Regeneration is the missing link in the government’s growth plans

The government has also said it wants to deliver a decade of national renewal, and building new social housing for those in need is clearly part of achieving that aim, but housing-led regeneration needs to be a significant part of the picture.

Around the country, there are concentrations of homes and estates that are becoming decrepit. This has all sorts of consequences: homes become harder to let, people leave, areas become run-down, anti-social behaviour increases, shops close and employers leave, which makes it harder for people to get jobs.

And we can’t rely solely on the open market or private investment to lead this regeneration in many areas. For example, Redruth is an old mining town in Cornwall with low-value homes, but it experiences the same cost pressure as anywhere else.

“Can we make the same economic case for investing public money in housing-led regeneration as we can for investing public money in the building of new social housing?”

One of our members, Coastline Housing, was looking at a brownfield scheme in Redruth with an average cost to build of £277,600. The average open market value of a home in Redruth is £278,300. The numbers just don’t add up.

But can we make the same economic case for investing public money in housing-led regeneration as we can for investing public money in the building of new social housing? I certainly think so.

The previous Housing Market Renewal programme was focused on areas of failing demand. It funded the demolition and reprovision of homes, with the intention of making places more attractive to live and work.

A 2007 National Audit Office report stated that, after five years, and with £2.2bn committed, “low demand is now less severe in pathfinder areas, the gaps between these areas and their surrounding regions have started to close and there have been clear physical improvements in many neighbourhoods”.

However, it went on to say that there is no guarantee that intervening in the housing market in this way will address the causes rather than the symptoms of the problems in these areas.

There are lessons to learn here, though it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions, as the programme came to an unplanned early end.

“Allowing these communities to fall into decline through a lack of investment will come at a significant long-term cost, including to the public purse”

A 2023 study by Homes England, not focused on the Housing Market Renewal programme, concluded that housing-led regeneration has “the potential to generate a wide range of benefits, not just for those who occupy the new homes created but also for those living and working within the surrounding community”.

I believe an ambitious regeneration programme focused on improving the quality of homes, estates, green space and surrounding areas, at scale in the areas that need it, can play a key role in driving economic growth. Construction activity brings jobs and supports supply chains, and making communities attractive places to live brings investment and employment opportunities and savings for public services.

Looking at it another way, allowing these communities to fall into decline through a lack of investment will come at a significant long-term cost, including to the public purse.

But perhaps more importantly, not intervening would be doing a complete disservice to the people who live in these communities and would effectively exclude them from the decade of national renewal that the whole country should benefit from.

Matthew Walker, chair, PlaceShapers and chief executive, Leeds Federated Housing Association