The presumption count has doubled—but the real exposure is in the policies
93 authorities are now subject to the tilted balance under the Housing Delivery Test 2025 measurement, covering homes delivered in the three years to March 2025. That is the largest cohort since the test began, and it creates tactical openings well beyond the obvious ones. The non-obvious part: decision-makers in those 93 areas must now evaluate every housing refusal against both the presumption (S3) and the question whether their own policies conflict with the national decision-making framework that came into force on 17 August. One mechanism is automatic; the other depends on what the policy actually says.
Two distinct tests, not one
The presumption applies because delivery fell below 75% over 2022/23 to 2024/25. Under S3, the tilted balance engages unless specific protective policies—N4, N6, HE2, HE6, HE8, HE9, F6, GB6—provide a clear reason for refusal. That is a mechanical consequence of the HDT result and it lasts until next year's measurement.
The second mechanism is Annex A(2). Development plan policies that are materially inconsistent with national decision-making policy attract very limited weight, unless they were examined and adopted against the August 2026 Framework. Most housing policies in most plans were not. But inconsistency is not automatic. The decision-maker must assess whether the wording of the local policy conflicts with the national one, and that assessment happens policy by policy, not plan by plan. A policy examined in 2019 does not carry very limited weight simply for being old. It carries very limited weight only if it contradicts something in the current Framework—and establishing that requires both texts.
Where the two mechanisms intersect
In the 93 presumption authorities, an applicant now benefits from the tilted balance and may also argue that the housing policies cited in refusal are inconsistent with—for example—HO3, HO7, S4 or S5. But arguing inconsistency means comparing the local policy's specific requirements with what the national code permits or restricts, and the decision-maker is the one who must make that call. The tactical point is not that every policy is automatically downgraded. It is that the authority must now justify applying any policy that does not align with the current Framework, at the same time as applying the presumption. That doubles the burden on marginal refusals.
The 154 authorities with no HDT consequence do not face the tilted balance, but Annex A(2) still applies. A policy limiting housing to settlement boundaries, or requiring a certain density, or setting thresholds for affordable contributions, must be defended against the claim that it contradicts HO3, HO7, L3 or HO8. The difference is that without the presumption, the authority is balancing on level ground.
What 12.1% refusal rate tells you
Our data shows 4,517 refusals out of 37,243 decisions in the last 90 days across 330 authorities. At 12.1%, that is a low refusal rate in historical terms, but it is not uniform. Authorities under presumption pressure tend to approve more at the margins, but they also tend to refuse the cases they think they can defend. The question for those defences is now whether the cited policies survive both tests. A refusal on density grounds in a presumption authority, using a policy examined in 2018, is vulnerable on two fronts: S3 tilts the balance, and the density policy may be inconsistent with L3. The authority must win both arguments.
What to do this week
- Review pending appeals in the 93 presumption authorities. If the refusal pre-dates 17 August, the decision-maker must still apply the current Framework and assess policy conflict under Annex A(2). Consider whether the refusal relied on policies that may be inconsistent with the 2026 codes. - Check the examination date of cited policies in non-presumption authorities. Annex A(2) reduces weight only where there is material inconsistency, but if a policy was adopted before August 2026 and restricts housing in ways that may conflict with S4, S5, HO3 or HO7, flag that in submissions. - Where you are defending a refusal in a presumption authority, prepare the double justification. The refusal must survive S3 (specific protective policy or no adverse impact) and the local policy must survive Annex A(2) (no material inconsistency). If either fails, the decision is vulnerable. - Do not assume age alone downgrades a policy. Annex A(2) turns on inconsistency with national decision-making policy, not on when the plan was adopted. A 2015 policy that aligns with the current Framework still carries full weight.