What Is the Tilted Balance?
Under Paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF:
Where the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, permission should be granted unless:
- The adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
This is known as the tilted balance.
How Does Consultation Weight Play Into It?
- Statutory objections (e.g., flood risk, highway danger, heritage harm) can tip the balance against approval, even when tilted balance applies.
- The stronger the evidence of harm raised by consultees, the more likely that “adverse impacts” will be considered significant and demonstrable.
Example:
If National Highways objects due to safety concerns, and the LPA has no robust evidence to counter that, approving the scheme could expose the council to legal risk (and possibly Judicial Review).
Relevant Legal and Policy References
- Planning Practice Guidance (PPG): [ID: 20-018-20140306] confirms decision-makers must take account of consultee responses and give appropriate weight.
- Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] UKSC 37: affirms that “planning judgment” is for the decision-maker but must be rational and evidence-led.
- NPPF Paragraph 11(d): requires that significant and demonstrable harm must be found to outweigh benefits—not just minor or generic concerns.
Summary: Weighting Principles
| Type of Response | Weight in Decision | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Statutory Consultee (e.g. EA) | High – must be clearly addressed | Can tip the balance against approval |
| Non-Statutory Consultee | Moderate – depends on issue and evidence | Limited if not material |
| Public Objections (Material) | Moderate to High (if well-argued and evidence-based) | Must raise legitimate planning issues |
| Public Objections (Non-material) | None | Examples: devaluation of property, competition |
How to Challenge the Weighting
If you are seeking to challenge a decision (e.g. via complaint or Judicial Review), examine:
- Whether statutory consultee objections were downplayed or ignored.
- Whether public or expert input was mischaracterised or selectively quoted.
- Whether tilted balance was applied without proper weighing of “significant and demonstrable” harm.