A typical home in England costs 7.6 times annual pay.

Provisional single-reviewer assessments from the 6 October 2026 review; not approved business cases, and not government policy.

• Homes built, not just permitted■Delivery RAG: Red

  Funded now

  Not yet stated in the record.

  The change assessed

  Not yet defined.

  Range if completed: 14.0–20.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))

• Settled homes for families in temporary accommodation▲Delivery RAG: Amber

  Funded now

  The Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026–2036 (£39bn envelope) made its first allocations on 25 August 2026 (£9.58bn to 33 strategic partners outside London; more than £16bn outside London and around £5bn in London still to allocate), under the Burnham government; its aim is supply, especially social rent, with temporary accommodation a stated use only for limited acquisitions. The dedicated temporary-accommodation capital route is the separate Local Authority Housing Fund, not assessed here. Linking awards to temporary-accommodation outcomes is a UK Facts proposal.

  The change assessed

  A buy/build/lease comparison against temporary accommodation, and awards tied to lettings.

  Range if completed: 19.0–22.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co))

• Prevent avoidable loss of rented homes▲Delivery RAG: Amber

  Funded now

  Funded baseline: the 56-day prevention duty (extended to section 8 notices from 1 May 2026), the Homelessness, Rough Sleeping and Domestic Abuse Grant (£885.0m in 2026–27), the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service and a £16m Legal Support Grant (October 2026 to March 2029). Testing a defined early-advice offer against comparison areas is a UK Facts proposal, not government policy.

  The change assessed

  Test early rent-arrears/legal advice and targeted assistance for a defined at-risk cohort before homelessness occurs.

  Range if completed: 16.0–22.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))

• Protect flood-defence maintenance and appraise schemes by risk▲Delivery RAG: Amber

  Funded now

  The Starmer government committed £7.9bn over ten years and £4.2bn for 2026–27 to 2028–29 (16 June 2025) and consulted on a simpler way to bid for flood-defence funding. Allocating against the 2024 risk assessment, protecting maintenance and publishing homes better protected against that map each year are a UK Facts proposal; whether the Burnham government has kept the settlement unchanged is not confirmed here.

  The change assessed

  Separate maintenance of existing protection from long-lead new defences and assess each against local exposure.

  Range if completed: 15.0–21.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))

Alternatives already on record: 34 options listed under the points in the position today (24 without an action record), and 2 earlier options under other options compared. They have not been scored in the review.

Which quadrant a point sits in is our analytical judgement, not a statistical category. Each point says whether it is a measured fact, our synthesis or a risk.

Provisional single-reviewer assessments from the 6 October 2026 review; not approved business cases, and not government policy.

• A01v2■Delivery RAG: RedGate: pending

  Homes built, not just permitted

  A new scope of action A01 (A01v2); A01 itself is unchanged and nothing is inherited from it.

  Provisional single-reviewer assessment; not an approved business case.

  Who and where

  Population not yet defined. Jurisdiction: not defined.

  Result so far

  Range if completed: 14.0–20.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))

  Funded now (baseline)

  Funded baseline not yet stated

  The change assessed (marginal)

  Marginal change not yet defined

  • Domain home: Housing
  • In the national plan: Growth and prosperity list
  • Previous version: NP5: Publish what is ready to build — projects and housing sites — with each blocker’s owner and cost (4 October 2026 slate, superseded 7 October 2026).

  What the evidence supports—and the next decision

  Permissions are not completions. Infrastructure, finance, build-out and tenure determine whether an additional permission becomes a useful home.

  Codex — AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.

  Define the change

  Choose named stalled sites, identify the binding constraint and compare infrastructure support, acquisition, contractual build-out and no additional intervention.

  Test whether it works

  Additional occupied homes by tenure and date, relative to the site’s funded baseline; track displacement from neighbouring sites and affordability of the completed homes.

  Establish the cost

  Land, enabling works, finance, construction, subsidy, maintenance and the public share of risk. Keep grant, loans and guarantees distinct.

  Protect against harm

  Retain building safety, environmental mitigation and affordability obligations; do not book the whole national housing ambition as the effect of this option.

  Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.

  Full assessment of Homes built, not just permitted: ten criteria, scenarios, delivery, costs and monitoring

  The ten criteria (0–3)

  Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 by the reviewer. “Not yet assessed” means unknown: it is never counted as zero.

  1. Scale and severity (Sc)3 of 3 — Severe harm across a broad population

     Reviewer’s reason: Provisional problem-importance judgement from linked site pages; not the scale of achievable benefit.

  2. Increment beyond baseline (Ad)2 of 3 — Specific material change to existing delivery

     Reviewer’s reason: Select sites; resolve land, planning, utilities, transport and viability; commission tenure mix and delivery agreements. A missing rating requires a defined marginal change.

  3. Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)1 of 3 — Indirect, mixed, modelled or weak causal support

     Reviewer’s reason: Housing constraints and modelled supply responses support the case; no evaluated national effect for this exact site-unblocking package.

  4. Expected incremental benefit (Bn)Not yet assessed

     Reviewer’s reason: Unknown unless a reasonably defined target-population benefit can be judged; no bonus merely for spanning domains.

  5. Residual harms (Hm)1 of 3 — Material harm/unresolved mitigation

     Reviewer’s reason: Binding construction/infrastructure constraints; environmental and displacement harms.

  6. Incremental affordability (Co)Not yet assessed

     Reviewer’s reason: Site-level land, infrastructure, finance, construction, affordable-housing subsidy and maintenance.

  7. Delivery capacity (Ca)1 of 3 — Binding scarce resource

     Reviewer’s reason: Select sites; resolve land, planning, utilities, transport and viability; commission tenure mix and delivery agreements.

  8. Distribution (Fa)2 of 3 — Mixed or broadly neutral with safeguards

     Reviewer’s reason: Provisional distribution judgement for the stated target; verify who pays, who gains and excluded groups.

  9. Meaningful first outcome (Ti)2 of 3 — More than one and up to three years

     Reviewer’s reason: First meaningful outcome, not announcement: Net additional completed and occupied homes, affordability and displacement.

  10. Readiness (Rd)2 of 3 — Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step

      Reviewer’s reason: Planning authorities, housing bodies, developers and utilities; devolved responsibility; Site-specific investment appraisal

  Four weightings

  Normalised as 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights, on a 0–30 scale. Where a criterion is not yet assessed, the range is the lowest and highest result if it were later scored 0 or 3 — not a score, a confidence interval or a rank.

  • Equal weights: Range if completed: 14.0–20.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Evidence doubled: Range if completed: 13.6–19.1 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Scale doubled: Range if completed: 15.5–20.9 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Cost ignored (the funding gate still applies): Range if completed: 15.6–18.9 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.

  Funding gate: Not passed — the cost is not yet assessed or no allocation is committed for this scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate.

  Delivery RAG and gate

  ■Delivery RAG shown: RedReview’s claim: Red. Best the recorded evidence allows: Red.

  Review’s reason: Binding construction/infrastructure constraints; environmental and displacement harms.

  Why it is not Green yet

  • Delivery obstacle: Binding construction/infrastructure constraints; environmental and displacement harms..
  • Scope (population, place and increment) not verified against the delivery baseline.
  • No verified owner with the powers in place.
  • Delivery capacity not verified.
  • Lifetime incremental costs not complete.
  • No credible funding (a committed allocation for the scope).
  • Safeguards not specified.
  • Monitoring lacks a metric, a data source or a baseline.

  Green needs verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs with credible funding, specified safeguards and monitoring with a metric, source and baseline. Amber means appraisal gaps remain; Red means a material delivery obstacle. Red does not mean unimportant.

  Gate: Pending — appraisal incomplete (review label: “Pending: incomplete appraisal”).

  Why: Scores incomplete; Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).

  The gate is separate from national list membership: being listed does not make an option eligible, and an eligible option need not be listed.

  Cost and funding

  Lifetime costing: Not established. Review: “Full incremental costing not established in reviewed material”.

  Still to cost: Site-level land, infrastructure, finance, construction, affordable-housing subsidy and maintenance.

  Funding status: not established in review.

  Owner, powers and capacity

  Proposed owner: Planning authorities, housing bodies, developers and utilities; devolved responsibility (proposed, unverified).

  Powers: needs a decision or allocation. Capacity: binding constraint.

  Powers and capacity read from the review’s Rd and Ca anchors; no proposed owner has agreed to act (the review: “Proposed owners have not agreed to act”).

  England:

  not assessed

  Scotland:

  not assessed

  Wales:

  not assessed

  Northern Ireland:

  not assessed

  Not defined in the review.

  Dependencies, safeguards and risks

  Depends on: None recorded.

  Safeguards

  None specified yet.

  Risks and residual harms: Binding construction/infrastructure constraints; environmental and displacement harms.

  Monitoring and measured results

  Metric: Net additional completed and occupied homes, affordability and displacement.

  Data source: Not yet named. Baseline: Not yet established.

  Measures already on the domain page

  • Net additional homes: latest 208,600 (2024–25); baseline 248,591 (2019–20) (England).

  A page measure is not necessarily the review’s metric; linking the two is an editorial decision still to be made.

  Evidence for the outcome

  Outcome: Net additional completed and occupied homes, affordability and displacement.

  Housing constraints and modelled supply responses support the case; no evaluated national effect for this exact site-unblocking package.

  SWOT points it addresses

  • England added 208,600 homes, against about 300,000 a year implied by the government’s 1.5 million ambition.
  • The planning reforms are in force: the National Planning Policy Framework was revised in December 2024 and replaced by a new version on 17 August 2026, and the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 became law on 18 December 2025. Their effect on the number of homes built has not yet been observed.
  • Build-cost inflation, shortages of materials and labour, stretched planning teams and delays with utilities can mean fewer completions than planned — as the NAO found for the last programme.

  Review record

  Assessment version: working-review-2026-10-06 (A01v2@working-review-2026-10-06).

  Reviewer: Author of the review blueprint (single reviewer, not named in uk-facts-complete-plan.json). Reviewed: 6 October 2026.

  Scored in the working review of 6 October 2026 on the shared ten-criterion scale (one reviewer); not independently calibrated.

  First 90 days (review): Produce a signed scope and current-delivery baseline; Select sites; resolve land, planning, utilities, transport and viability; commission tenure mix and delivery agreements. Obtain incremental costs and an accountable decision before expansion.

  Decision route: Site-specific investment appraisal

  An editorial screening framework by one reviewer, not a formal appraisal or business case. Proposed owners have not agreed to act.

• A02▲Delivery RAG: AmberGate: pending

  Settled homes for families in temporary accommodation

  Existing action A02, assessed at the same scope.

  Provisional single-reviewer assessment; not an approved business case.

  Who and where

  Homeless households in temporary accommodation, and households on social-housing waiting lists, in England. (from the action record) Jurisdiction: England.

  Result so far

  Range if completed: 19.0–22.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co))

  Funded now (baseline)

  The Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026–2036 (£39bn envelope) made its first allocations on 25 August 2026 (£9.58bn to 33 strategic partners outside London; more than £16bn outside London and around £5bn in London still to allocate), under the Burnham government; its aim is supply, especially social rent, with temporary accommodation a stated use only for limited acquisitions. The dedicated temporary-accommodation capital route is the separate Local Authority Housing Fund, not assessed here. Linking awards to temporary-accommodation outcomes is a UK Facts proposal. (from the action record)

  The change assessed (marginal)

  A buy/build/lease comparison against temporary accommodation, and awards tied to lettings. (from the superseded 4 October selection table)

  • Domain home: Housing
  • In the national plan: Equality and opportunity list
  • Previous version: NP1: Buy or build social-rent homes for households in temporary accommodation (4 October 2026 slate, superseded 7 October 2026).

  What the evidence supports—and the next decision

  Temporary accommodation counts establish need, not which purchase, build or lease option provides best value. Supported housing may require continuing support.

  Codex — AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.

  Define the change

  Compare named buy, build and lease options for a defined council cohort with the actual temporary-accommodation alternative.

  Test whether it works

  Settled suitable tenancies sustained at 6 and 12 months, school continuity, repeat homelessness and resident experience.

  Establish the cost

  Acquisition or building, financing, repairs, rent, maintenance and support minus actual avoidable temporary-accommodation costs. Distinguish cash savings from costs shifted to another agency.

  Protect against harm

  Check suitability, location and support; avoid displacing other homeless households or closing poor provision without safe alternatives.

  • MHCLG and DWP: supported housing oversight response →

  Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.

  Full assessment of Settled homes for families in temporary accommodation: ten criteria, scenarios, delivery, costs and monitoring

  The ten criteria (0–3)

  Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 by the reviewer. “Not yet assessed” means unknown: it is never counted as zero.

  1. Scale and severity (Sc)3 of 3 — Severe harm across a broad population

     Reviewer’s reason: Provisional problem-importance judgement from linked site pages; not the scale of achievable benefit.

  2. Increment beyond baseline (Ad)2 of 3 — Specific material change to existing delivery

     Reviewer’s reason: Define families and locations; compare acquisition, lease and new build; inspect standards; secure lettings and tenancy support. A missing rating requires a defined marginal change.

  3. Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)1 of 3 — Indirect, mixed, modelled or weak causal support

     Reviewer’s reason: US subsidy evidence supports housing stability but does not establish UK acquisition/build effects or local value for money.

  4. Expected incremental benefit (Bn)3 of 3 — Large for the target population; no multi-domain bonus

     Reviewer’s reason: Unknown unless a reasonably defined target-population benefit can be judged; no bonus merely for spanning domains.

     ! Reason and score disagree — under review

  5. Residual harms (Hm)2 of 3 — Manageable harm with specified safeguards

     Reviewer’s reason: Competition with other buyers; displacement; unsuitable location/condition.

  6. Incremental affordability (Co)Not yet assessed

     Reviewer’s reason: Capital, finance, refurbishment, rent, maintenance, support and actual avoided temporary-accommodation costs.

  7. Delivery capacity (Ca)1 of 3 — Binding scarce resource

     Reviewer’s reason: Define families and locations; compare acquisition, lease and new build; inspect standards; secure lettings and tenancy support.

  8. Distribution (Fa)3 of 3 — Benefits concentrated on disadvantaged people with assessed burdens

     Reviewer’s reason: Provisional distribution judgement for the stated target; verify who pays, who gains and excluded groups.

  9. Meaningful first outcome (Ti)2 of 3 — More than one and up to three years

     Reviewer’s reason: First meaningful outcome, not announcement: Sustained settled housing, repeat homelessness and household wellbeing.

  10. Readiness (Rd)2 of 3 — Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step

      Reviewer’s reason: Councils and housing providers; relevant national housing bodies; Local buy/build/lease comparison

  Four weightings

  Normalised as 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights, on a 0–30 scale. Where a criterion is not yet assessed, the range is the lowest and highest result if it were later scored 0 or 3 — not a score, a confidence interval or a rank.

  • Equal weights: Range if completed: 19.0–22.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Evidence doubled: Range if completed: 18.2–20.9 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Scale doubled: Range if completed: 20.0–22.7 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Cost ignored (the funding gate still applies): Range if completed: 21.1–21.1 out of 30. Not yet assessed: incremental affordability (Co). The missing criteria carry no weight here, so the ends meet; the record is still incomplete. Funding gate: not passed.

  Funding gate: Not passed — the cost is not yet assessed or no allocation is committed for this scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate.

  Delivery RAG and gate

  ▲Delivery RAG shown: AmberReview’s claim: Amber. Best the recorded evidence allows: Amber.

  Review’s reason: Capital, finance, refurbishment, rent, maintenance, support and actual avoided temporary-accommodation costs.

  Why it is not Green yet

  • Scope (population, place and increment) not verified against the delivery baseline.
  • No verified owner with the powers in place.
  • Delivery capacity not verified.
  • Lifetime incremental costs not complete.
  • No credible funding (a committed allocation for the scope).
  • Safeguards not specified.
  • Monitoring lacks a metric, a data source or a baseline.

  Green needs verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs with credible funding, specified safeguards and monitoring with a metric, source and baseline. Amber means appraisal gaps remain; Red means a material delivery obstacle. Red does not mean unimportant.

  Gate: Pending — appraisal incomplete (review label: “Pending: incomplete appraisal”).

  Why: Scores incomplete; Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).

  The gate is separate from national list membership: being listed does not make an option eligible, and an eligible option need not be listed.

  Cost and funding

  Lifetime costing: Partial — some lines costed, no whole-life total. Review: “Full incremental costing not established in reviewed material”.

  • Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026–2036 (programme envelope) (published programme envelope; C-SAHP-ENVELOPE)
  • Grant, borrowing, rent, maintenance and infrastructure for a named scheme (not costed; C-A02-SCHEME)

  Still to cost: Capital, finance, refurbishment, rent, maintenance, support and actual avoided temporary-accommodation costs.

  Funding status: programme route, not allocated.

  Owner, powers and capacity

  Proposed owner: Councils and housing providers; relevant national housing bodies (proposed, unverified).

  Powers: needs a decision or allocation. Capacity: binding constraint.

  Powers and capacity read from the review’s Rd and Ca anchors; no proposed owner has agreed to act (the review: “Proposed owners have not agreed to act”).

  England:

  Homes England and the GLA (awards), with councils and housing associations (action record)

  Scotland:

  not assessed

  Wales:

  not assessed

  Northern Ireland:

  not assessed

  Housing is devolved; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have separate programmes, not assessed here.

  Dependencies, safeguards and risks

  Depends on: None recorded.

  Safeguards

  None specified yet.

  Risks and residual harms: Competition with other buyers; displacement; unsuitable location/condition.

  Monitoring and measured results

  Metric: Sustained settled housing, repeat homelessness and household wellbeing.

  Data source: Not yet named. Baseline: Not yet established.

  Measures already on the domain page

  • Households in temporary accommodation: latest 135,580 (March 2026); baseline not published (England).

  A page measure is not necessarily the review’s metric; linking the two is an editorial decision still to be made.

  Evidence for the outcome

  Outcome: Sustained settled housing, repeat homelessness and household wellbeing.

  US subsidy evidence supports housing stability but does not establish UK acquisition/build effects or local value for money.

  Effect records for this action

  • Households leaving temporary accommodation: size not established (plausible spillover, limited confidence; England)
  • Income after housing costs of households moving into a social-rent home: size not established (plausible spillover, limited confidence; England)
  • Stability of home and school for children leaving temporary accommodation: size not established (plausible spillover, limited confidence; England)

  SWOT points it addresses

  • 135,580 households, including 177,530 children, were in temporary accommodation.
  • A ten-year, £39bn Social and Affordable Homes Programme aims for around 300,000 homes with at least 60% for social rent; the first £9.58bn went to 33 strategic partners outside London on 25 August 2026, with more than £16bn outside London and around £5bn in London still to allocate.
  • Pairing deliverable sites with the new social-rent programme could turn grant into lettings for households in temporary accommodation.

  Review record

  Assessment version: working-review-2026-10-06 (A02@working-review-2026-10-06).

  Reviewer: Author of the review blueprint (single reviewer, not named in uk-facts-complete-plan.json). Reviewed: 6 October 2026.

  Scored in the working review of 6 October 2026 on the shared ten-criterion scale (one reviewer); not independently calibrated.

  First 90 days (review): Produce a signed scope and current-delivery baseline; Define families and locations; compare acquisition, lease and new build; inspect standards; secure lettings and tenancy support. Obtain incremental costs and an accountable decision before expansion.

  Decision route: Local buy/build/lease comparison

  An earlier assessment exists on the 4 October 2026 selection table (nine H/M/L bands; superseded 7 October 2026). Its bands are kept, not converted into these scores.

  An editorial screening framework by one reviewer, not a formal appraisal or business case. Proposed owners have not agreed to act.

• A74▲Delivery RAG: AmberGate: pending

  Prevent avoidable loss of rented homes

  Existing action A74, assessed at the same scope.

  Not stated in the review record; treated as a provisional single-reviewer assessment, not an approved business case.

  Who and where

  Private and social renters in England threatened with homelessness through a notice or rent arrears, in defined council areas, before a prevention duty would otherwise fail. (from the action record) Jurisdiction: England.

  Result so far

  Range if completed: 16.0–22.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))

  Funded now (baseline)

  Funded baseline: the 56-day prevention duty (extended to section 8 notices from 1 May 2026), the Homelessness, Rough Sleeping and Domestic Abuse Grant (£885.0m in 2026–27), the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service and a £16m Legal Support Grant (October 2026 to March 2029). Testing a defined early-advice offer against comparison areas is a UK Facts proposal, not government policy. (from the action record)

  The change assessed (marginal)

  Test early rent-arrears/legal advice and targeted assistance for a defined at-risk cohort before homelessness occurs. (from the 6 October review)

  • Domain home: Housing
  • In the national plan: Related option, assessed separately

  What the evidence supports—and the next decision

  Prevention-duty outcomes describe households served; they do not measure how many tenancies a new advice service would additionally save.

  Codex — AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.

  Define the change

  Test early legal and money advice for a specified arrears or eviction-risk cohort beyond the existing prevention duty and funded advice.

  Test whether it works

  Suitable tenancies sustained, repeat homelessness, court outcomes and temporary accommodation at 6 and 12 months, compared with similar households.

  Establish the cost

  Advice, staff, targeted assistance and follow-up minus verified avoidable accommodation costs; grants and transfers need separate accounting.

  Protect against harm

  Do not sustain unsafe tenancies or exclude complex households to improve the success rate.

  Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.

  Full assessment of Prevent avoidable loss of rented homes: ten criteria, scenarios, delivery, costs and monitoring

  The ten criteria (0–3)

  Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 by the reviewer. “Not yet assessed” means unknown: it is never counted as zero.

  1. Scale and severity (Sc)3 of 3 — Severe harm across a broad population

  2. Increment beyond baseline (Ad)2 of 3 — Specific material change to existing delivery

  3. Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)1 of 3 — Indirect, mixed, modelled or weak causal support

  4. Expected incremental benefit (Bn)Not yet assessed

  5. Residual harms (Hm)1 of 3 — Material harm/unresolved mitigation

  6. Incremental affordability (Co)Not yet assessed

  7. Delivery capacity (Ca)2 of 3 — Stretched but plausibly obtainable

  8. Distribution (Fa)3 of 3 — Benefits concentrated on disadvantaged people with assessed burdens

  9. Meaningful first outcome (Ti)2 of 3 — More than one and up to three years

  10. Readiness (Rd)2 of 3 — Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step

  Four weightings

  Normalised as 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights, on a 0–30 scale. Where a criterion is not yet assessed, the range is the lowest and highest result if it were later scored 0 or 3 — not a score, a confidence interval or a rank.

  • Equal weights: Range if completed: 16.0–22.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Evidence doubled: Range if completed: 15.5–20.9 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Scale doubled: Range if completed: 17.3–22.7 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Cost ignored (the funding gate still applies): Range if completed: 17.8–21.1 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.

  Funding gate: Not passed — the cost is not yet assessed or no allocation is committed for this scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate.

  Delivery RAG and gate

  ▲Delivery RAG shown: AmberReview’s claim: Amber. Best the recorded evidence allows: Amber.

  Review’s reason: Define arrears/risk trigger, legal advice and assistance design; cost staff, grants and sustained tenancies. Assess additional prevention against existing duties. Proposed owners: councils, housing/advice providers and landlords.

  Why it is not Green yet

  • Scope (population, place and increment) not verified against the delivery baseline.
  • No verified owner with the powers in place.
  • Delivery capacity not verified.
  • Lifetime incremental costs not complete.
  • No credible funding (a committed allocation for the scope).
  • Safeguards not specified.
  • Monitoring lacks a metric, a data source or a baseline.

  Green needs verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs with credible funding, specified safeguards and monitoring with a metric, source and baseline. Amber means appraisal gaps remain; Red means a material delivery obstacle. Red does not mean unimportant.

  Gate: Pending — appraisal incomplete (review label: “Pending baseline verification, incremental costing and funding; not a rollout approval”).

  Why: Scores incomplete; Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).

  The gate is separate from national list membership: being listed does not make an option eligible, and an eligible option need not be listed.

  Cost and funding

  Lifetime costing: Not established. Review: “Not fully costed in this review”.

  Still to cost: Define arrears/risk trigger, legal advice and assistance design; cost staff, grants and sustained tenancies. Assess additional prevention against existing duties. Proposed owners: councils, housing/advice providers and landlords.

  Funding status: not identified.

  Owner, powers and capacity

  Proposed owner: councils, housing/advice providers and landlords (proposed, unverified).

  Powers: needs a decision or allocation. Capacity: unverified.

  Powers and capacity read from the review’s Rd and Ca anchors; no proposed owner has agreed to act (the review: “Proposed owners have not agreed to act”).

  England:

  Councils (Housing Act 1996 Part 7 prevention duty), with MHCLG and the Ministry of Justice (legal aid and the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service) (action record)

  Scotland:

  not assessed

  Wales:

  not assessed

  Northern Ireland:

  not assessed

  Wales created the prevention duty model (Housing (Wales) Act 2014 s.66); Scotland has new prevention duties (Housing (Scotland) Act 2025 Part 5); Northern Ireland’s Housing Executive delivers homelessness services. Not assessed.

  Dependencies, safeguards and risks

  Depends on: None recorded.

  Safeguards

  None specified yet.

  Monitoring and measured results

  Metric: Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

  Data source: Not yet named. Baseline: Not yet established.

  Measures already on the domain page

  • Prevention duties ending with accommodation secured for six months or more: latest 54.7% (19,230 of 35,130) (January–March 2026); baseline not published (England).

  A page measure is not necessarily the review’s metric; linking the two is an editorial decision still to be made.

  Evidence for the outcome

  Outcome: Define and baseline the outcome described in delivery requirements before approval.

  UK prevention evaluations and tenancy-sustainment reviews offer relevant but limited transfer evidence. Do not import Housing First effects into general renter advice.

  Sources: gov.uk (not yet in the source register)

  SWOT points it addresses

  • Prevention works for just over half of households: of 35,130 prevention duties that ended in January–March 2026, 54.7% ended with a home secured for six months or more and 25% became homeless. The end of a private tenancy was the most common reason among the 39,200 households owed a duty (36.0%).

  Review record

  Assessment version: working-review-2026-10-06 (A74@working-review-2026-10-06).

  Reviewer: Author of the review blueprint (single reviewer, not named in uk-facts-complete-plan.json). Reviewed: 6 October 2026.

  Scored in the working review of 6 October 2026 on the shared ten-criterion scale (one reviewer); not independently calibrated.

  An editorial screening framework by one reviewer, not a formal appraisal or business case. Proposed owners have not agreed to act.

• A54▲Delivery RAG: AmberGate: pending

  Protect flood-defence maintenance and appraise schemes by risk

  Existing action A54, assessed at the same scope.

  Provisional single-reviewer desk assessment, 6 October 2026.

  Who and where

  Households and businesses in areas of England at risk of flooding from rivers, the sea and surface water, especially those at high risk. (from the action record) Jurisdiction: England.

  Result so far

  Range if completed: 15.0–21.0 out of 30 (equal weights; not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co))

  Funded now (baseline)

  The Starmer government committed £7.9bn over ten years and £4.2bn for 2026–27 to 2028–29 (16 June 2025) and consulted on a simpler way to bid for flood-defence funding. Allocating against the 2024 risk assessment, protecting maintenance and publishing homes better protected against that map each year are a UK Facts proposal; whether the Burnham government has kept the settlement unchanged is not confirmed here. (from the action record)

  The change assessed (marginal)

  Separate maintenance of existing protection from long-lead new defences and assess each against local exposure. (from the 6 October review)

  • Domain home: Housing
  • In the national plan: Resilience and sustainability appraisal queue

  What the evidence supports—and the next decision

  Flood protection is a risk-management decision. A year without a flood is not evidence of effectiveness, and one historic funding gap is not today’s national bill.

  Codex — AI-assisted analytical follow-up · 8 October 2026. Proposed appraisal design; the attributed scores below are unchanged. No funding or delivery agreement is implied.

  Define the change

  Separate maintenance of existing assets from a named new scheme; define exposure, failure probability and the do-minimum option.

  Test whether it works

  Asset condition and modelled expected damage under alternative climate and failure scenarios, with observed performance when events occur.

  Establish the cost

  Whole-life capital, maintenance, renewal, land and residual risk; test uncertainty in damage avoided and property exposure.

  Protect against harm

  Assess downstream effects, vulnerable communities, nature and residual-risk communication.

  • NAO: resilience to flooding →

  Read with the outcome evidence and sources in the full assessment. Monitoring proposals are not existing baseline measurements. A numerical benefit or cost score needs evidence for the defined increment, not just the scale of the problem.

  Full assessment of Protect flood-defence maintenance and appraise schemes by risk: ten criteria, scenarios, delivery, costs and monitoring

  The ten criteria (0–3)

  Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 by the reviewer. “Not yet assessed” means unknown: it is never counted as zero.

  1. Scale and severity (Sc)3 of 3 — Severe harm across a broad population

     Reviewer’s reason: Problem scale judged from the linked domain evidence; not a population estimate of those helped.

  2. Increment beyond baseline (Ad)2 of 3 — Specific material change to existing delivery

     Reviewer’s reason: Separate maintenance of existing protection from long-lead new defences and assess each against local exposure. This is a provisional marginal-change judgement, to confirm against commissioned delivery.

  3. Confidence in the proposed action (Ev)1 of 3 — Indirect, mixed, modelled or weak causal support

     Reviewer’s reason: Risk maps and audits justify attention; they are not experimental proof of a uniform policy effect.

  4. Expected incremental benefit (Bn)Not yet assessed

     Reviewer’s reason: Unknown: no sufficiently supported magnitude for this exact change.

  5. Residual harms (Hm)2 of 3 — Manageable harm with specified safeguards

     Reviewer’s reason: Residual risk, false assurance and displacement of water or spending to other places.

  6. Incremental affordability (Co)Not yet assessed

     Reviewer’s reason: Unknown: the proposed increment has not been costed and matched to an approved affordable allocation in this review. Existing programme envelopes are not that allocation.

  7. Delivery capacity (Ca)1 of 3 — Binding scarce resource

     Reviewer’s reason: Use engineering and risk appraisal; low trial evidence is not grounds to leave essential protection unmanaged.

  8. Distribution (Fa)2 of 3 — Mixed or broadly neutral with safeguards

     Reviewer’s reason: Distribution assessed against the target group and the burdens described here: Residual risk, false assurance and displacement of water or spending to other places.

  9. Meaningful first outcome (Ti)2 of 3 — More than one and up to three years

     Reviewer’s reason: Timing judgement concerns the first meaningful outcome in: Asset condition; modelled protection standard; observed flood harm when events occur. It does not imply all long-term benefits arrive then.

  10. Readiness (Rd)2 of 3 — Named commissioning/allocation/coordination step

      Reviewer’s reason: List safety/maintenance gaps, cost them and appraise new schemes using expected damage and distribution. Owner: Defra, Environment Agency and local partners in England.

  Four weightings

  Normalised as 10 × weighted sum ÷ sum of weights, on a 0–30 scale. Where a criterion is not yet assessed, the range is the lowest and highest result if it were later scored 0 or 3 — not a score, a confidence interval or a rank.

  • Equal weights: Range if completed: 15.0–21.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Evidence doubled: Range if completed: 14.5–20.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Scale doubled: Range if completed: 16.4–21.8 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.
  • Cost ignored (the funding gate still applies): Range if completed: 16.7–20.0 out of 30. Not yet assessed: expected incremental benefit (Bn), incremental affordability (Co). Funding gate: not passed.

  Funding gate: Not passed — the cost is not yet assessed or no allocation is committed for this scope. Ignoring cost in a weighting never removes the gate.

  Delivery RAG and gate

  ▲Delivery RAG shown: AmberReview’s claim: Amber. Best the recorded evidence allows: Amber.

  Review’s reason: Incremental lifetime costs and funding not established. Use engineering and risk appraisal; low trial evidence is not grounds to leave essential protection unmanaged.

  Why it is not Green yet

  • Scope (population, place and increment) not verified against the delivery baseline.
  • No verified owner with the powers in place.
  • Delivery capacity not verified.
  • Lifetime incremental costs not complete.
  • No credible funding (a committed allocation for the scope).
  • Safeguards not specified.
  • Monitoring lacks a metric, a data source or a baseline.

  Green needs verified scope, a verified owner with the powers, verified capacity, complete lifetime costs with credible funding, specified safeguards and monitoring with a metric, source and baseline. Amber means appraisal gaps remain; Red means a material delivery obstacle. Red does not mean unimportant.

  Gate: Pending — appraisal incomplete (review label: “Pending cost, funding, scope and capacity appraisal”).

  Why: Scores incomplete; Funding gate not passed (cost unknown or no credible funding).

  The gate is separate from national list membership: being listed does not make an option eligible, and an eligible option need not be listed.

  Cost and funding

  Lifetime costing: Partial — some lines costed, no whole-life total.

  • Flood and coastal erosion risk management programme 2026–27 to 2028–29 (programme envelope) (published programme envelope; C-FLOOD-2629)

  Still to cost: Incremental lifetime costs and funding not established. Use engineering and risk appraisal; low trial evidence is not grounds to leave essential protection unmanaged.

  Funding status: programme route, not allocated.

  Owner, powers and capacity

  Proposed owner: Defra, Environment Agency and local partners in England. (proposed, unverified).

  Powers: needs a decision or allocation. Capacity: binding constraint.

  Powers and capacity read from the review’s Rd and Ca anchors; no proposed owner has agreed to act (the review: “Proposed owners have not agreed to act”).

  England:

  Defra and the Environment Agency, with HM Treasury; lead local flood authorities for surface water (action record)

  Scotland:

  not assessed

  Wales:

  not assessed

  Northern Ireland:

  not assessed

  Flood risk management is devolved: Natural Resources Wales, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and councils, and the Department for Infrastructure (Rivers) in Northern Ireland run their own programmes; not reviewed here.

  Dependencies, safeguards and risks

  Depends on: Use engineering and risk appraisal; low trial evidence is not grounds to leave essential protection unmanaged.

  Safeguards

  • low trial evidence is not grounds to leave essential protection unmanaged (proposed, not yet specified)
  • Separate maintenance of existing protection from long-lead new defences and assess each against local exposure (proposed, not yet specified)

  Risks and residual harms: Residual risk, false assurance and displacement of water or spending to other places.

  Monitoring and measured results

  Metric: Asset condition; modelled protection standard; observed flood harm when events occur.

  Data source: Not yet named. Baseline: Not yet established.

  Measures already on the domain page

  • Properties in areas at risk of flooding from rivers, the sea or surface water: latest about 6.3 million (2024 national assessment); baseline not published (England).

  A page measure is not necessarily the review’s metric; linking the two is an editorial decision still to be made.

  Evidence for the outcome

  Outcome: Asset condition; modelled protection standard; observed flood harm when events occur.

  Risk maps and audits justify attention; they are not experimental proof of a uniform policy effect.

  SWOT points it addresses

  • About 6.3 million properties in England are in areas at risk of flooding from rivers, the sea or surface water; with climate change the Environment Agency projects around 8 million — 1 in 4 properties — by mid-century.
  • Infrastructure and services are not being adapted to the climate already arriving: the Climate Change Committee judged the UK’s preparations inadequate and found no adaptation outcome, of the 46 it assessed, with evidence of good delivery. (Growth & productivity)
  • Water and the sea are local risks now: in late September 2026 Southern Water was at drought level 1 in its Hampshire and Isle of Wight supply zones with temporary use bans in force, and in Portsmouth 8,077 homes and 704 commercial properties in Southsea are at risk from coastal flooding, which a coastal scheme funded in 2020 is being built to reduce. (Hampshire)

  Review record

  Assessment version: working-review-2026-10-06 (A54@working-review-2026-10-06).

  Reviewer: Author of the review blueprint (single reviewer, not named in uk-facts-complete-plan.json). Reviewed: 6 October 2026.

  Carried from the earlier domain review (C record): must be calibrated jointly with the G/W/E/NG/NW/NE records before any combined comparison.

  Decision route: List safety/maintenance gaps, cost them and appraise new schemes using expected damage and distribution.

  An earlier assessment exists on the 4 October 2026 selection table (nine H/M/L bands; superseded 7 October 2026). Its bands are kept, not converted into these scores.

  An editorial screening framework by one reviewer, not a formal appraisal or business case. Proposed owners have not agreed to act.