annual planning survey seminar 2015 presentation in manchester

glhearn.com

Be part of the conversation

Annual Planning Survey 2015 - Manchester

• #PlanningSurvey

• @GL_Hearn

• @BritProp

• @CapitaProperty 15 October 2015

Welcome

Alastair Crowdy National Head of Planning, Development & Regeneration, GL Hearn

Agenda

• Setting the scene and findings Phil Robinson, Planning Associate Director, GL Hearn

• The developer’s response Mark Waite, Chairman North West Planning, Bloor Homes

• The local authority’s response Paul Moore, Head of Planning, Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

• Debate, conclusions and next steps Ian Fletcher, Director of Policy (Real Estate), British Property Federation

glhearn.com

Phil Robinson, Planning Associate Director 15 October 2015

The Results of the Annual Planning Survey 2015

#PlanningSurvey

#planningsurvey

APS Survey

Major Applications: Bristol area

2012 2013 2014

Major Applications: London

Major Applications: Greater Manchester

2011

* * * NPPF

2015

*

5,400+ applications reviewed and 800+ opinions canvassed over five years

Conservative-Lib Dem coalition

Conservative majority

LPA and Applicant Survey

Structured online research

Conducted June/July 2015

271 Applicants

30 Local Planning Authorities (LPAs)

Major Applications Research

Greater London (33 LPAs*)

Greater Manchester (10 LPAs)

Bristol and surrounding area (4 LPAs)

FOI requests and desk research

*Relatively recently formed LLDC not included in research to allow for year-on-year comparisons. In 2014-15, LLDC determined 11 major planning applications

2015 Survey & Research – Key Stats

1. ‘What’s happening on the ground?’ Major planning application determination volumes, approval rates and speed

2. ‘What’s the mood amongst those involved?’ Opinions on existing policies, future priorities and barriers to growth

Volume of new major applications*

Overall London Greater Manchester

Bristol & surrounding

area

-14%

-26%

+19%

1,495

1,289

1,075

775

1,021

758

389 294 351

180 180

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED Source: GL Hearn and Circle Research

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

*Full, new/primary applications only; s73 amendment applications have been excluded

7 out of 10 boroughs in Greater Manchester saw growth in major application* determinations

7

30

7

39

10

34

25 28

51

24

52

22

45

34

Oldham Bolton Stockport Wigan Rochdale Salford Trafford

2013/14 2014/15

2013/14 2014/15

Source: GL Hearn and Circle Research

*Full, new/primary applications only; s73 amendment applications have been excluded

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED

Approval rates have been largely constant over four years

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

86%

84%

96%

86%

Overall

London

Greater Manchester

Bristol & surrounding area

APPROVAL RATES Source: GL Hearn and Circle Research

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

86%

84%

96%

86%

London and Greater Manchester have both experienced a rise in average determination times

Overall London Greater Manchester

Bristol & surrounding

area

Average submission to determination time (weeks)

+4 weeks +6 weeks

+3 weeks -4 weeks

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

28

32

37

27 28

34

27 24

31

27

DETERMINATION TIMES Source: GL Hearn and Circle Research

• 14 weeks average determination time • 100% approval rate for major applications

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Num

ber o

f maj

or a

pplic

atio

ns* d

eter

min

ed (2

014/

15)

Average submission to determination time (weeks)

Five LPAs perform strongly when volume linked to time

Westminster

Note; Three LPAs excluded from graph due average determination times of greater than one year *Full, new/primary applications only; s73 amendment applications have been excluded

Bristol City Bolton

Manchester City S. Gloucestershire

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED AND DETERMINATION TIMES Source: GL Hearn and Circle Research

294

351

24

27

Volume jump in Manchester but mirrored rise in time

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED Source: GL Hearn and Circle Research

*Full, new/primary applications only; s73 amendment applications have been excluded

95% 96%

2013/14 2014/15

Volume*

Approval rate

Time (weeks) Submission to determination

1. ‘What’s happening on the ground?’ Major planning application determination volumes, approval rates and speeds

2. ‘What’s the mood amongst those involved?’ Opinions on existing policies, future priorities and barriers to growth

When the previous coalition government came to power in 2010, a series of new ‘growth-friendly planning rules’1 were unveiled including NPPF,

Neighbourhood Plans and CIL…

…five years on – what has been their impact?

1 2012 Budget Statement by Chancellor George Osborne

LPAs think the planning environment is worse now than it was 5 years ago

Base: All respondents from LPAs (28) and private applicants (263) answering the question Q: Overall, do you think that the planning environment now is better or worse than it was when the previous Government came to power in 2010?

About the same – 25%

Worse 39%

Better 25%

About the same – 42% Worse 17%

Much better = 3%

Applicants LPAs

Better 32%

Much worse 11%

Much worse = 7%

LPA AND APPLICANT SURVEYS Source: GL Hearn and Circle Research

NPPF is seen to have increased development activity

4% 4% 14% 36% 43%

4% 21% 51% 23%

Decreased activity a lot Decreased activity a little No impact Increased activity a little Increased activity a lot

LPAs

Applicants

Base: All respondents from LPAs (24-29) and private applicants (203-248) answering the question Q: Specifically, how effective do you feel each of the following policies have been at increasing the level of development in the UK?

LPA AND APPLICANT SURVEYS Source: GL Hearn and Circle Research

But both LPAs and applicants do not think Neighbourhood Plans and CIL have had a positive impact on planning activity…

11%

32%

19%

56%

48%

8%

19%

4%

4%

CIL

NeighbourhoodPlans

10%

9%

45%

35%

35%

37%

7%

17%

3%

2%

CIL

NeighbourhoodPlans

Decreased a lot Decreased a little No impact Increased a little Increased a lot

LPAs

Applicants

LPA & APPLICANT SURVEY Source: GL Hearn and Circle Research Base: All respondents from LPAs (24-29) and applicants (203-248) answering the question Q: Specifically, how effective do you feel each of the following policies have been at increasing the level of development in the UK?

Around one in three applicants and LPAs would like to abandon CIL and Neighbourhood Plans

NPPF Neighbourhood

Plans CIL

38%

2%

60%

14%

57%

29%

13%

53%

34%

Key:

Keep the policy but make some changes

Keep the policy exactly the same

Abandon the policy completely

Base: All LPAs (22-29) and applicants (174-239) answering the question Q: What advice would you give the new Government in relation to each of the following existing policies?

LPA AND APPLICANT SURVEYS Source: GL Hearn and Circle Research

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70%

LPAs

Applicants

Priorities for LPAs and applicants

Invest in infrastructure

Accelerate housing delivery

Regenerate brownfield

Increase affordable housing

Invest in commercial space

Densification

COMMON AIMS LPA AIMS

LOW PRIORITIES

Brownfield regeneration, accelerated housing delivery and investment in infrastructure are common aims

Base: All LPAs (30) and applicants (271) Q: Thinking about your organisation, which, if any, of the following are priorities for you?

LPA AND APPLICANT SURVEYS Source: GL Hearn and Circle Research

But not everyone has confidence in government to support housing delivery

Base: All LPAs (5-24) and applicants (85-161) answering the question Q: And how confident are you that the new Government will help enable each of the following?

Confidence in government to support priorities…

LPA AND APPLICANT SURVEYS Source: GL Hearn and Circle Research

Applicants see the planning system as the biggest barrier to accelerating housing delivery

18%

25%

26%

29%

43%

52%

9%

19%

38%

41%

44%

69%

Lack of demand from buyers

Securing funding for developments

CIL

High requirement for affordable housing

Shortage of land

The planning system

Major barriers to increasing the rate of housing delivery (Applicants only)

20152014

Base: All applicants quoting ‘accelerating housing delivery’ as a priority (160) Q: Which, if any, of the following do you see as major barriers to increasing the rate of housing delivery?

APPLICANT SURVEY Source: GL Hearn and Circle Research

INC

RE

AS

ING

B

AR

RIE

RS

FA

LLIN

G

BA

RR

IER

S

3 in 4 applicants are now dissatisfied with the time a typical planning application takes…

28% 47% 18% 7%

Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied

Base: All applicants (271) Q: Generally speaking, how satisfied are you with the length of time a typical planning application takes to reach a decision?

75% dissatisfied or very dissatisfied

APPLICANT SURVEY Source: GL Hearn and Circle Research

…and dissatisfaction with planning application times shows a gradual deterioration trend

19% 51% 18% 11%

Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied

2015

2014

2013

Base: All applicants (271) Q: Generally speaking, how satisfied are you with the length of time a typical planning application takes to reach a decision?

14% 57% 20% 7%

28% 47% 18% 7%

APPLICANT SURVEY Source: GL Hearn and Circle Research

And nearly 9 in 10 LPAs are struggling with under-resourcing

28%

34%

36%

55%

76%

62%

82%

86%

Lack of funding for developments

Shortage of land

Aligning aims of LPAs and developers

Under-resourcing

Challenges to achieving LPA aims (LPAs only)

Significant challenge Challenge (including significant challenge) Small or no challenge

Base: All LPAs answering the question (28-29) Q: To what extent do you expect the following to be challenges to your organisation achieving its aims for the next 5 years?

LPA SURVEY Source: GL Hearn and Circle Research

65% Happily accept

increased fees in return for improved

service

25% Unhappy but

wouldn’t affect

development activity

10%

Negatively impact development activity

Around two-thirds of applicants would happily pay more fees in return for a better service

Base: All applicants answering the question (248) Q: If planning fees were to increase on the promise of a better service, what would be your reaction?

APPLICANT SURVEY Source: GL Hearn and Circle Research

To support the Northern Powerhouse we need to ensure development activity is not impeded The planning system needs investment

glhearn.com