Under the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 councils across the UK now stand to lose their powers to decide on major building projects in their areas based on the speed and quality of their decision making. A new target-led approach requires that 30 per cent of major applications must be decided within 13 weeks, or such extended period agreed in writing. In terms of quality no more than 20 per cent of decisions must be overturned at appeal. The Secretary of State will be able to designate councils falling short of these targets, which are to be assessed independently. Once an authority is designated any application for major development will bypass the authority and be dealt with directly by the Secretary of State.
According to independent analysis of the latest statistics to March 2013, six authorities are performing below the threshold relating to the timeliness of decision-making (authorities are listed in order, with the worst performer appearing at the bottom of the list below):
This may not completely reflect the true picture given that some authorities have put in place Planning Performance Agreements with developers on a number of application sites. These legal agreements extend the usual period of determination by mutual consent, which may not be revealed by the headline data.
The initial period of assessment runs from July 2011 to June 2013, so the most recent data now just needs to be collected and analysed before it can be decided exactly which councils will be stripped of their powers. The final list is expected to be announced in October 2013, and annually thereafter. The first list may contain just one or two authorities, who will then need to demonstrate evidence of improvement before being de-listed. Most at risk is Horsham DC, residing at the bottom of the league table with less than one in five decisions on major applications made on time. In stark contrast top performer was Coventry where 96.3 per cent of major applications have been decided on time.
Barnet has only just slipped into the danger zone, but seems confident that the reasons for the poor performance last quarter have been addressed and that improvement is already being shown. It also seems that the March warning has had a positive effect on a number of the other authorities most at risk where recent performance is reported to be much better. For example, Enfield has gone on record stating that 66 per cent of applications were decided on time within the final three month period to June.
The system of measurement is inherently biased towards the granting of consent, given that the number of overturned appeals must be kept to a minimum. Councils at risk will naturally want to avoid the public embarrassment and loss of power, which comes from being put into special measures. Some authorities may believe the best way to avoid that is not to refuse development. Critics will say that this is contrary to the Government’s localism agenda. It also does not sit easily with other initiatives aimed at improving the overall quality of planning decision-making.
In truth we live in a target driven culture. It is difficult to argue against measures, which incentivise councils to do better and which improve the accountability of planning decision-makers. Is it not entirely reasonable that applicants for planning permission should have a properly functioning planning system that is not consumed by needless delays? There is even a case for introducing more stringent requirements given that councils can still decide up to 70 per cent of all major applications late. This would put many more councils on the radar for designation, and this may not help timely decision making unless the Planning Inspectorate is adequately resourced to cope – most ordinary appeals already take several months to process.
In reality even just the threat of punitive sanctions appears to be working given the direct upturn in timely decision-making by a number of the poor-performing Councils, if the reports can be believed. Many people will also argue that any system, which ultimately delivers development more quickly is a good thing given the current severity of the housing shortage. If special measures are introduced this does not mean a green light for bad development – indeed, development proposals will be tested under the same degree of rigorous examination and scrutiny that a Secretary of State level decision normally entails. The Department for Communities and Local Government says that it will also hold hearings modelled on relevant aspects of the local committee process in order to appease concerns that decisions will not reflect local concerns.
About the author
Ben Garbett is a planning law specialist at Keystone Law.
Have you any commercial property events you'd like to tell us about? It could be networking, exhibitions, seminars, industry lunches or sporting fixtures. We will list them for free. Just email newsdesk@propnews.co.uk with the following details: Event name, date, time, venue, cost, booking info and a brief description of the event.
To list your property job vacancies on Property News. Email: richenda@propnews.co.uk.
RSS Feed
