You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
Planners are right to want increased fees, but safeguards are also needed
A planning fee increase could help councils, but there would need to be adequate controls on the use of the monies raised, says Jonathan Layzell of Stonewater
Planning departments are right to call for increased fees, but safeguards are also needed, by Jonathan LayzellStonewater supports the Local Government Association’s (LGA) calls last week for the government to bring forward its Housing White Paper commitment to increase nationally set planning fees.
But we believe that a national fee increase should be reasonable in amount.
There must also be assurances that additional funds generated would be used specifically to help councils speed up their processing of planning applications so that urgently needed homes can be built faster.
The efficiency and effectiveness of the planning system appears to us to be driven by resource. Local planning authorities annually handle an average 467,000 planning applications in England with processing costs rising at a rate of around £150m a year.
“Budget cuts have left many overworked planning departments struggling to deliver even the most basic services.”
We do not view this as sustainable when budget cuts have left many overworked planning departments struggling to deliver even the most basic services.
Councils don’t have enough experienced skilled professionals on the ground to efficiently handle the volumes of pre-application and planning applications they receive.
This view is backed by the Federation of Master Builders’ recent survey which showed almost 90% of local authorities believe it will be impossible to meet the government’s one million new homes target by 2020 without more planning resources.
In our experience, planning applications which should take three months to process can take up to two years.
This is partly due to a significant shortage of experienced senior level planners who have the knowledge and expertise to interpret and make proactive planning decisions in line with the National Planning Policy Framework’s sustainable development principles.
More than half of councils currently deliver fewer than 40 per cent of homes on small sites where planning permission is difficult to get, according to analysis by the Federation of Master Builders. Again, this is a resource issue. More housing development could be unlocked on these sites if senior professionals were dealing with these schemes.
“Without adequate controls, a deregulated fee system could lead to local councils treating house builders and developers as cash cows.”
Effective and efficient public sector planning that supports delivery and development also requires more investment in planning services.
But this needs to be done in consultation with housing providers and developers who need to define their service requirements and the price they are prepared to pay for them, and Stonewater would welcome further conversations about this.
As for whether local authorities should have the freedom to set their own planning fees (which the LGA also wants the government to commit to testing), if these are fair and can be measured and compared so that inefficient practices are highlighted, this could help cover processing costs and improve service provision.
Without adequate controls, a deregulated fee system could lead to councils treating house builders and developers as cash cows.
This would force up house prices; cripple small, local house builders; and lead to even fewer homes being built for those who need them most.
Jonathan Layzell, executive director of development, Stonewater
Related stories
