Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-78)
YVETTE COOPER
MP, MS MICHELLE
BANKS AND
MS BERNADETTE
KELLY
11 JUNE 2007
Q60 Anne Main: Can I ask a very brief
question on the fee structure? You touched on it earlier, saying
with large applications you may need to pay towards possibly expediting
the application. Do you envisage a radical overhaul of the fee
structure at every level?
Yvette Cooper: We set out a specific
consultation document around these, though the main thing is not
in the White Paper; it is one of the parallel consultations that
we set out. Michelle, do you want to add anything specifically
about the detail of the fees proposals?
Ms Banks: Yes. The separate consultation
document that was issued with the White Paper looks at how best
to fund the planning application process. The powers that local
authorities have allow them to charge for planning applications
on a cost recovery basis but we know from research that has been
carried out that in recent years the cost of providing that planning
service has not been met by fee income. In fact, the shortfall
has been something in the order of 40%. So the consultation paper
proposes options for generating more fee income from planning
applications.
Q61 Anne Main: So to meet that 40%
deficit, do you envisage that the local authority will up fees
in whichever areas to cover the 40% or will there be some guidance
centrally from government as to which fees should rise?
Ms Banks: The consultation paper
sets out proposals for a general fee increase. For householders
it would be around 7%, £10, on a standard householder application.
Then we are looking at a scale of fees going higher for other
types of applications. It also proposes removing the cap of £50,000
on the largest applications but there is also, as the Minister
has mentioned, a separate consultation paper talking about planning
performance agreements, where developers could negotiate an agreed
timetable for the process of looking at their planning applications.
You need to look at both the proposals together.
Q62 Anne Main: You do not envisage
that would elbow them to the front of the queue?
Ms Banks: For the planning performance
agreement, it would be for negotiation. The target for major applications
at the moment is to be determined within 13 weeks, and the proposal
is that if the developer could negotiate a planning performance
agreement with the planning authority, that 13-week target could
be suspended as long as you had an agreed timetable in place.
Q63 Chair: Are you saying therefore
that it would be longer than 13 weeks?
Ms Banks: It could be, or it could
be within the 13 weeks. The point is there is an existing target
of 13 weeks which would apply in all cases. So it would not affect
that target in relation to other planning applications but it
would allow an agreed process for these very major applications.
This is responding a bit to feedback which has suggested that
what developers want is certainty. They want certainty almost
more than speed. They want to understand when they are going to
have a decision and be clear about that rather than be wondering
whether the 13-week target is going to be met or not.
Q64 Mr Hands: A final question on
the IPC. Presumably, these public meetings of the IPC under the
ECHR would have to allow representation rights for those who are
immediately affected, in the same way that planning application
committees at the moment are having to be changed so that there
is a public right of representation. Do you think that that could,
ironically, end up slowing down the work of the IPC because presumably
on these large infrastructure projects there could be quite significant
public representation rights, not dissimilar to a public inquiry?
Yvette Cooper: You envisage an
IPC holding a public inquiry effectively. You need to have a public
inquiry for major infrastructure projects. I do not think that
changes. You have to have some sort of process of transparency
in giving evidence and also allowing those who are affected to
be able to give evidence. What we are actually proposing in addition
is what is described as an "open floor" stage, in which
people would be able to give evidence and to try to shift the
emphasis away from what is a very adversarial system at the moment,
in which often people in local communities can end up finding
that they are effectively simply out-manoeuvred by good barristers
on the other side who put over a case and they do not have the
resources to put forward their case in the same way, and to give
the IPC members more ability to probe and to play more of an active
role themselves in terms of asking the questions. Obviously, the
process has to be ECHR-compliant, it has to be compliant with
the Human Rights Act and there will need to be further detailed
debate. We are obviously seeking views about the proposals that
we set out on the examination stage in the White Paper but we
do think that there is actually a way here to give local communities
and individuals who are affected more say and more of a role in
the process than often a lot of them currently feel that they
have.
Q65 David Wright: I wanted to ask
briefly about the changes to permitted developments. This is one
of the most confusing areas of planning regulation. I think most
of us would welcome a process which would simplify the development
process. How do you envisage the White Paper working on this?
The concern clearly is, if people feel there is a lot more flexibility
in terms of permitted development, you are going to reduce the
workload on planning authorities having to consider applications
but you will also increase the level of complaints from neighbours.
How is this going to balance out?
Yvette Cooper: The proposals were
drawn up based on work with local authorities, around the kinds
of approaches that local authorities and planning authorities
tend in practice to use at the moment in terms of determining
which are the cases that they actually need to seriously look
at and engage in in some detail and which are the proposals that,
frankly, are relatively straightforward and should be able to
be ticked through. It has been very much based on discussions
with local councils and planning officers across the country on
how you distinguish between the straightforward cases which should
not need planning decisions and how you can separate out the cases
where actually there is going to be a problem because it will
have an impact on the neighbours and it is going to cause difficulties
or cause problems for the neighbours. Obviously, the detail has
to be got right on this and that is why, again, we have a detailed
consultation on these proposals to be set out. The aim is to try
and make it simpler for those cases that currently planning authorities
would rather not have to make decisions on because they are straightforward
and because it is obvious and they do tend to just take them through
as fast as they possibly can, but it does take up an awful lot
of their time in doing so, to distinguish between those cases
and the cases where it is a real problem for the neighbours and
there should be proper protection to make sure that they can have
a proper, considered process.
Q66 David Wright: What is the assessment
regime going to be? There has been some talk about independent
assessment regimes. Who is going to run that? Who is going to
pay for it? What kind of judgement is going to be made on whether
materials are suitable in relation to existing property?
Yvette Cooper: You have seen the
proposals that are set out in the specific consultation on the
householder development consent.
Ms Banks: The proposals in the
consultation document set out the rules that would apply to allow
permitted development, and that is based on the idea that that
permitted development would not impact beyond the host property,
and so long as it falls within that scope of permitted development,
and we think that our proposals will be clearer than the current
system, which relies on an assessment of the volume increase.
The idea is that the householder would be able to tell with a
high degree of certainty whether what they wanted to do would
be permitted development. If it is permitted development, they
will not need to make a planning application. There is potentially—and
this is something we hope we will get some feedback on through
the consultation—an issue perhaps for local authorities
about how much attention they need to pay to the permitted development
in case something goes wrong but in principle we think there should
be a fairly hefty saving for local authorities, we estimate about
85,000 applications fewer than at the moment because, as the Minister
has said, the workload is very bottom-heavy. We have not gone
into the detail of how a local authority might choose to monitor
this or anything like that but what we are essentially setting
out is a system whereby a householder can be sure by looking at
the rules that what they propose would be permitted development
and the involvement of the local authority should be minimal.
Q67 Anne Main: You did not really
touch on materials, but are conservation areas opted out of this?
Ms Banks: I apologise for missing
the point about materials but in the consultation paper where
we set out what the rules would be—and they are very specific—one
of the rules, which is new, is that the materials have to match
those of the existing dwelling house.
Q68 Anne Main: What about conservation
areas?
Ms Banks: Conservation areas potentially
could have a higher degree of protection. Local authorities would
have the capability to introduce extra protection, not just in
conservation areas but in areas where they thought exceptionally
high protection would be needed on permitted development.
Chair: Thank you very much indeed, Minister.
I suspect this is a topic we will return to several times. Thank
you.
| 
