Planning for flexibility

It appears that the Government wants to listen to the British Chambers of Commerce's wish to improve the planning system (see my blog of 19 June 2009) but it would appear that they are not quite on the same page when it comes to what is required.
On 18 June 2009 the Department for Communities and Local Government issued a consultation paper called:

Greater flexibility for planning permissions - consultation

The consultation considers two issues:

1. Extension of time limits for existing planning permissions; and
2. Minor material amendments to existing planning permissions.

Interestingly the issue regarding time limits has arisen because the recent legislation cut the time limit for implementation from 5 to 3 years. Now faced with an uncertain economic climate developers are not rushing to implement permissions and the 3 year limit means that applying for permission without any certainty that a development could be let/sold in the short term is unappealing. This means that planning authorities are likely to be deluged with planning applications.

Bearing in mind Gordon Brown's favourite phrase during his tenure as Chancellor: "Goodbye to Boom and Bust", it is not surprising that the implementation was lowered. Why allow five years for implementation time as surely once permission is given a developer will jump at the chance to develop.

So, yet another climb-down for the Labour Government from its previous policies is proposed. Although it does not propose a complete climbdown (or really a climbdown at all). The measure proposed would be temporary and only apply to major developments. Further an extension application would be considered a new application in terms of the need to obtain an Environmental Impact Assessment and result in supplemental planning agreements (at least in the form of a confirmatory deed). Whether or not the local planning authority decides to consult on the application is intended to be discretionary.

I can't see these proposals being greeted that warmly by the developer community.

As for the proposal for minor material amendments, well, the legal community are likely to be rubbing their hands together with glee - I can feel the warmth generated by BLP's planning department already. The interim proposals are that LPAs could approve a minor material amendment "if its scale and nature results in a development which is not substantially different from the one that has been approved". If that is not a proposal for dispute and litigation then I do not know what is.

One question I have is once you have made a minor material amendment can you then make another one? If so, is the reference point the unamended permission or the amended permission? If the amended permission then it is possible to envisage a situation whereby a permission, through minor material amendments, results in a development which is substantally different from the one that has been approved - I am assuming the legislation would not be that carelessly drafted!

Reform the planning system . . . again!

Those of you who follow me on Twitter will already know that The British Chambers of Commerce have just released "Planning for Recovery" which is their views on the problems with and solutions for the planning system in the UK if we are to get out of the current doldrums.
The report is very well set out highlighting in separate chapters:

1. The relationship between the planning system and its effect on businesses
2. The current planning system and its shortcomings
3. Reforms to the planning system already on track
4. Recommendations for further reforms to help speed recovery

There is little doubt that the need for planning regulation will automatically result in delays and frustration. The report highlights a number of cases where the delays have been hideous, for example, Heathrow Terminal 5 where a formal planning application was lodged in 1993 but consent was only finally given in 2001.

Broadly the idea of reforming the planning system to enable applications to progress more quickly especially on large infrastructure projects where the needs of the many can often outweigh the needs of the few is one with which I agree. Further, on a street level removing the obstacles to sensible extensions and loft conversions to enable families to grow within houses rather than having to move would hopefully help keep house prices better regulated. However, I do wonder the deliverability of any such reform. It seems to me that loosening the reins in order to speed things up will only lead to minority views being totally ignored. Also, contrast the current calls for greater regulation in the financial industry as a result of the credit crunch with the calls for the loosening of regulation (not necessarily in planning) in the construction industry to help it get back on its feet - is the construction industry not partially to blame for the current situation?

On a slightly separate point, I do not feel that the current predicament of much of the construction industry is, of itself, any justification for reforming the planning system to enable them to get back on their feet. Factors in developers getting into so much trouble were taking on too much debt, being overly optimistic in their predictions and forecasts, overvaluing their assets and generally not doing a good enough due diligence and financial plan job. Should we really reward such poor judgement?

So, whilst I support reform to reduce delays it should not be at the cost of the minority voice nor merely to save those who showed poor judgement but rather to benefit those who acted with due care and attention. Now if someone can come up with such reform I will be impressed. Any ideas let me know . . .