好色先生TV

鈥淗omes England is good, but it is not perfect.鈥� You won鈥檛 find this line verbatim in the organisation public bodies review but, when report author Tony Poulter says it to Housing Today on the day of its publication this month, it is hard not to feel he has summed it up pretty neatly. 

The review was not launched after any crisis 鈥� every department is meant to review its arms-length bodies every five years 鈥� but it is Homes England鈥檚 first assessment since 2016 and comes nearly a year after it launched its five-year strategic plan, a major landmark in the 1,415 person-strong organisation鈥檚  

Judging by the way it has been received by the organisation, you would have to say it is a fairly positive review. 鈥淚t鈥檚 like a school report, isn鈥檛 it,鈥� Homes England chief executive Peter Denton tells Housing Today. 鈥淭here鈥檚 always things you need to improve upon, but I completely agree with where they have made recommendations for change and improvement.鈥� 

But what do Poulter鈥檚 recommendations actually entail? And, in an election year, what do they mean for the future of Homes England as an organisation? 

The right body for the place-based job but agency still too remote 

Poulter鈥檚 report card began with a fairly ringing endorsement of the organisation as it currently exists, concluding that 鈥淓ngland and the government need Homes England鈥�. No other existing body, it said, is better placed to deliver the organisation鈥檚 new priorities. 

Before the levelling-up white paper, Homes England had been focused on increasing housing supply where market demand was not being met, with 80% of funding directed at the parts of the country where housing was least affordable 鈥� predominantly in London and the South-east. But, with the publication of the white paper, Homes England was redirected to reflect the shift towards levelling up, with more focus on regeneration of brownfield sites where current market demand is typically pronounced. 

According to the review, most stakeholders agreed that 鈥渢he agency鈥檚 remit has, in recent years, been too narrowly focused on housing supply鈥�, welcoming the change which was reflected in last year鈥檚 strategic plan. But, while the review found support for the new mission and determined that Homes England is the right body for the job, there were  criticisms from those interviewed. 

鈥淣obody said Homes England is perfect,鈥� Poulter tells Housing Today. 鈥淣early everyone said 鈥楬omes England is great, but鈥︹�� and the 鈥榖ut鈥� is different for each of them [鈥�] I would say in the local authority sectors, people think that Homes England could be more responsive and should have more people locally鈥�.

In one city council in the South-east cited as a case study in the review, there was 鈥渃onfusion about who undertakes which roles, where a case officer fits in, and who to engage with on conversations about local challenges鈥�, while interviewees believed that the organisation was too focused on bigger sites. 

But Homes England chief executive Peter Denton tells Housing Today that shifting the balance of the agency towards the local level has been a large part of his job since taking charge. 鈥淭he vast majority of my three years here has been changing the internal structure of the agency to cater for place-based work, which sounds seductively easy, but actually is not.鈥�

He adds that the organisation has repositioned 125 staff to be focused entirely on engaging directly with local government. And anyway, he says, a pivot to place-based work will always leave lower priority areas disappointed 鈥� 鈥渟ome people are not happy with this because we have given them less focus鈥�. 

It seems inevitable that the pivot towards place-based work will mean diminishing attention for those areas not selected as priorities. The review acknowledged that Homes England is already making changes to respond to this, implementing northern, Midlands and southern-oriented teams across its delivery directorates, introducing regional forums to improve how it engages locally, and establishing 24 multi-functional teams in priority places. 

Nevertheless, Poulter recommended that the government should work on agreed guidance to provide clarity about how Homes England should balance work across its three tiers of service. 

Change in mandate must be followed by reduction in scope

Some things are out of Denton鈥檚 hands. Many of the recommendations made in the review were directed at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and it is unclear how many reforms are likely to be made in an election year.

One of the most significant policy recommendations made in the review was the suggestion that Homes England offload its responsibilities for Help to Buy and cladding remediation.

In both cases, Poulter acknowledged that it made sense for Homes England to deliver these schemes initially, and in the latter case was 鈥渢he only realistically available to support it鈥�.

However, the review said building remediation 鈥渄oes not directly align to the agency鈥檚 mission鈥�. Nor, for that matter, does Help to Buy, which, as a closed scheme, no longer contributes to increasing housing development.  

Homes England鈥檚 live loan book is valued at 拢18.9bn, which is 83% of the organisation鈥檚 overall assets. 鈥淚鈥檓 not saying it鈥檚 not important,鈥� says Poulter. 鈥淪omeone鈥檚 got to look after that mortgage book, but it鈥檚 for government to say, 鈥榙o we want to stretch Homes England to do it? Or could we get a private sector entity or some other bit of government to do it?鈥� 鈥� 

Denton says: 鈥淭ony鈥檚 argument is, if you have a housing and regeneration mandate [鈥�] do you have the management and bandwidth to continue managing Help to Buy and building safety?鈥� He adds that he 鈥渁bsolutely get[s] his argument鈥�, while stopping short of an endorsement.

鈥淎s long as they remain part of Homes England, they are not a sideshow, they remain important to us,鈥� he insists, while playing down the likelihood of a change any time soon. 鈥淯ltimately it is a ministerial decision, but I can鈥檛 foresee this is something that will be looked at until such time as an election.鈥� 

Given the likelihood of a Labour victory in the upcoming general election, the decision may very well be in different hands this time next year. Denton refuses to be baited into crystal ball-gazing (鈥渋t is for the next ministerial team鈥� to determine what the organisation鈥檚 future looks like), but he does emphasise Homes England鈥檚 cross-party appeal.

鈥淚f I look at our mission-based strategic plan, which is about more homes, better quality homes, great places, jobs, growth and productivity, I think there鈥檚 a very high level of commonality across the political spectrum there,鈥� he says.

Labour, for its part, is reportedly looking to 鈥渞epurpose鈥� the housing quango as part of its reforms 鈥� but given the lack of detail released so far, it鈥檚 difficult to see these rumours as much of a threat to the body.  

One little-noticed suggestion in the review is that building safety could form part of the remit of a separate long-term government body focused on retrofit of buildings, not just for safety, but also for energy and quality matter. 鈥淭his would be a cross-government responsibility, across several departments,鈥� it said, noting that the DLUHC could otherwise contract with the private sector directly to solve the issue.  

Drop off in AHP delivery not Homes England鈥檚 fault, but more flexible funding arrangements needed 

Housing associations have described a sharp contraction of development in the face of economic, financial and policy headwinds. Originally conceived to deliver up to 180,000 homes between 2021 and 2026, the AHP is now likely to deliver far fewer.

Homes England will not at this point say exactly how few, but it is expected to be lower even than the 157,000-figure predicted by the National Audit Office in September 2022. 

The review, however, had relatively little criticism for Homes England on under-delivery, putting it down to largely external factors out of the organisation鈥檚 control. 鈥淭he first factor is the economy was going to pot and Homes England is a funder and facilitator,鈥� Tony Poulter says.

鈥淚t cannot build houses unless developers want to spend money or housing associations want to promote schemes and invest alongside them. People stopped coming to them in the third quarter of 2022 when we were in Liz Truss-land, so they kind of lost a quarter of the year.鈥�

Denton, for his part, says the organisation, alongside the Treasury and DLUHC, worked 鈥渁t real pace to reset and support housing associations鈥� in the autumn of 2022. 

>> Also read:  

He says that, while he cannot put a number on AHP delivery until the summer, when the organisation publishes its accounts, he is 鈥渃omfortable鈥� that the direction of travel is  positive. 鈥淚 can give you comfort that the deployment of commitments and capital for the affordable programme over the last 12 months has been astonishingly good,鈥� he says.

鈥淭hat doesn鈥檛 mean there鈥檚 not headwinds and it doesn鈥檛 mean there鈥檚 not challenges. But I think, when you see our results in the summer, they will tell the story of actually how that reset has supported the industry moving ahead quite quickly and quite effectively.鈥�

There were, however, some suggestions from Poulter for how the DLUHC could ensure the organisation is better prepared for future market fluctuations. According to the review author, some funding schemes are too rigidly defined, limiting the organisation鈥檚 ability to be nimble.

鈥淚 can give you comfort that the deployment of commitments and capital for the affordable programme over the last 12 months has been astonishingly good鈥�

Peter Denton, chief executive, Homes England

鈥淚f you鈥檝e got an organisation that鈥檚 trying to promote housing activity and regeneration, you need them to be able to respond to the market,鈥� he says. As well as designing more flexibility into future funding arrangements, the review also urged DLUHC to make changes in the next spending review to allow it to commit to long-term schemes.

鈥淸The private sector] are investing over five to 10-year time horizons; government needs to do the same,鈥� says Poulter. 鈥滻f you have a government scheme which says, 鈥榟ere鈥檚 the brownfield infrastructure and land fund, but we only have an annual allocation and then we鈥檒l think about it again in the next spending review鈥�, that鈥檚 not the best way to get this work done in the public sector or attract private sector investment.鈥�

DLUHC must unleash Homes England and allow it to be bolder

Another note Poulter sent to DLUHC was to give Homes England authorisation to be bolder, both in taking more risk 鈥� including by including by making programmes more easily accessible to SMEs 鈥� and in acting as master planner on larger schemes.  

The organisation finds itself in a slightly difficult position on the first of these points. Taking risky bets as a public sector body can often be seen as gambling with the public鈥檚 money, and Homes England has faced criticism for its doomed investments into modular firms.

The organisation lost 99.9% of its 拢69m loan to Ilke Homes, which went into liquidation last October. In the aftermath, Homes England was criticised by the House of Lords built environment committee as lacking a coherent strategy on MMC.  

But Denton is fairly cavalier on this point. He says: 鈥淭ony [Poulter] talks about us taking more risk. My view is, when the agency committed to supporting MMC, particularly category one, it recognised the risks it was taking. That was its job.

鈥淚t鈥檚 job was to take risks that other players wouldn鈥檛 take at that time. It was to help create an industry. We do that all the time and, yes, we have lost money. It鈥檚 public that we have lost money on Ilke Homes. And I don鈥檛 enjoy losing money. But, if you look at the overall loss of money of the agency relative to what it has done, it is not dramatic.鈥�

He adds that much of the controversy around MMC has been without merit, noting that, while 鈥渃ategory one has been the area of challenge鈥�, category two is 鈥渋ncredibly buoyant鈥�. 

On the master developer point, the review noted that only a small number of companies 鈥� it name-checked Urban & Civic, Lendlease and Peabody 鈥� were capable of developing sites of more than 5,000 homes and suggested Homes England be encouraged to 鈥減lay the role of master developer鈥� on more large regeneration schemes. 鈥淚t is saying that the agency is kind of the only game in town with regards to large scale mass development work,鈥� Denton says cheerfully.

Currently, Homes England has a master development role in 46 schemes that are developing more than 1,000 homes. 

The review鈥檚 endorsement did come with a splash of cold water, however, noting that the agency鈥檚 鈥渃urrent funding programmes are not large enough or designed to do this repeatedly鈥� and its 鈥渞esources to support activity in the early stages of major projects are limited鈥�. 

Uncertain future for agency with election on horizon

Nearly a year into Homes England鈥檚 strategic plan, the verdict from the independent review of the organisation is broadly to 鈥渒eep doing what you are doing鈥�. The challenge it faces in the coming years is that many of the recommendations for improvement lie entirely out of its hands.

As Denton himself alluded to, few of the more substantive recommendations are likely to be carried out in an election year, while the Labour Party鈥檚 plans for the agency have yet to be made clear.

That the agency is crucial to the government鈥檚 housing plans seems to have been settled for now 鈥� but what those plans will be a year from now is far from clear.