5-Year Housing Land Supply: Which North West Councils Fall Short

More than half of North West councils cannot show that enough land is available for new homes over the next five years, and the planning consequences are already taking effect.

Key Takeaways

• National Shortfall: 157 English councils cannot demonstrate five-year housing land supply, triggering the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
• North West Exposed: Only 40% of North West authorities can show sufficient supply, with Hyndburn (1.9 years) and Stockport (1.95 years) the weakest.
• Tilted Balance Active: Councils without five-year supply must apply paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, making planning refusals significantly harder to defend at appeal.
• 20% Buffer Now Live: From July 2026, councils whose adopted housing targets fall below 80% of current need must add a 20% buffer, effectively requiring six years of supply.

What Is Five-Year Housing Land Supply?

Five-year housing land supply is a test that every local planning authority in England must pass. It requires councils to identify enough specific, deliverable housing sites to meet their area's housing need for the next five years.

The requirement exists to ensure that local plans do not just allocate land on paper but demonstrate that homes will actually be built. A council's supply position is expressed as a number of years. A position of 5.0 or above means the test is passed. Anything below 5.0 means it is failed, and the consequences for planning decisions are significant.

As of June 2026, 157 local planning authorities across England cannot demonstrate five-year housing land supply. The shortfall ranges from Castle Point at 0.55 years to authorities just below the threshold at 4.9 years.

Quick FAQ:

Q: Is five-year housing land supply the same as the Housing Delivery Test?

A: No. The Housing Delivery Test measures how many homes were actually built over the past three years. Five-year housing land supply looks forward, measuring how many homes a council can show will be built over the next five years. A council can fail one test and pass the other, but failing both compounds the planning pressure significantly.

How the Calculation Works

The calculation divides the number of homes on deliverable sites by the annual housing requirement. The requirement comes from either the council's adopted local plan or, where no up-to-date plan exists, the government's standard method.

A site counts as deliverable only if it meets specific criteria. Sites with detailed planning permission are generally presumed deliverable. Sites without permission, including allocations in a local plan, require clear evidence that housing completions will begin within five years.

The National Planning Policy Framework also requires councils to add a buffer to their requirement. The standard buffer is 5%. Where there has been significant under-delivery, measured by the Housing Delivery Test, the buffer rises to 20%. This means a council that has underdelivered must demonstrate not five years but effectively six years of supply.

Quick FAQ:

Q: What counts as a deliverable housing site?

A: A site is deliverable if homes will realistically be completed within five years. For sites with detailed planning permission, delivery is presumed unless evidence suggests otherwise. For sites without permission, councils must provide clear evidence of availability, suitability and a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered within the period.

What Happens When Councils Fall Short

When a council cannot demonstrate five-year housing land supply, its planning policies for housing are considered out of date. This triggers paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, known as the "tilted balance" or the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Under the tilted balance, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would "significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits". This is a high bar for refusal. Councils can no longer simply point to local plan policies to justify turning down housing applications. Instead, the decision-maker must weigh the benefits of new homes, including affordable housing and economic activity, against specific harms.

Protected designations such as Green Belt, heritage assets and flood risk areas can still defeat applications through what the NPPF calls "strong reasons for refusing." But for sites outside these protections, the tilted balance makes approval the default position.

The practical effect is significant. Well-prepared housing applications in areas without five-year supply succeed at appeal at substantially higher rates than those assessed under normal policy. The structural advantage sits with the applicant, provided the scheme is well-designed and evidence-led.

Quick FAQ:

Q: Can a council refuse planning permission if it has no five-year housing land supply?

A: Yes, but it is much harder. The council must demonstrate that the adverse impacts of the development would "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" its benefits. Protected designations (Green Belt, SSSIs, heritage assets, flood zones) can still justify refusal. However, general concerns such as landscape impact or neighbourhood character carry less weight under the tilted balance.

North West Councils: The Current Position

Lichfields' analysis of the new NPPF's impact found that only 40% of North West authorities can demonstrate sufficient five-year housing land supply under the standard method. The remaining 60% fall short, some critically.

The table below shows North West councils with the weakest documented supply positions.

Additional authorities estimated to fall short include Knowsley, Lancaster, Oldham, Preston, South Ribble, Tameside and Warrington.

Stockport's position is compounded by its 43% Housing Delivery Test score and draft local plan identifying 26 Green Belt sites for release, expected to deliver 8,965 homes. With under two years of supply and the lowest HDT score in the region, the borough faces the presumption in favour on both fronts simultaneously.

The 20% Buffer From July 2026

From 1 July 2026, a new rule under paragraph 78 of the NPPF requires councils to add a 20% buffer to their five-year supply calculation if three conditions are met: they have an adopted housing requirement from the last five years, that requirement was set under a previous NPPF version, and the annual figure is 80% or less of current local housing need.

The 20% buffer effectively raises the test from five years to six. A council that could previously demonstrate 5.1 years of supply might now need to show 6.0, pushing it below the threshold and triggering the tilted balance.

In the North West, nine authorities face this expanded buffer: Bolton, Burnley, Oldham, Rochdale, St Helens, Tameside, Warrington, Wigan and Wyre. Wirral will join this group upon adoption of its local plan.

The government introduced this measure as a transitional tool. Many councils adopted local plans with housing targets that are now well below the updated standard method figures. Rather than forcing immediate plan reviews, the buffer creates interim pressure to identify more land while councils prepare updated plans.

Quick FAQ:

Q: Does the 20% buffer stack with the Housing Delivery Test buffer?

A: No. The 20% buffer from paragraph 78 does not apply cumulatively with the existing 20% buffer for under-delivery measured by the Housing Delivery Test. Councils face whichever trigger applies, but the buffer itself is capped at 20%.

What This Means for the North West

The combination of five-year supply failure, Housing Delivery Test shortfalls and grey belt reclassification creates a compounding effect across the region. Councils that cannot demonstrate supply, cannot show delivery and hold Green Belt land classified as grey belt face planning pressure from three directions simultaneously.

For the property market, two dynamics are at work. Supply-constrained boroughs with active planning pipelines will see new development come forward faster than in previous cycles, particularly on grey belt sites where the golden rules require up to 50% affordable housing. At the same time, the lag between planning approval and completion means the existing rental supply gap continues to widen in the interim.

Manchester's citywide average rental yield sits at 6.6%, and neighbouring boroughs with tighter supply often see stronger tenant competition. The boroughs with the weakest supply positions are also those where new-build pipeline activity is expected to accelerate most sharply over the next two to three years.

Explore: Tranquillity, Salford

A residential development in Salford between Manchester city centre and MediaCityUK, offering one, two and three-bedroom apartments from £222,000 with yields up to 7.0%. Completing Q4 2026, Tranquillity sits within the broader Salford regeneration corridor where neighbouring boroughs are among the North West's weakest for housing land supply.

View Tranquillity, Salford >

The Bottom Line

Five-year housing land supply is the mechanism that determines whether councils or developers hold the planning advantage, and across the North West the balance has decisively shifted. With 60% of authorities unable to pass the test, new housing is no longer a question of if but where and how fast.