Planning Performance and Fees

The sentiments in the proposed vision are fine, just bland and obvious. I don't see what is gained by having such a vision, so I suggest it should not be adopted.

I cannot say I am enthused with the idea of formal performance reporting. I see these requirements introduced in Acts of Parliament and wonder how much resource must be put into these reports and who actually reads them. I also think generally that for the sake of local autonomy, central government should keep mandatory requirements upon it to the minimum.

That said, if reports are to be prepared along the lines suggested, then for the results will only be useful if they are comparable across authorities. Clear guidance will be required from central government, for instance, on how the annual survey of customer service is to be done, on what inputs are to be included in the resources allocated to planning (for instance, is a proportionate element of central staff costs such as payroll or HR costs to be reported as part of planning resources identified in the report).

Reporting on general outcomes of planning requires to be done such that it demonstrates how planning interacted with other areas of local government policy on transport, housing, health, infrastructure, economic development etc. to reach any outcomes. Development planning and, more especially, development management is, at present at least, largely a consenting activity in which central government's and planning authorities' power is limited by the reliance on the private sector to deliver what is proposed. I suspect it would be difficult to identify outcomes the planning system, by itself, had for culture, health, the environment, the economy etc.

I would like to have a clear understanding of where the demarcation line lies between the roles of Chief Planner and National Planning Improvement Co-ordinator.

1. It seems wrong in principle that people proposing the smallest development should face the largest fee increase. I understand the point that the advertising and processing costs for a single development might be greater as compared with a large development. I doubt that an increased fee, by itself, would put off someone who wanted to develop a house. But it seems to me that increasing costs for small developers is yet another increment in limiting the diversity of the house-developer market.

2. In my view, an application for PPP should be subject to the full fee. AMSC applications would then be free. This would provide a simpler system. There would also be greater equity between an application for PPP and for the types of detailed planning permission in which there tend to be substantial requirements for matters to be consented before commencement of development (this is the case with grants of detailed permission for windfarms).

The amount of work associated with a PPP (particularly a PPP where EIA is required) has greatly increased in recent years, particular since the 2006 Act. I can understand the logic of charging half the standard fee for a PPP application, but I doubt that this accords with the principle of full cost recovery. I suspect that the cost of processing a PPP application is usually much closer to the full cost of a detailed planning application.

I'm not completely clear from the consultation whether the £150 fee applies to applications for sheds, garages etc., or only to applications for replacement of sheds, garages etc. If the latter, I suspect it'll lead to dispute about what constitutes a replacement (does replacing a small shed with a big shed attract the £150 fee or £300 fee?)

Using site area to calculate the application fee encourages applicants to draw their application boundaries very tightly around the turbines and infrastructure. This is a short-sighted approach that leads to immense difficulties if the applicant seeks to make a design variation in the course of the application. It also penalises applicants who seek permission for habitat restoration work as part of their application and include the habitat restoration area in their site boundary so that it can straightforwardly be made subject to conditions of the permission. The approach of charging per turbine could perhaps be augmented by charging also for the length of new or improved access tracks and perhaps for the maximum area of new borrow pits. I suggest such an approach would relate reasonably well to the proposed development's impact on the environment and provide a (very) small incentive to minimise the length of new tracks and size and number of borrow pits.

It seems to me that if the fee is to be related to the size of turbine, more gradation could be introduced. The implications and amount of work associated with 150-metre turbines is at least an order of magnitude greater than the work associated with 50-metre turbines.

Proposals for wind farms are increasingly going to be associated with proposals for battery storage and solar power. Some allowance should be made in the fee system for such mixed applications. It may be more sensible to relate a wind-farm or mixed-renewables application fee to the installed capacity rather than the size or number of turbines.

It is not the custom to make a PPP application for a wind farm. I wouldn't have thought there have been any such applications, not at least in the last ten years or so.

Some allowance should be made for mixed applications for wind turbines and battery storage / solar power. Perhaps a charge could be related to the installed capacity.

The £500 fee for the first 0.1 hectare is high, and is likely to catch a good many people who just want to extend their garden. I suggest that half the fee is charged for change of use of land for the purpose of adding it to an existing dwellinghouse use.

This is plainly a difficult issue for a number of reasons.
First, PPP and detailed planning permission are shading into each other. A grant of detailed planning permission, for a large development at least, will often have substantial matters left for subsequent consent under a condition, yet no fee is paid for an application for such consent, unlike PPP. Conversely, quite a lot more information is now required for a PPP application than a red-line plan showing the site. Much of the uplift in land value will arise from grant of PPP.
Second, AMSC applications come in all shapes and sizes. Some might be very minor indeed (dealing with detailed design of building cladding) or very big (the layout of an industrial estate). It's very difficult to make a general rule.
Third, I often personally find it difficult to distinguish between the conditions of PPP that are intended to be AMSC conditions and other suspensive conditions, or even decide if there is such a distinction in law anymore.

I think that there is a good argument for charging the full fee for a PPP application, then not charging for AMSC applications. This would simplify things greatly. If this suggestion is not accepted, I suggest that the full planning fee or a high proportion of the fee should be charged for PPP application and a nominal standard fee for AMSC (say £600).

I suggest the full fee is charged for PPP and no fee or a low standard fee per AMSC application .

It is important that listed buildings continue to be used and maintained. This involves them being adapted for modern purposes. Listing covers not only the exterior but also the interior of a building. The criteria for requiring listed building consent (LBC) are relatively vague and cautious advice is often to obtain consent where there is any doubt. This means even relatively minor works may require an application for LBC. Charging a fee for LBC may have two negative effects:
1. that people decide, where in doubt, not to make an application, so any works go ahead without the planning authority getting to know about them (and they may not know for years if works are to the interior);
2. that people decide that it's another burden for a listed building owner, and that tips the balance towards finding a building that's more convenient and less expensive.

There is a balance to be struck between the state and the individual owner in covering the cost of ensuring the use and maintenance of listed buildings into the future. The balance has been tilting towards the owner covering that cost for some time now. When listing was first brought in, grants were widely available for maintenance and restoration of listed buildings. Now grants are very limited. The state should consider carefully whether it ought to add to the burden of owning a listed building. In this case, I suggest it should not.

It appears to me that this should be a matter for the planning authority, and they should be answerable to their electorate for it.

It should be a matter for discretion for the planning authority, and they should be answerable to their electorate for it.

I would have concerns about setting a fee without a related standardisation of what is required in pre-application discussions. This appears to me to interfere too far with the autonomy of individual planning authorities. I also think that setting a standard fee would make it standard practice for authorities to charge. I don't think that the practice of charging for pre-application consultation should be encouraged - it detracts from the engagement of public authorities with the public and stakeholders.

1. This is wrong in principle: The fee is for the processing of the planning application. Pre-application discussions are a separate exercise, even if intended to smooth the processing of the planning application.
2. An application fee is a necessary element of the validation of an application. Requiring pre-application fees to be deducted from the application fee will result in complexity, which may lead to disputes about whether an application has been properly validated. For instance, it is possible to envisage a dispute arising about the level of application fee if the correct level of fee charged for pre-application discussions is disputed.

Processing agreements are a voluntary element of the processing of an application, as much for planning authorities' convenience as for applicants'. Charging a fee may discourage their use and reduce efficiency. Processing agreements are sometimes used to extend the period for determination of an application - is a charge to be made for such an agreement too?

I suggest that an application for non-material variation is treated on the same basis as a CLUD, since it has similar effect of testing the planning authority's view as to whether a proposed change is in fact non-material.

I suggest that monitoring of planning conditions should be dealt with not in terms of fees but of cost recovery, for which there are various different mechanisms might be available, such as the payment of costs through a section 75 agreement.

It seems to me it would be very difficult to identify a general mechanism by which monitoring costs might be recovered through fees charged for general categories of development.

When is the fee to be charged? Would its payment be required before final permission is granted for a development for which monitoring is required? If not, then collection / enforcement becomes an issue.

It seems to me that the cost of discharging conditions ought to be covered in the cost of a planning application. Introducing an additional fee at the back end increases complexity.
The term "discharge of conditions" is ambiguous. It could mean:
- grant of formal confirmation from the planning authority that conditions have been complied with
- the granting of approval, consent or agreement under a condition
Conditions are not always well drafted, and it may not be clear whether a condition requires a formal discharge or not.
There is no formal process at present defined in statute as "discharging a condition". I suggest that such a process would need to be defined in statute for a fee to be charged for it.
There would, potentially, be a perverse incentive for planning authorities to impose conditions that required discharge.
I suggest that, if a fee is to be charged for an application to discharge a condition, it should be accompanied by a system in which there is deemed discharge if there is no response from the planning authority within a specified period.

Planning authorities ought to be able to recover the costs of drafting planning agreements and generally do so at present. The required agreement to recover costs is usually incorporated in the planning agreement itself.

Planning authorities should record officer time spent on planning agreements and charge accordingly.

Charging a fee for development within a MCA would seem to undermine part of the purpose of a MCA - to make development straightforward.

It seems wrong in principle that an applicant should be able to buy priority in processing of applications. Every applications is likely to be important to every applicant.

It is a risk of this proposal, as with many other proposals in this consultation, that it adds legal complexity to the system, which itself presents an obstacle to efficient processing of applications.

It is unfortunate that this consultation does not provide a box for giving reasons why there should not be charges for appeals. The idea is wrong in principle. The application fee should cover the cost of any subsequent appeal. It seems inequitable that someone whose application has been wrongly turned down should have to pay another fee for that to be set right.

It seems to me that charging fees will hit the poorest most. Development companies dealing with large developments will not regard appeal fees (or application fees) as a large element of their costs and generally such fees will be miniscule in proportion to the uplift in land value arising from a grant of planning permission. However, people carrying out home improvements are likely to find an additional fee, particularly if it is the same as the original planning fee, a considerable barrier. This is particularly bad in an enforcement context: people who have been incautious or ignorant and have carried out a development without permission will then find fees increased. For instance, it is not at all unusual for people to replace their windows in a conservation area without the necessary planning permission. The failure to obtain planning permission is almost always as a result of ignorance of the system rather than malign intent. In applying for retrospective permission, they will now find the fee higher than an ordinary application (as a consequence of unnecessarily punitive provisions in the 2019 Act). It may be that they will also face an increased appeal fee. It seems to me that this risks creating a very unfair penalty for doing something that is already likely to be an expensive mistake.

A fee should not be charged for lodging an appeal. The cost of an appeal should be covered in the planning application fee. If the Scottish Ministers' aim is to discourage appeals, they have the option of abolishing the right to appeal. If the Scottish Ministers' aim is cost recovery, they should set planning application fees at a level to ensure appeal costs are covered.

I cannot see how the circumstances in which an appeal fee can be charged can be limited if the principle is established that there should be appeal fees. I do not consider that appeal fees should be applied to local reviews.

I cannot see how the circumstances in which an appeal fee can be charged can be limited if the principle is established that there should be appeal fees - not, at least, without adding to the complexity of a fee system that is already too complex.

Not exactly. If a fee is charged for an appeal, in my view the appellant should not have to establish that the planning authority's behaviour in refusing the application was unreasonable in order to obtain a return of the fee. Its return should be automatic, perhaps subject to certain exceptions applied at the decision-maker's discretion - for instance if there was a failure on the part of the applicant, such as failing to provide certain information, and that failure was material in the planning authority's refusal.

The expenses circular is now long out of date and would need to be reviewed.

NB. In Scotland the term used is "expenses" not "costs". The latter is an English term.

None.

If there are to be appeal fees, I suggest that applicants for house alterations and improvements are not charged fees.

LRBs are supposed to provide an appeal system for applications for smaller developments, proportionate in its rigour to the scale of those developments. No expenses are available in the LRB system. It does not seem appropriate in such a system to introduce an appeal fee. It seems to me that fees would be another increment in costs that would hit small developers and home improvers particularly.

It seems to me that if a fee was charged on the same basis as appeal fees (cost recovery) then some study would be required of what the costs of running LRBs is. Fees should not be charged on the same basis as (DPEA) appeals.

If a fee is to be paid for appeal to an LRB, the government should first commission a study of the standard of justice that LRBs provide.

This should be a matter for planning authorities to determine, but they should have the option of waiving all or part of a fee where either they or the ombudsman uphold a complaint about the processing of an application.

I believe that planning authorities already have this power, so no further legislation should be required.

This should be a matter for the discretion of planning authorities (on advice from the ombudsman where relevant). The nature of a discretionary waver is that it should be particular to the circumstances. In view of this, it seems to me wrong to limit planning authority's discretion as regards the size of the waver.

I acknowledge that the surcharge is included in the law. However, it is advanced as intended to address additional costs arising from the bad practice of failing to make an application in advance. In my experience, while some people who fail to make a required planning application do so deliberately, the great majority are just unaware of the requirement. A typical example is installing double glazing in a house in a conservation area. A 100% surcharge looks punitive, and a punitive surcharge would in my view in most cases be unjust, particularly where the development is small. The discretion available to planning authorities may address this, so long as it is exercised consistently.

The Scottish Ministers have produced no evidence in the consultation of the actual additional cost of dealing with retrospective applications. Is there any such evidence, beyond anecdote?

There may also be a technical difficulty in applying the surcharge: if development has been carried out without planning permission and subsequently the developer makes a prospective application for planning permission which is then granted, it would hardly be reasonable for the planning authority to take enforcement action in respect of the breach of planning control, even though it has not been cured by a grant of retrospective planning permission. Could applicants by this method avoid the surcharge?

In the absence of evidence as to there being any actual additional cost for retrospective applications and in view of the impact particularly on individuals and small developers, I suggest the surcharge is limited to 10%.

In order not to be unjust, discretion in reducing the surcharge needs to be applied consistently. Reasons need to be given to demonstrate consistency.

Nothing should add to the existing pressure on planning authorities and applicants to get themselves into legal difficulties by avoiding the EIA process where it is required. One EIA case is quite different from another, so imposing a single simple supplementary fee feels unfair.

More fees for more items again introduces more complexity into the system. Complexity is likely to lead to interpretation difficulties, to disputes, and to stalled casework.

Perhaps it might be charged by the number of pages in the EIA report, with additional fees for additional information (not a wholly serious suggestion).

PPP should be charged at the full cost of a planning application. AMSC applications should be free. This would simplify the system.

The BRIA considers only the cost of the headline increase in fees. It does not consider the additional difficulties that would arise from introducing fees for new items and of the consequent increase of complexity in the system. It should do.

The increased complexity of the system is likely to impact most upon people who have the least access to advice or resources to deal with the planning system. I suggest that people with protected characteristics are likely to be disproportionately represented in the group most affected. I consider therefore that further investigation is required in terms of impact upon equalities.

See above.

See my comment on equalities.

see my answer on equalities. I suggest that there is at least some likelihood that the increase of fees which is generally higher for smaller developments would impact upon achieving fairer outcomes. Charging a 100% surcharge for retrospective development would also impact on fairer outcomes since it would affect people who do not have knowledge or access to advice on the planning system. The increased complexity similarly would adversely affect fair outcomes.