For what it’s worth (not that I posted much on here), but my pedestrian contributions to debate are available over there:

It’s a hill I will die on, but it is not ‘reducing housebuilding in London’. Its ‘need’ estimate is greater than the one it replaces (before the latter was arbitrarily uplifted by 35%) and is hugely stretching, more than any London Plan + more than double historic delivery rates

Amidst this week's planning changes, the most important news for me are these v. pleasing and well-deserved @LichfieldsUK promotions (incl 8 from London team): Highlights the strength and depth of our team, and points to a bright future. Well done to all

ICYMI The suite of @lichfieldsUK analysis of the Government's two-day blitz of planning reform changes (in the form of interactive maps on 'housing targets', and commentary) can be found here:

New @LichfieldsUK blog from yours truly on the New Towns Taskforce and how it might go about its mission to identify these largescale new communities: It digs into some questions around local support and additionality. And has a nice map.

Pleased to see this @mhclg blog on the question of the Standard Method make use of @LichfieldsUK maps and analysis. Makes a serious point about how the proposed approach is benchmarked in making local and regional comparisons - points also made here:

@timleunig @PricedOutUK 2. Drawing a conclusion about likely regional price differentials should presumably be based on an assessment of the absolute impact of the proposal on prices rather than how it compares to another method which may or may not have had desired effect?

@timleunig @henryoverman Maybe we're talking at cross purposes (and my brain is v small) but new method would give increased emphasis to price (relative to incomes) applied to stock rather than (out-dated and circular) projections. Less affordable areas thus expected to build more than lower priced areas

@timleunig Depends what view you take of the original method and whether it was fair representation of need to benchmark changes against. Longstanding criticism was that original method undercooked need in north (less than current LPs and recent rates of build).

@timleunig Tim - but that is to forget that the plans for those areas (now and in future) are considered across boundaries, and for London, Oxfordshire, and Cambridgeshire, the proposed method is *higher* than recent build rates, current Local Plans, and current Standard Method

@DuncanStott Whether that's right or wrong from a need perspective, FWIW that would - as sure as eggs is eggs - make no difference to actual house building in London and make it less likely the total need of 370K would be actively planned for.

More info at the @LichfieldsUK online resource including whizzo maps and some commentary.

Compared to current local plans, some of the greatest increases are in LPAs immediately surrounding London.

A more accurate view of the proposed method is the map below which shows proportionately higher levels of growth are focused in the south, including in London, greater south east and the arc between Oxford and Cambridge

Yes, the new SM has some proportionately bigger % increases from the current SM in northern regions but this is in context the current SM was widely criticised as setting numbers *too low* in those areas, less than recent delivery and existing Local Plan targets.

The @LichfieldsUK analysis of the Government's proposed reforms to the NPPF and other changes to the planning system is here Analysis of the NPPF and proposed Standard Method (including interactive maps) is up and further content is on its way

A welcome reminder of this important fact from @paul_slg as also recorded in this very droll 2016 @lichfieldsuk blog from @OwainNedin here: