Written evidence submitted by Homes for the North [DSH 023]

 

  1. Overview of submission

This document is the response to the Housing, Communities and Local Government (HCLG) Inquiry into the long-term delivery of social and affordable rented housing submitted by Homes for the North, an alliance of seventeen of the North’s largest developing housing associations. Homes for the North submitted a response to the HCLG Inquiry on the same topic in 2019 and a copy of this submission is included in the Appendix for reference. This submission serves as a further update, in light of emerging research that has been commissioned by Homes for the North.

In summary, the view of Homes for the North is that the 80:20 rule used by Homes England, for the distribution of housing investment, and the Treasury Green Book appraisal system that sits alongside it, must be reformed in order to support the long-term delivery of social and affordable rented housing. Housing has a key role to play in enabling economic growth and reform is needed in this area in order to increase supply and support ambitions to level-up the North. Housing has a particularly important role as we prepare for the national recovery following the current Covid-19 crisis and must be at the centre of our national thinking around how to boost economic growth, especially as those most effected by the crisis are likely to be in poorer areas without access to quality affordable homes.

The subsequent section provides an overview of our updated research into the distribution of housing investment first published in summer 2019[1]. This research demonstrates that current funding rules used by Homes England fundamentally disadvantage the North and hamper the region’s ability to deliver social and affordable rented housing in the long-term.

It also provides some initial findings from work commissioned to review the Green Book methodology for appraising projects, suggesting that this too could be leading to decision making with a fundamental in-built bias against the North.

Homes for the North has recently commissioned research into the need to reform the standardised objectively assessed need (SOAN) methodology to support ambitious targets to deliver more homes. Our SOAN research is currently being undertaken and will be available in the coming months.

  1. Submission answers

How can the Government support the long-term delivery of social and affordable rented housing?

Homes for the North is calling for reform to the current investment mechanisms, specifically:

 

  1. Reform to the 80:20 Rule for allocating Housing Infrastructure Funding

The 80:20 rule for the distribution of housing investment results in Homes England focusing 80% of its funding for housing infrastructure on ‘high affordability pressure’ areas that are mostly outside the North. As a result, only 4 of the 72 local authorities in Northern England are able to apply for housing infrastructure investment, which provides the land supply, roads and drainage necessary to build new housing supply.

Given the 80:20 rule applies to large housing infrastructure spending, and the fact that locally most local authorities only have the ability to apply for the 20% funding, our original research showed that the maximum the North could expect to be allocated from the relevant funds would be 10.3% (in comparison to its 23% share of England’s households), if spending was distributed evenly across the country using this formula, regardless of the merits of individual proposals. Experience on the ground suggests this is now being borne out.

The Government is in the process of allocating £4.7bn from the HIF Forward Fund for large housing infrastructure schemes over the period 2018/19-2023/24. Following announcements in November 2019 and the March 2020 Budget, £3.427bn has been allocated nationally (72.9%). The allocations announced by Government in relation to large investment schemes committed so far to the North of England is 9.9% of the national total with no funding at all being allocated to the Yorkshire and Humberside region, and the North East receiving just £25.4m.

At the beginning of the bidding process for HIF Forward Funding, nine of the 45 bids chosen to go forward to be co-developed with Homes England and MHCLG in March 2018 were from the North. Five have now been funded in: Cheshire East; Cumbria; Greater Manchester; Lancashire, and Sunderland. These five allocations total £340.7m, while the bid for the City of York has secured £77m from an as yet undisclosed budget outside of the HIF Forward Fund process.

The bids submitted from the North prior to the March Budget were unlikely to have been fully resourced given the MHCLG policy framework and indeed a large proportion of the estimated £700m of bids from Northern Local Authorities were not funded, including those from the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and Sheffield City Region. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority, albeit successful, received just 21% of its initial request for resources. If all of the bids we were able to identify had been approved and fully resourced then the Northern allocation would have accounted for more than 30% of the remaining allocation from the HIF Forward Fund and would have breached the 80:20 rule, squeezing out schemes in the Midlands and the South West which also need to be funded from the 20% allocation. This was unlikely to happen and it illustrates how ‘levelling-up’ will not be possible based on an 80:20 rule which merely reinforces existing regional inequality.

The allocation of Housing Infrastructure Funds, and increasingly funding for new social and affordable housing, has a tenuous relationship with the concentrations of severe deprivation as measured in National Statistics. For example, nine of the ten most deprived local authority districts are located in the North of England, and eight of these locations will not receive allocations from the Housing Infrastructure Fund as their bids have failed or never reached submission because they could not fulfil the criteria. There also would appear to be little evidence of housing infrastructure spending being used to boost the main employment centres in the North either. In total the four largest conurbations and centres of employment in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Yorkshire, and South Yorkshire have received just £51m of the £3.4bn HIF Forward Fund allocations (1.5%).

The investment allocations have been overwhelmingly concentrated in the London, East and South East where 71.5 % of the Forward Fund allocations have been targeted, with eight of those bids being valued at more than £150m each. To give an example of the spatial inequality which is emerging the allocations to Kent and Essex which form part of the Government supported Thames Estuary initiative now total £873m. This is 2.5 times greater than the Northern allocation of £340m despite having a population less than a third of the three Northern regions.

The significance of these regional distributions of funding should not be underestimated. The 80:20 policy impacts not only on the ability of the North of England to fund and drive a housing strategy based on local need and the accelerated growth required to ‘narrow the gap’, but also produces a de facto two-tier national neighbourhood development strategy. The Housing Infrastructure Forward Fund is designed to finance community and environmental amenities which cannot be afforded in the North because land value capture will not pay for it. In the South, where this funding is overwhelmingly targeted, localities already have the potential for land value capture and now have access to this additional public subsidy. As a result, there is a greater potential to develop high quality neighbourhoods and sustainable communities.

If the concept of “levelling up” is to be meaningful in terms of the design and operation of Public Policy then the Government will need to work in partnership with the devolution agenda in the North to develop long term investment programmes and provide revenue and capacity building support for their development. These agreed investment programmes and their costed interventions will need to be owned by the machinery of government as they are currently in the South of England with the same 30-year horizon to facilitate the planning and delivery of large scale social and economic improvement.

Against this background, it is apparent that the 80:20 is a political market intervention that directly contradicts the levelling-up agenda, distorts Green Book based decision making and could hamper the national economic recovery in former industrial and manufacturing areas in the North. Homes for the North is calling for reform in this area to provide the North with an appropriate share of funds to support the long-term delivery of social and affordable rented housing. In particular, this change is required before the rules are drawn up for the allocation of the Single Housing Infrastructure Fund announced in the budget in March 2020. In the future, the spatial distribution of funding for future housing infrastructure should reflect wider Government objectives, and in particular the overarching strategy to rebalance the economy across the county.

 

  1. Green Book Reform

Homes for the North is planning a programme of work to identify how improvements to the Green Book appraisal methodology can support the delivery of the housing needed to realise the North of England’s transformational growth ambitions. We have commissioned the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) to conduct an initial scoping exercise to inform this work.

CEBR’s research will be finalised in the coming months, however initial findings have identified a number of fundamental flaws in the application of the Green Book which potentially disadvantage the North.

 

The Green Book is a well-established tool that plays an important role in helping direct public money to activities that deliver value for money. It is founded on the principle that Government intervention can improve social welfare by correcting ‘market failures’ that occur where there is a divergence between the private and social impacts of an activity.

 

For housing, the supplementary guidance originally published by DCLG (now MHCLG) suggests using land values to measure the scale of benefits of a potential intervention but makes it clear that only the level of additional housing should be measured.

 

Furthermore, additionality requires the presence of a market failure that cannot be overcome without the Government’s intervention. While these principles are sound, some difficulties in their application are apparent, and these tend to lead to skewed investment decisions. Weaknesses identified include:

 

A lack of evidence about market failures disadvantages the north

The appraisal guidance acknowledges that evidence on market failures is lacking in many cases and more work is needed to fill in these gaps. It appears very likely that there are more severe market failures affecting the north than many areas elsewhere with higher land values. Equally, the ‘external’ benefits to London and the South East of reducing pressure on public services by encouraging higher growth of population and jobs in the north is typically not captured as a benefit in current appraisal practice.

 

On the other hand, it is easier in practice to observe the size of the land value uplift compared to the level of additionality. The appraisal components that are easier to quantify and monetise therefore gain disproportionate weight in the results, resulting in areas with high land values getting high Benefit Cost Ratios (BCRs) by default and lower value areas, including much of the north, losing out because the tools are not available to demonstrate the ‘true’ additionality that appropriate investment would offer.

 

Transformative v marginal investment

The current appraisal system is primarily focussed on assessing individual housing schemes that are, in economic terms, marginal i.e. they may be beneficial in their own right but do not have an impact on the future path of the economy. However, much of the wider policy context in which housing should be considered is concerned with transforming economic performance in particular locations, viz the levelling-up agenda. Many of the problems that this agenda is focussed on relate to long standing and profound market failures that will require concerted, long term investment over a sustained period. This will have non-marginal impacts on economic performance which the assumptions made in appraisal should reflect - but at present do not.

 

Related issues with policy

There are some related issues associated with policy that compound these problems. In particular:

 

A number of recommendations for further research flow from these initial findings. H4N plans to develop these through a second phase of work addressing the following areas:

 

 

 

May 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix

Homes for the North submission to MHCLG Select Committee Inquiry on the long-term delivery of social and affordable rented housing (2019)

Our role

Homes for the North is an alliance of 17 major housing associations in the North of England. In January 2016, we launched in Parliament in order to bring large regional housing providers together to help produce policy solutions to the housebuilding crisis.

Between our members, we currently provide a third of all social rented homes in the North and will target the delivery of over 20,000 homes over the next three years, building on the current stock of 500,000 homes managed by our members. The work and investment of Homes for the North provides significant support to the Northern economy, employing 17,500 people in the region and contributing up to £2.5bn (GVA) per year.[2]

Homes for the North continues to express concern over the shortage of affordable and new housing stock available in the North of England. Since our inception, we have worked to raise awareness of the housing crisis in the North by regularly producing research and engaging with policy makers. We are therefore grateful for the opportunity to submit to this inquiry on the long-term delivery of affordable and social housing.

Submission answers

We recently launched our charter, Rebalancing the Economy: Building the Northern Homes We Need, at a parliamentary reception during which both Minister for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth Jake Berry and Shadow Secretary of State for Housing John Healey welcomed our plans to put good quality housing at the heart of the northern growth agenda, and to integrate housing and transport infrastructure more closely.

Our charter proposes four core asks that will encourage the creation of social and affordable homes and deliver increased prosperity in the North. These four asks are as follows:

-          Ambition: A regional housing target to build at least 50,000 homes per year in the North

-          Alignment: A requirement that local authorities in the North align their Local Industrial Strategies with housing supply plans

-          Connectivity: An integrated approach to housing and infrastructure

-          Delivery: Local powers, local deals, local opportunities

 

Our submission draws on the core asks of our charter, as well as on Homes for the North’s economic research and focus on promoting Northern growth.

How can the Government ensure the sustainable delivery of social and affordable rented housing to meet long-term need and contribute to the Government’s overall housebuilding targets

1.1. Supporting the counter-cyclical nature of housing associations

In order to reach its ambition of 300,000 new homes a year from the mid-2020s, the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) will need to provide greater support to housing associations. This is supported by research from Savills, which revealed that the government will only be able to reach its target by increasing its funding for affordable homes and moving away from its reliance on the private sector.[3]

The cyclical model of private housebuilders runs the risk that – in the face of a slowing private market, a potential Brexit downturn, and the tapering of the Help to Buy scheme – the current housing crisis may be exacerbated because of private housebuilders’ vulnerability to market shocks.

Historically, housing associations have had a counter-cyclical offering, and their output has remained buoyant during periods of political and economic turbulence. Evidence of this can be shown by the response of housebuilders to the financial crisis of 2008-09, during which time the number of new homes built by private enterprises dramatically fell whilst those completed by housing associations rose. (See graph below).

 

 

However, government funding for housing associations has fallen to 12% of housebuilding costs, as compared to 50% before the financial crisis, [4] leaving housing associations increasingly reliant on the cross-subsidy model to remain financially viable and build homes. This, in the instance of political or market instability, opens up housing associations to the same financial knocks as private developers.

Moreover, there is a widespread need for more affordable housing. According to Savills, the annual need for additional affordable housing in England is 2.6 times greater than supply.[5] Some studies estimate that the UK’s affordable housing need sits at over 100,000 homes per year - almost a third of the government’s target.[6] Therefore, MHCLG’s target of delivering 300,000 cannot – and should not – be met by private housebuilders alone and, instead, greater support should be given to housing associations.

The government should, therefore, work to enhance the counter-cyclical nature of housing associations, through the allocation of greater funding. This would allow housing associations to move away from the cross-subsidy model, increasing their ability to improve building rates whatever the economic climate. For example, in the instance of an economic downturn, grant funding would allow housing associations to continue developing new homes when the numbers of private developments may fall – thus helping the government to fulfil its housing ambitions, and to deliver homes where they are most needed.

1.2. Government funding to support affordable housing delivery

To support increased delivery of affordable homes as well as the counter-cyclical nature of housing associations, Government funding that is flexible and available over the long term is needed. Homes England’s new Strategic Partnerships provide a good early model for achieving this and the number of homes Homes for the North members expect to deliver over the next three years has increased to over 23,000 (an additional xxx on the previous survey)

To sustain and grow this level of delivery, continued certainty of grant funding is necessary. Homes for the North support the National Housing Federation and partners call for £12.8billion per year over the next decade to deliver 1.45million homes for affordable and social rent as well as shared ownership. The investment would provide the stimulus needed to significantly boost affordable house building over the long term to end the housing crisis.

In short, Homes for the North believe that, in order to meet its target of 300,000 new homes per year, the government should provide greater financial support to housing associations through the greater provision of funding.

1.3. Building the right homes in the right places

Finally, Homes for the North believe that the target of 300,000 new homes per year is rendered ineffective if these homes are not built where they are needed, and if they are not affordable.

Housing provision should be reflective of the needs of those who need to access it. With this in mind it should be noted that in Sir Letwin’s review of build-out rates he stressed the importance of increased diversity of tenure on sites, making quite clear that “as a minimum… affordable rented housing should be provided alongside affordable home ownership on each phase. Offsite contributions to affordable housing on large sites should not be sought.”[7]

 

He adds that to “offer much more housing of varying types, designs, and tenures, including a high proportion of affordable housing, and more distinctive settings, landscapes and streetscapes””[8] would accelerate absorption and build-out rates.

Sir Letwin’s wide-reaching review not only arrives at positive conclusions regarding build-out rates, it also touches on an important issue: that of social integration. As housing associations we provide homes to tenants and prospective home-owners from a wide range of backgrounds, and the importance of delivering homes at a variety of price-points (rental or otherwise) is paramount. 

Upcoming Homes for the North research, Housing Requirements to meet North of England Economic Growth Potential to 2050,  has revealed that shifting labour requirements mean that Leeds and Manchester city regions are expected to have an additional 223,000 and 193,000 high-skilled workers respectively by 2050. Housing provision will need to reflect this, e.g. increased demand for city centre apartments and high-quality family homes in order to attract and retain such workers. However, this does not diminish the importance of affordable and social rent level homes, and the social value of mixed-income communities.

2.0 The role of (a) local authorities – as enablers and providers, (b) Homes England (c) housing associations and (d) other providers should be in that long-term delivery.

To deliver affordable and social homes across the long term will require a collaborative approach across all partners with shared vision. This is central to the Homes for the North ethos to bring together partners enabling long term supply. Specific areas we have highlighted where partnerships at a strategic level will benefit delivery are outlined here.

2.1. Renewal Deals

Homes for the North believe that Local Authorities need to take a more collaborative approach to planning applications, as outlined by the fourth ask of our Charter – Delivery – in which we advocate for the establishment of new ‘renewal deals’ between the Government, Homes England, Local Authorities, Combined Authorities and housing associations.

‘Renewal deals’ would focus on a single place, integrating existing investment streams and equipping local areas with a suite of powers to facilitate local house-building and job opportunities across the long term. For example, these deals could equip their beneficiaries with more muscular land assembly powers, enabling them to acquire land at values much closer to existing use value, plus a small premium. Furthermore, sharing the subsequent land value uplift could generate the necessary funds to build more affordable homes.

Through this approach, communities and local leaders have the power to drive forward change and create opportunities. Different policy solutions are needed for different places to deliver outcomes that work for local people. But whilst delivery needs to be driven locally, this will only be effective if Government puts in place a national framework which ensures appropriate levels of housing and infrastructure investment can be targeted spatially, supported by new legal and fiscal powers.

2.2. An integrated approach

Homes need infrastructure; and new infrastructure needs homes to support growth. Therefore, Homes for the North believe that Local Authorities should take an integrated approach to planning for housing, transport and local economic development.

In addition to our earlier point that housing policies and Local Industrial Strategies should be aligned, Homes for the North are advocating for housing and infrastructure investment to be planned in conjunction with one another – an approach supported by the National Infrastructure Commission.

Moreover, an integrated approach to planning would enable local authorities to – if given the right powers – make proper use of land value capture mechanisms. Under the terms of the proposed ‘Renewal Deals’ local authorities would be given the opportunity to purchase (via CPO, if necessary) at a rate close to existing use value, before planning infrastructure upon the land in question – the value uplift generated by subsequent transport infrastructure development could then be ring-fenced for affordable housing.

3.0 How can the Government’s approach to delivery best meet the different needs of individual regions and area.

3.1. Flaws in the current planning system

The planning system is vital to ensuring that MHCLG’s target for new homes is met and to ensure that the right proportion of these homes are available for social and affordable rent. However, the current planning system would not allow for the target of 300,000 new homes per year to be met.

The National Audit Office’s recent report, Planning for New Homes found that under the projections calculated using the current method of assessing housing need, Objectively Assessed Need (OAN), it would reduce the number of new homes needed to around 213,000[9].  This resulted in the Government calling upon local authorities to revert to using the previously published 2014-based local projections as the baseline, as these calculated that 265,000 homes per year would be needed. Neither of these figures meet the Government’s target of 300,000 per year.

Moreover, OAN fails to account for local growth across the North, and the fundamental role housing can, and should, play in this. The current methodology uses household projections drawn from historical economic growth trajectories and affordability patterns, resulting in 13,340 fewer homes per year across the North than needed.

Research undertaken by planning consultancy Lichfield’s for Homes for the North reveals that - when compared to the Local Authority assessment of need - OAN results in:

-          The loss of £1.85bn in construction value, and £2.37bn in economic output;

-          The loss of 16,000 construction jobs, and 24,160 supply chain jobs;

-          The loss of £19.1m in council tax revenues; and

-          The loss of 2,670 FTE jobs.

 

Fortunately, the National Audit Office recently noted that “the Department’s standard method for assessing the need for new homes has weaknesses, and as a result will be revised… the standard method reduces the numbers of new homes needed in other regions… The North West, Yorkshire, and the Humber, the North East… this reduction could hamper local authorities’ plans to regenerate and stimulate economic growth.”[10]

This is a welcome development, but the question of what should replace Objectively Assessed Need – and tackle the aforementioned hampering of economic growth – remains.

Homes for the North is advocating that the Government enables the North to plan for the homes it needs by requiring local authorities to align their Local Industrial Strategies and housing supply plans, in addition to ensuring the methodology for assessing housing need reflects forward-looking economic growth scenarios. Moreover, in order to counteract the potential loss of economic output and job growth, Homes for the North suggests the following alterations to the OAN formula:

-          Apply an uplift of up to 10% where there is evidence of additional affordable housing requirements (especially for rent). The affordability uplift in the standard formula only relates to a comparison of house prices and incomes – i.e. affordability in the private sector.

-          Apply an uplift where the local authority has adopted an economic growth strategy that requires higher levels of housing provision. Whilst this is currently optional, we believe that it should be a mandatory requirement, to ensure that economic growth and housing ambitions are linked together.

-          A variant set of demographic projections should be used as a baseline for the formula, allowing for an estimate of the number of ‘hidden households’ in a locality.

 

Given how drastically OAN is hampering the Government’s ambition of delivering 300,000 per year replacing it with an ambitious, forward-looking alternative should be of the highest importance.

3.2 Long-term funding in the North to support new homes

The Government must be forward-thinking with regards to investment if the north is to benefit from improved homes and infrastructure.

Homes for the North recently commissioned Arc4 to undertake analysis of historic housing investment allocations and the impact of the new allocation regime. This research (as yet unreleased) explores the proportionality of spending allocation, benchmarking it against the North’s share of England’s overall population: 27.6%

The research reveals that historically the north has not benefited from overall spend levels:

-          Looking at Treasury data over 20 years, the share of UK public expenditure on Housing targeted at the North has oscillated between 20-28%,but has been subject to a gentle decline towards the lower end of that range in the last decade.

-          The North East has by Treasury definition had a very high level of per capita housing spend, being second only to London in England. However, this relates to the high level of social housing in the region: 35% higher than the national average. The OECD definition of spend includes maintenance expenditure- so a larger stock means higher spend.

-          The Housing Community Fund has only produced data regarding development expenditure; the North’s share of this was 22.8%

-          The largest item of housing expenditure in the period 2013-18 was the Help to Buy Equity Loan Fund, at a cost of over £10bn. The North’s share of this expenditure was 19.9%

 

Targeted Expenditure: Looking Forward

The full impact of the new regime for targeting Infrastructure and affordable housing funds is not yet apparent, as the spend for The Accelerated Construction Fund, Small Sites fund and Land Assembly Fund have not yet reported on their first year’s spend. However, the conscious shift to target funding geographically across Homes England’s funding streams with a particular focus on areas of ‘highest affordability pressure’ is likely to drive funding away from the North. Through our research we have identified that across 5 of Homes England’s programmes, only 4 of 72 Northern Local Authorities will be eligible to apply for 80% of the funds. The remainder will be attempting to access the remaining 20%. This will have a detrimental impact on the agenda to rebalance Northern economies.

Funding already appears to be dwindling for the north, as the following shows:

-          The HIF Marginal Viability Fund has been allocated £610m and the allocation to the North was 20.6%;

-          The £5bn Targeted HIF Forward Fund has allocated just 10.6% to the North; 

-          There is little expectation that any of the £480m loans fund for regeneration will be allocated to the North:

-          In the Last 18 months £3.4bn of expenditure has been allocated from the 2016-21 SOAHP (programme). This has been equally split between London and the rest of England. The share of the Strategic Partnership resources which have been allocated to the three northern regions (Identified by the address of the Head Office of the recipients) is calculated at 22.4%. However, when London is taken into account this figure falls to just over 11% of the national allocation. This suggests that affordable housing allocations will closely mirror the targeting regime for land and infrastructure spend.

In short, if the North is to deliver the homes necessary to thrive economically then the Government needs to drastically reassess how it allocates funding with regards to housing, infrastructure, and regeneration.

3.3 Regeneration deals

As outlined in point 3.1, the North looks largely ineligible for regeneration funding (£480m available) based on the current criteria.  This is deeply troubling, as areas of the north urgently need regeneration.

Failure to regenerate is a massive barrier to housing delivery – forthcoming research  Housing Requirements to meet North of England Economic Growth Potential to 2050, reveals that there is brownfield capacity for around 300,000 homes in the north according the Brownfield Register.  In order to unlock this land significant investment will be required; failure to take advantage of brownfield could lead to sluggish housing delivery or local authorities being forced to encroach on to the green belt.

Homes for the North advocate for a wide-reaching and coordinated approach to regeneration that accounts for homes, jobs, and infrastructure. Delivering homes and economic growth in the north will require a re-evaluation of how funding is allocated; the Government must be brave enough to be forward-thinking, ambitious, and allocate funding accordingly. 

3.4 Treasury Greenbook approach

The shift in geographical allocation of investment in housing is mirrored by the fact that a number of housing programmes now sit as part of the National Productivity Fund – money which is allocated using Cost Benefit Analyses as per the Treasury’s Greenbook.

Research has consistently found that the current Green Book appraisal methodology is skewed towards investment in higher value areas leading to growth predominantly in already productive areas[11]. This exacerbates regional disparities across the country.

In particular, given that northern land values are drastically lower than those in the South-East, this counts against the north when funding is being allocated. AN urgent review of appraisal methodology is required to ensure that it fully recognises the longer-term benefits of investment in lower value areas and moves away from crude measures predominantly affordability rations and land value uplift.

 

 

 


[1] http://www.homesforthenorth.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/The-Changing-Spatial-Distribution-of-Housing-Investment-1998-to-2022_30Aug19_High-Res-Screen.pdf

 

[2] Homes for the North (2018) Rebalancing the Economy: Building the Northern Homes We Need

[3] Savills (2019) Additionality of Affordable Housing, Research Report to G15, NHF and H4N

[4] Savills (2019) Additionality of Affordable Housing, Research Report to G15, NHF and H4N

[5] Savills (2019) Additionality of Affordable Housing, Research Report to G15, NHF and H4N

[6] Bramley, G. (2018) Housing supply requirements across Great Britain: for low-income households and homeless people, Research report for Crisis and National Housing Federation

[7] MHCLG (2019), Independent review of build out: final report, Sir Oliver Letwin

[8] MHCLG (2019), Independent review of build out: final report, Sir Oliver Letwin

[9] NAO (2019) Planning for New Homes

[10] NAO (2019) Planning for New Homes

[11] Coyle, D. & Sensier, M. (2018) ‘The Imperial Treasury: appraisal methodology and regional economic performance in the UK’