93 authorities in Presumption: what the HDT result means for your appeals
The 2025 Housing Delivery Test measurement, published 17 August, puts 93 of 301 authorities below the 75% threshold. That triggers the Presumption in favour of sustainable development under S3. It does not downgrade local plan policies under Annex A(2) — those are separate tests, applied case by case — but it does open a route to permission that was closed a week ago.
The Presumption is a decision-making policy, not a weight adjustment
Annex A(2) reduces the weight of development plan policies that are materially inconsistent with national decision-making policy. The Housing Delivery Test is not that mechanism. Falling below 75% delivery switches on S3 for decision-making; it does not make housing policies conflict with national policy, and it does not render them out-of-date. An authority in Presumption with an up-to-date plan faces both: the plan's housing policies retain their usual weight under section 38(6), and the Presumption applies as a material consideration under S3. Decision-makers must apply both, and they are different questions.
154 authorities trigger nothing
The HDT has consequence bands at three thresholds. Below 75% is Presumption. Between 75% and 84% requires a buffer on the five-year supply. Between 85% and 94% requires an action plan. At or above 95% triggers no consequence. This year's spread: 93 Presumption, 19 Buffer, 35 Action plan, 154 None. Just over half of measured authorities delivered enough homes to avoid any HDT consequence at all, and an appeal in any of those places gains nothing from Sunday's publication.
Annex A(3) protects recent plans with higher need figures
Where an authority demonstrates a five-year supply with the appropriate buffer and HDT delivery above 75%, a local housing need figure exceeding the adopted plan requirement is not evidence of unmet need for the purposes of S5(1)(j) — but only for five years from plan adoption. That provision matters where standard method output has risen since a plan was examined. The protection requires both supply and delivery, so an authority in Presumption cannot use it, but an authority in Buffer (19 of them) or Action plan (35) can, if it has five years of land. If you have an appeal in the countryside under S5, check both the plan adoption date and whether the authority is asserting this provision, because it converts what would otherwise be an unmet-need argument into a policy-compliant refusal for the remainder of the five-year window.
What to do this week
- Cross-reference your current appeal authorities against the 93 in Presumption: if you are arguing tilted balance and the measurement has moved them into it since submission, that is new evidence and the inspector should hear it - On any S5 appeal where standard method exceeds the plan requirement, check the plan adoption date: Annex A(3) runs for five years, and if the authority is at or above 75% delivery and has supply, your unmet-need case does not run - Review draft committee reports in Presumption authorities: if officers are still writing as though the tilted balance does not apply, that is a costs risk when they cannot demonstrate supply - Do not assume every housing policy in a Presumption authority now carries very limited weight — the tests are separate, and the decision-maker must assess material inconsistency with national policy for each policy you challenge