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 Majestys 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 periodsadly, I think we arewhen 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 yesterdayfortuitouslywas
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.
Gentlemans 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.