Report - London Borough of Hillingdon

thereafter. Subsequent work is charged at an hourly rate with an hourly fee of £110
for the Director and fees of between £44 and £90 per hour for other officers.
Although, as with both Westminster and Barnet, the initial, standard fee must be paid
prior to any meeting, additional charges are invoiced within 30 days of ‘final’
comment, with settlement within 21 days. Hammersmith and Fulham’s preapplication
service is also publicised on the Council’s website.
Pre-application service charging in Hillingdon
14. Having regard to the legal basis provided by the Local Government Acts of
2000 and 2003, allied to the ODPM’s view that the exercise of the planning control
system has clear financial benefits to applicants - that they should pay a fee for
something which will bring a measure of private gain - there are considered to be no
objections in principle to Hillingdon charging for pre-application advice. Moreover,
having regard to the service benefits it appears to have realised in other boroughs
allied to the significant resource implications of Hillingdon’s current pre-application
advice service, there are considered to be strong arguments in favour of this Council
proceeding to introduce a pre-application charging regime. This holds true even
though it is not possible to anticipate the take-up of advice under a pre-application
charging regime or, therefore, the fees it would yield.
15. There is a range of options regarding charging for pre-application guidance.
These include:
(A) The type of pre-application guidance that should be the subject of charging
(B) Whether flat or variable fees should be levied and at what rate
(C) When should the charging regime should be introduced and what key elements
must be strictly adhered to.
16. As regards (A) above, in view of the approach adopted by those boroughs
with a pre-application charging regime and the call upon the time of Major
Applications and Projects and Implementation Team and specialist officers in
providing pre-application advice, it is recommended that a charge is levied for advice
on prospective major applications falling within the definition of BVPI 109(a).
Equally, in view of the approach adopted in other boroughs and having regard to the
spirit of ODPM guidance in seeking to ensure no members of the community are
excluded from the information and advice they seek, it is recommended that no
charge is levied for any advice on householder or other small scale development
falling within the definition of BVPI 109(c). Whilst recognising that scope clearly
exists to charge for guidance on ‘minor’ development - as is the practice in both
Barnet and Hammersmith and Fulham - it is recommended that this option is not
implemented at this stage. Although arguably somewhat cautious, it avoids the
potential difficulties and confusion as to what guidance should or should not be
charged for - bearing in mind that some ‘minor’ development is too small to merit any
charging - and it allows Group staff more opportunity to work through and resolve
those issues that will inevitably arise from an important shift in operational practices
in respect of major development proposals. Furthermore, it is not proposed now or
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Cabinet report 10 th November 2005 Page 233