Vol. I № 03 September 2026
Ground Level

What changed, and when

Planning policy is iterated on by the bodies that publish it. A figure that was correct when we wrote it can be superseded without anyone having erred, and a mechanism an entire guide was built around can be abolished in an afternoon.

Our editorial policy says that when policy or evidence moves after we publish, we add a dated update at the foot of the article. This page collects every one of them. Each entry gives what changed in the world, then what we did about it, and when.

44 dated updates across 20 articles. Each records a change in the world after the piece was published.

  1. Your First Home is announced

    A new equity loan scheme for first-time buyers of new-build homes in England: a 2.5% deposit and a 20% government-backed loan with an initial interest-free period, from developers who sign up and contribute. A household income cap and local price caps, and the cost, are to be set at the Budget on 28 October. The government calls it a much-needed stimulus for the new-build market. Help to Buy, the scheme it most resembles, closed in 2023.

    MHCLG, New first-time buyer scheme to be confirmed at Budget, 26 September 2026

    We published

  2. Local government reorganisation is paused for review

    The government put the reorganisation programme under review on new legal advice. Decisions on Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk were withdrawn, and plans for 14 other areas, along with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West Sussex, were paused. Elections due in May 2027 go ahead on existing council boundaries. For a district like Cotswold, whose plan was due to be adopted weeks before the council itself was abolished, the end date that shaped the argument is no longer fixed.

    MHCLG, local government reorganisation programme review and decisions withdrawal letter to council leaders, 7 September 2026

    We revised 8 articles
    • A unanimous refusal, overturned by the tilted balance. update On 7 September 2026 the government paused its July reorganisation decisions for review, including the proposals affecting Gloucestershire, and withdrew its decisions for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. It confirmed that the May 2027 local elections will go ahead on existing council boundaries. The single Gloucestershire Council is therefore no longer a settled outcome. Separately, the Housing Land Supply and Stepped Requirement Topic Paper published for the Regulation 19 consultation models 4.6 years of supply at the intended adoption date of 1 April 2028; the draft considered by the Council in July and August gave 4.7. Sources: MHCLG, Review of local government reorganisation launched, 7 September 2026; Cotswold District Council statement, 7 September 2026; Cotswold District Council, Housing Land Supply and Stepped Requirement Topic Paper, July 2026.
    • Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy. update The three tests for a planning obligation described here (necessary, directly related, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind) were restated at paragraph 58 of the December 2024 framework. The framework published on 17 August 2026 does not restate them. They remain law: Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 still applies to every obligation that is a reason for granting permission. Sources: NPPF, August 2026; CIL Regulations 2010, regulation 122.
    • The 150 homes at Lechlade, and the growth the council had already counted. update The Regulation 19 Local Plan allocates Land south of Ferrers Park for 150 homes (Core Policy 3). The Council's Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment Update (July 2026, page 414) lists site L33 at 10.01 hectares as "Potentially Deliverable / Developable" with a capacity of 190. The Habitats Regulations Assessment (LUC, July 2026, Appendix E, page 187) puts the site 1.57km from the Cotswold Water Park SSSI and within 500m of the Cotswold Water Park; the applicant's documents give around 80 metres. On the application file: the final Ecological Impact Assessment (ADAS, version 03, August 2026) was filed on 25 August 2026. Gloucestershire County Council's highways officer lodged a holding objection on 28 August 2026 and confirmed it on 9 September. Natural England wrote on 9 September 2026 that the final assessment contains breeding bird data but not the winter bird survey data it asked for in March (ref 542847). On 17 September 2026 the Council's Senior Biodiversity Officer accepted the great crested newt district licence route and added a third reason for refusal, under policy N2(1)(f) of the August 2026 NPPF and Local Plan Policy EN8. The application remains undetermined. The Regulation 19 plan as published for consultation provides for at least 18,877 homes, and on 22 September 2026 the Council extended the consultation to 11.59pm on 3 November 2026. Position checked 23 September 2026.
    • The five-year supply, the tilted balance, and why your council can't say no. update Cotswold's position has moved again. The Housing Delivery Test results published on 17 August 2026 put the district at 85% for 2024 and 68% for 2025. The 2025 result is below both thresholds that matter here. A 20% buffer now applies as a requirement rather than a precaution, and an evidenced unmet need for housing is deemed to exist for the purposes of policy S5(1)(j) (Annex D, paragraph 12(b) and (c)). Annex A paragraph 3, which stops a gap between an adopted requirement and the standard method counting as unmet need for five years after adoption, offers no protection: it applies only where a council has a five year supply and a Housing Delivery Test result above 75%. The consultation version of the Council's topic paper projects 4.6 years of supply at 1 April 2028, in place of the 4.7 years given in the row below. Sources: MHCLG, Housing Delivery Test: 2025 measurement, 17 August 2026; NPPF, August 2026, Annex A and Annex D; CDC Housing Land Supply and Stepped Requirement Topic Paper, July 2026, Table 6.
    • The Housing Algorithm. update Three positions have moved since this piece and the rows below were written. First, on 7 September 2026 the government paused local government reorganisation for review. The Minister for Local Government wrote to council leaders that day withdrawing the decisions for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk and placing the decisions taken in July 2026, Gloucestershire's among them, under a rapid review. Elections in May 2027 will go ahead on existing council boundaries. The single Gloucestershire Council described in the 16 August row, and the four Hampshire unitary authorities described in the text, are no longer settled. Second, the Regulation 19 Local Plan approved on 12 August 2026 plans for 18,877 homes against a requirement of 17,918, in place of the Regulation 18 capacity figure of 14,660 quoted here, and allocates 1,020 homes at Kemble, a village of 388 dwellings, which is growth of about 263%. Third, the Housing Delivery Test results published on 17 August 2026 put Cotswold at 68% for 2025 (85% for 2024). Below 75%, the August 2026 framework deems an evidenced unmet need for housing to exist for the purposes of policy S5(1)(j) and adds a 20% buffer (Annex D, paragraph 12). The Council's consultation topic paper projects 4.6 years of supply at the plan's expected adoption in 2028. Sources: MHCLG letter to council leaders and oral statement, 7 September 2026; CDC Regulation 19 Local Plan, August 2026; MHCLG Housing Delivery Test: 2025 measurement, 17 August 2026; CDC Housing Land Supply and Stepped Requirement Topic Paper, July 2026, Table 6.
    • The Local Plan, and why most of England does not have one. update Four things have moved since the rows below. On 22 September 2026 Cotswold District Council extended its Regulation 19 consultation by four weeks, so it now closes on 3 November 2026, not 5 October. The Regulation 19 plan and the consultation version of the Council's topic paper give the planned supply as 18,877, which is 5.4% above the requirement of 17,918. That topic paper projects 4.6 years of housing land supply at 1 April 2028, the expected adoption date, and the Housing Delivery Test results published on 17 August 2026 put Cotswold at 68% for 2025. And on 7 September 2026 the government paused local government reorganisation for review. The Minister for Local Government wrote to council leaders withdrawing four area decisions and placing those taken in July 2026, Gloucestershire's among them, under a rapid review. Elections in May 2027 will be held on existing council boundaries. The single Gloucestershire Council described in the row below is therefore not settled. Sources: CDC news release, 22 September 2026; CDC Regulation 19 Local Plan, August 2026; CDC Housing Land Supply and Stepped Requirement Topic Paper, July 2026; MHCLG Housing Delivery Test: 2025 measurement; MHCLG letter to council leaders and oral statement, 7 September 2026.
    • The neighbourhood plan, and what it can actually do. update Local Green Space, at paragraphs 106 to 108 of the December 2024 framework when this piece was written, has moved in the framework published on 17 August 2026. Designation through local and neighbourhood plans now sits at policy HC2, with the same three tests. Decisions on development affecting a Local Green Space sit at policy HC8, which applies national Green Belt decision-making policy, excluding the provisions on grey belt and previously developed land. Source: NPPF, August 2026, policies HC2 and HC8.
    • What happens to a local plan when the council is abolished. update Much of the Cotswold timetable described here has moved. On 7 September 2026 the government paused its reorganisation plans for 14 areas for review, Gloucestershire among them. It withdrew its decisions for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and confirmed that the May 2027 local elections will go ahead on existing council boundaries. The single Gloucestershire Council vesting on 1 April 2028, and so the three week gap, is no longer a settled outcome. On 22 September 2026 the Council extended the Regulation 19 consultation to 11.59pm on 3 November 2026. The plan as published for consultation provides for at least 18,877 homes, 5.4% above the requirement of 17,918, and the Housing Land Supply Topic Paper published with it models 4.6 years of supply at 1 April 2028. The Housing Delivery Test 2025 measurement, published on 17 August 2026, puts Cotswold at 68%. Below 75%, an evidenced unmet need for housing is deemed to exist (NPPF, August 2026, Annex D, paragraph 12(c)). Sources: MHCLG, Review of local government reorganisation launched, 7 September 2026; Cotswold District Council, 7 and 22 September 2026; Cotswold District Local Plan 2026 to 2043, Regulation 19 version; MHCLG, Housing Delivery Test: 2025 measurement.

  3. The Housing Delivery Test results are published, after twenty months

    The 2024 and 2025 measurements were released together, ending a gap in which no council in England could see its own score. The 2025 measurement is the one in force. England as a whole delivered 92% of its requirement, and even so 93 of the 301 authorities measured came in below 75%, the threshold at which an unmet need for housing is deemed to exist. Cotswold District scored 68%, having been at 95% on the last published result.

    Housing Delivery Test: 2024 measurement and 2025 measurement, MHCLG, 17 August 2026

    We published
    We revised 1 article
    • The Housing Delivery Test, and why the results have not been published since 2024. update The results were published the day after this piece. On 17 August 2026, alongside the new National Planning Policy Framework, the government published both the 2024 and 2025 Housing Delivery Test measurements together, ending the gap described here and re-establishing the annual cycle. The 2025 measurement is the one now in force. Cotswold District scored 68%, which engages the presumption. So the Council's decision to apply a 20% buffer to itself in advance, described above as estimating its own likely failure, was right: its score has fallen from 95% on the 2023 measurement to 85% on the 2024 and 68% on the 2025. Nationally, 93 of the 301 measured authorities are below 75%. Source: Housing Delivery Test 2024 and 2025 measurements, MHCLG, 17 August 2026.

  4. The statutory consultee list is narrowed

    The government response confirmed a shorter list of bodies a council must consult. Sport England was narrowed to playing field loss, the Gardens Trust and the Theatres Trust moved to notification only, and Historic England will no longer be automatically referred Grade II listed building consents. Natural England and the Environment Agency were left substantively unchanged, which matters more, because the policies that require a refusal are largely theirs.

    Reforms to the statutory consultee system: government response, MHCLG, 17 August 2026

    We published

  5. The framework is rewritten, and paragraph 11(d) is removed

    The first full rewrite since 2012, replacing the December 2024 version outright and applying to decisions from the day of publication. 131 numbered policies, split between plan-making and national decision-making. Paragraph 11(d) no longer exists. A permanent presumption sits at policy S3, routing to S4 inside a settlement and S5 outside one, and a shortfall in housing land now opens policy S5(1)(j) rather than tilting a balance. The standard method was carried over unchanged. The 17.5% profit margin was not adopted.

    National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026

    We published
    We revised 19 articles
    • A unanimous refusal, overturned by the tilted balance. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026 and replaces the December 2024 version this piece describes. Paragraph 11(d) no longer exists. A permanent presumption now sits at policy S3, which routes to policy S4 inside a settlement and policy S5 outside one, and the test becomes whether the benefits of approving development would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects. Failing the five year supply, or scoring below 75% on the Housing Delivery Test, no longer tilts a balance. It opens policy S5(1)(j), under which housing counts as an evidenced unmet need and so becomes one of the categories of development that may be approved outside a settlement. Source: NPPF, August 2026, policies S3 to S6 and Annex D.
    • Hope value, and the new power for parish councils. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026 and replaces the December 2024 version referred to here. It is a full rewrite, restructured into plan-making and national decision-making policies across 131 numbered policies, and its decision-making policies are a material consideration from the day of publication. References in this piece to the December 2024 framework should now be read as historical. Source: NPPF, August 2026.
    • How land gets its value, and who keeps it. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026, resolving the consultation described here. No developer profit figure was adopted. Policy DM5 sets none, the 17.5% and 6% examples raised in consultation questions 202 and 203 were not taken forward, and standardised inputs to viability assessment stay in planning practice guidance. The government also dropped the 10 times existing use value benchmark land value scenario for greenfield Green Belt land and will rely on locally evidenced viability testing (government response, August 2026, questions 143 and 144). What carried over: schemes that accord with up-to-date plan policy are still assumed viable, assessments must still be published, and neither the price paid for land nor the price set in an option agreement can justify falling short of policy. DM5(2) is still an illustrative list of circumstances in which an application-stage viability assessment may be justified ("Such circumstances may include"). Source: NPPF, August 2026, policy DM5; Government response to the proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026.
    • Migration, asylum dispersal and rural housing targets, and what the tables actually show. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026, and the standard method is unchanged. Annex D still sets the baseline at 0.8% of existing housing stock and still applies the affordability adjustment at 0.95% for every 1% the ratio sits above five. The formula described here, and the figures it produces, stand. The framework around it did change: the tilted balance at paragraph 11(d) is replaced by a permanent presumption at policies S3 to S5, and the consultation that closed on 10 March 2026 is now resolved. Source: NPPF, August 2026, Annex D.
    • Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026, resolving the consultation described here. No standard developer profit figure was adopted. The consultation had asked whether 17.5% would be an appropriate figure. Policy DM5 carries no standardised figure and defers standardised inputs to new planning practice guidance, while keeping the presumption that policy-compliant schemes are viable and the rule that the price paid for land cannot justify falling short. One rule described above has changed in substance. The Golden Rules on land in or released from the Green Belt keep the same affordable housing contribution, 15 percentage points above the highest existing requirement and capped at 50%. What is new is policy GB8(3), which admits a viability assessment in three defined circumstances: previously developed land burdened by costs the plan did not account for, strategic sites, and development of a wholly different type from that tested for the plan. The plan-making requirement at policy HO5, at least 50% unless this would make the development unviable, carries forward paragraph 67(b) of the December 2024 framework. Plans must also express affordable housing requirements as a single figure rather than a range (policy PM12). Source: NPPF, August 2026, policies DM5, GB8, HO5 and PM12; NPPF, December 2024, paragraph 67.
    • The 150 homes at Lechlade, and the growth the council had already counted. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026 and replaces the December 2024 version referred to here. The tilted balance at paragraph 11(d) is gone, replaced by a permanent presumption at policies S3 to S5. Two things follow for a council mid-plan. Development plan policies that are materially inconsistent with the new national decision-making policies should be given very limited weight, unless they were examined and adopted against this framework (Annex A, paragraph 2). And a council that adopts a plan, holds a five year supply with the appropriate buffer and stays above 75% on the Housing Delivery Test cannot have a higher standard method figure treated as evidence of unmet need, for five years from adoption (Annex A, paragraph 3). Source: NPPF, August 2026.
    • The Building Safety Levy, and why it costs twice as much on a green field. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026, resolving the consultation described here. No developer profit figure was adopted. Policy DM5 sets none, the 17.5% example raised in consultation question 202 was not taken forward, and standardised inputs to viability assessment stay in planning practice guidance. The government also dropped the standardised benchmark land value scenario of 10 times existing use value for greenfield Green Belt land and will rely on locally evidenced viability testing (government response, August 2026, questions 143 and 144). What carried over: schemes that accord with up-to-date plan policy are still assumed viable, assessments must still be published, and neither the price paid for land nor the price set in an option agreement can justify falling short of policy. DM5(2) is still an illustrative list ("Such circumstances may include"). Its cost limb now covers a development burdened by costs "not taken into account in the viability assessment that informed the development plan". Source: NPPF, August 2026, policy DM5; Government response to the proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026.
    • The five-year supply, the tilted balance, and why your council can't say no. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026 and replaces the December 2024 version this piece describes. Paragraph 11(d) no longer exists. A permanent presumption now sits at policy S3, which routes to policy S4 inside a settlement and policy S5 outside one, and the test becomes whether the benefits of approving development would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects. Failing the five year supply, or scoring below 75% on the Housing Delivery Test, no longer tilts a balance. It opens policy S5(1)(j), under which housing counts as an evidenced unmet need and so becomes one of the categories of development that may be approved outside a settlement. Source: NPPF, August 2026, policies S3 to S6 and Annex D.
    • The Housing Algorithm. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026, and the standard method is unchanged. Annex D still sets the baseline at 0.8% of existing housing stock and still applies the affordability adjustment at 0.95% for every 1% the ratio sits above five. The formula described here, and the figures it produces, stand. The framework around it did change: the tilted balance at paragraph 11(d) is replaced by a permanent presumption at policies S3 to S5, and the consultation that closed on 10 March 2026 is now resolved. Source: NPPF, August 2026, Annex D.
    • The Housing Delivery Test, and why the results have not been published since 2024. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026. The Housing Delivery Test survives with its thresholds intact, but rehoused and partly restructured. The consequences now sit at Annex D: below 95% an action plan, below 85% a 20% buffer, below 75% an evidenced unmet need for housing is deemed to exist. That last one is the change of substance. A score below 75% no longer engages the presumption directly. It opens policy S5(1)(j), the route by which housing may be approved outside a settlement. The buffers move from paragraph 78 of the December 2024 framework to Annex D paragraph 9. That includes the third buffer, which the December 2024 framework had already introduced at paragraph 78(c) for decision-making only from 1 July 2026: 20% where a council's adopted requirement was examined against a pre-December-2024 framework and is 80% or less of its current standard method figure. Source: NPPF, August 2026, Annex D, paragraphs 9 and 12.
    • The Local Plan, and why most of England does not have one. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026 and replaces the December 2024 version referred to here. The tilted balance at paragraph 11(d) is gone, replaced by a permanent presumption at policies S3 to S5. Two things follow for a council mid-plan. Development plan policies that are materially inconsistent with the new national decision-making policies should be given very limited weight, unless they were examined and adopted against this framework (Annex A, paragraph 2). And a council that adopts a plan, holds a five year supply with the appropriate buffer and stays above 75% on the Housing Delivery Test cannot have a higher standard method figure treated as evidence of unmet need, for five years from adoption (Annex A, paragraph 3). Source: NPPF, August 2026.
    • The neighbourhood plan, and what it can actually do. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026. Paragraph 14, the protection described here, is replaced by policy S6, which keeps both conditions: the neighbourhood plan must have become part of the development plan five years or less before the decision is made, and it must contain allocations meeting its identified housing requirement. The transitional rule matters as much as the policy. A neighbourhood plan submitted to the local planning authority under Regulation 15 on or before 17 August 2026 continues to be prepared under the December 2024 framework. Anything not yet submitted must comply with the new one, and a qualifying body may withdraw a submitted plan in order to update it. Source: NPPF, August 2026, policy S6 and Annex A, paragraph 6.
    • The seven new towns, and the list that is already overdue. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026 and replaces the December 2024 version referred to here. It is a full rewrite, restructured into plan-making and national decision-making policies across 131 numbered policies, and its decision-making policies are a material consideration from the day of publication. References in this piece to the December 2024 framework should now be read as historical. Source: NPPF, August 2026.
    • The tilted balance is not a verdict, and how some councils have beaten it. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026 and replaces the December 2024 version this piece describes. Paragraph 11(d) no longer exists. A permanent presumption now sits at policy S3, which routes to policy S4 inside a settlement and policy S5 outside one, and the test becomes whether the benefits of approving development would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects. Failing the five year supply, or scoring below 75% on the Housing Delivery Test, no longer tilts a balance. It opens policy S5(1)(j), under which housing counts as an evidenced unmet need and so becomes one of the categories of development that may be approved outside a settlement. Source: NPPF, August 2026, policies S3 to S6 and Annex D.
    • Viability, density, and why every estate looks the same. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026. On viability, no standard developer profit margin was adopted (the December 2025 consultation had asked, at question 202, whether 17.5% would be an appropriate figure), and policy DM5 defers standardised inputs to new planning practice guidance. On density, the framework moves further in the direction this piece describes. Policy L3 requires development within settlements to contribute to an increase in the density of the area it sits in, sets a minimum of 35 dwellings per hectare within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station and 45 where services run at twice the minimum frequency, and states that proposals which do not make efficient use of land should be refused. The tilted balance at paragraph 11(d), which this piece refers to, no longer exists. A permanent presumption sits at policies S3 to S5 in its place. Source: NPPF, August 2026, policies S3 to S5, DM5 and L3.
    • Water scarcity and housing targets, and the figure everyone is quoting from last year. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026, and the standard method is unchanged. Annex D still sets the baseline at 0.8% of existing housing stock and still applies the affordability adjustment at 0.95% for every 1% the ratio sits above five. The formula described here, and the figures it produces, stand. The framework around it did change: the tilted balance at paragraph 11(d) is replaced by a permanent presumption at policies S3 to S5, and the consultation that closed on 10 March 2026 is now resolved. Source: NPPF, August 2026, Annex D.
    • What "affordable" actually means, and what it costs. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026. The four definitions of affordable housing described here survive in the glossary at Annex B, which adds a fifth: military affordable housing, let at a sub-market military rent set by the Ministry of Defence. The standard method that produces the 1,054 figure is unchanged. One thing moves in the direction this piece argues for. Development plans must now set the minimum proportion of Social Rent homes required as part of major development (policy HO5), and development proposals must meet or exceed that minimum (policy HO8). Whether it is set at a level that changes what actually gets built is a matter for each plan. Source: NPPF, August 2026, Annex B and policies HO5 and HO8.
    • What happens to a local plan when the council is abolished. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026 and replaces the December 2024 version for decision-making. The tilted balance at paragraph 11(d) is gone, replaced by a permanent presumption at policies S3 to S5. Plan-making is different. Only plans prepared under the reformed plan-making system follow the new framework; any other plan, Cotswold's included, is produced and examined under the December 2024 version (Annex A, paragraphs 4 and 8). That matters for the two protections in Annex A. Development plan policies that are materially inconsistent with the new national decision-making policies should be given very limited weight, unless they were examined and adopted against this framework (paragraph 2). A plan examined under the December 2024 framework cannot meet that exception. A council that adopts a plan is protected from having a higher standard method figure treated as evidence of unmet need for five years from adoption, but only while it holds a five year supply with the appropriate buffer and scores above 75% on the Housing Delivery Test (paragraph 3). Source: NPPF, August 2026, Annex A.
    • What the standard method is, and what it is not. update A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026, and the standard method is unchanged. Annex D still sets the baseline at 0.8% of existing housing stock and still applies the affordability adjustment at 0.95% for every 1% the ratio sits above five. The formula described here, and the figures it produces, stand. The framework around it did change: the tilted balance at paragraph 11(d) is replaced by a permanent presumption at policies S3 to S5, and the consultation that closed on 10 March 2026 is now resolved. Source: NPPF, August 2026, Annex D.

  6. The Prime Minister changes, and publication slips

    Keir Starmer resigned and Andy Burnham became Prime Minister. Matthew Pennycook was retained as Housing and Planning Minister and announced that the new framework would be delayed until after the start of summer recess. The long-term housing strategy was pushed to September.

    Ministerial statements, July 2026

  7. The Wern appeal is allowed at Lechlade

    An inspector allowed up to 54 homes after accepting that the scheme would harm the rural character of the site and the setting of a listed farmhouse, and that it conflicted with both the local plan and the neighbourhood plan. She allowed it because the council could demonstrate only 1.8 years of supply. It is the clearest local demonstration of what paragraph 11(d) did.

    Appeal decision ref 6002824, 15 June 2026

    We published
  8. before this publication

    The consultation on the replacement closes

    MHCLG said the final version would follow in summer 2026. It did not arrive before Parliament rose on 16 July.

    GOV.UK consultation page, closed 10 March 2026

  9. before this publication

    A full replacement framework is published in draft

    The government consulted on replacing the framework outright, restructured into plan-making policies and national decision-making policies. The draft proposed standardising the developer profit margin at 17.5% of gross development value and setting a greenfield benchmark land value at ten times existing use value.

    National Planning Policy Framework: proposed reforms and other changes to the planning system, consultation opened 16 December 2025

  10. before this publication

    The December 2024 framework is amended

    A correcting amendment fixed cross-references in footnotes 7 and 8, the footnotes that define when paragraph 11(d) engages, and clarified paragraph 155. The framework was not otherwise reopened.

    National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024, as amended 7 February 2025

  11. before this publication

    The standard method is rewritten, and targets jump

    The revised framework replaced the household projections baseline with one drawn from existing housing stock, at 0.8%, adjusted for affordability. Cotswold District’s local housing need went from 495 homes a year to 1,036, later restated as 1,054. Grey belt and the Golden Rules were introduced in the same revision.

    National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024

  12. before this publication

    The presumption is renumbered, and paragraph 11(d) appears

    The framework was rewritten and the presumption moved to paragraph 11. Limb (d) applied it where the policies most important for determining an application were out of date, which included a council unable to demonstrate five years of housing land. This is the provision that decided contested housing appeals in England for the next eight years.

    National Planning Policy Framework, July 2018

  13. before this publication

    The first National Planning Policy Framework

    More than a thousand pages of separate planning policy statements were replaced by a single framework of about fifty. The presumption in favour of sustainable development sat at paragraph 14.

    National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012