Penfold Review calls for radical shake-up to non-planning consents

A government-backed review of the “complex and fragmented landscape” of non-planning consents has called for the merger of planning permission and conservation area consent into one permission, and the combination of listed building consent and scheduled ancient monument consent into a single historic buildings consent.

The review – led by Adrian Penfold, British Land’s head of planning and environment – made 12 recommendations in its final report. These called on the government to:

• Reinforce the service culture of decision-making bodies: Decision-making bodies should, amongst other things, publish a “quality development code”, covering satisfaction with their service, clear statements about guidance and pre-application advice, information about complaints and information about technical standards.
• Improve the co-ordination around decisions involving multiple decision-makers: Local authorities would be expected to adopt “development management” good practice, which would include the appointment of a designated development co-ordinator. Councils should also extend the use of planning performance agreements for major developments by enabling non-planning consents issues to be included within them.
• Address resource pressures: Government departments should be required to encourage local authorities to fully exploit opportunities for joint working with other councils and the private sector. Decision makers would also be expected to look at more efficient use of resources, and consenting bodies should be encouraged to make more extensive use of powers to charge for discretionary or “premium” services.
• Make information available to developers more accessible and up-to-date: The Planning Portal should identify and publicise existing good practice by local planning authorities around provision of information, and work with BusinessLink to encourage the development of a “high quality internet based information system”. Local authorities should also be encouraged to review the information they provide.
• Simplify the non-consents landscape: the government should reduce the number of non-planning consents that apply to business developments. This would include a “light touch” review of all non-planning consents that have not been the subject of substantive review for more than ten years. The DCLG should also consider merging planning permission and conservation area consent, and listed building and scheduled ancient monument consent into a single historic buildings consent determined by local authorities. The principles of the Environmental Permitting Programme could be extended to other consents.
• Improve proportionality and standardising common elements of the consenting process: the number of small scale, commercial developments and other minor non-residential developments that are treated as de minimis should be substantially increased. The government should also review the operation of inquiry and appeal processes for planning and non-planning consents, with a view to standardising and simplifying related processes.
• Clarify the boundary between planning and non-planning consents: the government should ensure that local authorities have robust local development plans in place to inform business and consenting bodies about the types of proposals likely to be acceptable in specific locations. “Rules of engagement” could be put in place between planning authorities and the different non-planning consent decision-makers. A distinction should be made between those non-planning consent issues affecting “if” a development can proceed and those affecting “how” it is built or operated.
• Make changes to specific regimes: there should be reviews of the operation of registration of town and village greens, and of the operation of species licensing. The option for merging highways consent with planning permission should be explored, while the impact of a planning application on rights of way should be considered as part of the planning process.
• Facilitate integration of planning and non-planning consents: local authorities should be encouraged to offer an improved, integrated and end-to-end planning and non-planning consents service. This could include creating the necessary powers to enable local authorities to take on a wider role in determining what are currently non-planning consents as part of the planning process.
• Extend ‘unification’ of planning and non-planning consents: the government should look for opportunities to extend the benefits, if realised, of development consent orders.
• Provide oversight of the planning and non-planning consents landscape: the government should put in place a body or mechanism responsible for maintaining central oversight of the planning and non-planning consent landscape, tasked with ensuring regimes operate effectively and scrutinising any potential new consents.
• Make change happen: there should be a cross-Whitehall “action plan” to drive implementation of the review’s recommendations.

Adrian Penfold said: “My review presents a package of measures that would deliver real benefits to developers by removing unnecessary burdens and speeding up processes.

“The proposed changes should also give people more influence over what happens in their local communities, thanks to more efficient, transparent and accountable processes. Decision-making bodies also stand to benefit by making changes that enable them to free up resource and redirect it towards their highest priorities.”

Decentralisation Minister Greg Clark said: “This report makes it clear that non-planning consents are adding to an already complex planning process and creating further delays to vital development.

“I am already overhauling Whitehall’s prescriptive top down planning system and we are committed to using this report’s practical recommendations to ensure the government is deregulating and simplifying the whole development process.”

The British Property Federation’s chief executive, Liz Peace, described the proposals as “sensible” and “pragmatic” and could deliver real benefits to the property development and investment community.

The Home Builders Federation also said it supported the recommendations, arguing that implementation would reduce delay, risk and cost for home builders.

Angus Walker, a partner at Bircham Dyson Bell, said: "The Penfold Review shines a light on some of the less scrutinised consent regimes and should provide some impetus towards further combining, simplifying or simply removing some of the many consents that are still needed for different types of project."