Housing Delivery Test: what a failure triggers
The Housing Delivery Test compares homes delivered against homes required over three years. Falling below the thresholds changes how a council has to decide applications.
The Housing Delivery Test compares the net homes delivered in a local authority area over the previous three years with the number required over those same three years. Below 95 per cent the council writes an action plan. Below 85 per cent a 20 per cent buffer is added to its housing land supply. Below 75 per cent the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies to decisions, and the balance on unallocated sites shifts.
For anyone promoting land, that last threshold is the one that changes the shape of an application.
This is general guidance rather than legal advice, and the thresholds sit in the housing chapter of the National Planning Policy Framework, which was re-issued in August 2026. Check the current edition before you build an argument on the figures.
What the test measures and over what period
The measurement is deliberately blunt. Homes delivered over three years, divided by homes required over three years, expressed as a percentage. It is a backward-looking test of outcomes rather than a judgement about effort.
The rule book published by the government defines both halves. Delivery counts net additional dwellings from the housing flow statistics, with student accommodation and other communal accommodation converted to a dwelling equivalent based on bedspaces. Demolitions are netted off.
The requirement half is drawn from the adopted plan where the relevant policies are recent enough, and from the local housing need figure produced by the standard method where they are not. That switch matters. An authority with an older plan can find itself measured against a need figure considerably higher than the number its plan was built around.
Pandemic year adjustments were applied to some earlier measurements, which is one reason results from different years are not always comparable. Read the rule book version that applies to the measurement you are citing.
The three consequence bands
| Delivery against requirement | Consequence |
|---|---|
| 95 per cent or above | No action required |
| Below 95 per cent | Action plan required |
| Below 85 per cent | Action plan and a 20 per cent buffer on the supply of deliverable sites |
| Below 75 per cent | Action plan, buffer, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies to decisions |
The bands stack. A council at 70 per cent does all three things, and the practical effect on a planning committee is cumulative rather than a single switch being thrown.
Buffers, action plans and the presumption
The action plan is a public document. It has to identify the causes of under-delivery and the measures the council will take. Read it before you promote a site in that area, because it usually lists the allocations the council is relying on and, by implication, the ones it has quietly given up on. An action plan that leans on three large strategic sites with unresolved infrastructure is telling you something.
The buffer is arithmetic applied to the forward-looking land supply calculation. Adding 20 per cent to the five year requirement is often enough on its own to push an authority below a demonstrable supply, which then engages the same presumption by a different route.
The presumption itself, for decision-taking, means permission should be granted unless the adverse effects would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole, or unless policies protecting particular areas or assets provide a clear reason for refusing. Green Belt, designated heritage assets, protected habitats and areas at risk of flooding all sit in that second category.
So the tilted balance is not a green light. It moves the burden and it changes what an officer report has to say, and on a site with no absolute constraint it is worth a great deal.
How the test sits alongside the land supply calculation
Promoters routinely conflate the two. They answer different questions.
The test asks what was built. The land supply calculation asks what will be built, using the council's own list of deliverable sites, and it is contested site by site at appeal. Either can engage the presumption independently, and a council can pass the test while failing on supply or the reverse.
Where both point the same way, the argument in a Planning Statement becomes straightforward: policies most important for determining the application are out of date, the tilted balance applies, and the tilted balance therefore applies to the decision. Set out the delivery percentage, the year of the measurement, the supply position and the source for each.
Reading the officer report in a failing authority
Officer reports in these authorities follow a pattern. The delivery figure appears early, the buffer is applied to the supply calculation, and the recommendation then turns on whether any policy provides a clear reason for refusal. Read the harm paragraphs closely, because that is where the case will be won or lost, and answer them in your submission rather than in the appeal statement six months later.
Where the results are published and when
The government publishes a measurement for every local planning authority in England, usually as a single table with the rule book alongside it. Publication has slipped in some years, and the gap between the end of the measurement period and publication can be long enough that the position on the ground has moved.
Councils repeat their result in the annual monitoring report, and any action plan is published on the planning policy pages. Where a result is more than a year old, check whether a new plan has been adopted since, because that can change the requirement figure used in the next measurement.
What a failing authority means for site promotion
Three practical consequences for anyone bringing forward land.
First, timing. A council facing the presumption is more likely to grant on appeal than at committee, so build the programme around a realistic determination date and consider whether to agree an extension of time rather than appeal against non-determination.
Second, the evidence base has to be tighter, not looser. A tilted balance invites the council to pile up harm on the other side of the scales. Landscape, highways, ecology and heritage evidence all get more scrutiny, not less, because those are the only grounds left. Bring the Affordable Housing Statement forward too, since delivery of affordable homes is one of the benefits carrying weight in the balance.
Third, budget for the full cost of the application rather than the planning fee alone, including the levy the council will charge and the technical reports the validation list demands.
One honest caveat. Delivery percentages move slowly and appeal decisions in a failing authority are still decided on their own facts, so treat published appeal outcomes as indicative of how inspectors have approached the balance rather than as a rule you can rely on.
Work out which technical documents your site will need before you commit to a submission date. You can enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which reports your site is likely to need.
PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.
Frequently asked questions
How is the Housing Delivery Test calculated?
The government divides the net number of homes delivered in an area over the previous three years by the number of homes required over the same three years, and expresses the result as a percentage. The rule book sets out what counts as delivery, including student accommodation and communal homes converted to a dwelling equivalent, and how the requirement figure is derived.
What are the three Housing Delivery Test thresholds?
Below 95 per cent the council must publish an action plan. Below 85 per cent a 20 per cent buffer is added to its supply of deliverable sites. Below 75 per cent the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies to decisions. Confirm the figures against the current Framework edition, since the transitional arrangements used lower thresholds when the test began.
Does a failed test mean permission will be granted?
No. The presumption tilts the balance, so permission should be granted unless the harm of doing so would clearly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or unless policies protecting specific areas such as the Green Belt or designated heritage assets give a clear reason for refusal. Plenty of applications in failing authorities are still refused on landscape, highway or heritage grounds.
Where can I find my council's result?
The government publishes the measurement for every local planning authority in England each year, alongside the rule book. Councils usually repeat their result in the annual monitoring report and in the action plan where one is required. The action plan is often the more useful document, because it names the sites the council is relying on.
How does the test differ from the five year land supply?
The test looks backwards at homes actually completed. The land supply calculation looks forward at sites the council says are deliverable in the next five years. They interact, because a poor test result adds a buffer to the forward-looking calculation, and either can trigger the presumption on its own.
Sources and further reading
This article is general guidance about the planning system in England and, where stated, the rest of the UK. It is not legal or professional advice. Check your local planning authority’s validation requirements and take professional advice for your specific site.