For anyone who's ever tried to open up the NPPF to learn about housing targets etc, it's not easy.

Here is how I understand things. 🧵

Interesting. Recommended for approval (and the report has a v neat summary, hurrah), so OK with passing judgement on this one! Here's the location. I always wonder if such things could feasibly support local growth (Aylesbury, North Bucks, MK; there are grid issues), or not as it's all just NG.

This sounds very proactive. Good to have open discussions about the best geographies. Personal view is that Swindon has a lot to offer looking east!

Interesting to read the SoS's Telegraph article ("mandatory targets" were scrapped and will be "restored") and listen to the BBC interview (local plans will be made "mandatory" and "compulsory"; no mention of targets). Here's my take 👇

Final Regulation 18 consultation on the Maidstone Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople DPD here: localplan.maidstone.gov.uk/home/gypsy-t.... There's a commitment to provide for full cultural need (not the planning definition), but there are no sites, despite the need being 529 pitches!

Here's a summary of a local plan-making process that is just getting underway. Is it really a "draft plan" consultation when the intention is not to action consultation responses, but rather forward them on to a planning inspector 🤔

Am I kidding myself in thinking that the details in fact matter as much as the vibe!?

TCPA almost get it right here, except: 1) the first highlight should read "the need figure"; 2) the second highlight should read "the housing requirement"; 3) making arrangements for unmet need must be referenced; and 4) so must the very high evidential bar involved.

This about sums up the pickle we're in (ahead of the return of strategic planning). Quelle surprise, but the solution (ahead of the return of strategic planning) is somewhere in the middle!

Easy read author didn't get the memo about the need to be vague: the 22/23 NPPF didn't make any changes re use of the SM to calculate need (i.e. there has always been the potential to use an alternative method in exceptional circumstances)!

Absolutely do need to always work hard to persuade communities. The right circumstances being where it's plan-led and the plan is prepared by an acountable LPA under sensible regs. www.theguardian.com/politics/202...

Slow news day! Also, this misunderstanding is quite something: "There is also concern that the new national planning policy framework (NPPF) waters down targets for affordable homes, with a previous stipulation that at least 10% of new homes would have to be affordable being scrapped."

Had a second skim earlier, but still need to dive deeper. There's some great stuff, but for me this isn't the correct message and is fundamental. Planning is always a balance, and the standard method isn't planning. Yes, there's a need to shift the balance, but it's not about x trumping y.

I think this point is a really good one. The Regs should require energy use intensity calculation. However, on 'targets' it's not and never has been mandatory to deliver the SM need figure. If it was the recommendation to set mandatory targets through strategic plans would be defunct!