As we near the end of 2025, it is a good time for us to look back at how the UK Government’s Affordable Housing Programme (AHP) 2021 to 2026 has fared.
The five year funding cycle is soon coming to a close and the question to ask is has the government delivered on its promises or has it fallen short when it comes to where the homes are being built and who is benefiting from them.
What Was Promised and What Has Been Delivered?
When the 2021 to 2026 AHP was launched, it was with great ambition, with the Government initially pledging £11.5 billion to deliver as many as 180,000 affordable homes, including social rent, shared ownership, and supported housing.
Projections on delivery were scaled back in 2024, with the target being revised down to 110 to 130,000 homes.
We also saw funding top-ups with the AHP pot receiving about 400 million in the 2024 Autumn Statement and another 300 million in early 2025. With the initial £7.39 billion, the total combined for this phase ended at around £8.03 billion.
A bridge fund of £2 billion was launched in March 2025 and was to be deployed on the same terms as the existing AHP to act as a down payment for the next programme from 2026.
Looking back on the delivery, it has been encouraging in some aspects, and according to Homes England and its 2024 to 2025 report, 36,872 homes were completed between April 2024 and March 2025, with an additional 38,308 other homes started, which exceeds the forecast.
79% of the newly started homes were affordable homes, which reflects the prioritisation of social housing. The statistics from England’s Affordable Housing Supply for 2024 to 2025 show that 64,762 affordable homes have been completed, and this has been the highest annual total since 2014/2015.
But There Are Serious Gaps, Especially Regionally
When looking at the headline numbers, it looks really promising, but when you look across the regions, there are some big gaps in what has been promised.
Take, for example, the capital city, where London is lagging behind its own targets. The Greater London Authority’s Affordable Homes Monitor reports that by March 2025, only 5188 HP homes have been started against a lower target of 17,000 800 by March 2026, this is just 29% of its minimum goal.
But what is even more concerning is that only 871 homes have actually been completed in London under the programme by that date.
If we look at London’s targets themselves, they were also revised down from an original goal of 35,000 starts under AHP 2021-2026 to just 17,800 to 19,000. This shows how tight development conditions have been in the capital despite its acute affordability challenges.
Outside of the capital, the picture is slightly mixed. Homes England’s strong national completions numbers are encouraging, but the data obscures some serious regional inequalities.
Charities such as Shelter argue that the project inflation, soaring costs, and a stronger preference for social rent homes have slowed down delivery.
Why the Shortfalls?
There are a few factors which contributed to the shortfall, with some being structural and some being political:
- Rising Costs: Inflation and higher construction costs are eating into the grant’s ability to stretch as far
- Market Adjustments: As the programme matured, more starts have converted into completions, but the pace has been slower than ideal, particularly for social rent homes
- Target Revisions and Government Back-pedalling: The downward revision of the overall home-building target (from 180,000 to 110,000–130,000) damaged confidence
- Regional Obstacles: In London in particular, there are bureaucratic roadblocks, planning constraints, and a lack of affordable sites, all contributing to very weak starts in recent years
- Short-Term Funding vs Long-Term Need: While the March 2025 £2 billion top-up helps, it may not fully compensate for structural pressures, and critics have warned that real transformative change requires sustained, not just stop-gap, public investment
Have Regional Disparities Improved?
If you want the short answer, then not really, and definitely not enough. While overall national delivery numbers go upwards, London remains the big underperformer. Local authority data from the GLA reveals that some boroughs, such as Kensington and Chelsea or Richmond, have delivered fewer than 15 stars over multiple years under AHP.
This is about equity, though, and not numbers. The homes being built are meant to be built where they are needed most, but the reality is that with high land cost, planning bottlenecks, and local resistance. This is causing constraints in the places where the demand is highest.
In contrast, some of the other regions which have lower land costs may be absorbing more AHP funding, but often without the same scale of social rent outcomes that the Government has promised. Advocacy groups argue that the structure of grant allocation still favours higher‐value areas, undermining the levelling-up narrative.
Did the Programme Deliver?
Overall, yes, but only partially. If you look at it on paper, the AHP has made some great progress:
- It has mobilised significant funding, especially after the 2024–25 top-ups
- Annual completions are rising, and many of those are for social and affordable rent
- Homes England is unlocking land, meeting or beating some internal targets, and helping projects that had been stuck
But overall, it has not fully delivered on its original ambition:
- The revised target feels like a concession rather than a cautious recalibration
- Regional delivery, especially in London, has severely underperformed
- There remains a worrying mismatch between funding and where the true housing crisis is deepest
- Inflation and cost pressures continue to risk derailing longer-term goals
What Should Happen Next?
If the Government is serious about genuinely affordable housing, the next steps must include:
- Targeted Interventions: More flexible grant terms for high-cost regions like London; bespoke funding for boroughs struggling to hit targets
- Long-Term Certainty: Extending and securing AHP-style funding beyond 2026, with multi-year commitments that reflect real construction cycles
- Stronger Accountability: Robust monitoring of who gets funding, how homes are allocated, and what tenure they provide, especially social rent
- Partnership Models: Encouraging greater collaboration between housing associations, local authorities, and private developers to lower development risk in challenging areas
- Supply Chain & Cost Support: Policies to curb inflationary building pressures, such as training, materials and modular construction, so that grant funding retains its purchasing power