Most (but not all) people involved in the planning process will be aware of the latest changes in the planning appeals process from 1st April. Surprisingly, I at least, have seen limited commentary on these revisions.
In appeals by written representations (the bulk of appeals) after a refusal of consent; or against a grant subject to conditions unsatisfactory to the applicant; non-determination; a refusal of prior approval; or a reserved matter; a section 73 or 73A application; and, against permission in principle; or a refusal of advertisement consent where applications were made on or after 1 April 2026 it will not be permissable for a statement of case or further evidence to be submitted for the appeal nor third party representations to be made.
Forgive me for being cynical but this seems to me another exercise in reducing the workload of the Planning Inspectorate, to try and achieve the targets they are set and consistently fail to meet (most probably due to a shortage of resources).
I think this is a continuing regrettable shift in our society - more and more computer power - but less and less talking with each other. (Covid accelerated this trend in spades).
What is happening here is every organisation, public and private, large and small, is turning in on itself and responding to its own needs without considering the needs of society as a whole. More and more silo thinking is everywhere. It is so easy to fire an e mail, or look at our screens without engaging with colleagues or others we could or should deal with.
And this leads to bad decision making because people don’t talk to each other and attempt (on many occasions achieve) a mutually agreeable decision.
In the case of planning applications there will be many occasions where limited changes would make a proposal satisfactory. However, able it can often be virtually impossible for applicants to second guess all the requirements of a determining authority, especially where they are dependent on a whole raft of consultees, Many authorities will not entertain dialogue in any event on an application, especially where they are dependent on external consultees for advice.
This second guessing will be particularly apparent with conditions. Under these changes you are not able to add any material, but you will have limited knowledge of what those conditions will be, so how can an applicant be sure that they have every base covered at the beginning of any application.
The Government in their new appeal guidance, issued on 12th February, blandly say: “If an applicant thinks that amending their application will overcome the LPA’s reasons for refusal, they should make a new planning application.”
A local authority would respond with advocating a pre-application process. But while this may bring in more money, the biggest problem is the resource of people to actually undertake the work. It will put more pressure on Councils, with finite staff and lead to further delays.
This will be exacerbated, as more applications will have to be submitted to resolve issues, leading to even greater work load for Councils whose planning departments are already failing under pressure. (eg I recently had to wait 11 weeks for the validation of fully compliant S73 application from an East Midlands authority).
Now as I understand it, the Government’s objective in our field is to get Britain building again. The construction industry has already seen declining output in the last year. This will only slow up planning consents. Joined up thinking is again going out the window in my opinion. (Mind you the Planning Inspectorate have played a blinder in convincing Government to shift work from one silo to another).
As an aside I think all this focus to get Britain building on planning is exaggerated. I recently heard the great and good on the podcast “Have I got Planning News for You” seem to say that the biggest impediment to development is access to land with consent. I don’t agree. I can see plenty of consents, but among other matters, we don’t have the skilled workforce to accelerate construction and the economic conditions are not giving sufficient confidence to end users to acquire or occupy new development. And companies won’t build if there is no market. But what do I know?
What does anyone else think?
No comments:
Post a Comment