Posted 27 March 2016 - 05:01 PM
Happily, the one development site that has blighted this village for years has at last been sold on to a "proper" developer so we might see it built on and at last act as a defence against the speculative developers who claim that because it's had its OPP renewed twice it could no longer be counted in the 5 year housing land supply because it was "obvious that no one wanted to actually build on it so it couldn't be considered deliverable".
That was the argument put forward to support an application for 20 houses outside the development boundary.
That "blight" of undeveloped development land had OPP for 30 houses! Because it hadn't been developed, 29 houses have been built on another site, 58 houses built on another site, and OPP granted for a further 30 houses to the south of the village.
Those 30 houses made up the "balance" out of the 126 houses the village was expected to provide to make up the housing numbers of the county to 2026, 96 of that 126 having already been built.
So, we are now about to get that original 30 houses, on top of the 29, on top of the 58, making 117 about to be built and being built as we speak. And there is still the OPP for the 30 houses to the south of the village.
You can see how developers can skew things.
Had the LA had the power to acquire that development site when it first came up for renewal of its OPP we would not have so many very unhappy people losing their views over open countryside towards distant hills because a speculative developer took advantage of the loopholes in the NPPF to build outside the development boundary of this village, despite having lost the appeal on having their first speculative application refused, an application they simply brought back to the table along with the threat of another appeal this time citing the NPPF - a threat they subsequently did carry through when the application was deferred in the hope of our 5 year housing land supply being signed off by the time it came before the committee again.