Liz focusses on the proposals for an accelerated application process, in part 3 of this vital review of the latest government consultations.
The proposal
The Accelerated System – well, only for major commercial developments and only if they are not EIA development.
This section proposes an accelerated application option for any commercial development that creates more than 1,000m2 of employment floorspace, including: offices, storage and warehousing, retail, general industrial, research and development, light industry and advanced manufacturing (so pretty much everything in Use Classes E, B2 and B8).
It does extend to proposed mixed use developments where the employment floorspace to be created exceeds 1,000m2. So, a proposed local shop of circa 500m2 wouldn’t count.
Other exemptions include: retrospective development; those subject to a Habitats Regulations Assessment; minerals and waste proposals; and any that potentially impact on a heritage asset.
The proposed exemption in respect of heritage assets is another new phrase. It states that an application is exempt if it is:
“within the curtilage or area of listed buildings or other designated heritage assets”.
The use of the word ‘area’ in respect of a listed building is unique and undefined. Could this be interpreted that any proposal that is merely within the vicinity of the heritage asset is exempt? Who makes this decision?
Do the numbers justify the change?
The Government acknowledges that this proposed accelerated system would only apply to approximately 1,650 applications throughout England. What isn’t clear is if this figure includes or excludes all the applications that would fall into the exceptions category.
If it includes these applications, then this proposal will affect the bare minimum of applications, which begs the question whether the admin required for Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to have this system available is in fact disproportionate to the benefits gained.
The only nugget of hope for other types of development is that the Government will “explore” the possibility of an extension to the scheme to major infrastructure and residential development.
What is the Accelerated Planning Service?
The consultation proposes no change to the consultation process, or determination process. So, if an application needs to go to Planning Committee for example, it will still need to follow that process.
All the scheme proposes is for LPAs to work faster by prioritising these applications. Validate them faster, make internal consultees and solicitors available to respond to the submissions, and potentially look at convening additional committees to meet an accelerated timescale of 10 weeks for determination.
Two key areas have been identified as the most common causes of delays in decision making:
1 – Poor quality submissions and missing information.
2 – Delays in the completion of s106 Agreements.
The proposed solution is for Applicants to engage in pre-application discussions with the Council, the nature of which is suggested to be different to the current pre-app service, but not mandated. Best practice guidance from PAS is suggested.
Further, Applicants are required to notify key statutory consultees of the intention to submit an application pursuant to the Accelerated Planning Service, with the suggestion that early pre-application engagement with these parties also is beneficial.
As an aside to this consultation, the Government suggests an independent review into the role of national statutory consultees, with a view to providing recommendations on how performance can be improved.
Money, money, money
Of course, this service will come with an additional fee, payable in addition to the normal application fee and in addition to any pre-app fees payable.
The exact figure is to be determined and the consultation asks for suggestions. A decent service should already be available within 13 weeks. Why should further payments be made to have your application prioritised?
On the other hand, the fee guarantee proposed is an improvement – the Applicant would be entitled to all or some of the statutory application fee back, if the LPA failed to determine the application within 10 weeks.
Extensions of time are still possible but do not affect the refund, unlike other planning applications.
Discretionary or mandatory
The Government is undecided on whether this application process should be mandatory but appears to be leaning towards it being a discretionary service.
This acknowledges that not all applications are straightforward, and a strict application process could disadvantage Applicants and lead to an increase in refusals.
Will it work?
Who knows can only be the answer! It will only apply to a very small number of planning applications but will require new processes and procedures and will take officers away from dealing with other applications that are equally as important.
The ability to ascertain the benefits of such a process will be difficult given the limited number of applications it will apply to. So, the prospects of it being rolled out and used for other application types, with the increased risk of refusals, is limited at best.
The desire to improve service delivery is of course welcomed. But such improvements need consistency and pragmatism in consultee responses, improved productivity of LPAs, and a much improved approach to pre-application submissions.
Critically none of the suggested Accelerated Planning Service benefits will work unless the statutory consultee process is improved.
I remain cynical about this proposal. LPAs should be offering a service that achieves the 13-week statutory timescales and in many cases they are simply not, and not just by a few days – in many instances by months.
There is nothing to suggest that this Accelerated Planning Service will change their ability to deliver and if they can it will be to the detriment of other applications which will see increased delays in determination.
