The London Plan should follow where St Ives has taken the lead

Readers of DanthePlan who did not get their hands on the Evening Standard of 15 November would not have seen Simon Jenkins' celebration of the Court finding that the policy in the St Ives Neighbourhood Plan limiting the occupation of new houses as 'principal residences' is lawful.  The NDP can be read at:

https://stivesnplan.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/final-st-ives-area-ndp.pdf

and the relevant and apparently lawful policy is:

"H2 Principal Residence Requirement

Due to the impact upon the local housing market of the continued uncontrolled growth of dwellings used for holiday accommodation (as second or holiday homes) new open market housing, excluding replacement dwellings, will only be supported where there is a restriction to ensure its occupancy as a Principal Residence.

Sufficient guarantee must be provided of such occupancy restriction through the imposition of a planning condition or legal agreement. New unrestricted second homes will not be supported at any time.

Principal Residences are defined as those occupied as the residents’ sole or main residence, where the residents spend the majority of their time when not working away from home.

The condition or obligation on new open market homes will require that they are occupied only as the primary (principal) residence of those persons entitled to occupy them.  Occupiers of homes with a Principal Residence condition will be required to keep proof that they are meeting the obligation or condition, and be obliged to provide this proof if/when Cornwall Council requests this information. Proof of Principal Residence is via verifiable evidence which could include, for example (but not limited to) residents being registered on the local electoral register and being registered for and attending local services (such as healthcare, schools etc)"

While neighbourhood planning has had the potential for innovation  a combination of examiners and supervision by LPAs has meant that most are rather badly drafted versions of local plans. However, readers of this blog would recall that there was no such thing as 'affordable housing' until an appeal court judge explained (agreeing with the LPA and disagreeing with both an inspector and a high court judge) that a dwelling affordable as a ratio of local earnings was materially different in planning terms to one that was unaffordable.  Since then affordability has been a thread  throughout the housing debate that has seen the term corrupted to the extent that a return to court on the issue is overdue.

Coming back to local occupier/principal residence conditions, these might be legal but could be a nightmare to enforce.  I have to put up my hand to writing an article in the Journal of Planning Law expressing scepticism about the an attempt in 2002 by Exmoor National Park Authority to introduce a similar policy.  I do wish the residents of St Ives and Cornwall Council well in what should be seen as an experiment that should be closely monitored and improved where necessary.  Taking my cue from Simon Jenkins, I do think that the London Mayor should exploit this judgement and that The London Plan should follow where St Ives Neighbourhood Plan has taken the lead.