Well, that's 'interesting' (with my bold):
'Many respondents to the consultation were concerned that the ‘targets’ provided by the standard method were not appropriate for individual local authority areas. Within the current planning system the standard method does not present a ‘target’ in plan-making, but instead provides a starting point for determining the level of need for the area, and it is only after consideration of this, alongside what constraints areas face, such as the Green Belt, and the land that is actually available for development, that the decision on how many homes should be planned for is made. It does not override other planning policies, including the protections set out in Paragraph 11b of the NPPF or our strong protections for the Green Belt. It is for local authorities to determine precisely how many homes to plan for and where those homes most appropriately located. In doing this they should take into account their local circumstances and constraints. In order to make this policy position as clear as possible, we will explore how we can make changes through future revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework, including whether a renaming of the policy could provide additional clarity.'
Extract from 'Government response to the local housing need proposals in “Changes to the current planning system” Updated 1 April 2021'.
Of course the obvious 'Mr Loophole' get out clause is 'In doing this they should take into account their local circumstances and constraints.' as some would argue that Horsham District has plenty of space (ie open countryside) for building on...
But maybe a peg to hang an argument on?
