Planning matters

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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”.

  

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.

 

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.

  

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”.

  

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?

 

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.

 

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: