“For decision-taking this means [unless material considerations indicate otherwise]: • approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and • where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: — any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or — specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”
“To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should: • use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period; • identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable {11} sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land; • identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6–10 and, where possible, for years 11–15; • for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target; and • set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.”
“To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans.”
“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.”
“34. The policy in paragraph 47 of the NPPF relates principally to the business of plan-making. The policy in paragraph 49 relates principally to applications for planning permission; it deals with the way in which “[housing] applications” should be considered. But it must of course be read in the light of the policy requirement in paragraph 47 for local planning authorities to plan for a continuous and deliverable five-year supply of housing land. The policies in paragraphs 157, 158 and 159 all relate to plan-making. The requirement, in paragraph 159, to prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment as part of the “evidence base” for a local plan corresponds to the policy in the first bullet point in paragraph 47, which requires local planning authorities to “use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in [the NPPF] …”.... The “housing market area” is not necessarily co-extensive with a single local planning authority's administrative area... 36. .... The policy for plan-making in paragraph 47 of the NPPF explicitly requires that in the preparation of local plans the “full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area ” must be met, in so far as this can be done consistently with the policies of the NPPF as a whole (my emphasis). However, under the policy in paragraph 49, which relates specifically to development control decision-making, the effect of a local planning authority being unable to “demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites” is that “[relevant] policies for the supply of housing” – which means relevant policies for the supply of housing in the development plan for that local planning authority's area – will not be considered up-to-date, with the potentially significant consequences for “decision-taking” under the policy in paragraph 14 of the NPPF.... Paragraph 49 does not prescribe a particular method, applicable in every case and in all circumstances, for the comparison of the five-year housing requirement and housing supply in the making of a decision on a planning application or appeal. And one must not read into the policy in that paragraph an approach that prevents a realistic and robust comparison of housing need and supply for the purposes of making a development control decision.”
“it is not for an inspector on a Section 78 appeal to seek to carry out some sort of local plan process as part of determining the appeal, so as to arrive at a constrained housing requirement figure. An inspector in that situation is not in a position to carry out such an exercise in a proper fashion, since it is impossible for any rounded assessment similar to the local plan process to be done. That process is an elaborate one involving many parties who are not present at or involved in the Section 78 appeal. … [It] seems to me to have been mistaken [on a section 78 appeal] to use a figure for housing requirements below the full objectively assessed needs figure until such time as the Local Plan process came up with a constrained figure.”
“Overall, therefore, notwithstanding the identified policy conflict and its effect on the location strategy for new development in the Borough, on landscape character and visual amenity and on trees, given the absence of a five-year housing land supply in the terms of the Framework and the status of relevant policies of the development plan for the supply of housing, I find that the considerations that weigh against the development collectively do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh those matters that are in its favour, particularly the delivery of housing. On this basis the proposals would be sustainable development and, consequently, the appeal is allowed subject to the identified conditions.”
“66. I have concluded that the FOAN lies in the range of 862 to 890 dpa which equates to some 4312 and 4449 homes respectively over five years. As identified above, there is a deficit of 919 homes in delivery against the Council’s preferred figure of 856 dpa since the start of the SHMA period. This rises to 935 and 1004 homes against a FOAN of 862 and 890 dpa respectively thus resulting in totals of 5247 and 5453 dwellings. When the undisputed 20% buffer is applied, and following the Sedgefield method, this results in five-year requirement figures of 6297 and 6544 dwellings respectively. Setting these figures against the projected housing delivery of 6204 dwellings results in a shortfall of some 93 and 340 homes respectively for the five year period in question. 67. Therefore, even applying the more conservative FOAN figure of 862 dpa arising from the application of a 10% flat rate for market signals there would not be a Framework compliant supply of housing land. On this basis, while the shortfall would be only 93 homes it is, nonetheless, significant and exceeds the 56 net dwellings that the appeal scheme would potentially yield.”
“there is no evidence to support the arbitrary 6 month or 12 month slippage rate assumed by the Appellant across all developments. To apply such an assumption, or the alternative 10% discount (which is equally arbitrary), would result in double counting in that the 20% buffer would also allow significant slippage or non-implementation.”
“Land at Hatch Farm Dairies, Winnersh is allocated in the MDD and has outline planning permission for 433 homes dating from November 2014. While I note that a pursuant reserved matters application recently went to the Council’s Planning Committee for approval, given the evidence regarding pre-commencement conditions and on the basis that only one developer appears likely to be involved, I agree with the appellant that the first year is unlikely to yield 100 dwellings nor subsequent years 120 units. Accordingly, the Council’s supply figure should be further reduced by 220 homes to 6973 dwellings.”
“56. In her proof of evidence Mrs Mulliner identifies that there was an increase in projected delivery from the North Wokingham SDL from the Main SHLAA to the Mid-Year SHLAA. While this was unexplained at that stage, during the Inquiry the Council shared the three responses it had had from developers/agents regarding its projections for the Mid-Year SHLAA. One of these was from the agent for the Matthews Green Section of this SDL who estimates different projected completion rates for this land that result in a net increase of 77 homes. That correspondence also indicates that the site has two developers rather than one as Mrs Mulliner appears to have assumed. On this basis the Council’s projections for the Matthews Green Sector appear reasonable. 64......Furthermore, while I note the wider evidence gathering and checking undertaken as part of the SHLAA process, given that the Council received only three written responses from developers/agents to its request for information, the degree of verification in this respect appears rather limited in the circumstances.”
“Policy CP11 states that, in order to protect the separate identity of settlements and maintain the quality of the environment, proposals outside the defined development limits of settlements will not normally be permitted.” “MDD Policy C002 refers to development limits for settlements and states, among other things, that proposals at the edge of settlements will only be approved where they can demonstrate that the development, including boundary treatments, is within development limits and respects the transition between the built up area and the open countryside by taking account of the character of the adjacent countryside and landscape.”
“Since Core Strategy Policy CP11 seeks to direct development, including residential uses, toward locations within the development limits, and to restrict the amount that takes place outside those limits, it is a policy that is of relevance for the supply of housing. Policy CC02 of the MDD has similar objectives and consequences. To the extent that they concern the supply of housing, then, neither of these Policies should be considered up-to-date given the absence of a five-year housing land supply.”
“[At one time] it seems to have been assumed that if a policy were deemed to be “out-of-date” under paragraph 49, it was in practice to be given minimal weight, in effect “disapplied”: see eg Cotswold District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government[2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin) at [72], per Lewis J. In other words, it was treated for the purposes of paragraph 14 as non-policy, in the same way as if the development plan were “absent” or “silent”