One Public Estate: Brownfield Land Release Fund (BLRF2) Round 4 – fund details

The Brownfield Land Release Fund 2 (BLRF2) will provide up to £19.8m in capital funding to enable councils to release council-owned sites on brownfield land for housing development.

The regeneration and renewal of council-owned brownfield land enabled by the fund will contribute to the UK Government’s mission for growth by contributing to the 1.5m new homes target over the course of this parliament.

This fund enables councils to take a brownfield-first approach to development by unlocking otherwise unviable brownfield land for new homes, whilst supporting regeneration, economic growth and place making.

BLRF2 Round 4 (BLRF2.4) is an additional round of the BLRF2 programme: funded and supported by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG); and delivered by One Public Estate (OPE).

The BLRF2.4 fund varies from other earlier BLRF rounds as it will no longer use fixed bidding windows, and will instead allocate funding to projects following a collaborative, continuous market engagement process.

One Public Estate is a partnership between the Office of Government Property (OGP) in the Cabinet Office (CO), the Local Government Association (LGA), and MHCLG. Our aim is to bring public sector bodies together in place in order to create better places; to use public assets more efficiently; to create service and financial efficiencies; and to release land for development to create new homes and provide jobs for communities. 

Since 2017, OPE has partnered with MHCLG to deliver the Brownfield Land Release Fund (BLRF) and its predecessor the Land Release Fund (LRF). To date, land has been released for over 11,000 homes. 

To discuss a project’s suitability for funding, interested councils are strongly encouraged to contact the One Public Estate team at [email protected].

• Applications for funding will be accepted until available funding has been exhausted, at which point the funding round will close.
• One Public Estate partnerships are no longer required to coordinate applications on behalf of their partnership, as in previous rounds of BLRF funding. Instead, councils will submit applications directly to OPE.
• Up to £19.8 million of capital grant funding is available.
• BLRF2.4 targets small sites that are able to release land swiftly. Therefore, we anticipate projects will typically have a funding ask of up to £2m.
• The fund is open to councils across England, specifically: Borough, County, District, London Borough, Metropolitan Borough, and Unitary Councils.
• Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs) are also eligible, as are their constituent councils. For BLRF2.4, Greater Manchester Combined Authority, West Midlands Combined Authority, and their constituent councils with full voting rights, will not be eligible to receive funding, as an Integrated Settlement has been provided. Councils in these MCAs should approach their Combined Authority to understand local funding opportunities.
• Funding is for capital works on council-owned, brownfield land only, to address viability issues arising from abnormal costs of the proposed development.
• The land which will be released for housing must be council-owned at the time of submitting an Investment Case.
• Speed of delivery is a key priority. Projects must be able to demonstrate they can procure and be in contract for the BLRF2.4-funded works by 31 March 2026.
• Projects must be able to demonstrate they can release land by 30 September 2027. You’ll find our definition of land release below.
• Councils must clearly demonstrate their ability to comply with the deadlines for both procurement of works, and land release through their Investment Case.
• OPE will undertake an assurance review of each application, and consider whether the application meets all criteria and is fully evidenced. Applications will then be put forward for a decision. Applications which are unable to meet the criteria, or have insufficient evidence, will not be recommended for funding.
• Funded projects should aim to complete the subsequent housing development within two years of the land being released, and both the route and timescales to achieve this should be clearly detailed in the application.
• BLRF2.4 can be provided alongside other government funding to unlock brownfield projects: in such cases the assessment of value for money will take all government funding into account. Further information is provided throughout the Fund Details and the Technical Annex (TA).
• All councils awarded funding will be required to sign a Grant Funding Agreement (GFA). A draft version is available under ‘How to Apply’.

As examples, some schemes funded through previous BLRF2 rounds include: 

To find out more about past BLRF/LRF projects, including more case studies of previously successful projects, visit www.local.gov.uk/onepublicestate.

The aims of BLRF2.4 are to enable and accelerate the release of council-owned land for housing development that otherwise would not come forward, increasing pace and innovation in housing delivery. Projects must be able to release land for homes by 30 September 2027, with housing delivery expected to follow within two years.

Eligible costs 

BLRF2.4 funding will provide upfront capital investment in order to create a viable project, and can cover abnormal costs that may include:

• Site levelling, groundworks, demolition, remediation;
• Provision of small-scale infrastructure;
• Highways works or other access challenges;
• Addressing environmental constraints;
• External works, substructure and piling;
• Asbestos removal;
• Sewer diversions;
• On site BioDiversity Net Gain and similar nature conservation mitigation works. 

Physical works for site activation (such as hoardings, welfare facilities, skips etc.) can be included, but not any associated revenue costs.

This is not an exhaustive list, but if proposed expenditure does not fall into these categories, please contact your OPE Regional Team for further advice. 

Ineligible costs

The fund covers capital costs for abnormal works that address defined market failures and that will unlock the site for development within the specified timescales. The following are not eligible for funding: 

• Revenue costs, such as: officer time; work management fees; professional fees; planning fees and planning consultancy; design fees; highways inspection and management; plus project management, including revenue costs associated with site activation;
• Early stage feasibility studies;
• Community engagement;
• Off-site infrastructure unless directly related and proportionate to the scheme;
• Design/planning costs;
• Procurement costs;
• Costs related to the construction of the housing;
• Most site investigations unless directly associated with facilitating another eligible cost.

This is not an exhaustive list, and your OPE Regional Team can help with any specific queries for costs not listed above.

Applicants should recognise the potential for cost inflation between the date of application and the delivery of works, and should base cost estimates on the projected delivery period. The fund will not cover cost overruns. 

Evidencing costs

Evidence of the cost and duration of works to be covered by BLRF2.4 must be provided. For projects of £750,000 or above, and/or delivering significant on-site or off-site infrastructure, quotes for the work with any supporting information would provide the most convincing evidence. 

If this information is currently unavailable, indicative budgets should be supported by evidence of comparable works or information from other recognised data sources, such as BCIS or an RICS qualified quantity surveyor to justify these assumptions. 

All applications must complete and submit an Investment Case, Technical Annex and provide appropriate supporting evidence. There is no limit to the number of applications that a council can submit, and applications can be put forward at any point during 2025-26 subject to a) ongoing availability of funding and; b) ability to evidence that the scheme meets the fund requirements. 

If submitting applications for multiple projects, councils should factor in their ability to deliver all schemes to the required timescales, should all be successful. 

Each application must relate to an individual site, although sites that are divided by roads are acceptable, provided these do not create a significant barrier between parcels of land, as are sites that would otherwise be contiguous. Multi-site, portfolio applications, are not eligible for this funding route.

Councils are recommended to have early discussions about their projects with their OPE Regional Team to discuss the project’s overall suitability for investment funding, identify readiness for land release and delivery, determine the scope and nature of supporting evidence required, and consider the council’s ability to enter into contract. 

Before applying, applicants are encouraged to familiarise themselves with the requirements and criteria set out in the Fund Details, the FAQs, and the draft Grant Funding Agreement, as well as the application materials and supporting guidance. OPE Regional Teams are available to provide advice and guidance on the evidence required to demonstrate the scheme meets the required criteria. All applications will be jointly assessed by the OPE team and MHCLG.

The assessment process will follow two stages, as detailed below:

• Eligibility criteria
• Gateway criteria

Applications will only be considered if the following criteria are satisfied:

• The land to which the application relates to is previously developed land (brownfield land) as defined in the Glossary (Annex 2) of the December 2024 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
• The land is in council ownership when the Investment Case is submitted.For larger projects, or a project where there may be multiple landowners involved, only works on (or in respect of releasing) the council-owned land can be funded.
• The project must undertake capital works on council-owned land only; funding is not available for works already undertaken or contracted before the Grant Funding Agreement is signed by all parties.
• The applicant must ensure any works contracts for funded activity are signed by 31 March 2026 and evidence of this should be provided to OPE by 10 April 2026. All councils awarded funding will be required to sign a Grant Funding Agreement (GFA).
• The project must be able to release land by 30 September 2027. If land cannot be released by this date, MHCLG will normally require unspent funding to be returned.
• The council has a general or specialised housing need.
• The relevant MP has been notified of the application.
• The council’s S151 Officer or Chief Executive must sign the application.
• The council declares that they will:
  • Engage with their relevant local OPE partnership, or similar public property partnership, working collaboratively with other public bodies on their property assets and strategies;
  • Through the government InSite platform, consent to share and update council property asset data annually, subject to the availability of a bulk upload tool for the system;
  • Adhere to reporting requirements by providing regular data on project progress and benefits delivery updates - currently this is required three times a year;
  • Consent to the sharing of the application for the purposes of assessing the application. The application will be shared with LGA, MHCLG, Office of Government Property and may be shared with other Government Departments as required, and will be stored in line with GDPR requirements.

If the project passes the eligibility criteria, it will be considered against the following gateway criteria:

• Evidence of value for money;
• Evidence of market failure;
• Evidence of deliverability and mitigation of risk.

Value for Money (VfM)

The Technical Annex (TA) provides a tool for calculating value for money using the approximate economic costs and benefits generated by a new housing development. The TA makes use of broad assumptions and will not be able to account for all site-specific characteristics.

The VfM assessment considers if the total benefits of supporting the scheme likely exceed the total costs. This will consider both impacts that can be readily and robustly valued as well as those that cannot. Any material risks and uncertainty to the assessment will also be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Applications must achieve a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.0 or above after both the BCR and Non-Monetised Impacts (NMIs) are considered, to pass the VfM gateway criteria.

The BCR calculation within the TA includes two additional benefits. The first values the removal of disamenity caused by undeveloped brownfield land and the associated impacts, and this calculation has been incorporated into the TA template. The second includes, where required, the wider area placemaking impacts of developing on brownfield land for larger urban regeneration schemes of at least 50 units. These changes should have a positive impact in supporting projects to demonstrate a BCR of 1.0 or above, for example, in urban areas where there may also be low land values. This does require further input of information into the TA template. Please refer to the Value for Money Guidance to determine if wider area impacts are likely to apply to your scheme. 

In addition to these benefits, identifying Non Monetised Impacts (NMIs) can support an application to demonstrate a BCR of 1.0 or above by evidencing those additional social and community benefits from the project that are not monetised in the BCR. The collective impact and evidence for NMIs, alongside the initial BCR score, will be assessed upon submission.

Further guidance on how to complete the TA is set out in the VfM Guidance. This includes information required to assess the wider area (placemaking) impacts of a project and evidence for NMIs. 

Economic appraisal: Benefit Cost Ratio and initial Value for Money category

Part 1 of the economic appraisal will be based on the present value social economic benefits of a project, divided by its present value costs to the public sector. This will generate a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR).

The fund is targeted at releasing council-owned brownfield land suitable for housing development. On this basis, the following economic benefits of releasing this land will be monetised:

• Land value uplift, which represents the economic benefits of converting land to a more productive use. Land value uplift is calculated by the difference between the value of the land in its new use, minus the value in its previous use;
• Health and distributional impacts around the provision of any additional affordable rented and social rented housing;
• Brownfield amenity impacts relate to the removal of disamenity to the local area caused by undeveloped brownfield land and the associated impacts;
• The brownfield land amenity benefits of developing on brownfield land are captured automatically in the TA. Alternatively for larger schemes (50 homes plus), councils may use the TA to identify the wider area (placemaking) benefits of developing on brownfield land to support their project to achieve a BCR of 1.0 or above. 

The TA provides a land value based on Valuation Office Agency (VOA) averages. Existing Land Value Assumptions can be adjusted in the Technical Annex by councils, provided proportionate evidence is submitted alongside to justify the change. 

Evidence to justify an adjustment to the VOA land values should be based on the site’s existing use value, rather than a residual value for the site following a change of use for housing. Hope value should not be taken into consideration. 

Suitable evidence may include:

• Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors “Red Book” Valuation;
• Evidence of sales values achieved by comparable sites with similar existing uses and a short narrative of why these sites are reasonable competitors;
• An independent assessment of the local market;
• A view of the site's value by an independent property professional or agent. 

Data sources and any relevant dates for when that data was obtained should be referenced with this information. 

Other government funding

If the scheme is reliant on other central government funding, this must be included within the TA and detailed in the Investment Case, including site plans where appropriate/relevant. Where funding decisions are pending, please include this information in the Investment Case including the funding source, expected decision date and relationship to the project. Further information on what funding should be included is set out in the Value for Money Guidance. Your OPE Regional Team can provide further advice and support on how to present and reference this information in both the Investment Case and Technical Annex. If this evidence is not received but is relevant to the project, it may result in your application being rejected.

Where another funding source is supporting works across a wider regeneration area, redline maps of both the proposed project and the wider funded area, together with a detailed breakdown of how other funding that will directly benefit the project site, should be supplied. For clarity, the Affordable Housing Programme grant is considered to support the direct construction of homes and does not need to be included in the Technical Annex, although it should be included as part of any viability assessment. 

Specifically for councils in MCA areas (outside of GMCA and WMCA), there is potential for possible crossover between the MCA-administered Brownfield Housing Fund and BLRF2.4. Whilst it is possible for projects to be co-funded by both sources, the project as a whole needs to show value for money as a government investment, and the Investment Case needs to be clear which funds are supporting which housing outputs. 

Further detail on capturing other funding sources is also provided in the VfM Guidance. The FAQ on sunk costs may also be helpful. 

Additionality

Further guidance on additionality is included in the VfM Guidance and the flow charts within the TA. The application should include evidence to support applicants’ responses to the additionality assessment within the Technical Annex where relevant, such as: 

• Demonstration of clear site-specific market failures, including, where relevant, evidence that the works would not have been undertaken by the private sector;
• Demonstration that the viability/funding gap could not be solved by reasonable changes to the specification of the project that would be acceptable to the council;
• Details of existing landowners that might complicate land assembly;
• Details of how delivery will be accelerated by this funding.

Economic appraisal: Non-Monetised Impacts (NMIs)

Where a BCR score is still close to or below 1, councils may choose to use NMIs that can be attributed to the project. NMIs are economic impacts that have not been monetised in Part 1 of the economic appraisal (BCR) because it was not practical or considered proportionate to do so. 

NMIs should be described as clearly as possible when completing the TA, as the assessment will focus on the scale of the impact and evidence applicable to your application. Please refer to the VfM Guidance for further information on what is expected from applicants.

Market failure

BLRF2.4 provides grant funding where viability issues have prevented the release of council-owned brownfield land. Funding is available to unlock a site where market failures are preventing housing from being delivered. Evidence of market failure would include a viability gap: that is to say where the costs associated with unlocking a site are higher than the value it generates. The fund cannot be used to support viable projects. 

Applications should provide evidence of site-specific market failures, including, where relevant, evidence that the site in its present condition would not be delivered by the private sector without public sector funding support. Previous unsuccessful marketing exercises or soft market testing results can be used to support the case. The application should make clear how the funding will address the identified market failures and how - with the funding - these can be mitigated.

Evidencing market failure

Proportionate evidence should be submitted to justify why the project requires government financial support. Information should be clearly sourced and referenced, and either be submitted with the application or be in the public domain, including industry standards such as BCIS. Where detailed appraisals have been submitted, a summary sheet setting out the key financial inputs and outputs from the project should be appended. Where evidence of market failure is provided across a number of documents, a brief supporting narrative should be included to pull the evidence together with clear conclusions, making clear the size and reasoning for any viability gap. 

For larger projects of £750,000 or above, a Development Appraisal undertaken by a Registered member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) or similarly qualified person is required. 

Smaller projects could provide alternative evidence of market failure. Evidence should be proportional to the size and nature of the project, focusing on clarity rather than volume of evidence to illustrate the presence of any viability gap, particularly where underlying viability information is highly detailed, complex, or is based on long time horizons for income return. 

Evidence should include:

• Current estimated site value and a short narrative on how this was calculated including market value comparable evidence where appropriate;
• Estimated remediation, abnormal, and/or other costs, with a short narrative of how these are calculated. This could include direct quotes for work if available, comparable costs for similar works, or estimates using standard data sources;
• Estimated sales value following funded works, with a short narrative on how that figure was calculated. Note that where other central government grant funding, (including Affordable Housing Grant) is contributing to the overall project viability, this funding must be included. The narrative should also state what the planning status of the site will be when sold;
• If relevant, any land acquisition costs, with a short narrative on why the council acquired that land and why that price was paid for the site. Please note that BLRF2 will only support the current market value for the land and cannot be used to cover historic acquisition values. This reflects RICS valuation guidance and NPPF viability guidance;
• For projects £750,000 and over, a development appraisal undertaken by a Registered member of the RICS, or similarly qualified person, should be provided. Ideally that appraisal should follow RICS “Redbook” guidance. Evidence provided should clearly set out the source of data used in any appraisal and how/by whom any professional judgments were taken;
• Where sites are to be developed for rent, especially where councils are retaining the ownership of such sites, applications will need to set out the anticipated time period for return of investment/borrowing costs. 

Where any viability/funding gap could be met by reasonable changes to the specification of the scheme (e.g. housing mix, environmental standards adopted), the appraisal should set out why such changes have been disregarded. Such reasoning could include: 

• Compliance with a range of council policies such as policy commitments to increase affordable housing delivery;
• Council committee resolution (attach a copy), Local Plan or similar policy relating to development on council-owned land;
• Design excellence; or;
• Increased sustainability performance of new housing stock. 

The Development Appraisal should confirm how the total viability gap will be met. If this is to be fully grant funded this should be clearly outlined. If it is to be partially funded, details are required to confirm where the remaining gap funding will come from, whether it has already been secured, and should outline details of associated conditions/timescales. 

The risks associated with unlocking the site, market failures, viability and development appraisal assumptions should be clearly identified and appropriate mitigation measures included.

Deliverability and mitigation of risk

Applicants must demonstrate that the land will be released by 30 September 2027. Contracts for the BLRF-funded works should be signed by 31 March 2026 and evidence of this must be provided to OPE by 10 April 2026. 

Proportionate evidence should be provided to support delivery assumptions, with a greater degree of assurance expected for larger and more complex schemes. 

The following delivery aspects should be fully addressed within each application. 

Land ownership

A copy of the title documents confirming the land is owned by the council should be submitted, together with information on any title issues that require resolution ahead of the site being marketed and a redline plan confirming the site boundary. A redline site plan and photos of the site should also be submitted. 

Where a copy of title is not available in order to proceed with the application, a senior council official, such as the S151 officer, is required to confirm the site is in the council’s ownership.

Should a title need to be registered in order for land to be transferred, even to a wholly council-owned development vehicle, this should be factored into the overall project plan and undertaken early in the project process. We strongly suggest that councils factor in the time required for HM Land Registry to register titles into their overall project plan. 

Where applicable, an initial outline of how the council is proposing to market the site and select their delivery partner should be submitted. This should include an indication of the associated timescales for the disposal. Risks associated with development or disposal of the site in a timely and effective manner should be identified and appropriate mitigation measures included. 

Land release

The project must undertake capital works on council-owned brownfield land. The funding must enable the release of land by 30 September 2027, preferably earlier, and address the original market failures the application identifies.

For BLRF2.4, land can be defined as “released” when:

a) An unconditional contract, development agreement or building licence with a private sector partner is signed, or a freehold or leasehold transfer takes place;

b) Land has transferred to a development vehicle owned, or partly owned, by the local authority; or

c) The point at which development begins on site if (a) or (b) have not happened. 

Project Plan – Path to land release

Applications must provide evidence that the award of funding will enable the release of land for housing development by 30 September 2027.

The key purpose of the fund is to enable accelerated delivery of housing on previously developed council land. Applications must demonstrate that there is a clear and efficient route to land release, with an identified means of disposal or development. The approach to meeting key dependencies, such as planning and procurement should be clearly set out, realistic, and where possible, twin tracked. 

Where land release is based on the disposal of a site to a private developer or a Registered Provider, councils should factor in the timing implications of a sales contract with such a developer conditional on the grant of planning permission. 

Delivery timescales will be closely scrutinised. Where the proposed route to land release is dependent on planning permission being granted, project plans should set out the key milestones and dates for securing planning permission. This might include:

• If pre-application advice has been/will be sought;
• Date the application is to be submitted;
• Estimated date for grant of permission, and;
• Estimated date for agreed S106 and discharge of any pre commencement conditions.

For larger sites, a Planning Performance Agreement or similar would be a key part of deliverability evidence. 

The application should also include a project plan (Gantt chart or similar) outlining the procurement process and delivery of the works, as well as how this relates to the marketing and disposal of the site in order to release it for development. 

The application will also need to set out if and how projects are dependent on the relocation of social, community and other infrastructure, including the timescales and sequencing for that relocation, and whether a separate planning permission would need to be sought to enable that relocation. Where projects are dependent on the relocation of an existing use, there needs to be clear evidence to provide certainty that any relocation would take place within a timescale to allow land release by 30 September 2027.

The example Grant Funding Agreement, which can be found in the How to Apply webpage, details required timelines for spending the grant.

Planning permission

BLRF2.4 applications must include a short planning statement outlining the planning policy position and planning history for the site. The statement should identify the key planning considerations to be addressed in delivering the funded project. 

Where pre-application advice has been received, either a copy of that advice or a precis should be submitted with the application. Likewise, if permission in principle or outline planning permission has been granted, councils should outline the further evidence/steps required to gain a full planning permission. 

Whilst applicants are not required to have full planning permission in order to apply for funding, applications should demonstrate progress has already been made, with an understanding of planning constraints, timeframes for necessary studies and the need for other parties to agree to any mitigations clearly set out. 

Where planning permission is necessary to achieve land release through a conditional contract, that should be achieved within a timescale that allows for both grant of permission and discharge of conditions/S106 to be signed, so as to allow any sales contract to become fully unconditional by 30 September 2027. 

If the site already has planning permission for the intended project, a copy of the decision notice and S106 agreement is required. If there are conditions still to be discharged or s106 agreements to be signed post decision, timescales for securing planning permission need to be included.

The risks associated with securing a timely and deliverable planning consent should be identified and appropriate mitigation measures included. An assessment of the planning risks of the project should include relevant site specific issues, such as heritage considerations, flood risk, biodiversity and protected species, risk of challenge and potential to impact on timescales, and the impact on transport networks/road safety.

We would expect to see the council’s project plan set out the route to achieving land release by 30 September 2027, including where relevant, a timescale for grant of planning permission, and management of other interdependencies such as procurement timeframes, third party operations/works, relocation of existing uses, and responding to any potential legal challenge.

Procurement 

Projects should be ready to kickstart procurement for the BLRF2.4-funded works as soon as the funding has been confirmed. The application must specify the way the works are to be procured and the associated timescales for procurement, to include: 

• Entering into a contract for the works by 31 March 2026;
• When the land will be released for development, to accord with fund requirements to release land by 30 September 2027, and;
• Construction/completion of the homes.

Applicants should include details on whether a contractor has already been procured, including whether they will use a procured contractor panel or proceed with a full works procurement process. The procurement should be conducted in line with the council's procurement policy. 

Where approval to procure is needed, councils should secure ‘in principle’ committee approval as early as possible to commence procurement on receipt of grant. 

Please note: Funding is not available for works already undertaken or contracted before the GFA is signed by all parties. 

Council commitment

In order to support the timely release of land for housing, and ensure that projects submitted release land by 30 September 2027, applicants should outline the level of support the project has from senior stakeholders. Such evidence of support could be in the form of Cabinet or committee approvals. 

Applicants should include the level of local commitment to the approach - for instance if it has been formally approved via a policy, committee, Cabinet or officer delegation.

Mitigation of risk and dependencies

The risks associated with undertaking the timely and effective procurement and delivery of the works should be identified, and appropriate mitigation measures included. 

Factors that would impact on remediation timescales, such as tenancy clearance or changes to location of utilities and services should be identified in the project plan, as should the risks and mitigations associated with these types of issues. 

Key dependencies and the council’s approach to managing them should also be clearly identified within the application.

Dependencies may include:

• Extinguishing leases for commercial tenants or decanting residential tenants;
• Projects where viability is dependent upon income from the disposal of another site;
• Where the project represents a later phase of wider regeneration;
• Relocating social, community and other infrastructure.

The Investment Case contains questions on two non-assessed areas relating to:

• The project's contribution to net zero, and;
• Any intended use of Modern Methods of Construction.

Applicants should detail any planned use of modern methods of construction within the project, and/or any additional uses of low carbon technologies that go beyond national requirements.

These areas are captured for reporting purposes only, and to inform design of future programmes. The information will not form part of the formal project assessment. 

Reporting against project progress is a mandatory condition of funding, as set out in the Grant Funding Agreement. The project lead named on the application will be required to report on six milestones at each reporting period, which is currently three times per year, as well as providing a narrative on the project’s key risks/issues to delivery. The six milestones are detailed in the FAQs. We strongly advise applicants to review the terms and conditions of funding as set out in the draft Grant Funding Agreement.

• Brownfield Land Release Fund (BLRF2) Round 4 – December 2025
• Brownfield Land Release Fund (BLRF2) Round 4 – how to apply
• Brownfield Land Release Fund (BLRF2) Round 4 – FAQs