I recall as a graduate asking why most planning applications must be determined by Committee. Many years later, it seems that the government is trying to do something about it, but what other measures could help whilst still being fair to all parties?

1. Pre-Approval Permissions (PAPs) – introduce the ‘new’ concept of Pre-Approval Permissions (PAPs) for any urban area or building, working alongside Planning Permissions (PPs). PPs represent the final stage in the process and would require the submission of all relevant information. Obtaining a PAP would be less of a burden, with fewer technical reports being required. It would not guarantee that a PP would be forthcoming, but it should pave the way (bit like a driving theory test and a driving licence!). Adopting this new system ought to streamline the process, help smaller developers and take significant abortive costs out of the system.

2. Annual Site Allocations – introduce a mandatory, simplified process where a policy officer prepares new site allocations on an annual basis for Committee consideration, to be moved into the Local Plan process at the appropriate time. 

3. Affordable Housing – remove this from the s106 process. Provide fixed targets for brownfield and greenfield land respectively, related to the total number of units proposed. Take any excess funds and give them to the local communities. Let the land market adapt.

4. Allocated Site Approvals – introduce Community Forums that can vote on applications for allocated sites, with membership from elected parties, the community, officers and professional bodies.

5. Appeal Pending Applications – allow applicants to revise applications where they have lodged an appeal, which can be redetermined by the local authority favourably (hopefully with revised or further information having been submitted).

6. Planning Condition Hearings – hold monthly hearings where pre-commencement conditions can be ratified. Designate specific officers responsible for this process, so that they are not committed to working on major issues elsewhere. Allow proper fees to be paid for this process. 

7. Pre-application Certificates – make the pre-application process more certain, involving politicians as necessary for sign-off. Providing a ‘green light’ at this stage means that funding and resources can be applied with greater certainty. Already, significant fees are being paid for this service. Consider using dedicated officers for this task – upstream (pre-application) and downstream officers (decisions).

8. Encourage pre-submission technical assessments – let the developer pay, with nil cost to the local authority. Authorities should publish their preferred consultants that review technical matters. Let liaison take place before submission on matters such as viability and technical impacts, taking  the negotiation out of the later stages of the planning process.

9. Mediation – encourage this option with instant decisions on smaller applications. Approved Mediators can be organised through the RTPI as is done by the RICS in arbitration cases. 

10. Streamlining two-tiered decision making – anyone involved in development where this occurs knows that it adds to the length of time that decisions come through. This should not be allowed to happen. Measures should be put in place to streamline the process.

The above suggestions seek to streamline officer input, whilst also providing greater certainty to developers and officers, through removal of time-consuming negotiations and ambiguity.