S5
Into the enhanced balance. 2 routes in play.
Falling within any S5(1) limb means approval unless the benefits are substantially outweighed. Claim every limb the facts support: they are alternatives, not a hierarchy.
03Principle of development
Every limb tested in parallel. They are alternatives, not a hierarchy.
S5(1)(j)
Development addressing an evidenced unmet need
Open- ✓An evidenced unmet need. The wording is "including, but not limited to" a five year supply failure or a Housing Delivery Test result below 75%, so it is not confined to those twoS5(1)(j)Met
- ✓This wording is open, so a council failing its self-build register duty counts as an evidenced unmet need here. Record it under another evidenced need. Inside the Green Belt it would not count: footnote 41 to GB7(1)(g)(ii) accepts only a five year supply shortfall or a Housing Delivery Test failureS5(1)(j)Met
- ✓Physically well-related to an existing settlement, unless the nature of the development makes that inappropriate. Where the site lies beyond an undeveloped allocation, footnote 28 asks whether it would still be suitable if that allocation does not proceedS5(1)(j)(i)Met
- ✓Of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructureS5(1)(j)(i)Met
S5(1)(e)
Limited infilling within groups of houses
Arguable- ✓Reads as infilling within an existing group of housesS5(1)(e)Met
- ◐Limited on the facts. Neither limited nor group of houses is defined, and both are read tightly at appealS5(1)(e)Matter of judgement
- ✓Self-build plots on an infill frontage are a well-trodden version of this limbMet
S5(1)(c)
Reuse, extension, alteration or replacement of an existing building
Not relevant- ✕An existing building of permanent and substantial construction, lawful in planning termsS5(1)(c)Fails
- ✕No disproportionate increase in size compared to the building as it stood on 17 August 2026S5(1)(c)Fails
- ✕If a replacement: for the same use, and not disproportionately larger than the building it replacesS5(1)(c)Fails
S5(1)(d)
Redevelopment of previously developed land, including a material change of use to residential
Not relevant- ✕Meets the definition of previously developed land: lawfully developed, with a permanent structure or substantial fixed hardstandingS5(1)(d)Fails
- ✕Not excluded: not a garden, park, recreation ground or allotment in a built-up area, not land last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings, and not minerals, landfill or energy land with restoration provided forAnnex BFails
- ✕The remains of any permanent structure have not blended into the landscapeAnnex BFails
S5(1)(f)
An exception site under HO10, or development under a Community Right to Build Order or Neighbourhood Development Order
Not relevant- ✕An exception site as provided for in HO10, or development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order or Neighbourhood Development OrderS5(1)(f)Fails
- ✕Adjoins or is physically well-related to a settlementHO10(2)(a)Fails
- ✕Built development not greater than 1 hectare in extent, or 5% of the size of the existing settlement, whichever is greater, unless the development plan provides otherwiseHO10(2)(b)Fails
- ✕For a rural exception site: affordable housing meeting identified local needs, evidenced by a local housing needs survey or secondary data no more than 5 years oldHO10(1)(a)Fails
- ✕Includes affordable housing, with market homes only where essential to deliver it without grantHO10(2)(c)Fails
- ✕A Community Right to Build Order or Neighbourhood Development Order made, or being made, for the developmentS5(1)(f)Fails
S5(1)(g)
Evidenced unmet need for gypsy, traveller or travelling showpeople accommodation
Not relevantNot assessed by this tool. This limb turns on HO12, on a five year supply of deliverable traveller sites rather than of housing sites, and on a locational test that treats sites not well-related to settlements as potentially appropriate. Take advice.
S5(1)(h)
Residential or mixed-use development around a well-connected station
Not relevant- ✕Within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station, being around 800 metres or a 10 minute walk where barriers applyS5(1)(h)(i)Fails
- ☐Well-connected: within a top 80 Travel to Work Area by Gross Value Added, and served throughout the weekday daytime by at least 4 services per hour overall or 2 in any one directionAnnex BNot answered
- ✓Residential or mixed-use developmentMet
- ✓Physically well-related to the station, or to the settlement within which the station is locatedMet
- ✓Of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructureMet
- ✓Would not prejudice any proposals for long-term comprehensive development in the same locationMet
- –The L3 density floor runs alongside this limb. It is not one of its requirements, but a failure mandates refusal under L3(4)L3(2)(c)N/A
S5(1)(i)
Development of land allocated for that purpose in the development plan
Not relevant- ✕Allocated for housing in the development planS5(1)(i)Fails
04Things that could stop it
Nothing on this list applies on the answers so far. Worth checking again once the survey work is done, because flooding, access and density often only show up at that stage.
05Weight ledger
Only the things national policy says must be taken into account, and only as strongly as the answers support.
| Consideration | Policy | Weight |
|---|
| Homes contributing to evidenced accommodation needsHO7(1) directs substantial weight to the benefits of providing homes contributing towards evidenced accommodation needs, as identified through the authority's needs assessments and other relevant evidence. | HO7(1) | Substantial |
| Any development plan policy materially inconsistent with this FrameworkcheckThis is a prompt, not a finding: the tool cannot read your development plan. Identify the specific policies and the specific inconsistency. Two exceptions: policies examined and adopted or made against this Framework keep their weight, and a policy is not downgraded simply for predating the Framework. Most restrictive rural housing policies adopted under earlier editions now sit here. | Annex A(2) | Very limited |
06Interpretation register
Undefined language this case would turn on.
- “substantially outweighed”S4, S5, GB7
- Undefined, and the whole balance turns on it. Materially higher than the old significantly and demonstrably formulation, with nothing in the Framework saying how much higher.
- “settlement”Annex B
- The Framework points to development plan definitions. Where the plan draws no boundary, the extent is argued from what is predominantly built-up. Land allocated or permitted that will form part of the built-up area counts too. Villages lying within and defined as part of the Green Belt are excluded entirely.
- “evidenced unmet need”S5(1)(j) against GB7(1)(g)(ii)
- The same phrase is open in one place and closed in the other, and for small and self-build sites that is the most important asymmetry in the document. S5(1)(j) says including, but not limited to, a five year supply failure: any evidenced need can count. Footnote 41 to GB7(1)(g)(ii) says that for housing it means a five year supply shortfall including any buffer, or a Housing Delivery Test result below 75%: on a strict reading nothing else counts. At appeal, inspectors have counted self-build demand under the closed version too, so far always alongside a five year supply shortfall, so whether it can satisfy the test alone is undecided. Annex A(3) adds one limit on the open version: where the authority has a five year supply and a Housing Delivery Test result above 75%, a standard method figure higher than the adopted requirement is not evidence of unmet need for five years from adoption.
- “people wishing to commission or build their own homes”HO1(2)(i)
- This is how self-build demand becomes an assessed need, which is what earns the substantial weight at HO7. Where the council's evidence has never assessed it, that gap is itself the argument.
- “physically well-related”S5(1)(h)(ii), S5(1)(j)(i), GB7(1)(h)(ii)
- There is no test and no distance. Footnote 28 covers only land beyond an undeveloped allocation. This is the main battleground for edge-of-settlement sites.
- “a scale which can be accommodated”S5(1)(h)(iii), S5(1)(j)(i), GB7(1)(h)(iii)
- The words existing or proposed let you rely on infrastructure that does not yet exist. How firm the proposal must be is untested.
- “limited infilling”S5(1)(e), GB7(1)(c)
- Neither limited nor group of houses is defined, and both are read tightly at appeal. The pinch point for multi-plot self-build frontages.
- “very limited weight”Annex A(2)
- What a development plan policy materially inconsistent with the national decision-making policies now gets, unless the plan was examined and adopted or made against this Framework. Not zero: how little is for the decision-maker, case by case. A policy is not downgraded simply for predating the Framework; the inconsistency has to be shown. Most restrictive rural housing policies adopted under earlier editions sit here.
07The policies behind the numbers
- S4
- Principle of development within settlements
- S5
- Principle of development outside settlements
- HO1
- Assessing the need for homes
- HO7
- Meeting the need for homes
- HO10
- Exception sites
- L3
- Achieving appropriate densities
- GB7
- Development which is not inappropriate in the Green Belt
Assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), published 17 August 2026, using ruleset 1.1.0 and interpretation revision 2026-08-18.
This is a policy test, not a site assessment
Everything above comes from the answers on the left. It has not looked at a map, a local plan, or the planning history of any particular site, and it is not planning advice. If you have a real piece of land, the assessment starts from its boundary instead, and fills in what it can from the data.
Assess an actual site→