glhearn.com

Ben Wrighton

9 & 10th January 2013

PPAs – the developer

perspective

Structure

• GL Hearn’s Annual Planning Survey results

• LPA Development Management research

• PPAs - Key findings

• Informing the debate

GL Hearn’s Annual Planning

Survey Results

About the survey

• Survey of those closely involved in planning in public and private sector

• Applicants – 180+ respondents - principals and professional advisors

• Local planning authorities – 40 senior managers respondents (11 London

Boroughs)

• Early indication of attitude following introduction of Localism Act and NPPF

• Annual survey to measure change

Applicants’ views

Key Findings

Investment Decisions

• Whether to invest in a project

informed by:

‒ Traditional factors such as:

• Market opportunity

• Fit with investment strategy

‒ Increasingly influenced by:

• Previous experience of an LPA

• Reputation of an LPA

• Perceptions of LPAs’ approach to

development not encouraging

Positive 10%

Neutral 49%

Negative 41%

Key Findings

Top considerations when engaging in the planning process

The likelihood of securing permission

A clear planning policy position

The time it takes to get a decision

The cost of planning obligations/CIL

The local planning authority’s

performance

The cost of submitting a planning

application

The political control of the local authority

Other

Dissatisfied 50%

Very dissatisfied

25%

Very satisfied 1%

Satisfied 2%

Neutral – it’s fine 29%

Very satisfied 1%

Satisfied 8%

Neutral – it’s fine 17%

Dissatisfied 46%

Very dissatisfied

22%

Key Findings

Planning applications

• Length of time to determine

• Cost including fees and obligations

Applicants’ and local

authorities’ views

Key Findings

How do applicants view their approach to planning

Positive, 75%

Neutral, 15%

Negative, 10%

Key Findings

Attitude to reform

• Thinking generally about the Government’s agenda, do you think it will

materially:

‒ Deliver more homes and economic growth?

• Yes: 32% applicants & 12% LPAs

‒ Produce a faster and leaner planning system?

• No: 79% applicants & 83% LPAs

‒ Overall, increase or decrease development activity?

• Neither increase nor decrease: 71% applicants & 88% LPAs

Key findings

What would make the biggest difference?

• Applicants’ views on what would

make the biggest difference to

performance

‒ Processing applications faster

‒ Empowerment of officers / de-politicise

the system

‒ Investment in LPAs

‒ Increase accountability

‒ More commercial culture

‒ Clear delivery frameworks

‒ Increase accessibility to officers

‒ Pro-growth agenda

‒ Improved policy documents

‒ Further training for officers & members

‒ Increased consistency

• Local authorities’ priorities for

improvement

‒ CIL

‒ Production of policy documents /

‒ Improvement to evidence base

‒ Pre-app consultation

‒ Training of members

‒ Size and budget of planning depts.

‒ Involving members in pre-apps

‒ Speeding up delivery of decisions

London LPA Development

Management Research

The Annual London Development Management Survey

• All 33 London Boroughs were surveyed

• Objective - review management of all major planning applications

• Major planning applications - 10 or more dwellings, residential sites over

0.5 ha, non-residential sites over 1 ha or creation/change of use of over

1,000 sq. m. gross

• Timeframe - 12 month period preceding publication of NPPF in April 2012

• Benchmark year from which post NPPF change can be measured

Certainty - Time - Cost

Certainty

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

tag

e o

f M

ajo

r A

pp

licati

on

s P

erm

itte

d

All London Boroughs

Approval Rate of Major Applications

Time

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Weeks t

aken

to

dete

rmin

e

Time To Determine Major Applications

2 years

31 week average inquiry

1 year DCLG target

determination (inc. appeal)

13 week target determination

38 week average determination

All London Boroughs

Cost

Costs of a Planning Application

£0

£5,000

£10,000

£15,000

£20,000

£25,000

£30,000

2007 2012 2013

Mayoral Pre-App Fee

Local Pre-App Fee

Application Fee

PPAs – Key Findings

Key Findings

Planning Performance Agreements

Positive

25%

Neutral 57%

Negative 18%

Key Findings

Planning Performance Agreements – the positives…

• Has provided clear timeframes / performance targets which were met

• Cost has been proportionate to service provided

• Has provided clear and dedicated resourcing

• Has clarified information requirements

• Officers attitudes have been more positive (less hostile!)

Key Findings

Planning Performance Agreements – the negatives…

• Timescales – milestones missed / unrealistic

• Expensive / take time to produce

• Perceived additional fees

• Obligations not met

• Negative officer style not changed / mixed quality service

• Not enforceable

Key Findings

Planning Performance Agreements – other points

• London and South East England focus

• Not extensively used but gaining momentum

• Used for wide variety of purposes within the planning process

• The experiences of funding PPAs varies widely

• Challenge associated with engaging other key stakeholders remains

Informing the debate

Our views – when to do it?

• Pre-application and post-submission processes for ‘strategic’ schemes

• Policy development where out of date or non-conforming

• Discharge of conditions

• Depends on a developer’s objectives in particular circumstances

• Ensure funding arrangements are clear

Our views – what to include?

• Needs to be bespoke

• Timeframe / deliverables is central

• Resourcing commitments - planners and other specialists

• How to engage members and third parties efficiently

• How to deal with ‘blockages’ and how to escalate issues

Overview

• Generally remains a lack of confidence in PPAs

• Developers crave certainty of decision making / LPAs value resource and

timing commitments

• Should be used on a selective basis

• When used, PPAs need to represent value for money

• Trust between all parties is critical