Five-Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS): a councillor’s guide to getting back in the driving seat
by
Councillor Oliver Patrick
Liberal Democrat Councillor and Vice Chair of Planning Committee South, Somerset Council
This week’s Planning in Focus is written with my council colleagues in mind – however I’m sure there will be much in here that will interest anyone working in the built environment space, too…
If your authority can’t demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites (with the buffer), the planning world tilts. Paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF kicks in – called the “tilted balance”. This means that the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies unless specific policies (like protected habitats) provide a “strong” reason to refuse – and they must be “strong”, according to the updated NPPF (“clear” reasons won’t cut the mustard any more).
The tilted balance doesn’t mean you must “approve everything,” it means decisions must weigh harms against authority-wide benefits in a context where housing need carries extra weight.
Two quick bits of context. First, government has restored the across-the-board requirement to maintain a rolling five-year supply (reversing the brief 2023 carve-outs for some up-to-date plans). In short: every LPA is back in the same boat - keep a demonstrable five-year pipeline, all the time. Second, the 5% buffer has been reintroduced in the 2024 NPPF update, taking us largely back to the pre-2023 position on calculations. The Planning Practice Guidance still sets the ground rules for what counts as deliverable - available now, suitable now, and achievable with a realistic prospect of delivery within five years. Evidence, not optimism, is the test. This is a leadership moment for councillors.
What the land supply shortfall really means
When housing supply drops, two risks spike: (1) appeals (and the costs associated with them – which I’ve written about here) and (2) speculative development.
Both are manageable if you steady the system. The watchwords are clarity, deliverability and visibility. Clarity about how the tilted balance is being handled. Deliverability in your trajectory (sites that will start within five years). Visibility for residents with early, tangible infrastructure delivery so benefits are seen, not just promised.
Why councils stumble
Shortfalls rarely stem from one cause. Optimistic trajectories keep stalled sites in the five-year window. Big allocations move slowly because the massive infrastructure improvements required are complex and multi-layered. Worse, viability from the developer’s side tightens with each passing month as interest rates and abnormal costs build up whilst they wait for a decision.
Any councillor sitting on a planning committee has seen those big sites come forward which, in the end, can only deliver a small percentage of affordable housing due to viability. Some delays are unforeseeable, such as the nutrient neutrality issues hitting councils everywhere, but some delays are avoidable. The more we as councillors can do to speed up sound decision-making the more likely we are to get back to having a 5YHLS where you are back in the driving seat and can direct where development happens in your area.
So… you don’t have a five-year supply. What can you do - fast?
Step 1: own the position
Insist on a short Five-Year Supply Statement and a plain-English note for all councillors in your authority area, explaining what weight key policies now carry. Make it publicly available to ensure residents understand the situation.
Ask your planning chief to include, on page one of every committee report, a sentence that states whether the tilted balance applies and why. That line stabilises debate and reduces appeal risk.
As a member, the question to ask is: “Where can I read a members’ briefing on the Council’s Five Year Housing Land position?”
Step 2: don’t bury your head in the sand
Don’t pretend a shortfall can be wished away. As a councillor myself I know how distressing it is being told by the government and by our own officers that we’re not meeting housing targets. Worse still, feeling pressured by developersto approve homes in places we don’t think are suitable and which our residents oppose – often vociferously.
It’s hard work explaining the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the tilted balance to residents. But remember, your Local Plan still holds weight - it’s just limited. Ultimately this is a leadership moment for councillors. We have a duty to be the grown-ups in the room, to bridge the gap between the Council, the residents and, yes, the developers. Don’t hide from developers – engage with them when they try to reach out to you. But make sure you don’t predetermine yourself by making promises to vote one way or the other (probity really is paramount). Ask a planning officer to be present if you meet a developer to protect you from accusations of predetermination.
As a member, the question to ask officers is: “In your professional opinion, how much is the balance tilted in favour with regards to this application?”
Step 3: rebuild the trajectory on evidence
Delivery is not a wish-list. Ask officers what the plan is regarding sites that lack a realistic start within five years. Is your Council prioritising sites with hard evidence of quick deliverability eg Registered Provider letters, utilities confirmations, lead-in and build-out rates grounded in local data, or phase plans with dates. Require a quarterly update on the 5YHLS so market shifts are reflected quickly.
As a member, the question to ask is: “What’s the evidence that spades go in the ground this side of year five?”
Step 4: create a small-sites engine
Big, strategic sites matter - but they are slow. To recover quickly, work with developers to deliver those smaller 10–50 home sites across towns and larger villages that have the local infrastructure to support development sustainably.
As a member, the question to ask is: “Do we have a Small Sites Pathway strategy to regain our 5 Year Housing Land Supply?”
Step 5: front-load visible infrastructure
Residents will ask - “where are the buses, crossings and school places?” Not having a 5 Year Housing Land Supply doesn’t mean you have to capitulate to developers on infrastructure delivery. So build early, tangible wins into permissions. Make sure the cycle path goes in as early as possible - and the pelican crossing too (people form travel habits in the first weeks after moving; miss that window and you import car dependency for a decade)
As a member, the question to ask is: “Can we tieinfrastructure triggers to occupation instead of last completion?”
Step 6: but… be pragmatic on viability
Ideals meet arithmetic on every scheme. Ask your Council to undertake an independent viability report early and to publish the assumptions so the public knows you’re scrutinising developers fairly. Make sure developer contributions are phased so that schools, open space and active travel arrive when they’re needed - neither too late nor so early that viability is crushed and housing delivery stalls.
As a member, the question to ask is: “What does the Council’sown viability assessment say about the deliverability of this site?”
Step 7: sharpen committee craft
Under a shortfall, vague refusals collapse at appeal. Reasons must be “strong” as per the updated NPPF. So make sure all reasons for refusal are evidence-backed: tested junction capacity, Local Plan or NPPF policy non-compliance with clear harm, drainage risk tied to modelled data etc etc. Conversely, say “yes - with enforceable conditions” where harms are mitigated.
As a member, the question to ask is: “Can this issue be solved with a S106 clause or a condition, and how will this be monitored?”
What you can do this month
Ask your planning department to publish the Council’s housing land supply statement as well as a quarterly performance reports. Ask about the possibility of a small-sites pathway and how the brownfield register can help regain your housing land supply.
The takeaway from this is simple: lack of 5 Year Housing Land Supply isn’t a doom loop it’s a management challenge. Own the position, don’t bury your head in the sand, rebuild the trajectory, create a small sites engine, front-load visible infrastructure (but be pragmatic about viability), and sharpen committee craft.
None of this is easy. Sometimes it’s out of our hands as councillors – either because of nutrient neutrality (as in Somerset Council) or because large sites have stalled due to the pandemic and viability issues – but the key thing is to own the issue and make sure we don’t bury our heads in the sand!