Housing Delivery Test results and what they change

The Housing Delivery Test measures the net homes an authority delivered over the preceding three years against the homes it was required to deliver over the same period, and the result changes how applications in that area are decided from the day it publishes. Below 95 per cent the authority must prepare an action plan. Below 85 per cent a 20 per cent buffer is added to its housing land supply calculation. Below 75 per cent the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies to decisions on housing schemes.

For anyone running housing applications, that publication date is a diary entry, not a news item. The balance an inspector applies to your appeal can change overnight without a single word of the development plan altering.

What the test measures and when results publish

The test is a percentage. Net additional dwellings delivered in the authority's area over three years, divided by the homes required over those three years, published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for every authority in England.

Delivery counts net additions, which includes conversions, changes of use and student and other communal accommodation on a ratio basis, rather than only houses built on allocated sites. The requirement side is drawn from the adopted plan where the plan is recent enough, and from the standard method figure where it is not, which is why two authorities with similar build rates can post very different results.

Publication has moved around the calendar in past years, and the measurement methodology has been adjusted more than once. Check the current measurement rule book on gov.uk rather than assuming the version you used last cycle still applies, and treat the publication date as provisional until it is announced.

The consequences at each threshold

The consequences are cumulative. An authority at 70 per cent owes an action plan, carries the buffer and has the presumption applied against it.

The thresholds have been in place through several editions of the National Planning Policy Framework, and the current edition was published on 17 August 2026, with chapters organised by policy code rather than by the paragraph numbers older copies use. Verify the wording in the current Framework before you cite it in a statement, because the substance of the presumption has been redrafted before and the numbering has changed with it.

Action plans and buffers

An action plan is a public document, and most planners underuse it. It sets out the authority's own account of why delivery has fallen short, which frequently includes admissions about stalled allocations, infrastructure constraints and slow build-out on large sites.

Read it. An authority whose action plan blames delays on a single strategic urban extension has, in writing, told you something useful about whether that site is deliverable in practice for the purposes of its five year supply. That is the sort of sourced local evidence that moves a supply argument.

The 20 per cent buffer is applied to the requirement when calculating whether a deliverable five year supply exists, which effectively raises the bar the authority has to clear. An authority sitting on a supply of 5.2 years without a buffer may fall below five with one, and a shortfall in supply is itself a route into the presumption.

The presumption and how it applies

Where the test result falls below 75 per cent, the policies most important for determining the application are treated as out of date for housing decisions, and the tilted balance follows: permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or unless policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusal.

That second limb is where most tilted balance cases are actually decided. Green Belt, habitats sites, designated heritage assets, National Landscapes and areas at risk of flooding all sit behind that clear reason for refusal, so a site engaging any of them does not get the benefit of the tilted balance in the way applicants sometimes assume. The mechanics are worked through in the piece on when the tilted balance applies, and the related discussion of the presumption in favour covers how inspectors have approached the weighing exercise.

Appeal decisions on this point are indicative of how inspectors approach it rather than binding precedent, and reading three or four recent ones for the authority in question is better preparation than any general summary.

Evidence to prepare in advance

Build the file before the result publishes, not after.

1. The authority's own annual monitoring report, with completions by year and by site.
2. The current five year housing land supply statement, with the base date, the buffer applied and the treatment of each large site.
3. The action plan from the previous cycle, if one was required, and what it committed the authority to.
4. Your own site's contribution: units, tenure mix, the delivery programme and evidence from the housebuilder that it is deliverable within five years.
5. Recent appeal decisions in the authority engaging the presumption, with the inspector's reasoning on the clear reason limb.
6. Constraint checks on your site for the designations that would displace the tilted balance.

The sixth item is the one to do first. A site in Flood Zone 3, adjoining a listed building or within a habitats catchment is a different case entirely, and the survey and assessment work needed to deal with it takes months. A protected species survey is season-bound, and a licensed ecologist is legally required for the survey work and any mitigation licence, so an August start and a November committee do not fit together.

Effect on appeal prospects and land supply

The test result and the five year land supply position are separate measures that push in the same direction. The first looks backwards at delivery, the second forwards at supply, and an authority can fail one while passing the other.

For appeal strategy, the practical points are these. A result below 75 per cent gives the strongest position, and an appeal lodged while it stands is decided on that basis even if the position improves later, so timing matters. A result between 75 and 85 per cent gives you the buffer argument rather than an automatic presumption, and the case then turns on whether the buffer pushes supply below five years. And a result above 95 per cent removes the delivery argument entirely, leaving you to argue supply on its own merits.

Costs applications follow the same logic in reverse. An authority refusing a housing scheme against officer advice while the presumption applies, without evidence on the clear reason limb, is exposed to a costs award.

Tracking the annual publication

Set a recurring reminder rather than relying on the trade press. Watch the housing supply and delivery collection on gov.uk, subscribe to the authority's planning policy update list, and check the authority's own website for the action plan, which usually appears some months after the result.

When the result lands, do three things the same week. Re-run your appraisal for any site where the decision balance has moved. Review live applications for whether a supplementary policy note to the case officer is worth sending. And check whether any refusal within the appeal deadline is now worth appealing on a basis that did not exist when the decision was issued.

Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which reports a housing site is likely to need before you commit to a submission date.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.