Request for Proposals: Scope 3 emissions measurement – IIGCC – The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change

Investor practices programme
The Request for Proposals (RFP) document for “Scope 3 emissions measurement” can be downloaded via the link below.
Please also find the Targets and Scope 3 Gap Analysis here.
Please send your proposal via email to Oliver Grayer and Daisy Streatfeild by close of business 16th August.
Your proposal must include details of proven experience and knowledge of emissions accounting and familiarity with the methodologies of various providers. Examples of previous or similar work is welcome.
Policy programme
IIGCC publishes open letter ahead of closing trilogues on the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)
Policy programme
IIGCC response to BEIS updated Green Finance Strategy
Policy programme
IIGCC response to EU “Fit for 55” Package
Policy programme
IIGCC, PRI and UKSIF letter to the UK Prime Minister calling for natural gas to be excluded from the UK’s ‘green taxonomy’
Policy programme
IIGCC response to EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive
Pennine Place
2a Charing Cross Road
London, WC2H 0HF


How to Create an Action Plan: Step-by-Step – The Motley Fool

If you’re on a Galaxy Fold, consider unfolding your phone or viewing it in full screen to best optimize your experience.
Credit Cards
Small Business
by Maricel Rivera | Updated May 26, 2022 – First published on May 18, 2022
Image source: Getty Images
From the weekly email newsletter you send to subscribers to the government permits you obtain to stay in business, certain actions get you from point A to point B — and ultimately help you achieve whatever goal you’ve set.
Forgetting to include a call to action in your newsletter is a wasted opportunity, and if the goal is to get subscribers to buy a product, your email should link to the product page.
As for the business permit, you first must know what type you need. Then, you have to check the requirements in your area to ensure the documents you submit with your application are the right ones.
If you miss — or botch — a critical step, such as embedding the wrong link in the newsletter, you either:
Avoiding costly, time-consuming mistakes and ensuring you don’t overlook anything critical to the job at hand is exactly why you need a well-designed action plan.
What turns a vision statement, your organization’s North Star, from an idea into a reality you can live and breathe? Action.
It’s the same for projects, team management, and even personal goals. You succeed with them because of the actions you take.
But all actions aren’t created equally — some drive success, others sabotage it. With an action plan, you’ll have a document outlining the steps to achieve your goals. It’s a roadmap of your journey to get to where you want to go — whether for a simple, short-term project or other business-related activity.
An action plan typically contains these elements:
An action plan differs from a project management plan in that it’s often used for small, simple projects, whereas complex or long-term projects with an extensive list of stakeholders and deliverable requirements usually follow a more comprehensive project planning process.
A to-do list outlines tasks to complete within a specific period — often, within the day. It’s a useful organization tool, and many people create to-do lists to avoid chasing emails, memos, or post-it notes to stay on top of the day.
An action plan follows specific steps, all leading to achieving one major objective, while to-do lists contain all the tasks that must be completed within a certain period, regardless of importance and whether or not the tasks all point to the same objective.
Follow these guidelines to write an action plan.
Everything starts with a goal. What do you want to achieve? Where are you headed, exactly? Once you know your destination, it’s easier to plot the path to get there. As with goals in general, strive to choose ones that are SMART:
Now that you’ve clarified your goal, you’re ready to list the steps necessary to achieve it. If you’re creating a virtual training program for newly hired salespeople, for example, your list of tasks may include:
Divide large tasks into manageable chunks, as certain tasks may require sub-tasks, and some goals may take more effort to achieve than others.
You want the project done right and the people assigned to it accountable for its outcome. Therefore, allocate the right resources — i.e., the right people with the right skills, the appropriate tools and equipment, etc. — to each task or activity.
Assignments, roles, and duties should be clearly communicated and understood by team members. You want no confusion on who’s responsible for what.
Put a timeline on everything to keep the project from veering off schedule. Activities without a definitive deadline expand or get put on the back burner. Others never get completed.
Include start/end dates, but be sure to coordinate with the person in charge. This way, they can plan their activities better and prioritize tasks according to urgency and importance. Project milestones help divide work into manageable sections and mark critical dates in the timeline. Take advantage of them.
Communicate the action plan with your team. Then, perform routine follow-ups.
The best project management software systems have chat and live feed functions for sharing updates, historical and real-time reporting capabilities for analyzing data, and file storage features for all of the documents team members need throughout the project.
So that your smart action plan is as efficiently implemented as possible, consider these best practices.
Project management tools such as Trello, Asana, and have built-in task management functions for tracking tasks. Plus, visualization tools such as pie charts and bar graphs let you know, at a glance, essential information such as:
You don’t always have to start from scratch. Many project planning tools provide action plan templates you can use out of the box. If the template library doesn’t have what you need, create your own. At the minimum, your action plan outline should include:
Add as much detail as you need. A notes column, as in the example below, lets team members collaborate and get feedback on certain tasks or documents, while a priority column allows you to focus on tasks that have to be completed right now.

Here’s an action plan template you can download for free from Smartsheet. Image source: Author
Create alerts to notify team members of upcoming tasks, tasks that have been added or changed, or milestones signifying major events completed.
Don’t spend time on tasks already completed. Mark tasks complete once you’re done with them. Use color codes so they’re easy to spot.
Uncover the root cause of late tasks by discussing with the persons responsible. Sometimes, challenges or barriers pose a problem, such as a necessary document that’s still pending approval. Many times, team members need help.
To achieve a goal, you need a clear path of action. To arrive at a destination, you have to know how to get there. To obtain the best results, you need a plan. That’s exactly what a well-thought-out action plan provides: a clear path, how to get there, and the best possible results.
Maricel Rivera is a software and small business expert writing for The Ascent at The Motley Fool.
We’re firm believers in the Golden Rule, which is why editorial opinions are ours alone and have not been previously reviewed, approved, or endorsed by included advertisers. The Ascent does not cover all offers on the market. Editorial content from The Ascent is separate from The Motley Fool editorial content and is created by a different analyst team.
The Ascent is a Motley Fool service that rates and reviews essential products for your everyday money matters.
Copyright © 2018 – 2022 The Ascent. All rights reserved.



Column 1
Column 2
Column 3
Column 4
Column 1
Column 2
Column 3
Column 4
Column 1
Column 2
Column 3
Column 4
Column 1
Column 2

Bid/RFP Due Date: 
Friday, August 5, 2022 – 2:00pm

Bid/RFP Status: 
Open – accepting bids and proposals

Deschutes County Department of Solid Waste is soliciting proposals from experienced and qualified firms for the construction of solid waste transfer station improvements including truck scales and a scalehouse, transfer station building and related sitework. The project is located in Redmond, Oregon.
In general, the services to be provided include:
The Request for Proposal may be obtained or examined at the Deschutes County Department of Solid Waste offices at the address listed below or viewed at
Proposals must be received by 2:00 p.m. on Friday, August 5, 2022, at the Deschutes County Department of Solid Waste office, 61050 S.E. 27th Street, Bend, Oregon 97702.  Proposals should be addressed to Chad Centola, Director of Solid Waste. Proposals may be submitted in person, by mail at the address listed above or electronically to and must be received by the Department of Solid Waste by the due date and time specified above.
Full RFP with supporting documents can be found in the Supporting Documents section below.
Please fill out the form below if you are interested in bidding on this RFP.
Want to be notified when changes to the RFP occur?  Go here.
Solid Waste
(541) 317-3163 Phone
(541) 388-6599 Recorded Info.
(541) 317-3959 Fax
Knott Recycling Center
(541) 388-1910
View the Solid Waste Calendar
© 2022 Deschutes County. All rights reserved.


Guidelines to Writing a Scope of Work (2022) – The Motley Fool

If you’re on a Galaxy Fold, consider unfolding your phone or viewing it in full screen to best optimize your experience.
Credit Cards
Small Business
by Nicholas Morpus | Published on May 18, 2022
Image source: Getty Images
In the world of project management, you should leave absolutely nothing to chance.
Every promise or obligation that is made must be put in writing because no one wants to be on the receiving end of a raw deal. It doesn’t matter if you’re dealing in construction or marketing project management, it’s always best to avoid the pitfalls of “selective amnesia.”
That’s why you need a scope of work proposal for detailing everything you will complete for your stakeholders.
The scope of work is a document that spells out the agreed-upon terms of work that’ll be performed as part of a project and goes in-depth as to how a project will be accomplished. A fully fleshed-out scope document will include the project milestones, deliverables, objective metrics that’ll be measured, and the parties involved in executing the project.
While the terms scope of work and statement of work (SOW) are used interchangeably quite often, they are not exactly the same thing. A statement of work is a key component for creating a project charter and is an essential component of the project planning process. It is a legally binding document and summation of the terms for which all parties will be held accountable, which the scope of work is a part of.
That’s why I’ve included all of the sections of a statement of work in this piece to give you an idea of where the scope of work fits within the entirety of the document. Consider this a partial refresher on writing a statement of work.
Your scope of work can make or break your project; it all depends on how you approach the process. These are the two major pitfalls that are destined to flunk your project if you aren’t careful when drafting up your scope of work:
A scope of work will help you define what success looks like to your project stakeholders and eliminate any presumptions or misinterpretations, but only if you do your due diligence.
What do I mean by that? Well, one of the most common causes for project failure is miscommunication, and this extends even to your scope of work. If your scope of work is not clear, concise, detailed, and specific, then you’re leaving the door open for unmet expectations either for you or your stakeholders.
I am a big believer in the iterative processes of the agile methodology since they create a sense of involvement between the project stakeholders and your executing team. That’s why I recommend that you make your stakeholders a part of the drafting process.
This is the best way to avoid any confusion or ambiguity that would damage your relationship with them further down the road. This doesn’t mean they ought to draft the document.
Instead, make sure you bring any uncertainties or major developments to your stakeholders for clarification. Whether their initial requests and deliverables are not as attainable as once thought or you just have a question about a particular detail, make sure you don’t keep these concerns to yourself.
As I mentioned before, since the scope of work is just a component of the statement of work, I figured this was the perfect opportunity to run through a refresher of the entire document.
If you want to jump ahead to my scope of work example, look to section 3.
Your introduction is your opportunity to provide an abstract overview of the issue(s) you and your team plan to address. You’ll identify the purpose of this project and why this project is important for the stakeholders.
Save most of your minute details for the following sections. All you want to do is give some context as to why your services are necessary and a brief explanation as to why you’re suited to take on this challenge.
Tip: This section shouldn’t be any longer than three paragraphs as this is essentially only your thesis statement for the entire statement of work.
You’ve introduced the problem to be solved and now it’s time to give an overall explanation of what your goals are for this project. This is a short section and only requires you to answer this particular question:
What is the goal of your project?
Tip: This isn’t the place to get caught up in details, as mentioned in the last section. This is only meant for you to explain the high-minded endgame for your project.
Here’s where we get into the true scope of work since most of the information so far is actually part of your statement of work. It’s time to take a deep dive into the tasks and deliverables that they will produce. It’s best for you to run down your list of tasks for the project and pair them with detailed deliverable descriptions.
Not every single task will produce a specific deliverable, so if you have to bundle several tasks together, feel free to do so in order to avoid repeating yourself, like so:

While you’ll address dates in greater detail in the next section, make sure you list all of this information in the order you plan to tackle the deliverables so that you can avoid any confusion.
Include detailed explanations of how these tasks are to be completed, what they will require to complete, and how all of this will impact the outcome of the deliverables. Finish off this section with a description of how all of these deliverables will come together to complete the project.
While you don’t have to adhere exactly to this scope of work template, it’s best that you include all of this information in some form or another, whether it’s a bulleted list, a chart, or any other organizational form.
Tip: Here’s where you don’t want to skimp out on detail. You want to be as clear as possible to avoid any future conflicts borne out of ambiguity. Every task and deliverable must be specific and quantifiable.
When should your stakeholders expect all of this to take place? Use this section to layout your project schedule, including:
Just like your objectives and deliverables section, you want to be specific on all of these fronts. These dates will ensure transparency and clarity, but also give you a baseline to work from in case things have to change in the future.
Tip: This goes hand-in-hand with the scope of a project since it gives further context to the work you hope to accomplish, so remember not to underestimate your due dates for your project. Any increases to your project scope can lead to runaway scope creep. Everything you do is a balance of the project management triangle of scope, time, and cost.
This is the fun part for the performing party where you lay out your terms and conditions for completing this project. You’ll include everything that is contingent upon the delivery of the project and any additional support items you’ll require from the stakeholders, including:
Additionally, you’ll include all of the standards for accepting deliverables, what success looks like to the stakeholders, who will review and approve the status of the deliverables, and any other criteria that determine the quality of the project.
Tip: If your team is working with outside contractors to perform work on the project, make sure you clear with them how they prefer to be paid and if it is a rate the client is likely to accept.
Once the stakeholders have read through all of the project details in your statement of work, they’ll come to this final section, which includes binding language that holds you and your stakeholders accountable to all terms laid out in the document. Finally, create a space for all of the responsible parties to sign the document.
Just as you’d never want to leave any stone unturned when preparing your scope of work proposal, the same can be said for your knowledge of project management.
That’s why we at The Ascent have put together troves of project management software reviews, how-to guides, software alternatives pieces, and beginner’s pieces to get you up to speed on everything you need to know. Be sure to brush up on some of my favorites:
Nicholas Morpus is the product management software expert for The Ascent, with experience working in the B2B space.
We’re firm believers in the Golden Rule, which is why editorial opinions are ours alone and have not been previously reviewed, approved, or endorsed by included advertisers. The Ascent does not cover all offers on the market. Editorial content from The Ascent is separate from The Motley Fool editorial content and is created by a different analyst team.
The Ascent is a Motley Fool service that rates and reviews essential products for your everyday money matters.
Copyright © 2018 – 2022 The Ascent. All rights reserved.


Request for Proposals – Family Connects Chicago: Regional Community Alignment Boards –

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, and are an important tool for ending the global pandemic. Vaccines protect you and the people around you, reducing the spread of COVID-19. Learn more at Learn more at
The Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH) has released a Request for Proposals (RFPs) for Family Connects Chicago: Regional Community Alignment Boards #8648.
The purpose of this RFP is to identify organizations who will develop, staff, and support the regional boards and facilitate cross-regional and citywide community alignment activities. Aligned with the city’s Healthy Chicago 2025 plan the Family Connects Chicago: Regional Community Alignment Boards supports the maternal and infant health through the Family Connects Chicago program where data, cross-sector solutions, community co-ownership and evaluation are in action to ensure that families have access to needed resources identified through home visits with families. You may review the RFP application here:
All applicants or suppliers should register under the iSupplier portal at in order to review and respond to the RFP.
RFP Release Date: Thursday, May 6, 2022
Pre-Solicitation Conference: Tuesday, May 17, 2022
Deadline for Questions:  Friday, May 20, 2022
Bid/Proposal Submittal Date and Time: Monday, June 6, 2022 at 12:00pm CST
Contract Start Date:  Friday, July 1, 2022
For more information contact: Cecilia Almazan at

Phone: 312.747.9884
TTY: 312.747.2374
333 S. State Street 
Room 200
Chicago, IL 60604 (For 24-hour assistance or to report a public health issue, call 311)
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)


NAO-2022-00554 / VMRC #22-V1202 (Arcland Property Co, LLC, Spotsylvania County) – Norfolk District

June 24, 2022    
VMRC # 22-V1202
The District Commander has received a joint permit application for Federal and State permits as described below:
Arcland Property Company, LLC
P.O. Box 25523
Washington, D.C., 20027
PROJECT LOCATION:  South of Overview Drive, west of Cosner Drive, in Spotsylvania County, Virginia. 
PROJECT SIZE: 5.3 acres
NEAREST WATERWAY: Massaponax Creek
LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE: Lat: 38.2225; Long: -77.484444
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE:  The applicant has proposed to construct a self-storage facility, parking lot, utilities, and a stormwater management pond. As proposed the project would impact 1.47 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands. 
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION:  The applicant has evaluated alternative sites and alternative layouts for the proposed project. These alternatives are discussed in the Joint Permit Application and are under review. The Corps will issue a permit for the proposed project only if all wetland and stream impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION: The applicant has proposed to purchase 1.47 wetland credits from the Burney Farms Mitigation Bank.
In addition, the applicant must obtain an Individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification or waiver from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) assuring that applicable laws and regulations pertaining to water quality are not violated.   
A copy of the joint permit application can be found on the Virginia Marine Resources Commission’s website.
AUTHORITY: (mark the correct one with an “X”)
( )     Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403).
(X)    Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (Public Law 95-217) and 
    Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia.
( )    Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 
    (33 U.S.C. 1413).
FEDERAL EVALUATION OF APPLICATION:  The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest.  The decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources.  The benefits which reasonably may be expected from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments.  All of the proposal's relevant factors will be considered, including conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, consideration of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. The Environmental Protection Agency's "Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material" will also be applied (Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act). 
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public, federal, state, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of this proposed activity.  Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit for this proposal.  To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above.  Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.  Preliminary review of the application indicates that no EIS will be required. 
Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity.  Anyone may request a public hearing to consider this permit application by writing to the District Commander within 30 days of the date of this notice, stating specific reasons for holding the public hearing.  The District Commander will then decide if a hearing should be held.
ENDANGERED SPECIES: After conducting the Norfolk District Endangered Species Act (ESA) Project Review Process, the Corps has made the preliminary determination that:
No listed/proposed/candidate species and/or designated/proposed critical habitat under the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended, will be affected.  Based on this “no effect” determination, no further coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is required.
Additional information might change any of these findings.
No known Historic Resources eligible for inclusion or included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are in or near the Corps permit area or would likely be affected by the proposal.
Additional information may change any of these findings. 
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires all Federal agencies to consult with the NMFS on all actions, or proposed actions, permitted, funded, or undertaken by the agency, that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).
There is no EFH in the Corps area of responsibility. 
VIRGINIA’S COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: For compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended for projects located in Virginia’s Coastal Zone, the applicant must certify that federally licensed or permitted activities affecting Virginia's coastal uses or resources will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Virginia’s Coastal Zone Management Program (Virginia CZM Program), and obtain concurrence from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Office of Environmental Impact Review (OEIR). It is the applicant’s responsibility to submit a consistency certification to the OEIR for concurrence or objection, and proof of concurrence must be submitted to the Corps prior to final permit issuance. A template federal consistency certification can be found in the Federal Consistency Manual here: .  For more information or to obtain a list of the enforceable policies of the Virginia CZM Program, contact the DEQ-OEIR at (804) 659-1915 or e-mail:
The applicant has not submitted concurrence.
VIRGINIA’S SECTION 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM: The applicant must obtain, from the Virginia DEQ, a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification for any federal license or permit that authorizes an activity that may result in a discharge into waters of the U.S. (40 CFR Part 121).  As the Certifying Authority, the Virginia DEQ may grant, grant with conditions, or deny a certification request.  Alternatively, the Virginia DEQ may waive, expressly or implicitly, its authority to act on a certification request.  In either case, a written notice of waiver from DEQ (expressly waived) or from the Corps (implicitly waived), satisfies the project proponent’s requirement to obtain certification. 
Pursuant to 33 CFR 325.2(b)(1)(i), this Public Notice serves as the Corps’ CWA § 401(a)(2) notification to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.12, the EPA shall notify the Corps, the Virginia DEQ, and the applicant, within 30 days of receipt of the application and certification, if the Regional Administrator determines that the proposed discharge may affect the quality of the waters of any neighboring jurisdiction.  
COMMENT PERIOD:  Comments on this project should be in writing and can be sent by either email to, or by regular mail, addressed to the Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers (ATTN:  CENAO-WRR), 803 Front Street, Norfolk, VA  23510-1011, and should be received by the close of business on July 24, 2022
PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY:  Comments and information, including the identity of the submitter, submitted in response to this Public Notice may be disclosed, reproduced, and distributed at the discretion of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  Information that is submitted in connection with this Public Notice cannot be maintained as confidential by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  Submissions should not include any information that the submitter seeks to preserve as confidential. 
If you have any questions about this project or the permit process, contact Dr. Silvia B. Gazzera at (804) 212-6817 or at
Vicinity Map
Project Drawings
Species Conclusion Table
Official Species List
Deliver vital engineering solutions, in collaboration with our partners, to secure our Nation, energize our economy, and reduce disaster risk.
The official public website of Norfolk District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. For website corrections, please write to


Legal discussion on OECD Pillar Model Rules – Lexology

Review your content’s performance and reach.
Become your target audience’s go-to resource for today’s hottest topics.
Understand your clients’ strategies and the most pressing issues they are facing.
Keep a step ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them.
add to folder:
Questions? Please contact [email protected]
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is a club of 37 nations that meets to discuss and implement economic and social policies. Members of the OECD are usually democratic countries that favour free markets. It is known as a think tank or a monitoring organization. Its declared mission is to influence policies that promote prosperity, equality, opportunity, and well-being for all people. It has dealt with a variety of concerns over the years, including enhancing the standard of living in member nations, contributing to global trade development, and fostering economic stability.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was founded on December 14, 1960, by 18 European countries, as well as the United States and Canada. Over time, it has grown to include members from South America and Asia-Pacific. It encompasses the majority of the world's most developed economies.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) releases economic studies, statistical databases, assessments, and projections on the global economic outlook. The focus of reports might be global, regional, or national. The group studies and reports on the influence of social policy concerns on economic growth, such as gender discrimination, and develops policy suggestions to promote growth while being environmentally conscious. Bribery and other forms of financial crime are also targets for the group. The OECD maintains a so-called "black list" of countries that are deemed uncooperative tax havens, albeit no countries are now on it because, by 2009, all countries on the original list had agreed to apply the OECD transparency requirements. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is leading a global initiative with the Group of 20 (G20) to promote tax reform and reduce corporate tax dodging. The project's suggestions included a prediction that tax dodging loses the world's economies between $100 billion and $240 billion in income each year. In addition, the firm offers consultation and support to countries in Central Asia and Eastern Europe that are implementing market-based economic reforms.
The Pillar Two Model Rules (also known as the "Anti Global Base Erosion" or "GloBE" Rules), which will be released on December 20, 2021, are part of the Two-Pillar Solution to address the tax challenges of digitalization that was agreed upon by 137 member jurisdictions of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS and endorsed by the G20 Finance Ministers and Leaders in October. Delegates from all Inclusive Framework member countries worked on them, and they were unanimously agreed upon and adopted.
The Pillar Two Model Rules are intended to guarantee those big multinational businesses (MNEs) pay a minimum amount of tax in each country in which they operate. The regulations are around 45 pages long, with an additional 15 pages of definitions. They are written as model regulations that countries can use to convert into domestic legislation, allowing them to implement Pillar Two within the agreed-upon timeline and in a coordinated way.
The Model Rules are a significant step forward in the implementation of a new tax regime that aims to radically restructure the international tax architecture by allowing countries to tax back profits of multinational enterprises (MNEs) headquartered in jurisdictions that offer no- or low-tax regimes. The OECD estimates that the new regime will raise an extra $150 billion in worldwide tax collections through the application of higher taxes and associated behavioral changes among MNEs as a result of reduced incentives to engage in profit-shifting activities by taking advantage of low tax rates.
Despite the high yearly revenue requirement of 750 million euros, the OECD anticipates that the framework will cover 90 percent of the worldwide corporate income tax base. The Model GloBE Rules are a significant step forward for India. The guidelines will relieve the Indian government of the pressure to grant tax breaks in order to attract international investment. At the same time, a minimum tax of 15% may not be detrimental to Indian interests because Indian earnings are normally taxed at a rate higher than 15%. It also assures that India's lower corporation tax rate of 17% for new manufacturing enterprises maintains their competitiveness.
The high yearly revenue barrier of 750 million euros suggests that Indian MNE organizations have a restricted scope. While signatory nations have the option of applying the GloBE Rules to MNEs with revenues below the level, India should carefully evaluate the impact on small Indian MNEs' competitiveness as well as the administrative work that would be necessary before exercising this option.
The Pillar Two model regulations also cover the treatment of group member acquisitions and dispositions, as well as unique requirements for dealing with certain holding structures and tax neutrality regimes. Finally, the rules address administrative issues such as information filing requirements and transitional procedures for multinational enterprises that become subject to the global minimum tax.
The Model Rules give enough information for MNEs to conduct an impact analysis and prepare for the implementation of a minimum tax structure. Given the Model Rules' complexity, substantial expenditure and effort will be required to ensure compliance.
It's also worth noting that the GloBE tax due is calculated using an "effective tax rate," which is a complicated formula that differs from local tax laws. In this context, a headline corporate tax rate of 15% or higher is insufficient, and multinationals conducting business in India will be expected to calculate their GloBE tax base and ETR calculations using Model Rules in order to determine the exact impact.
Furthermore, the minimal tax liability is calculated using financial accounting rather than tax accounting and therefore necessitates the use of several data points that aren't used for any other purpose. The onerous reporting requirements imposed by the Model Rules will reflect this. As a result, MNEs will be required to keep massive volumes of data, including historical and non-tax data, necessitating the usage of technology. MNEs should also keep an eye on activities in relevant countries relating to the implementation of new laws via domestic tax reforms and bilateral/multilateral agreements.
Under the model guidelines, the phrase "permanent establishment" has also been defined. It has undoubtedly increased MNE compliance in terms of filing a GloBE Information Return with the tax administration in order to give information on the MNE's tax computations performed under the GloBE Rules no later than 15 months after the Reporting Fiscal Year's final day.
While the publication of the Model Rules is an important step forward in the BEPS 2.0 initiative, there is still a lot of work to be done before 2023. Stakeholders are looking forward to the publishing of the comments in early 2022, as well as the subsequent development of the implementation framework. This is also a chance for stakeholders to communicate with the Indian tax administration on issues related to the new regime's predictability, simplicity, and administrability.
In light of the foregoing, while the introduction of the minimum tax proposal into Indian tax legislation by a proactive Budget FY23 cannot be ruled out entirely, given the interconnected nature of the rules and the awaited explanatory framework, India would be wise to delay amending domestic law until it has thoroughly examined its impact on its tax policy and business environment.
India Inc. and the Indian government, on the other hand, may keep their eyes on the expected model provisions for the Subject-To-Tax Rules (STTR), which may be more important for developing nations like India. The STTR will allow nations to keep their right to tax certain payments (such as interest and royalties) made to related parties in other countries that are subject to low tax rates owing to treaty advantages. The STTR model provisions and the OECD public comment on them are planned to be released in early 2022.
India hopes to make gains from Pillar Two over Pillar 1 and has informally expressed a preference to apply STTR on base erosion payments; we expect the Budget 2022 to provide the heavy lifting on India’s position to jump-start the practical application of the template and give life to these rules.
Companies must stay involved in the process to understand the impact of the new tax structure on their businesses, organizational hierarchies, and supply networks, and, if necessary, implement mitigating steps to avoid being caught off guard.
add to folder:
If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected].
© Copyright 2006 – 2022 Law Business Research


Marine City Commission approves asbestos removal, demolition for marina property – New Baltimore Voice Newspapers

Sign up for email newsletters

Sign up for email newsletters
At the Marine City Commission’s June 16 meeting, debate sparked about the city’s bidding process during discussion about the asbestos removal and demolition of the house at 610 S. Main St., where the city is planning to build a marina.
Mayor Pro Tem Jacob Bryson made a motion to waive competitive bidding for S.A. Torello Inc. for the removal of asbestos from 610 S. Main St.
City Manager Holly Tatman said S.A. Torello Inc. already did a survey of the property and asbestos was found in the exterior of the home, some old tiles and in paint around a few windows. City Attorney Robert Davis said he has used S.A. Torello Inc. and the company is a licensed company and is aware of asbestos removal requirements.
Commissioner Lisa Hendrick noted that in the agenda, items that did not go out for bid should be listed as quotes, not as bids.
“I think we need to start putting these out for bids, these things, and stop doing these quotes,” she said. “Because when you pick and choose different companies — and this type of work here, there’s a lot of companies that do it — but … I don’t want the public to start thinking that we’re going out and picking certain people and only giving them the opportunity for the job.”
“When we have a project where you only have one company that does the item, lot of times in the water and sewer plant we have one company, I can totally understand why we waive the bidding, because you’re only going to get one and that’s the only company that makes the part,” she continued. “But in this case, this is something that can be done by a lot of companies, and I think we got to stop doing all these quotes and start getting back to our bid processes, which is in the charter.”
She also asked that the items include a cover letter in the agenda.
Department of public works Superintendent Mike Itrich said he called three local companies and got two bids back. Hendrick said she had to ask for the other quote and that she wants to see all of them in the agenda.
Davis said that when the city does a bid process, it is compelled to the lowest bidder, but when it does a request for proposal process, the commission is allowed to select on quality. Hendrick said she would prefer to do a RFP process than getting quotes for work.
Tatman said that because the city has worked with S.A. Torello multiple times and it is local in Port Huron, it is likely the home could be demolished by mid-July.
Commissioner Ross asked if Tatman was able to secure any grant funds to tear the building down.
“This portion is going to be funded through the St. Clair County,” Tatman said. “This is some of the (American Rescue Plan Act) funds that (St. Clair County Board of Commissioners Chairman Jeff Bohm) had secured for us when working with (Six Rivers Land Conservancy) on this whole project a year ago.”
She added that the city will be fronting the money and later reimbursed by the county. She noted that the city received $45,000 from the Community Foundation of St. Clair County.
The commission voted 5-1 to waive competitive bidding, with Hendrick opposing. The motion failed, as under the city’s charter, the vote has to be unanimous to waive competitive bidding. Commissioner John Kreidler was absent.
Hendrick said the house would stay until the commission did competitive bidding.
“It’s a process and we should follow the process,” she said.
Davis said the city may lose county money with the timing. Tatman added that the county was going to give $45,000.
Tatman said she called some asbestos removal companies herself and some of the closest ones were out in Oakland County and were more expensive.
Hendrick said the city has had plenty of time to do the bid or RFP process since it bought the property.
“There has been a timeline that we have had to follow that’s pretty much been dictated to us by Six Rivers,” Tatman said, noting that Itrich did the process the same way he has been doing it.
Hendrick said the city has been doing too many things without going through the proper bid process.
“But can you ask him for that for next time and not blow up the deal to get this done now?” Tatman asked. “Can I ask you to reconsider?”
“This is very important,” Mayor Cheryl Vercammen added. “There’s $45,000 and we have a whole line of things that are falling into place with this project. … I understand what you’re saying, but this is not the time or the place to do it.”
Tatman said she would be happy to work with Itrich and do the bid process going forward.
“But once you put it out, it has to go out for like two weeks, and then it has to come back to commission,” she said. “So we’re pushing this another month, … then we have to wait for whoever wins to get in here to actually demo the house out.”
Hendrick said she voted “a million times” to waive bids, and Tatman said she waited until this one to decide not to.
“It’s the marina project,” Vercammen said. “You’ve been against it since Day 1.”
Commissioner Wendy Kellehan made a motion to reconsider the vote, which was approved in a 5-1 vote, with Hendrick dissenting.
Hendrick said she did not believe that the city would lose out on the county money. She said the building is no different than any other building in town and should go through competitive bidding.
“It looks bad in the community because we’re picking and choosing and we’re constantly waiving competitive bidding,” she said.
“What looks bad is that we vote a certain way one time and then another way another time and this is an important issue and now all of a sudden it gets brought up,” Vercammen said.
Tatman said Itrich did not do the process inappropriately. She said two companies gave quotes for demolition and only S.A. Torello Inc. gave a quote for the asbestos removal.
“He called all the local businesses that he typically that typically bid on things here,” she said. “There’s a big waste of time factor with RFPs when you’re sending it out into the universe to people who are never going to bid on little Marine City.”
“You don’t know that,” Hendrick said.
Tatman said S.A. Torello Inc. was the only company that Itrich could get to come and do the asbestos removal, so it came in did an inspection at a cost of $500 and gave the city a quote.
“If you don’t accept this, either, you are also now going to need to pay somebody else to come in from wherever … to come here, drive, inspect the home again and give us quotes and pay for their inspection. The asbestos piece is a little multilayered. … A lot of people didn’t jump at this. This is all we’ve got.”
Commissioner Brian Ross also noted that is currently hard to find a contractor.
“I understand the potential optics that you mentioned,” he said to Hendrick. “I understand how this … quote process was done. I also understand the sensitive nature of the timing of this and the climate right now amongst builders and demo experts. I fully agree, and I will stand with you 100%, on refusing any additional non-bid-compliant processes, but this is the one that would concern me that we don’t take care of soon.”
Hendrick said she wants it in the minutes that commissioners are going to agree to start doing bid processes properly. Ross said if they can add the caveat that single-source items do not have to be bid out.
Kellehan made a motion to waive competitive bidding with the idea that waiving competitive bidding in the future will only be done in circumstances where the justifications placed on the record are consistent with the charter. The commission unanimously approved the motion.
Kellehan also made a motion to hire S.A. Torello Inc. for asbestos removal for 610 S. Main St. for the amount of $5,789, which was also unanimously approved.
Ross made a motion to waive competitive bidding on the demolition of 610 S. Main St. under the condition that timing and availability of the contractor is the rationale for the need to waive it and then in the future, competitive bidding and the bid process as laid out by the charter is adhered to. The commission unanimously approved.
Kellehan made a motion to hire S.A. Torello Inc. for demolition and cleanup of 610 S. Main St. for a cost of $12,000. The commission unanimously approved.
Sign up for email newsletters
We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.
Copyright © 2022 MediaNews Group



Housing statistics 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022, accessible version – GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.
We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.
We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.
You can change your cookie settings at any time.
Departments, agencies and public bodies
News stories, speeches, letters and notices
Detailed guidance, regulations and rules
Reports, analysis and official statistics
Consultations and strategy
Data, Freedom of Information releases and corporate reports
Updated 30 June 2022

© Crown copyright 2022
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email:
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at
Published 23 June 2022
1.1 In the financial year 2021-22 there were 38,436 housing starts on site and 37,164 housing completions delivered through programmes managed by Homes England in England (excluding London for all programmes except those administered by Homes England on behalf of the Greater London Authority (GLA)). Levels of starts and completions were higher than in 2020-21 when the Covid-19 pandemic caused a slow-down in housebuilding activity. Homes England manages the Help to Buy (Equity Loan) scheme in England but the completions are reported by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) (formerly the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)) available from the webpage linked below[footnote 1] and are, therefore, excluded from this publication.
1.2 27,509 or 72 per cent of housing starts on site in 2021-22 were for affordable homes. This represents a decrease of 2 per cent on the 28,176 affordable homes started in 2020-21, when they accounted for 76 per cent of all housing starts. The number of affordable starts was the lowest since 2015-16 which can be attributed to the closure of bidding for the Shared Ownership and Affordable Homes Programme (SOAHP) 2016-21 in March 2021 and the gradual build up of starts from the newly launched Affordable Homes Programme (AHP) 2021-26.
1.3 5,606 affordable homes started were for Affordable Rent, a reduction of 48 per cent on the 10,713 started in 2020-21. A further 4,778 were for Intermediate Affordable Housing schemes, including Shared Ownership and Rent to Buy. This is a decrease of 35 per cent on the 7,314 started in 2021-22. 1,981 were for Social Rent, a decrease of 23 per cent on the 2,585 started in the previous year. In addition, a further 15,144 affordable homes started with tenure to be confirmed[footnote 2] , an increase of 100 per cent on the 7,564 started in the previous year. Of the affordable homes started in 2021-22, the highest delivering programmes were: SOAHP 2016-21 with 54 per cent (down from 90 per cent); the AHP 2021-26 with 39 per cent in its first year of delivery; and the Single Land Programme (SLP) with 3 per cent (down from 4 per cent).
1.4 26,485 or 71 per cent of housing completions in 2021-22 were for affordable homes. This represents an increase of 11 per cent on the 23,949 affordable homes completed in the previous year, when they accounted for 69 per cent of total completions.
1.5 13,929 affordable homes completed were for Affordable Rent, an increase of 5 per cent on the 13,306 completed in the previous year. A further 9,479 were for Intermediate Affordable Housing schemes, including Shared Ownership and Rent to Buy, an increase of 8 per cent on the 8,747 completed in the previous year. The remaining 3,077 were for Social Rent, a 62 per cent increase on 1,896 completed in the previous year. Of the affordable homes completed, the highest delivering programmes were: the SOAHP 2016-21 with 86 per cent (down from 89 per cent); the AHP 2021-26 with 3 per cent in its first year of delivery; and the Single Land Programme with 3 per cent (no change).
2.1 This release presents the housing starts on site and housing completions delivered by Homes England between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2022 in England excluding London (for both the current and historical series[footnote 3] ) with the exception of the Build to Rent (BTR), Builders Finance Fund (BFF), Get Britain Building (GBB) and the Home Building Fund – Short Term Fund (HBFSTF) programmes which are administered by Homes England on behalf of the Greater London Authority (GLA) and where delivery covers all of England including London.
2.2 The figures in this release show the supply of affordable and market housing delivered through Homes England’s programmes[footnote 4] with the exception of Help to Buy (Equity Loan scheme), the statistics for which are published quarterly by DLUHC[footnote 5] . Further details on housing types are available in section 5 of the technical notes document accompanying this release[footnote 6] . DLUHC also publishes annual statistics on affordable housing supply in England[footnote 7] showing the gross annual supply of affordable homes, irrespective of funding mechanism. Further information on the Affordable Housing Supply and Help to Buy releases is provided in section 6 of the technical notes document.
2.3 The data in this release are used by DLUHC to monitor delivery of affordable homes as part of the DLUHC business plan (see paragraph 6.3 in the technical notes). Homes England uses the data to measure progress towards commitments made in its published Strategic Plan[footnote 8] and its Annual Business Plan. Local authorities also use the data when compiling their annual return to DLUHC for the purpose of calculating the enhancement for affordable housing under the New Homes Bonus (NHB), a grant for local authorities to incentivise new housing supply.
2.4 This is the first release of data relating to delivery for the financial year ending 31 March 2022 and covers all current and historical programmes delivered by Homes England (summarised in Annex 1). These include the acquisition of existing land or property as well as new house building, and some programmes provide a mix of affordable and market housing. Affordable housing may be for home ownership (on Shared Ownership or Rent to Buy terms) or for rent.
2.5 Housing starts on site and housing completions are reported for each programme, where applicable.
2.6 A programme breakdown of the data is available in Table 1 of the tables accompanying this release [footnote 6]. Further information on the accompanying tables is provided in section 4 of this release. Table A of the latest annual statistics on affordable housing supply in England published by DLUHC[footnote 7] shows how Homes England programmes relate to the statistics on affordable housing published by DLUHC.
2.7 Affordable homes delivered through Homes England programmes are funded by central government. The funding is administered by Homes England to fund investment partners (including private registered providers, house builders, community groups and local authorities) to deliver affordable housing.
2.8 With the exception of the Single Land Programme (SLP), funding for all programmes is allocated through an application/bidding process based on the assessment eligibility/criteria for each programme. Funding is paid in accordance with the contractual agreement for each programme. Investment for projects delivered under the SLP is determined in accordance with Homes England’s Framework Document[footnote 9] and relevant commissioning template.
2.9 Since April 2012, the Mayor of London has had oversight of strategic housing, regeneration and economic development in London. This means that Homes England no longer publishes housing starts on site and completions for London, except where Homes England is administering a programme on behalf of the GLA. The historical series for London, which reflects past delivery by Homes England, is included in Homes England’s housing statistics published on 12 June 2012 (revised 24 August 2012) available from the housing statistics page on the Homes England section of GOV.UK[footnote 10].
2.10 DLUHC has combined the affordable housing statistics in this release with the GLA’s affordable housing statistics to produce Table 1012 showing total affordable housing starts on site and completions delivered nationally under the affordable housing programmes of Homes England and the GLA[footnote 11] . From 2019/20 onwards, table 1012 includes units delivered by the GLA funded via the Right to Buy ringfence offer which are not included in their quarterly management information. Therefore there will be some discrepancies between the total in this table and the GLA’s own tables. This table excludes additional affordable housing delivery reported annually through local authority returns, which are included in DLUHC’s full annual release on affordable housing supply in England[footnote 12]. The table includes any revisions made to London data since it was published by Homes England on 12 June 2012 (revised 24 August 2012). Further details are provided in section 6 of the technical notes.
This section provides the detailed statistics for housing starts and completions by tenure. It includes all Homes England programmes and analyses them over time[footnote 13] .
Data for the current and previous year should be considered as provisional since they are subject to revisions as set out in section 4 of the technical notes accompanying this release.
[1] Since April 2012, the Mayor of London has had oversight of strategic housing, regeneration and economic development in London. This means that Homes England no longer publishes housing starts on site and completions for London (current and historical series) except for delivery in London under the Build to Rent, Builders Finance Fund, Get Britain Building and The Home Building Fund – Short Term Fund (HBFSTF) programmes which are administered by Homes England on behalf of the GLA. The historical series for London included in Homes England’s housing statistics published on 12 June 2012 (revised 24 August 2012) is available from:
[2] Figures by local authority and region are available in the accompanying tables.
[3] To ensure consistent reporting with completions, with effect from 1 April 2014 the range of products reported for affordable housing starts on site includes the start on site for new build homes where the procurement route is such that the provider purchases the home at completion. For reporting purposes, the start on site date is taken as the date of completion.
[4] Tenure will be determined on completion of the unit and will be restated in future releases under its appropriate tenure.
[5] Total affordable housing is the sum of Affordable Rent, Social Rent, Intermediate Rent, Affordable Home Ownership and (for starts only) Affordable Tenure TBC.
[6] The market units delivered under the Accelerated Land Disposal, Build to Rent, Builders Finance Fund, Economic Assets, Get Britain Building, Kickstart Housing Delivery, Levelling Up – Home Building Fund, Local Authority Accelerated Construction, Property and Regeneration, Single Land and the HBFSTF programmes may include some starts on site and completions which are made available at below market price or rents but do not meet the definition for affordable housing. “..” not applicable.
Figure 1a ‘Housing starts on site’ and ‘Chart 1b: Affordable Housing starts on site’ have been removed because they could not be made accessible. Please contact citing the name of the document if you need this information.
3.1 A total of 38,436 homes started on site, representing an increase of 1,115 or 3 per cent compared to 37,321. Excluding last year, levels of starts were the lowest since 2015-16 and this can be attributed to the closure of the SOAHP 2016-21 to new bids at the end of March 2021 as well as the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on the housebuilding industry. Additionally, whilst the AHP 2021-26 was open, the first year of a new programme typically sees fewer starts.
3.2 27,509 or 72 per cent of housing starts on site were for affordable homes – a decrease of 667 or 2 per cent compared to 28,176. Whilst some of this can be attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic affecting housebuilding activity, 2021-22 is the first year of the AHP 2021-26 and historical trends show that delivery of starts tends to be low at the beginning of a new programme.
3.3 5,606 (20 per cent) of affordable homes started were for Affordable Rent, a reduction of 5,107 or 48 per cent on 10,713. A further 4,778 (17 per cent) were for Intermediate Affordable Housing schemes, including Shared Ownership and Rent to Buy. This is a decrease of 2,536 or 35 per cent on 7,314. 1,981 (7 per cent) were for Social Rent, a decrease of 604 or 23 per cent on 2,585. In addition, a further 15,144 (55 per cent) of affordable homes started with tenure to be confirmed, an increase of 7,580 or 100 per cent on 7,564 (mainly due to delivery from Strategic Partners increasing in scale and delivery from non-Strategic Partners tailing off due to the SOAHP 2016-21 closed for new business). All ‘tenure to be confirmed starts’ originate from Strategic Partnerships where providers are not contractually required to identify the tenure of a unit until completion. The increase in this type of starts from 2019- 20 corresponds directly to the overall increase in Strategic Partnership starts as the programme reached maturity in 2020-21. The tenure for these units will not be known until completion and they will be restated under their appropriate tenure in future releases.
3.4 Table 1b below shows the percentage of Homes England’s affordable housing starts on site delivered by each region[footnote 14] compared to last year[footnote 15], ranked highest to lowest. A map showing the region boundaries is available at Annex 2.
3.5 The number of market starts on site increased by 1,782 (19 per cent) to 10,927 compared to 9,145. The SLP produced nearly half of these at 4,999 or 46 per cent, the HBFSTF delivered 4,816 or 44 per cent, the Levelling Up – Home Building Fund (LUHBF) delivered 635 or 6 per cent and the remaining 477 or 4 per cent were delivered by Local Authority Accelerated Construction (LAAC). The rise in market starts compared to the same period last year can be attributed to a less severe impact from the Covid-19 pandemic which necessitated the closure of most building sites at the beginning of the 2020-21 financial year.
[1], [2], [5], [6] See footnotes below Table 1a on page 6
[7] Some of the market completions delivered since 2013-14 may include houses sold to purchasers who have received assistance through the Help to Buy scheme to buy a property at market value from a house builder where the scheme as a whole may have benefitted from funding through another programme. Help to Buy is reported by DLUHC (see
Chart 2a ‘Housing completions (excluding Help to Buy)’ and Chart 2b ‘Affordable Housing completions’ have been removed because they could not be made accessible. Please contact citing the name of the document if you need this information.
3.6 37,164 homes were completed, an increase of 2,227 or 6 per cent compared to 34,937. Excluding 2020-21, levels of completions were the lowest since 2017-18 and, as with housing starts, this can be attributed to the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on the housebuilding industry.
3.7 26,485 (71 per cent) affordable homes were completed, an increase of 2,536 or 11 per cent compared to 23,949.
3.8 13,929 (53 per cent) of affordable completions were for Affordable Rent, an increase of 623 or 5 per cent compared to 13,306. Intermediate Affordable Housing accounted for a further 9,479 (36 per cent), an increase of 732 or 8 per cent compared to 8,747. The remaining 3,077 (12 per cent) of affordable homes completed were for Social Rent, an increase of 1,181 or 62 per cent compared to 1,896. The increase in Social Rent completions follows the upward trend seen over recent years and is a reflection of the funding being focussed on intermediate tenures in the early years of the 2016-21 programme with the grant funding opening up to Affordable Rent and Social Rent in subsequent years.
3.9 Table 2b below shows the percentage of Homes England’s affordable housing completions delivered by each region compared to last year[footnote 16] , ranked highest to lowest.
3.10 10,679 market homes completed, a decrease of 309 or 3 per cent compared to 10,988. Fluctuations in the number of market completions between periods reflects the nature of the programmes, with different types and sizes of sites commencing at different times and having varying build-out rates. Market completions were delivered by the SLP with 4,914 or 46 per cent, HBFSTF with 4,814 or 45 per cent, BTR with 524 or 5 per cent, LAAC with 391 or 4 per cent and GBB with 36 (less than half a per cent).
3.11 32 First Homes (FH) completions were delivered in the second six months of 2021-22 but are excluded from the accompanying tables as they have been reported as Market units. These FH units are part of a small phase 1 pilot being delivered by the SLP, the starts on site for which are also reported as market units. A phase 2 grant funded pilot is delivering 1,500 FH units via the First Homes Early Delivery Programme 2021-23. Both pilots are in advance of the delivery of First Homes via Planning Policy. These FH completions are included in Table 1012 published by DLUHC[footnote 17] , therefore the total affordable housing in table 1012 will differ from this release.
4.1 The tables accompanying this release are available to download from the housing statistics page on the Homes England section of GOV.UK[footnote 18] and include the following:
Housing starts on site and completions by programme and tenure for:
Housing starts on site and completions by local authority district and tenure (all programmes except Help to Buy), 1 April 2021 – 31 March 2022.
Housing starts on site and completions by local authority district and tenure (all programmes except Help to Buy), 1 April 2020 – 31 March 2021.
Housing starts on site and completions by local authority district and tenure (all programmes except Help to Buy), 1 April 2019 – 31 March 2020.
4.2 Housing starts on site and completions by local authority district and tenure (all programmes except Help to Buy) for historical periods are available to download from the Homes England housing statistics web page[footnote 19] .
4.3 In a small number of cases, Homes England funding to an affordable housing provider may be to support a person or family to be housed in a local authority that is different to the one in which they currently reside. The local authority presentations in Table 2a, 2b and 2c are based on the local authority district in which the house is located. These tables also identify the region in which each local authority is located.
4.4 We can provide programme level statistics for specified local authority areas in response to requests made to
5.1 Details of officials who receive pre-release access to the release up to 24 hours before publication are available from the housing statistics page on the Homes England section of GOV.UK[footnote 20] .
5.2 Homes England was launched by the Secretary of State on 11 January 2018. Homes England is the trading name of Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) (the legal entity). The HCA was created on 1 December 2008 by bringing together the regeneration body English Partnerships (including the Property and Regeneration programme), the investment arm of the Housing Corporation (including the National Affordable Housing Programme), the Academy for Sustainable Communities and a number of housing and regeneration programmes from DLUHC (then known as the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). In October 2011, the HCA took responsibility for the land and property assets of eight of England’s nine Regional Development Agencies, ahead of their operational closure in March 2012. On 1 April 2012, the HCA’s former London operating area transferred to the GLA.
5.3 Our official statistics for the period 1 April 2022 to 30 September 2022 will be published in November/December 2022.
5.4 The responsible statistician for this statistical release is Mike Shone.
6.1 Users’ comments on any issues relating to this statistical release are welcomed and encouraged. Responses should be sent to the “Statistical Enquiries” address given below.
Telephone: 020 7874 8262
Mike Shone (c/o)
Telephone: 01234 242537
Please see the accompanying technical notes document for further information. This can be found on the Homes England housing statistics page for 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022.
The following table and links provide information about Homes England’s programmes which are funded by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government except for Care and Support Specialised Housing, Homelessness Change 2015-18 and Platform for Life which are funded by the Department of Health.
[1] Tenure indicates whether units delivered under each programme are allocated to Affordable Rent (Aff. Rent), Social Rent (Social Rent), Intermediate Rent (Int. Rent), Affordable Home Ownership (AHO), including Shared Ownership and Rent to Buy, or Open Market (Market).
[2] New supply is either a new build (NB) or an acquisition (A) from existing non-affordable stock. Grant under some programmes can be used to deliver either newly built units or to fund acquisitions.
[3] The programme was part of the Affordable Homes Programme (AHP) 2011-15. The majority of delivery through the AHP 2011-15 and other associated programmes was made available as Affordable Rent with some Affordable Home Ownership and, in some limited circumstances, Social Rent. Intermediate Rent was not delivered by the AHP 2011-15 unless it was through Mortgage Rescue or pre-existing commitments from the National Affordable Housing Programme.
North West
North East
Yorkshire and the Humber
West Midlands
East Midlands
East of England
South West
South East
0300 1234 500 
Affordable Tenure TBC refers to units that have reached the start on site milestone but where the tenure of these units has not yet been specified. This was introduced as a flexibility for Strategic Partnerships to enable them to determine tenure close to or at the point of completion. These starts will be restated under their specified tenure headings in future national statistics updates once the tenure has been established at completion. 
As housing starts on site and completions are recorded by their geographical location, this release may exclude homes located outside London where the funding was allocated to a local authority district within London. 
See Annex 1 for a summary and links to information about Homes England’s programmes.  2  2 
The tables and charts in this and future releases have been restricted to an eight-year rolling profile to avoid overcrowding pages with excessively long graphics. For earlier years (going back to 2009-10) please see the accompanying tables and previous releases available at 
Note that proportions do not sum to 100 per cent due to rounding. 
Note that proportions do not sum to 100 per cent due to rounding. 
Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.
To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. We’ll send you a link to a feedback form. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in. Don’t worry we won’t send you spam or share your email address with anyone.