Independent review slams non-planning consents system as "overly complex" and "fragemented"

The non-planning consents regime is “overly complex, fragmented and difficult for users to navigate”, an independent review has found.

The Penfold review found that:

• Non-planning consents – those that have to be obtained alongside or after, and separate from, planning permission in order to complete a development – can in some cases make or break investment decisions. “Unforeseen and unnecessary delays increase development costs and can have an adverse economic impact”
• There is no overall system of non-planning consents. “They are fragmented in their ownership, their purpose and their operation, making them difficult to navigate, especially for small businesses", and
• There is overlap and duplication between planning permission and non-planning consents, which can add unnecessary costs and delay.

The review team, led by British Land head of planning and environment Adrian Penfold, identified 86 non-planning consents and a further 37 business specific operating consents. These are administered by about 20 different types of consenting bodies including central government bodies, non-departmental public bodies and local authorities.

These consents typically support policy objectives in the public interest such as climate change, protecting the environment and maintaining infrastructure.

The Penfold report suggested that “whilst there exists a broad appreciation of the need for non-planning consents, those who are ‘users’ of the regimes, and in many cases the consent giving bodies themselves, feel that improvements are both needed and achievable”.

Consideration should be given to simplifying the non-planning consent landscape, it said, whether by absorbing some of the consents into the planning process or by rationalisation.

The efficiency and effectiveness of the consenting bodies could also be improved, including by clarifying the boundary between planning and non-planning consents and considering further the interaction between consenting bodies’ roles as statutory consultees in the planning process and as decision-makers for particular non-planning consents.

In addition, the report’s authors believe there is scope for creating a more responsive culture and addressing resource pressures. This might be by setting appropriate service standards, improving the governance round decisions involving multiple public sector stakeholders and building on existing models for pooling and sharing expertise.

British Land’s Penfold said: “The key is to find the appropriate balance between the important outcomes non-planning consents are designed to deliver and the need for timely and efficient decision-making about development proposals.”

The review team is expected to publish recommendations for change in a final report this summer.