Transcript THE PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE BILL

PLANNING AND COMPULSORY
PURCHASE ACT 2004
Three Years On
9th March 2007
by
Alun Alesbury
Royal Assent 13th May
2004

So nearly three years on
Not all of it is in effect yet
 Serous doubt now whether some aspects ever
will be
The 2004 Act
Very
long gestation and consultation period
The Government’s stated aim: to make the planning system
“fairer and more efficient”.
The formal purpose of the Act (from Preamble):
“to make provision relating to spatial development
and town and country planning; and the compulsory
acquisition of land”.
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT
FRAMEWORKS
How did we get here?
The 1947 Act – map-based Development Plans
1968 Act – Structure and Local Plans – but no
obligation to do Local Plans covering whole district.
Planning and Compensation Act 1991 – mandatory
to prepare one Local Plan covering whole District;
UDPs in unitary areas.
DELAY
Some Councils had (have) still not got their first
district-wide Local Plan through and adopted
sixteen years later.
Yet “Section 54A” [also introduced in 1991 – and now
replaced by s.38(6) of the 2004 Act] had given these
enhanced Plans paramount status in decision-making:
“… determination shall be made in accordance
with the plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise.”
Section 54A was a really important change to the
way the planning system was run. But did the Local
Plan system live up to it? The consensus is “No”.
Drafting, consultation, investigation, confirmation,
adoption process could take so long that most Local
Plans out of date before adoption.
This was the ‘old’ system the 2004 Act sets out to
remedy.
2004 Act – Development
Plans – the Major Changes
Structure Plans phased out – replaced by Regional Spatial
Strategies.
Local Plans/UDPs
replaced by Development Plan Documents (DPD)
within Local Development Frameworks (LDF)
There is quite a long potential transition period
LDF documents can only be adopted if independent Inspector
approves.
Individual LDF documents can be approved or updated at
different times – more a ‘ring binder’ than a ‘bound document’
approach – all to be in accordance with a ‘Local Development
Scheme’ (LDS)
What does the LDF include?
A paradise for acronym-fanciers:
DPD SPD SCI AMR CS SSA -
Development Plan Documents
Supplementary Planning Documents
Statement of Community Involvement
Annual Monitoring Report
Core Strategy
Site-specific Allocations
All of these (and things like AAPs – Area Action
Plans) can in theory be advanced piecemeal and
individually considered by an Inspector at
Examination in Public.
Logically the first to be considered, at least first time
round, is the “Core Strategy”.
How are Core Strategies faring? A significant
number have been found by Inspectors to be
“unsound”.
So back to square one for them, and any other
following DPDs in preparation which were based on
them.
Outline Planning Applications/
Reserved Matters
Revised scheme in operation since August 2006:
Reserved matters: layout, scale, appearance, access,
landscaping.
“Design and Access Statement” required with most
non-household applications.
But no real control over quality of these statements.
Has requiring them really changed anything?
New Time Limits:
For determining “Major Developments” – up
from 8 to 13 weeks (still 16 where EIA required)
For implementation of permissions
 Down from 5 to 3 years for full permissions
 Still 3 years +2 years for “reserved matters” cases
No more ‘semi-automatic’ renewal of permissions –
since August 2006
 greater strain on LPA resources vs. fuller
opportunity to reassess

Local Development Orders - available since May
2006
an interesting power under Section 40
is anyone using them?
Temporary Stop Notices – Section 52 – available
since March 2004
Enforcement Notice not required to be issued at
same time.
Only last 28 days unless other action (e.g. E.N.)
taken within that time.
Compensation still payable if LPA gets it wrong
Planning Contributions –
Sections 46 - 48
Seems these provisions may never come into
effect.
The Treasury has muscled in, with the Barker
Review, and is insisting on the different
regime of ‘Planning Gain Supplement’ (PGS),
to be brought into effect ‘not before 2009’.
Compulsory Purchase Provisions
– Part 8
Not the great reform many have been arguing for for many
years.
Minor but useful provisions on procedure and compensation
assessment.
Apparently significant widening and loosening of wording
enabling LPAs to use CPOs for ‘planning purposes’:
“If the authority think … will facilitate…”
Somewhat bizarrely, the link to the Development Plan was
dropped.
Is it making any difference in reality?