Ben Groves fears the imposition of an over-ambitious 10-week time limit is not the best way to
improve delivery of major commercial development.
In December 2023, Michael Gove stated that the government expected planning decisions to be taken on time and robustly justified. In seeking to achieve this, on 6 March 2024 the government launched a consultation called “An accelerated planning system”. The consultation contains a variety of measures to speed up the planning system, including a flagship proposal for a new Accelerated Planning Service.
What is it?
In short, an Accelerated Planning Service is a premium planning service where the payment of an increased planning fee will result in either a determination within 10 weeks or the automatic refund of the planning fee.
The detail is not yet finalised, but the consultation notes the following:
(a) The service will apply to applications for “major commercial development” – ie those that create 1,000 sq m (10,764 sq ft) or more of new additional employment floorspace. Mixed-use developments that meet the floorspace threshold will also be eligible. It will not apply to environmental impact assessment development;
(b) Applications using the service will be subject to the same statutory requirements and will be determined on the same basis as any other application for “major commercial development”;
(c) The applicant will pay the usual planning fee plus a premium, being an additional flat fee; and
(d) In consideration of the increased fee, either all or a portion of the planning fee will be refunded if the application is not determined within 10 weeks.
Finally, and of likely concern to local planning authorities, the consultation seeks views on whether the service should be mandatory or discretionary.
Ten weeks?
The consultation itself notes that between July and September 2023 only 21% of major applications were determined within 13 weeks and that the average time for a major application to be determined is approximately 28 weeks. Despite this, under the proposals LPAs would have just 10 weeks to determine an eligible application, which would include the negotiation of any section 106 agreement.
Details as to how the 10-week period has been arrived at are conspicuously absent, but the suggestion seems to be that, with some additional money, LPAs will be able to shave 18 weeks off the average determination period.
Although the majority of developers will welcome the reduced determination period, neither developers nor the public want to see a trade-off between the speed of determination and the quality of decision-making.
Resources
It is no secret that many LPAs are in significant financial difficulty. Planning fees were recently increased but are not ring-fenced, and LPAs remain under-resourced and understaffed.
LPAs are already failing to meet the 13-week determination target. Unless there is a more direct relationship between the receipt and allocation of planning fees, including any premium, it is debatable whether LPAs will be able to meet a 10-week deadline.
Quality
The consultation helpfully notes that it is crucial that applications are of a good quality and contain the right information. Accordingly, the consultation states that LPAs should offer a clear pre-application service and applicants should notify the key statutory consultees likely to be engaged prior to submission.
All very sensible. However, the consultation suggests the government will not mandate the use or content of a pre-application service. This means that an application will be eligible for the Accelerated Planning Service even if it has not been discussed with the LPA in advance of submission.
This increases the chance of poor-quality applications being submitted. To avoid losing the planning fee, LPAs might delay validating applications until they are satisfied they are of a sufficient quality to enable determination within 10 weeks.
Blame game
The consultation seeks views as to how much of the planning fee should be returned if the 10-week determination period is missed. However, it is silent on the extent to which responsibility for the delay will be relevant.
Unlike the existing Planning Guarantee, the consultation suggests that the refund will kick in automatically, even if the parties have agreed an extension of time.
In light of the current financial constraints LPAs are facing and the possibility that the Accelerated Planning Service will be mandatory, LPAs are likely to be very worried at the prospect of losing further funding, particularly if they consider that they are not to blame for the 10-week period being missed.
LPAs may therefore simply refuse applications if they fear the 10-week determination will be missed. When this isn’t possible, there is a risk that time and resources will be diverted to resolving disputes where the 10-week period has elapsed.
Where are the homes?
Good question. As Michael Gove noted in December, for decades we have not been building homes in the numbers we need to see. It is therefore surprising that the Accelerated Planning Service will not (at the outset) be directed at housing applications.
The consultation notes that, on average, each LPA determined five “major commercial development” applications in the year up to September 2023. This illustrates the scope of the proposed service and suggests that any benefits to the wider planning system will be limited.
The consultation notes that the limited scope reflects the need to test the proposal. However, it is unclear how the 10-week determination period could apply to all major development applications in the context of the current resources available to LPAs, the varying quality of the applications submitted and the complex (and ever-increasing) range of issues that need to be considered.
Final thoughts
It is clear that the government is serious about speeding up the planning process.
While the government’s intentions are welcome, the proposals need to reflect the fact that LPAs are understaffed and underfunded. Until this is remedied, the introduction of a service that reduces a determination period that is already being missed in the majority of cases may be counterproductive. An alternative first step would be to ensure more applications are determined within the existing determination periods.
Ben Groves is a senior associate in the planning team at Ashurst
Image by Sven Mieke/Unsplash
Follow Estates Gazette
