One of the RLA’s key arguments in connection with planning policies is the demand for shared accommodation must be met. The need for this demand to be met was recently recognised by the Manchester Planning Inspector. However, she maintained that this could be done via the demand-led, unplanned location of new HMOs in areas where there were no existing concentrations of HMOs – surely this is the antithesis of planning!
However, on the principle of meeting demand two recent appeal decisions by the Secretary of State vindicate the view that the requirement in the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) trumps local objectors who do not want any development at all.
Under NPPF there must be a five-year supply of housing. Local plans tend to be drawn up in terms of new housing supply, rather than converting houses. Nevertheless, the principle should be the same. In these appeals the Secretary of State prioritised satisfying housing need. This was done in one of the appeals even though the local plan was up-to-date. If there was no up-to-date local plan the Secretary of State stated that the power for communities to have a say to develop their area also carried with it a responsibility to ensure that a local plan was in place.
It is clear from the NPPF that local plans must be based on robust evidence, including housing demand. It is therefore becoming increasingly apparent that localism does not encompass the right to reject all development altogether, otherwise known as NIMBYism (NIMBY standing for ‘Not in my back yard’). Meeting demand is at the heart of the new system, which is in line with the representations which the RLA made on this topic in response to the consultation on the new NPPF.
