Householder planning application fees could more than double under government proposals to ensure they cover councils' costs of determining applications.
The government is also seeking views on whether to allow councils to set their own planning fees to reflect their own specific costs.
The proposed increase in householder fees, outlined in a consultation on the suggested reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework, comes after double-digit increases last December still left councils facing a £262m shortfall.
Today's consultation document says: “By increasing planning fees, it is expected that local planning authorities will have more of the resources they need to determine applications within the required statutory periods.”
The government proposes increasing the current householder application fee from £258 to £528. Any increase could be in place by the end of the year, depending on parliamentary time.
The consultation says that while this would be “a high increase compared to previous increases” it would still be low compared to other professional fees associated with an application, and “is estimated to represent less than 1% of the average overall costs of carrying out the development itself”.
But while the consultation suggests the proposed fee increase “would not deter development or increase the likelihood of unauthorised development,” it also asks for views on a smaller increase, such as 50%.
Householder planning applications account for 52% of all planning applications, and the document says “based on the evidence this is not sufficient to cover the full costs in most cases”. In contrast, the fees for major applications, which represent 3% of all applications, “are estimated to broadly meet cost recovery levels”.
It adds: “This leaves many local planning authorities, particularly those who receive few large major applications, vulnerable to large funding shortfalls.”
The consultation also seeks on views on the introduction of localised planning fees, which would allow councils to set their own fees to cover their actual costs, and “introduce greater accountability and transparency to the planning fees system, as local planning authorities would need to be able to demonstrate their charges are justifiable and based on cost”.
However, it also notes this would lead to greater variance between planning authorities, greater complexity for those who submit applications in different areas, and place greater burdens on councils, as they would have to publish and review their fee schedules.
The government outlines two possible models: full localisation, or allowing local authorities to vary a default national fee within prescribed limits.
The consultation also asks whether there are any other applications for which the current fee is inadequate, and whether there are any types of application where fees are not currently charged but should be.
It gives listed building consents and works to trees that are protected because they are in a conversation area or by a tree preservation order as examples of the latter.
The consultation also seeks views on whether planning fees should be increased beyond the level that recovers costs, in order to fund wider planning services. It notes this would “result in much higher fees which could risk deterring some development”.
Martin George