Targets

In principle, targets are not a bad thing.  They offer a measurable way of judging performance.  They can be missed, of course; but, in principle, targets should be achievable and measurable.  We might have to move the target, of course, as circumstances change.  And, we need to explain ourselves if we miss our target.  Targets are auditable and accountability events.  My target of publishing a blog every Friday (other than when on leave) is generally achievable and measurable (although I nearly self-combusted with stress yesterday; back on track today, having made a list); and, if I don’t write it, somebody might ask me for an account as to why not.

All of that is a rather long introduction to the issue which faces the WG about its target in its manifesto that “we will …

Build 20,000 new, low carbon social homes for rent. We will also support cooperative housing,  community-led initiatives, and community land trusts. We will continue to improve existing homes, helping us tackle fuel poverty, create much needed jobs, training opportunities, and supply chains.

As various respected organisations in the field have noted (Shelter Cymru, Bevan Foundation), and as the Welsh Government accepted on 13th November in a statement by Jane Bryant, this targetis not going to be met.  The headline figure is that

By May 2026, we are forecast to have delivered 18,652 low-carbon homes for rent within the social sector – and the pipeline of delivery that we have established is expected to deliver a further 1,652 units by the end of 2026, bringing the total to 20,304.

So, on that basis, close but no cigar.  Wendy Dearden on the Bevan Foundation has made a number of important points about the moveable target.

First, she notes the figures include a small number of retrofitted void social housing properties that have received Transitional Accommodation Capital Programme on the basis that, otherwise, they would have been lost to the sector.  The Affordable Housing Report noted that:

… A property that is unoccupied, requires major works and will otherwise be sold has functionally stopped being part of our social housing stock; funding its repair is the same as adding homes through acquisitions and should be treated as such.

Social housing considered ‘void’ and which requires significant investment to be occupied again should be considered in the same way as acquisitions and funded by TACP. Rather than risk being sold off as uneconomic or left as long-term voids they should be brought back into use as a matter of priority and counted as part of the Welsh Government’s 20,000 additional homes for social rent target – this will ensure funding is outcomes-led and that the target reflects best policy.

You can see what they are saying; but, also, one might say that they have not been “built”, and the final sentence of the pledge which introduced the target seemed to disaggregate the improvement of existing homes from the building of those low carbon social homes for rent.

Secondly, the figures also include shared ownership and intermediate rented homes (ie rents below market value but higher than social rent).  Now, it is right to say that shared ownership and intermediate rented properties remain rented social housing – with shared ownership, the owner still pays rent on the share owned by the RSL.

But, the fact that we are even having these discussions shows that even a simple verb like “to build” can have a variety of different meanings.  Where I think I depart from Wendy Dearden is that I don’t think we can argue that all new social housing should be for social rent.  The finances just don’t really stack up and more can be achieved if our targets are for social housing more broadly (after all, a receipt from shared ownership can be recycled into further development, which has always been part of the purpose of that “product”).

But, I think we can all agree that whatever is the target, it should be better specified and measured.  Only then can we achieve proper accountability.  At present, the shifting ground isn’tthe best look.