NPPF Changes Consultation 2015
Ensuring Housing Is Delivered On Land Allocated In Plans - Page 4
What steps should be taken in response to significant under-delivery?
- We suggest that, as stated above, if a developer is ‘land banking’ and not submitting applications/ implementing permissions, the local planning authority should be able to compulsorily purchase the land at a reduced price. The threat of this occurring should help reduce delays. Before a local authority is forced to identify more land, if there is so-called ‘under delivery’, it needs to be established who is responsible. It may be necessary for an Inspector to decide. The whole emphasis should be on the landowners to develop their land, where identified for development instead of requiring the local authorities to allocate more land.
- We are opposed to permission being granted on appeal for housing development in inappropriate locations, particularly where there have been delays with the adoption of the local plan arising from additional work following an Inspector’s recommendation at an EIP. The identification of sustainable sites must be the responsibility of the local authority through the proper planning process.
- Some authorities identify reserve sites in case some of the proposed sites do not perform. We suggest a requirement in the NPPF for local plans to include reserve sites, in sustainable locations. These would be tested through the EIP process.
- We remain of the view that if an authority has identified sufficient developable sites and particularly where there are an adequate number of permissions granted to meet its targets, it should not be penalized if the land owners or developers do not perform. In exceptional cases there may be a need to bring forward the reserve sites.