NPPF paragraph 11(d) and the tilted balance — superseded on 17 August 2026
Paragraph 11(d) was revoked on 17 August 2026 and replaced by the permanent presumption at policies S3, S4 and S5. This article records the position before that date and explains what replaced it.
This article describes a framework that was replaced on 17 August 2026.
A new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026 — the first comprehensive rewrite since 2012. It revoked paragraph 11, and the "tilted balance" described below no longer exists. In its place is a permanent presumption in favour of sustainable development at policies S3, S4 and S5: policy S3 routes the decision on whether the site is inside or outside a defined settlement, S4 applies within settlements, and S5 outside them.
A five-year housing land supply shortfall no longer tips any balance. It now bears on a decision through one route only — policy S5(1)(j), evidenced unmet need — which is available only for housing outside a settlement.
The article is kept below as a record of the position before that date. Do not rely on it for a live application. Read the current Framework on GOV.UK.
The "tilted balance" was one of the most powerful tools available in a residential planning application — and one of the most misunderstood. This guide explained what it was, when it applied, and how to use it in a Design & Access Statement or planning statement. It describes the position up to 17 August 2026.
What is the tilted balance?
The tilted balance is the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2023). When it applies, the normal approach to decision-making is tilted in favour of granting permission. Instead of asking whether the proposal complies with the development plan, the question becomes whether the adverse impacts of the proposal "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" the benefits.
This is a fundamentally different — and more favourable — test for applicants. Under the normal development plan-led approach (§11(c)), a proposal can be refused if it does not comply with relevant policies. Under the tilted balance, refusal requires the LPA to demonstrate that harms significantly and demonstrably outweigh benefits. This is a high bar to clear, particularly for housing proposals in areas of acknowledged housing need.
When does the tilted balance apply?
Paragraph 11(d) applies in two main circumstances:
- The LPA cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply (5YHLS) — where the council lacks sufficient identified housing sites to meet its housing requirement for the next five years
- The Housing Delivery Test result is below 75% — where the council has delivered fewer than 75% of the homes required over the previous three years
In both cases, relevant policies for the supply of housing are deemed out of date, and the tilted balance is engaged. There is also a third trigger — where the LPA's development plan is more than five years old and contains no relevant housing supply policies — though this is less commonly encountered in practice.
The tilted balance does not apply where the development would be in a location protected under §15 (natural environment) or §16 (heritage) of the NPPF, or where specific policies in §14 indicate development should be restricted. This includes Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Special Areas of Conservation, and sites of special scientific interest. Even where the tilted balance is engaged, these protections remain in force.
The Housing Delivery Test
The Housing Delivery Test (HDT) is published annually by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), typically in December. It measures the number of homes delivered in each local planning authority area over the previous three years as a percentage of the housing requirement over that period.
| HDT result | Consequence |
|---|---|
| Below 95% | LPA must prepare an action plan |
| Below 85% | 20% buffer applied to 5YHLS calculation |
| Below 75% | Tilted balance engaged — presumption in favour applies |
The HDT results for all English LPAs are publicly available on the Planning Practice Guidance website. Architects and planning consultants should check the latest results before preparing a statement for any residential application.
Current position in Buildwise-supported councils
The five councils currently supported by Buildwise all have the tilted balance engaged. The HDT 2023 results (published December 2024) show:
| Council | HDT result | Tilted balance |
|---|---|---|
| Rother District Council | 43% | Yes |
| Eastbourne Borough Council | 28% | Yes |
| Wealden District Council | 80% | Yes |
| Hastings Borough Council | <75% | Yes |
| Lewes District Council | 89% | Likely |
Eastbourne is one of the worst-performing councils nationally at 28%, making the tilted balance particularly powerful for residential applications in that area.
How to use the tilted balance in your statement
Where the tilted balance applies, it should be explicitly engaged in the planning policy section of the DAS or planning statement. The argument should:
- Establish the trigger — confirm that the LPA cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and/or that the HDT result is below 75%, citing the relevant published evidence
- Invoke §11(d) — state that relevant housing supply policies are out of date and that paragraph 11(d) applies
- Set out the benefits clearly — housing delivery, economic activity during construction, contributions to local facilities, any affordable housing provision
- Address potential harms — identify any harms and explain why they do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits
- Conclude assertively — state that planning permission should be granted in accordance with the presumption in §11(d)
Where a proposal could be achieved — in whole or in part — under permitted development rights, this weakens the grounds for refusal. Courts have established that where an LPA could not prevent a development from proceeding under PD rights, it is difficult to justify refusing planning permission for a scheme that goes only modestly further. This argument is particularly effective for larger home extensions that fall just outside PD limits.
Buildwise and the presumption — updated 18 August 2026
This section describes what Buildwise does now, not what the article above describes. Buildwise was updated to the new Framework on 18 August 2026, the day after publication. It no longer cites paragraph 11(d) anywhere. Instead it establishes whether your site lies inside or outside a defined settlement boundary, applies policy S4 or policy S5 accordingly, and raises a housing land supply shortfall only where policy S5(1)(j) genuinely opens it — outside a settlement, on a scheme providing housing, at a council that cannot demonstrate its supply. Where the settlement position has not been established, the statement says so rather than assuming it.
Eight of the nine councils Buildwise supports still cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply — but under the new Framework that no longer makes the argument automatic. It now depends on your own site, not only on your council.
Been refused? Find out which argument is open to you now
The framework changed on 17 August 2026, so the argument that helps you depends on something different from what it did last week: whether your site sits inside or outside a defined settlement boundary. Inside, policy S4 presumes in favour of approving development. Outside, policy S5 allows only a closed list of development types — and in the Green Belt neither applies, which is where most self-run appeals come unstuck. The free Route Check reads your refusal, weighs it against the council's own adopted policies, and tells you whether an appeal or a fresh application is the better route. If the case is a losing fight, it says so.
Check your route — free →