The Housing Delivery Test explained

 

The Housing Delivery Test (HDT) is the Government’s annual measurement of how many homes have actually been delivered in the areas of relevant plan-making authorities. It compares net homes delivered with the homes required over a rolling three-year period and publishes the result as a percentage.

The score matters because national policy attaches consequences at 95%, 85% and 75%. The August 2026 NPPF changed the decision-making effect of the lowest threshold: a result below 75% is now expressly treated as evidenced unmet housing need for policy S5, rather than simply being described through the old paragraph 11 tilted-balance shorthand.

This page explains the test and lets you search the published 2025 results by local planning authority.

 

What the Housing Delivery Test measures

 

At its simplest, HDT is:

net homes delivered over three years ÷ homes required over the same three years × 100

The delivered figure is based on official net additional dwellings data with prescribed adjustments, including for student and other communal accommodation. The homes-required denominator is calculated by MHCLG under the applicable published HDT methodology and depends on the relevant housing requirement for the authority and year. Do not assume that this is simply the authority’s current local housing need figure; the two concepts serve different purposes.

The 2025 measurement covers the three financial years 2022/23, 2023/24 and 2024/25. The HDT applies to relevant plan-making authorities such as non-metropolitan districts, metropolitan boroughs, London boroughs and development corporations with both plan-making and decision-making powers. It does not apply to National Park Authorities, the Broads Authority or development corporations without full plan-making and planning decision-making powers.

 

The three HDT thresholds

 

The HDT consequences are cumulative: an authority below 75% also has the HDT consequences that arise below 85% and 95%.

• Below 95% – action plan. The authority must prepare an action plan addressing the causes of under-delivery and the measures it will take to improve delivery
• Below 85% – 20% housing land supply buffer. The HDT route requires a 20% buffer rather than the normal 5% buffer in the five year housing land supply calculation
• Below 75% – evidenced unmet housing need. The August 2026 NPPF expressly treats this result as evidence of unmet housing need for S5(1)(j), in addition to the action-plan and 20% buffer consequences

An HDT result of 95% or more means there is no HDT-triggered consequence. That does not necessarily mean a 5% housing land supply buffer is the only possible buffer: Annex D now contains a separate 20% decision-making buffer route in specified circumstances which is not triggered by HDT performance.

 

What the 20% buffer actually means

 

The buffer is part of the five year housing land supply calculation. It is not literally a requirement for the council to allocate 20% more land immediately. It increases the supply that the authority has to demonstrate against its relevant housing requirement, making a shortfall more likely where the deliverable pipeline is weak.

You will sometimes hear this described as needing “about six years” of housing land. That is useful shorthand, but the actual requirement is a five-year calculation with the applicable buffer rather than a separate statutory six-year test.

 

Below 75%: what changes under the 2026 NPPF?

 

A result below 75% is the most significant HDT threshold. Under the August 2026 Framework it is expressly deemed to be evidence of an unmet need for housing for S5(1)(j).

For housing outside a settlement, that result can provide the evidence of unmet need required by S5(1)(j). It does not complete the policy test on its own. An ordinary housing proposal must also be physically well-related to an existing settlement, unless the nature of the development makes that inappropriate, and its scale must be capable of being accommodated by existing or proposed infrastructure. Other S5 categories do not depend on HDT at all: for example, redevelopment of previously developed land under S5(1)(d) has its own route. Permission does not automatically follow, and it is not accurate simply to say that “the tilted balance switches on”. The proposal still has to be assessed against S5 and the other national decision-making policies.

Within a settlement, policy S4 already provides its own supportive decision-making balance. Green Belt is assessed under separate Green Belt policies, although the same sub-75% HDT result can be relevant to the evidenced-unmet-housing-need limb of the grey-belt policy.

See our detailed guide to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

 

How can a poor Housing Delivery Test result help a planning application?

 

The percentage only becomes useful when you connect it to the site, the location and the other national decision-making policies. These simplified examples show the difference.

 

Example 1: flats above an existing commercial building within a settlement

Situation: A two-storey commercial building in a built-up area could take an additional residential storey. The authority has an HDT result below 75%.

What helps: The site is already within a settlement, so S4 provides the supportive national decision-making balance. The poor HDT result is useful evidence of the wider need for housing, but it is not what creates the S4 route. National policy on making better use of under-used land and buildings can be more directly relevant to the design of the scheme.

What could still defeat it: Poor design, excessive height, overlooking, inadequate access or unacceptable parking and highway effects. A weak HDT result does not cure a bad scheme.

 

Example 2: housing outside a settlement where HDT is 68%

Situation: A housing site lies outside the settlement and does not obviously benefit from the within-settlement approach.

What helps: A result below 75% is expressly treated as evidence of unmet housing need for S5(1)(j). That can materially change the national-policy position for a housing proposal outside a settlement.

What could still defeat it: The site must also be physically well-related to an existing settlement, unless the nature of the development makes that inappropriate, and the scale must be capable of being accommodated by existing or proposed infrastructure. Landscape, accessibility, design, flooding, heritage and other harms remain relevant.

 

Example 3: potential grey-belt housing where HDT is 62%

Situation: Housing is proposed on land which may qualify as grey belt.

What helps: The sub-75% result can satisfy the evidenced-unmet-housing-need limb of the grey-belt policy.

What it does not do: It does not by itself establish that the land is grey belt or that the development is acceptable. The remaining Green Belt tests and, where applicable, the Golden Rules still need to be met.

 

Example 4: HDT is 80% and the council says it has a five year supply

Situation: Delivery is below 85% but not below 75%.

What helps: The HDT consequence is a 20% buffer in the five year housing land supply calculation. On an authority with a marginal supply position, that larger buffer can make the claimed supply harder to demonstrate. If the authority then cannot demonstrate the required supply, that separate shortfall can itself become important to the planning case.

Planning Geek tip: Do not stop at the headline HDT percentage. Check which threshold has been crossed, then ask what that consequence actually changes for the particular site.

 

The 2025 results: look up your council

 

The published 2025 table below contains 302 authority rows. One row – the Isles of Scilly – has no numerical measurement, leaving 301 numerical results. Of those numerical results, 147 (48.8%) are below 95%: 93 are below 75%, 19 are between 75% and 84%, and 35 are between 85% and 94%. The remaining 154 numerical results are 95% or above.

Search for an authority or filter by HDT category below.

 

 

The table reproduces the published 2025 percentage results. Very high scores are displayed as 150%+ to keep the table readable. The HDT category shown is the most serious threshold reached: an authority below 75% also has the 20% HDT buffer and action-plan consequences. The Isles of Scilly N/A result is shown separately rather than being counted as a 95%+ authority.

Some rows use legacy authority names because the measurement period spans local government reorganisations. Where a housing requirement changes after publication, the HDT methodology allows measurements to be recalculated in specified circumstances, so for a live appeal always check whether the authority is relying on a later recalculated measurement.

 

A note on the HDT rule book and current PPG

 

The Housing Delivery Test measurement rule book was updated on 17 August 2026 alongside the 2024 and 2025 measurements. The Government says the update includes changes relating to unmet-need adjustments to local housing need and transitional arrangements for the revised standard method, and that those changes were applied to the 2024 and 2025 measurements.

Some related Planning Practice Guidance still retains pre-August-2026 NPPF terminology. The updated rule book governs the measurement methodology, while the August 2026 NPPF is the current source for the planning-policy consequences of a low score. Be careful therefore with older guidance saying a sub-75% result simply triggers paragraph 11(d) or the former tilted balance.

 

Why the Housing Delivery Test matters to a real application

 

A weak HDT result can materially strengthen the planning case for housing, particularly outside settlements under S5 and on potential grey-belt land. But it is not a permission in itself. Design, highways, flood risk, heritage, biodiversity, Green Belt and other relevant national and development plan policies still have to be applied.

The same result can therefore be important to both an applicant and an objector: it changes the policy context in which the proposal is assessed, but it does not decide every other planning issue.

 

What it costs, and appealing a refusal

 

There is no separate fee for relying on the Housing Delivery Test. Any planning application fee depends on the route being used, so check our planning fees page. Professional advice and the evidence needed to support a housing case may involve separate costs.

If an application is refused, the applicant will normally have a right of appeal. The current HDT result, the five year housing land supply and the full S4 or S5 policy route can all matter at that stage. See our planning appeals section and check the relevant deadline early.

 

Where to go next

 

Read the HDT alongside the five year housing land supply. Both can provide express evidence of unmet housing need under S5, but one measures past delivery and the other future deliverable supply. Our SHLAA guide explains the potential land evidence, while the presumption in favour of sustainable development explains how the current S3–S6 decision rules work.

 

Relevant policy and guidance

 

• National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) – particularly S5 and Annex D for current policy consequences;
• Housing Delivery Test measurement rule book – Government methodology for calculating the measurement;
• Housing Delivery Test: 2025 measurement – the published 2025 authority results;
• Planning Practice Guidance: Housing Supply and Delivery – supporting guidance, noting that some wording still reflects the pre-August-2026 Framework

Other Planning Policy Sections

 

Housing Delivery Test Page Updated: 24th August 2026