Planning Update
Friends of the Earth Planning Update - February 2009
The Planning Act 2008 Report
The House of Lords debated the Planning Bill, but essentially the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats did not marshal enough support for the voting on the amendments.
The Labour peers were fully briefed to speak against the democratic decision-making amendments, and their position bordered on stating that Ministers were not capable of taking decisions on major infrastructure. The full impact of the loss of democratic accountability in decision-making will not be realised until some really contentious decisions are made.
The Bishop of Liverpool spoke well and was strongly supported across the House on the climate change amendments during Committee, leading to a Government concession and the provision of a fairly weak, but nevertheless important in principle amendment. The Bishop of Liverpool in the final debate attempted to strengthen these amendments by pushing to the vote the full set of climate change amendments covering national policy statements and the decision-maker.
In refuting these amendments, Lord Hunt (Labour) had to make the admission that the Government had no intention of ensuring that all National Policy Statements considered climate change, citing energy security issues. On the Bill's return to the Commons, a strengthening amendment was again tabled by Labour backbenchers, with strong cross-party and widespread support, but although the amendment was spoken to, and there was a clear demand for a vote, the Deputy Speaker refused to allow a vote, citing a technical issue.
The Planning Act 2008 therefore leaves us with a process which looks something like this:
National policy statements are prepared (six are already half drafted by the relevant departments), and there will then be a consultation period. Even though at least three of them are "location specific" - nuclear, ports and airports - there is no right to a hearing at this preparation stage.
Legal challenge is more than likely as this impacts on compulsory purchase and the rights of property owners. The National Policy Statements can be debated in Parliament, but it has to be particularly requested.
The Infrastructure Planning Commission (the new decision-making body) is being recruited for at the moment, and the Government is looking to lawyers, the Inspectorate, and to "experts" possibly technical experts, to apply for the positions. Around 45 applications are expected per year. These applications will range from alterations or extensions to existing infrastructure over a certain size as well as new projects.
The developer is required to run a pre-application consultation, but there is no independent oversight apart from the Commission, who will have to consider whether this has been done in line with guidelines (which either they, or the Secretary of State will have prepared).
Decisions are then made in line with National Policy Statements, and where no policy statement yet exists, the decisions are referred to the Secretary of State. The Commission reports on an annual basis to Government on its work.
Killian Pretty Review (more info and Executive Summary )
The Government has signalled that increasing permitted development rights will be a priority following the Killian-Pretty review. Housing and planning minister Margaret Beckett said the Government would publish its full response early next year. Giving permitted development rights to minor non-residential schemes follows the recent revision householder development rules. Less information will now also be required with applications.
The review places much of the blame for inefficiencies on local planning authorities. One of the identified issues is the lack of consistency in the way they deal with pre-application talks, apply conditions and organise consultation.
Some of the review's 17 recommendations do represent good practice such as improved guidance for applicants, clearer policy, more consistent handling of pre-application talks, greater use of mediation to avoid confrontational appeals and better use of technicians.
The review suggests two major alterations to legislation. The first focuses on minor amendments to applications where lack of clarity is an issue. Any changes must reduce uncertainty while rigorously protecting neighbour interests. The second heralds reform of permitted development rights to ease the way for minor commercial, retail and other non-residential development. Considering that overhauling householder development consents took three years, a review of the remaining 39 parts of the GPDO could take a considerable amount of time.
There is a very negative recommendation to cut consultation and to remove a statutory requirement to advertise applications in newspapers, leaving councils to devise their own methods of publicising them.
KEY PROPOSALS
- Permitted development rights for small-scale commercial and other minor non-residential
proposals to see substantial increase.
- More proportionate approach for information requirements on all applications.
- Major improvements to pre-application stages, including wider use of planning
performance agreements.
- An "accredited agents" scheme offering recognition for those providing good-quality
submissions.
- Replacement of current time-based targets with service satisfaction indicator
Delivering sustainable development in S106 agreements - update
Delivering sustainable development in s106 agreements depends on whether what you are asking for is a 'lawful matter' for a planning agreement and the implementation of the agreement. The development itself must be sustainable, with s106 agreements mitigating any negative environmental impacts and delivering additional benefits such as affordable housing.
Guidance on planning agreements is published in Circular 05/2005. The 'relevant to planning' criteria is particularly important given the general acceptance that climate change is a material consideration in planning, reinforced by PPS1 supplement on climate change.
Education and health services may no longer be as acceptable in s106 agreements, particularly as local authority funding in these cases is based on the number of people present - for instance with regard to new housing developments. However affordable housing, mixed use, transport improvements, open space works, off-site highway, pedestrian works, sustainable construction techniques, sustainable forms of development, sustainable energy supply, and specific waste disposal schemes can be considered for inclusion in the agreement.
One key issue to consider is the viability of the scheme. Developers will often argue that their contributions must be lower in order to maintain viability - local authorities are advised to get expert advice on this as often this is an area in which expertise is lacking within the authority itself. Policy support must be outlined clearly in the LDF or SPDs, and should include how the authority calculates s106 contributions.
-Ends-
Another update will be circulated in the next couple of months, to include National
Policy Statements and changes to Planning Policy Statements to be announced.
(22nd February 2009)
Copyright AirportWatch, 2004