| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am in the enviable position of being able to welcome the welcomes; indeed, I am delighted that that is the case. I shall try to address the precise points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Of course, it is the case that the Liberal Democrats argued that the scheme
was unworkable. I am not so sure that it was "unworkable", because other issues impacted upon its implementation. This meant that the Government decided, quite rightly, to move away from the cautious approach of a voucher scheme to a cash-based system. Improvements in technology and the long-term desire to introduce a system of smart cards, and so on, will enable the Government to make a significant impact on the potential for fraud within the system.The noble Lord asked about a timetable. It is our intention to introduce cash payments on 8th April. By the end of September it is hoped to start the gradual introduction of the application registration card as a means of enabling asylum seekers to obtain cash payments through their post office. The scheme is relatively simple to follow. At present, asylum seekers will be able to attend the local post office with their book, their chitty, or their slips. In the interim, they will be given vouchers, which they will pass straight back over the counter and receive cash. That is how the process is intended to work. In the longer term, it is the Government's intention to introduce a form of smart card. Those making in-country applications will be able to access that smart card system from the outset.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised a point about utilities and the relationship between those and the adult cash payment rate. The calculation has been made that the discount, the 30 per cent, is approximate to the value of housing accommodation which is fully furnished and has all the necessary utensils and furniture in place. It is felt that 70 per cent is a fair reflection of the true cash need of asylum seekers and that the 30 per cent covers utility payments such as rent and so on. It is assumed that that is all included.
The noble Lord made a final point about those staying with families and friends. That matter is under review at all times. It is currently the case that a large number of asylum seekers stay with friends and family. It is the Government's intention in the long term to provide an estate so that individual asylum seekers can be properly accommodated and worked with in terms of processing their asylum application. We believe that that is the right way forward. It was announced in the White Paper and it is the Government's desire to proceed in that way, but the noble Lord's point is an important one to reflect on and take on board.
With those comments and, I hope, having answered the points raised by the noble Lord, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2002
8.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the regulations were laid before the House on 12th February. They introduce new levels of fees which, if approved, will come into effect on 1st April. They were approved in another place on 6th March.
The principle which underpins the planning application regime is that individual users and potential beneficiaries of the development control system, rather than local taxpayers in general, should meet the costs incurred by local planning authorities in handling and determining planning applications. Local authorities' work includes activities such as carrying out statutory notification, consultation, and publicity so that interested parties can comment on the development proposal. It also includes writing to applicants and objectors, and the time spent by officers and elected members in considering a case.
The Government's policy is that, in aggregate across England, the income generated by planning application fees should cover the estimated total costs incurred by local planning authorities. Income and estimated costs have been monitored annually to inform decisions about the level of fees. Fees were raised gradually over a number of years until, in 1997, they recovered what was thought to be all of local authorities' estimated costs of determining planning applications. There has been no increase in fees since then because there has been no hard evidence on which to base a further change.
However, as the basis for estimated costs dated from a 1992 study, my department commissioned research in June—the year given in the briefing is 2002, which cannot be right; it must be 2001—to look afresh at the extent to which the costs incurred by local authorities is being recovered by the fees paid by applicants. This included a comprehensive survey of local planning authorities. It concluded that, in aggregate, income is about 14 per cent adrift from costs for most local planning authorities.
The Government therefore propose an increase of approximately 14 per cent in fees so that, in aggregate across the country, local authorities' fee income better matches the cost of determining planning applications. This is an interim measure, pending a fundamental review of the fees regime announced in our planning Green Paper.
The increase in fees proposed in the draft regulations before the House keeps planning application fees at a modest level for developers, while enabling local authorities to recover a fair proportion of the costs incurred. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have little to say on this matter save to welcome the regulations. As a present member of a planning committee, I know that the increase in fees will be welcomed. Even more welcome in the not-too-distant future will, I hope, be
the wider review of planning fees and the possibility that they will not be restricted and work on a ceiling basis. That would have a great deal of merit, bearing in mind that there will be different associated costs in different areas.I am sure that at some date we shall debate the Green Paper on planning. I want to mention the important element that in some boroughs a great deal of time is spent on discussion by officers on an application to bring it through to a satisfactory development. Sometimes, that takes longer than the normal time-frame that would be expected. In the end, it usually results in a far better development. The fees will contribute to only a small extra amount of officer work, but the addition can only be welcome. That is all that I can offer the Minister at this stage.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the dinner hour business seems to have provoked a great outbreak of amity in the Chamber! I, too, want to thank the Minister. I declare an interest as president of the Town and Country Planning Association.
The Minister referred to the fees covering the cost. Incidentally, his honourable friend told another place that the research was commissioned in June 2000. I do not suppose that that alters the effect of the research itself. I find it difficult to believe that that is the case. Perhaps I should have warned the Minister about this question. There is no confirmation, but I wonder whether that includes forward planning as well as development control. It does not seem to me that that can possibly be the case. That whole area of planning work—developing UDPs, the new development framework, action plans or whatever it will be—is vital to underpin effective development control.
A constitutional issue arises; namely, whether planning is a public service and whether it should be paid for by applicants. It is in everyone's interests that the outcome is a good one. There seems almost to be a view—I do not suggest that it is shared in this Chamber—that all development is bad. That is perhaps a matter for our debate on the Green Paper, the issue of tariffs and so on.
Clearly, there are some developments—particularly potentially lucrative commercial developments—where the cost is disproportionate, even to the fee that will be charged under the new arrangements. There is a distinction to be drawn between such applications and residential applications. A development should carry far more of the cost.
I hold the view that it should also be possible for local authorities to charge for pre-application advice. That is probably because the case of Richmond Upon Thames ex parte McCarthy and Stone is written on my heart—or possibly still sticks in my throat.
It is the case that planning departments up and down the country are under-funded and under-staffed. Anything that can be done to rectify the situation will be very welcome. As the noble Baroness, Lady
Hanham, said, these issues and many more are raised by the Green Paper. For the moment, I do not oppose the order.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of both noble Baronesses. Perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about discussions with officers which continue for some time. It is similar to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about pre-application discussions. They are important; they are beneficial. They are not charged for. Current legislation does not permit local authorities to charge for this facility. We recognise the benefits of such discussions. They can help guide the applicant through the process, they can improve the application, and can result in better quality applications.
We recognise as well the resource burden that this places on local authorities. We intend to enable local authorities to levy appropriate charges for this service. It does not bring the comfort that the noble Baroness would have hoped for in relation to the decided case to which she referred, but I believe it deals with the principle.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for correcting me. The research was commissioned in June 2000. She asked whether there was research on costs being recovered in relation to development planning activities as well as development control. There is not; it was only in relation to development control. She then wondered whether planning was such an important function that one should seek to recover all the costs from the applicants. As I have said, that relates only to development control rather than development planning. She also correctly pointed out that some substantial applications are made by well funded developers for which significantly greater application fees could be paid. That would probably be welcomed by the developers if it had the effect of improving the culture of planning.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page