The
school analogy also extends to imagining a bully seeking a veneer of strength
by picking out a soft target. Certainly in a climate of anaemic economic
recovery, it is easy to point the finger at the planning system.
With
the ink still drying on the NPPF, the
Growth & Infrastructure Bill was introduced to parliament last month and is
due to be fast-tracked on to the statute books by April 2013. The usual
rhetorical flourishes apply (“helping the country compete on the global stage”,
"cutting excessive red tape”,etc).
Picking
up on the idea that there are thousands of jobs locked in Town Hall filing
cabinets, the Bill seeks to reduce delays in the planning system by allowing
applicants to bypass an under-performing LPA
and have the Secretary of State determine an application within a guaranteed 12
month.
The
so-called “special measures provisions” of the Bill are to apply where a LPA is“designated” by the Secretary of State.
The indicators used to assess under-performance have yet to be finalised, but
the Bill's Impact Assessment uses:
·
Timeliness - the average number of major
applications decided within 13 weeks, assessed over a two year period; or
·
Proportion of major decisions overturned - defined
as the number of appeals involving major development that are lost as a
percentage of all major decisions made (again assessed over a two year period).
The
precise benchmarks for designating authorities as ‘poor performing’ will be
subject to consultation, but the Impact Assessment assumes that the timeliness
measure is less than 30% and the proportion of major decisions overturned is
greater than 20%.
So how
great a problem is under-performance by LPAs?
The system and the managers of it are by no means perfect, but from the
rhetoric and the perceived need for legislation it is not hard to imagine a lay person
gathering the impression that most planning departments are basket cases.
Analysis
by Planning of official data showing Councils’ performance on
deciding major applicationson time over a two-year period has
shown that no major applications would qualify for submission to PINS based on LPAs having a poor appeals record as no
council has more than 20% of its major decisions overturned at appeal. Haringey, the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Torbay, Hounslow,
Barking &Dagenham, and Cambridge
performed below the 30% timeliness threshold.
The
'special provisions', therefore, would apply to only 1.6% of the LPAs in England and Wales. Notwithstanding the
Government's stated committed to localism
and a simplification of the planning system, does the problem of
under-performing LPAs really need
parliamentary time and legislation to solve it? Does the Secretary of State
really need to designate, no doubt with much fanfare, an under-performing LPA? Might it not be more appropriate for the
Government's Chief Planner to offer discreet, direct support for those LPAs that clearly need assistance?
These
questions are not difficult to answer, but who will stand up for the planning
system and make our Eton bullies listen?
nice article.
ReplyDeletePolo for Men