It’s wrong to think all planning committees are the same. True there are some NIMBY councils and councillors. Most aren’t, especially for housing schemes. Cllrs will certainly arm-wrestle developers for planning gain (like affordable %). Threat of refusal is a critical lever.
In my authority I cannot recall a single plan-compliant housing development that has ever been refused. We negotiate hard and the risk of refusal concentrates applicants’ minds wonderfully. We have several stages not just officers then members: pre-app, even pre-pre app.
The Planning Reform Working Paper gave multiple examples, and if you ask around it's not hard to find more. Not really credible to claim that this isn't a problem (and if it isn't in your patch, then the proposals shouldn't change anything)
Relative to the number of approvals, NIMBY refusals are relatively small. This is why the reforms ought to be more selective and target the refusenik Councils not the ones where Cllr decision-taking delivers better development.
I’m not saying “there’s no problem”. There’s a problem in some planning authorities yet the Govt solution is one-sized and applied to all authorities regardless of their delivery record.
There's a more than 1 in 10 chance that if you make an application it will be rejected. Both a large quantum in its own right and imposes a large chilling effect on the marginal application. It's far too politicised and a central cause of our national shortage, especially in urban boroughs.
I’m on the planning committee of one of the most urban of urban Boroughs, one of the most pro growth in London despite having the highest population density. The main obstacle to development is viability: land prices and expected profit margins.
Interesting claim. Not sure how to square that with the fact that Islington last saw sustained housebuilding above 1% over 50 years ago - quite different to e.g. Tower Hamlets. Islington's high land values are a signal that high housebuilding should be viable, but something is blocking development.
In Islington, we are running out of land and sites have very high values. Tower Hamlets has/had a large stock of brownfield land which is being rapidly developed. In Islington we presently have two very large consented schemes (stalled by fire regulations) to deliver about 1,300 additional homes.
There is one other site (at Archway) which, despite the local plan saying "housing", has a pending scheme which would have been refused because it mainly proposes purpose built student accommodation. Over the past 15 years, we've consented student schemes way above London Plan requirements.
Right - so you have an allocated site, that you admit you would have blocked for a political reason. A slam dunk example of why planning committees need to be removed from allocated sites if the Government is to have a whiff of a chance of getting to 1.5 million homes this Parliament.