Mr. John Spain:

We are speaking about measures to reduce the timescale involved and risks in the planning application process. All such measures are welcome. An area in which further measures could be taken is the compliance process. It has long been recognised that there is a need to have a time-bound compliance process. At present it is not time-bound, which creates considerable difficulties when it comes to undertaking development. This leads to delays in the post-planning permission stage. Perhaps the opportunity could be taken in this legislation to put such a process in place.

There are other elements that can be fine-tuned or further developed within this proposed legislation to further achieve reductions in timescale and risk. For example, Mr. Cussen referred to delays and I certainly concur with his comments about the pre-application stage with local authorities. Again, the opportunity should be taken, we suggest, to put in place a statutory timescale for the local authority pre-application stage, which is the precursor to engaging with the board. It may fall at the first hurdle if significant delays remain, which is the case with some local authorities. The next stage of the process is the validation of an application following the pre-application process. Rather than being sent back to the beginning of the process if there is some shortage of information at that stage, provision should be made for the board to request the missing information from the applicant and keep going without starting again. That is trying to avoid the snake back to the beginning.

Another potential snake is if the board, having gone through the whole process, considers in making a decision that there is an absence of information. If information is missing or if changes in design and layout are required for it to be acceptable, the board should have a specific power to request that information or design changes. Any developer or applicant would much rather get a request for further information from the board than a refusal and a return to the very beginning of the process. I have no doubt the board would use such a power with discretion and only where it is really necessary. That can be addressed by practice guidelines.

There are two other points. Again, an opportunity should be taken to address the issue of amendment applications. Most large-scale housing applications are subject to subsequent amendment applications relating to house types and aspects of layout and design. The legislation makes no specific provision for that. The question arises in the case of an amendment to a permission granted by the board of more 100 units as to whether the amendment application goes to the board or back to the local authority. I suggest it should go to the local authority but that should be explicitly addressed, with specific power to make amendment applications provided for in the legislation.