On arriving at Number 10, Andy Burnham pledged to end rough sleeping. Only three weeks earlier, in the Manchester speech that followed his election as the MP for Makerfield, he pledged to deliver the biggest council house building programme since the post-war period. 

Rough sleeping

4,793 people are estimated to have slept rough in England in Autumn 2025, according to the latest MHCLG data. Wales generally performs better and the number of rough sleepers per capita is around half that in England, but there were still an estimated 143 individuals sleeping rough in Wales on 31 March 2026.

The new government has already pledged an extra £340m, on top of the £3.5bn already allocated, to homelessness services. But money alone can’t end rough sleeping. 

The government must legislate to create new powers for local authorities, there needs to be greater clarity on the allocation of responsibilities between central government departments and local authorities, and services need to be better coordinated in neighbourhoods. 

Existing legal powers 

The challenges faced by local authorities delivering the 'Everyone In' policy during the pandemic reveal the gaps in local authorities’ powers to house rough sleepers. MHCLG advice at the time encouraged local authorities to offer accommodation to everyone, while  acknowledging that the law on eligibility remained unchanged. Consequently, many local authorities acted ultra vires when they took the decision to accommodate all rough sleepers during the pandemic.

Where rough sleepers are ineligible for homelessness assistance on account of their immigration status, are intentionally homeless, or not in priority need, local authorities’ powers under the Housing Act 1996 are limited to providing advice and assistance. There are other powers available to local authorities, but these won’t provide a solution in every case: 

• under section 9 of the Care Act 2014, where rough sleepers have needs for care and support and those needs can only be met if accommodation is provided;
• under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, accommodation may be provided to a child and their family where this is necessary to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child; and
• under section 2B of the NHS Act 2006, where assistance (including financial assistance) can be provided to help individuals to minimise any risks to health arising from their accommodation or environment. 

The Home Office can also provide housing to asylum seekers and those with pending human rights claims (under section 95, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999), even where they become appeal rights exhausted (under section 4 of the same Act), to prevent them becoming destitute. But there needs to be much greater coordination between the Home Office and local authorities on immigration cases, the Home Office needs to be more proactive when it comes to identifying migrants at risk of destitution, and more mindful of the impact of its processing activities on local authorities’ (as the 'asylum hotel' cases last year demonstrated). 

The need for legislative reform

But if the government wants local authorities to end rough sleeping in their area, regardless of eligibility and immigration rules, then the government must legislate, either to create a new specific power or to remove the restrictions on the use of the general power of competence under section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 for this purpose (per R (MK) v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham [2013] EWHC 3486 (Admin)). Any new or expanded powers must of course be accompanied by new burdens funding.    

Then there are the practical challenges to ending rough sleeping. 

Neighbourhood working: Delivering localised responses to place-based inequalities 

Many rough sleepers are care-experienced or have spent time in prison or other state institutions. Too many have previously approached their local authority for help. Rebuilding their trust in public authorities takes time and, often, in partnership working with charities and voluntary organisations. Some rough sleepers need treatment for drug or alcohol dependence; others have complex mental health needs. Many need supported or specialised accommodation. These challenges require multi-disciplinary responses, and integrated service delivery. 

Neighbourhood working could provide a framework for service integration and reform at a local level targeted at ending rough sleeping, delivering more joined-up services, better experiences for rough sleepers, a sharper focus on early intervention and prevention, and more localised responses to place-based inequalities. 

Ultimately, though, prevention is better than cure, and Andy Burnham will need to rapidly expand the delivery of new social and affordable homes if he wants to eliminate rough sleeping for good. 

Unlocking council house-building 

Many local authorities are already expanding their existing housing stock; others are taking steps to become stock holding authorities again (reversing the trend of wholesale transfers to housing associations that has persisted since the Housing Act 1988 was enacted). We have been working with local authorities (often in partnership with private developers) to regenerate housing estates, bring forward new development, acquire and convert disused commercial and office buildings, and to buy section106 units and affordable homes on the open market for years. 

But councils need more capital funding, greater flexibility in how they manage their resources, and the skills and expertise to deliver new development at scale and pace, if they’re to deliver the Prime Minister’s ambition. 

Many local authorities’ housing revenue accounts are under extreme pressure. These ring-fenced funds are intended to operate as landlord accounts, ensuring that income received from social housing tenants is recycled into property maintenance and improvements. But the ring-fencing rules and capital funding requirements that are designed to ensure that Housing Revenue Accounts (HRAs) don’t fall into deficit, are preventing authorities from borrowing to develop new homes in their HRA. We’ve been looking at ways that local authorities can use their powers more flexibly, to maximise rents and housing benefit subsidy recovery, and to safeguard their HRAs.  

But the government could relax the HRA ringfencing rules, allowing local authorities to share general fund savings (e.g., from temporary accommodation budgets, as more residents move on from costly TA, to longer term secure social tenancies) with their HRA, putting the HRA on a more sustainable footing and unlocking new council housebuilding funded through prudential borrowing in the process. 

Meanwhile, the housing benefit bill continues to rise exponentially because of the need to meet rising costs in the private rented sector. In theory, every new council house built and let at a social rent should result in a direct revenue saving to government. The government needs to look at ways to capitalise these revenue savings to fund new infrastructure spending now on new council homes. 

Local authorities are also crying out for clarity from MHCLG and the DWP on how the housing benefit and subsidy rules may be applied, so they can model the long-term impact of investment in new housing stock. This is something we advise on regularly, but more clarity from central government could cut through a lot of this red tape.  

And local authorities need to be equipped to deliver new homes at pace and scale. That means more resources, more in-house expertise, but also more support to partner effectively with the private sector to get new homes built while they tool back up.   

The role of Registered Providers of Social Housing 

The government has mooted diverting some of the £39bn that was allocated to the Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026 to 2036 to fund new council house building, but that risks robbing Peter to pay Paul. 

Registered Providers (RPs) play a vital role in delivering new social and affordable homes, and they know better than anyone how to deliver new homes at social and affordable rents in challenging economic conditions. Many local authorities are still almost wholly dependent on their right to nominate tenants to registered providers’ accommodation to secure long-term housing for their homeless and to discharge their duties. The contribution those RPs make to providing safe, secure, good quality homes at social and affordable rent and through affordable routes to home ownership should not be understated. 

While public subsidy will inevitably be part of the solution, the deals we’re now working on suggest that the government should be looking to institutional investors and pension funds to bridge the gap between ambition and delivery. 

Leveraging private capital to deliver new homes at social and affordable rents 

We’re already seeing institutional investors working with local authorities through housing partnerships, and equity funds investing directly in local authorities often working in tandem with commercial delivery partners, to deliver new council housing. There are a range of different structures and arrangements emerging, but what is clear is that there is significant appetite from investors providing deals offer the right security, returns and ESG credentials. 

These sorts of projects can be challenging for local authorities, both politically and in terms of capacity and capability. They often require significant commercial and legal input, across a range of specialisms. Local authorities need to take care to secure value for money and to discharge their fiduciary duties to taxpayers. They also need to think carefully about areas like powers, procurement and subsidy control. 

But these arrangements have the potential to deliver new development at a scale and pace that local authorities would struggle to realise through traditional PLB borrowing and direct in-house delivery. 

Our recent joint report with the CBI highlighted the potential in public-private partnerships for accelerating infrastructure delivery, and we are already working across the public and private sectors to deliver new social housing for local authorities funded through private investment.

Whether you’re a local authority looking to accelerate your housing delivery programme, a developer or provider looking to sell to local authorities, or an investor looking to invest in social and affordable housing, then we can help. Do reach out for a chat with our specialist social housing team.