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just related to commercial applications – namely that local authorities are not always able to meet the Government’s outdated performance targets for speed in decision making of planning applications.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use and remove these from the performance framework, the fundamental matter is that their increased use 'disguises' an outdated performance regime and statutory timescales which have not changed to reflect the complexity of planning applications.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.