Worked example. The trap the new framework sets: the station that opens the door also sets a minimum density. Build too sparsely and the same policy package that made the site developable requires a refusal. Raise the homes figure and watch the refusal disappear.

Policy test

Number of homes and site area

Settles the major threshold and feeds the density calculation. The L3(2)(c) floor is measured over the net developable area, which on a small site is normally the whole site, so the site area is used.

HomesSite area (ha)

Major development on these figures: 10 or more homes, or 0.5 hectares or more. Either limb is sufficient.

Where does the site sit?

Decides which policy family applies. The council's policies map shows settlement boundaries and Green Belt.

What kind of housing is proposed?

Open market housingSelf-build or custom build plotsA single self-build dwellingAffordable-led, or a rural exception siteCommunity-led developmentOlder persons or specialist accommodationMixed use including residentialUnder a Community Right to Build Order or Neighbourhood Development Order

Evidenced unmet need

Unmet need is not defined, but it must be evidenced. Inside the Green Belt, footnote 41 narrows it to the two supply measures. Annex A(3) closes one argument outside it: where the council has a five year supply and a Housing Delivery Test result above 75%, a standard method figure higher than the adopted plan requirement does not count as unmet need for five years from adoption.

No five year supply of deliverable housing sitesHousing Delivery Test result below 75%Evidenced unmet affordable housing needOther evidenced unmet need: older persons, specialist, rural, or self-build and custom buildNeed is met on every measure

Relationship to the settlement, and infrastructure capacity

Two separate requirements, and both are judgement calls with no defined test.

Physically well-related to the settlement or a stationJudgement callOf a scale existing or proposed infrastructure can accommodateJudgement callAdjoins the settlement edgeSits beyond the far edge of an undeveloped allocation

Is the site within reasonable walking distance of a station?

Reasonable walking distance is around 800 metres. Where topography, poor routes or a physical barrier would put that walk off, around 10 minutes' actual walking time is used instead. Where only part of the site is within reach, the station limbs and the density floor apply only to that part.

No station within reasonable walking distanceYes, the whole site is within 800 metresYes, but only part of the siteWithin a 10 minute walk, with barriers applying

Is it a well-connected station?

A stop within a top 80 Travel to Work Area by Gross Value Added, served in the normal weekday timetable throughout the daytime by at least 4 trains or trams per hour overall, or at least 2 per hour in any one direction. The Travel to Work Area ranking and the timetable are lookups. Planned upgrades or an agreement with the operator can also satisfy the frequency limb, and whether that prospect is reasonable is a judgement.

Not checked yetYes: within a top-80 Travel to Work Area and the frequency threshold is metYes, and at least double the minimum frequencyOnly with planned upgrades or an agreement with the operatorNo: fails the Travel to Work Area or the frequency test

Other station-limb tests

Would prejudice proposals for long-term comprehensive development hereJudgement call

Design quality

DP3 attaches weight to design quality generally, and is not confined to isolated sites. Separate from the HO11(1)(e) route.

Outstanding or innovative design which promotes high sustainability or raises design standards in the areaWould improve the energy efficiency of an existing building, or draw on district heat, renewable or low carbon sources

Which heritage assets would the proposal affect, including through development within their setting?

Record every asset affected: they attract different policies and can take different levels of harm. Where more than one asset of the same type is affected, assess the one that would take the greatest effect.

Add a heritage asset

No heritage asset affected, and none in the setting

Into the enhanced balance. 1 route 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. Separately, a national decision-making policy that mandates refusal is engaged. Clearing the principle of development does not answer that.

02L3(2)(c) density floor

45 dphyou are at 20

Site area gives 20 dwellings per hectare against a floor of 45. The floor is measured over the net developable area, which on a small site is normally the whole site: Annex B keeps roads, gardens, parking and incidental open space inside it.
Below 45 dwellings per hectare within the net developable area.
Major development, so the L3(2)(c)(i) exception is unavailable: it applies only below the major threshold.
As it stands L3(4) mandates refusal. The same policy package that makes the site developable is the one that catches the density.

03Principle of development

Every limb tested in parallel. They are alternatives, not a hierarchy.

S5(1)(h)

Residential or mixed-use development around a well-connected station

Open

Within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station, being around 800 metres or a 10 minute walk where barriers applyS5(1)(h)(i)Met
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 BMet
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)Fails

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)(e)

Limited infilling within groups of houses

Not relevant

Reads as infilling within an existing group of housesS5(1)(e)Fails
Limited on the facts. Neither limited nor group of houses is defined, and both are read tightly at appealS5(1)(e)Fails

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 relevant

Not 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)(i)

Development of land allocated for that purpose in the development plan

Not relevant

Allocated for housing in the development planS5(1)(i)Fails

S5(1)(j)

Development addressing an evidenced unmet need

Not relevant

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)Fails
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

04Things that could stop it

L3(4)Means a refusal
Development proposals that do not make efficient use of land in accordance with L3(2) should be refused. Engaged here by the station density floor at L3(2)(c).

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) asks whether the homes contribute to assessed needs, not whether need is unmet, so the weight does not disappear where the council is meeting every measure. But Annex A(3) closes the obvious fallback: with a five year supply and a delivery test result above 75%, a standard method figure higher than the adopted requirement is not unmet need for five years from adoption. Calling the weight substantial here is open to challenge.	HO7(1)	Arguable
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.
“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.
“net developable area”L3(2)(c): The 35 and 45 dwellings per hectare floors bite on the net developable area. Annex B keeps access roads, hard landscaping, private gardens, ground level parking and incidental open space inside it, and takes out only land for strategic infrastructure, parks and public squares, and open space serving the wider green infrastructure network, including significant biodiversity net gain and drainage features. On a small site that is normally the whole site, which is why this tool measures against the site area.
“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
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