I recently spent a couple of hours in the National Archives, trying to find my grandfather's WWI military service record. Apparently 60% were destroyed by bombs in WWII, so I knew the odds were against me. His records were among those destroyed, but I did find his medal record. Feeling cheered by finding this, I then decided to see if I could locate my great-great grandparent's birth and marriage certificates, which I managed.

Family history is fun because it helps you to know and understand where you came from. It can explain the culture and values you hold. One of the things I have learned about my family is most of them were from the London area; I am living further north than any of my ancestors. One of my family values is to take in and care for elderly relatives – certainly my parents did with my grandparents, and we did with my mother. I can see from Census records that my ancestors did the same.

As I sat outside the National Archives in the warm sunshine, I read how The Housing Corporation recently supported research into the group and merger activity among housing associations. The pace of mergers has increased substantially in recent years, and the research was to look at the costs and benefits to stakeholders in this process. The Chartered Institute of Housing and Tribal undertook the research, and a report entitled "The costs and benefits of groups, mergers and partnerships". One of its recommendations was a need for a "cultural audit". To me, that means not only the culture and ethos of an organisation, but its history. The past of any organisation – like in a family - informs and directs its present and future.  

Over the past few years, housing associations have been merging or joining forces as "groups”. There have been a number of reasons for this, but they are all business led. The larger the organisation, the better the balance sheet, which means further borrowing and growth can occur. Resources can be shared, allowing members of these mergers/groups to undertake new opportunities. Service delivery can be improved, and larger organisations can usually negotiate better deals, making them more cost effective.

So far, all of this makes business sense. After all, this is how the private sector operates, and the public sector is constantly being told to behave more like private sector businesses.

For example, consider the latest merger – English Churches Housing Group and the Riverside Group. I am in no way commenting on the merits of this merger. What I am thinking about here is the idea of potential loss of social housing history and culture, and the effect that may have on the future of this sector.

I used to work for Nottingham Community Housing Association. It began in 1973 in response the need for housing for Ugandan refugees. (Idi Amin expelled thousands from Uganda, mainly those of Indian descent.) The money came from Shelter, and while no refugees did come to Nottingham, the money was used to buy homes for those who needed housing but could not afford private rents, nor did they qualify for council properties. In other words, it was a response to a real need within the community, seen by many but acted upon by a few. This history has created a culture of care and a desire to work in and with communities for the greater good.

And so we come to the merger of English Churches and the Riverside Group. English Churches began in 1924 with £500 to build homes in North London for families who could not afford market rents. The Riverside Housing Group began in 1928 as Liverpool Improved Houses. Like English Churches, it was born as a response to housing need. Assuming the merger goes ahead, English Churches will become part of Riverside South East. Who will remember English Churches? Will its history – and therefore to some extent its culture – be lost in this massive group?

While these mergers, groups and partnerships forge ahead for good business reasons, I wonder if we are losing something of our history and culture. Certainly no sector of the economy can afford to remain trapped in the past. Many benefits in terms of efficiency and effectiveness have no doubt come about because the housing sector has chosen to move forward.

I am not suggesting that these larger groups are any less dedicated to providing good housing for those in need; I just wonder if we are losing our connection to the past in the rush to create a new future.