Housing Information Group, 24 March 2026: minutes

• Scott Armstrong (SA), Welsh Government
• Jennie Bibbings (JB), Welsh Parliament
• Silke Boak (SB), United Welsh Housing Association
• Mel Brown (MB), Welsh Government
• Hannah Browne-Gott (HB), Welsh Government
• Cerys Clark (CC), CIH Cymru
• Einion Dafydd (ED), Welsh Government
• Rachel Dolman (RD), Welsh Government
• Gareth Dudley-Jones (EDJ), Welsh Government
• Janine Edwards (JE), North Wales Regional Partnership Board
• Mark Edwards (ME), Neath Port Talbot Council
• Shah Farahi (SF), Community Housing Cymru
• Sheilla Ferraz-Luz (SFL), Welsh Government
• Alyson Francis (AF), Welsh Government
• Alice Gilderdale (AG), Centre for Homelessness Impact (CHI)
• Gwennan Hardy (GH), Welsh Parliament
• Sarah Hosken-Jones (SH), Housemark
• Judith Jenkins (JJ), Conwy Council
• Alexander Jones (AJ), Cardiff University
• Elliw Llyr (ELl), Cyngor Ynys Mon
• Elly Lock (ELO), Community Housing Cymru
• Matt Miller (MM), Carmarthenshire County Council
• Christina Paddock (CP), Office for National Statistics (ONS)
• Rosalind Phillips (RP), Wales Centre for Public Policy
• Cat Singleton (CS), Welsh Government
• Tony Wilkins (TW), ONS
• Lowri Wyn Morton (LW), Cyngor Gwynedd

Speakers            

• Stephen Chamberlain (SC), Welsh Government
• Wendy Dearden (WD), Bevan Foundation
• Luned Jones (LJ), Welsh Government (Chair)
• Isabella Malet Lambert (IM), Welsh Government
• Will Parrott (WP), Welsh Government
• Bob Smith (BS), Cardiff University
• Gowan Watkins (GW), Welsh Government
• Ainslie Woods (AW), ONS

Note taker           

• Oliver Jameson (OJ), Welsh Government

Apologies            

• Helen Bevan-Jones, Bron Afon
• Catherine Evans, ONS    
• Stuart Fitzgerald, Welsh Government
• Chantal Jordan, Carmarthenshire County Council    
• Joanna Valentine, Welsh Government   
• Louise Woodfine, NHS Wales    
• Nia Wyn Vaughan, Cyngor Gwynedd    
• Gillian Young, NewHaven Research

LJ welcomed everyone and introduced the agenda.

We did not reach the quota for simultaneous translation so the meeting will be held in English. 

Presentations will be circulated / published following the meeting (provided the presenters have consented). 

WP presented the newly published 2025‑based estimates of additional housing need, which were released in February 2026. These estimates replace the previous 2019‑based figures and draw on the latest available data, including the 2022‑based local authority household projections. The estimates are official statistics, produced in line with the Code of Practice for Statistics, and supported by advice from a technical group comprising analytical and policy experts from Welsh Government and local government.

The estimates provide an evidence‑based assessment of how many additional housing units may be needed in Wales over a 20‑year period to support access to suitable and affordable housing. WP noted that the estimates are trend‑based, not forecasts or targets, and are intended to inform policy development, national planning, and wider well‑being assessments at a national level only.

WP outlined the two main components of the estimates: existing unmet need and newly arising need. Existing unmet need was estimated at approximately 9,400 households, based on households in temporary accommodation (as at March 2025) and Census 2021 data on overcrowded and concealed households. This represents a 64% increase compared with the previous estimates, largely driven by increases in homelessness statistics. Due to the scale of this increase, the previous assumption that existing unmet need could be cleared over five years was no longer considered realistic; instead, existing unmet need is now presented as a standalone snapshot.

Newly arising need was derived from the 2022‑based household projections and reflects projected household growth. Between 2025 and 2030, newly arising need was estimated at between 7,800 and 9,300 homes per year, with a central estimate of around 8,700. These figures are higher than the 2019‑based estimates due to stronger projected household growth. WP noted that growth in newly arising need is projected to slow over the remainder of the 20‑year period, declining towards the end of the projection period.

For the first five years of the projections, a tenure split was modelled. WP explained that this was limited to the initial period due to increasing uncertainty further into the future. Sensitivity testing was undertaken to assess how changes to key assumptions affected the split between market and affordable housing, with affordability thresholds identified as one of the most sensitive assumptions. Further detail on this testing is available in the accompanying quality report.

Discussion

BS asked why the current estimates do not include sub‑regional breakdowns, noting that previous iterations had included regional estimates, and also asked for an update on local housing market assessments. 

WP responded that engagement with policy teams and previous users indicated no clear or evidenced demand for sub‑regional estimates at this time, although he acknowledged that some individual users may still find them useful. WP also noted that work is ongoing to update the local housing market assessment tool, which provides more detailed, local‑level analysis and will be refreshed using the latest household projections and data on unmet need.

JB asked whether it would be possible in future to develop a fuller estimate of housing need that captures elements such as hidden homelessness. 

WP indicated that this is challenging due to data limitations and consistency requirements. RD added that consideration of hidden homelessness is at an early stage, including potential use of future survey data, and that feasibility will depend on survey design and data quality. LJ reiterated that measuring unmet need relies on the availability of consistent, Wales‑wide data sources, and that this continues to be explored.

WD presented findings from recent Bevan Foundation research examining how existing dwellings and buildings could be used to increase the supply of social housing. The report was launched in early March and focuses on opportunities to reduce reliance on new build by making better use of existing homes and buildings.

WD set out the context for the research, noting the continued difficulty of delivering sufficient new homes at a time of high demand and significant numbers of households in temporary accommodation. The research explored whether greater use could be made of existing housing stock, given that far more properties change hands each year than are newly built. The report examined a range of opportunities, including empty dwellings, former social homes, changes in private ownership, and the repurposing of existing non‑residential buildings.

Data presented showed that, while around 4,600 new dwellings were completed in the most recent year, there were approximately 50,000 residential property transactions over the same period. WD highlighted empty dwellings as a key starting point noting that council tax data indicates a large number of properties vacant for more than 6 months. The report also considered former social housing sold under the Right to Buy, with estimates suggesting a substantial proportion of these homes are now privately rented.

WD outlined the potential benefits of using existing buildings, including faster delivery times, lower costs compared with new build, and the ability to provide homes within established communities where demand already exists. Wider economic and environmental benefits were also discussed, including town centre regeneration, reuse of existing infrastructure, and the retention of embodied carbon. The report also noted opportunities to improve energy efficiency when refurbishing existing homes.

The presentation highlighted several barriers to increasing acquisitions and conversions. These included accommodation standards and technical requirements under the Welsh Housing Quality Standard, which stakeholders reported can prevent otherwise suitable properties from being acquired as social housing. WD gave an example of former council homes being limited in how they could be classified due to room size and ceiling height rules. Additional barriers discussed included the requirement for properties funded through the Transitional Accommodation Capital Programme to meet standards within a defined timeframe, higher costs associated with refurbishment, VAT treatment of refurbishment compared with new build, and constraints within existing grant funding arrangements.

WD outlined a series of recommendations aimed at increasing flexibility, including reviewing how standards are applied to acquisitions, assessing the value‑for‑money implications of aiming for the highest energy efficiency standards in all cases, and considering whether a distinct funding pot is needed for acquisitions and regeneration projects. The report also discussed workforce capacity, retrofit skills, and variation in local authority resources dedicated to empty homes work.

Discussion

ED asked whether the Bevan Foundation was advocating a greater focus on purchasing existing properties rather than building new homes, given the importance of increasing overall housing supply.

WD responded that new build remains essential but argued that tenure change through acquisition and conversion can complement new build by providing homes more quickly and supporting regeneration. MM added that, while acquisitions can be more resource‑intensive for development teams, they provide an important alternative route to delivery, particularly in areas where new build is constrained by planning or environmental issues.

WD concluded that empty dwellings and buildings are a logical starting point for tenure change, but that a range of existing assets could be used more effectively. While barriers exist, the report argued these are not insurmountable if addressed with greater flexibility and pragmatism.

IM presented findings from the Phase 2 (process) evaluation of the Second Homes and Affordability Pilot, which was published in December 2025. IM explained that the evaluation is being conducted in three phases. The initial scoping phase included data mapping, exploratory research, stakeholder interviews, focus groups with young people in the pilot area, and the development of a theory of change, which was published in February 2025. The current phase focuses on process evaluation, examining how the pilot has been delivered, while Phase 3 (impact evaluation) is currently underway.

IM noted that the pilot consists of a package of policies, including council tax premiums and Article 4 directions, alongside community‑led housing and Homebuy interventions. The pilot is being delivered in collaboration with a range of partners, including local authorities, housing associations and third sector organisations in the pilot area.

The process evaluation drew on interviews with pilot partners and Welsh Government officials, as well as interviews with local residents, second homeowners, business owners, and people involved in community‑led housing. IM outlined several successes, including pilot partners welcoming the opportunity to address local housing issues and the perception that policies were reaching their intended audiences. Council tax premiums and Article 4 were viewed as having the greatest reach and potential impact. Pilot partners also highlighted the strength of relationships developed between Welsh Government and partners, and between partners themselves, with frequent and informal engagement and face‑to‑face meetings seen as particularly beneficial.

IM also outlined challenges identified through the evaluation. Pilot partners reported early frustrations with bureaucracy and a desire for greater flexibility to experiment and innovate. Difficulties were noted in communicating the purpose of the pilot and managing stakeholder expectations. There were also risks and obstacles associated with specific interventions, including known legal risks relating to Article 4. Partners reported challenges in resourcing delivery due to uncertainty over demand for different elements of the pilot, and data protection issues that delayed the promotion of Homebuy by one pilot partner.

In terms of areas for improvement, pilot partners expressed a desire for clearer communication and a stronger sense of shared responsibility across partners. They also wanted more clarity on which innovative proposals were likely to be acceptable. Local community members reported wanting greater transparency around how revenue from council tax premiums is being spent, particularly in relation to affordable housing and Welsh language sustainability. IM noted that some of this revenue is used to support affordable housing, but that this was not widely understood, highlighting a communications issue. Community members also wanted better targeting of Welsh language interventions, improved engagement through in‑person sessions, greater involvement of local people in decision‑making, and more housing to be built following meaningful consultation.

IM then outlined emerging impacts identified through interviews, stressing that these were indicative only and based on small samples, as impact was not the primary focus of this phase. These included increased confidence among community groups in community‑led housing, anecdotal reports of second homes being placed on the market but proving difficult to sell due to council tax premiums, reports of some second homeowners switching to short‑term lets, and concerns from some business owners about potential impacts on trade. Similar perceptions were reported regarding Article 4 affecting the ease of selling properties.

IM concluded by outlining the next steps, noting that the impact evaluation is currently underway. This will include a pilot‑level evaluation comparing the pilot area with other areas in Wales and with Cornwall, as well as a national‑level comparison. There will also be deeper evaluation of specific policy elements, subject to data availability, including Homebuy, community‑led housing, Article 4, council tax premiums and non‑domestic rates. The impact evaluation will examine affordability, costs and benefits, and social impacts, including potential unintended consequences, drawing on the original theory of change.

SC raised a question about whether the next stage of the evaluation would assess the extent to which the pilot has met its policy objectives, including identifying any unintended or negative impacts on local communities.

IM confirmed that the impact evaluation will examine both positive and negative impacts, including unintended consequences, drawing on the original theory of change. IM noted that these impacts are likely to be explored particularly through the social impacts element of the evaluation to ensure a balanced assessment of the pilot’s effects.

AW presented an overview of the development of administrative‑based household estimates being produced by the ONS. AW explained that demand for timely and granular data on the number, size and composition of households is high among national and local governments, policy makers, service providers, researchers and charities. While the Census provides detailed information, it is conducted only once every ten years, and survey‑based household estimates produced between censuses are less granular.

AW clarified that ONS uses the Census definition of a household (one person living alone or a group of people sharing cooking facilities and living space). This definition cannot be directly observed in administrative data; instead, admin data can identify occupied residential addresses. The estimates therefore aim to move from address‑based data towards a household concept through statistical estimation.

The underlying data source is the Statistical Population Dataset (SPD), an admin‑based dataset of the usually resident population of England and Wales. Individuals in the SPD are assigned a Unique Property Reference Number (UPRN) using multiple administrative sources, including health and education data, following a rules‑based hierarchy. Additional data sources are used to identify individuals living in communal establishments such as student accommodation, prisons and boarding schools. Records are then classified into private residential addresses, communal establishments, or residual categories where assignment is not possible.

AW explained that estimation techniques are required due to coverage issues in admin data, the inability of raw admin data to directly measure households, and the lack of standard uncertainty measures such as confidence intervals. ONS therefore applies a three‑stage estimation approach. Stage 1 estimates the household population by removing people living in communal establishments from the admin‑based population. Stage 2 estimates the number of households using household representative rates derived from the Annual Population Survey and then allocates households to local authorities using proportions from the admin‑based occupied address dataset. Stage 3, which is still under development, will estimate household size using small area estimation methods.

AW presented results for 2021, which were published in December. Estimates were compared with Census 2021, which is treated as the benchmark. At England and Wales level, the raw admin‑based occupied address data under‑estimated households compared with the Census, but after applying the estimation method the difference was very small. Comparisons were also shown against Labour Force Survey and Welsh Government household estimates.

When results were broken down by region and local authority, AW noted that the admin‑based estimates performed less well for Wales, tending to under‑estimate households relative to Census. Possible contributing factors discussed included under‑coverage in the SPD for Wales, the lack of an equivalent Welsh School Census dataset containing address information, and potential issues matching Welsh‑language addresses to UPRNs. AW stressed that these hypotheses require further investigation and welcomed feedback from users.

AW outlined next steps, including plans to publish a time series covering 2021 to 2023 during 2026, alongside the first household size estimates. ONS will continue to refine the methodology and undertake further user engagement to understand how the data may be used.

Discussion

JE asked about the relationship between the household estimates and the admin‑based population estimates, noting that publication of the latter has been paused. 

AW explained that both draw on the same underlying population dataset, which will continue to be produced, and that ONS is exploring whether mid‑year population estimates could be used as an alternative population total if required.

LJ raised concerns about known quality issues with the Labour Force Survey and Annual Population Survey and asked whether this posed a risk to the methodology. 

AW acknowledged these concerns, noting that the surveys are used at national level where estimates are considered robust, and that alternative approaches, including greater use of Census data, are being explored.

JE commented on the potential influence of student populations and census timing effects on results for certain Welsh local authorities. AW welcomed this feedback and noted that understanding these local effects is part of ongoing methodological development.

BS provided an update on recent and ongoing work from the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence (CaCHE). BS noted that, as the previous HIG meeting had taken place relatively recently, there were limited new updates to highlight, and that a written paper outlining CaCHE activity had already been circulated and published on the website.

BS highlighted a recently published paper from a Scottish Government working group on housing affordability, focusing on affordability in the social rented sector. The group was chaired by CaCHE’s Director, with the paper authored by Ken Gibb. BS noted that the paper had already generated interest among housing researchers in Wales, and that discussions had taken place between Welsh Government colleagues and the author.

Additional recent publications included a report on social housing allocations in England, produced in collaboration with Crisis and researchers at Heriot‑Watt University, and a paper examining links between housing quality and health. BS also noted work commissioned by Shelter Scotland examining the potential establishment of a national housing agency in Scotland, including analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of such an organisation.

BS outlined several areas of ongoing research, including a major urban retrofit project, which will include case study work in south‑east Wales in 2027. CaCHE has also completed desk‑based papers on social housing across the four UK nations for Housing Europe, with work underway to produce a shorter comparative paper drawing together key similarities and differences. Further projects include research on build‑to‑rent, funded by the Nationwide Foundation, and confidential work on homelessness policy for Edinburgh City Council.

Looking ahead, BS noted that CaCHE is developing a paper on evidence‑based housing priorities for the next Welsh Government, which is expected to be published in April. Finally, BS highlighted an upcoming CaCHE conference to be held in Glasgow on 2 to 3 September, with a call for abstracts and registration details included in the circulated paper.

Welsh Housing Survey update

GW provided an update on progress with the Welsh Housing Survey. GW confirmed that an overall survey design has been agreed and signed off by technical experts and the project board, and that this is currently being written into a detailed specification for procurement. Procurement activity will pause during the pre‑election period, with further work resuming following the formation of the new Welsh Government in May.

GW outlined initial topic areas identified through engagement with housing and regeneration policy teams, including decarbonisation, social renting, housing and care, housing and health, tenant satisfaction, housing affordability and income, second homes, housing quality, community perceptions of local areas, and homelessness. GW noted that work is ongoing to determine whether homelessness and hidden homelessness are best addressed through the Welsh Housing Survey or the National Survey for Wales, but that coverage of these issues is being actively considered.

GW explained that the survey will consist of both a housing condition survey, involving physical inspection of properties, and a social survey, capturing attitudes, experiences and perceptions across all tenures. Further engagement with policy teams will take place over the coming months to refine topics and questions, and stakeholders will be invited to provide input once proposals are more developed. GW emphasised that the survey is Welsh Government‑funded and will prioritise Welsh Government evidence needs, while seeking to accommodate wider stakeholder interests where possible.

Welsh Housing Monitor

SC informed the group that the Welsh Housing Monitor is expected to be published by the end of the week. The publication brings together multiple existing data sources into a single report to provide a broader overview of the housing position in Wales. The Monitor will be structured around four themes: housing need and supply, housing quality and standards, affordability, and homelessness.

SC noted that the publication represents a snapshot based on data available up to November 2025 and invited feedback from the group.

LJ thanked all presenters and attendees. 

It was confirmed that a HIG seminar is planned for mid‑September, with potential dates of Tuesday 22 September or Thursday 24 September (TBC).

The next HIG meeting is planned for the morning of 26 January 2027.

Any ideas for the agenda, or if you’d like to present, please email KASevents@gov.wales.