The government have released a consultation on planning application fees in England. The consultation proposes higher fees within a new national default fee schedule, a fee category restructure and greater local flexibility.
The proposals form part of wider reforms aimed at improving the performance and resourcing of the planning system.
Planning application fees are currently set nationally and are detailed within the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012. Even with recent uplifts, the fees have not kept pace with the true cost of determining applications. The government estimates that local planning authorities (LPAs) face an annual funding shortfall of around £330 million, which has contributed to delays and resourcing pressures across the system. The consultation seeks to recover 90% of the LPA’s service cost for applications, significantly reducing this shortage.
The government’s objective is to ensure LPAs are better funded and better able to deliver timely, high quality planning decisions, supporting housing delivery and economic growth. However, with costs rapidly increasing and viability already seeing a hit, such stark price increases could have the opposite effect and result in less schemes coming forward as viability decreases.
A planning advisory service survey from 2025 revealed that the application fee shortfall currently ranges from 18-60%, with s73 applications to remove or vary a condition suffering from the greatest cost shortfall. Outline planning applications for major developments were also highlighted as problematic in terms of the gap between cost and fee. In response to the survey, the consultation proposes a new National Default Fee Schedule, increasing all application fees to 90% of the cost for processing the application.
The government has chosen not to move to full cost recovery, citing the need to avoid over charging in more efficient authorities and to retain incentives for service improvement such as management system investment.
Notably listed building consents and works to protect trees have been excluded from the schedule and will remain zero rated.
The schedule will continue to be adjusted for inflation from 1 April every year.
A full schedule is set out in Annex A of the consultation. We have highlighted below some key proposed changes:
Application type |
Proposed change |
| Housing development applications, applications for agricultural buildings, applications regarding plant and machinery, drilling for oil applications | Maximum application fee increased from £427,537 to £513,512 |
| Section 73 applications (major development) | Increase from £2076 to £3150 |
| Non material amendment | Increase from £309 to £360 |
| Change of Use of a building to use as one or more separate dwellinghouses | Maximum application fee increased from £427,537 to £513,512 |
| Reserved matters application | Full application fee due and if this has already been paid there is an increase from £610 to £749 |
| Permission in principle | Increase from £531 per 0.1 hectare to up to £3150. |
| Listed building consent and Works to protected trees | No fee proposed |
Following the proposed introduction of the medium size development category and adjust existing bandings within the current draft NPPF, the consultation seeks to reorganise the fee bandings. The aim is to reduce inconsistencies within fee calculation to better reflect the nature of the proposed development.
In relation to outline, full and reserved matters applications the consultation invites responses on several proposes reforms:
Section 73 (and section 73B) is proposed as a 3 tier system being £825 for non-major developments and £3150 for major developments. Major s73 applications were the greatest concern from the 2025 survey as application requirements vary considerably depending on the complexity of the original permission. However, the proposed structure does not take into account such complexity or the nature of the original permission, instead simply focussing on the scale of the development. Feedback is requested on whether this is sufficient.
Unfortunately, substantial further reforms have not been suggested in the consultation for agricultural development. Such development is widely viewed as overly complex leading to unclear calculations of fees. The consultation merely proposes rationalisation of the fee structure. This is a missed opportunity to restructure and bring them in line with other non-residential development applications.
A flat fee structure has been proposed for Planning in Principle decisions which is lower than the fee for Outline Permission to reflect the limited scope of the assessment and the exclusion of key requirements such as s106 negotiations. Those proposals are conditional on the progress of the medium sized development within the current draft NPPF so watch this space.
The consultation further proposes increased flat rate fees for discharge of condition, prior approval, and certificate of appropriate alternative development applications.
Section 52 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 enables the Secretary of State to provide for a surcharge on a fee or charge paid in relation to a planning application. This was introduced due to the increased cost of consultees. The Planning and Infrastructure Act limits the surcharge to the cost of the additional service but does not detail a threshold.
The consultation proposes that a limit of a 10% surcharge has been proposed to apply to all Town and Country Planning Act applications. Notably therefore, Nationally significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPS) are excluded.
The government expects the surcharge to cover ‘relevant costs’ and support wider housing and growth objectives whilst allowing improvements to the reliability of the statutory consultee service.
Section 51 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 enables a local planning authority to set their own fees following public consultation. The fee consultation lays out recommendations of how such proposals will operate proposing that:
The government expects any local variations to be “evidenced and justified”; however, it is not entirely clear how that is to be met.
Furthermore, whilst local variations would allow LPA’s to better reflect their actual costs, the lack of a proposed cap, and arm’s length intervening powers could cause further uncertainty. There is currently no cap on proposed local variation for fees, meaning local charges could hugely differ between regions. The consultation proposes several capped figures using the national scheme as a base and invites responses on whether a local variation cap is needed. Furthermore, whilst the secretary of state does have overall intervention powers creating oversight, the process for resolving such issues is likely to become protracted. This means there will be uncertainty over fees or any likely increase.
The government is hoping that the cost reflecting fee schedule will result in a better funded planning system that can handle both the increased number of application and the increased frontloading to such application. However, the increase runs the risk of creating large regional deviations without sufficient control or oversight. This could result in less schemes confirming forward in particular regions as viability is tipped further into the negative. Furthermore, the potential knock on consequences of increasing fees by up to almost £100,000 could result in less funds coming forward for affordable housing as viability calculations drop.
The Consultation closed on 18 May so watch this space as the proposals could affect the viability or development strategy of a proposal. For more information, please contact our planning & infrastructure consenting team.
We produce a range of insights and publications to help keep our clients up-to-date with legal and sector developments.
Sign up
