In this episode of the People in Housing Podcast, we chat with Gerraint Oakley, Chief Development and Growth Officer at Platform Housing, about the current challenges and rewarding opportunities in the housing sector. From tackling skill shortages and complex planning processes, to addressing the ongoing housing crisis, he offers valuable insights into the work being done to make a positive difference in communities.

Do you want to start off just by introducing yourself and your background in the sector?

I'm Gerard Oakley, I'm Executive Director of Development at Platform Housing Group. I've been there coming up to five years and I've been in the sector since 2011. Prior to that I was in private house building. We operate from the M4 up to Derbyshire and from the Welsh borders out to the east coast, the whole middle band of England.

So, you guys went through a merger quite a few years ago now, and it’s been about five years since then. How’s it all been so far, and have there been any surprises along the way?

There are always surprises. It obviously started before I joined, as I came in not long after, when the organisation was still going through that process of melding, standardising, and going through the stages of forming, storming, norming, and performing. And I don’t think that ever really stops. For people who hadn’t been through it before, it was probably the time it takes to get there. It’s about finding stability and unifying the processes. Particularly from a development perspective, you had two organisations with different methodologies, one that was more section 106, and another that did more land-led and package deals.

And there’s a lot going on in that too. You start making plans, but you’re constantly changing because the SME world has changed dramatically. A lot of our work originally came from package deals with SMEs, but those have pretty much been wiped out over the past five years, to be honest. When I joined, we set out to move the function towards focusing more on the land-led strategy, buying our own land for more control. We moved away from that older process and getting the team to shift from well-established practices was a challenge. At the scale we’re at, you need a unified approach, and that’s been a big change.

I’d probably say the surprise, especially no matter your seniority, is how long it all takes. The due diligence upfront takes a lot of time. Once you start the process and try to move people away from things they’ve been doing for years, you realise that some of it just doesn’t fit with the new organisation and its ambitious growth plans. We’re still very much focused on social delivery, social housing, social rent, affordable rent, and we’ve stuck with that. It’s paid us dividends, to be honest.

Do you think it helped that you were a big organisation?

There’s always an interesting debate about that. I think the key is that we’re a big organisation, but we think locally. Everything we do, we operate in that way. There are benefits to both sides, but with our scale, we’ve got the levers we can pull. We can adapt in a more agile way because of our size, and we operate across such a large area. We work in 101 local authority areas, which is significant. I know other housing associations do similar, but we operate in very dense city centres and urban/suburban areas, which means we must be adaptable, flexible, and agile in our approach. At our scale, that has huge benefits, without a doubt. The scalability allows us to look at things like working with Homes England, for example. So, yes, it enables us to do a lot more, I think, and focus on broader communities, using that scale to make communities stronger across the entire patch.

In our last episode, we had Phil Pemberton from Riverside on. They're still going through a merger that's a couple of years old now. Now that you're further down the road than them, is there any advice you’d give them or things to look out for?

I think every organisation is different, and it’s the unknown unknowns that will catch you off guard. You can plan everything out, but as I’ve mentioned, in the time we’ve gone through this, we had Covid. Very soon after the merger, we were hit by it, so all the best-laid plans went on hold. You have to adapt to that. Being agile is key. You can have the best plan in place, but there’s an old military saying: all plans fall apart when you meet the enemy.

The challenge is that change keeps coming down the line, and you have a plan, but you need to adapt to it. You must be flexible. And all mergers take time., lots of time. They pull people away from BAU (business as usual) because organisations in these situations don’t have spare capacity to focus solely on integration. They must keep doing the day-to-day operations and look after customers while integrating all those services: IT, the cultural shift, and ensuring that cultural alignment is there. There’s no one sitting there solely dedicated to getting it done. It takes a huge amount of time and commitment, and you’ve got to continue running the core business. And our core business is challenging enough daily. So, it’s about making sure people are coping with that on a day-to-day basis. Platforms tried to achieve that throughout the process.

Mergers are happening a lot across the industry at the moment. From a development point of view, how do you think mergers can assist with housing associations' development programmes? Do you see it as a good thing?

Well, personally, from the development side of the organisation, absolutely. As I’ve said before, and we’ve mentioned several times, this is a really challenging period in housebuilding. It’s probably the most challenging I’ve had, with so many elements happening all at once. What you’re seeing is some housing associations having to choose between maintaining and making the best of their existing stock, protecting their customers, and ensuring homes are safe, healthy, and warm, and that’s a huge challenge.

Then you’ve got the development ambitions, and I’m sure we’ll come to it, the government’s ambitions, as well as your own ambitions to grow because you need to build, and you need to expand. Housing associations are having to choose between those two priorities. I think housing associations have both a social and moral obligation to tackle the housing crisis and deliver more homes. But we also must look after our existing customers and ensure their homes are safe and well-maintained.

For a smaller housing association looking for a partner, the challenge is how to continue doing both, maintaining the homes for existing customers while also building new ones. I think the key is balancing both and using the added capacity from a merger to ensure you can do both. It’s not about choosing one over the other. The best we can do is manage both aspects.

This means ensuring homes are being refurbished, decarbonised, and maintained to the highest standards. It’s all about that balancing act. Our sector delivers affordable housing across multiple tenures. It’s not just about shareholder return, and I think that’s an important distinction. If we’re going to unlock the solutions to the housing crisis, we need to talk to housing associations, particularly the larger developing ones, and give them the maturity of policy. We need to know what the grants will be coming from the next phase, as phase three of the strategic partnership will be critical for continuing our development programmes and pipelines.

All of that must be tied together. Without a doubt, housing associations are making these tough decisions, and rightly so. They know their organisations best and they must make those calls.

You mentioned you were in the private sector beforehand. What’s the main difference, and what do you find easier when it comes to getting things over the line?

Well, I’m ex-private sector. When you talk about volume housebuilding, it’s a manufacturing process for them. They’ve got shareholders at the end of the day who want to see a return. They’ve got set margins they need to hit, and they do it. A lot of our pensions are tied up in these big organisations that build thousands of houses, and they’re key. But part of my frustration is that too often the solution proposed is to build more market sale homes. That’s not the solution. It’s about multi-tenure, building truly sustainable communities with a multi-tenure offer, with affordability at the top of that list.

I think working in partnership with these organisations allows us to achieve a lot more. Getting a residual land value that works for both sides and working in true partnership, where we’re both sharing the pain and the gain, that’s the future. I’d love to see more of that. But the main difference is the social consciousness and moral compass in our sector. What we do is driven by that, and I think it’s what makes it so rewarding. There’s a great deal of satisfaction knowing that you’re doing something meaningful, whether it’s getting young people off the streets, teaching life skills, providing homes for the most vulnerable in society, or building homes in large-scale schemes that include all tenures, as well as getting involved with infrastructure, planning, and strategic growth. It’s a great place to be, but it’s also a challenging one.

How do you think we can all work together as a sector to improve building programmes?

I’d like to see more collaboration between housing associations. Ironically, whenever you hear about a successful partnership, it’s often between a housing association and a private sector partner. That’s great, and we do it too—we work with partner organisations to unlock those opportunities. But I’d like to see more of us, as a sector, talking about how we can come together and look at those big strategic sites. Once we can achieve some stabilisation in the sector, I think that will be a great way forward.

And what would that look like? Would you find a piece of land and split it 50/50, or how would that work?

However, it works, I think the key is we have to understand what we both want from it. It could be 30/70, 50/50, or even 60/40. That’s not the most important part; it’s about making sure it fits with us. The key is finding the right location, one where we understand the long-term management of the community and who will be responsible for what. That’s a big part of it.

When working with the private sector, I want clarity that we’re equal partners. Quite often, we come in wanting to buy the land and have as much control over it as possible. That’s because, over time, we will be the ones perpetually looking after that estate and community. So, it’s really important to us that placemaking is right, that the quality of the homes we build is high, and of course, quality is absolutely key, whether it’s in the design, the external space, or ensuring we minimise the burden on our asset teams who’ll maintain the homes once they’re finished.

We think about the whole life cycle. The private sector may build an estate, sell the properties, and move on to the next one, which is fair enough. But we build and maintain it in perpetuity. So, we have a different perspective on what we want to establish in that community. I think that’s an important point, and when the private sector really understands that I think that’s key.

Do you think it’s helped that you’ve come from the private sector as well?

Yes, I think so. Understanding what drives both sides, knowing what we can talk about, it's all about finding common ground. We work very well with our partners. Many of the opportunities we have come from working in partnership. They bring skills, and we bring ours, and when we combine them, it works well. A lot of it is also about working with local authorities and Homes England. There are many stakeholders involved and understanding everyone’s timelines is crucial. For example, I may want to get something done by the end of our financial year, but that doesn’t align with their financial year. There are a lot of complexities around governance and timeframes, but if you’re clear about that from the start, it makes the process easier.

Have you found with a lot of your new build programmes, because of net zero, sustainability is a big thing now. Has that changed a lot of how you build your homes to accommodate that and your budgets as well?

Yeah, well, we build gas free, which is another interesting one because obviously there's a fair bit of ambiguity, about that now. We've got an ambition to, you know, decarbonize as much as we can. We want to make our homes as carbon free as possible, make sure they're sustainable, that our customers can live in them easily as well. That's another part of it. You know, the more complex the heating systems are, the harder it is to just move in and move on. And I think that's a big part of it. But we've got a platform standard, we understand what technical impacts on our new homes will be. We're looking at new adaptions and innovation.

So, the Labour government has set an ambitious target of 1.5 million homes in five years. What are your plans? Will this change the way you tackle things?

It's a big number. A very big number. I think I've been quite clear that it’s fantastic to have such an ambition. I really appreciate that the government has come out and set a clear target. But the practicalities of delivering that in five years are enormous. The planning system, skill shortages, and all the other challenges involved are massive. How do we eat an elephant? One bite at a time. You’ve got to start somewhere.

We’re on track to start 1,600 homes this year, which is a great position to be in. But we still have a huge challenge to get anywhere close to the target. To hit that within five years, we'd have needed to start planning about three years ago. You’d have had to fix the planning system, address skill shortages, and understand the demands on the supply chain. Even looking at MMC (Modern Methods of Construction), which I still believe is a viable long-term solution, the issue is in securing a consistent pipeline for the manufacturing process. We’re a long way behind places like Northern Europe, who’ve been making it work for decades. A unified approach to the supply chain is crucial. So, yes, I’d love to be able to build 1.5 million homes in five years, but there are many hurdles to overcome. 

That’s part of the challenge, the need for a more joined-up approach. Local authorities are already under immense pressure, many are cash-strapped or, at best, facing financial difficulties. Their ability to establish their strategic planning and housing needs within the timeframes they have is a huge challenge.

If I’m being diplomatic, there’s a lot of local authorities saying this just isn’t practical. Many have openly stated they can’t meet those targets. And just this week, the Chancellor announced plans to fast-track housing around railway stations for commuter purposes. But I think the focus seems to be more on private-sector developments rather than getting the tenures right. As much as fuel poverty is a concern, commuter poverty is a serious issue as well. In some estates, people can’t afford to commute to work or pay for parking. These factors must be considered to create truly sustainable communities. If you're building close to commuter links, that’s great, but the development still needs to work for those who are renting or buying homes in that area.

Building private sale homes, especially with two cars per household in areas where education, healthcare, and employment aren't easily accessible, is a real challenge. So, the question becomes, where are these new towns going to go? How can they be serviced? Infrastructure comes at a high cost and takes a long time to put in place.

And what about brownfield sites?

We do a lot of work on brownfield and secondary/tertiary land markets. The debate about the green belt is a complex one. Some argue that the green belt contributes to commuter poverty because people are forced to live further out and commute into cities, creating a daisy chain effect on the outskirts of towns. There needs to be a fundamental review of this, especially in terms of what green belt land is, because it’s not always greenfield land. There needs to be clearer communication about what the green belt means. While it's important to protect our green spaces, we also need to look at where development is happening, what’s sustainable, and how we can meet housing demand.

Do we have the capacity for the skilled labour needed to meet these demands? Is that one of the biggest hurdles you’re facing?

I wouldn’t want to prioritise any one issue because each challenge is critical in its own right. But yes, skill shortages, particularly skilled labour on site, are a significant problem. There’s a shocking number of skilled workers over the age of 55 on construction sites. That’s quite a daunting statistic. It's not just about the trades on-site, but also planners and quantity surveyors. There’s a big shortage of qualified professionals across the sector. Filling these roles, especially in a large region like ours, is incredibly challenging.

It's also tough to get younger people excited about the sector. Construction can be hard work, and you’re often exposed to the elements for long periods. MMC (Modern Methods of Construction) is an attractive solution because it offers a safer, warmer, and more controlled environment, which can appeal to younger workers. But traditional building methods will always have a place, too. The real issue here is planning. The planning system absolutely needs to be fixed.

You mentioned the government's efforts to fast-track planning. What does that look like in practice? What are they doing?

It’s all about clarity. The government is talking about fast-tracking housing around railway stations and for new towns. But a lot of it is ensuring developers understand the timelines and what “fast-tracking” really means. Developers need certainty about how long things will take and what the process involves. At the moment, it's coming out piecemeal through the press. It would be fantastic to have clear, detailed rule, this is how we’re going to do it. But until local authorities understand their housing needs and have the resources to meet them, it’s going to be a challenge.

If we could guarantee planning consent within two years, that would make it easier to factor that into your programme. But once delays start creeping in, that causes problems. It disrupts financial plans and affects long-term objectives. This uncertainty is a challenge for housing associations. You know you're going to build homes, whether for shared ownership or for rent, but when things slip, it’s frustrating for both customers and housing associations. It makes financing more difficult.

Is the government providing any funding or grants to help with these costs?

We’re part of a strategic partnership, having been involved in two and hoping to secure a third. Once confirmed, that relationship with Homes England will enable us to do more, which is crucial. Longer-term funding assurances would be fantastic. The housing crisis can’t be solved in five years. Even if 1.5 million homes are built, it’s not going to be enough in that short a period. If the government had a two-term span for policy implementation, it would allow more time for the pipeline to grow. With a five-year programme, there’s a lot to do, especially with skill shortages. Training planners and bricklayers takes time. It’ll take

If you’d like to listen or watch the full episode, please follow the links below to our Spotify and YouTube channels.