93 authorities now under the Presumption: what S3 actually does to your case
The 2025 Housing Delivery Test measurement has put 93 of 301 authorities into Presumption – below 75% delivery over the three years to March 2025. That is not the same thing as downgrading every housing policy in those plans under Annex A(2), and the distinction matters because decision-makers who misunderstand it will refuse schemes they should approve and approve schemes they should refuse.
The Presumption operates through S3, not through plan weight
S3 is the Presumption in favour of sustainable development. It is a decision-making policy, so it applies to every application from 17 August 2026 regardless of when the local plan was adopted. Where an authority is in Presumption because HDT delivery fell below 75%, S3 changes how the tilted balance works. That is a separate mechanism from the Annex A(2) test for material inconsistency with national policy. A plan does not carry very limited weight simply because the authority is in Presumption, and housing policies adopted before August 2026 do not automatically conflict with S3 just by existing.
Annex A(2) reduces weight where a policy is materially inconsistent with a national decision-making policy – DM3, HO7, F6, GB6, any of the 131 codes now in force. Age is irrelevant: the test is inconsistency. The Presumption status is separate. It affects the outcome when S3 applies, but it does not itself make policies inconsistent with S3 or any other code.
What being in Presumption means for the other side
An authority in Presumption does not lose the development plan as the starting point under s38(6). The plan remains the plan. What changes is that where S3 engages – which depends on the facts of the individual case – the consequences of the tilted balance are more severe because policies for the supply of housing are treated as out-of-date. That includes applications the authority would otherwise have refused on housing land supply grounds, but it also includes applications where other policies would have carried the decision and the housing shortfall now pulls the other way.
The 93 authorities span the usual range of plan vintage, Green Belt coverage, and political composition. Some have policies examined against earlier frameworks that may well be consistent with the 2026 codes; others have older policies that conflict on their face. Presumption status does not resolve that question. It makes the answer matter more.
Nineteen authorities sit in the buffer at 75-84%
A further 19 authorities measured between 75% and 84%, which means a 20% buffer applies when calculating the five year housing land supply. That is not Presumption, and S3 does not treat their housing policies as out-of-date on that basis alone. But the higher buffer makes it harder to demonstrate supply, which means more of them will fail that test on the facts and end up in tilted balance through a different route. Thirty-five authorities are in the action plan band at 85-94%, which has no decision-making consequence but requires a plan response.
What to do this week
- Check your authority's HDT status before you draft. Presumption, buffer and action plan each have different effects. The measurement covers 2022/23 to 2024/25, so it reflects delivery that has already happened and will not change until next year's publication. - Separate the Annex A(2) argument from the S3 argument. If you are relying on very limited weight, identify the specific inconsistency between the local policy and a 2026 code by title (DM3, HO7, whichever applies). Do not claim the inconsistency follows from Presumption status. - Read S3 and S6 by code. We are seven weeks into the 2026 Framework. If you are still writing "paragraph 11" in application documents, the case officer has stopped reading. - Review refused schemes in the 93 Presumption authorities decided since 17 August. Some will have been determined under the old framework, but others will show how officers are interpreting S3 in practice – and whether they are confusing it with Annex A(2).