Vol. I № 02 August 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 A figure that was correct when we wrote it can be superseded without anyone having erred, and a mechanism an entire guide was built around can be abolished in an afternoon.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 we note corrections at the foot of the article with the date they were made, and never silently alter published text. This page is how that promise is checked rather than merely asserted. Each entry gives what changed in the world, then what we did about it, and when.

40 dated revisions across 20 articles, of which 4 are corrections, meaning the piece was wrong on the day it was published. The rest are updates: right on the day, and the facts have since moved.

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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. The 17.5% developer profit margin was not adopted. Policy DM5 carries no standardised figure, and the government has deferred standardised inputs and benchmark land values to new planning practice guidance. What survived: 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. The draft's restriction to unforeseen circumstances became a list of four defined circumstances at DM5(2). Source: NPPF, August 2026, policy DM5.
    • 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. The 17.5% developer profit margin was not adopted. 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 released from the Green Belt still require up to 50% affordable housing, but they are no longer without a viability opt-out: policy GB8(3) admits a viability assessment in three defined circumstances, and the requirement at policy HO5 is now qualified by the words unless this would make the development unviable. 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.
    • 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. The 17.5% developer profit margin was not adopted. Policy DM5 carries no standardised figure, and the government has deferred standardised inputs and benchmark land values to new planning practice guidance. What survived: 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. The draft's restriction to unforeseen circumstances became a list of four defined circumstances at DM5(2). Source: NPPF, August 2026, policy DM5.
    • 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 79 to Annex D, and a third is added for decision-making only: 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. Cotswold District's voluntary buffer now has a policy home. 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, the 17.5% developer profit margin proposed in the December 2025 draft was not adopted, 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. Source: NPPF, August 2026, policies 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, and 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, 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 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.
    • 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.

  4. We check the corpus against primary sources

    Not a policy change, but the reason the record below exists. A sweep against primary sources found figures that had moved and two claims taken from secondary sources that were wrong, one by a factor of 25. Every affected piece was given a dated row rather than a silent edit.

    Ground Level, editorial review, 16 August 2026

    We revised 20 articles
    • A unanimous refusal, overturned by the tilted balance. update The 1.8 years of supply and the 1,036 target are the figures the Inspector decided this appeal on, and they stand as the record of it. Both have since been overtaken. Cotswold's local housing need is now 1,054 a year in the Regulation 19 Local Plan approved on 12 August 2026, and the Council's July 2026 evidence models 4.7 years of supply at the intended adoption date of 1 April 2028 rather than restating a current figure.
    • A unanimous refusal, overturned by the tilted balance. update The reorganisation this piece describes as under way has been decided. On 16 July 2026 the Secretary of State confirmed a single Gloucestershire Council from 1 April 2028, with shadow authority elections on 6 May 2027. The Local Plan is expected to be adopted around March 2028.
    • Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy. update The December 2025 draft NPPF discussed here, which proposed limiting viability assessments to unforeseen circumstances and standardising the developer profit margin at 17.5%, is still a draft. The consultation closed on 10 March 2026 and the revised framework has not been published as at 16 August 2026. Publication was promised for summer 2026. Until it lands, the December 2024 NPPF rules described above remain the operative ones.
    • The 150 homes at Lechlade, and the growth the council had already counted. update The application file has moved since publication and the account above still holds. Application 25/04047/OUT remains undetermined, with no committee date listed and no officer report published. Its determination target date was 17 April 2026, so it is now four months past it. Three consultee responses have been added since we went to press: the Council's senior biodiversity officer on 30 June 2026, Thames Water on 10 July 2026, and further public objections on 1 July, 24 July and 4 August. Natural England's letter of 25 March 2026, which said it may need to object without further information, has still not been withdrawn or superseded. Position checked 7 August 2026.
    • The 150 homes at Lechlade, and the growth the council had already counted. correction We described the site as "9.87 hectares of agricultural land off Station Road". Station Road is where the access is, not where the land is. The Council's address for the application is Land Parcel East of Cotswold Bungalow, Burford Road, Lechlade, and the submitted description reads "up to 150 residential dwellings (Use Class C3); highways access from Station Road; demolition of Bungalow". The site name used throughout this piece, Land south of Ferrers Park, is the promoter's and the SHELAA's name for it (site L33), not the address on the application. All three refer to the same land. We should have said so.
    • The 150 homes at Lechlade, and the growth the council had already counted. update The housing figures in this piece were the Council's published figures when it was written. Its evidence has since moved. The Regulation 19 Local Plan, approved by Full Council on 12 August 2026, uses a local housing need figure of 1,054 homes a year rather than 1,036, a requirement of 17,918 over the plan period and a supply of 18,911. The Council's Housing Land Supply Topic Paper of July 2026 also gives the pre-December-2024 need figure as 495 a year, where the November 2025 report this piece cites gave 493. We have left both on the record rather than choose between them. The Regulation 19 consultation runs from 24 August to 5 October 2026.
    • The five-year supply, the tilted balance, and why your council can't say no. correction The text originally said Cotswold's target had been increased by 147%. That compared the adopted Local Plan requirement of 420 a year with a standard method need output of 1,036, which are two different kinds of number. The district's standard method need immediately before the December 2024 change was 495 a year, making the like-for-like increase 109%. The text now says so. Source: CDC Housing Land Supply Topic Paper, 1 April 2026 base, July 2026, footnote 2.
    • The five-year supply, the tilted balance, and why your council can't say no. update The 1,036 target and the 1.8 years of supply were the Council's published figures when this piece was written, and 1.8 years is the figure the Inspector relied on to allow the Wern appeal in June 2026. Both have since been overtaken. Local housing need is now 1,054 a year. The Council's July 2026 evidence no longer states a current headline supply figure, and instead models forward from the intended adoption date, projecting 4.7 years at 1 April 2028 against a stepped requirement, recovering above five from 2029/30. It also applies a 20% buffer voluntarily, despite a Housing Delivery Test measurement of 95% requiring only 5%, on the expectation that delivery will fall below the 75% threshold.
    • The Housing Algorithm. correction This piece originally gave the increase in Cotswold District's housing target as 147%, from 420 to 1,036 homes a year, on the stat card and in the text. That was wrong, and it was wrong when we published it. The 420 figure is the housing requirement in the adopted Local Plan, settled at examination against the district's constraints. The 1,036 figure is an unconstrained standard method need output. Setting one against the other compares two different kinds of number. The Council's own evidence gives the district's standard method need immediately before the December 2024 change as 495 a year, which makes the like-for-like increase 109%. Both the card and the text now say so. Source: CDC Housing Land Supply Topic Paper, 1 April 2026 base, July 2026, footnote 2.
    • The Housing Algorithm. update The 1,036 figure was the Council's published local housing need when this piece was written and remained so through spring 2026. The standard method is recalculated as the affordability ratios and dwelling stock estimates refresh, and the figure is now 1,054 a year, used throughout the Regulation 19 Local Plan approved on 12 August 2026. Nothing changed on the ground. The inputs to the formula were refreshed.
    • The Housing Algorithm. update Local government reorganisation in Gloucestershire is no longer a prospect. The Secretary of State announced the decision on 16 July 2026: a single Gloucestershire Council, replacing the county, city, district and borough councils on 1 April 2028, with elections to a shadow authority on 6 May 2027.
    • The infrastructure that doesn't exist yet. update On the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, the position described here is being commenced in stages rather than all at once. The Act received Royal Assent on 18 December 2025, many provisions came into force on 18 February 2026, Schedule 5 Part 1 followed on 21 May 2026, and further commencement regulations have been made through 2026. The Government published its implementation plan for the infrastructure planning reforms in Part 1 on 23 March 2026. No Spatial Development Strategy has yet been made, so the coordination this piece describes remains prospective.
    • The Local Plan, and why most of England does not have one. update Cotswold's position has moved on since this piece was written, in the direction it described. Full Council approved a Regulation 19 Local Plan on 12 August 2026, for consultation from 24 August to 5 October, submission to the Secretary of State in December 2026 and adoption expected around March 2028. It uses a local housing need figure of 1,054 a year rather than the 1,036 quoted here, a requirement of 17,918 over 17 years and a supply of 18,911.
    • The Local Plan, and why most of England does not have one. update The committee papers quoted here warned of a 5 to 7 year delay if reorganisation created a new unitary authority. It has. The Secretary of State announced on 16 July 2026 that Gloucestershire will have a single unitary council from 1 April 2028, with shadow authority elections on 6 May 2027. On the current timetable the plan would be adopted around three weeks before the authority adopting it ceases to exist.
    • The neighbourhood plan, and what it can actually do. update The Kemble figure has grown. This piece described a draft allocation of around 590 homes south-west of the village, which was the Regulation 18 figure of 587. The Regulation 19 Local Plan approved on 12 August 2026 allocates a strategic extension of 1,020 homes at Kemble, against 388 existing dwellings in the village. The point the piece makes is unchanged and sharper: a neighbourhood plan backed by 89% of voters at referendum cannot resist a strategic allocation in the Local Plan it was written to conform with.
    • The tilted balance is not a verdict, and how some councils have beaten it. update Two figures in the source note have moved. Cotswold's local housing need is now 1,054 a year in the Regulation 19 Local Plan approved on 12 August 2026, not 1,036. And the Council's July 2026 Housing Land Supply Topic Paper gives the pre-December-2024 need figure as 495 a year at footnote 2, where the November 2025 report cited here gave 493. We have not chosen between them, and both are on the record with their sources.
    • The tilted balance is not a verdict, and how some councils have beaten it. update The source note warned that a draft NPPF was out for consultation and that paragraph numbers should be checked. That consultation closed on 10 March 2026 and the revised framework has still not been published as at 16 August 2026. The December 2024 NPPF, including the paragraph 11(d) tilted balance this guide turns on, remains the operative framework. Publication was promised for summer 2026, so the numbering should be checked again on the day the replacement lands.
    • What "affordable" actually means, and what it costs. update The 1,036 figure was Cotswold District's published local housing need when this piece was written. It is now 1,054 a year, used throughout the Regulation 19 Local Plan approved by Full Council on 12 August 2026. The plan carries a 40% affordable housing requirement. Source: CDC Housing Land Supply Topic Paper, 1 April 2026 base, July 2026.
    • What the standard method is, and what it is not. correction This piece correctly flagged that the adopted plan requirement of 420 is a different kind of number from a standard method output, but it still gave 147% as the headline comparison. We have set out all three baselines instead, because all three get quoted and only one of them is comparable. The adopted Local Plan requirement was 420 a year. The residual of that requirement outstanding in December 2024 was 250. The standard method need figure immediately before the change was 495. Measured like for like against that last figure, the increase is 109%. Source: CDC Housing Land Supply Topic Paper, 1 April 2026 base, July 2026, footnote 2.
    • What the standard method is, and what it is not. update The worked example above derives 1,036 homes a year, which was the Council's published figure at the time. The standard method is recalculated as its inputs refresh, and Cotswold's local housing need is now 1,054 a year in the Regulation 19 Local Plan approved on 12 August 2026. The arithmetic in this piece is unchanged. The affordability ratio and stock base it runs on have moved.

  5. 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

  6. 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
  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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