Gavin - I believe the issue with the Tetbury case was that the council was unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply when judged against it own housing requirement i.e., one that had been through public examination. So it's not strictly true to say they had a target imposed upon them. If you're unable to demonstrate a five year land supply then the planning policies pertaining to housing in the plan are deemed to be out-of-date because they've proved ineffective (the council has been unable to maintain delivery). The presumption in favour of sustainable development then applies to help ensure that the housing requirement of the plan can be met by the end of the plan period.
The loss of a bit of land in the AONB is hardly a disaster when the housing need is so great. If you think it's a disaster, then you really ought to get out more, as I suggested previously.
Comment on: Where's the logic?
The report says that ECO (whatever that means: the report doesn't explain what it is) has saved lives, but then says how few ECO deals have been done and how little energy companies have spent on ECOs.
As for the reports by the NHS and local government saying that ECOs have saved lives, notwithstanding the above, one might also argue that cheaper energy, from whatever source, would probably save more lives.
Comment on: Where's the logic?
The logic is that the Government, responding to its climate change adviser Nicholas Stern, wanted energy to be more expensive. Stern in his 2006 report (Stern Review of the economics of climate change) argued that fossil fuels were indirectly subsidised by policies favouring fossil fuels and didn't account for the externalities of climate change. He wanted people to pay more for the use of fossil fuels. That's the situation we're in. The Greens wanted it that way.
If the only reason voters stop voting Tory is because of development near them then they really ought to get out more and develop some other interests. The hold that political parties have on their respective constituencies must be very tenuous indeed. This is the problem with Localism: it just encourages banal parish-pump politics.
Comment on: Planning guidance welcomed by pan-industry group
That's classic. So the POS, which is supposed to represent 'planning in the public interest', doesn't want to have to address affordability because it might compel local authorities to have to provide more housing in order to address the needs of the public.
It's hard not to conclude that planning conducted by the public sector really is one of the major barriers to increasing supply.
John Locke has not added any discussions yet.
Posted in: National Planning Policy Framework
You are right to raise this as an important topic as I believe the 1947 Planning System is directly responsible for the housing crisis we have today. I don't think the NPPF is radical enough. It won't prove instrumental in encouraging more development, probably the reverse. The problem is the concept of 'sustainable development' and the idea that housing is pollution. We really have to challenge this. The solution is not to define sustainability better or have more 'sustainable development' but to oppose this self-limiting concept - a concept that kettle's people onto brownfield land in the least attractive areas. That's why I support the Dale Farm Gypsies. I see them very much as being in the vanguard of challenging this protocol and the snobbery of the Green Belt.
As to the reason why Inside Housing has been quiet on the issue of late, I suspect it is only because there is little further to say on the NPPF until it is published in March - most likely on Budget Day.