A recent appeal case (DCS Number 400-034-627) provides an example of reasoning which is seen so often that we have held off questioning it.
“The proposal would add 2 dwellings to the Council’s housing stock. However, while every dwelling makes a contribution to housing supply and is therefore of benefit, including smaller and unallocated windfall sites, set against a significant deficit in the Council’s housing land supply the positive attributed weight of 2 units to this shortfall would be limited.”
Now, there might be many good reasons for resisting development on unallocated sites. But we have to question this ‘drop in the ocean’ argument. It just doesn’t hold water. If the housing land shortfall is significant the benefit of two new houses is that much greater, isn’t it? Indeed, a more convincing argument might be that the benefit of two houses would be neither here nor there if the council’s housing land supply shortfall were only minor.
Just putting it out there.
Section 9.1321 of DCP Online concerns housing land supply in the rural area.