93 authorities in Presumption: what the mechanism actually does

Housing Delivery Test 2025 results put 93 of 301 authorities below the 75% threshold, triggering the tilted balance under S3. That is 31% of all English authorities. But Presumption is not a blanket downgrade of local policy weight — it is a decision-making instruction that applies only when certain local policies are already silent or out-of-date. The distinction matters because advisers are already confusing two separate mechanisms, and authorities facing appeals need to understand what they are defending.

Presumption is conditional, not automatic

S3 applies the tilted balance when "the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date". Being in Presumption does not make every housing policy out-of-date — it makes the test for out-of-date-ness easier to meet (because lack of five-year supply now triggers it), but the trigger still requires examining specific policies against the application in front of you. An authority can be in Presumption and still win an appeal on up-to-date policies that are not about housing supply.

Very limited weight is a different test

Annex A(2) downgrades policies that are materially inconsistent with national decision-making policies in the 2026 Framework. That test turns on conflict with the new codes, not on HDT performance, plan age, or housing delivery failure. The determination must still be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise — but if a policy conflicts with DM3, HO7 or S5, it now gets very limited weight in that material considerations balance. Policies examined and adopted against the August 2026 Framework are exempt.

A plan adopted in 2018 does not automatically carry very limited weight. A policy in that plan carries very limited weight only if it materially conflicts with a national decision-making policy, and the decision-maker must form that view case by case. You cannot assert conflict without comparing the actual texts.

The 93 is distribution, not total exposure

The HDT spread is: 93 Presumption, 35 Action Plan, 19 Buffer, 154 None. Presumption authorities are clustered but they are not the majority. The tactical question for developers is where the overlap lies: authorities that are both in Presumption and holding plans adopted before August 2026, because those are the ones where housing policies are likeliest to be out-of-date (triggering S3) and where other policies may conflict with the new codes (triggering Annex A(2)). Neither mechanism alone gives you the opening — you need the specific policy to fail its specific test.

What to do this week

- Cross-reference your pipeline against the HDT results: identify applications in Presumption authorities where the decision is still pending and the relevant plan predates August 2026. - Audit which local policies you are actually relying on or opposing: S3 applies to the policies most important for determining this application; if design, heritage or landscape policies are doing the work, Presumption may not be engaged. - Do not claim a policy conflicts with the Framework without comparing the texts: Annex A(2) is a material inconsistency test, and decision-makers will ask you to show your working. - In authorities with adopted five-year supply and HDT above 75%, check the plan adoption date: Annex A(3) blocks the unmet-need route under S5(1)(j) for five years from adoption if both tests are met.