---

27 Apr 2004 : Column 881W—continued

Housing Market

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect of electronic application to land searches and registration on the speed of housing market transactions; and what further improvements in the speed of these transactions will result from the introduction of sellers' packs. [168376]

Keith Hill: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 23 April 2004. For electronic searches of land registers to be possible, local authorities must first have set up electronic Local Land and Property Gazetteers (LLPGs). Such gazetteers form an integral part of local e-government, and the benefits arising from them have not been separately estimated or assessed. The overall savings from local e-government, and in particular achieving the Prime Minister's target of all priority services being electronically enabled by 2005, were estimated by local authorities themselves in 2003 as being about £80 million per annum by 2005–06. As well as efficiency savings, there will be significant benefits to authorities' customers, through improvement of service delivery including quicker land charge searches.

Electronic processing of local land search inquiries offers the prospect of securing search information in minutes and hours rather than days and weeks. To maximise the benefits for housing transactions, local search and other information that is important to home buying and selling decisions needs to be available at the start of the transaction process. Home information packs will secure this. They will enable buyers and sellers to negotiate from an informed position and help them commit more quickly to the transaction. This will increase certainty, reduce failure and wasted costs, and help shorten the overall transaction timescale.

Local Government Finance

Bob Spink: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which local authorities raised the level of council tax by 10 per cent. or more when setting the rate for 2004–05. [167236]

Mr. Raynsford: The following authorities increased their Band D council tax by 10 per cent. or more between 2003–04 and 2004–05:

Shire districts:

Bedford

Breckland

Canterbury

Christchurch

Dacorum

Daventry

East Dorset

Fenland

Fylde

Gosport

Huntingdonshire

 
27 Apr 2004 : Column 882W
 

Maldon

Runnymede

Shepway

Spelthorne

Shire police authorities:

Avon and Somerset Police

Bedfordshire Police

Cambridgeshire Police

Cheshire Police

Cleveland Police

Cumbria Police

Durham Police

Hampshire Police

Hertfordshire Police

Humberside Police

Kent Police

Lancashire Police

Leicestershire Police

Norfolk Police

Northamptonshire Police

Thames Valley Police

West Mercia Police

West Midlands Police

West Yorkshire Police

Wiltshire Police

In addition, the 2004–05 Band D council tax for each of the following combined fire authorities is 10 per cent. or more above its indicative Band D council tax for 2003–04, where the indicative council tax for 2003–04 is consistent with the alternative notional amount for the authority, as published in "The Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Alternative Notional Amounts) Report (England) 2004/05". Indicative council taxes for 2003–04 are available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's local government finance website, from the   'Alternative Notional Amounts' menu at http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/ct.htm.

Avon Fire Authority

Bedfordshire Fire Authority

Cambridgeshire Fire Authority

Derbyshire Fire Authority

Dorset Fire Authority

Durham Fire Authority

East Sussex Fire Authority

Essex Fire Authority

Hampshire Fire Authority

Hereford and Worcester Fire Authority

Leicestershire Fire Authority

Nottinghamshire Fire Authority

Staffordshire Fire Authority

Non-domestic Rates

Mr. Curry: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the yield from uniform non-domestic rates was for each year since its introduction; and what the yield would have been for each year if the rate had been set at (a) RPI plus half per cent. and (b) RPI plus 1 per cent. [168888]

Mr. Raynsford: The information requested is in the following table.
 
27 Apr 2004 : Column 883W
 

£ million

	Actual NNDR yield	NNDR yield with RPI + ½ per cent.	NNDR yield with RPI + 1 per cent.
1990–91	10,590	10,600	10,700
1991–92	11,918	12,000	12,100
1992–93	11,371	11,500	11,700
1993–94	10,627	10,800	11,000
1994–95	10,308	10,600	10,800
1995–96	10,967	11,300	11,600
1996–97	12,421	12,900	13,300
1997–98	12,805	13,400	13,800
1998–99	12,896	13,500	14,100
1999–2000	13,320	14,100	14,700
2000–01	13,757	14,600	15,300
2001–02	15,312	16,300	17,200
2002–03	15,544	16,600	17,700
2003–04(4)	14,792	15,900	17,000

⁽⁴⁾ Figures for 2003–04 give only the estimated contribution to the pool from the local list, as no estimates of the central list receipts or contributions in lieu of rates for crown properties are available.
Notes:
The national non-domestic rate (NNDR) yield is the sum of the contributions to the pool from local lists, plus central list receipts, and contributions in lieu of rates for crown properties.
Estimated yields from increasing the NNDR multiplier by more than RPI were calculated by applying the increased multiplier to the sum of the rateable values. The patterns of relief, costs of collection and amounts carried over were assumed to be the same.

Planning

Mr. Drew: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will monitor the practice of developers seeking planning permission to pull down houses in order to open up access to land that was previously undevelopable. [168097]

Keith Hill: A specific planning application to demolish a house is generally not required. This is because planning permission to carry out demolition is granted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. However, where access to land has been opened up by the demolition of
 
27 Apr 2004 : Column 884W
 
buildings, a planning application is likely to be required to develop that land; for example, for housing. Planning applications must be determined on their merits in accordance with relevant policies in the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It would be impractical to monitor planning applications that arise in such circumstances, and there are no plans to do so.

Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average length of time taken to obtain planning permission was in (a) 2003 and (b) 1997. [168277]

Keith Hill: The information available 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.

For almost all applications, information on individual applications is not held centrally, so it is not possible to calculate an average time from receipt to decision.

Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many district planning authorities' planning decisions there were in each year since 1979; [168278]

(2) how many district planning authorities' planning applications were received in each year since 1979; [168279]

(3) how many district planning authorities' planning applications were granted in each year since 1979; [168280]

(4) how many and what percentage of district planning authorities' decisions were granted within (a) eight and (b) 13 weeks in each year since 1979. [168281]

Keith Hill: The available information is tabled as follows. Statistics on the speed of decision do not distinguish between decisions granted or refused. Figures for the years before 1986–87 are on a different basis from later years; they exclude advertisements, listed building consents and conservation area consents.
Planning decisions by district planning authorities 1,2 by speed of decision: England 1979–80 to 2002–03 Thousand/per cent.

			Applications granted			Percentage of total decisions(7)
Financial year	Applications received	All decisions	Thousand	Percentage(8)	Number decided within 8 weeks	8 weeks	13 weeks
1979–80	582	513	446	86	312	60	86
1980–81	546	489	421	85	319	65	88
1981–82(9)	372	404	349	86	266	65	88
1982–83	411	380	334	87	268	70	93
1983–84	430	402	354	87	278	69	90
1984–85	421	397	345	86	276	69	90
1985–86	432	401	344	85	270	67	89
1986–87(9)	536	487	401	84	305	63	87
1987–88	598	542	446	84	310	57	84
1988–89	681	618	497	82	318	51	80
1989–90	627	597	465	80	274	46	75
1990–91	530	518	402	80	276	53	79
1991–92	509	482	382	83	291	60	83
1992–93(9)	462	439	361	85	278	63	85
1993–94	479	446	374	87	290	65	86
1994–95	477	451	380	88	294	65	86
1995–96	456	431	363	88	280	65	86
1996–97	473	437	367	88	279	64	85
1997–98	505	462	388	88	286	62	84
1998–99	501	466	392	88	290	62	83
1999–2000	526	479	405	88	301	63	84
2000–01	543	504	422	87	316	63	83
2001–02	582	534	444	87	347	65	83
2002–03	634	586	484	86	390	67	85

⁽⁵⁾ Includes metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts, unitary authorities, London boroughs, national park authorities and, prior to April 1998, urban development corporations.
⁽⁶⁾ Figures exclude decisions on 'county matters' applications. Those are shown separately in the published annual Development Control Statistics, England.
⁽⁷⁾ The precise definitions of the time bands used are 'up to and including 56 days' and 'up to and including 91 days'.
⁽⁸⁾ These percentages are calculated after excluding those applications (such as determinations as to whether or not planning permission is required) which cannot be granted or refused.
⁽⁹⁾ Planning fees introduced on 1 April 1981. Prior to 1986–87 figures were only collected on applications decided under section 29 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1971. This excluded advertisements, listed building and conservation area consents. The present system of Lawful Development Certificates commenced on 27 July 1992.
Source:
Development Control Statistics, England particularly the 1989–90, 1995–96 and the 2002–03 (ODPM website edition).





 
27 Apr 2004 : Column 885W
 

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what criteria in the planning system are used to ascertain whether an environmental impact assessment is necessary. [168326]

Keith Hill: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required for development which is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location. All development listed in Schedule 1 to The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 is assumed to have such effects, and EIA is mandatory for such development. For development listed in Schedule 2 to the Regulations, local planning authorities have to determine whether EIA will be required. In doing so they must take account of prescribed selection criteria relating to the characteristics, location and potential impact of the development. As an aid to determining whether Schedule 2 development is likely to have significant environmental effects, indicative thresholds and criteria are included in DETR Circular 02/99 which gives guidance on the operation of the 1999 Regulations.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether an accumulation of a large number of different planning applications in the same location necessitates an environmental impact assessment. [168365]

Keith Hill: The need for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has to be assessed for every planning application, on the basis of whether the proposed development is likely to have significant effects on the environment. The Government's published advice on multiple applications, based on existing case law, is at paragraph 46 of DETR Circular 02/99. This states that, for the purposes of determining whether EIA is required, a particular planning application should not be considered in isolation if, in reality, it is properly to be considered as an integral part of an inevitably more substantial development.

---