Abolishing planning performance agreements? Templates for section 106? There are further opportunities to reform planning

Among the government’s comprehensive planning reform agenda, one area that warrants closely scrutiny is how applications are actually determined - and that should be done with a broad focus.

The application process is much more than the period between submitting an application and a decision notice being issued.

In reality, it starts when a developer first contemplates an application and finishes when planning conditions are discharged. In order to build more homes, more quickly, that whole process needs to be improved.

Efforts to date have focused on the traditional application process. Proposals that would see more applications decided by professional planning officers rather than elected members - rather euphemistically referred to as “modernising planning committees” - should see fewer schemes taken to appeal for political reasons. Ongoing work to reform the role of statutory consultees should reduce delays caused by late feedback on live applications.

While those changes are welcome, we need to look at the application process in the round - from inception to completion, not submission to determination.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill offers opportunities to do that. The new ability for councils to set application fees locally will ensure the fee paid actually covers the cost of dealing with the application. The government should therefore use it as an opportunity to abolish planning performance agreements. 

We need to look at the application process in the round - from inception to completion, not submission to determination

The original justification for planning performance agreements was for applicants to pay additional fees over and above the statutory requirements in return for the Council agreeing to hit performance benchmarks. That made sense when application fees didn’t cover application costs. Yet in reality, few councils are prepared to agree to meaningful performance targets for the understandable reason that the speed an application is processed isn’t entirely within their control - it depends on external consultees and applicants too.

 So we’ve ended up with a system that is used solely to secure extra fee income but which adds weeks to the process while the performance agreement is negotiated, drafted and signed. Application fees that actually cover costs should remove the need for that whole process, removing time and complexity.

Pre-application advice is another area ripe for reform. Research by the Planning Advisory Service highlighted the wide range of fees charged by different local authorities. For applications for between 10 and 50 homes, the cost of pre-application advice ranged from £116 to £17,059. There is a huge variety in the level of advice offered too, with some local authorities not even offering a pre-application service.

Again, the theory for pre-application consultation is sound - it provides an opportunity for developers and local authorities to agree the parameters for an application and highlight key issues that need to be addressed. But the reality is much different. The advice provided is non-binding so can change; not all consultees provide responses; and it can take months for meeting dates to be confirmed.

We’re told pre-application discussions ensure applications are determined more quickly - and that might be true for the application itself. But under the current approach, that is being achieved by moving work from a period that is measured and regulated - the actual application process - to an unmeasured, unregulated period. That sleight of hand only makes it appear that applications are determined more quickly. In reality, it probably doesn’t make much difference - and might even slow things down.

Standardising the pre-application process could deliver significant improvements.

Section 106 Agreements are another barrier to rapid decision-making, often taking many months to execute as over-stretched council legal teams struggle with the burden of negotiating bespoke agreements for every application. There seems no reason why the government couldn’t introduce standard clauses for section 106 agreements, or even template agreements, with blanks to fill in reflecting the site-specific circumstances.

For example, the tenure split, unit numbers and occupation triggers for affordable homes will clearly vary from site to site, but the operative clauses explaining how they will be delivered, and what happens if there is no interest in those plots from a registered provider, should be the same each time.

Templating could also be used for planning conditions, alongside greater clarity on appropriate triggers for discharge - limiting the number of pre-commencement conditions in the process.

There seems no reason why the government couldn’t introduce standard clauses for section 106 agreements, or even template agreements, with blanks to fill in reflecting the site-specific circumstances

Not should planning conditions be used to cover other regulatory regimes, even if we think they aren’t doing a good job. Nobody would condition compliance with building regulations but we’re very happy to do that in other areas. Construction nanagement plans, for example, have no place in the planning system. There is plenty of legislation that environmental health teams can use to deal with noise, dust or other nuisances. It shouldn’t be appropriate to outsource enforcement of those rules to already over-stretched planning departments, adding yet another document that needs to be prepared and approved as part of the application process.

Those few examples only scrape the surface. We will all have our own favourite illogical, inefficient or duplicate processes within that broader application process. While that may feel depressing at times, it is great news for the government.

It means there are a whole host of areas where they can remove grit from the system and really make the planning machine hum, ensuring it delivers the right outcomes more quickly.

Paul Smith, managing director at Strategic Land Group