NALC calls for planning fee reforms that properly resource local planning services

We have responded to the government’s consultation on fees for planning applications, backing measures designed to improve the resourcing, consistency and effectiveness of the planning system.

The consultation proposes the introduction of a new national default fee schedule set at 90% of estimated costs, alongside a new local fee variation model, revised fee categories and structures, and new charges for areas such as biodiversity gain plans and section 106A applications.

We reiterated our continued support for Model 2, local variation from a national default fee, first outlined in our response to the 2024 consultation on updates to the National Planning Policy Framework. We stated that the approach offers the best balance between national consistency and local flexibility.

We support the proposed national default fee schedule and believe planning fees should go beyond strict cost recovery to ensure the planning system is properly resourced overall, including planning enforcement, which remains significantly underfunded in many parts of the country.

We also welcomed proposals to simplify and rationalise planning fee structures, including changes affecting outline, full and reserved matters applications, agricultural development, and Permission in Principle applications. These changes should create a more transparent and consistent system for applicants and local planning authorities alike.

We stressed that reforms must not disproportionately affect small businesses, low-income applicants or community groups, particularly in rural areas where access to affordable planning services remains essential.

Responding to proposals on locally set fees, we said any local variation should be evidence-based, proportionate and transparent. We supported the principle of a cap on locally varied fees. We suggested a limit of 15% as an appropriate balance between reflecting local cost pressures and maintaining fairness for applicants.

We also backed proposals for new fees linked to biodiversity gain plans, prior approval applications and Section 106A applications. We also highlighted the importance of parish and town councils being meaningfully consulted on Section 106 agreements. We called for greater flexibility in how developer contributions can be used to support local community infrastructure, including leisure and recreation facilities.

Finally, on discretionary services, we agreed that planning fees should become the primary mechanism for funding planning services, reducing reliance on Planning Performance Agreements (PPAs). However, PPAs should remain available for large or complex developments where bespoke arrangements are justified.