I was wondering if anyone out there had written (or tried to write) a
policy which seeks to ensure housing development is considered before
other uses are allowed to come forward. Clearly, if we've identified a
potential housing site and it is of sufficient size to be allocated
then that is what we'll seek to do through the local plan. However,
this is for those sites that haven't be allocated for housing that
come forward during the plan period for other uses but which are good
housing sites. In our experience, the pressure for such sites has
tended to come from retail uses, though it could be for anything
non-resi. Retail proposals will be subject to other tests, but these
just test whether they are appropriate sites in retail terms, not
whether the site could be better used for something else. Given our
housing situation, the need to develop suitable sites to increase
supply and deliver of homes is critical. However, the housing supply
situation is simply a material consideration, which it is reasonable
to assume would be given limited weight by an Inspector were you to
try to refuse an otherwise acceptable retail proposal on those grounds.
My question, therefore, is: Does anyone know of anywhere that has
tried to write a policy which requires a developer to show that a site
could not reasonably used for housing and that there is no demand for
the site to be used for that purpose? It feels like a long-shot (both
in policy terms and for anyone to have tried it!) and I wouldn't
suggest we apply this to sites in employment allocations, for example,
or for sites in designated centres. However, seeing perfectly decent
housing sites being redeveloped for supermarkets when we're desperate
for housing land is becoming increasingly depressing.
