LGA submission to DLUHC’s consultation on an accelerated planning system

The LGA is the national voice of local government. We are a politically led, cross party membership organisation, representing councils from England and Wales.  

Our role is to support, promote and improve local government, and raise national awareness of the work of councils. Our ultimate ambition is to support councils to deliver local solutions to national problems. 

• Fundamentally, the Government must ask themselves what they value more from the planning system in order to deliver growth and sustainable places; the speed of an applications decision, or, the quality of the outcome/development for communities. 
• Local authorities are not the barrier to development – with just under nine in 10 planning applications granted permission. Whilst the Government lament the use of extension of time agreements and wish to restrict their use and remove these from the performance framework, the fundamental matter is that their increased use 'disguises' an outdated performance regime and statutory timescales which have not changed to reflect the increased complexity of planning applications. 
• We urge the Government to undertake a holistic review of statutory timescales for application determinations – which have not changed since their introduction in the 1990’s, despite the vast increase in factors that our communities and Government want planners to take into consideration.
• We challenge the Government’s assessment of how realistic a 10 week period of determination for the APS is for applications which take, on average, 28 weeks. Local authorities have raised concerns with us that a 10 week period is not manageable, in particular if the initial application is incomplete.
• Local authority planning departments are facing incredibly challenging resourcing, capacity and skills shortages – with nearly 60 per cent of councils experiencing difficulties recruiting planners. Over one third of our members face challenges in retention of planning staff or preventing the ‘brain drain’ to the private sector.
• We urgently call on the Government to allow local authorities, who are best placed, to calculate and set the appropriate fee for the proposed APS as well as all other planning application types. 
• We do not agree with the proposed new approach to performance management of planning authorities, nor the proposals to restrict Extension of Time agreements. 

Question 1. Do you agree with the proposal for an Accelerated Planning Service?

The issue that the Accelerated Planning Service (APS) is trying to solve is one which is more systemic across the planning system – not just related to commercial applications – namely that local authorities are not always able to meet the Government’s outdated performance targets for speed in decision making of planning applications.

It is, unfortunately, not a straight forward task as the speed at which decisions can be made are based on a number of factors and key players, including the quality, volume and complexity of the application submitted, the input statutory consultees are able to provide within time constraints and the local planning authority themselves having the resources, capacity and skills to oversee and manage increasing caseloads. 

We continue to highlight that local authorities are not the barrier to development – with just under nine in 10 planning applications granted permission. Whilst the Government lament the use of extension of time agreements, and wish to restrict their use and remove these from the performance framework, the fundamental matter is that their increased use 'disguises' an outdated performance regime and statutory timescales which have not changed to reflect the complexity of planning applications.

We urge the Government to undertake a holistic review of statutory timescales for application determinations – which have not changed since their introduction in the 1990’s, despite the vast increase in factors that must be taken into consideration. This should be prioritised over and above the introduction of the APS and a new performance and designation framework, which may simply set local authorities up to fail if the key drivers that are increasing process times are not addressed. 

With specific regard to the detail of the APS, we challenge the Government’s assessment of how realistic a 10 week period of determination is for applications which take, on average, 28 weeks. Local authorities have raised concerns with us that a 10 week period is not manageable, in particular if the initial application is incomplete. If it is the Government’s view that a faster timeline can be met by simply uprating the associated fees which would in theory permit councils to recover full costs of assessing applications, then this should be rolled out across all planning application types with the APS abandoned. 

The reality is that it is not as simple as uprating fees. Local authority planning departments are facing incredibly challenging resourcing, capacity and skills shortages – with nearly 60 per cent of councils experiencing difficulties recruiting planners. Over one third of our members face challenges in retention of planning staff or preventing the ‘brain drain’ to the private sector, particularly with graduates and more senior staff, who are incentivised by higher pay and working conditions.

We welcome the recent steps taken by Government to start to address these issues, such as the planning skills delivery fund, the popular Pathways to Planning and Public Practice placement schemes and the uplift to planning fees. These are just part of the solution, and not a magic bullet - sudden changes will not appear overnight and we are likely to continue to face the same resourcing and capacity challenges for a while yet as they will not automatically decrease the number of vacancies across the country, nor will it solve historic issues of staff retention. 

An APS is also only likely to work in situations where applicants have engaged meaningfully with local planning authorities and statutory consultees prior to submitting their full application. Our further comments on this can be found in response to Questions 5 and 8.

We also want to highlight that the introduction of an APS for major commercial applications may also result in de-prioritisation of other application types, in order to ensure there is no loss in application fee income which is vital to sustain planning departments (see our response to Question 7 on proposed refunds). The Government should be mindful that application prioritisation in this way could potentially lead to a decline in speed of overall decision-making across all planning application types.

Finally, if the Government is minded to introduce the APS for major commercial applications, they should make clear what the role of the Planning Committee and councillors is, and how any timescales would take into consideration the scheduling of Planning Committees. 

Question 2. Do you agree with the initial scope of applications proposed for the Accelerated Planning Service (Non-EIA major commercial development)?

Notwithstanding our overall concerns and messages as set out in Question 1 including prioritisation of applications, we agree with the Government’s initial scope of applications for the APS of non EIA major commercial development. 

Question 3. Do you consider there is scope for EIA development to also benefit from an Accelerated Planning Service? What do you consider would be an appropriate accelerated time limit?

We do not consider there is scope for EIA development to benefit from an APS as these types of applications, by their nature, are more complex and time consuming. 

The Government should commit to undertaking a full and independent review of the APS after 18 months to two years. The review should seek views from all parties involved in the APS, from local authorities to applicants and statutory consultees. 

Question 4. Do you agree with the proposed exclusions from the Accelerated Planning Service – applications subject to Habitat Regulations Assessment, within the curtilage or area of listed buildings and other designated heritage assets, Scheduled Monuments and World Heritage Sites, and applications for retrospective development or minerals and waste development?

Yes, we agree with the Government’s initial scope of applications for the APS, and to exclude the proposed application types.

Question 5. Do you agree that the Accelerated Planning Service should:

a) have an accelerated 10-week statutory time limit for the determination of eligible applications. Yes/No/Don’t know. If not, please confirm what you consider would be an appropriate accelerated time limit.

No. Our responses to Question 1 details our concerns relating to the 10 week statutory time limit for the determination of eligible applications. 

b) encourage pre-application engagement. 

For the APS to be a realistic endeavour, it should be mandatory for applicants to have pre-application engagement with the LPA where it is provided. We would suggest that where pre application advice is not available for applicants, they should opt for the traditional planning application route.

c) encourage notification of statutory consultees before the application is made

Like with pre application advice, we believe that for the APS to be realistic in meeting a shortened timeline then it should be mandatory for statutory consultees to be both identified and notified of the application during pre application advice, as well as being engaged effectively. Applicants should be able to demonstrate, in an accompanying planning statement to the APS, the steps taken to resolve any relevant concerns or challenges raised by statutory consultees. 

Question 6. Do you consider that the fee for Accelerated Planning Service applications should be a percentage uplift on the existing planning application fee? If yes, please specify what percentage uplift you consider appropriate, with evidence if possible.

We were encouraged by the Chancellor’s announcement at the Autumn Statement that councils would be able to recover the full costs of major business applications in return for meeting guaranteed timescales. However, we are disappointed that the consultation instead proposes a centrally determined and set percentage uplift in existing planning fees, which will not enable full cost recovery for all councils. 

Even with the recent and welcome uplift to planning fees in December 2023, we estimate that national shortfall in cost recovery for planning applications to will have exceeded £80 million in 2020/21. 

We urgently call on the Government to allow local authorities, who are best placed, to calculate and set the appropriate fee for the APS as well as all other planning application types. By regulations, the fee set cannot exceed the cost of assessing an application, so we propose that whilst this will mean slightly different fees in each local authority area for applicants, this is a sensible approach to ensure the APS delivers locally on its aim. 

Question 7. Do you consider that the refund of the planning fee should be: 

a) the whole fee at 10 weeks if the 10 week timeline is not met

b) the premium part of the fee at 10 weeks if the 10-week timeline is not met, and the remainder of the fee at 13 weeks

c) 50 per cent of the whole fee at 10 weeks if the 10 week timeline is not met, and the remainder of the fee at 13 weeks

d) none of the above (please specify an alternative option)

e) don’t know.

It is understandable from the Government’s and applicants’ perspective why a refund schedule would be proposed for the APS. However, for local authorities, the practicalities of implementing both the service and the refund are complex. 

Firstly, local authorities will have to consider what the most appropriate use of the uplift in application fee would be: is it to (attempt to) hire more development management staff; to bring in ad hoc consultancy support; and/or to upskill and silo existing staff to work on these types of applications. With the fee income from these application types uncertain and sporadic, though somewhat forecastable, local authorities may be unwilling to commit spending on new staff and potentially have to rely on external and expensive consultancy support. 

Secondly, if for one of the many reasons we have set out previously that an application may not be able to be determined within statutory timeframes, Government should consider whether there may be potential implications of a refund schedule for APS applications to be refused prior to the 10 week deadline rather than the authority working collectively with the applicant to determine the application - for example if an application may benefit from a couple of weeks further analysis and engagement. This is not a sensible or desirable way to approach planning or growth, nor is it one which would lead to an overall increase in speed in decision making.

Thirdly, we consider that if the Government goes ahead with these proposals, it should be considered whether it is appropriate for local authorities to shoulder the burden of losing fee income if the fault of non-determination within timeframes does not rest with them - for example, if a slow or unsatisfactory response is received by a statutory consultee. 

We do not believe any of the proposed options are therefore appropriate. At a push, we believe that the 'premium' aspect of the fee could be refunded at the 10 week period, with normal procedural arrangements for Planning Guarantees to take effect from that point until determination.

Question 8. Do you have views about how statutory consultees can best support the Accelerated Planning Service?

We supported the Government’s announcement in December 2023 of an independent review into the role of statutory consultees in the planning system. Statutory consultees play an important part in ensuring that planning supports the delivery of development that meets the needs of all in the local area. It is important that statutory consultees have the resources, capacity and expertise to undertake this role effectively and efficiently. We keenly await the conclusions from this review.  

We have heard from our member local authorities that it is not uncommon for the planning application process to be delayed by statutory consultees not being able to discharge their statutory functions and provide specialist advice in a timely manner, or to an appropriate quality that allows a planning application to be determined. This is unfortunately not a new problem, and many of the issues we raised in our recommendations to the 2016 DLCG technical consultation on implementation of planning changes remain. 

We are therefore concerned about how statutory consultees will be able to discharge their functions in an accelerated planning service of 10 weeks if they are not engaged early and effectively during the pre application stage, which is our preference. 

Applicants who are keen to use the APS route must, in our opinion, complete a satisfactory pre-application stage engagement with statutory consultees and be able to prove, in a written or accompanying statement to the local authority alongside their full application, that statutory consultees have been engaged and are aware of the application content, the potential challenges and the timescales in which they must discharge their duties. 

Question 9. Do you consider that the Accelerated Planning Service could be extended to: 

a) major infrastructure development

b) major residential development

c) any other development? 

If yes to any of the above, what do you consider would be an appropriate accelerated time limit?

Notwithstanding our overall concerns with an APS, we do not believe it should be extended to other application types until the Government has completed a full and independent review of the APS after 18 months to two years, which we urge them to commit to. The review should seek views from all parties involved in the APS, from local authorities to applicants and statutory consultees. 

Question 10. Do you prefer: 

a) the discretionary option (which provides a choice for applicants between an Accelerated Planning Service or a standard planning application route)

b) the mandatory option (which provides a single Accelerated Planning Service for all applications within a given definition)

c) neither

d) don’t know.

We prefer for the APS to be discretionary, with both the applicant and the local authority jointly determining if an application is suitable to the submitted through the APS. Local authorities should be able to reject to determine an application through the APS if they do not deem it practical within a 10 week period. 

Question 11. In addition to a planning statement, is there any other additional statutory information you think should be provided by an applicant in order to opt-in to a discretionary Accelerated Planning Service?

We believe that applicants must be able to demonstrate meaningful evidence of effective engagement with statutory consultees, and if necessary, evidence of engagement with the local community and steps taken to address initial concerns. 

Question 12. Do you agree with the introduction of a new performance measure for speed of decision-making for major and non-major applications based on the proportion of decisions made within the statutory time limit only?

The planning performance framework for local authorities is one which hides the unfortunate realities many planning departments find themselves in – one where the skills, capacity and resourcing are not at levels which permit local authorities to determine all planning applications within existing statutory timeframes. 

Whilst there are absolutely other factors at play which influence the determination period of an application, such as its quality and how effective engagement is with statutory consultees, caseloads for planning officers are at historic highs and recruitment and retention issues threaten planning services.

The Government’s assumption that the use of extension of time agreements masks poor performance is wrong. There is a monumental challenge in resourcing local planning authority teams. Authorities all over England are struggling to recruit planners, and teams are shrinking, only increasing the workload and toll on those remaining. Our members report to us that one of the greatest challenges they face is retention of staff or preventing the ‘brain drain’ to the private sector, particularly with graduates and more senior staff, who are incentivised by higher pay and working conditions.

Alongside difficulties in recruiting and retaining town planners, there is a much more significant challenge for recruitment and retention with relation to specific planning skills and areas of expertise, such as enforcement, urban design, viability, heritage, ecology and legal. This results in local authorities either relying on the evidence provided by the applicant or determining which applications’ evidence should be challenged or verified by paying for specialist consultancy advice; totalling far more than an in house expert.

We welcome the recent steps taken by Government to start to address these issues, such as the planning skills delivery fund, the popular Pathways to Planning and Public Practice placement schemes and the uplift to planning fees. These are just part of the solution, and not a magic bullet - sudden changes will not appear overnight and we are likely to continue to face the same resourcing and capacity challenges for a while yet as they will not automatically decrease the number of vacancies across the country, nor will it solve historic issues of staff retention.

Finally, it is too simple to equate speed of decision-making with the quality of decisions from local authorities. The RTPI’s 'Measuring What Matters' project showcases a series of toolkits to improve local authority planning outcomes measurement. The Government must ask themselves what they value more; the speed of the decision or the quality of the outcome/development. 

Therefore, no – we do not agree with the introduction of a new performance measure for speed of decision-making for major and non-major applications based on the proportion of decisions made within the statutory time limit only. Extension of time agreements play a key role in delivering positive planning outcomes and are used in situations whereby parties acknowledge the value of allowing additional time to determine an application – for example, to secure meaningful engagement from statutory consultees or to finalise a Section 106 agreement. The most important thing to note is that extension of time agreements are just that, agreements, between both parties that the most effective and sensible solution to challenges in application determination is to permit more time. 

We urge the Government to undertake a holistic review of statutory timescales for application determinations – which have not changed since their introduction in the 1990’s, despite the vast increase in factors that planners must take into consideration during the determination of applications by successive new Governments and regulatory regimes. This should be prioritised over and above the introduction of a new performance and designation framework, which may simply set local authorities up to fail if the key drivers that are increasing process times are not addressed.

Question 13. Do you agree with the proposed performance thresholds for assessing the proportion of decisions made within the statutory time limit (50 per cent or more for major applications and 60 per cent or more for non-major applications)? If not, please specify what you consider the performance thresholds should be.

Our response to Question 12 highlights our concerns relating to the introduction of a new performance measure for speed of decision-making within statutory time limits only. The thresholds for assessing ‘good’ or ‘bad’ performance would, given current average time taken to determine such applications, put a vast number of authorities at risk of designation. 

The Government must ask themselves what tools they will introduce to help increase the speed of decision making, other than instructing local authorities to do so and otherwise threatening designation? Namely, this would be helping to urgently address the resourcing, capacity and skills shortages in local planning authorities and allowing them to charge appropriate fees set at the local level to cover their costs. 

Question 14. Do you consider that the designation decisions in relation to performance for speed of decision-making should be made based on:

a) the new criteria only – i.e. the proportion of decisions made within the statutory time limit; or

b) both the current criteria (proportion of applications determined within the statutory time limit or an agreed extended time period) and the new criteria (proportion of decisions made within the statutory time limit) with a local planning authority at risk of designation if they do not meet the threshold for either or both criteria

c) neither of the above

d) don’t know.

In our response to the Government’s consultation last year, we shared our concerns regarding the proposals for changes or additions to speed in decision-making metrics. The new Planning Performance Dashboard provides interesting data breakdowns, but we remain keen to find out more about how the Government intend to use this data helpfully and better support outcomes for planning departments, rather than using them crudely as a means of applying potential sanctions and designating 'poorly performing' local authorities.

We do not agree that the designation decisions of local planning authorities for speed of decision-making should be assessed on the percentage of applications that are determined within the statutory determination period. We urge the Government to undertake a holistic review of statutory timescales for application determinations – which have not changed since their introduction in the 1990’s, despite the vast increase in factors that planners must take into consideration during their determination of applications.  

Question 15. Do you agree that the performance of local planning authorities for speed of decision making should be measured across a 12 month period?

Again, we highlight and question the Government’s focus and priority on speed of determinations over and above quality of applications. By default, if an application is to be both submitted and determined to high quality and quickly, then a commensurate high fee must be paid – of which the current fee regime does not support. Local authorities should be able to set fee levels locally so they can achieve true cost recovery. 

We do not agree overall with the focus on speed over quality as a measure of local authority planning performance and so offer no comment on the specific question. Individual local authorities are best placed to provide evidence and examples of how their speed of decision making may vary over a 12 month period and how this proposal may impact them. 

If the Government is minded to pursue a planning system built on speed, we again urgently call for measures to be introduced which will incentivise and speed up the build-out of sites once they have been granted permission. We are supportive of proposals in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, including the introduction of commencement notices as a starting point for addressing the ongoing challenges around build-out of schemes following planning permission. It is good that this measure will be introduced alongside powers for councils to deter and tackle non compliance, including the possibility of a fine.

We also welcome the commitment to bring forward additional measures to tackle slow build-out. Specifically, we would welcome the introduction of powers to allow councils to charge full council tax for every unbuilt development from the point the original planning permission expires. It should also be made easier for councils to use compulsory purchase powers to acquire stalled housing sites or sites where developers do not build out to timescales contractually agreed with a local planning authority.

The Competition and Market Authority’s recent report highlighted many issues with build-out and we encourage the Government to engage with the recommendations. 

Question 16. Do you agree with the proposed transitional arrangements for the new measure for assessing speed of decision making performance?

Whilst we disagree with the proposals, the transitional arrangements appear sensible, though we leave way for local authorities to provide comment on the specific complexities that may be incurred. 

Question 17. Do you agree that the measure and thresholds for assessing quality of decision making performance should stay the same?

No comment. Local authorities are best placed to provide evidence or examples of what impact a change in the measure or thresholds for assessing quality of decision making would make. 

Question 18. Do you agree with the proposal to remove the ability to use extension of time agreements for householder applications?

No – we do not agree with the proposal to remove the ability to use extension of time agreements for householder applications. Local authorities report that applicants generally would rather wait a few more weeks for application determination than be refused and required to re-submit their proposal, particularly now 'free go’s' have been omitted.

Many local authorities are already taking steps to reduce the use of extension of time agreements for these types of applications, but their prohibition may result in unintended consequences whereby further delays to decision making are incurred through the inability to use a tried and tested, and much relied upon, tool. 

The Government should publish evidence they rely upon to substantiate their claim that “extension of time agreements are being used for smaller and less complex householder applications, without good reason, to compensate for delays in decision-making and poor performance”. There is no way of differentiating between a 'good' use of extension of time agreements or a 'bad' one, and the narrative that local authorities are delaying the planning process purposefully is harmful. Local authorities grant nearly nine in 10 planning applications, and these agreements are one such way to reach positive development outcomes. 

Question 19. What is your view on the use of repeat extension of time agreements for the same application? Is this something that should be prohibited?

No – repeat extension of time agreements for the same application should not be prohibited. Local authorities only introduce such agreements jointly with the applicant, so we cannot see why the Government would wish to prohibit their use, when they are key to delivering positive development outcomes.

Local authorities are best placed to make decisions about the use of these planning tools to ensure the best outcomes for their communities and place. 

Question 20. Do you agree with the proposals for the simplified written representation appeal route?

We agree in principle with the proposals for the simplified written representation appeal route. Local authorities are well-versed in the use of the Householder Appeals Service (HAS) and Commercial Appeals Service (CAS) and extending this to help speed up the process and reduce the burden on local authorities is welcomed.

The Government must work with the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) to ensure they are satisfactorily resourced and have the capacity and digital technologies to allow a speedy and less burdensome appeals process.  

Question 21. Do you agree with the types of appeals that are proposed for inclusion through the simplified written representation appeal route? If not, which types of appeals should be excluded from the simplified written representation appeal route?

The simplified written representation appeal route should exclude Lawful Development Certificates as these often require evidence on oath, and conditions on approvals would undoubtedly need further submissions which may not be covered extensively in an officer report already. Further, refusal of modifications to legal agreements would also need further input at the appeal stage.

Question 22. Are there any other types of appeals which should be included in a simplified written representation appeal route?

No comment. 

Question 23. Would you raise any concern about removing the ability for additional representations, including those of third parties, to be made during the appeal stage on cases that would follow the simplified written representations procedure?

No comment. 

Question 24. Do you agree that there should be an option for written representation appeals to be determined under the current (non simplified) process in cases where the Planning Inspectorate considers that the simplified process is not appropriate?

No comment. 

Question 25. Do you agree that the existing time limits for lodging appeals should remain as they currently are, should the proposed simplified procedure for determining written representation planning appeals be introduced?

Yes, the existing time limits for lodging appeals should remain.

Question 26. Do you agree that guidance should encourage clearer descriptors of development for planning permissions and section 73B to become the route to make general variations to planning permissions (rather than section 73)?

Whilst we welcome the Government giving local authorities the flexibility to apply their judgement locally based on the individual circumstances of cases, the Government should be mindful that not providing clear guidance to local authorities and applicants, particularly on the phrase 'substantially different', may lead to unintended consequences of further delays and uncertainty in the planning system. Ultimately, it may lead to a need for the courts to rule on what the phrase means in order to give certainty to applicants and local authorities on what would be an acceptable use for 73B permissions.

For example, the consultation proposals state that minor alterations to the total number of flats and the size of the building of an apartment block following further design work would be considerable under section 73B applications. However, even changing the total number of units by just one, from 10 to nine, would have a substantial difference on how the development is treated in totality as it would no longer be a major application subject to affordable housing requirements. 

We therefore agree that some guidance, created in partnership with local authorities, should be drafted to set out clearer descriptors of development through section 73B permissions. 

Question 27. Do you have any further comments on the scope of the guidance?

Local authorities are best placed to provide further comments on the scope of the guidance. 

We encourage the Government to consider what options local authorities may have, and the consequences of, rejecting an application if they do not agree with an applicant that the scheme is not 'substantially different'.

Question 28. Do you agree with the proposed approach for the procedural arrangements for a section 73B application?

We agree in principle that section 73B applications should be subject to similar procedural arrangements as section 73 applications including requirements for information, publicity and consulting statutory consultees. 

However until such a time as a definition or clear unfaltering guidance sets out what descriptors of development will be permitted through section 73B applications, such as what is considered 'substantially different', we do not consider it appropriate to set out which information requirements should or should not accompany such applications. For example, the proposals suggest that 'location, scope of existing permissions on the site and the nature of the proposed changes could all be relevant', yet the consultation also sets out that design and access statement would not be required for section 73B applications. 

Question 29. Do you agree that the application fee for a section 73B application should be the same as the fee for a section 73 application?

The fees proposed do not cover the true cost of administering and assessing these applications, in particular if the proposed procedural arrangements including consulting statutory consultees and publicity is required. Local authorities need to be able to set the appropriate level for these application fees to accurately reflect their costs and have sufficient financial capacity to determine applications in a timely manner and deliver better quality planning outcomes. 

Question 30. Do you agree with the proposal for a 3 band application fee structure for section 73 and 73B applications?

Whilst the principle of a 3 band application fee structure appears sensible, we again highlight that the current fees associated with Section 73 and 73B applications do not cover the true cost of assessing these applications. Local authorities need to be able to set the appropriate level for these application fees to accurately reflect their costs and have sufficient financial capacity to determine applications in a timely manner and deliver better quality planning outcomes. 

Question 31. What should be the fee for section 73 and 73B applications for major development (providing evidence where possible)?

As the cost of assessing section 73 and 73B applications for major developments varies in every local authority, we do not provide a comment, other than to say that local authorities need to be able to set the appropriate level for these application fees to accurately reflect their costs and have sufficient financial capacity to determine applications in a timely manner and deliver better quality planning outcomes.

Question 32. Do you agree with this approach for section 73B permissions in relation to Community Infrastructure Levy?

Local authorities are best placed to provide comment on the approach for section 73B applications and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). 

We highlight our response to Question 26 where we call on Government to issue some guidance on what is meant by 'substantially different' as this may impact how applicants approach the system, potentially in a bid to reduce the CIL liability of their scheme. 

Question 33. Can you provide evidence about the use of the ‘drop in’ permissions and the extent the Hillside judgment has affected development?

No comment. Local authorities are best placed to provide evidence about the use of drop in permissions and how the Hillside judgement has affected development in their areas. 

Question 34. To what extent could the use of section 73B provide an alternative to the use of drop in permissions?

No comment. Local authorities are best placed to provide evidence or examples of how section 73B may or may not work as an alternative to the use of drop in permissions. 

Question 35. If section 73B cannot address all circumstances, do you have views about the use of a general development order to deal with overlapping permissions related to large scale development granted through outline planning permission?

No comment. Local authorities are best placed to provide evidence or examples of how general development orders could deal with overlapping permissions. 

Q36. We continue to keep the impacts of these proposals under review and would be grateful for your comments on any potential impacts that might arise under the Public Sector Equality Duty as a result of the proposals in this document.

The LGA urges the Government to undertake and publish a review of the equalities impact that proposals contained in this consultation may have.