The standard method for housing need after December 2024
From 12 December 2024 the standard method starts from existing housing stock rather than household projections, with a stronger affordability uplift and no cap.
The standard method for assessing local housing need changed on 12 December 2024. The baseline moved from household projections to a percentage of existing housing stock, the affordability adjustment became much stronger, the 35 per cent uplift for the largest urban areas was removed, and the cap that limited increases above a plan figure went with it. The method now produces a substantially higher national total than its predecessor.
If you are arguing land supply, the first thing to establish is which version of the method the authority's figure was calculated under, and when.
What the standard method calculates
The method produces a minimum annual figure for local housing need for a local planning authority area. It is a starting point for plan-making, not a ceiling and not a decision-taking target in itself.
Two things it is not. It is not the housing requirement, which is what the adopted plan sets after testing the need figure against constraints, capacity and any unmet need from neighbours. And it is not a cap: national policy has always allowed authorities to plan for more where there is evidence to justify it.
The method lives in the Planning Practice Guidance rather than in the Framework itself. That matters, because the Framework was re-issued on 17 August 2026 with policy-coded chapters, while the arithmetic of the standard method sits in the guidance and can be changed without a new Framework. Check the guidance page rather than a policy reference. The structural change to citing the Framework is covered in reading the policy-coded structure.
The change made in December 2024
The earlier method started from the 2014-based household projections, took a ten year average, applied an affordability adjustment using the median workplace-based house price to earnings ratio, and then applied a cap linked to the adopted plan figure or the projections.
Three criticisms accumulated. The 2014 projections were increasingly out of date and their successors produced lower figures in places with the greatest affordability pressure. The cap suppressed need in exactly the authorities that had not planned for enough. And the urban uplift concentrated numbers in cities whose deliverable capacity was already constrained.
The revised method answers those by removing the projections from the calculation altogether.
The stock-based baseline and the affordability adjustment
The structure is now two steps.
| Step | What it does |
|---|---|
| Baseline | A fixed percentage of the existing dwelling stock in the authority area, taken from the published dwelling stock estimates |
| Affordability adjustment | An uplift driven by how far the median house price to median workplace-based earnings ratio exceeds a stated threshold, applied as a multiplier to the baseline |
| Result | Minimum annual local housing need figure, with no cap applied |
The baseline percentage is 0.8 per cent of existing stock. The adjustment increases the baseline according to the affordability ratio, with a multiplier considerably higher than the 0.25 factor used in the previous method, and the threshold ratio against which the comparison is made is set out in the guidance.
Two points of practice. Use the affordability ratio from the published national statistics for the correct year, as specified in the guidance, rather than a ratio calculated yourself. And take the stock figure from the same published source the guidance names, because dwelling stock estimates and council tax base figures do not always match.
State every input in your calculation with its source and vintage. A land supply argument that quietly uses a different year's affordability ratio from the authority's is an argument about arithmetic rather than about policy, and it will be lost on that basis.
Effect on individual authorities
The direction of travel varies by place rather than by region.
Authorities with a large existing stock and a high affordability ratio saw the sharpest increases, which captures much of the south east, the south west and the more expensive rural districts. Authorities where the previous method had produced a low figure because of falling projections saw increases too, since projections no longer feature.
The largest urban areas moved differently, because removing the 35 per cent uplift pulled in the opposite direction to the stock-based baseline. The net effect for any individual authority has to be calculated rather than assumed.
Do not rely on a published table of the new figures without checking its date. Several circulated versions were prepared during the consultation stage and differ from the figures produced by the final method.
How the figure feeds land supply arguments
The need figure matters at appeal mainly through the housing requirement and the five year supply.
Where the adopted plan is recent, the requirement in the plan generally governs the supply calculation. Where the plan is older than the period the guidance specifies, or its housing requirement was based on a method that has since changed, local housing need calculated under the current standard method becomes the basis for the supply figure instead.
The December 2024 Framework also restored the requirement for authorities to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites, with a buffer, and kept the consequences of under-delivery under the Housing Delivery Test. What a failure triggers is set out in the Housing Delivery Test.
So the sequence in a statement of case is: identify the requirement and its basis, identify the supply and test deliverability site by site, calculate the resulting years of supply, and only then reach the policy consequence. Leading with the standard method figure and working backwards is a common error, and inspectors pick it up.
Where the figure can be departed from
Upwards is straightforward. Authorities may plan for more than the standard method figure, and the guidance recognises circumstances where actual need is likely to be higher, including growth strategies, funding deals, unmet need from a neighbouring authority and a strategic infrastructure project.
Downwards is hard. An alternative approach to calculating need has to be justified by exceptional circumstances and tested at examination, and the bar has proved high in practice. What authorities more commonly argue is not that need is lower but that it cannot be met, which is a different question answered through constraints: Green Belt, designated landscapes, flood risk, irreplaceable habitats and genuine capacity limits.
That distinction between need and the deliverable requirement is where most examinations now spend their time, and it interacts with the plan-making reforms under local plan reform in the 2023 Act. Affordable housing policy follows from the same evidence base, and the tenure split in an Affordable Housing Statement should be traceable to it.
Verifying the formula before you use it
Four checks before the figure goes in a document.
- Read the current guidance page on housing and economic needs assessment in full, including the worked steps. It has been amended and may be amended again.
- Confirm the dwelling stock source and year it names, and use that dataset.
- Confirm the affordability ratio dataset and year, and use the same one for every authority in a comparison.
- Show the calculation in an appendix, step by step, so an inspector can reproduce it.
And say in terms which edition of the Framework and which version of the guidance you have used, with the date you accessed it. The method has changed twice in six years. It will change again.
This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it, and verify the current standard method against the published guidance, because the figures here describe the position as at 26 September 2026. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.
Follow changes to the method and to national policy on the PlanScope planning law timeline.
Frequently asked questions
What is the baseline in the revised standard method?
A percentage of the existing dwelling stock in the authority area, set at 0.8 per cent, taken from the published dwelling stock estimates rather than from household projections. The affordability adjustment is then applied to that baseline as a multiplier, and no cap is applied to the result.
Is the standard method figure a target?
No. It produces a minimum figure for local housing need as a starting point for plan-making. The housing requirement in the adopted plan is what follows after need is tested against constraints, capacity and any unmet need from neighbouring authorities, and it can be higher than the standard method figure.
Did the urban uplift survive the December 2024 changes?
No. The 35 per cent uplift that applied to the largest urban areas was removed as part of the same package that introduced the stock-based baseline. For the biggest cities that pulled in the opposite direction to the new baseline, so the net effect has to be calculated for each authority rather than assumed.
Can a council use a different method to calculate need?
Only where the guidance test for a departure is met, justified and tested at examination, and that bar has proved high in practice. What authorities more often argue is not that need is lower but that it cannot be met, which is addressed through constraints such as Green Belt, designated landscapes, flood risk and capacity rather than through the need calculation.
Where is the standard method actually set out?
In the Planning Practice Guidance on housing and economic needs assessment, not in the Framework itself. That means the arithmetic can be amended without a new Framework, so cite the guidance page with the date you accessed it and show your calculation step by step in an appendix.
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.