Legal report

Stephen Ashworth, head of planning and public law at DentonWilde Sapte, Planning, 4 January 2008

Planning is overwhelmed by unnecessary information. Decisions are often delayed by the need to plough through paper that will never, and should never, have any influence on the eventual decision. The following comprises a list of work, information and requirements that, as a matter of law, is unnecessary.

Local development documents (LDDs) are a useful starting point:

- Exclude policies repeating the relevant statute. Why set out policy that repeats or misinterprets policy tests?

- Leave out any national or regional policy reference. It will soon be out of date. LDDs should interpret and place guidance in a local context.

- Delete policies that prescribe thresholds for and content of environmental statements or planning applications. They have no status or effect. A case-by-case analysis is far better.

- Resist general statements on planning benefits. Either be specific so that requirements can be costed and taken into account in land acquisition or keep quiet.

Simplify assessment contents

Most sustainability appraisals and strategic environmental assessments (SEAs) are too long. An SEA more than 50 pages should be rewritten or risk being so unintelligible as to be unlawful. When an appraisal contains more paper than the underlying plan, something is wrong.

Environmental statements provide opportunities for saving paper:

- Always ask whether you really need a statement. It is worth looking at the ministerial record. The secretary of state takes a far harder line than most local planning authorities.

- Delete all policy chapters. Policy never alters the level of an environmental effect per se.

- Omit anything that does not relate to a likely significant environmental effect. Too often, chapters are included simply because there may be an effect. Even if an effect is likely, drop it if it is not significant.

- Omit references to low-risk or high-cost events. There is no legal reason why an environmental statement for a nuclear power station should consider catastrophe options. They are, hopefully, not "likely".

- Remove most socio-economic chapters. Job creation, local income generation or extra spending in town centres rarely have any real environmental effect.

- In most cases, avoid reference to detailed design. Except on listed buildings, the environmental effect is often negligible.

Material supporting applications can also be slimmed down. Avoid preparing detailed material for outline applications. Either apply for outline consent with the required statutory information or ask for a detailed consent. Do not confuse the process by providing unnecessary information unless you expect the scheme to be conditioned.

Keep support information brief

Be careful about the level of information provided in support of an application. There is a growing tendency to provide planning statements, transport assessments, energy statements, green analyses and a host of other documents. These are not necessary for many developments. Both applicants and planning authorities should exercise common sense and ask whether the issue covered is really likely to be critical.

Design and access statements (DASs) should meet the legal requirements rather than being an essay on design issues. Unless the detail in the statement is intended to be binding, keep it to broad principles. If an application is genuinely in outline, it should be judged on the level of design information provided.

This is largely a question of confidence. Once it is accepted that poorly designed reserved matters proposals can and should be refused, DASs can be used to set out the key issues and approach and avoid the level of redundant information that they contain at present.

Over the past decade, too much information has been produced as part of the planning process. The industry has conspired in and benefited significantly from this growth. Too often, the law and the threat of court challenges have been used to justify this abundance.

A cultural change is needed. Decisions can and should be taken with less but more relevant information. Doing so will require courage and a willingness to work on the basis of the key issues. Do not blame the lawyers if, collectively, we lack the will.