Feb 16, 2026
Planning decisions are shifting. In many areas, sites that once had no realistic prospect of approval are now back in play.
Across much of the UK, local authorities are currently unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. That shortfall has quietly changed how planning decisions are being made.
At D2, this isn’t something we’re observing from a distance. We’re advising developers and landowners on how these changes affect site viability, often at feasibility stage, before significant cost is committed.
In several recent cases, understanding the five-year land supply position early has changed whether a site moved forward at all.
Around 12–18 months ago, the government altered the way five-year housing land supply is calculated. The impact was immediate.
Councils that previously met their targets suddenly found themselves short. In Cheshire West and Chester, for example, the position shifted from a surplus to around two and a half years’ supply almost overnight.
When a council can’t demonstrate a five-year supply, planning policy is applied differently. Schemes that would normally be refused under the local plan are no longer automatically ruled out, and decision-making becomes more flexible.
That doesn’t mean policy disappears, but it does mean the balance shifts.
Housing delivery still has to happen, regardless of local opposition or political pressure. Where brownfield land alone can’t meet demand, councils are forced to look more closely at sites they would previously have resisted.
That’s why we’re now seeing approvals on:
In one recent example in Wheelock, a site refused in 2022 for two dwellings was approved the following year for eight homes using a planning-in-principle application. The site hadn’t changed – only the planning context had.
For developers, this kind of shift matters. It can be the difference between progressing a site with confidence, or spending months and fees pursuing something that was never realistically deliverable.
From a development perspective, the five-year land supply issue creates opportunity, but also risk.
The opportunity is clear: sites that once stalled at pre-app stage may now justify serious assessment. The risk is assuming that looser policy means anything goes.
What we’re seeing work best is a more measured response:
This is where early feasibility work becomes commercially valuable, not just a box-ticking exercise.
For more marginal or contentious sites, permission in principle (PIP) has become an increasingly effective way of testing viability.
Unlike a full planning application, PIP focuses on whether development is acceptable in principle. It typically requires:
Detailed design, reports and technical studies are dealt with later, via a separate Technical Details Consent (TDC) application, if the principle is approved.
For developers, that can significantly reduce early-stage exposure, particularly where land is being optioned or assessed ahead of acquisition.
Although larger developers are often better placed to move quickly, the current five-year land supply position affects the full spectrum of housing delivery.
Large developers tend to benefit most from the policy shift itself, particularly on allocated or strategic sites. However, permission in principle (PIP) is typically more relevant for small to medium-sized developers and private landowners, given it’s limited to schemes of up to nine dwellings.
We’re regularly asked to assess:
In these cases, the question isn’t “can something be built?” but “what’s the most appropriate and defensible form of development?”
That assessment still depends on fundamentals that haven’t changed: access, scale, context, separation distances and sustainability in planning terms – not just energy performance.
It’s important to be clear about what the five-year land supply doesn’t do.
It doesn’t mean:
A house in a field is still a house in a field. Replacement dwellings, conversions and edge-of-settlement sites remain very different propositions.
Understanding those distinctions early is often what saves time and money later.
The current planning position should be seen as a window, not a new normal.
As councils approve more housing, they rebuild their pipelines and re-establish a five-year supply. When that happens, policy tightens again.
Developers who succeed during these periods tend to be those who act early, assess risk realistically, and avoid chasing marginal schemes simply because the climate feels favourable.
At D2, our role is to help clients make those calls with clarity – whether that means progressing a site or advising against it.
The most successful schemes we see aren’t driven by policy shifts alone. They work because the site makes sense, the proposal is proportionate, and the planning strategy is grounded in current conditions rather than optimism.
If you’re a developer, farmer or landowner assessing a site (whether a garden plot, infill opportunity or land on the edge of a settlement), now is a sensible time to pressure-test its potential properly.
We typically start with a free planning appraisal, followed by a full planning feasibility study where appropriate to establish what a site can realistically support before significant cost is committed.
It’s that early clarity that separates viable sites from expensive dead ends.