In a stark revelation that highlights the complexities of social policy and architectural preservation, it has come to light that two homes within Norwich’s acclaimed Goldsmith Street have been sold off at a significant discount. Just five years after winning the UK’s most prestigious architectural prize, the Stirling Prize, these council homes have been made available for private purchase under the highly contentious UK Government policy known as Right to Buy. The sales, which saw the homes sold for less than the average local house price with tens of thousands of pounds in taxpayer-funded discounts, have ignited a debate about the true value of social housing. It is a striking irony that a project celebrated for its social and environmental value has become a casualty of a policy that critics say has systematically eroded the nation’s housing stock.
A Controversial Policy in the Spotlight
The Right to Buy policy, first introduced by Margaret Thatcher’s government in 1980, has been a source of fierce political debate for decades. Its proponents champion it as a vital route into home ownership for working-class families who would otherwise be locked out of the property market. They argue that it empowers individuals and provides a tangible benefit of living in a council property. For millions of tenants, the ability to buy their home at a deep discount represents an opportunity to build wealth and secure their family’s future, a dream that is increasingly out of reach for many.
However, critics of the policy are vehement in their opposition, arguing that it has done irreparable damage to Britain’s much-needed social housing stock. They point to the more than two million council homes that have been sold off in England, a number that has not been adequately replaced by new construction. A recent report from the left-wing think tank Common Wealth claimed that the policy has cost UK taxpayers nearly £200 billion. The sale of council homes, particularly in areas with high demand, is seen as a short-sighted policy that undermines the very purpose of social housing, turning public assets into private commodities and exacerbating the housing crisis for future generations.
The Goldsmith Street Irony
The case of Goldsmith Street brings this national debate into sharp, poignant focus. The development, designed by the London-based studio Mikhail Riches and Cathy Hawley, is a landmark project that made history in 2019 by becoming the only social-housing scheme to ever win the Stirling Prize. It was lauded not only for its architectural excellence but also for its commitment to social and environmental responsibility. The 105 homes were built to Passivhaus standards, which resulted in energy bills that were reportedly 70 per cent cheaper than the average UK household. It was held up as a model for what social housing could and should be: high-quality, sustainable, and designed for a long life.
The revelation that two of these homes were sold for around £215,424—less than the average Norwich house price of £228,000—under the Right to Buy policy just five years after completion is a stark illustration of the policy’s impact. The homes were sold with taxpayer-funded discounts of nearly £25,000 and £30,000 respectively, figures that would have gone a long way toward building new social homes. The irony is inescapable: a building that won an award for its contribution to social and public good is being systematically dismantled from the public sector.
A Threat to a New Wave of Social Housing
The issue at Goldsmith Street is not an isolated incident but a symptom of a larger problem threatening a new wave of high-quality social housing projects. A recent investigation revealed that another recently completed and award-winning council housing scheme, McGrath Road in Newham, is also facing Right to Buy applications. This project, designed by Peter Barber Architects, won the Neave Brown Award for Housing in 2021, and its potential sale under the policy underscores the vulnerability of the very best new social homes being built today.
The revelations are particularly urgent given that more homes on Goldsmith Street are likely to be sold before new rules come into effect, with five Right to Buy applications currently in progress. The threat of this policy looms large over new architectural projects, raising questions about the long-term viability of building beautiful, well-designed public housing. The a ward-winning schemes that were intended to be a foundation for a social housing revival are instead being sold off, undermining the vision and purpose behind their creation.
Government Promises and Political Debates
In response to the growing criticism, ministers recently announced plans to legislate to protect newly built council homes in England from being sold under the Right to Buy for 35 years. The proposals also include increasing the time tenants must have lived in their homes before being eligible from three years to 10 and significantly reducing the discounts available. These changes, if enacted, would represent a shift in the government’s approach, acknowledging the need to protect the social housing stock, even if they fall short of a full repeal.
However, the political debate remains deeply divided. Devolved governments in Scotland and Wales have already taken a more drastic step, abolishing the Right to Buy policy entirely. Their approach is based on the belief that social housing is a fundamental public good that should be preserved for the benefit of future generations. The different policies across the UK reflect a fundamental ideological split on whether housing should be treated as a private commodity or a public asset, a debate that the sales at Goldsmith Street bring into sharp and painful relief.
The Unspoken Consequences
Beyond the numbers and the political rhetoric, the sale of these Stirling Prize-winning homes carries profound unspoken consequences. The Goldsmith Street development was a celebrated success story, a project that proved that high-quality, sustainable housing could be built for the public good. It was designed to be a permanent asset, a foundation for a community. Its sale, however, represents a fundamental shift: a move from public to private hands. The discounts, which are essentially taxpayer subsidies, facilitate the transfer of a valuable, award-winning property from the public sector to an individual.
Critics argue that this is an irreversible loss. Once a council home is sold, it is highly unlikely to ever return to the social housing stock. It is a final act that erodes a diminishing resource. The revelation that the UK’s most celebrated social housing project is succumbing to this process is a painful reminder of the policy’s long-term implications. It is a loss not just of bricks and mortar, but of a shared public good and a vision for a more equitable future.
