HC Deb 02 November 1983 vol 47 cc917-34 6.54 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane)

I beg to move, That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 25th July, be approved.

Mr. Speaker

With this it will be convenient to consider motion No. 3 on the Order Paper: That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 26th October, be approved.

Mr. Macfarlane

These two sets of regulations, which are laid under powers contained in section 87 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, provide for a number of changes to the fees scheme, which was introduced in April 1981 and amended in June 1982. They update and supersede both the original regulations and the amending regulations of 1982. The changes that the new regulations introduce follow the review of the workings of the planning fees scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) announced in the House during last year's debate on the 1982 regulations, and they reflect the conclusions drawn from that review and also from the correspondence that my Department has had with hon. Members and others outside the House.

Most of these changes are concerned with the detailed workings of the fees scheme — the way it affects particular sorts of applications and the variety of circumstances in which applications for planning permission are made. But we propose one change that will affect every application and every applicant equally, and that is a modest across-the-board increase of 7 per cent. in the levels of all fees, with the maximum fee for every kind of development going up by the same amount. I will return to this in a moment.

It may be for the convenience of the House if I give a brief outline of the way in which the fees scheme works, to put the changes into context.

Any applicant who seeks planning permission for a building operation or a change in the use of land must pay a fee to the local planning authority, usually the district council, when submitting his planning application. The fee must be as prescribed by the regulations and it cannot be waived or refunded, but there are concessions where normal fees would be unreasonable. Subject to that, applications are charged according to the kind of development proposed and its size where this is relevant. The scheme basically is designed so that, firstly, there is a fair balance between the categories of development; secondly, the fee should reflect in broad terms an authority's likely handling costs; thirdly, fees do not discourage sensible planning applications; fourthly, the scheme is easily understood and operated and free of areas for dispute.

Naturally there is some conflict in these requirements but they have determined whether and which changes should be made to the way the scheme operates. We started our review by inviting comment from over 140 organisations on how the scheme was working, and on the most frequently made suggestions for change. But we made it clear that the principle of charging for applications was not under review. There were over 180 responses to that letter, and there was a clear divide. Local planning authorities, naturally, preferred simplicity and clarity and did not want major changes. Developers' responses argued, naturally, for more concessions and complexity in the interests of fairness, and we have tried to balance these conflicting demands. It was clear to us, however, that the overall shape, and the degree of detail, was broadly correct.

The scheme is working reasonably well, we found, and such changes as were needed could be easily accommodated. I was also pleased to note that now the scheme has been established it does not impose any great administrative burden upon either side, and that fears of the planning system slowing down or of damage to the relationship between authority and applicant were unfounded. If anything, officers tend to help applicants to get proposals right first time so that the fee is not spent upon an unsuccessful application. I believe the general principle is now understood and accepted.

I should like now to summarise briefly the main changes embodied in the new regulations. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me through some of the more technical and complex features of the planning system.

The regulations provide for an increase of 7 per cent. in the overall levels of fees, with the cut-off point for each fee category rising pro rata. We have for the second time kept the increase broadly in line with inflation, remembering of course that the last increase was over 12 months ago. This means that fees will continue to offset somewhat less than 40 per cent. of the total estimated expenditure on the development control system, which is currently running at something like £70 million to £75 million per annum in England and Wales. This is something that we are keeping under review in the light of the wider need to control public expenditure, but in these regulations we are not seeking to move towards any higher percentage cost recovery. Depending on the overall level of applications, and of course their composition in fees terms, the yield from the increased level of fees in a full year is estimated at between £28 and £30 million.

The basic units of fee will now be £47 instead of £44, and £24 instead of £22. The erection of dwellinghouses, for example, is to be charged at £47 per dwellinghouse in the case of a full application, or application for approval of details, and £37 per 0.1 hectare of site area in the case of an outline application. The householder who wishes to extend his house or put up a large amateur radio mast in his back garden will now pay £24 instead of £22 — assuming he needs planning permission for what he proposes. Erecting non-residential buildings will incur a fee of £47 per 75 sq m of floor space instead of £44, and so on throughout the fees scale. The details are contained in the regulations. The maximum fee or cut-off point in each fee category with a sliding scale is increased so that it remains at the same level relative to the basic fee unit concerned.

There are more specific changes aimed at refining the scheme. Last year my hon. Friend announced an important concession in the fees charged for agricultural buildings. He undertook to consider what more might need to be done to meet the special case presented by glasshouse growers. We had received a number of representations to the effect that even with last year's new discount in the calculation of floor space for agricultural buildings, the application fees to build or replace the typical one acre or more glasshouse was excessive. It was said that glasshouses were low-cost standardised structures, often on traditional sites, and that local planning authorities did not need to give those applications very detailed consideration, despite the enormous size of some of the buildings in terms of floor space. We have been impressed by those arguments. Fees should not be too high a proportion of an applicant's total costs, and it is true that for secondhand glasshouses in particular a fee of up to £2,200 would represent a very high proportion indeed.

The fee should also reflect a local authority's work on a typical application. We therefore propose a special additional fee category for glasshouses—including the polythene tunnels that are often used. The fee will be a flat rate £280, based on the average size of a glasshouse application; and glasshouses below 465 sq m in floor space which happen to need planning permission will continue to be exempt from fee along with other agricultural buildings. I believe that that substantial concession is justified in terms of fees scheme principles, and will be welcomed by the horticulture industry.

The next important change is of potential benefit to all applicants. At present, a successful applicant who obtains planning permission but needs to alter his scheme to an extent that requires a fresh application, has to pay a fresh fee—usually equal to the fee he has already paid. I am concerned that the fees scheme should not discourage flexibility in the planning system, and so the new regulations contain a new "free go" exemption. An application by the same applicant submitted within 12 months of obtaining planning permission for development of the same character or description on the same land will now be exempt, in the same way as it would had the permission been refused or the original application withdrawn. That change will make it a much more reasonable proposition to amend a proposed development after planning permission has been obtained.

There is a further concession aimed at maintaining flexibility. At present an applicant who simultaneously puts forward alternative proposals for one site must pay a total fee calculated separately for each application. That discourages some from exploring several options for a site and does not reflect the fact that the options may often be so similar that double fees are unjustified in terms of local planning authorities' handling costs for the applications concerned. We propose that the applicant will pay only the highest fees due for the various alternatives, plus an amount equal to half the fees that would otherwise be payable for the remaining alternatives.

We have also made some further concessions for certain forms of development as well as particular circumstances in which applications are made. The existing exemptions for works intended to adapt a disabled person's dwellinghouse to improve his safety, convenience or comfort have been extended to cover cases where he is not yet in residence; and also to cover any works to improve his access to buildings in public use such as shops and cinemas. We hope that that latter concession will especially encourage the owners of such buildings to submit applications for access ramps and the like to help towards improving the accessibility of their property to disabled people.

Development undertaken by parish and town councils is another area where a concession is appropriate. They have to make planning applications like everyone else in order to undertake their own development — because unlike districts and counties, they are not planning authorities and cannot give themselves planning permission. Their applications may cost as much to handle as would anyone else's, but they are, however, part of our local government system. Furthermore, what they build by way of village halls, bus shelters and so on is likely to he paid for or helped by the public purse—quite often from district council funds. We propose, therefore, that applications by parish and town councils will incur half the normal rates of fees, to reflect their special position with regard to the other tiers of local government.

Apart from concessions to certain kinds of development, we have been concerned to remove some uncertainties and unfairness that have come to our attention. One problem area concerns development that happens to straddle the boundary between two local planning authorities. In those cases separate planning applications have to be made to each authority and for a large development the maximum fee can be reached for both halves of the site, whereas had the same site been wholly within one authority's jurisdiction, the fee payable would have been lower by virtue of the ceiling that applies to every application. Applications made in those circumstances are certainly more expensive to handle than would be one application to one authority, for obvious reasons, but we concluded that the costs could and should be reflected more accurately.

The draft regulations provide that only one fee will be paid in those cases instead of two, but it will be calculated as if all the development site were contained in one application. It will he subject to a single maximum cut-off point, but that maximum will stand at one and a half times the normal one instead of effectively double. In cases where the district councils are merely receiving applications and collecting fees on behalf of a single county planning authority—most often in minerals cases —the cut-off point will be the normal one to reflect the fact that in those cases there is only one decision taken on the applications and not two.

Advertisement applications enjoy two amendments in the new provisions. The first of those deals with advertisments on parking meters, litter bins and bus shelters. At present a fee of £44 is payable per site, but it has not been very clear whether each item of street furniture is a separate site for fees purposes requiring a separate fee. That uncertainty needs to be cleared. Local authorities welcome the revenue from letting out space on their street furniture for advertisements and it is important not to discourage applicants with uncertain or excessive fees. We now propose, therefore, that for fees purposes the site shall be the area covered by the application, so that only one fee of £47 is payable in every case.

The second change is the introduction of a "free go" or exemption for revised applications following the refusal of an earlier one or its withdrawal before any decision was taken on it. That mirrors the existing "free go" arrangements for revisions of ordinary planning applications, and is intended to allow applicants to revise their proposals and resubmit them in a form more likely to obtain planning permission without paying a further fee. Those two changes should be very welcome to authorities and applicants alike.

Some changes will not, perhaps, be quite as welcome to some applicants as others, but they are essential improvements to the operation of the scheme. The first of these concerns the use of land for the outdoor storage of extracted minerals and spoil. At present, where that form of development needs a specific planning application, it attracts a flat rate fee of £44 as a change of use of land. But stockpiling excavated material and working the piles subsequently can involve a good deal of noise, dust and traffic, and the application can involve a local planning authority in a good deal of work. The present fee of £47 in no way reflects the authority's handling costs, and we therefore propose that that development is to be charged on the same sliding scale of fees as waste disposal, giving a fee of £24 per tenth of a hectare of site area.

The second of these changes concerns applications to continue a use of land or retain a building without complying with a condition imposed on the original planning permission. At present, most of these applications incur a flat rate of £44, but there is an exemption for those applications where the condition in question placed a limit on the life of the building or the use, making the permission in effect a temporary one. This distinction causes a certain amount of unnecessary confusion, and we propose that all "conditions" applications—that is applications to retain a development without complying with a condition—are subject to the flat rate fee. There will be no further blanket exemption for temporary permission, but if the original permission is less than 12 months old, any applicant seeking to remove or alter a condition on that permission should be able instead to claim exemption under the new "free go" at regulation 6, which I discussed in the earlier part of this speech.

The third and final change concerns the submission of details which the local planning authority reserves for its later approval when it gives an outline planning permission. Approval of these "reserved matters"—design, external appearance, siting, access and landscaping—can be sought all at once or piecemeal, as the applicant prefers. Each application for approval is either charged a fee based on the number of houses or floor space involved, or it may qualify for a special low flat-rate fee of £44 — when the applicant adopts a "piecemeal" approach—which avoids the applicant paying fees at the full rate several times over. However, the qualification for the flat rate is a complicated one which causes confusion among authorities and applicants alike, and it can sometimes land applicants with excessive fees. We have simplified these arrangements so that only when an applicant has paid fees for his reserved matters equal to the fees for a full planning application does the flat rate come into play for any further approvals that he may need. This means that first approvals in a series of piecemeal approvals may be more expensive to obtain than before, but the overall liability to fees before a development can commence will not be increased, and in some cases it will be lower.

Consultations on the operation of the fees system in Scotland gave rise to conclusions which were very similar to those of the review to which I have already referred. Thus the Scottish regulations are in most respects the same as for England and Wales, although they incorporate some very minor differences to reflect different circumstances north of the border. The main differences, which have been carried over since the 1982 regulations for Scotland, are that there is no special category for agricultural buildings or glasshouses, and that there is a single flat rate fee for advertisement applications.

There were, of course, a good many other suggestions for changing the fees scheme which came to us in response to the review, and in my Department's correspondence with hon. Members. Some of these had an obvious appeal, but on closer examination they turned out not to fit in with one or more of our guiding principles. The idea of a concession for charities' and voluntary bodies' applications was one such possibility which we looked at with particular care, as was a concession towards applications made by small firms.

Apart from the obvious fact that those applications cost as much to handle as those of anyone else, there are many problems that arise immediately from that. I could not contemplate any provision that would provoke argument and disputes between the parties, as to the scope of a concession or the "deserving" nature of the applicant concerned. We have therefore remained firmly with the principle that the nature of the application, not the applicant, shall determine the fee to be paid in each case.

We shall continue to monitor these regulations and their operation, the level of fees and the suggestions that are still arriving to me for further change. In identifying necessary changes for the new regulations, which come into force on 1 December, we have been fair and open-minded to every representation made to us. In particular, we have not been concerned to maximise fee income to planning authorities. Our concern has been instead to strike a fair balance between equity and simplicity.

I commend the regulations to the House.

7.14 pm
Dr. David Clark (South Shields)

I shall not detain the House for too long for the simple reason that, as the Minister knows, the Opposition are completely opposed in principle to charging for applications. The purpose of the planning system is to provide a satisfactory environment and service to the building industry, and a charge for this function is not in order. Therefore, as we are opposed to the issue in principle, it would not help the House if I quibbled about this or that little point.

I fully appreciate that, like everyone else, the Minister did not want to go into too much detail, but we feel it only right and proper to ask a number of questions. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was a little cautious, perhaps as a result of his experience and that of his colleagues in 1981 and 1982 when the Government gave figures of how much local authorities could expect to receive each year as a result of the applications. As the Minister knows, the Government got it wrong then, and I should be interested to know whether the Minister now has the estimates right, because these are made for the local authorities, for when they come to make their budgets. I should appreciate it if he could say something about that when he replies.

I am not sure how long the Minister expects these regulations to last. I know that they are to come in on 1 December. The previous regulations came in on 3 March 1981 and 11 May 1982. Are the Government thinking in terms of the regulations running for a year? If so, why do they propose an increase of 7 per cent? The Prime Minister and her colleagues tell us how successful they are in dealing with inflation, that it is now 5.1 percent. and that they confidently expect it to remain at that level or even to fall. Therefore, why do the regulations refer to 7 per cent., which is higher than the 5.1 per cent. rate of inflation? Could it be that the Department of the Environment is a little more realistic than the Treasury in these matters?

The Minister tried to deal with street advertising. It is difficult to explain such a complicated issue to the House, and there are two points that I do not understand and I should like him to elaborate. I know that this matter has caused many difficulties for local authorities, and I know that local authorities welcome the Minister's efforts to try to clarify the position. I am sure that he has done so for them, but he has not for me. What is the position?

I think that the Minister was saying that the regulations in essence provide that there will not be a separate charge for each individual advertisement, but that the charge for a planning application will relate to the whole site. I am not sure what "the whole site" refers to. Are the Government thinking in terms of a whole local authority area, or a street, or part of a street? I should appreciate an explanation from the Minister either now or later.

The Minister said that the system was working better than he thought it would. Has he had any complaints recently from local authorities? As he knows, there were complaints earlier about the scheme under the first two regulations. The authorities said that a great deal of staff time was being taken up in explaining the complexities of the planning system and giving advice on pre-planning stages. That was distorting the demands on staff in planning departments. The Minister knows that that was the earlier complaint, but does the problem still exist? I get the feeling that it does and I should welcome some comments on that point.

Another issue is that of spoil heaps. This is one of the negative changes in the regulations, as the charge on them is increased. I can understand the case for that with quarrying, but does it apply to stockpiling by the National Coal Board at its pits, and to the storage depots of the electricity board power stations? It would be nice to know whether the change applies to the NCB, and, if so, whether the Minister had discussions with it and the CEGB.

The regulations are being introduced a little later than we might have expected. because the Minister's colleague said on 11 May 1982 that the time was ripe for what he called "a … fundamental review" into how the system was working. That review took place late in 1982. There is a feeling that the fundamental review was not as fundamental as it should have been. The bodies who are concerned about the matter, and who are not necessarily antagonistic to the Government in this respect, feel that the review was not fundamental enough, and that there was merely a tinkering with the system. I hope that the Minister will answer that point. If he feels that the review was sufficiently fundamental, could he could give us information perhaps by depositing it in the Library, about the nature of the review? People need to be reassured that it was as thorough as the Minister implied.

The Opposition welcome most of the minor changes that have been introduced. We oppose the system, as I have said, but if it is to operate we want it to operate as effectively as possible and in the least punitive way. We welcome the proposals for parish and community councils to get special half rates. We welcome what I shall call the free goal for some amendments to planning permission which has gone ahead in the previous 12 months.

However, there is a great lacuna in the system—one great change that is necessary. I appreciate that the Minister is trying to strike a balance between simplicity and good planning. Of course that makes sense. If there is a change of use there is basically a standard charge, and as the Minister knows—we have been over the matter time and again in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act — one has to apply for planning permission before a change of use, for example. between certain types of shops. If one wants to change a small shop into a betting shop one has to make a planning application and pay a standard charge of £47. Clearly, that does not involve a great deal of work for the planning authority or anyone. However, if one wants to turn a food store into a do-it-yourself shop, which might involve other complicated issues including storage, ventilation, lighting, fire regulations, and so on, it is easy to imagine that the local authority would have to do a lot of work in connection with that. So, while we welcome simplicity, we feel that there is still room for further changes. I hope that the Minister will consider this aspect, and that when he introduces new regulations, which I am sure he will be required to do in due course, he will be able to accommodate us on that.

I end where I began. We have studied the system's operation over three years, and we still think that it is ill conceived. We still believe that planning is for the benefit of the whole population, and that it is a service. Everything must be done to instil confidence in the planning system, among the planners and the general public. What disturbs me is that planners are always the bad guys. I am sure that all hon. Members get that message from our constituents—rightly or wrongly. That is a great mistake, and it is sad. We must create confidence between the planner and the citizen. We still believe that the introduction of a cash nexus into the system helps to destroy that confidence and makes the situation worse.

7.24 pm
Mr. Peter Griffiths (Portsmouth, North)

My hon. Friend may be aware that before and during the passage of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 I had correspondence with his Department about fees for planning applications. At that time I was seeking some way to prevent the problem, which has been prevalent in my constituency, the city of Portsmouth, of repeated and vexatious planning applications. When an application is repeated several times, particularly in an urban area, it can cause a great deal of disquiet and worry to the people who are affected. They feel that they are forced to defend their homes and environment against the proposed change. Particularly if the application is repeated with little variation, they feel that they are being pushed into a position where it is hoped that in the end they will simply give up and cease to oppose the application.

So when fees were first introduced I spoke in favour of them, because I hoped that the introduction of a cost element would discourage those who tended to put in frivolous applications which they perhaps had little intention of carrying through and which were sometimes intended simply to be vexatious to people who previously opposed them. To prevent that, I am very much in favour of the principle of fees for applications. I should like a sliding scale to apply, whereby the reintroduction of a virtually similar planning application, within a given period, would require a higher fee to be paid, bearing in mind the concern that it might cause to those who feel that they have a legitimate right to object.

Having taken that view, basically as a result of my own understanding of the problems and of the pressures brought to bear on me on many occasions by my constituents when faced with applications to which they objected, I was recently given a quite contrary view. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me at the end of the debate whether this view has been expressed to his Department, and if so on how many occasions. The Portsmouth city council—a responsible body in this matter—is disturbed by the way the charging of fees has operated and may operate, following the increase. I appreciate that the increase in fees is only about 7 per cent. Nevertheless, when these regulations come into force, assuming that they do, the matter will be advertised. It will be a matter of discussion. The Portsmouth city council fears that people will be discouraged from making applications before making changes and alterations to their properties, particularly in the case of development under categories 6, 7 and 9, which do not necessarily involve immediately obvious changes to the property. The changes may be internal or at the rear of properties. They may involve changing a single dwellinghouse into a house in multi-occupation. The city council, and, I am sure, other local authorities would want to know about such changes. It would not want anything to happen that would encourage people to avoid bringing the matter to the attention of the local authority.

The city that I represent is one of the most densely populated in Britain. Its housing stock is very old. Therefore, changes of use, alterations and improvements are relevant to Portsmouth, just as they are to many of our older industrial towns. If landlords are carrying out work on a do-it-yourself basis or at the minimum price, the point that the Minister made about the percentage of the total cost that is represented by the cost of the planning application may well apply. Someone who carries out changes on a shoestring may be put off by the fact that he has to produce £47 in cash in order to make his planning application.

If no other council has seen that problem, I shall not press the issue further tonight. However, if other city, district or county councils have made similar representations to the Minister, I hope that he will agree to keep an eye on the matter. I also hope that he will ensure that for the sake of raising a relatively small sum in revenue we do not discourage the disclosure of changes, particularly to multi-occupation, which should be subject to close scrutiny by councils.

I do not intend to press the matter tonight. Indeed, I do not think that my city council would want me to do so. It would only wish me to make it clear to the Minister that this is a matter of concern, and that it intends to return to it if the fees are raised considerably in future.

7.31 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

As has been said, this matter came before us in its substantive form in 1980. At that time my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) moved an amendment suggesting that the provision that allowed charging for fees as a matter of principle should not be included in the legislation. That amendment was supported by Liberal Members and in principle but sadly not in the Lobby, by the official Opposition. I pay tribute, however, to one hon. Member who took part in that debate and in the two following debates; the former hon. Member for Edmonton, Mr. Ted Graham as we knew him. I only knew him briefly, but he was a loyal and persistently critical member of the Opposition. All Opposition Member will miss him in this House.

In taking issue with the Minister I can do no better than to restate the principle enunciated clearly today by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and first set out in Hansard in 1980, by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, which registers the objection in principle raised to those fees. My hon. Friend said: Their introduction is mistaken and misdirected, and I oppose the whole concept, as I did in Committee. It is an infringement of civil liberty. It is a charge for a restriction that has been introduced for the benefit of the people as a whole. It will establish a bureaucracy that will have to be set up to collect the fees. There will be delays, because people will not be able to pay the charges on the spot. They will not appreciate what has happened to them."—[Official Report, 8 July 1980; vol, 988, c. 425.] Obviously the Act is on the statute book, and today we are doing only what we are required to do annually in looking at the regulations. However, I reiterate our strong objections to the principle behind them. Normally it is the individual rather than the corporate applicant who is most discriminated against although I shall return to that point later. It was pointed out—my hon. Friends were proved right—that a fee is often a great disincentive to apply for planning permission even if the sum involved appears to be relatively small. A few years ago I first contemplated moving from the south to the north of the Old Kent road. In doing so I contemplated moving from a rented property to one that I might be able to purchase. I inquired whether the best bit of the property had planning permission and was told that it did not. Part of the reason for that was that planning permission had to be paid for; the other part was that the extended property would be rerated. The problem for me was that the alteration constituted more than the relevant part of the floor area. If I had been caught without planning permission for that I would no doubt have been told to pull it down.

In 1980 my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) mentioned that on investigation by planning officers, a substantial number of caravans in his constituency were found not to have been the subject of planning permission. A fee often acts as a disincentive to individuals and small businesses that are thinking of applying for planning permission. Of course there are frivolous applications. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) that there are also applicants who persistently push at a door that may one day give way under the pressure. That is no reason, however, for imposing the sort of fee set by these regulations, although, if one is forced to concede the principle, it may be a reason for having a nominal fee that makes people realise that they have to put a small sum up front.

Tonight the Minister gave us the figures for the income that will be produced. How does that compare with the reduction in income resulting from the reduction in the centrally funded rate support grant? It is all very well for the Government to say that this measure will give local authorities more revenue, but the Government spend all their time taking revenue from them. It is unfair to penalise directly a possibly impecunious individual when he is also suffering hardly less directly from a large reduction in the traditional level of funding from central Government.

As an example of the disproportionate cost, I shall cite a case that involves Southampton. A Liberal councillor wrote to me under the heading "Planning fees for formation of private vehicular access to a classified road". The letter was sent only about two weeks ago and states: I am writing to you.…in connection with an item of casework raised by one of my constituents, which has a more general implication. My constituent lives in a row of terraced houses on a 'C' road with a traffic flow of less than 5,000 vehicles per day. Most of the other houses in his row have lowered kerbs and vehicle hard standing. He, too, wishes to have a kerb lowered but the planning fee alone for this will be £22.00"— that is going up to £24— which is ridiculously high compared to the nature of the work and the scale of the planning decision required. Is the Minister prepared to say that either now, or the next time these regulations come before the House, there will be a further exemption for all those planning applications that relate to work that can be shown at the time of application to cost less than the cost of the application? It is ludicrous that someone who wants to lower the kerb in front of his house at the cost of a few pounds — which will take a minute at the most of administrative time — should pay a fee that is so disproportionate to the cost and time involved. I could give other examples involving small businesses that have to pay higher fees.

I hope that the Minister will also take up the suggestion made by the hon. Member for South Shields about publishing the Department's review. We should like to see the comments made in the past year by officers, planning authorities and other interested parties. The House should have an opportunity to look carefully at that. I should also like the Minister to consider seriously the possibility of exempting all low-cost applications from a charge.

Given that we have, for today, had to concede the principle—the Minister was honest enough to say that the principle was not under review—we welcome the concessions. But how many representations has the Department received in the past year from people who still object to the principle? To my knowledge, most of the professional bodies which dealt with this matter in 1980 and subsequently still object to the principle. Next, how does the Minister justify the 7 per cent. increase this year? Why 7 per cent? I hope that we are not given the bland answer that the Government want local authorities to have a greater income to offset their expenditure.

Although we welcome other concessions too, why cannot we have an exemption, as we have had until now, for the continuation of temporary planning permission when the position has not been determined by an authority or by an applicant, and, at the suggestion of the committee perhaps, has been referred back because of planning blight or because the greater planning considerations for the area have not been decided by the authority.

There are other good reasons for the Minister to look again at the regulations. What is the proportion of applications by domestic individuals in relation to the applications by commercial enterprises, small and large? What is the average cost of applications made by domestic individuals and the average cost of applications made by commercial enterprises?

What is the average cost for substantial planning developments such as the 2.25 million sq ft office development in my constituency, to which I object, and about which the Minister knows because we had a debate about it some time ago, compared with the cost for the average individual or the average small business? Those are the considerations that, if any must, should govern the cost of the fees. In justifying the principle, to which we object, I hope the Minister will give a breakdown of what people are paying for the privilege of development — that is what the Government believe it to be—so that we can at least know that there is fairness in the system, however misconceived it is in principle.

We will continue to object to the principle because planning legislation since the war has existed to protect the community. Individuals who develop parts of a community, which they have a right to develop, often do so in the community interest as well as their own. In the meantime and until we can amend the principle I hope the Government will make some further concessions and consider the areas of specific concern that I have mentioned tonight.

7.43 pm
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill (Clackmannan)

Like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I regret the absence of Ted Graham, the former Member for Edmonton, who was such an active participant in similar debates in the past. We know that he will be serving the Labour Party in another place but we regret his elevation because we would have preferred him to be here with us.

This debate is very much a re-run of previous debates. The alterations in the regulations are minimal. I recognise that there has been a lengthy consultation process. It has been like the gestation process of an elephant but in this case it has given birth to a mouse. I did not hear very much in the way of encouragement from the Minister.

We reiterate our principled opposition to the arrangement whereby cuts in Government funding are set against the need for local authorities to increase charges or, in this case, first to introduce them and subsequently to increase them. The Opposition will not go down the road along which the hon Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was beginning to stray with the injustices in the system requiring some people to pay more. We believe in the principle that no one should pay for planning agreements. We recognise that, as presently operated, there will be inequities and that in some cases the inequities will not be resolved by tinkering with the regulations.

The Minister should tell us more about the reduction in the number of planning applications. We realise that this is perhaps due to charges. We also accept his point that there is probably a desire by applicants to get it right the first time. The Minister had surveys carried out and has received responses from local authorities. We would be interested to know to what extent the work has increased. The difficulties which have been created by people wishing to get it right the first time, which may in some respects be a satisfactory by-product of the charges system, may lead to planning officials assuming a much greater responsibility in assisting with the drawing up of the plans than some of the professional advisers whom individuals have hired to do the job for them. The local government officials will be doing the work of the professionals.

It has been suggested that the reason why special treatment for charities and voluntary bodies is not being introduced is that such a move would result in a further increase in the work of the local authority. It is suggested that it would be difficult for local authorities to introduce a means test or screening process to establish whether there were deserving cases. This is the first time I have heard of a means test being an excuse for having no benefit at all. We have often heard that a benefit should be provided by way of a means test, but I have never heard of a benefit being denied because of the complexity of the means test or the difficulties that can arise.

One specific question is exercising many local authorities in Scotland, and I have reason to believe that this applies to England as well. In Glasgow, as a result of the decision to end the home improvement grants scheme, a considerable number of people will be left with contracts with builders and others that will have to be paid regardless of the funding that local government receives. If an individual has applied for planning permission, has paid his fees, has had planning permission granted and then cannot proceed with the improvements because of the withdrawal of the grant, will the local authority be able to reimburse that money and will the local authority be reimbursed by central Government?

I realise that this is a complicated matter, but when the Government introduce pettifogging regulations of this nature and charges of this kind it is inevitable that our time will be taken up by the nitpicking in which many of us have had to indulge this evening — and I say that without any attempt to denigrate the efforts of my hon. Friends. I am simply pointing out that this is a complicated area of legislation which has come in for more obfuscation than anyone would have expected. It simply affords an opportunity for the Government to claim that they are reducing public expenditure.

In our view, the desirability of improving the quality of the environment in relation to our homes is an obligation which should not be subject to financial penalty. All should have the right to go to the local authority and get the benefit of the expertise which resides at that level, remembering that local authorities have a responsibility to maintain the environment of the community.

For those reasons, we shall oppose the regulations.

7.52 pm
Mr. Macfarlane

I am grateful for the comments that have been made by hon. Members in all parts of the House. I appreciate that many hon. Members are not yet reconciled to the concept of, and guiding principles which we implemented in, the 1980 legislation. A number of points have been raised and they have provided a wide-ranging examination of the complex and highly technical matters of planning law and procedures.

Many of the points that hon. Members have raised were given careful consideration in our review. I have explained why the new fees scheme takes the form we propose and why many of the interesting ideas and suggestions have not stood up to the close scrutiny that we gave them. However, we are greatly concerned to identify and make improvements in the scheme and to test them against the scheme's underlying principles. I gave the assurance in my opening address that we would keep the matter under review and that we constantly have a dialogue with the local authorities and other interested parties to make certain that we are in touch with and understand exactly what the difficulties are.

I will respond to some of the points that have been made in the debate, but I undertake to write to all hon. Members on the more specific points, and I am sure that the hon.

Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) will enter into a dialogue with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) on a number of the matters he raised, but I shall deal with some of them.

The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) posed a number of questions and I was grateful for his recognition that we were going for simplicity and equity. They are our guiding principles in all of this, and I should be alarmed as the Minister responsible if I thought that there was any deviation from those two guiding principles. If any hon. Member has evidence of concern—my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) suggested that there were matters of concern to the people of his constituency — I have no doubt that I shall be told, at any rate through my officials, in more detail so that I may take up those matters, but I shall try to touch on some of them, albeit briefly.

I was asked how much money we had received. For rate support grant purposes, the estimated income was about £27 million in the current year. First indications are that between £28 million and £30 million would have accrued to local authorities.

The hon. Member for South Shields asked when the next legislation would come forward. That relates to the time factor. My hon. friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), now the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, took the instrument through the House in June 1982. Hon. Members will remember that debate and will be aware that, ideally, that instrument should have been renewed in June of this year. But I do not need to dwell on the reason for the protracted summer, for the recess and other events. We have introduced the regulations as quickly as possible, and it is possible that the next one will come in the summer of next year.

Mr. O'Neill

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that in some way local authorities might have made a slight profit out of the RSG settlement in relation to what they were expected to find for the operation of the scheme? Or is he simply saying that the amount of money is roughly equivalent to the short fall on which we are now trying to catch up as the result of inflation? We are adjusting the charges retrospectively to take account of price changes over a 12-month period, so it would be wrong to give the impression that by some means for the last 15 months local authorities were benefiting from the scheme.

Mr. Macfarlane

I cannot say that the word "profit" automatically comes to mind, but it is clear that for RSG purposes, the figure estimated was £27 million and the indication so far is that anything between £28 million and £30 million has accrued. The reason for the 7 per cent. increase—another point touched on by the Opposition—is that the last increase was on 1 June 1982, so that 7 per cent. reflects 17 months' increase in the costs of development control. It is also not unreasonable to expect applicants to contribute more to those costs so as to offset public expenditure on development control, and I remind the House, as I said earlier, that the costs were between £70 million and £75 million to local authorities.

The hon. Member for South Shields made an important point about street advertising. He wanted to know to what "the whole site" referred. This is a complex area. The site depends on the application. If the application is for one street, that street is the site. If it is an application for a whole local authority area, that whole local authority area is the site.

The hon. Member raised another important point about mineral stockpiling and the consultations and dialogue that we shall have with some of the public undertakings. Clearly, the question he posed depends largely on whether the National Coal Board needs to submit a planning application. If it does, it must, like everybody else, pay a fee.

A number of the points that I made in my opening remarks covered a number of the questions raised by hon. Members in the debate, and I think that when they read Hansard more closely and look at the regulations, they will see those matters dealt with. However, those I did not touch on I will take up in close detail when I write to the hon. Members concerned.

The question of work load was referred to by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North and by the hon. Member for South Shields. The indication is that there are no great problems in that connection. The scheme is working well, although I made it clear that it was not universally popular throughout the country. Obviously it is not; it arouses quite a lot of indignation in some quarters. However, local authorities are now used to operating it and I pay tribute to the many planning officers and their staffs who have done much to try to make the system work effectively and to facilitate those people who have the sort of difficulties to which reference has been made.

As for the consultation paper, the fundamental nature of our review, we invited comments on all aspects of the scheme and, as I said, comments were made by well over 180 organisations, not including the individual correspondence that I and other ministerial colleagues have had in the past 12 months or so. We asked them to comment on all aspects of the scheme, though of course not on the principle of it. We are anxious to make certain that the scheme works efficiently and effectively.

Dr. David Clark

I appreciate that the Minister may not feel able to publish the details of the results of his inquiry. However, will he publish the list of people who submitted evidence? That might be helpful in that we could see the breadth of approach, even if he feels unable to publish the answers that were received.

Mr. Macfarlane

A number of the points that were made would obviously touch on confidentiality, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the subject.

Mr. Simon Hughes

In taking the principle as read but not accepting it, I think that the House will be glad to see something more than the lists of those who submitted evidence—for example, a report as presented by the Minister or one of his colleagues. I understand that the cost to local authorities is £45 million, income being between £28 million and £30 million this year and the cost of the scheme being between £70 million and £75 million. This means that the local authorities' coffers are having to bear the shortfall of £45 million. It is important that the House should know whether the authorities feel that the scheme, for as long as it is with them, is working properly.

Mr. Macfarlane

I cannot give any categoric assurances or guarantees that I shall publish a review or place one in the House. I shall take note of the hon. Gentleman's arguments. As I have said repeatedly, we are anxious to keep the scheme always under review.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North referred to repetition and vexatious planning applications. It is not the function of the fees scheme to encourage and create such results. I hope that my hon. Friend will inform me of any examples that he has. We shall want to do all that we can to eliminate, or to try to remove, the miseries and problems that my hon. Friend suggests the scheme is causing. If those consequences are widespread, I hope that he will let me know.

I repeat my promise to those hon. Members who have contributed to the debate that I shall write to them to respond in detail to the various issues that they have raised. I think that we should make progress now and accordingly I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 110.

Division No. 59] [8.1 pm
AYES
Aitken, Jonathan Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Ancram, Michael Forth, Eric
Arnold, Tom Fox, Marcus
Ashby, David Franks, Cecil
Aspinwall, Jack Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. Freeman, Roger
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) Gale, Roger
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Galley, Roy
Batiste, Spencer Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Goodhart, Sir Philip
Bellingham, Henry Gower, Sir Raymond
Benyon, William Greenway, Harry
Berry, Sir Anthony Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Bevan, David Gilroy Ground, Patrick
Biffen, Rt Hon John Grylls, Michael
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Boscawen, Hon Robert Hampson, Dr Keith
Bottomley, Peter Hanley, Jeremy
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) Hannam,John
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Hargreaves, Kenneth
Bright, Graham Harris, David
Brinton, Tim Harvey, Robert
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Browne, John Hawksley, Warren
Bruinvels, Peter Hayes, J.
Buck, Sir Antony Hayhoe, Barney
Budgen, Nick Hayward, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond Heathcoat-Amory, David
Burt, Alistair Henderson, Barry
Butterfill, John Hickmet, Richard
Carlisle, John (N Luton) Hill, James
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Hind, Kenneth
Chapman, Sydney Hirst, Michael
Chope, Christopher Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Churchill, W. S. Holt, Richard
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n) Hooson, Tom
Clegg, Sir Walter Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Conway, Derek Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Coombs, Simon Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Cope, John Hunter, Andrew
Couchman, James Jessel, Toby
Dickens, Geoffrey Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Dicks, T. Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dorrell, Stephen Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Key, Robert
Dover, Denshore King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Dunn, Robert Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Dykes, Hugh Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Evennett, David Knowles, Michael
Eyre, Reginald Lang, Ian
Fairbairn, Nicholas Lawler, Geoffrey
Fallon, Michael Lawrence, Ivan
Favell, Anthony Lee, John (Pendle)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Lester, Jim Pollock, Alexander
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) Porter, Barry
Lord, Michael Powell, William (Corby)
McCurley, Mrs Anna Powley, John
Macfarlane, Neil Proctor, K. Harvey
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) Raffan, Keith
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) Rhodes James, Robert
Maclean, David John. Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Major, John Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Malins, Humfrey Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Malone, Gerald Sims, Roger
Maples, John Soames, Hon Nicholas
Marlow, Antony Spencer, D.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Mather, Carol Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Maude, Francis Stern, Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mellor, David Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Merchant, Piers Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony Thurnham, Peter
Miller, Hal (B'grove) Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mills,Iain (Meriden) Tracey, Richard
Moate, Roger Viggers, Peter
Moore, John Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S) Walden, George
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) Wall, Sir Patrick
Moynihan, Hon C. Warren, Kenneth
Neale, Gerrard Watts, John
Neubert, Michael Wheeler, John
Nicholls, Patrick
Onslow, Cranley Tellers for the Ayes:
Oppenheim, Philip Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Douglas Hogg.
Ottaway, Richard
Page, Richard (Herts SW)
NOES
Alton, David Clay, Robert
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Beith, A. J. Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Bermingham, Gerald Corbett, Robin
Bray, Dr Jeremy Cowans, Harry
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) Craigen, J. M.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Cunningham, Dr John
Bruce, Malcolm Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Canavan, Dennis Deakins, Eric
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) Dewar, Donald
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Dixon, Donald
Dormand, Jack Marek, Dr John
Dubs, Alfred Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Eadie, Alex Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Eastham, Ken Maxton, John
Ewing, Harry Maynard, Miss Joan
Fatchett, Derek Michie, William
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Mikardo, Ian
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Fisher, Mark Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Forrester, John Nellist, David
Foster, Derek O'Brien, William
Foulkes, George O'Neill, Martin
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
George, Bruce Parry, Robert
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Patchett, Terry
Godman, Dr Norman Pavitt, Laurie
Golding, John Pike, Peter
Gould, Bryan Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Hamilton, James (M'well N) Randall, Stuart
Harman, Ms Harriet Redmond, M.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Home Robertson, John Robertson, George
Hoyle, Douglas Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Ryman, John
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
John, Brynmor Skinner, Dennis
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) Snape, Peter
Leighton, Ronald Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Strang, Gavin
Lewis, Terence (Worsley) Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Loyden, Edward Tinn, James
McCartney, Hugh Torney, Tom
McDonald, Dr Oonagh Wallace, James
McGuire, Michael Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
McKay, Allen (Penistone) Wareing, Robert
McKelvey, William Welsh, Michael
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Wigley, Dafydd
McNamara, Kevin
McTaggart, Robert Tellers for the Noes:
McWilliam, John Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Norman Hogg.
Madden, Max

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 25th July, be approved.

Resolved, That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 26th October, be approved.—[Mr. Major.]