Communities Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 5, 2004

Official Report 308KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (Draft)

Agenda item 1 is consideration of the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 2004. I welcome Mary Mulligan, the Deputy Minister for Communities, who is a regular visitor to the committee these days. I also welcome Elizabeth Baird, who is the acting head of planning division 1, and Ed Swanney and Shirley Dunbar also from planning division 1.

The regulations are to be considered under the affirmative procedure, which means that the minister is required under rule 10.6.2 of standing orders to propose by motion that the draft regulations be approved. Members have received copies of the draft regulations and the accompanying documentation. I invite the minister to speak briefly about the draft regulations. She should not yet move the motion.

I will try to keep my comments fairly brief.

The regulations will introduce new levels of planning fees, which, if approved by the committee, will come into effect in two stages: the first stage on 1 June 2004; and the second stage on 1 April 2005. The fees are not intended to address the full costs of development control, which include pre-application discussions, appeals and other non-qualifying activities. However, they are designed to cover the costs of processing planning applications. The Scottish ministers consider that the increase strikes the right balance between full recovery and the likely impact on potential developers.

Fees remain a small part of developers' costs—considerably less than 1 per cent—and there is no evidence that they act as a deterrent to development. At the domestic property end of the scale, few householders pay any fee because most minor development does not require a planning application. I will provide the committee with indicative figures to show what the increases would mean if members so request.

Scottish ministers believe that users and potential beneficiaries of the development control system should meet the costs incurred in determining planning applications, which would otherwise be met by council tax and business rates payers in general. The increase proposed in the regulations will be the first increase in planning fees since April 2002. Even taking it into account, planning application fees continue to be modest and to represent a small proportion of developers' overall costs.

Has the minister considered section 20 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, which deals with the power to advance well-being? Has she also considered section 252 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, under which the regulations are being made? As far as I can see, section 252 of the 1997 act does not require that fee levels be set for local authorities.

Why are the fees the same for every council? Given that the policy objective is to retrieve the costs of processing applications, does that not allow councils that are less efficient in processing applications to ride along in the slipstream of those that are more efficient? Does it not deny councils that are more efficient the opportunity to reduce their fees and to encourage planning applications in their area rather than in areas where fees are higher?

Given that the power to advance well-being under section 20 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 returns power to councils, why are we now denying councils the opportunity to set their fees? Since for the first time in our consideration of four Scottish statutory instruments on the subject, we are replacing a previous SSI in its entirety, is there not an opportunity to harmonise what we are doing with the powers that we have granted to councils in other legislation?

We feel that it is helpful for the fees that are charged by local authorities to be consistent, so we are aiming for an average, which will result in the recovery of as close as possible to 100 per cent of the cost of dealing with planning applications.

I reassure Stewart Stevenson that we have decided to carry out a review of the funding of local authority planning services, which is just about to start. We will consider the very elements that he suggested—including those local authorities that might be more efficient than others—to see how we can encourage a level of service across the board. We will acknowledge the most efficient councils and see where we can support those that need additional support to become more efficient. We acknowledge the points that Stewart Stevenson makes about encouraging efficiency in the service, but we want to gather more information on the situation. That is why we are suggesting now an increase in planning fees across the board.

I listened to that reply with interest. You said that you want to have consistency and I would be interested to hear your arguments for that. You also said that the fees are a relatively small proportion of the cost of any development—they are not a major factor. Therefore, I wonder why we need to go to the trouble and expense of having a review, given that we legislated to return more financial powers to local authorities and especially given the fact that the matter has no particular financial significance. I understand that the SSI sets fees for the Scottish Executive's involvement in the process, but I suggest that we let local authorities get on with it and that we do not set fees on their behalf. I have not yet heard an argument that rebuts that suggestion.

We intend to carry out the review because we want to ascertain the relative levels of efficiency in the planning system as part of our modernisation drive, not because we think that planning fees are a burden that reduce the amount of development that takes place, particularly in the business sector, where we want to encourage businesses to expand and deliver additional services and employment. We recognise that the service has to be paid for and we have set the fees at a level at which we think we can secure as close as possible to a 100 per cent return and ensure that the service is consistent. That is why we are putting that option to the committee.

Why must the service be consistent?

We want developers across Scotland to know what the position is likely to be. One area should not have an unfair advantage over another.

Do you think that competition is unfair?

I did not say that. I said that developers should be aware of the likely charges, so that charges are not a consideration in their decision about where to develop.

I highlight a point that has been brought to my attention. I understand that councils carry out a considerable amount of work on applications to develop wind farms and that they must bear the costs of processing such applications. Highland Council, in particular, deals with a large number of such applications, but councils do not receive a penny for the service that they provide in relation to applications under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to develop wind farms with a capacity of more than 50 MW, which are considered by the Scottish Executive. I do not think that the instrument mentions that matter. Will you consider paying a fee for the service that councils provide, which is considerable, given that such applications are for enormous wind farms and attract large numbers of objections?

I am reliably informed by Ed Swanney that that matter is being taken up in the review that is being undertaken by the energy and telecommunications division of the Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department, in recognition of the number of applications that are currently being made.

I understand that councils usually receive around £8,000 to process a wind farm application, but receive nothing for applications for enormous wind farms, which are decided by the Scottish Executive. What is the timescale for the review?

The Executive's planning division does not have a role in relation to applications under the Electricity Act 1989. For that reason, I have no information about how the review is progressing, but I will ensure that the information is passed to Mary Scanlon as soon as we have it.

Most developers expect the planning service to be speedy and efficient, although often it is not. Will you assure us that the increase in charges will help councils to fund their planning services adequately or better and will allow them to deliver a better service than they could deliver if there were no charges?

Through the charges we intend to ensure that we receive a reasonable return on the number of planning applications. However, we acknowledge that local authorities have an opportunity to increase their resources and their efficiency, which is not always down to how much money is in the pot. The committee will be aware that we recently launched the consultation document, "Making Development Plans Deliver", which is about improving the planning service for all those who come into contact with it. A number of measures can be taken in that regard.

On what we have before us, ensuring that there is a basic income to meet the costs of planning applications is a straightforward way of ensuring that no council is losing out on the money that is being put into the pot to deal with planning.

As no other member wishes to speak, I ask the minister to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Communities Committee recommends that the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 be approved.—[Mrs Mary Mulligan.]

The question is, that the committee recommends that the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 be approved. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)

Against

Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)

Abstentions

Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 2, Abstentions 1.

Motion agreed to.

Do members agree that we report to the Parliament on our consideration of and decision on the order?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—