Plan-it Law

New fees regulations now in force

Just a pointer that the new fees regulations relating to extensions of time and non-material amendments are now in force (as of 26 February). The regulations amend the 1989 fees regulations and provide for the following fees:

* Non-material changes to planning permission — householder application, £25; and in any other case, £170.

* Extension of time -  householder application, £50; application for major development, £500; and in any other case, £170.

I know a lot of people have been keeping an eye out waiting for these regulations to come into force so I expect a raft of extension applications will be submitted very shortly. Note that the non-material changes fees are new, rather than reduced fees - they're not quite such good news!

February's Conundrum - how flexible is 'flexible'?

This month's conundrum from our e-bulletin Future Perfect? deals with the possibility of extending planning permisisons and reads as follows...

The provisions introducted in October 2009 providing a simplified procedure for applying to extend the time period for implementing a planning permission also allows you to extend the time period for submitting reserved matters. What though if you have been able to split an outline consent into clear phases, each with its own reserved matters? It looks as though submitting reserved matters for just one of those phases means you will have tied yourself to the given time constraints and cannot extend in relation to the remaining phases. Have readers found a way to deal with this?

Final CIL Regulations published

The final CIL Regulations have been published for placing before the House of Commons, with the intention that they will come into force on 6 April.

There are quite a few changes from the draft Regulations. For starters, we now have a transitional provision (Reg 128) purporting to let developments off the CIL-hook if planning permission is granted before the relevant authority has a charging schedule in force.

Also new are the exclusions for affordable housing and exceptional circumstances. It will be interesting to see how the latter works - it requires the charging authority to have made provision for it in its area and for there to be a s106 in place for which the cost of compliance is greater than the CIL otherwise due. Note that proposals to scale back s106s remain.

There is still no obligation on charging authorities to report on timings for upcoming expenditure, or any obligation to actually provide what they have set out in their charging schedules. Equally, there is nothing requiring them to keep these schedules up to date.

Many of the amendments made have been so made for good reasons, but I suspect the regime will still have its issues (not least the Tories...).

January's Conundrum - planning and IPPC

This month's conundrum from our e-bulletin, Future Perfect?, reads as follows, as written by Oliver Ennis....

A recent case (Ian Frank Harrison v (1) SS Communities and Local Government (2) Cheshire West and Chester Council (2009)) has added further fuel to the debate about the relationship between the planning system and the integrated pollution prevention and control regime. The case emphasises that the regimes are distinct and serve different purposes. The fact that an environmental permit has been granted does not prevent a planning decision maker from concluding that a development will have an unacceptable impact on local amenity. This is a salutary tale for developers. PPS23 advises that both regimes should complement each other and that developers should give consideration to twin tracking applications. Do you think the current division of responsibilities makes for effective decision making?

December's conundrum

The conundrum set out this month in our e-bulletin, Future Perfect?, reads as follows....what do you think?

We have been considering whether works required pursuant to a condition on a planning permission (but not forming part of the application), require a further planning consent to be granted. We have seen a number of cases which suggests that they don't and that the condition is effectively an implied grant of planning consent for those works (see Irlam Brick Co for example). However, there does not seem to be any statutory basis for this stance. Have you ever come across it in practice or been required to obtain a separate consent for such works?

CIL and trustees

On the basis of the regulations as currently drafted, in the case of bare trusts, the beneficiary will be regarded as the owner rather than the trustees.  In other cases however, as owners of land, trustees will be in the frame for default liability for CIL - even where trust funds in their control do not cover the full extent of the liability. Trustees beware!

July's Conundrum - reasons for grant and summary of policies

Each month in our e-bulletin, Future Perfect?, we pose a conundrum that has struck us an interesting and invite readers to give us their ideas and opinions - or maybe even the answer! This month's reads as follows, let us know what you think....

This month, we've seen a few planning permissions that don't necessarily go as far as they should in providing a summary of reasons for grant, or in explaining the purport of the various policies referred to. Typically, they simply stick to their usual form of referring to the committee report and listing the policies by number. As a developer, you may well want to get your consent as soon as possible, but there are a growing number of cases showing that sufficient reasons must be given on the decision notice. If there are no known strong objectors to your proposals, do you just take the consent as drafted and get on with things, or are developers getting more nervous about the need to ensure that the consent tells readers what it should? And as a local authority, are you seeing any changes to this practice?

Extending Planning Permissions

It seems that the DCLG is looking into how it could extend the time limits on planning permissions - with a view to getting the construction industry moving.

This could involve either reinstating the power to 'renew' permissions, or bringing back the 5 year limit for implementation as opposed to the current 3 years.

I would imagine that either, or both, would be moves welcomed by developers, especially if the provisions were retrospective and applied to extant consents.  As for those of us who are often charged with due diligence exercises and have to sift through files of planning consents to determine which have been implemented, which still could be, which have expired.....we'd better keep a close eye on which regime applies to what!

Consultation is expected in early summer - it'll be interesting to see whether yet more primary legislation is tackled - I don't see an obvious way for this to be dealt with by way of secondary legislation.

Twin-tracking

By way of reminder, Monday (6th April) heralds the commencement of a local authority's power to decline to determine twin-tracked planning applications.

Having followed the paper trail leading to this power, it seems to me that getting your twin-tracked application validated before Monday is not enough to ensure that it will be dealt with under the 'old' system. From the strict wording of the legislation, a local authority can turn round at any time thereafter and decline to determine the previously accepted application. Surely it would not be a wise move politically to accept an application fee then decide some weeks later not to determine the application.

It would be interesting to hear experiences of this power being used in practice.

Planning Act 2008 commencement

Please note the first set of commencements (bar the order making powers already in) takes effect 6 April 2009. There is a summary of these in our March Future Perfect?. One of the items is SS duty to determine mode of appeal. The Act requires the SS to publish criteria to be used in making these determinations. i have contacted PINS to enquire whether there existing "indicative criteria" (intended as a guide for appellants/LPAs) will carry forward or be replaced.