The Government's green paper on planning is likely to promise a repackaging of the system aimed at speeding up local authority planning processes.
The imminent Green Paper on planning is expected to impose strict new timetables on local authorities. They will be expected to meet new deadlines for planning applications and will face tough sanctions if they fail to perform.

It is unclear how the Government intends to bring about this change in local government culture, but there are strong hints that new resources will be paid for by a rise in planning fees. However, for many, the strategy has a hollow ring to it. Since fees were first introduced the promise has been that they will help raise local planning department efficiency.

Planning and housing minister Lord Falconer could look to the Planning Inspectorate for some tips on how to improve overall performance efficiency. Over the last 10 years the Inspectorate has transformed the appeal system and significantly improved handling times.

The Inspectorate's targets are now to process 80% of planning appeals within 17 weeks for written representations, 22 weeks for hearings and 30 weeks for inquiry cases.

In its latest annual review the Inspectorate reports achieving handling times of 16 weeks for 80% of written representations, 22 weeks for hearings and 31 weeks for inquiries. However, as relatively few cases are dealt with by the inquiry method (46 cases during the year) the target is particularly vulnerable.

The Inspectorate has been helped in its aim by a halving of the number of appeals since the boom year of 1989-1990 - when some 32 000 appeals were submitted and the success rate was around 50%.

Ten years ago delay was part of the price to be paid for going to appeal. Inquiries took well over a year to come to a decision and even hearings and written representations on average took almost 12 months.

The improvements have all been achieved without charging for planning appeals. The major factor has been the introduction of new regulations for section 78 planning appeals in England. These are designed to speed up the process as appellants and local authorities are subject to stringent deadlines for the production of statements. If a deadline is missed then the statement is returned. There is the risk of an adjournment at the hearing or inquiry if the statement is subsequently introduced and the possibility of an application for costs by the other side.

Chief Planning Inspector Chris Shepley points out that further speeding up of the process is dependent on the efficiency of the parties in appeals and inquiries meeting deadlines and acting efficiently and sensibly.

Even though 87% of inquiry opening dates offered to the parties have been within 16 weeks of the appeal starting more than 50% turned down the offered date. Appellants are offered a first refusal for an inquiry or hearing, but after that the date is imposed by the Planning Inspectorate.

In relation to hearings 88% of dates offered to the parties were within 13 weeks of the relevant starting date. Again, there was resistance to accepting first offered dates but the refusal rate was lower at 30%.

There are some important lessons from the performance improvements achieved by the Planning Inspectorate:

  • reduced numbers of appeals has helped overall efficiency;
  • throwing money at the problem may help but improving the performance of those involved is vital; and
  • effective sanctions are required if deadlines are not met.

The lessons for local planning authorities seem obvious:

  • further refinement of the planning regulations are needed to allow more householder development to be dealt with as permitted development - not requiring a planning application or planning permission. This could remove a large number of applications which currently clog the system.
  • where the application conforms with the development plan, but delay is caused by sensitivity to strong local objections, the concept of a deemed planning permission, after a period of time, must be introduced.
  • in more controversial cases a timetable for the processing of the application should be agreed at the outset between the local planning authority and the applicant. Any additional information should be identified at this time and non compliance by either party would then result in an award of costs if the application goes to appeal; and
  • any rise in planning fees must be matched with a commitment to embrace real improvements in efficiency - including more use of information technology.

Lord Falconer has announced an extra £3.2m for the Planning Inspectorate to develop an internet based planning portal to provide all customers with a central point of access to the appeal system. It will allow appellants and members of the public access to all the documents about an appeal and will provide electronic case handling - allowing appellants to progress their appeals on-line.

Local planning authorities need to be encouraged to develop similar portals to allow applicants to progress applications on-line rather than the current difficulty of trying to find out what's happening to them and when they are going to committee.

Reform of the planning system has been a slow business. However, the Planning Inspectorate has proved it can be done. Now local government must be exposed to a similar rigour. At the same time additional pressure must be applied to applicants to ensure they progress their applications on time. If this happens the end result will be a real improvement in the efficiency of the system.