Appendix A

1

Technical consultation on planning

Consultation response form We are seeking your views to the following questions on the proposals to streamline the planning system.

How to respond to this consultation

Please email your response to the questions in this consultation by 26 September 2014 to planning.consultation@communities.gsi.gov.uk. Alternatively you can write to: Planning Consultation Team Department for Communities and Local Government 1/H3 Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU When you reply please confirm whether you are replying as an individual or submitting an official response on behalf of an organisation and include:

- your name, - your position (if applicable), - the name of organisation (if applicable), - an address (including post-code), - an email address, and - a contact telephone number

Appendix A

2

(i) Your details

Name:

Organisation (if applicable):

City of London Corporation

Address:

Post Code:

Email Address:

Telephone Number:

(ii) Are the views expressed on this consultation an official response from an organisation you represent or your own personal views?

Organisational response

Personal views

(iii) Please tick the one box that best describes you or your organisation

Public Authority:

District/Borough Council

London Borough Council

Unitary Council

County Council

National Park/Broads Authority

Parish/Town Council

Other public sector (please specify)

Voluntary/Community:

Designated neighbourhood forum

Community organisation

Appendix A

3

Voluntary/charitable sector

Residents Association

Other (please specify)

Retail (A1) and Financial and Professional Services (A2) Business:

Bank/Building society

Estate agent

Professional service

Betting shop

Pay day loan shop

Existing A1 retail/shop

Other A2 (please specify)

Other:

Land Owner

Developer/House builder

Developer association

Professional institute/professional e.g. planner, consultant

Professional Trade Association

Local Enterprise Partnership

Other (if none of the options in the lists above apply to you, please specify here)

Appendix A

4

Contents

1. Neighbourhood planning 5

2. Reducing planning regulations to support housing, high streets and growth 11

3. Improving the use of planning conditions 24

4. Planning application process improvements 30

5. Environmental Impact Assessment Thresholds 36

6. Improving the nationally significant infrastructure regime 38

Appendix A

5

1. Neighbourhood planning

Please refer to the relevant parts of the consultation document for narrative relating to each question. Would you like to respond to the consultation on neighbourhood planning?

Yes No

Time limit for taking decisions on the designation of a neighbourhood area

Question 1.1: Do you agree that regulations should require an application for a neighbourhood area designation to be determined by a prescribed date? We are interested in the views of local planning authorities on the impact this proposal may have on them. Comments

Applications should normally be determined efficiently but sufficient time for proper consideration is needed when the proposed boundaries of the neighbourhood area raise concerns or there are rival community groups seeking different designations. Setting a prescribed decision date is not supported as it could force premature decisions that are not in the interests of good planning for the areas concerned.

Question 1.2: If a prescribed date is supported do you agree that this should apply only where: i) the boundaries of the neighbourhood area applied for coincide with those of an existing parish or electoral ward; and ii) there is no existing designation or outstanding application for designation, for all or part of the area for which a new designation is sought? Comments

No comment.

Appendix A

6

Question 1.3: If a date is prescribed, do you agree that this should be 10 weeks (70 days) after a valid application is made? If you do not agree, is there an alternative time period that you would propose? Comments

Not supported. If the period for consultation on the application is kept at 6 weeks and the prescribed period for making a decision is set at 10 weeks then that leaves just 4 weeks for preparing for the consultation and for agreeing a report on the decision. The prescribed period should be at least 14 weeks to allow 8 weeks for consultation preparation, report preparation and approval. That would still be quicker that the current average of 18 weeks stated in the consultation paper.

Question 1.4: Do you support our proposal not to change the period of six weeks in which representations can be made on an application for a neighbourhood area to be designated? If you do not, do you think this period should be shorter? What alternative time period would you propose? Comments

Six weeks is a reasonable consultation period but there needs to be sufficient time after the end of consultation to respond to comments received and prepare a report for decision.

Further measures

Question 1.5: We are interested in views on whether there are other stages in the neighbourhood planning process where time limits may be beneficial. Where time limits are considered beneficial, we would also welcome views on what might be an appropriate time period for local planning authority decision taking at each stage. Comments

See comments above on questions 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4.

Appendix A

7

Pre-submission consultation

Question 1.6: Do you support the removal of the requirement in regulations for a minimum of six weeks consultation and publicity before a neighbourhood plan or Order is submitted to a local planning authority? Comments

Not supported. If the proposed neighbourhood plan is seeking to set out an agreed community approach to development in the neighbourhood then there needs to be sufficient communication and consultation to achieve this before the plan is finalised for submission to the local authority.

Question 1.7: Do you agree that responsibility for publicising a proposed neighbourhood plan or Order, inviting representations and notifying consultation bodies ahead of independent examination should remain with a local planning authority? If you do not agree, what alternative proposals do you suggest, recognising the need to ensure that the process is open, transparent and robust? Comments

The local planning authority normally has relevant experience to carry out these procedures but might not have sufficient resources to do so.

Consulting landowners

Question 1.8: Do you agree that regulations should require those preparing a neighbourhood plan proposal to consult the owners of sites they consider may be affected by the neighbourhood plan as part of the site assessment process? If you do not agree, is there an alternative approach that you would suggest that can achieve our objective? Comments

A consultation requirement could be very onerous for a neighbourhood forum where the neighbourhood plan area is already densely developed with many mixed use buildings and complicated ownership patterns. Obtaining reliable ownership information would be difficult for the neighbourhood forum.

Appendix A

8

Question 1.9: If regulations required those preparing a neighbourhood plan proposal to consult the owners of sites they consider may be affected by the neighbourhood plan as part of the site assessment process, what would be the estimated cost of that requirement to you or your organisation? Are there other material impacts that the requirement might have on you or your organisation? We are also interested in your views on how such consultation could be undertaken and for examples of successful approaches that may have been taken. Comments

The cost of consulting affected site owners would need to be borne by the neighbourhood forum and not by the local authority. The costs could be significant if neighbourhood plans have many site-specific proposals in densely developed areas with many owners.

Introducing an additional basic condition to test the extent of consultation

Question 1.10: Do you agree with the introduction of a new statutory requirement (basic condition) to test the nature and adequacy of the consultation undertaken during the preparation of a neighbourhood plan or Order? If you do not agree, is there an alternative approach that you would suggest that can achieve our objective? Comments

Agreed. Adequate consultation is essential to ensure general acceptance of the proposed neighbourhood plan.

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Question 1.11: Do you agree that it should be a statutory requirement that either: a statement of reasons, an environmental report, or an explanation of why the plan is not subject to the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive must accompany a neighbourhood plan proposal when it is submitted to a local planning authority? Comments

Agreed. Neighbourhood Plans could have significant effects on the environment so need to be prepared in compliance with the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive.

Appendix A

9

Question 1.12: Aside from the proposals put forward in this consultation document are there alternative or further measures that would improve the understanding of how the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 apply to neighbourhood plans? If there are such measures should they be introduced through changes to existing guidance, policy or new legislation? Comments

No comment.

Further measures

Question 1.13: We would like your views on what further steps we and others could take to meet the Government’s objective to see more communities taking up their right to produce a neighbourhood plan or neighbourhood development order. We are particularly interested in hearing views on:

stages in the process that are considered disproportionate to the purpose, or any unnecessary requirements that could be removed

how the shared insights from early adopters could support and speed up the progress of others

whether communities need to be supported differently

innovative ways in which communities are funding, or could fund, their neighbourhood planning activities.

Comments

No comment.

Appendix A

10

Question 1.14: Are there any further comments that you wish to make in response to this section?

Yes No

Comments

Appendix A

11

2. Reducing planning regulations to support housing, high streets and growth

Please refer to the relevant parts of the consultation document for narrative relating to each question. Would you like to respond to the consultation on reducing planning regulations to support housing, high streets and growth?

Yes No

Increasing Housing Supply

Question 2.1: Do you agree that there should be permitted development rights for: (i) light industrial (B1(c)) buildings and

Yes No

(ii) storage and distribution (B8) buildings to change to residential (C3) use?

Yes No

Comments

Light industrial, storage and distribution buildings should not have permitted development rights to change to residential (C3) without the need for planning permission as the locations requirements for each are very different. Although by definition light industrial buildings B1(c ) are considered to be compatible with residential areas, they are often located in separate estates that would not be sustainable residential locations due to the lack of residential amenities, facilties and public transport links. Warehousing units are not normally considered compatible with housing and are often in unsustainable locations for housing.

Appendix A

12

Question 2.2: Should the new permitted development right: (i) include a limit on the amount of floor space that can change use to residential (ii) apply in Article 1(5) land i.e. land within a National Park, the Broads, an Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty, an area designated as a conservation area, and land within World Heritage Sites and

(iii) should other issues be considered as part of the prior approval, for example the

impact of the proposed residential use on neighbouring employment uses?

(i) limit on floor space Yes No

(ii) apply in Article 1(5) land Yes No

(iii) other prior approval issues Yes No Comments

Size limits would prevent large conversions to housing in unsustainable locations with no local community facilties. The effect on Article 1(5) land raises particular considerations that are best addressed through consideration of a full planning application. The impact of proposed residential use on neighbouring employment uses is a significant concern that needs to be addressed through consideration of a full planning application. The same concern for the impact on existing neighbouring office uses applies to change of use from offices to housing and is a reason why such changes need to be addressed through consideration of a full planning application.

Question 2.3: Do you agree that there should be permitted development rights, as proposed, for laundrettes, amusement arcades/centres, casinos and nightclubs to change use to residential (C3) use and to carry out building work directly related to the change of use?

Yes No Comments

Such uses are often town centre uses and so the effects of residential occupiers on the town centre and on neighbouring commercial uses are relevant issues that should be addressed through consideration of a full planning application. Laundrettes provide important facilities for existing local communities yet their commercial returns are likely to be lower than with residential uses.

Appendix A

13

Question 2.4: Should the new permitted development right include: (i) a limit on the amount of floor space that can change use to residential and

Yes No

(ii) a prior approval in respect of design and external appearance?

Yes No

Comments

Size limits would prevent large conversions to housing in unsustainable locations with no local community facilties and would enable proper communal facilities to be provided such as bin stores. .

Question 2.5: Do you agree that there should be a permitted development right from May 2016 to allow change of use from offices (B1(a)) to residential (C3)?

Yes No Comments

Not agreed. 1. The Government accepted in May 2013 that the City of London required a local

exemption from the national relaxation of planning controls over change of use from offices to housing in recognition that it is a ‘nationally significant area of economic activity’. The City Corporation had liaised closely with the Mayor of London on the matter and the rest of the Central London Activity Zone was also granted an exemption.

2. The City Corporation has used its local exemption responsibly since then and has

delivered significant amounts of both offices and housing in the City in accordance with its local planning policies. The City has permitted 250,000 square metres of additional office floorspace since May 2013 and has used local policy to protect existing office floorspace where still suitable for viable long term office use. It has also used local policy to direct housing to appropriate areas of the City, enabling it to exceed its annual housing delivery targets (delivering 458 dwellings in 2013/14 against an annual target of 110 dwellings) and address housing needs while maintaining the City’s primary business function.

3. The City Corporation does not accept that circumstances have changed materially since

its local exemption was granted and therefore does not agree with the proposal that the local exemption should cease in May 2016. The original arguments presented to justify the exemption are still relevant and are summarised below.

Appendix A

14

4. The Government’s proposals would allow developers and owners to convert City office buildings into flats without the need for planning permission, rather than letting them to City businesses. This would have significant adverse implications for the City of London and its current role as the world's leading international financial and business centre for the following reasons:

a. Loss of existing office stock to residential use would dilute the concentration of

office-based activities that gives the City and its fringes a ‘critical mass’ offering economies of scale and scope for the international financial and business services. Uncontrolled conversion of office space to residential use would have the unintended consequence of threatening the City as a strategically important employment centre. Research for the City Corporation suggested that 1.6 million square metres of office floorspace, 18% of the total City stock, could be lost through permitted development from offices to housing. This could remove workspace that could accommodate 100,000 City office workers. Some of this space might temporarily be vacant but some office vacancy is a normal and desirable part of an efficient office market and so it should not be assumed that such offices would be better converted to housing.

b. Loss of existing office stock, vacant or not, to residential use will reduce the supply of

future development sites needed to provide for the planned growth of the City and through the associated reduction of supply will lead to further costs on business through rising rents. This will impact on the competitiveness of London as a place to do business.

c. The City’s planning policy has sought to separate uses that are not compatible due

to differences in scale, through the clustering of residential uses in specific parts of the City. This has reduced the scope for conflict with commercial activities and has facilitated more efficient service delivery to City residents. The Government proposals would undermine this approach and the ability of the City to plan for good residential amenity and efficient services.

d. The introduction of housing to areas currently dominated by commercial activity

could raise expectations of residential amenity, including daylighting, sunlighting and overlooking, that would adversely affect the activities of current businesses or the commercial redevelopment potential of the area. Large City occupiers operate a 24-hour day due to their delivery, facilities testing, and their international contacts, and so their activities are usually not compatible with good residential amenity. Large redevelopment projects create significant disruption that would adversely affect residential amenity for an extended construction period.

e. Additional housing provided in the City would probably be in the form of luxury flats.

This kind of expensive accommodation would not meet general housing needs.

f. Older office stock is more likely to be subject to such conversion pressures and such stock is favoured by entrepreneurial small and medium sized enterprises, as the space is normally let on more flexible and affordable terms. This could lead to increased rents for remaining office space and a decline in uses that complement the City’s main commercial activities and make a significant contribution to local employment.

g. The ability to convert to housing without a planning permission would mean that

there would no accompanying planning obligation or CIL charge to help fund the social and physical infrastructure and services that new residents would expect, and no contribution to the provision of affordable housing in London. Thus overall

Appendix A

15

provision of affordable housing would be reduced by this proposal.

h. The ability to convert to housing without planning permission could adversely affect sustainability objectives as existing office buildings might not be best suited for long-term residential use. Once converted, such buildings would tend to stay in residential use, due to long leaseholds, despite their design and facilities limitations.

5. The consultation paper states that the prior approval process will continue to apply to

office to housing conversions to consider the impact of the proposed housing in relation to highways and transport, flooding and contamination. It proposes that a new prior approval consideration will be the potential impact of the significant loss of the most strategically important office accommodation. This proposed addition is welcomed as it could be relevant to sites in the City, an area that is already recognised by the Government to be a ‘nationally significant area of economic activity’. However it is critical that the considerations should be widened to include the effect of introducing housing on neighbouring current and future business needs in a nationally significant area of economic activity.

6. As part of the City Corporation’s commitment to dialogue on this important matter the

following suggestions are made for refinements to the existing proposals in order to help with increased housing delivery nationally without affecting existing and future business activity and employment.

Reconsider the proposal not to extend local area exemptions from the national approach beyond May 2016: The strong economic benefits to London and the UK provided by the economic activities concentrated in central London mean that all or part of this area, including the City, should justifiably be exempt from these proposals where they would undermine existing economic activity and employment in places that are vital to the national economy. Circumstances have not changed materially since the local exemption was granted in May 2013.

Consider local area exemptions where the local development plan has been recently adopted and housing delivery performance has been good: Local authorities that have been performing well by delivering additional housing in accordance with a recently adopted development plan do not need these proposals to ensure they are making their contribution to meeting housing needs and so should be exempt from the proposals. The proposed changes should focus on those authorities where there is an out-dated development plan that seeks to protect employment land no longer required long-term by the market, and does not deliver the additional housing that is needed. The proposals are too blunt an instrument to apply at a national scale and need to be refined to allow for local circumstances.

Broaden the prior approval considerations to address both the potential impact of the loss of office accommodation and the potential impact of introducing new housing on neighbouring commercial uses and on current and future business needs in a nationally significant area of economic activity. The introduction of new housing in an otherwise wholly commercial area can be as significant to the economic future of an area as the loss of the existing use.

Appendix A

16

Question 2.6: Do you have suggestions for the definition of the prior approval required to allow local planning authorities to consider the impact of the significant loss of the most strategically important office accommodation within the local area?

Yes No Comments

The City Corporation’s preference is for the existing local exemption for the City of London to be retained beyond May 2016. If the local exemption is not to be retained then the prior approval process will need to be sufficiently robust to ensure that strategically important office accommodation is not lost in the City and that the existing beneficial commercial cluster is not damaged by the introduction of housing to predominantly commercial parts of the City. However the prior approval process has the disadvantage of being reliant on case by case assessment to a tight timetable that might not be well suited to complex proposals in the City. It also might undermine our established pre-applications discussions process and would involve similar amounts of work with a reduced fee. The Government has already proposed in the consultation paper (para 2.31 question 2.2) that the introduction of housing to commercial areas could be a relevant prior approval consideration due to the potentially adverse impact on neighbouring employment uses. The City Corporation considers that this is an essential prior approval consideration if the City’s local exemption is not to be retained in order to provide the planning powers to guide new housing in the City away from those parts where commercial uses predominate and the introduction of housing would disrupt the City’s business role.

Question 2.7: Do you agree that the permitted development rights allowing larger extensions for dwelling houses should be made permanent?

Yes No Comments

Not agreed. Temporary permitted development rights allowing larger extensions for dwelling houses were introduced on a trial basis. The effect has yet not been evaluated and it is premature to propose that it should become a permanent right before the temporary impact has been assessed.

Supporting a mixed and vibrant high street

Question 2.8: Do you agree that the shops (A1) use class should be broadened to incorporate the majority of uses currently within the financial and professional services (A2) use class?

Yes No

Appendix A

17

Comments

Not agreed. The proposals to further relax planning controls over changes of use in town centres are intended to increase flexibility to bring a greater diversity of leisure and entertainment uses to high streets but will impact on existing retail uses. The proposals aim to revive declining town centres and are not appropriate to healthy shopping centres such as the City’s principal shopping centres. The proposed merger of the A1 (shops) and A2 (financial and professional services) Use Classes could undermine the City’s shopping centres if it were to result in a decline in the number and concentration of comparison and convenience shops, and is not supported. Proposals to make it easier to change to A3 (restaurants and cafes) could raise wider amenity concerns that might not be aired by the limited prior approval neighbour notification proposals. It would require late night noise issues to be controlled by licensing only.

Question 2.9: Do you agree that a planning application should be required for any change of use to a betting shop or a pay day loan shop?

Yes No Comments

Agreed. The proposal for planning control over betting shops and pay day loan shops is welcomed. It would be useful if there were guidance defining the material considerations that would apply to their determination.

Appendix A

18

Question 2.10: Do you have suggestions for the definition of pay day loan shops, or on the type of activities undertaken, that the regulations should capture?

Yes No Comments

No comment.

Question 2.11: Do you agree that there should be permitted development rights for: (i) A1 and A2 premises and

Yes No

(ii) laundrettes, amusement arcades/centres, casinos and nightclubs to change use to

restaurants and cafés (A3)?

Yes No

Comments

Not agreed. Permitted development rights for change of use from A1 (shops) and A2 (financial and professional services) to A3 restaurants and cafes could undermine the City’s shopping centre role if it resulted in a decline in the number and concentration of comparison and convenience shops. The other uses proposed could be in quite large units and so their change could raise wider issues, such as impact on residential amenity due to disturbance, which would be best addressed through consideration of a planning application. It is not clear how the use at the time of the Autumn Statement 2013 would be determined, why that date has been selected, and whether or not it will only apply to authorised uses.

Question 2.12: Do you agree that there should be permitted development rights for A1 and A2 uses, laundrettes, amusement arcades/centres and nightclubs to change use to assembly and leisure (D2)?

Yes No Comments

Not agreed. The creation of new assembly and leisure uses could have significant implications for neighbours and the wider area, through the assembly of crowds and hours of operation. that are best addressed through consideration of a planning application. Same points regarding the Autumn Statement 2013 apply as for 2.11.

Appendix A

19

Supporting retail facilities Question 2.13: Do you agree that there should be a permitted development right for an ancillary building within the curtilage of an existing shop?

Yes No Comments

Not agreed. Ancillary buildings might help shops trade successfully but raise design and neighbour amenity issues that are best addressed through consideration of a planning application. Ancillary buildings to the rear of shops are more likely to be satisfactory. The permitted use may be acceptable where a greater distance from adjoining land, e.g. 10m from the boundary.

Question 2.14: Do you agree that there should be a permitted development right to extend loading bays for existing shops?

Yes No Comments

Not agreed. Loading bays raise design and highway safety issues that are best addressed through consideration of a planning application.

Question 2.15: Do you agree that the permitted development right allowing shops to build internal mezzanine floors should be increased from 200 square metres?

Yes No Comments

Agreed, though a significant increase in the threshold could undermine existing retailing hierarchies or raise sustainability issues if not subject to some assessment.

Appendix A

20

Question 2.16: Do you agree that parking policy should be strengthened to tackle on-street parking problems by restricting powers to set maximum parking standards?

Yes No Comments

Not agreed. The consultation paper restates that parking standards are matters for local authorities but then proposes powers to set maximum parking standards should be restricted. The City’s Local Plan and the Mayor’s London Plan both contain maximum on-site parking standards to strike the right balance between local parking provision and the need to manage highway congestion, air pollution, etc. Maximum parking standards are justified in London because it has the best public transport accessibility in the country. The City regularly reviews its parking standards to ensure they are relevant to local circumstances, such the relatively low use of private cars in the City, and considers that it should retain the power to set a locally justified maximum parking standard.

Supporting growth

Question 2.17: Do you agree that there should be a new permitted development right for commercial film and television production?

Yes No Comments

Not agreed. The proposed permitted development right would not apply within conservation areas. This would create a requirement for planning permission for filming within such areas, creating a new administrative burden for all parties that currently does not exist, to the detriment of the film industry. Existing licensing arrangements are preferable.

Question 2.18: Do you agree that there should be a permitted development right for the installation of solar PV up to 1MW on the roof of non-domestic buildings?

Yes No Comments

Agreed, providing not in conservation areas and there is a prior approval process to consider siting, design and it does not affect views and the setting of heritage assets.

Appendix A

21

Question 2.19: Do you agree that the permitted development rights allowing larger extensions for shops, financial and professional services, offices, industrial and warehouse buildings should be made permanent?

Yes No Comments

Not agreed. Temporary permitted development rights allowing larger extensions for shops, etc, were introduced on a trial basis. The effect has yet not been evaluated and it is premature to assume that it should become a permanent right. It could have a detrimental impact on residential amenity that is greater than residential extensions as there is no limit on height.

Question 2.20: Do you agree that there should be a new permitted development right for waste management facilities to replace buildings, equipment and machinery?

Yes No Comments

Agreed, however there are concerns that there are no height restrictions.

Question 2.21: Do you agree that permitted development rights for sewerage undertakers should be extended to include equipment housings?

Yes No Comments

Agreed, sensible clarification.

Appendix A

22

Question 2.22: Do you have any other comments or suggestions for extending permitted development rights?

Yes No Comments

The proposals while bringing benefits could result in significant impact not in the public interest or good planning.

Implementing the proposals

Question 2.23: Do you have any evidence regarding the costs or benefits of the proposed changes or new permitted development rights, including any evidence regarding the impact of the proposal on the number of new betting shops and pay day loan shops, and the costs and benefits, in particular new openings in premises that were formerly A2, A3, A4 or A5?

Yes No Comments

Evidence is supplied to demonstrate the City’s responsible use of its local exemption from offices to housing change of use PD rights and the estimated effect on the City’s economy and employment of not having it.

Article 4 Directions

Question 2.24: Do you agree: (i) that where prior approval for permitted development has been given, but not yet implemented, it should not be removed by subsequent Article 4 direction and

Yes No

(ii) should the compensation regulations also cover the permitted development rights set out in the consultation?

Yes No

Appendix A

23

Comments

Not agreed. If an Article 4 Direction is justified then it should apply to all sites in the area from the date of commencement. This would be consistent with the approach that applies to planning permissions. Compensation should not be applicable as it renders Articlle 4 an untenable tool for local authorities.

Question 2.25: Are there any further comments that you wish to make in response to this section?

Yes No

Comments

The City Corporation will submit evidence to demonstrate that it has operated its local exemption from national permitted development rights regarding change of use from offices to housing in a responsible way that has helped deliver both offices and housing in appropriate parts of the City and thereby has addressed the Government’s economic growth and housing delivery agendas. Retention of this exemption is bringing benefits and its loss could be at significant cost to the national economy. The City Corporation is also concerned about the potential impact of the new prior approval regime on application fee income. The requirements for prior approval will require a very similar analysis of the impacts of development on office stock, local high streets and town centres, to those required as part of a full planning application. Prior approval fee rates are considerably lower than equivalent planning application fees and so widespread use of prior approval will result in a reduction in income with little, if any, reduction in workload assessing implications.

Appendix A

24

3. Improving the use of planning conditions

Please refer to the relevant parts of the consultation document for narrative relating to

each question.

Would you like to respond to the consultation on improving the use of planning conditions?

Yes No

Deemed discharge for certain types of conditions where the local planning authority does not make a timely decision

Question 3.1: Do you have any general comments on our intention to introduce a deemed discharge for planning conditions?

Yes No

Comments

If the planning condition were justified then it would not be logical to introduce a deemed discharge without proper consideration of the fulfillment of the condition as it could disadvantage the public interest the condition sought to protect.

Question 3.2: Do you agree with our proposal to exclude some types of conditions from the deemed discharge?

Yes No

Where we exclude a type of condition, should we apply the exemption to all conditions in the planning permission requiring discharge or only those relating to the reason for the exemption (e.g. those relating to flooding). Are there other types of conditions that you think should also be excluded? Comments

Not agreed. We do not support deemed discharge. However if it is implemented some conditions are so critical to a satisfactory development that a deemed discharge process would be wholly inappropriate, e.g. flood risk mitigations.

Appendix A

25

Question 3.3: Do you agree with our proposal that a deemed discharge should be an applicant option activated by the serving of a notice, rather than applying automatically?

Yes No

If not, why? Comments

Yes, if deemed discharge is implemented. However it makes the future legal position very uncertain.

Question 3.4: Do you agree with our proposed timings for when a deemed discharge would be available to an applicant?

Yes No

If not, why? What alternative timing would you suggest? Comments

Agreed.

Appendix A

26

Question 3.5: We propose that (unless the type of condition is excluded) deemed discharge would be available for conditions in full or outline (not reserved matters) planning permissions under S.70, 73, and 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Do you think that deemed discharge should be available for other types of consents such as advertisement consent, or planning permission granted by a local development order?

Yes No

Comments

Not agreed. There should be other mechanisms for dealing with poor performance which would not disadvantage the public interest.

Reducing the time limit for return of the fee for applications for confirmation of compliance with conditions attached to planning permissions

Question 3.6: Do you agree that the time limit for the fee refund should be shortened from twelve weeks to eight weeks?

Yes No

If not, why? Comments

Not agreed. Complex conditions may need up to 12 weeks for consideration particularly where consultation is required.

Appendix A

27

Question 3.7: Are there any instances where you consider that a return of the fee after eight weeks would not be appropriate?

Yes No

Why?

Comments

Complex conditions may need up to 12 weeks for consideration and discharging.

Sharing draft conditions with applicants for major developments before a decision is made

Question 3.8: Do you agree there should be a requirement for local planning authorities to

share draft conditions with applicants for major developments before they can make a

decision on the application?

Yes No

Comments

Not agreed. Local authorities should be encouraged to share draft conditions as part of the normal dialogue with applicants but a requirement to share all draft conditions in advance of a decision would be unduly onerous and could lead to significant delays in the processing of cases as successive draft conditions are refined and consulted on. Such draft conditions should also be shared with other interested parties.

Question 3.9: Do you agree that this requirement should be limited to major applications?

Yes No

Comments

Agreed, though encouragement is preferable to requirement.

Appendix A

28

Question 3.10: When do you consider it to be an appropriate time to share draft conditions: - ten days before a planning permission is granted? - five days before a planning permission is granted? or - another time?, please detail Comments

Sharing of draft conditions should form part of the normal dialogue with applicants and other interested parties, and cannot fit into a rigid timetable. Committee reports often need to be prepared more than two weeks in advance so the proposal could lead to delays.

Question 3.11: We have identified two possible options for dealing with late changes or additions to conditions – Option A or Option B. Which option do you prefer?

Option A Option B Neither

If neither, can you suggest another way of addressing this issue and if so please explain

your alternative approach?

Comments

A more flexible approach is preferable encouraging the sharing of draft conditions as best practice. It is also important that others are consulted as it is the other parties that conditions are often imposed to protect.

Requirement to justify the use of pre-commencement conditions

Question 3.12: Do you agree there should be an additional requirement for local planning authorities to justify the use of pre-commencement conditions?

Yes No

Comments

Not agreed. Pre-commencement conditions are used only where needed and this would be an unnecessary additional administrative burden.

Appendix A

29

Question 3.13: Do you think that the proposed requirement for local planning authorities to justify the use of pre-commencement conditions should be expanded to apply to conditions that require further action to be undertaken by an applicant before an aspect of the development can go ahead?

Yes No

Comments

Not agreed. See comments to question 3.12 above.

Question 3.14: What more could be done to ensure that conditions requiring further action to be undertaken by an applicant before an aspect of the development can go ahead are appropriate and that the timing is suitable and properly justified? Comments

Clear guidance, experienced officers and good dialogue with developers. Such conditions are often imposed because developers do not have the information at the time of the application and conditions are a way of avoiding delays and facilitating development.

Question 3.15: Are there any further comments that you wish to make in response to this section?

Yes No

Comments

Appendix A

30

4. Planning application process improvements

Please refer to the relevant parts of the consultation document for narrative relating to each question.

Would you like to respond to the consultation on planning application process improvements?

Yes No

Review of requirements for consultation with Natural England and the Highways Agency

Question 4.1: Do you agree with the proposed change to the requirements for consulting Natural England set out in Table 1? If not, please specify why.

Yes No

Comments

Agreed.

Question 4.2: Do you agree with the proposed changes to the requirements for consulting the Highways Agency set out in Table 2? If not, please specify what change is of concern and why?

Yes No

Comments

Agreed.

Appendix A

31

Review of requirements for consulting with English Heritage

Question 4.3: Do you agree with the proposed changes to the requirements for consulting and notifying English Heritage set out in Table 3? If not, please specify what change is of concern and why?

Yes No

Do you agree with the proposed change to remove English Heritage’s powers of Direction and authorisation in Greater London? If not, please explain why?

Yes No

Comments

Development’s impact on Parks should be retained. The 1,000 square metre threshold is too great in conservation areas and should be 100 squuare metres.

Question 4.4: Do you agree with the proposed changes to the requirements for referring applications to the Secretary of State set out in Table 4? If not, please specify what change is of concern and why.

Yes No

Comments

Agreed.

Appendix A

32

Question 4.5: Do you agree with the proposed minor changes to current arrangements for consultation/notification of other heritage bodies? If not, please specify what change is of concern and why.

Yes No

Comments

They may have a view in other circumstances than demolition which would be of value.

Further measure to streamline statutory consultation arrangements

Question 4.6: Do you agree with the principle of statutory consultees making more frequent use of the existing flexibility not to be consulted at the application stage, in cases where technical issues were resolved at the pre-application stage?

Yes No

Do you have any comments on what specific measures would be necessary to facilitate more regular use of this flexibility?

Yes No

Comments

It would need to be very clear that the submitted application was the same as that considered at the pre-application stage. It may only be applicable for a few cases.

Appendix A

33

Impacts and benefits of the proposals

Question 4.7: How significant do you think the reduction in applications which statutory consultees are unnecessarily consulted on will be? Please provide evidence to support your answer. Comments

Limited impact as many schemes are amended right up to the submission date. It could be effective on big schemes but would need to be related to the EIA process.

Notifying railway infrastructure managers of planning applications for development near railways

Question 4.8: In the interest of public safety, do you agree with the proposal requiring local planning authorities to notify railway infrastructure managers of planning applications within the vicinity of their railway, rather than making them formal statutory consultees with a duty to respond?

Yes No

Comments

Not agreed. This proposal would create significant additional consultation requirements for many applications that will have no impact on the railway as in central London many railways are underground. Case officers should use their discretion over such consultation.

Question 4.9: Do you agree with notification being required when any part of a proposed development is within 10 metres of a railway?

Yes No

Do you agree that 10 metres is a suitable distance?

Yes No

Do you have a suggestion about a methodology for measuring the distance from a railway (such as whether to measure from the edge of the railway track or the boundary of railway land, and how this would include underground railway tunnels)?

Yes No

Appendix A

34

Comments

There may not always be a public safety issue.

Consolidation of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010

Question 4.10: Do you have any comments on the proposal to consolidate the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010?

Yes No

Comments

Consolidation welcomed.

Measurement of the end-to-end planning process

Question 4.11: Do you have any suggestions on how each stage of the planning application process should be measured? What is your idea? What stage of the process does it relate to? Why should this stage be measured and what are the benefits of such information?

Yes No

Comments

Prior to measuring it would be beneficial to clearly understand the purpose of the exercise. It is important to recognise that many delays result from developers and it would be better to focus on key areas.

Appendix A

35

Question 4.12: Are there any further comments that you wish to make in response to this section?

Yes No

Comments

Appendix A

36

5. Environmental Impact Assessment Thresholds

Please refer to the relevant parts of the consultation document for narrative relating to each question.

Would you like to respond to the consultation on Environmental Impact Assessment Thresholds?

Yes No

The proposals we are consulting on

Question 5.1: Do you agree that the existing thresholds for urban development and industrial estate development which are outside of sensitive areas are unnecessarily low?

Yes No

Comments

However it is difficult to raise the screening thresholds to ensure that EIAs are required only where development proposals are likely to give rise to significant environmental effects. A single national threshold based on plot size may not be appropriate as varying local circumstances mean that relatively small plots can sometimes give rise to significant environmental effects on sensitive sites or where tall buildings are proposed.

Question 5.2: Do you have any comments on where we propose to set the new thresholds?

Yes No

Comments

The proposed new thresholds aim to strike a balance between the need for EIA and the resultant administrative burden. However raising the threshold to 5 hectares site area would mean that many dense or tall developments with a smaller site area would not exceed the threshold. For example, the tall towers recently built in the City of London have site areas below 5 hectares. The proposed new thresholds would need to be carefully reviewed not to give rise to challenges under the EU directive.

Appendix A

37

Question 5.3: If you consider there is scope to raise the screening threshold for residential

dwellings above our current proposal, or to raise thresholds for other Schedule 2 categories,

what would you suggest and why?

Comments

Do not consider that a single higher threshold is a concept that is going to remove potential challenges leaving developers cautious to proceed without an EIA or Secretary of State’s determination.

Question 5.4: Are there any further comments that you wish to make in response to this section?

Yes No

Comments

Appendix A

38

6. Improving the nationally significant infrastructure regime

Please refer to the relevant parts of the consultation document for narrative relating to each question.

Would you like to respond to the consultation on streamlining consents for nationally significant infrastructure projects?

Yes No

Non-material and material changes to Development Consents Orders

Question 6.1: Do you agree that the three characteristics set out in paragraph 6.10 are suitable for assessing whether a change to a Development Consent Order is more likely to be non-material? Are there any others that should be considered?

Yes No

Comments

Significant changes to height, floorspace and design are likely to be material changes.

Making a non-material change

Question 6.2: Do you agree with: (i) making publicising and consulting on a non-material change the responsibility of the

applicant, rather than the Secretary of State?

Yes No

(ii) the additional amendments to regulations proposed for handling non-material

changes?

Yes No

Appendix A

39

Comments

Agreed, provided the changes are sufficient to ensure affected parties are consulted appropriately and afforded a proper opportunity to comment.

Making a material change

Question 6.3: Do you agree with the proposals: (i) to change the consultation requirements for a proposed application for a material

change to a Development Consent Order?

Yes No

(ii) to remove the requirement on an applicant to prepare a statement of community

consultation for an application for a material change?

Yes No

(iii) to remove the current requirement to publish a notice publicising a proposed

application where an application for a material change is to be made?

Yes No

Comments

See comments made to question 6.2.

Question 6.4: Do you agree with the proposal that there should be a new regulation allowing the Secretary of State to dispense with the need to hold an examination into an application for a material change?

Yes No

Appendix A

40

Comments

Agreed, provided the grounds for so doing are clearly set out.

Question 6.5: Do you agree with the proposal to reduce the statutory time periods set out in the 2011 Regulations to four months for the examination of an application for a material change, two months for the examining authority to produce a report and their recommendation and two months for the Secretary of State to reach a decision?

Yes No

Comments

Not agreed; may not be adequate to determine the proposal adequately.

Guidance on procedures

Question 6.6: Are there any other issues that should be covered if guidance is produced on the procedures for making non-material and material changes to Development Consent Orders?

Yes No

Comments

The details necessary to submit whether the alterations are material or not.

Appendix A

41

The proposal we are consulting on Question 6.7: Do you agree with the proposal that applicants should be able to include the ten consents (see main document) within a Development Consent Order without the prior approval of the relevant consenting body?

Yes No

Comments

Agreed.

Question 6.8: Do you agree with the ways in which we propose to approach these reforms?

Yes No

Comments

Not agreed, unless the approval of the impacted bodies is obtained.

Question 6.9: Are there any other ideas that we should consider in enacting the proposed changes?

Yes No

Comments

No comments.

Appendix A

42

Question 6.10: Do you have any views on the proposal for some of the consents to deal only with the construction stage of projects, and for some to also cover the operational stage of projects?

Yes No

Comments

It could improve or speed up the present process.

Question 6.11: Are there any other comments you wish to make in response to this section?

Yes No

Comments