House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2009 - 10
Publications on the internet
General Committee Debates
Delegated Legislation Committee Debates

Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2010



The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairman: Mr. Eric Illsley
Austin, Mr. Ian (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government)
Bain, Mr. William (Glasgow, North-East) (Lab)
Brown, Lyn (West Ham) (Lab)
Burden, Richard (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Cox, Mr. Geoffrey (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
Dunne, Mr. Philip (Ludlow) (Con)
Goldsworthy, Julia (Falmouth and Camborne) (LD)
Greenway, Mr. John (Ryedale) (Con)
Jackson, Mr. Stewart (Peterborough) (Con)
Lepper, David (Brighton, Pavilion) (Lab/Co-op)
Morden, Jessica (Newport, East) (Lab)
Rogerson, Dan (North Cornwall) (LD)
Swire, Mr. Hugo (East Devon) (Con)
Turner, Mr. Neil (Wigan) (Lab)
Waltho, Lynda (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Whitehead, Dr. Alan (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Mr. E. Wilson, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee

Eleventh Delegated Legislation Committee

Tuesday 9 February 2010

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2010
10.30 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr. Ian Austin): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2010.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley. I thank members of the Committee for being here to consider the proposals.
The regulations, laid before the House on 5 January, set out a fee structure for planning applications brought forward through the provisions set out in statutory instruments 2009 2261 and 2009 2262.
SI 2009 2261 amended the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 to allow applicants to apply for non-material changes to planning permission without the submission of a full new planning application. The order was also amended to create a new category of planning permission, allowing local authorities to grant a replacement planning permission subject to a new time limit. SI number 2009/2262 amended the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990, in parallel.
In the case of a replacement planning permission subject to a new time limit, the Government propose that, if the application is a householder application, the relevant fee will be £50; if the application is an application for major development, £500; and in any other case, £170.
In the case of an application for non-material changes to a planning permission, if the application is a householder application, the relevant fee will be £25; in any other case, £170.
The fee levels proposed reflect the outcome of the Government consultation on the wider issue of introducing greater flexibility into the planning system, undertaken between 18 June and 13 August 2009, where a flat fee of £170 was proposed for extensions to planning permissions and for non-material amendments, with the exception of non-material amendments to householder applications, for which a flat fee of £25 was proposed.
In response to the consultation a number of local authorities noted concern that the £170 fee for extending planning permissions would not cover the costs of processing larger applications. In response, the Government undertook a further consultation exercise involving earlier consultation respondents and an expert panel on planning fees, proposing a higher fee of £500 for all major applications, and a lower fee of £50 for a householder application. Those fee levels attracted support from a majority of respondents and are the levels we now propose to take forward.
The regulations before the Committee today also establish a lower fee cap specifically for planning applications falling within category 9(b) of Schedule 1 Part 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations, reducing the cap from £250,000 to £1,690. This cap was raised to the £250,000 maximum in the last revision of the regulations in 2008, when it should have been increased in line with the overall fee increase. The lower cap on this category was to ensure that those schemes such as habitat creation were not subjected to an unrealistic fee as a result of the area of land they cover. The amendment re-instates that lower cap.
In all cases, the Government have worked closely with local authorities, developers and other interested parties in establishing a fee level that reflects the driving principle of cost recovery in the planning fees system. The policy measures taken forward in October last year to introduce greater flexibility into the planning system have been welcomed by the development industry as a means of helping the country move towards economic recovery, and the amendment to the fee regulations, brought before the Committee today, will allow these very popular measures to be implemented in full.
10.34 am
Mr. Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): Thank you, Mr. Illsley. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again. I will not detain the Committee too long. The Minister will be relieved to know that we do not intend to divide the Committee and vote against the order.
Although we generally support the rationale behind the statutory instrument, which is why we are not voting against it, we should be mindful, as we come out of recession, and as there is a demonstrable improvement in the construction industry and developers begin to expand their portfolios and build new social and private sector housing, that it is important to have a regime that supports and assists efforts to work closely with the local planning departments of local authorities so that house building, which we all want to see across the country, is expedited as quickly as possible.
It is important to not lose sight of the need to look at the fee structure and its regime in terms of the overall level of council tax revenue, particularly when we are in significantly less benign times now, when there could be real-terms reductions in revenue expenditure of the bulk of local authorities. It is important that the Department keeps an eye on the impact of the fees in respect of the wider fiscal picture in local government.
One of the key questions that is apposite to examine today, following the 2005 consultation, is whether we are creating a framework that allows planning departments to be profit-centred, or whether we are encouraging them to be cross-subsidising bodies. In other words, is cost recovery achievable? How will that be a generic policy across the country, where we have such huge varieties in the local economy between high-growth areas, such as the south-east of England and greater London, and other areas? I was in Stoke-on-Trent yesterday, which has seen significant problems with de-industrialisation and a poor housing market. That is one area that does not bear comparison for most of the south-east. A fee structure needs to reflect the particular foibles of that market.
With those caveats in mind, we, on Her Majesty’s Opposition, can see the rationale and logic of the regulations. On that basis, and given that it has attracted a consensus of support from householders, representative organisations, developers and contractors, we will support the regulations.
10.37 am
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. Illsley. I thank the Minister for his introduction to the regulations. The Liberal Democrats welcome flexibility for local authorities in such circumstances, given, as we have heard, the difficult economic environment and the need to lay the groundwork for a future recovery, without forcing developers and local authorities to keep going through the same planning applications again.
I have several questions for the Minister. First, there is the issue of the £250,000 maximum limit, which the regulations will revise back down to £1,690. I understand that a mistake was made under the 2008 regulations, whose intention was to increase the cap by 25 per cent. If that was the case, why was it not picked up at the time? Why are we coming back to revise it now? The figure was not only written into the statutory instrument, but detailed and justified in the explanatory memorandum. Therefore, does the revision now represent a change in policy, or was it a mistake that we now have to rectify? The Government also say that the measure will affect only about 13,500 applications a year, but that is still a significant figure, which is why the issue is important.
The hon. Member for Peterborough rightly mentioned the issue of different circumstances in different parts of the country. I hope that we can be as flexible as possible for our local authorities to reflect local circumstances, as recovery returns with different speeds in certain areas. Certainly, what has tended to happen in my own patch in Cornwall was while downturns and recessions arrive later, they last longer. Those are the circumstances that we need to address.
Councils, as the hon. Gentleman also said, are suffering a loss in fee income. I will be interested to know what measures the Government have taken to ensure that local authorities will not be particularly harshly impacted. I know that the Minister said that they are consulting with the Local Government Association and local authorities about the matter, but there will still be work for planning officers on some of the applications, even if they lie dormant for some time. They will still do consultations, so I am a little concerned that if the fee income for any amendments goes right down, there might be costs for local authorities.
If we are entering into a period—sadly, I think we are—when many development sites might be mothballed and lie dormant for some time, it is an issue for local communities. In my constituency in my home town of Bodmin, there is a site quite central to the town that, for all sorts of reasons, will probably not be developed according to the plans that the local authority and developers have. I would be interested to know whether the Government are considering revising any guidelines or encouraging local authorities, which have managed the sites, to deal with local expectations in the community. When a site lies vacant for some time, it can have a depressing effect in the surrounding area. If we take away the incentive to develop early and tell developers to hold off because of the circumstances, what are we doing to ensure that those sites are maintained in good order? That is a planning issue, too, if those sites are there for a considerable length of time.
An issue raised by a constituent yesterday—fortuitously—was about the advice that tended to be given in the past, that if someone had planning permission and wanted to keep it longer, they just needed to do a little bit of work to keep it alive, and once the foundation was in, planning permission was in operation. I know that is slightly different to the regulations we are considering today. The gentleman in question took the advice of the planning committee. He found an alternative use for the site, but in the meantime he did a tiny bit of work on the foundations for a proposed housing development to keep the planning permission, and now Cornwall council has hit him with a demand for up to £30,000 for potential highways work on the basis that he is now constructing properties, which of course he will not be constructing for a considerable length of time. While this is under highways legislation, it would be useful if the Minister could consider that issue and would be prepared to talk about it.
Mr. Austin: Changes to the planning system to introduce greater flexibility received a warm welcome from all parties involved on their introduction in October last year. The debate today has sought to agree a reasonable set of fees for applications submitted under the new procedures. The amendment laid before the Committee today has been developed in close consultation with users of the planning system, and represents the fairest way forward for all involved.
The debate today will be watched closely by many in the development industry whose applications are shortly to lapse, and who wish to avoid having to pay many thousands of pounds in planning fees in order to extend them. Failure to take forward the new fee levels could have serious economic consequences for some developers and put jobs at risk, so it is important that we make this small but important change to fee regulations and I am grateful for the support of the Opposition parties.
On the £250,000 cap, correcting the fee for schemes falling within category 9(b) of Schedule 1 Part 2 of the planning fee regulations, such as habitat creation, will be welcomed by applicants seeking to submit such applications and also proposing farm diversification projects such as fishing lakes. The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that it was an error. We are correcting it now. We are sorry that it was made, but it is being put right.
I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the management of vacant sites. I cannot comment on the specific application that he raised, but I will be happy for him to come and talk to me about the general issues.
On fee recovery, a number of factors affect the cost recovery of local authorities planning applications services, including the profile of applications that the authority receives how the authority calculates overheads and on-costs and how it approaches the handling of the development management process. Those factors were considered more fully in the research undertaken last year, which indicates that in order to achieve cost recovery, a 10 per cent. increase in planning fee could be justified.
Furthermore, local authorities are now required to consider significantly more evidence to determine applications, particularly those larger, more complex applications, which adds to the cost of the planning application service.
Hon. Members will acknowledge the importance of appropriate development, which provides valuable housing, economic development and jobs to communities across the country, as Opposition parties have acknowledged today, and the key role of local authorities in facilitating this through the planning system. The fee levels brought before the Committee today help to achieve this in a way that supports the principle of cost recovery in the planning fees system, and is fair for all involved. I beg to move the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2010.—(Ian Austin.)
10.45 am
Committee rose.
 
Contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index


©Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 10 February 2010