{"id":2107,"date":"2010-11-30T12:05:48","date_gmt":"2010-11-30T12:05:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ihbconline.co.uk\/newsachive\/?p=2107"},"modified":"2010-11-30T12:05:48","modified_gmt":"2010-11-30T12:05:48","slug":"ministers-respond-positively-to-penfold","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=2107","title":{"rendered":"Ministers respond positively to Penfold:"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/strong>Responding to Adrian Penfold’s review of non-planning consents, the Government said that it would immediately take practical steps to free developers from burdensome regulation and make sure that those responsible for these consents were sharing best practice.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Specific initiatives include:
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

– \u00a0agreeing to \u2018convene a meeting of the relevant professional bodies, representing those undertaking planning and non-planning consents, to identify the opportunities for them to work together to break down any cultural or practical barriers to smooth working between professions\u2019
\n– reviewing \u2018the value and feasibility of charging for premium services where appropriate\u2019
\n– supporting \u2018the recommendation to merge conservation area consent with planning permission…\u2019, in particular, and \u2018in the absence of legislation to create a new heritage protection system, DCMS and English Heritage will work together to ensure that the existing heritage consent regimes operate as effectively and efficiently as possible\u2019, and so \u00a0\u2018Bringing forward legislation, at the earliest opportunity, to merge conservation area consent with planning permission; and to combine listed building consent and scheduled monument consent into a single historic assets consent, determined by local authorities
\n– Defra, to \u2018consider whether any changes to the village greens registration system are required as part of the Government\u2019s commitment to create a new designation to protect green areas of particular importance to local communities.
\n– CLG to \u2018 include in the spring update detail of further measures to simplify the planning system… include details of proposals for a new National Planning Policy Framework to provide a simple and consolidated framework covering all forms of development\u2019
\n– accepting \u2018the Review\u2019s recommendation for incremental change rather than a wholesale move to a unified system whereby consents and planning permissions are combined\u2019
\n– CLG Ministers have established a \u201cbarrier-busting\u201d team which supports the Big Society agenda across government
\n– CLG will hold initial discussions with the Local Government Association, the Planning Officers Society and the Royal Town Planning Institute to establish a way of actively promoting the adoption of existing good practice in development management, including pre-application advice, across all authorities that take decisions on planning and non-planning consents
\n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n


\nThe press report follows:
\n<\/span>
\nKey conclusions of the Government’s response are:
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

* in line with the commitment to a ‘one-in, one-out’ approach to regulation, Government will seek to simplify some existing consents where other new non-planning consents are proposed, to make sure that the overall burden on developers does not increase;
\n* ministers will consider how consents might be streamlined and simplified to make the process simpler and reduce the red tape on businesses; and
\n* BIS and CLG will work with other Government departments to drive forward these changes, and will provide an update on implementation in spring.
\n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n


\nThe Review focussed on ‘non-planning consents’, such as environmental permits, highways orders, and heritage consents that are needed alongside or after planning permission. It found a complex and fragmented landscape that poses real problems for some businesses to navigate effectively.<\/p>\n

The Review recommended:
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

* simplifying the non-planning consents landscape by removing some individual consents and rationalising other groups of related consents;
\n* giving developers easy access to clear, accurate and up-to-date information;
\n* delivering greater certainty for developers and removing duplication by improving the way planning and non-planning consents operate together;
\n* improving the co-ordination and governance around decisions involving multiple decision makers;
\n* strengthening the service culture of decision-making bodies by, for example, setting timetables for the determination of non-planning consents; and
\n* creating a clear system for oversight of the planning and non-planning landscape
\n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n


\nDownload the response HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

www.bis.gov.uk\/penfold<\/a>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Responding to Adrian Penfold’s review of non-planning consents, the Government said that it would immediately take practical steps to free developers from burdensome regulation and make sure that those responsible for these consents were sharing best practice. Specific initiatives include: … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2107","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sector-newsblog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2107","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2107"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2107\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2108,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2107\/revisions\/2108"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2107"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2107"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2107"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}