93 authorities now operate under the Presumption — but it does not rewrite their plans
The 2025 Housing Delivery Test measurement places 93 of 301 authorities below the 75% threshold, triggering S3 Presumption in favour of sustainable development. That is the largest count in Presumption since measurement began, but it does not hand applicants a free pass: the test changes how decision-makers apply policies for development outside settlements, not whether those policies exist or what weight they carry.
The Presumption operates through S5, not Annex A(2)
S3 Presumption has two effects. For plan-making it requires authorities below 75% to allocate more land; for decision-making it modifies how S5 (Principle of development outside settlements) operates when housing policies cannot demonstrate a five year supply. It does not downgrade the development plan. Annex A(2) reduces individual policies to very limited weight only where they are materially inconsistent with national decision-making policy — a test applied policy by policy, comparing adopted wording against codes such as DM3, HO7 or S4. The HDT measurement is irrelevant to that assessment.
A plan adopted in 2018 may contain a countryside restraint policy that aligns perfectly with S5, a housing distribution policy that reflects HO3, and a design standard that tracks DP3. Those policies retain full s38(6) weight even if the authority is now in Presumption. What changes is the outcome when S5 is engaged and the housing land supply position cannot be demonstrated: the decision-maker applies S3(2) rather than the local settlement boundary as determinative. The plan is not demoted; a specific mechanism is activated.
154 authorities have no HDT consequence
The spread shows the majority unaffected: 154 authorities measured at 95% or above carry no consequence, 19 sit in the 75–84% buffer requiring a 20% supply addition, and 35 in the 85–94% band requiring an action plan. The 93 in Presumption are the severe tail, but severity is contextual. An authority at 74% operating S3 still applies every other policy in its plan at full weight — including allocations, Green Belt boundaries under GB6, heritage tests under HE6, and density expectations under L3.
Annex A(3) protects recent plans with higher need figures
Where an authority demonstrates five year supply with the appropriate buffer and HDT delivery above 75%, a local housing need figure higher than the adopted requirement is not treated as unmet need under S5(1)(j) for five years from adoption. This shields recent plans from immediate obsolescence if the standard method has since increased their figure, but only while they maintain supply and stay above the 75% test threshold. The 93 now in Presumption cannot use this protection — they have failed the delivery test that enables it.
What to do this week
- Check your authority's HDT result and buffer requirement. Our data covers 331 authorities over the last 90 days; if yours is among the 93 in Presumption, S3 applies to decisions from today where housing land supply cannot be demonstrated and S5 is engaged. - Do not assume Presumption rewrites the plan. Review individual policies against the decision-making codes (DM1–DM10, S4, S5, HO7, etc.) for material inconsistency under Annex A(2) — plan age and HDT performance are not the test. - For recent plan adoptions, confirm the Annex A(3) clock. If your plan was adopted or made against the August 2026 Framework and you hold supply plus >75% delivery, you have five years' protection from higher need figures being treated as unmet need under S5(1)(j). - On live appeals, distinguish the mechanism. If the appellant claims "the plan now carries very limited weight due to HDT failure," the response is that Annex A(2) applies policy by policy based on inconsistency with national decision-making policy, not delivery performance.