Prosperity 2030 UCL · IGP Prosperity 2030
Appendix

Community Housing Appendix

Appendix Assisted · care, community

Prosperity 2030 Policy Framework | Worked Appendix

Where this policy enters the landscape

By 2030 the housing and social-care environment will be shaped by four conditions that are visible now and will only intensify.

The demographic shift. The over-65 population reaches 22% of the UK total by 2030. The over-85 population almost doubles between 2020 and 2045, from 1.7 million to 3.1 million. By 2043 nearly 4.5 million people aged 65 and over will be living alone. Rural and coastal local authorities are most affected; some already have a third of their population aged 65 or over. The National Housing Federation estimates 38,000 new homes for older people are needed each year, of which roughly a third should be extra care or sheltered. Current delivery is well below that.

The temporary accommodation crisis. As of June 2025, 132,410 households were in temporary accommodation in England, including 172,420 children. Council spending on TA reached £2.84 billion in 2024–25, more than doubling in five years. The London boroughs alone face a £740 million annual shortfall between TA costs and housing benefit reimbursement (which has been frozen at 2011 LHA rates). Seven London boroughs already rely on Exceptional Financial Support; Birmingham among others has cut hundreds of millions in services to fund homelessness duties.

The care leaver gap. Around 12,000 young people leave care each year on reaching 18, with about 50,000 care leavers aged 17–21 in England at any one time. They are 25% of the adult homeless population. Almost 25% of the adult prison population have been in care. Forty per cent of care leavers aged 19–21 are NEET. The state acts as their corporate parent until 25 but the housing pathway it offers is a thin set of supported accommodation places that do not approach the scale of the cohort.

The Casey settlement. The Independent Commission on Adult Social Care reports its medium-term recommendations in 2026 and its long-term recommendations in 2028. Baroness Casey's framing — that social care needs "its own creation moment" — is now the operating consensus. The direction of travel is towards a National Care Service. Whatever specific funding model emerges, the housing dimension of social care reform is non-negotiable: care needs places to happen.

The £39 billion Social and Affordable Homes Programme. Labour's flagship housing intervention runs from 2026–27 to 2035–36 with a target of 300,000 social and affordable homes, of which at least 60% (180,000) social rent. The programme is a step change but is widely acknowledged as too small for the scale of the problem. Critically, the SAHP delivers predominantly nuclear-household social rent housing through housing associations and councils as direct grant applicants. It does not target the shared-facility, mixed-use, life-transition stock that Community Housing is designed for. The two programmes operate in different lanes and complement each other rather than competing.

Community Housing enters this environment as a permanent capital line, modest in annual scale relative to the SAHP but durable across decades and structurally different in what it builds.

Programme architecture

Budget

£10 billion per year, permanent, allocated from the property-tax pool to a national Community Housing fund. The fund is not a programme with an end-date; it is a recurring line in the public-investment architecture, accumulating public housing stock indefinitely. The split between new build and refurbishment is approximately £9 billion to new build and £1 billion to refurbishment of existing empty stock, with that split adjustable annually based on advice from the fund's governing body.

The £10 billion is capital and stewardship only. Operating costs — care, support work, case management for residents who need it — are funded separately through the Universal Care Service via the council's age-weighted per-capita allocation. Maintenance and capital renewal of the housing stock sits in the Community Housing budget; care delivered to people living in it does not.

The financing model: no national borrowing

The Prosperity 2030 programme as a whole adds nothing to UK national debt. Community Housing honours this principle in a specific way that is worth setting out clearly because it differs from the conventional public-housing financing model.

The national Community Housing Fund disburses capital to local authorities each year from current property-tax revenue. The fund does not borrow. It allocates from cash on hand.

Local authorities, however, treat capital allocations as 30-year obligations to the national fund — repayable over time at a notional cost-of-capital rate equal to the prevailing gilt rate plus a small administrative margin. These obligations sit on local authority balance sheets in the standard way (Housing Revenue Account or equivalent) and are repaid from the council's per-capita property-tax allocation as part of its normal operating budget.

The recycling effect is significant. As repayments flow back to the national fund, they recycle as new capital allocations — additional to the £10 billion of new property-tax money each year. After ten years the fund's annual deployment capacity exceeds £15 billion; after twenty years it approaches £25 billion. The asset base accumulates at a much faster rate than a pure grant model would deliver, while the national balance sheet remains untouched. After 30 years the programme is essentially self financing.

For ONS classification, this is straightforward. National public spending is £10 billion per year — the cash actually disbursed from current revenue. Local authority obligations to the national fund sit on local authority balance sheets, which are already in the public sector. There is no off-book element, no contingent liability of substance, no balance-sheet manoeuvre. The Treasury can examine this model in any depth and find it austere.

What £10 billion per year delivers

The honest delivery range depends on unit cost, which depends on the mix between refurbishment and new build, between simple shared-facility units and more complex extra-care provision, and between modular and traditional construction methods.

Working from current UK benchmarks:

The dominant typology in Community Housing is modest: a private bedroom and en-suite shower/toilet of around 18–22 square metres, accessed from shared kitchen, dining, living, and laundry spaces serving 6–10 residents. Communal areas are generous because they substitute for the in-unit space conventional housing provides. This typology lends itself to modular construction and to the conversion of existing empty buildings (large family homes, redundant office space, surplus institutional buildings).

A working assumption for the early-years mix:

Category Share Indicative unit cost Notes
Refurbishment of empty stock 25% £60,000 Funded from refurbishment leg
Modular shared-facility (basic) 35% £110,000 Standard typology
Modular shared-facility (specialist) 15% £140,000 Adapted for older or disabled residents
Traditional shared-facility 15% £150,000 Where modular not viable
Extra care / complex specialist 10% £210,000 For populations needing more support

Average all-in cost on this mix: approximately £125,000 per unit. £10 billion of annual capital, after a small national fund administrative cost, delivers approximately 75,000–80,000 new units per year at this mix, growing as the recycling effect adds repayment-funded capacity. Over a decade the public stock accumulates at perhaps 800,000 to 1 million units — a substantial public asset, though smaller than the previous draft's loan-financed projection.

These numbers are working assumptions and will adjust with experience, construction-sector capacity (see section below), and the actual cost outcomes of early projects. The policy is not committed to a specific delivery number; it is committed to a permanent budget and to building as much housing as that budget can buy at any given time.

The stock accumulates indefinitely

This is structurally different from a programme with an end-date. There is no Year 10 review at which Community Housing might be wound down. There is no "completion" of the public stock. Each year the budget renews and the stock grows, with maintenance and capital renewal funded inside the same line. The right way to think about Community Housing is as a permanent feature of the public infrastructure, comparable in conceptual status to local libraries, leisure centres, or refuse collection: a thing the state does, indefinitely, as part of being the state.

This is also why the policy does not need to deliver at any specific scale to be successful. A first decade that adds half a million units of public shared-facility housing is enormously valuable. A second decade that adds another half a million is more so. The accumulation is the policy.

The buildings: what gets built

The unit standard

Each resident has a private bedroom of around 18–22 square metres, with private en-suite shower and toilet. The room is the resident's private space — locked, theirs, with their belongings, their bed, their desk if they want one, their photographs on the wall. This is non-negotiable. The dignity of having a place that is one's own is the foundation of what the policy provides.

Shared facilities serve clusters of 6–10 private rooms: a kitchen with full cooking facilities, a dining area, a living room with sofas and a television, a laundry. The communal facilities are designed to be genuinely usable rather than minimal — the substitution for in-unit space is what keeps total construction cost down, and that only works if the shared spaces are actually pleasant places to be.

Around the residential clusters sit broader communal facilities at the building scale: a larger meeting and event space, a guest suite or two for visiting family, a garden where the site permits, accessible WC and shower facilities for visitors. The architecture is closer to a small-scale almshouse, a high-quality co-housing scheme, or a well-designed student hall than to either a hostel or a bedsit. The reference points for what good looks like are international (Finnish Housing First buildings, Dutch supported-housing developments) and historical (the better English almshouses).

Mixed use, mixed age, mixed need

A single Community Housing building is designed to serve multiple cohorts simultaneously and to flex over time as demand shifts. The building does not declare in advance whether it is "for older people" or "for care leavers" or "for domestic abuse move-on". It is for whichever of the qualifying populations needs a room in this council's area at the time the room becomes available.

Three reasons this matters operationally:

Stigma reduction. A building that houses only one type of resident becomes labelled as that type of building. A "care leavers' hostel" becomes a place that signals to the wider community that its residents are at-risk young people. A mixed building does not carry that signal.

Demand smoothing. No single cohort is consistent in its housing demand from year to year. Mixing cohorts in the same stock means a council can absorb a higher-than-expected number of care leavers in one year and a higher-than-expected number of older people the next, without having built the wrong type of building.

Social goods. The loneliness that older people in single-occupancy housing experience and the isolation that care leavers experience are problems that mixed living arrangements partially solve. An older resident with knowledge and time and patience is a meaningful presence in the life of a young resident finding their way; a young resident with energy and enthusiasm is a meaningful presence in the life of an older resident. This is not contrived. It is how human communities have worked through most of human history; the segregation of housing by age is a recent and unhappy invention.

There are limits to mixing. Some residents — survivors of male-perpetrated domestic abuse, for example — should be housed in single-gender provision. Some buildings or wings of buildings will be designated accordingly. Some residents have support needs (severe mental illness, active addiction, complex behavioural needs from prior trauma) that require either specialist provision or careful matching with other residents. The mixing principle is the default, not the rule, and councils retain discretion about specific allocations.

Cost discipline: refurbishment first

The empty-homes refurbishment leg matters disproportionately to cost discipline. England's long-term empty stock is 303,000 dwellings as of October 2025 — a 14% increase on 2024 and over 50% above 2016 levels. The total of all empty and underused dwellings exceeds one million. The supply is not the constraint; the funding mechanism, the council capacity, and the regulatory framework for compulsory purchase and remediation are.

The £1 billion annual refurbishment leg should be deployed with broader applicant eligibility than the new-build leg: housing associations operating under public-benefit terms, Community Land Trusts, registered charities specialising in empty-homes recovery (Action on Empty Homes, the Empty Homes Network and members), and councils themselves. The unit cost is lower; the carbon footprint is dramatically lower; and the delivery capacity is more dispersed across organisations that have been working in this space for decades.

Where empty homes are clustered in particular areas — and they are: the North East, parts of the North West, some coastal authorities — refurbishment can do the heavy lifting in those areas. New build dominates in areas with low empty-home stock.

The four cohorts and how the buildings serve them

Older people whose housing has stopped working

The cohort. People in their late seventies or above who are still in the family home — usually in a property too large for them, with stairs they struggle to manage, in a neighbourhood where they have outlived friends and family, often alone. They are not yet in need of residential care; they may not need any care at all. What they need is somewhere to live that is the right size, the right shape, and surrounded by neighbours.

What Community Housing offers them: a private room of their own, en-suite shower and toilet (level-access, properly equipped), a shared kitchen and living space where neighbours are present, a building that includes residents younger than them. Where their care needs are higher, an extra-care variant of the building includes 24-hour staffing funded through the Universal Care Service. Where their care needs are lower, they live in the standard mixed building and access UCS care as outpatients of the wider council care system.

What this displaces: extended family-home occupation by an older person whose home no longer suits them; entry into the residential care market for reasons that are housing failures rather than care failures; delayed hospital discharge when they enter hospital and cannot return home safely.

Care leavers entering adulthood

The cohort. Around 12,000 young people leaving care each year on reaching 18; 50,000 in the care-leaver cohort aged 17–21 at any one time. Outcomes are catastrophic: 25% of adult homeless population, near 25% of adult prison population, 40% NEET among 19–21 year olds.

What Community Housing offers them: a private room with en-suite shower and toilet, in a building that includes other residents — including adults at later life stages who are not threats and not other care leavers. The room is theirs, with no time limit imposed by the housing itself, until they choose to move on. The shared facilities mean they cook with neighbours, eat with neighbours, watch television with neighbours. They are not alone. Their council Personal Adviser remains their formal point of contact for care-leaver duties; the housing is not the support service, it is the place the support service can find them.

What this displaces: care leavers in unsuitable shared HMOs, care leavers in supported accommodation that becomes unsuitable at 21 or 25, care leavers who become homeless because the support cliff at 21 catches them, care leavers who enter the criminal justice system because their housing instability cascades into wider instability.

Survivors of domestic abuse moving on from refuge

The cohort. Women and (less commonly) men leaving refuge accommodation after the immediate crisis has passed but before they are ready or able to enter conventional housing. Currently this cohort is stuck: refuges are blocked because there is nowhere to move on to, which means new arrivals to refuge cannot be accommodated.

What Community Housing offers them: a private room (or in the case of women with children, a self-contained family suite within the same building) in a designated wing or building that operates on women-only or single-gender terms, with the option to move into mixed Community Housing once the survivor is ready. The accommodation is not refuge — it does not have the same security infrastructure or the same support intensity — but it is private, safe, and not time-limited.

What this displaces: women remaining in refuge for months longer than they need to be, refuge-turnover rates that prevent new arrivals being accepted, women returning to abusive partners because no housing alternative is reachable.

People in temporary accommodation

The cohort. The 132,410 households in TA in England, including 172,420 children, many of them in B&Bs and nightly-paid private accommodation that is dangerous to their health, education, and safety.

What Community Housing offers them: permanent or long-term tenancies in a building of dignity, at a cost the council determines, replacing the existing TA placement. For families with children, family-suite formats within the building. For single adults and adult couples, standard shared-facility units.

What this displaces: the £2.84 billion annual TA bill at the national level. Even a modest displacement is a substantial saving against current TA spending — and the displacement is permanent, not just for the year. Each TA household moved into Community Housing reduces the TA bill in every subsequent year as well.

Delivery: where the constraints actually are

Public asset, mixed delivery

The Prosperity 2030 framework is specific about ownership and silent on delivery model. The housing stock built or acquired through Community Housing is held by local councils as public assets, accountable to the council's electors and protected from disposal except under defined conditions. That is non-negotiable. How the housing gets designed, built, maintained, and serviced is open. Councils may deliver in-house through revived direct labour organisations; through housing-association partnerships on public-benefit delivery terms; through Local Housing Companies wholly owned by the council; through combined-authority delivery vehicles serving groups of districts; through Community Land Trusts and registered charities (particularly for the empty-homes refurbishment leg); through social-enterprise contractors; or through conventional private contractors operating to the public-service standards the council specifies.

The same mixed-delivery principle applies to maintenance, building services, and the operational support residents need. Care delivered to residents flows through the Universal Care Service and is itself subject to the same mixed-delivery openness — public providers, charities, social enterprises, and private operators all eligible, with the council commissioning to the standards and pricing it determines. Building maintenance, repairs, grounds, security, communal-area services, and so on follow the same logic.

What the framework does require is that:

This openness matters operationally. Most English councils transferred their housing stock through Large-Scale Voluntary Transfer between the late 1980s and 2010 and lost their development capability in the process. Q3 2025 housebuilding statistics show 190 dwellings started by councils nationally in the quarter — against 7,960 by housing associations and 23,270 by private enterprises. A delivery model that required councils to do everything in-house would face a capability constraint that would take years and substantial investment to overcome. The mixed-delivery model uses existing capability where it sits — in housing associations, in social enterprises, in some private contractors — while keeping the resulting assets public and the resulting accountability democratic.

The pace of delivery follows council capability and the available delivery partner ecosystem rather than the capital envelope driving an unrealistic capacity expansion. Some councils — typically those in metropolitan and unitary authorities that retained housing functions or that have built up Local Housing Company capability since 2010 — will be ready in Year 1 and can deploy capital at scale immediately. Others will need time to develop the procurement, partnership, and stewardship capabilities the model requires. Combined-authority delivery vehicles will work for groups of smaller districts. Some councils will be slow starters; they will deliver less in early years and more later. That is acceptable. A first year deploying perhaps 30,000 units across the most ready councils, growing to 60,000–80,000 by Year 5, is a realistic trajectory. The £10 billion annual budget is the steady state; the early years will spend less and accumulate balances in the national fund for use in subsequent years.

Construction labour

Construction-sector labour-force capacity is handled through the Skills Centres policy in the wider framework. Community Housing does not propose its own construction-capacity strategy; the framework already has one. Skills Centres provide geographic nodes of trained apprentices employed by the Centre and available to firms on demand, with construction as one of the named priority sectors.

The relevance to Community Housing: as Skills Centres scale, the labour available to deliver Community Housing schemes grows in step. Skills Centres deliberately serve the same geographic areas that Community Housing serves, which means the labour is local and the apprentices are likely to be from the same communities the housing is serving. This is one of the reinforcing loops of the wider framework — the policies do not just coexist, they enable each other.

Where labour shortage in particular trades or particular regions binds in early years, modular construction is an explicit fallback. Modular delivery requires factory labour rather than on-site labour and can substitute for skilled site trades during periods of constraint.

Land

Most Community Housing sites will be either:

Greenfield acquisition for Community Housing should be rare. The policy is not designed to add to urban sprawl or to compete with private developers for the relatively small pool of consented housing land. It is designed to use council land, public land, and existing buildings.

Regulatory environment

The current planning system is poorly adapted to shared-facility housing of the type Community Housing builds. Use Class C2 (residential institutions) covers some of it; Use Class C3 (dwellinghouses) covers some of it; sui generis applies to some specialist forms. The policy proposes a new use-class designation specifically for shared-facility public housing of the Community Housing type, with appropriate density and design standards baked in. This is a separate piece of regulatory work but is essential to fast and consistent planning consent.

Operations: who does what

Capital flow

National property-tax revenue → national Community Housing Fund (£10 billion per year) → council capital allocations (assessed against published criteria for need, deliverability, and fit with the cohort framework) → council-led or council-with-HA-partner delivery → completed housing held on council balance sheet.

Council allocations are notional 30-year obligations to the national fund, repaid from the council's per-capita property-tax allocation. Repayments recycle as new capital allocations, growing the fund's annual deployment capacity over time. The fund itself does not borrow.

Operating

Once built, the housing is owned and stewarded by the council. Maintenance, capital renewal, voids management, and lettings are funded from the Community Housing maintenance line (part of the £1 billion within the total £10 billion budget, although with growing stock this line will need to grow as a proportion).

The actual delivery of these functions is open: councils may operate through in-house teams, contracted housing associations, social enterprises, Tenant Management Organisations, or private contractors, in any combination that suits local circumstances and capability. The asset stays public; the delivery model is for the council to determine.

Care and support delivered to residents — visiting care for older residents, support work for care leavers, case management for survivors of domestic abuse, mental health support for residents who need it — is funded through the Universal Care Service via the council's age-weighted per-capita allocation. The housing budget does not pay for care; the care budget does. They are operationalised in the same building by the same council, but they are accounted separately and may be delivered by entirely different organisations under separate council commissioning arrangements.

Tenancies and rent

The form of tenancy is for the council to determine within statutory frameworks. Likely models include long-term assured tenancies, shorter-term licensing arrangements for cohort-specific accommodation (e.g., a six-month move-on placement for a survivor of domestic abuse), and indefinite occupancy for older residents who are likely to remain until end of life.

Rent is at council discretion. The principle of the policy is that shelter is a basic right; the operationalisation is a local question. Some councils may charge a low stewardship contribution that covers a portion of maintenance costs and signals the value of what is provided. Others may operate the stock on a no-rent basis for some or all residents — particularly the populations whose income is lowest (care leavers in early years, older residents on minimal pensions). The Finnish reference point is informative: in Helsinki, residents pay rent that housing benefit covers in full for most of them, and the stewardship model is not tied to the rent. Councils will discover what works for their populations.

Relationship to the existing landscape

The Social and Affordable Homes Programme

Community Housing complements the SAHP rather than substituting for it. The two programmes operate in different lanes:

Dimension SAHP (£39bn / 10yr) Community Housing (£10bn/yr permanent)
Funding instrument Capital grant Capital allocation (recycling)
Applicants Councils + housing associations Councils (with HA delivery partnership)
Unit type Predominantly nuclear-household Predominantly shared-facility
Tenure Social rent / affordable rent Council discretion
Target population General social housing waiting list Specific cohorts the market does not serve
Time horizon 10-year programme Permanent

There is no duplication; there is no need to choose between them. Both can run in parallel and they target different populations and unit types.

The Affordable Homes Programme legacy and PWLB

The Public Works Loan Board, the Affordable Homes Programme, and the various predecessors continue to operate as conventional grant and loan instruments for general social and affordable housing. Community Housing does not displace any of them. It adds a specific instrument for a specific purpose.

The Casey Commission and the National Care Service

The Independent Commission's Phase 1 recommendations (2026) and Phase 2 long-term recommendations (2028) will shape the national settlement on adult social care. Community Housing is not contingent on any particular outcome from the Commission; it provides housing infrastructure that any plausible National Care Service will need. The policy can be operationalised whether the eventual care funding model is general taxation, social insurance, hypothecated levy, or some combination. The housing is what care happens in.

Risks and Treasury concerns addressed directly

"This adds to public spending." Yes, by £10 billion per year. The displacement of existing costs in temporary accommodation, NHS delayed discharge, criminal justice from care-leaver instability, and unsuitable housing for older people is substantial and growing. The policy does not claim a specific scale of saving; the existing costs are large enough that any reasonable rate of displacement is fiscally meaningful. The costs the public sector is currently absorbing through bad temporary accommodation, blocked hospital beds, and life-cost downstream effects of care-leaver homelessness are not abstract; they show up in the same spending review the Community Housing line shows up in.

"This adds to public debt." No. The national Community Housing Fund disburses from current revenue and does not borrow. Council obligations to the fund sit on local authority balance sheets, which are already in the public sector. There is no net change in the national debt position. This is a structural design feature, not an accounting trick.

"Councils can't deliver." Councils don't have to deliver in-house. The framework requires public ownership of the resulting assets and democratic accountability through the council's reformed assembly structure; it does not require councils to design, build, or maintain the housing themselves. Existing capability in housing associations, Local Housing Companies, social enterprises, and competent private contractors is available to be commissioned. Where council readiness is genuinely a constraint, it is a constraint on procurement and stewardship capability rather than on construction capability — and the procurement-and-stewardship gap is more tractable than rebuilding direct labour organisations would be. Skills Centres provide the labour-force expansion the wider construction sector needs; modular construction substitutes where on-site labour is short.

"The unit cost is unrealistic." Section 2.3 sets out a working mix and an indicative blended cost of approximately £125,000 per unit. This is achievable with the typology described — small private rooms, generous shared facilities, modular and refurbishment delivery dominant. It is lower than NHF supported-housing benchmarks (£184,000–£253,000) because the typology is more modest than full extra-care provision, which is a small share of the mix. The actual delivered cost will vary; the budget is fixed and the unit count adjusts.

"It's just 1960s council housing." Five structural differences set out in the framing document: different cohort (life-transition populations, not nuclear families), different built form (shared-facility, not house-replication), different finance (recycling capital allocation, not subsidised grant), different democratic basis (under Democracy Revival reforms), and different integration with care (UCS funded in the same council). The "it's just council housing" attack survives only if the critic refuses to engage with how the policy is actually designed.

"Why councils, not housing associations as direct applicants?" Because the framework intends to accumulate public assets under democratic accountability, and housing associations were reclassified as private sector by ONS in 2017. HAs have a substantial role in delivery — designing, building, and where commissioned by the council, maintaining and managing the resulting housing — but the asset itself remains in public ownership and the public-service obligations attach to the asset rather than to any particular delivery partner. The same logic applies to social enterprises, charities, and private contractors that take on Community Housing work: deep engagement with delivery, no claim on the asset. For the empty-homes refurbishment leg, where the unit type is more dispersed and the specialist expertise sits more in dedicated charity and social-enterprise providers, eligibility is broader (see section 3.3).

"It crowds out private development." Not in any meaningful sense. Community Housing serves populations the private market does not serve; the unit type is one the private market does not build. There is some second-order competition for materials and skilled labour, but Skills Centres expansion of the construction workforce mitigates this directly. Pulling people who would otherwise be in the conventional rental and purchase market out of those markets reduces demand pressure on private development; the net effect on private housebuilding is plausibly positive.

"The recycling model is opaque." It is not. Each year, the national fund disburses £10 billion of new capital from current revenue. Each year, councils repay part of their accumulated allocations from prior years. Repayments are added to the new £10 billion to give the fund's annual deployment capacity. The accounting is standard and transparent; it is publishable in a single page.

"What if councils default on their obligations to the fund?" The fund's claims on councils are senior and are part of the council's normal operating budget commitments. Council default on these obligations would be a section 114 event, with the standard MHCLG response (Exceptional Financial Support, possibly intervention). The fund's losses in such a scenario would be a small write-down against the recycling pool, not a contingent liability on the national balance sheet. The structural risk is low and is contained at local authority level.

References

Statutory and policy sources

Parliamentary research and statistical sources

Sector and academic sources

International reference

Modular construction and delivery

All figures in 2025 prices. The financing architecture of this programme depends on the property-tax reform set out in the Local Government Finance appendix

Related1 link across 1 group
Referenced by
Structural Measure

Community Housing

Published 18 May 2026