Since 2017, One Public Estate (OPE) has partnered with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) to deliver the Brownfield Land Release Fund (BLRF) and its predecessor the Land Release Fund (LRF) – DLUHC funded programmes that enable councils to bring forward their surplus land for new homes.
- Currently open to applications
- Closing date: 23:59pm on 31 March 2023
One Public Estate is a partnership between the Office of Government Property (OGP) in the Cabinet Office (CO), the Local Government Association (LGA) and DLUHC. Our joint aim is to bring public sector bodies together in order to create better places by using public assets more efficiently, creating service and financial benefits, and releasing land for development to create new homes and jobs for communities.
At the Spending Review 2021, the Chancellor announced a £1.8 billion package of investment to regenerate communities and level-up the country, unlocking new homes on derelict and underused brownfield land.
As part of this, up to £180 million Brownfield Land Release Fund 2 (BLRF2) capital grant funding is available to all English councils over a three-year period to support the release of council-owned brownfield land for housing. The first round of BLRF2 launched in June 2022 providing almost £35 million of funding to more than 40 councils, to release land for at least 2,200 homes by 2026.
Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs) and the Greater London Authority (GLA) are eligible, as are their constituent councils. Please note this relates to just the GLA and does not comprise the whole GLA Group.
BLRF funding can be sought as part of a portfolio of government and other funding for projects but this can have implications for both for value for money assessment and delivery confidence. Further information is provided in this document and the Technical Annex (TA) but we would strongly advise councils to also contact OPE Regional Teams at an early stage of preparing their application to discuss further.
BLRF2 will support levelling up ambitions by releasing land for new homes. The fund will support regeneration in places that need it, restoring a sense of community and local pride and spreading opportunity across England so that every place can realise its potential.
OPE Partnerships are now invited to coordinate applications within their areas for BLRF2 Round 2, for award during 2023/24. Up to £60 million of funding is currently available.
Some examples of projects funded by BLRF2 in Round 1 include:
- Hull – £175,000 will release land to deliver 10 new affordable homes for the local community, as part of the city’s regeneration drive.
- Mid-Devon – a total of £280,000 will release land for two modular, affordable housing sites in Tiverton and Cullompton to build 14 quality, low-carbon homes for the community.
- Great Yarmouth – £219,155 for one of two successful projects will boost the city centre by helping to transform old industrial buildings into 32 high-quality affordable homes, turning the area into a vibrant place for people to live.
To find out more about past BLRF/LRF projects, including case studies of successful projects, visit www.local.gov.uk/onepublicestate.
The delivery of high quality new homes across England is a national priority for the UK government and is supported by many councils who are increasingly taking a more hands-on role in the delivery of homes, in order to meet local needs and address their placemaking priorities.
BLRF2 enables councils to unlock land for new homes, and at the same time support the UK government’s levelling up ambition by regenerating local places, reducing geographical inequalities, and empowering local leaders to build pride in place.
About the fund
Since 2017 LRF and BLRF have accelerated the release of council-owned land for 3,372 homes to help increase the public sector contribution to land supply and drive innovation in housebuilding. The programme currently supports over 340 projects on council-owned land that are on track to release land for around a further 14,500 homes.
The programme is unique in targeting council-owned small and medium sites that have been previously developed and where viability issues have prevented their development. BLRF2 allows councils to determine the type, tenure and delivery mechanism for the new homes, drawing on their understanding of local needs. Funding support can enable delivery at pace by bridging these viability challenges and accelerating the release of land for new homes.
Aims and objectives
The aims of BLRF2 are to:
- release council-owned land within three years of receiving the funding, for housing development that otherwise would not come forward during that period
- encourage the use of public assets to drive innovative delivery, where possible supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) / Low and Medium Volume Builders (LMVBs), creating new delivery models, supporting high-quality design and adopting modern methods of construction
- demonstrate a return for government investment into these small sites.
The funding will provide up front capital to address viability issues arising from abnormal costs of the proposed development. The type of abnormal costs requiring funding may include but are not limited to:
- site levelling, groundworks, demolition, remediation
- provision of small-scale infrastructure
- highways works or other access challenges
- addressing environmental constraints
- external works, substructure and piling
- asbestos removal
- sewer diversions.
Following on from previous Self and Custom Build (SCB) funding, BLRF2 will continue to support councils to bring forward serviced self and custom build plots on brownfield land, where this can be delivered in line with the fund criteria. This will be reflected in the assessment of the scheme. Specifically, OPE will look to support councils who can provide replicable exemplars for delivery of serviced plots for self and custom-build housing on council land as well as demonstrating support to the SME sector.
Please refer to the FAQs for the UK government’s definition of self and custom build.
How the fund is operating
BLRF2 will offer up to £180 million of capital grant funding over three years from 2022/23 to 2024/25 to unlock and accelerate the release of homes. The first round of BLRF2 awarded almost £35 million in 2022/23 to provide land for at least 2,200 homes. Up to £60 million will be available in 2023/24 through BLRF2 Round 2.
BLRF2 is aimed at small and medium sized sites that can release land swiftly with funding support. There is no fixed lower or upper limit for each application in terms of homes or site size. As a guide, the average size of a successful BLRF2 Round 1 project was 53 homes, while the median was 29 homes. We would expect the majority of applications to be under £2 million. Should a council feel there is a strong strategic case for a larger bid, exemplary evidence of the deliverability, risk management and project governance approaches to assure land release by 31 March 2027 will be required.
BLRF2 Round 2 will close for applications at 23:59 on 31 March 2023.
OPE Partnerships and councils are strongly encouraged to work with OPE Regional Teams in developing their bids to make these as strong as possible. OPE Partnerships may submit an application at any time. For applications to be assessed in Spring 2023 they would need to be received by 23:59 on 31 March 2023.
Round 2 2023/24
- Up to £60 million available
- Deadline for applications: 23:59 on 31 March 2023
- Decision on applications and announcement of funding awards: Summer 2023
- Works contracts for BLRF2-funded activity: signed by 31 March 2024
- Land release milestone: 31 March 2027
Please note this is given for illustrative purposes only and may be subject to change.
- Up to £80 million available
- Deadline for applications: early Spring 2024
- Decision on applications and announcement of funding awards: Summer 2024
- Works contracts for BLRF2-funded activity signed: TBC
- Land release milestone: 31 March 2028
BLRF2 is open to all councils across England, specifically: Borough, County, District, London Borough, Metropolitan Borough, and Unitary Councils. MCAs and the GLA are eligible, as are their constituent councils. Please note this relates to just the GLA and does not comprise the whole GLA Group.
Applications must be coordinated by the OPE Partnership and submitted via the designated accountable body of the local OPE Partnership. We welcome concise, clearly structured, and well-referenced proposals. Councils and Partnerships are strongly encouraged to work closely with OPE Regional Teams to identify opportunities and develop strong applications.
Our assessment will be based on the material provided within the application form, basic details form and technical annex. We will also use publicly available placed-based information, produced by the Office for National Statistics, to help prioritise applications from places most in need of levelling up.
There is no limit to the number of applications that a council can submit. Each application must relate to an individual site, although we would accept sites that are divided by roads, provided these do not create a significant barrier between parcels of land and sites that would otherwise be contiguous. However, portfolio applications are not eligible for this funding route.
We encourage applicants to review the FAQs, where further information and definitions can be found. The FAQs will be updated throughout the application window as queries are raised by applicants. When applying, applicants should read the fund details, technical annex and accompanying guidance, FAQs, application form and other supporting documents. Applicants should complete the application form, technical annex and basic details form, based on the guidance provided.
All applications will be jointly assessed by the OGP, LGA and DLUHC.
BLRF2 is designed to help councils where funding support will enable quicker land release and housing delivery. Large and highly complex schemes are unlikely to be suitable for this programme, and we would expect the majority of applications to be under £2 million. Should councils feel there is a strong strategic case for a larger bid, exemplary evidence of the deliverability, risk management and project governance approaches to assure land release by 31 March 2027 is required.
The assessment process will follow three stages: eligibility criteria, gateway criteria and project prioritisation criteria.
Eligibility criteria (pass/fail)
Applications will only be considered if the following criteria are satisfied:
- The land to which the application relates to is previously developed land (brownfield land) as defined in the Glossary (Annex 2) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
- The land is in council ownership at the point of application. For BLRF2 applications that are part of a larger project, or a project where there may be multiple landowners involved, BLRF2 can only fund works on (or in respect of releasing) the council-owned land.
- The project must be undertaking capital works on council-owned land only.
- The applicant must ensure any works contracts for BLRF2 Round 2 funded activity are signed by 31 March 2024 and evidence of this should be provided to OPE by 12 April 2024. All councils awarded funding will be required to sign a Grant Funding Agreement (GFA).
- The project must be able to release land by 31 March 2027.
- The council has a general or specialised housing need.
- The council’s S151 Officer or Chief Executive must sign the application.
- The council or OPE Partnership must notify relevant local MPs of their submitted application.
- The OPE Partnership must:
- operate an effective partnership board
- continue to ensure updates regarding all land and property assets (except social housing stock) owned by partnership councils and public sector partners are undertaken on the ePIMS Lite system (or its successor) by the end of the financial year in which any BLRF2 funding is awarded, and annually thereafter. OPE Partnerships continues to require applicants’ commitment to updating ePIMS on an annual basis.
- adhere to reporting requirements, by providing regular data on project progress and benefits delivery updates -currently this is expected three times a year
- consent to the sharing of application documents for the purposes of assessing the bid application. The document will be shared with LGA, DLUHC, OGP and may be shared with other Government Departments as required and will be stored in line with GDPR requirements.
Gateway critieria (pass/fail)
If the project passes the eligibility criteria, it will be considered against the following gateway criteria:
- evidence of value for money
- evidence of market failure
- evidence of deliverability and mitigation of risk.
- Value for money
A project’s value for money (VfM) is determined using the technical annex. Applications must achieve a “low/acceptable” value for money category. This is when a project is consistent with a benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 1.0 or above, after both the benefit cost ratio (BCR) and non-monetised impacts (NMIs) are taken into account. There is no minimum BCR score for this assessment. Under BLRF2, this metric is a gateway criterion, where achieving this minimum value for money score allows a project to pass to the next stage of assessment.
Value for money is assessed through a combination of impacts that are monetised (and estimate a BCR) and a NMI assessment. The BCR will be based on land value uplift and health/distributional benefits related to the provision of any additional affordable housing. This will provide an initial VfM category. NMIs are those impacts that are not monetised in the BCR but may still impact the application’s VfM. Applicants will only need to provide information about the impacts applicable to a project where the BCR is close to or below 1.0; this should include the scale of these impacts, and a proportionate amount of evidence to support them. The collective impact of NMIs alongside the BCR score can change the final value for money category and this will be assessed upon submission. Further guidance on this subject is available as part of the Technical Annex guidance.
The value for money assessment is undertaken using the published technical annex to be completed as part of the application, and will follow the ‘Five Case Model’ principles set out in the Treasury Green Book (as amended 2022) and the DCLG Appraisal Guide, 2016.
Economic appraisal part 1: Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
Part 1 of the economic appraisal will be based on the present value economic benefits of a project, divided by its present value costs to central government. This will generate a benefit cost ratio (BCR).
BLRF2 is targeted at releasing council-owned brownfield land suitable for housing development. The economic benefits of releasing this land will primarily be monetised using land value uplift, which represents the economic benefits of converting land to a more productive use. Land value uplift is calculated by the difference between the value of the land in its new use, minus the value in its previous use. Health and distributional impacts around the provision of any additional affordable housing will also be monetised.
The technical annex provides a land value based on Valuation Office averages for the council district. Existing Land Value Assumptions can be adjusted in the technical annex by councils, provided proportionate evidence is submitted alongside to justify the change. Evidence to justify an adjustment to the Valuation Office Agency land values should be based on the site’s existing use value, rather than a residual value for the site following a change of use for housing. Hope value should not be taken into consideration. Proportionate suitable evidence may include:
- Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors “Red Book” Valuation
- evidence of sales values achieved by comparable sites
- a short narrative of why these sites are reasonable competitors
- an independent assessment of the local market
- a view of the site's value by an independent property professional or agent.
Data sources and any relevant dates when that data was obtained should be referenced with this information.
Please include additional central government funding sources in the technical annex that are contributing to meeting any viability gap for the land. Where funding decisions are pending these do not need to be included in the Technical Annex but please include this information in the application including the funding source, expected decision date and relationship to BLRF2 Round 2 scheme (i.e. are they covering the same site). If the project is reliant on multiple sources of funding, some of which are not yet confirmed, your Regional Team can provide further advice and support on how to reference these sources in both the bid and Technical Annex. Further detail on other funding sources is also provided in the Technical Annex.
It is then necessary to estimate how much of this economic benefit is additional: that is, how much development would have occurred in the absence of the intervention. The application should include evidence to support applicants’ responses to the additionality assessment within the technical annex where relevant, such as:
- demonstration of clear site-specific market failures, including, where relevant, evidence that the works would not have been undertaken by the private sector
- demonstration that the viability/funding gap could not be solved by reasonable changes to the specification of the project that would be acceptable to the council
- details of existing landowners that might complicate land assembly
- details of how delivery will be accelerated by this funding.
We only take into account any pre-development costs to government when appraising costs, as opposed to the cost for direct construction of homes and ancillary development including public realm improvements. This will reflect both spending through the BLRF2, and any other funding that is required from central government for the project to go ahead. This will not reflect the council’s own investment. Please discuss with your OPE Regional Team if some or all of any sunk costs on a site was supported by central government funding.
Economic appraisal part 2: Non-Monetised Impacts (NMIs)
Part 2 of the economic appraisal will be based on the NMIs that can be attributed to the project. NMIs are economic impacts that have not been monetised in Part 1 of the economic appraisal (BCR) because it was not possible or considered proportionate to do so.
NMIs should not double count those included in the BCR i.e. land value uplift. They must demonstrate the impact is likely to be additional, that is, would not happen on the site anyway, or displace activity from elsewhere. Applicants should consider the NMIs of the project when completing the technical annex and must ensure they are compliant with Treasury five case Green Book methodology (as amended 2022).
NMIs should be described as clearly as possible when completing the technical annex, as the assessment will focus on the scale of the impact and evidence applicable to your application. Please refer to the NMI guidance for examples of a NMI and further information on what is expected from applicants.
- Market failure
BLRF2 provides grant funding where viability issues have prevented the release of council-owned brownfield land. Funding is available to “unlock” a site where market failures are preventing housing from being delivered. Evidence of market failure would include a viability gap, that is to say where the costs associated with unlocking a site are more expensive than the value it generates. The fund cannot be used to support viable projects.
BLRF2 applications should provide evidence of site-specific market failures, including, where relevant, evidence that the site in the present condition would not be delivered by the private sector without public sector funding support. Previous unsuccessful marketing exercises or soft market testing results can be used to support the case. The application should make clear how the funding will address the identified market failures and how, with the funding, these can be mitigated.
Proportionate evidence should be submitted to justify why the project requires government financial support. Ideally, for larger projects, a Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) compliant development appraisal should be submitted as part of the application to show the project is currently unviable. Smaller projects could provide alternative evidence of market failure. We recognise that the collation of such evidence can be both time consuming and add additional costs to a project, so we stress that the level of evidence should be proportionate to the size and nature of the project.
This evidence may include:
- current estimated site value and a short narrative on how this was calculated.
- estimated remediation/abnormal/other costs and a short narrative of how this was reached. This could include direct quotes for work if available, comparable costs for similar works or estimations using standard data sources
- estimated site value following BLRF2 funded works and a short narrative on how that figure was reached. The estimated value should be based on a “clean site” with no further costs. The narrative should also state what the planning status of the site will be when sold.
- for projects over 100 homes and/or requesting more than £750,000 we would normally expect a RICS compliant appraisal. If that cannot be provided, we would need other evidence to understand why that site was not viable.
Where any viability/funding gap could be met by reasonable changes to the specification of the scheme, the appraisal should set out how those changes have been considered and why they have been disregarded. Such reasoning would include compliance with a range of council policies and commitments such as commitment to increase affordable housing delivery above policy on council-owned land, design excellence or increased sustainability performance of new housing stock.
The appraisal should confirm how the total viability gap will be met. If this is to be fully funded by BLRF2 grant funding this should be clearly outlined. If it is to be partially funded by BLRF2, details are required to confirm where the remaining gap funding will come from, whether it has already been secured, and outline details of associated conditions/timescales. Risks associated with unlocking the site, market failures, viability and development appraisal assumptions should be identified and appropriate mitigation measures included.
- Deliverability and mitigation of risk
Applicants are expected to demonstrate that the land will be released by 31 March 2027. Contracts for works should be signed by 31 March 2024 and evidence of this should be returned to OPE by 12 April 2024. The following delivery aspects should be fully addressed within the application.
The project must undertake capital works on council-owned brownfield land. The funding must enable the early release of land at least within the BLRF2 Round 2 timescales, preferably earlier, and address the original market failures.
If possible, a copy of the title documents confirming the land is owned by the council should be submitted, together with information on any title issues that require resolution ahead of the site being marketed and a redline plan confirming the site that will benefit from funding.
Where a copy of title is not available in order to proceed with the application, a senior council official, such as the S151 officer, is required to confirm the site is in the council’s ownership.
Should a title need to be registered in order for land to be transferred, even to a wholly council-owned development vehicle, this should be factored into the overall project plan and undertaken early in the project process. We strongly suggest that councils should factor in the time required for HM Land Registry to register titles into the overall project plan.
An initial outline of how the council is proposing to market the site and select their delivery partner should be submitted. This should include an indication of the associated timescales for the disposal.
Land can be defined as “released” when:
a) An unconditional contract, development agreement or building licence with a private sector partner is signed, or a freehold or leasehold transfer takes place
b) Land has transferred to a development vehicle owned, or partly owned, by the local authority; or
b) The point at which development begins on site if (a) and (b) have not happened.
d) In the case of self and custom-build, if (a), (b) or (c) do not apply, land is released when contracts are exchanged on the first plot.
Risks associated with disposal of the site in a timely and effective manner should be identified and appropriate mitigation measures included.
The application should also include a project plan (Gantt chart or similar) outlining the procurement process and delivery of the works, as well as how this relates to the marketing and disposal of the site in order to release it for development. We draw applicants' attention to the wording in the example grant funding agreement, which can be found in the How to Apply webpage, with respect to required timelines for spending the grant.
BLRF2 applications must include a short planning statement outlining the planning policy position and planning history for the site. The statement should identify the key planning considerations to be addressed in delivering the BLRF2 funded project.
If the site already has planning permission for the intended BLRF2 project, a copy of the decision notice and s106 agreement is required. If there are conditions still to be discharged or s106 agreements to be signed post decision, timescales for securing planning permission need to be included.
If the proposed route to market is to sell or transfer the site with full or outline planning permission, then the planning statement should specify details of how that consent will be achieved. We would expect to see a project plan for achieving planning permission, including:
- Any pre-application submission work timescale
- planning submission date
- determination period
- estimated decision/committee date
- planning permission secured date.
The risks associated with securing a timely and deliverable planning consent should be identified and appropriate mitigation measures included.
We would expect the information around planning to be proportionate to the size and nature of the proposal.
BLRF2 funding will provide upfront capital investment in order to create a viable project and can cover abnormal costs that may include:
- site levelling, groundworks, demolition, remediation
- small-scale infrastructure
- highways works or other access challenges
- addressing environmental constraints
- external works, substructure and piling
- asbestos removal
- sewer diversions.
The funding cannot be used for resource spend (e.g. officer time, work management fees) or planning application fees and associated costs. BLRF2 covers capital costs for abnormal works that address the defined market failures and will unlock the site for development within the specified timescales. Physical works for site activation (such as hoardings, welfare facilities, skips etc) can be included but not any associated revenue costs.
Evidence of the cost and duration of works to be covered by BLRF2 should be provided. For larger projects delivering significant on site or off-site infrastructure, quotes for the work with any supporting information would be helpful. If this information is currently unavailable, indicative budgets should be supported by evidence of comparable works or information from other recognised data sources to justify these assumptions.
The application must specify the way the works are to be procured and the associated timescales for procurement, leading to entering a contract for the works, when the land will be released for development and construction/completion of the homes to accord with BLRF2 Round 2 timescales. This may include details on whether the applicant has already procured a contractor; whether they will use a procured contractor panel; or proceed with a full works procurement process. The procurement should be conducted in line with the council's procurement policy. Applicants should recognise the potential for cost inflation between the date of application and the delivery of works and should base cost estimates on the projected delivery period. The BLRF2 programme will not cover cost overruns.
Mitigation of Risk
The risks associated with undertaking the timely and effective procurement and delivery of the works should be identified, and appropriate mitigation measures included.
Factors that would impact on remediation timescales, such as tenancy clearance or changes to location of utilities and services should be identified in the project plan, as should the risks and mitigations associated with these types of issues.
Project prioritisation criteria
If the project passes both eligibility and gateway criteria, it will be prioritised for funding using the following criteria:
- Place based metrics (50 per cent)
- Strategic case (35 per cent)
- Innovation (10 per cent)
- Public Sector Equality Duty (5 per cent)
Place-based metrics carry 50 per cent of the overall weighting.
Both deprivation and productivity data will be used to provide a place based metric score, which will be automatically applied to the application. Applicants are not required to provide evidence to support this element of the application.
Further details of how this will be calculated are provided below:
- Deprivation: the proportion of lower super output areas in a council that are in the 10 per cent most deprived lower super output areas nationally as per the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2019 – a widely used way of measuring deprivation. This enables the identification of areas with particularly concentrated deprivation that will benefit from holistic regeneration to address complex problems and provide a new economic purpose.
- Productivity: Gross Value Added (GVA) per hour worked (2019), a widely used labour productivity measure. This enables the identification of areas that are performing less well economically than other parts of the country, and which will benefit from regeneration that creates spaces fit for the modern economy.
These two metrics have been weighted 75:25 per cent in favour of the Index of Multiple Deprivation and ranked. Subsequently, this ranked list was used to calculate the corresponding score between 0 – 50. The place-based list can be found in the 'how to apply' section of the website.
The strategic case carries 35 per cent of the overall weighting, which will be assessed against the opportunity and links to local and national government priorities.
Projects should articulate how, and the degree to which they will:
- contribute to the delivery of the council’s housing strategy, meet up to date local plan objectives including regeneration, design and density and/or meet other relevant council strategies
- support economic recovery
- provide skills and apprenticeships opportunities
- commit to local employment and reduce unemployment
- commit to local suppliers
- meet a particular need e.g. key worker or affordable housing, a mix of tenures, for older people, or projects that will benefit ex-service personnel, homeless or ex-offenders.
In assessing the strategic case, applications should demonstrate a clear connection between the impact of the project, evidenced against specific and relevant policy/objectives across several key policy areas/objectives such as housing regeneration and economic development. Project outcomes and impacts should clearly contribute to monitored policy goals/outcomes, such as those that support affordable housing.
Furthermore, supporting documentation should have gone through a process of external consultation and/or scrutiny before becoming official council policy by an appropriate democratic process. Supporting documentation should be as up to date as possible and reflect wider relevant national policy and guidance. For example, where a project meets the requirements of a number of housing and regeneration policies/objectives in an adopted Local Plan, the Local Transport Plan and the council’s Housing Strategy then we would anticipate that such evidence would support a strong strategic fit.
Applicants are asked to demonstrate through the strategic case that their proposals strongly align with up to date local plan objectives. The highest possible score for the strategic case will generally be awarded to authorities that have:
- an up-to-date Local Plan in place (adopted within the last five years); or
- completed their Local Plan Review within the 5-year window and determined that their plan remains in date; or
- submitted their Local Plan for independent examination.
Evidence needs to be as precise and focused as possible referencing exact policies and objectives rather than broad policy areas/sections or whole documents. Ideally a description of policy names/numbers, a page reference to the document, plus a brief reasoning why they are relevant to the project should be provided.
Innovation carries 10 per cent of the overall weighting.
Projects will be assessed based on innovative models of delivery. Within this, all projects should articulate how they will demonstrate positive local economic impact where possible maximising the involvement of SMEs. Other areas of innovation could include:
- proposals to take forward development at pace
- proposals to work with private developers who are taking forward modern methods of construction/innovative design
- joint ventures
- joining-up across local authority boundaries
- a commitment to net-zero carbon opportunities
- self and custom build.
Public sector equality duty
The public sector equality duty carries 5 per cent of the overall weighting.
Projects that guarantee ownership or tenure for people who share one or more protected characteristics (as defined in the Equality Act 2010) in the local area, who struggle to attain appropriate housing, will be given a 5 per cent increase to their overall score. Examples could include guaranteed ownership or tenure:
- in areas where those sharing one or more protected characteristics have disproportionately low home ownership; and/or
- in areas where those sharing one or more protected characteristics suffer disproportionately from overcrowding.
All councils will be required to report on progress of their project. Councils will be required to report against six milestones three times a year, further details of which are provided in the FAQs.
Where applications have not been successful, we will work with councils to identify how these can be strengthened, or if there may be other opportunities for development that could be supported through further rounds of BLRF2. Where an application has passed the gateway criteria but was not funded due to higher prioritised projects, we would welcome a conversation with the council about how best to proceed for the further rounds of BLRF2 funding.