The landscape of planning in England is a complex tapestry, woven with threads of local autonomy, national policy, and the ever-pressing need for housing. At the heart of this intricate system lies the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), a document that strives to balance competing interests while ensuring sustainable development. Within its pages, a concept known as the “tilted balance” wields significant influence, particularly in the context of housing land supply. Today, we delve into this crucial principle, exploring its implications and illustrating its impact with a real-world example from a planning appeal decision.

The Presumption: A Foundation for Development

The NPPF’s cornerstone is the “presumption in favour of sustainable development.” This powerful principle dictates that planning applications should be approved unless there are compelling reasons to refuse them. It’s a proactive stance, designed to facilitate growth and address the nation’s evolving needs. However, this presumption is not absolute. It’s a balancing act, where the benefits of development are weighed against potential harms.

Paragraph 11: The Tipping Point

The “tilted balance” emerges from Paragraph 11 of the NPPF, a section that amplifies the presumption in specific circumstances. Crucially, it comes into play when a local planning authority (LPA) fails to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites (5YHLS). This deficiency triggers a significant shift in the planning scales.

When an LPA cannot substantiate its 5YHLS, relevant development plan policies concerning housing supply are deemed “out-of-date.” This declaration has profound consequences. It means that the LPA’s ability to rely on these policies to resist housing development is significantly weakened.

In such scenarios, the “tilted balance” activates, effectively placing a greater emphasis on granting planning permission. The NPPF dictates that approval should be granted unless:

• Policies in the NPPF that protect areas of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusal.
• The adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against¹ the NPPF as a whole.

Essentially, the absence of a robust 5YHLS creates a presumption in Favor of housing development, forcing LPAs to justify refusals with exceptionally strong evidence.

The 5-Year Housing Land Supply: A Critical Metric

The 5YHLS is a vital tool for ensuring that local areas are planning for sufficient housing to meet their needs. Its calculation is a complex process, involving several key steps:

• Determining Housing Need: This involves establishing the area’s housing requirements over the next five years. It often draws on government-set targets, demographic projections, and local assessments of housing demand.
• Identifying Deliverable Sites: This step focuses on identifying land that is realistically expected to be developed for housing within the five-year period. “Deliverable” means that the sites are available, suitable, and economically viable for development.
• Calculating Housing Capacity: Once deliverable sites are identified, the LPA calculates the number of homes that can be built on them.
• Applying a Buffer: To account for potential delays and unforeseen circumstances, a buffer is added to the calculated housing supply. The size of this buffer can vary based on the LPA’s past performance in delivering housing.

The 5YHLS is a crucial indicator of an LPA’s ability to meet its housing obligations. A failure to maintain a sufficient supply can have far-reaching implications for planning decisions.

Real-World Impact: An Appeal Decision Example

To illustrate the practical implications of the “tilted balance,” let’s examine a hypothetical, but representative, example of an inspector’s reasoning in a planning appeal decision.

Hypothetical Appeal Scenario:

A developer submitted an application for a residential development on a site outside a designated settlement boundary. The LPA refused the application, citing conflict with local plan policies that sought to protect the countryside from encroachment. The developer appealed the decision, arguing that the LPA could not demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land.

Inspector’s Reasoning:

“In this case, the appellant has successfully demonstrated that the local planning authority cannot provide evidence of a robust five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. This deficiency triggers the application of Paragraph 11 of the NPPF, which establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The local planning authority has relied on policies within its development plan to resist this application, arguing that the proposed development would result in unacceptable encroachment into the countryside. However, given the authority’s lack of a five-year housing land supply, these policies relating to housing supply are considered out-of-date.

Therefore, the ‘tilted balance’ comes into effect. I must assess whether the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against² the NPPF as a whole.

The proposal would provide a number of market and affordable homes, contributing to the area’s housing needs. While there would be some impact on the character of the countryside, the harm would not be so significant as to outweigh the benefits of providing much needed housing. The councils lack of 5-year housing land supply, weakens their position significantly, and places more weight upon the need for housing.

Furthermore, the site is located in reasonable proximity to existing services and facilities, making it a sustainable location for development.

In conclusion, given the local planning authority’s lack of a five-year housing land supply, and the absence of any overriding adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, the appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted.”

Key Takeaways from the Example:

• The inspector explicitly acknowledged the LPA’s failure to demonstrate a 5YHLS.
• This deficiency led to the application of the “tilted balance.”
• The inspector weighed the benefits of housing delivery against the potential harms.
• The lack of 5YHLS significantly weakened the LPA’s reliance on its development plan policies.
• The inspector found that the harms were not significant enough to outweigh the benefits of providing housing.

The Evolving Landscape: Recent NPPF Changes

It’s crucial to remain abreast of updates to the NPPF, as changes can significantly impact planning decisions. Recent revisions have reinforced the importance of maintaining a five-year housing land supply. There are also ongoing changes to the definitions of green belt land, and the introduction of discussions around “grey belt” land, which will also affect the way that planning decisions are made.

Conclusion: Balancing Needs and Policies

The “tilted balance” is a powerful mechanism within the NPPF that prioritizes housing delivery, particularly in areas where councils are failing to meet their housing obligations. It serves as a reminder that planning is a dynamic process, one that must adapt to changing needs and circumstances. While local plans play a vital role in shaping development, they must be underpinned by a commitment to meeting the housing needs of present and future generations. The inspector example shows how the lack of a 5-year housing land supply can cause a council to lose a planning appeal.