Mark Fessey

It's definitely not the EA. They just comment on specific things, inc flood risk and water. Nothing on CC mitigation. Most plans say that net zero is their #1 objective, and then no organisation has anything to say about it thru consultation, which is pretty crazy. I wrote something (LI).

Sport England local plan reps are indeed typically painful, but not sure the answer is to cancel them. I think splitting local plan and application stat consultees is key. For LPs, I think we need a climate change mitigation stat consultee (hence question a moratorium on any new ones).

Yeah, it all gets looked at. Saffron Walden badly needs strategic planning after loads of recent presumption piecemeal.

It's all quite a unique situation there with the Audley end estate. Rolling chalk stream landscape.

Finally, if there is a performance issue then there is a need to 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐞 via: ✏️ An action plan; 🏠 Application of the presumption in favour of granting permission; and/or 🔍 Plan-making.

Then the task is to 𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞 performance using: A) the Housing Delivery Test, which looks back; and B) the Housing Land Supply (Test), which looks forward. The Government sets our performance criteria and penalties and the NPPF.

The task is then to 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫 and 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 supply. On the latter, see NPPF para 78 and also note a need to account for conclusions reached by Inspectors at S78 appeals.

Again, LPAs should communicate the latest supply position on an ongoing basis.

* unless the adopted plan has been "reviewed" under R10a of the Planning Regs (2012) and been found not to need… updating / review.

Also, be aware that local plans often include a 'stepped' requirement. Ultimately, every LPA should communicate the current requirement on an ongoing basis.

𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

Ideally the housing requirement for plan implementation will be the local plan housing requirement. However, if the plan is more than five years old then the housing requirement for plan implementation is SM need. *

𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧-𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠

Standard method (SM) need is the starting point, and then plan-making leads to a housing requirement. In the great majority of cases the housing requirement will equate to SM need, but sometimes it will depart.

For anyone who's ever tried to open up the NPPF to learn about housing targets etc, it's not easy.

Here is how I understand things. 🧵

Prediction for chancellor speech: fiscal rules + no tax rises + no cuts + no deregulation = planning reform.

Is Dan one of the players. I've only seen a couple of episodes of this season. I've long stuggled to watch it because the whole thing about late arrivals to the breakfast room being near guaranteed faithful (and likely faithful that have been shortlisted)! Maybe they film it differently though.

Yes, definitely. It is very useful to present this info. Ideally there might also be some way of drawing attention to the matter of the housing requirement set by the local plan, where there is one that is up-to-date.

Hmm, but for me distinction between need and requirement is fundamental rather than a nuance!

The Traitors fans uncover a HUGE mistake in the hit BBC show The beloved show returned to screens for its fourth episode on Wednesday, and fans have already spotted one fatal flaw in the show's format.

www.dailymail.co.uk/tv/article-1...

Is there any analysis out there of how often a traitor is the last one to walk into the breakfast room, or in the final two or even final three? #thetraitors

Interesting. Recommended for approval (and the report has a v neat summary, hurrah), so OK with passing judgement on this one! Here's the location. I always wonder if such things could feasibly support local growth (Aylesbury, North Bucks, MK; there are grid issues), or not as it's all just NG.

This sounds very proactive. Good to have open discussions about the best geographies. Personal view is that Swindon has a lot to offer looking east!

Yep, that's all it is. Procedural I know!

Just that high growth has 'impacts' / 'effects' / 'outcomes', both positive and negative, that need to be assessed and weighed before reaching a decision (definition of justification). It's what I do and could link to my current reports for cherwell, epsom, wokingham, dacorum, st albans, others.

So, there's been plenty of local plans over the years that have gone with housing requirement > need. Trying to think of the best example! Guildford is coming to mind (Woking's unmet need). Not saying it's been a problem, but no doubt always certain concerns, hence a need for justification.

Planning for high growth, by which I mean a housing requirement (third para) set above need (first para) isn't uncommon... so it's quite a shout to say that this now "should not normally have to be thoroughly justified at examination"..

Housing and economic needs assessment Guides councils in how to assess their housing needs.

I thoroughly recommend this for anyone trying to understand the whole 'housing targets' debate. The point not having to justify high growth is a little strange though. www.gov.uk/guidance/hou...

So... plans submitted without supply sufficient to achieve this will have to boost supply thru the examination in public, perhaps. That's never an entirely straightforward exercise.

Ha, yes it's a new one. There was also "mandatory housing standards". TBH though, on LBC the minister did say "mandatory higher housing targets" (very fast). This is obviously on the back of "mandatory local plans" that we heard a lot about over the weekend.

BBC headline: "mandatory targets". The minister on the BBC: "nominal targets". #NPPF

Indeed, the idea is definitely to move the dial / raise the bar around justifying unmet need or not providing for it. Lots of scope for that. For me though it's crucial not to describe as mandatory/compulsory etc, as doing creates confusion around a planning fundamental.

So, I agree wholeheartedly about striking a better balance between the top down and the bottom up at the LPA scale. However, the proposal isn't to set mandatory targets that LPAs must meet. We've never had that and never could do (short of a crazy new algorithm or a national plan).

That being the case, I suggest a focus on steering and supporting challenging local plan-making, rather than trying to mandate this or that.