Official Report 252KB pdf
The first item is consideration of an affirmative statutory instrument, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2000. The instrument is accompanied in the committee papers by the usual Executive note and a covering note from the clerks. We will follow our standard procedure for handling affirmative statutory instruments. Members may wish to note that the Subordinate Legislation Committee considered the regulations at its meeting on 25 April and requested information from the Executive on the consultation process preceding the laying of the instrument. The Subordinate Legislation Committee considered the Executive's response at its meeting on 2 May; relevant extracts from the Official Report of that meeting were circulated with members' papers.
I will speak briefly about the background to this issue, which I hope will be helpful to members. The regulations introduce new levels of planning fees, which—if they are approved by the committee—will come into effect on 1 June. Since fees were introduced in 1981, they have represented an increasing proportion of the recovery of the costs to local authorities of determining planning applications. They are charged in accordance with the size and nature of development proposals. In line with the United Kingdom Government's policy objective, which was announced in 1990, fee levels are designed to recover fully the costs that are associated with processing planning applications from formal registration to the issue of a decision. The amending regulations demonstrate that we intend to continue that policy commitment. The increase that I am proposing today, which is the first since October 1997, should realise the target recovery rate.
I wish to raise a minor matter. The Executive note advises that the regulations propose an increase of approximately 10 per cent since 1997. For future reference, it would be useful to have the rate of inflation since the previous increase, so that we could see whether the increase was broadly in line with rising costs—I assume that it is.
That is a relevant point. I will ask Duncan Gray to clarify the position over the past few years and talk about future proposals.
I can say something about the change in costs to local authority planning departments, as we gather information from those departments about the costs of dealing with applications. Between 1997-98 and 1998-99—the last two years for which we have information—reported costs rose by about 12 per cent. In the same period, the fees that local authorities received from planning applications did not change, because the underlying fee rate had not changed. Those costs are rising a little bit faster than inflation—I do not have overall inflation figures, but I think that in the past two years, general price inflation has been about 6 per cent. The fee increase is broadly in line with the sort of cost increases that local authorities have faced.
Is there any intention to review fees more regularly? A three-year gap seems quite a long period, especially as the major component will be staffing costs. Given the ratios that you have just covered, councils could have difficulties if their costs rose more quickly than their income.
That is a fair point. Our best estimate of the recovery rate for 1998-99 was 91 per cent, so we have not yet achieved full recovery of costs. Ten local authorities are achieving somewhere in the region of 100 per cent recovery, but we want to review that annually to get on to a steady programme, so that local authorities and developers know that it is coming. In a sense, we are catching up this year. We had hoped to bring the matter to the committee annually, so that members could consider the issues formally every year and I could come to a meeting to identify how costs have changed over the previous year. That would enable appropriate scrutiny.
Is there a pattern in the recovery rate that is achieved by local authorities, in terms of the type and size of authority?
There is. Ten authorities have achieved full recovery, but others have not. The issue needs to be taken up through best value in local authorities. We must examine their costs and consider how each authority processes planning applications. We are considering an average across Scotland; we are not looking at individual local authorities and setting the rates for their full cost recovery. That would require a more hands-on approach. It is an encouragement to local authorities to think about their processes and how they handle planning applications. The indicative set of costs does not include pre-application discussions, which we all regard as being important for the quality of the output from the planning system.
Are city authorities closer to full recovery than urban authorities or small authorities? Does the size and location of an authority have any implications for the costs of projected development in relation to the planning application?
I do not have those figures at my fingertips at the moment. As the minister said, we are talking about overall recovery costs, and much depends on the structure of the planning applications that are received. Householder developments are at one end of the spectrum; major retail and industrial development is at the other end. About 40 per cent of all planning applications in Scotland are for householder development, but in authorities such as East Renfrewshire the figure is 64 or 65 per cent. For major housing developments, the average for Scotland as a whole is 10 per cent, but in Glasgow it is 20 per cent. Underlying those statistics is much detail about how individual planning departments are resourced and structured.
There are no more questions. I thank you for those comments, and ask the minister to move the motion formally.
I move,
That the Transport and the Environment Committee, in consideration of The Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2000 recommends that the Order be approved.
Is that agreed?
Previous
Scottish Parliament Transport and the Environment Committee Wednesday 10 May 2000 (Morning)Next
Budget Process