Wizard9999
Old Oak
All
Feel a little guilty that my comment in Mike's thread has diverted focus away from his very good news. Therefore thought remedy was to start a new thread in what I thin is the right location and any discussion anyone wants on this topic can happen here.
Bob I would say you really want you local plan approved, if you do not have one it will be like my patch (Hart) where it is now an effective free for all for landowners. Because there is no plan and because there is not an adequate forecast land supply (they need to have a list of approved proposals for 120% of what is actually required) effectively almost all local policy from the past falls away and it is the National Planning Policy Framework that applications are judged against. the 'Golden Thread' in this document is a "presumption in favour of sustainable development". Nowhere in the 120+ pages is "sustainable" and inspectors seem to have been instructed to take a liberal view of this as Government (which appoints them) want house building as a driver for economic recovery.
So what does this mean? Settlement boundaries count for nothing and any land owner who has land previously rejected for housing scrambles like crazy to get their proposal in before enough has been approved elsewhere to hit the 120% threshold when there seems to be a little more scope for rejection being upheld.
So if your local plan is rejected you'll almost certainly end up with your local land owner apply for all those houses you mention, plus more in any other fields they own.
It's a scandal, but it will never get called out because everyone bags on about there being a housing crisis and / or need for more building. All well and good, but where I live now the problem is there will effectively be no control over where it happens.
And finally, consequences for those involved at council? Former head of planning who oversaw the submission of a local plan heavily criticised and rejected has just been promoted to co-Chief Executive of the local authority!
Terry.
Feel a little guilty that my comment in Mike's thread has diverted focus away from his very good news. Therefore thought remedy was to start a new thread in what I thin is the right location and any discussion anyone wants on this topic can happen here.
Bob I would say you really want you local plan approved, if you do not have one it will be like my patch (Hart) where it is now an effective free for all for landowners. Because there is no plan and because there is not an adequate forecast land supply (they need to have a list of approved proposals for 120% of what is actually required) effectively almost all local policy from the past falls away and it is the National Planning Policy Framework that applications are judged against. the 'Golden Thread' in this document is a "presumption in favour of sustainable development". Nowhere in the 120+ pages is "sustainable" and inspectors seem to have been instructed to take a liberal view of this as Government (which appoints them) want house building as a driver for economic recovery.
So what does this mean? Settlement boundaries count for nothing and any land owner who has land previously rejected for housing scrambles like crazy to get their proposal in before enough has been approved elsewhere to hit the 120% threshold when there seems to be a little more scope for rejection being upheld.
So if your local plan is rejected you'll almost certainly end up with your local land owner apply for all those houses you mention, plus more in any other fields they own.
It's a scandal, but it will never get called out because everyone bags on about there being a housing crisis and / or need for more building. All well and good, but where I live now the problem is there will effectively be no control over where it happens.
And finally, consequences for those involved at council? Former head of planning who oversaw the submission of a local plan heavily criticised and rejected has just been promoted to co-Chief Executive of the local authority!
Terry.
