In March 2024, the government launched a consultation on introducing an accelerated planning system with the objective of speeding up the delivery of housing, commercial and infrastructure projects as part of the levelling-up campaign. The consultation closed on 1 May and with no set timetable for a response and a general election imminent, the outcome is unlikely to be known for several months. In the event of a change of government, it may end up in the pending tray indefinitely. Nonetheless, a summary of the proposals as well as a canter through some of the responses submitted to date may be useful if only to highlight areas that are worthy of additional consideration by the new Secretary of State.
Accelerated Planning Service
The government proposes that local planning authorities (LPAs) should offer an Accelerated Planning Service (APS) for major commercial developments (exceeding 1000 sqm of new or additional employment floorspace) whereby a decision is made within 10 weeks rather than the 13-week statutory limit, in exchange for a higher application fee which would be refunded if the deadline is not reached. The proposal also explores whether going down the APS route for applicants that meet the qualifying criteria should be discretionary or mandatory. EIA developments will be excluded from this process.
Views from the front line
In its submitted published response, the Country Land & Business Association (CLA) has stated that it has ‘sympathy with the principle’ but in practice is concerned that, with the increasing pressures on LPAs, it will lead to a two-tier service, with those developments outside the scope of the APS being even further delayed. It suggests alternative approaches such as more use of permission in principle for smaller sites. The Royal Institute of Architects (RIBA) points to under-resourced LPAs as the cause of many delays and is equally concerned about a two-tier system being created.
On the question restricting applications to developments over 1000sqm, the CLA is firmly against, believing that valuable, smaller-scale developments, particularly relevant in rural areas, will be overlooked. In contrast, RIBA believes attracting applications from large commercial developments is sensible initially but believes that if the process proves successful (and is properly resourced) should be extended to residential developments (the CLA does not agree). Both organisations believe that use of the APS route should be discretionary. The Local Government Association (LGA) believes that a 10-week limit is unrealistic for applications that usually take 28 weeks.
Extension of time agreements
The consultation notes that ‘extension of time agreements can also be used by authorities to compensate for delays in decision-making, which masks poor performance and does not incentivise local authorities to determine applications within the statutory time limit.’ The proposal is to reduce the number of extension of time agreements by introducing a new method of measuring how quickly LPAs determine applications within the statutory time limit. LPAs must determine a minimum of 50% of major applications within the statutory time limit, and 60% of non-major applications.
Mixed reaction
The CLA and RIBA gave opposing answers to the question about introducing a new performance measure. The CLA agreed with the proposal – but without further comment, whereas RIBA answered no on the basis that without a commitment to fund the service properly, this type of performance measure would be unachievable. The LGA believes that the increased use of extension of time agreements is a reflection of the increased complexity of planning applications which cannot be sensibly determined within ‘an outdated performance regime and statutory timescales.’ It does not agree with the proposals.
Simplified process for planning written representation appeals
The proposal is to introduce a simplified process for written representation appeals covering ten different areas including those relating to refused planning permission; listed building consent; lawful development certificates; and anti-social high hedges. The intention is that this proposed simplified process should mirror the existing Householder Appeals Service (HAS) and the Commercial Appeals Service (CAS), both of which deal with small, less complex cases.
The CLA believes that a simplified appeals process would be beneficial way of addressing the current backlog and agrees with the proposed types of appeal to be included. RIBA has not addressed this question in its response and the LGA focuses on the lack of resources at most LPAs and the difficulty of recruiting enough planners.
Overlapping planning permissions
The consultation document describes the current system of being able to vary planning permission as a flexible response to changing conditions and avoids developments being delayed or abandoned. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s.73, which allowed applicants to apply for a minor material amendment, was amended by the Levelling-up Act which introduced section 73B, a new route for enabling material variations to planning permissions (which has yet to be implemented). The consultation invited respondents’ views on whether 73B is the right route to introduce variations and the proposed scope of the accompanying guidance.
Legal nitty gritty
As the LGA pointed out, this part of the consultation gets into legal nitty gritty which may well need a court ruling to help clarify matters. However, overall, it is in favour of guidance that sets out what ‘substantially different’ actually means, ‘created in partnership with local authorities… drafted to set out clearer descriptors of development through section 73B permissions’, a position with which the CLA agrees. The latter also noted that any scope of variation under 73B should be no less than that already available under s.73 and should not introduce any more complexity. RIBA opted not to answer this question.
In summary
The prevailing concern expressed by this small selection of interested parties is that nothing will make much difference to the progress of planning applications unless LPAs are properly funded and staffed, a view which we share. The proposals outlined in the consultation will not work with current resourcing levels, and there is a real risk that applications falling outside the scope of the APS are delayed further. In addition, the removal of extension of time agreements may only result in more refusals and more appeals.
The LGA sums up the dilemma facing the government: ‘The Government must ask what it values more - the speed of application decisions, or the quality of the outcome/development for communities.’ And it is not only the resourcing issues experienced by LPAs but also the increase in the number and complexity of applications. RIBA is equally exercised by the lack of resources and the knock-on effect on the quality of the built environment, which it fears may be further eroded if an accelerated planning service leads to a two-tier approach, a concern also expressed by the CLA.
Of course, until we know the priorities of the next government, this may just turn out to be a paper exercise. Nonetheless, the answers to the questions posed are sufficient to indicate that something does need to be done to speed up and streamline the planning application process. Like so many other policy areas, it remains one to watch.
