Checking the Housing Delivery Test result for an area

A Housing Delivery Test result check takes about ten minutes and changes how you write a planning statement. The measurement is published annually by government for every local planning authority in England, expressed as a percentage, and the consequences for decision taking follow mechanically from which band the percentage falls into. Below 95 per cent the authority must publish an action plan. Below 85 per cent it adds a buffer to its five year housing land supply. Below 75 per cent the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies to decisions on housing applications.

That last line is why consultants check it before drafting anything on a contested residential site.

Where the results are published

Results are published on gov.uk as a collection, with a spreadsheet of measurements for every authority plus a short technical note setting out the data sources and any adjustments. Each publication covers a defined three year period and carries its own date.

Two habits save embarrassment. Download the spreadsheet rather than quoting a secondary summary, because authorities and objectors both circulate out-of-date figures. And record the publication date alongside the percentage in your own file, since a result can be superseded between your drafting and the committee date.

Local authority annual monitoring reports and five year land supply statements sit alongside the national result and often disagree with each other. The national measurement is the one that triggers the policy consequences.

How the measurement is calculated

The measurement is total net homes delivered over the three year period, divided by the total number of homes required over the same period, expressed as a percentage.

Both sides of that fraction repay attention.

Delivery counts net additional dwellings, which includes conversions and changes of use, and includes a counted contribution from student accommodation and other communal accommodation on the basis set out in the technical note. Demolitions are netted off. The requirement side uses the figure from the adopted plan where the plan is recent enough, and the local housing need figure derived from the standard method where it is not.

So a poor result can have two very different causes. An authority that really did under-deliver, and an authority whose requirement jumped because its plan aged past the point where the plan figure is used. The second is far more common, and it matters when you are arguing about weight.

What follows at each threshold

The buffer and the presumption both come from national policy rather than from statute, and the Framework was re-issued on 17 August 2026 with policy-coded chapters in place of paragraph numbers. Check the policy code and the exact wording in the current edition before citing it, because the arrangements for housing land supply have changed more than once in recent editions. Follow the sequence of changes through the planning law updates timeline rather than relying on an older summary.

How a result feeds into a decision

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 still governs. The determination is made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, so a Housing Delivery Test result does not switch the plan off.

What it does is change the balance. Where the presumption is engaged, permission should be granted for housing development unless the policies most important for determining the application are out of date, in which case the balance tilts, or unless specific protections apply. Those protections are the part applicants forget. Green Belt, designated heritage assets, flood risk sequential requirements and habitats sites all continue to operate on their own terms whatever the delivery figure says.

A site in Flood Zone 3a in an authority measured at 60 per cent is still refused if it fails the sequential test. The presumption is a tilt, not a key.

Reading the authority's action plan

An action plan is published by the authority itself, usually as a short document naming the reasons for under-delivery and the measures intended to address it. Read it for three things.

The authority's own diagnosis, which is often a frank account of stalled large sites, infrastructure constraints or slow build-out rates on allocations. The measures it commits to, which sometimes include a stated willingness to grant permission on unallocated sites. And the timescale, because an action plan published two years ago with no progress reported is evidence in itself.

Quote the authority's own words where they help your case. An officer finds it hard to argue against a diagnosis their own council published.

Where the supply figures can be contested

Land supply disputes are technical, and they are where appeals on housing sites are actually won and lost. The common pressure points:

• deliverability of allocated sites, measured against the definition in the Framework's glossary and the evidence the authority holds for each site
• sites with planning permission but no start, where the lapse date is approaching
• large strategic sites with assumed build-out rates that the housebuilder's own programme does not support
• windfall allowances based on past rates that are no longer occurring
• double counting between allocations and permissions on the same land

Build the argument site by site with a schedule, not as an assertion about the total. Appeal inspectors have dealt with hundreds of these and read the schedules first. Measuring the areas correctly matters here too, and our note on measuring site area and floorspace for a threshold test covers the conventions.

Using the result in a planning statement

Put it in the policy section, with the publication reference, and then do the work of explaining what follows. A sentence saying the authority is at 68 per cent is not an argument.

A workable structure for the relevant part of a Planning Statement:

1. State the measurement, the publication it comes from and the period it covers.
2. State which consequence that triggers under the current Framework, citing the policy code and edition.
3. Identify the development plan policies most important for determining the application, and say whether each is up to date.
4. Set out the balance you say the decision maker should strike, with the benefits and harms itemised.
5. Confirm which specific protections apply to the site and address them separately.

Where affordable housing is part of the benefit side, the tenure and quantum belong in the Affordable Housing Statement with the planning statement cross-referring rather than repeating.

And keep the tone measured. A statement that treats a weak delivery record as a trump card tends to read as weaker than one that works through the balance properly, because the inspector knows the protections still apply.

Check the result at the start of a project rather than the week before submission, since it affects which arguments are worth evidencing at all. Browse all 66 PlanScope report types to see what a residential application needs alongside the policy case.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.