Planning, building and the environment

Act Paper: Annual Report on compliance with statutory timetables for planning decisions for 2007-08

An Act Paper presented to the House of Commons pursuant to Schedule 2 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Review of performance in complying with Statutory Instruments for planning decisions

Annual Report to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for 2007-08

Introduction

1. In compliance with paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government hereby reports to Parliament on performance in meeting the timetables set for planning decisions under the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 2.

2. This information relates to all such decisions issued between 1 April 2007 and 31 March 2008.

3. No Parliamentary proceedings apply to this paper.

Background information

4. Statutory timetabling applies to called-in planning applications; planning appeals recovered for the Secretary of State's decision; other cases "linked" to such decisions, including listed building consent, conservation area consent, advertisement consent and enforcement notice appeals; and tree preservation order appeals. However statutory timetables do not apply to any of these categories of cases if they have been decided jointly with a Minister in another Department. Nor do they apply to cases decided by Inspectors.

Review of performance

5. For the year from 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008, 131 (100 per cent) of the 131 decisions subject to statutory timetables which were made by the Secretary of State on cases other than appeals under tree preservation orders were made within the statutory timetables set for them, as were 617 out of 627 decisions (98.4 per cent) on tree preservation order appeals.

Explanation of any failure to comply with a timetable

6. In the case of appeals under tree preservation orders, 1 of the 10 decisions made outside the timetable was the result of administrative oversight in the relevant Government Office, 1 arose because the file was lost in transit, 1 arose because of late advice on a policy issue and 7 were caused by resource constraints in the relevant Government Office.