What is the value of a housing association?

Working for James Cartlidge, shadow secretary of defence, and Mark Francois, shadow minister for defence, I was tasked with researching the policy basis for a new military housing association. This built on work published by Mr Francois in 2020 that he had done for Theresa May, the prime minister between 2016 and 2019, about solutions to recruitment challenges in the armed forces.

It was launched as Conservative Party policy in June 2025, and now the government is following large parts of it. Unpacking the reasons for this sheds light on the future role of housing associations.

While the housing association model has been successful at securing almost £100bn of borrowing against social homes with a net book value of almost £200bn, I firmly believe they have to be more than just an accounting trick to get this borrowing off the public balance sheet.

The fact that the housing association model unlocked additional borrowing capacity was helpful, but not the main driving factor, in my defence work. In order to provide future value, housing associations, too, need to prove more. There’s also the need to explore new models that build on the inherent capacity in the value of their assets.

“The strongest line in favour of the military housing association model was the cast-iron, ring-fenced commitment to forces families that other pressures on defence budgets wouldn’t lead to under-investment and deterioration of their homes”

The strongest line in favour of the military housing association model was the cast-iron, ring-fenced commitment to forces families that other pressures on defence budgets wouldn’t lead to under-investment and deterioration of their homes. This is inherent in the housing association model, but I think it gets lost in some of the debates on privatisation, not-for-profit status and balancing the needs of existing homes with the development of new affordable ones.

While planned investment by housing associations can also be deferred and delayed, this ring-fence makes a powerful case to residents. Where it is potentially more challenging for housing associations than the military model is in relation to new supply. Existing residents of social housing might see their interests less aligned with those future occupiers and be less willing to support it. 

Is there more to be done to make the social case for housing supply?

The clear purpose of being a social landlord was felt to mean that a military housing association would have the organisational incentives to develop a clear strategy for all its homes over the long term.

As some housing associations have and are doing, there would be the opportunity to work with residents to determine a standard which all homes should meet. An assessment could be used to determine which homes would never be able to economically meet the standard; which would be best sold – for other housing uses or as development sites; which would offer the best regeneration potential to be demolished and rebuilt at greater density; and which could be improved over time, using borrowing or private investment secured against the rents and surplus from redevelopment.

As well as investing more, through borrowing and the ring-fence in improved existing and new high-quality rented homes, the housing association model was felt to offer greater choice for forces families through tenure diversification.

“As well as investing more, the housing association model was felt to offer greater choice for forces families through tenure diversification”

Shared ownership provides opportunities to groups of people for whom homeownership would otherwise be out of reach. In a military context, this meant people starting out in lower ranks could have opportunities that current homeownership offers restrict to higher-paid officers. This breadth should be the fundamental advantage of the housing association model.

The fact that a number of housing associations – and other social landlords – have had high-profile failings in their service offerings made it clear that a military housing association would not be a panacea. It was seen as a credible route to incremental service improvements.

Of fundamental importance was the fact that the housing association model would ensure that the voices of residents would be involved in, and a feature of, decision-making. Compared with the status quo, a housing association model offered increased rights, improved services and mechanisms to ensure forces families have direct input into the decisions that affect them and their homes. This is something the new consumer regulatory regime has helped all housing associations to focus on and has the potential to greatly improve services over time.

By taking different perspectives, we can learn a lot about the familiar and find new and better ways of doing things. The challenges facing the sector around services, the quality of homes and the need for supply mean there is an even greater need for learning and innovation.

There are great opportunities to unlock that are aligned to the fundamental value delivered by the housing association model. I’m sure I haven’t identified all elements, and would be keen to discuss and develop them in more detail over the coming months with long-standing and new partners.

Jamie Ratcliff, deputy chair, the Housing Forum, and co-founder, Place Base