HL Deb 14 March 2002 vol 632 cc1017-20

8.1 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the regulations were laid before the House on 12th February. They introduce new levels of fees which, if approved, will come into effect on 1st April. They were approved in another place on 6th March.

The principle which underpins the planning application regime is that individual users and potential beneficiaries of the development control system, rather than local taxpayers in general, should meet the costs incurred by local planning authorities in handling and determining planning applications. Local authorities' work includes activities such as carrying out statutory notification, consultation, and publicity so that interested parties can comment on the development proposal. It also includes writing to applicants and objectors, and the time spent by officers and elected members in considering a case.

The Government's policy is that, in aggregate across England, the income generated by planning application fees should cover the estimated total costs incurred by local planning authorities. Income and estimated costs have been monitored annually to inform decisions about the level of fees. Fees were raised gradually over a number of years until, in 1997, they recovered what was thought to be all of local authorities' estimated costs of determining planning applications. There has been no increase in fees since then because there has been no hard evidence on which to base a further change.

However, as the basis for estimated costs dated from a 1992 study, my department commissioned research in June—the year given in the briefing is 2002, which cannot be right; it must be 2001—to look afresh at the extent to which the costs incurred by local authorities is being recovered by the fees paid by applicants. This included a comprehensive survey of local planning authorities. It concluded that, in aggregate, income is about 14 per cent adrift from costs for most local planning authorities.

The Government therefore propose an increase of approximately 14 per cent in fees so that, in aggregate across the country, local authorities' fee income better matches the cost of determining planning applications. This is an interim measure, pending a fundamental review of the fees regime announced in our planning Green Paper.

The increase in fees proposed in the draft regulations before the House keeps planning application fees at a modest level for developers, while enabling local authorities to recover a fair proportion of the costs incurred. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Baroness Hanham

My Lords, I have little to say on this matter save to welcome the regulations. As a present member of a planning committee, I know that the increase in fees will be welcomed. Even more welcome in the not-too-distant future will, I hope, be the wider review of planning fees and the possibility that they will not be restricted and work on a ceiling basis. That would have a great deal of merit, bearing in mind that there will be different associated costs in different areas.

I am sure that at some date we shall debate the Green Paper on planning. I want to mention the important element that in some boroughs a great deal of time is spent on discussion by officers on an application to bring it through to a satisfactory development. Sometimes, that takes longer than the normal time-frame that would be expected. In the end, it usually results in a far better development. The fees will contribute to only a small extra amount of officer work, but the addition can only be welcome. That is all that I can offer the Minister at this stage.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, the dinner hour business seems to have provoked a great outbreak of amity in the Chamber‡ I, too, want to thank the Minister. I declare an interest as president of the Town and Country Planning Association.

The Minister referred to the fees covering the cost. Incidentally, his honourable friend told another place that the research was commissioned in June 2000. I do not suppose that that alters the effect of the research itself. I find it difficult to believe that that is the case. Perhaps I should have warned the Minister about this question. There is no confirmation, but I wonder whether that includes forward planning as well as development control. It does not seem to me that that can possibly be the case. That whole area of planning work—developing UDPs, the new development framework, action plans or whatever it will be—is vital to underpin effective development control.

A constitutional issue arises; namely, whether planning is a public service and whether it should he paid for by applicants. It is in everyone's interests that the outcome is a good one. There seems almost to be a view—I do not suggest that it is shared in this Chamber—that all development is bad. That is perhaps a matter for our debate on the Green Paper, the issue of tariffs and so on.

Clearly, there are some developments—particularly potentially lucrative commercial developments—where the cost is disproportionate, even to the fee that will be charged under the new arrangements. There is a distinction to be drawn between such applications and residential applications. A development should carry far more of the cost.

I hold the view that it should also be possible for local authorities to charge for pre-application advice. That is probably because the case of Richmond Upon Thames ex parte McCarthy and Stone is written on my heart—or possibly still sticks in my throat.

It is the case that planning departments up and down the country are under-funded and under-staffed. Anything that can be done to rectify the situation will be very welcome. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, these issues and many more are raised by the Green Paper. For the moment, I do not oppose the order.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of both noble Baronesses. Perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about discussions with officers which continue for some time. It is similar to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about pre-application discussions. They are important; they are beneficial. They are not charged for. Current legislation does not permit local authorities to charge for this facility. We recognise the benefits of such discussions. They can help guide the applicant through the process, they can improve the application, and can result in better quality applications.

We recognise as well the resource burden that this places on local authorities. We intend to enable local authorities to levy appropriate charges for this service. It does not bring the comfort that the noble Baroness would have hoped for in relation to the decided case to which she referred, but I believe it deals with the principle.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for correcting me. The research was commissioned in June 2000. She asked whether there was research on costs being recovered in relation to development planning activities as well as development control. There is not; it was only in relation to development control. She then wondered whether planning was such an important function that one should seek to recover all the costs from the applicants. As I have said, that relates only to development control rather than development planning. She also correctly pointed out that some substantial applications are made by well funded developers for which significantly greater application fees could be paid. That would probably be welcomed by the developers if it had the effect of improving the culture of planning.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Grocott

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.11 to 8.35 p.m.]