📘 Disclaimer: This document is a conceptual proposal prepared for consideration by East Hampshire District Council (EHDC). It does not represent current policy but outlines an optional framework that EHDC could choose to adopt, pilot, or develop further. It has been designed to be implementable in its current form or used as a foundation for future formal guidance or policy inclusion.
| Component | Raised affordable housing expectations on tilted balance sites |
| What It Delivers | Makes out-of-policy approvals work harder for community benefit. |
| Function | Ensure these out-of-policy approvals give back more unless viability proves otherwise. |
| Legal Basis | Local Policy + S106 |
| Completion Criteria | Case officers request above-minimum affordable housing percentages unless viability evidence proves otherwise. |
| How to Implement | Insert conditionally higher minimums. |
| Timeline | Immediate |
| Owner | Planning Officers / Housing Officers |
🧩 Component 6: Raised Affordable Housing Expectations on Tilted Balance Sites — What It Actually Means
This component ensures that when planning permission is granted outside the Local Plan — typically under Paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), known as the tilted balance — the developer must provide greater public benefit, especially in the form of affordable housing.
⚖️ What Is the Tilted Balance?
The tilted balance applies when a local authority lacks a five-year housing land supply or its Local Plan is considered out of date.
Under NPPF Paragraph 11(d):
Permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
📌 This means:
- Councils must approve most developments unless they can prove significant harm.
- It shifts power toward developers, making it harder to refuse out-of-policy schemes.
This makes it essential to set higher expectations when granting these exceptions.
🏘️ What This Component Does
- Sets a policy or practice expectation that tilted balance approvals must exceed the standard minimum requirement for affordable housing, unless viability testing proves otherwise.
- Signals to developers that “policy deviation = higher public obligations.”
- Creates a negotiating baseline for planning officers to push for additional affordable units — e.g. 50% instead of 40% — on out-of-policy sites.
- Requires developers to accept lower profit margins, enforced through open-book viability assessments, to reflect the exceptional planning benefit they are receiving (i.e. being approved despite policy conflict).
⚙️ How It Works in Practice
- Use S106 Agreements (legal contracts tied to planning permissions) to set specific targets.
- Embed expectations in:
- Internal case officer guidance,
- Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs),
- Committee resolution templates for tilted balance cases.
- Require developers to:
- Declare projected profit margins, and
- Prove via open-book accounting that they can’t meet the higher targets.
🧠 Why This Is Strategic and Necessary
- Approvals outside the Local Plan are exceptions — not entitlements.
- These approvals should:
- Deliver more affordable housing,
- Justify profit levels, and
- Offset the harm of breaching planning policy.
This tool restores balance to a system that otherwise benefits speculative developers — and ensures communities receive maximum value when policy protections are relaxed.
✅ Legal and Policy Basis
- Local Plan policies: May include discretion to increase obligations where developments are out of policy.
- NPPF Paragraph 58: Viability testing is only required when developers contest policy obligations.
- S106 Agreements: Can legally enforce affordable housing percentages and delivery phasing.
- PPG on Viability (Planning Practice Guidance): Requires open-book, transparent viability assessments.