Report - London Borough of Hillingdon

should know - this is always the case with pre-application discussions. However,
charging may well result in higher expectations of the advice given as well as greater
scrutiny - through, for example, the appeal process - when detailed and positive
discussions do not secure a planning permission.
Financial Implications
21. It is very difficult to specify the sums that would be secured through
introducing charging for pre-application advice on major development proposals.
This is because there is no knowing whether prospective applicants would pursue
their discussions with officers if they were being charged for them. That said, on the
basis of evidence from boroughs operating a charging regime, most developers
seriously considering site development tend to use the service on offer and it is only
really highly speculative development proposals or enquiries emanating from site
valuation exercises that become less frequent. This evidence, supplemented by the
fact that charging represents an extremely small proportion of total site
development costs for major schemes, indicates that the fees levied for preapplication
advice have no impact on whether a site is developed or not.
22. With the caveats set out in paragraph 21 above, it is estimated that
potential income from charging for pre-application advice for major schemes in
Hillingdon could yield in the order of £15,000 between December 2005 and March
2006. This estimate, which equates to the cost of providing the service in question,
is based upon the number of major applications normally received in any one year,
the nature of these applications and a necessarily subjective view of the proportion
of them where prospective applicants may wish to obtain pre-application advice.
This judgement is clouded by the fact that some pre-application discussions are
already underway - and introducing charging part way through this process may
prove impractical - and the likelihood that some prospective applicants proposing to
submit an application similar to one recently refused planning permission may simply
focus their attention on the reasons for refusal without further reference to officers.
In this context, more particularly the uncertainty surrounding the take-up of the
service on offer, it is recommended not only that any fees received are used to
improve the Group’s pre-application service but also, in this instance, that there is no
downward adjustment in the Group’s base budget. This accords with the practices
of other boroughs and the obligations of the relevant enabling legislation.
23. Section 93(5) of the Local Government Act 2003 provides local
authorities with discretion to charge only some persons for providing a service or to
charge different persons different amounts for the provision of a service. In this
case, it is proposed that the Council seek to exercise this discretion by exempting
the Council’s own development schemes from the charging regime for preapplication
advice.
24. As noted in paragraph 1 above, by virtue of Section 93 of the Local
Government Act 2003, income must relate to cost recovery of the service provided:
charging must not be considered to be income generating or a source of revenue.
This requirement underpins the charging rates set out in Appendix 1 and points up
the need for careful monitoring and review to ensure continuing compliance. In this
PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Cabinet report 10 th November 2005 Page 235