Householder PP to become much harder to obtain?
Discussion
I've just got round to reading a consultation on proposed (further) changes to the Planning system (published 6th March, but I've been kind of busy...).
LINK
Hidden amongst several (as usual) half-arsed and unworkable proposals, they're suggesting that Extensions-of-Time will be banned for Householder Planning Applications. In other words, Local Authorities will have to determine householder applications within the statutory 8 weeks, or risk harm to their performance statistics that could see them 'designated'.
The practical consequence of this is that they won't be able to deal with any amendments, additional information or negotiation within the application process... which will undoubtedly result in a significant increase in the number of refusals.
With my tinfoil hat firmly in place, my suspicion is that this is not entirely unrelated to the recent change that removed the 'free go' for applications submitted within 12 months of a previous refusal: it seems to be a contrived way to force householders to pay another application fee (currently £328, if you go via the Planning Portal), if they need to make the slightest change or additional submission, in order to respond to comments on a householder application.
The sooner we vote these jokers out of office, the better...
LINK
Hidden amongst several (as usual) half-arsed and unworkable proposals, they're suggesting that Extensions-of-Time will be banned for Householder Planning Applications. In other words, Local Authorities will have to determine householder applications within the statutory 8 weeks, or risk harm to their performance statistics that could see them 'designated'.
The practical consequence of this is that they won't be able to deal with any amendments, additional information or negotiation within the application process... which will undoubtedly result in a significant increase in the number of refusals.
With my tinfoil hat firmly in place, my suspicion is that this is not entirely unrelated to the recent change that removed the 'free go' for applications submitted within 12 months of a previous refusal: it seems to be a contrived way to force householders to pay another application fee (currently £328, if you go via the Planning Portal), if they need to make the slightest change or additional submission, in order to respond to comments on a householder application.
The sooner we vote these jokers out of office, the better...
randlemarcus said:
While I agree with those sentiments, this seems like something that's been cooked up by civil servants in collusion with local government , so unlikely to be solved by voting for a different colour rosette.
Also so industry specific on this point at least, being a farmer in Wales under a labour government gives in insight into 12 months time for England. The policies proposed will decimate farming which I'd argue trumps putting and extension up. Not to mention the 36m wasted on 20mph blanket ban to now announce 5m poi's to change many roads back to 30. As above, a different flag isn't going to change much for the betterIgnoring the inevitable descent into Labour vs Tory mudslinging for a second, is this not an attempt to speed up the sometimes laboriously slow decision making efforts of local councils?
It really speaks volumes that a processing time of 2 months (!) to give permission to build a garage or extension is somehow seen as super quick and almost unachievable.
It really speaks volumes that a processing time of 2 months (!) to give permission to build a garage or extension is somehow seen as super quick and almost unachievable.
Snow and Rocks said:
...is this not an attempt to speed up the sometimes laboriously slow decision making efforts of local councils?
Ostensibly, yes (though it will have severe adverse consequences for applcants... whether you believe those consequences are unintended or not depends on the effectiveness of your tinfoil hat).But as usual, it completely fails to acknowledge or address the root causes of the problem, which are legislative overburden (to which this merely contributes...) combined with under-resourcing of the LPAs.
At best, it might be considered to be a way of increasing their funding by stealth, because - as I suggested in the OP - the practical outcome will be that you won't stand much chance of gaining PP for all but the simplest proposal unless you either pay for a pre-app (which the LPA can charge as much as they like for, with no guarantee of quality, accountability or timescale) or pay for a repeat application, which not only costs them twice as much, but effectively doubles the amount of time the LPA is allowed to take to make their decision, anyway.
Snow and Rocks said:
Ignoring the inevitable descent into Labour vs Tory mudslinging for a second, is this not an attempt to speed up the sometimes laboriously slow decision making efforts of local councils?
It really speaks volumes that a processing time of 2 months (!) to give permission to build a garage or extension is somehow seen as super quick and almost unachievable.
It doesn't even seem to work like that in practice. We submitted 2 planning applications (one for a loft conversion and one for a rear extension) on the same day.It really speaks volumes that a processing time of 2 months (!) to give permission to build a garage or extension is somehow seen as super quick and almost unachievable.
The first step appears to be that the council validate (not sure what this involves) the applications. They have now validated both but:
- the loft conversion decision will be by 17 May - that will be 8 weeks from the application date
- the extension decision will be by 12 June - that's 12 weeks
A(nother) half baked idea dreamt up by those only interested in KPIs and who have no first hand experience of either providing or interacting with the planning service in this country.
The reality of this is it will do precisely the opposite of what it is inteded to do, adding time and expense to the already lengthy and costly process, and making more work for people on both sides of the fence.
The reality of this is it will do precisely the opposite of what it is inteded to do, adding time and expense to the already lengthy and costly process, and making more work for people on both sides of the fence.
Edited by anotherbigspender on Wednesday 24th April 13:22
markh1973 said:
It doesn't even seem to work like that in practice. We submitted 2 planning applications (one for a loft conversion and one for a rear extension) on the same day.
The first step appears to be that the council validate (not sure what this involves) the applications. They have now validated both but:
- the loft conversion decision will be by 17 May - that will be 8 weeks from the application date
- the extension decision will be by 12 June - that's 12 weeks
Off-topic, but the validation process involves the council checking that they have all the information necessary (by standards which are controlled by legislation) to determine the applicationThe first step appears to be that the council validate (not sure what this involves) the applications. They have now validated both but:
- the loft conversion decision will be by 17 May - that will be 8 weeks from the application date
- the extension decision will be by 12 June - that's 12 weeks
The statutory determination timescales run from the date when the last necessary information was submitted, so if you have two different statutory decision dates, it suggests that they had to come back to you to ask for further/amended information on the extension application? The clock then starts on that application from when the additional/revised information was submitted to them.
I've just spent a week bickering with a validation clerk who was insisting he needed a Flood Risk Assessement for a first-floor domestic extension (built on top of an existing kitchen extension) in Flood Zone 1 (ie. low flood risk area, anyway). I was in the mood to play a protracted game of Silly Buggers with him, which he's just lost, so he's now had to backdate the validation date to my original submission, thus losing the Case Officer a week off their statutory 8 weeks (and his line manager made him give me a written apology, which was nice
).Equus said:
markh1973 said:
It doesn't even seem to work like that in practice. We submitted 2 planning applications (one for a loft conversion and one for a rear extension) on the same day.
The first step appears to be that the council validate (not sure what this involves) the applications. They have now validated both but:
- the loft conversion decision will be by 17 May - that will be 8 weeks from the application date
- the extension decision will be by 12 June - that's 12 weeks
Off-topic, but the validation process involves the council checking that they have all the information necessary (by standards which are controlled by legislation) to determine the applicationThe first step appears to be that the council validate (not sure what this involves) the applications. They have now validated both but:
- the loft conversion decision will be by 17 May - that will be 8 weeks from the application date
- the extension decision will be by 12 June - that's 12 weeks
The statutory determination timescales run from the date when the last necessary information was submitted, so if you have two different statutory decision dates, it suggests that they had to come back to you to ask for further/amended information on the extension application? The clock then starts on that application from when the additional/revised information was submitted to them.
I've just spent a week bickering with a validation clerk who was insisting he needed a Flood Risk Assessement for a first-floor domestic extension (built on top of an existing kitchen extension) in Flood Zone 1 (ie. low flood risk area, anyway). I was in the mood to play a protracted game of Silly Buggers with him, which he's just lost, so he's now had to backdate the validation date to my original submission, thus losing the Case Officer a week off their statutory 8 weeks (and his line manager made him give me a written apology, which was nice
).So the little folks with simple, little projects get their planning efficiently while those with more complex requirements get bumped a bit and might have to spend a bit more, which will be an irrelevant % of the budget and where those with more complex requirements become time incentivised to submit applications more likely to meet the local requirements?
This all sounds worryingly liberal and flies in the face of having it stuck to the little man? Smells of favouring the less well off, which is just wrong.
This all sounds worryingly liberal and flies in the face of having it stuck to the little man? Smells of favouring the less well off, which is just wrong.
markh1973 said:
Should we be pushing back and asking why the decision date is 4 weeks longer than the other application?
If you're sure that there were no later submissions (maybe your agent missed something, and just hasn't told you?), then yes, personally I'd be querying it: no matter how long it took them to process and check it, the statutory decision date should run from the date that the (last) information was submitted to them.ETA: Unless there's some other reason they are treating the extension as a 'major' application (which would tally with the 12-week timescale)?
Edited by Equus on Wednesday 24th April 15:25
DonkeyApple said:
So the little folks with simple, little projects get their planning efficiently while those with more complex requirements get bumped a bit and might have to spend a bit more, which will be an irrelevant % of the budget and where those with more complex requirements become time incentivised to submit applications more likely to meet the local requirements?
This all sounds worryingly liberal and flies in the face of having it stuck to the little man? Smells of favouring the less well off, which is just wrong.
You probably need to read the full consultation (see the link in the OP), but no, it's the opposite: they're proposing a 'premium' Accelerated Planning Service on large commercial applications (with the suggestion that it could be rolled out to other large application types in due course), at an increased fee.This all sounds worryingly liberal and flies in the face of having it stuck to the little man? Smells of favouring the less well off, which is just wrong.
Meanwhile the little folks with simple projects get their applications thrown back at them with a refusal, because the LPA's won't be allowed to agree any Extensions of Time on householder applications, so won't be able to deal with submission of any revised or additional information within the application process.
As an objector, I could wait until the day before a decision was due, lob in a hand-grenade and walk away, leaving the LPA with no alternative but to refuse the application because they don't have time to consider my information.
Neither would the Planner be in a position to suggest even relatively minor adjustments to a design (or request additional information to clarify outstanding matters), because they're legally obliged to re-consult on it, and to do so would cause the application to time-out.
They'll have no alternative but to refuse the application, forcing the applicant to resubmit (which means the applicant has to pay another application fee, and wait another 8 weeks for the LPA to consider it... assuming they don't find anything else wrong, in which case it's rinse and repeat, with another application fee to pay).
Edited by Equus on Wednesday 24th April 18:52
"All local planning authorities will be required to offer an Accelerated Planning Service for major commercial applications. The applicant would pay a higher planning fee to the local planning authority which, in exchange, will be required to determine these applications within 10 weeks (rather than the 13-week statutory time limit), with a guarantee that the fee would be refunded if the application is not determined within this timescale."
I would imagine our clients would be ecstatic if this is achievable?!
I would imagine our clients would be ecstatic if this is achievable?!
However
"We also propose to exclude from the Accelerated Planning Service applications which are:
within the curtilage or area of listed buildings and other designated heritage assets, Scheduled Monuments and World Heritage Sites (as they require special considerations);"
Given most of our project are in York........................
"We also propose to exclude from the Accelerated Planning Service applications which are:
within the curtilage or area of listed buildings and other designated heritage assets, Scheduled Monuments and World Heritage Sites (as they require special considerations);"
Given most of our project are in York........................
_Hoppers said:
"All local planning authorities will be required to offer an Accelerated Planning Service for major commercial applications. The applicant would pay a higher planning fee to the local planning authority which, in exchange, will be required to determine these applications within 10 weeks (rather than the 13-week statutory time limit), with a guarantee that the fee would be refunded if the application is not determined within this timescale."
I would imagine our clients would be ecstatic if this is achievable?!
Yeah the catch is that it only applies to major commercial development which creates 1,000 sqm or more of new or additional employment floorspace.I would imagine our clients would be ecstatic if this is achievable?!
By the Government's own estimate, this applies to an average of only 5 applications per Planning Authority, per year.
And then they intend to also exclude any applications to which EIA or Habitat Regulations Assessments apply, or within the curtilage or area of listed buildings and other designated heritage assets, Scheduled Monuments and World Heritage Sites.
It's fantastic news if you specialise in large new factories that somehow manage not to have any significant environmental impact.
Equus said:
Yeah the catch is that it only applies to major commercial development which creates 1,000 sqm or more of new or additional employment floorspace.
Bugger! I missed that bit by 'skip reading' to find the juicy bits! Given most of our work is student accommodation at present, we're out!This government does not care about individuals. I am convinced about that.
Last night I read a case summary, where a large organisation has used legislation put in place by this government to take a property (farmer I suspect) to First Tier Lands Tribunal (and he got lucky there - it was referred down from the Upper Tribunal).
The reason is he was resisting a site visit from a tower company who are on the first step of building a mast on his land whether he wants it or not. Some people don't like them, simple as that.
The defence to these is high risk and costs certainly over £10k. The landowner went it alone without representation. In the event he did not turn up to the remote hearing. No-one knows if it is because he is technically incompetent, ill, committed suicide (it's happened over this), of just not engaging in the process.
Naturally he lost so the Tower Co will not be able to access his land. If it's suitable there will then be more legal action, and due to the way that the land is valued, unless he gets some expert advice very quickly (and perhaps even then) the rent will likely be less than £1,000.
The one thing outstanding from the case is a costs award. They want his counter argument from the decision against him before they will award. But given he did not turn up it is very likely that costs will be awarded against him and he will end up paying at least some if not all of the Tower Co's legal representation.
I find it pretty outrageous that the party of Market Forces, the Conservatives have enacted this legislation.
Last night I read a case summary, where a large organisation has used legislation put in place by this government to take a property (farmer I suspect) to First Tier Lands Tribunal (and he got lucky there - it was referred down from the Upper Tribunal).
The reason is he was resisting a site visit from a tower company who are on the first step of building a mast on his land whether he wants it or not. Some people don't like them, simple as that.
The defence to these is high risk and costs certainly over £10k. The landowner went it alone without representation. In the event he did not turn up to the remote hearing. No-one knows if it is because he is technically incompetent, ill, committed suicide (it's happened over this), of just not engaging in the process.
Naturally he lost so the Tower Co will not be able to access his land. If it's suitable there will then be more legal action, and due to the way that the land is valued, unless he gets some expert advice very quickly (and perhaps even then) the rent will likely be less than £1,000.
The one thing outstanding from the case is a costs award. They want his counter argument from the decision against him before they will award. But given he did not turn up it is very likely that costs will be awarded against him and he will end up paying at least some if not all of the Tower Co's legal representation.
I find it pretty outrageous that the party of Market Forces, the Conservatives have enacted this legislation.
Equus said:
_Hoppers said:
"All local planning authorities will be required to offer an Accelerated Planning Service for major commercial applications. The applicant would pay a higher planning fee to the local planning authority which, in exchange, will be required to determine these applications within 10 weeks (rather than the 13-week statutory time limit), with a guarantee that the fee would be refunded if the application is not determined within this timescale."
I would imagine our clients would be ecstatic if this is achievable?!
Yeah the catch is that it only applies to major commercial development which creates 1,000 sqm or more of new or additional employment floorspace.I would imagine our clients would be ecstatic if this is achievable?!
By the Government's own estimate, this applies to an average of only 5 applications per Planning Authority, per year.
And then they intend to also exclude any applications to which EIA or Habitat Regulations Assessments apply, or within the curtilage or area of listed buildings and other designated heritage assets, Scheduled Monuments and World Heritage Sites.
It's fantastic news if you specialise in large new factories that somehow manage not to have any significant environmental impact.
What we really need is a rationalised and simplified process, full stop, combined with some decent funding for LPAs to put the right resources in place to assess proposals properly. Instead, we're just getting more of the same tinkering which adds yet another layer of chaff to the process, and helps no-one other than a politician in Whitehall say they've done 'something' to fix the system.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff