Brownfield first could unlock more than 300,000 homes in the North

The first finding is that word ‘devolution’. We heard that, from the perspective of MCAs, it felt far more like a delegated fund, with strict Whitehall-imposed timelines and value-for-money rules restricting local flexibility and genuine control over which projects can be supported on the ground.

Second, the timescales need to reflect the reality of trying to plan strategically and unlock complex sites. In the case of regeneration projects, this can easily take up to 10 years, especially where there are complex ownership issues and land contaminated by heavy industry. Long-term funding for regeneration is a must if we want to unlock the most challenging sites and deliver the homes we need to as a country.

There are plenty of flexibilities we can build into programmes, including required milestones, clear delivery plans, and the ability to grant extensions to support this sort of long-term strategic planning within government processes, as set out in the recent Homes England Public Bodies Review.

Providing long-term funding is critical to attracting further private investment. After all, the core purpose of funds such as the Brownfield Housing Fund is to effectively de-risk brownfield sites in a way that brings in wider investment. The current inability to provide concrete assurances that there will be future funding makes it more difficult for MCAs to do this, thereby restricting new schemes from being identified and progressed.

It’s not just a North/South divide, either. Even within the North, these Whitehall rules mean it’s much easier for sites in Leeds to get funding, while Bradford might get locked out.

There is good news here, which we have highlighted in a paper accompanying our research. The government recently adopted a wider definition of value for money, allowing more factors to be taken into account. Recent research from Homes England on the benefits of regeneration projects is also very helpful. Taken together, this means more sites will be able to be funded if these criteria are applied to new funding.

But we can, and must, go further. One proposal we put forward is to judge the value for money achieved on a programme basis, rather than project by project. This would allow more schemes to be brought forward which are much needed and in line with local strategic priorities, while still ensuring the overall programme delivers value for the taxpayer.

But it’s also really important to recognise what government guidance, through the Treasury’s hallowed Green Book, actually says. The reality is that the current rules imposed on brownfield funding are actually a particularly narrow interpretation of these rules. What the strategy is and how funding can be delivered and managed are just as important as the ‘economic case’ in government parlance.

This leads us back to proper devolution. Let the MCAs identify the strategic priorities. Base the funding on that, give them the time to deliver on the ground, and the flexibility to fund the sites that need funding. Do that, and we can unlock those 320,000 homes.