While not something we support, S5 is not as restrictive as you make out, even for housing. There are clear loopholes to the 'effective ban' on a range of developments you infer would result...with a strengthened presumption applying to housing in a range of contexts, including:
d) The redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to
residential or mixed-use including residential);
e) Limited infilling within groups of houses
h) Development for housing and mixed-use development within reasonable walking distance of a railway station which provides a high level of connectivity to jobs and services; physically well-related to a railway station (etc etc)
i) The development of land allocated for that purpose in the development plan (where
this lies outside settlements);
j). Development which would address an evidenced unmet need (including housing), where close to an existing settlement (which includes villages, although not hamlets)
While these changes might be seen as limiting less scrupulous developers punting so many unallocated housing sites towards an appeal - a partial win against development by appeal which is not in anyone's interest - S5 part j). gives the same lot an additional bite at the cherry (re where there is clear evidence of unmet housing need such as 5 year supply or HDT deficits) and where the same presumption/tilted balance would apply in their favour?
Lawyers and developers will always bemoan new wording that gets in the way of their getting permission, but that doesn't mean the changes themselves are always wrong. Arguably housebuilders are still getting a very nice deal from government.
More worryingly, the stronger presumption (which we are concerned greenlights development in general rather than just sustainable development) applies to all forms of minerals, including oil, gas and low volume fracking - which everyone should be pushing back on! Data centres and SMRs are also getting an easier ride than they should, despite their obvious environmental drawbacks...
Your presumption that it's all about developers getting a nice deal or not, seems to be clearly illustrative of the real problem here. This isn't a zero sum game where either developers or the community win at the cost of the other. Development is about building more places for people to live and work, and if some developers make profits in the process then that is fine. If you really don't like developers making profits then please set up third sector mechanisms to build housing and push to authorise councils to build housing again.
While not something we support, S5 is not as restrictive as you make out, even for housing. There are clear loopholes to the 'effective ban' on a range of developments you infer would result...with a strengthened presumption applying to housing in a range of contexts, including:
d) The redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to
residential or mixed-use including residential);
e) Limited infilling within groups of houses
h) Development for housing and mixed-use development within reasonable walking distance of a railway station which provides a high level of connectivity to jobs and services; physically well-related to a railway station (etc etc)
i) The development of land allocated for that purpose in the development plan (where
this lies outside settlements);
j). Development which would address an evidenced unmet need (including housing), where close to an existing settlement (which includes villages, although not hamlets)
While these changes might be seen as limiting less scrupulous developers punting so many unallocated housing sites towards an appeal - a partial win against development by appeal which is not in anyone's interest - S5 part j). gives the same lot an additional bite at the cherry (re where there is clear evidence of unmet housing need such as 5 year supply or HDT deficits) and where the same presumption/tilted balance would apply in their favour?
Lawyers and developers will always bemoan new wording that gets in the way of their getting permission, but that doesn't mean the changes themselves are always wrong. Arguably housebuilders are still getting a very nice deal from government.
More worryingly, the stronger presumption (which we are concerned greenlights development in general rather than just sustainable development) applies to all forms of minerals, including oil, gas and low volume fracking - which everyone should be pushing back on! Data centres and SMRs are also getting an easier ride than they should, despite their obvious environmental drawbacks...
Your presumption that it's all about developers getting a nice deal or not, seems to be clearly illustrative of the real problem here. This isn't a zero sum game where either developers or the community win at the cost of the other. Development is about building more places for people to live and work, and if some developers make profits in the process then that is fine. If you really don't like developers making profits then please set up third sector mechanisms to build housing and push to authorise councils to build housing again.