93 authorities now in Presumption: what the 2026 Framework actually changes
The 2025 Housing Delivery Test results put 93 of 301 authorities below the 75% threshold, triggering S3 Presumption. But the bigger shift happened in August: the 2026 Framework rewrote how local plan policies are weighted when they conflict with national decision-making policy. Most plans in force were examined against earlier versions, so decision-makers now face a two-part question on every housing refusal: does this policy materially conflict with codes like S3, S4, S5 or HO7, and if so, does Annex A(2) reduce it to very limited weight? Section 38(6) still says the determination must accord with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise — the statute has not moved. What has moved is the yardstick for measuring inconsistency, and the consequence when you find it.
The Annex A(2) mechanism is separate from HDT consequences
Being in Presumption does not automatically downgrade a local plan policy under Annex A(2). The Housing Delivery Test triggers S3, which is itself a national decision-making policy. Annex A(2) reduces weight only where a plan policy materially conflicts with one of the 131 codes now in force — not because delivery is low, not because the plan is old, but because the policy and the code pull in opposite directions on the same question. Decision-makers must apply that test to the wording of each policy in dispute. A plan examined in 2019 can contain policies that align perfectly with HO7 or S4 as now written, and policies that do not. The test is textual consistency, not age or delivery performance.
The 131-code structure changes what you can cite
The August 2026 Framework abolished paragraph numbers. Every policy now has a code: S1 to S6 for sustainable development, HO1 to HO13 for homes, GB1 to GB8 for Green Belt, and so on across 19 chapters. Annex A(2) applies only to conflicts with decision-making policies in those chapters, not plan-making policies like PM2 or PM15. When an officer report or appeal statement asserts conflict, it must name the code and explain the inconsistency — and inspectors and committee members can now check the claim in seconds, because every code has a published title. A reference to a policy that does not exist, or a mischaracterisation of what a code covers, is immediately visible. The corollary: if you are arguing that a refusal reason rests on a policy inconsistent with (for example) S5, HO11 or N3, you must be able to point to the specific code and describe why the texts are materially inconsistent, without inventing what either one says.
154 authorities are not in Presumption, but Annex A(2) still applies
The HDT bands are: 93 Presumption (below 75%), 19 Buffer (75–84%), 35 Action Plan (85–94%), and 154 with no consequence (95% or above). That last group — just over half — does not trigger S3, but their plans are still subject to the Annex A(2) test if a policy examined under an earlier Framework is alleged to conflict with a 2026 code. A policy can carry very limited weight in a high-delivery authority, and full weight in a low-delivery one, depending on what it actually says. The two mechanisms do not overlap: one is about whether the tilted balance applies, the other is about whether an individual development plan policy survives contact with national policy as now written.
What to do this week
- Review your standard appeal grounds to ensure any claim of conflict with the 2026 Framework cites a real code from the 131 listed above, states what that code covers by its published title, and explains the material inconsistency without quoting policy text you do not hold. - Check committee reports in the 93 Presumption authorities to see whether officers are addressing S3 and Annex A(2) as two separate questions — conflation of the two was common in draft reports over September. - For current applications, if the officer report asserts that a local policy conflicts with a national code, ask for the analysis in writing before the decision is issued — the inconsistency test is not a box-tick, and a wrong call on it is a material consideration in its own right. - If you act for authorities, flag to planning committees that very limited weight under Annex A(2) is a legal conclusion about textual conflict, not a planning judgement, and that it applies policy-by-policy regardless of whether the authority is in Presumption.