North Yorkshire Council
Corporate Director for Community Development
15 May 2026
Council response to the national consultation on fees for planning applications
Report of the Head of Development Management
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 The report seeks agreement for submission of officer comments to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) on the national consultation on fees for planning applications.
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 In March 2026 the Government published a national consultation seeking views on a revised approach to fees for planning applications. The consultation asked for responses to a set of questions. This report sets out a single council response comprising input from officers across all relevant council services. With approval these responses will be submitted to the consultation.
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 A Local Government Association (LGA) and Planning Advisory Service (PAS) survey of English Local Planning Authorities (LPAs), conducted between August and September 2025, found that no existing planning application fee fully covers processing costs. Reported shortfalls range from approximately 18% to 60%.
3.2 The applications most frequently identified as underpriced were Section 73 applications (to vary or remove conditions), particularly for major developments (identified by 92% of LPAs), and applications to discharge conditions. Outline applications, especially for major developments, and non-major Section 73 applications were also highlighted by 88% of LPAs. These categories were identified as the highest priorities for review by government.
4.0 Proposed Response
4.1 In response to the background described above a new National Default Fee Schedule is proposed, setting fees at 90% of the estimated full cost of processing each application type. Where direct evidence was unavailable, increases have been based on comparable application types. Some fees and maximum caps have been adjusted to improve alignment and consistency across application categories. It is proposed that fees would continue to be uplifted annually in line with inflation.
Question 1: Do you support the proposed National Default Fee Schedule, set at 90% of full estimated cost? (Yes / No / Unsure)
Question 2: Are any proposed fees unrepresentative of 90% of estimated full cost levels (either too low or too high)? If yes, respondents are asked to specify the application categories concerned and provide supporting evidence.
4.2 The principle of a national default fee schedule set at 90% cost recovery is supported. Given the difficulty of accurately deriving a figure we would suggest that this is regularly reviewed. The ring‑fencing of income within Development Management is understood, however it is important that any guidance provides complete clarity on which functions and services would be included and should be reflective of those areas that contribute to delivery. View in relation to specific application types are provided in response to the questions below.
4.3 The proposals seek to simplify and modernise fees for outline, full and reserved matters applications for both residential and non-residential development. The revised National Default Fee Schedule proposes adjusted bandings aligned with a new medium-sized development category, removal of baseline fees, and consideration of simplified fixed bands rather than incremental per‑unit or per‑area charges. The review also reflects changes in development patterns, including increased complexity of outline applications, multi‑phase strategic schemes, mixed use developments and brownfield regeneration.
Do you support the proposed changes to the fee structures for outline, full and reserved matters applications for residential and non‑residential development as set out in the proposed National Default Fee Schedule?
What further changes, if any, do you think should be made to the structure of fees for outline, full and reserved matters applications?
4.4 The simplification of the fee structure is welcomed in principle. In terms of the details, however we would suggest that some major applications involve significant time and resource input, but still attract relatively low fees under the proposed schedule. We would suggest that this needs to be developed further to more accurately reflect the work involved.
4.5 The proposed National Default Fee Schedule seeks to simplify and rationalise these arrangements by aligning them more closely with the general non‑residential fee structure. The aim is to improve transparency for applicants, reduce administrative complexity, and ensure fees more accurately reflect the assessment work involved.
Do you support the proposed changes to the fee structures for applications for agricultural development as set out in the proposed National Default Fee Schedule?
4.6 We consider a fee structure based solely on floorspace is disproportionate particularly given that intensive agricultural developments can require extensive environmental, contamination and biodiversity assessments.
4.7 Permission in Principle is intended to provide early certainty on the suitability of housing‑led development with a proportionate level of assessment. Current hectarage‑based fees can result in disproportionately high charges given the limited scope of PiP considerations. The proposal is therefore to introduce flat fees in two bands.
Do you support the proposal that PiP applications should attract a flat fee for two bands (up to 9 dwellings, and 10–49 dwellings)?
Do you agree with the proposed fee levels for PiP applications?
4.8 We consider the proposed PIP fees to be too low and aren’t reflective of costs involved. This is particularly pertinent for developments involving multiple dwellings. This needs to reviewed further in detail.
4.9 Section 73 applications provide a mechanism to vary or remove conditions attached to an existing planning permission without reopening the entire permission. While intended to deal primarily with changes to conditions, these applications can, in practice, involve significant design or layout changes, particularly for large-scale or complex developments. Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) have highlighted that some Section 73 applications are also used to revisit development viability and renegotiate planning obligations, adding to workload and complexity.
4.10 Section 73B, introduced through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and intended to be implemented later in 2026, provides a new statutory route to vary both conditions and the description of development, provided the resulting permission is substantially the same as the original. This route is intended to provide greater clarity and flexibility compared to reliance on Section 73 alone. In 2025 a three-tier national fee structure was introduced for Section 73 applications. Under the proposed National Default Fee Schedule, fees would rise to £112 for householders, £825 for non-major development, and £3,150 for major development. The government proposes fee parity between Section 73 and Section 73B applications to remove perverse incentives and simplify procedural choice.
4.11 Despite recent increases, survey feedback from LPAs indicates that major Section 73 applications remain significantly under-costed. LPAs report that the level of officer time and specialist input required can vary substantially depending on the scale, type and complexity of the original permission. Similar resource implications are anticipated for major Section 73B applications. Views are therefore sought on whether the three-band structure remains appropriate or whether additional differentiation is required, for example for very large or highly complex schemes or where fundamental aspects of a scheme are being revisited.
Do you think the three-band fee structure currently used for Section 73 applications remains appropriate?
Question 9
Should Section 73 and Section 73B
applications be charged using the same fee structure?
4.12 Section 73 and 73B applications frequently involve work comparable to new planning applications, including wide consultations and committee consideration. The fee levels need to be increased to reflect this point.
4.13 Applications to discharge planning conditions were identified by LPAs as one of the most resource-intensive and problematic application types, often contributing to delays in commencement of development. While these applications are essential for ensuring compliance, they frequently require detailed assessment and coordination with internal and external consultees.
4.14 The consultation also links to proposed reforms to national model planning conditions, intended to improve consistency and reduce unnecessary conditional approvals. Under the proposed National Default Fee Schedule, the fee to discharge conditions would increase to £125 for householders and £435 for all other development types.
4.15 Government is also considering whether fees should be charged per condition rather than per application, which may better reflect workload but could increase costs where multiple conditions are submitted together. In addition, biodiversity gain plans, now required by statute for many developments and approved via pre-commencement conditions, often require specialist ecological assessment. The consultation therefore seeks views on whether biodiversity gain plan approvals should attract a separate, higher fee reflecting this complexity.
Do you think the fee for
discharging conditions should be charged per condition rather than
per application?
4.16 We strongly support charging per condition rather than per application. This approach is considered more reflective of the work involved and likely to encourage improved quality of submissions.
Should applications for the
approval of biodiversity gain plans be subject to a separate fee
reflecting the specific work involved?
4.17 We consider that BNG assessments add significant complexity and workload. A separate fee reflecting the specialist input required is considered necessary.
Do you have alternative suggestions on how the current fee structure for the discharge of conditions could be improved?
4.18 Given the complexity of discharging some conditions including the dialogue needed we consider the timescale necessary to deal with such applications before repaying the associated feed should be extended.
4.19 Prior approval applications, required for certain permitted development rights under the GPDO, enable LPAs to assess specific impacts such as transport, flooding and design. While generally simpler than full planning applications, they still impose statutory assessment duties and resource demands. Most prior approval applications attract a flat fee, which is proposed to increase to £310. However, some classes of prior approval currently attract no fee despite comparable workloads. To ensure consistency and fairness, the government proposes applying the same flat £310 fee to all prior approval applications, including those currently free of charge and any new prior approval regimes introduced, such as for larger electrical substations under Class B, Part 15.
Do you support the proposal to
apply a flat £310 fee for all existing and proposed prior
approval applications?
4.20 This typology of application includes a wide variation of cases and can be complex. A flat‑rate fee is considered insufficiently flexible to reflect all.
4.21 CAAD applications play a key role in compulsory purchase processes by establishing what form of development could reasonably have been permitted in the absence of compulsory acquisition. Unlike lawful development certificates, CAADs often involve complex hypothetical scenarios, detailed policy analysis, and the exercise of planning judgement supported by robust written reasoning. The current fee does not reflect the complexity or resource demands of these applications. The government therefore proposes a new national fee of £964, representing around 90% of the estimated, inflation-adjusted cost of determining a medium-scale CAAD application.
Do you agree with the proposed fee
of £964 for CAAD applications?
4.22 Given the requirement for substantial legal and officer involvement in this type of application the proposed fee level seems unduly low and need to be reviewed.
4.23 Section 106A provides the statutory mechanism to modify or discharge planning obligations. While these applications focus only on the obligation, they can still require legal review, policy assessment and negotiation. Currently there is no national fee, although some LPAs charge local administrative fees. The government proposes introducing a national default fee to improve consistency and transparency, while recognising the variable complexity of such applications.
Do you support the introduction of a new national default fee for Section 106A applications?
4.24 We would support the introduction of a national fee to reflect the necessary work in dealing with such applications. We consider, however, that legal costs should be kept separate from any default fee framework. This is reflective of the specialist nature of this work. However, if they are to be included, they should be proportionate to the size and complexity of any relevant proposal.
4.25 The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 introduced powers for a surcharge on planning fees to support statutory consultees. The working proposal is a surcharge of around 10% of the national default fee, applied only to TCPA 1990 applications. Revenue would be ringfenced to support consultee casework and service improvements.
Do you agree with the proposed
planning fee surcharge of around 10% of the national default
fee?
4.26 We have significant concerns regarding the proposed 10% surcharge for statutory consultees. Issues included lack of control over response times and quality, and practical difficulties including allocating income.
4.27 New powers allow LPAs to set local planning fees based on actual costs, subject to public consultation, transparency, and published evidence. Fees must remain within national fee categories, maintain national exemptions, and must not exceed cost recovery. The consultation also seeks views on whether local fee variations should remain uncapped or be subject to a cap (e.g. 15–25% above the national default fee), with Secretary of State oversight where fees are considered unreasonable.
Question 18
Do you have any comments on how local fee setting will operate? In particular, is there any additional information that you would wish to see covered through guidance?
4.28 Officers expressed concern about the complexity and risk associated with local fee setting, including the potential for inconsistency between authorities. Clear national guidance and a standard methodology were considered essential. We would particularly like guidance on the following:
· what can be include as indirect costs / overheads;
· information on the types of costs that can be included, do we have to do it for each fee separately or can we do it in totality;
· whether full activity-based costing is expected i.e. will it be necessary to identify tasks at every level of the process and officer time etc; and
· In setting locally set fees, to what extent internal processes and resource allocation will be audited.
We like to stress, however, that legal costs should be kept separate from any default fee framework.
Question 19
Do you think local fee variations should be capped? If so, what level would be appropriate - 15%, 25% of the national default fee, or another figure?
4.29 No, if the authority determines their variation of the fee is to meet full cost recovery – a cap to that contradicts the rationale for full recovery. Also, if the fees are to be used to fund planning activity, then there would be no reason for doing so.
4.30 The government’s intention is that statutory planning fees should be the primary mechanism for resourcing planning services, with PPAs used where genuinely bespoke engagement, extended timescales or specialist input are required. Views are sought on how PPAs, pre-application advice and fast-track services should operate alongside localised fee setting.
What are your views on the future role of PPAs, pre-application advice and other discretionary charging regimes?
4.31 PPAs and pre-application advice are important mechanisms for managing complex applications, front loading and improving developer certainty. They also help provide timely decisions. They are a key element of customer service provided by Local Planning Authorities. The uptake and the payment of locally generated fees are a matter of customer choice. We therefore consider that they should continue as they are currently.
4.32 The consultation seeks views on whether any proposals may have differential impacts on groups with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, and what mitigation measures might be appropriate.
Do you have any views on the equality impacts of these proposals, and are there mitigation measures that should be considered?
4.33 We acknowledge that increased fees may create barriers for low‑income or vulnerable applicants, but suggest that mitigation should be addressed through national support mechanisms rather than fee reductions.
5.0 CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN AND RESPONSES
5.1 Officers from several teams have been involved with putting together this response. This has ensured that a comprehensive set of responses has been compiled, fully considering the effect of proposed changes for the council. There has been a high degree of consensus on how to respond.
6.0 CONTRIBUTION TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES
6.1 There is no impact on achieving council priorities relating to responding to the consultation.
7.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED
7.1 The alternative option would be not to submit a response. However, this is a matter that it is considered essential for the council to respond on; this alternative was discounted.
8.0 IMPACT ON OTHER SERVICES/ORGANISATIONS
8.1 There are no implications for other services or organisations in relation to responding to the consultation.
9.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
9.1 No financial implications have been identified arising specifically from responding to the consultation. However, there will clearly be financial implications arising from the final position taken by the Government.
10.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
10.1 There are no identified implications relating to legal matters from responding to the consultation.
11.0 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
11.1 There are no equalities implications from responding to the consultation. See Appendix A.
12.0 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS
12.1 No implications relating to climate change have been identified arising from responding to this consultation. See Appendix B.
13.0 PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
13.1 There are no identified implications relating to performance matters from responding to the consultation.
14.0 POLICY IMPLICATIONS
14.1 There are no identified implications relating to policy matters from responding to the consultation.
15.0 RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
15.1 No risk management implications have been identified arising from responding to the consultation.
16.0 HUMAN RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS
16.1 There are no implications relating to human resources from responding to the consultation.
17.0 ICT IMPLICATIONS
17.1 There are no implications relating to ICT from responding to the consultation.
18.0 COMMUNITY SAFETY IMPLICATIONS
18.1 No implications have been identified relating to community safety from responding to the consultation.
19.0 CONCLUSIONS
19.1 The new proposed approach represented by the National Default Fee Schedule represent a significant change to planning fees. In principle this approach is supported subject to the comments provided above.
20.0 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
20.1 To provide MHCLG with the Council’s response to the consultation.
|
21.0 |
RECOMMENDATION
|
|
21.1 |
That the Corporate Director Community Development approves the response set out in this report for submission to MHCLG.
|
APPENDICES:
Appendix A – Equality Impact Assessment Screening Form
Appendix B – Climate Change Impact Assessment Screening Form
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:
· Fees for Planning Applications
Report Author – Martin Grainger, Head of Development Management