Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
25 Jun 2007 : Column 174Wcontinued
4. Revaluation impact analysis reports that make available at an early stage information about the likely effect of the revaluation on the aggregate tax base.
The study has also shown that the AVM can be used to develop local or regional valuation time trend indices as well as providing detailed analysis to inform stakeholders of the impact of the revaluation much earlier in the process than would traditionally be the case.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for what reason the real discount rate used by local authorities to calculate the unfunded net present value of the cost of (a) police and (b) firefighters' pensions was cut from 3.5 per cent. as at 31 March 2004 to 2.4 per cent. as at 31 March 2005; and if she will make a statement. [144631]
Mr. Woolas:
The relevant code in the 2003 Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP) by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy specified a rate of return of 3.5 per cent. real in respect of
calculating benefit scheme liabilities. The relevant code in the 2004 SORP changed this. It specified the use of an equivalent current rate of return to that of a high quality corporate bond of equivalent currency and term to the scheme liabilities rather than a specific percentage figure. This reflects the Financial Reporting Board Standard 17 issued by the Accounting Standards Board, part of a general move for local authorities to comply with standard accounting practice.
Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when her Department will publish a summary of responses to its consultation on the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995; and if she will make a statement. [125159]
Yvette Cooper: The Department consulted last year on proposals to improve the procedure for making article 4 directions to help address the problems that occur with the subdivision of rural land by enabling local planning authorities to bring directions into force more quickly; and to control the demolition of sports buildings by removing permitted development rights.
We received a large number of responses some of which raise complex issues. We expect to publish a summary of responses in July.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the timetable is for introducing the housing and planning delivery grant; and what the criteria are for determining the level of funding to individual local authorities. [145129]
Yvette Cooper: Following last year's consultation on the Government's proposals, the introduction of and criteria for the housing and planning delivery grant are currently under consideration as part of the wider comprehensive spending review (CSR). The timing of any announcement will be subject to the CSR.
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what problems have occurred with the Planning Inspectorate IT system Planning Casework Service since its inception. [144718]
Yvette Cooper: Following rollout of the Planning Casework Service (PCS) PINS has been able to provide a public view of Enforcement and Planning Appeals documentation via publication on the Planning Portal. However, while PINS has encouraged participants in the appeals process to submit documents to it electronically, either online via the Portal or by email, the majority of submissions made by parties remain in paper format.
This required a much greater degree of scanning of these paper submissions than had been forecast and was the main problem encountered with the system. As a consequence PINS reviewed its processes and has temporarily reduced the level of scanning to the main documentation.
PCS continues to allow parties to submit appeals and other supporting documentation online and by email. It also allows interested parties to comment on and track the progress of appeals via the Planning Portal as well as providing a view of the appeal decision once issued.
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether a value for money evaluation has been carried out on the IT system Planning Casework Service; and if she will make a statement. [144719]
Yvette Cooper: Following rollout of PCS, PINS has followed correct Government protocol in determining value for money. It is preparing a revised benefits realisation plan and has sanctioned a Post Implementation Review, in line with OGC best practice. The review is at an advanced stage and will be followed by a Gateway 5 review.
Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many planning applications from the London borough of Bexley were (a) allowed and (b) dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in each of the last two years. [144817]
Yvette Cooper: Planning Appeals allowed and dismissed in the London borough of Bexley are as follows.
Financial year | Allowed | % allowed | Dismissed | % dismissed | Total |
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether Part M of the Building Regulations applies to extensions built on houses; and if she will make a statement on the rules on accessibility for people with disabilities to house extensions applied by her Department. [143688]
Angela E. Smith: Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2000, as amended by the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/2692), states, for Part M,
The requirements of this Part do not apply to ... an extension of ... a dwelling.
Accessibility for people with disabilities to house extensions is therefore a matter for the householder, not for Government.
Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what her policy is on the extent to which planning procedures apply to the erection of agricultural polytunnels; what discussions she has had with Herefordshire county council on its proposals for planning procedures for polytunnels; and if she will make a statement. [131020]
Yvette Cooper: The Government have not set out a specific planning policy on agricultural polytunnels. Whether something counts as development will depend on the circumstances of the case.
A recent High Court decision on Tuesley farm concluded in that case the polytunnels did constitute development; however, local planning authorities must consider each case on its merits.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the criteria are for the distribution of funding from the Preventing Violent Extremism Pathfinder Fund to local authorities. [141730]
Ruth Kelly: The Guidance Note issued to Government Offices and local authorities in England in February 2007 which outlines the criteria used can be found on the Departments website at
Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Library of the House.
Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) whether her Department has a target for the proportion of new development to take place on currently contaminated land in (a) England and (b) East Anglia; [144439]
(2) what assessment her Department has made of the potential use of contaminated land for (a) projected house building targets and (b) non-domestic purposes in (i) England and (ii) East Anglia. [144444]
Yvette Cooper: The Department does not have a target for the proportion of new development to take place on contaminated land. It is for regional planning bodies and local planning authorities to make assessments of potential land that might be suitable for housing and other development uses as part of the plan making process. Strict environmental health regulations are in place to ensure that any contaminated land is fully remediated before any development takes place.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what access the Valuation Office Agency has to (a) the Electronic Survey of Empty Homes, (b) the National Register of Social Housing, (c) the Register of Licensed Houses in Multiple Occupation and (d) the Housing Data Warehouse. [143636]
Mr. Woolas: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on 17 April 2007, Official Report, columns 521-22W.
Mr. Pickles:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer of 8 February 2007, Official Report, column 1164W, on the Valuation Office, how many photographs
were held for properties in (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) each local authority in England and Wales. [129270]
Mr. Woolas: As at November 2006 there were 23.5 million domestic properties entered in the council tax lists in England and Wales. This was rounded to 23 million in the answer of 8 February 2007, Official Report, column 1164W. Photographs were attached to 3.1 per cent. of the 22.2 million domestic properties in England and 9.6 per cent. of the 1.3 million domestic properties in Wales. There are therefore photographs attached to approximately 3.5 per cent. of domestic addresses in England and Wales combined rather than the 3.3 per cent. quoted in that previous answer.
A breakdown by local authority cannot be provided without disproportionate cost.
Gordon Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many people were sleeping rough in (a) London and (b) England in each year since 1997; and what the most recent figure is for each. [115286]
Yvette Cooper: The Government have published a national rough sleeping estimate each year since the Prime Minister introduced the rough sleeping target in 1998 to achieve a two-thirds reduction from 1,850. The following table shows the historical data for London and England as extracted from the national estimate. We do not hold information for 1997.
London | England | |
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether ring-fenced funding has been provided to local authorities from central Government to compensate for the extra costs of litter collection arising from the public smoking ban in England. [143744]
Mr. Bradshaw: I have been asked to reply.
No additional funding has been provided by my Department. However, the Government have prepared for possible consequences of England going Smokefree on 1 July, including the potential increase in smoking-related litter.
In May this year, the Government published guidance for local authorities on smoking litter prevention, which was sent to all authorities in England. DEFRA has also funded four smoking litter campaigns for the current financial year. These campaigns have been organised by Environmental Campaigns (ENCAMS), the organisation that runs the Keep Britain Tidy campaign.
Central to this work is the issue of behaviour change. If smokers refrained from discarding their cigarette butts on the street, smoking-related litter would not be a problem. This is why, through the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, we took the opportunity to clarify that smoking-related litter is in fact litter. As a consequence, anyone disposing of a cigarette butt is committing a littering offence, punishable with a fixed penalty notice fine or prosecution in the magistrates court. The Government continue to encourage local authorities to use their powers in this regard to take action, where appropriate, against those discarding smoking-related litter.
We are also in the process of amending the Street Litter Control Notices Order 1991 to extend the types of premises currently falling within the scope of the Street Litter Control Notice provisions. This will enable them to be used against places which may attract outside smokers, including pubs, clubs, restaurants, cafes and other eating and drinking venues. It is intended to commence this power on 1 July 2007. When there is a suitable opportunity, we also intend to amend both primary and secondary legislation so that Street Litter Control Notices can also be used in respect of offices.
In instances where a partnership approach to deal with a litter or refuse problem has failed, Street Litter Control Notices can be used by local authorities to set out what can reasonably be required of the occupier of the premises in question to minimise the detrimental impact of their operationfor example, providing bins and keeping a defined area clear of litter, including smoking-related litter.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |