Appeals where there is no five year housing land supply

Where a local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, the policies most important for determining a housing application are treated as out of date, and the National Planning Policy Framework's presumption in favour of sustainable development engages. Permission should then be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, assessed against the Framework as a whole. That is the tilted balance, and it is the reason a scheme refused on a policy conflict can succeed on appeal with the same drawings.

It is also narrower than appellants often argue. The tilted balance changes the weight of the development plan's housing supply policies. It does not switch off the plan, it does not remove the statutory duty to determine in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and it leaves a defined group of policies and statutory duties untouched.

How the supply position changes the balance

Two triggers are relevant to housing appeals. The first is the absence of a demonstrable five year supply of deliverable sites, measured against the housing requirement with a buffer whose size depends on past delivery. The second is a result below the threshold in the annual Housing Delivery Test measurement published by government.

Either trigger produces the same effect on the balance. The practical difference is evidential: the Delivery Test result is published centrally and is not seriously arguable, while the five year supply position is calculated by the authority and is argued at almost every inquiry.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 still applies. The decision is taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and the Framework is a material consideration rather than a substitute plan. Inspectors structure decisions that way, so an appeal statement that leads with the tilted balance and never addresses the plan is answering the wrong question.

Evidencing the shortfall

The documents are public and the work is arithmetic.

1. The authority's most recent five year housing land supply statement or Authority Monitoring Report, with its base date.
2. The housing requirement it has applied, and whether that comes from the adopted plan or from the standard method.
3. The buffer applied, and the justification for its size.
4. The trajectory site by site, with the delivery assumptions for each.
5. The latest Housing Delivery Test measurement for the authority.

The base date matters more than anything else on that list. A supply statement with a base date eighteen months old describes a position that has moved, and permissions granted since then, sites that have lapsed, and allocations that have stalled all change the figure. Ask for the current position in writing before the appeal is submitted.

Disputing the authority's figures

Supply disputes are won on deliverability, site by site, rather than on methodology. The Framework's definition of deliverable sets out what has to be shown for a site to count, and the burden of demonstrating it sits with the authority.

The categories that most often fall away are these. Large sites with outline permission but no reserved matters application and no developer. Allocations with no permission, no promoter and no evidence of a route to delivery. Sites with a known constraint not yet resolved, such as an access requiring third party land, a nutrient neutrality or water neutrality requirement with no credit source, or a contamination problem with no remediation strategy. Sites counted at a density the site cannot accommodate. And sites where the annual build rate assumed is higher than the developer's own published programme.

Build the challenge as a schedule: site, assumed completions by year, the evidence the authority relies on, and the reason you say the assumption is unsupported. Then give the revised supply figure with the challenged sites removed, and a second figure with only the strongest challenges removed, so the inspector can see the position on either view. A single aggressive number invites rejection of the whole exercise.

What the tilted balance does not do

Three limits, and they decide most appeals that fail despite an agreed shortfall.

It does not make housing benefit decisive. The benefits still have to be weighed, and a scheme delivering a handful of units in an unsustainable location carries modest benefit against which a modest harm can still prevail.

It does not disapply the statutory duties. The duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting, and the duty to pay special attention to the character and appearance of a conservation area, are statutory and are not weakened by the housing position. Nor is the Framework's requirement that great weight be given to the asset's conservation.

And it does not displace the policies for designated areas and assets. The Framework carries a list of them, covering habitats sites, sites of special scientific interest, Green Belt, Local Green Space, National Landscapes and National Parks, irreplaceable habitats, designated heritage assets and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change. Where one of those provides a clear reason for refusal, the tilted balance does not arise at all in the way an appellant would like.

Policies that still carry full weight

Housing supply policies lose weight. Other policies do not automatically follow them down.

Design policies, amenity standards, highway safety policies, heritage policies and flood risk policies continue to apply, and an inspector will say so. The argument that the whole plan is out of date because the supply is short is made at most inquiries and rarely accepted. What does happen is that a settlement boundary policy, or a policy restricting development outside defined limits, attracts reduced weight because in substance it is a housing supply policy.

So the useful analysis in an appeal statement is policy by policy: which policies are housing supply policies in effect, which are not, and what weight each should carry. That is more persuasive than a blanket assertion, and it matches how decisions are written. The same discipline applies to answering the reasons for refusal one at a time, as our note on reading a refusal notice and turning it into a plan sets out.

Landscape and heritage as counterweights

The two harms that most often outweigh housing benefit in a shortfall appeal are landscape and heritage, and they behave differently.

Landscape harm is a matter of planning judgement, assessed through a landscape and visual impact appraisal, and it is capable of being outweighed by housing need where the harm is localised and the site is not designated. The evidence that wins is a competent assessment that acknowledges harm rather than denying it, with a mitigation and landscape strategy that addresses the specific effects.

Heritage harm runs through a different gate. Once harm to a designated asset is found, the Framework requires clear and convincing justification and a balancing exercise in which great weight attaches to conservation, and the statutory duties sit alongside it. A finding of even less than substantial harm therefore does more work against an appellant than an equivalent landscape finding.

Presenting the balance to an inspector

Write the balance as a list, not as prose. Benefits with the weight you attribute to each and the reason. Harms with the same treatment. Then the conclusion on whether the adverse impacts outweigh the benefits on the Framework's test.

Be explicit about the Framework edition you are citing. The December 2024 edition used numbered paragraphs, and the edition published on 17 August 2026 is organised by policy codes instead, so cite the current code and state the edition rather than reproducing a paragraph number from an older document or from a report template.

One honest point to include rather than conceal: say what the supply position would be on the authority's own case, and explain why the appeal should still succeed on that basis if it can. Inspectors notice when an appellant's case depends entirely on winning the supply argument. A Planning Statement structured around that double case is harder to refuse. Objectors engaging with the same appeal have their own route in, described in what objectors can do once an appeal starts.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope drafts planning statements structured to UK planning policy with citations to national policy and the adopted plan, and flags where site evidence is missing. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval. Browse the 66 report types to scope an appeal evidence base.