⚖️ Quota-Based Fairness Control Mechanism
To ensure that development pressure during tilted balance periods is distributed fairly across East Hampshire, a quota-based control system can be introduced. This mechanism sets a soft limit on the number of tilted balance units permitted in each parish or settlement annually, based on population size and service capacity.
📐 Illustrative Method for Calculating Local Quotas
- Determine total population of East Hampshire (e.g. 130,000 people).
- Determine total number of dwellings that can be supported under tilted balance for the year. This should reflect the calculated shortfall in the 5-Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS), adjusted by likely delivery over the next 12 months, and any development already granted under tilted balance in the current year. As of April 2024, EHDC has reported a shortfall of 2,036 dwellings, reflecting only a 2.7-year housing land supply. If 500 dwellings are already committed or expected to be delivered within the next 12 months, the remaining shortfall of approximately 1,536 dwellings could guide the annual tilted balance quota. This figure would be adjusted annually to reflect delivery and plan progress.
- Each parish’s share of the quota = (Parish population ÷ District population) × District tilted balance allocation.
For example, if a village has 1,300 residents (1% of the district), its tilted balance quota would be 5 homes per year. Larger towns with 10,000 residents could support ~38 units. This approach ensures that no single area is disproportionately burdened by speculative development simply because of short-term planning vulnerabilities elsewhere.
📊 Sample Quota Table (based on a 500-unit district-wide annual tilted balance cap)
Settlement Population % of District Annual Quota Medstead 3,016 ~2.32% 12 homes Four Marks 4,000 ~3.08% 15 homes Alton 17,800 ~13.7% 69 homes Liphook 8,600 ~6.62% 33 homes Whitehill & Bordon 14,000 ~10.77% 54 homes Village A (1,000) 1,000 ~0.77% 4 homes
To ensure that development pressure during tilted balance periods is distributed fairly across East Hampshire, a quota-based control system can be introduced. This mechanism sets a soft limit on the number of tilted balance units permitted in each parish or settlement annually, based on population size and service capacity.
| Category | Scoring Range | Example Criteria |
| Exceeded Local Tilted Balance Quota | -17 or 0 | -17 if the settlement has already reached its fair-share quota of tilted balance units (determined proportionally by population and infrastructure capacity). This quota should be recalculated each year based on EHDC’s published housing land supply shortfall — e.g., 2,036 dwellings in 2024 — adjusted for committed permissions and realistic delivery expectations. Approvals beyond this quota unfairly burden one area and undermine trust in the planning system. Score 0 if the quota has not yet been met elsewhere in the district. |
This ensures development is distributed equitably across the district and prevents overloading smaller settlements while others remain underutilised. It aligns with public interest and planning fairness by ensuring every area contributes proportionally and no community carries a disproportionate burden.
✅ Why It Is Legally Defensible🛡️ Legal Risk and Defensibility
- The tilted balance exists to ensure that housing needs are met in the public interest by maintaining a continuous supply of deliverable land. However, when developers withhold deliverable land already allocated in the Local Plan while seeking additional permissions under tilted balance, this behavior undermines the very purpose of the policy.
- The introduction of a land-banking deterrent mechanism and fair-share quotas does not constitute discrimination by location. Instead, it ensures that speculative gains do not come at the expense of already planned and deliverable housing — protecting the public interest and housing system integrity. This framework is designed to be legally robust and consistent with EHDC’s statutory obligations and planning discretion under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
- The scoring matrix is not a policy change, but a decision-support tool that helps apply existing principles (especially NPPF Paragraph 11(d)) in a transparent and evidence-based way.
- It improves fairness, consistency, and accountability, especially by providing justifiable grounds for refusal where cumulative harm demonstrably outweighs benefits.
- The framework allows for flexibility — officers and committees may override scores where there is clear public interest or unique site justification.
Developer objections are unlikely to succeed unless EHDC applies the system inconsistently. By maintaining transparency, using public data, and applying scores proportionately, EHDC reduces the risk of successful legal challenge.
⚠️ Possible Developer Objections
Developers might claim:
- “We are being unfairly excluded due to location.”
- “The quota isn’t in the Local Plan.”
But these claims are very weak, because:
- EHDC isn’t refusing based on location, but on measurable cumulative harm.
- The scoring matrix is not a rule — it’s a transparent tool for applying planning balance more consistently.
🔐 Summary: Legal Safety of the Quota System
| Risk Area | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Breach of Policy | ❌ No — it’s guidance, not statutory policy |
| Unlawful Discrimination | ❌ No — quotas are population-based and fair |
| Violation of NPPF | ❌ No — aligns with Para 11(d): weighing harm |
| Judicial Review vulnerability | ⚠️ Low — as long as consistently applied and reasoned |
