Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Greg Clark (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 20 October 2011. It occurred during Debate on National Planning Policy Framework.


National Planning Policy Framework

It is the Government's clear intention that it should be the case, as it is a requirement to bring forward land of the least environmental value, but let me comment on my hon. Friend's point about the sixth year, as it were. If we are putting local plans first and genuinely want a local plan that is sovereign and determines what will happen for the future life a community, it must be deliverable, sound and accurate. What is known empirically across the country is that not every piece of land that is allocated turns out to be capable of development in the way anticipated. Sometimes there can be fewer homes developed on a site than originally thought, with an allocation for six or seven homes ending up with only four or five, for various reasons—perhaps a tree is subject to tree preservation order, for example. There is always some fallout. The proposal in the consultation suggests that if we are to plan for the number of homes that are really needed—there is no longer any number being handed down from above—we have to anticipate some drop-off, so a buffer is necessary. It is not a requirement to build any more homes than needed; the purpose is simply to make the plan as accurate as it can be.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
533 c1083 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Construction Brownfield sites Housing Green belt Planning permission Planning Property development Standards Regional planning and development Sustainable development Affordable housing
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk