Housing Delivery Test Early-Warning and Intervention Monitor

- Authorities can enter an action-plan or buffer consequence with limited time to diagnose the sites causing under-delivery. - Permitted sites can look healthy in aggregate while a small number of delayed strategic schemes drive the actual shortfall. - Developers and land promoters may not recognise an approaching policy threshold until the official result changes the planning balance. - Local monitoring can rely on developer updates and manual trajectory assumptions that are difficult to challenge consistently.

Public buyers are housing monitoring/local-plan teams that need site-level diagnostics; private buyers are land promoters, housebuilders and planning consultancies that value earlier signals about five-year supply and HDT risk. The commercial product must clearly distinguish forecast from official status.

The evidence shows both a statutory threshold and forecasting behaviour already carried out manually. A national forecast is plausible if assumptions remain transparent and site-level data is kept current.

Back-test the model on the last three official HDT releases for 30 authorities, then publish a forecast six months ahead of the next result. Require forecast error bands and site-level explanation. Interview planners and land teams about whether the forecast changes a real action, not just interest.

A growing history of site-specific build-out assumptions, developer updates and forecast error could create a proprietary calibration dataset. Transparent scenario ranges and evidence provenance are essential because black-box forecasts will not be trusted.

Give councils more time to intervene on delivery problems and give commercial users an earlier, evidence-led view of changing planning risk.

Proxy based — medium confidence.

- Paid test offer: Paid authority or developer pilot: £10,000–£25,000 Public-sector £10,000–£30,000/year; commercial intelligence £3,000–£15,000/year by geography/portfolio. Council licences of £8,000-£25,000/year and commercial regional intelligence of £3,000-£12,000/year are more plausible than high enterprise pricing until forecast accuracy is proven.

Evidence basis: Agile AI Planning Validator (£15,000–£60,000 per licence) is the closest verified adjacent anchor used here. Its buyer, duration and scope are not assumed to be identical; implementation is separated where the opportunity requires integration, assurance or managed delivery.

Ask one planning authority, developer or planning consultancy with a live case pipeline to fund a paid test of Housing Delivery Test Early-Warning and Intervention Monitor lasting 8–12 weeks, using an opening price of £10,000–£25,000 and covering 20 live applications, sites, conditions or evidence packs from one planning workflow. Paid scope: A forecast engine showing likely HDT/land-supply position by authority, the sites causing variance and the interventions most likely to improve delivery. Charge by authority, professional team, development site or assessed case and compare the fee with planning-officer and consultant time, avoidable invalid submissions and repeated evidence assembly. Measure validation time, missing-document rate, rework, officer overrides, applicant resubmissions and decision lead time. Continue only if handling or rework falls by at least 25%, at least 90% of required evidence is correctly identified and no material planning issue is suppressed. Stop or reprice if experienced officers find material false assurance, the workflow does not beat current practice or the buyer will not renew.

Raise above 90 if a back-test shows useful accuracy and commercial users act on the forecast. Reduce below 70 if site trajectory data cannot be refreshed reliably enough to outperform official/local monitoring.