Tag: Social housing

Categories
Blog Post

Regeneration means delivering for northern communities

Poor housing touches every part of a person’s life, and the consequences can be profound. Families crammed into overcrowded homes, and the strain this places on children’s ability to learn and thrive. People living with damp and mould, and the damage this does to their physical and mental health. Households in draughty, poorly insulated properties struggling to heat their homes and keep up with rising energy bills.

Housing is a policy area where getting it right can truly transform lives, not only by ensuring people have a safe and secure place to live, but by improving educational outcomes, strengthening health, and helping families make ends meet. That is why this agenda matters so deeply; because a good, safe, affordable home is the foundation on which a good life is built.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

The Government understands this and its transformational investment in social and affordable housing marks a pivotal moment in national policy.  It does more than allocate funding; it signals a shift in purpose. After years of fragmented initiatives, we are beginning to see the emergence of a more ambitious, more place sensitive approach to tackling the housing crisis. It is an approach that recognises the diverse realities of our towns, cities, and rural communities, and the different tools required to support them.

Crucially, the Government has acknowledged that delivering on both housing and regeneration is central to its future mission. Tackling housing poverty, expanding the supply of social and affordable homes, and revitalising neighbourhoods are not marginal add‑ons, they are fundamental to economic growth, social stability, and national renewal. The Pride in Place programme, with its focus on reviving high streets and improving public spaces, underlines this commitment, linking physical transformation with wider social outcomes across education, health, and community safety.

What makes this moment especially significant is that ambition is now backed by serious investment. The Social and Affordable Homes Programme, the introduction of new low interest loans for social housing providers, and the launch of a decade-long Plan for Neighbourhoods show a willingness to think long-term. Many of the communities that stand to benefit from this investment are in the North. For them, these announcements are not abstract policy concepts, they represent the building blocks of a better future.

Many funding programmes under Conservative-led governments neglected communities in the North, but important changes to the Treasury’s Green Book have altered how public funds are assessed and allocated. By placing greater weight on social value, wellbeing, and local need, the system now opens the door to investment in places that have too often been overlooked. For those working at the intersection of housing and regeneration, this shift is more than a technical reform. It creates a policy environment where long-term, community-led renewal is more achievable, more defensible, and more likely to be sustained.

Regeneration is not simply about bricks and mortar. It is about restoring pride, creating opportunity, and building resilience. Ultimately, it is about ensuring that people not only have a decent home, but a meaningful stake in the place they live. That is why housing-led regeneration must be central to the national housing agenda. New homes are essential, but they are not enough. We must also invest in the homes that already shape people’s everyday lives and the neighbourhoods that define their sense of belonging. Regeneration cannot be treated as an optional extra. It is a core component of building a fairer, greener, more prosperous North.

The Northern Housing Consortium’s Renew inquiry is a key component of this. By bringing together housing providers, local leaders, developers, policymakers, and regeneration specialists, the inquiry demonstrates that collaboration is the key foundation for success. If we want to deliver regeneration that lasts, we need to work across boundaries, share knowledge openly, and build partnerships rooted in trust and shared ambition.

This is precisely why the Renew inquiry is so important. It embodies the collaborative, evidence-driven approach that this moment demands. Findings from the Renew Call for Evidence are launching tomorrow (9th June) in parliament. The inquiry received submissions from housing associations and local authorities who own or manage nearly one million homes,over 70% of the North’s social housing.  This report will help shape a deeper understanding of how regeneration can drive growth, reduce inequality, and strengthen the social fabric of Northern communities.

Housing-led regeneration is uniquely positioned to act as a bridge between policy areas and to help articulate a coherent national narrative. It demonstrates, in a tangible way, what investment in neighbourhoods looks like in practice. From the home to the high street, regeneration joins up the physical and social aspects of placemaking. It helps counter feelings of mistrust and division by showing that change is being delivered with communities, not imposed upon them. In this way, it provides a powerful exemplar of the Government’s ambition: visible, local, and rooted in everyday life.

But to deliver on this promise, the work cannot be left to central government alone. Everyone must be involved. Local authorities, housing associations, developers, investors, community organisations, and residents all have a role to play. We must create the conditions where collaboration is the norm, where barriers are reduced, and where every partner is empowered to contribute. The most successful regeneration is grounded in local insight. It listens to communities, respects their knowledge, and builds solutions that reflect their aspirations.

Parliament also has a crucial role. The Renew inquiry offers MPs a direct line to the people and organisations shaping regeneration on the ground. By visiting projects, hearing from residents, and staying close to the evidence, parliamentarians can ensure policy reflects lived experience rather than abstract models.

As we look ahead, the message is clear: this is a moment we cannot afford to waste. The frameworks are improving. The investment is growing. The partnerships are emerging. What we need now is the resolve to turn ambition into action.

Housing-led regeneration gives us a way to do just that. It provides a practical route to deliver better homes, stronger neighbourhoods, and more confident communities. It allows us to connect national objectives – growth, opportunity, and fairness – with the everyday places where people live their lives.

If we seize this moment, we can deliver something truly transformative. Not piecemeal change, but lasting renewal. Not short-term fixes, but long-term investment in the future of the North. The tools are now on the table. It is up to all of us – government, local leaders, the housing sector, and communities themselves – to use them well.

Renew is an inquiry led by the Northern Housing Consortium and supported by Homes for the North and Muse, to explore housing-led regeneration’s role in delivering growth, tackling the housing crisis, and strengthening communities across the North.  

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)

Categories
Blog Post

What should a national tenant body for England do?

It feels like it’s past time to set up a national tenant body for England. Parts of the Government have been talking with various groups about doing just that – predominantly Baroness Taylor, the Government’s Parliamentary Under-Secretary for housing in the House of Lords, but some other representatives from both houses too.

Why England needs a national tenant body

Beyond asking how to get it off the ground, we should ask what such a body should be for, and what, if anything, national and local government should be doing to drive progress. A properly resourced national tenant body would make the work of politicians, staff at departments involved in the regulation of the social housing sector, and ultimately landlords, easier.

England has been here before. The 2007 Cave Review into social housing regulation argued that tenants needed a far stronger role within the regulatory system, helping pave the way for the National Tenant Voice programme established by the last Labour government in 2009. National Tenant Voice was intended to provide an independent national platform for social tenants to influence policy and regulation, and was set up remarkably quickly once political momentum existed. But the Coalition government abolished it in 2010 before it had fully embedded itself institutionally or built a strong national profile. One lesson from this experience is that any new tenant body will need not only meaningful independence, but also deep roots in local communities and broad public legitimacy if it is to survive changes of government and become a lasting part of England’s housing system.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

In Wales, the National Independent Tenant Voice Cymru is already taking part in national policy debates with both landlords and the Senedd. The political landscape is different in Wales than in England, but there are certainly lessons to be learned from Wales about embedding  tenants’ priorities within policymaking and creating an effective national tenant voice.

Coincidentally, just after I was asked if I’d like to contribute my thoughts about a national tenant group to Red Brick, I attended a pair of workshops hosted by the National Tenant Alliance – one of the groups setting out the case for a tenant voice in England. These events explored what tenants want from a national body, how it could operate in practice, and what resources would be needed to sustain it.

Having facilitated some of the discussions at these workshops, I have heard first-hand what tenants want a national body to achieve.

Rebalancing power in social housing

One of the core essential features that keeps cropping up is the need to rebalance power between tenants, landlords and government. Much has been made of the changes introduced through the Regulation of Social Housing Act 2023, but many tenants rightly feel it has not met the promises made in the 2018 Social Housing Green Paper.

Rebalancing power means redistributing it.  Parts of the social housing sector seem resistant to the changing regulatory environment, but many tenants feel the promises of the 2018 Social Housing Green Paper still have not been fulfilled. From tenants’ perspective, expectations around professionalism, competence and respectful treatment can still feel secondary within the regulatory system. While organisational culture is difficult to legislate for, many other professions manage to uphold clear standards without resistance or lobbying.

Giving tenants a voice locally, regionally and nationally

Tenants also place a lot of value in ensuring that any national body actually operates at the regional and local level. Tenants need an ‘unmediated voice’ in national policymaking, but the issues shaping those discussions are usually rooted in communities and everyday local experience.

A tenant network could be a much better way of spreading what works and what is best practice. The current methods are landlords trying are apparently failing to get better outcomes. Lacklustre tenant satisfaction measures, unambitious Consumer Gradings and warnings from the Ombudsman that the scale of complaints is only getting wider and deeper suggest that the absence of a tenant body treated as equals is creating more work for everyone else, not least Members of Parliament who face a deluge of housing-related casework due to a lack of ambition or progress. Some recent housing policies have not only failed to resolve the many quality issues in social housing, but have been worsening the cost of living crisis for tenants for many years.

Independence, funding and legitimacy

One of the more innovative ideas about the purpose of a national tenant body I heard recently was as a starting point for mediation. Currently tenants have only two mediation routes: formal court-directed mediation once legal proceedings have begun, or ‘alternative dispute resolution’ processes aimed at resolving issues before they escalate to disrepair claims or other legal action. Such processes can still feel heavily weighted towards landlords. I found it fascinating to ponder a situation where a national tenant body could offer not just signposting to other resources, but real advocacy in these situations to rebalance power between tenants and landlords.

So, what should the Government and local authorities and landlords do to support a national tenant body? There are surely going to be a lot of different views among tenants about this, but for my part I think they should largely agree to recognise its validity and then get out of the way.

This doesn’t mean their involvement in funding solutions isn’t important. One of the more popular suggestions for funding is a small annual payment from rents, perhaps taken out of the significant sums paid per home for services from the Ombudsman and Regulator. Although this could take the form of a voluntary membership fee paid per tenancy (as in Wales) no doubt there will be some wrangling over the amounts needed to run a tenant body – and over what implications this funding could have on the independence a tenant body so desperately needs.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)

Categories
Blog Post

New regulation means social housing tenants should be heard and respected – the reality is different for many tenants

When Maria first reported the mould spreading across her children’s bedroom walls, she believed help would come quickly. She had done everything tenants are told to do. She filled in the forms. She called repeatedly. She sent photographs. Weeks turned into months. The smell worsened. Her youngest son’s asthma became harder to manage. Eventually, she stopped believing anyone was really listening.

On another estate, a housing officer leaves a community meeting shaken after being subjected to racist abuse while trying to explain local housing allocation rules. Online rumours had spread through the neighbourhood claiming migrant families were being “given homes first.” Facts no longer mattered. Frustration had already found a target.

These stories are uncomfortable because they are not unusual.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Across the UK housing sector, conversations about race, equality and inclusion are no longer optional extras.

They are becoming central to regulation, tenant trust and the future legitimacy of housing providers themselves.

Yet for many ethnic minority tenants and staff, everyday experiences still feel disconnected from the promises organisations make publicly.

Housing has always been deeply personal. It shapes health, safety, identity and opportunity. When people feel ignored, excluded or stereotyped within housing systems, the impact reaches far beyond bricks and mortar.

Economic pressure, housing shortages and political division are creating increasingly tense conditions in many communities. Public conversations around immigration and social housing have become heavily politicised, often fuelled by misinformation online.

Housing associations and councils now find themselves operating at the centre of wider debates about fairness, belonging and social cohesion.

At the same time, the inequalities experienced by many ethnic minority households remain stark. Research from Shelter continues to show that Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities are significantly more likely to experience overcrowding, poor housing conditions and homelessness than white British households.

Government data has repeatedly shown overcrowding rates are substantially higher among Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Black households.

But statistics alone do not fully capture the emotional reality behind these experiences.

Feeling consulted, not heard

My report, Is There a Seat at the Table? Ethnic Minority Voices in Tenant Engagement, explored these issues through surveys involving hundreds of tenants and staff across 25 housing providers.

What emerged was not simply frustration, but exhaustion. Many respondents described engagement structures that appeared inclusive on paper but failed to create genuine influence in practice. An overwhelming 94% believed their organisations could do more to attract ethnic minority tenants into decision-making roles. Nearly every tenant agreed that current engagement systems failed to reflect the diversity of their communities.

Again and again, people described feeling consulted rather than heard. That distinction matters.

For many residents, trust in institutions is already fragile. The legacy of the Windrush scandal still shapes how some ethnic minority communities view public services, including housing providers. When organisations fail to communicate clearly, respond fairly or acknowledge lived experiences, mistrust grows quickly.

This places the housing sector at an important crossroads. Providers are no longer judged solely on repairs, rent collection or development targets. Increasingly, they are judged on fairness, transparency and cultural competence.

But regulation alone will not rebuild trust. Engagement itself must evolve.

Too often, tenant involvement becomes performative. Residents are invited into consultations, focus groups and advisory panels, yet key decisions remain unchanged. People quickly recognise when participation is symbolic rather than meaningful. In many cases, tokenistic engagement damages trust more than no engagement at all.

True inclusion requires intentional effort.

It means holding meetings at times working families can actually attend, providing interpreters and translated materials, and recognising barriers such as digital exclusion, childcare responsibilities and cultural needs. It also means working alongside trusted faith groups and community organisations rather than expecting residents to adapt entirely to institutional systems.

Most importantly, it means sharing power rather than simply collecting opinions.

Misinformation and division

One of the most damaging challenges facing the sector today is the spread of misinformation around housing allocations. The myth that migrants or ethnic minority households unfairly “jump the queue” for social housing has become increasingly common online and in community conversations.

In reality, housing allocations are governed by legal frameworks based on need, vulnerability and local connection – not race or ethnicity. But misinformation spreads faster than policy explanations, particularly on social media platforms designed to reward outrage and division.

The consequences are very real.

Frontline staff experience increased hostility. Tenants become suspicious of one another. Communities already struggling with economic hardship become even more divided. And organisations often find themselves reacting defensively rather than building trust proactively.

Housing providers can no longer afford to remain passive observers in these conversations. Clear communication matters. Explaining allocation systems in plain language matters. Sharing real tenant stories matters. Community-led conversations are often far more effective than corporate statements because people are more likely to trust lived experience than institutional messaging.

Accountability after Awaab Ishak

The sector also faces a growing accountability challenge. The tragic death of Awaab Ishak in 2020 fundamentally changed the national conversation about housing conditions and tenant safety. The introduction of Awaab’s Law has placed new legal responsibilities on landlords to respond to hazards such as damp and mould within strict timeframes.

This matters enormously because ethnic minority households are statistically more likely to experience overcrowded and poor-quality housing conditions.

Yet many tenants still do not fully understand their rights or feel confident using complaints systems. Language barriers, fear of repercussions and previous negative experiences often discourage people from escalating concerns. For some residents, particularly those from communities with low trust in public institutions, silence can feel safer than complaint.

That silence can become dangerous.

Housing providers therefore have responsibilities that extend beyond legal compliance. They must ensure tenants understand their rights clearly, accessibly and in ways that feel culturally competent. Accountability only works when residents genuinely believe their voices will lead to action.

The next five years could become a defining period for the housing sector. Stronger consumer regulation, greater scrutiny of equality outcomes and increasing expectations around tenant voice are already reshaping organisational priorities. Conversations around ethnicity pay gaps, workforce diversity and representation at leadership level are becoming harder to avoid.

There are also emerging risks around technology and AI-driven decision-making within housing services. While automation may improve efficiency, poorly designed systems can unintentionally reproduce existing inequalities if bias is not actively monitored and challenged.

Ultimately, however, this conversation comes back to something deeply human.

Housing is about dignity.

It is about whether people feel safe in their homes. Whether they feel respected when they raise concerns. Whether they believe their experiences matter. Whether they feel they truly belong in the communities they live in.

The organisations that succeed over the next decade will not simply be those with the strongest financial performance or largest development pipelines. They will be the organisations that communities trust.

And trust is not built through slogans or strategy documents alone.

It is built slowly, consistently and visibly – when tenants feel heard, protected, respected and represented every single day.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)

Categories
Blog Post

How to increase housing supply: Use every tool in the box

Norwich city by pam fray, CC BY-SA 2.0

Britain needs more homes. We should use policy to get empty homes back into use and to encourage people with extra space to downsize – but that won’t change the fact that the UK has been under-delivering homes for decades compared to other Western countries.

Yet our housing crisis is not just a crisis of low supply. It is a crisis of overdependence on a single model of supply. For decades, we have relied overwhelmingly on speculative private development. Developers buy land assuming they will build market sale homes for the highest prices possible in a given local market. They then wait as long as necessary to sell at the prices they assumed when buying land. When prices fall or build costs increase, as they have done recently, supply slows. That is not a moral failing: it is how the speculative development model is designed to work.

The planning system bakes in this housing model, taking for granted that this is how the majority of homes will be delivered, and seeking to cream off some of its profits to build social housing and infrastructure (via Section 106 agreements in England and Wales, and Section 75 agreements in Scotland). No resilient country should rely so heavily on one delivery model for something as fundamental as housing.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

There are two basic theories at play in the debate about how to increase housing supply in the UK:

  1. Make this speculative development model as easy, smooth and profitable as possible
  2. Diversify the UK’s housing supply away from this one over-dominant model of housing supply

I would argue it is self-evident that the gains from the first strategy are bound to be too limited to make a difference to most people’s lives. Reforms to planning and regulation matter. Britain does need a faster, more predictable planning system. But planning reform alone cannot solve a housing crisis rooted in overdependence on a single speculative delivery model that relies on maintaining prices where they are. Since current prices are far too high for most people to afford, this supply model will only ever be able to cater to a minority. Increasingly, it sells homes to first time buyers with support from the so-called ‘Bank of mum and dad’. For the rest of us, our only possible hope of buying an average priced home in England is to be in the top 10% of earners in the country.

Now let’s explore the second strategy: free the UK from over-dependence on the speculative model. Healthy housing systems use many delivery models at once: private sale, social housing, community-led housing, Build to Rent, co-operatives and specialist housing for older people.

The most direct way to diversify how we build homes is to use the tried and tested model of mass social housebuilding – as discussed in Labour Housing Group’s 2020 report, The Missing Solution. Policy and funding support must enable councils and housing associations to ramp up supply. To scale up social housebuilding anywhere close to the levels needed, we need two things.

  1. Sources of land protected from speculative housebuilding. If social landlords are competing with speculative housebuilders for the same land, they will either lose or buy land at an extortionate and unsustainable price.
  2. Public grant and affordable finance to cover the costs of building homes, so that rents can be kept low and affordable for social renters and homes can be managed and maintained to decent, safe standards.

It is a moral and economic imperative for governments across the UK to scale up this model as much as humanly possible, as fast as humanly possible. We can and must do more – for example on affordable land supply, front-loading grant, extending low-cost loans, building capacity in councils and community-led housing groups, and supporting acquisitions from the market.

But after 14 years of Conservative misrule of our economy, aggravated by war and international turmoil, it is difficult to see how the UK can scale up social housebuilding as quickly as we need to confront our housing crisis in the way that people deserve. It is going to take time to rebuild social housebuilding after decades of hostile policies.

I don’t want to ask people to wait. I want us to use every tool in the box to get every person in this country in a safe, affordable, decent place to call home. That means using policy to support as much diversification of housing supply as possible:

None of these alternative private development models alone will solve the housing crisis – but done right, they can all help. All have untapped potential to provide more ‘Affordable Housing’ through planning agreements.

I understand why many on the Left are sceptical of new profit-driven development models. But there is no doubt they are playing an important role in diversifying housing supply in other countries with similar housing problems to our own. Britain’s housing crisis is too deep, and too urgent, for ideological purity or single-solution thinking.

We must build far more social housing. We should reform planning. We should support community-led housing. We should use Build to Rent, specialist housing and student housing where they help free up supply elsewhere.

The goal is not to defend one development model against another. The goal is to create space in our housebuilding system for every model that can contribute to ending the housing crisis.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)

Categories
Blog Post

Lessons from our history: Britain must build places, not units

There is a growing consensus that something has fundamentally gone wrong at all levels with housing in Britain.  We often search for new approaches and policies to meet society’s needs when in fact we should instead look at our history for the solutions.

The Labour Government understands that the housing market is dysfunctional, that housing supply for decades has been inadequate and is rightly appalled at inheriting a situation where there are over 300,000 people, including more than 170,000 children, in all forms of temporary accommodation.  In this context, the response to set an ambitious target of 1.5 million new homes over 5 years is appropriate.  I am, however, concerned that even with a record £39 billion committed to the affordable housing programme, this will not produce anywhere near enough truly affordable homes, and in particular, the right kind of social rent homes to meet the crushing levels of housing need.

My worry is that in a drive to hit house building targets we lose sight of something of enormous importance, and that is the need to create communities where people want to live and want to put down roots.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

This is where looking at our history becomes so important. During the inter-war years of the early twentieth century, and then in the post second world war period, pioneering planners and local authorities in Britain, despite the most challenging of circumstances, created garden cities and new towns that have stood the test of time.

The Dagenham and Rainham constituency that I represent contains much of the Becontree housing estate started in the 1920s. The planners of the London County Council had the foresight to adopt much of the thinking that inspired the earlier garden city movement. Building 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses with gardens, in an area where parks and other green public spaces were created, gave life changing conditions for families moving from slum tenement blocks in east London.  

The housing supply of the last decade or two has been driven, predominately, by the targeting of numbers and by building viability arguments from developers. This has resulted in the over-supply of 1-bedroom flats and a nearly complete absence of 4-bedroom properties.

Instead, we must treat building as a part of place making. We must consider nurturing sustainable communities which are more balanced, incorporating the essential social and transport infrastructure needed to support new and existing communities.

That would also mean changing the housing mix in terms of tenure and house sizes and to build sufficient numbers of homes suitable for families. It would mean building specific accommodation for elderly people designed to promote and extend independent living. This would in fact save revenue spending on social care and demands on health services.

I strongly suspect that this model of housing development would not just have greater longevity than the high-rise apartment block estates do, but would engender much higher levels of wellbeing, with all of the positive social and health outcome benefits that flow from it.

It would also not surprise me if this approach reduces opposition from existing communities to new housing schemes.  This would also save planning expenses and time, and give a greater feeling of ownership and of being done by, rather than done to.

As a nation we did this before and did so in even more financially challenging times. Not only that, but those places and homes have stood the test of time.

Building for the future means planning neighbourhoods around the flow of life. From having the infrastructure to provide the best start in life, affordable first homes, places to work and socialise, family sized homes for social rent where people can put down roots, to sheltered options where people can grow old in the community they call home.

Only a legacy plan will help us surmount the housing crisis, not a dash for units.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)

Categories
Blog Post

Why the construction sector needs social housing

Two construction workers with a block of flats behind them

With 169,000 children growing up in temporary accommodation – the highest number since records began – the case for the government’s manifesto commitment to ‘deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation’ is overwhelming. This situation damages children’s health and development, and it is costing councils across England £7.7 million every day. It is a national scandal whose social and financial costs are well-understood.

But social housing does more than provide an alternative to poor-quality homes. It is also the foundation of a successful housebuilding system. Building social homes at scale – including during market downturns – can underpin the government’s response to the crisis in construction skills and innovation. Far from being in conflict, social housing and market housing can support each other.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

The inherent limitations of the UK’s development model

In a housebuilding system which relies excessively on speculative market housing, developers compete against each other to pay the most for land. Having taken on a large upfront risk through high land costs, developers then need to recoup their investment, building as slowly as necessary to maintain prices. But when sales prices soften, even moderately, market housing starts plummet. Developers are not incentivised to start new schemes if they will have to sell homes for less than they assumed when buying land.

To make matters worse, in tandem with increasing dependence on this speculative model of market supply, the UK’s social housing supply model has become pro-cyclical. Post-war social housing developments were close to 100% social housing. Most costs were covered by grant, and land was assembled at low cost outside the speculative market. This model was insulated from market cycles, allowing the supply of social homes to continue during downturns in private housebuilding. In other words, social housing supply at this time was counter-cyclical.

From the 1980s, the dominant supply model for social housing flipped: grant rates were cut, borrowing costs rose, social landlords had to start competing with private developers in the land market. As a result, an expanded range of ‘affordable housing’ tenures (with costs pegged to market prices) has become increasingly dependent on cross-subsidy from the profits of building market housing. Far from smoothing out the boom and bust cycle of speculative private housebuilding, this model of building social housing intensifies those peaks and troughs. This doesn’t just affect how many homes are built. It shapes how the construction sector itself operates.

Supporting the UK’s construction sector

Ratcheting down: Private housing completions in England since 1946

Over repeated cycles of the housing market, the total output of speculative development is ratcheting downward. As housing starts plummet, so too does the demand for skills and materials. Many construction workers simply leave the sector, often permanently. It is no coincidence that construction workers are more likely to be self-employed than workers in any other sector. Today, more people are leaving the construction sector than joining it, and productivity has remained stubbornly flat for decades. Why would housebuilders maintain a large permanent workforce, or invest in the skills of that workforce, when they know they will need to retrench supply as the market turns?

Because firms cannot predict demand, materials prices have become more volatile. Official statistics show sharp swings in construction output and brick deliveries, worsening shortages and price spikes in an import-dependent system. As the construction industry has adapted to manage the risks of cyclical demand, construction capacity has atrophied.

The long-heralded shift to modern methods of construction (MMC) has also stalled. The speculative, stop-start nature of the industry makes the expense and risks of investment in innovation unattractive. Investors are reluctant to commit to factories which will be moth-balled at the first signs of the next housing market slowdown.

From stop-start to build, baby, build

A more balanced system would combine market housing with a counter-cyclical social housing programme, alongside new market models based on stable demand such as Build to Rent.

When governments fund and enable social housing at scale, it can be built as fast as need demands and construction capacity allows. As the Farmer Review of the UK Construction Labour Model found in 2016, a major programme of social housing would support predictability of demand for labour, skills and materials, resulting in a less risky operating environment for housebuilders, developers and planners. The booms and busts of cyclical market supply are smoothed out by counter-cyclical social supply, so capacity can be maintained and increased despite housing market cycles.

In countries such as Japan and Sweden, innovations and new technologies have thrived on this certainty, creating new opportunities to expand development capacity. It is no coincidence that the last time that modern methods of construction made a major contribution to overall housing supply in the UK was during the post-war social housing boom.

Of course, the benefits of a more sustainable skills base and of innovation in construction today would be felt far beyond the developments which first enabled them. If social housing schemes keep construction workers in the sector during market downturns, those experienced workers will be available to the private sector when the market recovers. If social housing schemes provide enough stable demand to keep MMC providers in business, market housing will be able to benefit from their services, too. While construction capacity is often seen as a constraint on building more social housing, the reverse is also true. A stable pipeline of social housing would expand capacity, supporting more jobs, stronger skills, and greater innovation across the sector.

The government’s new Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026-36 represents the most significant policy shift back towards a counter-cyclical social housing supply model in decades. A future blog will explore how this could work in practice, and what further changes are needed.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)

Categories
Blog Post

We need to talk about Section 106… again

Following the Spending Review earlier this summer, the affordable housing sector has been invigorated by a sense of security, which has allowed us to look more confidently towards future investments and our commitment to tackling the housing crisis. This, in turn, has reopened discussions around Section 106 agreements (S106) and their key role in ensuring that the Government meets its ambitious target of delivering 1.5m new homes this Parliament.

However, the question we should be asking is not ‘when will housing associations (HAs) start bidding for S106 again?’ but rather ‘are the S106 currently on the market suitable for the communities we want to help build?’

Sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

S106 has, indeed, historically been one of the main ways of delivering affordable housing across the UK, while also securing significant investment from developers for infrastructure funding, environmental protection, local jobs and training opportunities. HAs have been called upon to support housing delivery targets through S106 and we have effectively answered the call for a long time now, even when conditions weren’t great.    

However, as our sector’s finances have been taking repeated hits in the last few years, we have become much more selective in the contracts we are taking on, this resulting in a notable decrease in S106. The Housebuilders Federation (HBF) has reported record figures of 17,400 affordable homes not being under contract at the end of 2024. And more recently flagged that 8,500 homes due in the next 12 months are at risk of not being built or being kept empty because of lack of interest from HAs.

While these figures are alarming, the onus shouldn’t be placed solely on housing associations to get us out of this mess.

Rethinking S106 contracts

I was personally encouraged by the Government’s commitment to tackling the S106 problem and setting up the Clearing Service under Homes England. Despite its low initial take-up (reportedly only 10% of contracts were registered six months after it was launched) this is an essential tool for exploring why S106 contracts are being declined. And while it’s easy to point at HA finances as sole culprit, results so far are pointing towards tenure mix, location, as well as issues with management agreements.

This is something we’ve explored earlier this year, when the G15 launched a guidance document, supported by HAs, local authorities and developers alike. Building Together, Building Better: Rethinking S106 for Affordable Housing Delivery has voiced our concerns over the quality and design of some of the homes acquired through these agreements, as well as the timing in which these are currently being built.

The fact is that, when bidding for these homes, we are often faced with a ‘take it or leave it’ deal, rather than being brought in early on, when we can influence the planning process. Critical factors like the design and quality of properties, the way that places are managed, and the terms of the deals themselves. Building new homes isn’t enough. They must genuinely meet the needs of the people who live in them and be sustainably manageable by housing associations for decades to come.

This means that service charges, which are a major issue residents raise with us, should be affordable, transparent and offer value for money. The development conditions and management arrangements should reflect that commitment, especially considering many HA residents are low-income families, or marginal buyers through shared ownership.

Complex management structures also make for difficult arrangements, with additional costs, and often conflicting standards and priorities amongst the partners. Where possible, HAs prefer to be able to control the whole block of flats, particularly in urban areas, including the homes, communal areas and structure, as a Freeholder or Head Lessee. On larger developments, where that isn’t possible, simple and clear management arrangements must be agreed, with HAs being able to influence control over cost and quality of the service provision.

The G15 report, led by L&Q, talks about early engagement and collaboration as leading principles for any viable S106 agreement. It provides a practical framework for developers going forward to unlock the large volume of affordable housing and details principles around affordability, planning, design and management structures. These need to be seriously considered to make S106 contracts attractive and viable for the sector again.

In the meantime, housing associations are doing it for themselves. We are playing our part in tackling the housing crisis. Together, the G15’s members own or manage more than 770,000 homes across the country and they house around one in ten Londoners. We also build around 15% of all affordable homes across England and, in the last financial year, L&Q was solely responsible for 10% of all affordable housing handovers in London.

Given HAs’ social mission, we respond to residents’ and communities’ genuine needs, which is why we want to build the right type of homes in the right areas. And that is why it is essential that both HAs and local authorities are involved in the planning process early on and transparency is maintained throughout delivery.

Collectively housing associations are the largest providers of affordable housing in the country. However, if we are to reach the ambitious targets the Government has set out, we need partnership structures where we are considered equal, involved early-on and maintain transparency throughout the project.

With over a million people on housing waiting lists, and local authorities spending over £5m every day on temporary accommodation, we urgently need to build together – and build better.

Categories
Blog Post

Social and Affordable Housing: An Engine for Economic Growth, Resilience and Social Value

The UK housing crisis has often been framed as a problem of supply, with the conversation frequently reduced to a question of how many homes can we build and how quickly. I would argue, that when we talk about social and affordable housing, the discussion should go far deeper. 

Building homes is not just about the physical building; it’s also about economic growth, healthier communities, reduced strain on public services and creating long-term value that benefits society. 

Recent Government announcements, from expanding the Affordable Housing Programme to the inclusion of housing in the National Infrastructure Pipeline offer real glimmers of hope. The commitment to New Towns, alongside a renewed focus on social and affordable housing quotas in planning, signals a recognition that housing is both critical infrastructure and a driver for prosperity and growth. 

However, in the face of economic uncertainty, the temptation for local and central government to scale back their ambition will weigh heavy. And in my view that would be a profound mistake. 

sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

The economic case for social and affordable Housing

Investment in social and affordable housing is set to generate a ripple effect across the economy. Research led by Shelter and the Centre for Economic and Business Research found that building 90,000 social homes a year could add £51.2bn to the economy over 30 years. This includes delivering a £12bn net profit to the taxpayer. 

This is not just an abstract theory, nor is it rocket science. When we build, we create jobs across the construction sector, manufacturing, logistics and professional services with money flowing into local supply chains. 

Affordable housing also has an impact on disposable incomes. Households paying genuinely affordable rents have more money to spend in their local economy, which supports local businesses and strengthens community resilience. When coupled with infrastructure such as new transport links and digital connectivity, the economic impact is amplified, enabling both residents and businesses to flourish. 

Reducing long-term public cost

The social case is also very compelling and the cost of not doing enough is already evident. According to Shelter more than 131,000 households were in temporary accommodation during March 2025, including 169,050 children. Local authorities spent £2.29 billion on temporary accommodation in 2023/24 an increase of 29% on the previous year. Without intervention, the numbers will continue to rise with millions being spent on B&Bs and private rentals at inflated prices. 

Social and affordable housing directly reduces this burden. By moving households into stable, permanent homes, local authorities can redirect resources towards prevention, support services and regeneration. 

The benefits extend into healthcare and education. Stable housing is linked to mental and physical health outcomes, reduced hospital admissions and better school attendance. These outcomes reduce the demand on what are already overstretched services. To put it bluntly, every social and truly affordable home built is an investment into lowering pressure on tomorrow’s public expenditure while improving the local economy. 

Social value as a metric 

Too often housing policy and investment decisions are judged solely by their immediate financial returns. However, the concept of social value, enshrined in the Public Services Act, offers a more inclusive and equitable framework. By adopting social value as a core metric, decision-makers can better identify those benefits that go beyond profit. These include meaningful outcomes for individuals and communities, such as the creation of local jobs, apprenticeships, and community facilities delivered through development projects. 

I believe that embedding social value should be a strategic priority.  That’s why we back our words with action, ensuring that every social and affordable home we deliver is designed to generate lasting economic and social benefits for the community.  From generating local employment and apprenticeships to incorporating sustainable design that helps to reduce household bills, our developments are designed to have a meaningful impact for communities and the environment.

Partnership between the public and private sector 

To achieve its ambition of delivering 370,000 homes annually, the Government must fully leverage collaboration between the public and private sector. While the public sector plays a critical role in strategic planning and ensuring development aligns with social and environmental standards, the private sector can contribute essential capital, innovation and deliver capacity. 

In addition, SMEs and new entrants will be vital in expanding the housing sectors capacity. Their agility, local knowledge, and willingness to innovate will help to unlock underutilised sites, diversify the housing market and accelerate the delivery of new homes. 

By embedding fresh perspectives into the broader partnership approach, Government can foster a more resilient housing market. Supporting SMEs through targeted procurement, access to finance, and streamlined planning processes will be vital to realising their full potential. 

Facing economic headwinds

Rising interest rates, construction inflation, and a shortage of skilled labour are genuine challenges. Yet scaling back housing delivery in response to these pressures would be a false economy. The skills gap, in particular can be addressed through housing-led investment that includes commitments to apprenticeships and training in modern methods of construction (MMC), helping to modernise the sector while expanding. 

With strong partnerships, innovative delivery models and unwavering political will, we can build the homes that pay back their cost many times over in economic growth, reduced public spending, and stronger, healthier communities. Abandoning or watering down this commitment would not only leave tens of thousands of people without the homes they need, but it will also weaken the economy, widen inequality and miss the chance to deliver one of the most effective long-term investments available to any government. 

The message from academic research, housing leaders and developers on the front line of delivering social and affordable housing is clear. Social housing is social value, and social value has capital value. Officially reclassifying it as critical infrastructure can unlock billions in stable investment, backed by a clear policy direction and planning alignment. If Government can stay the course and long-term funding is maintained, the UK can do more than just house its citizens. It can anchor its economy in stable inclusive growth. 

For households and communities still feeling the impact of the increase in the cost-of-living crisis, new social housing represents not just a shelter, but real hope. It is a visible commitment to rebuilding the social contract, a recognition that everyone deserves a safe, affordable home as a basic human right and foundation for prosperity and opportunity. 

You can hear more from Mark Powell at Labour Housing Group’s fringe at Labour Party Conference in partnership with EDAROTH: How can Labour reach 1.5 million homes through harnessing SMEs and innovative approaches? (Monday 29th: 15:30 – 16:30)

Categories
Blog Post Class of 2024

Labour’s first year in Government has kickstarted a generational uplift in social housebuilding

Like many in the Labour movement, fixing the housing crisis has been a key priority for me before and throughout my journey into politics.

Throughout my early career working on planning reform in the Treasury, to co-ordinating between boroughs at regional and sub-regional levels, to directly programming and delivering social homes in local government, the challenge and potential of social housing has been ever-present to me.

Every social home we build represents a household with a stable roof over their head, shielded from the increasingly unaffordable private rental sector. It is a child who is protected from moving miles to a new school after being rehoused into temporary accommodation; it is a pensioner freed from the worry of their rent increasing beyond their fixed income; it is a carer whose Local Housing Allowance is being reinvested into the state rather than funnelled into a landlord’s bank account. Most importantly, every social home we deliver puts the sector as a whole on a firmer footing, guarantees stable income to run a sustainable service, and provides a tangible asset for registered providers to lend against in building even more social homes.

sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

It is easy to pin the blame for the state of social housing on the first introduction of the Right to Buy, which led to the mass sell-off of council homes, but we cannot let the past 15 years of neglectful Tory Governments of the hook either. From cutting the Affordable Homes Programme by 40% upon entering office, to supercharging the Right to Buy, as well as suppressing rents for years, the Conservatives enabled the sell-off of social homes while stripping away the ability to build more. From 2012 to 2024, 124,000 homes were sold on the Right to Buy, at the same time as the number of households in temporary accommodation increased to 127,890.

This alone is challenging enough, but the Conservatives’ decisions on housing delivery were also deeply harmful by letting developers off the hook with a range of intermediate tenures. The introduction of affordable rent in 2011, and the inclusion of student accommodation and build-to-rent housing within planning guidance from 2019, have all funnelled crucial developer contributions towards other tenures and further weakened social rent.

The fact that this has come at the same time as a historically difficult environment for delivery has resulted in a perfect storm preventing new social homes. Supply chain inflation and skills shortages have all increased the cost of building, at the same time as social housing providers have faced financial squeeze from introduction of important regulation in building safety, social housing regulation, as well as the pressing need to decarbonise our housing stock.

The result has been profound for the sector, as the delivery of new social homes slumped from 60,000 in 2010/11 to under 10,000 in 2023/4.

We need safer, warmer, and better-managed social homes, and we cannot expect social providers to deliver this alongside more homes without substantial support.

And this is exactly what the new Government has provided. Within a single year of power, Labour has introduced a number of reforms which will not only prevent the sell-off of social homes and laying the groundwork for a generational boost to this most important tenure which was laid out in our manifesto.

The Government has curtailed the Right to Buy, reducing the available discounts and setting forward a number of new reforms including ensuring that council tenants are truly long-term residents by ensuring that they have lived there for ten years, removing newbuild council homes from the Right to Buy, and preventing homes sold through the Right to Buy from being let out in the private rental sector.

Importantly, the Government also made it easier to build new social homes, through reforms to planning and focus increasingly on social rent. Three particular changes here have been particularly exciting to me: the decision to instruct England to focus Affordable Homes Programme spending on social rent; the new Compulsory Purchase powers in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which will allow local authorities to purchase land for social homes at use value, rather than inflated ‘hope value’; and the ‘golden rules’ allocated to ‘grey belt’ sites of low-quality land on the edge of cities, which will prioritise the development of affordable homes.

Finally, the Government has provided a stable financial footing at the most recent Spending Review for registered providers to increase supply at pace. Alongside the much-discussed £39 billion Affordable Homes Programme, other grant funding for decarbonisation and building safety will reduce the pressures faced by the sector to bring existing stock up to date, and a ten-year rent settlement will bring their revenue in real terms back up to 2015 levels and enable for longer term business planning.

The significant investment in social housing by this Government shows a key recognition of the value of a social tenancy.  But we cannot rest on the laurels of this progress and we need to continue to find and address faults preventing the development of new social homes.

One of these has to be around developer contributions, the Section 106 process and viability assessments. Local authorities and housing campaigners rightly complain that developers too often sidestep contributions, make the most of loopholes, or renegotiate affordable housing requirements after Section 106 agreements are made, and discerning what is a reasoned response to a fast-changing delivery environment is challenging. This is particularly the case as we look more and more on land value uplift to deliver what the state has failed to do for the past 15 years, whether that is building roads, GP surgeries or schools, or building social homes. We need streamlining of this process to ensure that agreements are conducted transparently and enforced effectively. Prioritising social rent and empowering local authorities to scrutinise developer claims, would all help in this area.

The Government also needs to press forward in its work to reform the Building Safety Regulator. Social housebuilders are those with the least resources and are more likely to be looking into building high rises than homes for market sale, and so ensuring that mandatory guidance is given beforehand and that feedback from failed applications is readily available is crucial as the new regime embeds itself.

Finally, social homes need to be at the heart of the Government’s New Towns vision. If these are to live up to their promise and deliver genuinely new communities in new settlements or urban extensions, then affordable and secure options need to be present for those priced out of home ownership.

Labour’s record of delivery on housing policy in its first year of government has been impressive, and I am proud of the work already done to lay the groundwork for the generational boost in social housing as promised in our manifesto. Undoing decades of decline under the previous Government’s tenure will have a meaningful impact on living standards and make meaningful progress on the human consequences endured by the hundreds of thousands of people in temporary accommodation.  We must continue to act quickly and decisively and to prioritise any measures which will create more social homes, and to deliver the change which millions of people voted for a year ago.

Categories
Blog Post

Reforming Section 106 is crucial for a generational boost in social housing

Blochairn Road Social Housing, Glasgow by TECU Consulting is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Blochairn Road Social Housing, Glasgow by TECU Consulting is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The Section 106 (S106) planning obligation system has long been the backbone of affordable housing delivery across England. Yet, far from being the robust solution we need, it has morphed into an inadequate sticking plaster, barely concealing a profound crisis in genuinely affordable, social rented housing. The more reliant we have become on S106 agreements, the fewer homes we’ve actually delivered. It’s high time we confronted the reality: our dependence on developer-led contributions is fundamentally failing to deliver the homes communities desperately need.

First conceived in the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act, S106 was originally intended to mitigate the localised impacts of new developments—addressing pressures on local infrastructure like schools, healthcare, and transport. Generally, there are two ways to fund social and affordable housebuilding: through government spending via grants or loans, or through developers’ contributions. However, over time, as state-backed social housing provision shrank dramatically, S106 evolved far beyond its initial scope, becoming a primary vehicle for affordable housing supply. Today, it accounts for a staggering 38% of social homes and half of all affordable homes delivered annually. But instead of a sign of success, this reliance reveals a deeply flawed approach.

sign up to red brick’s free newsletter

The current mechanism incentivises developers to prioritise ambiguous and often less suitable housing tenures such as shared ownership or ‘affordable rent’—both considerably less beneficial than genuinely affordable social rented homes. Worse yet, developers frequently opt out of construction obligations altogether, preferring financial payments to already overburdened local authorities with little capacity to use this funding to build. Indeed, while the government’s recent pledge to recruit an extra 300 local planning officers is a positive step, it falls significantly short, replacing fewer than one in ten of the planning positions cut throughout the 2010s. This leaves local authorities severely under-resourced to effectively manage and enforce S106 obligations.The result is clear: fewer actual homes and a deepening crisis.

The viability assessment process, designed to test whether developers can meet planning obligations without compromising profits, has further exacerbated the problem. Despite high-profile cases—like the infamous Battersea Power Station development—raising awareness of exploitation, the truth is that these viability assessments routinely undermine local authorities. Too often, developers reduce or even eliminate their affordable housing commitments entirely by claiming financial unfeasibility. This opaque and subjective process means fewer social homes are built, and crucial opportunities for alleviating housing pressures are lost, often permanently.

Ironically, the reliance on S106 has only deepened since government funding for social housebuilding was drastically cut post-2010. With austerity measures stripping away substantial grant-funding streams, we increasingly looked to developers’ contributions as a makeshift replacement. But the numbers don’t lie. While government targets aim for 300,000 new homes annually, just 7,500 social homes were built in England in 2022/23, down alarmingly from nearly 40,000 a decade ago. Even more starkly, Right to Buy alone axed more than 14,000 social homes out of circulation in the same period, meaning we have had a net loss in social housing stock. Clearly, our existing approach is broken, underlined by the fact that the more we’ve depended on developer contributions, the fewer genuinely affordable homes we’ve managed to produce.

But diagnosing the problem is just the first step. We must urgently pursue substantial reforms to the S106 framework, starting by prioritising the construction of genuinely affordable social rented homes within all agreements. Introducing a mandatory minimum percentage of 15% for social rent tenures within S106 obligations would directly counter developers’ preference for less socially beneficial tenures or financial opt-outs. This simple measure would clarify obligations, remove ambiguity, and most importantly, deliver the genuinely affordable homes that communities across the country desperately need.

Additionally, we must reform the viability assessment process fundamentally. Transparency must become mandatory, and local authorities need enhanced powers and resources to scrutinise developers’ claims effectively. A revised, robust viability framework would prevent abuse, accelerate negotiations, and ensure that developments truly contribute to local housing needs rather than merely inflating developers’ bottom lines.

These immediate reforms are essential but insufficient on their own. Ultimately, the underlying crisis in social housing demands a significant increase in direct government investment. We must look to the next phase of the Affordable Homes Programme, as well as the new £2bn boost, as an opportunity to refocus explicitly on social rented housing. A clear national target backed by meaningful public investment could not only reduce reliance on developers but would restore the stability and predictability required to deliver social housing at scale.

The stakes could hardly be higher. Without these reforms, the government’s ambitious housing targets will remain forever out of reach, and our housing crisis will only deepen. The reliance on a failing S106 system is simply unsustainable. It’s time we embraced a more ambitious, government-backed strategy for social housing delivery—a strategy that prioritises homes over profits, transparency over obfuscation, and genuine affordability over sticking plasters. Only then can we build the future our communities truly deserve.