Category: Blog Post

Categories
Blog Post

Focusing on enforcement and how Labour can embrace disruption from government

Image by Sébastian Dah is licensed under Creative Commons
Image by Sébastian Dah is licensed under Creative Commons

The past few weeks have shown just how much Donald Trump’s return to the White House has disrupted politics globally. At home, the new President has been a bull in the china shop of the US Government, freezing programmes and firing thousands of staff with little clear rationale. Abroad, the biggest realignment of geopolitics has occurred, with the US all but switching sides in the conflict in Ukraine and Trump’s Vice President JD Vance haranguing the principles of liberal democracy at the Munich Security Conference.

Meanwhile, the new administration’s manic energy of disruption has been felt as Reform UK have soared to first place in opinion polling, and the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) secured their best election result.

It is clear that there is an appetite in the electorate for speed, disruption, and a reset. Patience for norms or rules has eroded, and a desire for change, which Labour capitalised on in their 2024 election victory, is still burning bright.

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

But embracing this appetite in Government is hard, particularly with the circumstances of Labour’s win. Labour now has an insurmountable majority in parliament, backed up with Labour mayors in all but one Combined Authority, and is even the largest party in local government. If there is anything which Labour cannot do, it is likely to appear to the electorate that it is through a lack of political will, rather than through the many obstacles which still exist.

And these hurdles are real indeed. As Andy Bates recently pointed out, the social housing sector is a web of housing associations and local authorities, who have at best a loose sense of accountability through grant funding or elected members respectively. But this can be extended even more when considering the whole housing ecosystem of developers, contractors, freeholders, regulators, and landlords. There are tens of thousands of organisations who are involved in delivering the Government’s housing missions, but who do not always share the Government’s motivation.

It is with this in mind that focusing on these organisations can not only be a political opportunity for Labour, but can also expose the flaws in the system which legislation can fix.

Picking fights on behalf of constituents against seemingly unaccountable bodies is clearly good politics. Not only that, but if done with sufficient force it can actually yield results.

This has most clearly been seen recently in the over 100-strong group of Labour MPs holding managing agents to account, who have already secured several concessions from FirstPort, the largest managing agent in the country, including meetings with residents so that FirstPort can be held to account on an estate-by-estate basis.

But it also offers the opportunity to expose just how lacking the regulatory state is in its ability to ensure compliance with existing rules, let alone new legislation.

Quality issues on many newbuild estates are famously documented, from faulty sewage systems to holes willed with disposable coffee cups. Meanwhile, existing private rental sector regulation, such as the Homes (Fit for Human Habitation) Act remain blatantly unenforced in thousands of properties across the country. Recently, the UK’s burgeoning Building Safety Regulator has seen significant teething problems as it enforces much-needed regulations on high rise buildings, with 86% of building control ‘Gateway 2’ application rejected.

Labour is pushing through ambitious programmes of reform in the private rental sector with the Renters’ Rights Bill, newbuild standards with the Future Homes Standard, and reforms to the feudal leasehold system with a new Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill, alongside the arduous process of implementing the previous Government’s poorly written and loophole-ridden Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act.

The common theme across all of this legislation, however, is that enforcing these new rules is going to be a significant challenge. Nearly half of housebuilders have reported that they are ready for the Future Homes Standard. Meanwhile, new standards in the Renters’ Rights Bill such as Awaab’s Law, will only be online in the social housing sector in October of this year, after receiving Royal Assent in July 2023.

Why this is so widespread is more difficult to diagnose. Depending on the sector, the weight and speed of new regulations, lack of capacity in enforcement authorities, a lack of engagement and transparency with industry, or simply organisational complacency, can be contributing factors, and that is even before considering the difficult financial situations facing many local authorities, housing associations, and even developers.

By calling out, meeting with and working to improve the performance of organisations and individuals who provide and maintain our housing, Labour politicians have the opportunity to vocally stand up on constituents’ behalf, to achieve real outcomes, and also investigate first-hand the deficiencies of the regulatory state.

The bold reforms which Labour MPs are pushing through in Parliament will only matter if they can actually be enforced. And, by embracing the spirit of disruption and calling out the organisations directly responsible for their constituents’ housing, they have the opportunity to embrace the agenda driving forces of populism across the world and utilise it for good.

Categories
Blog Post

Reforming the Right to Manage – what it will mean for me

Shop with flats above, Bewcastle Grove, Mowmacre Hill, is licensed under Wikimedia Commons

I’m one of the lucky ones. The daughter of a cabinet maker and dance teacher from east London, my parents got on the property ladder in the 80s and I always believed owning a home was achievable.

But after working as an actress, scuba diving instructor and who knows how many zero-hour contract jobs in precarious industries, as I entered my 30s, it was seeming less and less likely.

Then the pandemic hit. I moved back in with my mum at 33 – it wasn’t in my plan! I worked remotely throughout the next two years, saving everything I could to get a deposit together.

I was so proud to move into my own flat in Romford in March 2022.

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

But it quickly went wrong. I soon found out we were living in a botched conversion, with a range of problems, not least with our roof. What’s worse, neither our freeholder nor our managing agent seemed at all concerned with our issues.

In January 2023, after months of unsuccessfully negotiating with them to claim the repairs for the roof from the new build warranty or the builders who botched it, we applied to the first-tier tribunal (FTT) to challenge the reasonableness of our service charges.

We didn’t use a solicitor, but provided examples of more reasonable quotes for the works completed, and proof that we were being charged for works not completed. We also successfully challenged the cost of the buildings insurance, which was reduced by half.

While tribunal challenges are stressful and not everyone has the capacity to take them on, we launched another one in January 2024, again, largely successfully. We then decided to apply for a ‘court-appointed manager’, the only way we could end the cycle of FTT challenges every year.

However, our situation changed when Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook suddenly announced he was accelerating long-awaited Right to Manage (RTM) reforms in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (LAFRA), legislation passed but not enacted by the previous Government. These reforms will make it easier for us to hire and fire managing agents if they fail to meet our needs.

My flat is one of six, above a shop. Under previous laws, blocks with more than 25% of commercial space do not qualify for RTM, which ours didn’t with 33%, leaving us completely under the rule of the managing agent and freeholder. However, with the limit now lifted to 50%, we will qualify for RTM from 3rd March.

The road ahead won’t be easy. Forming an RTM company requires the support of 50% of all leaseholders. This threshold can be especially problematic in larger buildings, and Labour should reduce it in future legislation.

The freeholder can also play games with a counter notice, although there should be specific reasons for them to issue this. Our freeholder chooses to challenge nearly every RTM and drag everyone through the FTT for further months and sometimes up to the Court of Appeal, taking years and costing everyone a lot of money.

Previously, leaseholders had to pay the freeholder’s costs as well as their own as part of the RTM process, but thanks to the reforms coming into place today, we will also no longer have to pay these.

If no counter notice is served, we could self-manage or appoint our own agent to look after the building by mid-July.

RTM is not the answer though. My freeholder will still be the ultimate owner and hold certain rights, with continued (and often obstructive) involvement in the sales process.

Our goal is to enfranchise, which is where leaseholders buy out the freehold of their block. This arrangement is similar to commonhold, giving rightful control to flat owners over their homes and money. Labour has committed to “finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end” and introduce commonhold as a default tenure.

Unfortunately, a group of freeholders has been given permission to challenge parts of LAFRA at the High Court, claiming human rights infringements. But, despite their predictable opposition, the government has a mandate to hold firm, having been elected on a manifesto to free leaseholders from this oppressive system of perceived home ownership not widely practiced elsewhere in the world.

The government has pledged a white paper on commonhold imminently and a draft Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill to come forward towards the end of the year. With extensive policy work already done by the Law Commission half a decade ago and many consultations since, I and other leaseholders are tired of being cash cows and cannot wait another four to five years for an end to this scandal.

Being a leaseholder has damaged my mental health and finances. It has been the worst experience of my life. I can’t sell my own “home”, I can’t rent it out, I’m totally trapped it, and I don’t even really own it. I can’t move on with my life.

The tribunal and ombudsman are overwhelmed with disputes, not especially powerful and are symptoms of the leasehold cause. Abolishing leasehold will mean flat owners are not tied to predatory managing agents and freeholders. 

There are 5.3 million leaseholders in England and Wales, many trapped in the same ways, and worse, than I am. Phasing out leasehold for commonhold will show Labour at its best, disrupting vested interests to change the system in favour of working people. If we don’t prioritise this, leaseholders – many of whom are our core voters – will continue to be defrauded in their own homes and grow even more disillusioned with politics.

Categories
Blog Post

Ensuring resident safety: driving up property management standards

Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Angela Rayner confirmed the Government’s response and adoptions of the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report this week (Wednesday 26th February). Phase 2 of the report was a watershed moment, exposing systemic failures in tall residential building safety and outlining clear recommendations to prevent another tragedy. I was proud to be in the Chamber and place on record my support for the Government’s response and raise some questions on behalf of the construction industry.

This weekend, Labour politicians from across local and national government are gathering at the East Midlands and West Midlands Labour Conferences. While London has the highest concentration of tall buildings, it is important to highlight the challenge outside of the capital. Recent data shows that cities including Leicester, Nottingham, Wolverhampton, and Coventry all have between 11-50 buildings over 11 metres requiring remediation. Birmingham has the highest number outside of the London boroughs, with 201-400 buildings still awaiting safety work. This leaves many people living in high-rise blocks across the Midlands in danger in their homes.

Sign up for red brick’s free newsletter

Since my election last year, I have worked with The Property Institute (TPI), which campaigns for the regulation of property managers to improve building safety. Many property managers have stepped up since Grenfell to protect residents by becoming key drivers of critical repairs and multi-million-pound remediation efforts, despite this not being within the original remit of their role. Many are professionally qualified and competent. However, the absence of regulation allows dangerously under-qualified operators to take on this vital role, putting residents at further risk – from both the homes in which they live and the people they trust to manage them.

Across the country, thousands remain stuck in unsafe homes, anxiously awaiting remediation. Government data shows that 70% of buildings over 11 metres identified with dangerous cladding have yet to be fully remediated. The Grenfell Inquiry exposed the failures of the Tenant Management Organisation (TMO), which neglected fire risk assessments and basic maintenance, directly contributing to the tragic loss of life. While the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 addressed competency issues in the social housing sector, no equivalent legislation exists for the private sector, leaving a dangerous gap in oversight for those living in the private sector.

Astonishingly, anyone in the UK can become a residential property manager or start a managing agent company without formal qualifications or experience. These individuals oversee fire safety, building maintenance, insurance, and leaseholder finances—critical responsibilities that directly impact lives. Yet, without regulation, there is no system to ensure they are competent or held accountable when things go wrong.

Building management is an increasingly complex field requiring expertise in safety regulations, legal compliance, tenant rights, financial accountability, and environmental rules. Without mandatory qualifications and continuous professional development, we cannot expect property managers to navigate this evolving landscape effectively.

As Labour politicians meet this weekend, and with The Property Institute hosting an event on building safety at Labour’s East Midlands conference in Leicester, now is the time to push for change. Having worked in the construction industry before becoming an MP, I know that when gaps in regulation exist, lives are put at risk.

The sensible solution is the introduction of mandatory professional qualifications for property managers, backed by a strict code of practice and enforced by an independent regulator with legal authority. I’ll be lobbying for this to be included in the remit of the new ‘single Construction Regulator’ proposed in the Deputy PM’s speech this week. These critical changes would ensure that those managing residential buildings are both competent and accountable.

We owe this to the thousands of residents across the Midlands and beyond who continue to live in unsafe homes.

Categories
10-year plan for housing Blog Post

Adapting to the digital age in the Government’s 10-year plan for housing

Any ten year plan for housing has to at least try to grapple with some of the Rumsfeldian “known unknowns” – in an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world, the more we know the more we know we don’t know. 

Nowhere is this as prevalent as the impact that better and faster technologies continue to have on the transition from an analogue world, where knowledge is held in tangible form, to an increasingly digital one where knowledge is held in the form of “ones or zeros” in a server farm in the middle of nowhere.

This is hard stuff for humans, and the organisations they have created for the analogue world, to adapt to.  The rate of technological progress already far outstrips the rate of evolution of the human race – and that’s before quantum computing (QC) becomes widely available.  To give an idea of the power of quantum, Google reported in 2023 that their Sycamore quantum computer managed in seconds to crunch numbers that using the Frontier supercomputer (then the most powerful computer in the world) would take over 47 years – that’s roughly 10 million times quicker.   

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

Is QC with all that potential to boost speeds and productivity going to develop to be in the mainstream in the next 10 years?  Nobody knows – it is for now firmly in VUCA territory.  But its not contentious to say that technologies are bringing advances at an exponential rate – as the surge in Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in the last 3 years has shown.  The pace at which the potential of these technologies will grow seems unlikely to slow.

To suggest that the housing world has been slow to adopt and adapt to the increased pace of digitalization over the last decade is also not contentious.   Customers judge their landlord not against its performance with some other landlord, but against the speed, price and effectiveness of other organisations they deal with in their lives.  And relative to the very best out there, social landlords continue to fall behind.  As an example, car manufacturers will now call drivers to alert them to a drop in tyre pressure – but few landlords have any equivalent way of knowing that pressure in a boiler has dropped and the heating has stopped working, let alone devised ways of working to take advantage of this insight.

Put simply, technology and digitalization has the potential to change the game for the biggest gripe there is between landlords and residents: moving the mindset for repairing homes from one based around “you tell us its broken, we will fix it” to “we can predict this will break, so we are coming to fix it before it does”. 

Of course, in the general economy, the invisible hand of the market assures that there are rewards for those who “move with the times” and penalties for those who do not.  In fields such as social housing, that hand has to be driven through regulation.  And for the next 10 years, Government and its associated Regulator, has to up its game in relation to technology and data expectations.  Perhaps there are four areas to prioritise:

  1. Getting the basics right.  For three consecutive years, the Regulator for Social Housing (RSH) has been warning that social landlords’ data and digital practices are not up to scratch.  Residents, the Housing Ombudsman Service, MPs and local councillors all know it from the range of complaints they make or have to deal with; and the Information Commissioners Office knows it from the reported data breaches.   But regulatory action has not followed; Government should ensure that on such an important aspect of modern service delivery, the Regulator can no longer be ignored with impunity.
  2. Moving to real-time. Once data is comprehensive and accurate a transition to real-time becomes possible.  Many possible improvements flow from this such as: evidencing compliance can become continuous, rather than episodic; service charges can be calculated precisely for the services provided for the extract duration of the tenancy; and real time data sits at the heart of the automation (and enhanced efficiency) of service delivery.
  3. Transparency. When data was kept on paper, inside files, and office floors groaned with the weight of many filing cabinets, making information visible to others was hard.  Digital data faces no such barriers.  The time has come for Government to mandate that all data about a resident’s tenancy, their home and the services they receive is available without asking, so the “I know what they know” test is passed
  4. Professionalism and skills. With a pause in the launch of the Competence and Conduct standard, the Government has a chance to rectify the glaring omission from the consultation document – in which neither the word “data”, “digital”, nor “technology” appear.  You cannot be a professional today without this skill set, let alone in 10 years’ time.   

In short, the government should set a direction and regulatory expectations for housing organisations to have “Digital in their DNA” – where technological and digital competence is so deeply embedded in the landlords’ culture and capabilities, its leadership style, and its associated systems and processes that it has stopped even being a thing organisations have to think about.  And to do that, first, the digital competence of the RSH itself has to be prioritised and invested in so it no longer uses an old map to navigate a very different new world.

Categories
Blog Post Event

Solving the housing crisis for young people – LHG Under-40s conference write-up

On Saturday 8 February, Labour Housing Group held its first ‘Young LHG’ conference, with ‘Solving the housing crisis for young people’ as its theme.

Session 1: ‘How is Labour delivering on the housing crisis?’

Josh Dean, Member of Parliament for Hertford and Stortford, focused his opening remarks on the importance of getting young people involved in politics, whether on local council planning committees or as MPs. Nesil Caliskan, MP for Barking, emphasised the resonance that housing has as an issue in her constituency, where rents have doubled in ten years due to the failures of the last Conservative governments. She cited her experience as a council leader to stress the importance of robust, resilient local leadership, and argued that councils, as custodians of their local areas, should take on the role of master developers.

Questions from the panel chair, Red Brick editor Alex Toal, and the audience focused on how local support can be built for development. Panellists were asked what a ‘successful’ record would look like in practice.

Josh argued that the framing of development that resonates most strongly with members of the community is the importance of ensuring that our children and grandchildren are not disadvantaged. He also emphasised that politicians should be honest with the public about the lack of brownfield sites, which cannot offer a silver bullet solution to the housing crisis. He argued that meeting our housing targets is not sufficient in itself – members of the community must also ‘feel’ this success. He argued that one example of this felt and concrete ‘success’ might be seen in an easing of communities’ ongoing retention crisis, as many young people are currently being forced to leave their local areas in search of more affordable houses elsewhere.

Nesil agreed that success must be felt by the local community. This would mean ensuring that new developments are liveable, convenient, and well-connected through the delivery of effective social infrastructure. She also emphasised the importance of fixing poor-quality homes that are already on the market, rather than focusing exclusively on new housing. There was also agreement on the panel that local authorities are not currently delivering enough new housing but stressed that council budgets had been decimated by years of under-funding from successive Conservative governments.

sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

Session 2: ‘More homes, better homes, cheaper homes: Can Labour do all three?’

The panel chair, Councillor Nasrine Djemai, Camden Council Cabinet Member for New Homes and Community Investment, opened the session by emphasising the need for bold action to solve the housing crisis. She framed the delivery of more, better and cheaper homes as a moral imperative, stressed that housing is fundamentally a matter of security, dignity and equity. She highlighted recent work done by Camden Council to approve new affordable housing and to retrofit existing homes, but stressed that national planning reforms, as well as new regulations on land banking, are needed to unlock local initiative.

Jay Morton, Director of Bell Phillips Architects, opened her remarks by welcoming the ambitiousness of the Labour Government, which has brought stability to the sector. She called for a planning system that not only facilitates development but also ensures quality, in order to create healthy communities incorporating amenities, social spaces, crucial services, and local businesses. Creating communities that people are proud to live in, she argued, can help to inoculate local areas against NIMBYism. In the short-term, she stressed the importance of more efficiently utilising infill sites that have not yet been exploited, while as a longer-term solution, she pointed to the importance of investing in innovation that might enable us to rethink how we build.

Kane Emerson, Head of Housing Research at the YIMBY Alliance, emphasised the importance of housing to the Government’s growth ambitions. In the first instance, increasing housing supply stimulates economic activity and brings down rents. However, he emphasised that where we build is as crucial as the numerical target of 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament. He called for joined-up thinking to ensure that housing is built in places where workers want to live, employers want to hire, and affordability remains a problem, such as Oxford. He also pointed to the ancillary economic benefits of housebuilding, such as higher environmental standards and lower energy bills. Finally, he stressed that the Government should look to unlock small, local developers, as opposed to just the Big Four housebuilders.

In the Q&A section, panellists were asked how it could be ensured that increased housing density does not come at the expense of quality. Another question focused on the problem of second homeownership, and the effects it has on local communities. Other questions focused on whether a Labour case could be made for policy measures such as stamp duty abolition or rent controls.

There was hesitance on the panel about the likely effectiveness of rent control, which could suppress development and lead to under-investment in maintaining existing stock. Kane framed council housing as a de facto form of rent control and cautioned against ‘tick box regulations’ that, however well-intentioned, might slow down development without solving the problems they set out to fix. Jay concurred that second homeownership can create unbalanced communities and emphasised that houses should be thought of as social infrastructure rather than just as private investments.

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

Session 3: ‘Tackling the Affordability Crisis: Lowering Prices, Mortgages and Rents’

Uzma Rasool, Councillor for Grove Green in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, began the session by stressing the importance of young people’s involvement in local planning politics. She pointed out that just 15% of councillors are under 45. She stressed that councils can make real change, pointing to new, wheelchair-accessible units recently approved by the borough. However, she also called for national action to widen access to mortgages among those whose lack of inherited wealth currently locks them out of homeownership.

Chloe Timperley, Green Mortgage Campaign Lead at the Green Finance Institute and author of Generation Rent, began by offering a dose of realism. Pointing out that property wealth remains most families’ main asset in the UK, she acknowledged that fairer new measures to tax wealth may not currently be politically possible. She argued that a more practical approach would focus on professionalising and regulating the private rented sector. She also argued for ending the Right to Buy, framing it as an ideology-driven policy that has generated a social home waiting list of 3 million people, and argued that council housing complements the private rented sector by offering a pathway for tenants with lower and less stable incomes.

Tom Darling, Director of the Renters’ Reform Coalition, welcomed the Government’s Renters’ Reform Bill, which he argued would make a real difference to the UK’s 11 million private renters. However, he also warned that the Government may not be on course to meet its target of 1.5 million new homes – and pointed out that even if the goal were achieved, rents would only fall by an estimated 2% by 2029. He therefore argued for approaching housing as a distributional question, rather than one merely of supply. He suggested that rent increases within tenancies should be capped and called for more Government investment in new social homes, of which 90,000 are needed each year. Finally, he warned that the housing market is eroding the social contract with young people, who are losing hope of ever owning a home and therefore turning to the solutions offered by alternatives such as the Green Party and Reform.

Questions from the chair and audience focused on the practical measures that could be implemented to improve housing affordability. There was a focus, in particular, on tackling the ability of shell companies to buy up properties as a private investment. It was pointed out that unaffordable rents are generating an unsustainable housing benefit bill – in effect, a subsidy to private landlords. Finally, panellists were asked if they could point to successful cases in cities and countries around the world that have found success in improving affordability.

Chloe argued that mortgage credit, in concert with house building, could be an effective lever for increasing people’s access to housing, while Tom returned to his call for more stringent regulation of the private rented sector. Chloe also argued for more transparency on ownership to tackle the problem of shell companies buying up properties as a private investment. On the question of successful case studies, Tom praised the record of Vienna in delivering beautiful, affordable social housing – but also pointed out that the dire state of the UK housing sector means that we can take lessons from most other countries, not just utopian examples. Chloe argued that Japan had found success by framing land as a shared resource and a community asset, as embedded in statutes such as the Basic Act for the Land.

Categories
10-year plan for housing Blog Post

What does an NHS fit for the future need from the ten-year housing plan?

The Prime Minister and Chancellor visit Coventry Hospital by No.10 Downing Street is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Since 2006, the vision for the NHS has been to shift care closer to home. Development of the 10-year health plan goes further; patients should be able to say:

  • I can stay healthy and manage my health in a way that works for me
  • I can access the high-quality and effective care I need, when and where I need it
  • My care is integrated around my needs and I am listened to
  • I am treated in a fair and inclusive way, irrespective of who I am

For these to be true, what should we expect a ten-year housing plan to include? And how will it support the planned shifts in health care: from hospital to community; sickness to prevention; analogue to digital?

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

It’s worth restating what we mean by a healthy home. We mean homes in which the population can start life, live and work, and age well in. A healthy environment, free from all hazards (not just damp and mould), which will increasingly include overheating. A suitable environment, with space and design that is inclusive, accessible and adaptable to everyone’s needs. A stable environment, providing a sense of safety and security. Genuinely affordable; people can afford to live there and aren’t pushed into poverty. Homes located in a healthy and supportive neighbourhood.

It’s also important to understand that building new homes will not enable healthy homes for all. 80% of the homes we will be living in by 2050 have already been built. We have some of the oldest housing in the developed world, and the highest proportion of inadequate housing in Europe.

Lord Darzi’s review of the NHS drew attention to the housing crisis, highlighting the significant impact that homelessness and poverty have on health outcomes, the increase in homes with damp problems, and noting the link with poor mental health.

It’s estimated that almost one third of NHS patients live in circumstances that present a risk to their health and wellbeing, including people living in unsafe, overcrowded, unsuitable and poor-quality homes, people living in fear of losing their home, in temporary accommodation or on the streets.  These circumstances directly impact on patients’ access to, experience of, and outcomes from health care and, with the largest workforce in England, this will include many NHS staff.

National housing, homelessness and welfare policy is a considerable way off supporting ambitions for the NHS. There’s no evidence of a systematic consideration to where people live, their health and wellbeing, the impact of unhealthy homes on the NHS, other public services, productivity and the economy.

Labour has an opportunity to change this, taking the ‘health in all policies’ approach described in its manifesto and Devolution White Paper. Improvements in the population’s health and wellbeing and health equity should be the primary outcomes of the housing plan.

A ten-year housing plan that supports the ambitions for the NHS would:

Describe a vison for healthy homes, sharing outcomes with the ten-year NHS plan and the national care service.

An independent housing strategy committee, and cross-departmental Homes and Health Board would inform, oversee and deliver necessary systemic and operational changes, including measuring the impact national and local housing decisions have on health. Data would be gathered at a granular enough level so that housing, health and care systems at all geographies can act.

In the shorter term, it would require and resource localities to develop an integrated housing, health and care strategy for local populations who would benefit most from joined up homes and services, such as people with disabilities and those in inclusion health populations.

Recognise the role of the housing workforce in improving health and wellbeing and  commit to workforce development, integrated with that for the NHS and social care.

This would begin with investment in local housing and public health leadership capacity and capability, including planning, occupational therapy and environmental health professions.

This would enable localities to better integrate homes with health and care, targeting combined resources to patients who need it most, and would quickly see a return on investment.

The frontline housing workforce, particularly in homelessness and housing support roles, is filling gaps in the NHS and care workforce. Plans to end homelessness must consider the health and wellbeing of this workforce, and what the future holds for them.

Take a health-led approach to improving, adapting, renewing and regenerating existing homes.

Existing homes across all tenures, including temporary and supported housing, must benefit from health-led improvements, underpinned by the more granular local understanding of homes, health and wellbeing, and sustained and flexible funding so that localities may target resources effectively. This would include:

  • Retrofitting alongside other measures to improve warmth and reduce emissions
  • Tackling other hazards which result in avoidable ill-health, including falls and fire
  • Adaptations and assistive technology, enabling disabled people, people with long term health conditions, and people as they get older to live independently
  • Climate adaption, including building resilience to new extremes of flood and heat

Immediate action should be taken to improve local system’s knowledge of, and capacity to act on:

  • Unhealthy homes for patients whose health and wellbeing is a priority for the NHS, enabling safe, timely and effective transfers of care from NHS and care settings to the community, and ensuring that people experiencing homelessness are not lost to health services
  • Unmet housing, care and support needs, enabling people to live independently

New homes and regeneration must meet the TCPA’s healthy homes principles and include 90,000 social rented homes a year, specialist and supported housing, and technology enabled homes. A review is needed of the impact of social housing allocations and lettings policies and practice for their impact on the population’s health and wellbeing.

Raise awareness and enable access to national and local information, advice and guidance services, to empower people to understand how their home impacts on their health and wellbeing, and options available to improve matters.

Developments in technology in the home need to enable residents to have choice and control.

Community capacity to improve homes should be invested in, whether this is through a local handyperson scheme, or community-led housing.

For one-third of NHS patients, home is not just a social determinant, a building block, of their health; it determines how effective the NHS is in preventing, treating and managing ill-health. An NHS fit for the future demands a ten-year strategy for homes that is honest about how old and unhealthy our homes are, and commits to action now. Care closer to home cannot be achieved through new build alone.

Categories
Blog Post

How building Council housing can help Labour beat Reform UK

How to beat Reform UK? It’s the question many in the Labour Party are now asking, with increasing desperation.

Alienated from mainstream politics and politicians, Reform UK supporters see Labour as the ‘establishment’ with little concern or understanding for their lives or their problems. To reach Reform supporters, Labour needs to show in practical, concrete ways that it ‘gets’ Reform voters’ concerns. Labour needs to deliver practical and concrete improvements across the country.

The answer is straightforward. Labour needs to build more council homes and create more non-graduate jobs. And we can do both at the same time using the same money.

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

Building more council homes in every part of the country will directly benefit those families who are currently in housing need. Those who are overcrowded or who need a smaller home. Those who are homeless and living in expensive and substandard private rented accommodation. Those whose children and grandchildren are paying through the roof to private landlords for very basic accommodation.

Many of these families have lost faith in mainstream politics after 14 years of failed Conservative governments when few new council homes were built and many continued to be sold off. We need to show, by our actions, that the needs of the non-graduates living in non-metropolitan parts of the country are just as much a priority for Labour as anywhere else.

The new council homes Labour builds should benefit the widest range of families. When new council homes are being built, existing residents should know that they will benefit, too. A central message should be that the new council homes are not just for ‘other people’ or ‘outsiders’, they are for people like YOU. Using local housing allocation policies in operation on many Labour councils already, half the new homes should go to those families who have been waiting patiently for a bigger or smaller home. The other half should go to those who are currently homeless or have been languishing on the housing waiting list.

Building new council homes needs a range of traditional non-graduate skills – bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, plasterers, scaffolders, painters, decorators, carpenters. Just watch an episode of Nick Knowles’ DIY SOS to see the wide range of non-graduate trades needed to build or renovate a house.

Using existing construction companies, local subcontractors and their employees will benefit, too. Many of these subcontractors will be small businesses and will get a real boost by Labour’s council house building programme. Local council house building programmes will give small construction companies the long-term commitment needed to plan their investment.

Working with local colleges, we need a massive construction skills training programme, equipping people of all ages with a skill that will form the basis of a lifetime working career. Construction skills give access to jobs in every part of the country and to any country in the world. You can work for a company or be your own boss, working hard to build a business that gives you and your family financial security and independence. The construction workers benefitting from Labour’s council house building programme will have a real and tangible stake in the economy and in society.

When the new residents move in, some will want new furniture, new carpets and new white goods. Buying these will help local shops and help grow the wider economy. Others will want to paint or paper the walls and add a few personal touches, benefitting local DIY shops.

And don’t forget that the new council tenants will be paying rent to the Council which will then be used to pay back the money it borrowed to build the new homes.

As John Harris wrote in a recent ‘Guardian article, the politics are very basic,

“Four decades ago, many of Reform UK’s older supporters had their lives transformed by Margaret Thatcher’s policy of encouraging people to buy their council houses at huge discounts; now, their daughters, sons and grandchildren live with the dire housing crisis that policy caused. If you understand at least some of the rising ire about immigration as fear of even more competition for scarce resources, housing is right at its heart: in my experience, no other issue comes near its impact on everyday life.”

We have it in our power to embark on the biggest council housing programme since 1945. If we don’t take this opportunity and then lose out to Reform UK in 2029, it will be our own fault. Let’s not make this mistake!

Categories
10-year plan for housing Blog Post

What does the housing sector need from Government to deliver on their long-term ambitions for housing?

As Director of Policy and Public Affairs at The Housing Forum I work with organisations from across the whole of the housing sector – from construction companies and architects, to housebuilders, housing associations and local authorities. I also keep abreast of housing policy – helping our members understand new developments and ensuring the government understands the needs of the sector.

The last year has been a fascinating time to have one foot in industry and one in policy circles. On the policy side, it’s the most positive I’ve ever seen. The new government has come in with huge enthusiasm to tackle the housing problems in the country, a willingness to burn political capital in doing so and – above all – a willingness to listen. It’s been greeted with pretty much unanimous enthusiasm from across the sector too. Yet at the same time, in the sector itself, the financial challenges are huge. After 15 years of high house price growth, the market sector is struggling with the slow-down alongside a sharp rise in construction costs, whilst the social housing sector struggles also with increased costs of building safety and maintaining existing homes, rising costs of borrowing and grant rates that just aren’t stacking up to support the building of much-needed new social housing.

sign up for red brick’s free newsletter

So what does it need to do to turn this tough situation around and build the new homes, including social housing, that we need?

The first and biggest answer has to be funding. Keen to establish themselves as fiscally responsible, Labour came to power making few promises that involved any spending – and there have been no major funding announcements for housing as yet, though the sector awaits the Spring Spending Review with trepidation. The next Affordable Homes Programme will be the main source of funding for developing new social housing. Grant rates need to be high enough to bridge the gap between construction and land costs, and the amount that landlords can borrow against future rental income. If the government also wants to sector to prioritise social rented housing over other options (Affordable Rent, or shared ownership) then this requires additional funding, as the subsidy required per dwelling is significantly higher.

The other way to support the sector is to support the finances of social landlords, so they’re better able to raise capital. The Building Safety Fund ensures that leaseholders do not have to pay for remediating fire safety issues, but social landlords have not been protected and are having to pay from reserves. If landlords are having to spend their own reserves on remediation, they cannot commit this same money to developing new housing, and nor can they borrow if their capital position is not strong enough. Fully funding building safety work for the social housing sector would be the first step to getting some of the biggest social housebuilders, who have the expertise – and in many cases already own the vacant sites – to build again.

Supporting the social housing sector in this way will not only help build the new social housing we need, but will also help the whole of the housing sector moving towards the 1.5 million new homes target – especially while the market for sales remains stagnant.

But Government doesn’t have unlimited funds, and housing is by no means the only call on them. So what else could government do that doesn’t involve funding?

Planning is a big part of the answer, and the new Government has hit the ground running with planning reform. The changes are welcome, and will now need time to bed in, alongside maintaining the strong rhetoric to ensure all areas play their part in delivering against the new targets.

Government could look to reduce the subsidy needed for social housing by looking at social rents. The previous government reduced rents for four years, meaning that they are currently significantly lower in real terms than they were in 2010. The G15 (group of the largest housing associations in the London area) has calculated that 29% of’ homes are currently below target rent, losing them £67.7m each year in rental income. They could also consider allowing higher rents for more energy-efficient homes, something that we’ve called for at The Housing Forum, to help leverage in some private finance for retrofitting. Increasing rents could see a backlash from tenants (as well as increased costs born by the DWP via higher benefit claims). A key concern would be the impact on those affected by the benefit cap – abolishing the cap would ensure that the welfare safety net works effectively for all types of families to help them afford their rent.

And finally, looking to the longer term and to a higher rate of housebuilding across many years, the government needs to ensure that the sector has the skilled workers it needs:

  • Increased investment is needed in training and developing the workforce. FE Colleges must create training facilities and training that meets with the skills requirements of employers and the sector.
  • Staff in FE colleges and universities need to undertake continued professional development to ensure that they are up to speed with the current practice and regulations around construction.
  • Government should make dramatic improvements to careers guidance in schools to help teenagers make informed decisions about the later stages of their education, and much better knowledge of the types of job opportunities that are out there. Work experience, part-time jobs, internships and visits to local employers can all help.
  • There needs to be clear pathways for young people from school into the many different careers in construction, which includes both building new homes and maintaining and upgrading the existing stock. The London Homes Coalition has done some good work on this area.
  • The Government should not overlook the need of mid-career switchers – who have potential to expand their skillset into growing areas, such as green technology. This requires more flexible approaches to retraining and funding.

Overall, it’s been great to see such as strong focus on housing from the new Government, particularly around planning reform. But it’s now time for them to put their money where their mouth is in terms of the affordable housing sector.

Categories
Blog Post

Building homes connected to infrastructure, the benefits of Transit Oriented Developments

What is a Transit Oriented Development

A Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is an urban planning approach that focuses on creating high-density, mixed-use communities centred around public transit hubs.

At its core, TOD integrates transport infrastructure, such as rail, bus, or metro stations, with surrounding land use to create accessible, liveable communities that are well-connected by public transit and complemented by high-quality public spaces.

Over the past few decades, TOD projects have been implemented across the globe, showcasing the concept’s broad appeal and effectiveness in reshaping urban landscapes.

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

Key Benefits of TOD:

  • Environmental Sustainability: TODs promote public transit use and reduce car dependency, which leads to lower greenhouse gas emissions and a reduced overall environmental footprint.
  • Reduced Traffic Congestion: By encouraging the use of public transport, TODs alleviate road congestion, contributing to more efficient urban mobility.
  • Economic Development: TODs stimulate local economies by fostering vibrant communities, increasing foot traffic for businesses, generating employment opportunities, and potentially enhancing property values.
  • Improved Quality of Life: Residents of TOD communities enjoy reduced commute times, convenient access to amenities, and a stronger sense of community, contributing to a higher quality of life.
  • Placemaking: Through the creation of pedestrian-friendly pathways, non-vehicular routes, and public plazas, TODs prioritize walkability and cultivate dynamic public spaces that enhance the sense of place and community engagement.

Overall, TODs represent a forward-thinking approach to urban development that balances the needs of transport, environmental sustainability, and community wellbeing.

Types of Transit Oriented Developments that will boost Homebuilding

TODs offer a powerful approach to addressing the dual challenges of providing new housing and fostering sustainable urban growth. When considering TODs for housing development, it is essential to examine them at two distinct levels:

1. New Transit Hubs
TODs centered around new transit hubs are typically long-term projects that involve complex planning, substantial investment, and public-private collaboration. In the UK, for instance, the Crossrail project has demonstrated the potential for such developments to transform urban landscapes, both in terms of transit infrastructure and land value.

These types of TODs leverage the increased land value generated by new transit infrastructure, with private developers playing a key role in financing the project over the long term. Although these developments are generally not “quick wins,” they are integral to the delivery of new residential stock and the broader vision of sustainable urban growth.

2. Existing Transit Hubs
TODs developed over and around existing transit hubs offer an opportunity for more immediate impact on residential development. Given the existing infrastructure, these developments can be realised more quickly, at a lower cost, and with fewer challenges compared to new projects centered on greenfield sites. Expanding and enhancing local infrastructure within established areas is typically easier and more cost-effective than building these services from scratch in new neighborhoods.

Furthermore, the higher density typical of TODs allow for more efficient use of land, offering private developers higher rates of return. This enables the leveraging of additional funding for public and social infrastructure improvements, including social housing.

In both cases, TODs serve as a crucial tool for boosting residential housing supply, promoting public transit use, and driving urban regeneration. However, by focusing on the existing transit hub type it is likely that a real difference can be made in a shorter timeframe by potentially utlilising the thousands of transit hubs all over the country.

What can be done to Enable Transit Oriented Developments around Existing Transit Hubs

1. Over-Station Development

One of the most promising forms of TOD is the redevelopment of existing buildings or the construction of new developments directly above transit hubs, known as over-station development. While this approach maximizes land use in high-demand areas, it often comes with high costs, potential disruptions, and safety concerns, particularly if the transit hub must remain operational during construction.

In some cases, the potential value of land created by developing space over transit hubs justifies the complexities involved. A notable example of such a project is the ongoing development at Euston Station, which demonstrates the feasibility of over-station TODs in major transit centres.

2. Land Acquisition and Cost

Redeveloping land or building new developments around transit hubs in densely populated or high-cost urban areas presents significant financial challenges. The cost of land and construction in these areas can be prohibitively high, limiting the scope for TODs. However, Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) can mitigate this by changing zoning regulations to allow for greater density and height in the areas surrounding transit hubs.

In turn, this could help create a market for new residential and commercial properties in areas that are currently underutilised, driving both housing supply and economic growth.

3. Integration with Existing Transit Infrastructure

For TODs to be successful, they must be integrated with the existing transit infrastructure. This often requires significant upgrades to transit facilities or adjustments to accommodate the increased demand generated by higher-density developments. However, such upgrades can be costly and complex.

Through public-private partnerships, developers can help fund necessary improvements to transit infrastructure as part of the overall TOD planning process. By using ‘planning gain’ to ensure that the financial benefits of TODs are reinvested in the public transit system, they can enhance both the transport experience for commuters and the overall effectiveness of the transit network.

4. Equity Concerns and Gentrification

While TODs can bring numerous benefits, they also present the risk of gentrification, where rising demand for properties near transit hubs drives up housing costs, potentially displacing low-income residents. To mitigate this, LPAs can mandate the inclusion of social housing as part of TOD projects. By setting clear targets for affordable housing and ensuring that developments incorporate mixed-tenure communities, the negative impacts of gentrification can be managed.

5. Overcoming Knowledge Gaps

Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) often face barriers due to a lack of expertise in successfully implementing TODs. To address this, government could develop a Best Practice Toolkit for LPAs. This resource would provide planning guidance, showcase successful case studies, and offer insights into navigating public-private partnerships, funding mechanisms, and land value capture strategies.

Additionally, LPAs and LTAs can establish their own development vehicles to spearhead TOD initiatives. A prime example of this is Transport for London’s Transit Trading Limited Properties, which has accelerated the adoption of TOD in the UK by directly managing land development around Transit hubs.

Conclusion

Enabling Transit-Oriented Developments offers a compelling solution to urban housing shortages while promoting sustainable growth and reducing car dependency. By addressing key challenges such as land acquisition, infrastructure integration, and equity concerns, and by providing the necessary tools and expertise to LPAs, TODs can become a cornerstone of future urban planning.

Categories
10-year plan for housing Blog Post

Labour’s housing strategy needs to inspire confidence in a daunting context

Prime Minister Keir Starmer gives Plan for Change Speech by No.10 Downing Street is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Prime Minister Keir Starmer gives Plan for Change Speech by No.10 Downing Street is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The forthcoming long-term housing strategy is a huge opportunity for the government to set the agenda for the next five years or more.

The Starmer government is not the first to have bold plans on housing and, as our recent report examined, successive governments have missed their housebuilding targets. Setting a robust strategy will be key to avoiding the same fate.

The new housing strategy should define success and set a clear direction

Beyond general notions of building more homes and improving affordability, few governments over the past two decades have specified what outcomes they want from their housebuilding programmes and why – including their position on critical policy questions such as where they want new homes to go nationally, and roughly what tenure mix they want to end up with.

Without this clarity, reform programmes have lacked drive, direction, clear success metrics (beyond housing targets) and – as a result – credibility. This has often left the housebuilding industry with no clear or long-term trajectory to confidently invest in, instead being buffeted by constant policy churn, made worse by inconsistent leadership. In recent decades housing policy has rarely featured in prime ministers’ top priorities, while housing ministershave been notoriously short-tenured: the last 10 spent fewer than nine months in post.

The government’s upcoming strategy is, then, an opportunity to go beyond this summer’s broad manifesto promises and nail down what success looks like for its housebuilding programme. To inspire confidence, the strategy should set clear objectives, including a 10-year vision for what housing outcomes the government wants to deliver.

These objectives need to be realistic. We recommend that the government publishes analysis setting out – all things being equal – how it expects its policy programme to affect key outcomes such as housing availability and affordability, compared with a counterfactual where housebuilding rates are lower and the tenure mix stays the same.

subscribe to red brick’s free newsletter

The strategy should offer a roadmap for reconciling policy objectives

Successive governments, of all stripes, have failed to reconcile their housebuilding objectives with other important policy objectives that affect development, like building standards and environmental regulations. These have often undermined each other where, for example, regulations conflict or remain unclear, increase building costs at short notice or create bottlenecks in overstretched planning authorities.

The government must engage honestly with these trade-offs and set out how it plans to take forward its commitments to housebuilding, the environment and building standards in a coherent way. To help, it could commission an environmental regulatory body (such as the Office for Environmental Protection or the Environment Agency) and housing delivery experts (such as Homes England, industry stakeholders and/or regulation experts like the Future Homes Hub) to conduct a joint urgent review into how to combine higher building rates with better environmental outcomes.

The strategy should set out a credible path to delivery

The government has committed to delivering 1.5 million new homes in the next five years, requiring a rate of building not seen since the 1960s. It has been bold elsewhere too, stating that it wants new homes to come with the infrastructure that local areas need, and promising the “biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation”. Both will require increased investment, whether from government, the private sector or from capturing land values.

The government has taken important first steps to setting a better housebuilding record than its predecessors. It has implemented a new National Planning Policy Framework designed to get enough homes through Britain’s planning system, published proposals to reform planning committees to speed up decision making, and increased planning fees to improve planning departments’ capacity and performance. It has also upped investment in the Affordable Homes Programme and committed to reforming Right to Buy – signals that the government is serious about expanding social housing.

But delivery remains daunting. The housing market is in a downturn. Developers are facing a toxic combination of high interest rates (preventing first-time buyers entering the market), materials and labour shortages, and new regulations – from post-Grenfell fire safety regulations to Biodiversity Net Gain and the 2025 Future Homes Standard. All this adds to building costs.

Likewise, social housing providers are struggling with uncertain rent settlements, difficulties getting private finance in a high interest-rate environment, burgeoning maintenance bills and the costs of new regulations. All eyes are on the government’s long-term rent settlement consultation and the June 2025 multi-year spending review, where the government will set out its long-term investment plans in a tight fiscal context.  

The government needs to navigate these challenges to avoid them becoming major blockers. We recommend that its long-term strategy should include a five-year delivery plan, setting out what it expects to deliver in this parliament and how.

The government must prepare to course-correct when needed

No matter how good the government’s ‘Plan A’ is, several factors could throw its housebuilding programme off course, or indeed offer opportunities to progress it faster or more cheaply. Housebuilders – and housing ministers and their teams – will be watching the UK’s future growth projections and interest rates closely.

Recognising this volatility, we recommend that the government’s long-term housing strategy includes plans to monitor and evaluate progress against its objectives. It could, for example, commit to producing regular stocktakes that assess progress, identify current and emerging delivery risks and opportunities, and prompt the government to course-correct where needed.

The strategy is a chance for Labour to put its bold plans into action

Starmer’s government is not the first to enter office promising bold action on housebuilding. For it to become the first, for some decades, to get it right and deliver a programme that works will require a clear, robust and credible strategy. This is what it should be working to produce.

Read From the ground up: How the government can build more homes for the Institute for Government’s full analysis on how the government can meet its housebuilding targets.