93 authorities now operate under Presumption: what that does and does not change
The Housing Delivery Test 2025 measurement places 93 of 301 authorities below the 75% threshold, triggering the Presumption in favour of sustainable development. That is nearly a third of all measured authorities, and it changes how applications are determined in those places—but not in the way most headlines suggest.
Presumption is a tilted balance, not a policy downgrade
Being in Presumption affects how decision-makers apply S3 when the development plan is absent, silent or out of date. It does not trigger the Annex A(2) mechanism that reduces the weight of plan policies. That mechanism turns on material inconsistency between a local policy and national decision-making policy, not on HDT performance or plan age. The two operate independently.
An authority in Presumption with policies adopted against the 2026 Framework starts with full-weight policies and applies the tilted balance only if the plan proves absent, silent or out of date for the proposal in question. An authority with 110% delivery but policies examined against the 2012 Framework faces the Annex A(2) test on every materially inconsistent policy, regardless of supply position. One is about the decision-making framework; the other is about individual policy content.
The distinction matters because the reader applying for permission needs to know which argument to run. If the plan is current and consistent, Presumption adds nothing. If policies conflict with codes in chapters S, DM, HO, DP, TR, F, N, P, CC, HE, HC, GB, TC, E, L, M, W or CO, the weight question is live whether or not the authority is in Presumption.
The other 208 authorities and what they face
The full HDT spread shows 154 authorities with no consequences (95% or above), 35 requiring an action plan (85-94%) and 19 subject to a 20% buffer (75-84%). That buffer affects the five-year supply test: an authority at 76% delivery applies S3 Presumption only if it cannot demonstrate supply, but it must demonstrate supply against a higher bar than an authority at 96%.
Across all 307 authorities in the last 90 days, 34,366 decisions were issued and 4,054 were refusals—an 11.8% refusal rate. Presumption and buffer status will move some of those marginal cases, but the structural point is that most applications are not marginal. The reader's tactical opportunity is the case where supply is contested, the plan is out of date on another ground, or a key policy is pre-2026 and arguably inconsistent with a national code.
S3 and S5 interaction on unmet need
Annex A(3) creates a five-year window in which a local need figure higher than the adopted requirement is not treated as unmet need for the purposes of S5(1)(j), provided the authority demonstrates five-year supply with the appropriate buffer and HDT delivery above 75%. That carve-out applies to 208 authorities outside Presumption, but only where the plan is less than five years old and supply is demonstrated.
For the 93 in Presumption, Annex A(3) is irrelevant: they cannot demonstrate 75% delivery, so the carve-out does not apply. The S5(1)(j) question—whether there is unmet need—remains live, and a higher local need figure is evidence of it.
What to do this week
- Audit your authority's HDT status and whether the plan was examined against the 2026 Framework. If it is in Presumption and the plan predates August 2026, you have two separate arguments for permission, not one. - For pending applications in the 93, check whether the authority's case turns on an out-of-date plan (engaging S3 Presumption) or on specific policies that conflict with 2026 codes (engaging Annex A(2)). The evidence requirements differ. - In authorities with a 20% buffer, establish the supply position early. The buffer raises the bar but does not tilt the balance unless supply cannot be demonstrated. - On strategic sites or appeals, identify which 2026 codes the officer report does not mention. S3, S5, HO7 and DM3 are decision-making policies; if a pre-2026 policy pulls the other way, the Annex A(2) question is whether that amounts to material inconsistency.