Streamlining information requirements for planning applications

Streamlining information requirements for planning applicationsConsultation

www.communities.gov.ukcommunity, opportunity, prosperity

July 2009Department for Communities and Local Government

Streamlining information requirements for planning applicationsConsultation

Communities and Local Government Eland HouseBressenden PlaceLondon SW1E 5DUTelephone: 020 7944 4400Website: www.communities.gov.uk

© Crown Copyright, 2009

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified.

Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU

e-mail: [email protected]

If you require this publication in an alternative format please email [email protected]

Communities and Local Government PublicationsTel: 0300 123 1124Fax: 0300 123 1125Email: [email protected] via the Communities and Local Government website: www.communities.gov.uk

75%July 2009

Product Code: 09COMM06013/2

ISBN: 978-1-4098-1632-4

Contents | 3

Contents

Consultation Summary 5

Section 1: General introduction 6

Section 2: Background 8

2.1 Current practice 8

2.2 Killian Pretty Review recommendations 9

2.3 Supplementary recommendations 10

Section 3: Information requirements and validation 11

3.1 National local list 11

3.2 Criteria based policy 12

3.3 Updated local list of information requirements 14

3.4 Guidance on national list items 15

3.5 Summaries of major applications 16

3.6 Monitoring the use of local lists 17

3.7 Bringing the changes together 18

Section 4: Design and access statements (DAS) 20

Section 5: Agricultural Holdings Certificates 25

Section 6: Summary of consultation questions 26

Section 7: Consultation stage impact assessment 28

Section 8: Consultation arrangements 29

Appendix 1: Draft policy statement on information requirements and validation 31

Appendix 2: Draft Statutory Instrument amending GDPO on design and access statements 36

Appendix 3: Draft guidance 38

Appendix 4: Impact assessment 64

Consultation summary | 5

Consultation summaryTopic of this consultation:

Making information requirements clearer, simpler and more proportionate, in response to the Killian Pretty Review.

Scope of this consultation:

To consult on the proposed new approach to local lists of information requirements, the proposed changes to the use of design and access statements, and the proposed change to the standard application form in relation to agricultural holdings certificates.

Geographical scope: The proposals relate to England only.

Impact assessment: An outline impact assessment is attached at Appendix 4.

To: This is a public consultation and it is open to anyone to respond. We would however particularly welcome responses from LPAs, the development industry, civic and amenity groups, disability groups and other stakeholders.

Body responsible for the consultation:

Communities and Local Government,Planning System Improvement Division

Duration: 30 July to 23 October

Enquiries: Tom Bristow Tel: 020 7944 3727 [email protected]

How to respond: By email to: [email protected] by post to:Information RequirementsCommunities and Local GovernmentFloor 1, Zone A1Eland HouseBressenden PlaceLondon SW15 5DU

Additional ways to become involved:

As some of these issues are very technical, they are best addressed in writing.

After the consultation:

We will collate and analyse the responses to this consultation exercise. We will provide a summary of who responded to the consultation exercise and a summary of the views expressed. These comments will be taken into account in the finalisation of our proposals, which are expected to come into force in April 2010.

Compliance with the code of practice on consultation:

This consultation complies with the code.

Getting to this stage:

This consultation paper follows the Government’s response to the Killian Pretty Review.

Previous engagement:

This consultation paper builds on the engagement undertaken during the Killian Pretty Review. We have also held discussions with local planning officers and other relevant stakeholders.

6 | Streamlining information requirements for planning applications

Section 1

General introduction

This consultation paper sets out the Government’s proposals for changes to the 1. information requirements for planning applications. The paper is the Government’s response to the Killian Pretty Review recommendation that there should be a more proportionate approach to information requirements.

We propose to revise policy, to amend legislation and to update the 2. associated guidance:

a new policy statement on information requirements and validation will •form part of the new development management framework1. The draft policy statement is attached as Appendix 1

amendments will be made to The Town and Country Planning (General •Development Procedure) Order 1995 (GDPO). A draft of the associated Statutory Instrument is attached as Appendix 2

an updated guidance document will be prepared. Further details are •attached as Appendix 3

In addition, we also propose to make minor changes to the standard 3. application form.

These proposals are intended to implement one of the key recommendations 4. of the Killian Pretty Review, that the Government should make the information requirements for all planning applications “clearer, simpler and more proportionate, removing unnecessary requirements, particularly for small scale householder and minor development”2.

These proposals also seek to respond to the current economic downturn by 5. reducing unnecessary administrative burdens on applicants and reducing the amount of information that local planning authorities (LPAs) need to review when determining a planning application.

1 The development management framework is discussed in more detail in Annex A of the Progress Report. 2 Killian Pretty Review (2008) Planning Applications: a faster and more responsive system. Recommendation 2, page 20

Section 1 General introduction | 7

The proposed changes to the information requirements fall under three topic 6. headings:

information requirements and validation•

design and access statements•

agricultural holdings certificates•

The first topic requires new policy; the second requires that new policy is 7. incorporated in revisions to the GDPO; the third involves minor changes to the standard application form. All three will be discussed in a new guidance document. The treatment of each topic is set out in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Topics covered by each of the proposed new documents

Proposed document Topic

Information requirements and validation

Design and access Statements

Agricultural holdings certificates

New policy statement X

New statutory instrument X

Updated guidance X X X

The measures presented in this consultation paper are proposed for implementation 8. in England only. Separate arrangements apply in Wales.


Section 2

Background

2.1 Current practice

In order to support the use of the standard application form, introduced in April 9. 2008, the Government has encouraged local planning authorities to prepare a local list of information requirements for planning applications. This is intended to provide more certainty about the type of information required at the outset of the planning application process and to ensure that the information requested is proportionate to the type and scale of application being made3.

The Department’s guidance on the validation of planning applications sets out a 10. “recommended national list of local information requirements”. Local planning authorities (LPAs) are expected to choose which items on this ‘national local list’ are relevant in their area, and relevant to particular types of planning applications. Relevant items are included in local planning authorities’ own list of items to be submitted along with the application forms and other items required under the terms of the GDPO.

The Killian Pretty (KP) Review11. 4 found that the ‘national local list’ is causing difficulties for LPAs and applicants. In practice, local variations in context mean that it is not possible to specify a single list of information requirements that is relevant, necessary and material to all parts of England. The recommended ‘national local list’ presented in the 2007 guidance includes some specialist items while leaving out others which are gaining emphasis at the local level (e.g. energy statements). Another difficulty, recognised in the existing guidance, is that it is impossible to specify a single list of information requirements for all types of planning applications.

Most authorities have produced a local list, and many of them have invested 12. significant resources in this task. A supporting study to the KP Review, undertaken by Arup and Addison & Associates5, noted that the success of local lists appears to be “directly proportional to the amount of time and resources invested in implementing the system. Where local authorities have prioritised the changes, considered and devised local lists according to local circumstances, applied relevant thresholds,

3 Communities and Local Government (December 2007) The Validation of Planning Applications: guidance for local planning authorities, paragraph 11

4 Available online at http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/kpr/kpr_final-report.pdf 5 Arup and Addison & Associates for CLG (2008) Review of information requirements for the validation of planning applications

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/reviewplanningapplications, page 36

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/kpr/kpr_final-report.pdf

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/reviewplanningapplications

Section 2 Background | 9

anticipated potential pitfalls and published detailed accompanying guidance, the system has been greatly improved. However, for those local authorities with limited time and resources available to implement the changes appropriately and considerately, the system has not been successful and has further compounded problems of under-resourcing and inefficiency already existing within the planning department” (paragraph 3.51).

One information item that attracted particular attention in the KP Review was the 13. design and access statement (DAS). These statements are currently required to accompany many forms of planning application. A detailed list of the contents of a DAS is currently included in secondary legislation (the GDPO and Listed Buildings Regulations). There has been criticism that the current requirements are too onerous for small scale development, and that risk-averse planning authorities are insisting that all the requirements are covered in too much detail.

However, it is widely agreed that design and access statements can be a useful tool 14. in planning for high quality development. If design and access issues are considered from an early stage of scheme development, this can and does result in good quality design. It is important that the benefits of the DAS are not affected adversely by any changes to the legislation or guidance.

The agricultural holdings certificate (AHC) was identified by the Killian Pretty Review 15. as an additional source of delay in the validation process. All applicants are legally required to certify that any agricultural holdings tenants have been notified of the application, or that there are no agricultural holdings tenants on the site. The AHC is included on the standard application (1APP) form, but it appears that many applicants overlook this section as they may not appreciate that it applies to their scheme.

2.2 Killian Pretty Review recommendations

In relation to local lists of information requirements, the Killian Pretty Review16. 6 recommended that central Government should:

abandon any attempt to define local lists nationally•

revise national guidance on local lists so that LPAs do not ask for more •information than they need

set out guidance for local authorities on any national policy requirements that •need to be considered in local lists and

establish an• effective process of auditing the local lists to ensure they are clear, justified and proportionate.

6 KP Review, Recommendation 2


The review also recommended that local planning authorities should not be 17. required to consider documents of excessive length in support of applications, and that Government should identify how clear limits on the size of documents could be achieved.

The review recommended that the Government should remove the detailed 18. requirements for the content of a design and access statement from secondary legislation.

The review also recommended that Government should consult on removing 19. the mandatory requirement to sign an agricultural holdings certificate for most applications.

In summary, the Killian Pretty Review sought changes that will 20. “ensure that an applicant only needs to provide, and local planning authorities and stakeholders only need to consider, information that is relevant, necessary and material to allow the local planning authority to determine each particular application. A far more proportionate response to information requirements is needed”7.

2.3 Supplementary recommendations

As part of the KP Review, Arup and Addison & Associates were commissioned to 21. undertake a more detailed study of information requirements for the validation of planning applications8. The Arup & Addison report recommended that the existing guidance on information requirements and validation should be revised and updated, and set out a series of detailed recommendations about the updated guide.

7 KP Review, page 52 [emphasis added]8 Arup and Addison & Associates for CLG (2008) Review of information requirements for the validation of planning applications



Section 3 Information requirements and validation | 11

Section 3

Information requirements and validation

We propose a number of changes to the policy and guidance on information 22. requirements and the validation of planning applications. They can be summarised as follows:

withdrawal of the current ‘recommended national local list’ which was intended •to guide LPAs in setting local lists of information requirements

introduction of a new, criteria based, national policy requirement for local •planning authorities preparing local lists, to ensure they only ask for information that is relevant, necessary, proportionate and justified by national or local policy

a requirement for LPAs to update their ‘local list of information requirements’ •where necessary, having regard to this new policy requirement, by the end of December 2010

refinement and improvement of the guidance on national list items, •to encourage a more proportionate approach, and to clarify validation requirements

a consideration of options for the external scrutiny of local lists and•

encouragement of better submissions from applicants by proposing that •applications for major development should be accompanied by a concise summary document

This chapter discusses each of these changes in more detail, explaining the rationale 23. behind the proposals as well as the steps we propose to take. The draft policy statement on information and validation is attached as Appendix 1.

3.1 National local list

What’s the problem?The GDPO sets out a list of items, known as the ‘national list’, that applicants for 24. planning permission are required to provide with their application. The GDPO also entitles local planning authorities (LPAs) to request any additional documents that they consider necessary, as long as these items do not contravene the national list. LPAs publish a list of these items, known as a ‘local list’.


However, current CLG guidance also sets out a ’recommended national local list’ 25. of items which local authorities may choose to include in their local lists. Many authorities have chosen to include all of these items. Some authorities also exercise their right to request additional items.

The KP Review found that some applicants are asked to submit items which are 26. irrelevant or disproportionate to their particular application, or to explain in detail why a list item is not applicable. The KP Review suggested that the ‘national local list’ should be removed from the guidance, to discourage the ‘shopping list’ approach and to encourage local planning authorities to identify only those items of information that they consider to be relevant and necessary in order to understand the potential impacts of a proposed scheme.

Proposed changesWe propose to amend the existing guidance to remove the ‘recommended national 27. local list’ of information requirements. Local planning authorities will instead be expected to revise their own local lists in accordance with a set of policy criteria. These are discussed in more detail in section 3.2 below.

3.2 Criteria based policy

What’s the problem?The Government is keen to ensure that the key findings of the KP Review are 28. reflected in the approach that local planning authorities take to preparing and using their local lists. However, simply abolishing the ‘national local list’ would leave a policy void for local authorities and applicants. Some form of policy/guidance is therefore required to explain the key principles at a national level and to encourage a consistent response among different local authorities.

Proposed changesWe propose to introduce a set of policy principles. Local planning authorities will be 29. expected to apply these when revising their local lists of information requirements. They should also apply these principles when deciding which items of information an applicant should submit.

The new policy statement will set out the policy principles in full. These reflect the key 30. finding of the KP Review that an applicant should only provide, and a local authority should only need to consider, information that is “relevant, necessary and material to allow the local planning authority to determine each particular application”9.

9 KP Review, page 52


The proposed principles are:31.

necessity•

precision•

proportionality•

fitness for purpose and•

assistance•

PolicyThe following new policy is proposed:32.

“It will be for the local planning authority to specify exactly what information is 33. required for each application type to ensure that the applicant supplies the correct supporting information. It is important to ensure that local lists are clear, reasonable and proportionate.

In preparing or reviewing their local lists, local planning authorities should take into 34. account the following national principles and criteria:

Table A: Principles and criteria for local list preparation

Principle Key Considerations

Necessity All local list requirements should be based on statutory requirements, national, regional or adopted local policy.

Precision It should be clear where (geographically) the information requirement arisesIt should be clear precisely what types of development require the provision of supporting information.

Proportionality Where possible, the list should identify size thresholds below which the information is not required.Where possible, a graduated approach should be taken to the information required (e.g. dependent on the scale or sensitivity of the proposal).

Fitness for purpose It should be clear what information is required to satisfy the requirement – with a strong emphasis on encouraging a proportionate approach and brevity.

Assistance For each element of the list it should be clear where further information or answers to queries can be obtained.

Question1: Do you agree with the proposed policy principles? If not, what amendments

to these principles do you suggest?


3.3 Updated local list of information requirements

What’s the problem?There is concern that local planning authorities’ local lists of information 35. requirements are too long. Some local lists are also being applied in a manner which results in the submission of a large number of supporting documents, some of which are not used or referred to in the determination of the application. There is a pressing need for a more proportionate approach, to reduce costs for the applicant and to reduce the amount of time taken by local authorities and statutory consultees to read unnecessary detail during the determination period. Conversely, a few authorities have not published a local list at all.

Proposed changesLPAs should review their existing local lists in accordance with the policy principles set 36. out in section 3.2 above. Where revision is necessary, the revised local list should be published on the LPA’s website by the end of December 2010.

PolicyThe Government’s proposal is:37.

“Where, at the time of the introduction of this policy, (programmed for April 2010), 38. a local planning authority has an existing local list, it should undertake a review of the list and, where necessary, prepare revisions to ensure that the list takes account of the principles and criteria set out in Table A.

We would expect that any review, including consultation where necessary, would 39. take around six months and therefore any revisions necessary as a result of this policy statement would be in place by the end of December 2010. The updated local list should clearly state the date when it is published.

A local authority which does not have a local list should consider preparing one, in 40. accordance with the principles and criteria set out in Table A, and publish it on its website by the end of December 2010. This list should also clearly state the date of publication.

Unless a local planning authority publishes a local list on its website, any local 41. requirements have no bearing on the validity of applications made to them and only compliance with the mandatory national requirements determines whether or not an application is valid.”


GuidanceIn the proposed revised guidance, we will outline the steps that we expect LPAs to 42. take in order to review their local lists. These are shown in Figure 1 and explained in more detail in Appendix 3.

Figure 1: Local list preparation process

1. Review existing local list

2. Prepare a summary report of proposed changes

3. Consult on proposed changes

4. Finalise and publish revised list on LPA website

Questions2: Do you consider that revising local lists in this manner will encourage a more

proportionate approach to information requests by LPAs?

3: Do you consider that implementation by December 2010 is a realistic timescale? If not, what would be more appropriate?

3.4 Guidance on national list items

What’s the problem?National list of information requirements

A national list of information requirements is specified in the GDPO. These items 43. are mandatory and must be supplied by the applicant before their application can be validated by the local planning authority. Some of these items are specified more precisely than others in the GDPO. Of particular relevance is the provision that LPAs may request “any other plans, drawings and information necessary to describe the proposed development” (Article 4E).

The current Government guidance on national list items44. 10 goes further than the GDPO and suggests further detail about the scale and type of maps and plans that may be requested by the LPA.

10 Communities and Local Government (December 2007) The Validation of Planning Applications: guidance for local planning authorities


Validation of planning applicationsSome LPAs are using the existing Government guidance as part of a ‘tick-box’ 45. validation process, with the result that some applicants are asked/required to supply information which is irrelevant (e.g. roof plans for ground floor works) or at an inappropriate scale (e.g. site plans at 1:500 for very large development schemes), before the planning authority will validate the application. This generates additional and unnecessary work for applicants, and presents local authorities with supporting material that may not be useful during the determination process.

Proposed approachThe Government proposes to retain the existing policy on validation that is currently 46. set out in Circular 01/2006. The relevant text from the existing circular is included in Appendix 1.

The Government proposes to provide clearer guidance on national list items, 47. removing the detail in the current guidance that goes further than the GDPO, and making it clear that local planning authorities should only require plans that are relevant to the determination of the application and of an appropriate scale. See Appendix 3 for further details of the proposed guidance document.

Question4: Do you agree that requirements for particular map scales, block plans, floor

plans, site sections, floor and site levels, and roof plans should be set out by the local planning authority, using a proportionate approach?

3.5 Summaries of major applications

What’s the problem?Development proposals for large and complex schemes are often submitted with 48. very large volumes of supporting information. The economics of development are such that delays can significantly increase the cost of a scheme, so applicants are keen to minimise the risk of invalidity by providing LPAs with as much detail as possible.

However, the Killian Pretty Review found that some applicants are focusing on 49. quantity rather than quality in their submissions. Planning officers and statutory consultees must spend long periods of time reading these lengthy submissions in order to understand the key points, and this can add to the time required to determine the application, as well as presenting difficulties in accessing and viewing such large documents. The KP Review recommended that Government should work closely with local government representatives and major developers to identify how clear limits on the size of documents could be achieved.


Although there are no legal powers to limit the size of supporting documents, 50. the Government wants to encourage the submission of documents that are more concise. There is already a precedent set by the requirement for a non-technical summary to accompany each environmental statement.

Proposed changesAs a matter of policy, the Government wants applicants to aim for brevity. Applicants 51. should be encouraged to present concise and relevant supporting documents.

For major development applications52. 11, the Government proposes that applicants should submit a summary of the whole application. This summary would be no longer than 20 pages and would identify the key impacts of the whole proposal. Key messages from the design and access statement and the non-technical summary of the Environmental Statement would be included in this summary (where these are prepared as part of the application), along with any other key conclusions of any other supporting documents.

PolicyThe proposed new policy is as follows:53.

“All applicants should aim for brevity. Applications for major development 54. (as defined in the GDPO) should include a summary of the whole scheme. This summary should be no longer than 20 pages and should identify the key impacts of the whole proposal.”

Questions5: Do you agree with the proposal to summarise major applications?

6: Should the proposals for a summary document apply only to applications defined as ‘major development’? If not, for what types of schemes might a summary document be useful?

3.6 Monitoring the use of local lists

It is right that responsibility should rest primarily with LPAs to develop and update 55. their local lists of information, having regard to the principles outlined above. However, the Government is keen to ensure that LPAs and applicants embrace the principle of proportionality. We expect that a revised local list will help applicants and LPAs to be clearer about the information that is required to accompany each planning application, and that this improvement in clarity will result in an application and determination process which is swifter and more closely focused on the key impacts of the proposed scheme.

11 Defined in the GDPO as one or more of the following: 10 or more homes; 1,000 or more square metres of floorspace; site area of 1 hectare or more; minerals and waste applications


Government Offices will discuss the issue of proportionality with LPA representatives 56. at an early stage, as part of their regular planning liaison work. When LPAs publish their revised local list, this will clearly state the date of revision, which will facilitate any subsequent monitoring exercise.

There is no formal process for central Government to monitor the effectiveness of 57. these lists or how they are used, and we do not intend to introduce such a process at the present time. However, as part of our work in developing a new performance indicator we will carefully examine the opportunities to monitor and measure LPA performance in the validation of planning applications. Annex B of the Progress Report seeks views on the broad options for developing a new performance indicator and we would welcome views on how the issue of validation and information requirements might be addressed in that context.

In addition, the Government will monitor the publication and use of revised lists, and 58. if the problems identified through the KP Review persist, will consider the need to introduce statutory powers to address these issues.

Question7: Do you agree that this approach is appropriate? Are there any other

measures, apart from the consideration of validation as part of wider performance measurement, that should be taken to ensure improved local lists are developed and used?

3.7 Bringing the changes together

In summary, we propose to issue a new policy statement and a new guidance note on 59. information requirements and validation.

The new policy statement will combine the new policy outlined in this section of the 60. consultation paper and some elements of Circular 02/200812. Appendix 1 sets out the new policy statement in full, indicating which parts are new and which parts are carried over from the existing circular.

The new guidance note will combine the guidance currently set out in Circular 61. 02/2008, and the CLG guidance document on validation13, subject to the changes outlined in section 3 of this consultation paper. It will also include the guidance on design and access statements currently set out in Section 3 of Circular 01/200614 (as discussed further in section 4 of this consultation paper). Appendix 3 provides further details of the new guidance.

12 CLG Circular 02/2008, Standard Application Form and Validation, published 12 March 200813 Communities and Local Government (December 2007) The Validation of Planning Applications: guidance for local planning

authorities14 CLG Circular 01/2006, Guidance on Changes to the Development Control System, Section 3: design and access statements,

published 12 June 2006


Question8: Do you consider that the proposals described in this section and Appendix

3 will effectively support a more proportionate approach to information requirements and validation? If not, what would you propose instead/as well?


Section 4

Design and access statements (DAS)What’s the problem?

The Planning Act 2008 introduced a statutory duty to have regard to the desirability 62. of achieving good design. Planning Policy Statement 1 states that “good design is indivisible from good planning”. The GDPO sets out a detailed list of contents for design and access statements (DAS). In this context it is important to strike the right balance between ensuring a more proportionate approach to the information required without undermining the valuable contribution that a DAS can make to improving the quality of development. The overall objective is to achieve well-designed development in an efficient and effective way.

At present, the GDPO63. 15 says that the design element of a design and access statement shall–

(a) explain the design principles and concepts that have been applied to the following aspects of the development–

(i) amount;

(ii) layout;

(iii) scale;

(iv) landscaping; and

(v) appearance; and

(b) demonstrate the steps taken to appraise the context of the development and how the design of the development takes that context into account in relation to its proposed use and each of the aspects specified in sub-paragraph (a).

The final sub-clause (shown in italics above) complicates the discussion of context 64. and its impact on design, and lengthens the DAS: some applicants currently discuss the five design aspects and then write five further sections discussing context in relation to each of those design aspects.

Circular 01/200665. 16 explains that the level of detail required in a DAS will depend on the scale and complexity of the application, and the length of the DAS will vary accordingly. It states that the DAS must be proportionate to the complexity of the application, but need not be long.

15 General Development Procedure Order 1995, Article 4C as inserted by S.I. 2006/106216 CLG Circular 01/2006: Guidance on Changes to the Development Control System. Section 3: design and access statements –

available online at http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/circularcommunities2

Section 4 Design and access statements (DAS) | 21

The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) produced a 66. guidance document about design and access statements in 200617. This emphasises the circular’s message that the DAS need not be very long, but the amount of detail they contain should reflect the complexity of the application. However, the KP Review found that this message is not always getting through and some DASs are “disproportionately long and complicated”, especially for minor forms of development18.

Proposed changesWe propose to amend the provisions for design and access statements in the General 67. Development Procedure Order. The draft statutory instrument can be found in Appendix 2. This would amend article 4C of the GDPO.

Two main changes are proposed:68.

to simplify the requirements for all design and access statements (DAS), by •requiring a more straightforward explanation of how the context of the development influences its design and

to reduce the range of applications that require a DAS, by eliminating the •mandatory requirement to prepare a DAS for certain small scale applications and applications to amend or remove conditions on existing permissions

Except for applications relating to World Heritage sites, Conservation Areas and 69. Listed Buildings, it will no longer be mandatory to provide a design and access statement for householder or minor non-domestic applications. We define minor non-domestic applications as non-domestic extensions up to 100sqm floor area, or alterations to existing non-domestic buildings that do not increase the size of the building.

It will no longer be mandatory to provide a DAS for applications to remove or modify 70. conditions on existing permissions (also known as Section 73 applications). These applications may relate to changes that have no design or access implications, and therefore a blanket requirement for a DAS appears to be disproportionate19.

The existing provisions for design and access statements relating to applications for 71. Listed Building consent will remain unchanged.

The proposed changes are summarised in Table 2 overleaf.72.

17 CABE (2006) Design and Access Statements: how to write, read and use them18 KP Review, page 4819 For further information about the Government’s proposed changes to Section 73 applications, please refer to the consultation

document Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions, published June 2009 and available on the CLG website: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/flexibilitypermissions

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/flexibilitypermissions


Table 2: Proposed requirements for design and access statements

Type/location of application Current status Proposed status

Householder development in World Heritage sites, Conservation Areas or requiring Listed Building consent

DAS required DAS required

Householder development in National Parks, AONBs, the Broads or SSSIs

DAS required DAS not required

Householder development outside of the areas listed above

DAS not required DAS not required

Minor non-residential development23 outside of the designations listed below


Minor non-residential development in World Heritage sites, Conservation Areas or requiring Listed Building consent

DAS required DAS required

Minor non-residential development in National Parks, AONBs, the Broads or SSSIs


Applications for the removal or variation of conditions on existing permissions (s.73)


20 i.e. non-domestic extensions up to 100sqm floor area, or alterations to existing buildings that do not increase the size of the building

Section 4 Design and access statements (DAS) | 23

The rationale behind the changes is presented in Table 3 below.73.

Table 3: rationale for proposed changes to the mandatory provision of design and access statements

Proposed change Rationale

Overall, reducing the total number of DASs prepared for and considered by local planning authorities

To improve the efficiency of the planning system, and to use the DAS for its intended purpose in shaping developers’ approach to design and access issues, where there is scope for them to vary their proposals

Focusing the use of the DAS on larger scale schemes

To maximise the benefit of the DAS to the planning system by ensuring that design and access issues are addressed in major schemes during the design stage

Focusing the use of the DAS on schemes affecting World Heritage sites, Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings

Design and access issues are likely to have the most significant impacts in these contexts

Removing the requirement for a DAS for small scale schemes in National Parks, the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and SSSIs

These areas are designated at a relatively broad scale, and small scale development in these areas is likely to have a minimal impact on the overall characteristics for which these areas were designated

Removing the requirement for a DAS for applications to vary or amend conditions (section 73 applications)

To streamline the process of submitting these applications, and not introduce new burdens on applicants

The associated consultation document,74. Improving Permitted Development, explains our proposals to extend the permitted development regime. Some of these proposals will also reduce the need for a design and access statement. Schemes which no longer require planning permission will also be exempt from the requirement to prepare a DAS. Schemes which do still require planning permission should be compared against the DAS requirements in Table 2.

Draft statutory instrumentFor the full text of the draft SI, please see 75. Appendix 2.

GuidanceSection 3 of Circular 01/200676. 21 currently provides guidance on the use of design and access statements to improve the quality of development proposals. We propose to cancel this section of Circular 01/2006 and include it in the new guidance note on information requirements, subject to the changes outlined below.

21 CLG Circular 01/2006, Guidance on Changes to the Development Control System, Section 3: design and access statements, published 12 June 2006


Amended guidance will be provided on the following:77.

increased emphasis on how the DAS is expected to improve the quality of the •design process and ultimately improve the quality of the built environment

amended legislative provision to reflect the changes proposed in this •consultation paper

increased emphasis on proportionality•

types of application which will no longer require a DAS•

increased emphasis on the benefits of pre-app discussion•

treatment of ‘context’ in the DAS (removal of paragraph 99 Circular 01/06)•

Questions 9: Do you agree with the changes to DAS proposed here and in Appendix 2?

10: Do you agree with the range of application types and designated areas that would be exempted?

11: Do you agree that the issue of context should be discussed in relation to the scheme as a whole (rather than specifically related to the sub-headings of amount, layout, scale, landscaping or appearance)?

12: Are there other exemptions/changes that we should also consider?

Section 5 Agricultural holdings certificates | 25

Section 5

Agricultural holdings certificatesWhat’s the problem?

The agricultural holdings certificate is intended to ensure that agricultural holdings 78. tenants have as much advance warning as possible that the land upon which they depend for their livelihood may be required for a non-agricultural use.

Article 6 of the GDPO states that 79. “an applicant for planning permission shall give requisite notice of the application to any person (other than the applicant) who on the prescribed date is an owner of the land to which the application relates, or a tenant”. This notice is served to all known owners and agricultural tenants. If the applicant has tried and failed to identify all legal owners and agricultural tenants, he or she must publish the notice in a local newspaper.

Article 7 of the GDPO requires applicants to certify that they have satisfied the 80. requirements of Article 6. The agricultural holdings certificate fulfils this role and is included in the standard application form. Applicants must sign the relevant section of the standard application form to certify either (a) that none of the land is part of an agricultural holding or (b) that they have notified the tenants of any agricultural holding.

The Killian Pretty Review found that one source of delay in the determination of 81. planning applications was a failure to sign the agricultural holdings certificate. Because this certificate is a legal requirement, an unsigned application is not valid.

Proposed changesWe propose to retain the requirement for all applicants for planning permission 82. to sign the agricultural holdings certificate. We propose to amend the standard application form to make this requirement clearer.


Section 6

Summary of consultation questionsCriteria based policy

Do you agree with the proposed policy principles? If not, what amendments to these 1. principles do you suggest?

Updated local list of information requirementsDo you consider that revising local lists in this manner will encourage a more 2. proportionate approach to information requests by LPAs?

Do you consider that implementation by December 2010 is a realistic timescale? 3. If not, what would be more appropriate?

National list items and validationDo you agree that requirements for particular map scales, block plans, floor plans, 4. site sections, floor and site levels, and roof plans should be set out by the local planning authority using a proportionate approach?

Summaries of major applicationsDo you agree with the proposal to summarise major applications?5.

Should the proposals for a summary document apply only to applications defined as 6. ‘major development’? If not, for what types of schemes might a summary document be useful?

Monitoring the use of local listsDo you agree that this approach is appropriate? Are there any other measures, apart 7. from the consideration of validation as part of wider performance measurement, that should be taken to ensure improved local lists are developed and used?

Bringing the changes togetherDo you consider that the proposals described in Section 3 of this consultation paper 8. will effectively support a more proportionate approach to information requirements and validation? If not, what would you propose instead/as well?

Section 6 Summary of consultation questions | 27

Design and access statementsDo you agree with the changes to DAS proposed in Section 4 and Appendix 2?9.

Do you agree with the range of application types and designated areas that would 10. be exempted?

Do you agree that the issue of context should be discussed in relation to the scheme 11. as a whole (rather than specifically related to the sub-headings of amount, layout, scale, landscaping or appearance)?

Are there other exemptions/changes that we should also consider?12.

Draft guidance (Appendix 3)Do you have any comments on the draft guidance?13.

Impact assessment (Appendix 4)Do you have any comments on the impact assessment, in particular on the 14. assumptions made and the anticipated impact on small businesses?


Section 7

Consultation stage impact assessment

A consultation stage impact assessment has been prepared and is attached at Appendix 4.

Question14: Do you have any comments on the impact assessment, in particular on the

assumptions made and the anticipated impact on small businesses?

Section 8 Consultation arrangements | 29

Section 8

Consultation arrangements

About this consultation

This consultation document and consultation process have been planned to adhere to the code of practice on consultation issued by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and are in line with the seven consultation criteria, which are:

formal consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence •the policy outcome

consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given •to longer timescales where feasible and sensible

consultation documents should be clear about the consultation process, what is •being proposed, the scope to influence and the expected costs and benefits of the proposals

consultation exercises should be designed to be accessible to, and clearly •targeted at, those people the exercise is intended to reach

keeping the burden of consultation to a minimum is essential if consultations are •to be effective and if consultees’ buy-in to the process is to be obtained

consultation responses should be analysed carefully and clear feedback should •be provided to participants following the consultation

officials running consultations should seek guidance in how to run an effective •consultation exercise and share what they have learned from the experience

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent, and where relevant who else they have consulted in reaching their conclusions when they respond.

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004).

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory code of practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence.


In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the department.

The Department for Communities and Local Government will process your personal data in accordance with DPA and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.

Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested.

Your opinions are valuable to us. Thank you for taking the time to read this document and respond.

Are you satisfied that this consultation has followed these criteria? If not or you have any other observations about how we can improve the process please contact:

CLG Consultation Co-ordinatorZone 6/H10Eland HouseLondon SW1E 5DU

or by e-mail to: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Appendix 1 Draft policy statement on information requirements and validation | 31

Appendix 1

Draft policy statement on information requirements and validation

This Appendix presents the full text of the proposed policy on information requirements and validation. Appendix 3 contains a draft of the proposed guidance document to accompany this policy.

Once the new policy and its associated guidance document have been finalised, Circular 02/2008 will be cancelled.

Passages shown in bold text are new; passages in plain text have been ‘saved’ from Circular 02/2008.

Introduction

This statement sets out the Government’s policy on the information which must be provided in support of planning applications, so that local planning authorities can determine the validity of applications.

Further guidance on information requirements and the standard application form is set out… [the appropriate reference will be included in the final version].

Circular 02/2008 – Standard Application Form and Validation is cancelled.

Information requirements

Information required to make a valid planning application comprises:

information provided on the standard application form•

mandatory national information requirements specified in the GDPO•

information to accompany the application as specified by the local planning •authority

This information will enable the local planning authority to validate an application for planning permission and begin its determination.


The first stage determining the validity of an application is for the local planning authority to make sure that all the necessary supporting material has been provided correctly. Mandatory national requirements are specified in the GDPO. These are the minimum requirements that must accompany all applications for permission [add cross reference to new guidance on information requirements].

In addition, the standard application form identifies the need for applicants to provide information specified by the local planning authority. These information requirements must be published as a local list on the local planning authority’s website before the application is submitted.

Preparing and reviewing local lists

It will be for the local planning authority to specify exactly what information is required for each application type to ensure that the applicant supplies the correct supporting information. It is important to ensure that local lists are clear, reasonable and proportionate.

In preparing or reviewing their local lists, local planning authorities should take into account the following national principles and criteria:

Table A: Principles and criteria for local list preparation

Principle Key considerations

Necessity All local list requirements should be based on statutory requirements, national, regional or adopted local policy

Precision It should be clear where (geographically) the information requirement arises. It should be clear precisely what types of development require the provision of supporting information

Proportionality Where possible, the list should identify size thresholds below which the information is not required. Where possible, a graduated approach should be taken to the information required (e.g. dependent on the scale or sensitivity of the proposal)

Fitness for purpose It should be clear what information is required to satisfy the requirement – with a strong emphasis on encouraging a proportionate approach and brevity

Assistance For each element of the list it should be clear where further information or answers to queries can be obtained


Updated lists of information requirements

Where, at the time of the introduction of this policy, (programmed for April 2010), a local planning authority has an existing local list, it should undertake a review of the list and, where necessary, prepare revisions to ensure that the list takes account of the principles and criteria set out in Table A.

We would expect that any review, including consultation where necessary, would take around six months and therefore any revisions necessary as a result of this policy statement would be in place by the end of December 2010. The updated local list should clearly state the date when it is published.

A local authority which does not have a local list should consider preparing one, in accordance with the principles and criteria set out in Table A, and publish it on its website by the end of December 2010. This list should also clearly state the date of publication.

Unless a local planning authority publishes a local list on its website, any local requirements have no bearing on the validity of applications made to them and only compliance with the mandatory national requirements determines whether or not an application is valid.

Summaries of major applications

All applicants should aim for brevity. Applications for major development (as defined in the GDPO) should include a summary of the whole scheme. This summary should be no longer than 20 pages and should identify the key impacts of the whole proposal.

Validation of applications

If a local planning authority is satisfied it has received an application that complies with both the mandatory national requirements specified in the GDPO and its published local list it should proceed to validate and determine the application within the relevant time periods set out in article 20 of the GDPO.

The process of validating planning applications should essentially be an administrative process. Local planning authorities are encouraged to adopt a straightforward approach to validation, whereby they should check that the correct information and fee (where applicable) have been submitted with the application.


The quality of the information submitted should have no bearing on the validity of the planning application during the validation process but should be assessed during the determination process.

Article 5 of the GDPO makes it clear that provided the application submitted meets the requirements set out in the GDPO encompassing the mandatory national requirements and published local requirements then it should be registered as a valid application.

If an application submitted lacks the necessary information specified both in the GDPO and in local planning authorities’ published lists they will in general be entitled to invalidate the application, and so decline to determine it.

Where an application is not accompanied by the information required by the local planning authority, the applicant should provide a short written justification with the application as to why it is not appropriate in the particular circumstances. In such cases, local planning authorities should not automatically declare the application invalid unless they can justify the need for the information in the particular case.

Applicants are therefore encouraged to agree information requirements with the local planning authority prior to submission through pre-application discussions so that where possible the information sought is proportionate to the nature of the scheme. It is particularly important that local planning authorities only seek information that is necessary for a decision to be made and should not require a level of detail to be provided that is unreasonable or disproportionate to the scale of the proposal. Not all the information on the local planning authority’s published local list will be necessary in every case.

In most cases the information requirements will be very clear. However, there may be circumstances where applicants do not agree with the requirement for information or plans set out by the local planning authority and wish to challenge the decision not to validate an application. In such cases, applicants have the right of appeal for non-validation under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 with the relevant ground for the appeal being non-determination within the 8 or 13 week determination period. If the inspector agrees with the applicant’s view that the necessary information has been provided, the application is determined at appeal. If the inspector agrees with the local planning authority, he is entitled to dismiss the appeal. If so, the appellant would then need to submit a new planning application to the local planning authority, including the information that the local planning authority considered necessary.


Notification of validity

Once a planning application has been received accompanied by all the necessary information, it should be validated as soon as reasonably practicable. Applications should be clearly marked with the date of receipt. Normally, most minor and small scale applications should be validated within 3-5 working days from the date of receipt. Major applications should be validated within 10 working days.

Further guidance

Guidance on the implementation of this policy can be found in [Appendix 3].


Appendix 2

Draft SI amending GDPO on design and access statements

Appendix 2

Draft SI amending GDPO on design and access statements

S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S

2010 No. ****

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, ENGLAND

The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order 2010

Made - - - - ****

Laid before Parliament ****

Coming into force - - 6th April 2010

The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 59, 61(1), 62(5) and 333(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990(1), makes the following Order:

Citation, commencement and application

1.—a) This Order may be cited as the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order 2010 and shall come into force on 6th April 2010.

(1) This Order applies in relation to England only.

Amendment of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995

2. The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995(2) is amended in accordance with article 3 of this Order.

(1) 1990 c. 8. Section 62 was substituted by section 42 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 c. 5. These powers are now vested in the Welsh Ministers so far as they are exercisable in relation to Wales. They were previously transferred to the National Assembly for Wales by article 2 of the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/672); see the entry in Schedule 1 for the 1990 Act. By virtue of paragraphs 30 and 32 of Schedule 11 to the Government of Wales Act 2000 (c.32), they were transferred to the Welsh Ministers. (2) S.I. 1995/419. Relevant amendments were made by S.I. 2006/1062.

Appendix 2 Draft SI amending GDPO on design and access statements | 37

Amendments relating to design and access statements

3. In article 4C (design and access statements)— (a) after sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph (1) insert—

“(d) development of an existing flat for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the flat as such, where no part of that flat is within a designated area;

(e) the extension of an existing building used for non-domestic purposes where the floorspace created by the development does not exceed 100 square metres and where no part of the building or the development is within a designated area;

(f) the alteration of an existing building where the alteration does not increase the size of the building and where no part of the building or the development is within a designated area; or

(g) development of land for which permission is applied for under section 73 of the Act (determination of applications to develop land without conditions previously attached)”;

(b) in paragraph 3(b) omit “and each of the aspects specified in sub-paragraph (a)”; and (c) in paragraph (5) for the definition of “designated area” substitute—

““designated area” means— (a) a conservation area; (b) a World Heritage Site.”

Signed by authority of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Date Department for Communities and Local Government

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Order)

This Order amends the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (“GDPO”) in relation to design and access statements.

Section 62(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the Act’) requires an application for planning permission to include a statement known as a design and access statement. Article 4C of the GDPO makes more detailed provision about design and access statements.

Article 3 of this Order adds to the exemptions so that a design and access statement is no longer required for applications for development of flats or minor alterations or extensions outside a designated area; nor for applications under section 73 of the Act to vary conditions. It also amends the definition of ‘designated area’ to mean conservation area or World Heritage Site, by removing the Broads, National Parks, and areas of outstanding natural beauty and special scientific interest.

Article 3 removes the requirement for a design and access statement to demonstrate how the design of the development takes its context into account specifically in relation to each of five specified aspects of the development: amount, layout, scale, landscaping, and appearance. However, it must still explain the design principles and concepts that have been applied to each of the five aspects, and must demonstrate, in general, how the design takes the context into account.

[An impact assessment has been prepared in relation to this Order.]


Appendix 3

Draft Guidance on information requirements and validation1. Introduction 39

2. Standard Application Form 39

3. Validation: a more responsive approach 43

4. Statutory national information requirements 44

5. Local information requirements 47

5.1 Local list review process 47

5.2 Local list content 49

5.3 Presentational issues 52

6. Design and Access Statements 54

6.1 Legislative provision 54

6.2 Purpose 54

6.3 When a DAS is required 55

6.4 The status of the DAS and its role in decision-making 56

6.5 Pre-application discussion 57

6.6 Presenting the information 57

6.7 What is required: the design component 58

6.8 What is required: the access component 62

6.9 What should be included in a DAS for listed building consent 62

Appendix 3 Draft Guidance on information requirements and validation | 39

1. Introduction

This draft guidance document accompanies our policy statement on information 1. requirements and validation. We would welcome your views on it.

Passages shown in bold text are new; passages in plain text have been ‘saved’ from existing Circular 02/2008 or the Validation Guide (2007).

Once the guidance is finalised, the following documents will be cancelled:2.

section 3 of Circular 01/2006 • Design and Access Statements

all of Circular 02/2008 • Standard Application Forms and Validation

all of • The Validation of Planning Applications: guidance for local planning authorities (CLG, 2007)

2. Standard application form

Scope of the 1APP form(s)The Standard Application Form can be accessed by the applicant directly, through 3. the Planning Portal via the following link: www.planningportal.gov.uk, or via a local planning authority link to the Planning Portal on their website. Alternatively, an application can be completed on a paper version of the form provided by the local planning authority. The form allows for all applications for planning permission, except those for mineral development, as well as associated consent types. These include:

Householder consents;•

Outline and full planning permission and approval of reserved matters;•

Listed building consent;•

Conservation area consent;•

Advertisement consent;•

Consent under Tree Preservation Orders and Notification of proposed works to •trees in conservation areas;

Lawful Development Certificates;•

Applications for Prior Notification/Approval under the Town and Country •Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (the GPDO); and

Removal or variation of conditions.•


Application types not covered by 1APPThe Standard Application Form cannot currently be used for applications for mining 4. operations or the use of land for mineral-working deposits. Such applications should therefore be made on a form provided by the local planning authority.

Applications made under the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 for 5. Hazardous Substance consent are not covered by the Standard Application Form. Such applications should therefore be made on a form provided by the local planning authority.

Applications for prior notificationApplications under the GPDO for prior notification/approval are not subject to the 6. provisions for applications to be made on a standard application form. However, the Standard Application Form can be used by applicants wishing to apply for a determination as to whether prior approval is required under parts 6, 24 and 31 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO. The statutory information requirements for prior notification/approval applications are set out in the relevant part of the GPDO and local planning authorities must validate applications where these requirements are met.

If prior approval is required, the local planning authority must notify the applicant in 7. writing and decide whether or not to give their approval based upon the application they have already received. There is no statutory requirement to submit another application for prior approval.

Applications for works to trees/TPO 8. The standard application form should be used for applications for consent to cut down or prune trees under Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). It may also be used for the notification of proposed works to trees in Conservation Areas.

Applications to amend or remove conditions (s.73)Applications to vary conditions can be made on the Standard Application Form. 9. The applicant will need to provide sufficient information to enable the local planning authority to identify the previous grant of planning permission and the associated condition(s) which the applicant is seeking to vary. The applicant will not be required to provide copies of the application but it might assist the local planning authority’s consultation and determination procedures if they provide copies of the original drawings. When developers are applying to vary approved plans, they should clearly indicate the full extent of the proposed changes across the site. The LPA should ask developers to provide supporting information only in relation to the change(s) sought; in most cases it will be appropriate to submit a supplementary statement to be read in conjunction with the documents that supported the original application.


Applications to extend existing planning permission 10. We propose to empower planning authorities to extend the time limits for existing planning permissions for major developments22. Applicants seeking to extend existing planning permission should use the standard application form, which will be amended for this purpose.

Applications to renew planning permissionApplicants seeking to renew a planning permission need to submit a fresh 11. application for planning permission on the Standard Application Form.

Applications by the CrownApplications by the Crown need to be made on the Standard Application Form. 12. Certain applications, however, are made direct to the Secretary of State. These are for urgent Crown development under section 293A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and for urgent works relating to Crown land under section 82B of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. These applications have to be submitted direct to the Planning Inspectorate together with a certificate stating that the proposed development is both of national importance and should be carried out as a matter of urgency. Full details are set out in paragraphs 26 – 37 of the Memorandum to Communities and Local Government Circular 02/2006 Crown Application of the Planning Acts.

Electronic vs. paper formsElectronic submission of supporting information may not always be possible because 13. of its volume and variety. In these circumstances, information can be submitted in hard copy even if the application has been submitted electronically, but applicants who submit supporting information by post must provide the original plus three copies (a total of four copies). Applicants who choose to submit their application and supporting information this way will be notified of the validity of their application when the local planning authority is satisfied they have received all the necessary information in whatever format.

Applicants who submit an application electronically to the local planning authority 14. can communicate in this way throughout the whole application process unless an alternative approach is agreed between the local planning authority and applicant.

For electronic applications it is acceptable for applicants to produce a written 15. signature on the form in block capitals of their name or the Agent’s details if signed on the applicants’ behalf.

22 For further details, see CLG consultation paper Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions, June 2009. Available on the CLG website http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/flexibilitypermissions

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/flexibilitypermissions


Number of copies of the formThe provisions in the GDPO specify that applications submitted electronically do 16. not need to be accompanied by any further copies either of the application or accompanying information.

Applicants who apply for permission or consent on a paper copy of the Standard 17. Application Form must provide the original plus three copies of the form and any accompanying plans, drawings or information associated with the application (a total of four copies) unless the local planning authority indicate that a lesser number is required. Local planning authorities may request additional copies above the statutory requirement, but failure to provide these would not be a basis for refusing to validate the application.

Multiple applicationsThe Standard Application Form allows applicants to apply for multiple consents at the 18. same time. The form has been designed so that for applications for more than one consent regime the questions that appear do not duplicate information requests. A fee (where applicable) applies for each consent sought.

Use of the form for multiple applications which come under different consent 19. regimes is intended to streamline the application process. However, it does not alter the fact that these applications are legally distinct and their validity and determination should be treated as such by the local planning authority.

At the end of the determination process local planning authorities are advised to 20. send the applicant one decision letter for each application for each consent regime. However, where a decision letter combining consents is sent the different consents must be differentiated within the letter as they are still legally distinct from one another.

Ownership certificatesA written signature will needs to accompany any paper version of the Standard 21. Application Form certificates submitted, but for any electronically submitted certificate, a typed signature of the applicant’s name is acceptable.

Ethnic monitoring arrangementsThe Government does not intend as part of the Standard Application Form to 22. prescribe the manner in which local planning authorities should monitor the impact of their policies and service delivery on ethnic groups or communities. However, such monitoring is essential if local planning authorities are to address the needs of all sections of the community.


23. The Race Relations Act 1975 as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 imposes a general duty on LPAs to promote race equality and good race relations. In line with this requirement, LPAs should monitor policy and service delivery. Such monitoring should help planning authorities to fulfil the Government’s aim to build sustainable and inclusive communities and to reduce social exclusion. As a minimum, it is suggested that statistics should be gathered on numbers of applications from each ethnic minority, the numbers of applications which succeed and fail or partially fail, together with brief reason(s). Analysis of this information should provide authorities with an opportunity to identify what lessons can be learnt in the event that a disproportionate number of such applications are shown to be failing. Ideally, basic data on enforcement action taken on applications from ethnic minority applicants should also be recorded, together with reason(s) and outcomes. Enforcement data could also be compiled where no application has been made. For further guidance, see the good practice guide Diversity and Equality in Planning, published by ODPM in January 2005.

Local planning authorities should consult with black and minority ethnic groups on 24. the need to provide text associated with the Standard Application Form in languages other than English, to cater for those for whom English is not their first language.

3. Validation: a more responsive approach

25. The validation process should be an effective check that the applicant has met the statutory requirements for a valid planning application. A secondary aim is to verify that the applicant has supplied sufficient information for the LPA and stakeholders to fully understand the characteristics and potential impacts of the development proposal. The local list of information requirements is prepared by the LPA to clarify what information is usually required for applications of a particular type, scale or location.

26. After the introduction of the standard application form, some LPAs developed validation processes that resulted in very high initial levels of invalidity. Some of this may have been due to poor quality applications. However, some LPAs may also have been too rigid in their validation requirements. A ‘tick-box’ approach to validation offers clarity for applicants in setting out which information items are required, but in some cases LPAs have applied this too mechanistically without taking individual scheme characteristics into account. For example, it should not be necessary for an applicant to submit a roof plan if the development proposal is for works to a basement, or to submit drawings for elevations which will not be altered by the development proposal.


27. LPAs should make proportionate requests for information, and should not use invalidation to prevent the start of the determination period where an applicant has taken reasonable steps to fulfil the information requirements set out on the local list.

28. For major development and other schemes which are likely to have significant impacts on the surrounding area (or further away), applicants should engage in pre-application discussions so that they are clear about the information that the LPA will need in order to understand the anticipated impacts of the application.

29. If a planning application is deemed invalid, the validating officer must notify the applicant of their reasons in writing. If the applicant disagrees with the officer’s reason(s) for invalidating the application, he or she should first discuss with a higher level officer at the LPA. If the dispute cannot be resolved with the LPA, and more than 8 weeks have passed since the application was submitted for determination (or 13 weeks, for major applications), the applicant has the right to appeal against non-determination on the grounds of invalidity. This appeal is heard by the Planning Inspectorate.

4. Statutory national information requirements

30. The information required to make a valid planning application consists of:

mandatory national information requirements specified in the GDPO•

information provided on the standard application form and•

information to accompany the application as specified by the local •planning authority

31. The GDPO provisions are explained in this section. A detailed list of the statutory requirements for different types of planning applications will be provided when the final version of this guidance is published.

32. The standard application form requires applicants to supply information on a range of issues, tailored to the type of application. Applicants should answer all the questions.

33. The additional supporting information is specified by each local planning authority in the form of a ‘local list of information requirements’. Section 5 discusses these in detail.

Plain text has been imported from the Validation Guide, and amended as necessary. 34. Passages in bold are new.


Location plan 35. The GDPO23 requires applicants to submit “a plan which identifies the land to which the application relates”. This is interpreted as a location plan and a site plan. Other plans may be requested by the LPA on their local list.

All applications must include copies of a location plan based on an up-to-36. date map. This should be at an identified standard metric scale (typically 1:1250 or 1:2500, but wherever possible the plan should be scaled to fit onto A3 size paper). The GDPO 1995 requires three copies plus the original (unless submitted electronically). Plans should wherever possible show at least two named roads and surrounding buildings. The properties shown should be numbered or named to ensure that the exact location of the application site is clear.

The application site should be edged clearly with a red line. It should include all land 37. necessary to carry out the proposed development – for example, land required for access to the site from a public highway, visibility splays, landscaping, car parking and open areas around buildings.

A blue line should be drawn around any other land owned by the applicant, close to 38. or adjoining the application site.

Site planCopies of the site plan should be submitted. The legislation requires three copies plus 39. the original (unless submitted electronically). The site plan should be drawn at an identified standard metric scale. It should accurately show

the direction of North;a.

the proposed development in relation to the site boundaries and other b. existing buildings on the site, with written dimensions including those to the boundaries;

and the following, where these could influence or be affected by the proposed development:

all the buildings, roads and footpaths on land adjoining the site including c. access arrangements;

all public rights of wayd. 24 crossing or adjoining the site;

the position of all trees on the site, and those on adjacent land;e.

the extent and type of any hard surfacing; andf.

boundary treatment including walls or fencing where this is proposed.g.

23 Article 4E (1)(c)(i)24 Footpath, bridleway, restricted byway or byway open to all traffic


Ownership certificatesUnder section 65(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, read in conjunction 40. with Article 7 of the GDPO, the local planning authority must not entertain an application for planning permission unless the relevant certificates concerning the ownership of the application site have been completed. All applications for planning permission must therefore include the appropriate certificate of ownership. An ownership certificate A, B, C or D must be completed stating the ownership of the property. For this purpose an ‘owner’ is anyone with a freehold interest, or leasehold interest the unexpired term of which is not less than 7 years.

41. These ownership certificates are part of the Standard Application Form.

Notice(s)A notice to owners of the application site must be completed and served in 42. accordance with Article 6 of the GDPO.

Agricultural Holdings Certificate/Agricultural Land Declaration 43. All agricultural tenants on a site must be notified prior to the submission of a planning application. This is required by Article 7 of the GDPO. Applicants must certify that they have notified any agricultural tenants about their application, or that there are no agricultural tenants on the site. The relevant certificates are required whether or not the site includes an agricultural holding. They are incorporated into the Standard Application Form, and must be signed in order for the application to be valid.

No certificate is required if the applicant is making an application for reserved 44. matters, renewal of temporary planning permission, discharge or variation of conditions, tree preservation orders, or express consent to display an advertisement.

The correct fee 45. Planning applications incur a fee. The Planning Portal includes a fee calculator for applicants. Each local planning authority is also able to advise applicants on specific cases.

Design and access statement, where required by GDPO 46. A design and access statement must be submitted for some types of planning application, and in some designated areas. The statutory requirements for design and access statements are revised by the new policy on information requirements; see section 6 for further details.


5. Local information requirements

All of this section is new.

OverviewLocal planning authorities should review their local lists of information requirements, 47. or prepare a list from scratch if they do not already have one. Section 5.1 sets out the proposed review process.

The policy statement on information requirements and validation sets out five 48. principles which should inform the review process. Section 5.2 explains how the principles should be used to inform the content and use of the local lists of information requirements.

5.1 Local list review processSome local planning authorities already have very clear local lists of information 49. requirements, and apply these in a proportionate way, Such authorities may only need to make only minor amendments to their current list.

Other authorities may have to make significant changes to their local list or the way in 50. which their list is used in the validation process.

Figure A shows an overview of the recommended list review process.51.

Figure A: Recommended process for reviewing and revising local lists of information requirements

4. Finalise and publishrevised list on LPA website

3. Consult on proposed changes

1. Review existing local

2. Prepare a summary reportof proposed changes

Each step is discussed in more detail below. Assuming the proposals in this 52. consultation paper are introduced in April 2010, revised local lists should be published by the end of December 2010.


Step 1: Reviewing the existing local listLPAs should identify the drivers for each item on their existing local list of information 53. requirements, where this is not already apparent. These drivers should be statutory requirements, or national, regional or local plan policies.

LPAs with no existing local list should undertake a review of national, regional and 54. local plan policies and identify the items of information which these policies require applicants to supply.

Having identified the information requirements, local planning authorities should 55. prepare new or revise their existing local list, having regard to the principles and criteria set out in the policy statement and in section 5.2 below.

To encourage a consistent approach across LPAs, local list reviews will be a subject for 56. discussion at the regular sub-regional planning meetings which are already convened by the Government Offices.

Step 2: Reporting on proposed changesThe work undertaken in Step 1 should be summarised in a short report. This report 57. should set out the scale of change that the LPA considers necessary and, in broad terms, what changes will be made. This report should be presented to the LPA’s Planning Committee for approval.

Step 3: Consulting on proposed changesOnce the report has been approved by the Planning Committee, the proposals 58. should be issued to the local community, including applicants and agents, for consultation. The proposals should be accompanied by the committee report, for information. The consultation period should last no less than eight weeks.

Step 4: Finalising and publishing the revised local listConsultation responses should be taken into account by the LPA when preparing the 59. final revised list.

The revised local list should be approved by the Planning Committee and published 60. on the LPA’s website. Depending on the degree of revision that has been necessary, it may also be appropriate for the LPA to publish revised guidance notes for applicants.

When the LPA publishes its revised local list and any associated guidance notes, it 61. should ensure that the date of publication is clearly visible. This is to confirm that the list has been revised to reflect the new policy.

The whole process of reviewing, revising and publishing the local list should be 62. completed around six months from commencement. On the current timetable, we expect that this would be completed by the end of December 2010 at the latest.


5.2 Local list contentPrinciples and criteria for list preparation and review

The policy statement on information requirements sets out the following principles 63. to guide the review of local lists. These are shown in Table A.

Table A: principles and criteria for local list preparation/review

Principle Key considerations

Necessity All local list requirements should be based on statutory requirements, national, regional or local policy.

Precision It should be clear where (geographically) the information requirement arises.It should be clear precisely what types of development require the provision of supporting information.

Proportionality Where possible, the list should identify size thresholds below which the information is not requiredWhere possible, a graduated approach should be taken to the information required (e.g. dependent on the scale or sensitivity of the proposal).

Fitness for purpose It should be clear what information is required to satisfy the requirement – with a strong emphasis on encouraging a proportionate approach and brevity.

Assistance For each element of the list it should be clear where further information or answers to queries can be obtained.

NecessityAll local list requirements should be based on statutory requirements, national, 64. regional or adopted local planning policy. Statutory requirements are set out in the GDPO. These are discussed in section 4 above.

All LPAs should review national, regional and local planning policy to ensure that 65. they haven’t missed any recent policies. In a very small number of cases, it may be appropriate to add an item to the local list where this is a requirement of recently published policy.

National policy includes planning policy statements (PPSs), planning guidance notes 66. (PPGs), circulars and ministerial statements.

The current PPSs can be found on the CLG website at 67. http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/planningpolicystatements/planningpolicystatements/.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/planningpolicystatements/planningpolicystatements/

http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/planningpolicystatements/planningpolicystatements/


The full range of PPGs can be found on the CLG website at 68. http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/planningpolicystatements/planningpolicyguidance/ N.B.: this includes policy guidance notes which have been superseded by PPSs.

Other national planning policy documents can be found on the CLG 69. website at http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/ .

Regional policy is contained in regional spatial strategies. The Government Offices 70. for the Regions include links to the relevant regional planning documents; their homepage is http://www.gos.gov.uk/national/ .

To qualify for inclusion in the local list, local planning policies must have been 71. published in adopted local development framework (LDF) documents. Each local planning authority publishes their LDF on their own website.

PrecisionIt should be clear where (geographically) the information requirement arises. This 72. will be most easily identified in relation to areas which are already designated by the local planning authority or other bodies (for example, flood risk areas, air quality management areas, conservation areas, town centres, settlement boundaries).

It should be clear precisely what types of development require the provision of 73. supporting information. The Arup and Addison & Associates report25 suggested that “there is scope [for local lists] to differentiate between different types of householder development, in order to reduce the information burden and improve accessibility of local lists for those not familiar with the planning system” (paragraph 3.18). There may also be scope for differentiation between different types of minor development.

Local planning authorities may wish to identify the most common forms of planning 74. application that they receive and include a particular emphasis on these in their local list. However, the determination of local information requirements should not be constrained or defined simply by application type (paragraph 4.10.7): scale and context are also important.

ProportionalityLPAs should adopt a proportionate approach. Some information may only be relevant 75. in particular geographical contexts, or for specific types of planning application. Wherever possible, LPAs should set out the circumstances where a local list item will be required. Wherever possible, they should also set out the circumstances where a local list item will not be required. This is intended to provide greater certainty for applicants.

25 Arup and Addison & Associates for CLG (2008) Review of information requirements for the validation of planning applications

http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/planningpolicystatements/planningpolicyguidance/

http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/planningpolicystatements/planningpolicyguidance/

http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/

http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/

http://www.gos.gov.uk/national/


Where possible, the list should identify size thresholds below which the information 76. is not required. For example, for householder and other minor development applications, it may be disproportionate to routinely request the submission of specialist technical reports.

Where possible, a graduated approach should be taken to the information required 77. (e.g. dependent on the scale or sensitivity of the proposal). Local lists should reflect the fact that different scales of development may have different impacts, and – irrespective of the development size – that these impacts may vary depending on the characteristics of the site and surrounding area.

In the past, some LPAs have taken a risk-averse approach and sought to impose a 78. blanket requirement for the detailed technical reports referred to in some Planning Policy Statements. In some cases this is a disproportionate response. In revising their local lists, LPAs should focus on the principle of proportionality and move away from an expectation that every applicant should provide the highest levels of technical detail suggested in PPSs.

Fitness for purposeLocal planning authorities should encourage applicants to aim for brevity in their 79. applications, whilst providing the LPA with sufficient information to enable them to understand where the site is, what the development proposal is, and what the main impacts of the scheme would be.

Applications for major development (as defined in the GDPO) should be 80. accompanied by a summary document of no more than [20] pages. This summary document should outline what the proposed development is, and what the main impacts of the scheme would be (both positive and negative). This summary document would include the key messages from the non-technical summary of any Environmental Statement that has been prepared, but would stand alone as a summary of the scheme as a whole, not just the environmental impacts. This summary is intended to benefit LPA officers and Members, as well as any consultees, by highlighting the key elements of the whole proposal in a concise format.

AssistanceFor each element of the list, it should be clear where any further information or 81. answers to queries can be obtained. For example this may include hyperlinks to the relevant national, regional or local policy documents, the Planning Portal, or any guidance produced by the local authority.


PlansDepending on the nature, scale and context of the development, the LPA may wish 82. to ask applicants for some or all of the following plans. These are not a statutory requirement under the terms of the GDPO but may be very useful in illustrating clearly what the development proposal comprises. Requests for plans should be proportionate to the nature and scale of the development proposal, and should be expected to add to officers’ understanding of the proposal. All plans should be drawn at an identified standard metric scale.

It may be appropriate for applicants to provide some or all of the following plans:83.

Block plan of the site, showing: site boundaries; the type and height of boundary •treatment (e.g. walls, fences); the position of any building or structure on the other side of such boundaries, where these could influence or be affected by the proposed development.

Existing and proposed elevations, showing clearly the proposed works in relation •to what is already there, for all sides of the development proposal. These should indicate, where possible, the proposed building materials and the style, materials and finish of windows and doors. Where a proposed elevation adjoins another building or is in close proximity, the drawings should show the relationship between the two buildings and detail the positions of the openings on each property.

Floor plans for the proposed development, and for existing buildings altered by •the proposed development. These should highlight any walls or buildings that are to be demolished, where applicable.

Existing and proposed site sections and finished floor and site levels, where a •change is proposed. These should show: how the proposed development relates to existing site levels and neighbouring development (with levels related to a fixed datum point off site); details of existing and proposed foundations and eaves; and how encroachment onto adjoining land is to be avoided.

Roof plans for the proposed development, where a change is proposed, showing •the shape of the roof, its location, and specifying the roofing material to be used.

5.3 Presentational issuesLocal planning authorities should present their local list of information requirements 84. clearly and concisely. The revised local list may be most clearly presented in the form of a matrix of requirements. Table B overleaf presents an example matrix (for illustration only).


Table B: Illustrative format for revised Local List (a)

Information item

Policy driver Types of application that require this information

Geographic location(s) where this info is required

What info is required Where to look for further assistance

Local list Item 1

PPS99 para 3 All applications for over 1,000 sq m floorspace

[LPA to complete]

[LPA to complete] [LPA to complete]

Local list Item 2

RSS Policy E4 ‘major major’ applications

All [LPA to complete] [LPA to complete]

Local list Item 3

Core Strategy Policy A1

[LPA to complete]

[LPA to complete]

Statement explaining what the [specific topic] impact of the scheme will be and how the applicant proposes to mitigate this

[LPA to complete]

Local list Item 4

SPD Policy SD7

All except householder applications

Within AONB boundaries

[LPA to complete] [LPA to complete]

Etc.

Once the list items are agreed, the LPA should also consider setting out its local list by 85. application type, so that applicants can understand easily what is required of them. For example:

Table C: Illustrative format for revised local list (b)

Type of application Local list requirement*

Householder application Items 1 – 5

Householder application in conservation area Items 1 -5 , 7, 8

Full application Items 1 -5 , 7, 8-9, 11 & 12

Prior notification of telecommunications works Items 11, 15, 16

Etc.

* subject to geographical/size thresholds where applicable – see list for details

Alternatively, the LPA could set out a list of questions and answers for applicants, to 86. clarify what is required. For example:

Do I need to submit a [list item 1]?•

– Yes if …………..

– No if ………..

We would welcome views from LPAs and applicants on the most user-friendly formats for local lists.


6. Design and access statements

Plain text has been imported from Circular 01/2006, and amended where factually 87. necessary. Text in bold is new and reflects the proposed policy changes set out in the main consultation document. Section 3 of Circular 01/2006 will be cancelled when this guidance is published.

6.1 Legislative provisionSection 42 of the 2004 Act substituted a new section 62 of the 1990 Act and 88. amended section 10 of the Listed Buildings Act so as to provide that a statement covering design concepts and principles and access issues is submitted with an application for planning permission and listed building consent. Section 42 also inserted a new section 327A into the 1990 Act, which prohibits, among other things, a local planning authority from entertaining an application unless it is accompanied by a design statement and an access statement, where such statements are required by section 62.

Article 4C of the GDPO and regulation 3A of the Listed Buildings Regulations set out 89. the detailed requirements for a statement in relation to planning permissions and listed building consents respectively. One statement should cover both design and access, allowing applicants to demonstrate an integrated approach that will deliver inclusive design, and address a full range of access requirements throughout the design process.

6.2 PurposePPS190. 26 sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. Good design plays a fundamental role in achieving this. As PPS1 states: “Good design ensures attractive, usable, durable and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable development. Good design is indivisible from good planning. Planning authorities should plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes. Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.”

A design and access statement is a short report accompanying and supporting 91. a planning application to illustrate the process that has led to the development proposal, and to explain the proposal in a structured way. The level of detail required in a design and access statement depends on the scale and complexity of the

26 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (ODPM 2005)


application, and the length of the statement varies accordingly. Statements must be proportionate to the complexity of the application, but need not be long.

Design and access statements help to ensure development proposals are based on a 92. thoughtful design process and a sustainable approach to access. Statements should improve the quality of proposals.

Design and access statements enable local planning authorities to better 93. understand the analysis which has underpinned the design and how it has led to the development of the scheme. This helps negotiations and decision-making and should lead to an improvement in the quality, sustainability and inclusiveness of the development.

Design and access statements allow local communities, access groups, amenity 94. groups and other stakeholders to involve themselves more directly in the planning process without needing to interpret plans that can be technical and confusing. This helps to increase certainty for people affected by development and improve trust between communities, developers and planners. It also enables the design rationale for the proposal to be more transparent to stakeholders and the local planning authority.

It should be recognised that design and access statements are a communication 95. tool. They cannot set, or justify design and access policies and they cannot ensure high quality design and access by themselves. Local planning authorities should therefore have clear design and access policies as required by PPS1 and PPS12, and the T own and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2004. These require that a local planning authority’s local development documents include policies relating to design and access. They should use design and access statements to help assess the design of a proposal against the relevant policies and proposals set out in local development documents.

6.3 When a DAS is requiredA design and access statement must accompany planning applications for both 96. outline and full planning permissions. The elements to be described in design and access statements will be the same regardless of whether the application is for outline or full planning permission, but their scope will differ. What is required in both outline and detailed statements is explained below.

As set out in the GDPO design and access statements are required for all planning 97. applications except for the following:

a material change in the use of land or buildings, unless it also involves •operational development;


engineering or mining operations;•

development of an existing dwelling house, or development within the curtilage •of a dwelling house for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house, where no part of that dwellinghouse or curtilage is within a designated area;

development of an existing flat for any purpose incidental to the •enjoyment of the flat as such, where no part of that flat is within a designated area

development consisting of the extension of an existing building •used for non-domestic purposes where the floorspace created by the development does not exceed 100 square metres and where no part of the building or the development is within a designated area

development consisting of the alteration of an existing building where •the alteration does not increase the size of the building and where no part of the building or the development is within a designated area

development of land pursuant to section 73 (determination of •applications to develop land without conditions previously attached) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

98. “Designated area” means a World Heritage Site or a conservation area.

Design and access statements are not required for applications relating to 99. advertisement control, tree preservation orders or storage of hazardous substances.

100. Design and access statements are also required for applications for listed building consent. These are slightly different in content, as discussed in more detail in section 6.9 below.

Once satisfied that the design and access statement meets the requirements of the 101. GDPO, the local planning authority should place the design and access statement on the public register with the application to which it relates. Design and access statements should also be sent to consultees along with individual planning or listed building applications.

6.4 The status of the DAS and its role in decision-makingDesign and Access Statements explain proposals already set in the planning 102. application, but they also set out the principles and concepts that will be used when that proposal is developed in the future. In particular, for outline planning permission, applicants and local planning authorities should consider how they will ensure the relevant parts of the statement are adhered to for the drawing up and assessment of future details. This may be as part of the consideration of an application for approval of reserved matters or any other matter reserved by condition such as materials or landscaping details.


Fixing the principles contained within the statement to future decisions is particularly 103. relevant in the case of outline planning applications. Here, the local planning authority should ensure that the development approved by an outline planning permission is constrained to the parameters described in the design and access statement submitted with the application and that any future decisions relating to that outline permission are consistent with the statement.

In some cases information provided may need to be amended as designs are worked 104. up, especially where they are not only setting out objectives for the building or space, but also a process to achieve these objectives. For example, information on inclusive access may increase with the scheme from initial concept right through to building regulation approval. Local planning authorities may feel that additional information, building on the original statement, is required at the reserved matters stage. In such cases the local planning authority should consider setting out such a requirement through a condition on the outline planning application.

Design and access statements must not be used as a substitute for drawings or other 105. material required to be submitted as part of the planning application. They provide an opportunity for developers and designers to demonstrate their commitment to achieving good design and ensuring accessibility in the work they undertake, and allow them to show how they are meeting, or will meet, the various obligations placed on them by legislation and policy.

6.5 Pre-application discussionPPS1 advises that pre-application discussions are critically important and benefit both 106. developers and local planning authorities in ensuring a better mutual understanding of objectives and the constraints that exist and that local planning authorities and applicants should take a positive attitude towards early engagement in pre-application discussions. Although not specifically required by either the GDPO or the listed building regulations it is considered good practice to use design and access statements as an aid to pre-application discussions, particularly for more complicated applications. Design and Access Statements can be a cost effective and useful way to discuss a proposal throughout the design process, whilst early discussion on the inclusive access component should help to establish any initial access issues.

Local planning authorities are urged to consult CABE at the earliest opportunity 107. where they consider a proposal raises, or is likely to raise, significant design quality and access issues.

6.5 Presenting the informationA design and access statement can be presented in various formats. For most 108. straightforward planning applications, the statement may be only short, for some only a page may be needed. For more complicated planning applications, a more detailed format and, perhaps, longer document is likely to be necessary. For larger


or more challenging sites, the design and access statement may also include drawings and plans illustrating the various issues which the scheme has responded to. However, whilst its length and complexity may vary, what is important is that the document is concise and takes a proportionate approach, while effectively covering all of the design and access issues for the proposed development. It is also acceptable to submit a design and access statement in other formats, for example electronically, unless a local planning authority specifically requires hard copy.

Design and access statements may include, as appropriate, plans and elevations; 109. photographs of the site and its surroundings; and any other relevant illustrations. For large and complex schemes, a model of the proposed development in the context of its surroundings may also accompany the statement, but should not be a substitute for it. These illustrative materials must not be used as a substitute for adequate drawings submitted with the planning application.

Local planning authorities may need to make statements available in alternative 110. formats (large print, audio tape etc) to comply with the requirements of section 21 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Statements are placed on the public register and should be available in alternative formats.

6.7 What is required: the design componentThe design and access statement should cover both the design principles and 111. concepts that have been applied to the proposed development and how issues relating to access to the development have been dealt with. Statements should evolve throughout the design and development process.

A design and access statement should explain the design principles and concepts 112. that have been applied to particular aspects of the proposal – these are the amount, layout, scale, landscaping and appearance of the development.

AmountThe amount of development is how much development is proposed. For residential 113. development, this means the number of proposed units for residential use and for all other development, this means the proposed floor space for each proposed use.

Amount cannot be reserved within an outline application, although it is common to 114. express a maximum amount of floorspace for each use in the planning application and for this to be made the subject of a planning condition. The design and access statement for both outline and detailed applications should explain the amount of development proposed for each use, how this will be distributed across the site, how the proposal relates to the site’s surroundings, and what consideration is being given to ensure that accessibility for users to and between parts of the development is maximised. Where the application specifies a range of floorspace for a particular use, the reasons for this should be explained clearly in the design and access statement.


LayoutThe layout is the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces (both private and 115. public) are provided, placed and orientated in relation to each other and buildings and spaces surrounding the development.

If layout is reserved at the outline stage, the outline planning application should 116. provide information on the approximate location of buildings, routes and open spaces proposed. The design and access statement accompanying an outline application should explain the principles behind the choice of development zones and blocks or building plots proposed and how these principles, including the need for appropriate access will inform the detailed layout. The use of illustrative diagrams is encouraged to assist in explaining this.

For detailed applications, and outline applications where layout is not reserved, the 117. design and access statement should explain the proposed layout in terms of the relationship between buildings and public and private spaces within and around the site, and how these relationships will help to create safe, vibrant and successful places. An indication should also be given of factors important to accessibility of the site for users, such as travel distances and gradients, and the orientation of block and units in relation to any site topography to afford optimum accessibility.

PPS1 makes clear that a key objective for new developments should be that they 118. create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder or fear of crime does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion. Design and access statements for outline and detailed applications should therefore demonstrate how crime prevention measures have been considered in the design of the proposal and how the design reflects the attributes of safe, sustainable places set out in Safer Places- the Planning System and Crime Prevention (ODPM/Home Office, 2003).

ScaleScale is the height, width and length of a building or buildings in relation to its 119. surroundings.

If scale has been reserved at the outline stage, the application should still indicate 120. parameters for the upper and lower limits of the height, width and length of each building, to establish a 3-dimensional building envelope within which the detailed design of buildings will be constructed. In such cases the design component of the statement should explain the principles behind these parameters and how these will inform the final scale of the buildings.


For detailed applications, and outline applications that do not reserve scale, the 121. design and access statement should explain the scale of buildings proposed, including why particular heights have been settled upon, and how these relate to the site’s surroundings and the relevant skyline. The statement should also explain the size of building parts, particularly entrances and facades with regard to how they will relate to the human scale.

LandscapingLandscaping is the treatment of private and public spaces to enhance or protect 122. the amenities of the site and the area in which it is situated through hard and soft landscaping measures. Statements should also explain how landscaping will be maintained.

If landscaping is reserved at the outline stage, the outline application does not need 123. to provide any specific landscaping information. However, the design and access statement should still explain the principles that will inform any future landscaping scheme for the site.

For detailed applications, and outline applications that do not reserve landscaping, 124. the design and access statement should explain the proposed landscaping scheme, explaining the purpose of landscaping private and public spaces and its relationship to the surrounding area. Where possible, a schedule of planting and proposed hard landscaping materials to be used is recommended.

AppearanceAppearance is the aspect of a place or building that determines the visual impression 125. it makes, including the external built form of the development, its architecture, materials, decoration, lighting, colour and texture.

If appearance is reserved at the outline stage, the outline application does not need 126. to provide any specific information on the issue. In such cases the design and access statement should explain the principles behind the intended appearance and how these will inform the final design of the development.

For detailed applications, and outline applications that do not reserve appearance, 127. the design and access statement should explain the appearance of the place or buildings proposed including how this will relate to the appearance and character of the development’s surroundings. It should explain how the decisions taken about appearance have considered accessibility. The choice of particular materials and textures will have a significant impact upon a development’s accessibility. Judicious use of materials that contrast in tone and colour to define important features such as entrances, circulation routes or seating for example will greatly enhance access for everyone. Similarly early consideration of the location and levels of lighting will be critical to the standard of accessibility ultimately achieved.


Appraising the contextDevelopment proposals that are not based on a good understanding of local 128. physical, economic and social context are often unsympathetic and poorly designed, and can lead to the exclusion of particular communities. An important part of a design and access statement is the explanation of how local context has influenced the design.

A design and access statement should demonstrate the steps taken to appraise 129. the context of the proposed development. It is important that an applicant should understand the context in which their proposal will sit, and use this understanding to draw up the application. To gain a good understanding of context and to use it appropriately applicants should follow a design process which includes:

Assessment of the site’s immediate and wider context in terms of physical, social •and economic characteristics and relevant planning policies. This may include both a desk survey and on-site observations and access audit. The extent of the area to be surveyed will depend on the nature, scale and sensitivity of the development.

Involvement of both community members and professionals undertaken or •planned. This might include, for example, consultation with local community and access groups and planning, building control, conservation, design and access officers. The statement should indicate how the findings of any consultation have been taken into account for the proposed development and how this has affected the proposal.

Evaluation of the information collected on the site’s immediate and wider •context, identifying opportunities and constraints and formulating design and access principles for the development. Evaluation may involve balancing any potentially conflicting issues that have been identified.

Design of the scheme using the assessment, involvement, and evaluation •information collected. Understanding a development’s context is vital to producing good design and inclusive access and applicants should avoid working retrospectively, trying to justify a pre-determined design through subsequent site assessment and evaluation.

In the light of this understanding of the context, a design and access statement 130. should explain how this has been considered in relation to its proposed use. The use is the use or mix of uses proposed for land and buildings. Use cannot be reserved within an outline application. Design and access statements for both outline and detailed applications should explain the proposed use or uses, their distribution across the site, the appropriateness of the accessibility to and between them, and their relationship to uses surrounding the site.


6.8 What is required: the access componentIt is important to note that the requirement for the access component of the 131. statement relates only to “access to the development”27 and therefore does not extend to internal aspects of individual buildings.

Statements should explain how access arrangements will ensure that all users will 132. have equal and convenient access to buildings and spaces and the public transport network. The statement should address the need for flexibility of the development and how it may adapt to changing needs.

The design and access statement should also explain the policy adopted in relation 133. to access and how relevant policies in local development documents have been taken into account. The statement should provide information on any consultation undertaken in relation to issues of access and how the outcome of this consultation has informed the development proposals. This should include, for example, a brief explanation of the applicant’s policy and approach to access, with particular reference to the inclusion of disabled people, and a description of how the sources of advice on design and accessibility and technical issues will be, or have been followed.

Access for the emergency services should also be explained where relevant. Such 134. information may include circulation routes round the site and egress from buildings in the event of emergency evacuation.

For outline applications, where access is reserved, the application should still 135. indicate the location of points of access to the site. Statements accompanying such applications should, however, clearly explain the principles which will be used to inform the access arrangements for the final development at all scales from neighbourhood movement patterns where appropriate to the treatment of individual access points to buildings.

6.9 What should be included in a DAS for listed building consentDesign and access statements are also required for listed building consent. They are 136. similar to design and access statements for planning applications, although there are some differences because of the differing nature of the application. Where a planning application is submitted in parallel with an application for listed building consent, a single, combined statement should address the requirements of both. The combined statement should address the elements required in relation to a planning application in the normal way and the additional requirements in relation to listed building consent (see below).

27 Section 62(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as inserted by section 42(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004


The design and access statement should explain the design principles and concepts 137. that have been applied to the scale, layout and appearance characteristics of a proposal (information on use, amount and landscaping is not required for listed building consent design and access statements that do not also accompany a planning permission). Otherwise, scale, layout and appearance are broadly the same as outlined in previous paragraphs.

In addition to following the broad approach in drawing up the design and access 138. statement in relation to applications for planning permission, a design and access statement relating to listed building consent should include a brief explanation of how the design has taken account of paragraph 3.5 of PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment)28, and in particular:

the historic and special architectural importance of the building;•

the particular physical features of the building that justify its designation as a •listed building; and

the building’s setting.•

The statement will need to explain the approach to ensuring that the listed building 139. preserves or enhances its special historic and architectural importance. Where there is potentially an aspect of design that will impact on this, the statement should explain why this is necessary, and what measures within the approach to design have been taken to minimise its impact.

Similarly, the access component is broadly the same as for design and access 140. statements accompanying applications for planning permission, but again with reference to the special considerations set out above.

The statement should make clear how the approach to access has balanced the 141. duties imposed by the Disability Discrimination Act where the proposal is subject to those and the particular historical and architectural significance of the building (as judged by the aspects set out in paragraph 3.5 of PPG15). The statement should detail any specific issues that arise particularly with regard to the fact that the building is listed, the range of options considered and where inclusive design has not been provided an explanation as to why should be given. In alterations to existing buildings where the fabric of the structure restricts the ability to meet minimum levels of accessibility, details should be provided of the solutions that will be put in place to minimise the impact on disabled people and ensure that any services provided within the building are made available in other ways.

28 PPG15 will be superseded by a new Heritage PPS very shortly. This reference will be revised accordingly in due course.


Appendix 4

Impact assessment

Summary: Intervention and OptionsDepartment /Agency:CLG

Title:Impact assessment of proposed changes to information requirements for planning applications

Stage: Consultation Version: 1.1 Date: 18 June 2009

Related Publications: Government Response to Killian Pretty Review (March 2009)

Available to view or download at:http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/killianprettyresponse

Contact for enquiries: Jillian Hastings/Louise Waring Telephone: 020 7944 5110/3962

What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary?Local planning authorities (LPAs) ask applicants to supply a considerable range of supporting information to accompany their planning applications. Some of this is unnecessary. There is a need to make information requirements for all planning applications clearer, simpler and more proportionate; removing unnecessary requirements, particularly for small scale and householder development. This is particularly the case given the economic downturn. This will reduce administrative burdens on applicants and local planning authorities and contribute to a more efficient planning system.

What are the policy objectives and the intended effects?The main policy objective is to reduce the amount of unnecessary information that applicants submit with their planning applications, by asking local planning authorities to revise their ‘local lists of information requirements’ and encouraging a more proportionate approach from applicants and local authorities.

Within this, a specific policy objective is to reduce the number of planning applications that must be accompanied by a design and access statement (DAS), and clarify DAS content, by amending the mandatory requirements in the General Development Procedure Order (GDPO).

Appendix 4 Impact assessment | 65

What policy options have been considered? Please justify any preferred option.Option 1: i) publish new policy principles [of proportionality, necessity, precision, fitness for purpose and assistance] to inform a review of local authorities’ local lists of information requirements and encourage applicants to take a more proportionate approach, ii) restrict the range of planning applications that must be accompanied by a design and access statement (DAS), and iii) clarify the GDPO wording on DAS content

Option 2: do nothing

When will the policy be reviewed to establish the actual costs and benefits and the achievement of the desired effects? We will monitor the local list review process, and consider strengthening the policy if the reviews do not result in a more proportionate approach to information requirements.

Ministerial sign-off For consultation stage impact assessments:

I have read the impact assessment and I am satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the leading options.

Signed by the responsible minister:

Date: 29 July 2009


Summary: Analysis and EvidencePolicy Option: 1 Description: Publish new policy principles relating to

local lists of information requirements, restrict range of applications that are accompanied by DAS, and clarify GDPO wording

CO

STS

ANNUAL COSTS Description and scale of key monetised costs by ‘main affected groups’

No costs have been monetised at this stage although there may be one-off costs for local authorities associated with reviewing local lists of information requirements. Consultees are invited to supply evidence to enable monetisation of the costs for the final IA.

One-off (Transition) Yrs

£

Average Annual Cost (excluding one-off)

£ Total Cost (PV) £

Other key non-monetised costs by ‘main affected groups’ The need to review local lists of information requirements will lead to a one-off cost for local planning authorities.

BEN

EFIT

S

ANNUAL BENEFITS Description and scale of key monetised benefits by ‘main affected groups’: Individuals and businesses making applications for householder or minor development will need to provide less information. With a 10 per cent reduction in costs of preparing an application: Annual savings: £49m – 70m; PV (10 yrs) £405m – £575m

Applicants who no longer have to produce a Design and Access statement. Annual savings: £2m PV (10 years) £18m

One-off Yrs

£0

Average Annual Benefit (excluding one-off)

£51m – 72m Total Benefit (PV) £423m-£593m

Other key non-monetised benefits by ‘main affected groups’ There will be savings for local authorities, and other consultees and stakeholders, who will spend less time reviewing documents because applications will be more concise and better focused on the key issues.

Key Assumptions/Sensitivities/Risks The savings are assumed to accrue to those making applications for householder developments, minor and major developments. A range in the number of applications affected has been used, and it is assumed that savings will amount to approximately 10 per cent of the current cost of preparing a planning application.


Price Base Year 2009

Time Period Years 10

Net Benefit Range (NPV) £423m-£593m

NET BENEFIT (NPV Best estimate) £508m

What is the geographic coverage of the policy/option? England

On what date will the policy be implemented? April 2010

Which organisation(s) will enforce the policy? Local Authorities

What is the total annual cost of enforcement for these organisations?

£

Does enforcement comply with Hampton principles? Yes

Will implementation go beyond minimum EU requirements? No

What is the value of the proposed offsetting measure per year? £

What is the value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions? £

Will the proposal have a significant impact on competition? No

Annual cost (£-£) per organisation (excluding one-off)

Micro Small Medium Large

Are any of these organisations exempt? Yes/No Yes/No N/A N/A

Impact on Admin Burdens Baseline (2005 Prices) (Increase – Decrease)

Increase of £0 Decrease of £54m Net Impact £–54m

Key: Annual costs and benefits: Constant Prices (Net) Present Value


Evidence Base (for summary sheets)

BackgroundInformation requirements for planning applicationsThe national information requirements for planning applications are specified in the GDPO (Articles 4, 4E and 5). These include the planning application form, location plan, ownership certificates and the correct fee. We do not propose to change any of these national requirements.

Current CLG guidance sets out a long list of items which local authorities may include in their local lists (sometimes referred to as the ’national local list’). Many authorities have chosen to include all of these items on their local lists. Some authorities also exercise their right to request additional items.

LPAs will not validate a planning application (i.e. will not accept it for determination) until all the requested items are provided for initial consideration. Validation ‘starts the clock’ for determining an application in eight or 13 weeks (depending on its complexity), so authorities are keen to ensure that they have all the requisite information and may err on the side of asking for too much. LPAs also have the power to request additional information after validation, in order to inform their detailed consideration of a particular application.

Design and access statementsThe Planning Act 2008 introduced a statutory duty to have regard to the desirability of achieving good design. Planning Policy Statement 1 states that “good design is indivisible from good planning”.

Design and access statements set out the design and access principles of a proposed development. These statements are currently required to accompany many forms of planning application, including householder and minor development. The GDPO sets out a detailed list of contents for design and access statements. Applicants are currently required to explain how the context of development has influenced each of the five key design aspects of the development (defined as amount, layout, scale, landscaping and appearance). This unnecessarily complicates the discussion of context and its impact on design (and doubles the number of sub sections within a DAS).

Rationale for changeLPAs do not always take a proportionate approach when requesting information to accompany planning applications. The Killian Pretty (KP) Review found that some applicants are asked to submit items which are irrelevant or disproportionate to their particular application, or to explain why a list item is not applicable29. This has significant time and resource implications for applicants and for LPAs and can result in excessively

29 Review of Information Requirements for the validation of planning applications, Arup and Addison & Associates for CLG (2008)


large documents being submitted. In research undertaken by Arup for CLG, 36 per cent of applicants surveyed identified information requirements for the application as the biggest factor in determining the cost of preparing and submitting a planning application30.

LPAs also take differing approaches to DAS preparation in terms of the level of detail they ask applicants to provide. Consequently some DAS are very repetitive. Others are submitted in support of applications for very minor development, which the DAS may have little scope to influence, resulting in the production of documents which add little to planning officers’ understanding of the proposed development.

The proposed changes will lead to a reduction in the administrative burden for applicants and ensure that the information which is submitted alongside a development proposal is proportionate, contributing to a more effective and efficient planning system.

Policy objectivesThe proposed changes to local lists and design and access statements should help make the information requirements clearer, simpler and more proportionate. If the proposals are effective, future applicants would submit shorter planning applications which focus on the pertinent issues, and LPAs would request only information which is relevant, necessary and material to allow them to determine each application. Design and access statements would be focused on development proposals which have the most significant design and access implications.

The policy changes will also contribute towards the Government’s overall objective to provide a more effective and efficient planning system for all involved.

OptionsOption 1:

i) publish new policy principles [of proportionality, necessity, precision, fitness for purpose and assistance] to inform a review of local authorities’ local lists of information requirements and encourage applicants to take a more proportionate approach

ii) restrict the range of planning applications that must be accompanied by a design and access statement (DAS) and

iii clarify the GDPO wording on DAS content

Option 2: Do nothing

30 Benchmarking the Costs to Applicants of Submitting a Planning Application, Arup (May 2009)


Outline of policy proposal (Option 1)The policy proposal is a package of measures to encourage a more proportionate approach to information requirements for planning applications.

i) review local lists of information requirementsWe propose to:

withdraw the current ‘recommended national local list’ which is intended to •guide LPAs in setting local lists of information requirements

introduce a new, criteria based, national policy requirement for local planning •authorities preparing local lists, to ensure they only ask for information that is relevant, necessary, proportionate and justified by national or local policy

require LPAs to update their ‘local list of information requirements’ where •necessary, having regard to this new policy requirement, by August 2010

refine and improve the guidance on national list items, to encourage a more •proportionate approach

explore options for the external scrutiny of local lists and•

encourage better submissions from applicants by proposing that applications for •major development should be accompanied by a concise summary document

ii) reduce the number of applications which must be accompanied by a design and access statementRemove the mandatory requirement to prepare a DAS for the following types of planning application:

householder and other minor development (small scale non-domestic •development) in National Parks, the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (householder development outside of designated areas is already exempt from the DAS)

removal or variation of conditions attached to existing planning permissions and•

extension of the time limit for existing planning permissions•

iii) clarify GDPO wording on DAS contentAmend the wording of the GDPO to require a more straightforward explanation of how the context of the development influences its design.


Costs and benefits of Option 1Costs and benefits of the different elements of the policy proposal have been set out separately for clarity. Estimates of the costs and benefits are dependent on the assumptions made. The degree to which individual planning applications currently face disproportionate requirements for accompanying documents will vary across types of application and local authority. To reflect the fact that potential costs and savings cannot be estimated accurately, ranges indicate where sensitivity analysis has been done around the assumptions made.

Consultees are asked to comment on the assumptions made in the impact assessment and the resulting estimates, and provide evidence, where possible, that could be used to develop the final impact assessment.

i) review local lists of information requirementsSectors/groups affected:

local planning authorities•

stakeholder interest groups•

individuals or businesses making applications for planning permission•

businesses involved in the production of specialist supporting documents that •currently accompany planning applications

Benefits – summaryThe main beneficiaries of the proposed change will be applicants (both householders and businesses) who will experience financial and time benefits because fewer items of information will be required to accompany a planning application. Those items which are still needed will be more concise than their current equivalents. The new local lists will also bring greater clarity to applicants, who will be reassured about the circumstances where certain information is not required.

This proposal will also save time and resources for LPAs and other stakeholders/consultees who will read and comment on the different documents during the determination process. Overall efficiency savings for local planning authorities are expected to occur, although in some cases there will be an initial investment of time and resources that will be required in order to review and revise each local list. Over 90 per cent of LPAs currently have a local list; some of these will require only modest changes31.

31 Review of information requirements for the validation of planning applications (Arup and Addison & Associates, 2008)


Once the revised lists are adopted, it is expected that local authorities will invalidate fewer applications, thereby speeding up the overall length of time that development proposals spend in the planning system, and contributing to the Government’s aim of delivering more new development. The new local lists will however focus applicants’ attention on national, regional and adopted local policy, which will ensure that the overall quality of development is improved.

Assumptions made in calculating savingsApplications for all types of development will be affected by the reduced •requirements for information and the greater certainty about the type of information which is required. In quantifying the savings, it is assumed that the majority of householder development and minor development applications will benefit. The estimates of savings have not been applied to all applications of this type as some LPAs are already taking a proportionate approach to their requests for information. It is assumed that a larger proportion of major applications will see some benefit from reduced information requirements. This type of application is still likely to require a relatively broad range of supporting information, due to its greater impact on the surrounding area, but there should be some reduction in the burden for applicants. Numbers of decisions on householder applications, minor applications, and major applications for 2008 are used to estimate the savings. Decisions on householder and minor development applications totalled approximately 402,000 applications in 2008 out of 528,000 applications in total. Major developments accounted for a further 17,100 decisions.

A range of estimates has been calculated with different assumptions about •the proportion of applications which will make savings. The positive impacts from the new streamlined information requirements should apply to a majority of householder and minor applications. The range shows how the estimates vary when the proportion of affected applications varies between a half and three quarters. As major applications are more commonly the subject of pre-application discussions, it is assumed that a higher proportion of them will benefit from LPA officers attending those discussions and directly applying the principle of proportionality to their requests for information. Estimates are made assuming that between three quarters and all planning applications for major development will make savings.

The approximate costs for preparing a planning application have been taken •from survey estimates summarised in Arup research for CLG32. The research finds there is a wide range in the costs of submitting a planning application both within categories of development and across different categories. For illustration, the median figure of the cost of preparing a planning application has been taken for the most relevant categories in the report, as shown in the table below.

32 Benchmarking the Costs to Applicants of Submitting a Planning Application, Arup (May 2009)


The categories in the Benchmarking Costs report do not directly match the •categories reported in the planning applications statistics. For illustrative purposes, the costs reported for an application for a single house construction or conversion are assumed to apply to all minor dwellings applications. This may underestimate the costs for all applications in the minor development (dwellings) category, which includes developments of between one and nine houses. This may lead to an underestimate of the savings. The costs of preparing an application by a small or medium sized enterprise are used to estimate potential savings for other minor development which includes offices, research and development, and light industry; general industry, storage and warehousing; retail, distribution and servicing; and other.

As the costs of preparing information to accompany different types of •applications are likely to vary considerably, and the categories of development in the Benchmarking Costs report are narrower than the categories for which statistics on decisions are available, the cost savings should be regarded as illustrative. Consultees are invited to comment on whether the estimates of costs used are appropriate.

A more proportionate approach to information requirements at the local level •will result in a saving to applicants. The Killian Pretty review suggested that there might be savings of around 10 per cent from their proposals. Assumptions around the savings made on an individual application have been subject to a sensitivity analysis in order to provide a range of illustrative savings. It has been assumed as a central estimate that applicants make a saving of 10 per cent in the costs of preparing a planning application. This estimate has been made taking into account the fact that LPAs will be expected to reduce the overall range of items on their local lists, and take a more proportionate approach to defining the information requirements for each application. In combination, a shorter list and a more proportionate approach are expected to reduce the amount of work required to prepare a planning application. Sensitivity analysis shows how the savings may change when the reduction in costs varies between 5 per cent and 15 per cent.


Table 1: Assumptions on costs of preparing a planning application by type of development and numbers of applications affected

Type of application

Total number of applications (2008)36

Category of application from benchmarking costs research

Range of costs given in research

Midpoint used in estimates

Householder development

257,738 Householder development

£0 – £1375 £687.50

Minor development – not dwellings

81,113 Applications by small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) concerning the establishment of premises

£420 – £1750

£1085

Minor development – dwellings

63,612 Single house construction or conversion

£2000 – £6000*

£4000*

Major development – dwellings

7,931 Major development for approximately 100 dwellings

£10,740 – £39,006

£24,873**

Major development – not dwellings

9,025 Major development for retail development of approx 2500 sq m

£1,781 – £21,500

£11,641

* These are not the costs published in the report for single house construction or conversion. An outlier in the sample meant the median used here is more representative of the majority of applications in the sample.

** As the research looked at the costs of preparing an application for 100 dwellings, this may be an overestimate of the cost for some major dwellings applications. An application for 100 dwellings counts as a small scale major application.

33 Numbers of applications taken from CLG Statistics of Planning Applications http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningbuilding/planningstatistics/statisticsplanning/


Table 2: Illustrative savings for applicants assuming 10 per cent reduction in costs

Category of development affected

Proportion of applications affected (range)

Average annual savings

Discounted 10 year savings

Householder development 50 – 75% £9m – £13m £74m – £111m

Minor development – dwellings 50 – 75% £13m – £19m £106m – £159m

Minor development – not dwellings

50 – 75% £4m – £7m £37m – £55m

Major development – dwellings 75 – 100% £15m – £20m £123m – £164m

Major development – not dwellings 75 – 100% £8m – £11m £66m – £87m

TOTAL £49m – £70m £405m – £575m

Numbers may not sum correctly due to rounding

Sensitivity analysisThe above table gives estimates of savings assuming a reduction of costs of 10 per cent. This reduction has been varied to show how the savings would change if costs of preparing supporting material for a planning application fell by 5 per cent or 15 per cent.

Table 3: Sensitivity analysis – annual savings from a range of reductions in costs (5% – 15%)

Category of development affected

Proportion of applications affected

5% reduction in costs



Householder development

66% £6m £12m £18m

Minor development 66% £11m £23m £34m

Major development 100% £15m £30m £45m

TOTAL £32m £65m £97m

A greater reduction in costs applied to a central estimate of the proportion of applications affected (for householder development and minor development) leads to savings outside the upper end of the range estimated with a 10 per cent reduction.

Reduction in the admin burdens baselineThe reduction in the admin burdens baseline has been calculated using the central estimates in the ranges given.


Direct savings for business as applicants – local listsMinor (not dwellings) (10% x £1085) x (66% x 81113) = £6

Minor (dwellings) (10% x £4000) x (66% x 63612) = £16m

Major (not dwellings) (10% x £24873) x (87.5% x 7931) = £17m

Major (dwellings) (10% x £11641) x (87.5% x 9025) = £9m

Total: £48m

This figure has been converted to 2005 prices using the GDP deflator, giving an admin burden saving of £44m.

Direct savings for business as applicants – design and access statementsMinor applications – estimated savings of £930,000

Conversion to 2005 prices using the GDP deflator gives £850,000

Savings for businesses acting as agentsA large proportion of householder applications are submitted by agents acting on their behalf. This means that some of the benefits for householders will accrue to those businesses. The Householder Development Consents Review (HDCR) showed 78 per cent of householder applications were submitted by agents. Applying this percentage to the central estimate of householder applications affected by changes to information requirements gives:

(10% x £690) x (66% x 257738 x 78%) = £9m

Design and access statements:Estimated savings for agents submitting applications on behalf of householders:

£1.3m x 78% = £1m

At 2005 prices, savings for business related to householder applications are estimated to be £9.2m.

Total admin burdens saving estimated to be £54m.

Costs – summaryThere will be additional costs for LPAs who will need to revise their current local list of information requirements. LPAs will be expected to revise and publish their lists before the end of 2010. Many local authorities routinely review these lists, and the cost of reviewing them will be modest, but authorities may find that the process of revising their current list – or preparing one from scratch, in a small number of cases – has time and resource implications. Any costs to local authorities should be offset quickly once the revised lists are published as the reduced volume of information that accompanies applications – and


the improved clarity for applicants about what is required – will reduce the amount of staff time spent on each application and lead to efficiency savings. These costs have not been estimated at this time due to a lack of evidence about the amount of resource an LPA would have to allocate to revising their lists and consultees are asked to provide evidence on this which can inform the final stage impact assessment.

There will also be an impact on firms which currently provide technical expertise or produce technical documents which accompany planning applications. Consultees are asked to comment on the extent of these impacts.

ii) reduce the number of minor applications which must be accompanied by a design and access statement/iii) clarify GDPO wording on design and access statement content

Sectors/groups affected:

local planning authorities•

householders applying for planning permission in National Parks, AONBs, the •Broads or SSSIs

individuals or businesses making applications for some forms of minor •development in National Parks, AONBs, the Broads, or SSSIs

individuals or businesses making applications to extend an existing planning •permission, or to remove or vary conditions on an existing planning permission

businesses involved in the production of design and access statements (DAS)•

Benefits – summaryCosts for applicants will be reduced, as they will no longer be required to provide a DAS for most very small scale development. Currently many applicants are likely to engage an agent to produce the statement for them, usually as part of wider work they are doing, for example, in producing drawings of the proposed development. The associated saving from the policy change will therefore partly accrue to these businesses.

There will also be efficiency savings for LPAs, who will have fewer documents to review for householder and other small scale applications. In addition, some local authorities are currently concerned that they risk judicial review if they accept an application without a detailed Design and Access statement if one is required by law. This acts as a deterrent to the local authority using discretion about the level of detail that an applicant needs to include in the DAS, tending to result in excessively long documents. By simplifying the content of a DAS, this risk is reduced.


The requirement to provide a DAS for any development affecting Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and World Heritage sites would continue unchanged. Any development over the size threshold in the amended GDPO would also continue to require a DAS. This would focus DAS preparation on major schemes and those in the most sensitive areas.

Assumptions made in estimating savingsThe applications which will be affected by the policy change are: householder •and minor developments in AONBs, National Parks and the Broads; applications under s73 to amend conditions; and applications to extend existing planning permissions. No attempt has been made to estimate the numbers of applications to remove or vary conditions, or to extend a planning permission. It is also not possible to disaggregate the data on numbers of householder and minor planning applications at AONB level. Estimated savings are calculated solely for householder and minor developments in National Parks and the Broads. This will underestimate the number of applications affected and the associated savings. The number of affected applications has been extracted from CLG statistics for the number of planning decisions in 2008. The number of decisions acts as a proxy for the number of applications. Table 3 shows the number of applications in each affected category.

Design and Access Statements are usually completed for an applicant by an •agent. Costs of producing a statement are likely to vary widely depending on the scale and nature of the development. Given that the types of application affected are those for minor or householder development, it is assumed that savings made on not producing a design and access statements will be at the lower end of the scale. Costs of producing a design and access statement are assumed to start from around £500, based on internet research into consultant fees. Consultees are invited to comment on whether this is a reasonable estimate of the cost of preparing a Design and Access statement for small scale development.

Table 4: Numbers of applications affected by proposed changes to design and access statements

Type of application Number of decisions (2008)

Source

Householder development in National Parks, AONBs, the Broads or SSSIs

2541 CLG statistics (only includes figures for National Parks and the Broads)

Minor development in National Parks, AONBs, the Broads or SSSIs

1852 CLG statistics (figures for National Parks and the Broads)


Table 5: Estimated total savings – removing design and access statements

Policy change Average annual savings

10 year discounted savings

Removing need for design and access statement from the range of application types discussed above

£2m £18m

Costs – summaryThe removal of the requirement to produce a design and access statement for certain types of application may mean a loss of work for some small firms which are involved in producing the statements alongside architectural plans. Most firms, however, will be involved in other stages of producing applications and the proposed change will allow them to reallocate their resources to other work.

Costs and benefits of Option 2The do nothing option would not lead to any additional costs or benefits but would mean that for many planning applications the amount of information required by LPAs would continue to be disproportionate and irrelevant to the particular development proposed.

Risk assessment (Option 1)Applications should be less voluminous and will therefore take less time for officers to read and digest. We expect applicants to focus more clearly on the key issues, which we hope will make the process more efficient for everyone. The revised ‘local lists of information requirements’ should be clear about what information is and is not required; it is the authority’s responsibility to make sure it asks for the information it thinks it will need, and to convey this request to the applicant.

However, there are potentially extra costs if insufficiently detailed applications are validated (i.e. accepted for consideration by local authorities). These might arise in the following situations:

An authority asks an applicant to provide more information before it is prepared •to give consent for the scheme – the cost here is on the applicant, and although it is arguably no greater than what they would have had to pay under the current system, the unexpectedness of this cost may introduce a time delay to the process as well as requiring the applicant to find the extra thousands of pounds (in the worst case scenario) to pay consultants to prepare the additional report(s).


An authority grants permission for a scheme, subject to the provision of further •information. This would mean that the scheme could go ahead but would not be usable until all the conditions had been met. As above, this brings potential delay and unexpected cost to the developer although there is not such a tight timescale for them to supply the additional information. However, it could introduce a greater degree of risk that the project would not be completed, potentially creating difficulties in raising the necessary development finance.

An authority grants permission for a scheme, which – due to a lack of •background research/information at the application stage – subsequently encounters practical problems that are costly to redress (e.g. subsidence; site contamination; noise nuisance for/from neighbouring existing users once the scheme is in use). The costs here would either be borne by the developer, or by the subsequent occupants of a completed scheme, depending on when the problems arose. But the LPA should be professional enough to spot likely issues during the determination stage, and ask for the relevant information. Practical issues such as subsidence or contamination are already addressed by the Building Regulations, which are not the responsibility of planning. For larger schemes, a considerable amount of ‘due diligence’ work is undertaken on behalf of potential investors – if not for the developer themselves – which involves a lot of background checking about the developability of the scheme; this should identify potential snags irrespective of whether or not the local authority planners think to ask about them.

An authority refuses permission for development because it is not satisfied that •all the relevant issues have been addressed. (Under the proposed changes there is a risk that this will happen more frequently, if applicants submit less supporting information). The applicant can appeal against the decision, which incurs new costs: an appeal fee, plus the cost of preparing any supporting information to accompany the appeal. Alternatively an applicant could submit a new amended application, using the ‘free go’ provisions (failed applicants may reapply, within 1 year, for a scheme which is similar to their previous proposal).


Specific Impact Tests

Competition assessmentThere is no impact on competition from this proposal.

Small firms’ impact testThe proposal to make information requirements for planning applications more proportionate will benefit all businesses which make planning applications. It is likely that the current requirements create a disproportionate burden for smaller firms which will be reduced by the proposed changes.

The proposal to reduce the range of applications that require a DAS is likely to result in a slight reduction in work for architects or consultants who prepare such documents. However, given that the work involved in the preparation of this information in the circumstances proposed is a relatively minor component of the work involved in an application, the loss of income from the preparation of these documents is not thought to be significant.

The proposal to make information requirements for planning applications more proportionate is also likely to result in a reduction in work for the consultancy firms which currently prepare technical reports to accompany the applications. However, much of this reduction in work translates to direct savings for the applicants/businesses submitting the applications.

We invite consultation responses from businesses affected by the proposals regarding the scale of the impacts.

Legal aid impact testThere will be no legal aid impact from this proposal.

Sustainable development, carbon assessment, other environmentThis proposal will not have negative economic, environmental or social impacts and will not have a negative impact on future generations.

This proposal will not lead to increased carbon and other green house gas emissions, nor have a negative impact on the Environment.

Health impact assessmentThere are no detrimental health impacts from this proposal.


Race, disability, gender and other equalityWe have considered the equalities impacts of the proposed changes and consider that race and gender issues are unaffected.

We do not propose to change the ‘access’ element of the design and access statement. The proposal will reduce the overall number of applications that are accompanied by a DAS. However, disabled access rights are unaffected, as these are driven by the Disability Discrimination Act and the Building Regulations, neither of which will be affected by our proposals.

Human rightsWe do not expect a negative impact on human rights from this proposal.

Rural proofingWe do not believe there will be an impact on rural areas.


Specific Impact Tests: Checklist

Type of testing undertaken Results in Evidence Base?

Results annexed?

Competition Assessment Yes No

Small Firms Impact Test Yes No

Legal Aid No No

Sustainable Development Yes No

Carbon Assessment Yes No

Other Environment Yes No

Health Impact Assessment Yes No

Race Equality Yes No

Disability Equality Yes No

Gender Equality Yes No

Human Rights Yes No

Rural Proofing Yes No

ISBN 978-1-4098-1632-4

9 781409 816324ISBN: 978-1-4098-1632-4

Documents

Streamlining information requirements for planning applications