There was much discussion about planning fees throughout 2016 yet, notwithstanding promises of movement from within Department for Communities and Local Government circles, nothing has materialised.
As we await the delayed government white paper, I wonder whether anything meaningful will be proposed bar the usual small increase in planning fees that comes every few years. While this is long overdue, an increase in fees will not address the growing resource problem local planning authorities are facing.
Too many categories of applications, such as listed building submissions, are free and a 10% increase in nothing still equals nothing. It is ridiculous that a householder building a rear extension pays the same fee in Mayfair as someone in Liverpool or Middlesbrough. Alternative providers were put forward as a possible solution a year ago but nothing has materialised, possibly because of the obvious probity issues and the likelihood of judicial reviews from neighbours claiming bias in the reporting and decision-making process.
The stumbling block appears to be government’s belief that the additional income will be hived off towards council savings targets and there will be no improvement in service. There is an alternative model, however, which would answer these concerns. A pilot could be set up that would give LPAs the opportunity to show how a self-sufficient planning service could work and improve the speed of planning decisions and plan-making. In this alternative model, pilot authorities would be permitted to charge whatever fees they think fit but would have to set up a development community group comprising landowners who regularly submit applications in their borough. The pilot authorities would have to consult and obtain the agreement of the group before putting up their fees.
Fees could be set relatively low for small applications so as not to discourage small builders or householders. Larger schemes would pay more to offset these lower fees but they would have the equivalent of a PPA agreement automatically written into the application to provide certainty regarding resources and a timetable for determination of their applications.
The overall income would be ringfenced for expenditure solely on:
- Processing and determining all applications under the Town and Country Planning Acts
- Planning enforcement
- Tree applications, high hedges etc
- Policy work directly related to planning policy plan making.
The LPA would have to provide an annual report covering its performance, including:
- Handling of applications within statutory timeframes
- Percentage of applications refused and won/lost on appeal
- Total income
- Total expenditure and how it has been ringfenced to the above services only
- Plan-making update
- Overview of whether fees need to be increased to improve the service and how the extra income would be used. If the amount of work has dropped, the fee might be lowered.
The development community group would comment on and feed into the annual report.
If the speed in determining non-major applications fell below 70% within eight weeks the local planning authority would have to revert to the existing standard set-fee model for a year as punishment. This would incentivise all local authorities to use the extra fee income to maintain rapid decision-making.
In addition, an up-to-date plan must be written and adopted every five years. The pilot would need to run for at least three years to give the pilot LPAs the opportunity to bring in the right staff and gear up for a speedier service.
A new model needs to be adopted to improve planning performance. Running some pilot authorities along the above lines might be the answer.
John Walker is director of planning at Westminster City Council
