Planning Advisory Service (PAS) Logo
Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Open group | Started - July 2012 | Last activity - Yesterday

Definition of a major for Affordable Housing NPPF/DMPO conflict

Former Member, modified 2 Years ago.

Definition of a major for Affordable Housing NPPF/DMPO conflict

Hi, I work for an LPA which quite often gets sub 10 dwellinghouse developments but over 1000 sq.m of buildings proposed. So the question is this a major development even if that doesn’t fit with PPS returns or NPPF insinuations/definitions? also what implications this might have for affordable housing.

So…NPPF para 64 says “Provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer)”.

The NPPF goes on in the Glossary to say… Major development 75: For housing, development where 10 or more homes will be provided, or the site has an area of 0.5 hectares or more. For non-residential development it means additional floorspace of 1,000m2 or more, or a site of 1 hectare or more, or as otherwise provided in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

75 Other than for the specific purposes of paragraphs 176 and 177 in this Framework.

So the start of this definition just causes confusion because it also has at the end “or as otherwise provided for in the DMPO”. So the DMPO says…

The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015/595 (“the DMP Order”) at Art 2: ““major development” means development involving any one or more of the following—

(a) the winning and working of minerals or the use of land for mineral-working deposits;

(b) waste development;

(c) the provision of dwellinghouses where—

(i) the number of dwellinghouses to be provided is 10 or more; or

(ii) the development is to be carried out on a site having an area of 0.5 hectares or more and it is not known whether the development falls within sub-paragraph (c)(i);

(d) the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is 1,000 square metres or more; or

(e) development carried out on a site having an area of 1 hectare or more;”

So to my mind point D could trigger an affordable housing requirement and any other requirement that comes from being a major development. The DMPO is the legislation so would carry more weight in court of law than the NPPF in my view. Whilst point C does go to the trouble of defining for dwellinghouses, in my view that is to clarify for example when 10 flats (although there are question marks given the GPDO view on flats and meaning of a dwellinghouse) are built but may only come to 600 sq.m for example, it would still be a major. The plain reading of the “any one or more of the following” to me means 1,000 sq.m of floor space for any use is a major development as are sites over 1ha in size. Point D should have specified for non-residential uses if that was also the intention and the broader purpose of including point C. 

This discussion also has implications for validation requirements e.g. LLFA consultations, 13 weeks decisions, press Ad’s etc. outside what might be gained/lost for affordable housing.

East Cambs have had ago at this subject, have taken a similar view to myself but I’m sure there are others that have gone the other way with it too

https://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Affordable%20Housing%20Statement%20-%20Oct%202019.pdf

Would be grateful for any ideas, case law, appeals people may have come across on the subject, i can't find anything that deals uniquely with this scenario. 

 

Many thanks

 

 

You do not have permission to access the requested resource.
You do not have permission to access the requested resource.