Call for Sites Guide for Landowners & Farmers

A council may open the exercise as part of a new Local Plan, a plan review, a HELAA or SHLAA update, a brownfield register exercise or a search for a defined use. The authority’s live notice controls the eligible land uses, boundary standard, evidence, declaration and closing time; requirements from another council should not be copied across.

Submitting land places information before the authority so that the site can be recorded and considered through the relevant assessment. It does not establish that the site is suitable, available or achievable, and it does not grant planning permission. Inclusion in a published list or assessment should therefore be described accurately rather than presented as a policy endorsement.

The next stage is often a land availability assessment, sometimes called a HELAA or SHLAA. That work considers the site against planning, environmental, infrastructure and delivery factors. Our HELAA and SHLAA guide explains what inclusion and exclusion can mean without confusing the evidence base with a Local Plan allocation.

A Call for Sites can still be strategically important. It may be the first formal opportunity to demonstrate that the land is available and to explain why it could form part of a sustainable development strategy. It can also reveal evidence gaps that should be addressed before later consultation, site selection or a planning application.

The landowner should treat the submission as the beginning of a planning record. The boundary, proposed use, capacity, access assumptions and delivery statements may be revisited by the council, technical consultees, local communities and potential development partners. Accuracy and consistency are therefore more valuable than an inflated headline claim.

Common weaknesses include submitting the entire title without considering the developable area, relying on an access that is outside the owner’s control, stating that the site is immediately available when it is occupied under a long tenancy and quoting a capacity that ignores drainage, landscape or infrastructure land.

Another weakness is treating a previous rejection as final without analysing why it occurred. Some constraints remain decisive; others can change as policy, infrastructure, ownership or evidence changes. A resubmission should identify the material change rather than reproduce the earlier form.

The submission should also avoid drifting into the role of a Local Plan allocation case. It can explain why the site deserves assessment, but the detailed comparison with alternatives usually develops later. The Local Plan allocation guide explains that separate stage.

Landowners should review publicity and confidentiality arrangements. Site boundaries, proposed uses and assessment conclusions may become public, while personal information is handled under the authority’s privacy notice. Commercially sensitive documents should not be submitted unnecessarily.

Finally, keep the site under review. Council programmes change, evidence is updated and consultation stages create new deadlines. A good initial submission is not a substitute for monitoring the plan and responding when the authority asks for further evidence.

Begin with the planning reason for considering the site. This may be its relationship with an existing settlement, the opportunity to support a coherent urban extension, the reuse of previously developed land, access to services, an employment need or the ability to deliver infrastructure with adjoining land. A generic statement that the council needs housing is rarely enough to distinguish one site from alternatives.

Explain the proposed development concept in a way that can be tested. Identify the likely access, broad developable area, green infrastructure, drainage and any retained features. Where the capacity is preliminary, say so and describe the assumptions. This is more persuasive than presenting an exact dwelling figure that is unsupported by a plan or constraints review.

Acknowledge policy and technical constraints. Green Belt, settlement boundary, landscape sensitivity, flood risk or ecology do not always make submission pointless, but they require an honest explanation of the planning route and possible mitigation. Omitting an obvious designation can undermine confidence in the rest of the form.

Use existing evidence efficiently. Planning history, council evidence studies, nearby allocations, transport schemes, utilities correspondence and previous surveys may help, but their relevance and date should be checked. Do not attach large numbers of documents without explaining what each one establishes.

End with availability and next steps. Confirm owner support, identify any third-party dependency and state what further work could reasonably be undertaken if the council progresses the site. This shows commitment without pretending that a full application package already exists.

Consider delaying where the boundary depends on an owner who has not agreed, the proposed access is demonstrably unavailable or the form requires information that cannot be answered honestly. A site described as deliverable without control of essential land may be difficult to reposition later.

A submission may also need reframing where only part of the title has a credible relationship with the settlement or where a combined site with adjoining land would produce a better access, drainage or landscape solution. The promoted boundary should respond to planning logic rather than ownership convenience alone.

Do not wait for every possible survey. The objective is proportionate evidence. The decision is whether the missing information prevents the council understanding the opportunity, not whether the landowner can replicate a complete planning application before the deadline.

Where the deadline is close, submit only information that can be supported and label preliminary evidence accurately. Confirm with the authority whether further material can follow; do not assume that a late technical note will be taken into account after the portal closes.