Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsRegeneration will not be unlocked by a single new loan or subsidy. In a 9 March 2026 interview, Housing Forum chief executive Alexandra Notay describes it as a long-horizon systems problem: land, planning, infrastructure, tenure, skills, policy and finance must move together. Her central funding diagnosis is that money is commonly earmarked for one purpose or tenure, while successful regeneration usually needs mixed-tenure schemes assembled at a much larger scale.
That makes the debate less about finding a fashionable product and more about matching patient capital with partnerships that can carry uncertainty for decades. Notay discusses tax-credit approaches, joint ventures, retrofit-linked rental income and institutional investment as options to explore—not as established UK-wide programmes or guaranteed products.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
What Alexandra Notay says has to change
Notay became chief executive of The Housing Forum in March 2026. The organisation is a cross-sector membership body bringing together local authorities, registered providers, housebuilders, manufacturers, contractors, suppliers and consultants. She sees an opportunity to widen that conversation across the broader living sector, including purpose-built student accommodation, build-to-rent, institutional investors and private landlords.
Recommended Free Tools
Her argument is that regeneration cannot be treated as a conventional, stand-alone housing transaction. A project may need land assembly, transport and utilities, planning consent, affordable homes, market homes, commercial space, skills programmes and public-realm work. Each element can have a different owner, risk profile and funding timetable. If capital is available only for one slice, the whole scheme can stall.
#1 Best Overall
“The housing crisis in the UK is going to need private finance. It’s going to need innovative ways of doing it, and we can’t just keep doing the same old things,” Notay told interviewer Carl Brown. The statement is an argument for experimentation, not evidence that any particular structure has already solved the delivery problem.
The core obstacle: capital is organised by purpose, while places are not
Notay says funders may ring-fence money for a particular purpose, such as student accommodation or one affordable tenure. Regeneration, by contrast, often depends on combining several tenures and uses in one plan. A scheme that includes social rent, intermediate homes, private sale, rented homes and community facilities may therefore need several pools of money, each with different return expectations and approval processes.
This fragmentation creates practical problems:
- Scale: separate allocations can be too small or too narrowly defined to support land assembly and enabling infrastructure.
- Timing: one investor may require an early decision while another cannot commit until planning, valuation or procurement milestones are reached.
- Risk allocation: construction, planning, sales, rent and operating risks do not fall evenly across tenures.
- Governance: partners must agree who controls design, phasing, disposals, borrowing and changes to the plan.
The result is not simply a shortage of money. It is a coordination problem: capital that exists in the system may be difficult to combine in a form a mixed-tenure place can use.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallOutdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWhy investors and housing organisations need a shared language
Notay says institutional investors have duties and processes designed to protect capital. Housing organisations, meanwhile, operate within regulation, public-interest obligations, rent rules, grant conditions and local accountability. Investors may not understand those constraints; housing providers may not have a clear view of how an institution assesses risk, liquidity and governance.
That gap can make a sound project appear uninvestable. A provider may describe value in terms of secure homes, neighbourhood quality and long-term stewardship. An investor may need a defined cash-flow profile, decision rights, reporting standards and an exit route. Both perspectives have to be translated before a partnership can be priced and approved.
The Housing Forum’s convening role is presented as a place for candid discussion rather than a promise that members agree. Notay specifically points to disagreements around viability and Section 106. Bringing those positions into the open can help the sector explain its differences to government instead of hiding them inside individual negotiations.
Patient capital and the economics of a slow place
Regeneration commonly incurs costs before a completed neighbourhood produces stable income. Land may need remediation; infrastructure may precede revenue; planning can take years; and a scheme may require several phases before the public realm and local services work as intended.
Notay captures the time issue directly: “Housing is a slow game, and regeneration is even slower.” She also says, “Patient capital will always tell you that regen absolutely pays, but you have to have deep enough pockets to sit and see it through for usually 20 or 30 years.” Those are her interview statements, not independently verified performance data or a guarantee of returns.
She further says real estate is usually under 5% of pension-fund allocations and housing within real estate is probably 1%. The figures are attributed to Notay’s 2026 interview; no underlying dataset is identified there, so they should be treated as indicative context rather than an official sector statistic.
A patient-capital approach changes the questions asked of a scheme. Instead of demanding an early sale, partners may examine how value grows through phased delivery, rent, operating income, improved surrounding land values and reduced long-term risk. That does not remove risk. It means the ownership, financing and governance arrangements must be able to keep the project alive through delays and market cycles.
Rank #3
Funding models Notay says are worth exploring
The interview names several possible structures. None is described as a settled UK solution, and the available discussion does not provide transaction terms, target returns or evidence of performance. The distinctions below show what each model would need to answer.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →| Approach | Who supplies capital | Potential fit with mixed-tenure regeneration | Key allocation question | Status in the interview |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US-style low-income housing tax credit | Tax-motivated institutional investors, through a tax-incentive framework | Could help attract private money to sub-market housing, but a UK design would need to fit local tax, grant and regulatory rules | How are tax benefits, delivery obligations and long-term stewardship divided? | Notay is interested in exploring application in the UK; no UK scheme is said to have been adopted |
| Joint venture | Two or more public, private or housing-sector partners | Can combine land, development expertise and finance across tenures if the vehicle permits it | Who bears cost overruns, controls decisions and shares income or losses? | Different structures are suggested for consideration; no final terms are specified |
| Retrofit investment with rental uplift | A for-profit provider investing in stock held by a non-profit registered provider | Could connect energy or fabric improvements to an income stream while retaining the homes within the provider’s balance sheet | How is uplift measured, verified and shared, and who carries performance risk? | Described as a model being explored by L&G Affordable Homes |
| Long-term institutional investment | Pension, insurance or other institutional capital | May suit assets and neighbourhoods requiring a long holding period rather than quick disposal | Can the investment mandate accept development, policy and liquidity risk over decades? | Notay names Legal & General, Aviva and Pension Insurance Corporation as organisations working in this space; no product availability is established |
Tax-credit approaches
Notay expresses interest in examining a model comparable to the United States’ low-income housing tax credits. In the US, tax incentives are intended to encourage institutional investment in sub-market housing. A UK adaptation would not be automatic: it would require legislation, eligibility rules, compliance monitoring and a decision about how credits interact with grant and planning obligations. The interview records interest in exploring the idea with people who have considered its application, not a commitment to introduce it.
Joint ventures
A joint venture can be designed around land, development, operation or a combination of them. The label alone says little about economics. A local authority might contribute land; a registered provider might contribute stewardship and borrowing capacity; and a private partner might contribute development finance or delivery expertise. Before signing, the parties would need a written position on valuation, control, procurement, guarantees, refinancing, underperformance and exit.
Retrofit linked to rental income
The interview cites a model under exploration by L&G Affordable Homes: a for-profit provider funds retrofit work to homes held on a non-profit registered provider’s balance sheet and receives a share of rental uplift over time. Its attraction is the attempt to match an upfront capital need with a continuing income stream. Its unresolved questions include how uplift is calculated, how tenant protections are maintained, what happens if savings or rents differ from forecasts, and who pays for maintenance after the initial works.
Institutional investment held for the long term
Notay names Legal & General, Aviva and Pension Insurance Corporation when discussing institutional work in housing. The interview does not identify specific transactions, products or terms. For a regeneration partnership, the practical test would be whether an institution can commit through planning, construction, lease-up and later stewardship without forcing a premature sale.
Rank #4
Policy certainty is a financing condition
Notay argues that changing requirements can undermine both investor and community confidence. Her formulation is concise: “What investors need – and what communities need – is consistency, clarity and certainty.” In regeneration, a policy change can affect land value, affordable-housing obligations, design standards, environmental requirements, borrowing assumptions and the timing of consent.
Certainty does not mean freezing policy forever. It means making expectations clear enough that partners can model them, explaining transition arrangements when rules change and avoiding a situation in which a scheme is redesigned repeatedly after capital has been committed. Stable signals also matter to communities, which may otherwise see plans, promises and delivery dates move without explanation.
How a systems approach changes project planning
Notay places finance alongside several connected policy areas:
- Land: ownership, assembly, existing use and remediation determine what can be delivered and when.
- Planning: consent, Section 106 negotiations and design requirements shape both cost and tenure mix.
- Infrastructure: transport, utilities, schools and public spaces can require investment before homes generate income.
- Tenure: affordable, rented and market homes have different funding, management and demand characteristics.
- Skills: delivery depends on planners, designers, contractors, operators and community partners being available over a long programme.
- Public land and local government: disposal terms, capacity and reform can determine whether a place-making strategy is deliverable.
The practical implication is that a financial model should be tested against the whole delivery system, not just a residual land-value calculation. A project can appear viable on paper while lacking the infrastructure funding, delivery capacity or policy stability needed to reach completion.
A decision framework for regeneration partnerships
Organisations considering a new funding structure can use the following sequence to expose gaps before choosing a vehicle:
Best Value
- Define the place outcome. Set out the homes, tenures, non-residential uses, public realm, infrastructure and social objectives the project must deliver.
- Map every cash requirement. Separate land, remediation, professional fees, infrastructure, construction, finance, operating reserves and long-term maintenance.
- Match each requirement to a risk bearer. Identify who can absorb planning delay, cost inflation, voids, sales risk, rent changes and policy shifts.
- Design the tenure mix before raising capital. Do not allow the easiest-to-fund tenure to displace the homes or facilities that make the place function.
- Set the time horizon. State whether partners must hold for construction, lease-up, ten years, or the 20-to-30-year period Notay associates with patient regeneration capital.
- Write governance rules. Agree approvals, reporting, reserved matters, dispute resolution, refinancing and exit conditions.
- Test policy scenarios. Model changes to planning obligations, standards, grants, rents, interest rates and construction costs, with clear transition assumptions.
- Make community commitments measurable. Tie promises on affordability, quality, employment and public space to delivery milestones and accountable owners.
This process does not select a winning product. It shows where a proposed structure is incompatible with the project’s duration, tenure mix or risk profile.
What success would require from the sector
Notay’s wider proposal is cultural as well as financial. Housing providers, investors, local authorities, builders and advisers need enough shared understanding to challenge assumptions early. Cross-disciplinary collaboration can reveal that a financing problem is actually a planning or infrastructure problem, or that a viability dispute reflects different definitions of value.
The Housing Forum can provide a place for those conversations and convey divergent views to government. That convening function is not a substitute for capital, planning consent or delivery capacity. Its value lies in making trade-offs visible and helping participants design arrangements that are understandable to all parties.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
What is established—and what remains open
The interview establishes Notay’s diagnosis and the approaches she wants the sector to examine. It does not establish that a UK low-income housing tax credit exists, that any named institution offers a reader-accessible regeneration product, or that the cited funding models have delivered a measured return. Nor does it independently verify the pension-allocation figures.
For practitioners, the useful conclusion is narrower and more practical: mixed-tenure regeneration needs capital that can be combined, governed and retained for a long time, alongside policy conditions stable enough for partners and communities to plan. The future of placemaking will depend on whether those financial and institutional conditions are built into projects from the beginning.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
