(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)
Cabinet received a report from the Head of Regeneration & Planning to seek to introduce fees for currently free householder development advice and pre-planning application advice.
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:
|
|
Option 1: To introduce charges for both Householder Questionnaire Advice and Pre-Application Advice |
Option 2: To introduce a charge solely for Householder Questionnaire Advice |
Option 3: To introduce a charge solely for Pre-Application Advice |
Option 4: To not introduce charges for either activity |
|
Advantages |
This would allow for a more formal and transparent process to the pre-planning application regimes and would provide added certainty for developers pursuing development projects. It would also provide an income stream based on cost recovery which aims to cover the cost of service demands. |
This would allow a fee to be levied for permitted development enquiries which are time-consuming and are not a statutory function, also providing an income stream which could potentially support existing service provision for this element. |
This would require a new, formal and transparent process to responding to pre-application enquiries which would assist Officers and would provide added certainty for developers pursuing their development projects. Again this could provide an income stream which could potentially support existing service provision for this element. |
No advantages to the Service. Although the activities would remain free of charge to the user, this free service would need to continue to be limited and this is unlikely to provide any improvements in service provision. |
|
Disadvantages |
The new system could potentially be more resource-intensive than the current informal system, dependent upon developer interest. The introduction of fees for Householder Development advice may be off-putting to some householders, who may choose to continue with a development project irrespective of whether they require permission or not (although with lenders often demanding evidence of PD rights this is unlikely). |
The introduction of fees for Householder Development advice may be off-putting to some householders, who may choose to continue with a development project irrespective of whether they require permission or not.
Introducing a fee for this service activity alone would not respond to the demand for pre-application advice from developers. |
The new system could potentially be more resource-intensive, dependent upon developer interest.
|
This would not assist in addressing the capacity issues and ongoing modernisation of the Development Management Service. |
|
Risks |
The process would require annual review to be certain that staffing capacity and fee levels are commensurate with the service being offered. |
This is a service that is currently provided free of charge and so it is anticipated that it would not result in an increase in workload which would create staffing capacity issues.
|
The process would require annual revision to be certain that staffing capacity and fee levels are commensurate with the service being offered. |
Service provision would continue in accordance with current priorities, with little capacity for pre-application discussions. |
Option 1 was the officer preferred option. This would allow appropriate and commensurate fees to be levied regarding the existing Householder Questionnaire service and the proposed new Pre-Application Advice service. The setting of fees for these activities would allow the Development Management Service to formalise its current arrangements. A formal, chargeable process would put greater onus upon applicants and developers to provide quality, written information to the Development Management Service at the earliest opportunity, thus allowing for a considered, formal, written response from Planning Officers. The clarity offered by the new arrangement would be a significant improvement to the quality of service. The potential income stream arising from the introduction of charges could potentially be redirected to ensure that permanent staffing capacity remains commensurate with the service’s pre-planning application workload.
Councillor Blamire proposed, seconded by Councillor Leytham:-
“(1) That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”
Councillors then voted:-
Resolved unanimously:
(1) That the principle of charging for householder development advice and pre-planning application advice be agreed.
(2) That responsibility for determining the precise fees in each case each year is delegated to Cabinet, working in conjunction with Financial Services and that the General Fund Revenue Budget is updated to reflect the estimated additional income for 2012/13 during the Revised Budget process.
(3) That future years’ fees are incorporated into the council’s Fees and Charges policy for review thereafter as part of the annual budget and planning process, taking into account service demands.
Officers responsible for effecting the decision:
Head of Regeneration & Planning
Head of Resources
Reasons for making the decision:
The proposals would improve the quality of service being offered to potential planning applicants and would lead to greater consideration of development proposals by all parties, thus resulting in a more transparent, usable and sustainable local planning system. The proposals had the potential to deliver a new income stream for the Regeneration & Planning Service, which in turn increased its ability to cover the cost of existing service provision. This was an in principle decision with further details brought back to Cabinet in due course.