LGA Submission to DLUHC’s Stronger performance of local planning authorities supported through an increase in planning fees technical consultation

The LGA is the national voice of local government. We are a politically-led, cross party membership organisation, representing councils from England and Wales.

Our role is to support, promote and improve local government, and raise national awareness of the work of councils. Our ultimate ambition is to support councils to deliver local solutions to national problems.

• The LGA welcome the Government’s intention to reduce the funding shortfall for the planning application service and create greater financial sustainability for all local planning authorities.
• We welcome the proposal to increase planning application fees. However, our modelling has shown that even if all application fees were uplifted by 35 per cent, the overall national shortfall for 2020/21 would have remained above £80 million. Councils must have the flexibility to set planning fees at local level to cover their costs relating to planning, which could include the employment of additional qualified planners. This would put councils in a stronger position to address the skills and capacity challenges in planning departments.
• Planning fees do not cover the true cost of processing planning applications. In 2020/21, 305 out of 343 local planning authority planning departments operated in a deficit, which totalled £245.4 million. Taxpayers substantially subsidise the cost of the planning system. Councils need the ability to recover the costs of processing applications, and therefore should be able to charge an appropriate fee.
• Overall, there is a significant challenge in resourcing local planning authority teams. Councils all over England are struggling to recruit planners and those with necessary specific skills, and teams are shrinking only increasing the workload and toll on those remaining. We would urge the Government to recognise that increasing planning fees will not automatically decrease the number of vacancies across the country, nor will it solve historic issues of staff retention.
• It is too simple to equate speed of decision-making with the quality of decisions from local authorities. We have wider concerns and questions about the proposals for speed in decision-making metrics. We would be keen to find out more about how the Government intend to use this data helpfully and better support outcomes for planning departments, rather than using them crudely as a means of applying potential sanctions.

Question 1. Do you agree that fees for planning applications should be increased by 35 per cent for major applications?

Whilst we are broadly supportive of a 35 per cent increase in the fee for major planning applications, for the majority of authorities in England, this uplift still does not bridge the shortfall for planning departments in assessing these applications.

The number of major applications and the scale of development attributed to them varies across all local authorities, and therefore the impact of a 35 per cent increase in fees will have a different impact across the country.

The LGA have undertaken high-level modelling of the impacts of planning fee increases using total income and total expenditure for Development Control as reported in the Revenue Outturn Cultural, Environmental, Regulatory and Planning Services (RO5) data for 2020/21. Our modelling shows that even if all application type fees were uplifted by 35 pe cent, the overall national shortfall for 2020/21 would have remained above £80 million.

There are no defining features between which authorities operate in surplus and which in deficit. Authorities with very different geographic make-ups such as a National Park authority in the south and a large city in the northeast both have funding shortfalls at £4.7million and £3.9 million respectively per annum. However, these authorities would require different percentage uplifts in planning application fees in order to reach equilibrium between application fee income and department expenditure – 315 per cent DOUBLECHECK PERCENTAGE for the national park authority and 78 per cent for the northeast city.

If the Government is serious about bridging the gap between income and expenditure in planning departments, and ensuring local authorities have sufficient financial capacity to determine applications in a timely manner and deliver better quality planning outcomes, then councils must have the flexibility to set planning fees at local level.

Question 2. Do you agree that the fee for householder planning applications should be increased by 25 per cent?

Whilst we are broadly supportive of a 25 per cent increase in the fee for householder planning applications, for the majority of authorities in England, this uplift still does not bridge the shortfall for planning departments in assessing these applications.

Householder applications make up the majority of planning application types that local authorities determine across the country – in 2022 householder applications accounted for well over 50 per cent of all applications nationally (217,772 decisions out of 385,758). It is routinely observed by our members that the fee paid for householder applications does not cover the true cost of assessing those applications. Benchmarking research from the Planning Advisory Service in 2015 shows that the average cost of processing a householder application was £408, compared to the £131 fee (at the time). Even with the uplift in fees, we are concerned that the determination of householder applications will remain a cost-negative service at local authorities.    

The LGA have undertaken high-level modelling of the impacts of planning fee increases using total income and total expenditure for Development Control as reported in the Revenue Outturn Cultural, Environmental, Regulatory and Planning Services (RO5) data for 2020/21. Our modelling shows that even if all application fees were uplifted by 25 per cent, the overall national shortfall for 2020/21 would have remained above £125 million.

If the Government is serious about bridging the gap between income and expenditure in planning departments, and ensuring local authorities have sufficient financial capacity to determine applications in a timely manner and deliver better quality planning outcomes, then councils must have the flexibility to set planning fees at local level.

Question 3. Do you agree that fees for all other planning applications should be increased by 25 per cent? If not, please include in the comments box the particular application types where you believe the proposed increase is too high or too low. Your comments should be accompanied with evidence/costs if possible.

We would reiterate that whilst we are welcoming of planning fee increases, councils must have the flexibility to set planning fees at local level to cover their costs relating to planning.

Question 4. Are there any other application types or planning services which are currently not charged for but should require a fee or for which the current fee level or structure is inadequate?

Councils need the ability to recover the costs of processing prior approval notifications, associated with the exercise of permitted development rights (PD), and therefore should be able to charge a commensurate fee. In a survey conducted by the LGA in 2018 nearly 85 per cent of councils responded that the cost of administering each prior approval process was considerably higher than the current £96 fee set by the Government.

The Government’s own research highlights that the loss of planning fees when assessing prior approval notifications is problematic for local authorities. The interpretation of prior approval processes can be subjective, and with burgeoning case law can create uncertainties which can increase resource required to adequately assess notifications. Further, PD adds another level of confusion for members of the public to understand, introducing added complexities which contradict the public’s flexible perception of planning, and can therefore exacerbate levels of communication and engagement required with the public and neighbours for certain schemes. The research also notes that owing to tighter deadlines for decisions, applications coming through the standard planning system can be delayed as prior approvals are prioritised.

We call on the Government to urgently revoke permitted development rights in order to strengthen the role of local plans and local communities in decision-making.

Further, we would highlight the importance of planning enforcement activities in upholding the integrity of the planning system. Planning enforcement activities are not income generating, and yet they are both politically and publicly demanding and provide the foundation on which the planning system and legislation are held. The RTPI’s research shows that 89 per cent of planning departments are experiencing an enforcement backlog, and 80 per cent of authorities do not have the staff to meet workload demands.

The research also highlighted that:

Difficulties with running the enforcement service under its current obligations also have implications where Government is considering adding new burdens such as the incoming policy of Biodiversity Net Gain. The current situation faced by enforcement teams is hugely challenging as low skills, a lack of staff and tight financial constraints have weakened the service”.

Question 5. Please can you provide examples of bespoke or ‘fast track’ services which have worked well or you think could be introduced for an additional fee? Are there any schemes that have been particularly effective?

Individual local authorities will be well-placed to provide positive examples of bespoke or ‘fast track’ services including pre-application advice and Planning Performance Agreements (PPAs). The Planning Advisory Service has recently published a best practice guidance for pre-application advice and PPAs, in partnership with the University of Gloucestershire, Hyas and the Countryside and Community Research Institute, which identifies 10 principles for successful pre-application and PPA services.

The success of these services and the ability to charge a commensurate fee set at the local level, in our opinion, go hand in hand and we would urge the Government to consider the ability for local authorities to set planning fees locally as well.

Question 6. Do you agree with the proposal for all planning fees to be adjusted annually in line with inflation?

Yes. We agree that, if planning fees are set and regulated centrally, then they should be adjusted annually in line inflation to take account rising costs and salary burdens of local authorities. This annual increase should be calculated in the same way as those fees in the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning regime, on the basis of the 12-month Consumer Price Index rate.

We are supportive of the Government’s intention to review fee levels no later than three years following implementation of the proposals in this consultation, however it may be appropriate to monitor over those three years and begin a review earlier, if appropriate. The Government should consider the effectiveness and impact of the fees increase on local government funding shortfalls, and remain open to consider the need for authorities to set their fees locally.

Question 7. Do you consider that the additional income arising from the proposed fee increase should be ringfenced for spending within the local authority planning department?

The LGA believes that local authorities are best placed to make decisions about funding local services, including planning departments. The decision to ringfence funding should be made at the local authority level, based on the individual funding gap (or surplus) their planning department is in.

That being said, local authority planning departments have borne the brunt of budget cuts since 2010. Between 2009/10 and 2020/21, local authority net spending per person on planning dropped by 59 per cent, the highest of any service, according to calculations by the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank. The RTPI says that net expenditure by planning authorities dropped from £844m in 2009/10 to £480m in 2020/21.

Question 8. Do you agree that the fee for retrospective applications should be doubled, that is increased by 100 per cent, for all applications except for householder applications?

We support the proposal to double the fee for retrospective planning applications, though it should apply to all application types including householder. We are mindful that this should not be seen as punitive however householder applications make up the majority of retrospective planning applications for local authorities, and their current fee level does not come close to covering the true cost of their determination.

Retrospective planning applications often involve prior work from local authorities, such as enforcement officers reviewing reports of potential breaches, site visits and determining need for retrospective applications. As this enforcement work has no fee attributed to it, increasing retrospective planning application fees could help towards funding enforcement services.

Increasing retrospective application fees by 100 per cent across all application types may also help to discourage unauthorised development.

Question 9. Do you consider that the ability for a ‘free-go’ for repeat applications should be either: a) removed b) reduced for re-applications within 12 months c) retained d) none of the above e) don’t know. Please give your reasons.

As these applications require a second determination, though potentially likely to not be as stringent as the first, we believe the ‘free-go’ should be reconsidered as a reduced fee if re-submitted within 12 months (of determination). This would ensure development, which has taken on board feedback from planning officers, continues to come forward and that some of the costs of re-determination can be recouped, as well as ensuring that the highest quality development and outcomes come forward.

We would be happy to engage with Government further to determine an appropriate reduced rate for repeat applications.  

Question 10. Do you agree that a fee of £96 (or £120 if the proposed fee increase comes forward) should be charged for any prior approval application for development by the Crown on a closed defence site?

Councils need the ability to recover the costs of processing prior approval notifications, associated with the exercise of permitted development rights (PD), and therefore should be able to charge a commensurate fee. In a survey conducted by the LGA in 2018 nearly 85 per cent of councils responded that the cost of administering each prior approval process was considerably higher than the current £96 fee set by the Government.

The LGA call on the Government to urgently revoke permitted development rights in order to strengthen the role of local plans and local communities in decision-making. Notwithstanding this position, we believe that a commensurate fee should be charged on all prior approval notifications regardless of application or location of development.

Question 11. What do you consider to be the greatest skills and expertise gaps within local planning authorities?

Overall, there is a significant challenge in resourcing local planning authority teams. Councils all over England are struggling to recruit planners, and teams are shrinking, only increasing the workload and toll on those remaining.

Our members report to us that one of the greatest challenges they face is retention of staff or preventing the ‘brain drain’ to the private sector, particularly with graduates and more senior staff, who are incentivised by higher pay and working conditions.

The picture is further complicated by local authorities becoming reliant on agency staff, fully qualified planners who work on a temporary contract at local authorities earning a far more significant salary than those on full-time contracts. This can result in low morale for other members of the team.

Alongside difficulties in recruiting and retaining town planners, there is a much more significant challenge for recruitment and retention with relation to specific planning skills and areas of expertise, such as enforcement, urban design, viability, heritage, ecology and legal. This results in local authorities either relying on the evidence provided by the applicant or determining which applications’ evidence should be challenged or verified by paying for specialist consultancy advice; totalling far more than an in-house expert.

We would urge the Government to recognise that increasing planning fees will not automatically decrease the number of vacancies across the country, nor will it solve historic issues of staff retention.

Question 12. In addition to increasing planning fees, in what other ways could the Government support greater capacity and capability within local planning departments and pathways into the profession? Please provide examples of existing good practice or initiatives if possible.

We support the work of Public Practice who place built environment professionals into local planning authorities. Often these professionals have specific skills related to urban design, housing, heritage or conservation. The allocation of £1million in funding from DLUHC to Public Practice is a step in the right direction towards ensuring local authorities have sufficient capacity. However it is not the complete solution. One additional member of staff will not be sufficient to tackle the gap in expertise or the scale on which that expertise is required in all planning departments.

More must be done to ensure that all local authorities that require or desire urban design or place-making expertise can recruit and retain these staff. We call on the Government to bring forward their planning skills strategy urgently.

Question 13. How do you suggest we encourage people from under-represented groups, including women and ethnic minority groups, to become planning professionals?

There are barriers to the planning profession which may discourage women and those from ethnic minority groups becoming planning professionals.

The RTPI’s report on ‘Women and Planning’ suggests that there are many barriers to women’s success and advancement in the planning profession that are not experienced by their male counterparts. These included ‘masculine’ cultures and norms, sexism and gender-based discrimination when returning from maternity leave. Other aspects to the profession that may prevent women joining or advancing include lone-working concerns on site visits or hostility from applicants or the public.

Evening meetings can also be a barrier for women if they are also a parent or having caring responsibilities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, specific legislation was passed to allow councils to meet virtually. This had the benefit of lowering the barriers of engagement for many people who would find in-person attendance prohibitive. The benefits of virtual meetings were numerous, and the sector widely agrees that failing to extend or make this flexibility permanent in 2021 was a retrograde step. The LGA urgently calls for legislation to allow councils the flexibility to use virtual or hybrid meeting options.

The LGA and Government Equalities Office collaborated in 2020/21 to deliver Return to Work – Planning. It helped people with prior knowledge, experience, and skills in Planning to return to work following a career break and gave councils a chance to fill vacancies. Supporting these schemes in the future would help encourage more women back into work after a career break.

The planning profession is not representative of the diverse population it serves. Encouraging more black and ethnic minority groups into the profession will help ensure local planning department teams more readily understand and respond to communities concerns and address the different ways in which their population use their places.

The Government’s initiative Pathway to Planning, launched in 2003, aimed to increase the number of black and minority ethnic people working in the planning system. The BAME Planners Network has released a documentary showcasing examples 20 years on; highlighting what went well and what more needs to be done.

The Government should also give consideration to the traditional routes through which planners enter the profession, mainly through attending university and undertaking Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) accredited degrees. Nearly three quarters of students on architecture, building and planning related degrees in 2020/21 were white.

Question 14. Do you agree that the Planning Guarantee should better mirror the statutory determination period for a planning application and be set at 16 weeks for non-major applications and retained at 26 weeks for major applications? Please give your reasons.

We support the retention of a Planning Guarantee at 26 weeks for major applications. We would highlight to Government that there has been a considerable increase in the number of minor and householder applications during and since the pandemic. These applications make up the majority of officer caseloads and the financial consequences of changing the Planning Guarantee of these applications may be considerable for some local authorities.

Question 15. Do you agree that the performance of local planning authorities for speed of decision-making should be assessed on the percentage of applications that are determined within the statutory determination period i.e. excluding extension of times and Planning Performance Agreements? Please give your reasons.

No – given the extreme resourcing and capacity issues experienced in local authorities across the country (highlighted in our response to Questions 11 and 12 of this consultation), we do not agree that the performance of local planning authorities for speed of decision-making should be assessed on the percentage of applications that are determined within the statutory determination period until such a time as local authorities are not only funded but also resourced appropriately.

Extension of Time (EoT) agreements and Planning Performance Agreements play a key role in managing resources in local planning authorities. Their use should be continued as they are often required to deal with exceptional circumstances. An example of when an EoT agreement may be required is when there are delays in consultation from statutory consultees for applications on which their input is critical – thus ensuring a more complete response to an application and better outcome from potential development.

It is too simple to equate speed of decision-making with the quality of decisions from local authorities. The proposed increases to planning fees will not immediately remove both the backlog in applications to be determined nor fill the vacant positions across planning departments. The RTPI’s “Measuring What Matters” project resulted in development of a report and series of toolkits to improve local authority planning outcomes measurement.

We have wider concerns and questions about the proposals for speed in decision-making metrics. We would be keen to find out more about how the Government intend to use this data helpfully and better support outcomes for planning departments, rather than using them crudely as a means of applying potential sanctions.

Question 16. Do you agree that performance should be assessed separately for a) Major applications b) Non-Major applications (excluding householder applications) c) Householder applications d) Discharge of conditions e) County matters applications. Please give your reasons. If no, please indicate which application types should be and should not be assessed and give your reasons for this.

Yes – notwithstanding our response to Question 15, performance should be assessed separately for the outlined application types.  

Question 17. Do you consider that any of the proposed quantitative metrics should not be included? Please give your reasons and, if appropriate, state the metric letter(s) and number(s) that you believe should not be included.

Local authorities have a duty to investigate alleged breaches of planning but enforcement action is discretionary. Owing to resourcing issues and inability to recruit and/or retain relevant enforcement staff, not all local authorities have the resource to act on all breaches or potential breaches. We therefore do not agree that metric E2 “average number of weeks to take action where a breach of planning has occurred having decided it is expedient to do so” is appropriate.

We are not convinced that proposed metric F1 “percentage of delegated decisions and committee decisions” is sophisticated enough to illustrate why decisions are made at either delegated or committee level; without additional qualitative detail behind each statistic (or input into each statistic) it may be an entirely unhelpful or impractical metric. Further, the collection of such detail is likely to be burdensome for local authorities.

We are keen to understand further the Government’s intention of collecting data against metric F2, “percentage of committee decisions to refuse against officer recommendation that are subsequently allowed at appeal”.

The Government should consider the number and purpose of the metrics proposed, and if any result in additional burdens for local authorities, should re-imburse the monitoring and administrative costs of doing so. These costs should not be recouped as part of the proposed increase in planning fees in this consultation.

Question 18. Are there any quantitative metrics that have not been included that should be? Please indicate what additional quantitative metrics you consider should be included.

We do not consider there to be any further quantitative metrics required.

Question 19. Do you support the introduction of a qualitative metric that measures customer experience? Please give your reasons.

We are concerned that measuring customer experience may be contentious and self-fulfilling based on the outcome of planning decisions. We are also unconvinced of the necessity of such a metric, or what part it plays in the wider planning system.

The introduction of any qualitative metric measuring customer experience should not result in additional burdens for local authorities – through data collection, monitoring or back-office systems. If the Government were to pursue the introduction of a customer experience metric, we would be willing to work with the relevant departments to develop the metric and ensure local authorities’ burdens are not increased.

Question 20. What do you consider would be the best metric(s) for measuring customer experience?

Notwithstanding our response to Question 19, in that we are not convinced of the need to introduce a metric to measure customer experience, the LGA would be willing to work with the relevant Government departments to develop the metric and ensure local authorities’ burdens are not increased through the metrics collection.

Question 21. Are there any other ways in which the performance of local planning authorities or level of community engagement could be improved?

We support the digitisation of the planning system and the pilot schemes the Government have been implementing which aim to improve community engagement in local areas, ensuring the volume and diversity of those who engage with the planning system increases.

Question 22. Do you have any views on the implications of the proposals in this consultation for you, or the group or business you represent, and on anyone with a relevant protected characteristic? If so, please explain who, which groups, including those with protected characteristics, or which businesses may be impacted and how. Is there anything that could be done to mitigate any impact identified?

The Government’s intention to increase the number of women and people from minority ethnic backgrounds into professional planning careers will have positive implications for those with protected characteristics.