Click and collect and one-stop shops

Angus Walker picture-13This entry reports on a lengthy and wide-ranging planning consultation, including questions about the Planning Act 2008 regime.

Yesterday, the last day of July and the last day before the summer adjournment of Parliament (just the Lords, the Commons having risen last week), the Department for Communities and Local Government issued a consultation on a large number of proposed changes to the planning system. The consultation document can be found here but as always, a summary follows. The closing date for responses is 26 September.

It's a long document with 98 pages and 80 questions asked, but has been divided into six areas for ease of use:

  • section 1 deals with changes to neighbourhood planning,
  • section 2 relates to permitted development rights,
  • section 3 is about planning conditions,
  • section 4 focuses on statutory consultees,
  • section 5 covers environmental impact assessment and, saving the best till last,
  • section 6 follows up on the 2014 review of the Planning Act 2008.

Neighbourhood planning

The neighbourhood planning changes are to simplify and speed up the process, and also ensure compatibility with the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) directive (the environmental assessment of plans rather than projects).

I was sent a link to a map of neighbourhood areas recently and discovered that my own house was in a proposed area, although its designation seemed to have stalled. I wonder how many of the 1.9 million households supposedly in a neighbourhood plan area are unaware of it.

The proposals in the consultation document are to:

  • require local authorities to designate neighbourhood areas in 10 weeks in certain (rather limited) circumstances and impose time limits at other stages (five questions);
  • remove the requirement for a minimum of six weeks' consultation on a neighbourhood plan, but not transfer responsibility for publicising the plan from the local authority to the neighbourhood forum (two questions);
  • add a requirement to consult the owners of land affected by plan proposals (two questions);
  • require examiners to check that the consultation was adequate (having just relaxed its strictness) (one question);
  • require a screening opinion, an explanation as to why no SEA is required if there is no screening opinion, or an environmental report under SEA to accompany a plan proposal (two questions); and
  • an open-ended question on what further reforms might be made.

Permitted development

The permitted development changes are to help the government build an economy and new housing, in a touch of zeugma. There are a large number of changes, mostly allowing more movement between planning use classes. They are to form part of a consolidated general permitted development order, which if made next year will replace one that is 20 years old and should be welcomed.

The proposals are in line with the introduction of a three-tier system of full planning permission, permitted development with prior approval and permitted development with no prior approval. For the detail-minded, this will affect parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 16, 17, 41, 42 and 43 of the order.

The proposals are to:

  • allow light industrial uses (class B1(c)) and storage and distribution (B8) to become housing (C3) as permitted development with prior approval (two questions);
  • allow launderettes, amusement arcades, casinos and nightclubs to become housing (C3) as permitted development with prior approval (two questions);
  • allow office (B1(a)) to become housing (C3) as permitted development with prior approval once the three-year temporary measures in force come to an end in 2016, and note that this will override any exemptions currently in force (two questions);
  • make the temporary ability for larger extensions to dwellings through permitted development permanenent, with some adjustments (one question);
  • move most financial and professional services uses (A2) into shops (A1) but keep betting shops and add payday loan shops to A2 (three questions);
  • allow shops (A1), financial and professional services uses (A2), launderettes, amusement arcades, casinos and nightclubs to become restaurants (A3) through permitted development rights with prior approval (one question);
  • allow the same uses to become assembly and leisure (D2) through permitted development rights with prior approval (one question);
  • allow ancillary buildings and loading bay extensions for shops through permitted evelopment to facilitate 'click and collect' services (two questions);
  • increase the size of a mezzanine floor permitted development right from 200 square metres (no figure stated, new limit invited) (one question);
  • restrict the imposition of parking standards to enable the creation of more parking places (one question);
  • allow commercial filming to take place through permitted development with prior approval (one question);
  • allow solar panels of up to 1MW on non-domestic buildings through permitted development rights with prior approval (one question);
  • make the temporary ability to extend business premises through permitted development rights permanent (one question);
  • allow waste facilities to replace buildings, equipment and machinery through permitted development rights (one question);
  • extend permitted development rights for sewerage undertakers to include equipment housings (one question);
  • an open-ended question on further permitted development rights changes;
  • a call for evidence on the costs or benefits of the proposals (one question); and
  • a question about when article 4 directions can remove permitted development rights.

Planning conditions

The section on discharge of planning conditions is much shorter, the principle of 'deemed discharge' (i.e. a council will be taken as having discharged a condition if it doesn't say anything after a certain time) being introduced in the Infrastructure Bill currently going through Parliament.

The proposals are as follows:

  • a question inviting general comments on the deemed discharge proposal;
  • a question about which types of development or conditions should not be subject to deemed discharge - there is a list of three tupes of development (development subject to enviromental impact assessment, development affecting a European protected ecological site and development in a high flood risk area) and two types of condition (conditions requiring a section 106 agreement to be entered into and conditions requiring the approval of reserved matters in an outline planning permission) (one numbered question but actually three questions);
  • a suggestion that applicants should initiate deemed discharge by serving a notice rather than it happening automatically (one question);
  • timing of at least six weeks before a notice can be served and then two weeks after that before the condition is deemed to be discharged, i.e. at least eight weeks total;
  • another two-part question as to whether deemed discharge should apply to other forms of consent;
  • reducing the time limit for applying for a fee refund if the council has not responded from 12 weeks to eight weeks (two questions);
  • sharing draft conditions for major developments with applicants and their timing (five questions); and
  • imposition of a requirement to justify pre-commencement, and, potentially other, conditions (three questions).

Statutory consultation

The fourth section is on 'planning application process improvements'.

It concentrates on the consultation of English Heritage, Natural England and the Highways Agency, which each get thousands of consultation requests a year, but there are some other proposals too. The Environment Agency gets even more requests, but it will be considered later once the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 has been brought into force in relation to dranage systems (presumably that will reduce the number of consultations).

The proposals are to:

  • remove the requirement to consult Natural England on developments within 2km of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), given that it already has to be consulted on developments 'in or likely to affect an SSSI' (one question);
  • amend the requirement to consult the Highways Agency on non-minor developments likely to result in an adverse impact on safety or queuing on a trunk road (one question);
  • introduce a much more comprehensive change to the consultation and notification of English Heritage, referral to the Secretary of State, and the removal of its powers of direction in London (four questions);
  • have more flexibility on not requiring consultation with particular consultees more generally (three question);
  • turn consultation of railway managers into notification (two questions);
  • consolidate the development management procedure order (much amended despite only being four years old) (one question); and
  • an open-ended question about measuring the planning application process.

Environmental impact assessment

Section five deals with environmental impact assessment (EIA) proposals, and is by far the shortest. The government notes that only 20% of urban development projects where screening requests were made actually required EIA.

The proposals are to:

  • raise the screening threshold for industrial estates and urban development projects from 0.5 hectares to 5 hectares (three questions).

Infrastructure planning

The last section deals with the Planning Act 2008 regime, as heralded in the response to the 2014 review consultation.

The proposals are to:

  • issue guidance that a change to a development consent order (DCO) will probably be non-material (and so require a simpler change procedure) if it would not require an update to the Environmental Statement, would not require a Habitats Regulations Assessment, and would not require the compulsory acquisition of any additional land;
  • require promoters rather than the government to publicise applications, so that it can be done earlier (this isn't to save money because the promoter has to pay the publicity costs already);
  • relax the requirement for map scales for changes to DCOs in the same way as DCO applications themselves;
  • for material changes, only to require consultation with those likely to be affected by the change rather than the whole set of original consultees;
  • consequently, for such applications remove the requirement for a statement of community consultation and newspaper notices (one question);
  • remove the requirement for an examination to be held into the changes in every case (one question);
  • introduce statutory timescales for changes (there aren't any at the moment) that are shorter than the timescales for full applications - four months for examination and two months each for recommendation and decision (one question);
  • introduce guidance on material and non-material changes to DCOs (one question); and finally (in the sense of 'at last' as well as 'last')
  • expand the 'one-stop shop' concept by allowing a further ten consents to be included in a DCO without a permission stage (four questions).

The last proposal is worth expanding upon. When the Planning Act 2008 regime was introduced, although it was billed as a 'one-stop shop', i.e. all development relating to a project and all the separate consents required were to be folded into a single application, this wasn't achieved at first. A list of 42 consents in England and a further 36 in Wales was published whereby the original consenting body had to agree that their consent could be wrapped up into a DCO.

This list has reduced over the years - last year 13 consents were removed from the list, and for the remaining environmental consents, the 'Consents Services Unit' was set up within the Planning Inspectorate to help manage the separate consents.

Now, a further 10 consents are to be removed from the list, all of an environmental nature.  By my calculations the following environmental consents will remain subject to approval to put in a DCO:

  • a licence under regulation 53 of the Conservation of Habitats an Species Regulations 2010 for operation (not construction);
  • a licence under section 10 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992;
  • a licence under regulation 49 of the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats. &c) Regulations 2007;
  • an environmental permit under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010;
  • a licence under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 An authorisation under regulation 8 of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Regulations 2007;
  • a licence under section 25 of the Water Resources Act 1991 for operation (not construction); and
  • notices under section 95 of the Energy Act 2004.

Those are the proposals on which views are sought, and these should be conveyed by completing a survey monkey response form, or a word document to be emailed to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. by 26 September. Ideal if you are stuck for holiday reading.

This is a significant consultation exercise that will no doubt be the subject of further blog entries as its impacts are debated and its proposals are implemented.