As ive said here before if you really want to stop the railfreight terminal allow housing on the site. As a brownfield site the NPPF now allows it providing it meets the visual test. So when will the City get its finger out. If it really wanted positive planning it would hointly develop the site itself with the County Council and make it the centrepiece of its long delayed local plan.
The co-owner of St Albans CityFootball Club said he would be ready to submit a planning application for a stadium and 6,000 new homes on Radlett Airfield within two weeks.
John McGowan said a major land developer, who did not want to be named, had stepped forward with up to £17 million for the scheme.
Hertfordshire County Council deferred its sale of the land to Helioslough, which was hoping to build a strategic rail freight terminal on the site, on Monday.
A St Albans county councillor has warned the Saints’ scheme, along with another proposed by prospective parliamentary candidate Kerry Pollard, may “open the door” for the rail terminal.
Liberal Democrat Sandy Walkington said: “Everyone would prefer, if the site is going to be developed, for housing to be built there rather than a freight terminal.
“But the one major argument against this strategic, national piece of infrastructure is that the site is on Green Belt.”
Mr McGowan said the football club would be ready to put in outline planning permission within the next two weeks, for 6,000 homes and a new stadium.He said: “We are happy to make an application to the local authority as an alternative scheme as we believe this could be the best option to knock the current developers off any thought of building a new rail site.”
The club has been struggling with its aging infrastructure in Clarence Park, and earlier this week described the situation as “unviable”.
Mr McGowan said: “I spent the entire day on Tuesday with a major land developer who has stated they will support me with a joint bid to match Helioslough’s offer.
“We understand the offer is 10 times the county valuation of £1.7 million, i.e £17 million, subject to outline planning.
“I’m ready to take a step forward, I can make an application in two weeks for outline planning permission.
“I need the green light from people. I need positive people saying they can get us into meetings and help us push this through committees.”
The development would fulfil a sizable chunk of St Albans District Council’s obligation to build 12,000 new homes by 2031.
Dreda Gordon, Labour councillor for The Colneys, said: “St Albans has a target of 11,000 homes to build and the council is looking at Green Belt sites. There is a huge housing shortage and we have to provide these homes.
“St Albans City Football Club is in desperate need of a new site, and they have looked long and hard throughout the district.
“This is a Green Belt site, which needs to be taken into consideration, but if this is a solution to that problem then I would support it.”
Councillor Walkington added: “Everybody knows that at some stage housing needs to be build, young people need somewhere to live.
“The football club does need a new home, Clarence Park is very run down. It’s too small and it’s not in the right place.
“It’s in a listed park in a residential area, so it’s very difficult to see how it could be improved. I admire the ambition that the owners are bringing to the club.”
A housing development on the Radlett airfield site could raise “five or six times” more money for the county council than an unpopular rail freight development.
The decision to defer the sale of the former aerodrome was made by Hertfordshire councillors yesterday (Monday).
The St Albans Review revealed on Friday how prospective parliamentary candidate for St Albans, Kerry Pollard, planned to build houses on the site.
He said: “We are meeting with Taylor Wimpey on Tuesday to make sure they’re absolutely focussed on the way forward.
“There is only a small window to take advantage of here. Next we need to broker a meeting with the county council to start talking about the details.
“I’m really pleased we managed to put this thing together in three short weeks, the council will get five or six times what they would have received from Helioslough.
“This is the biggest result for St Albans for a number years.”
Mr Pollard said the details of the planning agreement would take a couple of years to put together.Reports this week suggested the airfield could be bought by St Albans City Football Club.
Co-owner of the club John McGowan said he would be interested in working with a developer to build a new stadium on the site.
He said the club was initially prepared to offer £1.2 million to buy the site, which they understood to be worth £1.7 million, as reported wrongly in other local newspapers.
However, Robert Gordon, leader of the council, dismissed this figure yesterday, suggesting the land was worth “ten times that”.
Mr McGowan said: “The club is not sustainable at the moment and we have made an application to see if we can be included within the s106 agreement if at all possible.
“I’m happy to link up with a developer, whether it is housing scheme or not, it’s an ideal opportunity.
“It’s only a big maybe, we’re trying to foot in the door and it’s really difficult.”
My advice saying they would lose was free.
St Albans District Council suffers expensive defeat in Harpenden Road Green Belt homes High Court battle
St Albans District Council today suffered an expensive defeat over its appeal against a ruling reviving plans for 116 new homes and a 72-bed care home on Green Belt land in the city.
The Court of Appeal in London backed a September High Court ruling in which Judge Pelling QC, sitting in Manchester, gave developer Hunston Properties a second chance at securing planning permission for the development on land at Harpenden Road, Sewell Park, St Albans, near St Albans Girls School.
As a result the Council has been told it must foot the legal costs of the developer and must make an interim payment of £27,500 in the next 21 days. The full amount will be assessed later, but is likely to be even higher, and comes on top of the council’s own lawyers’ bills for bringing the appeal.First the council and then a Government planning inspector had rejected the proposal as “inappropriate” in the Green Belt, but Sir David Keene today agreed with Judge Pelling that the inspector had based the decision on outdated figures on housing demand for the area.
As a result, the matter will have to be reconsidered by another inspector. The council had hoped to persuade the Court of Appeal to overturn the earlier decision and allow the refusal of permission to stand.
Dismissing the challenge Sir David Keene said that there was no new Local Plan for the area and that in the resulting “policy vacuum” the inspector had applied housing demand figures from the East of England Plan, which was revoked by the Government in January as part of its move away from strategically based figures.
The Plan had a figure of 360 houses per year for the district but the developer claimed that there was actually a need for more than 688 new homes per year.
The council had shown available sites for 2,183 new houses and, while this would be enough to provide a five-year supply on the Plan figures, this would result in a significant shortfall based on the developer’s figures.
Judge Pelling QC had found that the inspector erred in law by failing to identify the full objectively assessed needs for housing in the area as required by the Government’s new National Planning Policy Framework.
And, upholding that decision, Sir David Keene said: “I agree with the judge below that the inspector erred by adopting such a constrained figure for housing need. It led her to find that there was no shortfall in housing land supply in the district.
“She should have concluded, using the correct policy approach, that there was such a shortfall. The supply fell below the objectively assessed five year requirement. Where this inspector went wrong was to use a quantified figure for the five year housing requirement which departed from the approach in the Framework.”
But he said that would not be the end of the matter when the application falls to be reconsidered, when the key question would be whether the shortfall provides “very special circumstances” sufficient to justify development in the Green belt.
The scale of the shortfall will have to be considered by the inspector dealing with the matter, against the particular circumstances faced by St Albans, where, the judge said “virtually all the undeveloped land in the district outside the built up areas forms part of the Metropolitan Green Belt”.
As we always said. Sir David Keene in the Hunstan Judgement
The Framework was published by the Government in order to set out its planning policies for England, so as to give guidance to local planning authorities and other decisions-makers in the planning system. It was seen by the Minister for Planning as simplifying national planning guidance “by replacing over a thousand pages of national policy with around fifty, written simply and clearly.” Unhappily, as this case demonstrates, the process of simplification has in certain instances led to a diminution in clarity. It will be necessary to set out the wording of paragraph 47 of the Framework very soon in this judgment. I have to say that I have not found arriving at “a definitive answer” to the interpretative problem an easy task, because of ambiguity in the drafting.
I was sent the decision which the Court of Appeal handed down this morning. Ive put it on Dropbox. All Green Belt authorities have been eagerly awaiting the result as it implied that plans which relied on RSS housing targets, as many GB authorities do, were rendered out of date and objectively assessed need could be considered a ‘very special circumstance’.
In essence the Court held the inspector made a mistake in using revoked RSS figures. This alone would lead to JR. St Albans argument that one also had to have regard to constraints and the NPPF as a whole was rejected for the reasons we originally set out on this blog as the reason their case was flawed. The setting of objectively assessed need is separate from and prior to plan making and the qualifications on NPPF para 47(1_.
“to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework.”
Were found by the judgement
That qualification contained in the last clause quoted is not qualifying housing needs. It is qualifying the extent to which the Local Plan should go to meet those needs. The needs assessment, objectively arrived at, is not affected in advance of the production of the Local Plan, which will then set the requirement figure….
Moreover, I accept Mr Stinchcombe QC’s submissions for Hunston that it is not for an inspector on a Section 78 appeal to seek to carry out some sort of local plan process as part of determining the appeal, so as to arrive at a constrained housing requirement figure. An inspector in that situation is not in a position to carry out such an exercise in a proper fashion, since it is impossible for any rounded assessment similar to the local plan process to be done. That process is an elaborate one involving many parties who are not present at or involved in the Section 78 appeal. …
It follows from this that I agree with the judge below that the inspector erred by adopting such a constrained figure for housing need. It led her to find that there was no shortfall in housing land supply in the district. She should have concluded, using the correct policy approach, that there was such a shortfall. The supply fell below the objectively assessed five year requirement.
It was a pyrrhic victory however as the courts comments implied that the balancing exercise would rarely find the ‘very special circumstances’ test met.
However, that is not the end of the matter. The crucial question for an inspector in such a case is not: is there a shortfall in housing land supply? It is: have very special circumstances been demonstrated to outweigh the Green Belt objection? …
But there may be other factors as well. One of those is the planning context in which that shortfall is to be seen. The context may be that the district in question is subject on a considerable scale to policies protecting much or most of the undeveloped land from development except in exceptional or very special circumstances, whether because such land is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Park or Green Belt. If that is the case, then it may be wholly unsurprising that there is not a five year supply of housing land when measured simply against the unvarnished figures of household projections. A decision-maker would then be entitled to conclude, if such were the planning judgment, that some degree of shortfall in housing land supply, as measured simply by household formation rates, was inevitable. That may well affect the weight to be attached to the shortfall….I therefore reject Mr Stinchcombe’s submission that it is impossible for an inspector to take into account the fact that such broader, district-wide constraints exist….
There seemed to be some suggestion by Hunston in the course of argument that a local planning authority, which did not produce a local plan as rapidly as it should, would only have itself to blame if the objectively-assessed housing need figures produced a shortfall and led to permission being granted on protected land, such as Green Belt, when that would not have happened if there had been a new-style local plan in existence. That is not a proper approach. Planning decisions are ones to be arrived at in the public interest, balancing all the relevant factors and are not to be used as some form of sanction on local councils. It is the community which may suffer from a bad decision, not just the local council or its officers.
Where this inspector went wrong was to use a quantified figure for the five year housing requirement which departed from the approach in the Framework, especially paragraph 47. On the figures before her, she was obliged (in the absence of a local plan figure) to find that there was a shortfall in housing land supply. However, decision-makers in her position, faced with their difficult task, have to determine whether very special circumstances have been shown which outweigh the contribution of the site in question to the purposes of the Green Belt. The ultimate decision may well turn on a number of factors, as I have indicated, including the scale of the shortfall but also the context in which that shortfall is to be seen, a context which may include the extent of important planning constraints in the district as a whole. There may be nothing special, and certainly nothing “very special” about a shortfall in a district which has very little undeveloped land outside the Green Belt. But ultimately that is a matter of planning judgment for the decision-maker.
Perhaps Hunstan now are regretting the appeal.
Interesting that the Court indicated you cannot approach planning decisions as if they are some form of penalty on poor performers. Of course the NPPF was designed precisely as such a penalty system, interestingly this underlying objective is not material to the planning balance.
A federal judge ruled Friday that an overwhelmingly white, wealthy Long Island village illegally tried to keep minority families from living there.
U.S. District Judge Arthur D. Spatt ruled the Village of Garden City violated federal housing laws when it enacted zoning rules that blocked the construction of apartments.
The decision represented a victory for activists who have long lamented racial and economic segregation in suburban Long Island.
“Basically, what it’s telling municipal governments like the Village of Garden City is that you can’t use zoning as a weapon to exclude housing that would be occupied by minorities,” said Stanley Brown, the plaintiffs’ attorney.
Garden City officials said they intended to appeal the decision, adding they had “no discriminatory intent.”
“The village’s decision was made based on legitimate concerns over increased traffic congestion, parking, school and public service impacts and population density,” village officials said in a statement.
The decision stems from a case dating back to 2005, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn, sued Garden City after the village stymied a plan to build 311 apartments on a 25-acre plot of Nassau County-owned land.
The village, facing a public outcry, scrapped a zoning plan that would have allowed multifamily housing on the site, and opted instead for zoning rules that allowed single-family houses. Eventually, the county dropped plans to sell the site.
“What this case points to is the fact that these enclaves, these villages, cannot get away with using their zoning laws as an excuse to prevent affordable housing,” said Frederick Brewington, another attorney for the plaintiffs.
Housing discrimination has been a contentious issue for decades across the New York suburbs. A 1983 New Jersey state Supreme Court ruling, stemming from alleged discrimination in Mount Laurel, N.J., required municipalities to affirmatively use their zoning powers to provide opportunities for affordable housing.
In Westchester County, housing discrimination has been an issue since a segregation lawsuit was filed against the City of Yonkers in 1980. A federal monitor is still tracking compliance of affordable-housing construction in the county.
In an important 1988 case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ruling finding that the Long Island town of Huntington discriminated through restrictive zoning. In that case, the court found that the actions by Huntington to allow apartment buildings only in a predominantly black neighborhood, had a discriminatory impact—as compared with a discriminatory intent
But in Garden City, the ruling found both a discriminatory impact and a discriminatory intent through an “inference of race-based animus.”
Such a finding today is rare, said Erika Poethig, director of Urban Policy Initiatives at the Urban Institute, a research organization in Washington.
Garden City, an incorporated village of 22,000 people, is 90% white, according to U.S. Census data. It has a median income of $143,000 compared with Nassau County’s median income of $96,000 and New York state’s median income of $57,000. By contrast, Hempstead, a neighboring village of 54,000 people, is 46% black, 44% Hispanic and 7% white. Its median income is about $55,000.
Acorn, which disbanded in 2009, was replaced in the lawsuit by the Mutual Housing Association of New York, a nonprofit affordable-housing developer, and New York Communities for Change, a nonprofit organization that advocates for low- and middle-income families. An 11-day trial was held this summer.
Judge Spatt gave the plaintiffs 30 days to come up with a remedial plan to be incorporated into the final judgment in the case, and it gave Garden City 15 days to respond to the plaintiffs’ proposed plan.
Someone on Twitter described him as the ‘brains’ behind government housing and planning policy, that is certainly describing the wrong anatomical area, after all the government in following Policy Exchange Policy has seen:
- Housing completions fall to the lowest level since the 1920s
- A collapse in affordable house building
- Affordable Housing redefined so they 4/5 households in London can’t afford it.
- A failed localist experiment which saw over 300,000 units knocked off development plans since the election, only for the same units to be forced back into plans again by the NPPF and appeals.
- Local councils, developers and the government at war as the planning system has become more conflict ridden than it has ever been.
- A chaotic appeals driven planning system.
This can only be described as a success in the same way banging your head against a brick wall is a good thing because it feels so much better when you stop.
Letter here. I would say the Inspectors estimate seems a little low as household projections are only the start of assessing need objectively as you also need to account for second home ownership, frictional vacancies etc. The inspector does not justify why these additional factors should be ignored.
I am currently inclined to conclude that the balance of the evidence does not support an objectively assessed housing need as low as 37,000 homes.
For example, based upon the Fordham work, allowing for completions and
notwithstanding an affordable housing need that may exceed 1,100 dwellings per year, levels of housing need appear to warrant provision in the order of 44,000 dwellings over the plan period. Alternatively, based upon ONS population projections, the Council’s evidence suggests the housing need would appear to be in the order of 43,200 (43,900 allowing for concealed households). Various alternative assessments of housing need produced by interested parties have utilised the available data in differing ways, for example employing the Chelmer methodology, to indicate that levels of need exist above 44,000 dwellings over the plan period. Such approaches incorporate consideration of 2nd home ownership, vacancy rates and the economic aspirations of the Council. Ultimately they support an objectively assessed need that is significantly greater than the minimum CS figure of 37,000 dwellings over the plan period.
My current interpretation of the evidence leads me to find that the objectively assessed housing need across the three Wiltshire HMAs would be in the region of 44,000 homes for the plan period…
The consequences would be that Wilthore would be just short of a 5 year (+5%) housing supply and would need to bring forward an allocations DPD.
The evidence indicates a considerable need for various forms of affordable housing throughout Wiltshire. Core Policy 43 seeks the provision of at least 40% (net) on sites of 5 or more dwellings and financial contributions in other circumstances. In essence and whilst I recognise a considerable need for such
housing, I am concerned that the figure of 40% is not justified adequately by the evidence base, particularly the Affordable Housing Viability Assessment…
The justification and effectiveness of the policy is in question. However, there is insufficient evidence to establish what alternative figure may be justified and therefore I am faced with a conundrum of how Core Policy 43 and its
supporting text may be modified to ensure the CS as a whole is justified adequately and will be effective in operation.
On G&T provision
With regard to the[this] the CS does not identify a supply of specific deliverable sites for the next 5 years nor does it identify a supply of specific developable sites or broad locations for growth for the remainder of the plan period. Consistency with this aspect of national policy is not achieved.
Also he questioned the claulation of G&T need
It appears to me that the Council could reassess this matter with a view to ensuring that it does not underestimate the requirements for the remainder of the Plan period. The programmed DPD could assist in matters of specific
delivery but the CS should logically set a robust indication of necessary pitch provision for the relevant period, including the next five years whilst acknowledging the absence of a specific land supply. Consequently further work would appear to be required to ensure that there is reliable data to inform the strategic content of the plan.
There were Forest Heath/Greater Norwich concerns – iot still suprises me that plans keep making this mistake
Without going into full details, there is a body of evidence which provides support for the strategic allocations identified in Core Policy 10. Nevertheless,
the Council is obliged to consider whether reasonable alternatives exist in order to ensure that the submitted plan is justified adequately.
During the preparation of the submitted CS, the Council considered there was positive scope for further strategic development to the east of Chippenham.
The approach presented was amended following onsultation on the Wiltshire 2026 publication. In this context, yet not exclusively so, a number of concerns have been expressed at the way in which the Council has considered alternatives to the content of Core Policy 10 and the way in which options have been assessed. In short, I share some of those concerns.
It is important, as indicated by case law, that the process and outcomes of Sustainability Appraisal (SA) can withstand scrutiny as an evidence source which assists in justifying the content of the CS. With this in mind, the proponents of unallocated land to the east of Chippenham (the ‘2020 site’)
have submitted detailed evidence identifying potential shortcomings in the Council’s SA and site selection process. A primary concern is the way in which the Council has dealt with the 2020 site in relation to other options.
Yet the evidence does not indicate that the Council considered equitably the reasonable alternative of an
East Chippenham allocation (reduced in scale compared to the Wiltshire 2026 proposal) against the preferred option that ultimately found its way to be part of Core Policy 10…
Whilst the Council’s evidence acknowledges that mitigation in the form of a completed eastern distributor road for Option 3 was likely, the mitigation was not assumed to be in place for the testing/modelling of Option 3. Instead,
Option 3 was tested on the basis of a connection to the A4. Such an approach is not equitable for the purposes of the SA; particularly when the evidence indicates that Option 3 could not be feasibly completed without the distributor
road. The manner in which this matter has been treated has affected the content of the SA…
Submissions have been made to the Examination in relation to a large number of potential development sites in and around Chippenham. It is primarily for the Council to ascertain, through due and equitable consideration of alternatives, how best any new development should be accommodated. In the absence of a robust SA in these regards, I have insufficient clear evidence upon
which to base a recommendation as to which sites should be developed through until 2026.
On settlement boundaries
The CS refers to defined settlement boundaries for the hierarchy at the level of Large Villages and above. By such means the Council intends to provide clarity on what forms of sustainable development may be carried out where in a manner consistent with the Framework. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that such an approach is flawed. …However, the Council has not reviewed the extent of the boundaries to inform the CS; instead relying upon the pre-existing development plan documents….and it cannot be argued with great strength that the settlement boundaries contained therein are up-to-date for the purposes of the CS plan period.
The large geographic scale of Wiltshire and the sheer number and variety of its settlements does present challenges to the practical completion of an appropriate and swift review of settlement boundaries. Rather than delay to a disproportionate extent the adoption of the submitted CS, there appears scope to advance such a timely review through a Sites Allocation DPD
Britain’s beleaguered high streets are still failing despite the Government’s much-vaunted Town Centre First policy, which pledged to protect small independent shopkeepers from out-of-town shopping developments, new research claims.
The study found that more than three-quarters of new retail space approved since the national planning laws came into force last year have been located outside of town centres – exactly the opposite of what the legislation was created for. The study used a sample of 50 planning applications and found that of those approved more than 70 per cent were outside of town centres and 16 per cent were on the edge of towns.
The findings came as ministers and MPs from all parties yesterday took part in Small Business Saturday to mark the UK’s first celebration of small firms. The 18-month long independent study was commissioned by a group of local shop organisations, including the Association of Convenience Stores, the Federation of Small Businesses, Town and Country Planning Association and the British Independent Retail Association. They have written to Eric Pickles MP, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, calling for intervention to ensure that applications are blocked when they fail planning tests.
Mary Portas, the Government’s retail tsar, who carried out a review for ministers on how to rejuvenate town centres and has been tasked with helping to turn struggling towns around, said: “We are still building out-of-town retail space at an alarming rate while many high streets have perfectly viable space available for new retail and other uses. If people hear about loggers ripping up the rain forest or developers building on green field sites, they get it. This is just as silly a use of space and we can do better. If we say Town Centre First, let’s mean it.”
Places where new shopping developments have left local high streets behind include Horfield, a suburb of Bristol, and Margate – which was chosen as a pilot town for Mary Portas’s improvements.
James Lowman, the chief executive of Association of Convenience Stores, said: “This report paints a disturbing picture about planning decisions being driven by developers rather than local people. The planning framework is simply not being applied properly, as underresourced councils fail to get to grips with making coherent local plans and out-of-town developers fill their boots.”
The planning survey took as a sample half the local planning authorities in England (excluding inner London); new shops accounted for more than 2 million square feet.
The Government defended its position on planning, and a spokesman from the Department for Communities and Local Government insisted the survey was “unrepresentative”. “It does not reflect what is really happening across the country. Our national planning policy makes clear that town centres are the hearts of local communities, and that local councils should recognise this through adopting planning policies that support their vitality and viability. It sets out that all new town centre uses – which includes retail and leisure uses – should be located in existing town centres out of preference. It is also clear that where a proposal would have a likely significant adverse impact on town centres it should be refused.
“Our Town Centre First policy also asks local councils to proactively plan for vibrant and diverse town centres, engaging with business and communities in doing so.”
In the Autumn Statement, the Government announced plans to cap business rates at 2 per cent, instead of linking them to inflation, but critics claim it is not enough to help small businesses. John Longworth, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said the measures were “not strong enough to boost companies’ cash flow and investment”. He said the Chancellor should have been “bolder, freezing business rates entirely”.
The Government also promised yesterday to spend £100m on faster broadband internet connections to boost local retailers. It was the latest in a package of measures it hopes will encourage spending in local shops, which are a major provider of private sector employment .
On Friday, Mr Pickles issued a £1bn “package of support for local shops” including plans to target parking issues. He said: “New tax breaks for shops and sensible changes to over-zealous parking rules will help make high streets more attractive to shoppers.”
In some recent renewable decisions especially one relating to a Solar Farm, Pickles has hinted he is turning all established principles for judging the impact on any proposal on its head. I read the recent Copland decision with some interest. No problem with the decision, it would be clearly be harmful, the policy context was up to date, the inspector recommended refusal. However the SoS letter hinted that Pickles is leaving open the issue of whether a view from a private property is a material planning issue – dangerous.
The Inspectors letter correctly sets out the law.
it has not been claimed by the Council that the turbines would be so close to any dwellings as to be unacceptably dominant or overbearing in the outlook from those dwellings or to make them unpleasant places to live (the ‘Lavender test’)….
Whilst there would clearly be a change in the views available from numerous dwellings and from other private places, it is a well established planning principle that there is no right to maintain unchanged such views from private property. To do otherwise would severely constrain all types of development, whatever their public benefits, which would be contrary to the public interest. Nevertheless the general public perception of valued landscape character should not exclude how that character may be perceived in views from private dwellings….
This is an application of the Stringer Test. Planning is about public interest not private interest though sometimes a private interest may also be a public one, so for example views from homes of a lake district landscape my contribute to they character of that landscape.
However Pickles does not quite make that distinction in his letter.
The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the views available from many private dwellings, buildings and land in the settlements are relevant to considerations of the effect on landscape character but that they do not here result in other unacceptable visual amenity impacts on occupants of individual dwellings that are separate from his considerations of landscape character.
This part of the letter is likely to be seized on, but without the context of the Inspectors recommendations it makes no sense.
Page 164 of the Autumn statement
The government will also launch a review into the role local authorities can play in supporting overall housing supply.
If ever there was an open ended review it is this. This includes the whole of the planning system and well as its role in direct construction. Could this be another of Gideon’s trangulations i.e. supporting council house buildings in the run up to the next election?