Revealed: Councils failing to meet five-year housing land supply (5YHLS)

As the housing crisis worsens across England, Labour’s recent planning reforms have reintroduced mandatory housing targets, placing renewed pressure on local planning authorities (LPAs). 

These reforms, marking a significant departure from the advisory targets scrapped in 2023, compel LPAs to ensure adequate land availability through the demonstration of a five-year housing land supply (5YHLS) – a crucial requirement for meeting local housing demands.

The reforms also mandate councils to review their Green Belt boundaries, with plans to release less desirable areas, referred to as ‘grey belt’ land, for housing development.

This article presents a detailed overview of the councils currently falling short of their 5YHLS targets, highlighting the challenges they will face in meeting Labour’s planning reforms and ambitious target of building 1.5 million homes.

First, we'll define what a 5YHLS is, then we'll list the councils that fail to demonstrate a 5YHLS, and finally we'll examine how 5YHLS deficits become very special circumstances for housing developments.

Let’s begin.

A five-year housing land supply (5YHLS) represents the amount of land identified by councils as being available and suitable for residential development over the next five years. To meet the 5YHLS requirement, councils must identify deliverable sites that can accommodate housing development to match their assessed local housing needs.

Here’s the important part: If an LPA cannot demonstrate a sufficient land supply for five years, it is considered to have failed its 5YHLS obligation. This can lead to significant consequences for the council, including the application of the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. 

But that’s not all. 

In such cases, developers often seize the opportunity to argue that housing needs should take precedence over local policies. This makes it easier for them to secure planning permission, even in protected areas like the Green Belt. 

Want to know more? 

After we cover the list of councils failing to meet their five-year supply targets, we’ll take a closer look at these implications and their impact on housing developments.

The authorities currently unable to demonstrate five-year supply targets, listed in alphabetical order, are:

1. Allerdale  

2. Amber Valley  

3. Arun  

4. Ashfield  

5. Ashford  

6. Barrow-in-Furness  

7. Basildon  

8. Basingstoke  

9. Basingstoke and Deane  

10. Birmingham  

11. Blaby  

12. Blackburn with Darwen  

13. Bolton  

14. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole  

15. Bracknell Forest  

16. Bradford  

17. Braintree  

18. Brentwood  

19. Brighton & Hove  

20. Bristol  

21. Bromsgrove  

22. Broxbourne  

23. Broxtowe  

24. Buckinghamshire  

25. Burnley  

26. Calderdale  

27. Camden  

28. Cannock Chase  

29. Castle Point  

30. Charnwood  

31. Chelmsford  

32. Cheltenham  

33. Cherwell  

34. Cheshire East  

35. Chichester  

36. Chiltern  

37. Chorley  

38. Colchester  

39. Copeland  

40. Cotswold  

41. Craven  

42. Dacorum  

43. Darlington  

44. Dartford  

45. Dorset  

46. Dover  

47. Ealing  

48. East Cambridgeshire  

49. East Hampshire  

50. East Hertfordshire  

51. East Northamptonshire  

52. East Riding of Yorkshire  

53. Eastbourne  

54. Eastleigh  

55. Elmbridge  

56. Epping Forest  

57. Epsom and Ewell  

58. Exeter  

59. Fareham  

60. Fenland  

61. Forest of Dean  

62. Gravesham  

63. London Borough of Greenwich

64. Guildford  

65. Halton  

66. Hambleton  

67. Harborough  

68. Harlow  

69. Harrogate  

70. Hartlepool  

71. Hastings  

72. Havant  

73. Hertsmere  

74. High Peak  

75. High Wycombe  

76. Hinckley and Bosworth  

77. Horsham  

78. Hyndburn  

79. Isle of Wight  

80. King’s Lynn and West Norfolk  

81. Knowsley  

82. Lancaster  

83. Leicester  

84. Lewes  

85. Lichfield  

86. Maidstone  

87. Maldon  

88. Malvern Hills  

89. Mansfield  

90. Medway  

91. Mendip  

92. Mid Bedfordshire  

93. Mid Suffolk  

94. Mid Sussex  

95. Milton Keynes  

96. Mole Valley  

97. New Forest  

98. Newark and Sherwood  

99. North Devon  

100. North Dorset  

101. North East Derbyshire  

102. North East Lincolnshire  

103. North Hertfordshire  

104. North Kesteven  

105. North Lincolnshire  

106. North Norfolk  

107. North Somerset  

108. North Tyneside  

109. North Warwickshire  

110. North West Leicestershire  

111. North Wiltshire  

112. Oldham  

113. Pendle  

114. Preston  

115. Purbeck  

116. Redbridge  

117. Redditch  

118. Reigate and Banstead  

119. Ribble Valley  

120. Richmondshire  

121. Rochdale  

122. Rochford  

123. Rossendale  

124. Rugby  

125. Runnymede  

126. Rushcliffe  

127. Sandwell  

128. Scarborough  

129. Sedgemoor  

130. Sefton  

131. Selby  

132. Sevenoaks  

133. Somerset West and Taunton  

134. South Bucks  

135. South Cambridgeshire  

136. South Derbyshire  

137. South Gloucestershire  

138. South Hams  

139. South Holland  

140. South Kesteven  

141. South Lakeland  

142. South Norfolk  

143. South Northamptonshire  

144. South Oxfordshire  

145. South Ribble  

146. South Somerset  

147. South Staffordshire  

148. South Tyneside  

149. Spelthorne  

150. St Albans  

151. Stevenage  

152. Stockport  

153. Stoke-on-Trent  

154. Stratford-on-Avon  

155. Stroud  

156. Swale  

157. Swindon  

158. Tameside  

159. Tandridge  

160. Tendring  

161. Test Valley  

162. Tewkesbury  

163. Thanet  

164. Thurrock  

165. Tonbridge and Malling  

166. Torridge  

167. Tunbridge Wells  

168. Vale of White Horse  

169. Walsall  

170. Warrington  

171. Warwick  

172. Watford  

173. Waverley  

174. Wealden  

175. Welwyn Hatfield  

176. West Berkshire  

177. West Devon  

178. West Lancashire  

179. West Oxfordshire  

180. Wiltshire  

181. Windsor and Maidenhead  

182. Woking  

183. Wokingham  

184. Wycombe  

185. Wyre Forest 

The above list of authorities that are unable to demonstrate a five-year supply target is accurate at the time of writing. It is also worth noting this list is not exhaustive and there may be even more councils than the 185 we’ve identified here.

Now, let’s take a look at how landowners and developers use the 5YHLS to their advantage.

Under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), development in the Green Belt is considered inappropriate unless the harm to the Green Belt is outweighed by other considerations. One such consideration is when an LPA cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS, which can allow developers to use the argument of very special circumstances to justify development on Green Belt land.

Developers often argue that the inability of councils to provide enough land for housing, combined with a housing crisis, creates a situation where the benefits of new housing outweigh the harm to the Green Belt’s openness.

At its core, the key to successfully arguing very special circumstances lies in demonstrating that the proposed development would help to address the shortfall in housing supply while causing the least possible harm to the Green Belt’s five core purposes. This might involve focusing on less sensitive areas of the Green Belt, such as grey belt land, which has already been developed or contributes little to the Green Belt’s main purposes.

In such cases, the architects and town planners of the proposed development must present clear evidence of the housing need and show how the scheme would meet local housing demands. They may also argue that the proposal aligns with sustainable development goals, providing affordable housing or contributing to local infrastructure improvements, which further strengthens the case for very special circumstances.

Ultimately, the success of a very special circumstances argument relies on balancing the 5YHLS shortfall against the specific harm to the Green Belt, with a strong emphasis on demonstrating public benefits that outweigh the development’s impact. Councils facing housing supply deficits are more likely to accept such arguments, particularly when their local plans are out of date or under revision.

However, in cases where councils turn down planning applications, developers frequently pursue planning appeals. The presumption in favour of sustainable development becomes a key factor in these appeals, as the NPPF advises that planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts ‘significantly and demonstrably’ outweigh the benefits of the proposal. As a result, the lack of a demonstrable 5YHLS often tilts decisions in favour of developers, who are capitalising on this to secure planning permission to build in the Green Belt. 

If you have Green Belt land you’d like to develop and think very special circumstances could tip the balance in your favour, then don’t hesitate to get in touch with our team.

We are a multidisciplinary group of architects and town planners who have a 97% success rate when it comes to achieving planning permission for our clients. We also have plenty of experience working on Green Belt projects and recently even wrote our very own book on the topic, ‘Green Light for Green Belt Developments’. 

Of course, the Green Belt isn’t all we specialise in. If you’d like to discuss your project, no matter how big or small, we’d love to hear from you. Get in touch today.