|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
|Part J||£ million|
The annual benefits were estimated at £30 million
|Part L||£ million|
The annual benefits were estimated at £237 million
As is clear above, the changes in each case were shown to deliver substantial health and safety and energy efficiency benefits which far outweighed the costs. It was estimated that the costs to regulators would be nil or minimal since these were amendments to existing provisions.
27. Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on the recent Comprehensive Performance Assessment ratings for councils in England. 
79 per cent. of councils achieve three or four star performance;
77 per cent. of councils are improving strongly or improving well;
No councils are in the bottom Comprehensive Performance Assessment category.
The improvements in performance that local government continue to make has paved the way for the proposals for the new performance framework, outlined in our White Paper Strong and prosperous communities.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on what date the Lifting Burdens taskforce is expected to publish its final report; and what the timetable is for the implementation of its recommendations. 
Mr. Woolas: The Lifting Burdens taskforce plans to have a rolling programme of reviews looking at the requirements relating to individual Government Departments, service areas or outcomes. It is anticipated that these reviews will be published at regular intervals over the next two years.
As the taskforce carries out further reviews, it is envisaged that the Government Department(s) that are the originators of specific individual reporting items will respond to the relevant set of recommendations after consideration of each review.
28. Ann Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what recent representations she has received on the funding formula for allocating grants to local authorities. 
Mr. Woolas: Sir Michaels report is substantial and wide-ranging and concludes there is no golden key solution. The Budget has set out the Governments position on a number of his short term recommendations. Sir Michaels individual recommendations will inform, and be taken account of within, the ongoing development of Government policy.
Yvette Cooper: Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) is clear that only a very restricted range of development that is water-compatible or essential infrastructure should be permitted on the functional flood plain. In other flood risk areas, if the sequential risk-based approach set out in PPS25 shows that development cannot be directed to lower risk sites, the planning authority should test whether the need for the housing outweighs the flood risk, and it will be safe, taking into account the expected impacts of climate change, the ongoing availability of defences and the application of other flood risk reduction measures.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer of 15 January 2007, Official Report, column 848W, on business rates valuations, what the timetable is for the completion of the feasibility study on using automated valuation modelling. 
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what recent meetings she has had with (a) representatives of the insurance industry, (b) business groups and (c) local fire authorities on insurance costs to businesses; and if she will make a statement. 
Angela E. Smith [holding answer 20 March 2007]: The Secretary of State has not had any recent meetings with representatives of the insurance industry, business groups or local fire authorities on insurance costs to businesses, and has no plans to make a statement.
Ruth Kelly: Statistical returns submitted by billing authorities to the Department record the aggregate amount of parish and town precepts for each billing authority area, but do not collect information on the number of councils setting such precepts or individual precept amounts.
Ruth Kelly: We have identified two representations from B&Q plc received by this Department or its predecessor Department about council tax. Both expressed concern that people making home improvements would have to pay more council tax following revaluation. Both letters preceded the Governments decision to postpone council tax revaluation in England and our clear commitment that revaluation will not take place in the lifetime of this Parliament.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much was spent on managing her Departments and its predecessor Departments corporate identity and branding in each year since 2002. 
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether the £78 million announced for funding domestic violence sanctuaries by her Department in December 2006 was in addition to the previously announced funding for homelessness. 
The Department for Communities and Local Government strategy Sustainable Communities: Homes for All supported increased investment in
homelessness prevention, from £60 million in 2005-06 to £74 million in 2007-08 for homelessness prevention grants for local authorities and the voluntary sector. £47.2 million of this has been allocated to local authorities, which will be used to fund Sanctuary Schemes and other homelessness prevention schemes.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what discussions her Department and its predecessor has had with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on increasing the number of casino licences from those currently allowed under the provisions of the Gambling Act 2005 and its secondary legislation. 
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many full-time equivalent staff were employed by each government office for the region in (a) 1996-97 and (b) the latest period for which figures are available. 
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer of 19 January 2007, Official Report, column 1353W, on hotels, if she will place in the Library copies of each representation. 
Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) what estimate she has made of the (a) one-off cost and (b) recurring cost of implementing the Amendment to the Building and Approved Inspectors (Amendment) Regulations 2006, New Edition of Approved Document F, to (i) businesses and (ii) the regulators; 
(2) what her most recent estimate is of the (a) one-off cost and (b) recurring costs of implementing the Building (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2004 to (i) businesses and (ii) the regulators; 
Angela E. Smith: The Building (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2004 introduced part P of the Building Regulations (Electrical safety in dwellings) to help reduce the number of deaths, injuries and fires caused by faulty electrical installations. Prior to its introduction the Department produced a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) which estimated costs and benefits over a 10-year period, discounted at 3.5 per cent. to present value. The full RIA is available on this Departments website:
One off costs to businesses: negligible so not estimated
One off costs to regulators: negligible so not estimated
Recurring costs to businesses: £36.9 million per annum;
Recurring costs to building control bodies: £1.35 million per annum.
Amendment to the Building and Approved Inspectors (Amendment) Regulations 2006 and new edition of Approved Document F refer to the 2006 revisions of part L and Approved Document F of the Building Regulations. Part L deals with conservation of fuel and power, and Approved Document F gives technical guidance on ventilation of buildings. A regulatory impact assessment was carried out and is on the Departments website. It gives the following estimates of costs:
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|