You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
If I find a Local Plan in place for an area, and I see that housing development is in that plan for, let's say, Big Field A, but not in Big Field B that is next door, is that any indication that housing development is unlikely in the future on Big Field B?
do you own Big Field B? Owning Big Field B is the only way to be 100% sure that nothing will be built on it, becuase you own it and can not build on it.
If you are looking at a house anywhere near a field, assume someone will try and build on it in the next 20 years.
If it's greenbelt there is a reasonable chance of it not being built on as it's outside the local plan.
Other than that you are at risk unless there is a fundamental issue with building on it
You need to know your SHLAA for that area.
Nope sadly
There are 2 levels... their is a local DPD and land use plan/map/ This should have gone through a public (Sec 19) consultation and needs to be approved by an independent government inspector.
This may have fairly big pockets identified.
The council executive may try and:
1) Hide the public consultation
2) Hide from the wider council
3) Share with the council but under a Part 2 "no public non disclosure"
4) Change the plans from consultation then claim its a non material difference
5) Destroy any evidence
Ours did all of the above... 100+ pages of internal investigation here... next step is a full criminal investigation.
http://Www.woking.gov.uk/wfcstadiumdevplan
Then there is a neighbourhood plan
Good point there are various neighborhood planning boards which tend to have the usual suspects on board
Short answer, no. The local plan is just setting out how a local authority can meet its home building responsibilities, things can and will change. Also it is often based on sites proposed by the owners of the land, just because a site hasn't been proposed at one point doesn't mean it won't be at a later date.
If you are looking at a house anywhere near a field, assume someone will try and build on it in the next 20 years.
It's sad, especially for those like us who enjoy the outdoors.
People with multiple kids complaining about new housing developoments really grinds my gears though. (edit - not accusing MCTD of this)
How old is the Local Plan? Current thinking is LP's should be upto date by 2023 and accommodate for housing growth projections provided by Central Government. LP's are historically supposed to plan for the next 30 years but be updated every five to cater for local changes to employment, housing, infrastructure etc however they rarely are.
I would suggest if there is strong housing demand in your area and Site A is currently being built out there is a strong possibility that Site B will be allocated in the next plan period unless it can be demonstrated that plan B serves a strategic function i.e. provides a gap between settlements, flood plane, SSSI, or is ecologically, visually or archaeologically sensitive.
You should be able to see from the Planning Offices record if a developer has previously promoted site B through the past LP and the reasons why it was dropped. However do not assume that these reasons will be sufficient for the site not to be allocated in the future as the Local Authority will have to weigh up the balance between future development of Site B in the context of other sites.
Remember Johnson wants to Get Great Britain Building Great Again so there will be a lot of pressure to build on anything vaguely sustainable.
No offence taken 🤣
Though I did nearly get barred from the village pub after speaking in favour of a plan to build 12 affordable social houses in the village. People don't like being reminded that 40 years ago the village was surrounded by open cast coal mines.....
If it’s greenbelt there is a reasonable chance of it not being built on as it’s outside the local plan.
I beg to differ.
Local to us. Greenbelt, includes SSSI, farmers fields, ancient woodland, heavily used for amenity and recreation, outside planned development area.
Currently under (significant) argument and direction from Scottish Government to let Judy Murray and friends build gated housing estate, hotel (permission already granted), sports facilities, tennis and small golf course.
What does the plan say about Field B? Even if it appears to say nothing directly, there will be policies that apply to it.
Look at the Policies Map. Is Field B in the Green Belt or countryside? Or is it "white land" within a settlement boundary? Is is covered by a SSSI, flood zone 2 or 3 or other form of planning restriction?
All of the above will give you some indication of the likelihood of it being developed. As above, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) will also tell you if it has been considered previously or promoted by the owner.
Ultimately though, Local Plans change and so there are few guarantees.
Insurmountable technical or land ownership constraints are the clearest sign.
From my experience (in Harrogate and I know of at least one forum user who lives further down the same road as me) that it makes no difference. We have seen what was 30 houses becoming 130 houses to becoming 600 houses and a school with the expectation that there will eventually be nearly 3,000 houses infilling all the fields between Leeds Road and Otley Road. It’s frankly shocking but I am relieved we sold our last house 7 years ago as the open fields with views across to the Dales are about to be filled with 4 bed detached executive homes with en suites and gardens the size of a doormat. We live just across the road now and have endured months of chaos and at least a year more of it with the ongoing building and much more with the next developments that will be coming.
Thanks all. I've done some digging on the local authority planning site and found their interactive planning map wotsit (and we all love an interactive map, right?) and the SHLAA.
On the map, Big Field B is classed as Countryside, immediately borders a National Park (which Big Field A doesn't) and has a previously declined planning permission application from 1989. It isn't mentioned at all in the SHLAA.
The map shows Housing Allocation on Big Field A for only half of the field, and the SHLAA refers to it as a Developable Site for 83 houses within 6-10 years and 184 within 11-15 years. So, it looks like any longer-term plan involves Big Field A, not Big Field B, right?
Again I would say no (see my above post). We sold our house 7 years ago because the area was on the draft Local Plan but it was thrown out because the area was (still is in fact) an AOOB and has had several applications thrown out going back to the 1970s. We saw that as a near miss so decided to sell up before they built on the land and our views were taken away from us. Now, all of a sudden, and seemingly in through some back door planning applications have been submitted left right and centre, many of them have been approved and several more are due for decisions in the coming months.
Yeah, fair enough. I suppose the pressure for additional housing stock is greater around Harrogate though than around the High Peak (where Fields A and B are).
S'all a gamble, innit.
It is all a gamble yes but from what I have seen happen in Harrogate, nothing is completely off the table and I would never now expect to keep a view. In fact when we bought the last house in 2002 (ie the one with the view) we did extensive research into historical planning applications but, because they had been thrown out so many times and the fact it bordered an AOOB we thought we were safe. When it all re-appeared on the draft Local Plan again we decided to pull out and I am glad we did as we'd have been gutted otherwise.
So now we live in a house (just across the road) that is surrounded by houses so we have no view but at least we know that there cannot be any further reduction in what we can see.
This is the view we had - very soon it will be crammed with houses and a primary school
So, it looks like any longer-term plan involves Big Field A, not Big Field B, right?
Yeah, fair enough. I suppose the pressure for additional housing stock is greater around Harrogate though than around the High Peak (where Fields A and B are).
It's irrelevant what the plan is if your council are corrupt. If someone walks in with a big brown envelope then things can be updated. Our local site went from a defined mixed sports and 36 dwellings allocation to over 1000 high rise bedsits and 1 bed flats.
In order to move the current sport complex the council purchased greenbelt land 1/2 mile away and reclassified it for sports use.
It's also irrelevant what housing stock is needed or not, councils can just lie unless someone pulls them up. [in our case it was the neighbouring councils who recalculated]
The 1000+ bedsits/1 bed were not actually needed (according to the councils own study) as we desperately need family housing.
Additionally, once Site A is used it will be sited as a reason why site B should be used.
So the short answer is no.
It doesn't seem to matter nowadays.
Councils don't care and will put a compulsory purchase order on anything it seems.
The purchase of greenbelt land in this day and age, with some much brownfield land around is criminal.
You are not safe.