A series of desktop research studies conducted during 2014– 17 examined a variety of formal public sector ‘housing’ and ‘planning’ strategies for any explicit reference to housing delivery by ‘self-provided’ or ‘collective’ routes of action. The examination sought to identify reference to ‘mutual’ or ‘collective’ or ‘self-provided’ activities to develop new local homes and/or neighbourhoods – specifically if there was consideration or mention of any of the following models: selfbuild; custom-build; self-help; co-operative; community land trust; cohousing; community-led housing.

A review of local documentation within Greater London, Greater Manchester and the core of the West Midlands (here termed Greater Birmingham for simplicity's sake) looked through all the relevant documents that were available on the websites of the 49 local authorities within the three metropolitan areas. At least one document from each of the following three categories was open to examination from each authority:

• • documents denoting local ‘planning’ principles – variously termed core strategies, core spatial strategies, local development frameworks, and local plans;

• • documents denoting key ‘housing’ principles – variously termed housing strategies, housing needs assessments, strategic housing market assessments, and affordable housing policies;

• • documents mapping out priority engagements with ‘local communities’ – variously termed community strategies, sustainable community strategies, community plans, corporate plans, voluntary sector strategies, and engagement and involvement strategies.

The overall results of this examination of policies across the three metropolitan areas are summarised at the end of this piece. From all the documents examined, almost threequarters of the authorities reviewed made no mention of any of the activities or ‘models’ of community engagement under consideration. Only 13 authorities (about 27%) referred to a self-provided or ‘community-led’ activity for housing and neighbourhood change. Of these, the predominant mention was for ‘self-build’ activity, which had double the number of the next highest mentions, namely for ‘custom-build’ activity. A very small number of authorities had a mention of two separate kinds of activity – linking mention of ‘self-build’ and ‘custom-build’ housing together. There was no specific mention at all of models or activities like ‘self-help housing’ or ‘cohousing’.