Circular Letter PD 4/05 issued by the Department in 2005 indicated that the 'reasonable cost' of making a copy would comprise no more than the cost of the paper, the running cost of the copying machine such as toner, electricity and servicing and the cost of staff time spent in actually photocopying. This means that the time spent by staff retrieving and re-filing planning files and separating and re-assembling planning files in order to photocopy planning documents ought not be taken into account when calculating the reasonable cost.
A check with three commercial suppliers of photocopying services in Dublin was carried out and revealed that the highest cost for photocopying an A4 page (black & white) was 16 cents - an increase of 1 cent since 2004. Two other companies quoted 5 and 7 cents per page. In order to make a profit, it is clear that commercial companies take into account the running cost of the copying machine such as toner, electricity, servicing and staff time in making a photocopy, when determining the appropriate charge.
Having regard to the Department's guidance in Circular PD 4/05, i.e. that the reasonable cost of making a copy should include only the cost of actually making the copy and should not include the cost of searching for, or retrieving the document in question, it is very difficult to see how charges significantly in excess of the charges levied by commercial companies could be justified.
It is not for my Office to decide what the appropriate charge should be. However, the following example of a complaint that I received against Mayo County Council illustrates the approach that I will take to determining whether local authorities are complying with section 38(4) of the Planning & Development Act 2000 and setting charges which do not exceed the reasonable cost of making copies of the relevant documents.
In 2005, following receipt of a complaint that Mayo County Council was charging €1 per page for copies of planning documents, my Office carried out a forensic evaluation of the charges being levied. The Council said that, in order to determine what the "reasonable cost" of photocopying should be, it analysed the actual cost of producing an A4 photocopy. In summary, the Council calculated its costs for the provision of one A4 photocopy sheet as follows:
1. Time:
(i) File retrieval 5 minutes
(ii) File separation 5 minutes
(iii) Photocopy 10 minutes
(iv) File re-assembly 5 minutes
(v) Re-filing 5 minutes
Total time 30 minutes
The cost for this element, based on a Clerical Officer salary, was estimated at €5.82.
2. Equipment €0.007
3. Paper €0.007
The total actual cost estimated by the Council for producing one A4 photocopy was €5.834.
The Council concluded that the economic cost was not a "reasonable cost" and, accordingly, it said it set the fee at a similar level to adjoining local authorities. In this context, it maintained that the photocopying charge, at €1 per A4 sheet, was reasonable and could not be regarded as excessive.
I did not agree. I concluded, by reference to section 38(1) of the Planning & Development Act 2000, that the cost of file retrieval and re-filing, at 5 minutes each, was not chargeable. In addition, by reference to the Department's Circular, I concluded that the cost for file separation and file re-assembly, at 5 minutes each, was also not chargeable. I had no major difficulty with the Council's cost calculations for equipment and paper usage.
I was particularly concerned that, based on the Council's own estimation of 30 minutes to photocopy an A4 sheet, it was trying to convince me that an employee in Mayo County Council's service could only photocopy 14 pages in a full day - based on a 7-hour day i.e. 30 minutes x 14 photocopies = 7 hours.
Accordingly, I asked the Council to review its charges. In response the Council carried out a review of its photocopying charges and agreed to reduce its charges to €0.10 per A4 sheet, a reduction of 90% on the earlier charge.