The NPPF proposed changes got a new angle added today...
I mentioned in passing, but didn't specifically comment on, the strengthening of the 'presumption in favour of brownfield land' that would be included (with its caveat of overriding conflicts with the Local Plan or National Planning Policy that cannot be mitigated).
Anyone got a large garden in the countryside? Well if you have, following on from today's High Court judgement, you own some land that, being outside of “built-up areas” is brownfield land. Paragraph 111 of the NPPF says that brownfield land is where development ought to be prioritised, and the proposed changes could make this an even more forceful argument.
Sound like sustainable development to you? Sometimes I think I must be living in a comedy sketch - you couldn't make it up!
Thursday, 21 January 2016
Thursday, 14 January 2016
NPPF changes consultation (22 February 2016) - you may want to say something...
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-consultation-on-proposed-changes
The following is a very brief run-through of what I have picked out as key issues for some of my clients…
Affordable housing - broadening the definition to include any affordable products for rent or for ownership, and lifting the requirement that all of these products would have to be affordable ‘in perpetuity’ or have the money released recycled back into providing further affordable housing.
and
The following is a very brief run-through of what I have picked out as key issues for some of my clients…
Affordable housing - broadening the definition to include any affordable products for rent or for ownership, and lifting the requirement that all of these products would have to be affordable ‘in perpetuity’ or have the money released recycled back into providing further affordable housing.
and
Starter homes –
making clearer that these should be considered on underused or unviable
commercial / employment sites and rural exception sites. These would be subject to the same minimum
time limits on resale (5 years) as other starter homes but local planning
authorities could, exceptionally, require a local connection test for example
where access to the housing market for working people can be difficult and
would be consistent with existing policy on rural exception sites. Also make clear that Neighbourhood Plans can
allocate Starter Home sites in the Green Belt.
These two changes will
bring in more options by which affordable homes could provide a suitable
solution, but it will be important for those groups preparing neighbourhood
plans to be clear whether specific local connection or other issues might be
required, and have evidence to support this.
Brownfield sites
– strengthening the ‘presumption’ in favour of brownfield land unless there are
overriding conflicts with the Local Plan or National Planning Policy that
cannot be mitigated.
Small sites (of less
than 10 units) adjoining settlement boundaries – making clear that proposals
for development on such sites should be supported if they are sustainable.
The consideration of
small sites adjoining settlement boundaries could mean that some sites that
were dismissed in neighbourhood plans could still come forward for open market
housing, which may mean that some neighbourhood plan groups will feel that
their ability to shape future development is effectively undermined.
Housing delivery test
- introducing a new measurement for under-delivery possibly based on
completions compared to the housing targets (or trajectories), and requiring
the local planning authority to identify additional sustainable sites if the
existing approach is considerable below the housing required through a rapid
and targeted plan review.
This is unlikely to be
a key issue for more rural parts, but could have implications for sites around
the main towns, though any ‘quick’ allocations would still need to go through
consultation and examination.
Commuter hubs and
higher density housing – where there is a rail interchange that has, or
could have in the future, a frequent (15 minutes at peak times) service to that
stop, local planning authorities should require higher density housing
development.
Interesting choice of
wording – although I don’t think there are any places outside of the
conurbation in Dorset where this could apply, it could be argued that
everywhere is a possibility!
If the above raises any concerns, it is worth putting in a response to the consultation, rather than hoping that others will...
Location:
Milborne St. Andrew, Dorset, UK
Monday, 4 January 2016
North Dorset Local Plan - plain sailing up to April
Yes - it arrived in the Christmas post! Dated 17 December the Inspector's report concludes the plan is sound, subject to the main modifications that were aired in the summer.
In particular with regard to the new housing need data, he concludes that "Taken as a whole… the benefits of adopting a plan that will be subject to early review, outweigh the disbenefits of relying on the 2012 SHMA.”
So provided that there are no hiccups between now and the Full Council meeting, the District Council can rest on its laurels of having the most up to date Local Plan in Dorset. Not that the planners can rest for long, as the early review means starting by April this year, and may inevitably require more sites to be found in light of the housing need for the future.
In particular with regard to the new housing need data, he concludes that "Taken as a whole… the benefits of adopting a plan that will be subject to early review, outweigh the disbenefits of relying on the 2012 SHMA.”
So provided that there are no hiccups between now and the Full Council meeting, the District Council can rest on its laurels of having the most up to date Local Plan in Dorset. Not that the planners can rest for long, as the early review means starting by April this year, and may inevitably require more sites to be found in light of the housing need for the future.
Labels:
Local Plan,
North Dorset
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)