Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] EWCA Civ 104
Gladman tilted balance is a leading Court of Appeal authority on how the National Planning Policy Framework’s tilted balance fits with the statutory plan-led system.
The court rejected the argument that development-plan policies become irrelevant once the tilted balance is engaged. Their conflict, relevance and weight can still form part of the overall planning judgment.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2021] EWCA Civ 104
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 3rd February 2021
- Judge
- Sir Keith Lindblom, Senior President of Tribunals, Lady Justice Simler and Sir Gary Hickinbottom
- Case number
- C1/2020/0542/QBACF
What Gladman decided
The appeal concerned two housing schemes where the tilted balance in what was then paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the NPPF was engaged.
Gladman argued that once the tilted balance applied, policies in the development plan which were out of date or relevant to the housing shortfall had to be left out of the balancing exercise.
The Court of Appeal dismissed that approach.
The development plan does not disappear
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 remains the statutory starting point. National policy does not replace that legal framework.
The decision-maker can therefore identify conflict with development-plan policies, assess the weight those policies deserve and take that conflict into the tilted balance.
A policy may carry reduced weight because it is out of date or because its application would frustrate the supply of housing, but that is a question of planning judgment rather than automatic exclusion.
There is no mandatory two-stage sequence
The court also rejected the suggestion that the decision-maker must first conduct the tilted balance and only afterwards carry out a separate section 38(6) exercise.
Those matters can be organised in more than one lawful way. A decision-maker may use distinct stages or a single holistic balance, provided the statutory duty and relevant national policy are both understood and applied.
Weight is different from relevance
A development-plan policy does not become legally irrelevant simply because the tilted balance is engaged. The real question is what weight should be given to it in the circumstances.
That distinction remains central to Planning Geek’s guide to the tilted balance and our explanation of material considerations.
Why Gladman still matters
The wording and paragraph numbering of the NPPF have changed since 2021, but the legal relationship between national policy and the statutory development plan remains important.
Gladman is therefore best used for its structural point: national policy affects the planning balance and the weight of policies, but it does not rewrite section 38(6).
Read the full Gladman judgment
The full Court of Appeal judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Gladman Tilted Balance Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026