# Results as first frozen on 2 September 2026, before the Sheffield/Barnsley identifier correction (pre-registration section 12, amendment 4). Superseded by housing-delivery-test-planning-approvals-results.txt; published for comparison.

# HDT 2025 × PS2 major-dwellings approval — RESULTS (numbers only, no narrative)
Pre-registration: HDT_PS2_PREREGISTRATION_20260902.md, sha256 2ce6a5780b73f32f403a704e9504d592e8f5320d086b80fc16606033c53f1608. Seed 20260902, 2000 bootstrap resamples.

## Matching and exclusions
- HDT numeric authorities: 301; matched to PS2 on ONS code: 301; unmatched: []
- Authorities with <10 of 12 quarters present: 9 → ['Allerdale Borough', 'Carlisle ', 'Copeland Borough Council', 'Mendip District Council ', 'North Yorkshire', 'Sedgemoor Council ', 'Somerset West and Taunton ', 'South Somerset ', 'Westmorland and Furness ']
- Eligible at floor 20 major decisions: **250**; at floor 40: 146; minor floor 60: 277
- Below the 20 floor (matched, quarters ok): ['Adur', 'Bexley', 'Blaby', 'Blackpool', 'Camden', 'Cannock Chase', 'Castle Point', 'City of London', 'Crawley', 'Epsom and Ewell', 'Fylde', 'Gosport', 'Hackney', 'Hammersmith and Fulham', 'Harlow', 'Harrow', 'Havant', 'Hillingdon', 'Hyndburn', 'Islington', 'Kensington and Chelsea', 'Lincoln', 'Middlesbrough', 'Newham', 'Oadby and Wigston', 'Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation', 'Oxford', 'Portsmouth', 'Redditch', 'Ribble Valley', 'Richmond upon Thames', 'Rochford', 'Rossendale', 'South Ribble', 'South Staffordshire', 'Tamworth', 'Three Rivers', 'Watford', 'Westminster', 'Woking', 'Worcester', 'Worthing']
- Consistency check decisions ≠ granted+refused by >2%: 0 authorities: []
- Pooled over eligible authorities: major decisions 13401, granted 10759, refused 2642 → pooled approval 80.3%
- Major decisions per eligible authority per year: median 15.3, IQR 11.0–20.9
- Green Belt: 148 eligible authorities with any Green Belt, 102 without; 90 with Green Belt ≥25% of land area

## PRIMARY: major dwellings (all), floor ≥20 decisions, HDT consequence bands

### Cut 1 — England, all eligible  (n = 250 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs maj_appr) = **0.206**  bootstrap 95% CI [0.082, 0.328]  Fisher-z CI [0.077, 0.329]  n=250
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **WEAK positive association**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 76 | 80.5 | [76.1, 85.0] | 69.5–88.3 | 78.6 | 3566 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 17 | 78.8 | [70.4, 90.9] | 70.4–90.9 | 79.4 | 782 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 29 | 77.0 | [74.4, 83.3] | 72.4–85.5 | 79.0 | 2062 |
| >=95 none | 128 | 84.1 | [82.5, 85.5] | 76.0–89.5 | 81.6 | 6991 |
| (>=100 subset) | 123 | 84.0 | [82.4, 85.4] | 76.0–90.2 | 81.5 | 6744 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **-3.6 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-8.5, 1.1]  (n 76 vs 128)

### Cut 2 — England excluding London  (n = 229 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs maj_appr) = **0.246**  bootstrap 95% CI [0.113, 0.369]  Fisher-z CI [0.112, 0.371]  n=229
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **WEAK positive association**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 62 | 78.3 | [75.0, 83.7] | 69.3–86.5 | 77.8 | 3054 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 13 | 85.7 | [70.4, 91.3] | 70.4–91.3 | 80.7 | 667 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 29 | 77.0 | [74.4, 83.3] | 72.4–85.5 | 79.0 | 2062 |
| >=95 none | 125 | 84.0 | [82.4, 85.4] | 76.0–90.0 | 81.8 | 6812 |
| (>=100 subset) | 121 | 84.0 | [82.4, 85.4] | 76.0–90.5 | 81.8 | 6630 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **-5.7 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-9.0, 0.2]  (n 62 vs 125)

### Cut 3 — London only  (n = 21 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs maj_appr) = **-0.301**  bootstrap 95% CI [-0.719, 0.209]  Fisher-z CI [-0.664, 0.177]  n=21
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **MODERATE-OR-STRONGER negative association**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 14 | 89.6 | [76.1, 90.5] | 76.6–90.5 | 83.4 | 512 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 4 | 76.1 | [61.1, 79.3] | 71.5–77.8 | 72.2 | 115 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 0 | n/a | [n/a, n/a] | n/a–n/a | n/a | 0 |
| >=95 none | 3 | 86.2 | [53.0, 87.5] | 69.6–86.8 | 74.3 | 179 |
| (>=100 subset) | 2 | 70.3 | [53.0, 87.5] | 61.6–78.9 | 67.5 | 114 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **3.4 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-10.1, 37.4]  (n 14 vs 3)

## Sensitivities (major dwellings)

### Cut 4a — any Green Belt (England, all)  (n = 148 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs maj_appr) = **0.275**  bootstrap 95% CI [0.120, 0.422]  Fisher-z CI [0.109, 0.426]  n=148
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **WEAK positive association**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 49 | 78.4 | [70.9, 85.5] | 67.6–86.7 | 77.9 | 2405 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 10 | 83.1 | [76.9, 91.3] | 77.7–91.2 | 84.9 | 464 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 14 | 78.1 | [74.7, 82.8] | 74.9–83.1 | 78.8 | 1172 |
| >=95 none | 75 | 84.8 | [81.8, 86.2] | 76.2–89.7 | 82.1 | 4156 |
| (>=100 subset) | 72 | 84.7 | [82.1, 86.3] | 76.2–90.1 | 82.1 | 4030 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **-6.4 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-13.2, 0.7]  (n 49 vs 75)

### Cut 4a — no Green Belt (England, all)  (n = 102 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs maj_appr) = **0.101**  bootstrap 95% CI [-0.092, 0.285]  Fisher-z CI [-0.107, 0.300]  n=102
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **NO MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP (CI within ±0.30; point |rho|<0.15)**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 27 | 83.7 | [76.1, 88.2] | 75.4–89.6 | 80.1 | 1161 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 7 | 70.4 | [64.4, 85.7] | 67.0–81.3 | 71.4 | 318 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 15 | 74.5 | [67.6, 88.1] | 68.2–89.5 | 79.2 | 890 |
| >=95 none | 53 | 83.3 | [80.3, 85.7] | 76.0–87.8 | 80.8 | 2835 |
| (>=100 subset) | 51 | 83.3 | [79.7, 84.8] | 75.5–89.3 | 80.7 | 2714 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **0.4 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-8.0, 4.9]  (n 27 vs 53)

### Cut 4a′ — any Green Belt, excluding London  (n = 135 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs maj_appr) = **0.307**  bootstrap 95% CI [0.142, 0.458]  Fisher-z CI [0.136, 0.461]  n=135
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **MODERATE-OR-STRONGER positive association**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 42 | 77.8 | [70.9, 83.7] | 67.6–86.4 | 77.4 | 2168 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 6 | 91.1 | [82.9, 93.6] | 87.9–91.6 | 89.1 | 349 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 14 | 78.1 | [74.7, 83.3] | 74.9–83.1 | 78.8 | 1172 |
| >=95 none | 73 | 84.8 | [82.4, 86.1] | 76.3–90.0 | 82.6 | 4025 |
| (>=100 subset) | 71 | 84.8 | [82.4, 86.5] | 76.7–90.2 | 82.6 | 3964 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **-7.0 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-13.8, -0.2]  (n 42 vs 73)

### Cut 4a′ — no Green Belt, excluding London  (n = 94 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs maj_appr) = **0.156**  bootstrap 95% CI [-0.045, 0.350]  Fisher-z CI [-0.060, 0.359]  n=94
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **WEAK positive association**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 20 | 80.2 | [75.4, 85.8] | 74.9–86.6 | 78.7 | 886 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 7 | 70.4 | [64.4, 85.7] | 67.0–81.3 | 71.4 | 318 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 15 | 74.5 | [68.8, 88.1] | 68.2–89.5 | 79.2 | 890 |
| >=95 none | 52 | 83.3 | [80.0, 84.8] | 75.8–88.5 | 80.7 | 2787 |
| (>=100 subset) | 50 | 83.3 | [79.7, 84.8] | 75.2–90.0 | 80.6 | 2666 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **-3.1 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-8.3, 3.3]  (n 20 vs 52)

### Cut 4b — Green Belt ≥25% of land (England, all)  (n = 90 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs maj_appr) = **0.425**  bootstrap 95% CI [0.230, 0.597]  Fisher-z CI [0.227, 0.589]  n=90
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **MODERATE-OR-STRONGER positive association**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 30 | 70.2 | [66.7, 82.3] | 64.4–83.6 | 73.1 | 1379 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 4 | 82.9 | [75.0, 90.9] | 77.9–87.9 | 83.5 | 170 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 8 | 80.9 | [75.8, 85.5] | 76.2–83.9 | 79.7 | 597 |
| >=95 none | 48 | 85.0 | [83.1, 86.8] | 81.0–88.5 | 82.7 | 2499 |
| (>=100 subset) | 45 | 84.8 | [82.8, 87.1] | 81.5–89.4 | 82.6 | 2373 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **-14.7 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-19.1, -3.0]  (n 30 vs 48)

### Cut 4b — Green Belt <25% of land (England, all)  (n = 160 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs maj_appr) = **0.080**  bootstrap 95% CI [-0.078, 0.235]  Fisher-z CI [-0.085, 0.241]  n=160
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **NO MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP (CI within ±0.30; point |rho|<0.15)**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 46 | 84.8 | [78.3, 88.2] | 76.1–89.9 | 82.1 | 2187 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 13 | 77.3 | [69.7, 91.3] | 69.7–91.3 | 78.3 | 612 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 21 | 74.7 | [71.7, 84.2] | 69.0–88.1 | 78.7 | 1465 |
| >=95 none | 80 | 83.3 | [79.7, 85.1] | 75.7–90.5 | 81.0 | 4492 |
| (>=100 subset) | 78 | 83.3 | [79.7, 85.1] | 75.2–90.7 | 80.9 | 4371 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **1.5 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-5.3, 6.1]  (n 46 vs 80)

### Cut 5 — excluding HDT >200% (England, all)  (n = 224 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs maj_appr) = **0.128**  bootstrap 95% CI [0.003, 0.253]  Fisher-z CI [-0.011, 0.263]  n=224
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **NO MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP (CI within ±0.30; point |rho|<0.15)**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 76 | 80.5 | [76.1, 85.0] | 69.5–88.3 | 78.6 | 3566 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 17 | 78.8 | [70.4, 90.9] | 70.4–90.9 | 79.4 | 782 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 29 | 77.0 | [74.4, 83.3] | 72.4–85.5 | 79.0 | 2062 |
| >=95 none | 102 | 83.3 | [81.6, 85.0] | 74.5–87.4 | 80.7 | 5597 |
| (>=100 subset) | 97 | 83.3 | [81.5, 85.0] | 74.4–87.7 | 80.6 | 5350 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **-2.8 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-7.9, 1.7]  (n 76 vs 102)

### Cut 5′ — excluding HDT >200%, excluding London  (n = 203 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs maj_appr) = **0.166**  bootstrap 95% CI [0.035, 0.304]  Fisher-z CI [0.020, 0.304]  n=203
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **WEAK positive association**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 62 | 78.3 | [75.4, 83.7] | 69.3–86.5 | 77.8 | 3054 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 13 | 85.7 | [70.4, 91.3] | 70.4–91.3 | 80.7 | 667 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 29 | 77.0 | [74.4, 83.3] | 72.4–85.5 | 79.0 | 2062 |
| >=95 none | 99 | 83.3 | [81.5, 85.0] | 74.6–87.5 | 81.0 | 5418 |
| (>=100 subset) | 95 | 83.3 | [81.5, 85.0] | 74.6–87.7 | 80.9 | 5236 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **-5.0 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-8.7, 1.0]  (n 62 vs 99)

### Cut 6 — excluding development corporations / non-district (England, all)  (n = 250 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs maj_appr) = **0.206**  bootstrap 95% CI [0.083, 0.323]  Fisher-z CI [0.077, 0.329]  n=250
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **WEAK positive association**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 76 | 80.5 | [76.1, 85.0] | 69.5–88.3 | 78.6 | 3566 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 17 | 78.8 | [70.4, 90.9] | 70.4–90.9 | 79.4 | 782 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 29 | 77.0 | [74.4, 83.3] | 72.4–85.5 | 79.0 | 2062 |
| >=95 none | 128 | 84.1 | [82.5, 85.7] | 76.0–89.5 | 81.6 | 6991 |
| (>=100 subset) | 123 | 84.0 | [82.4, 85.4] | 76.0–90.2 | 81.5 | 6744 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **-3.6 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-8.4, 1.2]  (n 76 vs 128)

### Cut 7 — floor ≥40 decisions, England all  (n = 146 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs maj_appr) = **0.195**  bootstrap 95% CI [0.018, 0.347]  Fisher-z CI [0.024, 0.355]  n=146
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **WEAK positive association**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 35 | 83.3 | [75.9, 85.0] | 70.3–87.7 | 79.1 | 2358 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 6 | 82.9 | [60.0, 91.1] | 68.0–89.9 | 79.4 | 437 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 21 | 79.1 | [74.5, 83.3] | 74.4–84.2 | 79.2 | 1816 |
| >=95 none | 84 | 83.1 | [80.9, 84.9] | 76.0–87.7 | 81.1 | 5643 |
| (>=100 subset) | 81 | 83.0 | [79.7, 84.8] | 76.0–87.8 | 80.9 | 5457 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **0.3 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-8.3, 3.3]  (n 35 vs 84)

### Cut 7 — floor ≥40, excluding London  (n = 138 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs maj_appr) = **0.218**  bootstrap 95% CI [0.045, 0.373]  Fisher-z CI [0.042, 0.380]  n=138
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **WEAK positive association**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 30 | 82.7 | [75.2, 84.8] | 70.0–86.3 | 78.6 | 2115 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 6 | 82.9 | [60.0, 91.1] | 68.0–89.9 | 79.4 | 437 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 21 | 79.1 | [74.5, 83.3] | 74.4–84.2 | 79.2 | 1816 |
| >=95 none | 81 | 83.0 | [80.3, 84.8] | 76.0–87.8 | 81.3 | 5464 |
| (>=100 subset) | 79 | 83.0 | [79.7, 84.8] | 76.0–88.2 | 81.2 | 5343 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **-0.3 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-8.5, 2.6]  (n 30 vs 81)

### Cut 7 — floor ≥40, London  (n = 8 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs maj_appr) = **-0.228**  bootstrap 95% CI [-0.961, 0.631]  Fisher-z CI [-0.821, 0.603]  n=8
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **WEAK negative association**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 5 | 90.0 | [64.3, 90.5] | 76.1–90.5 | 83.1 | 243 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 0 | n/a | [n/a, n/a] | n/a–n/a | n/a | 0 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 0 | n/a | [n/a, n/a] | n/a–n/a | n/a | 0 |
| >=95 none | 3 | 86.2 | [53.0, 87.5] | 69.6–86.8 | 74.3 | 179 |
| (>=100 subset) | 2 | 70.3 | [53.0, 87.5] | 61.6–78.9 | 67.5 | 114 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **3.8 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-21.9, 37.4]  (n 5 vs 3)

## Secondary bands (<75 / 75–<95 / ≥95), major dwellings

### England excluding London — secondary bands  (n = 229 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs maj_appr) = **0.246**  bootstrap 95% CI [0.124, 0.369]  Fisher-z CI [0.112, 0.371]  n=229
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **WEAK positive association**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 | 62 | 78.3 | [75.0, 83.7] | 69.3–86.5 | 77.8 | 3054 |
| 75-<95 | 42 | 79.0 | [74.5, 84.8] | 71.9–87.8 | 79.4 | 2729 |
| >=95 | 125 | 84.0 | [82.4, 85.4] | 76.0–90.0 | 81.8 | 6812 |

## SECONDARY OUTCOME: minor dwellings (all), floor ≥60 decisions

### Minor — England, all  (n = 277 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs min_appr) = **0.292**  bootstrap 95% CI [0.179, 0.398]  Fisher-z CI [0.173, 0.402]  n=277
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **WEAK positive association**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 87 | 68.4 | [64.7, 69.9] | 57.8–74.6 | 68.0 | 35056 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 18 | 66.4 | [64.0, 71.9] | 63.7–73.5 | 70.3 | 8046 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 34 | 71.3 | [67.5, 74.7] | 65.1–76.8 | 74.2 | 17777 |
| >=95 none | 138 | 73.6 | [71.2, 76.0] | 66.4–80.2 | 72.0 | 50328 |
| (>=100 subset) | 130 | 73.8 | [71.4, 76.5] | 67.1–80.2 | 72.4 | 47162 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **-5.2 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-9.2, -2.1]  (n 87 vs 138)

### Minor — England excluding London  (n = 245 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs min_appr) = **0.261**  bootstrap 95% CI [0.142, 0.373]  Fisher-z CI [0.133, 0.381]  n=245
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **WEAK positive association**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 67 | 69.4 | [67.1, 71.4] | 60.6–75.1 | 67.9 | 23589 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 13 | 66.7 | [66.3, 74.8] | 66.3–74.8 | 68.9 | 3959 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 32 | 71.3 | [67.5, 74.5] | 66.3–76.2 | 73.9 | 16691 |
| >=95 none | 133 | 73.6 | [71.2, 76.2] | 66.7–80.2 | 73.0 | 45177 |
| (>=100 subset) | 126 | 73.8 | [71.4, 76.6] | 67.4–80.2 | 73.0 | 43219 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **-4.2 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-7.6, -1.2]  (n 67 vs 133)

### Minor — London  (n = 32 authorities)
- Spearman rho (HDT % vs min_appr) = **0.294**  bootstrap 95% CI [-0.086, 0.607]  Fisher-z CI [-0.083, 0.597]  n=32
- Interpretation (pre-registered rule): **WEAK positive association**

| HDT band | n LPAs | median approval % | bootstrap 95% CI | IQR | decisions-weighted approval % | pooled decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <75 presumption | 20 | 55.5 | [48.3, 68.2] | 48.2–70.6 | 68.4 | 11467 |
| 75-<85 buffer | 5 | 57.3 | [50.6, 89.9] | 55.3–64.3 | 71.8 | 4087 |
| 85-<95 action plan | 2 | 74.4 | [58.1, 90.7] | 66.2–82.5 | 78.6 | 1086 |
| >=95 none | 5 | 59.9 | [33.2, 87.3] | 45.8–77.2 | 64.1 | 5151 |
| (>=100 subset) | 4 | 61.5 | [33.2, 87.3] | 42.7–79.7 | 65.3 | 3943 |
- Band contrast, median approval <75 minus >=95: **-4.4 pp**  bootstrap 95% CI [-34.2, 25.0]  (n 20 vs 5)

## Anomalies (rule-based, §9) — England excluding London, primary cut
Top-quartile threshold 87.9%, bottom-quartile threshold 73.7%

### A. HDT <75% and major approval in top quartile
| Authority | HDT | Consequence | Major decisions | Approval | Homes required | Green Belt | PlanningLens layer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wolverhampton | 59% | Presumption | 48 | 95.8% | 3256 | GB | PL: no data |
| Gloucester | 63% | Presumption | 22 | 95.5% | 2014 | - | PL 4 / PS2 22 = 18% NOT eligible |
| Fareham | 60% | Presumption | 36 | 94.4% | 1233 | - | PL 3 / PS2 36 = 8% NOT eligible |
| Derby | 71% | Presumption | 55 | 92.7% | 3765 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 55 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Hastings | 44% | Presumption | 23 | 91.3% | 1457 | - | PL 2 / PS2 23 = 9% NOT eligible |
| North Tyneside | 65% | Presumption | 32 | 90.6% | 2306 | GB | PL 7 / PS2 32 = 22% NOT eligible |
| Kirklees | 65% | Presumption | 124 | 90.3% | 4873 | GB | PL 32 / PS2 124 = 26% NOT eligible |
| Bristol, City of | 41% | Presumption | 102 | 90.2% | 10134 | GB | PL: no data |
| Bradford | 56% | Presumption | 89 | 88.8% | 6773 | GB | PL 24 / PS2 89 = 27% NOT eligible |
| Sandwell | 34% | Presumption | 53 | 88.7% | 4632 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 53 = 0% NOT eligible |
| North Norfolk | 54% | Presumption | 34 | 88.2% | 1678 | - | PL: no data |

### B. HDT ≥100% and major approval in bottom quartile
| Authority | HDT | Consequence | Major decisions | Approval | Homes required | Green Belt | PlanningLens layer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maldon | 143% | nan | 57 | 50.9% | 868 | - | PL 14 / PS2 57 = 25% NOT eligible |
| Hart | 137% | nan | 21 | 52.4% | 891 | - | PL 7 / PS2 21 = 33% NOT eligible |
| Malvern Hills | 101% | nan | 50 | 60.0% | 1139 | - | PL: no data |
| West Berkshire | 114% | nan | 71 | 60.6% | 1523 | - | PL: no data |
| Babergh | 147% | nan | 40 | 62.5% | 1232 | - | PL: no data |
| Wirral | 123% | nan | 57 | 63.2% | 1500 | GB | PL 39 / PS2 57 = 68% OK |
| West Oxfordshire | 104% | nan | 55 | 63.6% | 1701 | GB | PL 2 / PS2 55 = 4% NOT eligible |
| Wychavon | 103% | nan | 61 | 63.9% | 1482 | GB | PL: no data |
| Lichfield | 232% | nan | 39 | 64.1% | 937 | GB | PL 4 / PS2 39 = 10% NOT eligible |
| Reading | 136% | nan | 37 | 64.9% | 2145 | - | PL: no data |
| Chichester | 124% | nan | 44 | 65.9% | 1769 | - | PL 6 / PS2 44 = 14% NOT eligible |
| Braintree | 150% | nan | 69 | 66.7% | 2153 | - | PL: no data |
| Stratford-on-Avon | 202% | nan | 50 | 68.0% | 1686 | GB | PL: no data |
| North Warwickshire | 164% | nan | 22 | 68.2% | 507 | GB | PL: no data |
| Waverley | 117% | nan | 110 | 69.1% | 2035 | GB | PL: no data |
| Wokingham | 100% | nan | 62 | 69.4% | 2324 | GB | PL: no data |
| Tendring | 152% | nan | 62 | 69.4% | 1650 | - | PL: no data |
| Forest of Dean | 128% | nan | 36 | 69.4% | 990 | - | PL 17 / PS2 36 = 47% OK |
| Cherwell | 134% | nan | 84 | 70.2% | 2158 | GB | PL: no data |
| Reigate and Banstead | 102% | nan | 37 | 70.3% | 1383 | GB | PL 3 / PS2 37 = 8% NOT eligible |
| North Lincolnshire | 137% | nan | 58 | 70.7% | 1117 | - | PL: no data |
| Newark and Sherwood | 139% | nan | 49 | 71.4% | 1345 | GB | PL 10 / PS2 49 = 20% NOT eligible |
| Rugby | 187% | nan | 35 | 71.4% | 1547 | GB | PL 15 / PS2 35 = 43% OK |
| Uttlesford | 108% | nan | 96 | 72.9% | 2051 | GB | PL: no data |
| Chelmsford | 110% | nan | 34 | 73.5% | 2419 | GB | PL: no data |

### C. 20 largest housing requirements (eligible, excluding London)
| Authority | HDT | Consequence | Major decisions | Approval | Homes required | Green Belt | PlanningLens layer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Birmingham | 57% | Presumption | 145 | 85.5% | 21400 | GB | PL: no data |
| Manchester | 75% | Buffer | 149 | 91.3% | 10599 | GB | PL: no data |
| Leeds | 115% | nan | 139 | 84.2% | 10150 | GB | PL: no data |
| Bristol, City of | 41% | Presumption | 102 | 90.2% | 10134 | GB | PL: no data |
| Sheffield | 58% | Presumption | 110 | 84.5% | 9091 | - | PL: no data |
| Buckinghamshire | 94% | Action plan | 228 | 76.3% | 8274 | GB | PL: no data |
| Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole | 35% | Presumption | 172 | 70.9% | 8010 | GB | PL: no data |
| Coventry | 47% | Presumption | 101 | 79.2% | 7954 | GB | PL: no data |
| Cornwall | 94% | Action plan | 228 | 84.2% | 7941 | - | PL: no data |
| Leicester | 39% | Presumption | 68 | 76.5% | 7358 | - | PL: no data |
| Brighton and Hove | 50% | Presumption | 35 | 74.3% | 6980 | - | PL: no data |
| Bradford | 56% | Presumption | 89 | 88.8% | 6773 | GB | PL 24 / PS2 89 = 27% NOT eligible |
| Central Bedfordshire | 105% | nan | 117 | 74.4% | 5910 | GB | PL: no data |
| Wiltshire | 93% | Action plan | 154 | 74.7% | 5910 | GB | PL 72 / PS2 154 = 47% OK |
| Norwich | 111% | nan | 20 | 75.0% | 5902 | - | PL: no data |
| Broadland | 111% | nan | 23 | 91.3% | 5902 | - | PL 0 / PS2 23 = 0% NOT eligible |
| South Norfolk | 111% | nan | 39 | 84.6% | 5902 | - | PL 0 / PS2 39 = 0% NOT eligible |
| West Northamptonshire | 104% | nan | 123 | 82.1% | 5718 | - | PL: no data |
| North Northamptonshire | 108% | nan | 107 | 74.8% | 5580 | - | PL 0 / PS2 107 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Dorset | 88% | Action plan | 182 | 79.1% | 5462 | GB | PL 28 / PS2 182 = 15% NOT eligible |

### London panel — all eligible boroughs
| Authority | HDT | Consequence | Major decisions | Approval | Homes required | Green Belt | PlanningLens layer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redbridge | 30% | Presumption | 39 | 94.9% | 3954 | GB | PL 17 / PS2 39 = 44% OK |
| Lambeth | 39% | Presumption | 42 | 64.3% | 4005 | - | PL 0 / PS2 42 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Havering | 40% | Presumption | 24 | 50.0% | 5413 | GB | PL 13 / PS2 24 = 54% OK |
| Greenwich | 42% | Presumption | 38 | 89.5% | 8472 | - | PL 0 / PS2 38 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Tower Hamlets | 47% | Presumption | 42 | 90.5% | 11697 | - | PL 18 / PS2 42 = 43% OK |
| Brent | 56% | Presumption | 28 | 100.0% | 6975 | - | PL 0 / PS2 28 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Barking and Dagenham | 58% | Presumption | 29 | 96.6% | 6366 | GB | PL 6 / PS2 29 = 21% NOT eligible |
| Ealing | 60% | Presumption | 63 | 90.5% | 6471 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 63 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Bromley | 62% | Presumption | 24 | 45.8% | 2083 | GB | PL 38 / PS2 24 = 158% OK |
| Merton | 63% | Presumption | 29 | 89.7% | 1652 | - | PL 31 / PS2 29 = 107% OK |
| Lewisham | 65% | Presumption | 46 | 76.1% | 5001 | - | PL 0 / PS2 46 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Kingston upon Thames | 66% | Presumption | 23 | 78.3% | 2891 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 23 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Southwark | 69% | Presumption | 50 | 90.0% | 7065 | - | PL 0 / PS2 50 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Haringey | 71% | Presumption | 35 | 88.6% | 4747 | GB | PL 9 / PS2 35 = 26% NOT eligible |
| Hounslow | 76% | Buffer | 36 | 61.1% | 5346 | GB | PL 32 / PS2 36 = 89% OK |
| Enfield | 77% | Buffer | 28 | 75.0% | 3738 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 28 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Sutton | 81% | Buffer | 29 | 79.3% | 1407 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 29 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Waltham Forest | 84% | Buffer | 22 | 77.3% | 3792 | GB | PL 14 / PS2 22 = 64% OK |
| Barnet | 97% | nan | 65 | 86.2% | 7092 | GB | PL 41 / PS2 65 = 63% OK |
| Croydon | 105% | nan | 66 | 53.0% | 5841 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 66 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Wandsworth | 123% | nan | 48 | 87.5% | 5850 | - | PL 21 / PS2 48 = 44% OK |

### Full eligible list (England excluding London), sorted by HDT
| Authority | HDT | Consequence | Major decisions | Approval | Homes required | Green Belt | PlanningLens layer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Southend-on-Sea | 20% | Presumption | 30 | 86.7% | 3526 | GB | PL: no data |
| Basildon | 23% | Presumption | 31 | 87.1% | 3123 | GB | PL: no data |
| Eastbourne | 23% | Presumption | 23 | 78.3% | 2224 | - | PL: no data |
| Sevenoaks | 25% | Presumption | 48 | 66.7% | 2130 | GB | PL: no data |
| Hertsmere | 26% | Presumption | 33 | 66.7% | 2181 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 33 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Thurrock | 29% | Presumption | 20 | 75.0% | 3505 | GB | PL 18 / PS2 20 = 90% OK |
| Southampton | 30% | Presumption | 23 | 78.3% | 4440 | - | PL: no data |
| Spelthorne | 33% | Presumption | 27 | 63.0% | 1874 | GB | PL 1 / PS2 27 = 4% NOT eligible |
| Sandwell | 34% | Presumption | 53 | 88.7% | 4632 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 53 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Rother | 35% | Presumption | 43 | 83.7% | 2197 | - | PL: no data |
| Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole | 35% | Presumption | 172 | 70.9% | 8010 | GB | PL: no data |
| Isle of Wight | 37% | Presumption | 47 | 74.5% | 2133 | - | PL 14 / PS2 47 = 30% NOT eligible |
| Tandridge | 38% | Presumption | 31 | 67.7% | 1915 | GB | PL: no data |
| Leicester | 39% | Presumption | 68 | 76.5% | 7358 | - | PL: no data |
| Torbay | 40% | Presumption | 40 | 85.0% | 1812 | - | PL 5 / PS2 40 = 12% NOT eligible |
| Bristol, City of | 41% | Presumption | 102 | 90.2% | 10134 | GB | PL: no data |
| Stockport | 43% | Presumption | 37 | 86.5% | 3408 | GB | PL: no data |
| Hastings | 44% | Presumption | 23 | 91.3% | 1457 | - | PL 2 / PS2 23 = 9% NOT eligible |
| Horsham | 44% | Presumption | 45 | 48.9% | 2776 | - | PL 7 / PS2 45 = 16% NOT eligible |
| St Albans | 46% | Presumption | 60 | 61.7% | 2662 | GB | PL: no data |
| Welwyn Hatfield | 46% | Presumption | 39 | 69.2% | 2291 | GB | PL: no data |
| Coventry | 47% | Presumption | 101 | 79.2% | 7954 | GB | PL: no data |
| New Forest | 48% | Presumption | 37 | 78.4% | 1200 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 37 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Lancaster | 48% | Presumption | 54 | 53.7% | 1271 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 54 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Erewash | 49% | Presumption | 22 | 81.8% | 1146 | GB | PL 14 / PS2 22 = 64% OK |
| Brighton and Hove | 50% | Presumption | 35 | 74.3% | 6980 | - | PL: no data |
| Dacorum | 52% | Presumption | 26 | 65.4% | 3051 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 26 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Solihull | 53% | Presumption | 29 | 86.2% | 2516 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 29 = 0% NOT eligible |
| South Tyneside | 53% | Presumption | 21 | 85.7% | 949 | GB | PL: no data |
| Slough | 54% | Presumption | 37 | 67.6% | 2528 | GB | PL 10 / PS2 37 = 27% NOT eligible |
| North Norfolk | 54% | Presumption | 34 | 88.2% | 1678 | - | PL: no data |
| Luton | 54% | Presumption | 49 | 83.7% | 3404 | GB | PL 1 / PS2 49 = 2% NOT eligible |
| Cheltenham | 56% | Presumption | 20 | 75.0% | 1679 | GB | PL: no data |
| Bradford | 56% | Presumption | 89 | 88.8% | 6773 | GB | PL 24 / PS2 89 = 27% NOT eligible |
| Walsall | 56% | Presumption | 56 | 69.6% | 2722 | GB | PL: no data |
| Birmingham | 57% | Presumption | 145 | 85.5% | 21400 | GB | PL: no data |
| Folkestone and Hythe | 57% | Presumption | 32 | 75.0% | 1979 | - | PL: no data |
| Bromsgrove | 58% | Presumption | 24 | 70.8% | 1195 | GB | PL: no data |
| Sheffield | 58% | Presumption | 110 | 84.5% | 9091 | - | PL: no data |
| Elmbridge | 59% | Presumption | 74 | 62.2% | 1950 | GB | PL 16 / PS2 74 = 22% NOT eligible |
| Wolverhampton | 59% | Presumption | 48 | 95.8% | 3256 | GB | PL: no data |
| Fareham | 60% | Presumption | 36 | 94.4% | 1233 | - | PL 3 / PS2 36 = 8% NOT eligible |
| Lewes | 60% | Presumption | 42 | 57.1% | 2341 | - | PL: no data |
| Medway | 60% | Presumption | 75 | 86.7% | 5000 | GB | PL 26 / PS2 75 = 35% NOT eligible |
| Gravesham | 61% | Presumption | 22 | 77.3% | 2069 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 22 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Charnwood | 62% | Presumption | 52 | 86.5% | 3376 | - | PL: no data |
| Tonbridge and Malling | 63% | Presumption | 49 | 83.7% | 2485 | GB | PL 4 / PS2 49 = 8% NOT eligible |
| Gloucester | 63% | Presumption | 22 | 95.5% | 2014 | - | PL 4 / PS2 22 = 18% NOT eligible |
| Chorley | 63% | Presumption | 29 | 82.8% | 1553 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 29 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Ipswich | 63% | Presumption | 30 | 86.7% | 1067 | - | PL: no data |
| North Somerset | 64% | Presumption | 54 | 83.3% | 4063 | GB | PL 13 / PS2 54 = 24% NOT eligible |
| Test Valley | 64% | Presumption | 27 | 63.0% | 1627 | - | PL 4 / PS2 27 = 15% NOT eligible |
| Kirklees | 65% | Presumption | 124 | 90.3% | 4873 | GB | PL 32 / PS2 124 = 26% NOT eligible |
| North Tyneside | 65% | Presumption | 32 | 90.6% | 2306 | GB | PL 7 / PS2 32 = 22% NOT eligible |
| Stoke-on-Trent | 66% | Presumption | 42 | 76.2% | 2109 | GB | PL: no data |
| Epping Forest | 66% | Presumption | 38 | 47.4% | 1508 | GB | PL: no data |
| Cotswold | 68% | Presumption | 33 | 75.8% | 1392 | GB | PL: no data |
| Swale | 70% | Presumption | 87 | 75.9% | 3109 | - | PL 5 / PS2 87 = 6% NOT eligible |
| Thanet | 70% | Presumption | 67 | 82.1% | 3451 | - | PL: no data |
| Derby | 71% | Presumption | 55 | 92.7% | 3765 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 55 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Mole Valley | 72% | Presumption | 36 | 38.9% | 1013 | GB | PL: no data |
| Windsor and Maidenhead | 74% | Presumption | 64 | 64.1% | 2136 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 64 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Ashford | 75% | Buffer | 45 | 55.6% | 2781 | - | PL: no data |
| Manchester | 75% | Buffer | 149 | 91.3% | 10599 | GB | PL: no data |
| North Hertfordshire | 75% | Buffer | 46 | 87.0% | 1910 | GB | PL: no data |
| Barnsley | 75% | Buffer | 35 | 85.7% | 2563 | - | PL 0 / PS2 35 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Teignbridge | 78% | Buffer | 39 | 76.9% | 2201 | - | PL: no data |
| Stevenage | 78% | Buffer | 22 | 95.5% | 1218 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 22 = 0% NOT eligible |
| East Hampshire | 79% | Buffer | 27 | 70.4% | 1785 | - | PL 14 / PS2 27 = 52% OK |
| Canterbury | 79% | Buffer | 38 | 92.1% | 3344 | - | PL 7 / PS2 38 = 18% NOT eligible |
| Cambridge | 82% | Buffer | 36 | 91.7% | 2076 | GB | PL: no data |
| Trafford | 83% | Buffer | 44 | 90.9% | 2451 | GB | PL 13 / PS2 44 = 30% NOT eligible |
| Calderdale | 83% | Buffer | 52 | 78.8% | 1500 | GB | PL 15 / PS2 52 = 29% NOT eligible |
| East Devon | 84% | Buffer | 33 | 69.7% | 2749 | - | PL: no data |
| Arun | 84% | Buffer | 101 | 64.4% | 4007 | - | PL 0 / PS2 101 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Stroud | 85% | Action plan | 46 | 71.7% | 1932 | - | PL 3 / PS2 46 = 7% NOT eligible |
| West Devon | 87% | Action plan | 22 | 63.6% | 4191 | - | PL: no data |
| Plymouth | 87% | Action plan | 34 | 97.1% | 4191 | - | PL 5 / PS2 34 = 15% NOT eligible |
| Swindon | 87% | Action plan | 33 | 90.9% | 3028 | - | PL 0 / PS2 33 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Newcastle upon Tyne | 87% | Action plan | 67 | 86.6% | 3254 | GB | PL 25 / PS2 67 = 37% NOT eligible |
| Liverpool | 87% | Action plan | 61 | 77.0% | 5217 | GB | PL: no data |
| Bolton | 87% | Action plan | 85 | 82.4% | 2321 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 85 = 0% NOT eligible |
| York | 87% | Action plan | 55 | 85.5% | 2470 | GB | PL 7 / PS2 55 = 13% NOT eligible |
| South Hams | 87% | Action plan | 59 | 88.1% | 4191 | - | PL: no data |
| Dorset | 88% | Action plan | 182 | 79.1% | 5462 | GB | PL 28 / PS2 182 = 15% NOT eligible |
| Rutland | 89% | Action plan | 42 | 69.0% | 388 | - | PL 14 / PS2 42 = 33% NOT eligible |
| Wealden | 89% | Action plan | 125 | 68.8% | 3598 | - | PL: no data |
| West Suffolk | 89% | Action plan | 54 | 83.3% | 2351 | - | PL 6 / PS2 54 = 11% NOT eligible |
| Derbyshire Dales | 90% | Action plan | 35 | 65.7% | 658 | - | PL 0 / PS2 35 = 0% NOT eligible |
| East Suffolk | 91% | Action plan | 68 | 91.2% | 2713 | - | PL: no data |
| Dudley | 92% | Action plan | 57 | 73.7% | 1959 | GB | PL: no data |
| Bath and North East Somerset | 92% | Action plan | 42 | 83.3% | 2161 | GB | PL 10 / PS2 42 = 24% NOT eligible |
| Great Yarmouth | 92% | Action plan | 26 | 92.3% | 1074 | - | PL 1 / PS2 26 = 4% NOT eligible |
| Wiltshire | 93% | Action plan | 154 | 74.7% | 5910 | GB | PL 72 / PS2 154 = 47% OK |
| Maidstone | 93% | Action plan | 58 | 72.4% | 3000 | GB | PL 1 / PS2 58 = 2% NOT eligible |
| Tunbridge Wells | 93% | Action plan | 63 | 92.1% | 1999 | GB | PL: no data |
| Ashfield | 93% | Action plan | 43 | 74.4% | 1359 | GB | PL: no data |
| Bedford | 94% | Action plan | 55 | 74.5% | 2981 | - | PL: no data |
| Eastleigh | 94% | Action plan | 26 | 61.5% | 1983 | - | PL 14 / PS2 26 = 54% OK |
| Cornwall | 94% | Action plan | 228 | 84.2% | 7941 | - | PL: no data |
| Basingstoke and Deane | 94% | Action plan | 37 | 67.6% | 2558 | - | PL 2 / PS2 37 = 5% NOT eligible |
| Runnymede | 94% | Action plan | 33 | 75.8% | 1515 | GB | PL 17 / PS2 33 = 52% OK |
| Buckinghamshire | 94% | Action plan | 228 | 76.3% | 8274 | GB | PL: no data |
| Newcastle-under-Lyme | 94% | Action plan | 44 | 79.5% | 1035 | GB | PL: no data |
| Herefordshire, County of | 96% | nan | 74 | 82.4% | 2417 | - | PL: no data |
| Dartford | 96% | nan | 25 | 72.0% | 2330 | GB | PL 6 / PS2 25 = 24% NOT eligible |
| South Kesteven | 97% | nan | 47 | 87.2% | 1958 | - | PL 8 / PS2 47 = 17% NOT eligible |
| Surrey Heath | 98% | nan | 36 | 86.1% | 965 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 36 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Wokingham | 100% | nan | 62 | 69.4% | 2324 | GB | PL: no data |
| Peterborough | 100% | nan | 56 | 78.6% | 2832 | - | PL 12 / PS2 56 = 21% NOT eligible |
| King's Lynn and West Norfolk | 100% | nan | 54 | 83.3% | 1692 | - | PL 0 / PS2 54 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Malvern Hills | 101% | nan | 50 | 60.0% | 1139 | - | PL: no data |
| Reigate and Banstead | 102% | nan | 37 | 70.3% | 1383 | GB | PL 3 / PS2 37 = 8% NOT eligible |
| Guildford | 102% | nan | 50 | 76.0% | 1856 | GB | PL 13 / PS2 50 = 26% NOT eligible |
| East Hertfordshire | 102% | nan | 54 | 81.5% | 2840 | GB | PL 8 / PS2 54 = 15% NOT eligible |
| Exeter | 102% | nan | 46 | 78.3% | 1935 | - | PL 10 / PS2 46 = 22% NOT eligible |
| Mid Devon | 103% | nan | 35 | 85.7% | 1078 | - | PL 5 / PS2 35 = 14% NOT eligible |
| Wychavon | 103% | nan | 61 | 63.9% | 1482 | GB | PL: no data |
| Mid Sussex | 104% | nan | 60 | 85.0% | 3007 | GB | PL 1 / PS2 60 = 2% NOT eligible |
| Bracknell Forest | 104% | nan | 49 | 81.6% | 1715 | GB | PL: no data |
| West Oxfordshire | 104% | nan | 55 | 63.6% | 1701 | GB | PL 2 / PS2 55 = 4% NOT eligible |
| West Northamptonshire | 104% | nan | 123 | 82.1% | 5718 | - | PL: no data |
| Central Bedfordshire | 105% | nan | 117 | 74.4% | 5910 | GB | PL: no data |
| Gateshead | 105% | nan | 24 | 91.7% | 1271 | GB | PL 7 / PS2 24 = 29% NOT eligible |
| Kingston upon Hull, City of | 107% | nan | 35 | 91.4% | 1624 | - | PL 5 / PS2 35 = 14% NOT eligible |
| Uttlesford | 108% | nan | 96 | 72.9% | 2051 | GB | PL: no data |
| Nottingham | 108% | nan | 85 | 97.6% | 5444 | GB | PL: no data |
| Dover | 108% | nan | 82 | 87.8% | 1779 | - | PL 12 / PS2 82 = 15% NOT eligible |
| North Northamptonshire | 108% | nan | 107 | 74.8% | 5580 | - | PL 0 / PS2 107 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Broxtowe | 109% | nan | 51 | 82.4% | 1162 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 51 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Colchester | 109% | nan | 53 | 83.0% | 2762 | - | PL: no data |
| Chelmsford | 110% | nan | 34 | 73.5% | 2419 | GB | PL: no data |
| Broxbourne | 110% | nan | 34 | 88.2% | 1362 | GB | PL: no data |
| Brentwood | 110% | nan | 31 | 87.1% | 1002 | GB | PL 11 / PS2 31 = 35% NOT eligible |
| South Norfolk | 111% | nan | 39 | 84.6% | 5902 | - | PL 0 / PS2 39 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Norwich | 111% | nan | 20 | 75.0% | 5902 | - | PL: no data |
| Broadland | 111% | nan | 23 | 91.3% | 5902 | - | PL 0 / PS2 23 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Wakefield | 112% | nan | 73 | 87.7% | 2839 | GB | PL 24 / PS2 73 = 33% NOT eligible |
| Bury | 114% | nan | 38 | 86.8% | 738 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 38 = 0% NOT eligible |
| West Berkshire | 114% | nan | 71 | 60.6% | 1523 | - | PL: no data |
| Oldham | 115% | nan | 44 | 81.8% | 1211 | GB | PL 2 / PS2 44 = 5% NOT eligible |
| Leeds | 115% | nan | 139 | 84.2% | 10150 | GB | PL: no data |
| East Cambridgeshire | 116% | nan | 57 | 86.0% | 1773 | GB | PL 10 / PS2 57 = 18% NOT eligible |
| Fenland | 117% | nan | 61 | 80.3% | 1591 | - | PL 17 / PS2 61 = 28% NOT eligible |
| Waverley | 117% | nan | 110 | 69.1% | 2035 | GB | PL: no data |
| St. Helens | 118% | nan | 37 | 86.5% | 1188 | GB | PL: no data |
| High Peak | 121% | nan | 20 | 80.0% | 749 | GB | PL 7 / PS2 20 = 35% NOT eligible |
| Torridge | 122% | nan | 60 | 81.7% | 2212 | - | PL: no data |
| North Devon | 122% | nan | 49 | 91.8% | 2212 | - | PL: no data |
| Wirral | 123% | nan | 57 | 63.2% | 1500 | GB | PL 39 / PS2 57 = 68% OK |
| Shropshire | 124% | nan | 109 | 78.0% | 3333 | GB | PL: no data |
| Chichester | 124% | nan | 44 | 65.9% | 1769 | - | PL 6 / PS2 44 = 14% NOT eligible |
| Gedling | 125% | nan | 23 | 95.7% | 1420 | GB | PL 5 / PS2 23 = 22% NOT eligible |
| Rochdale | 125% | nan | 47 | 97.9% | 1536 | GB | PL: no data |
| Boston | 127% | nan | 33 | 97.0% | 761 | - | PL: no data |
| Warwick | 128% | nan | 36 | 83.3% | 1998 | GB | PL 1 / PS2 36 = 3% NOT eligible |
| Forest of Dean | 128% | nan | 36 | 69.4% | 990 | - | PL 17 / PS2 36 = 47% OK |
| East Lindsey | 129% | nan | 90 | 94.4% | 1335 | - | PL 22 / PS2 90 = 24% NOT eligible |
| County Durham | 131% | nan | 123 | 85.4% | 3529 | GB | PL 20 / PS2 123 = 16% NOT eligible |
| Warrington | 134% | nan | 37 | 83.8% | 2035 | GB | PL 31 / PS2 37 = 84% OK |
| Mansfield | 134% | nan | 48 | 93.8% | 795 | - | PL 3 / PS2 48 = 6% NOT eligible |
| Cherwell | 134% | nan | 84 | 70.2% | 2158 | GB | PL: no data |
| Hinckley and Bosworth | 134% | nan | 67 | 76.1% | 1372 | - | PL 16 / PS2 67 = 24% NOT eligible |
| Pendle | 135% | nan | 35 | 77.1% | 397 | GB | PL 9 / PS2 35 = 26% NOT eligible |
| Sefton | 135% | nan | 47 | 87.2% | 1774 | GB | PL 14 / PS2 47 = 30% NOT eligible |
| Huntingdonshire | 136% | nan | 66 | 84.8% | 2473 | - | PL: no data |
| Reading | 136% | nan | 37 | 64.9% | 2145 | - | PL: no data |
| North Lincolnshire | 137% | nan | 58 | 70.7% | 1117 | - | PL: no data |
| Hart | 137% | nan | 21 | 52.4% | 891 | - | PL 7 / PS2 21 = 33% NOT eligible |
| South Gloucestershire | 138% | nan | 72 | 86.1% | 4071 | GB | PL 13 / PS2 72 = 18% NOT eligible |
| Rotherham | 139% | nan | 65 | 92.3% | 1666 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 65 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Harborough | 139% | nan | 47 | 91.5% | 1569 | - | PL: no data |
| Newark and Sherwood | 139% | nan | 49 | 71.4% | 1345 | GB | PL 10 / PS2 49 = 20% NOT eligible |
| West Lindsey | 141% | nan | 60 | 86.7% | 3219 | - | PL: no data |
| North Kesteven | 141% | nan | 37 | 86.5% | 3219 | - | PL 0 / PS2 37 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Milton Keynes | 142% | nan | 75 | 76.0% | 5265 | - | PL: no data |
| Maldon | 143% | nan | 57 | 50.9% | 868 | - | PL 14 / PS2 57 = 25% NOT eligible |
| Breckland | 144% | nan | 58 | 84.5% | 1840 | - | PL: no data |
| Babergh | 147% | nan | 40 | 62.5% | 1232 | - | PL: no data |
| South Cambridgeshire | 148% | nan | 71 | 83.1% | 3031 | GB | PL: no data |
| Stafford | 149% | nan | 31 | 80.6% | 1120 | GB | PL 4 / PS2 31 = 13% NOT eligible |
| Braintree | 150% | nan | 69 | 66.7% | 2153 | - | PL: no data |
| Tendring | 152% | nan | 62 | 69.4% | 1650 | - | PL: no data |
| Stockton-on-Tees | 152% | nan | 36 | 83.3% | 1348 | - | PL: no data |
| Wigan | 153% | nan | 61 | 95.1% | 2431 | GB | PL 10 / PS2 61 = 16% NOT eligible |
| Staffordshire Moorlands | 160% | nan | 26 | 84.6% | 512 | GB | PL 6 / PS2 26 = 23% NOT eligible |
| South Holland | 161% | nan | 72 | 84.7% | 1299 | - | PL 0 / PS2 72 = 0% NOT eligible |
| North Warwickshire | 164% | nan | 22 | 68.2% | 507 | GB | PL: no data |
| Sunderland | 167% | nan | 69 | 100.0% | 1587 | GB | PL 6 / PS2 69 = 9% NOT eligible |
| Chesterfield | 168% | nan | 26 | 92.3% | 655 | GB | PL 6 / PS2 26 = 23% NOT eligible |
| Halton | 170% | nan | 38 | 97.4% | 656 | GB | PL 11 / PS2 38 = 29% NOT eligible |
| South Oxfordshire | 171% | nan | 76 | 76.3% | 1825 | GB | PL: no data |
| Rushcliffe | 172% | nan | 63 | 90.5% | 1826 | GB | PL 14 / PS2 63 = 22% NOT eligible |
| Amber Valley | 173% | nan | 46 | 84.8% | 1091 | GB | PL: no data |
| Winchester | 174% | nan | 30 | 86.7% | 1671 | - | PL 1 / PS2 30 = 3% NOT eligible |
| Rushmoor | 176% | nan | 23 | 91.3% | 813 | - | PL 3 / PS2 23 = 13% NOT eligible |
| Salford | 178% | nan | 68 | 91.2% | 4249 | GB | PL: no data |
| East Staffordshire | 181% | nan | 54 | 96.3% | 1289 | GB | PL: no data |
| North West Leicestershire | 184% | nan | 51 | 92.2% | 1091 | - | PL: no data |
| Rugby | 187% | nan | 35 | 71.4% | 1547 | GB | PL 15 / PS2 35 = 43% OK |
| Melton | 190% | nan | 54 | 90.7% | 608 | - | PL 3 / PS2 54 = 6% NOT eligible |
| Vale of White Horse | 192% | nan | 66 | 77.3% | 1922 | GB | PL: no data |
| South Derbyshire | 195% | nan | 47 | 85.1% | 1565 | GB | PL: no data |
| Stratford-on-Avon | 202% | nan | 50 | 68.0% | 1686 | GB | PL: no data |
| Bolsover | 205% | nan | 25 | 100.0% | 622 | GB | PL 5 / PS2 25 = 20% NOT eligible |
| Wyre Forest | 212% | nan | 27 | 85.2% | 671 | GB | PL: no data |
| Doncaster | 213% | nan | 91 | 85.7% | 1619 | GB | PL 18 / PS2 91 = 20% NOT eligible |
| Cheshire East | 213% | nan | 113 | 79.6% | 3061 | GB | PL 22 / PS2 113 = 19% NOT eligible |
| Tewkesbury | 219% | nan | 61 | 88.5% | 1631 | GB | PL 14 / PS2 61 = 23% NOT eligible |
| Nuneaton and Bedworth | 221% | nan | 50 | 90.0% | 1298 | GB | PL: no data |
| Mid Suffolk | 227% | nan | 64 | 79.7% | 1583 | - | PL: no data |
| Lichfield | 232% | nan | 39 | 64.1% | 937 | GB | PL 4 / PS2 39 = 10% NOT eligible |
| Tameside | 232% | nan | 33 | 87.9% | 708 | GB | PL 0 / PS2 33 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Wyre | 237% | nan | 39 | 94.9% | 858 | GB | PL: no data |
| Cheshire West and Chester | 244% | nan | 64 | 82.8% | 1640 | GB | PL 9 / PS2 64 = 14% NOT eligible |
| North East Lincolnshire | 244% | nan | 50 | 84.0% | 601 | - | PL 11 / PS2 50 = 22% NOT eligible |
| Knowsley | 245% | nan | 33 | 97.0% | 772 | GB | PL 8 / PS2 33 = 24% NOT eligible |
| East Riding of Yorkshire | 257% | nan | 125 | 83.2% | 2555 | - | PL 10 / PS2 125 = 8% NOT eligible |
| Northumberland | 262% | nan | 129 | 76.0% | 1726 | GB | PL: no data |
| North East Derbyshire | 268% | nan | 47 | 89.4% | 698 | GB | PL 3 / PS2 47 = 6% NOT eligible |
| West Lancashire | 279% | nan | 31 | 83.9% | 529 | GB | PL 7 / PS2 31 = 23% NOT eligible |
| Darlington | 285% | nan | 21 | 100.0% | 465 | - | PL 0 / PS2 21 = 0% NOT eligible |
| Telford and Wrekin | 309% | nan | 63 | 95.2% | 1430 | - | PL 25 / PS2 63 = 40% NOT eligible |
| Hartlepool | 339% | nan | 26 | 100.0% | 482 | - | PL 6 / PS2 26 = 23% NOT eligible |
| Bassetlaw | 357% | nan | 59 | 79.7% | 812 | - | PL 8 / PS2 59 = 14% NOT eligible |
| Blackburn with Darwen | 381% | nan | 43 | 97.7% | 426 | GB | PL: no data |
| Preston | 460% | nan | 67 | 97.0% | 803 | GB | PL: no data |
| Burnley | 478% | nan | 21 | 90.5% | 164 | GB | PL: no data |
| Redcar and Cleveland | 841% | nan | 23 | 82.6% | 172 | - | PL 7 / PS2 23 = 30% NOT eligible |

## PlanningLens layer eligibility
- Authorities meeting the ≥40%-of-PS2 rule and readable: 32 of 175 with PlanningLens data; median PL/PS2 ratio 17%


---
# POST-PRE-REGISTRATION EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS — Green Belt interaction (2 Sep 2026, ~19:40)
**Not pre-registered.** Motivated by the pre-registered Green Belt sensitivity (cut 4b). England excluding London throughout. Seed 20260902, 2,000 resamples.

## E1. Green Belt ≥25% vs <25% of land area, at both decision floors
| Floor | Group | n | Spearman rho [95% CI] | <75 median [CI] | >=95 median [CI] | gap <75 minus >=95 [CI] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| >=20 | GB >=25% | 84 | +0.449 [+0.253, +0.615] | 70.8 [66.7, 82.8] (n=27) | 85.0 [83.1, 87.1] (n=46) | -14.2 [-18.7, -2.2] |
| >=20 | GB <25% | 145 | +0.130 [-0.022, +0.284] | 83.7 [76.5, 86.7] (n=35) | 83.2 [79.7, 85.1] (n=79) | +0.5 [-6.7, +4.4] |
| >=40 | GB >=25% | 45 | +0.466 [+0.165, +0.689] | 70.3 [64.1, 86.0] (n=10) | 84.8 [81.8, 89.4] (n=25) | -14.5 [-21.9, +1.0] |
| >=40 | GB <25% | 93 | +0.103 [-0.103, +0.305] | 83.7 [76.3, 86.0] (n=20) | 81.9 [77.3, 84.6] (n=56) | +1.8 [-5.9, +6.9] |

## E2. Threshold sweep — is 25% doing special work? (floor >=20)
| GB share threshold | heavy n | heavy rho [CI] | light n | light rho [CI] | difference in rho |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| >=10% | 107 | +0.308 [+0.115, +0.488] | 122 | +0.191 [+0.013, +0.349] | +0.117 |
| >=15% | 96 | +0.393 [+0.198, +0.561] | 133 | +0.136 [-0.037, +0.308] | +0.257 |
| >=20% | 91 | +0.393 [+0.194, +0.556] | 138 | +0.139 [-0.023, +0.310] | +0.254 |
| >=25% | 84 | +0.449 [+0.248, +0.621] | 145 | +0.130 [-0.035, +0.286] | +0.319 |
| >=30% | 81 | +0.431 [+0.227, +0.600] | 148 | +0.154 [-0.006, +0.311] | +0.278 |
| >=40% | 64 | +0.401 [+0.151, +0.614] | 165 | +0.189 [+0.039, +0.327] | +0.212 |
| >=50% | 48 | +0.463 [+0.178, +0.668] | 181 | +0.186 [+0.038, +0.326] | +0.277 |

## E3. Permutation test — does the HDT–approval association differ between GB >=25% and <25%? (floor >=20)
- floor >=20: observed rho(heavy) − rho(light) = **+0.319**; two-sided permutation p = **0.0112** (5000 label shuffles, group sizes held fixed)
- floor >=40: observed rho(heavy) − rho(light) = **+0.363**; two-sided permutation p = **0.0458** (5000 label shuffles, group sizes held fixed)

## E4. Continuous moderator — rank regression: rank(approval) ~ rank(HDT) + rank(GB share) + rank(HDT)×rank(GB share)  (floor >=20, ex-London)
- n = 229. Coefficients (ranks scaled 0–1): HDT +0.055 (t=+0.40), GB share -0.166 (t=-1.30), **HDT × GB share +0.364 (t=+1.55), bootstrap 95% CI [-0.109, +0.816]**
- Reading: a positive interaction means the HDT–approval slope rises with Green Belt share. Implied slope of rank(approval) on rank(HDT): at GB share rank 0 → +0.055; at rank 0.5 → +0.237; at rank 1 → +0.419.

## E5. Diagnostic — PS2 vs PlanningLens approval gap across scheme-layer-eligible authorities (diagnostic only, not a correction)
- 32 authorities pass the ≥40%-recall rule (all England). PS2 approval minus PlanningLens (RM/s73-free) approval: median +2.5 pp, IQR -1.0 to +8.3.
- Spearman rho of the gap with HDT %: -0.107 (n=32); with Green Belt share: -0.119. Median gap, GB >=25%: +3.2 pp (n=13); GB <25%: +1.8 pp (n=19).
- Both measures are imperfect (PlanningLens recall in these authorities is 40–68%), so this shows only that the RM/s73 inflation is not *obviously* patterned by HDT or Green Belt in the authorities where it can be observed. It does not establish uniformity.