Coalition planning changes roundup

As the dust begins to settle a little on the Coalition’s various headline grabbing announcements regarding the inadequacies of the planning system it is worth stepping back a little and taking stock of just where we are in terms of the changes that are in fact proposed.

The majority of the proposals have been conveniently flagged up in a Ministerial Statement issued by CLG Secretary of State, Eric Pickles. Some of the others had been made earlier in separate announcements.  

These proposed changes will clearly alter the dynamics of the relationship between developer, local planning authority, local residents and the Planning Inspectorate.

They include:

• New legislation to allow the Planning Inspectorate to determine applications made to local planning authorities with a poor track record on speed and quality of decisions. This will need to differentiate from decisions which the applicant just doesn’t like and which should be subject to the normal appeals process.
• Increased reporting on local authority planning performance.
• Increased use of planning performance agreements.
• Speeded up planning appeals including a new fast-track system for small commercial appeals and immediate priority given to speeding up major economic and housing related appeals.
• Increased powers for Planning Inspectors to award costs on appeals where the proper planning application process has not been followed. The current rules allow for a costs award against local planning authorities in circumstances where it has acted unreasonably and that unreasonable conducted has resulted in the applicant incurring costs that it would not otherwise have done. A failure to follow the proper application process is clearly unreasonable and therefore it is difficult to see precisely what the Coalition has in mind without seeing the revised provisions and associated guidance.
• Reviewed thresholds for categories of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects to extend the benefits of this system to more development including significant commercial and business development and possibly also large scale housing sites. This of course is designed to remove more decision making from local planning authorities and seems completely at odds with the generally understood concept of ‘Localism’ espoused in the pre-election Open Source Planning Green Paper and the Localism Act 2011. It is certainly inconsistent with the CLG website 'About us' page which talks about creating "a free, fair and responsible Big Society by:... putting communities in charge of planning".
• Mediation for S106 renegotiations.
• Legislation to allow developers of sites which are unviable because of the number of affordable homes, to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for variation of S106s within a three year window to reflect current economic circumstances.
• Formal applications to local planning authorities to vary unviable S106s entered into before April 2010 (see Consultation exercise).
• Rationalising local and national information requirements to be submitted as part of planning applications.
• Reviewed green belt designations to make the best use of previously developed land whilst maintaining the openness of the green belt, in line with the NPPF.
• Extension of permitted development rights for (i) flats over commercial premises (see Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment0 (No 2) (England) Order 2012) and (ii) extensions to homes and business premises in non-protected areas for a three-year period. Leaving aside the very real problems that these proposals are going to create for continuing relations with neighbouring landowners there are going to be residual and continuing problems associated with land transactions and demonstrating the lawfulness of development undertaken.
• Temporary change the use of an empty shop for two years where the use would be low impact (see Consultation exercise).
• New permitted development rights to enable change of use from commercial to residential purposes, with the ability of local authorities to seek local exemptions where there could be an adverse economic impact (see earlier Consultation exercise where this particular idea had been shelved).
• Proposed changes permitting internet providers to install broadband street cabinets and associated infrastructure without prior approval from local planning authorities. This means that Broadband street cabinets can be installed in any location other than a SSSI without the need for prior approval and without any conditions being placed upon the construction or design "except in exceptional circumstances"; Broadband fibre optic cables and other Broadband infrastructure can be located under or above private land "without the bureaucratic burden of long-running negotiations"; and that overhead broadband lines can be installed in any area without the need for planning or other permission (see Consultation exercise). 
• An extension of one year to the ability to renew planning permissions (see Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No 2) Order 2012 and Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2012.

There are still a great many gaps in the proposals and, is so very often the case, the devil is in the detail. We shall therefore have to wait and see what comes forward.

It is however clear that despite the call to dispense with dither (from a government that has already been in power for the last two years) a number of the proposed changes are temporary short term measures. This begs the rather obvious question that if they are acceptable in planning terms now and the Coalition is prepared to introduce them, then why are they not acceptable for the longer term and introduced without any time restriction. That would at least demonstrate a clear unequivocal determination to address the issues identified and get rid of some of the 'dither'.