Planning in London

Call for competition and sanctions if fees rise Following its success in influencing urgent changes to the appeals system, the Association of Consultant Architects remains concerned about the imminent increases in planning fees. Application fees have not changed for several years and the government's first proposal was to raise fees at the beginning of April to provide an additional £30m, so that the cost of running development control is more realistically covered and more resources are made available to planning authorities (though the delivery grant is to be run down). For the first time a performance and quality measure is to accompany fees increases. The concern is heightened by December's unprecedented release in the week consultation closed on the first paper of a second, which, claiming respondents wanted even bigger increases, proposes a leap of 450 per cent for major applications from a maximum of £11,000 now to £50,000 and an average increase of 25 per cent. The ACA's view is that fees should be increased but subject to the imposition of sanctions for failed performance (for example by deemed approvals or return of fees if decisions are not timely) and the introduction of competition which is implied by the government's aim of making development control financially self-sufficient whereby applications could be assessed by either an independent agency or a different local authority and the resulting report presented to committee or delegated power in the area of the application. Such an approach works well with Building Regulations, and has greatly enhanced the quality of service provided. The same is urgently needed in planning. The planning delivery grant has the failing that it provides additional financial resources to authorities that are doing well, rather than to those who need help because they are doing badly. This can become a vicious circle, but sanctions as a direct stimulus and competition as an immediate way of improving the processes would break the circle. The ACA considers that realistic application fees will emphasise to clients the direct link between the value of their proposals and the quality, not only of the application itself but also of the way it is processed by the planning authority. Higher planning fees should help persuade clients to put proper resources into their applications. However they are concerned that high fees may encourage unscrupulous authorities to increase refusal levels in order to obtain extra income particularly if the 'free go' is removed. At present the system is unbalanced because withdrawals are not included as part of the statistics and the planning delivery grant returns do not take account of negotiations where both parties have agreed to an extension of time. Performance measures need to reflect these realities and withdrawals should be recorded as if they were refusals. If the 'free go' is removed, the level of appeals will escalate dramatically the ACA points out. The Architects Journal is supporting the ACA in its campaign.