Written by Nikki O’Hagan, 15th July 2026
As many as half of English councils are currently unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, including a significant number of councils in East Anglia and the surrounding areas.
For landowners, developers and homeowners, this is not just a technical planning issue. It means that land previously ruled out for housing could now be worth reviewing.
In this article we summarise the current housing land supply position for a number of councils across Suffolk, Essex, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. We regularly monitor these positions as they can change rapidly.
What is a five-year housing land supply?
Every local planning authority needs to be able to show that enough new homes are due to be built over the next five years to meet the local housing need. This is known as a five-year housing land supply.
The five-year supply is primarily made up of sites that either have planning permission or are allocated for housing in the local plan. Sites should not be included if there is clear evidence that homes will not be delivered within the five-year period.
Housing land supply changes from 1 July 2026
Some councils’ housing land supply positions have worsened since 1 July 2026. This is because paragraph 78(c) of the National Planning Policy Framework took effect on that date and now requires the local housing requirement to be increased by 20% in certain areas.
Where paragraph 78(c) applies, a council is effectively required to show the equivalent of a six-year supply. As a result, some councils that previously had between five and six years’ supply will no longer be able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.
Current five-year housing land supply positions
The tables below summarise the latest housing land supply figures for selected councils across East Anglia and the surrounding areas.
Suffolk
| Council | Latest housing land supply figure | Evidence base and date | What this means |
| Babergh | 4.68 years | Council website, Summer 2026 | Babergh accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption Note: an update is expected in Autumn 2026 |
| East Suffolk | Suffolk Coastal – 3.09 years Waveney – 2.88 years | Council-published report, December 2025 | East Suffolk accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption Note: shortfall is very significant |
| Ipswich | 2.66 – 3.46 years | Council-published report, 2025 Appeal decision 19/05/2025 Applying NPPF para 78(c) | Ipswich accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption Note: shortfall is very significant |
| Mid Suffolk | 6.73 years | Council website, Summer 2026 Five-year supply confirmed by appeal decision 17/03/2026 | Mid Suffolk has a healthy housing land supply, no presumption applies |
| West Suffolk | 6 years | Council-published report December 2025 Corroborated by appeal decision 14/05/2026 | West Suffolk has a healthy housing land supply, no presumption applies |
Norfolk
| Council | Latest housing land supply figure | Evidence base and date | What this means |
| Breckland | 2.82 years | Council-published report January 2026 | Breckland accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption Note: shortfall is very significant |
| Broadland | No more than 4.24 years (applying NPPF para 78(c) to the council’s published figure) | Council-published report July 2025 (est. 4.85 year supply) Applying NPPF para 78(c) | Broadland accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption |
| Great Yarmouth | No more than 5.09 years (applying NPPF para 78(c) to the council’s published figure) | Council-published report, April 2024 Applying NPPF para 78(c) | Great Yarmouth’s supply is marginal, vulnerable and has not recently been tested. A new Local Plan is in progress and their position is likely to be stronger once that is adopted |
| King’s Lynn and West Norfolk | 6.2 years | Council-published report, April 2026 Corroborated by appeal decision 12/06/2026 | King’s Lynn and West Norfolk has a healthy housing land supply, no presumption applies |
| North Norfolk | 7 years | Council-published report September 2025 Corroborated by appeal decision 14/05/2026 | North Norfolk has a very healthy housing land supply, no presumption applies |
| Norwich | No more than 4.24 years (applying NPPF para 78(c) to the council’s published figure) | Council-published report July 2025 (est. 4.85 year supply) Applying NPPF para 78(c) | Norwich accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption |
| South Norfolk | No more than 4.24 years (applying NPPF para 78(c) to the council’s published figure) | Council-published report July 2025 (est. 4.85 year supply) Applying NPPF para 78(c) | South Norfolk accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption |
Essex
| Council | Latest housing land supply figure | Evidence base and date | What this means |
| Braintree | Less than 5 years, shortfall unknown | Self-reported figure, appeal decision 01/07/2026 | Braintree accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption |
| Chelmsford | 3.88 years | Self-reported figure, appeal decision 17/11/2025 | Chelmsford accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption |
| Colchester | 2.85 – 3.37 years | Appeal decision 08/05/2026 – Council accepts the higher figure but Inspector confirms the lower | Colchester accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption Note: shortfall is significant |
| Epping Forest | 4.22 years | Appeal decision 07/07/2026 | Epping Forest accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption |
| Maldon | 3.52 – 3.97 years | Appeal decision 06/07/2026 – Council accepts the higher figure | Maldon accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption Note: shortfall is significant |
| Tendring | 3.22 years | Council-published report December 2025 Corroborated by appeal decision 03/06/2026 | Tendring accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption Note: shortfall is very significant |
| Uttlesford | 4.77 years | Uttlesford Local Plan (adopted March 2026) Corroborated by appeal decision 26/06/2026 | Uttlesford accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption |
Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire
| Council | Latest housing land supply figure | Evidence base and date | What this means |
| Bedford | 3.35 years | Self-reported figure, appeal decision 23/03/2026 | Bedford accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption Note: shortfall is significant |
| Central Bedfordshire | 3.52 – 4.85 years | Council accepts the higher figure, appeal decision 19/06/2026 | Central Beds accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption |
| East Cambridgeshire | 6.17 years | Council-published report, December 2025 | East Cambs claims to have a six-year supply but the position has not been tested |
| East Hertfordshire | 3.4 – 3.7 years | Self-reported figure, appeal decision 29/06/2026 | East Herts accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption Note: shortfall is significant |
| Fenland | 6.6 years | Council-published report, June 2025 Corroborated by appeal decision 01/06/2026 | Fenland’s supply position is strong at the time of writing, no presumption applies |
| Huntingdonshire | 3.68 years | Council-published report, April 2025 Corroborated by appeal decision 10/07/2026 | Huntingdonshire accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption Note: shortfall is significant |
| North Hertfordshire | 2.6 years | Council-published report November 2025 Corroborated by appeal decision 07/07/2026 | North Herts accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption Note: shortfall is very significant |
| Peterborough | 4.38 years | Council-published report April 2026 | Peterborough accepts that it does not currently have a five-year supply and should be applying the presumption |
Understanding the tables
Of the 27 different councils we assessed, only 7 are currently able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. That is a significant finding.
The presumption
If a council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged. As a result, the decision-maker must apply the “tilted balance”.
The tilted balance requires planning permission to be granted unless policies protecting areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusal, or unless the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. This is a high threshold for refusal.
When the tilted balance applies, housing applications that conflict with planning policy or cause a degree of planning harm have a much better chance of being approved.
However, the presumption is not a free pass. Proposals that would cause serious planning harm are still likely to be refused. This could include, for example, development that would cause unacceptable danger to motorists or pedestrians, result in the significant loss of high-value trees, or provide a very poor standard of accommodation.
Protected areas and assets, which include Habitats Sites, Listed Buildings, National Landscapes and the Green Belt, also remain subject to a high level of protection. While the tilted balance can still be engaged in these locations and housing applications can be looked on more favourably, it will still be expected that material harm to the area or asset is avoided.
Accepted shortfalls
Where a council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, applicants should be in a stronger position from the outset. The council should apply the presumption when it determines the application. This means applicants should not need to wait until appeal, or spend time and money proving the council’s shortfall to an Inspector, before the correct planning balance is applied.
Size of the shortfall
A council with a supply of 2 or 3 years is in a very different position from a council sitting just below 5 years. The greater the shortfall, the greater the weight given to proposals which deliver new homes. In addition, a larger shortfall should reduce the weight given to restrictive local policies which limit where new housing can go.
Housing numbers
Where there is a housing supply shortfall, applications for a significant number of houses attract more positive weight because they make a larger contribution to addressing the shortfall. That does not mean larger schemes are always more likely to succeed, however, as they can have bigger impacts and cause more planning harm.
Changing figures
Housing land supply figures are inherently changeable. They depend on factors such as housing requirements, local plan allocations, build-out rates, permissions granted, permissions lapsing, appeal decisions and changes to national policy.
For that reason, a council’s position can improve or worsen in a short space of time. The figures in the table should therefore be treated as a useful starting point, rather than a substitute for site-specific planning advice.
Can a council’s housing land supply be disputed?
Yes. Housing land supply figures are frequently, and often successfully, challenged at appeal. For this reason, appeal-derived figures can differ from the council’s published position.
In general terms, there are two main ways to challenge a council’s claimed supply.
The local housing need
Firstly, applicants can challenge their housing requirement; this is the minimum number of homes the council needs to plan for. In some cases, the council may be relying on an old housing requirement, or may have failed to apply the correct national policy. This is more likely to be an issue where the local plan is old because national planning policy has changed significantly in recent years.
The supply of sites
Secondly, applicants can challenge their supply of sites.
The council’s supply is made up of a list of specific housing sites and planning permissions that are expected to deliver homes within the next five years. That list is open to scrutiny.
For example, some permissions may have lapsed, while other sites may be progressing more slowly than the council had assumed. Councils also occasionally misapply national policy by including sites that should not have been added in the first place, such as sites with outline permission only and several stages to complete before construction can begin. Wherever there is clear evidence that a site is unlikely to be built-out within the five-year period, it should be removed from the supply.
Large housing sites are particularly important, but also vulnerable, components of the housing land supply. They can add a significant number of homes to the total, but are also more likely to experience delays and setbacks. If just one major site has to be removed, that may be enough to reduce a council’s supply below five years.
Nevertheless, there is always some risk involved in challenging housing land supply at appeal, as the council may be able to point to new planning permissions or updated delivery evidence that brings its supply back above the requisite five years.
Looking beyond settlement boundaries
Many local plans use settlement boundaries to control where new housing can go. These policies are intended to help councils to manage growth, direct development to the most suitable locations, prevent urban sprawl and also to protect the countryside.
However, settlement boundaries are still lines on a map.
In some cases, the distinction between one site and another can be fairly arbitrary. One plot may fall just inside the settlement boundary, while a neighbouring plot or garden falls just outside it. Both sites may still feel like part of the town or village and have similar access to shops, schools, public transport and other local services.
Where a council has a strong five-year housing land supply, it is easier for it to resist development outside the settlement boundary, even if there is little practical difference between land outside the boundary and neighbouring land inside it.
However, where a council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, that position is much weaker. Sites that are outside settlement boundaries but still well connected to an existing town or village are especially likely to be assessed favourably when the tilted balance is engaged.
The image below illustrates the type of situation where a lack of five-year housing land supply can be particularly helpful. The blue areas fall outside the settlement boundary, so they would not normally be approved for housing under the local plan. However, they are clearly well related to the built-up area and have similar access to local services. Sites in these sorts of edge-of-setttlement locations typically benefit most when councils lose their five-year housing land supply.
Self-build need and supply
As well as general housing supply, councils are subject to a separate legal duty to meet local demand for self-build housing plots. In July 2025, however, Planning Resource reported that around 57% of councils in England were failing to meet their legal duty to permit sufficient self-build plots, based on analysis reported by The Times.
As a result, self-build proposals may have an additional advantage, even in areas with a healthy five-year housing land supply. In fact, Inspectors regularly attach significant or even considerable weight to the provision of self-build housing in areas where the duty is not being met.
Could your land have improved prospects?
If your land has previously been ruled out for housing, it may be worth seeking fresh advice. This is particularly true where the main issue was that the site fell outside a settlement boundary, or conflicted with a restrictive local housing policy.
Of course, a lack of five-year housing land supply will not overcome every planning objection. However, where a site is reasonably well related to an existing settlement and there are no major technical constraints, the tilted balance is much more likely to fall in your favour.
The same broad principles also apply to self-build plots. Where there is unmet demand, applications for self-build housing stand a greater chance of approval, even if the council can demonstrate a general five-year housing land supply.
Planning Direct can review your site, check the current housing land supply position, and advise whether the land may now have stronger development potential. Although this article focuses on councils across East Anglia and the surrounding areas, we can assess sites throughout England. Our initial advice is always free of charge.