1. PPAs – the developer
perspective
Ben Wrighton
9 & 10th January 2013
glhearn.com

2. Structure
• GL Hearn’s Annual Planning Survey results
• LPA Development Management research
• PPAs - Key findings
• Informing the debate

3. GL Hearn’s Annual Planning
Survey Results

4. About the survey
• Survey of those closely involved in planning in public and private sector
• Applicants – 180+ respondents - principals and professional advisors
• Local planning authorities – 40 senior managers respondents (11 London
Boroughs)
• Early indication of attitude following introduction of Localism Act and NPPF
• Annual survey to measure change

5. Applicants’ views

6. Key Findings
Investment Decisions
• Whether to invest in a project • Perceptions of LPAs’ approach to
informed by: development not encouraging
Positive
‒ Traditional factors such as: 10%
• Market opportunity
• Fit with investment strategy
Negative
41%
‒ Increasingly influenced by:
• Previous experience of an LPA
• Reputation of an LPA
Neutral
49%

7. Key Findings
Top considerations when engaging in the planning process
The political control Other
of the local authority
The cost of
submitting a planning
application
The likelihood of
securing permission
The local planning
authority’s
performance
The cost of planning
obligations/CIL
The time it takes to A clear planning
get a decision policy position

8. Key Findings
Planning applications
• Length of time to determine • Cost including fees and obligations
Very satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied Satisfied
1% 8% 1% 2%
Very
Very dissatisfied
dissatisfied Neutral – it’s Neutral – it’s
fine 22%
25% fine
17% 29%
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied 46%
50%

9. Applicants’ and local
authorities’ views

10. Key Findings
How do applicants view their approach to planning
Negative, 10%
Neutral, 15%
Positive, 75%

11. Key Findings
Attitude to reform
• Thinking generally about the Government’s agenda, do you think it will
materially:
‒ Deliver more homes and economic growth?
• Yes: 32% applicants & 12% LPAs
‒ Produce a faster and leaner planning system?
• No: 79% applicants & 83% LPAs
‒ Overall, increase or decrease development activity?
• Neither increase nor decrease: 71% applicants & 88% LPAs

12. Key findings
What would make the biggest difference?
• Applicants’ views on what would • Local authorities’ priorities for
make the biggest difference to improvement
performance
‒ Processing applications faster ‒ CIL
‒ Empowerment of officers / de-politicise ‒ Production of policy documents /
the system
‒ Improvement to evidence base
‒ Investment in LPAs
‒ Pre-app consultation
‒ Increase accountability
‒ Training of members
‒ More commercial culture
‒ Size and budget of planning depts.
‒ Clear delivery frameworks
‒ Involving members in pre-apps
‒ Increase accessibility to officers
‒ Speeding up delivery of decisions
‒ Pro-growth agenda
‒ Improved policy documents
‒ Further training for officers & members
‒ Increased consistency

13. London LPA Development
Management Research

14. The Annual London Development Management Survey
• All 33 London Boroughs were surveyed
• Objective - review management of all major planning applications
• Major planning applications - 10 or more dwellings, residential sites over
0.5 ha, non-residential sites over 1 ha or creation/change of use of over
1,000 sq. m. gross
• Timeframe - 12 month period preceding publication of NPPF in April 2012
• Benchmark year from which post NPPF change can be measured

15. Certainty - Time - Cost

16. Certainty

17. Approval Rate of Major Applications
100%
90%
Percentage of Major Applications Permitted
80%
70%
60%
50%
All London Boroughs

18. Time

19. Time To Determine Major Applications
120
2 years
100
31 week average inquiry
80
Weeks taken to determine
1 year DCLG target
determination (inc. appeal)
60
38 week average determination
40
13 week target determination
20
0
All London Boroughs

20. Cost

21. Costs of a Planning Application
£30,000
£25,000
£20,000
Mayoral Pre-App Fee
£15,000
Local Pre-App Fee
Application Fee
£10,000
£5,000
£0
2007 2012 2013

22. PPAs – Key Findings

23. Key Findings
Planning Performance Agreements
Negative Positive
18% 25%
Neutral
57%

24. Key Findings
Planning Performance Agreements – the positives…
• Has provided clear timeframes / performance targets which were met
• Cost has been proportionate to service provided
• Has provided clear and dedicated resourcing
• Has clarified information requirements
• Officers attitudes have been more positive (less hostile!)

25. Key Findings
Planning Performance Agreements – the negatives…
• Timescales – milestones missed / unrealistic
• Expensive / take time to produce
• Perceived additional fees
• Obligations not met
• Negative officer style not changed / mixed quality service
• Not enforceable

26. Key Findings
Planning Performance Agreements – other points
• London and South East England focus
• Not extensively used but gaining momentum
• Used for wide variety of purposes within the planning process
• The experiences of funding PPAs varies widely
• Challenge associated with engaging other key stakeholders remains

27. Informing the debate

28. Our views – when to do it?
• Pre-application and post-submission processes for ‘strategic’ schemes
• Policy development where out of date or non-conforming
• Discharge of conditions
• Depends on a developer’s objectives in particular circumstances
• Ensure funding arrangements are clear

29. Our views – what to include?
• Needs to be bespoke
• Timeframe / deliverables is central
• Resourcing commitments - planners and other specialists
• How to engage members and third parties efficiently
• How to deal with ‘blockages’ and how to escalate issues

30. Overview
• Generally remains a lack of confidence in PPAs
• Developers crave certainty of decision making / LPAs value resource and
timing commitments
• Should be used on a selective basis
• When used, PPAs need to represent value for money
• Trust between all parties is critical