We must shape devolution, not let it shape us

Elsewhere, regions are beginning to test what these new powers can achieve. Greater Manchester is rightly cited as an exemplar, because housing associations there have worked collectively for many years.

Their experience shows what can be done when partners align and speak with a shared voice, but it also shows the effort required. Progress has depended on long-term co-ordination rather than quick wins, and on collaboration that survives changes in the political landscape.

“Regions that form coherent partnerships early tend to make faster progress, while those that wait risk being shaped by decisions made without their input”

In York and North Yorkshire, partnership working between housing associations and local authorities in the region has led to the development of a shared design standard for homes acquired through Section 106 agreements.

All 23 housing associations and the two local authorities that make up the partnership have committed to only building or acquiring homes that meet this standard, improving the consistency and quality of homes for those in the community while tackling delays and uncertainty in negotiations.

Many areas are at the very start of their devolution journey and face different political, economic and institutional realities. What matters is not copying a model but recognising a basic truth: regions that form coherent partnerships early tend to make faster progress, while those that wait risk being shaped by decisions made without their input.

None of this calls for uncritical enthusiasm. While local decision-making can bring clarity, it can also create inconsistency. Divergent funding routes add administrative burden. Capacity in new authorities varies, and expectations sometimes outpace what is currently practical.

This is where housing associations have a role: not as passive recipients of new structures, but as reliable partners who can help shape ambition and support delivery. We understand the importance of long-term planning. We know the pressures residents face. And we can offer practical solutions that link housing to wider goals such as economic resilience, skills, public services and regeneration.

“Devolution offers the chance to shape local priorities more directly, but it also requires us to manage greater variation”

To do this well, we need to be honest about both sides of the ledger. Devolution offers the chance to shape local priorities more directly, but it also requires us to manage greater variation. It promises closer alignment with local leaders, but it demands patience as new institutions find their feet. It invites innovation, but it exposes tensions between local autonomy and national programmes.

Regions are defining their priorities. Our task is to bring evidence, experience and credible proposals to those discussions. That means building relationships early, being clear about constraints and accepting that progress will look different in different places.

If regions are being asked to set their own course, our job is to help ensure housing remains central to that journey – not because devolution is inherently good or bad, but because decisions made closer to communities work best when organisations rooted in those communities have a hand in shaping them.

Rhys Moore, director of public impact, National Housing Federation