| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
17 Mar 2004 : Column 380W—continued
English Partnerships
Brian White: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what energy efficiency targets he has set for English Partnerships. [161198]
17 Mar 2004 : Column 381W
Phil Hope: English Partnerships (EP) has established its own energy efficiency targets for all new homes, retail, office and industrial buildings constructed on its land. For all developments it applies the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) standards; in addition, for residential projects, it applies National Home Energy Rating (NHER) standards, which have been devised by the National Energy Foundation.
Where it is the main or sole partner in a development, EP's aim is to achieve BREEAM "Very good" standards and NHER 9.0 ratings.
In all of the seven Millennium Community developments and a number of other EP landmark or exemplar schemes BREEAM "Excellent" and NHER 10.0 standards will be achieved. All residential schemes in Milton Keynes achieve NHER 10.0.
The Millennium Community programme also seeks to achieve other higher environmental and construction targets.
Fire Service
Mr. Hammond: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what estimate his Department has made of the (a) number and (b) cost of redundancies that would arise from merging Fire and Rescue control rooms into nine regional control centres; [161439]
- (2) what estimate his Department has made of the total cost of merging Fire and Rescue control rooms into nine regional control centres. [161440]
Mr. Raynsford: The Mott MacDonald report, on the "Future of Fire and Rescue Service Control Rooms in England and Wales", published on 11 December 2003, includes estimates of the costs and benefits of establishing regional fire and rescue control rooms. These include estimates of both the number of posts that will no longer be required and redundancy costs. Copies were made available in the Library of the House.
Houses in Multiple Occupation
Mr. Reed: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received on extending the definition of houses in multiple occupation to include student houses occupied by fewer than five persons; and if he will make a statement. [161967]
Keith Hill: Representations have been received from the National Union Of Students (NUS), other student representative bodies, the Houses in Multiple Occupation Network and some local authorities to extend the scope of mandatory licensing of HMOs to include student houses occupied by fewer than five persons.
The Housing Bill provides that accommodation shared by students (but excluding halls of residence managed by the university) will be classified as HMOs. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that the scope of the mandatory licensing of
17 Mar 2004 : Column 382W
HMOs, as prescribed by secondary legislation, is currently proposed to apply to HMOs that are three storeys and more and occupied by at least five persons who constitute more than one household. This will cover a great many shared student houses.
The Government has always stressed that the provisions in the Housing Bill are concerned with dealing with the worst standards of management and physical conditions in the private rented sector, particularly the larger HMOs that present the greatest risks. However, the Bill does give local authorities a discretionary power to license smaller HMOs if there is a need to do so, in order that the welfare, health and safety of the occupiers are protected.
Mr. Reed: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much is being paid to Charnwood borough council through the Revenue Support Grant in 2003–04 to compensate for council tax revenue lost as a result of the exemption for houses in multiple occupation occupied solely by students; and if he will make a statement. [162015]
Mr. Raynsford: It is not possible to give a meaningful value for the total additional revenue support grant that has been allocated to Charnwood as a result of the council tax base reduction because of the number of student exemptions.
That is because, to do so, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would first need to calculate a tax base that included the properties currently excluded because of student exemptions for all authorities. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not have any information about whether these properties would have otherwise been subject to different discounts or exemptions (e.g. single-person discount).
This new tax base would then need to be used to recalculate Revenue Support Grant. This is likely to result in a different distribution of grant before floors and ceilings to authorities. The existing levels of floors and ceilings may then be inappropriate with this new distribution; it would certainly change the scaling factors on grant increases above the floor published in the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2004–05.
However, for 2002–03 an approximate calculation is shown as follows. The number of properties covered by student exemptions is no longer collected by band of property. The latest year for which this information was available was 2002–03. In 2002–03 Charnwood had 512 class N exemptions (for dwellings occupied only by students, the foreign spouses of students, or school and college leavers). This is the equivalent of about 400 Band D properties. The Standard Tax Element for shire districts for 2002–03 was £97.2073276605. Therefore under the assumptions specified in the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2002–03, Charnwood would have been able to raise a further £38,904.53 had these properties not had student exemptions. An equivalent amount of RSG before
17 Mar 2004 : Column 383W
floors and ceilings was therefore provided to Charnwood with respect to the properties with student exemptions.
Local Government
Harry Cohen: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what information he collects on the percentage of annual local authority staffing costs spent on training. [162088]
Mr. Raynsford: The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
17 Mar 2004 : Column 384W
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the aggregate revenue expenditure of councils in England was in each year since 1993–94; and what percentage of that expenditure was funded by (a) government grant, (b) non-domestic rates and (c) council tax in each year. [161501]
Mr. Raynsford: The amount of aggregate revenue expenditure of councils in England in each year since 1993–94 and what percentage of that expenditure was funded by (a) government grant, (b) non-domestic rates and (c) council tax in each year is tabled as follows.
| Revenue expenditure(89) | Government grant(90) | Non-domestic rates(91) | Council tax(92) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| £ billion | £ billion | Percentage | £ billion | Percentage | £ billion | Percentage | |
| 1993–94 | 41.506 | 21.685 | 52 | 11.584 | 28 | 8.912 | 21 |
| 1994–95 | 43.602 | 23.679 | 54 | 10.692 | 25 | 9.239 | 21 |
| 1995–96 | 44.827 | 23.335 | 52 | 11.361 | 25 | 9.777 | 22 |
| 1996–97 | 46.532 | 23.003 | 49 | 12.743 | 27 | 10.461 | 22 |
| 1997–98 | 47.256 | 23.840 | 50 | 12.034 | 25 | 11.241 | 24 |
| 1998–99 | 50.189 | 25.291 | 50 | 12.531 | 25 | 12.332 | 25 |
| 1999–00 | 53.651 | 26.421 | 49 | 13.619 | 25 | 13.278 | 25 |
| 2000–01 | 57.329 | 27.809 | 49 | 15.407 | 27 | 14.200 | 25 |
| 2001–02 | 61.952 | 31.469 | 50 | 15.144 | 24 | 15.246 | 25 |
| 2002–03 | 65.919 | 32.648 | 50 | 16.632 | 25 | 16.648 | 25 |
| 2003–04(93) | 72.473 | 37.517 | 52 | 15.618 | 22 | 18.946 | 26 |
(89) Expenditure financed from revenue support grant, specific grants within AEF, special grants, non-domestic rates, council taxes and balances. Also includes SSA reduction grant (1994–95 onwards), police grant (1995–96 onwards), Central Support Protection Grant (1990–2000 to 2001–02) and General Greater London Authority Grant (2000–01 onwards). This column is not the total of the others. The difference is due to funding by balances and other adjustments.
(90) Revenue support grants, specific and special grants within AEF, SSA reduction grant (1994–95 onwards), police grant (1995–96 onwards), Central Support Protection grant (1999–2000 to 2001–02) and General GLA grant (2000–01 onwards).
(91) includes City offset.
(92) Gross of council tax benefit and council tax transitional reduction scheme.
(93) Budget estimates
Planning Applications (Greater London)
Simon Hughes: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average length of time is for processing planning applications in Greater London. [162345]
Keith Hill: The information available from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is the percentages of applications for planning permission and related consents which are decided within eight weeks, between eight and 13 weeks and in more than 13 weeks. The statistics are used to monitor performance against the Government targets that 60 per cent. of applications for major development should be decided within 13 weeks, that 65 per cent. of applications for minor development should be decided within eight weeks, and that 80 per cent. of applications for other development (predominantly householder applications) should be decided within eight weeks.
In the July to September 2003 quarter, London boroughs collectively decided 56 per cent. of major applications within 13 weeks, 65 per cent. of minor applications within eight weeks and 78 per cent. of other applications within eight weeks.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |