Site allocations and what being allocated really means

A site allocation in an adopted local plan means the plan has identified the land for a particular kind of development, usually with site specific requirements attached. The site allocation local plan meaning that matters in practice is narrower than most landowners assume: an allocation establishes the principle of development and gives the proposal substantial policy support, but it does not grant permission, it does not fix the capacity, and it does not relieve the applicant of any constraint that the plan failed to resolve.

An allocation is a strong starting point and a list of obligations. Read it as both.

How allocations are made and tested

Allocations come through plan making. The authority assesses sites, usually through a strategic housing and economic land availability assessment, consults on them, then submits the plan for independent examination. An inspector tests whether the plan is sound: positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Once adopted, the allocation is part of that plan.

The examination matters when you come to apply. The inspector's report and the evidence base behind the allocation tell you what the authority assumed about access, capacity, phasing and infrastructure. Where your scheme departs from those assumptions, you are arguing against the plan's own evidence, and officers will notice.

Reading the allocation policy properly

Allocations are written in two places: the policies map, which shows the boundary, and the policy text, which carries the requirements. Read both and read them against each other, because the boundary and the text often imply different areas.

The text usually sets out some combination of:

• an indicative capacity, often expressed as approximately a number of dwellings
• access arrangements, sometimes naming the point of access
• infrastructure to be delivered, such as a school contribution, a highway improvement or open space
• design requirements, including any requirement for a masterplan or design code
• constraints to be addressed, such as flood risk, heritage assets, contamination or landscape
• phasing, and any relationship to a neighbouring allocation

Make a table of every requirement and the document that answers it. That table becomes the structure of the Planning Statement, and it is the single most useful thing to put in front of an officer early.

What an allocation does and does not give you

It gives you the principle. An objection that says the site should not be developed at all is answered by the plan, and a council that refuses on that basis is on weak ground.

It does not give you the quantum. Indicative capacity figures in allocation policies are exactly that, and they are usually derived from a density assumption applied to a net area. A scheme substantially above the figure needs justification on design and amenity grounds. A scheme substantially below it faces the argument that the site is being underused, which has become a sharper point as national policy has pressed on making efficient use of land.

It does not resolve constraints. The plan's sustainability appraisal and habitats regulations assessment work at a strategic level, so a site allocated over a flood risk area still needs a Flood Risk Assessment and, where sequential considerations apply, the relevant tests. An allocation inside a nutrient or water neutrality catchment still needs the mitigation secured. Our note on local plan site allocations and their weight looks at the weight question in more detail.

And it does not deliver the land. Allocation of land in third party ownership is common, and the plan has no mechanism to make anyone sell. Third party interests other than freehold ownership can bite too, and our note on registered common rights and who holds them covers one that catches allocated edge of settlement sites.

Masterplanning and design code expectations

Larger allocations increasingly require a masterplan or a design code approved before, or alongside, the first detailed application. The National Design Guide and the National Model Design Code sit behind that requirement, and many authorities have adopted their own codes.

Where the policy requires a masterplan, treat it as a separate project with its own programme. Trying to produce one in parallel with a reserved matters submission usually means the masterplan follows the layout rather than shaping it, which is visible to anyone reading both.

A Design and Access Statement for an application on an allocated site should show how the scheme responds to the code and to the allocation's design requirements, clause by clause. Officers check that explicitly on allocated sites, far more than on windfall sites.

Infrastructure and phasing requirements

The infrastructure requirements in an allocation policy become the heads of terms for a section 106 agreement, or in part a Community Infrastructure Levy liability where the authority charges it. The two do not overlap: an authority cannot use an obligation to fund something its levy already funds.

Three things to settle at the earliest stage.

1. Which requirements are obligations and which are conditions, because the drafting burden and the timing differ.
2. What the infrastructure delivery plan behind the local plan assumed about cost and timing.
3. Whether phasing in the policy constrains the number of units that can be occupied before a piece of infrastructure is delivered.

Viability is the usual flashpoint. Where the full package of requirements makes the scheme undeliverable, a Viability Assessment following the approach in the Planning Practice Guidance on viability is the mechanism, with the starting point that the plan has already tested viability at a strategic level. Councils usually expect a suitably qualified author and professional review is strongly advised.

Departing from the allocation boundary

Applications routinely come forward on a red line that is not the allocation boundary. Sometimes smaller, because part of the site is in another ownership. Sometimes larger, to pick up an access or a drainage outfall.

A modest overlap for access or infrastructure is normally dealt with as a matter of judgement. A substantial extension beyond the boundary is development of unallocated land and is assessed as such, which may mean it is in the countryside or outside the settlement boundary for policy purposes.

Where you are applying on part of an allocation, show how the remainder can still come forward. The argument that kills a part site application is that it prejudices the planned development of the whole, particularly where the allocation depends on a single access or a shared drainage strategy.

Weight for sites in an emerging plan

A site in a plan that has been submitted for examination, or has reached a main modifications consultation, carries weight that increases as the plan advances, judged by the stage of preparation, the extent of unresolved objections and the degree of consistency with national policy.

In practice, officers are cautious before examination hearings and much less so afterwards. An applicant with a site in an emerging allocation and a tight programme has a judgement to make about whether to apply now and argue weight, or wait. Where the authority cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply, the balance shifts further towards the applicant.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.