Chancellor Rachel Reeves reveals £39bn plan to build affordable homes across the UK in spending review
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
A HUGE boost for building more home was announced in today's spending review by Rachel Reeves.
The Chancellor today unveiled a £39billion 10-year plan to build more social and affordable housing across the UK, alongside a new rent policy for social housing starting in 2026.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
1
Rachel Reeves has announced £39billion in funding
Credit: Alamy
The multi-billion pound investment will be distributed among local authorities, private developers, and housing associations to help deliver 1.5million new homes and address the housing crisis.
This funding is a major increase compared to the previous affordable housing programme, which allocated £11.5billion over five years (2021–2026), or £2.3billion annually.
By the end of this Parliament, the government plans to almost double yearly spending on affordable housing to £4 billion by 2029/30.
The £113billion increase in capital spending announced today will be funded through extra borrowing, made possible by changes to fiscal rules earlier this year.
Read more on Money
OUT OF CREDIT We sat wrapped in blankets and drained our savings after winter fuel axe
Reeves told MPs: "I am proud to announce the biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in 50 years.
"A new Affordable Homes Programme – in which I am investing £39bn over the next decade.
"Direct government funding that will support housebuilding… …especially for social rent."
A government source added: "We're turning the tide against the unacceptable housing crisis in this country with the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation, delivering on our commitment to get Britain building."
What's happening to social rents?
The government is also introducing a ten-year plan for social housing rents starting in 2026.
This policy will allow housing providers to raise rents by inflation plus 1% (CPI+1%) each year, helping them secure funding to invest in building new homes and maintaining existing ones.
At the same time, a consultation will soon be launched to explore how to make rent levels fairer across social housing.
This plan aims to balance investment in housing with protecting social housing tenants from excessive rent increases.
The previous Conservative governments made similar promises of long-term rent hike formulas in the early 2010s but often failed to follow through.
For example, David Cameron's coalition set a 10-year rent settlement in 2012 based on the retail price index plus 0.5%.
However, then-Chancellor George Osborne later imposed four years of below-inflation increases to reduce housing benefit costs.
More recently, Johnson's government announced a five-year settlement of CPI plus 1% in 2020 but had to cap rent increases at 7% due to a surge in inflation.
Most social housing tenants receive full housing benefits from the government, meaning taxpayers often fund any social rent increases.
However, around 30% of social tenants pay full rent and will be hit by future increases in full because they're not eligible for support.
There are around four million households currently living in rented social housing.
That means 1.2million households will face future bill hikes with the new 10-year formula.
However, the exact amount your rent will increase will depend on where you live and how big your property is.
Help available for social renters
IF you rent from the council or a housing association, you can get help if you're having problems affording your rent.
If you miss a rent payment, you'll fall into 'arrears' and owe your council or housing associations.
Fail to pay back what you owe and you could be evicted.
If you can't afford your next rent payment, you should talk to your landlord as soon as possible.
Call them and explain why you're struggling.
Your landlord may be able to grant a temporary payment holiday or signpost you to other forms of help.
It's worth asking if you can get a discretionary housing payment.
This provides extra money from your local council to help pay your rent - you don't need to pay it back.
It's always worth checking if you're getting any benefit payments you're entitled to.
You can use several free calculators, such as Gov.uk, Citizen's Advice, MoneySavingExpert, StepChange, and Turn2Us, to help you get an estimate.
Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing money-sm@news.co.uk.
Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Government ‘putting its money where its mouth is' with £200m for Acorn scheme
Ministers confirmed they are meeting in full the request for development funding for the Acorn project in Aberdeenshire – the first time a government has provided funding of this scale for such a project to proceed. The scheme, which proposes storing emissions from across Scotland under the North Sea, had previously been overlooked for support despite repeated calls from the Scottish Government and others for it to be backed. With the UK Government also pledging to support the Viking carbon capture and storage (CCS) project in the Humber, Mr Miliband insisted the two schemes will 'support industrial renewal' with 'thousands of highly skilled jobs'. According to the sector, Acorn could support about 15,000 jobs at its peak, with up to 20,000 jobs at the Viking project. As it develops, it is planned the Acorn site will link up with the former oil refinery at Grangemouth via more than 200 miles of pipelines. An existing 175 miles of gas pipes will be repurposed for this, with 35 miles of new pipeline also being built, allowing CO2 from the Grangemouth site to be transported to Acorn's storage facilities under the North Sea. The move is seen by many as being key in securing a future for the facility, where some 400 workers were recently made redundant. Speaking as he visited the site near Peterhead, Aberdeenshire, Mr Miliband said: 'This Government is putting its money where its mouth is and backing the trailblazing Acorn and Viking CCS projects. 'This will support industrial renewal in Scotland and the Humber with thousands of highly-skilled jobs at good wages to build Britain's clean energy future. 'Carbon capture will make working people in Britain's hard-working communities better off, breathing new life into their towns and cities and reindustrialising the country through our Plan for Change.' Mr Miliband visited the site the day after Rachel Reeves promised funding for Acorn in her spending review – although the Chancellor did not put a figure on how much support would be given in her statement to MPs. Scottish Secretary Ian Murray said afterwards: 'The £200 million funding confirmed for the Acorn carbon capture project will help to support the design and preparation as it continues to progress. 'This is about revitalising our industrial communities and creating long-term economic opportunities for Scottish workers.' Tim Stedman, chief executive of Storegga, the lead developer of Acorn, said: 'We warmly welcome the UK Government's support for the Acorn project and the commitment to development funding that will enable the critical work needed to reach final investment decision.' He added the 'milestone' is 'key not only for Acorn but for establishing Scotland's essential CCS infrastructure needed to grow and scale the UK's wider carbon capture and storage industry'. Mr Stedman continued: 'We look forward to working with Government in the months ahead to understand the details of today's commitment, and to ensure the policy, regulatory and funding frameworks are in place to build and grow a world-leading UK CCS sector.' Graeme Davies, executive vice-president at Harbour Energy, which is leading the Viking project, said the commitment in the spending review 'sends a strong signal' that the project is 'an infrastructure-led economic growth priority' for the Parliament. He added: 'We will work with Government on the critical steps needed to progress Viking CCS towards a final investment decision.' However climate campaigners at Friends of the Earth said the money should instead be invested in public transport, energy efficiency and measures to support oil workers to transition to jobs in the renewables sector. Caroline Rance, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: 'This is an enormous handout of supposedly scarce public money that will only directly benefit greedy oil and gas companies. 'Politicians are paying hundreds of millions to keep us locked into an unaffordable energy system which is reliant on fossil fuels and is destroying the climate. 'Carbon capture technology has 50 years of failure behind it, so businesses, workers and the public are being sold a lie about its role in their future. 'Building new fossil fuel infrastructure will undermine the energy transition and embolden oil firms to keep on drilling in the North Sea. 'Both the UK and Scottish governments should instead be backing climate solutions that can improve people's lives such as upgrading public transport, ensuring people live in warm homes and creating green jobs for the long-term.'
Western Telegraph
an hour ago
- Western Telegraph
New House of Lords front door that cost almost £10 million does not work
The project has been described as 'a complete white elephant and a disaster'. Peers heard a member of parliamentary staff had to be permanently stationed at the door to press a button to open it. It also emerged that the price tag of the project spiralled by nearly 60% from the original estimate of £6.1 million. Leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon said it was 'completely unacceptable' to have a door that did not work properly, and she shared the frustrations, upset 'and every other adjective' members wished to use. There was also a question over whether it would ever be fully operational, she suggested. The bill for what has been described at Westminster as 'one of the most expensive front doors in the world' was made public after peers raised concerns that their requests for the cost of the scheme had been repeatedly stonewalled by the authorities on security grounds. They also said they had warned from the start that the design would not work. Members of the Lords vented their annoyance as they heard plans for commercial procurement in Parliament to be transferred into a new joint department of both Houses. While welcoming the administrative changes, Tory former Cabinet minister Lord Forsyth of Drumlean pressed Lady Smith, who sits on the House of Lords Commission, over the cost of the new front door at the Peers' Entrance. He said: 'Very senior members of this House and members of the commission have been told repeatedly that they cannot know the cost of the front door, because if they knew the cost of the front door that would enable terrorists to work out what the security is surrounding it. 'I suspect that the costs of the front door make it one of the most expensive front doors in the world, and it is a front door that does not work. 'Various Members from all sides of the House protested right at the beginning that this design would not work, as it would result in people having to queue outside to get in and they would therefore be more vulnerable. 'We were told that no, it had been carefully designed and the system had been looked at, but we now discover that we need somebody permanently there to press the button to open the door. 'The other evening someone in a wheelchair was unable to access the House. It is a complete white elephant and a disaster.' The Conservative peer added: 'I do not wish to be unkind to any of the staff who serve this House or to underestimate the difficulties of dealing with a historic building of this kind, but it is simply not acceptable that public money should be spent in this way with such disastrous consequences, with no-one being held to account and no knowledge of the associated costs.' Tory former minister Lord Robathan said: 'If this were in the private sector, I am afraid that people would be sacked.' Lady Smith said: 'On the door itself, there are two issues, cost and operability. 'It is completely unacceptable that we have a door that does not operate as it should.' On the cost she said there was 'wildly exaggerated and incorrect information', adding: 'It is important that we are secure, so the costs of the door are very high. It is not just the security issue but also the heritage issue. 'The initial estimate was £6.1 million for the door. That increased because it was the request of members that it should remain open during the duration of the works when the House was sitting. 'The fact that it could not be closed off to get on with the work meant the cost increased – plus some other issues around heritage were discovered. The total cost has been £9.6 million.' She added: 'That is high, but what is more serious is that, having spent that money, the door does not work. 'That is a huge frustration to everybody. 'One of the reasons that it is not the same as other security pods on the estate is that it has to be fully accessible for those who have mobility issues and wish to use mobility aids or wheelchairs. 'The information I have is that the work that has been ongoing to address the problems has not cost the House any more beyond that. 'However, there is a window where a decision has to be taken on whether or not it will ever be fully operational and serve the needs of this House. 'I share the frustrations, the upset and every other adjective members may wish to use.' Lady Smith told peers: 'When we spend that much money on something that does not work, the key thing is that it is resolved, and that is what I am focused on.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Tory taxpayers to bear brunt of Reeves's squeeze on police
Council taxpayers in Tory areas will bear the brunt of Rachel Reeves's squeeze on police funding, official figures show. Police forces in rural areas, which are predominantly under Tory control, have to draw twice as much of their budgets from council taxpayers as metropolitan areas, which are largely overseen by Labour police and crime commissioners. Conservative Surrey funds 57 per cent of its budget through its policing precept on council tax at the top of the table compared with 21.8 per cent for the West Midlands, 24.3 per cent for Merseyside and 27.1 per cent for the Metropolitan Police Service, which are all Labour-controlled, according to official data for 2024. This disparity means that they can only plug gaps from the Chancellor's police cuts through a disproportionate reliance on their council taxpayers who face an anticipated increase of £14 on their tax bills for Band D properties, or more than five per cent. The figures come a day after police chiefs warned Ms Reeves that the funding shortfall would mean they would be unable to deliver on the Government's pledges to put 13,000 more neighbourhood bobbies on the beat and halve knife crime and violence against women and girls. Ms Reeves pledged police forces would get an increase of 2.3 per cent in their spending power, but this included the council tax precept on which rural areas disproportionately rely for their funding.
