# Andy Burnham’s Bold Reboot: Devolving Power and Rebuilding Council Housing Across Britain
Andy Burnham has thrown down a challenge to the status quo with a vision that blends political devolution and a renewed commitment to publicly owned homes. His proposals—described by some as a “radical rewiring” of how Britain is governed—aim to shift authority away from Westminster and put local communities in the driving seat, while simultaneously tackling the long-standing shortage of affordable housing through a major expansion of council-built homes.
In this post we unpack what Burnham is proposing, why it matters, the potential benefits and barriers, and how such changes could reshape local governance and the housing landscape across the UK.
## Who is Andy Burnham and why his proposals matter
Andy Burnham is a prominent Labour politician and the current Mayor of Greater Manchester. He has spent his career pushing for stronger regional powers and greater investment in public services. As mayor, Burnham has experience in negotiating devolution deals and leading a major city-region, giving his ideas both credibility and practical grounding.
His latest calls for devolving more powers and ramping up council housebuilding tap into two long-running debates in British politics: the centralization of power in Westminster and the chronic shortage of affordable social housing. For voters frustrated by unaffordable rents, long waiting lists, and decisions being taken far from their communities, Burnham’s proposals resonate strongly.
## What does “devolving power” mean in practice?
Devolution typically refers to transferring decision-making authority, funding, and responsibility from central government to regional or local bodies—combined authorities, mayors, city councils, or devolved administrations (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland).
Key elements of practical devolution can include:
– Fiscal powers: control of certain taxes, borrowing powers, or long-term budget allocations to enable local investment.
– Transport and infrastructure: local control over transport planning, bus franchising, and major infrastructure projects.
– Planning and housing policy: more local say over land use, planning approvals, and housing investment priorities.
– Health and social care: localized commissioning to align services to community needs.
– Skills and economic development: shaping training and business support programs to local labor markets.
– Regulatory flexibility: the ability to design local policy experiments within national frameworks.
Burnham’s call for a “radical rewiring” suggests more than incremental tinkering—he advocates for a substantial transfer of powers to enable local leaders to address region-specific challenges more effectively.
## Why more council housing?
Council housing—homes owned and managed by local authorities—once formed a substantial share of Britain’s housing stock. Since the 1980s there has been a sharp decline in council homes due to policies such as Right to Buy and limited replacement building. This decline has contributed to growing pressures in the private rented sector, rising rents, and fewer genuinely affordable options for low- and middle-income households.
Expanding council housebuilding is seen as a direct way to:
– Increase the supply of secure, affordable homes.
– Provide long-term social rental options that are shielded from short-term market fluctuations.
– Enable local authorities to plan housing that meets local needs—size, tenure mix, accessibility.
– Support community stability and social cohesion.
– Stimulate local construction jobs and supply chains.
Burnham’s push for ramping up council-built homes aligns with evidence that sustained public investment can deliver both housing and broader economic benefits.
## Potential benefits of combining devolution with council housebuilding
A joined-up approach—handing power to localities while giving them the means to build council homes—could create a virtuous circle:
– Tailored solutions: Local authorities better understand their housing needs and can prioritize developments that suit local demographics, rather than following one-size-fits-all national schemes.
– Faster delivery: With planning and financing tools devolved, local councils could speed up approvals and construction.
– Accountability and transparency: Local leaders are directly accountable to residents who see the outcomes, which can incentivize effective delivery and maintenance.
– Economic stimulus: Building homes creates jobs, supports suppliers, and can be aligned with green standards to promote retrofit and net-zero goals.
– Social impact: Long-term social housing can reduce homelessness, improve health outcomes, and stabilize communities.
## Challenges and obstacles
While the vision is compelling, several practical hurdles must be addressed:
– Funding constraints: Councils will need capital for land acquisition and building. Central government buy-in, borrowing powers, or new funding mechanisms are essential.
– Capacity and expertise: Many councils lost in-house development capability after decades of underinvestment. Rebuilding that capacity takes time and money.
– Land availability: Urban land is scarce and expensive; reforms to land-use policy or land assembly mechanisms may be necessary.
– Political resistance: Central government may be reluctant to cede fiscal control; ideological divisions could stall meaningful devolution.
– Planning tensions: Local opposition (NIMBYism) and complex planning regimes can delay or block projects.
– Long-term maintenance costs: Building homes is only the first step—funding for management and maintenance must be sustainable.
Addressing these obstacles requires coordinated policy design, investment in local capacity, and a clear framework for how powers and responsibilities will be shared.
## Funding models and delivery mechanisms
There are several practical ways to fund and deliver a renewed council housebuilding program within a devolved framework:
– Devolved capital grants: Central government could allocate multi-year capital grants directly to devolved authorities for housing programs.
– Borrowing powers: Allowing councils to borrow against future revenues (with safeguards) to fund upfront construction.
– Housing associations partnerships: Joint ventures between councils and housing associations can combine land, public finance, and development expertise.
– Local Housing Companies: Councils establish companies to build and manage homes, retaining assets on local balance sheets.
– Land value capture: Mechanisms to capture increases in land value resulting from planning permissions to fund affordable housing.
– Public land release: Prioritizing the release of surplus public land for affordable council-led developments.
– Mixed-finance models: Blending public grants, affordable mortgages, and private investment for viability.
The right mix will depend on local circumstances, political appetite, and national fiscal constraints.
## Policy design considerations
For devolution and council housebuilding to deliver results, policy design must be thoughtful and outcome-focused:
– Clear accountability frameworks: Define who is responsible for what, with transparent performance metrics.
– Long-term funding commitments: Multi-year allocations to allow planning and sustained delivery rather than short-term stop-start funding.
– Skills and capacity building: Funding for local authorities to develop housing delivery teams, project management, and procurement skills.
– Planning reform where needed: Streamline processes while protecting local democratic input and environmental standards.
– Social value and sustainability: Embed requirements for energy efficiency, low-carbon construction, and community benefits.
– Inclusionary targets: Ensure new homes meet the needs of a range of households—family-sized homes, accessible units, and homes for older adults.
– Resident engagement: Meaningful consultation and co-design with communities to build support and ensure homes meet needs.
## Political and public reception
Any major shift in power and a renewed public housing program will be politically charged. Supporters argue that empowering local leaders and investing in council homes can reverse decades of neglect. Critics may worry about fiscal risks, efficiency, or the propriety of devolving significant powers without national oversight.
Public opinion is likely to be sympathetic to proposals that deliver tangible homes and local control, especially in areas suffering from housing scarcity. However, success will hinge on visible delivery—breaking ground on new developments and demonstrating improved housing outcomes.
## Learning from history and other models
Looking back provides useful lessons. The post-war expansion of council housing in the mid-20th century showed that large-scale public building can rapidly increase supply when backed by political will and public investment. Conversely, the Right to Buy era highlights how policy design without replacement can erode social housing stock.
Internationally, models from countries with strong municipal housing traditions (for example, parts of continental Europe) demonstrate how local governments can provide high-quality, well-maintained social housing while integrating it into mixed communities.
Burnham’s proposals can borrow from these successes—combining scale, quality, and long-term stewardship.
## What local leaders and communities can do now
While national policy debates continue, local leaders and communities can prepare to make the most of devolved powers:
– Audit local land assets and identify sites for council-led development.
– Build partnerships with housing associations, community land trusts, and developers.
– Invest in local housing delivery teams and project management skills.
– Engage communities early to build consent and address concerns.
– Pilot modular or offsite construction to speed delivery and control costs.
– Advocate for multi-year funding settlements and greater borrowing flexibility.
Proactive local action will make it easier to scale up once the policy and funding environment becomes more favourable.
## The broader economic and social implications
A successful program combining devolution and council housebuilding could produce wide-ranging impacts:
– Reduce housing insecurity and homelessness by expanding social rented stock.
– Stabilize rent inflation in pressured local markets.
– Support local economies through construction and ongoing service jobs.
– Improve health and education outcomes linked to stable housing.
– Strengthen civic engagement as residents see tangible local action.
At the same time, it could shift the political economy of British governance by demonstrating that regional leaders can manage complex portfolios traditionally held by central government.
## Conclusion
Andy Burnham’s call for a “radical rewiring” of power and a renewed commitment to council housebuilding presents a bold alternative to centralized policymaking and market-driven housing solutions. By devolving meaningful powers and equipping local authorities with the tools and finance to build affordable homes, Britain could make substantial progress on two stubborn problems: democratic disconnect and the affordable housing shortage.
Realizing this vision will require political courage, sustained funding, rebuilding local capacity, and careful policy design to balance local autonomy with oversight. If implemented effectively, devolved authority coupled with a robust council housebuilding program could not only produce homes but also empower communities—transforming local governance and delivering long-term social benefits. The question now is whether national and local leaders can translate this ambition into concrete, large-scale action.