ARTICLE VIII. APPENDIX
5: IMPROVING PLANNING PERFORMANCE - DRAFT CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION
(REVISED 2014)
Additional information from the Department
for Communities and Local Government
A clear majority of respondents supported
the increase (whether this was unqualified support or qualified),
including a majority of councils. Of the remainder, it is equally
important to note that many simply offered no comment rather that
opposing the change, so that only 22% overall were opposed (26%
of councils).
| Total number of responses to this question, by answer given:
| Percentage breakdown of responses to this question, by answer given:
| Of those, how many were "councils or other local planning authorities":
| Percentage breakdown of responses from councils:
|
| Supported increase
| 69 | 48%
| 37 | 39%
|
| Qualified support for increase
| 24 | 17%
| 20 | 21%
|
| Didn't comment or express a view
| 20 | 14%
| 14 | 15%
|
| Opposed increase
| 32 | 22%
| 25 | 26%
|
| Total
| 145
| 100%
| 96
| 100%
|
Note that figures in this table may
not sum to 100% exactly, or provide an exact match to figures
in the consultation response document, due to rounding.
Of the 24 respondents who gave qualified
support for the proposals, nine respondents indicated that they
supported the increase in the threshold provided that they could
continue to use Planning Performance Agreements or extension of
time agreements. Another five stated that they did not object
to the thresholds increasing but did not provide any further comment
(because their response was phrased in terms of "not objecting"
we recorded this as qualified support rather than outright support).
There were a few respondents who gave
other reasons for qualifying their support:
· While accepting the increase
in the threshold, some were sceptical about the approach to judging
local authorities' planning performance overall (four respondents);
· Continuing to allow local
authorities to explain any exceptional circumstances which mean
that a designation would be unreasonable (one respondent);
· A suggestion that designation
should be based on performance on both speed and quality (one
respondent);
· Ensuring sufficient resource
and support is available, including in understanding the causes
of delay in determining applications (two respondents);
· Delaying the introduction
of the higher threshold by a year (one respondent); and
· Need to recognise there will
be times when an applicant does not engage positively in the application
process (one respondent).
Section 8.01 Extension of time agreements
We recognise that there will be circumstances
when applications for major development need longer to determine
than the statutory time period. Planning performance agreements
(PPAs) allow local authorities and applicants to agree a bespoke
timetable for an application before it is submitted where it is
clear that longer that the statutory period will be required to
reach a decision. Authorities can also agree a post-submission
extension of time, provided that this is agreed with the applicant
in writing and sets a clear timeframe for determining the application.
The statistics that we collect on planning
applications from local authorities, which we base the designations
on, now collect information on extension of time agreements and
PPAs and whether authorities determined applications within the
timescales set out in these. Where applications are determined
within the agreed timescale then these applications are counted
as being "in time" for the purpose of assessing the
local authority's performance.
This approach is consistent with the
outcome of the consultation on the approach to planning performance
in November 2012. The change in how the statistics are collected
was introduced in April 2013. Any authority at risk of designation
who had applications subject to extension of time agreements or
PPAs prior to April 2013 could ask for these to be taken into
account as a reason why a designation would be unreasonable.
10 July 2014
| 
