Last week we had Mole Valley. Now Solihull.
An examination frozen with the LPA expecting the changed NPPF, only for the new NPPF being hardly different, not easing housing targets or the requirement to meet unmet need from elsewhere where or the DTC (though now as a policy test). Furthermore under the transitional arrangements a) current plans in the examination process tested under the old NPPF and b) following the LURB ACT LPAs can only now withdraw LPs following an inspector recommendation and with agreement of the SOS.
In Solihull last year the inspectors have said the delivery expectations at the NEC station National Exhibition site were too great leaving a shortfall. now the inspectors have written saying what is happening now with the new NPPF no need to continue the freeze. The shortfall would normally require new GB sites, which the inspectors have said they prefer compared to a short term review, of course GB boundaries are supposed to be defensible in the long term so adopting a plan saying the boundaries are not defensible in the short term is a nonsense.
The examination will proceed without the incorporation of the new NPPF of no requirement to ‘review or change’ GB boundaries under new NPPF para 145 – but even if it was under the news one they have already been reviewed and proposed for change in terms of exceptional circumstances housing need, that cat is out of the bag. The NPPF is ambiguous on this. It would be hard to say the EC test is passed for one site, but if that site is not enough the EC could not be definition be passed on others if the need is greater than anticipated. This illustrates how a ostrich like shutting off from evidence and reality just stores up legal problems. Expect that added sentence to be first to go in a revised NPPF under a new government.
There are surprisingly few other LPs mid examination in this category, but standing out is Wirral.
Decisions, Decisions, Decisions 