Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 20 July 2023. They amend the town and country planning regulations of 2012 and deliver on our commitment to increase planning application fees by 35% for major applications and 25% for all other applications. Significantly, they also introduce an annual inflation-related increase so that fees do not lose their value in the future. The measures in the regulations will provide much-needed additional income to local authorities, and we expect them to invest this additional income in their planning services to improve the speed and quality of their decision-making.

I will start by providing some context and background to these regulations. We last increased planning fees in January 2018. Over the last five years, the costs and demands on local planning authority budgets have increased. Currently, the income from planning fees does not cover the cost to local planning authorities of determining the applications. The cost of the planning application service is around £675 million annually, but, overall, there is a funding shortfall of approximately £225 million. The burden of this funding shortfall is currently borne by the general taxpayer.

It is therefore vital that we increase planning fees to reduce this funding shortfall and to create greater financial sustainability for local planning authorities. With our fee increase, local planning authorities will be able to use the additional income to procure more resources and therefore provide an improved service to applicants. This will benefit householders, businesses and developers, and ultimately all of us, as the economy grows and more homes are built.

We consulted on proposals for a fee increase in February this year. Respondents were generally supportive of our proposals, recognising the need to boost the funds available to local planning authorities, particularly if this leads to improvements in their planning performance.

I now turn to the detail of the regulations. First, they introduce a national fee increase of 35% for those major applications and 25% for all other applications. This means that householder applications will increase by 25%, from £206 to £258. The maximum fee for the largest and most complex applications will rise by 35%, from the current £300,000 to £405,000. The regulations also introduce an annual inflation-related increase in fees from 1 April 2025. The increase will be at the rate of the consumer price index from the previous September, capped to a maximum of 10%. This new measure will ensure that fees do not lose their value in future, and it has been widely supported by the sector.

In addition, the regulations remove the existing fee exemption, which allows applicants, in certain circumstances, to submit a second application without paying a fee. This is commonly known as the “free go”. By removing this exemption, local planning authorities will now be able to charge for repeat applications, which are a known demand on resources.

In order to encourage faster decision-making for non-major applications, these regulations also reduce the planning guarantee period for non-major applications from the current 26 weeks to 16 weeks. This means that, in most cases, if non-major applications are not determined after those 16 weeks and no extension has been agreed, the applicant would be entitled to a full refund of their planning application fee.

Finally, the regulations introduce a new prior approval fee of £120 for the permitted development right for development by the Crown on a closed defence site. This permitted development right was introduced through an amendment to the general permitted development order in December 2021 and requires that a fee be paid for prior approval applications by the Crown.

Overall, our estimate is that in the first year this fee increase will raise an additional £65 million for local planning authorities. However, these regulations do not require this fee income to be formally ring-fenced, as there is already a requirement, through primary legislation, for planning fees to be used for the function of determining planning applications.

We have been very clear that local planning authorities should use the income from planning fees to fund their planning service. This will allow them to build their capability and capacity and improve their performance. I recognise that some may consider that, during times of economic pressures for businesses and householders, we should not be increasing planning fees. However, in light of the clear funding shortfall that exists, it seems right that applicants should contribute more to the costs of local planning authorities in delivering their planning service.

An increase of 35% for major applications and 25% for all other applications represents a proportionate approach, which provides much-needed additional income for local planning authorities while not unfairly introducing disproportionately high fee increases for householders and small businesses, who may be more sensitive to charges than other groups. We estimate that in most cases the cost of the planning application is less than 1% of the overall development cost.

I understand that others may consider that the fee increase does not go far enough to address the shortfall that exists in local planning authorities and that local planning authorities should be able to set their own fees. As I have mentioned, the proposed fee level represents a proportionate approach that provides additional income for local planning authorities without introducing disproportionately high costs for applicants at a time when we want to support new housing and economic growth. To achieve a suitable balance, we are therefore providing £24 million of additional funding through our capacity and capability programme to provide direct support now and create upskilling opportunities for those already in the sector. The Government do not believe that enabling local authorities to set their own fees is the way to answer resourcing issues; nor do we believe that it would create an incentive to tackle inefficiencies.

Local planning authorities already have the power to set their own fees for additional planning services, including planning performance agreements for major developments. Having different fees between local authorities also creates uncertainty and unfairness for applicants and, if set too high, could risk unintended consequences by discouraging development coming forward. A national fee increase will, however, provide an immediate benefit to all local planning authorities and much-needed clarity and consistency for all applicants.

To summarise, these regulations will provide a boost to local planning authorities, generating additional income that will allow them to invest in their planning services and improve their performance. With a more sustainable financial income, they will, we hope, be able to budget with more confidence and build their capability and capacity.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly on the Motion to approve this regulation. I welcome it and support it. I remind the House of my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. A number of people in the development community to whom I have spoken thoroughly endorse the view that local planning authorities are underresourced and that there is a need to secure additional resources for them. They welcome the fact that there is to be a significant increase in planning fees, but also that there is to be an annual indexation. I think that gives some certainty to developers, as well as confidence to local authorities.

My noble friend described the proposals very well and referred to some of the issues. I will pick up on three of those issues, and I would be grateful if she would either respond to them or perhaps even take some of them back to the department for further work.

First is the question of ring-fencing. In government, we have been resistant to the idea that local authorities should be too constrained in how they spend their money but, as my noble friend said, the provision of these fees to local authorities for development management purposes is in statute. However, since there is a significant gap, presently of £225 million, between the cost of planning services and the revenue from planning fees, there is a risk that, as planning fees and the resulting income are increased, local authorities may take the opportunity to reduce the subsidy they presently give to planning services. That is neither in our interests nor what this planning fee increase is intended to secure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my relevant interests as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Swinburne, for her detailed explanation of the content and purpose of the changes proposed to planning fees. She obviously thought that at least someone in the Chamber today would raise the fundamental concerns about full cost recovery; I will raise that issue because it is vital that it be considered.

There are two big issues of principle to raise, the first of which is why planning fees are set nationally for England. We have spent many months in this Chamber discussing levelling up, and part of that was a discussion about devolution to local areas of England. Surely, if we are serious about devolution, one aspect would be to devolve responsibility to set fees and charges for planning locally, as indeed it is, I think, for nearly every other fee and charge that a local authority can levy. The Government worry that varying fees will lead to inconsistencies across the country, but that is the very essence of devolution: that local fees are set according to the area in which they are made and the area a council represents. I suspect that there must be varying costs to planning applications—for instance, in London boroughs compared to some other parts of the country where costs are not as high.

My second major concern is the failure of these proposals to enable full cost recovery. The Government’s own assessment estimates that, currently, council tax payers are subsidising the planning service to the tune of £225 million a year. For me, it is totally unacceptable that council tax payers, who are often very hard pressed, are funding, for example, major developers who are making vast annual profits. The cost of a planning fee against the total cost of even a so-called minor development is very small as a proportion of the total, so surely full cost recovery must be not only fair but justified in not requiring council tax payers to subsidise developers. These regulations provide the opportunity to remedy that unacceptable situation, so perhaps the noble Baroness can think again about not enabling full cost recovery.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said that he hopes that the increase in fees will not lead to a reduction in local authority subsidy for the planning service. I have to disagree with him, because I think the whole purpose of a rise in fees is to reduce the subsidy paid by council tax payers for the service. Otherwise, we should have full cost recovery, because many local authorities are on the verge of issuing Section 114 notices, which indicate that they have run out of sufficient money to run services as a whole in their areas.

Only today, I received an email on behalf of London Councils saying that it estimates that its councils will run short by £500 million in order to provide statutory services. Given that that is replicated across the country, it seems totally wrong for councils to take money from their budgets to subsidise planning development when they are making cuts to children’s services and adult social care. I urge the Minister to go back to the department and suggest that full cost recovery would be a better way forward.

On the details of the proposals, of course, given what I have just said, I welcome the increase in fees, which is better than nothing. However, the Government’s own estimate is that the proposal to increase fees by 35% for majors and 25% for all others will transfer £65 million of costs to planning applicants but will still leave a shortfall of £125 million of subsidy for local planning authorities. I could not reconcile the figures in the Explanatory Memorandum for the regulations, so perhaps the Minister can do that for me. There is a current shortfall of £225 million and a fee increase of £65 million, and yet apparently a resulting shortfall of £125 million. Those figures do not add up, so something must not have been provided in the Explanatory Memorandum.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Is it not to do with the removal of the “free go”, which I think is worth about £25 million in itself? However, the other changes, not just the fee changes, are the reason.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord; that probably is the explanation. However, it would be good to hear the Minister to confirm that.

The issue I still have is that if we do not have full cost recovery, local planning authorities will not be able to appoint all the planning officers that they need to provide an efficient and effective service. We know that the Local Government Association and other professional bodies have indicated that 58% of councils overall and 83% of county councils have trouble filling planning posts, and the RTPI reckons that one in 10 planning posts are currently not filled. Therefore, unless the fees are increased more than is proposed here, that challenge will remain, which will then lead to a less efficient and effective planning service. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to that, because it is at the heart of what is proposed today.

The other significant issue I have is with the way the planning guarantee works in practice. Of course, it is right to have a requirement to fulfil confirmation of planning applications in a timely way, but the starting point of a planning guarantee is that an application is “valid”. This can mean that the applicant has supplied the relevant information, but it does not mean that the content of the information is of the necessary standard. Herein lies the problem.