News

In August 2016, the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) (Amendment) Order 2016 came into effect. It requires developers proposing major development to undertake a public consultation, which includes the following minimum steps:

• To make the application (in the same or substantively the same form as submitted to the Local Planning Authority) available in a public place or a publicised website for a period of at least 28 days;
• To display site notices in English and in Welsh on the application site;
• To notify the owners of adjoining land of the imminent planning application; and
• To notify community and ‘specialist’ consultees, relevant to the site and the scheme.

Following the conclusion of the consultation period, a Pre-Application Consultation Report must be prepared by the applicant. The PAC Report must be submitted as part of the application.

The new Development Management Procedure was one of the first pieces of secondary legislation following the enactment of the Planning Act for Wales (2015). Both documents were prepared and legislated in an environment where the Welsh Government is seeking the planning system to undergo a ‘cultural change,’ where development is to be encouraged and supported. Planning should no longer be a ‘tick-box’ exercise.

Shortly after the Development Management Order came into effect, my colleague, Owen Jones, published an article that concluded that for pre-application engagement to be successful, there was a need for:

• Stakeholders, including local residents, to be realistic about the need for development in their area; and
• For strong and responsible political leadership, that recognises the benefits of development.

Nearly 12-months on from the publication of that article, its conclusions still remain true. However, equally, for consultation to be meaningful, the development industry should also play its part.

Recently, as a resident affected by a housing proposal, I, along with other residents began to critically review an application for major development, in relation to which a Pre-Application Consultation process had been undertaken.

In that example, the consultation had failed to send notices to some of the adjacent landowners, had failed to consult with all specialist consultees and the submitted masterplan, which the applicant argued had addressed stakeholder concerns, was dated prior to the Pre-Application Consultation process. There was therefore no possible way that the scheme could have addressed any of the stakeholder’s concerns. Many residents felt the developer was simply undertaking the tick-box consultation exercise that planning reform in Wales is seeking to prevent.

Rather than undertaking a positive and well-thought out community engagement exercise that added value to the scheme, the developer had simply succeeded in reinforcing all the negative stereotypes about the development profession.

Too little, too late?

Whilst the case study above reflects an example of how not to engage with a local community, I do have sympathy with Welsh developers who have to comply with the strict regulations.

As indicated above, the new Development Management Procedure requires applicants to consult with the local community on either the submission scheme, or substantively a similar scheme. Accordingly, rather than engaging with the local community, the regulations require developers to present in effect a fait accompli, including a full draft planning application that will have been assembled at no small cost. Having had the proposals thrust upon them, local communities will have no sense of ownership and will have lost the ability to influence matters, which is likely to attract a negative reaction.

One of the better public consultation exercises that I have been involved in was in relation to a site at Redwood Drive, Plymouth, which has been nominated for the national RTPI award for ‘excellence in housing delivery’. This was primarily as a result of the pre and post consultation work with the local community, whereby the consultation was far more extensive and commenced much earlier in the process.

In that example, early and on-going engagement helped overcome issues relating to development needs and ensured that the local community helped shape a well-considered proposal. The client, Barratt David Wilson Homes, even altered the scheme after submission to help address local residents’ concerns. Whilst this was clearly an exemplar engagement process, the results were obvious – planning permission was approved for nearly 200 dwellings, on a greenfield site that had been used informally as open space.

Aspiring for the minimum

The pre-application engagement process for Redwood Drive was formed in a context where the developer was under no obligation to undertake a prescribed method of consultation. Instead, it was formed with the aspiration of ensuring meaningful community involvement that would lead to a scheme that was palatable to local residents, maybe even one day, one that they could be proud of.

I fear that in Wales, the minimum requirements of the new Development Management Procedure are being perceived by developers as being the bar. In effect, the profession is aspiring to deliver the minimum and is simply undertaking the ‘tick-box’ exercise that Welsh Government was seeking to move away from. The development industry needs to do more and to play its full role in delivering a cultural change in planning in Wales.

The solution?

There are clearly issues with the Development Management Procedure. The significant quantum of information required to be provided during the Pre-Application Consultation process necessitates that is undertaken just prior to submission. As demonstrated through my personal experience, this does little to help the applicant engage with the local community. I would question whether the process also adds anything to the planning system over and above the statutory consultation process undertaken by the Local Authority, often just days later. The Development Management Procedure should therefore be reviewed to encourage earlier and more meaningful engagement.

However, in the interim, the development industry should also acknowledge that the Procedure only defines the minimum requirements. It does not preclude an applicant undertaking earlier and more meaningful engagement in advance of the minimum requirements. In my experience, particularly with the more controversial schemes, it can often lead to more positive outcomes for developers.

by Neil Mantell, Director, LRM Planning