Worked example. The footnote defining unmet need in the Green Belt names two housing supply measures, and a self-build backlog is not one of them. The route still shows as arguable rather than closed: inspectors have counted self-build need under this test, though in every appeal so far a five year supply shortfall was present too. Answer the five year supply question and watch the route firm up.

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)

Minor development on these figures: under 10 homes and under 0.5 hectares.

Where does the site sit?

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

Green Belt: grey belt and the GB7 limbs

Grey belt is land in the Green Belt, including previously developed land, that does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b) or (d) of GB2: sprawl of a large built-up area, merging of neighbouring towns, and the setting of a historic town. Purpose (c), encroachment, is excluded from the test.

Does not strongly contribute to any of GB2 purposes (a), (b) or (d)Judgement callWould fundamentally undermine the purposes, taken together, of the remaining Green Belt across the plan areaJudgement callWould cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green BeltJudgement callA sustainable location, with particular reference to TR3Limited infilling in a village lying within the Green BeltJudgement callComplies with the Golden Rules at GB8Cannot comply with the Golden Rules, but falls within one of the three GB8(3) circumstances in which a viability case may be submittedCannot comply with the Golden Rules, and none of the GB8(3) circumstances applies

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

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

GB6 / GB7

Arguably not inappropriate. 1 route in play.

Where a GB7 limb is made out the development is not inappropriate, no very special circumstances are needed, and S5(5) then applies the balance.

03Principle of development

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

GB7(1)(g)

Grey belt land

Arguable

Utilises grey belt land: previously developed land or other land that does not strongly contribute to any of GB2 purposes (a) sprawl, (b) merging of towns, or (d) the setting of a historic town. Purpose (c), encroachment, is excludedGB7(1)(g)(i)Met
Would not fundamentally undermine the purposes, taken together, of the remaining Green Belt across the plan areaGB7(1)(g)(i)Met
An evidenced unmet need for the type of development proposed. Footnote 41 defines this for housing: it MEANS a lack of a five year supply of deliverable sites, including any relevant buffer, or a Housing Delivery Test result below 75%. On the strict reading those are the only two measures. An unmet self-build demand with neither is arguable rather than excluded: inspectors have counted self-build need under this limb, so far always alongside a supply shortfall, and no positive decision has rested on it aloneGB7(1)(g)(ii)Matter of judgement
Where the limb rests on self-build need alone, the position is uncertain and should be argued, not assumed. Strictly, footnote 41 says MEANS, which is closed. Against that: no decision has had to decide the point, because a supply shortfall was present in every appeal read; Sevenoaks 3351517 (Hearing, para 15) read the identically-worded predecessor footnote as covering the supply position amongst other matters and coupled the authority's 2015 Act duty failure to it; Dacorum 3345435 (Inquiry, paras 154 and 188) placed self-build plots inside the unmet need finding and gave the contribution substantial weight; Waverley 3352194 (para 19) named self-build need in the finding itself. Where a supply shortfall IS present the question never arises: the shortfall satisfies the limb and self-build need characterises the type of development and adds weightGB7(1)(g)(ii)Matter of judgement
In a sustainable location, with particular reference to TR3GB7(1)(g)(iii)Met
Where major development involving housing: complies with the Golden Rules at GB8GB7(1)(g)(iv)N/A

GB7(1)(b)

Reuse, extension, alteration or replacement of an existing building

Not relevant

An existing building of permanent and substantial construction, lawful in planning termsGB7(1)(b)Fails
No disproportionate increase in size compared to the original building, meaning as it stood on 1 July 1948 (or as first built, if later). Note the baseline: 1 July 1948, not the publication date that S5(1)(c) usesGB7(1)(b)Fails
If a replacement: for the same use, and not materially larger than the building it replacesGB7(1)(b)Fails

GB7(1)(c)

Limited infilling in villages lying within the Green Belt

Not relevant

Limited infilling in a village lying within the Green BeltGB7(1)(c)Fails
No unmet need test, no Golden Rules, no grey belt assessment. The cleanest route in the Green Belt where the facts fitGB7(1)(c)Fails
Self-build plots on a village frontage sit naturally within this limbNot answered

GB7(1)(d)

Limited affordable housing for local community needs

Not relevant

Affordable-led, meeting a local community need, for instance on a rural exception siteGB7(1)(d)Fails
Limited in scale, under Framework or development plan policyGB7(1)(d)Fails

GB7(1)(e)

Redevelopment of previously developed land, including a material change of use to residential

Not relevant

Meets the definition of previously developed landGB7(1)(e)Fails
Would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green BeltGB7(1)(e)Fails

GB7(1)(f)(ii)

Development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order or Neighbourhood Development Order

Not relevant

Brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order or a Neighbourhood Development OrderGB7(1)(f)(ii)Fails
The impact on the openness of the Green Belt is minimised, and there would be no significant conflict with the Green Belt purposesGB7(1)(f)Fails

GB7(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 applyGB7(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 locatedNot answered
Of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructureNot answered
Would not prejudice any proposals for long-term comprehensive development in the same locationMet
Where major development: complies with the Golden Rules at GB8GB7(1)(h)(v)N/A
This limb carries no unmet need test at all, so it bypasses footnote 41. Self-build can reach it where the grey belt route cannotGB7(1)(h)Met
The L3 density floor runs alongside this limb. A failure mandates refusal under L3(4)L3(2)(c)N/A

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
Self-build need in the Green Belt: limb, weight and fallbackThe same fact gives you two separate arguments, so the case does not stand or fall on this limb. First, it is arguable that a self-build shortfall satisfies the limb: the point is undecided at appeal, and in Sevenoaks 3351517 an inspector accepted a 2015 Act duty failure under the identically worded predecessor footnote. Second, even if that argument fails, self-build need counts towards very special circumstances under GB6(2): Dacorum 3345435 gave it substantial weight, and Waverley 3352194 shows a council contesting the same point at that stage. Evidence the backlog properly: Dacorum shows how, at paragraphs 136 to 138, testing each permission against the 2015 Act definition rather than relying on CIL exemptions.	GB7(1)(g)(ii) and GB6(2)	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.
“strongly contribute”Annex B grey belt, via GB2: Land is grey belt where it does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d). Those purposes rest on the phrases large built-up area, town and historic town, none of which is defined. Purpose (c), safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, is deliberately left out of the test.
“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
L3: Achieving appropriate densities
GB2: Assessing existing Green Belt land
GB6: Control of development in the Green Belt
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