It is now more than two years since the Welsh Government introduced Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) into the planning system, making it compulsory for developers to consult with local communities before applying for major developments.
Under the rules, applicants must make the planning application documents available for inspection and comment for a period of at least 28 days prior to submission. Members of the public, community consultees and statutory (or specialist) consultees must then be invited to comment on the proposals. There was significant concern in industry that the process would lead to delays, add to costs and risk ‘consultation fatigue’.
New data published in December 2018 indicates that, since its introduction in 2016, there has been a quantitative improvement in the PAC response rate among statutory consultees, such as Natural Resources Wales, Local Highway Authorities and water companies.
This is welcome news, but only tells part of the story, and does little to explore whether the PAC process is achieving its desired results as envisaged by Welsh Government.
The advocates for PAC suggested it would improve engagement, ‘front-load’ the planning process (giving developers the opportunity to resolve foreseeable issues with schemes) and speed up the time it takes to determine applications, once formally submitted. Much more research is required to allow the industry to understand the benefits and drawbacks of the process and, importantly, whether amendments and/or a more comprehensive review should be considered.
Take the qualitative dimension, for example. Are statutory consultee responses being provided in the “substantive” fashion required by legislation? Has the quality of community engagement improved, or is an underlying feeling of consultation fatigue emerging? How have developers taken to and embraced the process and, importantly, is it affecting the delivery of sites?
Recent research by Savills has shown that many developers are submitting planning applications shortly after the PAC process has ended, suggesting either very efficient management of the process (which is to be applauded) or a lack of changes being made to proposals between PAC and planning application submission (for any number of reasons), which would mean the potential opportunities of the process are being lost.
The industry must undertake further research to understand, beyond the numbers, whether PAC is having positive results. Rhys Govier Associate