The Government has now released its first qualified analysis of each Local Authority and how they have performed to help deliver housing growth over the last 3 years, with the Isle of Wight Council scoring just 54%.
The measurement is the first year where transitional arrangements applies the highest threshold in the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. Those Local Authorities which have taken prompt action and which have delivered sufficient housing supply need not worry – their adopted local plans are given primacy in the decision making process.
However, those Local Authorities which either have to prepare Action Plans or apply a 20% buffer are essentially being put on notice and are being asked (by default) to increase their performance.
For Local Authorities scoring below 75% via the Housing Delivery Test, the ‘presumption in favour of development’ is triggered; making salient (but not all) local policies out of date. The Isle of Wight Council scores just 54%, having delivered 978 homes out of 1,823 required.
David Long of Isle of Wight-based BCM, says:
“Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework becomes the strategic focus of the decision-making process and via a set of critical benchmarks which clearly define: where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:
- the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or
- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole
“The presumption in favour also applies where applications are in conflict with an adopted Neighbourhood Plan, with the results of the 4 critical (NPPF) tests being a central plank to the decision and whether the benefits arising from a development would outweigh those policies structured within the Neighbourhood Plan.
“There are many Local Authorities which are now under the policy direction in the ‘presumption in favour’ – including the Isle of Wight – although this will not be new to Local Authorities who have collated their own monitoring reports and are fully aware of their poor delivery rates. The challenge will be to proceed positively and effectively to deliver appropriate housing within a timely manner.
Article continues below this advertisement “We are well positioned to advice on the implications of the Housing Delivery Tests and how this applies to your landholding”.
For more information email [email protected] or call 01983 828800.
978 Too many
Boy this greedy, self serving lot are making up for such now.
They need to be removed in May.
Too late for much damage already to happen but it will only get worse should they remain in.
Well, to be quite honest, the IWC is doing an excellent job at RUINING the Isle of Wight.
You must work for the council, as I honestly haven’t heard anyone say anything good about them!!
Read it again, Pat love. Regards.
Fedup has said RUINING, as in ‘ruin’ the IOW, not running
I most certainly do NOT, REPEAT NOT, work for the council. Absolutely NO WAY. Maybe I should have used the word ‘WRECKING’ rather than ruining. Sorry about the confusion.
the island should be scoring zero percent, which would be a resounding success.
David Long of Isle of Wight-based BCM and an environmental terrorist sympathiser, wants more and more of the garden isle concreted over, with more benefit hutches, for more people who are not from the island to move into
this guy needs removing from his position,as he does not have the islands best interests at heart.
It’s all about the money, they’re greedy and stupid!
having delivered 978 homes out of 1,823 required.
So where are the jobs, dentists, doctors, school places etc etc to take the influx of people?
There isn’t enough for the 978 yet!
Yes, herein lies the problem, that no matter who the local governance, it is central government that is applying the pressure to build 1823 new homes a year.
Calculate yourselves how much land this requires and how quickly the countryside dissappears.
Just 475 homes take up this amount of space.
David Long of Isle of Wight-based BCM, says:
“Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework becomes the strategic focus of the decision-making process and via a set of critical benchmarks which clearly define: where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:……. etc etc etc”…waffle, waffle, ramble, ramble…blah-blah…
What in God’s holy name is this man blathering on about? ‘Developer’ doublespeak at its best!
I can perhaps explain a little of that waffle.
Town and Parish councils were tasked with filling in data collected from their parishes as to the ‘likely’ future need of housing in their parishes.
Thus the public were supposed to fill in forms asking what ‘they’ thought their housing needs would be in the near, med, and long term view.
The questions would be asking if they expected to need larger homes or I bed flats etc etc.
Then by ‘using’ this collected data, the main c ouncil were supposed to act upon it, and ‘use’ it to determine future building policies on the Island.
But of course, as with most things they ‘do’ just a con. A means to THEN push the ‘blame’ of any building onto the local parish and town councils, IF any objection to building came forward, thus absolving themselves of blame.
Also, many questionaires were not completed in time, thus they can ignore them, and override those which were.
So a costly pointless, devious publicity ‘stunt’ to make the public ‘think’ it has ‘some say’ but ONLY if that ‘say’ coincided with what ‘they’ were going to do ‘anyway’.
Walter, I can perhaps ‘explain’ some of the waffle a little clearer:
Parish and town councils were tasked with providing and returning questionnaires to their electorate to fill in ‘their perceived’ future requirements for housing needs.
It was just a con, and a sly way of then ‘pushing the blame’ when any complaints about future building polices we met with, onto the Parish, not the main co oun cil.
Many never got them out in time, so those can be now ignored and others which did, will too be ignored if it doesn’t coincidently fit in with what ‘they’ were going to do anyway.
Just a ‘ploy’ to make it ‘appear’ the public have a say, and a way for the main c ou ncil to push any ‘blame’ onto Parish and town cou ncils when the complaints from the public appear.
I tried to explain, but as the C oun cil must have the Echo on it’s watch list, then my honest reply has not been ‘allowed’ WHY?
Apologies as it is been ‘allowed’ now.
A second attempt. My initial post appears to have been not worthy.
Thanks for the info.
I’ve been well aware of what’s been going on. The ‘housing needs’ surveys were a joke! The return rates were minuscule but incredibly the data was adopted into Neighbourhood Plans by Parish Councils and then into the County Council’s Island Plan. So put that together with the SHLAA and you have a perfect vehicle for ‘Developers’ to hook up with landowners and exploit greenfield sites.
I would like to flag up that this article appears to be promoting the vested interests of a particular Rural Property Specialist. i.e. a logo splash, contact info and quote: ‘We are well positioned to advice on the implications of the Housing Delivery Tests and how this applies to your landholding’.
Can’t help thinking that persons who have gone to the trouble of objecting to contentious housing submissions might consider this as inappropriate free publicity!
Quote: “Lies, damned lies and statistics”. Author unknown, but attributed to Mark Twain.