The Penfold Review of Non-Planning Consents: Call for Evidence

December 15, 2009

penfold reviewThis call for evidence is aimed at all those with an interest in improving the operation of non-planning consents.

- Launch date: 15th December 2009
- Closing date: 10th February 2010
- Response:     Spring 2010

A new review and a call for evidence to identify and address barriers to investment created by consents for development, other than planning permission, was announced on 15 December by Business Minister, Ian Lucas. The Penfold review, headed by Adrian Penfold – the current head of Planning and Environment at British Land and board member of British Land Corporation Ltd, will look at consents for development made alongside or after planning permission for all sizes of projects.

A well functioning planning and consents environment is an essential component in encouraging and facilitating investment in development. Striving for a regime that seeks to minimise the cost, time, bureaucracy and uncertainty attached to planning and consent applications has been, and continues to be, a key priority for government.

Submissions should be sent to penfoldreview@bis.gsi.gov.uk by 10 February 2010, though earlier responses would be helpful.

Full details

Questions

  1. How important do you consider non-planning consents are in making decisions about whether to invest in development proposals?
  2. When applying for non-planning consents, what obstacles do developers encounter in terms of a) administrative burdens; b) costs; c) uncertainty and risk in applying for; and d) the length of time associated with obtaining such consents? Do any obstacles encountered have a particular impact on a specific sector, type of development or size of business? Which obstacles cause most difficulty and why?
  3. How do those seeking consents go about identifying what additional consents are needed alongside or after planning permission? What difficulties do they encounter in doing so?
  4. Can you give examples of investment options which have not been pursued, have been delayed or have otherwise significantly changed because of non-planning consents? Which consents were integral to the decision to stop, delay or change the development? Can you quantify the impact of the changes for the business affected?
  5. What opportunities do you see for reducing a) the administrative burden; b) the cost; c) the uncertainty and risk in applying for; and d) the length of time associated with obtaining non-planning consents? What action can regulators take to improve the service they give to developers when dealing with non-planning consents? Which actions would bring greatest benefit and why?
  6. Are there other relevant issues that the review should take into account?