Right To Build Maps
Background
Right to Build is a legal right in England that’s meant to turn self and custom build from a niche into a normal housing route. In simple terms, each local planning authority has to keep a Self and Custom Build Register, and the number of people on that register is supposed to feed directly into real delivery. If enough people come forward, councils should be identifying land, enabling serviced plots, or using planning and disposal powers so those homes actually get built.
One of the key areas that self build often stalls is in the land finding process. The register is one of the few mechanisms that creates recorded demand, and it gives councils a clear signal of where self builders are ready to act. When it’s run well, it can unlock plots, improve local plan policy, and push councils to treat self build as part of the housing mix rather than an afterthought. When it’s run badly, it becomes a dead list that blocks momentum and tells future self builders not to bother engaging.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government have collected the data and published it in a spreadsheet format, which you can find here. I’ve previously seen Gov.uk data presented using maps and interactive charts made by professional statisticians that tell the story behind the numbers. Unfortunately this data hasn’t been shared in that format and I am not sure that there is any plan to, so I decided to try and bridge the gap.
The maps on this page show how different areas respond to their Right To Build duty. You can see where demand is building, where policies support delivery, and where the gap between register numbers and real permissions or plot supply suggests the system is not working as intended. This is useful if you’re looking for a plot, judging how supportive an area is likely to be, or simply trying to understand which councils are taking self and custom build seriously.
At the bottom of the page I have explained the process I have followed for transparency.
I hope you find it useful, or at least a bit interesting.
1) Right To Build Register Applicants 2016-2024
This first map shows demand for self and custom build by local planning authority across the UK, using the total number of people recorded on the Right to Build register. It is displayed as a colour shaded map (a choropleth map), where each council area is filled with a colour that represents how many applicants were on the register in a selected year. Areas with higher totals appear darker, and areas with lower totals appear lighter. If there is no usable data for an authority in that year, it is shown as blank or a neutral colour so it is obvious that nothing has been reported.
The map can be changed by year using the year selector at the top right, so you can see how applicant numbers rise, fall, or stay steady over time. Hovering over an area reveals the authority name and the applicant total for the chosen year, making it easy to compare specific councils without leaving the map. The legend explains the number ranges behind each colour band, so you can quickly translate colours into actual applicant counts.
The Data
Across England, the number of people recorded on Right to Build registers climbs strongly over time, rising from 15,572 in 2016 to 69,340 in 2024. The standout jump happens early, when the system beds in and awareness rises, with totals more than doubling from 2016 to 2017. After that, the register keeps growing but at a steadier pace through to 2021, reaching 59,925.
From 2022 onwards the curve flattens. Totals still rise, but only slightly, moving from 65,114 in 2022 to 67,400 in 2023 and 69,340 in 2024. That slowdown does not automatically mean demand has vanished. I think it reflects how many councils started to actively tidy their registers, removing duplicates, expired entries, or applicants who no longer meet local eligibility rules, which reduces the headline totals.
You can see that clean up effect in the year to year churn. Between 2023 and 2024 the national total increases by 1,940, but underneath that there are about 4,093 applicant increases across councils offset by about 2,153 decreases, with 52 councils reporting a lower total than the year before. A similar pattern appears in 2022 to 2023. So the trend is best read as sustained long term demand, with the recent years showing slower net growth partly because register maintenance and removals have started to cancel out a meaningful chunk of new sign ups.
3) Self and Custom Build Planning Permissions Granted
This map displays how many planning permissions were granted for self and custom build in each English local planning authority as a sum of all years. Each authority area is colour shaded based on the number of permissions recorded, so darker areas represent higher counts and lighter areas represent lower counts. Hovering an area reveals the exact number for that authority, and the legend translates the colour bands into permission ranges. Areas shown as blank or neutral indicate no usable value for that authority in that year.
The Data
Nationally, permissions rise quickly in the early years, peak, then fall away in the most recent period. Total permissions recorded across England sit at 6,894 in 2017, dip slightly to 6,188 in 2018, then climb to a peak of 8,787 in 2019. There is a sharp drop in 2020 to 5,907 which is likely due to the disruption of Covid-19 Pandemic, then a modest recovery and plateau in 2021 and 2022 at 6,498 and 6,472. After that, the trend turns downward again, falling to 5,394 in 2023 and 4,550 in 2024. Put simply, 2024 is roughly half the 2019 high point, which is pretty damning.
The other thing the map reveals is that delivery has spread to more places over time, but many authorities still report nothing in a given year. In 2017, 129 authorities record at least one permission. By 2021 and 2022 that rises to 242 and 243, then stays broadly similar in 2024 at 239. Even so, around a fifth of authorities still report zero permissions in 2024. So we aren’t getting the full picture.
Finally, the typical volume per active authority has softened in recent years. Among authorities granting at least one permission, the mid point drops from around 23 in 2019 to around 9 in 2024, which matches the visual story of fewer dark areas and more mid range shading on the later year views.
You can see that Cornwall, Somerset, North Yorkshire, Shropshire, Brent and Cherwell stand out as the most consistent high performers in granting planning permissions for self and custom build.
2, 4, 5, 7) Self Builder Friendly Map
This map is a snapshot of how self build friendly each English local planning authority is when it comes to running the Right to Build register. It uses four radio buttons to switch the map between four different checks or behaviours. For whichever option is selected, each authority is coloured as either Yes, No, or No data for the most recent year in the dataset, currently 2024.
The four radio buttons mean
Local Connection Test
Whether the authority applies a local connection eligibility test for the register. A local connection test is an eligibility rule that limits who can join a council’s Right to Build register. It typically requires applicants to prove a link to the area, such as living or working locally, previous residence, or close family connections, so the register reflects genuine local demand rather than casual interest.Financial Viability Test
Whether the authority applies a financial viability eligibility test for the register. A financial viability test is an eligibility check that asks applicants to show they can realistically fund a self build, for example evidence of savings, mortgage in principle, or access to finance. The aim is to keep the register focused on deliverable demand, not just aspiration.Applicant Charge
Whether the authority charges applicants to join the register
On this option the colours are flipped so green means No charge and red means Yes charge. An applicant charge is a fee the council asks people to pay to join or stay on the Right to Build register. It can help cover administration, but it can also discourage some people from registering, especially where budgets are already tight.Communicating Opportunities
Whether the authority actively communicates self and custom build opportunities to people on the register about suitable plots, serviced sites, or development opportunities as they come up. It is a practical step that helps turn the register from a waiting list into real chances to build.
Hovering an area shows the authority name and whether it is Yes or No for the selected option.
The Data
The coverage for these four fields effectively starts in 2018, with 2016 and 2017 largely blank, so it is best read from 2018 onwards.
Local Connection Test
This has steadily become more common. In 2018, 67 authorities showed Yes, about 23% of the mapped set. By 2024 it rises to 127, about 42%. The direction is consistent year on year, suggesting more councils have moved towards filtering the register so it reflects people with a realistic local claim.
Financial Viability Test
This remains a minority approach, but it is slowly spreading. It goes from 22 authorities in 2018, about 7%, to 39 authorities in 2024, about 13%. So it is growing, but it is still far from mainstream. This means that a lot of the applicants on the register may not actually have the means to self build.
Applicant Charge
Charging has roughly doubled over the period. In 2018, 36 authorities charge, about 12%. By 2024 it is 72, about 24%. Even though the map shows No charge in green, the underlying trend is that a larger share of councils now ask applicants to pay something to register. This could dissuade low earners from expressing their interest.
Communicating Opportunities
This one improves for a while, then slips back. It rises from 99 authorities in 2018, about 32%, to a peak of 150 in 2022, about 49%. Then it drops sharply in 2023 to 115, about 38%, with a partial recovery in 2024 to 123, about 40%. That pattern looks less like a smooth policy shift and more like mixed delivery or mixed reporting in the later years, but the headline is that proactive communication is still not the norm so those on the register aren’t having their needs actively met in the majority of cases.
8) Local Plan Policy Map
This map is about policy intent rather than delivery numbers. It shows, for each English local planning authority, whether self and custom build is recognised in local policy and how strong that policy is.
You use the radio buttons A to H to switch between eight different policy signals. For the selected option, each area is coloured using the policy status reported for that authority
Adopted in green
Draft in yellow
No in red
Other in a lighter red
No data left blank
Hovering an area shows the authority name and its status for the option you have selected.
8) Local Plan Policy
8a. Included general support for custom and self-build?
This checks whether the Local Plan contains general supportive wording, even if it is not very prescriptive.
Among authorities with data, adopted support rises from about 22% in 2018 to about 61% in 2024, with draft policies steadily converting into adopted ones. By 2024, close to nine in ten authorities report some form of support, and the main change over time is quality, moving from draft into adopted.
8b. Promoted custom and self-build as part of housing mix policy?
This is a stronger step than general support. It means self and custom build is explicitly placed into the mix of housing types the plan is trying to deliver.
In 2024, roughly 38% are adopted, roughly 21% are draft, and roughly 38% still say no. The adoption rate has climbed sharply since 2018, but the stubborn point is that a large block of authorities still do not treat self build as a core housing mix lever.
8c. Adopted a percentage policy for self and custom build at larger sites?
It means larger developments are expected to deliver a defined proportion of self and custom build plots or units.
This remains a minority approach. By 2024, about 19% are adopted and about 21% are draft, while about 57% still report no percentage policy. There has been improvement since 2018, especially in adopted policies, but most authorities still avoid putting a hard percentage requirement into plan policy.
8d. Introduced supplementary planning policies/ guidance?
This covers extra guidance beyond the Local Plan, for example SPD style documents, design guides, or specific self build guidance that helps applicants and developers navigate the process.
Still rare, but slowly growing. In 2018 only about 6% of authorities with data reported yes. By 2024 it is about 14%. There is a noticeable rise up to 2023, followed by a small dip in 2024, which suggests patchy follow through rather than a steady national rollout.
8e. Introduced consideration as part of land allocations, disposals and acquisitions?
This checks whether councils use their land and allocation decisions as a lever, for example allocating sites that lend themselves to self build, or disposing of land in a way that creates opportunities.
This is fairly stable over time. The yes rate sits around the low 40% mark in 2018 and around 38% in 2024. The key takeaway is that a sizeable minority do use land decisions to support self build, but it is not spreading quickly, and it is not yet mainstream.
8f. Specifically supported identified projects
This is about named schemes or clearly defined projects, for example council backed initiatives like Graven Hill, local delivery vehicles, or explicit support for a particular site or programme.
This looks like it peaked and then cooled. The number of yes authorities climbs into 2020 and 2021, then trends back down, returning to the same level by 2024 as it was in 2018. That fits the reality that flagship projects are hard to sustain and are often tied to a few motivated teams rather than adopted by every LPA.
8g. Taken action through Housing Strategy
This checks whether the council has taken practical action through its housing strategy, which is often where delivery commitments and programmes live.
There is a rise into 2019 and 2020, then a drift down, then a small bounce back in 2024. In percentage terms, yes sits around 20% in 2018, peaks around 26% in 2020, drops to around 21% in 2023, and returns to around 23% in 2024. The key point is that only around one in four authorities are using housing strategy as an active lever for self build at any one time.
8h. Adopted Neighbourhood Plans which incorporate policies on self and custom build
This checks whether neighbourhood planning has picked up self build policy, which can be a strong local signal even where the Local Plan is weaker.
This is the quiet riser. Yes grows steadily from about 9% in 2018 to about 25% in 2024. Unlike some of the other indicators, this one shows a consistent long term climb, suggesting more communities are embedding self build into locally led planning.
9) Demand intensity – Self build applicants per km² Map
This map takes the total number of people on each council’s Right to Build register and converts it into a demand intensity score by dividing by the land area of that local planning authority. The result is shown as applicants per square kilometre. You can switch the year, and the shading updates so you can see how that density of demand changes over time. Hovering an area shows the exact intensity figure for that authority and year, and the legend explains the value ranges behind each colour band.
What this metric shows
Raw applicant totals can be misleading because council areas vary wildly in size. A large rural authority can have a high total simply because it covers a huge area, while a small urban borough can look modest on totals even though the pressure is intense and competition for land is brutal. By normalising by land area, applicants per km² gives a fairer like for like view of where demand is concentrated.
It is also a good proxy for land scarcity pressure. Self build is ultimately constrained by access to plots. Where the same number of aspiring self builders are competing within a smaller physical area, it tends to mean tighter land supply, higher prices, and a greater need for councils to proactively allocate or release suitable sites. Used alongside the totals map, this intensity view helps separate places that are genuinely high pressure from places that are simply large.
10) Supply intensity – Permissions per km² per year Map
This map takes the number of planning permissions granted for self and custom build in each local planning authority and converts it into a supply intensity score by dividing by the authority’s land area. The result is shown as permissions per square kilometre for a selected year. When you change the year, the shading updates so you can see where permissioning activity is concentrated and how that pattern shifts over time. Hovering an area shows the exact permissions per km² value for that authority and year, and the legend explains the ranges behind each colour band.
What this metric shows
Raw permission totals are heavily influenced by the size of a council area. A large rural authority might grant a high number of permissions simply because it covers more land, while a compact urban borough may grant fewer permissions in absolute terms even though it is working harder per unit of area. Normalising by km² makes the map more comparable across very different geographies.
It also gives a clearer signal of delivery pressure. Permissions are one of the closest measurable steps towards real plot supply, and viewing them per km² highlights where councils are unlocking opportunities in a constrained physical space. When you compare this map with applicant intensity per km², you can quickly spot imbalance, high demand but low supply intensity, or places where permissioning activity is keeping pace with local pressure.
11) Allocations to Applicants Ratio Map
This map compares delivery against demand by showing the ratio of plot allocations to the number of people on the Right to Build register for each local planning authority in a selected year. Each area is colour shaded based on its allocations to applicants ratio, so you can quickly see where councils are keeping up with demand and where the gap is widening. Hovering an area reveals the underlying numbers and the calculated ratio for that year, and the legend explains the ranges behind the shading.
A higher ratio means more allocations relative to the size of the register. A lower ratio means allocations are not keeping pace with the number of applicants, so the waiting list pressure is likely building.
What this metric shows
Raw allocations on their own do not tell you whether a council is performing well, because the starting demand is completely different from place to place. A council allocating 50 plots might look impressive until you see they have thousands on the register. The ratio fixes that by normalising delivery against local demand, making it much easier to compare areas fairly.
It is also one of the clearest indicators of whether the Right to Build system is actually working. The legal duty is about responding to the register, so the most meaningful question is not just how many plots were allocated, but whether allocations are occurring at a rate that could realistically serve the people who have registered. Used alongside the applicant totals and permissions maps, this ratio helps separate areas that are genuinely converting demand into opportunities from areas that are effectively collecting names but not turning them into plots.
A small caution when reading it. Ratios can jump around in very small authorities or in years where either the applicant count or allocations are tiny, so the best interpretation is the pattern over multiple years rather than any single year in isolation.
For the legal duty view, the legislation works on base periods and a three year compliance window, so the real question is whether permissions over a three year window match the demand added three years earlier. Using a simple proxy on the dataset, comparing register demand in 2021 to total permissions in 2022 to 2024, only about 14 percent of LPAs hit 100 percent or more, and the median LPA lands around a quarter of the requirement. Cherwell improves on this proxy over time, but still sits around 65 percent for that 2021 to 2024 comparison, which is strong relative to peers but still short of the legal target. Some LPAs can apply for exemption for specific base periods, so a low score does not always mean unlawful behaviour, but it does still indicate that local self build delivery is not happening at the scale implied by the register.
12) Shortfall per km² Map
This map shows the gap between demand and supply for self and custom build in each local planning authority, scaled by land area. For the selected year, it calculates
registered applicants minus planning permissions granted, then divides by the authority area in km²
That gives a shortfall density figure in applicants per km². Darker shading means a bigger shortfall per km², so demand is outstripping permissions more intensely. Lighter shading means a smaller gap. If the value goes negative, it means the authority granted more permissions than the number of applicants recorded on the register for that year, so it is shown as an oversupply signal rather than a shortfall.
What this metric shows
Raw shortfall counts can be misleading because council areas vary massively in size. A big rural authority can have a large numeric gap spread thinly across a huge area, while a compact urban authority can have a smaller numeric gap but extremely concentrated pressure on land. Shortfall per km² highlights where the mismatch is most intense in physical space, which is often where land competition, price pressure, and the need for proactive site identification are most acute.
It is also a useful comparison layer alongside demand intensity and supply intensity. Demand per km² tells you where people want to build, permissions per km² tells you where councils are unlocking opportunities, and shortfall per km² shows the net pressure left over after permissioning activity. Used together, you can quickly spot places that are keeping pace, places falling behind, and places where the register looks high but permissions are still not showing up at the same intensity.
This map allows us to criticise, but with empathy for the underlying constraints. London boroughs have severe land scarcity, competing priorities like affordable housing delivery, and a built form that pushes toward flats and larger schemes rather than serviced plots. On top of that, there is a monitoring problem, permissions that include custom build elements can be hard to count if the council is not set up to track them properly. That said, when the dataset shows sizeable registers and repeated years of zero permissions in places like Oxford, Leicester, Havering and others, it still looks like either a serious delivery gap or a serious reporting gap, and neither is acceptable if the register is being sold to residents as meaningful. Planning practice coverage has highlighted how some councils have failed to issue any permissions for extended periods despite demand, so the map is reflects a known national pattern.
The report is best viewed on desktop due to the scale of the information, however you can view it on mobile my pressing the button below and turning your mobile device to landscape.
Attribution
Data source is the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government self build and custom housebuilding data release and the right to build registers monitoring spreadsheet, published 21 February 2025 and updated 5 September 2025. Crown copyright 2025, licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. The figures are self reported management information from local authorities, not official statistics. Visualisation and any harmonisation by Brendan Burr for MTBO.