📈 Delegated Legislation Committee

• The parliamentary session discussed the Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025.
• The regulations aim to increase planning application fees to address a £362 million funding shortfall faced by local planning authorities.
• The Minister for Housing and Planning, Matthew Pennycook, introduced the changes, highlighting the need to provide additional resources to local planning authorities to enhance efficiency and support the aim of building 1.5 million new homes.
• Key fee increases include:
  • Householder development fees will rise from £258 to £528 for single dwellings and from £509 to £1,043 for multiple dwellings.
  • Prior approval application fees will increase from £120 to £240 and from £258 to £516 when they include building operations.
  • Fees for changing the use of commercial buildings to residential will increase from £125 to £250 per dwelling.
  • Fees for the discharge of conditions will rise from £43 to £86 for householders and from £145 to £298 for other applications.
• These fee adjustments are expected to generate an additional £56 million annually for local planning authorities, which can be used to improve staffing and technology.
• Paul Holmes from the Conservative party expressed concerns that the increased fees would unfairly burden homeowners and questioned the lack of evidence that the fee hike would improve planning services.
• Gideon Amos from the Liberal Democrats supported the need for more planning officers but emphasized the need for more flexible, locally determined fees and minimum ringfenced funding for planning authorities.
• The government expects local planning authorities to use the additional fee revenue to directly invest in planning application services and monitor performance through a planning performance dashboard.
• Future legislative plans include allowing local planning authorities to set their own fees, which would help them recover costs more effectively.
• Despite some opposition and concerns, the draft regulations were approved by the committee.

The session displayed a moderate level of disagreement, primarily focused on the specific impacts and justifications of the proposed fee increases for planning applications. Here’s a detailed analysis:

1. Disagreement on Impact and Fairness: Paul Holmes (Con) expressed significant concerns over the impact of the fee increase on homeowners, arguing that the rise from £258 to £528 for single dwelling house improvements was a ‘further blow’ and a ‘burden’ on ordinary homeowners. He criticized the increases as being unfair and suggested that they were not guaranteed to improve planning services. This stance represented a direct challenge to the government’s approach, highlighting a disagreement on the fairness and potential outcomes of the fee hikes.

   Example: ‘Now, fees will jump by 105%—from £258 to £528—for single dwelling house improvements and other alterations… We remain concerned that the measure means that people simply trying to make improvements to their homes are being burdened with ever higher fees.’

2. Disagreement on Funding Allocation: Gideon Amos (LD) emphasized the need for ringfenced funding for planning departments and criticized the lack of data on the number of planning officers. He suggested that the current proposals did not go far enough to address the systemic issues in funding for local planning authorities. This highlighted a disagreement on how the increased funds should be allocated and managed.

   Example: ‘We would like to see minimum ringfenced funding for local planning authorities… I would be grateful if he could say more about how funding and budgets within hard-pressed local authorities can be ringfenced for a planning service.’

3. Response to Criticisms: In response to the criticisms, the Minister for Housing and Planning, Matthew Pennycook, acknowledged the concerns but defended the policy by reiterating the need for increased fees to address the £362 million shortfall. He explained the rationale behind the specific fee increases and defended the expectation that new revenue would be used to directly improve planning services. This interaction shows a divergence in views on the efficacy and justification of the policy.

   Example: ‘The current fee of £258 on householder applications covers less than half the cost of processing the application to the local authority… We think it is right in principle that taxpayers should not bear that burden, but the people making the application who will directly benefit from consent once it is processed.’

4. Further Clarifications Requested: Lewis Cocking (Con) questioned the approach of not moving to full cost recovery with the fee increases, indicating a concern about the government’s strategy for addressing the funding shortfall. This shows another point of disagreement on the approach to fee setting and cost recovery.

   Example: ‘The Minister proposes to increase fees, but from my understanding they will not go to full cost recovery. Will he set out why they are taking a leapfrog approach and not going to full cost recovery?’

Despite these disagreements, the overall tone of the session was professional, and the criticisms were directed at the policy’s details rather than attacking the government outright. No votes were contested, which suggests that while there was debate and disagreement on various aspects of the policy, opposition members did not feel strongly enough to push for a formal division of the committee. Therefore, a rating of 2 is appropriate, as it reflects a session with notable disagreements but not reaching high levels of conflict or acrimony.