This site uses cookies, as explained in our cookie policy. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Privacy Policy

Planning matters

Our award winning blog gives a fresh perspective on the latest trends in planning and development.

Delegation default: draft planning committee reform legislation published

Seán Farrissey & Jennie Baker 08 Apr 2026
The Planning and Infrastructure Act (‘the Act’)[1] inserts several provisions into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 aimed at improving the speed and quality of planning decision-taking. While such objectives are not new, legislating for standardising significant elements of the decision-making process is new. Secondary legislation is required to bring the provisions into effect.
This blog focuses on the provisions relating to the proposed ‘national scheme of delegation’ for England, which is out for consultation until 23 April. The Government is consulting on the draft regulations and guidance[2] that allow for and explain the committee reforms provided by the Act. A Government response[3] to the technical consultation (which ran May-July 2025) on the implementation of planning committee reforms has also been published.
The default position will be that planning-related applications will be determined by local planning authority (LPA) officers.
“Committees should focus on the key proposals that matter to an area, enabling other, often more minor and technical, decisions to be made by planning officers”, according to the draft guidance. Committee sizes are to be set to a maximum size of 13.
In this blog, we will set the context and then discuss the proposed delegation schedules.

Why reform planning committees?

 

Reform of planning committees has been on the Government’s agenda for some time.
The Planning Reform Working Paper on Modernising Planning Committees[4] set out the Government’s initial thinking in December 2024. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill (now ‘the Act’) was published in March 2025. At that time, the policy intent of the proposed legislation reflected the following concerns:
  1. Local planning authority (LPA) schemes of delegation are not clear;

  2. The extent to which officer advice is rejected by members and overturned at appeal;

  3. Planning committees unnecessarily consider policy-compliant schemes on allocated sites;

  4. There can be insufficient understanding among all committee members of planning principles and law; and

  5. There is a lack of transparency around committee decisions and their consequences, and the public is not aware of the cost decisions being awarded against LPAs who lose planning appeals[5].

There is clearly appetite within Government to make planning committees more efficient, to ensure that the focus is on applications that warrant member input rather than schemes that are policy compliant. As set out in its May 2025 consultation, the Government intends to strike a balance by reserving committee input largely for “controversial or complex applications” which would make a “lasting impact on the community”. While the Government has stressed the integral role of planning committees in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions, it is clear that they are unhappy with the status quo.
The intention is for planning committees to be able to focus on applications where local democratic oversight is required and to empower planning professionals to make sound planning decisions on those cases aligned with the development plan.

What does the legislation provide for regarding committee decisions?

 

As identified in Rachel Clements’s blog Reform and order: What next for planning committees?, the Act gives the opportunity for the Secretary of State (SoS) to use regulations to undertake the below:  
  1. Make provision for training of members of LPAs and Mayors (or those decision-making on their behalf) in their exercise of specified planning functions (sitting on planning committees) and those who may exercise relevant mayoral planning functions.

  2. Provide for satisfactory completion of the training by an accredited trainer, to be evidenced by a ‘certificate of completion’. For those sitting on planning committees, this must be published on LPA websites. Without this certificate, members of the LPA would be prohibited from exercising planning functions on behalf of the LPA.

  3. Require an LPA to make arrangements for planning functions to be discharged by a committee and prescribe the terms of the arrangements which may include exemptions, variations and discretion (setting criteria for what types of application go to planning committees, but seemingly with room for LPA discretion in its application).

  4. Prescribe the size and composition of a committee or sub-committee which serves planning functions.
The regulations, now published in draft[6] (The draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026), will address items 3 and 4. On training and certification of committee members (items 1 and 2), the consultation response notes that, while the priority is to implement the national scheme of delegation and committee reforms first, the Government continues to recognise the importance of effective mandatory training for planning committee members and still aims to implement a creditable and cost-effective training system.

Committee size

In its May 2025 consultation, the Government indicated that it would set a maximum committee size of 11 members, with guidance that smaller committees may work better in some local contexts and set out its intention for a national certification scheme for members. The latest proposals, in the March 2026 draft regulations, have set out a maximum of 13 members for committees, which the Government views as “setting the right balance between fair political representation and ensuring resilience in the decision making function whilst achieving the policy aims of creating smaller more professional committees”.
The ‘Draft guidance for Local Planning Authorities in England’[7] (‘draft guidance’) confirms (at paragraph 28) that 13 committee members is a “maximum figure to accommodate local planning authorities where members are from multiple political parties. Local planning authorities should consider whether a smaller number of members would be more appropriate in their area to support effective decision making”.

Default delegation schedules

 

The Government is sticking with its May 2025 proposals for a two-tiered approach at the foundation of a national scheme of delegation which will provide “greater clarity and consistency about the role of planning committees in planning decision making”, according to the draft guidance.
Two Schedules of delegation are proposed. Schedule 1 includes applications that will always be delegated to officers and will not be considered at planning committee. Schedule 2 includes applications that will be delegated to officers by default, unless the nominated officer (usually the Chief Planner) and nominated Member (usually the Chair of Committee) decide that applications should be determined by Committee. The Government has named this the ‘gateway test’, the operation of which will be described in statutory guidance to accompany the regulations, the draft guidance being discussed further below.

 

Default delegation Schedules and linked applications
Schedule
Delegated to officers?
Application type
1
Always
Householder application
Minor commercial applications
Minor residential applications[8]
Reserved matters applications (only unphased schemes)
Applications for s96A non-material amendments
Applications for the approval of conditions
Applications for approval of the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Plan
Applications for prior approval or a determination as to whether it is required (related to permitted development rights)
Lawful Development Certificate applications
Certificates of Appropriate Alternative Development applications
Applications for Permission in Principle
Application to modify or discharge a s106 obligation, where it is connected to a Schedule 1 approval
2
By default, unless the Chief Planner and Chair of Committee decide it should go to Committee based on meeting statutory criteria ‘the gateway test’
Application for listed building consent, applications to vary a listed building consent and any planning application connected with these consent types
Application for planning permission that is not a householder, Minor Commercial or minor residential[9] application
Section 73 application
Section 73A (retrospective) application
Application to modify or discharge a s106 obligation, where it is connected to a Schedule 2 approval
Reserved matters phase application
Advertisement consent application
Tree preservation order applications
Review of mineral planning conditions
Any application from the local authority, a councillor, or officer
2 – in due course
  
Medium residential development
Section 73B applications
Linked- person application
Can be determined by officers. Alternatively, the nominated member and nominated officer may refer it to a committee
An application made by or on behalf of an authority, a member or officer an authority or entity owned or controlled by the authority, its members or officers, to the same authority, whether jointly with another person or not.
For applications to be considered at planning committee, they will need to fall within Schedule 2 and there will need to be agreement between the chief planner and the chair of planning committee (or other nominated officer or Member) that consideration of the application at planning committee is required.

 

Planning applications for a change of use or for a change in the number of units within a building will fall within Schedule 2. Planning applications for changes to Class E buildings that involve change of use, change in the number of units, development above ground floor level and/or that would increase floorspace, will also fall within Schedule 2.

 

One amendment following the previous consultation is that only reserved matters applications relating to non-phased outline permissions are included in Schedule 1 in the draft regulations. This reflects concerns in the consultation responses that reserved matters applications can relate to large scale phased development taking place over many years and can represent substantial major development which requires a greater level of scrutiny. The consultation document seeks further views on which Schedule reserved matters applications should be designated to.
A consequence of this approach could be that any scheme that comprises a demolition phase and solely one other phase of development may end up being determined at planning committee. It may be that a more nuanced approach is needed to avoid instances of straightforward, policy compliant, phased reserved matters schemes being taken to committee unnecessarily, if politicians seek to push them through the ‘gateway test’ (discussed below).
The draft National Planning Policy Framework (December 2025) proposes to introduce a new ‘medium development’ category for schemes of 10–49 homes on sites of up to 2.5 hectares. The Government has determined that, if this category is taken forward, these applications should go in Schedule 2.
The Government also outlined that they consider any application for listed building consent, advertisement consent and for consent under tree preservation orders that could potentially raise sensitive issues which would benefit from committee scrutiny and thus should be in Schedule 2.
Permission in Principle applications have been added to Schedule 1.
It is not immediately clear in the draft Regulations how applications not listed in either schedule, e.g. Hazardous Substances Consent applications, will be dealt with. However, the guidance explains that, where a planning function is not listed in either Schedule 1 or 2, it is for the local planning authority to decide, with reference to its local constitution, whether the application goes to committee or not. It also notes:
“Under the national scheme of delegation, current practices set out in local authority constitutions, such as the power for ward councillors to require cases to be called in for committee consideration or having trigger points for referral to committee if a certain number of objections is reached, will not be possible. Local authorities will need to amend their constitutions to align with the national scheme of delegation”.
The draft guidance notes that the overriding presumption is that the applications listed in Schedule 2 will be delegated to officers and can be referred to a committee or sub-committee only where:
  1. at least one of the criteria in regulation 5(2) is met or it is an application made by or on behalf of a local authority, a member or officer of that local authority or an entity owned or controlled (whether wholly or partly) by that authority or any of its members or officers (regulation 6); and

  2. the nominated officer and nominated member of the planning committee agree to the referral.

 

Gateway test: criteria which must be met before a case can be considered for referral

 

Draft Regulation 5(2) sets out the criteria for referral to committee, one of which must be met (our bold):
“The nominated member and nominated officer may agree to refer a proposal to determine a Schedule 2 application to a committee if in their view the proposal raises -
(a) one or more issues of economic, social or environmental significance to the local area, or
(b) one or more significant planning matters having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations”.
The draft guidance refers to (a) above as Criteria B and to (b) above as Criteria A.
Accordingly it says, for the purpose of Criteria A, the following circumstances are unlikely to raise a significant planning matter:
  • Where the application for development broadly complies with a detailed site allocation and other relevant policies set out in a local or neighbourhood plan and national decision making policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Significant planning matters may arise if new material considerations are raised by the application;

  • Where a specific planning matter (e.g. highways or flood risk) was initially raised by a statutory consultee as a concern, but the development proposal has been modified to make it acceptable in the view of the statutory consultee (unless the nominated officer has compelling reasons to consider otherwise).
For Criteria B, it will also be for the nominated officer and member to assess whether the application raises a significant economic, social or environmental issue for the local area. The guidance gives these examples:
  • an application for outline planning permission for a large multi-phase residential development allocated in the local plan;

  • an application for planning permission for change of use of a community shop in a rural area;

  • an application for planning permission or listed building consent for changes to a notable listed building in a town centre.
The guidance confirms that it is for LPAs to determine how best to consider cases for referral to committee and includes guidelines on how best to organise staff cover in the case of absence of the nominated officer, to avoid delays in the referral process.

 

Authority ‘Linked-Person’ Applications

 

When an authority is itself the applicant, or if any members or officers are the applicant, an application can be referred to committee without consideration of the criteria set out in regulation 5(2), because there is to be a Regulation (6) dedicated to these ‘linked-person’ applications. When no referral is made, then the application can still be determined by an officer.  The decision on whether or not to make a referral should be made with reference to the statutory guidance.

 

Summary

The Government is consulting on the draft regulations and guidance[10] that allow for and explain the committee reforms, which is out for consultation until 23 April.
The most notable change since the previous Government consultation is to the national scheme of delegation’ for England and specifically the content of the two Schedules within it. Unphased outline and reserved matters applications continue to be proposed in Schedule 1 delegation, but phased reserved matters applications are now proposed to fall within Schedule 2 - albeit further views are being sought on this categorisation.
The Government’s consultation response notes a concern on how the ‘gateway test’ will operate, given its potential for subjective decision making and the need for transparency on which applications are referred to committee. Whilst the Government has provided guidance on how this test will work, there is still an element of subjective decision making that will undoubtedly unsettle applicants. It may take time for developers and all stakeholders to gain a real sense on what type of applications will be considered at planning committee in the future.
The Government wants to streamline the planning process and improve decision-taking and the reform of planning committees is one mechanism to help achieve this.
Further to this and as detailed in this blog, the Government has taken steps[11] to ensure that, where a LPA intends to refuse planning permission for a housing scheme of 150+ dwellings, they must consult the SoS on that application. The Government has also published a consultation[12] on new requirements to consult the SoS where LPAs are minded to refuse planning permission for commercial development with a floorspace of 15,000m2 or more. The aim of these moves is to ensure that large scale, strategic developments are considered for potential call-in, to help with the Government’s priority of promoting economic growth.
The Government’s priority is to implement the national scheme of delegation and committee size reforms first. We expect details on how planning committee members will be trained and certified to come forward later.

Next steps

The short consultation on the draft planning committee reform legislation concludes on 23 April 2026. The consultation notes that the Government are seeking to lay the regulations in draft for consideration by both Houses of Parliament in the Spring.
The current draft Regulations identify 30 September 2026 as the date the Government intends the regulations to be in force to enact this element of planning committee reform.

Footnotes
[1] Planning and Infrastructure Act

[2] Planning committee reform: draft regulations and guidance - GOV.UK

[3] Reform of planning committees: technical consultation - government response - GOV.UK

[4] Planning Reform Working Paper: Planning Committees, first published December 2024

[5] Albeit a March 2026 Sky News story has covered this

[6] The draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

[7] Draft guidance for Local Planning Authorities in England

[8] This is a new definition, see draft ‘The Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026’

[9] This is a new definition, see draft ‘The Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026’

[10] Planning committee reform: draft regulations and guidance - GOV.UK

[11] Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2026

[12] Consultation- Consulting the Secretary of State on planning decisions 

CONTINUE READING

Counting the cost: proposed default national application fees

Counting the cost: proposed default national application fees

Jennie Baker, Harry Payne & Steven Butterworth 02 Apr 2026
Draft default national planning application fees have been published by the Government (MHCLG) for consultation, as part of the route for optional localised fees[1]. These application fees are higher than is the case now and, in due course, local planning authorities could charge even higher – or lower – fees.
This is only a first step towards ‘national default’ fees. There are several questions regarding further changes that could be made under the “scope for fundamental reform”. This might include fees reflecting the nature of a site and/or the number of phases of its development.
The consultation sets the context for a further uplift in application fees. Even after recent fee increases and the annual index linked increased are taken into account: “there remains a substantial gap between fee income and service costs. In 2024/25, the annual shortfall is estimated to be around £330 million”.
In addition to proposed cost recovery-based fees, the consultation questions the future of Planning Performance Agreements, pre-application advice and other discretionary charging regimes, given the other changes to fees proposed.
The inclusion of a question on fees related to changes to schemes - for section 73 (s73) and future section 73B (s73B) applications – indicates that the introduction of s73B is still some months away, despite having been acknowledged as necessary by the last Government more than 4 years ago, when drafting the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.
Even further away is the introduction of a surcharge for statutory consultees, which will be consulted on again. The current consultation simply asks whether a working proposal of 10% of the national default fee is agreeable and says it will not apply in relation to local plans and Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.
 
We review the main elements of the proposals below.

 

Close to cost recovery – the biggest uplifts
The proposed fees are set out in the consultation, and compared with the equivalent fee currently applicable (since 1 April) see here. A summary table of some of the proposed fees and the percentage uplift is at the end of this blog.
The national default fee schedule proposed (i.e. the ‘draft fee schedule’) has been designed to reflect 90% of the estimated costs of determining applications.
As discussed in our blog 'Take notes: localised planning fees a step closer’ the draft fees have been informed by a PAS National Planning Fees Survey sent to each LPA, in August 2025. The purpose of the survey was to collate planning teams’ views on how well current planning fees reflect the actual cost of processing applications and to identify where the biggest cost recovery challenges lie.
The survey results showed: “no planning fee fully covers the cost of determining a planning application, with shortfalls ranging from 18% for the least underpriced to 60% for the most underpriced”.
The consultation summarises: “The proposed increases vary according to the current shortfall for each application type. For example, to achieve 90% of the estimated cost, the increase for householder applications for the enlargement, improvement or alteration of an existing dwellinghouse is £27, around 8% of the fee as indexed from 1 April 2026. For major section 73 applications, the increase is more significant at £1,074, around 52% from the fee as indexed from 1 April 2026. The maximum application fee would increase by around 25% from £427,537, as indexed from 1 April 2026 to £513,512. The national default fee would continue to be uplifted annually in line with inflation to maintain its real value over time”.
There are some proposed changes to fee increments between different scales of development and types of application, so that a direct comparison is not possible for all applications. Very broadly speaking, the fee uplifts proposed are around a fifth, but there are big variations. For example, advertisement consent fees are proposed to increase by circa 10% and Certificates of appropriate alternative development (CAAD) fees by more than 200% – both of these currently carry a relatively low fee.
Fees for the discharge of conditions, outline planning applications for larger schemes and sites, minerals and waste related applications and other operations are proposed to increase by more than a third. In terms of the biggest increases in actual monies paid, as opposed to percentage uplift, this will obviously be paid by the largest schemes seeking outline or full planning permission (see table at the end of the blog).
The consultation asks whether any of the application fees proposed are unrepresentative.
 
Fees for applications to ‘amend’ a scheme
The proposed fees for s73and s73B applications are included in the consultation. S73 applications are applications for planning permission without compliance with conditions previously attached – i.e. the removal or variation of conditions. S73B applications, not yet available, will permit ‘not substantially different’ planning permissions to those originally granted.
The intention is that both s73 and s73B applications will carry the same fee. This is intended to remove any perverse incentives, simplify user choice between routes and – critically where the Government wants to push for one route over the other -“facilitates appropriate migration to section 73B where material variation will be the better procedural route”.
S73 applications have often been criticised for carrying too low a fee, given that the changes that can be approved via a s73 application can required detailed scrutiny. Therefore, it is not surprising that they will see the biggest percentage fee uplift of the planning application types, at more than 50%.
The consultation asks whether the existing 3-band fee structure is suitable for both s73 and s73B applications, in terms of varying workload – and whether s73B should have the same fee.
 
Discharge of condition – pay per condition?
LPAs have told the Government that discharge of condition application fees should be a priority for review. For non-householder discharge of condition applications, fees are proposed to increase from £309 to £435. In addition, the Government asks whether fees should be charged for each condition, not for each application (which might relate to several conditions). A separate (read higher) fee for the discharge of biodiversity gain plans is also being considered.
 
New fees for applications to modify a s106 agreement
A fee for applications under s106A to modify a s106 agreement is being considered. This does not currently attract a national fee, although it is noted that fees are sometimes charged locally. Views are sought how much such a charge should be.
 
Other application fees – but not for listed buildings or trees
Some other proposed fee changes include changes to the fee structures for applications for agricultural development and for applications for permission in principle. Also, all prior approval applications that currently attract no fee should have the same flat fee of £310. Other prior approval applications will see an uplift.
The consultation advises: “We are not proposing to introduce national fees for applications for listed building consent or works to protected trees”.
  
Changes to what ‘band’ a given size of application falls into
According to the Government, LPA feedback has been that the current fee structures for planning applications for new buildings are confusing.
The new fees proposed would change the fee bands so that they reflect the proposed medium sized residential development category, but this is only a change from 50 to 49 units in the second band of fees for full applications for dwellings. 
More notable is the removing of baseline fees within the fee bands for the largest developments and sites, so that the whole fee relates to the number of units, sqm or hectares, rather than starting at an initial figure for each band. 
However, the biggest suggested shift, not shown in the proposed fees table, is the Government asking whether fixed fees within a given range of development size (e.g. the same fee for anywhere between 50 and 99 dwellings) would offer “a more practical, predictable and proportionate approach”. 
It would not be more predictable (does one predict a fee?). And while it might be easier to understand, its relationship with the cost recovery sought by the Government is questionable.
 
Not like they used to be – costly details at outline stage
The consultation notes that: “[…] outline applications for major developments now often require significantly greater levels of assessment than in the past, and many of the larger outline applications are now for complex multi-phase developments. LPAs must review many detailed technical statements, undertake extensive statutory consultation, and continue to process related reserved matters applications over many years”.
The time spent considering complex multi-phase applications is arguably recovered by the reserved matters fee and, in many instances, will be addressed by a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA).
‘How long is a piece of string’[2], Lichfields’ 2025 report for the LPDF and Richborough regarding the timescales for securing outline planning permission for housing between 2014 and 2024, provides analysis on the timescales for assessment pertaining to different scales of development. 
One of the report’s key findings was that, in the ten years to 2024, average timescales for determining a major outline application (i.e. for 10+_homes) increased by a year and four months, while the volume of decisions was a third of what it had been. In that period, the number of submitted applications of that type has fallen by three quarters and, in 2024, averaged just two per LPA.
The report concluded: “The average (mean) time taken for determination has risen rapidly even as the number of submitted and determined applications has fallen dramatically over the same period. Whilst resources in planning teams have reduced over this period, the fall is seemingly not to the same extent [as the drop in the number of decisions], implying that the lengthening of determination periods is not solely due to an increased caseload per officer, but other factors such as complexity, increased policy or statutory consultee requirements and/or reduced productivity”.[3]
The report also found that: “As recently as the early 2000s, outline applications could be focused on the principle of development, with simple red line plans and a description of development. It may not be possible to return to those days, but there has certainly been ‘detail creep’”. 
The report recommended: ‘Scale back the detail: Let outlines be outline’; scaling back and simplifying policy tests, and thus the evidence required at outline stage, especially for small and medium sites.
Considering the need to scale back outline planning application submissions – indeed all application submissions - and to stop the erring towards requiring submission of additional documents in order to validate applications, should be addressed before the complexity of assessment processes is recompensed.
However, simplifying the system and the number of documents required is not presented as an option. The proposed national planning policy framework (NPPF) makes a start, saying: “Local validation lists should only include additional information requirements if there is a policy in the development plan requiring a specific further assessment. Any such additional information requirements should not be applied equally to all applications but should be proportionate to the scale of development and its potential impact. Where appropriate, the requirements should clearly distinguish between what is required for major, medium and other types of development proposal”.
But the associated national policy consultation[4] acknowledged that amendments to legislation might be needed for this to have effect (given validation checklists are legislated for). Validation checklists will continue to make demands about documents that might be needed, which then need to be consulted upon and then need to be considered in an assessment.
  
Complexity costs
In a different approach, to Government is considering quantifying complexity. The Government says that outline planning application fees, based on site area do not reflect the complexities arising from site characteristics. It provides an example “a low-density greenfield residential development may be simpler to assess and determine than a high-density brownfield residential development of the same hectarage”. The additional workload and potential need to seek specialist advice when assessing EIA applications is noted. It asks
  • “how fees could better reflect varying site characteristics or levels of complexity
  • whether the current approach to mixed use development fees should be simplified
  • how fees should operate for large multi‑phase developments, including whether it remains appropriate to have maximum fee levels or caps for reserved matters applications
  • whether an additional band or higher fee should apply to applications requiring EIA”
A system whereby the complexity of the site characteristics and the uses and phases of development proposed are considered to inform likely officer time and the cost of seeking external advice is provided - by the PPA system. The Government says that the role of PPAs needs to be reconsidered.
While there are concerns about the value that PPAs provide and whether the service paid for can be provided by the LPA in the time envisaged in many instances, particularly where the Agreement allows an officer to be dedicated to the application, they are a useful solution.
And if these bespoke arrangements are not considered to provide a cost-effective way of processing and determining planning applications, for both parties, it is hard to see how a one size fits all approach would improve on that (see, for example, the debates on the once promoted Infrastructure Levy and CIL pool restrictions).
The Government’s view is:  “It is recognised that PPAs can still play a valuable role for larger and more complex schemes where bespoke arrangements are genuinely needed. However, their role may need to be clarified to ensure they remain focused on service enhancements rather than core planning functions. In addition, LPAs may wish to continue offering other discretionary services on a bespoke charging basis, such as pre-application advice and fast-track services”.
  
Principles for setting localised fees
The national default fee will apply to all LPAs, unless an LPA chooses to vary from the default fee for any or all application fee categories to reflect their own costs recovery needs. Rather optimistically, the consultation says: “The national default fee should not be considered a minimum. Where efficiency gains are achieved, such as through improved processes, new ways of working, or through digital tools and emerging technologies like AI, these savings should be reflected appropriately in locally set fees so that charges remain proportionate and aligned with the actual cost of delivering the service”.
The consultation also sets out the 10 key principles within which authorities should work within when setting local fees. These include consultation expectations, operating within the same fee categories and applying the same exemptions as national fees, not using above cost recovery fees on one application type to subsidise another type, and regular review. 
All planning fees must be ringfenced so the decision-making function of the authority and must not exceed cost recovery to fund other planning functions.
The Government says it will not stipulate how localised fees are calculated, but recommends taking into account: 
  1. Direct planning application service staff salaries and associated costs
  2. In-house specialist advice costs
  3. External specialist advice
  4. Indirect costs such as office and IT
  5. Activity-based costs such as validation, site visits and reports
  6. Legal costs related to processing, e.g. s106 agreement costs not already covered by an agreement
  7. Training and capability, including for planning committee members
  8. Investment in digital platforms, software, and data management tools 
Setting localised fees is clearly a significant piece of work. It will be costly to carry out. Therefore, a significant uplift against the national default fee would likely need to be anticipated before such work is undertaken. It is likely that local authorities would group together to carry out such analysis. Furthermore, are salaries or external advice where frequently required due to a specific local issue the only cost matters likely to have a significant local variation, such that looking into setting localised fees is justified? And would an authority go through this process in order to charge lower fees?
 
What about additional planning resource ?
The first reaction from the development sector is usually to ask whether fee uplifts will be accompanied by improved resourcing.
Interestingly, whereas there has been a focus on improving capacity recently, the consultation says: “local fee‑setting is not about increasing fees without change. It is about creating a system that supports efficiency and innovation, helping LPAs to reduce costs over time”.
And “LPAs will be expected to provide a faster and more reliable local planning service”.
This reflects a focus on digital innovation in decision-making, rather than simply on resourcing additional officer time.
On the same day that this consultation was launched, the MHCLG digital teams published a blog about PlanX ‘co-designed with LPAs’: “PlanX draws on open planning data to automatically handle routine enquiries and reduce invalid submissions […] improvements to back-office systems help to smooth out and speed up the processing of planning applications. Together, these changes free up planning teams to focus on the work that genuinely needs their skills and expertise”.
And there is the October 2025 tender for: “a planning tool that enables AI-augmented decision making for planning applications. The initial focus will be on householder developments (as defined in Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015) with a view to expand into further application types within the ‘other’ category (those not classified as Major or Minor) which represent 69% of all planning applications”.
Perhaps these tools will be LPAs’ focus when considering how to spend increased fees? How will these ever-improving tools be accurately factored into fee setting?
The consultation notes that “streamlined requirements for medium-sized developments and greater standardisation of information, conditions and section 106 planning obligations” are also intended to improve efficiency and productivity.
There is a bit of stick, with the Government saying LPA performance will be scrutinised more closely and “…Where an LPA falls short, action will be taken to ensure that performance is improved”. No additional measures are proposed, so this sounds like the usual section 62A sanctions, where an application can apply directly to the Secretary of State if an LPA is in special measures for a given application type.
 
Summary and conclusion
In summary, the ‘Fees for planning applications’ consultation asks for views on proposals to:
  • establish a new national default fee schedule, the fee levels being based on 90% of estimated costs, to bring planning fees to a level closer to cost recovery and act as a baseline from which a new local fee setting model will operate;
     
  • introduce new fees and restructure existing fee categories – including changing existing bandings to align with the proposed new medium-sized development category and removing baseline fees within fee bands, removing reserved matters approval fees caps, and considering fees that try to take site complexity into account; 
     
  • potentially introduce a per condition approach to discharging planning conditions and a separate fee for BNG plans;
     
  • introduce a new national default fee for section 106A applications;
     
  • implement a surcharge on planning fees for statutory consultees, set in the region of 10% of the national default fee; and
     
  • establish the key principles behind local fee setting, as well as seeking views on the potential to implement a cap on locally set fees.
The conclusion to this blog is not new but is worth repeating: if the service is well-resourced, developers will be willing to pay for it. 
Seeking to quantify complexity is unlikely to result in the fee structure simplification desired and will undoubtedly lead to some excessively high or low fees.
There is still likely to be a place for Planning Performance Agreements, pre-application advice and other discretionary charging regimes, because planning resourcing is about how application fee monies are spent, as well as the quantum of the fees for each application type.
The consultation closes on 18th May.
The proposed fees for the main types of planning application, compared with the equivalent fee currently applicable (since 1 April 2026), derived from here, are provided in the table below:
 Application / fee type
Current fee
Proposed fee
£ Uplift
% Uplift
Residential
Outline planning application for erection of dwellinghouses on 2.5 ha site £16,291 £22,400 £6,109 37%
Full planning application for 50 dwellinghouses £32,578 £40,318 £7,740 24%
Non-residential
Outline planning application for erection of non-residential building(s) on 2.5ha site £16,291 £22,400 £6,109 37%
Full planning application for 3,750 sqm (gross) non-residential building(s) £32,578 £37,950  £5,372 16%
Scheme amendments
Section 73 application relating to major development £2,076 £3,150 £1,074 52%
Non-material amendments other than for householder development £309 £360 £51 17%
Other
Change of use other than to residential £610 £732 £122 20%
Discharge of condition other than for householder development £309 £435 £126 41%
Advertisements displayed externally on business premises / other land within curtilage / for wayfinding purposes £174 £192 £18 10%
Fee caps
Fee cap on outline planning application for erection of dwellinghouses/non-residential building(s) £213,769 £290,625 £76,856 36%
Fee cap for full planning application for residential/other buildings including non-residential/change of use to residential £427,537 £513,512 £85,975 20%

 

Jennie Baker will be a panel member at "Ten Years' Time", an event marking ten years of Simon Ricketts' Simonicity blog, in aid of London youth charity XLP. Lichfields is one of the event sponsors. Purchase a ticket to attend. 


Footnotes

[3] The report noted that recent (2024) long delays may be associated with applications held in abeyance in some parts of the country owing to the water and nutrient neutrality issues.

CONTINUE READING

Government call-in powers for 150+ home schemes and large commercial developments intended for refusal

Sean Farrissey 02 Apr 2026
On 31 March 2026, a new Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2026 was published[1] following an announcement in a Written Ministerial Statement[2] made on 23 March 2026.
The Written Ministerial Statement  from the Housing Minister said (our emphasis) “To provide further support for housebuilding, a new Consultation Direction will be made this month specifying that where a Local Planning Authority (LPA) intends to refuse planning permission for a housing scheme of 150 dwellings or more, they must consult the Secretary of State to enable Ministers to decide whether to use their existing powers to call in that planning application”.
The Consultation Direction has now been published. The application of these provisions does not relate to the date the application was submitted. It applies to applications for planning permission including 150+ homes not determined before 11th May. This provides local planning authorities (LPAs) with a limited window to refuse such applications without needing to consult the Secretary of State.
The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (DMPO) sets out the requirements relating to consultations required before the grant of permission. It says that planning permission must not be granted until 21 days after a consultee (as defined by the Order) has received a copy of the application for their review. As of the 26th March, the DMPO now says that the planning permission cannot be ‘determined’ prior to the 21 day consultation period expiring – i.e. the requirement will apply to both approving and refusing planning permission.
The DMPO also allows the Housing Secretary to give directions to a LPA requiring it to consult any person or body named in the directions, in any case or class of case specified in the directions.
Further to the new call-in powers for certain residential schemes, the Government has published a consultation[3] on new requirements to consult the Secretary of State where LPAs are minded to refuse planning permission for commercial development with a floorspace of 15,000m2 or more. The aim of this proposal is to ensure that large scale, strategic developments are considered for potential call-in, to help with the Government’s priority of promoting economic growth.
The consultation also sets out a proposal for new consultation requirements where LPAs are minded to refuse certain applications relating to nuclear facilities. The proposals will apply to applications relating to land owned or leased by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (or one of its subsidiaries) or applications relating to nuclear fuel cycle facilities, including facilities for uranium conversion, enrichment, deconversion, nuclear fuel manufacture, or associated production processes.
The Government says:
“It is the Secretary of State’s intention that measures in this consultation will be brought forward via new directions which will sit alongside the current consultation direction.  There are therefore no plans to amend the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2024, which will continue to have effect”.
The consultation concludes on 4 May 2026.

CONTINUE READING

Why women’s football requires a rethink on stadium planning

Why women’s football requires a rethink on stadium planning

Ian York 01 Apr 2026
A recent article in The Athletic [1]posed a timely question for the women’s game: what kind of stadia does women’s football need as it grows?
That is not just a football business question. It is also a question about masterplanning and place-making.
As attendances rise, commercial models mature and audiences broaden, the stadium is no longer simply a backdrop. It is part of the fan experience, part of club identity and, increasingly, part of a club’s growth strategy. That shift is happening against a backdrop of rapid commercial growth in the women’s game. Deloitte’s 2026 women’s football analysis reported that the top 15 women’s clubs generated a combined €158m in revenue in the 2024/25 season, with average revenues above €10m for the first time[2]. 
That point was brought home to me at a stadium conference late last year, where Dawn Airey, Chair of WSL Football, spoke compellingly about the opportunity in front of the women’s game and the role that better-considered venues will play in supporting it. At the heart of that conversation was WSL Football’s Design Guidelines for the Delivery of Elite Women’s Stadiums in England[3] — published in November 2025 as what WSL Football described as a world-first framework to support clubs, local authorities and project teams.
 
A different stadium brief is emerging
The WSL guidance is clear: women’s football stadiums should not be treated as just a smaller version of the traditional men’s game model. WSL guidance highlights, for example, female-friendly changing rooms and toilet facilities, parent and guardian-oriented spaces including family toilets and breastfeeding areas, accessibility for disabled users, and futureproofing as key design principles. In other words, this is not about shrinking an existing model. It is about rethinking the brief. 
That matters because women’s football is no longer at a point where venue decisions can be treated as temporary, secondary or purely operational. If clubs are now building larger audiences, stronger brands and more meaningful revenue streams, the quality and suitability of the venue inevitably become more important. That is not just a commercial point. It is also a place-based one. Stadiums influence how supporters arrive, how safe and welcome they feel, how communities experience matchdays, and how a site functions beyond the final whistle. 
One of the strengths of the WSL guidance is that it recognises there is no single route forward for every club. Rather than presenting a choice between new-build and retrofit, it reflects a more practical reality: some clubs will make better use of main stadia, some will adapt existing assets, and some may justify purpose-built women’s venues. Which route is most appropriate will depend on factors such as site control, supporter base, funding, ambition and physical constraints. That realism is one of the guidance’s greatest strengths.
 
Why existing stadia will still matter
For many clubs, adapting an existing stadium will remain the most realistic route. In many cases, it will be the right strategic choice.
Existing stadia often benefit from established identity, known transport patterns, a recognised matchday routine and lower upfront capital requirements. Reuse may also be a more deliverable route than promoting a new stadium on a fresh site. The WSL guidance expressly recognises that adapting existing venues will often be the most practical path, even if retrofit cannot always fully overcome the inherited constraints.
That is where planning, in the spatial and place-making sense, has a useful role to play. Not everything has to happen at once. Some interventions can be relatively straightforward: better signage, improved lighting, reconfigured toilets, upgraded welfare and changing facilities, and more thoughtful family and accessible provision. Others require a longer horizon, more capital and closer coordination with local authorities, transport providers and design teams.
Over and above the operational aspects it is about whether the venue and wider site can be reshaped over time to serve a different audience, support a better matchday experience and sit more comfortably within the surrounding urban context. That is a different question, and it is one that sits much more naturally within the world of planning, design and delivery.
 
The details are not minor
One of the strengths of the WSL guidance is that it gets into specifics rather than staying at the level of general aspiration.
Toilet provision is one of the clearest examples. WSL Football’s summary of the guidance highlights female-friendly toilets and changing facilities, family toilets and breastfeeding areas, all of which reflect a more inclusive approach to facilities planning than has traditionally been seen in football venues. That may sound like detail, but it goes directly to whether a stadium feels welcoming and fit for purpose. 
The same is true of family and inclusive design more broadly. The guidance points toward spaces and facilities that better reflect the diversity of the women’s game audience, including parent-focused provision, accessibility and a more inclusive overall environment. This recognises  that many women’s teams are now drawing audiences that do not align neatly with assumptions embedded in older stadia. Wider commentary on the guidance has made much the same point, stressing that football stadiums have historically not been designed with women in mind and that the new approach is intended to address that gap.
 
The wider site matters as much as the building
This is where the spatial planning and masterplanning angle becomes most important.
A stadium can be technically compliant and still feel wrong. If the route to and from it is poorly lit, confusing, hostile or disconnected from public transport, that affects the real user experience. Commentary around the WSL guidance has increasingly focused on arrival experience, circulation and the public realm around venues rather than just the seating bowl itself. 
Stadia are experienced on the walk from the station, in the surrounding streets, in the quality of lighting and wayfinding, in the ease of moving with children, and in whether supporters feel comfortable arriving early or leaving after dark. These issues go to the heart of whether a venue genuinely supports growth in the women’s game.
The WSL guidance also pushes the conversation beyond football alone. WSL Football and its delivery partners present the document as a framework for venues that are more inclusive, accessible and futureproofed, with emphasis on sustainable, climate-resilient and community-facing design. From a masterplanning perspective, that points toward stadia functioning as wider assets - places that can support community use, hospitality, events and other complementary activity, rather than operating as isolated single-use venues. 
 
Why the case for purpose-built venues is becoming more credible
Set against the adaptation pathway is the increasingly credible case for purpose-built women’s stadia. In some circumstances, starting from scratch may be the stronger long-term choice.
The obvious advantage is that the brief starts in the right place. A new stadium allows capacity, circulation, hospitality, player facilities, accessibility, safety and non-matchday uses to be designed around the women’s game from day one rather than retrofitted around assumptions inherited from elsewhere. It also creates more scope to plan for phased growth and a more coherent year-round offer. That is part of the reason why purpose-built proposals are now attracting so much attention. 
In England, Brighton & Hove Albion FC’s ambition to bring the women’s team back into the city through a purpose-built stadium has secured support in principle from Brighton & Hove City Council. Internationally, Kansas City Current’s CPKC Stadium is generally regarded as the world's first stadium purpose-built specifically for a professional women's sports team.
These examples show what becomes possible when the women’s game is treated as the primary brief rather than a secondary adaptation. They help to move the debate on from whether dedicated women’s venues are conceivable to when, where and why they may make sense. 
 
The real question is not retrofit versus new build
From a planning perspective, the real question  is whether the chosen strategy is properly embedded in place; not “retrofit or new build?” in the abstract.
Is the venue accessible by public transport, walking and cycling? Does it feel safe before and after games? Can the wider site accommodate fan circulation, servicing, media requirements and future expansion if needed? Is there a credible non-matchday use strategy? Can improvements be phased realistically? And does the venue reflect the actual audience and growth trajectory of the women’s game, rather than treating it as a secondary user of a space designed around something else?
Those are spatial planning and masterplanning questions as much as stadium questions. They are also the questions most likely to determine whether a venue feels like a genuine home for the women’s game rather than a compromise.
 
A more useful way to frame the debate
This is also why I would avoid framing the issue as an indictment of clubs whose current arrangements reflect an earlier stage in the development of the women’s game.
Most clubs are dealing with inherited assets, legacy operating models and real-world constraints around cost, land and programme. The more constructive reading is that the pace of growth is now testing whether inherited venue arrangements remain optimal. In some cases, the answer will be yes, provided targeted adaptation is undertaken. In others, the answer may be no, and a more bespoke long-term solution will be justified.
There is no universal stadium model for women’s football, and there does not need to be. For some clubs, the right response will be greater and better use of an existing main stadium. For others, the more realistic route may be to improve the current women’s venue through targeted adaptation. In some cases, a purpose-built stadium may become the stronger long-term proposition.
The women’s game is growing quickly, and the infrastructure supporting it will need to evolve with equal intent. This is an opportunity: to plan more deliberately, respond more thoughtfully and create places that are better aligned with the future of the game.
 
Footnotes

CONTINUE READING

Load More

Subscribe

Receive our latest thinking direct to your inbox.

I want to receive…