Nick Boles was at least straightforward. We need to build more houses and that means more greenfield sites in local plans.
That scared the horses.
Now politicians appear to imply that is not their policy intent but don’t deny that might be the outcome of implementing their policy.
For example Boris said after the Chesham and Amwersham by-election (FT)
Johnson responded to the by-election loss by claiming there was “misunderstanding” about the reforms. “What we want is sensible plans to allow development on brownfield sites. We’re not going to build on greenbelt sites, we’re not going to build all over the countryside.”
Of course not all over it, but certainly on some of it.
Whilst Jenryk yesterday said
None of us want to see homes being built on green fields, even less so on the greenbelt.
Of course none of us want to do the ironing, but we have to do it.
Where should the cities and urban centres uplift be met?
This increase in the number of homes to be delivered in urban areas is expected to be met by the cities and urban centres themselves, rather than the surrounding areas, unless it would conflict with national policy and legal obligations. In considering how need is met in the first instance, brownfield and other under-utilised urban sites should be prioritised and on these sites density should be optimised to promote the most efficient use of land. This is to ensure that homes are built in the right places, to make the most of existing infrastructure, and to allow people to live nearby the service they rely on, making travel patterns more sustainable.Paragraph: 035 Reference ID: 2a-035-20201216
Conflict with national policy such as the NPPF para. 61 meeting the identified housing need?
Similarly after you have identified brownfield sites in the first instance, and their arn’t enough, what about the second instance.
Its taking the british public for fools, like not mentioning that you are taking a toddler to the drs for a jab in case they cry.