standards. In a series of workshops, residents told us the standards largely reflect what they believe is good-quality supported housing.

It was also clear, however, that some standards need to be strengthened, including the need to give residents a wider range of ways to shape their support, and to enable strong relationships to be built with multiple support staff.

We also recommend the government ensures alignment with other standards many providers already follow, for instance, via the Regulator of Social Housing. The standards should also include a greater focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion, ensuring supported housing meets the needs of specific groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community and women.

Backing good providers

Emmaus UK has concerns with the possible impact of new measures on good-quality providers, in many cases smaller organisations. Large amounts of money, time, and resources will be required for providers to apply for licenses, and evidence that they are meeting the new standards.

The result could be greater pressures being placed on the supported housing sector. We are already in a place where, last year, a third of supported housing providers had to close schemes because of funding pressures, and 60% say they will be forced to close schemes in the future.

There are several specific steps which we think the Government can take to reduce pressures. Firstly, providers need additional funding to go alongside the new burdens, funding we anticipate local authorities will receive. There should be detailed and ongoing guidance, support and training, including maximum transparency on requirements and having an adequate lead-in time to meet the standards. Local authorities should also provide training in their areas.

Secondly, the government should reconsider the definition of a ‘scheme’. Under current proposals, each separate postal address would require a separate licence. This could leave providers with lots of dispersed supported housing of only a few units each in an impossible position. They would need many different licences, driving up costs and disincentivising this type of supported housing at a time when more is desperately needed.

Thirdly, the government needs to ensure greater consistency in how the Act is rolled out across the country. We do not think it will be necessary for local authorities to apply discretionary conditions, which could create unpredictability for providers operating in different areas. We also believe that there should be a standardised licence fee rate rather than authorities choosing different amounts, or at the very least a cap.

Homeless Link have proposed a new national body to oversee licensing and ensure geographical consistency, something which we would support.

Creating a thriving supported housing sector

Making these practical improvements will help to get the balance right in bringing in strong new standards, while helping good providers to operate well.

We know the Act is not the only piece in the jigsaw to help the supported housing sector thrive. That is why we are backing the National Housing Federation’s ‘Save Our Supported Housing’ campaign, calling for the government’s housing-related support to increase to at least £1.6bn per year and for the homelessness and housing strategies to recognise the vital role of our sector.

Indeed, the withdrawal of funding for supported housing has contributed to the rise in the rogue, bad-quality providers seeking profit that the Supported Housing Act seeks to eliminate.

Getting the Supported Housing Act right is crucial for creating the high-quality supported housing sector that residents deserve. While there is strong support from residents and staff for new standards, we strongly urge the government to consider the impact on good-quality, often small, providers.

Let’s get this crucial piece of legislation right.

Categories
Blog Post

Not so nimby after all?

Politicians, like people, often define themselves by what they are not – by what, and who, they are opposed to. They usually like to do so knowing they have public opinion on their side.

Before last year’s election, Sir Keir Starmer was happy to identify as a YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) – someone who is supportive of local housebuilding – rather than a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) and committed to backing the “builders over the blockers”.

But is the country on his side? Ipsos polling suggests that they are, with Britons’ instincts appearing to be more ‘build’, than ‘block’. In principle, 46% support building more homes in their local area, while 25% oppose it. But a substantial 24% are neither supportive nor opposed and other Ipsos research has shown attitudes to be conditional, based on what is proposed.

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

However, if people lean more instinctively towards YIMBYism, they do not know it. While 26% expect that more people support building new homes than oppose it, 42% think that more oppose than support it and 20% think support and opposition are matched (12% say they do not know).

This suggests that NIMBYism is less prevalent than is often portrayed. NIMBYs are, themselves, particularly out of touch – while 28% of those who support building new homes wrongly believe that opponents outnumber supporters, 72% of opponents to new homes wrongly believe that they are in the majority.

This matters because, when asked what the primary factors are contributing to Britain’s housing shortage, the public continue to see opposition at the top of the list, alongside the financial position of local councils preventing them from building new homes, and a restrictive planning system. It is especially salient among opponents of new building.

This data has several political implications. First, it should embolden Labour, and local politicians, to be positive about housebuilding in both language and deed. Second, it gives YIMBYs a new target to take on – in addition to NIMBYism itself – the mistaken notion that opposition to housebuilding is the prevailing social norm (something which can be an important influence on public opinion).

These findings should give encouragement to YIMBYs and supporters of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Moreover, polling shows that the public tend towards supporting rather than opposing several of the Government’s planning policies, ranging from the mandatory installation of solar panels on new-build property to developing ‘grey belt’ land.

But there is also plenty of jeopardy ahead for Labour. Britons think that the means of how housebuilding is done matters as much, if not more, than the ends. Six in ten (61%) say that higher priority should be given to protecting and improving the environment even if it means fewer homes are built, three times the proportion (19%) who say that priority should be given to building homes quickly, even if it comes at the expense of environmental concerns.

An identical pattern exists in favour of prioritising the views of local councils and residents over the volume and speed of construction, a preference which is particularly strong among opponents of new building.

These sentiments explain the relative unpopularity of one component of the Bill – the extension of compulsory purchase – and the popularity of another – requiring developers to contribute to a Nature Restoration Fund.

In a similar vein, previous polling by Ipsos found that the public prioritises improving the quality and design of new homes over simply increasing the number of homes built (by contrast, MPs view both aspects as equally important). And public support for building varies according to the design aesthetics of new builds.

To put it mildly, the politics of housebuilding is littered with potential traps for politicians of all stripes. What makes public opinion endlessly fascinating, sometimes frustrating, is its nuance. People favour local decision-making but also central targets. They see the merits of new housing supply but bemoan the strain on existing infrastructure.

The data suggests that NIMBYism isn’t the dominating force it is sometimes made out to be, but neither can YIMBYs just turn up and win. While there is significant appetite for both building and planning reform, these are views, not values, liable to shift and change according to people’s lived and local experiences.

The public – and Labour’s own voters – will not look kindly on a system that shuts out local people who will live in, or nearby, over a million new homes.

Builders build houses. But so too do hearts and minds.

Categories
Blog Post

Foundations for the Future: how can new delivery models help to mitigate the housing emergency?

Bosco verticale, Milan, Italy. Original public domain image from Wikimedia Commons

Nearly a year into the Government’s term, housing delivery and planning reform is clearly a top priority. The recently introduced Planning and Infrastructure Bill aims to support its ambitious target of delivering 1.5 million more homes over the course of this Parliament, while reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) were also pushed through by the end of 2024.

But we need to focus not just on delivery, but also on tenure. Research has identified a need for 145,000 new affordable homes per year up to 2031, including 90,000 for social rent. However  only 36% of identified need for affordable housing has been met over the last decade. With 1.3 million households in England currently on social housing waiting lists, there is a clear moral imperative to act.

Measures to boost affordable housing provision, such as through a recent injection of £2 billion of funding to the Affordable Homes Programme are welcome and long overdue. With the aim of building up to 18,000 new social and affordable homes, it’s clear that this alone comes nowhere close to meeting the scale of need we face. The upcoming Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) is a perfect opportunity to provide some certainty via multi-year funding settlements for social housing provision. With a long-term housing strategy also due for imminent publication, it’s high time to see ambitious and innovative measures to tackle the housing emergency.

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

RIBA’s report Foundations for the Future: a new delivery model for social housing aims to do just this. In it, we outline a new model based on a one-off initial investment from central government, which is used by local authorities to build homes for both social rent and market sale on land which is free at the point of use, such as local authority-owned land. This then eliminates, or at least significantly reduces, land cost – which can often stand in the way of building new homes.  

 The receipts from market sale homes are retained and then reinvested to build further homes for market sale and social rent. Not only does this promote mixed-use development, but reduces reliance on continuous central government funding to secure social housing provision – a real positive in the wider fiscal context. 

Our model is based on the following key assumptions:  

  1. The land being used for development is publicly owned and free at the point of use. As land cost is eliminated or substantially reduced, the cost of delivery is driven down. 
  2. Local authorities will deliver the housing stock, so the proposed model does not account for profit.  
  3. With land cost and profit being removed, the only costs remaining are the construction costs of building the new housing stock.  
  4. All revenue from the sale of homes on the open market is retained and reinvested for local authorities to use to build more social homes at a lower net cost.  

The market value of new homes is considerably higher than build costs in each region because land and profits are excluded. This means that in each region, for every market home sold, more than one home can be built. Our analysis shows that the ratio ranges from 1.4 new homes for every home sold in the North East, to 2.8 in the South West.  

This model is not intended as a silver bullet to provide an immediate fix, but instead as part of a wider suite of solutions. To illustrate its potential, a one-off investment of £1.24 billion – equivalent to local authority homelessness reduction spend in 2022/23 – from central government would build 20,350 homes, including 13,475 for social rent.

We know that the causes of the housing emergency are complex and broad, and the best solutions often context-dependent. What works well in London, for example, may not meet challenges in Tyneside. But what we hope the model does is demonstrate the potential of innovative approaches to housing delivery, and identify what is needed to enable us to build more social housing at scale.

 Local authority budgets are a key factor here. Planning departments experienced one of the most severe cuts in terms of real terms budget allocation from 2010 to 2020, with research showing that spending on planning is still down 40% from 2010/11.

These funding shortfalls have a real impact on local authorities’ ability to develop land, with most local authorities unable to access the resources or in-house expertise to directly deliver the construction and maintenance of major projects, including housing. Attention paid to this in the upcoming housing strategy and CSR could make a world of difference, allowing a boost to truly affordable housing while providing local authorities with an asset they can retain.

Margaret Mullane, Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham, says:

I have consistently made the case for social housing since entering politics, and fully endorse RIBA’s contribution to the debate. An initial increase in capital investment allowing councils to build as part of the Spending Review will help increase revenue and cut Housing Benefit bills over time, paving the way for more truly affordable homes in areas like mine.

With clear political appetite to boost housing supply, and a strong economic and moral case behind it, investing in models like ours is a chance for the Government to make a bold statement of intent – one that the wider housing sector is standing ready to help them deliver on.

Categories
Blog Post

Get on and build

Castle Reach in New Road develpopment for five bungalows and houses - site of the Old Drill Hall, image by Framlingham History Society.

Commentators from all corners have noted that successive Governments’ targets for housebuilding have not been reached in decades.  Labour has moved fast on planning reforms which lay the groundwork for a step change in land supply through changes to planning policy, introducing mandatory targets and opening up ‘grey-belt’ brownfield land for development.

The issue of slow building and under-delivery has been looked at by many in government and industry.  The 2018 Letwin Review into housing build-out found that lack of diversity in the housing market and over-reliance on a few large housebuilders was a fundamental driver of slow build-out of permissions.  The recent Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) housebuilding study  found that whilst planning is a major impediment to delivering, for open market sale homes the primary determinant of build-out rates is how many homes developers expect to sell without reducing prices.

The government recently published a working paper suggesting some measures to increase the pace of building.  But with just a handful of major housebuilders delivering around half of the homes in England, the key question is can they pick up the pace of building? 

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

A slow-build business model

There is a public perception that developers ‘land-bank’, a practice of gaining a planning permission for a site in order to uplift the value of the land, without having any intentions of building on it. But this can be partly explained by volume builders generally needing around five or so years of permissions which create the “pipeline” for development.  Research from Lichfields has shown that it takes around than five years from first permission to the first homes being ready for occupation on sites with very large numbers of homes.  However, once they start building, even the largest sites rarely complete more than 150 dwellings per annum. 

The investor reports and trading statements of the largest publicly-traded housebuilders all report the key metrics including the number of new home sales per outlet per week, and the average selling price (ASP) for new open market homes.  The prime directive to optimise price is always present.   This can be seen in developer priority statements like “Continue to prioritise value over volume” in theTaylor Wimpy results for FY2023.  This makes sense to continue to achieve the consistently extraordinary levels of profit housebuilder shareholders expect.

Smaller regional and SME housebuilder have a much higher rate of build-out as a percentage of site size.  A scheme of 50 or so dwellings is commonly completed within one or two years, allowing the small builder to move on to delivering the next project. 

There are solutions

Many of the proposed reforms in the current consultation are quite modest and centred around monitoring and reporting.  These will help provide everyone better evidence on progress, but, with many councils struggling to allocate a planning officer to monitoring delivery, it’s not clear how this will have much impact.  The consultation raises the prospect of allowing councils to refuse permissions for specific applicants where they weren’t building out fast enough, though how further restricting permissions will help delivery is unclear.

The consultation also floats the idea of a ‘delayed homes penalty’, which would place a charge on developers in some circumstances where delivery falls behind a pre-agreed schedule.  The idea of charging council tax from the moment a permission is granted is a similar approach which has been discussed for a decade or more. On smaller sites this might be a manageable nudge, but on strategic sites of 1,000 or more homes it could render development unviable and might impact social landlords.

All the research and papers highlight that diversity in housing delivery does increase the rate at which new homes are completed.  Sites delivering higher percentage of affordable housing or build-to-rent, and smaller SME and self-build sites are not constrained by the number of market home buyers, so there is less motivation to build more slowly.  Another working paper from MHCLG, Reforming Site Thresholds, contains some proposals which may support this diversity by reducing planning burdens on smaller and medium-sized sites.

But can build-out be increased?

Where larger numbers of social homes are purchased on site, outside the open market, these come forward quite rapidly.  Improvements in construction, including building all or part of a dwelling off-site, can deliver significant time and cost efficiencies.  But if developers only build open market dwellings at the speed at which they will sell in a specific area, increasing build-out rates will be difficult.

There is no single magic bullet to get 1.5 million homes built in a timely fashion, but the Government has this issue in the spotlight.  Clearly the supply-side measures of funding for social housing and increasing opportunities for SME and smaller builders are fundamental.  Mandatory housing growth focusing the minds of local authorities on getting land allocated and permitted for future years to meet the land supply figure.  But we have a housing crisis now, and as the current consultation says “no-one can live in a planning permission”.

Categories
Blog Post

Thirty years of challenging the public borrowing rules

At a time when the serious media are questioning the wisdom of Rachel Reeves’ fiscal rules, it’s easy to forget that this is a longstanding debate, and that housing has been a key part of it. Back in 1995, with the prospect of a new Labour government that might want to reverse the decline in public housing investment, there was similar interest in how fiscal rules could be changed to make it easier to do this without upsetting the markets. In June that year, a report called Challenging the Conventions aimed to show how it could be done.

Less than a decade earlier, housing association investment had been increased significantly by classifying it as outside the public sector, with only the grant they received counting on the government’s balance sheet. The ‘challenge’ in the new report – written by John Hawksworth of what is now PricewaterhouseCoopers with housing finance expert Steve Wilcox, and published by the Chartered Institute of Housing – was to argue that local authority housing investment should have the same advantage. Essentially, the report said that international accounting rules allowed borrowing by ‘public corporations’ to be kept out of the main measure of government debt, and that the UK was out of line with other countries and should make this change. It argued that council housing operations are ‘public corporations’ because they are financed from their own earnings (rents) and should be able to borrow prudentially without being subject to the restrictions imposed by the Treasury’s ‘PSBR’ (Public Sector Borrowing Requirement) measure, which only the UK used.  At the time it was estimated that the change could allow extra borrowing for investment of over £1 billion, then a transformative figure.

sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

Lobbying around the report, including meetings with the Labour Shadow Treasury Team, revealed that the only real concern was the attitude that would be taken in the City and financial markets. It also won the support of the Observer’s economist Will Hutton. Extensive consultations with city bodies led to a follow-up report, Consensus for Change, in March 1996, which showed little opposition to the measures proposed. However, when Labour was elected in 1997 its immediate concern – just like Rachel Reeves’ – was to reassure the markets, and to not rock the boat any further given the dramatic decision to make the Bank of England independent.

It must be said that the Labour government did not see building council housing as the solution to the housing crisis and relied entirely on housing associations to do that. Some smaller changes, like the decision to ‘release’ capital receipts from right to buy sales, did proceed. Even so it was extraordinary how Challenging the Conventions started a wide debate in the housing and finance worlds – also taken up by the tenants’ movement – to ‘change the rules’ to enablecouncil housing investment. It was slow, but this would eventually bear fruit.

Yet another CIH report, Council Housing: Financing the Future, showed the huge disrepair backlog that had built up in the council housing sector. Rather than changing the rules, the Labour government had followed a policy of only releasing investment if councils agreed to transfer their stock to a housing association. This provoked a huge campaign for the option of retaining stock under council control. Housing minister Nick Raynsford realised that a new mechanism was needed to bring in the required investment and meet tenants’ and councils’ demands to keep their stock.

The answer, in Labour’s housing green paper of April 2000, was arm’s length management companies. ALMOs would enable councils to retain ownership but receive extra subsidy in return for handing management over to more business-like bodies and achieving a predetermined standard in an inspection. They were run by boards made up of council nominees, tenants and independent experts. This would enable the social sector to largely meet the new Decent Homes Standard within the target period of ten years, a success about which Labour was remarkably reticent. During the Labour government the Office for National Statistics (ONS) did, quietly, begin to classify council housing as a set of ‘public corporations’ in the national accounts, although as it stayed in the ‘PSBR’ this made little difference.

The real impact of the Challenging report came later – when John Healey was housing minister. He was keen to put councils’ housing revenue accounts (HRAs) on an independent and localised footing that would reduce Treasury controls. By then, council housing was in surplus. Negotiations led to a complex ‘settlement’ which gave councils operational independence to manage their homes in exchange for taking a share of the debt previously accrued by council housing nationally. The deal was lost when Labour left office in 2010, but it suited the ‘localist’ agenda of the incoming Conservative government who delivered the changes in 2012 (albeit on less favourable terms).

Councils have never, however, escaped the grasp of the Treasury and the disruption caused by central government decisions. Huge cuts to social housing grant under the Tories led councils to look to their HRA surpluses to support new building. Seemingly random decisions – like George Osborne imposing rent reductions for five years to save housing benefit costs – undermined a system which was modelled on gradual rent increases. Occasional high points – like 2018 when prime minister Theresa May ended the ‘caps’ on councils’ borrowing that the Treasury had insisted on in 2012 – have masked a slow slide back into unsustainability.

CIH and Savills showed last year that, as a result, councils can sustain £12 billion less debt than was expected in the 2012 settlement. Nevertheless, as LHG’s 2021 report The Missing Solution: Council Homebuilding for the 21st Century showed, councils are more determined than ever to build new homes but are faced with an increasingly desperate need to invest in their current stock and to improve the quality of management.

Although the seemingly arcane debate about ‘the rules’ has lasted 30 years, and there was never a clear moment when the proposals in Challenging the Conventions were implemented, it has had a profound impact on the council housing sector, enabling it to survive when its death was widely predicted. At one time it was hard to find anyone on either government or opposition benches willing to speak up for council housing, now it is widely perceived as key to solving the UK’s housing crisis. It is an extraordinarily successful model that is capable of delivering high quality homes at genuinely affordable rents. Now, as in 1995 when Challenging the Conventions was launched, it just needs a decent financial framework and real commercial freedoms to enable it to flourish.

Categories
Blog Post

Building  1.5m homes with a skills shortage: strategies to alleviate labour demand

Image licensed under pixabay
Image licensed under pixabay

The Skills Shortage

As outlined in ‘A Plan to Boost Skills in the Construction Industry’, an additional 251,500 workers will be needed to meet UK construction output targets by 2028. However, the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) reports that more workers are leaving the industry than joining it, according to the ‘Skills Construction Needs Labour Market Intelligence Report 2024-2028’.

Even with proposed training reforms, it will take several years for apprentices to become qualified and gain the necessary experience. To reduce reliance on the Immigration Skills List for labour, the government must adopt strategies that lessen the demand for skilled workers within its nationwide mass homebuilding programme.

Reducing Labour Demand with Modern Methods of Construction

Benefits of Modern Methods of Construction (MMC)

Modern methods of construction (MMC) prioritise off-site techniques, such as mass production and factory assembly, offering an alternative to traditional on-site building. This approach is especially effective for large-scale residential projects, reducing the need for skilled on-site labour.

Key MMC technologies include:

  • Modular construction: Factory-made units or components (e.g., kitchens, bathrooms).
  • Flat panel construction: Precast reinforced concrete panels produced off-site.
  • Timber frame construction: Timber components assembled or partially constructed off-site.
  • Double wall construction: Factory-made panels used to contain on-site concrete pours.
  • Sub-assembly components: Specific components, such as dormer windows, made off-site.

MMC methods require fewer highly skilled trades than traditional methods, making them effective at reducing labour demand. While specific figures may vary, MMC can cut on-site labour by up to 70%, reduce construction costs by 20-40%, and shorten build times by 20-60%, according to ‘The Benefits of Modern Methods of Construction in Housing – Performance Data and Case Studies by Construction Excellence Report’.

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

Strategy for Advancing the MMC Sector

  • Enhance UK capacity: Strengthen existing MMC providers or create new ones to serve local authorities, social housing providers, and development corporations. Establish alternative procurement strategies before starting projects.
  • Collaboration for design development: Partner with MMC providers to create prototypes for asset types such as low-rise apartments and schools. Ensure designs are cost-effective, transportable, and widely available. Manufacturing facilities should be in urban centres for easy access to labour and transportation but spread across the country to reduce inefficiencies.
  • Promote local production: Support local production using domestic materials. This “local content” approach stimulates the economy by creating jobs and supporting the broader manufacturing chain.
  • Ensure steady demand: The stop-start nature of past homebuilding projects has hindered the MMC sector. The government could address this by mandating MMC in a nationwide mass homebuilding programme, ensuring consistent production.
  • Government incentives: Provide financial support or incentives for collaborations between industry bodies, academia, and private developers to prototype and refine MMC designs, ensuring only high-quality products are mass-produced.

Despite government efforts several Category 1 MMC companies collapsed in 2022 and 2023 and significant barriers remain in the sector, including risk aversion from warranty providers, insurance companies, and unclear building regulations.

In 2021, Homes England launched a multi-year research project to assess MMC’s impact on the housing sector. The government should publish an interim report to share lessons learned and propose actionable strategies.

Key Initiatives could include:

  • Capacity review: Strengthen MMC providers to support local authorities and housing providers. Develop alternative procurement strategies before projects begin.
  • Prototype collaboration: Work with providers to develop cost-effective, transportable prototypes for assets like apartments and schools. Encourage partnerships to ensure high-quality designs.
  • Local production: Support domestic manufacturing to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
  • Steady demand: Mandate MMC in government-backed mass housing projects to ensure consistent demand and supply.

Additional Strategies to Reducing Labour Demand

Other Strategies should also be explored that could reduce Labour demand such as:

Self Build or Custom Build Homes

Self-building allows individuals to construct their own homes, often with the help of small contractors and minimal skilled labour, especially when using kit or modular homes. This off-site prefabrication, a form of MMC, offers the same labour-saving advantages.

The government can support self-builders by requiring all local authorities and development corporations to offer serviced building plots for sale. Additionally, reviewing UK manufacturers and implementing initiatives could boost supply, design variety, local content, and lower costs, helping increase the current estimated 7-10% of self-built homes annually.

Utilising the Private Consultancy Sector

Engaging the UK’s leading international construction consultancies to take on a larger role can leverage their global staff to support UK projects, either through back-office operations abroad or by assigning staff to the UK.

This would enable government bodies, such as development corporations, to operate more efficiently by focusing on core competencies while outsourcing other functions to consultancies. Additionally, private consultancies bring national and international expertise, innovation, and best practices, contributing to a more dynamic involvement in projects.

Simplifying Planning

Planning reform began with the release of the revised NPPF in 2024, but supplementary policies and guidance are needed to simplify the planning system for all users.

For instance, implementing zoning and design guides could provide greater certainty for proposed developments, reducing the assessment workload on planning departments if developments comply with these standards.

Another example would be granting planning powers for new town developments to the development corporations managing them. These corporations could establish simplified planning rules, particularly if developments within the master plan require minimal local consultation or integration with the existing built environment. This would allow smaller planning teams to handle a larger volume of submissions.