The annual five year housing land supply position
A published five year housing land supply is a snapshot at a base date, usually 1 April. Testing it means working site by site through the schedule rather than arguing about optimism in general.
A five year housing land supply annual position is a snapshot tied to a base date, usually 1 April, and published some months later. That lag is the single most useful thing to understand about it. The figure an authority quotes in a committee report in November relates to the position in April, every site in it was judged deliverable as at April, and a site that has since lapsed, stalled or been sold is still sitting in the supply. For anyone arguing about supply, the base date is where the argument starts.
Where the figure is published and when
National policy requires authorities to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years of housing, with a buffer where one applies. The usual vehicle is a housing land supply statement or five year supply paper, often published alongside or within the Authority Monitoring Report prepared under section 35 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Local Planning Regulations 2012.
Three things to extract when you pick the document up. The base date. The requirement figure used and its source, whether that is the standard method, the adopted plan requirement, or a plan requirement with a shortfall added. And the site-by-site schedule, which is sometimes published separately and sometimes only released on request.
If the schedule is not published, ask for it. A supply statement without a site schedule cannot be tested, and authorities that decline to release one tend to find that position difficult to maintain at an inquiry.
National policy also provides a route for an authority with a recently adopted plan to fix its supply position for a period, and the mechanics of that have changed more than once. Check the current wording in the Framework and the housing supply guidance rather than relying on a note from a previous edition.
Base date, deliverability and the evidence behind each site
Deliverable has a definition in the Framework glossary, and the definition does more work than the arithmetic.
| Site type | Treatment |
|---|---|
| Detailed planning permission | Treated as deliverable unless there is clear evidence homes will not be delivered within five years |
| Small sites with outline permission | Treated as deliverable on the same basis |
| Larger sites with outline permission, permission in principle, allocations or brownfield register entries | Deliverable only where there is clear evidence that completions will begin on site within five years |
| Sites with no permission or allocation | Not deliverable |
The asymmetry between those first two rows and the third is where most supply disputes live. For a large allocated site with outline consent, the authority has to produce positive evidence: a developer committed, reserved matters in preparation, infrastructure funded, constraints resolved. A trajectory line in a spreadsheet is not evidence.
Lead-in times and build-out rates are the quieter half of the argument. A 400-unit allocation granted outline consent last year will not complete 60 homes in year two, and the published trajectory frequently assumes it will. Compare the assumed rates against the authority's own past completions on comparable sites, because that comparison uses the authority's data rather than yours.
How a shortfall changes decision making
Where an authority cannot demonstrate the required supply, the policies most important for determining the application are treated as out of date, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development engages. Permission should then be granted unless the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
Two practical consequences follow. The weight given to a settlement boundary or a countryside protection policy falls, though it does not disappear. And the benefits side of the balance has to be evidenced in the Planning Statement with numbers rather than asserted, because that is what the decision maker weighs.
The constraints that sit outside the tilted balance remain. Green Belt, designated heritage assets, flood risk and habitats sites are assessed on their own policy terms whatever the supply position, and a shortfall is no answer to a nutrient neutrality catchment.
Challenging or defending a published position
Work site by site. A supply challenge is won on the schedule, not on a general argument about optimism.
- Check planning status for every site: permission reference, date granted, whether it has lapsed, whether reserved matters or conditions remain outstanding.
- Identify ownership and whether a housebuilder is involved, using the Land Registry and local agents.
- Look for unresolved constraints: highways agreements not entered, nutrient or water neutrality, flood risk, contamination, a ransom strip, an unviable affordable housing position.
- Test the lead-in assumptions against the authority's own completion records for similar sites.
- Write to the site promoters. A letter saying a site will not start within five years is the clearest evidence available, and promoters are often willing to provide one.
- Produce a revised schedule with your deductions, each with a stated reason and a source.
Illustrative example: a published supply of 5.4 years at a 1 April base date, resting on 14 sites. The applicant's schedule removes a 220-unit allocation with no developer and an unresolved highways agreement, reduces two sites' year-two completions to reflect lead-in times, and removes a site with a permission that lapsed in June. The revised position falls below five years. The authority accepts two of the four deductions at the hearing. The figures are illustrative rather than drawn from a real case.
Appeal decisions on supply and their shelf life
An inspector's finding on supply is a finding about a particular authority at a particular base date on particular evidence. It is indicative of how the issue has been approached and is not binding precedent.
It also goes stale quickly. A decision from 18 months ago addressing a position two base dates back carries limited weight, and an authority will say so. Where a recent decision exists, use it for the reasoning about a specific site or a specific assumption rather than for its headline conclusion. Where no recent decision exists, expect to argue the whole position from first principles, which is a different scale of exercise and should be budgeted as such. Appeal routes and the deadlines attached to them are set out in our note on appeal timetables and the six month deadline.
Timing a submission against the base date
Three patterns are worth knowing.
Submitting shortly after a base date means the position you rely on is about to be replaced, and the authority will determine the application against the new statement.
Submitting shortly before publication means you can file a short addendum the week the statement appears, which is the cheapest way to get the current position in front of the officer.
Submitting in the middle, which is where most applications land, means dealing with supply in a standalone note that can be updated rather than threading it through the planning statement. That approach also survives a change of position without a rewrite.
The programme point underneath all of this is that policy arguments move faster than technical evidence. A scheme that is policy-ready and survey-short gains nothing from a favourable supply position, and seasonal survey windows do not flex. Sequencing pre-commencement work is a related discipline, covered in our piece on discharging pre-start conditions in time for a spring start.
Assembling evidence before a hearing
For an inquiry or a hearing, the supply case needs a proof, a schedule and a bundle. The schedule is the document that decides it: one row per site, with permission reference, status, ownership, constraints, the authority's assumed completions by year, your assumed completions, and the reason for each difference.
Keep the reasons short and evidenced. A row saying "no developer identified, site marketed since 2023, no reserved matters submitted" is worth more than a paragraph of commentary. And keep the schedule updated to the week of the hearing, because the authority will, and an out-of-date schedule concedes the point about rigour. The relationship between a plan review and the supply position is dealt with in our article on local plan review and five year housing land supply.
Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which reports a housing scheme in your area is likely to need while you build the supply 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.
Frequently asked questions
What is the base date of a five year supply statement?
Usually 1 April, with the statement published some months later. Every site in the supply was judged deliverable as at that date, so a site that has since lapsed, stalled or been sold still appears. Extract the base date, the requirement figure and its source, and the site-by-site schedule before anything else.
When is a site deliverable?
Sites with detailed permission, and small sites with outline permission, are treated as deliverable unless there is clear evidence homes will not be delivered within five years. Larger sites with outline permission, permission in principle, allocations or brownfield register entries are deliverable only where there is clear evidence that completions will begin on site within five years.
What happens if an authority cannot demonstrate five years of supply?
The policies most important for determining the application are treated as out of date and the presumption in favour of sustainable development engages, so permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts would clearly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits on the test the Framework sets. Green Belt, designated heritage assets, flood risk and habitats sites are still assessed on their own policy terms.
How long does an appeal decision on supply remain useful?
Not long. A finding relates to one authority at one base date on one set of evidence, and a decision addressing a position two base dates back carries limited weight. Use a recent decision for its reasoning about a specific site or assumption rather than for its headline conclusion.
What evidence carries most weight in a supply challenge?
A site-by-site schedule with permission references, lapse dates, ownership, unresolved constraints and your assumed completions against the authority's, each difference given a stated reason and source. Letters from site promoters confirming a site will not start within five years are the clearest evidence available.
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.