---

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2006

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9 February be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee and 25th Report from the Merits Committee]. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, now for something completely different. We are addressing the important issue of the new regime which requires the payment of fees by mineral and landfill site operators. The Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2006 were laid before the House on 10 February 2006. In summary, these regulations introduce a new regime, requiring the payment of fees by mineral and landfill waste operators in England for the monitoring of their sites by mineral and waste planning authorities. If approved by this House and the other place, the regulations will come into effect on 6 April 2006. The objective of the proposed regime is to recover the costs to planning authorities of essential monitoring of mining and landfill sites according to good practice guidance. Monitoring by local planning authorities of development of all types is not new, but charging the developer for that monitoring—as we now propose after considerable research and consultation—for these two particular types of operations is new. Implementation of these regulations will fulfil a commitment made in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review. The commitment was, when a legislative opportunity arose, to extend the scope of charges which can be imposed under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to allow mineral planning authorities to recover the costs of monitoring and enforcing planning conditions. That commitment recognised that planning application fees do not recover the costs of monitoring and enforcing planning permissions. It also recognised the particular and unusual requirements for monitoring mineral development. Fundamentally, this commitment supports the progression—both here and in Europe—towards greater protection of the environment and the need for sustainable development based on up-to-date environmental standards. Mineral and landfill development poses significant environmental challenges. We continue to respond to those challenges through incentives such as the aggregates levy and landfill tax. These measures encourage greater use of recycled and secondary aggregate, a reduction in the amount of waste sent to landfill and investment in alternative waste management capacity. The total volume of waste disposed to landfill has fallen by almost 20 per cent since the introduction of the landfill tax in 1996. That is, of course, good news. But we also recognise the importance of ensuring that mineral and landfill operations meet the modern environmental standards we have rightly come to expect. These standards are determined through planning controls applied by local planning authorities and the complementary pollution control regime which is the responsibility of the Environment Agency. Planning fees cover only the costs of handling and determining planning applications. They do not include the costs of monitoring and enforcing planning permissions. Nor do they cover the cost of the specialised necessary monitoring to ensure that mineral and landfill sites are environmentally sustainable, contained, managed and reclaimed, in such a way as to minimise their impacts. Both mineral and landfill waste operations are governed by sometimes complex and technical planning conditions. These deal with matters such as noise and dust control, traffic, blasting, hours of working and soil stripping and storage. They are needed to deal with the physical impacts of the operations on the environment. Regular monitoring by competent authority officers is needed to ensure that essential environmental standards are maintained. Mineral planning permissions are implemented progressively as mineral is extracted, and land restored. The process of ““development”” can sometimes last for many decades. Similarly, sites can be used for landfill waste for many years. So it is not case of ““permit it, see it built, check once and forget””. Monitoring practice by authorities at present is, however, variable. In some cases it can fall short of the Planning Officers Society good practice guidance, published in 1998, by a considerable margin. Operators of mining and landfill sites are beneficiaries of permissions allowing these operations to proceed over a considerable period. Without extensive planning conditions minimising their environmental impact, those operations would not be improved or upgraded to modern standards. We believe therefore that it is reasonable for the operators to support the unusual, long-term monitoring requirement imposed by these extended processes of development. The widening of the scope of planning authorities’ fee-charging powers in Section 53 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 means that we are now able to implement the fee regime in line with our commitment made in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review. Delays in securing the necessary legislative powers to implement monitoring fees enabled us to carry out a thorough research and consultation on the options for and details of a regime. These regulations have had a long and very thorough gestation. The features of the proposed regime have been developed from research studies carried out in 2000 and 2004. These studies considered various charging options and validated local authority monitoring costs. Two subsequent public consultation exercises in 2001 and 2005 yielded a strong polarisation of views. Mineral and waste planning authorities were in favour of the introduction of a fees regime. Unsurprisingly, the industries were unequivocal in their objection in principle to any monitoring fees. However, to their credit, most of the trade associations also commented constructively on how the proposals should be implemented, notwithstanding their opposition. Both the industries and the authorities agreed that the structure of the proposed regime, based on a nationally set flat rate fee, was about right. These regulations define mining and landfill sites, what constitutes a site visit, who is liable to pay the fee, and prescribe different fees for the monitoring of active and inactive sites. The fee for a visit to an active site will be £288, while the fee for each visit to an inactive site will be £96. These fees reflect comprehensive research carried out in 2004 to validate local authority costs of monitoring in accordance with good practice principles. The fee for a visit to an active site is significantly lower than that which was proposed in 2001. It is now £288 compared with £435 at 2006–07 prices. An inactive site is one where quarrying, landfilling, restoration or aftercare is not currently taking place to any substantial extent, but could lawfully be resumed. Normally it should take much less time to monitor these than active sites, and will be subject to only one chargeable visit per year. Each active site will be subject to a maximum of eight visits per year for which a fee is payable. Authorities can of course make further visits, but no fee will be payable for them. Guidance has been prepared to assist implementation of the regime. I am most grateful for the constructive help given by representatives of the Planning Officers Society and the minerals and waste industries in commenting on the guidance. It includes advice on good practice monitoring and the factors that authorities should take into account in agreeing the number of visits. I must stress that the figure of eight visits is a maximum. Generally, when active sites are compliant with planning conditions, we consider that there should not be more than four visits a year, and over time, as the monitoring according to good practice becomes established and standards rise, the percentage of sites with four or fewer visits each year should rise. I know also that many mineral and landfill operators have good working relationships with their authorities. By working constructively together, problems can be resolved and formal enforcement action thus minimised. I emphasise that we do not want the introduction of monitoring fees to detract from these constructive relationships. I know that these fees are not comfortable for many in the industries, but they are essential. We acknowledge industry objections to the principle of monitoring fees, and in developing the regime we have listened carefully to what the industries have told us. We have addressed some of their concerns about its detailed operation and we have kept the regime as simple as possible. For example, we are introducing a flat rate fee to apply to all sites. We have restricted the maximum number of visits for which a fee is chargeable and the level of fee is considerably less than that proposed following the initial research. There are also benefits to the industry. These include consistency in terms of the level of fees and an accountable and transparent approach to monitoring, along with the provision of full written feedback, which means that the standard of monitoring should improve. These benefits will address more general industry concerns for there to be consistent and more effective enforcement of regulations, including planning controls, and effective action against poorer operators. It is not just the industries that will benefit. Improved monitoring will deliver valuable benefits to the communities near to these sites and to the wider environment. We acknowledge, as I have said, that the regime introduces a new concept into the planning system—charging for monitoring development as it occurs. This reflects the unusual nature of mineral extraction and landfill deposition. Long-term and temporary processes of development, whose physical impacts can be intense at the sites concerned, need to be mitigated through extensive conditions. In the modern world of environmental protection, no conditions would mean no permissions. That said, we will consider how the regime works in practice. We need to do that, and we will do that. I therefore undertake now that we shall review the regime once it has been established and has bedded in, and in any event, no later than in 2011. I commend these regulations to the House. I beg to move."Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9 February be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee and 25th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Andrews.)"