Estate Regeneration

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for highlighting this issue.

Many of us can be guilty of forgetting that a house is not just a unit on a spreadsheet, but the anchor of a family’s life. I see it that way, as do others, including the hon. Gentleman. Our historical, post-war social housing estates across Northern Ireland possess an incredible and undeniable community spirit, but are too often choked by generational underinvestment, outdated design and structural neglect. As always, I will give the Northern Ireland perspective on this topic to support the hon. Gentleman in his challenge and focus, and in what he wants to achieve, as it is what I want as well. It is nice to see the Minister in her place again—she is becoming a regular in Westminster Hall. I look forward to hearing her contribution.

I stand here to speak up for the thousands of families living in social housing across my constituency. Those estates were built decades ago, and although they were built with the best of intentions, time, by its very nature, has taken its toll. We are dealing with ageing housing stock that suffers from chronic dampness, poor insulation and completely outdated heating systems. In an era where energy prices remain painfully high, it is a tragedy that our lowest-income families are living in the hardest-to-heat homes and are forced to choose between heating their homes—or even just their front rooms—and feeding their children.

Considered estate regeneration is about so much more than putting a new lick of paint on a building, replacing a roof or putting in insulation; it is about having a holistic blueprint for community renewal. I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke for highlighting the community aspect, because I want to focus on the community drive as well. It means looking at the layout of our estates to eradicate the poorly lit alleys that breed antisocial behaviour. It also means investing in community infrastructure: the playgrounds where our children can play safely; the community hubs where our elderly residents can find a reprieve from chronic loneliness; and the green spaces that support mental wellbeing and social interaction.

True regeneration must be considered, meaning that it must be done with the community, not to the community. As the hon. Gentleman outlined incredibly well, our local communities must be the co-architects of their own future. We must empower local tenant associations and community groups to lead the design process. If they are drawn into that project and focus, it will make a community and a family atmosphere, and it will bring people together. That is what I would love to see.

To know how to fix a troubled estate—I say this respectfully—just ask the grandmother who has lived on that street for 40 years. She knows exactly where the problems are and exactly what the neighbourhood needs to thrive. Her love for that estate—the place she stayed in for 40 years of her life—should focus us all in the future.

Although housing policy and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive are devolved matters managed by the Minister for Communities in Stormont, the fiscal reality is that our devolved Administration cannot deliver the scale of transformation needed on their own. That is why the Barnett consequential and what the Government give the Northern Ireland Assembly to dish out are so important. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive faces a multi-billion-pound maintenance and investment deficit over the next decade, just to bring its current stock up to a decent standard. That is why we need a joined-up, UK-wide approach to funding capital infrastructure. The UK levelling-up and building frameworks must ensure that Northern Ireland receives a fair, proportionate share of macro investment specifically earmarked for social housing regeneration.

This subject means a lot to me. Back in 1985, when I was first elected to a council, the social, bread-and-butter issues were about housing; it is still one of the biggest issues that my constituency office receives in the mailbag every week. Today’s debate means a lot to me. I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke on securing it and look forward to hearing what the Minister can do to encourage him and us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

You’re playing catch-up!

[Nesil Caliskan]

Yes, and I have a long way to go.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this important debate and thank all Members for their contributions. Each one has provided an important perspective on the challenges of estate renewal and the need generally to build homes in a way that works for communities. My hon. Friend spoke powerfully about the difference between good regeneration and poor examples in his constituency. The Government recognise that good estate regen is critical to delivering our housing target and to providing decent homes for everybody to live in.

There are many reasons why estate regeneration might be the best thing for existing tenants or for a local area. In some cases, years of neglect from a Conservative Government that failed to invest in existing estates and mandated council rent reductions, which meant even less for housing revenue accounts, has left many estates in dire need of regeneration. I know that only too well, having led a local authority that felt the burden of pressures on the HRA account. Social housing was the tenure most affected by damp and mould issues—my hon. Friend correctly highlighted the impact that that has on many of his constituents, and I know that many other Members have cases involving the same problem.

An ageing housing stock not only impacts life chances, but costs the taxpayer more in the long term, because disrepair has a bigger impact on communities and also on the stock itself. In that context, it might make more sense for an entire estate to be regenerated than to take a sticking-plaster approach, particularly when some buildings reach the end of their life. In other cases, estates are the best places to build more affordable homes, particularly in our towns and cities, where there may be fewer development sites available, but more social infrastructure in local areas.

The people often forgotten in housing debates are the 1 million families on council housing waiting lists and the thousands of people trapped in temporary accommodation. I know that there are something like 4,000 on the housing register in my hon. Friend’s local authority area, and the figure is similar in my borough of Barking and Dagenham. Everyone deserves a decent home—a safe home, in a clean neighbourhood, with decent social infrastructure. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who spoke so passionately and accurately about the importance of the facilities that make a community, whether that is a youth centre or much needed GPs. I pay tribute to her long-standing campaign, which reflects the need to build neighbourhoods with homes that are more than just the buildings that house people.

In my view, the simplest, most powerful thing we can do to lift people out of poverty and improve life chances in this country is to provide more decent homes. First and foremost, we must recognise that the supply of homes is the foundation for everything. Indeed, we will only address the housing crisis by building more homes, period. I listened with great interest to the shadow Minister, who made important points about house building and getting on with it. I have to say, though, having been a council leader in and now a Labour Member of Parliament in London, that it is a great shame that Conservative and Lib Dem councils, councillors and MPs frequently object to house building.

Of course, brownfield sites are a really important part of the solution; but the idea that we can meet housing need in London or the rest of the country only by using brownfield sites or doing infill on existing estates is, I am afraid, misleading. That does not mean that we look at only one aspect of house building. I recognise that the picture is complicated, and it will take a multitude of approaches to make sure that regeneration delivers the number of homes to the decent homes standard that we need, but I also know that regeneration must be delivered in partnership with communities. Good regeneration puts communities in the driving seat. That does not just mean being transparent with decision making; it also means allowing those who live in the community to have a real say in shaping proposals. Decisions on property size, building height, materials, amenities and timelines for delivery are important for getting community buy-in. That approach is not new. Good developers, of which there are many, do that anyway, and the regulatory standards are clear: registered providers must communicate with tenants, provide information to them and take their views into account in decision making. That extends to providers undertaking estate regeneration.

It is difficult to set out realistic timelines, because each estate regeneration is different and unique due to their different sizes and ambitions, and good engagement with existing residents may further change those ambitions. Timelines for estate renewal are also highly dependent on viability, phasing, planning permission conditions, and ground and infrastructure prep, but I accept that families who live on an estate face huge anxiety when they do not know when their home is going to be knocked down. Indeed, there are examples in my constituency of families who have been told their estate has been earmarked for renewal; they can see their community being hollowed out, yet they do not know when they will need to move on. Timelines for estate renewal are complicated, but it is important that engagement takes into account the instability caused by estate renewal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked a valid question about whether the process for decision making should be through a ballot. I led a local authority that had a ballot for an area. It is hard work to say the least, but it is perhaps one of the most important things a local authority can do to secure community buy-in. However, to say that ballots in themselves are what secured that engagement would be to do a disservice to the engagement that the ballot provided.

Ballots in and of themselves do not solve trust issues among residents. They can force developers to do the meaningful engagement that they should be doing anyway, but they do not mean that we will get the outcome that we want. Where providers fall short, there is usually a complaints process and an ombudsman. In addition, the Government have also committed to introducing social tenant access to information requirements from this October, which will make it mandatory for providers to give information about property management in response to information requests.