I hope everyone is safe, healthy and well.
Just a quick query about the assessment of the 'deliverability of a
site' for forward trajectory/5YS
The relatively new NPPF definition (in the Glossary) sets out that a
deliverable site should be suitable, available and achievable with a
realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site in five years.
It goes on the to set out particular circumstances, such that small
sites of 1-9 with permission and sites with full PP should be counted
until they expire on there is evidence that they will not be delivered
and that sites with O/L PP, allocations, PIP or on Brownfield Land
Registers should only be included where there is clear evidence that
housing completions will begin in 5 years.
However, there are other sites which do not fall into any of these
categories but which could be 'deliverable' but are not mentioned.
These may include sites with a resolution to grant permission (subject
to S106 or another issue) or even sites that are in the pipeline but
where there is clear evidence that they will be delivered.
Obviously where a decision has been made subject to S106 the
principle has been established and so it's a matter of working with
the agent, applicant/developer to get some commitment to deliver the
site (and that is it available and achievable). But with other sites I
think there are circumstances where they could be included in the 5YS
before permission is granted. For example where an application has
been submitted or even at pre-application and there are no 'in
principle' planning policy constraints. In those cases, I think it it
still possible to talk to the applicant/developer to establish control
of the site and when they would deliver it. As long as the site is
'suitable, 'available' and 'achievable' I think these could still be counted?
What I'm saying is that sites don't have to be in the specific
categories set out in the definition. The definition is 'suitable,
available and achievable with a realistic prospect' and that does not
necessarily mean they have to have permission. The definition just
sets out how you need to evidence them if they do have permission.
That is my reading anyway, but I'd welcome thoughts.
Cheers
Jon
