COVID-19 implications for law and policy in England

Maintaining continued determination of planning applications is viewed by the Government and many councils as an essential response to the crisis, with a view to the long-term economic recovery of their areas. As such, the vast majority of local planning authorities (LPAs) with which we have been in contact are attempting to keep applications moving; whilst in some instances, planning staff have also been given key worker status.

To avoid any doubt, April’s valedictory letter to Chief Planners from the Government’s then Chief Planner stated that planning applications need to continue to be dealt with in a timely way. Albeit that more recently the Government has acknowledged that some LPAs have redeployed staff to other departments.

Though the picture from council to council is varied, many local authority planners are now able to work remotely from home and officers are continuing to validate applications submitted digitally. Guidance published by MHCLG on 13 May advises that authorities should make clear on their websites that planning applications should be submitted online where possible to allow officers to validate and process applications remotely. Whilst this reflects the general approach taken by the majority of authorities, the guidance also states that measures should also be in place to ensure that paper applications can continue to be validated too. The guidance is clear that planning authorities should prioritise the validation of any COVID-19 related planning applications.

In almost all instances, face to face meetings between all parties in the planning decision-making process have now been cancelled, though many are able to conduct virtual meetings for pre-application discussions and other inquiries. For smaller proposals, comments are provided in writing, as would often usually be the case.

 

Temporary amendments to publicity requirements

 

Essentially, temporary measures now allow local planning authorities (and EIA development applicants) to take alternative reasonable steps to publicise planning applications, such as via social media or other electronic communication, if they cannot discharge the specific requirements for site notices, neighbour notifications or newspaper publicity.  Newspaper publicity should use online newspaper portals in the first instance (perhaps something that should have been in place for some time).  This means that the LPAs who told us that they were unable to meet their statutory requirements in this regard, because the local newspaper in which they publicise applications has temporarily stopped circulation, will now be able meet them, potentially by advertising on an online local newspaper in the first instance.

If a local planning authority is having difficulty in carrying out its publicity requirements it must now look for electronic alternatives.  The Government says that online inspection of documents should be the default position across all planning regimes, and it is actively exploring all options to achieve this. The Communities Secretary said to the Commons on 13 May “We are going to get the planning system going again and bring it into the digital age at the same time”.

Publicity requirements relating to serving notice on neighbours remained, and applications relating to major development, EIA, and listed building consent amongst others were required to be publicised in local newspapers until temporary regulations came into force on 14 May.   The amendments made by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure, Listed Buildings and Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 apply, until 31 December 2020, to certain applications including those made to local planning authorities for:

1. planning permission (including planning permission for EIA development and planning permission for development affecting the setting of a listed building or the character or appearance of a conservation area)
2. listed building consent
3. variation or discharge of conditions attached to listed building consent

The temporary Regulations amend the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (DMPO), the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.  They do not apply only to applications submitted on or after 14 May, so can be used in respect of applications stuck in the system for some time due to publicity requirements.

The temporary regulations provide alternatives where an LPA is required to post a site notice, serve notice on an adjoining owner or occupier, or publicise an application in a local newspaper, but considers it is not reasonably practicable, for reasons connected to the effects of coronavirus.  These alternatives appear to be conditional on an LPA not being able to meet permanent DMPO requirements, which raises some questions given how different LPAs have interpreted the impact of coronavirus on their ability to perform their functions to date.  The LPA must give any notice required for a certain type of application to the extent that it is reasonably practicable to do so – i.e. do as much as it can to meet the requirements of the DMPO - and having done that take reasonable steps to inform “any persons who are likely to have an interest in the application of the website on which requisite notice of the application is published”.

The temporary Regulations say “persons who are likely to have an interest in an application must include the persons who live or work in, or otherwise have a direct connection with, the area in which the proposed development is located”. And the reasonable steps that must be taken “may include use of social media and communication by electronic means and must be proportionate to the scale and impact of the development”. The PPG notes that depending on the scale and impact of the proposed development, people likely to have an interest may include community groups and specific interest groups who may wish to provide representations on the application.

The PPG lists examples of electronic communication, including online newspapers:

“in the case of local newspapers that are no longer in circulation, local planning authorities should have regard to the fact that a local newspaper may have an online version that could be used as a form of digital publicity. This will help to ensure that public participation in the planning application process continues during the response to coronavirus and would support local independent news reporting”.

The Government’s Coronavirus (COVID-19): planning update guidance goes further, suggesting that “if local newspapers are not circulating in their area, authorities should seek to use local online news portals in the first instance”.

In terms of proportionality, the PPG says:

“Greater and more frequent publicity would be appropriate where the potential impact of the planning application is expected to generate a large volume of representations. This may be the case, for example, for large scale applications and those applications related to listed buildings, or departures from the local plan, or where there has been a previous application which has attracted interest. Publicity for applications for householder and minor development should be focused on the immediate locality”.

There are no clear examples of how to reach those likely to have an interest in householder and minor development other than by post. It is likely to be easier to demonstrate that those likely to have an interest in a large development have been reached, because if a planning application for a significant development is posted on social media this is likely to generate a reaction that can be recorded, whether or not they are not the same people who might have responded through traditional consultation methods. This may even help to draw out the often silent majority, particularly if the applicant is able to explain the scheme through an animation or images, rather than relying on people viewing the online planning file.

The minimum period for representations which must be given when notice of an application is published in a newspaper or on an LPA website has been extended from 14 days to 21 days (it is still 30 days for EIA development and still 21 days for applications under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990).

The explanatory memorandum emphasises that the amendments are not about cutting corners or excluding certain groups. “The views of local people about the potential impact of development in their area helps to ensure that decision-makers have relevant information to allow them to reach a sound decision. It is important that local planning authorities identify and consider all relevant planning issues associated with a proposed development. This instrument gives them more flexibility to meet their publicity requirements”.

While the PPG suggests the alternatives are a flexible option, the Regulations appear to say that taking those alternatives is a requirement in circumstances where the normal approaches are not reasonably practicable.  In this respect, the explanatory memorandum to the amendment regulations says:

“The changes could have the potential to reduce access to information, and the ability to make representations, for those people who do not have internet access at home. The effects of coronavirus, including restrictions on movement, have made it practically difficult for these people to access the traditional publicity routes. Accordingly, we consider the measures in this instrument to be justified to ensure the planning system continues to function. The measures are considered to be proportionate and meet a fair balance between the potential impact on the ability of individuals to participate in decision making which may affect them and the wider public interest during the response to coronavirus”.

If this is the correct interpretation, an LPA would have to demonstrate why it had decided that the reasonable steps that it could take would not be sufficient in order for its statutory requirements to be discharged under the temporary arrangements and consequently an application could not progress. Given some LPAs have responded in different ways to what are, ostensibly, the same circumstances, this does raise some questions.

The PPG anticipates that publicity arrangements might be determined on a site by site basis and accordingly officers should record the publicity undertaken, potentially describing it in their report. In practice, it might be that local planning authorities adopt approaches for certain circumstances, in order to avoid inconsistent approaches being taken to sites in similar locations or of similar scales within the same LPA area. Indeed, the PPG also suggests that LPAs update their Statement of Community Involvement to explain approaches to the temporary publicity arrangements.  An applicant should be mindful to establish that a given LPA has attempted to meet permanent DMPO requirements and if those requirements have not been met, ask how an application has been advertised, record the response and consider whether the ‘reasonable steps’ undertaken are robust and as comprehensive as possible.  If the applicant does not consider the approach taken to be robust, this should be raised with the LPA as soon as possible.

The temporary arrangements do not mean that LPAs have to use electronic means only or can elect to do so; it is if they ‘cannot’ discharge their permanent DMPO requirements rather than it being difficult to do so.  We are aware that some LPAs have appointed dedicated staff tasked with posting site notices, however, most are now requiring that applicants post site notices themselves where possible, requesting this is photographed on the day posted, as evidence. As before, notices will need to be displayed on or near the site for at least 21 days.  If systems such as this have been put in place for publicity by LPAs and are working well it might be contrary to the regulations to make changes and, for example, stop posting site notices or sending consultation letters.

It is already not statutorily essential for a consultation to be sent to neighbouring properties (provided a site notice is displayed), but it may be a local requirement in the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement, which it might be prudent to amend in this regard, alongside other amendments to reflect the temporary procedures – subject to considering whether doing both is no longer possible whether undertaking both is a legitimate expectation.

Electronic communications must notify people who are likely to have an interest in the application and indicate where further information about it can be viewed online. This will require a local planning authority to be able to notify ‘people likely to have an interest’ electronically.  The Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of 13 May says “the Government recognises there are sections of the community with limited or no access to the internet and authorities and developers should take reasonable steps to ensure those without access are involved and consider alternative and creative ways to achieve this where possible. This could for example, include sending out documents by CD or USB stick where this meets the needs of those requesting such documents”.  This is perhaps an unfortunate example, given that there will be few people without internet access who are able to make use a of CD or USB stick. There are better examples in the Planning Practice Guidance:

“Examples could include local community newsletters, local radio stations, adverts outside council offices and other public buildings, and the use of community noticeboards at supermarkets and other local centres or a method of publicity which is one of the existing statutory methods of publicity even though it is not required for that particular application”.

The WMS also emphasises the temporary nature of the use of alternative electronic means of reaching interested parties: “As restrictions are eased, planning authorities and others should integrate the range of methods that are available to them into their approaches to ensure all sections of the community are reached as thoroughly as is practically possible”. Perhaps, in future, the annual electoral role registration should include subscribing to be notified of certain planning applications.

One area of particular difficulty that cannot be addressed by Regulations is where an application had already been advertised and consequently letters have been posted to neighbours and consultees, replies may have been sent to the Council offices on paper, but not received by the case officer, who is now working from home.  One hopes that this problem will reduce and that in most cases it is safe for an officer to go to a Council’s offices and scan the representations received.

Consultation expectations of applicants are generally being satisfied through online tools, with dedicated web pages and surveys replacing drop in events, though questions remain over accessibility for those without internet access.

 

Serving notice on owners

The explanatory memorandum to the temporary amendment regulations is clear “This instrument does not remove the requirement that an applicant, who is not the owner of the land, must serve notice on the owner of the land or tenant of an agricultural holding before making an application for planning permission, so they are aware of the proposed application. Similar requirements apply to applicants for listed building consent”.

 

Site visits

As for site visits, some LPAs are visiting particularly significant or contentious sites, although generally, LPAs have been requesting that applicants provide officers with photo or videos of sites where possible.  This approach preceded, but is in line with, the WMS:

“Site visits, whether conducted by local authorities, planning inspectors or statutory consultees, are an important part of the process of considering development proposals and plans. Where site visits are required or necessary, they should be undertaken in line with the Government’s guidance on social distancing and safety requirements”.

While it could be argued that not visiting a site would mean that the impact of the development could not be appreciated, site visits are not a statutory requirement.

 

Recent guidance confirms the Government is not intending to amend the timescales for determining planning applications, though developers should be encouraged to agree extensions where this is not possible. By retaining the timescales, applicants will still be entitled to appeal to the Secretary of State over non-determination.

            

 

Due to social distancing requirements, most councils have cancelled or postponed upcoming committee meetings that make planning decisions, which will likely lead to some planning decisions being delayed.

 

Under the previous provisions of the Local Government Act 1972, councillors were unable to vote in committee meetings, unless physically present. The necessary legislation is now in force to allow local authority meetings held before 7 May 2021 to be conducted remotely. Councils will need to ensure any procedural changes are in accordance with its local Constitution and Scheme of Delegation.

 

The MHCLG Chief Planner  letter to all LPA Chief Planners states:

 

“It is important that authorities continue to provide the best service possible in these stretching times and prioritise decision-making to ensure the planning system continues to function, especially where this will support the local economy”.  It goes on to request that LPAs explore all options available to them."

 

Subsequently, MHCLG has urged planning authorities to make use of the temporary powers rather than deferring Committee dates; it also states they should consider taking advantage of the urgency powers within their constitutions to enable increased delegation to senior officers to determine applications

 

Councils are reacting at varying speeds and in different ways to the COVID-19 lockdown, reflecting differing priorities and capabilities and whether certain Committee level decisions should be made prior to remote committee meetings being possible locally. 

 

Several local planning authorities have been very keen to keep disruption to the minimum, responding early and decisively. Prior to remote committee meetings becoming lawful, several Councils made changes to their scheme of delegation permitting their Chief Executive or equivalent to make decisions in consultation with officers and/or Members (e.g. the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (RBWM), East Suffolk Council and Manchester City Council) or arranged for a quorum to meet at the Council with others taking part online (for example LB Waltham Forest and Luton Borough Council).

 

Most councils have now taken advantage of the potential for hosting remote committee meetings via webcasting services, made possible since the passing of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and subsequent secondary legislation. And some of the LPAs that gave increased delegated powers to officers said that these powers would be removed when remote decision making by councillors became lawful.

 

Due to the changes, those awaiting decisions may still well experience delays in the process, though applicants and interested parties will still be given the opportunity to participate. Some authorities are encouraging that this is done by written representations, others are allowing parties access to remote meetings and providing time to speak.

 

The Regulations also allow local authorities to hold and alter the frequency and occurrence of meetings without requirement for further notice.

 

Many Councils already live stream their meetings, but prior to 4^th April had to cancel their meetings if they could not safely arrange for a quorum to be physically present due to the law regarding virtual meetings not yet being in place.

  

As noted above, some Councils have delegated decision making to senior officers, either instead of or prior to operating online Committee meetings and we outline a few examples below.

 

In Manchester the Chief Executive can make planning decisions “in consultation with the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing and with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the committee when both are available, and either if only one is available” until 26 November 2020.

 

Similarly, at an Extraordinary General Meeting at RB Windsor and Maidenhead (RBWM), elected Members amended their scheme of delegation to give powers to the Managing Director, in a defined emergency:

 

In response to a question from a Councillor regarding what would happen if a large or contentious scheme were proposed, the Managing Director said that delegation might be refused and a Panel meeting called “but this would not happen on a regular basis otherwise it would defeat the point of the delegation”.

 

However, at the same meeting it was resolved that if, in due course, remote meetings became lawful “provided the Council has the technology to ensure this can be provided” meeting would revert to their original schedule.

 

A slightly different approach is decision making in consultation with the Committee and we know of this procedural route at South Downs National Park (for certain decisions), in Dudley and in Cornwall where “Planning applications that would otherwise have been decided at committee will be still be fully considered by the relevant planning committee via correspondence”.

 

Notwithstanding, in Cornwall, the Service Director for Planning and Sustainable Development has significant powers of delegated authority, having been authorised to determine all applications.  They also have the authority to consider where consultation with Councillors is required and, where an application is contentious, that decision should be made by a planning committee. “Senior managers will be ensuring that potential Committee items are kept to an absolute minimum and will seek to resolve issues with the Divisional Member as much as possible”.

 

Remote meetings have now started, and we are aware of a few approaches.

 

• Meeting held via Zoom with participants invited to register to take part 
• Meeting held by teleconference with only Councillors taking part 
• Meeting held by teleconference with members of the public taking part via written representation 

Regardless of the approach taken to participation many Councils also stream the Committee via YouTube.

 

There are also non-decision-making meetings with Councillors continuing to receive decision-making reports, debating them via video conference and communicating their view to another Committee (to meet in due course), the Chief Executive or relevant Director to make a decision (e.g. South Somerset on 9 April and East Suffolk) (interim measures).

 

A South Somerset non-decision-making meeting was disrupted when participants with false names joined its Zoom meeting, contributed distractingly and shared their own (off-topic) images over the top of the presentation to the Committee.  Perhaps in response, those wishing to participate in future meetings must now email to request login details for the meeting; the meeting on 9 April had provided login details within the agenda pack.

 

But many Committees that make planning decisions are still postponed or cancelled while planning authorities decide how to progress. Some Committees will only determined a smaller number of applications than usual, but some of these have increased the frequency of meetings as well. Some Committees will not determine the most complex applications via remote Committee - these will have to wait for a return to the usual face to face Committees (rather than just a quorum).

 

The Planning Advisory Service and the Planning Officers’ Society have both produced guidance on running online planning committee meetings. The Government has confirmed it is also working with the Planning Advisory Service to deliver online training to support this. 

  

From the beginning of lockdown there have been repeated calls for the government to change planning laws to extend the time limits for implementing planning permission that would be due to expire during the COVID-19 lockdown period, due to the difficulties that many applicants will have faced implementing permissions that would lapse as a result of the pandemic.

The Government has now introduced the Businessand Planning Bill 2019-21 which includes a number of new measures that should address some of these issues. A Press Release from the Housing Secretary (SoS) Robert Jenrick published 22 June stated:

“The government estimates that by the end of this month alone, more than 400 residential permissions providing more than 24,000 new homes would have expired. The new measures will help these developments and more resume as the economy recovers”.

The Bill, which MPs debated in full on 29 June, includes provisions that will allow for the extension and revival of certain planning permissions and listed building consents that have expired during the lockdown period.

MPs considered all stages of the Bill in one sitting on 29 June 2020. The second reading in the Lords took place on 6 July, with the Report stage proposed for 20 July. If all runs smoothly, we should see a pragmatic and helpful new Act of Parliament very soon. Clause 17 of the Bill proposes two routes for an extension of a full planning permission, depending on the date on which it expired/is due to expire:

For permissions that state development must be begun between the day on which the provision comes into force and ending with 31 December 2020, there will be an automatic extension to the permission, requiring development to be begun not later than 1 April 2021.

For permissions that state that development should have been begun between 23 March 2020 and ending with the day before this provision of the Act comes into force, it will be necessary to seek ‘an additional environmental approval’ from the local planning authority (LPA).

This is essentially to confirm that the development is i) not EIA development or if it is, the EIA that was carried out continues to address the significant environmental effects that are likely to arise, or ii) an appropriate assessment would not be required for the development or if it would, it has already been carried out and remains up to date. It is proposed that the application can only be made by (or on behalf of) a person with an interest in the land.

There is currently no suggestion that there will be an application fee. The application is to be determined with regard to any guidance issued by the SoS. The LPA will need to give notice to either grant without conditions or refuse the application within 28 days, starting with the day after the application is sent, or otherwise the additional environmental approval will be deemed to be granted. The time period for determination may be extended, but only by a maximum of 21 days. No approvals will be granted or deemed to be granted after 31 December 2020, unless granted on appeal, albeit that the SoS can extend the time period.

With the easing of lockdown restrictions, the extensions will create additional time for those in receipt of planning permissions and listed building consents – both extant to the end of the year and expired since lockdown began - to lawfully implement their permissions and consents. Establishing whether or not a development has been implemented is not always straightforward; for some sites there may be discussions regarding whether or not a permission was implemented before the Act gained Royal Assent.

For listed building consent which requires that works must be begun between 23 March and 31 December 2020, Clause 19 of the Bill proposes to insert new section 18A into the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to allow works permitted by such consents to be begun not later than 1 April 2021.

 

The provisions are covered in more detail within this blog.

  

Clause 18 of the Business and Planning Bill proposes similar time extensions for outline planning permissions as have been granted for full planning permissions.

For outline planning permission that has a condition requiring the submission of an application for approval of a reserved matter to be made between 23 March 2020 and 31 December 2020, the application for the approval will need to be made no later than 1 April 2021. This will be extended automatically, with no need for a further application.

Outline permissions requiring development to be begun between the day on the Act comes into force and ending on 31 December 2020 will benefit from an automatic extension of time will mean that the development must be begun not later than 1 April 2021.

Outline permissions that require development to be begun between 23 March and the day before in which the Act comes into force will be required to seek an additional environmental approval with similar provisions to those for planning permission (above).

 

 

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations) have been temporarily amended by Regulations that introduce temporary flexibilities to the publicity requirements for environmental statements for EIA development.
The flexibilities contained within the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure, Listed Buildings and Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 will last until the end of this year and give applicants and local planning authorities (depending on the circumstances) a degree of flexibility as to how the statutory publicity requirements for EIA development are met, where it is not reasonably practicable to comply with one or more of them, for reasons connected to the effects of COVID-19.

Firstly, when an environmental statement and related documents are submitted to a local authority, this can now be delivered to the authority by electronic means and the local authority can send it on to the Secretary of State and consultation bodies by electronic means, removing the need to provide multiple physical copies of documents (an amendment to EIA Regulation 19).

If an applicant submits an environmental statement after a planning application is submitted, Regulation 20 of the EIA Regulations requires the applicant, rather than the local planning authority, to undertake certain publicity. Regulation 20 has been amended, to allow for such applicants to publicise the application by alternative means, where the applicant is not able to notify the public through the posting of a notice at the site or publishing a notice in a local newspaper, because these actions are not considered “reasonably practicable”.

Publicity via site notice or newspaper advertisement should still be the default procedure, with the alternative arrangements only undertaken where this is not been possible due to reasons related to COVID-19 and restrictions on movement.

Where it is deemed not to be reasonably practicable and alternative publicity takes place, the Regulations state that the applicant must “take reasonable steps” to notify those “who are likely to have an interest in a planning application”, such as those who live or work in the area, or otherwise have a direct interest with the area in which the proposed development is located. And the Regulations state that reasonable steps may include use of social media or “other electronic means”.

Planning Practice Guidance lists a number of other potential steps including:
• council mailing lists;
• using social media such as Facebook and Twitter;
• using the local authority’s website;
• using local online newspapers; and
• issuing a weekly press bulletin.

Where the applicant undertakes alternative procedures, the environmental statement must be accompanied by a statement made by or on behalf of the applicant confirming that the certain information has been published in a notice in accordance with the temporary provisions, as well as a statement setting out the steps the applicant has taken to bring the notice to the attention of those likely to have an interest.

The Order also temporarily removes the requirement that applicants must ensure that hard copies of environmental statements are available for inspection at a named address locally. Instead, applicants will need to ensure that these are available by ‘appropriate alternative means’, including on a website, and take reasonable steps to tell those with a potential interest in the application or appeal that there is a website where they can view the relevant documents.

Furthermore, the 2020 Regulations also address the 2017 Regulations’ publicity requirements related to a relevant authority requiring that an environmental statement application or appeal be supplemented with additional information by the applicant or appellant. These have been amended in a similar way to the temporary arrangements under Regulation 20, as detailed above.

The temporary measures are explained within the PPG on Environmental Impact Assessments and within planning practice guidance on Consultation and pre-decision matters.

The 30 day minimum time period for representations relating to EIA development is unchanged.

 

  

Short-term delays are likely for many aspects of the appeals procedure. On the Planning Inspectorate’s (PINS) website, it has noted that timescales have been affected over March, April and part of May 2020 due to measures aimed at slowing the spread of the coronavirus.

It has temporarily stopped published average timescales, stating that they will “not provide meaningful information to customer [sic] on how long a case can take to be decided”, though it aims to resume publishing this data later this summer.

It is continuing to accept appeals lodged through its web-based Appeals Casework Portal (ACP), though is unable to respond to any correspondence via post at present. Its offices in Temple Quay House remain closed and are not able to receive visitors in person.

Inspectors are also inviting parties to consider proceeding with hearings and inquiries through written submissions instead, where appropriate.

Similar procedures are in place for Nationally Strategic Infrastructure Project (NSIP) hearings. Where written submissions are not appropriate, the Examining Authority may exercise discretion on any existing deadlines and will consider amending timetables where needed. 

PINS is investigating how technology might enable it to continue to run planning inquiries and hearings, including the use of video conferencing for events. It held its “first fully ‘digital’ hearing on 11 May". In a Written Ministerial Statement, Robert Jenrick said he expects events to be taking place virtually by mid-June, “other than in exceptional circumstances”, though the Government recognises that in “exceptional circumstances it may not be fair to proceed virtually and that alternative arrangements may be needed.”

At the end of May the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) provided an update on the measures it was taking to progress appeals at the current time.

It anticipates that during June 10 planning hearings, 8 inquiries and 15 Nationally Significant Infrastructure project hearings (associated with four projects) will take place and PINS will reorganise “the vast majority” of hearings. Remaining inquiries will take place “as soon as possible”.

A local plan hearing will also take place in June and a Local Plan examination will be conducted remotely in July.

PINS used the May update to confirm that post COVID-19 face-to-face events will resume.

A review by PINS has concluded that based on a sample, “up to 25% of appeals may be eligible to proceed without a site visit” and “from a sample of 60 hearing appeals there is a possibility that 10 could proceed by the written representation route”.

The April 2020 statistical release from PINS also provides some initial analysis of whether the number of appeals received is dropping. While concluding that it is too early to say, of note: 

“The Planning Inspectorate have continued to make appeal decisions with 1,625 appeal decisions issued between 17th March 2020 and 22nd April 2020. Without the restrictions in place we would have expected to have made between and 1,890 and 2,256 decisions (this is based on the previous 3-months performance)”.

The Government has also stated it is working closely with the Planning Inspectorate and National Infrastructure Planning Association to minimise the impact of current restrictions on the consideration of DCO applications.

In a Statement to the House of Commons on COVID-19 and the housing market, the Communities Secretary said “The planning system, too, must be able to operate safely and efficiently during this time, which means, as with many other sectors, making more use of digital technology. I want the Planning Inspectorate to be at the forefront of this work—it is good to see the inspectorate now undertaking its first virtual hearings. I am asking it to make all hearings virtual within weeks. We are going to get the planning system going again and bring it into the digital age at the same time”.

Moving forward, PINS has stated that it will draw upon the current and emerging practices to guide future changes to policy and process in the longer term.

  

 

   

Whilst permitted development rights allow certain works to be undertaken without planning permission, certain classes of PD require prior approval from the local planning authority, as such, applicants may face some of the same issues as those submitting regular planning applications.

 

It is likely that some LPAs will require more time than the standard 56-day determination period for applications for prior approval. The MHCLG Chief Planner letter to LPA Chief Planning Officers encourages councils to be pragmatic and continue, as much as possible, to work proactively with applicants and others, where necessary agreeing extended periods for making decisions. 

 

Parties may wish to agree extensions of time for LPAs to determine decisions under the provisions under Article 7 of the GPDO 2015 rather than refusing applications.

 

Office-to-residential development granted by the prior approval process must be completed within a period of three years starting with the prior approval date.

 

This means that if the development cannot be completed within its three-year window because of the pandemic then it will be lost, even if work has started.  If this situation might apply to you, please contact us or seek legal advice regarding the extent to which works undertaken might be considered to comply with the time limits condition.

 

Article 4 Directions usually come into force with a year of notice, giving a developer time to benefit from the permitted development that the Direction will remove.  It may be that the pandemic prevents the permitted development right being crystallised before the Article 4 Direction comes into force and again please contact us or seek legal advice to discuss this issue.

   

In response to the current situation, there is an immediate need for new and additional facilities for providing health care facilities, testing centres, coroner facilities, mortuaries, accommodation, and for storage and distribution of food and necessary supplies.

 

To allow this to happen at pace, new permitted development rights have been introduced that will allow for the change of use and adaption of existing buildings as well as new temporary modular buildings.

 

On 8^th March, new regulations were introduced, amending the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, introducing a new Class 12 A of Permitted Development (PD) that allows for "Emergency development by a local authority or health service body”.

 

The provisions have considerable scope, permitting the specified bodies to alter or enlarge any existing buildings, or develop land for the purposes of creating a new building for the purposes of:

 

a) preventing an emergency;

b) reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of an emergency; or

c)taking other action in connection with an emergency.

 

An interpretation of is also provided. This covers anything that “threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom”. This could include loss of life, illness or injury, or homelessness, though also stretches to matters that might disrupt telecommunications, transport facilities and the “supply of money, food, water, energy, and fuel”.

 

There are a number of limitations to this PD right for example, no part of the development can be within five metres of the boundary of a dwelling-house and new buildings and emergency alterations are restricted to maximum heights.

 

This is time-limited permitted development right.

 

  

Clause 16 of the Business and Planning Bill proposes a new temporary mechanism that would allow applicants to modify conditions attached to a planning permission controlling construction working hours. The aim is to allow those working on construction sites greater flexibility to support safe working in line with social distancing guidance on construction and other outdoor work. The procedure would expire at the close of 1April 2021, but this can be extended by further regulations.

New Section 74B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is proposed, allowing applicants to apply to amend conditions relating to construction hours, to either:

The applicant must have an interest in the land and the provisions do not apply to construction hours conditions related to development of a dwelling house or its curtilage.

With reference to PINS expectations on timing (see above) the Bill is expected to reach Royal Assent toward the end of July prior to summer recess, with the provisions under Clause 16 coming into force 6 days after this date.

For further details please see our recent blog on the new provisions.

A Written Statement from the Communities Secretary confirms that the government wishes to relax controls which restrict the time and number of deliveries to shops and supermarkets, requesting that local planning authorities (LPAs) should not undertake enforcement action where such planning conditions have been breached, having regard to their legal obligations.

 

Local planning authorities should use their discretion over “the enforcement of other planning conditions which hinder the effective response to COVID-19.”

 

The Government has emphasised that this is a short term measure.  The flexibilities required by the Statement will be reviewed once current pressure reduce and it will be withdrawn “once the immediate urgency has subsided”.

  

The planning practice guidance chapter on neighbourhood planning has a new paragraph explaining how Covid-19 related legislation, policy and guidance affects neighbourhood planning.

 

Essentially the Coronavirus Act 2020 and subsequent Regulations mean referenda scheduled to take place, between 16 March 2020 and 5 May 2021 are postponed until 6 May 2021.

 

The guidance reminds that where a statement has been issued regarding the intention to hold a referendum the plan can be given significant weight, albeit that it continues to advise that weight is a matter for the decision maker. The new guidance also covers examinations and public consultations.

 

Local plan progress

The Government has made clear that it wants authorities to continue to make progress on emerging Local Plans, reiterating its target of all authorities having up to date Plans in place by 2023. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on Plan-making has been updated setting out how local authorities can review and update their Statements of Community Involvement. This states that where “any of the policies in the Statement of Community Involvement cannot be complied with due to current guidance to help combat the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19), the local planning authority is encouraged to undertake an immediate review and update the policies where necessary so that plan-making can continue.”

The PPG states that any temporary amendments should promote effective community engagement “by means which are reasonably practicable”. Various online engagement methods are suggested, including virtual exhibitions, digital consultations, video conferencing, social media, whilst requirements for physical documents to be publicly available for inspection, may be satisfied through online publication.

To ensure accessibility for those without internet access, authorities are advised to consider engaging directly with representative groups, focusing on those in areas specifically affected by proposals, whilst allowing individuals to nominate others to represent their views on their behalf. It also suggests that representations may be made by telephone or in writing where alternatives can not be identified.