The council states that as it currently can not demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, for housing applications, in so far as Policy C2 is a housing supply policy, under paragraph 49 of the NPPF, this policy must be considered out of date.

We asked Councillors to consider recent observations that there would be an oversupply of housing should deliverable green field sites be included in the recently published 5 year housing supply report. Also no robust evidence exists to suggest a number of green field sites should not be included in the five year supply.

We would also reiterate that in the case of Crane v SoS, Justice Linblom was clear with regards to the weight given to out of date policies in the absence of a five year supply:

“neither paragraph 49 of the NPPF nor paragraph 14 prescribes the weight to be given to policies in a plan which are out of date. Neither of those paragraphs of the NPPF says that a development plan whose policies for the supply of housing are out of date should be given no weight, or minimal weight, or, indeed, any specific amount of weight. One can of course infer from paragraph 49 of the NPPF that in the Government’s view the weight to be given to out of date policies “for the supply of housing” will normally be less, often considerably less, than the weight due to policies which provide fully for the requisite supply. …In Grand Union Investments Ltd. (at paragraph 78) I endorsed a concession made by counsel for the defendant local planning authority that the weight to be given to the “policies for housing development” in its core strategy would, in the circumstances of that case, be “greatly reduced” by the absence of a five-year supply of housing land. However, the weight to be given to such policies is not dictated by government policy in the NPPF. Nor is it, or could it be, fixed in the case law of the Planning Court. It will vary according to the circumstances, including, for example, the extent to which the policies actually fall short of providing for the required five-year supply, and the prospect of development soon coming forward to make up the shortfall.
But in any event, however much weight the decision-maker gives to housing land supply policies that are out of date, the question he has to ask himself under paragraph 14 of the NPPF is whether, in the particular circumstances of the case before him, the harm associated with the development proposed “significantly and demonstrably” outweighs its benefit, or that there are specific policies in the NPPF which indicate that development should be restricted. That is the critical question. The presumption in favour of the grant of planning permission in paragraph 14 is not irrebuttable. And the absence of a five-year supply of housing land will not necessarily be conclusive in favour of the grant of planning permission.”

With other significant sites in the local area coming forward, it could be reasonably argued that there are sufficient deliverable sites that are reasonably available within the plan period, as defined in NPPF (footnote 11):

“To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable.”

Planning permission is not a requirement for a deliverable site, indeed Footnote 11 of the NPPF specifically does not preclude sites where planning permission has not yet been granted.

In view of the reasonable existence of deliverable sites the lack of a five year supply of housing should not be given such significant weight and policy C2 can be applied in its normal form.