HL Deb 18 July 1985 vol 466 cc916-22

7. p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th June be approved. [27th Report from the Joint Committee.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I understand that it will be convenient to the House to discuss the Scottish Motion at the same time.

These two sets of amending regulations which were laid before the House on 25th June are laid under powers contained in Section 87 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. They basically provide for a general increase in the level of fees prescribed in the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 1983, and the corresponding Scottish regulations. These latter regulations, which came into operation on 1st December 1983, consolidated with revisions the original regulations of April 1981, as amended in June 1982. We have again taken the opportunity to make a small number of (mostly minor) changes to the fees scheme itself, in the light of our further experience of its operation.

It may be for the convenience of the House if, before I go on to explain the proposed changes, I give a brief outline of the way the fees scheme works. Whenever it is necessary for a specific application to be made to the local planning authority for planning permission to carry out development—usually either for the construction of buildings, or the making of a material change in the use of the land—the applicant is required to pay a fee to the authority (normally the district council) when submitting his planning application. The fee must be as prescribed by the regulations, and it cannot be waived or (except in defined circumstances) refunded, though provision is made for certain concessions in circumstances where a requirement to pay the full normal fee, or any fee at all, would be unreasonable.

Subject to this, applications are charged according to the nature of the development proposed, and its size where that is relevant. The fees scheme is designed so that, first, there is a fair balance in the charge made between the specified categories of development in the regulations; secondly, that the fees charged should reflect in broad terms similar proportions of the local planning authority's likely handling costs; thirdly, that fees should not be so high as to discourage sensible planning applications; and, fourthly, that the scheme should be easily understood and, so far as is practicable, be free of areas of dispute.

When the fees scheme was originally set up in 1981 it was thought that the scale of fees prescribed would lead to an overall recovery of about 60 per cent. of local planning authorities' development control costs. In the event, however, the actual level of recovery has come out at only around 40 per cent. We have kept this matter under review in the light of the wider need to control public expenditure, and we have now come to the view that a fair balance would best be obtained if we were to aim for a 50 per cent. recovery. However, in order to avoid what would otherwise be a substantial "once-and-for-all" increase at this time, we propose to proceed by annual stages. On this present occasion therefore we propose an increase of approximately 12½ per cent. to apply across the whole range of the presently prescribed scale of fees. In so far as this increase will more than cover the effects of inflation since the present scales came into operation on 1st December 1983 there will be a contribution—probably of the order of 2½ per cent.—towards the projected higher level of costs recovery. On the question of what further element of costs recovery should be included in the next uprating of the scale of fees, we will put proposals before the House in 1986.

My Lords, I turn now to the other changes proposed in the regulations. The House will recall that the extensive changes made at the time of the 1983 regulations reflected the outcome of a thorough review of the working of the fees scheme up to that time. As a result, the regulations reached a level of refinement and sophistication that generally points to the need for a long clear run, with further changes being kept down to a minimum.

Consequently, we propose that there should be only one change of substance to the fees scheme itself at the present time. This change concerns the fee payable for an application to continue an existing use, or to retain an existing building, without complying with a condition attached to an earlier permission (including one which requires cessation of the use, or the removal of the building, at the end of a specified period). At the present time such applications are charged a fee of £47—which would rise to £53 on the basis of the general increase now proposed. We have, however, received a number of representations that this requirement can operate harshly. Most of the concern has been directed at those cases where applications need to be made for the renewal of planning permissions granted for short periods. Examples might be the continued stationing of a caravan on land, or the retention of a garage constructed in temporary materials.

We are satisfied that the fee requirement as it stands can result in genuine cases of hardship, and we have therefore decided that such applications should in future attract a fee of only half the normal rate: which under the new arrangements, will be £27.

We remain of the view that, even after taking into account the increases proposed in the amending regulations before the House, and the longer-term aim of moving towards a 50 per cent. development-control costs-recovery objective, fees for planning applications remain modest—in some instances virtually negligible—in relation to the overall costs of the development that is the subject of the application.

Finally, my Lords, I need to say a word about Scotland. The basic Scottish fees regulations are in most respects the same as those for England and Wales, although they incorporate some very minor differences to reflect different circumstances north of the Border. The relevant amending regulations before the House provide for a similar general 12½ per cent. increase in fees for Scotland, and also include the concession for conditional permissions to which I have referred in the English and Welsh amending regulations. I commend the amending regulations to your Lordships.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th June be approved. [27th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Skelmersdale.)

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister, both for the brevity of his speech and also for its clarity. In effect, this exercise is about cutting public expenditure and any other words that the Minister or his colleagues might care to use would be a sham because, as the Minister points out, at the moment the balance of moneys received by councils for planning applications, which it was hoped by the Government would be 60 per cent. of the costs of the planning control departments, has resulted in about 40 per cent. of those costs; and now they want to increase that to 50 per cent.

My comments will be in the form of a series of questions, but if in fact there is to be an increase of the costs gained from the public of 10 per cent. (that is, from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent.) would the Minister care to tell the House what consequence or effect this has on the level of the rate support grant? I appreciate that how a council manages its affairs is to some extent up to the council itself, but the extent to which the Government take "into account" various things needs to be commented on.

The Minister told us about 60 per cent. and about 40 per cent. and about the £47 and the £53. Would the Minister care to tell us the global sum which it is estimated or known is actually to be clawed back from the public under these particular schemes?—so that, in effect, by comparison with 1980, that will be the additional sum which the public are paying. The Minister is aware that on this side of the House—and this applies to both Houses; I served on the 1980 Bill and the Minister and I have talked about these matters before—we are not in favour of the principle of charging; but this is neither the time, place nor opportunity to make that particular argument. Nevertheless, we need to make sure that what the Minister is proposing is reasonable.

The Minister talks in terms of a fair balance. The Minister says that the fair balance that the Government are looking for is to reduce public expenditure as much as possible by one means or another. I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to tell us, in view of the announcements that were made earlier this week by the noble Lord, Lord Young, in introducing Lifting the Burden, when great play was made about the easements in planning controls, whether any assessment has been made about the impact of those particular regulations on the planning control system. It must have a bearing. The planning department will need to have either more or less staff to look after a greater or less volume of work that will go through the department arising from Lifting the Burden.

On the other hand, if the cost of the department is the raison d;être and it needs to be reduced, does it mean that if in fact there is less work for the planning officers to do because the burdens have been lifted and there is no planning control, the cost to those who need planning applications will be increased? In other words, are the Government in the business, regardless of the number of planning applications, of trying to reduce the cost of the department?

Is the Minister able to tell the House what has happened to the size of the planning departments since 1980? The "Manpower Watch" exercise of the Government is well understood, and so is the pressure on the different departments of all councils to reduce the size of manpower. Can the Minister tell us the extent to which there have been reductions in the size of the personnel in planning departments who look after the kind of work which is covered by these regulations? If the Minister is able to tell us there has been no reduction, then the Government have failed in their exercise. On the other hand, if there has been reduction, then I think we ought to know.

Also, could the Minister tell us this evening what has been the effect of the Government's plans in respect of approved inspectors? The Minister is well aware of the exchanges that took place two or three years ago in this Chamber over the Housing and Building Control Regulations, where in effect there was to be a reduction in the number of building inspectors employed by councils under privatisation in the building inspector sector.

I realise that planning applications still need to be made and fees still need to be paid, but I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether he can tell us if the "approved inspector" syndrome is now working—and, of course, it should be working, as it concerns legislation which is now more than a year old. Could the Minister tell us what impact that has had upon the quality and quantity of the work going through?

The Minister talked in terms of 12½ per cent. (which is a broad uplift) being more than required to meet the rate of inflation. If one looks at the last increase, which was about 14 months ago, one does not require 12½ per cent. The Minister then tells us significantly that he will be coming back again next year. Can he say why he was not satisfied with 10 per cent. this year, leaving a greater sum until later? I know that everybody who makes a planning application, if it is a choice of getting it or not, will pay for it; and so I am not talking about paying in order to get a planning application. However, the Minister must realise that all these marginal additional costs—for planning, for approval, for building, for labour and for materials—all add to the cost of housing. I think that perhaps it would be helpful to the House if the Minister could answer some of the questions I have put to him.

So far as the official Opposition is concerned, we shall of course do nothing to oppose the passage of these regulations except to say that this is a highly unsatisfactory way of encouraging the public to use a proper planning system of control which has stood the test of time over many years. This is simply another gimmick used by the Government to reduce the cost of ensuring that the environment, and the built environment particularly, is dealt with in a proper manner. After all, it is the public itself which insists upon these regulations, quite properly, and the public as a whole ought to pay.

7.15 p.m.

The Earl of Kinnoull

My Lords, I must apologise to my noble friend because I was not in the Chamber when he moved these regulations. However, I was glad to hear that he moved them briefly and very distinctly, and I would congratulate him on that. I was going to agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said until almost his very last sentence, when I believe he said that the public were suffering, as I understood it, and I believe that his party is committed to abolishing the fees. Perhaps the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

No, my Lords. Unless I am advised otherwise, I do not think we are on record as saying that we shall abolish them. I stand to be corrected, of course. We opposed the introduction of them, but, as with most oppositions, there are certain things one makes commitments about which are matters of great principle. This is important, but it is not in that category; and what my party does after gaining power—which, of course, we shall do after the next election—remains to be seen.

The Earl of Kinnoull

My Lords, I am glad to be corrected. I thought that the noble Lord was criticising the whole principle of charges and was therefore implying that his party might take a different view should they form a Government. I do not know how far my noble friend's brief goes, but I should like to ask a few questions because this is an opportunity to discuss an important side of planning and, indeed, the whole ambit of town and country planning. I should like to ask my noble friend, in regard to these regulations, whether his department has received a large postbag of complaints on the level of charges. Also, has there been any case made out that the charges are set too high? I have never met that myself, quite frankly, and I welcome the realism of these regulations in the reductions they make, because clearly they have arisen from the experience of having introduced the charges; and that is obviously very helpful.

I should like also to ask my noble friend what are the latest figures he has on the numbers of applications made over the last three years. It would be very interesting to see what those figures are. May I also ask him what currently are the systems of delay in the whole system of planning? That is a very important aspect. I hope that he can reply to these points. I have not given him any warning, and basically it is of course unfair to ask him about these things; but if he is able to give some figures I am sure the House would be very grateful to him.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I am most grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for expressing approval of these regulations. Because they are specifically about paying for a service, I regret that I shall be unable to answer some of the questions that have been raised by them this evening, but I undertake to write to them on the wider points that they have raised.

I do not really want to go back to the arguments of the 1980 Act, which of course is the parent of these regulations, because we went through that stage some four years ago. But I think it would be appropriate to wish the noble Lord, Lord Graham, many happy returns of the day—the day being 10th November 1983 when on last year's regulations he made his maiden speech from the Front Bench opposite and I was able to respond to him on that occasion.

The subject of these regulations—namely, the paying of fees for planning applications—is of course part of the Government's drive to make costs be borne by those people who use particular services, and we do not see any reason why the general ratepayer, or indeed the taxpayer, should necessarily pay development costs of this kind. It is therefore perfectly reasonable that the applicant for planning permission should be asked to pay a proportion—

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, that is a fair point, if one looks at the purpose of the planning application as being to give the applicant a benefit. But we take the view that the whole community is the beneficiary of a planning system. In other words, it is the public who get the benefit of ensuring that development is controlled.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, we obviously differ. If the Government were seeking to get 100 per cent. of the costs from the applicant, then it would be clearly wrong. But since we are seeking to have a proportion from both the applicant and general public expenditure, we have to decide what that proportion should be. My right honourable friend has come to the conclusion that what we should aim at is the 50 to 60 per cent. range, and we have not yet reached that. As I said in my opening speech, we are at 40 per cent.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked what the fee income to be recovered is expected to be in the next year, to which the answer is £32 million. This will be from planning applications of, I expect, the order of 430,000. The figures for which my noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked earlier are: at 1980, 527,000; at 1981, 450,000; at 1982, 399,000; at 1983, 429,000, and at 1984, 426,000. So in the last couple of years they have been broadly static. I made the point earlier that the real increase in these fees was about 2½ per cent. The fees were last raised 19 months ago and the increase in inflation over the 19 months is of the order of 10 per cent. Therefore, if any progress towards a 50 per cent. cost recovery is to be achieved, one must go slightly over that and I should have thought that 24 per cent. was reasonable.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked about the possible effects on the rate support grant. As the noble Lord will know, the overall amount of rate support grant is a finite sum. For all authorities, RSG is calculated using criteria applicable to classes of authorities and these criteria include a weighting for planning. But with this very small extra amount of money I would rather doubt, certainly in this year, that there would be any effect at all on the rate support grant. If I am wrong, I shall of course write to the noble Lord.

As regards the subject of planning delays, if I remember rightly these are published roughly quarterly. I shall willingly send the latest statistics to my noble friend. But the determinations are fairly speedy and have improved over the last couple of years, I am glad to say.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to relate whether the planning application fee system has anything to do with the speeding-up of the backlog. For instance, I can well imagine that if people are paying for something they will be just a little more impatient and perhaps a little more aggressive. I can also see that a planning department, which before had simply processed applications as fast as it could, is now under pressure from people who can say, "I have paid you £53" or "I have paid you £120". Is the Minister in a position to say whether the fee system has a bearing on the speed with which the planning applications are processed?

Lord Skelmersdale

No, my Lords. I am afraid that the department has done no research into that, nor, to the best of my knowledge, has it asked local authorities for their opinion on the situation. But one reason for the speeding-up of the time taken to determine planning cases is that more and more people, since they have to pay a fee, are first going along to the planning officer and getting an off-the-cuff opinion as to whether something is likely to succeed in a particular form or whether it is desirable to change it at the outset.

My noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked whether the department had received a large post-bag of complaints since the introduction of planning fees. The answer to that is a straight, no. Nor have we had any complaints about either this order or the order to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I spoke on 10th November 1983.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked about deregulation as it applies to the White Paper Lifting the Burden. So far as these regulations are concerned, I do not see that there will be much effect on the planning system. But, again, for the more detailed questions perhaps I may write to the noble Lord, and I shall include in that letter the whole subject of approved inspectors, about which he also asked. I feel that I have answered most of the questions to which I am able to reply and which pertain directly to these regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.