Council Housing: The Ambition Is Welcome – But Delivery Will Be the Real Test

Number of houses built between 1949 & 2023 (in England)

Source - Statista - https://www.statista.com

Recent comments from Andy Burnham have reignited debate and 'aspiration', for the future of council housing in England. While the ambition is both welcome and necessary, much of the groundwork required to deliver it has already been undertaken. Through the Open Social Housing Asset OSHA initiative, Ottersbrook and its partners have spent more than seven years developing practical solutions to improve housing delivery, asset management and long-term housing outcomes. Supported by over 23 Registered Providers, together with several Combined Authorities and Local Authorities, the initiative has demonstrated what can be achieved through genuine collaboration across the housing sector. Yet despite the scale of the challenge facing the country and the potential benefits of this work, it has received relatively little attention at national policy level. Whilst successive governments have continued to pursue housing targets, the sector has often overlooked the systems, processes, skills and long-term asset strategies needed to consistently achieve them.

We have worked hard at OSHA, to create a transparent, collaborative framework that allows housing providers, local authorities and supply chain partners to work together towards common objectives and we have delivered, at the same time, numerous tools, pattern books, zero carbon playbooks to support MMC and DfMA integration. However, despite decades of political commitment to increasing housing supply, the often-quoted target of 300,000 homes per year remains largely elusive.

As the graph above illustrates, the UK has never consistently replicated the levels of housing delivery achieved during the post-war decades, when council housebuilding formed a significant part of national output. Importantly, many of those homes were delivered using the innovative building systems of their day—what we would now describe as Modern Methods of Construction (MMC).

The question therefore, is not simply whether we need more council housing, but whether today's local authorities possess the resources, skills, procurement capability, funding certainty and in-house technical capacity necessary, to deliver it at scale. Many councils once employed extensive professional teams, including Clerks of Works and dedicated technical specialists responsible for quality, oversight and delivery. Can the sector realistically recreate that level of capability, or do we need a different delivery model fit for the challenges of the 21st century?

That very question drove the OSHA Business Case and eventual programme of complex works, back in 2019-2020, until this day.

Andy Burnham's call for the largest council housebuilding programme since the post-war period reflects growing recognition that housing affordability, homelessness and waiting lists remain among the country's most pressing challenges. Few would argue with the principle. A secure, affordable home provides the foundation for employment, education, health and community wellbeing. The question is not whether we need more housing. The question is how we deliver it.

For decades, housing policy has tended to focus on targets, funding announcements and political commitments. Yet the industry continues to struggle with the same underlying constraints: planning delays, labour shortages, fragmented procurement routes, inconsistent quality standards, an ageing delivery model that often struggles to keep pace with demand and a total reliance on house builders to drive up supply numbers. If government is serious about delivering social and affordable housing at the scale being discussed, traditional approaches alone are very unlikely to be enough.

This is where industrialised construction has an important role to play. Modern methods of construction, platform approaches, design for manufacture and assembly (DfMA), and digitally enabled delivery models offer opportunities to improve productivity, reduce programme durations and increase quality consistency. However, simply increasing the volume of offsite manufacture is not the answer. Success depends on adopting a compliant, quality-assured and system-based approach throughout the entire asset lifecycle.

The sector has already learned some difficult lessons from previous MMC failures. Scaling up housing delivery without robust governance, certification, building safety compliance and long-term asset management could simply create tomorrow's problems faster.

Equally important is recognising that housing delivery is not purely a construction challenge. It is a systems challenge. Land availability, planning policy, infrastructure provision, funding mechanisms, skills development, building regulations and local authority capacity all need to work together if large-scale programmes are to succeed.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of Andy Burnham's proposal, is the emphasis on local leadership. Those closest to communities are often best placed to understand local housing needs, employment opportunities and infrastructure requirements. Greater devolution could therefore become an important part of creating more responsive and effective housing delivery models. What seems increasingly clear, is that the housing debate is beginning to move beyond simply asking how many homes can we build? and towards the more important question of how can we build the right homes, in the right places, at the right quality and cost?

As the conversation develops, the industry has an opportunity to shift from volume-focused targets towards delivery-focused solutions. The organisations that can successfully combine housing ambition with compliance, quality assurance, digitalisation and industrialised construction, will be best placed to help turn political aspirations, into homes that genuinely serve communities for generations to come.