Worked example. This is the trap the new framework sets. Being near a good station is what opens the door, and it is also what sets a minimum density. Build too sparsely and the very policy package that made the site developable is the one that requires a refusal. Raise the homes figure and watch the refusal disappear.

Policy sandbox

6 of 12 answeredShow policy detail

Change anything and the assessment on the right updates immediately. Nothing is saved, and the address bar holds your scenario so you can send it to someone.

Start from an example

Edge-of-village paddock Redundant farm yard Field near a well-served station

Where does the site sit?

Green Belt takes precedence over everything else. The glossary excludes villages lying within and defined as part of the Green Belt from the meaning of settlement, so such a village is not a settlement for S4 purposes. A settlement also includes land already allocated or permitted that will form part of the built-up area once complete.

Wholly within a settlementPredominantly built-up area, including land allocated or permitted that will form part of it.Outside any settlementStraddles a settlement boundaryWithin the Green BeltVillage lying within the Green BeltExcluded from the meaning of settlement, so the S4 default yes is unavailable however built-up the frontage appears.Local Green Space

Land and buildings

Each tick opens a different limb. Claim every one the facts support: they are alternatives, not a hierarchy.

Previously developed landLawfully developed land with a permanent structure or substantial fixed hardstanding. Excludes gardens, parks, allotments and land last used by agricultural or forestry buildings.An existing lawful building of permanent and substantial constructionAllocated for housing in the development planReads as infilling within a group of housesNeither limited nor group of houses is defined, and both are read tightly at appeal.Isolated: outside any settlement or group of housesS5(3) removes isolated homes from the S5 list altogether, leaving HO11 as the only route. A significant answer: tick it only if the site is genuinely on its own.Residential garden, park or allotmentLast used by agricultural or forestry buildingsA redundant or disused building to be reusedWould substantially harm an allocation or safeguarding for another useS4(2)(a)(i). Distinct from being allocated for housing, which is a positive at S5(1)(i). Does not apply where there is no reasonable prospect of the allocated use coming forward.

What kind of housing is proposed?

Open market housingSelf-build or custom build plotsA single self-build dwellingAffordable-led, or a rural exception siteCommunity-led developmentOlder persons or specialist accommodationMixed use including residentialUnder a Community Right to Build Order or Neighbourhood Development Order

Scale of development

Major for housing is 10 or more homes, or a site of 0.5 hectares or more. Either limb is sufficient. Strategic is a defined term: phased, masterplanned, significant infrastructure.

Minor: under 10 homes and under 0.5 hectaresMajor: 10 or more homes, or 0.5 hectares or moreStrategic: phased, masterplanned, with significant infrastructure

Evidenced unmet need

S5(1)(j) is open wording: any evidenced unmet need can qualify. GB7(1)(g)(ii), through footnote 41, is closed: for housing it means only a five year supply shortfall including any buffer, or a Housing Delivery Test result below 75%. The same phrase, two different reaches.

No five year supply of deliverable housing sitesHousing Delivery Test result below 75%Evidenced unmet affordable housing needOther evidenced unmet need: older persons, specialist, rural or self-buildNeed is met on every measure

Relationship to the settlement

Physically well-related has no test and no distance attached to it. It is the main battleground for edge-of-settlement sites. Footnote 28 covers only land beyond an undeveloped allocation.

Physically well-related to the settlement or the stationOf a scale existing or proposed infrastructure can accommodateExisting or proposed lets you rely on infrastructure that does not yet exist. How firm the proposal must be is untested.Adjoins the settlement edgeSits beyond the far edge of an undeveloped allocationFootnote 28: consider whether the location would still be suitable if the allocated development does not proceed.

Is the site within reasonable walking distance of a station?

Reasonable walking distance is around 800 metres, or around 10 minutes' walk time where topography, route availability and quality, or physical barriers would prevent or discourage walking from up to 800 metres. Where only part of the site is within that distance, the station limbs and the density floor apply only to that part.

No station within reasonable walking distanceYes, the whole site is within 800 metresYes, but only part of the siteWithin a 10 minute walk, with barriers applying

Is it a well-connected station?

A stop within a top 80 Travel to Work Area by Gross Value Added, served in the normal weekday timetable throughout the daytime by at least 4 trains or trams per hour overall, or at least 2 per hour in any one direction. Planned upgrades or an operator agreement can satisfy the frequency limb. This is a dataset lookup rather than a judgement.

Not checked yetYes: within a top-80 Travel to Work Area and the frequency threshold is metYes, and at least double the minimum frequencyDoubling the frequency raises the L3(2)(c) floor from 35 to 45 dwellings per hectare.Only with planned upgrades or an agreement with the operatorNo: fails the Travel to Work Area or the frequency test

Other station-limb tests

Would prejudice proposals for long-term comprehensive development here

Does the scheme meet the L3(2)(c) density floor?

At least 35 dwellings per hectare within the net developable area, or 45 where the service frequency is at least double the minimum. Net developable area, not site area: spine roads, attenuation and open space come out of the denominator.

Yes, at or above the floorNo, below the floorNot yet designed

Design quality

DP3 attaches weight to design quality generally, and is not confined to isolated sites. Separate from the HO11(1)(e) route.

Outstanding or innovative design, or high sustainability standardsWould improve the energy efficiency of an existing building, or draw on district heat, renewable or low carbon sources

Scheme quantum

Fills the major threshold and the density calculation. Net developable area excludes spine roads, attenuation and open space.

HomesSite area (ha)Net developable (ha)

Into the enhanced balance. 1 route in play, 1 awaiting answers.

Falling within any S5(1) limb means approval unless the benefits are substantially outweighed. Claim every limb the facts support: they are alternatives, not a hierarchy. Separately, a national decision-making policy that mandates refusal is engaged. Clearing the principle of development does not answer that.

012 questions still to answer

An evidenced unmet need. The wording is "including, but not limited to" a five year supply failure or a Housing Delivery Test result below 75%, so it is not confined to those twoLivedinS5(1)(j)
An unmet self-build register duty is an evidenced unmet need on this open wording, which is the crucial difference from GB7(1)(g)(ii)youS5(1)(j)

02L3(2)(c) density floor

45 dphyou are at 20

Net developable area gives 20 dwellings per hectare against a floor of 45.
Below 45 dwellings per hectare within the net developable area.
Major development, so the L3(2)(c)(i) exception is unavailable: it applies only below the major threshold.
As it stands L3(4) mandates refusal. This runs alongside the station limb rather than against it: the same policy package that makes the site developable is the one that catches the density.

03Principle of development

Every limb tested in parallel. They are alternatives, not a hierarchy.

S5(1)(h)

Residential or mixed-use development around a well-connected station

Open

Within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station, being around 800 metres or a 10 minute walk where barriers applyS5(1)(h)(i)Met
Well-connected: within a top 80 Travel to Work Area by Gross Value Added, and served throughout the weekday daytime by at least 4 services per hour overall or 2 in any one directionAnnex BMet
Residential or mixed-use developmentMet
Physically well-related to the station, or to the settlement within which the station is locatedMet
Of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructureMet
Would not prejudice any proposals for long-term comprehensive development in the same locationMet
The L3 density floor runs alongside this limb. It is not one of its requirements, but a failure mandates refusal under L3(4)L3(2)(c)Fails

S5(1)(j)

Development addressing an evidenced unmet need

Unresolved

An evidenced unmet need. The wording is "including, but not limited to" a five year supply failure or a Housing Delivery Test result below 75%, so it is not confined to those twoS5(1)(j)Not answered
An unmet self-build register duty is an evidenced unmet need on this open wording, which is the crucial difference from GB7(1)(g)(ii)S5(1)(j)Not answered
Physically well-related to an existing settlement, unless the nature of the development makes that inappropriateS5(1)(j)(i)Met
Of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructureS5(1)(j)(i)Met

S5(1)(c)

Reuse, extension, alteration or replacement of an existing building

Not made out

An existing building of permanent and substantial construction, lawful in planning termsS5(1)(c)Fails
No disproportionate increase in size compared to the building as it stood on 17 August 2026S5(1)(c)Fails
If a replacement: for the same use, and not disproportionately larger than the building it replacesS5(1)(c)Fails

S5(1)(d)

Redevelopment of previously developed land

Not made out

Meets the definition of previously developed land: lawfully developed, with a permanent structure or substantial fixed hardstandingS5(1)(d)Fails
Not excluded as a residential garden, park or allotment, nor as land last used by agricultural or forestry buildingsAnnex BFails
The remains of any permanent structure have not blended into the landscapeAnnex BFails

S5(1)(e)

Limited infilling within groups of houses

Not made out

Reads as infilling within an existing group of housesS5(1)(e)Fails
Limited on the facts. Neither limited nor group of houses is defined, and both are read tightly at appealS5(1)(e)Fails
Self-build plots on an infill frontage are a well-trodden version of this limbNot answered

S5(1)(f)

An exception site under HO10, or development under a Community Right to Build Order or Neighbourhood Development Order

Not made out

An exception site as provided for in HO10, or development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order or Neighbourhood Development OrderS5(1)(f)Fails
Adjoins or is physically well-related to a settlementHO10Met
Includes affordable housing, with market homes only where essential to deliver it without grantHO10Fails

S5(1)(g)

Evidenced unmet need for gypsy, traveller or travelling showpeople accommodation

Not made out

Not assessed by this tool. This limb turns on HO12, on a five year supply of deliverable traveller sites rather than of housing sites, and on a locational test that treats sites not well-related to settlements as potentially appropriate. Take advice.

S5(1)(i)

Development of land allocated for that purpose in the development plan

Not made out

Allocated for housing in the development planS5(1)(i)Fails

04Constraint screen

L3(4)Means a refusal
Development proposals that do not make efficient use of land in accordance with L3(2) should be refused. Engaged here by the station density floor at L3(2)(c).

05Weight ledger

Only weights the Framework directs, at the strength the answers support.

Consideration	Policy	Weight
Homes contributing to evidenced accommodation needscheckHO7(1) requires the homes to contribute to accommodation needs evidenced through the authority's needs assessments. Answer the unmet need question before relying on this.	HO7(1)	Not established
Any development plan policy materially inconsistent with this FrameworkcheckA prompt rather than a finding. Identify the specific policies and the specific inconsistency: the tool cannot read your development plan. Most restrictive rural housing policies now sit here.	Introduction / Annex A	Very limited

06Interpretation register

Undefined language this case would turn on.

“substantially outweighed”S4, S5, GB7: Undefined, and the whole balance turns on it. Materially higher than the old significantly and demonstrably formulation, with nothing in the Framework saying how much higher.
“settlement”Annex B: Points at development plan definitions, but where boundaries are undefined the extent is argued from predominantly built-up area. Includes land allocated or permitted that will form part of the built-up area once complete. Villages within and defined as part of the Green Belt are carved out entirely.
“evidenced unmet need”S5(1)(j) against GB7(1)(g)(ii): The most important asymmetry in the document for small and self-build sites. S5(1)(j) says including, but not limited to, a five year supply failure, which is open. Footnote 41 to GB7(1)(g)(ii) says that for housing it means a five year supply shortfall including any buffer, or a Housing Delivery Test result below 75%, which is closed. The same phrase, two different reaches.
“physically well-related”S5(1)(h)(ii), S5(1)(j)(i), GB7(1)(h)(ii): No test, no distance. Footnote 28 covers only land beyond an undeveloped allocation. The main battleground for edge-of-settlement sites.
“a scale which can be accommodated”S5(1)(h)(iii), S5(1)(j)(i), GB7(1)(h)(iii): Existing or proposed lets you rely on infrastructure that does not yet exist. How firm the proposal must be is untested.
“net developable area”L3(2)(c): The 35 and 45 dwellings per hectare floors bite on net developable area, not site area. What comes out of the denominator, such as the spine road, attenuation and open space, is where the argument is.
“very limited weight”Introduction / Annex A: What a materially inconsistent development plan policy now gets. Not zero, and the quantum is for the decision-maker case by case, which is where most restrictive rural housing policies now sit.

Assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), published 17 August 2026, using ruleset 1.0.0 and interpretation revision 2026-08-18.

This is a sandbox, not an assessment

Everything above comes from the answers on the left. It has not looked at a map, a local plan, or the planning history of any particular site. If you have a real piece of land, the assessment starts from its boundary instead, and fills in what it can from the data.

Assess an actual site