As I approach my 20th year as a Town Planner, operating in both Local Government and Private Practice, it is interesting to see various debates about how the current political flux will impact on the world of planning and housing delivery.
I have seen numerous PPGs turn into numerous PPSs, and then cut down to less than 100 pages in the NPPF before expanding out into hundreds of paragraphs in the NPPG, none of which have turned the Planning System into a well-oiled machine or delivered on the housing need across the nation. The same is true of the various Ministers (of varying titles) and the introduction of potential punishments, the Housing Delivery Test being just one example.
So why has none of this seemingly worked?
Well, in my view, the issue has always lied at a local level.
Central Government can introduce all the policies they wish; ultimately, however, the final decision invariably comes down to the 12 or so Members of a Planning Committee. Members, who quite often act as though they know more about flooding, transport and ecology than the appointed consultant or their own professional officers. Members, who can spend three hours of a meeting debating a house extension and then, when pushed for time, come to a decision on a key housing scheme in a matter of minutes.
Local authority planning departments play a crucial role in enabling development to deliver home ownership, building homes people can afford to buy and supporting economic growth. The performance of local authorities in deciding applications for planning permission is crucial to achieving this objective. The existing approach to measuring the performance of authorities was introduced by the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 and is based on assessing local planning authorities’ performance on the speed and quality of their decisions on applications for major and non-major development. Where an authority is designated as underperforming, applicants have had the option of submitting their applications for major and non-major development (and connected applications) directly to the Planning Inspectorate (who act on behalf of the Secretary of State) for determination.
The criteria for such a designation have been updated this month and have been presented to parliament in draft where they will lie for forty days. The Criteria Document sets out the latest criteria and thresholds to be applied when the Secretary of State considers whether to designate or de-designate local planning authorities under section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
The performance of local planning authorities in determining major and non-major development will be assessed separately, meaning that an authority could be designated on the basis of its performance in determining applications for major development, applications for non-major development, or both.
The assessment for each of these two categories of development will be against two separate measures of performance:
the speed with which applications are dealt with measured by the proportion of applications that are dealt with within the statutory time or an agreed extended period; and,
the quality of decisions made by local planning authorities measured by the proportion of decisions on applications that are subsequently overturned at appeal.
By way of example, Uttlesford District Council were, on 8 February 2022, designated for quality of decision-making in respect of applications for planning permission for major development; an increasing number of applications are now being submitted directly to the Planning Inspectorate, bypassing the Councillors altogether.
The Special Measures system is far from ideal, with a very high bar to fall within it. The question will be whether the Members of Councils, like Uttlesford, will take on board the position they have put their Councils in and be more pragmatic in their decision making. Could the changes also have the effect of giving rise to an increase in extensions of time?
Comments