PAPER B1


 

Committee:     DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

 

Date:               14 MAY 2002

 

Title:               RESEARCH INTO PLANNING FEES

 

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES




SUMMARY


Members of this Committee may know that planning fees were increased by 14% from 1st April 2002.


DTLR have published a research study into planning fees. The consultants were asked for advice on whether the current fees for different types of development accurately reflected the costs involved in dealing with each type of application and, if not, what changes might be made to the various fee levels. This report is essentially for Member’s information.


BACKGROUND


The study has not been published as a consultation paper, and its status in relation to the wide-reaching proposals for planning reform remain unclear at this moment in time. The increase in planning fees made in April 2002 is intended to achieve the Government’s objective of full cost recovery for the following aspects of development control activity:

 

           •        validation and registration of applications;

           •        consultation with relevant organisations (statutory and non statutory);

           •        neighbour notification and associated publicity requirements;

           •        other publicity such as departure procedures;

           •        planning Officer input, including site visit and preparation of any documentation;

           •        negotiation/discussion with the applicant;

           •        discussion with consultees and any other interested parties;

           •        committee presentation where relevant;

           •        conclusion of Section 106 Agreements where relevant;

           •        issue of a decision notice.


For the research, a survey was undertaken of all English Local Planning Authorities, resulting in a 28% response rate of usable returns. This Council participated in this research project. The period covered was September 2000 to May 2001.


The survey information gave a very wide range of cost recovery, with about one third of the Authorities showing a surplus of fee income over costs, whilst the remainder made various losses, some of them very appreciable.


The points arising from this research can be summarised in the following terms:

 

           •        An overall fee increase of 12% would seem to be necessary to achieve full cost recovery as at the date of the survey. Since the mid point date of the survey was 1st January 2001, an increase of 14% seemed to be realistic, taking into account a conservative estimate of cost of inflation. Effectively, this brought the base fee from £190 up to £220.

 

           •        In terms of minerals and waste applications, traditionally known as County Matter applications, the result suggested the need for a fee increase of 131%, effectively raising the base fee from £190 to £440.

 

           •        Consideration should be given by the DTLR and LGA to introducing a reporting and analysis mechanism that would ensure that the percentage of fee income devoted to fee-paying development control activities is clearly understood, as this may help to ensure that development control teams are adequately resourced.

 

           •        In similar terms, to ensure more consistency in future surveys, encouragement should be given to firstly define the true nature of overheads and then to collect data in accordance with the agreed definition. Best Value guidance from the Planning Officer’s Society and CIPFA should ensure the use of a consistent approach to overhead and cost measurement, both of which are essential to the comparative approach that underpins Best Value.

 

           •        Given the variability of some of the quarterly data, and therefore the difficulties involved in specific policy conclusions from a single quarter result, an annual survey is considered more appropriate. An annual survey of costs and income should suffice, providing the data that is needed is specified well in advance to allow for data collection and for co-ordination with a collection of data under Best Value exercises. This is likely to involve Authorities in establishing and using some form of time recording system.

 

           •        Consideration should be given by DTLR to introducing a compulsory annual costs and fees return. This would also help to ensure that fees and costs recovery could be monitored annually and adjusted as necessary.


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS


In 2001/02, this Council received almost £547,000 in planning fees. Disregarding any trends, an overall increase of 14%, assuming there is a similar number of applications in the current financial year, should realise in the region of another £75,000.


The research makes it patently clear that there are difficulties in terms of calculating the receipt of planning fees against the objective of full cost recovery for the development control activity. The development control function cost less than £400,000 in the last financial year, and even if you allow a substantial sum for support services (or administration) then it is apparent that we were likely to have been in the one third of Authorities showing a surplus of fee income over costs. The down side is that while providing a ‘cheaper’ service, we are failing to meet certain performance targets and indicators as referred to in a report elsewhere on this agenda.


OPTIONS

 

1.      That the report be noted.

 

2.      That the report be noted and the Development Control Manager be asked to carefully monitor the situation.

 

3.      Notwithstanding that the published document was not a consultation paper, representations are made to the DTLR for further research and/or increases in planning fees.




CONCLUSION


The report summarised above is essentially self-explanatory and formed the basis of the Government’s decision to increase planning fees by an average of 14% with effect from 1st April 2002.


In my view we are performing well in terms of overall costs of providing this important regulatory service.


Members will have noted in attachments to a report elsewhere on this agenda that there has been a significant increase in the number of planning applications over the period 1995/96 to 2001/02, and this has been matched by a substantial increase in the amount of fees received despite the Government’s reluctance to increase fees between October 1997 and April 2002.


RECOMMENDATION

 

2.      That the report be noted and the Development Control Manager be asked to carefully monitor the situation.

 

Contact Point:            Chris Hougham, Development Control Manager ☎ 4565








M J A FISHER

Strategic Director of Corporate and Environment Services