Councils are extremely disappointed that the Government has removed Lords amendment 82, which would have enabled local planning authorities to set fees for planning applications at a level that covers the cost of processing them.
Key messages
- Councils are extremely disappointed that the Government has removed Lords amendment 82, which would have enabled local planning authorities to set fees for planning applications at a level that covers the cost of processing them. Currently, planning fees do not cover the true cost of processing applications. As a result, taxpayers are left subsidising planning services by almost £5 million a week. Planning departments are facing a significant deficit (£245.4 million in 2020/21) and experiencing growing skills and capacity challenges.
- We urge Government to accept to accept Amendment 82B in lieu, tabled by Baroness Pinnock, which would allow councils to set fees locally in instances where the income from nationally set fees leave them in deficit, with the approval of the Secretary of State. Existing legislation would ensure that these could not be set higher than the level required to meet the full costs of processing applications.
- We are also disappointed that Government have removed Lords amendment 22, which would have given councils the flexibility to use virtual meetings technologies at council meetings. This is despite 95 per cent of councils supporting the reintroduction of virtual meetings technology using a common-sense approach. We support Amendment 22B in lieu, tabled by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering, which provides for a Minister to bring forward secondary legislation to specify circumstances in which councils may be permitted to hold meetings that utilise virtual meeting technology. We urge Government to accept this amendment.
Planning application fees
- We are extremely disappointed by the removal of Lords amendment 82, which would have enabled local planning authorities to increase planning fees to a level which covers the cost of processing planning applications.
- We urge Government to accept Amendment 82B in lieu, tabled by Baroness Pinnock, which would allow councils to set fees locally in instances where the income from nationally set fees leave them in deficit, with the approval of the Secretary of State.
- Currently, planning fees do not cover the true cost of processing applications. As a result, taxpayers are left subsidising planning services by almost £5 million a week. Ensuring planning departments are adequately resourced will be crucial to delivering the reforms in the Bill and it is only right that applicants pay a fair rate to cover their costs.
- In 2020/21, 305 out of 343 local authority planning departments were operating in a deficit totalling £245.4 million in 2020/21, creating significant capacity and skills challenges and undermining councils’ ability to deliver the high-quality homes and infrastructure communities need.
- The Government has recognised that planning departments are under-resourced and have committed to increasing planning fees for major applications by 35 per cent and minor applications by 25 per cent. However, LGA analysis has shown that this will still leave a significant shortfall for many councils across the country. Even if all application fees were uplifted by 35 per cent in 2020/21, the overall national deficit would have remained at over £80 million.
- Existing legislation (Subsection 10, part XIV (Financial Provisions), Town and Country Planning Act 1990) would ensure that this amendment would not allow councils to set planning fees higher than the level required to meet the full costs of processing applications.
Virtual meetings
- We are also disappointed that Government has tabled a motion to disagree with amendment 22, which would give councils the flexibility to use virtual meetings technologies at council meetings. This is despite, in a recent LGA survey, 95 per cent of councils saying that they support the reintroduction of virtual meetings technology using a common-sense approach. None said that they would go fully virtual.
- We support the amendment in lieu, tabled by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering, which provides for a Minister to bring forward secondary legislation to specify circumstances in which councils may be permitted to hold meetings that utilise virtual meeting technology. We urge Government to accept this amendment.
- Council meetings are an essential part of local decision-making processes, where decisions that impacts on the day-to-day lives of residents are made. It is therefore important that unnecessary barriers to participation are removed to support a wide range of people to take up elected roles, so that councils reflect the communities they represent.
- Certain groups find the requirement for 100 per cent in-person attendance particularly challenging, including carers, parents of young children, younger people, full-time workers, and disabled people. Many of these groups are already under-represented in local Government but have a wealth of experience and skills to contribute if participation were more accessible.
- In a recent LGA survey, one in 10 councils said councillors in their authority had stepped down due to the reinstatement of the in-person meeting requirement, after it was suspended during the pandemic. Almost nine in 10 surveyed councils said they were aware of disabled councillors who would use virtual attendance as a reasonable adjustment if permitted. While seven in 10 said that councillors had enquired about virtual attendance for other reasons, such as work commitments, excessive travel times and childcare commitments.
- We believe it is no longer reasonable to refuse councils the powers to enable councillors to participate in meetings in the most accessible or appropriate way for them. Virtual technologies are now the norm in both the public and private sectors, allowing for collaboration and input from a wide range of people to produce the best outcomes. Councils should also be able to reap the benefits of this technology to make local democracy more accessible and fit for the future.