Chapter 3
21) Do you agree with the principles set out in policy DM1? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Partly agree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
The use of language in DM1(2) relating to “minimum necessary” could cause problems as different interpretations may arise as to what is considered minimum necessary to determine applications. Furthermore, in some circumstances the provision of additional information can support development management and lead to positive decision-making outcomes; so, should not be blanketly discouraged. We would instead opt for language around proportionality which will add consistency with the use of language in relation to DM2(2). The RTPI would welcome the inclusion of reference to other relevant information in DM1(1)(b).
In regard to DM1(1)(b)(ii), the RTPI believes the outcome of pre-application engagement should be set out alongside how feedback received has been considered and informed the development proposal.
The RTPI would welcome the explicit mention of Registered Providers as a part of other relevant bodies.
22) Do you agree with the policy DM2 on information requirements for planning applications? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Strongly agree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
The RTPI strongly endorses a consistent and proportionate approach to information requirements set out in national validation requirements. The provision of national planning application information requirements provides an opportunity to further drive digital innovation in the application process, and we strongly advise Government to create a system which can be easily integrated with emerging technologies, such as AI. We note the information requirements currently summarised in Annex C but would suggest that information may be better held in a Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) going forward. This could include all the relevant details necessary to apply a national approach to validation including minimum information requirements. Such guidance could include an understanding of requirements relating to site size threshold, different scale and type and development. This would hopefully minimise the frequency of occurrence whereby applicants are made to set out reasons why they have not submitted information to support decision-making. A clear link with all relevant British Standards would also be helpful. Locational matters may also usefully support the frontloading of planning application information, such as clearly identified, nationally set triggers which would necessitate submission of specific assessments such as those relating to air and noise. The RTPI believes that information requirements relating to ecology should be provided towards all development types.
Further to these proposals, the RTPI would encourage a more consistent approach nationally to Permission in Principle. This would be framed in a proportionate way, on locational matters, ahead of the technical details consent stage. To create a consistent approach to policy and process in these regards, the RTPI would also welcome consideration of how a proportionate approach can be taken to further information requests.
Regardless of any attempts to standardise or streamline the validation process, in the short term the RTPI would strongly recommend an increase in additional resource to validation teams.
23) Do you have any views on whether such a policy could be better implemented through regulations?
The RTPI considers that such provisions are sufficiently covered in policy, albeit with the need to ensure alignment with associated regulations.
24) Do you agree with the principles set out in DM3? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Partly agree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
Similarly to the point made in response to Q6(a) and Q15(a), the RTPI believes that clearer reference to the proactive and collaborative role of statutory consultees would be beneficial. We would also suggest a more positive framing of policy DM3(1)(f), that proposals which accord with the development plan, the policies in this Framework, and any other material considerations should be supported.
25) Do you agree that policy DM5 would prevent unnecessary negotiation of developer contributions, whilst also providing sufficient flexibility for development to proceed? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
The RTPI notes the corresponding development plan policy PM12 and our response Q16(a) which also sets out some consideration on this matter. We note DM5(2) aims to establish limited circumstances in which it would not be possible for development to proceed on a policy compliant basis. However, we also note that this is not a closed list and therefore allows recognition of a much broader range of circumstances, potentially undermining the policy intent. We would welcome the inclusion of reference to the role of proactive and collaborative working across stakeholders to attempt to find resolution for such matters. The RTPI would welcome clear consideration for how DM5 would be engaged through local plan monitoring as a key feed-back loop to ensure that local plans are up to date, sound and deliverable.
26) Do you have any further comments on the likely impact of policy DM5: Development viability?
We note that the potential workability of proposals depends to some degree on the nature of standardised inputs proposed. We therefore await consultation on such matters to fully comment.
The RTPI would not consider such approaches to development viability practicable for smaller developments.
27) Do you have any views on how the process of modifying planning obligations under S106A, where needed once a section 106 agreement has been entered into, could be improved?
a) If so, please provide views on specific changes that may improve the efficacy of S106A and the main obstacles that result in delay when seeking modification of planning obligations.
The RTPI believes that in reviewing the process of agreeing, modifying and discharging planning obligations, a careful balance needs to be struck. Such balance, needs to be cognisant of sometimes rapidly changing economic and market conditions leading to the stalling of delivery of developments across extensive areas.
On the other side, as stated in this consultation above, there is a need to try and minimise the complications and complex negotiations that can occur relating to viability, and ensure that new development delivers on agreed infrastructure to support high quality placemaking. Therefore, we recognise that if the modification of planning obligations was easy, it may encourage more regular revaluation negotiations creating delay and expending scarce local authority resourcing. The RTPI believes that the five-year time period before mandatory re-negotiations can occur, does not strike this balance. We would encourage a reduced time frame of two to three years.
We welcome the impending introduction of S106 templates which are initially to be used for medium sized sites. We believe that the use of such templates for small and medium-sized sites should be mandatory to ensure consistency in their roll-out. This consistent approach to use of templates will aid to support the process of modification by providing a clearer starting point to stakeholders.
We note in the MHCLG Skills and Capacity 2023 survey a number of respondents identified bottlenecks in legal teams, and the RTPI would recognise that as a significant contributing factor to teams’ difficulties in agreement modification and discharge of planning obligations. We would therefore call upon Government to conduct a full audit relating to legal capacity available to local authorities when conducting work around developer contributions, as a base for addressing resourcing concerns.
28) Do you have any views on how the process of modifying planning obligations could be improved in advance of any legislative change, noting the government’s commitment to boosting the supply of affordable housing.
a) If so, please provide views on the current use of s73 and, if any, the impact on affordable housing obligations.
See answer to Q27.
29) Do you agree with the approach for planning conditions and obligations set out in policy DM6, especially the use of model conditions and obligations? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Strongly agree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree
The RTPI supports the new approach to conditions and obligations as set out in policy DM6. We also welcome the development of national model conditions and obligations in order to promote further consistency, and we await consultation in due course. The RTPI would welcome recognition of phasing with conditions and obligations and that this be baked into any further proposals on this matter in order to promote delivery of complex, strategic, multi-phase developments.
We note provisions in DM6(2)(a) which forbids conditions to be used for cash payments. However, we note provisions in other regimes, such as those relating to Environmental Delivery Plans, which encourages use of cash payments. This may lead to confusion across users of the planning system.
30) Do you agree that policy DM7 clarifies the relationship between planning decisions and other regulatory regimes? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Partly agree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
The RTPI strongly supports the clarification between planning decisions and other regulatory regimes, however we are concerned about the wording in regards to DM7(1) in particular around the need for decision-makers to identify clear evidence that separate regimes will not operate effectively, as this can be often a complex task and often require considerable resource.
Regarding DM7(2) we think there is an opportunity to link to provisions set out in DM6 to reduce the amount of duplication that can occur in planning conditions that are included to consider other regulatory regimes.
As set out in Q18, whilst we support the sharper focus of the planning system on its core objectives, in order to ensure quality place-making and an effective consenting regime, we encourage the continued support and refinement of how all regulators engage in the development process.
31) Do you agree with the new intentional unauthorised development policy in policy DM8? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Partly disagree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree
Whilst a policy approach to intentional unauthorised development has been in place since 2015 following a written ministerial statement, the RTPI holds reservations over the application of DM8(2). This is particularly around difficulties and resource implications of having to collect evidence that could reasonably provide a case that unauthorised development was intentional. We also note that such matters do not run with the land and therefore undermines one of the core principles of the planning system. We would therefore recommend the removal of DM8(2).
32) Are there any specific types of harm arising from intentional unauthorised development, and any specific impacts from the proposed policy, which we should consider?
a) If so, are there any particular additions or mitigations which we should consider?
No further comment.
33) Do you agree with the new Article 4 direction policy in policy DM10? Strongly agree, partly agree, neither agree nor disagree, partly disagree, strongly disagree.
Strongly agree.
a) Please provide your reasons, particularly if you disagree.
No further comment.
