The government believes that our planning system should be a positive force in shaping our communities and facilitating sustainable and carbon-neutral developments. This is the central theme of the White Paper proposing further planning reform issued on 21 May 2007 (‘Planning for a Sustainable Future’).

The planning system has been the subject of much scrutiny in recent times – by both Kate Barker and Rod Eddington in their respective reports ‘Review of Land Use Planning’ and ‘The Eddington Transport Study’ (both December 2006). The White Paper contains the government’s proposals for the reform of the planning system in response to the recommendations made in those reports. It also builds on the government’s previous reforms introduced under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

The White Paper identifies a need for reform in both planning policy and the administration of our planning system. However, further safeguards are needed if the UK’s housing and regeneration projects are to benefit from the proposals put forward in it.

Problems with the current system

The White Paper identifies various problems with the current planning system. A vast body of national planning policy has built up over the years that is complex and unwieldy in application, with local planning policies not always reflecting national planning policy. This has made the current system not only unclear but frequently subject to delay.

Those caught up in the system’s delays often feel there is very little they can do to help the wheels of bureaucracy to turn faster.

Delays

The current target for dealing with a planning application is eight weeks for minor planning applications, and 13 weeks for major planning applications, with this extending to 16 weeks should an application be accompanied by an environmental statement.

If the application is not dealt with within that time the only recourse for the applicant is to make an appeal. However, that appeal may take six to nine months, or even more, to complete, and the government has recognised that there is no logic to a system where the process of appealing a delay may take several times longer than if the applicant had persevered with the local authority.

Major infrastructure projects

In the case of major infrastructure projects, the process from the submission of a proposal to decision is particularly slow and complicated. The role of ministers in planning decisions on such projects is unclear, and a clear policy framework is lacking. Inconsistencies between local planning authorities and national planning policy only serve to add to delays on such projects.

Benefit to regeneration schemes

The proposals put forward in the White Paper should free up local planning authority resources, allowing planning applications for regeneration schemes to be dealt with more quickly.

However, without proper policing and proper investment in human and other resources there are doubts that this freed-up time will result in as big an improvement in approval times as could be expected.

Policy proposals

The government proposes in the White Paper to produce new policy, following consultation. The proposals include:

• new national policy for provision of key national infrastructure (see below);

• improved guidance for applicants seeking consent for key national infrastructure projects, rendering the outcome more certain;

• an improved version of planning policy statement (PPS) 1: ‘Delivering sustainable development’, in line with the new national policy;

• improved policy on climate change and ways the planning system can promote carbon-neutral development;

• a new PPS to promote development that will foster economic growth;

• a new test to replace the needs and impact tests under PPS6: ‘Planning for town centres’, to promote town centre development (see box on p4); and

• a policy to enhance local authorities’ roles as ‘place-shapers’ – marking a shift away from planning control simply blocking unlawful development, towards the planning system actively encouraging local community development.

Administration proposals

The proposals to reform the administration of the planning system include:

• Creating a new independent infrastructure planning commission (IPC). Members would be planning professionals and the commission would be answerable to, but operate independently of, ministers and have duties of best value. The IPC would implement the new policy on infrastructure delivery (see below).

• Simplification of the application and appeal process (see below).

• Simplification of the process by which local development framework (LDF) documents are prepared and reviewed by local planning authorities (allowing applicants to be familiar with current local policy and bring forward applications that are likely to succeed).

• Householders to be given greater rights to carry out extensions or improvements to their properties without the need for planning permission if the proposal has no, or low, impact on the area outside the immediate site. Presently, the planning system is being clogged up with applications for householder development that, in many cases, have no significant negative impact – with the knock-on effect of diverting important local planning authority resources from dealing with more strategic development. Although this proposal would appear good in theory, the detail will need careful scrutiny as it is difficult to see what could have such low impact and not already be permitted under general development rights.

• A similar proposal for some development on commercial sites – the White Paper raises the exact nature of the rights to be conferred as a consultation point.

• Extension of the Article 4 direction procedure, under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, to block inappropriate development carried out under permitted development rights;

• Unification of the consent regimes – so that, for example, where both planning consent and listed building consent are needed, one application would cover both and result in a comprehensive consent.

• Reduced Secretary of State involvement in decisions about individual applications, unless the application raises issues of more than local importance and is not within the remit of the new IPC.

Resourcing

Additional resources will be needed. Funding will come in part from the economies flowing from increased efficiency, and partly from increased fees (domestic applications are unlikely to see a major increase above inflation). The fee cap for certain applications may be lifted.

Also, local planning authorities may be given the right to set fees locally. Planning Delivery Grant will continue to be available to assist local authorities to meet targets for processing applications and tax breaks announced in the last Budget are also expected to facilitate the success of the proposals.

Resources will also be made available to train the additional town planners needed to deliver a more efficient system.

Simplification of the application and appeal processes

The government proposes creating a more efficient and effective planning system through the introduction of measures centred around streamlining and improving the planning application and appeal processes.

As already mentioned above, applicants are presently faced with a planning applications process that is rigid and inflexible. This results in applicants being forced to take part in a planning appeals system that is costly, under-resourced and the subject of significant delay. For example, where a local planning authority fails to determine a planning application within the relevant statutory period, an applicant is faced with having to pursue a planning appeal, which can take months, and in some cases years, to be determined before they may receive planning permission.

Proposed measures include:

• Providing local planning authorities with the discretion to vary an existing planning permission, where the variation sought is not material. This would improve the current situation, whereby a full planning application has to be made to vary an existing planning permission, which has obvious cost and delay implications for an applicant.

• Streamlining information requirements for all planning applications, through the introduction of a standard application form and associated guidance, as well as a subsequent review of information requirements.

• Reviewing and simplifying the process for submitting and considering planning applications under the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

• Enabling the Planning Inspectorate to determine the most appropriate method to be used for an appeal in accordance with set criteria. At present, the methods for determining an appeal are written representations, hearings or public inquiries, and the decision as to which method is used a non-statutory process.

• For householder cases, reducing the period for lodging an appeal from six months to eight weeks, and introducing a compressed timetable for written representation cases to be determined by a planning inspector within eight weeks.

• Establishing Local Member Review Bodies to determine minor appeals at the local level.

• Updating the provisions regarding the award of costs in appeals.

Timing

The government envisages some of the proposed policy documents being produced within the next year or so, with the full proposals being in place by 2009. Establishing the proposed IPC will need primary legislation, which is unlikely to be brought forward before 2009. The changes proposed to domestic development rights could be in place by the summer of 2008.

Responses are sought to the consultation questions posed by the White Paper by 17 August 2007. The questions are set out in consolidated form in Annex A to the White Paper (available online from www.communities.gov.uk).

What about regeneration projects?

Additional safeguards will be needed to ensure that the UK’s housing and regeneration projects are able to benefit from the White Paper. Hopefully the proposals will free up resources to allow the planning applications for regeneration schemes to be dealt with more quickly. Reform to simplify applications for residential property extensions and minor development on non-residential land, as well as the creation of a dedicated, professionally staffed commission to deal with infrastructure and other projects of national significance should indeed ease the strain on the system. Without proper policing and investment in human and other resources, though, it is possible that this freed-up time will not result in as big an improvement in approval times as could be achieved, and as is desperately needed.

The White Paper promises a lot for loft conversions and nuclear power stations, but says little directly about projects that fall between these two extremes.

There is a genuine need for reform that will help to speed up the delivery of regeneration schemes. If planning decisions are to be speeded up, though, sanctions must be put in place that will keep planning departments on track. At present no sanctions are available to those whose planning applications are delayed.

Until now planning authorities have argued that their capacity is so limited that any sanctions would be counterproductive. The proposed reforms may change all this by giving local planning authorities a dramatic increase in capacity. It would be fair, therefore, for measures to be put in place to ensure that this extra capacity leads to a proportionate increase in the speed at which planning authorities deal with their remaining workload.

The costs in social and economic terms from the delays to regeneration projects caused by a slow planning system are huge. If delivered, the White Paper proposals may be the boost that regeneration projects really need. © Property Law Journal