Government Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities have recently announced a consultation: ‘Stronger Performance of Local Planning Authorities supported through an increase in Planning Fees.’
Responses are due by 25th April and Chapman Lily Planning will be submitting a response as part of our continuing commitment to encourage and support improvement to the planning system.
The consultation includes proposals to increase planning fees this summer by 35% for major applications and 25% for all other applications together to allow for annual adjustments in line with inflation. The aim is to increase the financial support for Local Planning Authorities to ensure that local planning authorities have the resources to deliver the high-performing planning service that applicants and communities expect.
The consultation seeks views on proposals to charge additional fees for bespoke or ‘fast track’ services, ring-fence additional fees income, double fees for retrospective applications and remove the ‘free-go’ for repeat applications.
The document acknowledges what many of us have known for a very long time – namely, that there is a huge problem attracting and retaining suitably skilled and customer focussed planers in Local Authorities. It states ‘The government has heard consistent feedback from all sectors that the core planning application service is not consistently performing at the level it should and one of the root causes is, for many local planning authorities, an absence of adequate resources and capability’.
However, there is a clear warning in the document that ‘The government is only prepared to introduce fee increases if planning performance also improves. We want to ensure that all applicants experience a high-quality and timely service’. Hence the proposals also suggest new approach on how local planning authorities performance is monitored.
This is only right and proper – increasing fees without commensurate improvements to the service is yet more punishment to the customer. The proposals suggest measuring the number of planning applications that are determined within the statutory determination time – rather than through an extension of time agreement. 
Alan Davies, Associate Director comments ‘the aim of speeding up planning decisions is of course laudable, but the quality of the decision is just as important but is harder to quantify – I would surmise that many applicants may put up with a slightly longer determination time if the decision was favourable and a ‘can do’ attitude from the planning officer, rather than a ‘what can I find wrong with it’ attitude which so often seems to prevail.
