« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Options For Change
8.0 COMBINED APPLICATION/ CONSENT PROCEDURES
8.1 Planning and related special controls
Proposal: To extend the scope of planning permission so as to include virtually any works to listed buildings and scheduled monuments, demolition in a conservation area, and advertising. This would enable the separate statutory codes governing listed building consent, conservation area consent, scheduled monument consent, and consent under the Advertisement Regulations to be scrapped.
Source of proposal: Society for Advanced Legal Studies, The Simplification of the Planning Legislation, Planning and Environment Law Reform Working Group, 2001; Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Environmental Planning, 23 rd Report, 2002, para.5.21.
Present position: Development control is governed by the provisions of Part III of the 1997 Act; listed buildings control is governed by Part I of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997; conservation areas control is governed by Part II of that Act; scheduled monuments control is governed by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979; and the control of advertisements is governed by the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984 (SI 1984 No 467).
The proposal in more detail: The Society for Advanced Legal Studies notes that unification of the different consent procedures would result in a major simplification of the bureaucratic process. The various existing controls all overlap to some degree and involve similar but separate procedures. Something as simple as a new shop front, for example, may require planning permission, listed building consent and consent under the Advertisement Regulations. Objectors are sometimes confused about the relevance of particular objections to particular consent procedures. Such consent procedures are often taken together by the local authority. If the proposed reform was to be implemented, then for a given proposal there would be just one application, on one form, with one committee report, one decision and one appeal. If consent is not obtained, there would be just one enforcement notice. This is what happens in the Republic of Ireland.
However, a note of caution is sounded by the Report of the Conservation Control Working Group (1999). The Group observe that the information required for an application for listed building consent differs from that needed for a planning application (para.21). Their conclusion is that, while applications can be processed concurrently by the same officer, separate applications forms are required and separate files should be used for processing the different applications.
Implementation: The necessary legislative changes to implement this proposal may be thought to be daunting, a reflection of the complexity of the present system. However, the Society for Advanced Legal Studies paper, which maps out the necessary changes for England and Wales, comments that it is surprising how relatively modest are the amendments that would be required. The key to integration would be the enlargement of the definition of 'development' in s.26 of the 1997 Act to embrace nearly all works to listed buildings and scheduled monuments and all advertising. Minor matters could be permitted and would require amendment to the Permitted Development Order.
Discussion:
- the proposal by the Society for Advanced Legal Studies has the support of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. The 23 rd Report recommends consolidation of the different consent procedures provided this can be achieved without weakening the present safeguards (para.5.21).
- the proposal was not, however, taken up in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill for England and Wales. The Planning Green Paper (2001) did acknowledge the confusion and delay resulting from the different regimes and went so far as to propose a review of the case for integrating the present array of controls into a single consent procedure (para.5.16). In the meantime, a commitment was given to standardise application and administration procedures for the different regimes and to encourage local authorities to provide a single application point for such consents. The ODPM policy paper "Sustainable Communities: Delivering through Planning" announced an intention to commission research to look at the scope and benefits of a single consents regime. That research is underway and is considering the extent to which the planning, listed building and conservation area consent regimes could be integrated into a single regime. In addition, it is looking at the extent to which the following regimes could be integrated into a single unified consent: consent under the Advertisement Regulations; Buildings Regulation approval; Scheduled Monument consent; Hazardous Substances consent; and consent for works to trees protected by tree preservation orders or situated in conservation areas. The report is expected in early 2004.
- one of the problems is deciding how many consent procedures to integrate. The RTPI in Scotland, for example, have noted that there appears to be a consensus on the principle of a single consent procedure for development control, listed buildings control, conservation areas control and hazardous substances. The position is less clear with regard to building control (also a local authority function) but there are some who would see the fusion of planning and building control as a more 'joined-up' way of dealing with related matters.
- unlike the other controls that have been referred to, scheduled monument consent is not a matter for planning authorities - although it could be made so. Would this make integration into development control especially problematic? On the other hand, hazardous substances consent is a matter for planning authorities and could probably be integrated into development control without too much difficulty.
- most applications for planning permission do not also require one of these related consents. It would be important to ensure that the simplification of multiple consent cases is not at the expense of greater complexity for single consent cases. However, the converse does not apply, at least for listed buildings. The Report of the Conservation Control Working Group (1999) notes that in many cases an application for listed building consent will be accompanied by an associated application for planning permission (para.6).
8.2 Planning and pollution control
Proposal: Pollution control authorisation and planning permission for industrial plants should be obtained through a single open process involving a common environmental statement and, where appropriate, a joint public inquiry. The concern is, not only with the inefficiency faced by industry in having to go through separate authorisation procedures with overlapping concerns, but with the confusion faced by the public over the materiality of the issues for each overlapping decision-making process.
Source: Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 23 rd Report, Environmental Planning, para.5.24.
Present position: Separate systems of regulation apply to planning control and to pollution control. Indeed, there are several different codes of regulation relating to pollution control. These include integrated pollution control and air pollution control under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 Part I, integrated pollution prevention and control under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (which is replacing some of Part I of the 1990 Act), waste management licensing under Part II of the 1990 Act and the regulation of discharges into controlled waters under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, as amended. The information requirements for an authorisation under the integrated pollution control regime or the integrated pollution prevention and control regime are extensive and can overlap considerably with the information requirement for planning permission under the Environmental Assessment Regulations. Planning authorities may also take account of the environmental consequences of a development proposal - for example, a waste disposal facility, consequences which will also be considered by the environmental protection authority.
Implementation: Major change would be required to the 1997 Act and also to the relevant environmental legislation.
Discussion:
- there are unlikely to be many cases in Scotland requiring a more integrated approach. The implications of this proposal are extensive and would require further, more detailed, consideration. But it might be possible to achieve a similar effect, without embarking on major legislative change, by running the procedures so far as possible in parallel and considering how far at least some of the same information might serve different procedures. If the information is adequate for the purpose, there seems to be no reason why it should not. The RCEP note that the Environment Agency is working with the Local Government Association and the CBI towards a concordat aimed at synchronising the two procedures and reducing delay and uncertainty (para.5.24) and this is the way forward favoured in the Planning Green Paper (paras.5.17-5.18).
« Previous | Contents | Next »