To my knowledge the appeal decision letter at
is the first to grapple with the challenge posed by the Housing and Planning Act 2015 as amended.
This is very important and could have been predicted when the legislation was passed.
However, when the Government appreciates the consequences it might either seek
to repeal the act or possibly/preferably 'go with the flow' and celebrate the DIY approach to
meeting the pent up demand.
The Government are keen to see the level of self and custom building
to grow from a measly 8% per annum to something that compares with
examples in other countries (eg <50% in Austria). It is also aware
that the current housebuilding industry does not have the capacity to
build the 300,000 dwellings deemed necessary (the evidence of need is actually
contestable, and new building at that scale cannot be achieved within
carbon budgets without a sea-change in building techniques/materials).
So, to incentivise self/custom building, there is legislation in place
(the Housing and Planning Act 2015 as amended) that requires planning
authorities to maintain a register of those who would like to build in
the area, and to provide sufficient service plots to reflect the level
of demand on the register. The law also requires the supply of plots to be
permitted at a rate such that those on the register should not have to wait
more than three years for an opportunity to arise. As the first tranche of
self/custom builders joined the register in October 2016 the first
tests of whether planning authorities have fulfilled their duty will
This appeal decision shows that planning authorities cannot rely on any permission
that is not specifically limited by condition or obligation to
self/custom builders. Landscape considerations are taken into account
but the decision shows that the lack of serviced plots to meet the
registered demand can be a material consideration to override the
local plan policies. I would expect planning authorities to respond to
this decision by reserving significant areas of the larger sites being
allocated and permitted for self/custom building or even allocating
sites specifically for this purpose. Meanwhile, the absence of an
adequate supply is an invitation for self/custom builders (especially
those already on the registers) to find suitable sites and make
applications based on the fact that the planning authority is failing
in its duty. This decision might also encourage more people to
register as the prospects of finding serviced plots will increase
through both the more proactive approach taken by councils and other successful
applications and appeals.
There is also the interesting view taken on viability, indicating that in the area in question, self-building does not create sufficient surplus value to pay for affordable housing. Given that this should have been deducted from the land value, it might be better to argue that self/custom building is a form of affordable housing (as a fact or material consideration, even if not accepted by the NPPF).