Jason Lowes, partner in the planning team at Rapleys, commented:
“While the attempt to bring new ideas and solutions to the table should always be welcomed, there are real questions around the feasibility of the LGA’s proposals. Given the costs involved in securing a planning permission, it is just not credible to imagine that developers would then sit twiddling their thumbs once permission is actually granted – however, that seems to be the starting assumption of the LGAs position.”
“Every council is different of course but, for many, the LGA’s plans would require a quantum leap forward in terms of skills, funding and strategy. The proposals around applying council-tax on unimplemented development raise a number of questions, not least who would pay, and could open up a number of unintended consequences; for instance, rather than encouraging the implementation of development, it might discourage developers/landowners from seeking planning permission in the first place, particularly on marginal sites.”
“There are many explanations for delays in implementing schemes following the granting of permission, such as around discharging Reserved Matters, conditions and obligations. Many of these issues can be mitigated by having an open and progressive partnership between developer and local authorities, including after the granting of planning permission. Although many already have this mind-set, some struggle for reasons such as lack of resource, and the LGA should encourage local authorities, where they are not already doing so, to engage and consult much more closely post-consent in the interests of navigating around any issues that might be holding up development.”
“It would also be prudent to look again at the time period for implementing development. The change from a default deadline of five years to three years was brought in by central government about a decade ago and was intended to bring forward development more quickly – taking the LGA’s research at face value it doesn’t look like it has worked.”