Keeping Consents Alive – A New Hope for Developers?

 

Local Authorities have increasingly been urged to be more flexible in granting planning permissions with a longer time limit.  The 2004 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act removed the right to extend consents and reduced the recommended length of permissions from five years to three years.  This was a direct response to concern over land banking by site owners and developers. 

 

However, the economic downturn has created a major problem with consents now nearing expiry, with little prospect of implementation due to lack of market demand at present.  This has created a heavy burden and concern for site owners who cannot afford to let the consent lapse, but equally cannot fund construction their scheme at the present time.

 

As a result of this the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) held a consultation between 18^th June and 13^th August 2009, regarding the potential to extend existing planning permissions. The new procedure came into force on the 1^st October 2009. 

 

This new process allows applications that have not lapsed to be kept alive via a simplified application procedure that will now cover all eligible permissions, not just major developments. The extension also applies to listed building and conservation area consents. It will also be possible to apply to make non-material amendments to existing planning applications. 

 

The procedure will only allow one extension per permission and the length of time that will be added will be dependant upon the time each has left to run. The applications will continue to take approximately eight weeks to be processed.

 

The exact guidance is only belatedly being filtered through to local planning authorities, with many only being briefed on the day that it comes into effect.  This still leaves a number of key questions unanswered.  For instance, if there are only a few weeks left to run on a permission, and the application for extension will take eight weeks to complete, will the permission therefore lapse in the meantime and not be capable of extension?

 

Further uncertainty includes the discretion of the local planning authority to introduce new conditions and of course they have the discretion to refuse a time extension to a permission and request a fresh application.  The issue of s.106 legal agreements made between the developer and Council will require some form of revised agreement increasing the complexity of submissions.  

 

Linked to this in the short term is the issue of fees for these applications.  The DCLG has indicated that it will be eight to ten weeks until new fees for these applications can be introduced.  These are proposed to be £500 for major developments, £50 for household developments and £170 for other sizes of development. However, until the new fees are in place, applications to extend the time limits of existing permission will be required to pay the full amount as if it were a new application.  It should be noted that for applications for non-material amendments there is no fee.

 

On balance, whilst there is still uncertainty, it has to be seen as a welcome step in assisting site owners and developers to preserve their permissions and therefore site value.  This will ensure that sites can be brought forward with certainty as the market recovers. 

 

This is indeed a welcome move, and is in our opinion, a little overdue.  We would ask that anyone who has an extant permission that is due to expire, to seriously consider this legislation and how it may benefit their consent.  Professionals such as ourselves can provide advice on permissions and can assist with guiding applicants through the required process.