planning-balance-nppf-2024-12listed

# Planning balance — the "so-what" test A planning decision is not the sum of technical defects. This skill runs **last**, after the grounds have been assembled and evidenced, and answers the question every strong representation must survive: > Even if these harms and deficiencies exist, are they sufficient — under the tests that > actually govern this application — to justify refusal? The objector is not the decision-maker. What this skill does is **anticipate the balance the case officer must strike**, so the representation asks for the outcome the balance can actually support — which is what makes it liftable into the officer report rather than filed as noise. ## When to use - As the **final step** of the chain: `application-triage` has ranked the grounds, the representation skills have evidenced them, and each point carries its A/B/C classification. Run this before anything is drafted into a final ask. - Directly, when the user asks: "would this actually be refused?", "is our case strong enough?", "should we push for refusal or for conditions?" ## What you need first - The **evidenced grounds**, each classified **(A)** demonstrated unacceptable impact / **(B)** insufficient evidence / **(C)** conditionable (the representation skills produce this), and the **development-plan policies** each ground conflicts with. - The **policy compliance assessment** from the companion **policy-compliance-assessment** skill, where it has run — the plan register, the pol