Proposed Reforms To System
Historically most decisions on planning applications have been framed around the question of whether the proposed development is “bad enough to warrant being refused planning permission”. The thrust of recent reforms to the planning system as a whole has been to raise the game of both developers and their advisors, along with LPAs, so that the question becomes “is the proposed development good enough to deserve planning permission”.
The requirement to prepare a Design and Access Statement for most significant developments, places developers and their advisors under a requirement to justify their proposals in those terms. This culture change will take time to become embedded, but the policy intention of the UK Government and most LPAs is that new developments should contribute positively to their surroundings, rather than merely avoid doing unacceptable harm.
LPAs make extensive use of electronic systems for reasons of efficiency and also to encourage transparency. Almost all of them have their own website and electronic document management systems where planning applications can be viewed and commented upon, along with local planning policies and a wide range of other relevant sources. Provided that architectural drawings and other supporting documents are in electronic form then planning applications should ideally be submitted on-line, either via the LPA's website or via the UK-wide "planning portal" website which provides a nationwide clearing house on planning information and facilities.
LPAs are under constant pressure to improve the speed, efficiency and quality of decision making. Applicants are usually advised to engage in discussion with the LPA before finalizing any planning application in order to research the relevant planning policies and other local issues. LPAs vary in their attitude to pre-application discussion but the advantage is to front load the process, and reduce the formal planning application to a “rubber stamp” conducted within the public gaze of work undertaken before submission of the application. In the past developers often submitted a planning application as the start of what was expected to be a lengthy process of negotiation with the LPA. Attitudes have now changed and few LPAs will agree to accept significantly amended proposals after submission of the application since this would require them to re-start public consultations and so delay their decision. Along with the requirement to prepare a well written and well reasoned Design and Access Statement before applying for planning permission, this puts the onus increasingly on the applicant to get their proposal right first time.
About half a million planning applications are submitted throughout the UK each year. Of those around 60% relate to “householder applications” – that is for extensions or alterations to an individual’s house. A much larger number of householder proposals are classed as permitted development and do not require a planning application to be made. Only about 30% of householder planning applications are significantly altered before being granted, or are actually refused permission as unacceptable. This raises the issue of whether the time of LPAs is being well spent when such types of minor development could be codified and either excluded from planning control altogether, or subject to a much simpler regime of control. Among other things this would free resources for more important work in implementing local planning policies which would be of wider public benefit. The UK Government is preparing new legislation along these lines.
Read more about this topic: Development Control In The United Kingdom
Famous quotes containing the words proposed, reforms and/or system:
“It looks as if we may be presented with a kind of vast municipal fire station.... What is proposed is like a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much loved and elegant friend.”
—Charles, Prince Of Wales (b. 1948)
“Until politics are a branch of science we shall do well to regard political and social reforms as experiments rather than short-cuts to the millennium.”
—J.B.S. (John Burdon Sanderson)
“The dominant metaphor of conceptual relativism, that of differing points of view, seems to betray an underlying paradox. Different points of view make sense, but only if there is a common co-ordinate system on which to plot them; yet the existence of a common system belies the claim of dramatic incomparability.”
—Donald Davidson (b. 1917)