| Phase 1 |
| 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The tilted balance applies when a local authority lacks a five-year housing land supply or its Local Plan is considered out of date.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.
