Where should you promote land?
We screened all 296 English councils for the pressures that make land promotable — housing under-delivery, weak plans, Green Belt constraint and the new grey belt route. Find any council in seconds.
296 councils · Housing Delivery Test + Green Belt + grey belt, on the NPPF in force from 17 August 2026. Indicative, not advice.
Why these opportunities exist
Four things line up to make land promotable. This is the whole story in four steps.
Government sets each council a yearly housebuilding number (Local Housing Need).
The Housing Delivery Test scores what they actually built. A lot fall well short.
Missing the target adds a land "buffer", then a presumption that leans toward approving homes.
Green Belt normally blocks that tilt — but weak "grey belt" land now has a route to consent.
Screening figures from our authority-level model, built on the Housing Delivery Test 2025 measurement published 17 August 2026 and the NPPF in force from that date; Green Belt statistics 2024-25 and the grey belt screen are as at 3 July 2026. Indicative; check the latest council statements before relying on any figure. How it's built.
The transitional buffer just changed the map
A rule now at Annex D paragraph 9(c) of the Framework means councils whose adopted target is well below current need must add a 20% buffer — even if they're building well today. It can tip a council that looked safe into a shortfall overnight.
Brentwood is the clean example: 5.01 years of supply today becomes about 4.39 years under the buffer — below the five-year line. The application is arguable case by case, not automatic.
The trigger narrowed on 17 August 2026, and it narrows this list. The December 2024 rule applied the buffer where a housing requirement had been examined against “a previous version of this Framework”. Read today, that would have caught every requirement examined against the December 2024 edition, because that edition was itself superseded. Annex D paragraph 9(c) instead pins the trigger to a version published prior to December 2024, so a requirement examined against the December 2024 Framework no longer attracts the buffer on this ground.
Our screen of around 120 candidate councils was built on the December 2024 wording and therefore over-states the field under the current rule. We have not republished a figure because we have not re-run the model against the narrower trigger, and quoting the old number as though it still held would be worse than saying so.
Source: Annex D paragraph 9(c), NPPF August 2026. The annexes are national planning policy in this edition. Screening figures as at 3 July 2026 were built on the December 2024 edition and are being re-run.
The strongest opportunities
A weighted 0–100 model across housing pressure, plan weakness, Green Belt constraint and grey belt potential. Here are the top twelve.
| Rank | Council | Region | Score | Delivery | Green Belt | Grey belt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Basildon Borough Council | East of England | 93 | Presumption | 63% | High |
| 2 | Hertsmere Borough Council | East of England | 92 | Presumption | 79% | High |
| 3 | London Borough of Redbridge | London | 92 | Presumption | 34% | High |
| 4 | Elmbridge Borough Council | South East | 91 | 20% buffer | 58% | High |
| 5 | Epping Forest District Council | East of England | 89 | Presumption | 91% | High |
| 6 | London Borough of Havering | London | 89 | Presumption | 54% | High |
| 7 | Dacorum Borough Council | East of England | 89 | 20% buffer | 50% | High |
| 8 | Bromsgrove District Council | West Midlands | 88 | Presumption | 89% | High |
| 9 | St Albans City and District Council | East of England | 88 | Presumption | 82% | High |
| 10 | London Borough of Bromley | London | 86 | Presumption | 51% | High |
| 11 | Sevenoaks District Council | South East | 86 | Presumption | 93% | High |
| 12 | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council | South East | 86 | Presumption | 71% | High |
The public score is an indicative weighted screen across housing pressure, plan weakness, Green Belt constraint and grey-belt potential. Weightings and per-council citations are in the full report.
See all 296 — plus the verified evidence
The public page shows the top twelve. The full report has every council, the 34-column dataset, the ~120-council transitional watchlist, and 20 primary-source deep dives with appeal references. Request it below.
Your region, your shortlist
Browse the strongest councils in any region, or put two councils side by side.
Top of each region
| Council | Score | Delivery | Grey belt AH |
|---|
Top eight by opportunity score. "Grey belt AH" is the affordable-housing share the Golden Rules would require there.
Compare two councils
Pick any two — say, where you own land versus the neighbouring authority. The stronger score is highlighted.
The affordable-housing catch
On a grey-belt scheme, the "Golden Rules" require affordable housing at 15 points above the council's own policy, capped at 50%. We researched all 296 English planning authorities: 286 have a confirmed requirement (the other 10 are recorded as unknown, not guessed) and the median baseline is 33%. The median grey-belt scheme must therefore deliver 48% affordable, and in 140 of the 286 it reaches the full 50% cap.
It's the number to model first. Where a council already sets 45–50% the Golden Rules add nothing; where it sets 20% they add a lot, and that uplift bites hardest in lower-value areas. Figures are authority-level policy baselines; tenure mix and viability are site-specific.
| Council | Local baseline | On grey belt |
|---|---|---|
| Basildon Borough Council | 24% | 50% |
| Hertsmere Borough Council | 40% | 50% |
| London Borough of Redbridge | 35% | 50% |
| Elmbridge Borough Council | 40% | 50% |
| Epping Forest District Council | 40% | 50% |
| London Borough of Havering | 35% | 50% |
| Dacorum Borough Council | 35% | 50% |
| Bromsgrove District Council | 40% | 50% |
Top grey-belt opportunities and the affordable % each would require. Full 296-authority tally in the report.
Start where you are
I have a site
We run a 48-hour grey-belt and supply screen for your specific parcel — against the Green Belt purposes, the Golden Rules and the live five-year-supply position.
I'm choosing where to promote
Get the full ranked dataset, the transitional-buffer watchlist and the regional picture, so you target the councils where the pressure is strongest.
I need evidence for a case
The 20 deep dives carry quoted five-year-supply figures and appeal references — the material behind a promotion, application or Local Plan representation.
Rigorous, sourced, and honest about its limits
Built on the government's own Housing Delivery Test and Green Belt datasets, the standard-method Local Housing Need, and the NPPF in force from 17 August 2026, checked against gov.uk. Twenty councils are verified against their own published statements and appeal decisions. Every figure is tiered by confidence — and we say plainly where the data has gaps.