Planning performance agreements - a developer perspective
Transcript of Planning performance agreements - a developer perspective
glhearn.com
Ben Wrighton
9 & 10th January 2013
PPAs – the developer
perspective
Structure
• GL Hearn’s Annual Planning Survey results
• LPA Development Management research
• PPAs - Key findings
• Informing the debate
GL Hearn’s Annual Planning
Survey Results
About the survey
• Survey of those closely involved in planning in public and private sector
• Applicants – 180+ respondents - principals and professional advisors
• Local planning authorities – 40 senior managers respondents (11 London
Boroughs)
• Early indication of attitude following introduction of Localism Act and NPPF
• Annual survey to measure change
Applicants’ views
Key Findings
Investment Decisions
• Whether to invest in a project
informed by:
‒ Traditional factors such as:
• Market opportunity
• Fit with investment strategy
‒ Increasingly influenced by:
• Previous experience of an LPA
• Reputation of an LPA
• Perceptions of LPAs’ approach to
development not encouraging
Positive 10%
Neutral 49%
Negative 41%
Key Findings
Top considerations when engaging in the planning process
The likelihood of securing permission
A clear planning policy position
The time it takes to get a decision
The cost of planning obligations/CIL
The local planning authority’s
performance
The cost of submitting a planning
application
The political control of the local authority
Other
Dissatisfied 50%
Very dissatisfied
25%
Very satisfied 1%
Satisfied 2%
Neutral – it’s fine 29%
Very satisfied 1%
Satisfied 8%
Neutral – it’s fine 17%
Dissatisfied 46%
Very dissatisfied
22%
Key Findings
Planning applications
• Length of time to determine
• Cost including fees and obligations
Applicants’ and local
authorities’ views
Key Findings
How do applicants view their approach to planning
Positive, 75%
Neutral, 15%
Negative, 10%
Key Findings
Attitude to reform
• Thinking generally about the Government’s agenda, do you think it will
materially:
‒ Deliver more homes and economic growth?
• Yes: 32% applicants & 12% LPAs
‒ Produce a faster and leaner planning system?
• No: 79% applicants & 83% LPAs
‒ Overall, increase or decrease development activity?
• Neither increase nor decrease: 71% applicants & 88% LPAs
Key findings
What would make the biggest difference?
• Applicants’ views on what would
make the biggest difference to
performance
‒ Processing applications faster
‒ Empowerment of officers / de-politicise
the system
‒ Investment in LPAs
‒ Increase accountability
‒ More commercial culture
‒ Clear delivery frameworks
‒ Increase accessibility to officers
‒ Pro-growth agenda
‒ Improved policy documents
‒ Further training for officers & members
‒ Increased consistency
• Local authorities’ priorities for
improvement
‒ CIL
‒ Production of policy documents /
‒ Improvement to evidence base
‒ Pre-app consultation
‒ Training of members
‒ Size and budget of planning depts.
‒ Involving members in pre-apps
‒ Speeding up delivery of decisions
London LPA Development
Management Research
The Annual London Development Management Survey
• All 33 London Boroughs were surveyed
• Objective - review management of all major planning applications
• Major planning applications - 10 or more dwellings, residential sites over
0.5 ha, non-residential sites over 1 ha or creation/change of use of over
1,000 sq. m. gross
• Timeframe - 12 month period preceding publication of NPPF in April 2012
• Benchmark year from which post NPPF change can be measured
Certainty - Time - Cost
Certainty
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Perc
en
tag
e o
f M
ajo
r A
pp
licati
on
s P
erm
itte
d
All London Boroughs
Approval Rate of Major Applications
Time
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Weeks t
aken
to
dete
rmin
e
Time To Determine Major Applications
2 years
31 week average inquiry
1 year DCLG target
determination (inc. appeal)
13 week target determination
38 week average determination
All London Boroughs
Cost
Costs of a Planning Application
£0
£5,000
£10,000
£15,000
£20,000
£25,000
£30,000
2007 2012 2013
Mayoral Pre-App Fee
Local Pre-App Fee
Application Fee
PPAs – Key Findings
Key Findings
Planning Performance Agreements
Positive
25%
Neutral 57%
Negative 18%
Key Findings
Planning Performance Agreements – the positives…
• Has provided clear timeframes / performance targets which were met
• Cost has been proportionate to service provided
• Has provided clear and dedicated resourcing
• Has clarified information requirements
• Officers attitudes have been more positive (less hostile!)
Key Findings
Planning Performance Agreements – the negatives…
• Timescales – milestones missed / unrealistic
• Expensive / take time to produce
• Perceived additional fees
• Obligations not met
• Negative officer style not changed / mixed quality service
• Not enforceable
Key Findings
Planning Performance Agreements – other points
• London and South East England focus
• Not extensively used but gaining momentum
• Used for wide variety of purposes within the planning process
• The experiences of funding PPAs varies widely
• Challenge associated with engaging other key stakeholders remains
Informing the debate
Our views – when to do it?
• Pre-application and post-submission processes for ‘strategic’ schemes
• Policy development where out of date or non-conforming
• Discharge of conditions
• Depends on a developer’s objectives in particular circumstances
• Ensure funding arrangements are clear
Our views – what to include?
• Needs to be bespoke
• Timeframe / deliverables is central
• Resourcing commitments - planners and other specialists
• How to engage members and third parties efficiently
• How to deal with ‘blockages’ and how to escalate issues
Overview
• Generally remains a lack of confidence in PPAs
• Developers crave certainty of decision making / LPAs value resource and
timing commitments
• Should be used on a selective basis
• When used, PPAs need to represent value for money
• Trust between all parties is critical