Connected buildings aren’t the same as connected residents

Older residents without email addresses. People moving into Housing First or temporary accommodation for whom a connectivity issue feels like another personal failure. Residents wary of unfamiliar technology, particularly where monitoring or sensors are involved, and unsure whether it is there to help or to watch.

These are not fringe cases, they are increasingly common experiences. None of this reflects a lack of ambition from housing providers. It reflects a framing problem.

The sector has become highly effective at delivering connectivity as infrastructure. Much less attention has been paid to delivering it as a service – something that is supported, explained, trusted and embedded into everyday housing management. 

“Connectivity cuts across asset management, customer services, community investment and compliance, yet responsibility frequently sits nowhere explicitly once services are live”

That distinction now matters more than ever. Housing services are digital by default. Repairs reporting, benefits, healthcare access and community support increasingly assume a level of digital confidence that cannot be taken for granted. Being digital-only goes beyond inconvenience: it is exclusionary.

If connectivity is treated as something that is installed and handed over, rather than something actively supported over time, the gap between those who can engage easily and those who cannot will widen.

One of the less visible challenges in all of this is in decision-making. Connectivity choices are often locked in early, at the procurement or design stage, before delivery teams fully understand resident needs or the operational consequences. By the time homes are occupied, organisations are left adapting around decisions that are already fixed.

At the same time, ownership is often unclear. Connectivity cuts across asset management, customer services, community investment and compliance, yet responsibility frequently sits nowhere explicitly once services are live.

This matters because introducing connectivity increasingly brings with it expectations: ongoing support, data handling, response to alerts, reassurance to residents. Without clear governance and capacity, well‑intended interventions can create new pressure points rather than solving existing ones.

This tension is becoming more acute as connected technology is linked to compliance, particularly around areas such as damp and mould.

“The real question is whether organisations are ready to treat connectivity as a core housing service that requires ownership, sequencing, support and long‑term thinking, rather than a one‑off infrastructure upgrade”

Data and sensors offer real potential to move towards prevention rather than reaction. But collecting data creates responsibility. If alerts arrive faster than organisations can respond, providers risk being operationally and reputationally exposed in ways that are difficult to manage.

At the same time, resident trust is fragile. Technology that is poorly explained or insufficiently supported can undermine confidence, particularly among people who already feel marginalised or monitored. Once trust is lost, it is hard to rebuild.

The question facing social housing is no longer whether connectivity matters. That debate has moved on. The real question is whether organisations are ready to treat connectivity as a core housing service that requires ownership, sequencing, support and long‑term thinking, rather than a one‑off infrastructure upgrade.

In Greater Manchester, this thinking is shaping work through initiatives like our Connected Homes, Inclusive Places programme, which aims to reduce duplication, share learning and help providers think through the practical implications of connected services before they scale. But no single programme will solve this alone.

If connectivity is to underpin inclusion, compliance and better outcomes in social housing, the sector needs to stop asking only whether buildings are connected and start asking whether residents genuinely feel that connection.

John Duncan, connected places lead, Greater Manchester Combined Authority