The pendulum that is the planning system’s legislative and policy framework has swung consistently back and forth since I started working over 25 years ago. Seemingly no incoming administration can resist the temptation of a landmark bill to finally get Britain building or, since 2012, a new NPPF to either also get Britain building or stop Britain building depending upon how bolshy the backbenchers are being.
A minor upside of a perpetual reform agenda is a constant supply of content for columnists, bloggers and podcasters, but a major downside is that it absorbs ministerial and civil service time and energy that might otherwise be expended addressing the planning pantomime’s erstwhile Cinderella, which is development management. In this long-neglected corner of the system, despite the additional layer of complexity that each legislative and policy change has added over time, planning applications are essentially being prepared, submitted and determined in the same that I have always known them to be.
You will hopefully be familiar with the term ‘Grit in the System’ (trademark Paul Smith) and you will also hopefully have read Lichfields’ report on how to remove the grit from the system.
Please pause your enjoyment of this post to do so now if you are unfamiliar with it.
Go on.
No go on.
You have? Do you promise? On we go then.
To put the ‘grit’ agenda’ in context, firstly, determining applications takes 16 months longer than a decade ago, despite falling submissions (the graph below is from Lichfields’ earlier ‘How Long Is A Piece Of String’ report).
RTPI data shows that, after a post-2010 decline, expenditure on development management has remained broadly constant, which means that spend per application has actually increased in recent times as determination have kept increasing.
Secondly, the nature and cost of outline applications have changed. What was once (I am old enough to remember…) a red line plan, proof of ownership and a few specific documents that showed the proposed development and flagged any key issues, now includes, on average, 30 separate documents. The associated costs of providing the evidence to establish the principle of development have increased by 4.5 times since 1990 (the chart below is from Lichfields’ ‘Small Builders, Big Burdens’ report).
Something needs to be done about development management, but what is being done, in the form of locally-set fees and a statutory consultee surcharge, will be shown to be, I fear, a massive, missed opportunity.
In introducing the Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026, which were debated on 21 October 2026, Matthew Pennycook said as follows.
Local planning authorities are integral to delivering the new homes and infrastructure that our country needs, and the Government appreciate fully that, to do so, they require sufficient capacity and capability. Yet for too long, local authority planning departments across the country have wrestled with significant financial pressures that have constrained their ability to recruit and retain skilled planners, invest in modern systems and make timely, high-quality planning decisions.
For local planning authorities, fees are an important contributor to resourcing requirements. Planning application fees are set nationally and are intended to cover the cost to a local planning authority of processing and determining a planning application. However, as things stand, the fees do not fully cover the costs of providing the service. Based on the most recent local government spending data for 2024-25, that has led to an estimated funding shortfall of £330 million per year, which means that local planning authorities are not adequately equipped to deliver an efficient planning service. That is why the Government acted through regulations to increase planning fees for householders and introduce fees for certain minor applications from 1 April last year, and why our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 included powers to allow local planning authorities, subject to safeguards, to set their own planning fees through a local variation model.
That application fees do not cover the costs of providing the service is something of a false premise because, of course, it takes no account of fees paid by applicants for, for example, pre-application engagement (pre-app) and Planning Performance Agreements (PPAs).
A Freedom of Information exercise conducted by HBF found that between 2022 and 2025, local planning authorities (LPAs) in England and Wales received, on average, almost £600,000 per council in PPA fees. Scaled up across the country, this totals almost £200 million over the three-year period. If we were to add on the costs of pre-app that perceived gap between fees and service provision closes further.
An alternative and arguably more realistic premise could be, therefore, that authorities are, typically, collecting funds from applicants sufficient to determine planning applications within acceptable timeframes, but performance is patchy, payments are not linked to project milestones and nobody is measuring anything that would meaningfully help drive better outcomes for all concerned.
Imagine a planning system that worked thus.
Step 1.
A prospective applicant submits a package of material and an accompanying set fee, to a LPA (that may or may not include the outcome of public engagement, but would obviously be more helpful if it did) with a request for comment.
Step 2.
The LPA responds within a set period (having consulted all relevant technical and political stakeholders, distributing the pre-application fee to the consultees that need to consulted) stating that if, within a further set period, that package of material was formally submitted for approval, the LPA would either:
- Approve an application without delay because it looks like a great idea;
- Refuse an application without delay because it looks like a terrible idea; or
- Be minded to approve an application provided that the proposed scheme was amended in certain specific ways; the
If the prospective applicant still wants to commit to a planning application then another set fee is payable to get to a Committee (if needs be) within an agreed period of time; a further fee is payable to deal with post-Committee legal agreements and to get to the point of a decision notice being issued; and then a final fee is paid to deal with the conditions attached to a consent.
For applicants, they would know where they stand and if they wanted to pursue something that a LPA did not like, well, that would be up to them, wouldn’t it?
For Heads of Planning, or junior officers aspiring to be so, well, that would be a role worth having, wouldn’t it? I like it, I want it to happen. I don’t like it, I don’t want it to happen (a clear, rules-based system notwithstanding…).
That all sounds good, doesn’t it? That should not be beyond the realms of the possible should it?
Let us compare that to what is currently happening. To add some further colour to page 8 of Lichfield’s ‘Grit in the System’ report (which I know you have read…), herewith is an email that I received a little while ago from a planning consultant acting for a land promoter trying to get permission on a site that a LPA actually wants to allocate.
Hi Sam
Thank you for taking my call on Friday, and as promised, please see the summary below of the situation.
The approach below being adopted by a number a number of LPAs in my region is likely to increase costs on applications significantly and increase the number of refusals, as applicants are less likely to be as bullish on appeals with outstanding objections and limited ability to amend the pack to ameliorate them. This approach fundamentally is at odds with the ‘positive’ and ‘proactive’ approach required by Policy DM3 of the revised NPPF, and to me, feels like these Councils are slavishly adhering to the 13-week statutory determination deadline to drive fee generation.
My client has a site located in a relatively pro-growth authority that sought to exceed its Standard Method figure and make a tangible contribution towards the unmet needs of neighbouring authorities to support its continued economic growth. My client’s site was always viewed favourably by the Council (i.e. ‘when’, not ‘if’) and was allocated in an emerging Local Plan Review. During the Examination in Public we were asked to confirm that our site would be ‘deliverable’ and that it would come forward within the five-year housing land supply period, which we did. To support this, my client has brought forward a full planning application. To support this process, we engaged with the council in pre-application discussions in April 2025 and a written response was provided in June 2025. This was a detailed pre-application process, insofar as advice was provided by most – if not all – statutory consultees. During the discussion, two matters were raised for further consideration: design and highways access. The highways authority considered that a new 4-arm roundabout was required, which did not align with our access proposals, and advised that they would share the design and location in due course. The Council’s Design Officer raised some concerns regarding layout. We left the process stating we may undertake another Pre-Application with the Council in relation to design matters if we felt we couldn’t address their comments. Consequently, we did not do this. However, the Council’s Pre-Application comments were thoroughly factored into the scheme prior to submission, and a full application was submitted in May and validated in July 2026.
Upon validation, we were advised by the Officer that amendments to live major applications are now only considered through a paid process, which only allows two opportunities for amendments to be made. This only on the basis though that the amendments are not fundamental and can be re-consulted upon prior to the statutory determination deadline.
In short, we can make two amendments, but an Extension of Time will not be agreed unless a Planning Performance Agreement is in place. They, and Statutory Consultees, will also not provide advice during the application’s determination, as they consider that advice can only be provided through the pre-application process.
Nevertheless, during determination, we have received consultation responses from the Lead Local Flood Authority [LLFA] and the Local Highways Authority [LHA] requesting further information; albeit, not objecting per se. Both would require additional modelling/surveys. Whilst not insurmountable issues, we sought to engage with the LLFA on the parameters of the modelling in a meeting. Whilst they did ‘meet us’, the meeting was less than advantageous. The LLFA recorded the meeting so that they could send a copy to the officer to demonstrate that no advice has been given. They could not agree on parameters and requested that we submit our suggested scope to them via the case officer, which could be considered one of the two amendments, upon which they would ‘formally respond’. The LHA has not responded but has requested an additional survey on a junction. Given it is school holidays, and the comment was received in mid-July, this couldn’t be undertaken and written up until late September. Mindful of this, we approached the Council and asked for a minor EoT beyond the 8th October deadline to allow for this, as these issues are clearly resolvable. However, the Officer has advised that this is not possible.
We noted that the context in which we discussed engaging in pre-application again (i.e. design), and that these technical issues were not raised by the LLFA or LHA at pre-application but were resolvable. Moreover, we were advised that a highway design would be issued by the LHA, which never materialised, and the LHA has no objection to the principle of the current access proposals. We also highlighted that this application relates to an allocated site within the Council's emerging Local Plan and one that was proposed to contribute towards the Council's five-year housing land supply. We highlighted that this was not a speculative development proposal, which is a circumstance in which we ‘could’ more readily understand the Council adopting such a stance. However, we were still advised as follows that the most logical approach would be to withdraw the application and then seek further pre-application dialogue with us prior to a re-submission.
Just to recap then, despite the clear intentions of a national Government to boost delivery and speed up the system, we have created one in which:
- The ‘free-go’ resubmission has been removed;
- Fees are about to increase markedly even before local uplifts;
- There is now limited / no scope for amendments during the appeal process;
- Appelants are largely driven down the written representations route by PINs, which has a much lower prospect of success; and
- Whilst pre-app is critical, responses are never binding, becoming more expensive and often not particularly helpful.
That sounds sub-optimal, doesn’t it?
Do then locally-set fees and a statutory consultee surcharge move us closer to a better way of doing things or do they embed further the behaviours that have led us to where we are now?
It is the latter surely? Why do it then? What good reason outweighs these reasons not to.
Firstly, calculating the locally-derived uplift on the national default fee will be intensely complicated. The below is from the Government consultation.
Each LPA will have its own approach of establishing the cost of delivering its planning application service. While the government is not prescribing detailed requirements for how these calculations should be undertaken, we recommend that LPAs have regard to the following components:
1.Direct planning application service staff costs
Salaries and associated costs for planning officers, case officers and administrative staff directly involved in processing and determining planning applications, including servicing planning committees.
2. In-house specialist advice costs
Salaries and associated costs for internal technical specialists, such as planning policy, highways, design and conservation, environmental health, ecology, and other relevant disciplines, where their work relates directly to determining the application or they act as formal consultees.
3. External specialist advice
Commissioned expertise not available in-house (e.g., ecology/habitats, highways modelling, engineering, landscape/visual, viability, noise/air quality), including technical input from other local authorities.
4. Indirect costs
Proportionate overheads such as office accommodation, utilities, IT systems, and corporate support services.
5. Activity-based costs
Time and resources for specific tasks, including validation, consultation and publicity, site visits, report writing, committee preparation, and decision-making.
6. Legal costs
Only where required and directly related to processing and determining the application, such as drafting section 106 agreements where costs are not covered through the agreement.
7. Training and capability
Proportionate costs for essential professional training and development, including training for planning committee members, to maintain service quality and competence.
8. Digital enablement and data
Investment in digital platforms, software, and data management tools that support efficient application processing.
I cannot image that too many Heads of Planning will be very enthusiastic about undertaking that exercise every year.
Secondly, whilst Mr Pennycook said in that parliamentary debate that fees ‘should’ be linked to qualitative service improvements, there is nothing to reassure applicants (again...) that fee increases ‘will’ be.
Thirdly, despite purportedly covering the cost of the development management service, which should logically include pre-application services, LPAs will still be able to charge for ‘discretionary’ services like pre-app and PPAs. What?
Fourthly, layering on a further 10% fee increase for statutory consultees offers absolutely no guarantee that statutory consultees will engage when applicants and LPAs need them too.
Fifthly, “measure what matters” is an aphorism that you will find in most management books, but in planning we do not really measure anything apart from determination periods, which are considered ‘in time’ if they meet the statutory 13-week target, or an extended period agreed with the applicant. Given the prevalence of extension of time agreements this measure is not effectively worthless, but it drives outcomes like the example above. Nothing will change, therefore, until that 13-week target goes and we find something better to measure.
As the afore-mentioned Paul Smith has written previously, surely we can make the pre-application process better?
We can indeed and we can by changing tack and instead addressing the issues highlighted by Lichfields in the ‘Grit’ report.
LPAs are constrained in two ways by law in performing pre-app advice:
1. Charges should be aimed at cost recovery based on officer time. This will clearly vary considerably based on the level and type of services that are on offer and the scale of the proposal.
2. Advice given is, at present, non-binding. Pre-app advice cannot pre-empt the formal, democratic decision-making process. While it is a material consideration when determining a later application, the advice given is often issued ‘without prejudice to the final decision’.
Additionally, planning officers are also often wary of future challenges such as a judicial review; therefore there is often an understandable level of caution when, in the absence of clarification from guidance, expert advice is sought from statutory bodies ‘just in case’.
Locally-set fees are a diversion that will lead us down a (Radburn-style) cul-de-sac. Let us pause, turn around, and start heading back instead towards a four-stage application process (pre-app, application, legal agreements and conditions), each on a statutory footing.
Let’s push things forward, as Mike Skinner said nearly 25 years ago.
Comments
Post a Comment