📘 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.
This component prepares EHDC to introduce an enabling clause stating that land allocated in the Local Plan but not brought forward within a reasonable period (e.g. 5 years) may be deallocated. This clause sets expectations now—even though formal deallocation requires a Local Plan review later.
Component
Allocation & Deallocation Enabling Clause
What It Delivers
Gives EHDC leverage over land that is allocated but not delivered.
Function
Sets expectations that allocation is conditional on timely progress and public benefit.
Legal Basis
Forward policy drafting under NPPF paragraph 22 and Local Plan review powers.
Completion Criteria
Language adopted in EHDC internal policy and planning guidance.
How to Implement
Add enabling clause to Local Plan review documents and Strategic Land Allocation policy framework.
📘 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.
This component directs EHDC to begin compiling an internal register of land allocated or suitable for development, alongside ownership or control status (e.g. via options). Though non-statutory in Phase 1, this registry supports enforcement, monitoring, and future public transparency initiatives.
Component
Internal Land Registry and Monitoring
What It Delivers
Enables EHDC to track delivery progress and detect stalling or speculative behaviour.
Function
Monitors who controls land, how long it has remained undeveloped, and whether it aligns with Local Plan delivery goals.
📘 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.
This component introduces a transparency declaration for any party submitting a major development application in East Hampshire. It requires disclosure of all land options, ownership, or control agreements within the district. The purpose is to shine a light on speculative land control and support EHDC in understanding cumulative developer influence. This can be implemented as part of the validation or assessment process—no Local Plan amendment required.
Component
Transparency Declaration for Major Developers
What It Delivers
Increases transparency; reveals land concentration and speculative behaviour.
Function
Enables EHDC to assess the full scale of developer influence and anticipate delivery risks.
Legal Basis
Planning application validation and discretionary planning policy under NPPF paragraphs 39–41.
Completion Criteria
Declaration form required as part of validation for major residential applications.
How to Implement
Introduce as internal planning protocol; include in application guidance.
It’s fair and quite widely accepted to argue that developers in the UK hold substantial control over the amount, quality, and location of what gets built, even if not absolute. Let’s break that down:
Amount:
Land banking is a well-documented practice where developers hold onto land with planning permission without building — thereby restricting housing supply while values rise.
Planning approvals do not guarantee delivery — local councils often approve far more homes than are actually built, because delivery is in the hands of private developers.
This leads to the situation where the planning system gets blamed for delays, but the bottleneck is frequently developer-led.
Location:
Developers often choose sites with the highest profit margin, which may not align with sustainable planning or local housing needs.
Strategic land acquisitions (especially outside Local Plans) enable them to pressure councils through appeals, especially where the 5-year land supply is in question.
They can target areas with weaker planning resistance or underfunded local councils, using their legal resources to tip decisions in their favour.
Quality:
Build quality in mass developments is often criticised — due to cost-cutting, minimal compliance, and limited oversight.
Even when councils attach conditions, enforcement can be weak. Developers may negotiate away affordable housing or quality conditions post-permission using “viability” assessments.
There’s little incentive to build for long-term quality since many homes are sold on quickly and warranties are short-term.
Why this is an issue:
The current UK system relies on private-sector delivery of public goods (housing) without firm enough levers to enforce standards or timelines.
Local authorities have no power to compel building on approved sites, nor to demand development exactly where it’s needed most.
Planning policy is reactive, while developer strategy is proactive and commercially driven.
Why this is an issue:
The current UK system relies on private-sector delivery of public goods (housing) without firm enough levers to enforce standards or timelines.
Local authorities have no power to compel building on approved sites, nor to demand development exactly where it’s needed most.
Planning policy is reactive, while developer strategy is proactive and commercially driven.
So, yes:
While the state sets the rules, developers — through financial leverage, legal tactics, and control over land — can significantly shape what gets built, where, and when.
Immediate Remedies: Could Profit Caps & Delivery Penalties Work?
1. Attach Profit Cap Conditions to Planning Permission
What it means: When a developer applies for permission, a maximum allowable profit margin (e.g. 15–20%) is agreed upfront — above which windfall profits are recaptured by the local authority (through mechanisms like overage clauses or taxation).
Why it matters:
Reduces speculative land-flipping
Incentivises real development, not just planning permission hoarding
Brings land values down to more realistic levels (since developers can’t chase inflated margins)
In effect, this makes planning permission less of a “get-rich card” and more of a tool for actually building homes.
2. Introduce Penalties for Delayed Build-Out
What it means: Developers are given a strict timetable — e.g. 12 months to start, 3–5 years to complete. Failure to deliver = financial penalties, clawback of permission, or restrictions on future bids.
Why it matters:
Forces developers to build, not just bank land
Prevents artificial scarcity that keeps prices high
Helps councils plan infrastructure, school places, etc.
It realigns delivery with public need, rather than profit timing.
3. Time-Limited, Non-Renewable Permissions
What it means: If developers don’t use the permission within a defined window (e.g. 3 years), it expires and cannot be automatically renewed.
Why it matters:
Ends “landbanking by stealth”
Encourages efficient, committed applications
Returns control to local planning authorities
4. Require Viability Reassessment If Delivery Is Delayed
What it means: If a development stalls, the original viability claims (used to reduce affordable housing or community contributions) must be reassessed. If the market has shifted, public benefit must increase.
Why it matters:
Prevents developers from claiming poverty upfront, then reaping massive returns later
Builds in accountability and transparency over time
Summary: What You’re Proposing = Realignment of Incentives
Problem
Your Remedy
Developers profit most from permission, not delivery
Profit caps linked to permission
Delays are profitable
Penalties for delay and expiry of unused permissions
Planning system is gamed for maximum return
Build quality and pace become central to profit
This would reshape the system from one that rewards speculation to one that rewards actual housing delivery — on time, and in the public interest.
📘 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
Cumulative monitoring of rural development impacts
What It Delivers
Ensures small rural schemes are tracked for combined impact.
Function
Prevent “salami-slicing” of rural schemes that avoid scrutiny by staying under thresholds.
Legal Basis
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2017 + Monitoring Best Practice
Completion Criteria
GIS-enabled system or spreadsheet tracking small-site rural approvals, with periodic internal review for combined impact (e.g. thresholds for EIA).
How to Implement
Track all rural approvals and assess combined impact regularly.
📘 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
Local publication and monitoring of tilted balance applications
What It Delivers
Publicly tracks when tilted balance is used and what conditions are attached.
Function
Create a public registry of tilted balance approvals with delivery expectations, timelines, and profitability benchmarks.
Legal Basis
Administrative Best Practice
Completion Criteria
EHDC maintains and publishes a real-time log of all approvals justified under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Paragraph 11(d), including delivery conditions.
How to Implement
EHDC to publish in real-time with tracking dashboard.
📘 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
Community scrutiny of build-out timing and delivery
What It Delivers
Central access for residents to review viability and commitments.
Function
Enable residents to see and interrogate profit forecasts and delivery conditions.
Legal Basis
SPD or Administrative Practice
Completion Criteria
Viability assessments and key developer submissions (delivery schedules, infrastructure offers) are published online in a central searchable location.
How to Implement
Publish all developer materials in a centralised, searchable portal.
📘 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
Public transparency platform for developer submissions
What It Delivers
Central access for residents to review viability and commitments.
Function
Enable residents to see and interrogate profit forecasts and delivery conditions.
Legal Basis
SPD or Administrative Practice
Completion Criteria
Viability assessments and key developer submissions (delivery schedules, infrastructure offers) are published online in a central searchable location.
How to Implement
Publish all developer materials in a centralised, searchable portal.
📘 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.
🧩 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.
📘 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
Uniform viability reporting format
What It Delivers
Standardises data, improving transparency and public understanding.
Function
Makes data easier to compare and analyse publicly.
Legal Basis
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) or Local Plan policy
Completion Criteria
EHDC adopts an SPD or policy appendix specifying format, assumptions, and structure for viability assessments.
How to Implement
Adopt a local SPD specifying format and assumptions.
Timeline
1–3 months
Owner
Policy Team / Cabinet (Council Executive) Approval
