Why Shared Ownership must be Central to Affordable Housing Policy

It sometimes feels that Shared Ownership is being quietly sidelined by the government – yet for many thousands of would-be buyers, it remains the only route to homeownership. We need urgent action to protect and promote it.

For all the political heat around housebuilding targets, the discussion rarely touches on Shared Ownership. From the Labour Party’s election manifesto, to the NPPF, to various policy and financial statements, Shared Ownership is largely overlooked. Yet it’s a model that works well for individuals, for communities and for the housing market at large.

Last year, just 3,138 Shared Ownership homes were built, according to the NHBC. That figure speaks volumes. Compare it to the 16,814 delivered in 2018-19, or the 18,682 the year before. It is a dramatic decline at a time when need has never been greater.

Shared Ownership is not a silver bullet, but it was never meant to be. But it is one of the few viable options for households who earn too much to qualify for social rent, yet not enough to buy on the open market. These are the teachers, nurses, key workers and young families who are too often left behind in a housing system that divides people into binary categories: those in ‘need’ and those who can afford to buy.

A proven model under threat

Shared Ownership is in danger of facing a perfect storm of declining supply, an inability (due to a political emphasis on social rent) for registered providers to extend their offer, and dwindling policy support. In recent years, nearly half of all new affordable homes have been delivered through Section 106 (s106) agreements between developers and housing associations. But appetite for these agreements is falling fast due to housing associations conflicting financial priorities. As of 2025, more than half of housing associations say they are no longer planning to acquire s106 homes or have significantly scaled back.

Financial pressures, regulatory uncertainty and capacity constraints are all playing a part. Housing associations are struggling to deliver homes at the pace and scale required. As a result, many of these homes are simply being taken out of the category altogether.

In April, the Home Builders Federation (HBF) reported that 17,400 consented s106 affordable plots remain uncontracted, with 139 active sites stalled. These are homes that could – and should – be contributing to affordable supply, but which are instead sitting idle, a victim of a broken delivery mechanism.

In response, Homes England launched a Section 106 Affordable Housing Clearing Service. It’s a positive step, offering greater visibility for local authorities and housing providers seeking to unlock stalled sites. But while welcome, it is not enough. The service won’t solve the underlying problem: that Shared Ownership is being treated as an afterthought in housing policy.

A disproportionate emphasis in policy

The near-total absence of Shared Ownership from many other official announcements, strategy papers and funding frameworks is short-sighted.

The most recent NPPF mentions Shared Ownership just once – and only in the glossary. This lack of visibility isn’t just symbolic. It affects uptake, weakens awareness and pushes the model further down the priority list for housing associations, councils and developers.

Meanwhile, demand is soaring. With rents at record highs, wages stagnating and the cost of living eroding household budgets, the dream of full homeownership feels increasingly remote. Shared Ownership was designed to meet precisely these conditions. It offers a foothold – a way to build equity gradually and move towards full ownership over time. And it resonates: in a recent survey conducted by Share to Buy, 87% of respondents said they would consider using a housing scheme to help them buy. Shared Ownership was the most recognised and trusted option.

It doesn’t need to cost more

One of the strongest arguments in favour of Shared Ownership is that it doesn’t require the same level of public subsidy as other tenure types. Many of the homes are already being delivered via s106 or through housing associations. What’s needed now is policy clarity, consistent backing and a serious communications push to raise awareness and rebuild confidence.

Encouragingly, Homes England and the Greater London Authority together delivered more than 355,000 social and affordable homes in the decade to 2024. But under the new SAHP, total public-funded delivery is forecast to fall by nearly a sixth. That risks undermining what little momentum remains. If Shared Ownership is allowed to disappear from the policy agenda altogether, we will be left with a two-tier system that neglects the aspirations of millions.

A more balanced approach is needed. One that supports both social rent and incremental homeownership. Shared Ownership can help ease pressure on the private rented sector, reduce demand on social housing and enable mobility across tenures. But only if it is given the strategic backing it deserves.

A clear way forward

We are not asking for Shared Ownership to replace other tenures – simply for it to be treated as a core part of the affordable housing mix. The government could take several immediate steps:

• Restore visibility in national planning and housing policy, ensuring Shared Ownership features prominently in future guidance
• Provide dedicated funding streams or acquisition support for s106 Shared Ownership homes to stop them being lost to other uses
• Invest in a national awareness campaign, targeting key worker groups and first-time buyers
• Work with housing associations to ensure they have the resource and capacity to manage and market Shared Ownership stock effectively

These are modest interventions with potentially transformative impact.

If the government is serious about tackling the housing crisis, it cannot afford to ignore the middle. Shared Ownership represents hope, stability and progression for millions.