De-allocate Undeveloped Sites

There is no risk to developers in promoting sites for allocation through development plans and very little onus on proving effectiveness or timescales for delivery. Sites can be promoted, at minimal cost, with almost no detail on delivery, effectiveness and design - i.e. speculatively. This hampers effective stakeholder and public engagement. A mechanism to allow councils to deallocate undeveloped allocations (e.g. subject to not delivering within agreed timefarme without reasonable justifcation) could drive better quality development plan submissions and more meaningful engagement and, ultimately, increase prospect of delivery.

Why the contribution is important

This would incentivise development of allocated sites, and improve development plan submission quality, which would also facilitate more meaningful community and stakeholder engagement and streamline application process.This would also increase liklihood of allocated sites being developed.

by pontipine on January 29, 2016 at 11:24AM

Current Rating

4.84615384615
Average score : 4.8
Based on : 13 votes

Comments

  • Posted by Redfox January 30, 2016 at 10:28

    The system is full of LDP allocated sites that are "effective" right up to the point the planning application is submitted and then a load of expensive barriers appears that mean good development and essential infrastructure are not affordable. Need much better checks in respect of defining "effective" at the call for sites stage.
  • Posted by Stevep February 04, 2016 at 09:39

    The "call for sites" stage is not a statutory part of planning - so it's wrong to assume that this stage will always happen, and in any case it will only happen once every five years.
    In my area there are sites where developers will say anything to convince people that their site is effective - but after ten years there's no sign of them progressing anything.

    This then leads to a no win situation - a local authority might want to see a site developed to remove say a derelict site from an area, but if they de-allocate it there's little chance it will happen. Maybe there should be penalties on developers for not progressing a scheme that they've promoted in a call for sites excercise and was allocated as a result.
  • Posted by GaryTempleton February 23, 2016 at 14:45

    Agree with this idea, a number of sites have been identified for successive Plans with no sign of being progressed towards a planning application. Where there is evidence of more effective sites available which do not compromise the strategy of the Plan, then these sites should be brought forward in preference. Perhaps the Main Issues Report should be used as a method of flushing these issues out, identifying sites where the planning authority are considering removing/ replacing a designation.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas