The Government has responded to its April 2026 consultation on ‘Fees for planning applications’.
That consultation sought views on a new national default fee schedule to act as a baseline from which a new local fee setting model might operate and on the key principles behind local fee setting. It also presented proposals to introduce new fees and restructure existing fee categories, implement a surcharge on planning fees for statutory consultees, and review the future role of discretionary services such as Planning Performance Agreements and pre-application advice.
Legislation to increase fees to the national default level has been laid before Parliament in draft. The Government intends that it will be made during the summer with the intention of the fee uplifts being in force “by the end of the year”. There is no indication that the annual inflation-based uplift would not apply, therefore fees seem likely to increase at least twice in the next year.
There will be further consultations on planning related fees to follow, including on more complex potential approaches to calculating fees. In essence, where there were concerns that there was more to consider within a fee model, and that introducing it might prevent a fee uplift this year, the current model is retained.
The revised fees will be within a ‘National Default Fee Schedule’, which will be the only published fee schedule until such time as localised fees are introduced, but reflects the Government’s intention that they will come forward.
There will be a consultation later in the year on the design and implementation of any planning fee surcharge payable to statutory consultees. The working proposal is that the surcharge should be in the region of 10% of the national default fee. The consultation will seek views on “how it could be targeted, administered and support statutory consultee performance”.
The December 2025 national policy consultation, in relation to fees, proposed extending permission in principle to applications for development of 10-49 dwellings. The fees consultation response says “the government will set out its response on this issue as part of its wider response to the PIP proposals in the NPPF consultation response”. This gives some indication that a response to the national policy consultation, including on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is not imminent.
Changes to fees to be introduced Summer 2026
During summer 2026, the government will prepare legislation to increase national planning fees “up to an estimated 90% cost recovery”. The draft National Default Fee Schedule consulted on in April was designed to reflect 90% of the estimated costs of determining applications. Accordingly, most of the draft forthcoming fees to reflect those set out in Annex A of that consultation and the examples in the Lichfields table (below) showing the proposed fees for the main types of planning application, compared with the equivalent fee currently applicable (also set out in this Lichfields blog).
Notable exceptions to achieving 90% cost recovery are the fees for s73 planning applications and the fees for discharge of conditions. This summer, fees are to be increased for major applications only, presumably to the £3,150 consulted on (currently £2,076). This is in response to consultation responses observed “that the proposed fee for non-major s73 applications (£825) could exceed the equivalent full application fee in some cases”. Accordingly, the non-major s73 application fee will remain at £608 but will also be part of the further review of planning application fees – as is the case for several fee types.
The fees for relating to prior approvals for creation of new dwellings via upward extension or demolition and rebuild permitted development rights have also changed slightly.
Key imminent changes to planning related fees are as follows:
-
simplifying the fee structure for outline, full and reserved matters applications for residential and non-residential development. This includes removing baseline fees to support clearer and more straightforward fee calculation and adjusting residential thresholds from 50 to 49 dwellings (explained in our
Counting the cost: proposed default national application fees blog).
-
all prior approvals that currently have no fee will have the same flat fee of £310 as for other prior approval applications
-
increased and rationalised fees for agricultural development
-
changes to Permission in Principle fees, which will be further determined by whether or not the national policy consultation outcomes says that PiP on application will be extended to development for up to 49 dwellings.
Fees to be reviewed within a wider programme
The consultation response refers to a wider programme of structural fee reform. This will cover the introduction of localised fees and will also consider new approaches to fees including:
-
monitoring the fee structure for outline, full and reserved matters applications and considering whether fees adequately reflect the complexity of outline and reserved matters applications, particularly for phased developments;
-
potential ‘additional or more granular’ s73 fees (and s73B fees, see below);
-
looking at how fees reflect complexity, EIA development and large or multi‑phase schemes;
-
considering the alternative views on the removal of fee caps and whether they provide cost recovery or certainty;
-
a national fee for applications under s106A to modify a s106 agreement (it is noted that fees are sometimes charged locally);
-
fees for the approval of details required by a condition/condition discharge to be charged per condition, and whether banded fees or other mechanisms could better support cost recovery and improve performance;
-
separate fee for the approval of biodiversity gain plans;
-
fees for agricultural development;
-
for prior approval fees;
-
the restructuring of fees generally (in response to comments received, see below).
The consultation had asked if there were other existing fee categories not mentioned that would benefit from restructuring. Respondents suggested:
-
support for charging for specialist and technical processes, including EIA screening and scoping, and the review of mineral permissions;
-
retrospective applications should attract a higher fee;
-
reintroducing a ‘free-go’ for resubmissions, or alternatively a reduced fee (e.g. 50% of the original fee);
-
align fees for solar and onshore wind schemes more closely with Planning Practice Guidance and base them on the footprint of operational equipment rather than the whole site, which is disproportionately high and not reflective of development complexity;
-
higher fees for applications for advertisement consent for digital displays to reflect their greater impacts (e.g. light and visual pollution) (this sounds like those suggesting it intend it to be a deterrent rather than based on cost of assessment);
-
greater clarity on definitions of plant and machinery;
-
new category for minor works on non-residential sites (e.g. schools), as current site area–based fees can be disproportionate for small-scale development.
Section 73B application fees
The Government has committed to bringing forward Section 73B (S73B) applications, which are “Applications for permission not substantially different from existing permission”. These were designed to provide a procedural route that allows amendments to schemes that are more than non-material, including changing the description of development (not possible via s73).
When s73B is introduced, the same fee structure will apply to it as applies for section 73. The Government considers this appropriate based on the available evidence, but “will keep section 73B fees under review as evidence emerges, including to ensure that fees remain proportionate and provide an appropriate level of cost recovery”.
Trees and listed buildings
The Government is sticking with its intention not to introduce national fees for applications for listed building consent or works to protected trees, despite consultation responses noting the resourcing implications for local planning authorities (LPAs). The Government says “this reflects the strong public interest in conserving the historic environment and natural assets, and the need to avoid creating financial barriers that could deter appropriate management or increase the risk of unauthorised works. We will, however, keep this position under review”.
Localised fees
The consultation sought to gauge the level of support for local fee setting and how such a model would operate. There was broad support amongst LPAs for being able to set their own fees as a mechanism for addressing acute resourcing challenges. A common theme across all stakeholders was the need for clear national guidance on establishing cost bases, evidencing and justifying fees, and ensuring consistency across regions given the high divergence of costs around the country.
The Government has recognised the need for clear national guidance. They are working with the Planning Advisory Service to develop guidance and toolkits to help LPAs understand and apply their own planning fees. The Government intends to introduce the regulations setting out the framework for local fee setting and associated guidance before the end of the year.
LPAs will be able to set planning fees up to a maximum of 30% above the national default fee, when justified by evidence. If LPAs cannot cover their costs within this threshold, they will be able to consult the Secretary of State and provide ‘robust’ evidence to justify any further fee increases.
The future of Planning Performance Agreements
The Government has reiterated their support for discretionary planning services including Planning Performance Agreements (PPAs). Indeed, the consultation response notes that there was broad support for the continued role of discretionary planning services that support the delivery of more complex developments.
The consultation response noted the role of the Greater London Authority in delivering large and complex schemes, therefore relying on the use of PPAs more than other strategic authorities. Other strategic authorities will be able to use similar powers in the future due to ongoing devolution reforms.
Fees for PPAs and other discretionary planning services such as pre-application advice should not exceed the cost of providing them. In similar fashion to other fee increases, there is a broad expectation from Government and the development industry that higher fees will translate to a better service. The Government expects LPAs to be transparent on the basis for their charges. Further guidance is going to be published covering transparency of costs and good practice in delivery.
Effectively there is no change to the fee arrangements and opportunities to provide PPAs which, in early consultations on localised fees, looked to be in question.
Next steps and conclusion
As noted above, the Government is to bring forward the necessary legislation to increase planning related fees and establish a National Default Fee Schedule, during the summer with the increases to take effect before the end of the year. Observations in our last blog regarding localised fees continue to apply:
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?
In addition, the Government intends to introduce the statutory framework and associated guidance for local fees by the end of the year. Given that significant work will be required in order to set up localised fees, it seems very unlikely, but not impossible, that any localised fees up to a maximum of 30% above the national default fee would be introduced this year also.
The continued support for PPAs and the acknowledgement of their role is good news.
The conclusion to blogs on fees will always be the same: increased fees must be accompanied by a high quality development management service. In this regard in particular, ongoing reviews of fees are to be welcomed.
Table of example fees proposed in the consultation, which we believe will apply by the end of the year:
|
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% |
Footnotes
