News Type: Other

Firstplan is delighted to have won an appeal to allow the continued operation of a nail bar with ancillary retail, café and bar uses in Islington.  The Inspector came to the view that the use did not conflict with Islington Local Plan policies seeking to protect Former Class A1 uses, and agreed that the use positively contributes to the vitality, viability and vibrancy of the town centre.

Significantly, the Inspector concluded that ‘a nail bar falls within Class E(c)(iii)’, recognising that nail bars have ‘clearly become a well-established feature of modern high streets’. The nail bar use was found to align with the purpose of the Use Classes overhaul in September 2020, which aimed to ‘better reflect the diversity of uses found on high streets and in town centres and to provide the flexibility for businesses to adapt and diversify to meet changing demands’.  Nail bars had previously mainly been classified as sui generis uses so this change will provide greater opportunity for this type of use.

We are now seeing the impact of the introduction of Class E in appeal decisions. For example, the Inspector took into consideration the potential impacts of high-street retail units changing to other non-retail uses within Class E (such as financial services or gyms) without the requirement for planning permission, balancing this against policies seeking to maintain the retail functions of high streets and town centres.

We look forward to continuing our work with clients relating to Class E uses, and its unfolding impacts on our high streets. If you have any questions on Class E uses, or are seeking advice on an enforcement notice, please get in touch with the Firstplan team.

In November last year, we posted about the Environment Act 2021, which passed into law on 9th November 2021. One of the key components of the Act is the requirement for Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG): an obligation for developers to ensure new proposals feature at least a 10% improvement to biodiversity.

This week, DEFRA launched a consultation on BNG Regulations and Implementation. The consultation sets out DEFRA’s proposals and asks questions on how the requirement for BNG will be applied to developments and Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. The public consultation is described by Natural England as “the turning point in defining the direction for the secondary legislation and guidance to come.”

The consultation seeks views on the detail of how BNG should be delivered – details which will have significant implications for developers and landowners going forward.

Of note, the consultation document proposes exemptions from mandatory BNG for:

– Developments impacting habitat areas below a ‘de minimis’ threshold;
– Householder applications; and
– Change of use applications.

The consultation also considers whether exemptions should be made for the creation of biodiversity gain sites and self-build and custom housebuilding.

The following exemptions are now no longer proposed:

– Brownfield sites which meet set criteria;
– Temporary permissions; and
– Developments where permitted development rights do not apply due to their location in conservation areas or national parks.

Regarding small sites, the Government intend to pursue options for a simplified biodiversity metric to ensure that they can improve ecological outcomes with minimal burdens. It is also confirmed that a lower percentage gain would be inappropriate for small sites.

Furthermore, applications for outline planning permission and phased development will have additional requirements for BNG information to be submitted with the application, which will be set out in secondary legislation. Applicants will be required to explain the strategy to achieve the BNG objective across the whole site and demonstrate how this could be delivered in phases.

Details of the consultation can be found at the link below. If you have any queries, please feel free to contact us.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/protecting-and-enhancing-the-environment-to-be-at-the-heart-of-new-housing-and-infrastructure-developments

 

Since changes were made to the Use Classes Order in September 2020, discussion has largely focused on the impact of the new Class E on our town centres and retail destinations.  Class E wraps up the majority of commercial, business and service uses into one all-encompassing ‘commercial class’ allowing unprecedented flexibility between uses and potentially benefiting around 1.5 million buildings.   These newly introduced Class E freedoms have understandably captured the headlines over the last year.  In contrast, Class F – Local Community and Learning is sometimes overlooked, despite the class including some of our most important community uses and institutions.  Here we briefly look at Class F; what uses it incorporates, what changes are permitted within the class and the issues associated with its introduction.

The Government’s stated purpose of reforming the Use Class classifications was to ‘give high streets the ability to adapt quickly to new uses where they might be greater value’.  The changes are intended to increase the speed in which buildings can be repurposed and to allow a building to be used flexibly by having a number of uses taking place concurrently or by allowing different uses to take place at different times of day.  Class F was effectively introduced as a safeguard in order to protect learning uses (Class F1), such as schools, libraries, art galleries etc, and community uses (Class F2), such as small isolated shops, community halls, outdoor sports areas etc.  As a result of the changes, the former Class A and Class D were revoked with Class D1 split out and replaced by the new Classes E(e-f) and F1, whilst Class D2 was split out and replaced by the new Classes E(d) and F2(c-d), as well as several newly defined Sui Generis uses.

Class F – Local Community and Learning

So, what does Class F entail, and what falls within it? Class F refers to Local Community and Learning, covering uses in the now revoked classes D1, ‘outdoor sport’, ‘swimming pools’ and ‘skating rinks’ from D2(e) and incorporates newly defined local community uses.

Class F is split into two main parts, F1 and F2, and the uses are defined as the following:

F1 Learning and non-residential institutions – Use is divided into 7 parts, and largely covers some of the former use classes D1 (non-residential institutions):

• F1(a) Provision of education
• F1(b) Display of works of art (otherwise than for sale or hire)
• F1(c) Museums
• F1(d) Public libraries or public reading rooms
• F1(e) Public halls or exhibition halls
• F1(f) Public worship or religious instruction (or in connection with such use)
• F1(g) Law courts

F2 Local Community – Use is divided into 4 parts, and covers some of the former use classes of D2 (non-residential institutions) and some uses that government wishes to protect for use in the community that were formerly D1 or A1:

• F2(a) Shops (mostly) selling essential goods, where the shop’s premises do not exceed 280 square metres and there is no such facility within 1000 metres.
• F2(b) Halls or meeting places for the principle use of the local community
• F2(c) Areas or places for outdoor sport or recreation (not involving motorised vehicles or firearms)
• F2(d) Indoor or outdoor swimming pools or skating rinks

What changes are permitted within Class F?

Additionally, it is important to understand what changes are permitted within Class F. Under the September 2020 changes, planning permission is not required for changes within the same Class F1 and F2. This means that many types of non-residential institutions, such as schools, museums, and libraries, for example within Class F1, will be able to change the uses of properties without seeking planning permission. Similarly, the new concept of Class F2 has been introduced to ensure that important community facilities are protected through the planning system, and, again, changes within this class do not require planning permission. However, use changes between Class F1 and F2 are not permitted without planning permission.

The limitations of Class F

In reforming the Use Classes Order, the Government made clear that Class F was intended to protect valued learning and community uses.  In many cases, these uses are not necessarily the most commercially attractive options for property owners or developers and are therefore at risk of being lost had they not been included in Class F. The reason for creating Class F is therefore logical.   But is Class F doing its job?

One issue is that the new Class F does not scoop up all the learning and community uses that local authorities have historically sought to protect through Local Plan policy. Indeed, not all former Class D1/D2 uses have found their way into Class F.  For example, clinics, health centres, creches, nurseries and day centres – which are commonly accepted community facilities in planning policy terms – have moved from the former Class D1 Non-residential Institutions into Class E Commercial, Business and Service, as opposed to Class F Local Community and Learning.  The rationale behind excluding these uses from Class F has never been made clear. Previously, many Local Plans required robust justification for the loss of these types of facilities and/or their replacement.  Class E now allows the change of use of clinics, health centres, nurseries, creches and day centres to other town centre uses (Class E) without the need for planning permission.  As a result, unless there are historic restrictive planning conditions or s106 covenants in place on a specific building (or indeed the building is listed), the changes to the Use Class Order have left local authorities with limited scope to protect existing facilities.

Whilst it is difficult to know how many existing clinics, health centres, nurseries, creches and day centres may have been lost as a result of their inclusion in Class E, any loss is likely to have been mitigated to some extent by the additional flexibility afforded by Class E to open new facilities.  These uses can now occupy a much wider range of space without requiring planning permission. A vacant town centre shop can now be more readily repurposed as a nursery for example.  Arguably, there is now more scope for market forces to play their part in ensuring that new clinics, health centres, nurseries, creches and day centres can pop in where there is a demand.

There are also other recognised community facilities that did not to make it into Class F.  Cinemas, concert halls, bingo halls, dance halls, and venues for live music performance were all moved from the former Class D2 Assembly and Leisure to Sui Generis. Again, it is unclear why these uses have all been moved into the Sui Generis category rather than Class F.  Whilst the Sui Generis categorisation ensures that local authorities have the ability to fully consider the impact of any change of use through the planning application process, it also removes any flexibility to change between the uses without planning permission (or indeed to allow a mix of part uses within one building). Gyms and indoor sports halls, on the other hand, now benefit from much more flexibility having been moved into Class E.

In summary, last year’s changes to the Use Classes Order have certainly afforded developers and investors the flexibility to increase the speed of repurposing buildings. The desired protection of local community assets under Class F2 and learning and non-residential institutions under Class F1 is justified.  However, the exclusion of certain uses (e.g. health centres, nurseries) from Class F1 and their placement in town centre uses (Class E), as well as the exclusion of certain uses (e.g. cinemas, dance halls) and their categorisation as Sui Generis has largely been left unexplained.

It is perhaps too early to say what impact the creation of Class F will have on the provision of learning and community facilities in our already changing towns and communities, but it is certainly one to watch.  It is also interesting to see how local authorities seek to tackle the provision and protection of learning and community uses in emerging local plans following the creation of Class F.

Article by Rory Coles

It’s been a busy few months at Firstplan with a number of much deserved promotions across the company. We also welcome some new faces as we continue to grow and strengthen our team. Chloe Ballantine joins us as an Associate; Emma Conwell joins us as a Senior Planner; Will Hayes joins us as an Assistant Planner and Rory Coles, Amy Murray and Josh Hindle all join us as Graduate Planners.  It is great to see the buzz returning to the office.

To meet our full team of 33 planning professionals and support staff, head over to our team page.

As ministers grapple with the pros and cons of reforming the planning system, it is worthwhile looking at the changes that the government has already introduced.   In August 2020, Part 20 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) came into force allowing the construction of new residential floorspace in airspace above a variety of buildings in England.

These new permitted development rights (PDR) were billed as a ‘fast-tracked approval for building upwards’ and were intended to provide a ‘much-needed boost to the construction sector – creating jobs and getting the housing market going post covid’.  As a quick reminder, six new classes were introduced under Schedule 2 Part 20:

– Class A allows new flats on detached block of flats

– Class AA allows new flats on detached buildings in commercial or mixed use

– Class AB allows new flats on terrace buildings in commercial or mixed use

– Class AC allows new flats on terrace buildings in use as houses

– Class AD allows new flats on detached buildings in use as houses

– Class ZA allows demolition of buildings and construction of new flats or a house in their place

In addition, Class AA was introduced under Schedule 2 Part 1 which allows the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by construction of additional storeys.

So, just over a year on from their introduction, how useful are the new Part 20 airspace PDRs proving to be? The short answer is ‘very useful’…if the PDRs apply (there are various limitations) and if the Prior Approval process can be successfully negotiated.  Both of these issues are discussed below.

 

The limitations

Whilst it may seem fairly obvious, it is important to carefully consider whether a scheme can actually take advantage of the PDRs.

Firstly, the existing building must comply with the relevant PDRs in order for them to be used.  There are a number of broad-brush exemptions across all of the classes including Article 2(3) land, which includes conservation areas and national parks, as well as listed buildings and SSSI’s.  In addition, each class has its own specific exemptions. For example, Class A can only be used on detached, purpose-built blocks of flats (all terms that are defined in the legislation) constructed between 1948 and 2018.

If it can be established that the existing building itself complies, it is then necessary to consider whether the proposed extension (or replacement building in the case of Class ZA) also complies with the criteria specified under the relevant class. The PDRs allow up to two additional storeys but there are limitations on the height, siting and design of any extension and this needs to be taken into account in the design process.

Determining whether a scheme complies with the PDRs is intended to be a tick box exercise.   The legislation and explanatory notes set out and define the criteria and, if a proposal does not comply, it cannot benefit from the PDRs.  However, as it the case with other PDRs, we are finding that there are instances where it is not necessarily clear cut whether a scheme complies with the Part 20 rights or not – particularly as there is limited case law to fall back on at this early stage.    It is therefore important to have a detailed understanding of the PDRs and their limitations from the outset in order to identify any potential risk.

One area that needs particular consideration is ‘associated works’.  In addition to the upward extension, the PDRs allow for some associated work such as ‘engineering operations reasonably necessary to construct the additional storeys and new dwellinghouses’ and ‘works for the replacement of existing plant or installation of additional plant’. Class A, AA and AB also allow ‘works for the construction of storage, waste or other ancillary facilities reasonably necessary to support the new dwellinghouses’.  It is important that all of the proposed works fall within the scope of the PDR, otherwise the scheme as a whole may not be deemed to be permitted development.  This was the case in a recent appeal where the Inspector concluded that new lift shafts were not considered to fall within the definition of ‘associated works’ permitted under paragraph a(c) of Class A. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.  If there is any doubt over whether certain ‘associated works’ are allowed under the PDRs, it may be worthwhile considering whether the works can be designed out of the scheme or applied for under a separate planning permission.

 

The Prior Approval Process

Assuming a scheme is indeed eligible to use the upward extension PDRs, it is then possible to seek Prior Approval for the additional storey(s) rather than having to secure full planning permission. The Prior Approval route is intended to be a ‘fast-tracked’ route to securing consent where a local planning authority (LPA) must consider specified matters only.  Importantly, the LPA is not required to assess the proposals against development plan policies. As a consequence, there is no requirement to provide an affordable housing contribution or to justify the loss of commercial space, for example.  This makes the PDRs an attractive option for some developers.

So, in practice, how straightforward is the prior approval process and what are this issues to watch out for…

Timescale – Unlike other Prior Approval applications, applications under Part 20 do not automatically receive Prior Approval if they are not determined within 8 weeks. Instead, the applicant has a right to appeal to the Secretary of Stateagainst non-determination.  However, from our recent experience, LPAs do tend to try and determine Part 20 applications within the 56 day period.  This has the advantage of a relatively quick decision and perhaps more certainty over timescales than the planning application route.  However, the downside is that there is often limited scope for negotiating with officers and/or potential to make revisions during the course of the application.  Our approach has therefore been to ‘frontload’ applications as much as possible to ensure that the submission is robust and provides all the technical reports necessary to allow officers to fully assess the application within the prescribed period.

Interpretation of prior approval matters – The list of Prior Approval matters is fairly extensive and, to varying degrees, these matters are open to interpretation.   In particular, assessing the ‘external appearance of the building’ is clearly a subjective matter requiring officers to make a planning judgement which can sometime make it difficult to predict how a scheme will be received.  As a result, ‘external appearance’ has been the subject of a number of recent appeals.   Interestingly, two recent appeals considered the issue of whether external appearance should relate solely to the appearance of the host building itself or whether the impact of a proposal on its wider setting should also be considered.  In both instances, the Inspector concluded that it was not appropriate to consider the external appearance of the proposal in isolation (the appeals, both dealt with by the same Inspector, were subsequently dismissed as the external appearance of the additional storeys was deemed to cause significant harm).  The inclusion of ‘external appearance’ as a Prior Approval matter allows officers to insist on high standards of design for any additional storeys.  These appeal decisions also highlight the importance of effectively presenting a scheme design in its context as part of any Prior Approval submission – it is often worthwhile investing in good quality street elevations and/or CGI’s in this respect.  From our experience, in some instances, there can also be benefits in seeking to agree the proposed design as part of pre-application discussions.

Complete development – one condition of the Part 20 PDRs is a requirement to complete the development within three years (in contrast, a planning permission is usually granted subject to it being implemented within three years).   Applicants need to be mindful of this, particularly if the works are started towards the end of the three year period. The meaning of ‘completed’ has also previously been subject to debate in the courts and this may again become an issue in relation to Part 20 Prior Approvals.

In summary, upward extension PDRs are indeed proving very useful in unlocking new development opportunities which may not otherwise have been available or viable.  However, it is important to be aware that the PDRs include a fairly long list of exemptions and limitations which need to be fully understood – to avoid getting tripped up on compliance technicalities further down the line. The Prior Approval process is also perhaps not as ‘light-touch’ as it is purported to be, and any application should be accompanied by a comprehensive set of supporting documents which address all Prior Approval matters.

If you have any queries regarding upward extension PDRs, please feel free to contact one of the Firstplan team.

Last month the Court of Appeal cast doubt on the use of ‘Drop-In’ applications as a tool for making smaller self-contained amendments to a larger consented scheme.

A ‘Drop-In’ application (a term used to describe a stand-alone planning application, submitted to change one small part of a wider development approved at an earlier date), is often used when making alterations to an existing larger consent where a Section 73 Variation of Condition application would be more time-consuming and cumbersome.  Full planning permission granted in this way can allow a smaller area of development to proceed quickly without triggering wider issues.

But in Hillside Parks Limited v Snowdonia National Park Authority (3 November 2020), the Court of Appeal ruled a 1967 permission for a residential scheme of 401 units can no longer be relied on as it cannot be physically implemented due to the number of changes that had taken place via the use of multiple Drop-In applications over the years. Lord Justice Singh reached this decision despite an earlier court ruling, in 1987, on the same site that said the original 1967 permission was still implementable.

In essence, the Court of Appeal found that somewhere between 1987 and 2020 a line was crossed meaning the development, as built out to date, was so different to that originally approved in 1967 it could no longer be said to be the 1967 approved scheme. This had the effect of invalidating the entire original 1967 consent (and not just the smaller area to which the ‘Drop-in’ applications related) as it was no longer capable of being implemented due to the number and nature of differences.

The Hillside decision confirms that planning permissions must be viewed holistically and ‘construed as a whole’ and highlights the need for caution where a site has overlapping permissions.  The decision does not mean there is no longer a role for Drop-In applications, but it will be imperative to ensure that the original consent will still be implementable once a Drop-In permission is itself implemented.  This would typically involve submitting a Section 73 variation to the approved scheme, to create a ‘gap’ into which the Drop-In proposal can sit without jeopardising the original consent.

If you have any queries regarding the use of ‘Drop-in’ applications or the Hillside decision, please feel free to contact one of the Firstplan team.

The Housing Secretary positively announced today that developments that have already been granted planning permission or listed building consent in England with an expiry date between 23rd March and 31st December 2020, will be automatically extended until 1st April 2021.

The announcement follows recent calls from the Royal Town Planning Institute, the British Property Federation and the Home Builders Federation to introduce the measures in a bid to prevent existing permissions from lapsing and to help the construction industry to recover from the impacts of COVID-19. Similar emergency legislation was introduced in Scotland at the start of April which allowed planning permissions which were due to lapse to be extended by a year.

Planning permissions are usually valid for three years and expire if work has not commenced onsite. Once expired, developers are then required to reapply for permission. Government estimates reveal that by the end of June, in excess of 400 residential permissions, equating to more than 24,000 homes would have expired. Those permissions that have already lapsed before this measure comes into force will be subject to an Additional Environmental Approval process before the extension can take effect.

The construction industry has been faced with a number of challenges as a result of the pandemic, including the impact on supply chains, temporary suspension of work and increased health and safety measures, all of which are likely to have caused delays to projects. The extension of existing permissions will be welcomed by those developers that have been unable to begin work due to the impacts stemming from the virus and the subsequent lockdown.

In addition to this, the government announced today new measures to permanently grant the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) the ability to use more than one procedure, including written representations, hearings and enquiries, at the same time in order to accelerate the appeal process. Encouragingly, a pilot programme which tested this approach last year found that the time taken to determine appeal enquiries was shortened from 47 weeks to 23 weeks.

It is understood that legislative changes will be introduced as part of a new Business and Planning Bill set to be unveiled later this week.  It will be interesting to see the detail of the proposed automatic extensions and how they will take into account any s106 or CIL requirements.   In the meantime, if you have any queries regarding any of the above, please feel free to contact one of the Firstplan team.

Government ministers are continuing to debate whether pubs and restaurants can reopen external areas, such as beer gardens, terraces, dining areas and marquees, to serve customers on 22^nd June, as opposed to the original target date of 4^th July, in an attempt to stimulate the economy. Although nothing official has been published confirming this, and Business Secretary Alok Sharma appeared to suggest this was unlikely earlier today, several reports do still suggest that a growing group of ministers, including Chancellor Rishi Sunak, are exploring ways in which this can be accelerated.

In addition to this, it has been claimed that the Communities Secretary will be reviewing and relaxing planning controls to make it easier for premises that benefit from outdoor spaces to utilise these areas to serve and trade. This follows recent ongoing calls from a cross-party group of MP’s requesting that current planning regulations are eased to allow businesses to place tables and chairs outside of their premises, providing they had consent from the local authority. Earlier speculative reports had suggested that the Government is devising a plan to grant a “blanket permission” to allow food and drink outlets – that already benefit from a tables and chairs license – to utilise outdoor seating areas and trade from market-like stalls outside of their premises. Again, there is no current understanding at this time as to which rules are to be potentially amended.

Alan Lorrimer, founder of The Piano Works venue, has launched the UK Grand Outdoor Café campaign asking the Government to permit authorities to allow hospitality operators to make use of open spaces and public squares outside their venues to serve food and drinks. It is understood that this has been widely supported by a number of businesses throughout the industry. This accompanies a plan put forward to Westminster Council by the managing director of Soho Estates, to temporarily pedestrianise London’s West End to create a large outdoor café-style area in a bid to reopen the hospitality sector in time for summer.

Should this be forthcoming, it will prove particularly beneficial to many clients within the hospitality industry by allowing them to restart or increase trading from their premises, as well as via continued deliveries/collections.

The safe re-opening of the high street following the lockdown will be fundamental in kick-starting the economy and for businesses of all sizes. Firstplan is working with many of our clients to see how best to use the planning system to address the issues created by social distancing and how the system may need to adapt to provide greater flexibility to high street traders.

We have recently sponsored and contributed to the ‘Future high streets: retail, food and tourism’ report by Future Cities Forum. Firstplan Director Mike Mills discusses innovation within the planning system, stating that:

“There are new formats around food markets and restaurants coming up and these can be difficult to fit in with traditional property use classes. At Firstplan we act for a number of these operators and the question is whether the model fits in with A1, and the local authority may argue that it does not. This has led to a lot of challenges. What we find is that the ‘Uses Classes Order’ has a lot of catching up to do if it is to embrace new and innovative models coming to the high street. Are they shops, restaurants, or are they bars? They may have elements of each and the easy way out is for the local authority to refuse permission.”

Mike continued:

“As part of a consultation last year, the Government mooted the possibility of merging all the A use classes into one single use class. Whilst it could be controversial in some quarters, such a move would bring about greater flexibility within high streets to move between different uses to reflect market demand and to better capture current and emerging new food-focused concepts. Consideration should also be given to quasi retail uses such as beauty treatment centres, nail bars where sales occur on sites and also showroom and ‘click and collect’ where the transaction may not necessarily occur on site but clearly attract visiting members of the public.”

Flexibility of the high street is now more important than ever, which is likely to result in a push for greater flexibility in the use classes system, alterations to stores to support expanded collection and greater street trading for restaurants, bars and retail stores.

 

The report is available here: https://www.futurecitiesforum.london/iet-forum-report

 

 

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented new challenges for the planning system. Remote working and virtual technology is offering local planning authorities a way of dealing with many of the issues associated with processing existing applications. It has also helped to ensure that applications can continue to be determined.

The planning system is also already well prepared for submitting planning applications electronically via the Planning Portal, which has been up and running since 2003. It is, however, proving more difficult to find a ‘virtual solution’ to fulfilling the statutory neighbour notification requirements for new planning applications.

Local planning authorities have a degree of discretion over how they inform communities and other interested parties about planning applications.  With council offices now largely closed and most officers working from home, we are seeing the adoption of different approaches to dealing with the practicalities associated with putting up and displaying site notices, and notifying neighbours.

We are aware of one local planning authority effectively putting a temporary halt on processing applications received after 24th March 2020, citing that they are unable to commence public consultation – including the distribution of neighbour notification letters, displaying sites notices, and press advertisements. Helpfully, most authorities seem to be taking a more pragmatic approach than this and are continuing to validate new applications.

With regard to site notices, some authorities are enlisting the help of the applicant and/or agent by asking them to display the notice on or near the site themselves, and, where possible, provide photographic evidence of this.

It is important to note, however, that in accordance with the legal statutory requirements (as set out in Article 15 of the Development Management Procedure (England) Order 2015), a site notice is in fact only required for a select number of applications types, including:

·       EIA applications accompanied by an environmental statement;
·       Development that does not accord with the development plan in force in the area;
·       Development affecting a right of way;
·       For technical details consent (where not major development or development that falls under Article 15 (2).

For all other types of minor and major applications, there is no express requirement for the display of a site notice on or near the application site, although this is still at the discretion of the local authority.

Of course, the irony is that if an officer or applicant does manage to display a site notices during this lockdown period, will anyone actually see it?  This is where an amendment to existing regulations would be helpful to temporarily remove the need to physically display a site notice where this is not safe or practical.

At the moment, neighbour notification letters are perhaps a more effective way of making relevant parties aware of a new application. Some councils are continuing to notify neighbours of new applications by post or email where possible.  We are also aware that some authorities have chosen to extend the minimum neighbour consultation period to 28 days, as opposed to 21 days, and will take into consideration any comments made after this period up until determination.

Whilst any steps to keep the planning system moving during this difficult time are welcome, there is still a need for any new planning applications to meet minimum statutory publicity requirements to avoid the risk of legal challenge further down the line.  The RTPI has already called on the Government to issue urgent guidance on alternative arrangements for site notices, and we hope this will be forthcoming.   Guidance on public consultation more generally would also be helpful.

Until then, Firstplan is continuing to liaise with local authorities to understand their revised approaches to processing new applications and we will, of course, advise clients as necessary.  If you have a query on any of issues discussed here, please feel free to contact one of the Firstplan team.