Consultation closes on 15 April on DCLG’s 60-plus page ‘
Technical consultation on implementation of planning changes’, launched today.
Views are sought on how the government should implement the planning clauses in the
Housing and Planning Bill, alongside some other related measures. DCLG is particularly interested in consultees’ ‘ideas’.
The consultation exercise will inform the various pieces of secondary legislation that are to be prepared after the Bill has passed into law – and changes to national Planning Practice Guidance too, no doubt.
Of particular interest, here are the details being put forward by government for:
Development management measures
1. Increasing planning application fees: instead of the previously mooted locally set planning application fees, ‘radical reform’ is intended to result from proposed fee increases to reflect not only annual inflation nationally, but also, higher fees being charged by any local planning authority (LPA) that is performing well locally, in terms of the speed and quality of its decisions. There may or may not be a period of grace, for authorities not currently performing well.
As frequently suggested by applicants for major, often complex schemes, a fast track service with a ‘proportionate’ fee could also be introduced, via legislation or local performance agreements.
2. Testing competition in processing planning applications: potentially running alongside the new planning application fee regime, and not involving any change to LPA decision-taking, pilots around the country would mean that an applicant could make some types of planning application as now, or instead, to a competing ‘approved provider’ (who would have to have ‘the professional skills and capabilities’ and ‘the expertise to manage’ the processing). That provider could be another LPA.
How LPA and competitors’ application processing fees would be set is not certain – cost recovery for LPAs and a ‘low-cost’ option for competitors are possibilities.
The approved provider would undertake all consultations and would just have to pass a report and recommendation to the council for determination – with the authority having just one or two weeks to then make a decision on the application.
Information sharing would be a requirement for both the LPA and the approved provider, largely to ensure that the planning register remains accurate.
3. Financial benefits of applications: in addition to the ‘local financial considerations’ that are currently taken into account in decision-taking (i.e. government grant and community infrastructure levy), an officer’s report to committee will be able to estimate the amounts accruing to any local authority via council tax and business rate revenue, and s106, if a development were to proceed.
4. Limit to extensions of time for statutory consultee responses on application consultations: it is proposed that a maximum time period of 14 days would be imposed – the average extension period is already between 7 and 14 days so this would not be too onerous a requirement.
5. S106 dispute resolution: for any application where there are unresolved s106 obligation issues, it is proposed that the process could be triggered at the end of the statutory determination period for that application. Details would be sent to the Secretary of State (SoS) and after a two week ‘cooling off’ period and the SoS having considered whether planning permission would be likely to be granted with a satisfactory s106, an independent body (as yet unspecified) would be appointed and have 4 weeks to produce a report setting out how the dispute has been resolved/ giving recommendations on appropriate terms. A fee would be charged.
6. Performance measuring minor developments, changes of use and householder proposals: in addition to reducing the overturned appeals threshold for major developments, LPA performance in making timely and quality decisions is to be measured in a similar way for these other application types too. But householder applications would remain with the LPA to determine – minor development and change of use applications in poorly performing LPA areas could be made to the Planning Inspectorate (as for major developments now).
7. Much-extended permitted development rights for free schools: with no other references to soon-to-expire change of use rights (the current office to residential right ‘expires’ on 30 May), the government is recognising the need to meet the growing demand for state-funded school places, by proposing to allow lengthier temporary periods for free schools to use existing buildings, and to give a new right for temporary buildings on cleared sites.
