The June 2025 Spending Review confirmed £39 billion for a successor affordable-housing programme over ten years, covering starts from 2026–27 to 2035–36. For organisations preparing a programme of schemes, the practical challenge was how to compare them consistently.
A repeatable model can help, but only if it keeps site-specific work visible. The same dwelling type on two sites does not guarantee the same infrastructure, foundation or logistics cost.
I would begin with a common description of the standard scope and a clear price base date. Then separate the additions and adjustments that arise from the individual site. This avoids presenting every difference as a movement in the underlying building rate.
| Repeatable reference | Project-specific review |
|---|---|
| Dwelling specification | Ground conditions |
| Standard components | Access and logistics |
| Typical installation method | Utility connections |
| Base price date | Programme and procurement |
A conceptual comparison for programme estimating, not an allocation of the announced funding.
Keep the comparison fair
A cost per dwelling can conceal changes in size, mix and specification. A cost per square metre can conceal differences in external works and abnormal conditions. Use both with a stated scope boundary, and reconcile the comparison back to the actual estimate.
The model should also retain its procurement assumptions. A programme buying repeated components under an agreed arrangement may have a different basis from a one-off tender.
Longer-term funding can support planning, but it does not remove the need for project approvals and current market evidence. A consistent estimating model makes those decisions easier because the team can see which part of a scheme is routine and which part requires further investigation.