A02Delivery risk: AmberGate: pending
Give families in temporary accommodation a settled home
Existing action A02, assessed at the same scope.
Provisional single-reviewer assessment; not an approved business case.
- Who and where
- Homeless households in temporary accommodation, and households on social-housing waiting lists, in England. (from the action record) Jurisdiction: England.
- Result so far
- Range if completed: 19.0–22.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co))
- Funded now (baseline)
- The Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026–2036 (£39bn envelope) made its first allocations on 25 August 2026 (£9.58bn to 33 strategic partners outside London; more than £16bn outside London and around £5bn in London still to allocate), under the Burnham government; its aim is supply, especially social rent, with temporary accommodation a stated use only for limited acquisitions. The dedicated temporary-accommodation capital route is the separate Local Authority Housing Fund, not assessed here. Linking awards to temporary-accommodation outcomes is a UK Facts proposal. (from the action record)
- The change assessed (marginal)
- A buy/build/lease comparison against temporary accommodation, and awards tied to lettings. (from the superseded 4 October selection table)
- Domain home: Housing
- In the national plan: Equality and opportunity list
- Previous version: NP1: Buy or build social-rent homes for households in temporary accommodation (4 October 2026 slate, superseded 7 October 2026).
What the evidence supports—and the next decision
Temporary accommodation counts establish need, not which purchase, build or lease option provides best value. Supported housing may require continuing support.
AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.
- Define the change
- Compare named buy, build and lease options for a defined council cohort with the actual temporary-accommodation alternative.
- Test whether it works
- Settled suitable tenancies sustained at 6 and 12 months, school continuity, repeat homelessness and resident experience.
- Establish the cost
- Acquisition or building, financing, repairs, rent, maintenance and support minus actual avoidable temporary-accommodation costs. Distinguish cash savings from costs shifted to another agency.
- Protect against harm
- Check suitability, location and support; avoid displacing other homeless households or closing poor provision without safe alternatives.
Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.
Full assessment of Give families in temporary accommodation a settled home: ten criteria, scenarios, delivery, costs and monitoring
The ten criteria (0–3)
Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 by the reviewer. “Not yet assessed” means unknown: it is never counted as zero.
Scale and severity (Sc)3 of 3 — Severe harm across a broad population
Reviewer’s reason: Provisional problem-importance judgement from linked site pages; not the scale of achievable benefit.
Increment beyond baseline (Ad)2 of 3 — Specific material change to existing delivery
Reviewer’s reason: Define families and locations; compare acquisition, lease and new build; inspect standards; secure lettings and tenancy support. A missing rating requires a defined marginal change.
Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)1 of 3 — Indirect, mixed, modelled or weak causal support
Reviewer’s reason: US subsidy evidence supports housing stability but does not establish UK acquisition/build effects or local value for money.
Expected incremental benefit (Bn)3 of 3 — Large for the target population; no multi-domain bonus
Reviewer’s reason: Unknown unless a reasonably defined target-population benefit can be judged; no bonus merely for spanning domains.
Reason and score disagree — under review
Residual harms (Hm)2 of 3 — Manageable harm with specified safeguards
Reviewer’s reason: Competition with other buyers; displacement; unsuitable location/condition.
Incremental affordability (Co)Not yet assessed
Reviewer’s reason: Capital, finance, refurbishment, rent, maintenance, support and actual avoided temporary-accommodation costs.
Delivery capacity (Ca)1 of 3 — Binding scarce resource
Reviewer’s reason: Define families and locations; compare acquisition, lease and new build; inspect standards; secure lettings and tenancy support.
Distribution (Fa)3 of 3 — Benefits concentrated on disadvantaged people with assessed burdens
Reviewer’s reason: Provisional distribution judgement for the stated target; verify who pays, who gains and excluded groups.
Meaningful first outcome (Ti)2 of 3 — More than one and up to three years
Reviewer’s reason: First meaningful outcome, not announcement: Sustained settled housing, repeat homelessness and household wellbeing.
Readiness (Rd)2 of 3 — Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step
Reviewer’s reason: Councils and housing providers; relevant national housing bodies; Local buy/build/lease comparison
Four weightings
Normalised as 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights, on a 0–30 scale. Where a criterion is not yet assessed, the range is the lowest and highest result if it were later scored 0 or 3 — not a score, a confidence interval or a rank.
- Equal weights: Range if completed: 19.0–22.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
- Evidence doubled: Range if completed: 18.2–20.9 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
- Scale doubled: Range if completed: 20.0–22.7 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
- Cost ignored (the funding gate still applies): Range if completed: 21.1–21.1 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). The missing criteria carry no weight here, so the ends meet; the record is still incomplete. Funding gate: not passed.
Funding gate: Not passed — the cost is not yet assessed or no allocation is committed for this scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate.
Delivery risk and gate
Delivery risk shown: AmberReview’s claim: Amber. Best the recorded evidence allows: Amber.
Review’s reason: Capital, finance, refurbishment, rent, maintenance, support and actual avoided temporary-accommodation costs.
Why it is not Green yet
- Scope (population, place and increment) not verified against the delivery baseline.
- No verified owner with the powers in place.
- Delivery capacity not verified.
- Lifetime incremental costs not complete.
- No credible funding (a committed allocation for the scope).
- Safeguards not specified.
- Monitoring lacks a metric, a data source or a baseline.
Green needs verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs with credible funding, specified safeguards and monitoring with a metric, source and baseline. Amber means appraisal gaps remain; Red means a material delivery obstacle. Red does not mean unimportant.
Gate: Pending — appraisal incomplete (review label: “Pending: incomplete appraisal”).
Why: Scores incomplete; Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).
The gate is separate from national list membership: being listed does not make an option eligible, and an eligible option need not be listed.
Cost and funding
Lifetime costing: Partial — some lines costed, no whole-life total. Review: “Full incremental costing not established in reviewed material”.
- Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026–2036 (programme envelope) (published programme envelope; C-SAHP-ENVELOPE)
- Grant, borrowing, rent, maintenance and infrastructure for a named scheme (not costed; C-A02-SCHEME)
Still to cost: Capital, finance, refurbishment, rent, maintenance, support and actual avoided temporary-accommodation costs.
Funding status: programme route, not allocated.
Owner, powers and capacity
Proposed owner: Councils and housing providers; relevant national housing bodies (proposed, unverified).
Powers: needs a decision or allocation. Capacity: binding constraint.
Powers and capacity read from the review’s Rd and Ca anchors; no proposed owner has agreed to act (the review: “Proposed owners have not agreed to act”).
- England:
- Homes England and the GLA (awards), with councils and housing associations (action record)
- Scotland:
- not assessed
- Wales:
- not assessed
- Northern Ireland:
- not assessed
Housing is devolved; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have separate programmes, not assessed here.
Dependencies, safeguards and risks
Depends on: None recorded.
Safeguards
None specified yet.
Risks and residual harms: Competition with other buyers; displacement; unsuitable location/condition.
Monitoring and measured results
Metric: Sustained settled housing, repeat homelessness and household wellbeing.
Data source: Not yet named. Baseline: Not yet established.
Measures already on the domain page
- Households in temporary accommodation: latest 135,580 (March 2026); baseline not published (England).
A page measure is not necessarily the review’s metric; linking the two is an editorial decision still to be made.
Evidence for the outcome
Outcome: Sustained settled housing, repeat homelessness and household wellbeing.
US subsidy evidence supports housing stability but does not establish UK acquisition/build effects or local value for money.
Effect records for this action
- Households leaving temporary accommodation: size not established (plausible spillover, limited confidence; England)
- Income after housing costs of households moving into a social-rent home: size not established (plausible spillover, limited confidence; England)
- Stability of home and school for children leaving temporary accommodation: size not established (plausible spillover, limited confidence; England)
SWOT points it addresses
- 135,580 households, including 177,530 children, were in temporary accommodation. (Housing)
- A ten-year, £39bn Social and Affordable Homes Programme aims for around 300,000 homes with at least 60% for social rent; the first £9.58bn went to 33 strategic partners outside London on 25 August 2026, with more than £16bn outside London and around £5bn in London still to allocate. (Housing)
- Pairing deliverable sites with the new social-rent programme could turn grant into lettings for households in temporary accommodation. (Housing)
Review record
Assessment status: Provisional single-reviewer assessment; not an approved business case.
Reviewer: Original assessment author (name not supplied). Reviewed: 6 October 2026.
Scored in the working review of 6 October 2026 on the shared ten-criterion scale (one reviewer); not independently calibrated.
First 90 days (review): Produce a signed scope and current-delivery baseline; Define families and locations; compare acquisition, lease and new build; inspect standards; secure lettings and tenancy support. Obtain incremental costs and an accountable decision before expansion.
Decision route: Local buy/build/lease comparison
An earlier assessment exists on the 4 October 2026 selection table (nine H/M/L bands; superseded 7 October 2026). Its bands are kept, not converted into these scores.
An editorial screening framework by one reviewer, not a formal appraisal or business case. Proposed owners have not agreed to act.