Sam Stafford's Blog

Of many misunderstood and misinterpreted concepts in planning, safeguarded land is perhaps one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted. If I had a pound for every time I have seen or read a letter from a local resident expressing dismay about 'the loss of land that is supposed to be safeguarded against development' I would have... well... a few pounds.   Nick Boles' comments on the subject in a recent Westminster Hall debate have served to pour mud into already muddy waters. To recap, Mr Boles said that:   There is nothing in the Localism Act 2011, in the NPPF or in any aspect of Government planning policy that requires someone to plan beyond 15 years. So, anybody who is suggesting that there is any requirement to safeguard land or wrap it up in wrapping paper and ribbons for the future development between 2030 and 2050 is getting it wrong. There is no reason for it and my hon. Friend can knock that suggestion straight back to wherever it came from . ...

The failure of a High Court challenge to the rejection of planning permission for a 1,400-home development at Coalville received some coverage last month, but most it (like this piece: http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1216286/developers-lose-legal-challenge-1400-home-leicestershire-scheme ) missed  the real significance of the decision. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that: Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. It had been widely interpreted that relevant policies for the supply of housing included both those that supported housing, e.g. requirements and land allocations, and those that restricted housing, e.g. settlement boundaries and policies of restraint. Mrs Justice Lang concludes though...

  “I get by with a little help from my friends” sang The Beatles, which came to mind when contemplating the task of a LPA attempting to steer a Local Plan through an ocean of competing interests towards the island of soundness.   Two of the tests of soundness that a development plan is subjected to during examination are whether it is justified (the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence) and effective (the plan should be deliverable over its period).   Reasonable alternatives will include, firstly, the quantum of development directed to a particular settlement over the plan period (e.g. How much to this town? How much to that town) and, secondly, the best locations within those settlements to accommodate that development (e.g. How much to the north of the town? How much to the south?).   For every site that a LPA seeks to allocate and every landowner that stands to benefit from t...