Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 21st October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 day, 7 hours ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:30
16:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I call the minister to move the motion. Thank you, Sir John. It's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair. I beg to move that the committee has considered the draft town and country planning fees for applications deemed, applications, requests and site visits. England Amendment and Transitional Provision Regulations 2026. Sir John, the original draft regulations were laid before Parliament on the 16th of July, following the identification of omitted text affecting the calculation of two fee categories. They were withdrawn, corrected and relaid on the 1st of September. Local planning authorities are integral to delivering the new homes and infrastructure that our country needs, and the government appreciates fully that.
To do so, they require sufficient capacity and capability. Yet for too long, local planning authority, 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. It's for that reason that this government has invested significant sums to boost capacity and capability in local planning authorities. The Autumn budget 20 2024. The then Chancellor announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system as a one year settlement for 2020 526 at the budget on the 26th of November last year, the then chancellor announced a further £48 million of investment over three years to support local planning authorities to attract, retain and develop skilled planners over a sustained period.
Of this, 28.8 million has been allocated to Mhclg Planning Capacity and Capability Programme, equating to 9.6 million additional per year for the next three years, and this allocation will supplement existing budgets. In total, the programme now aims to deliver around 1325 planners by the end of this Parliament, significantly exceeding our original manifesto commitment to deliver 300 new planning officers. Wider cross-government recruitment and investment in planning capacity and capability will increase that figure further to approximately £4,400. Now, this new funding will support both graduate and mid-career entry routes into planning, including by means of expanding the Pathways to Planning graduate scheme.
But for local planning authorities, fees are an important contributor to resourcing requirements. Planning application fees are set nationally, and they're 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 2020 425, that has led to an estimated funding shortfall of £330 million per year. It means that local planning authorities are not adequately equipped to deliver an efficient planning service. That's why the government acted through regulations to increase planning fees for householders and introduce fees for certain minor applications from the 1st April last year.
And it's why our Landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act included powers to allow local planning authorities, subject to safeguards, to set their own planning fees through a local variation model. The regulations before us amend the town and country planning fees for applications deemed, applications, requests and Site Visits England Regulations 2012. Their objective, Sir John, is twofold first, to reduce funding shortfalls and improve the financial sustainability of local authority planning departments. They'll achieve this by providing a significant and immediate increase in funding for planning application services. Second, to establish a more robust baseline for the operation of future local fee setting arrangements, which will be implemented through separate regulations later this year.
I will give way. I thank the Minister for giving way.
To do so, they require sufficient capacity and capability. Yet for too long, local planning authority, 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. It's for that reason that this government has invested significant sums to boost capacity and capability in local planning authorities. The Autumn budget 20 2024. The then Chancellor announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system as a one year settlement for 2020 526 at the budget on the 26th of November last year, the then chancellor announced a further £48 million of investment over three years to support local planning authorities to attract, retain and develop skilled planners over a sustained period.
Of this, 28.8 million has been allocated to Mhclg Planning Capacity and Capability Programme, equating to 9.6 million additional per year for the next three years, and this allocation will supplement existing budgets. In total, the programme now aims to deliver around 1325 planners by the end of this Parliament, significantly exceeding our original manifesto commitment to deliver 300 new planning officers. Wider cross-government recruitment and investment in planning capacity and capability will increase that figure further to approximately £4,400. Now, this new funding will support both graduate and mid-career entry routes into planning, including by means of expanding the Pathways to Planning graduate scheme.
But for local planning authorities, fees are an important contributor to resourcing requirements. Planning application fees are set nationally, and they're 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 2020 425, that has led to an estimated funding shortfall of £330 million per year. It means that local planning authorities are not adequately equipped to deliver an efficient planning service. That's why the government acted through regulations to increase planning fees for householders and introduce fees for certain minor applications from the 1st April last year.
And it's why our Landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act included powers to allow local planning authorities, subject to safeguards, to set their own planning fees through a local variation model. The regulations before us amend the town and country planning fees for applications deemed, applications, requests and Site Visits England Regulations 2012. Their objective, Sir John, is twofold first, to reduce funding shortfalls and improve the financial sustainability of local authority planning departments. They'll achieve this by providing a significant and immediate increase in funding for planning application services. Second, to establish a more robust baseline for the operation of future local fee setting arrangements, which will be implemented through separate regulations later this year.
I will give way. I thank the Minister for giving way.
16:33
16:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I can come to address that more fully in my closing remarks, but we do expect the fees to be ring fenced. And he may recall we took powers in the Planning and Infrastructure Act to ensure that is the case, but I'll come on to set out a bit more detail in my. In my closing remarks, they will establish that baseline, Sir John, by providing for a national default fee that will continue to apply unless a local planning authority chooses to set a different fee to reflect its costs. Earlier this year, we carried out a consultation on fees for planning applications seeking views on a proposed national default fee schedule, including the appropriate level of fees, where the structural changes should be made to specific fee categories and the wider framework for local fee setting.
The feedback received indicated broad support across the sector for increasing fees, provided that the additional income is reinvested in planning application services and results in improved performance. The government is clear that additional funding should support measurable improvements in performance. We expect authorities to use this additional income to strengthen their planning application services, reduce delays and provide a better service for applicants, and we will, of course, continue to monitor performance through planning statistics and the existing planning performance regime. In general terms, Sir John, planning application fees typically account for less than 1% of overall development costs, while delays and uncertainty in the planning process can impose far greater costs on development and investment.
Ensuring that planning authorities are properly resourced is therefore in the interests of applicants, communities and the wider economy. However, it is of course important that any changes to planning fees strike the right balance, ensuring authorities can recover their costs while remaining proportionate for applicants and supporting continued investment and development. Having considered the consultation responses carefully, we think the revised schedule does just that, and let me just briefly set out the main changes made by these regulations. First, the regulations introduce a revised set of national fees, which we refer to as a national fees schedule. Fees will increase by varying amounts across existing application categories, with the aim of recovering approximately 90% of the estimated processing costs for each application type.
These increases are informed by benchmarking work undertaken by the Local Government Association and Planning Advisory Service, which showed that every application category currently operates below cost recovery. Increasing all fees to approximately 90% of estimated costs will provide a significant and immediate increase in funding for planning application services. We are not such. On moving to full cost recovery through a nationally set fee schedule. Because the cost of processing applications varies significantly between authorities, a uniform national fee set at 100% of estimated average costs could therefore lead to over recovery in some areas. Second, the regulations simplify and restructure selected fee categories.
This includes aligning the household fee thresholds with the medium sized development category introduced through the NPF, and simplifying the fee bands applying to certain agricultural minerals, waste and other operational development. These changes will make the national fee schedule clearer and easier for applicants and local planning authorities to operate. Third, the regulations introduce a standard fee of £310 for prior approval applications that currently attract no fee. Prior approval applications require local planning authorities to devote time and resources to their assessment, so it's right that applicants contribute towards those costs. As part of that third change, the regulations also enable the £310 fee to apply where prior approval is required for larger electricity substations.
The separate statutory instrument introducing that prior approval requirement was laid before Parliament on the 30th of September and comes into force on the 21st of October. Finally, the regulations correct emissions in the existing indexation indexation provisions. This ensures that mixed use outline application fees and the new standard prior approval fee are subject to annual inflationary increases in the same way as other planning application fees subject to parliamentary approval. Sir John, they will come into force on the 8th of December 2026. To conclude, these regulations will provide an immediate increase in funding for local planning authorities, support the government's wider programme of planning reform and establish a stronger baseline for the future operation of local fee setting powers.
In return, applicants should expect improved performance, more timely decisions and greater certainty across the planning system. A better resource planning system that is better able to deliver homes, infrastructure and growth that this country needs. And I commend the regulations to the Committee. Thank you.
The feedback received indicated broad support across the sector for increasing fees, provided that the additional income is reinvested in planning application services and results in improved performance. The government is clear that additional funding should support measurable improvements in performance. We expect authorities to use this additional income to strengthen their planning application services, reduce delays and provide a better service for applicants, and we will, of course, continue to monitor performance through planning statistics and the existing planning performance regime. In general terms, Sir John, planning application fees typically account for less than 1% of overall development costs, while delays and uncertainty in the planning process can impose far greater costs on development and investment.
Ensuring that planning authorities are properly resourced is therefore in the interests of applicants, communities and the wider economy. However, it is of course important that any changes to planning fees strike the right balance, ensuring authorities can recover their costs while remaining proportionate for applicants and supporting continued investment and development. Having considered the consultation responses carefully, we think the revised schedule does just that, and let me just briefly set out the main changes made by these regulations. First, the regulations introduce a revised set of national fees, which we refer to as a national fees schedule. Fees will increase by varying amounts across existing application categories, with the aim of recovering approximately 90% of the estimated processing costs for each application type.
These increases are informed by benchmarking work undertaken by the Local Government Association and Planning Advisory Service, which showed that every application category currently operates below cost recovery. Increasing all fees to approximately 90% of estimated costs will provide a significant and immediate increase in funding for planning application services. We are not such. On moving to full cost recovery through a nationally set fee schedule. Because the cost of processing applications varies significantly between authorities, a uniform national fee set at 100% of estimated average costs could therefore lead to over recovery in some areas. Second, the regulations simplify and restructure selected fee categories.
This includes aligning the household fee thresholds with the medium sized development category introduced through the NPF, and simplifying the fee bands applying to certain agricultural minerals, waste and other operational development. These changes will make the national fee schedule clearer and easier for applicants and local planning authorities to operate. Third, the regulations introduce a standard fee of £310 for prior approval applications that currently attract no fee. Prior approval applications require local planning authorities to devote time and resources to their assessment, so it's right that applicants contribute towards those costs. As part of that third change, the regulations also enable the £310 fee to apply where prior approval is required for larger electricity substations.
The separate statutory instrument introducing that prior approval requirement was laid before Parliament on the 30th of September and comes into force on the 21st of October. Finally, the regulations correct emissions in the existing indexation indexation provisions. This ensures that mixed use outline application fees and the new standard prior approval fee are subject to annual inflationary increases in the same way as other planning application fees subject to parliamentary approval. Sir John, they will come into force on the 8th of December 2026. To conclude, these regulations will provide an immediate increase in funding for local planning authorities, support the government's wider programme of planning reform and establish a stronger baseline for the future operation of local fee setting powers.
In return, applicants should expect improved performance, more timely decisions and greater certainty across the planning system. A better resource planning system that is better able to deliver homes, infrastructure and growth that this country needs. And I commend the regulations to the Committee. Thank you.
16:38
16:38
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as always, and I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the minister again, and I appreciate the marks he's already made in this debate. I also welcome the opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty's opposition to address these regulations. And British housebuilding is being buried, Sir John, by cumbersome and expensive regulations, layers of protocol, regulation and fiscal burdens are stifling housebuilding and inhibiting economic growth. The industry needs relief, not red tape. So I'm concerned to come here today to find the government proposing to increase planning fees and add yet another straw to the camel's already broken back.
I've reminded multiple ministers of the excessive costs and regulations that developers already find themselves saddled with, and I will keep on doing this until the government. For as long as the government fails to relieve the industry. According to the Home Builders Federation. At present, house builders are already facing more than £7,000 in taxes and levies, including £2,000 in landfill tax, £2,320 from the forthcoming building safety levy, £2,055 in other taxes and £985 from inflationary increases on existing charges, such as section 106 agreements. Moreover, developers face over £23,000 per property in regulatory costs, including 7700 £770 for putting regulations, 5700 for biodiversity net gain and 10,200 in costs linked to the Future Homes Standard.
And that is not the end. Indeed, under this government's watch, house builders will have seen material and labour costs reach heights of £37,000 per property, alongside costs of up to £7,000 in additional potential site specific elements like nutrition mitigation requirements. Taken together, the cumulative impact of the policy, taxation and regulatory pressures on home building means that it is so costly to build that for many companies, it no longer makes economic sense to do so. This has been evidenced recently by Taylor Wimpey decision to stop building new homes in London. Their chief executive, Jenny Daily, attributed this decision to the fact in London, and I quote, the baseline viability is fundamentally broken, with reward for developments having just evaporated in some cases.
Sir John, it is clear that the greatest barrier to unleashing a new wave of house building in England is viability. And it is even clearer that the biggest damage to viability comes from state regulation and taxes. Therefore, an effort to increase additional upfront costs for developers is an is an effort the opposition will oppose, and we will seek to divide on that point. However, it's not just the opposition that recognises the disproportionate impact that this policy has on developers, because the government's own impact assessment estimates increased fee revenue of 140 to 140 3 to £190 million a year if fees are increased to 90%.
Cost recovery, as is proposed by these regulations, with average undiscounted impacts amounting to costs of £141 million for businesses every year. But it isn't businesses alone, with another £3 million of additional costs for householders as a result of the fee increases. If house building is already so expensive, it rather begs the question why are the government doing this? What difference can the minister possibly present? Well, in both explanatory notes and in the other place, the government have claimed that increasing fees will strengthen capacity and capability across the planning services for a more efficient and speedier system, and the minister did so in his speech today.
Why local authorities all over the country are increasingly hard pressed financially, not least those who are the victims of the government's malicious so-called fair funding review. It would be no surprise to find this extra money funnelled elsewhere as they try to keep up with funding cuts, increase taxation and social care costs. After all, the government. The money this policy would raise is not ring fenced in answer to my hon. Friend, the Minister said that the government expects, I quote, expects that this money will be ring fenced and spent on planning. Well over the years. Sir John, those of us who've been in this place for a little while know that that is classic government speak.
It is not the same as requiring local authorities to do what the minister wants them to do. Therefore, we cannot guarantee with any certainty that this would benefit the planning system, nor that the money raised would even go towards planning applications at all. And a system that is not working does not need more barriers, such as hiked up costs, but streamlining and simplifying it needs fixing, not taxing. The opposition would welcome a simplified system. Clearer fee categories improve planning system performance and speedier decisions, but we believe this policy does not deliver on any of these targets.
This is because greater cost to developers means further weakened viability. Before we seek to divide, I hope the Minister will take the necessary time to address these concerns and answer a few of the questions they generate. Most importantly, will the Minister commit to a full review of building regulations to identify the most burdensome costs and red tape to cut before bringing in force any additional layers of expense? We on this side will be more than happy to help. After all, as my hon. Friend the member for Weald of Kent announced in Birmingham a couple of weeks ago, we have planned that, all in all will cut the cost of delivering and therefore buying a new home by up to £50,000.
Secondly, will the Minister commit to a planning system that supports the market rather than restrains it by exploring how we can avoid even more red tape in the future and end the culture of regulatory layering that currently pervades Whitehall. I look forward to the Minister's answers to these questions, and I would encourage all members present to vote against this cost of business and householders, and bring back and back British house building instead.
I've reminded multiple ministers of the excessive costs and regulations that developers already find themselves saddled with, and I will keep on doing this until the government. For as long as the government fails to relieve the industry. According to the Home Builders Federation. At present, house builders are already facing more than £7,000 in taxes and levies, including £2,000 in landfill tax, £2,320 from the forthcoming building safety levy, £2,055 in other taxes and £985 from inflationary increases on existing charges, such as section 106 agreements. Moreover, developers face over £23,000 per property in regulatory costs, including 7700 £770 for putting regulations, 5700 for biodiversity net gain and 10,200 in costs linked to the Future Homes Standard.
And that is not the end. Indeed, under this government's watch, house builders will have seen material and labour costs reach heights of £37,000 per property, alongside costs of up to £7,000 in additional potential site specific elements like nutrition mitigation requirements. Taken together, the cumulative impact of the policy, taxation and regulatory pressures on home building means that it is so costly to build that for many companies, it no longer makes economic sense to do so. This has been evidenced recently by Taylor Wimpey decision to stop building new homes in London. Their chief executive, Jenny Daily, attributed this decision to the fact in London, and I quote, the baseline viability is fundamentally broken, with reward for developments having just evaporated in some cases.
Sir John, it is clear that the greatest barrier to unleashing a new wave of house building in England is viability. And it is even clearer that the biggest damage to viability comes from state regulation and taxes. Therefore, an effort to increase additional upfront costs for developers is an is an effort the opposition will oppose, and we will seek to divide on that point. However, it's not just the opposition that recognises the disproportionate impact that this policy has on developers, because the government's own impact assessment estimates increased fee revenue of 140 to 140 3 to £190 million a year if fees are increased to 90%.
Cost recovery, as is proposed by these regulations, with average undiscounted impacts amounting to costs of £141 million for businesses every year. But it isn't businesses alone, with another £3 million of additional costs for householders as a result of the fee increases. If house building is already so expensive, it rather begs the question why are the government doing this? What difference can the minister possibly present? Well, in both explanatory notes and in the other place, the government have claimed that increasing fees will strengthen capacity and capability across the planning services for a more efficient and speedier system, and the minister did so in his speech today.
Why local authorities all over the country are increasingly hard pressed financially, not least those who are the victims of the government's malicious so-called fair funding review. It would be no surprise to find this extra money funnelled elsewhere as they try to keep up with funding cuts, increase taxation and social care costs. After all, the government. The money this policy would raise is not ring fenced in answer to my hon. Friend, the Minister said that the government expects, I quote, expects that this money will be ring fenced and spent on planning. Well over the years. Sir John, those of us who've been in this place for a little while know that that is classic government speak.
It is not the same as requiring local authorities to do what the minister wants them to do. Therefore, we cannot guarantee with any certainty that this would benefit the planning system, nor that the money raised would even go towards planning applications at all. And a system that is not working does not need more barriers, such as hiked up costs, but streamlining and simplifying it needs fixing, not taxing. The opposition would welcome a simplified system. Clearer fee categories improve planning system performance and speedier decisions, but we believe this policy does not deliver on any of these targets.
This is because greater cost to developers means further weakened viability. Before we seek to divide, I hope the Minister will take the necessary time to address these concerns and answer a few of the questions they generate. Most importantly, will the Minister commit to a full review of building regulations to identify the most burdensome costs and red tape to cut before bringing in force any additional layers of expense? We on this side will be more than happy to help. After all, as my hon. Friend the member for Weald of Kent announced in Birmingham a couple of weeks ago, we have planned that, all in all will cut the cost of delivering and therefore buying a new home by up to £50,000.
Secondly, will the Minister commit to a planning system that supports the market rather than restrains it by exploring how we can avoid even more red tape in the future and end the culture of regulatory layering that currently pervades Whitehall. I look forward to the Minister's answers to these questions, and I would encourage all members present to vote against this cost of business and householders, and bring back and back British house building instead.
16:44
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Mr.. Thank you, Sir John. I thank the Shadow Minister for his response and the questions he put to me before I address each of them. In turn, I just want to reinforce a general point I made, Sir John, concerning the rationale for these regulations. As it stands, based on the most recent local government spending data for 2024, 25 councils are facing an estimated funding shortfall of £330 million per year as a result of the gap between the fees that they are able to charge and the cost of processing and determining planning applications. And I think it is entirely reasonable and the principle of the matter that we seek to close that gap so that local authorities are able to deliver a timely service.
The shadow minister spoke at some length about viability, pressures and the role that regulations have played in those viability pressures. I gently say to him, in lots of the regulations that we are either bringing into force or that were in force, were introduced by his government. Second staircase is a good example. We recognise that developers must meet a range of costs when bringing forward development. We are acutely aware that viability pressures remain very pressing in many parts of the country. London is a very good example and that they have become, in many cases, more acute over recent months as a result of the conflict in the Middle East.
He will know the statistics when it comes to an increase in, for example, buildings, materials, costs that all developers are facing. But I come back to the point I made in my opening remarks. Sir John. Planning application fees are typically a very small proportion of overall development costs. The purpose of these regulations to ensure that planning applications and services are properly resourced so that they can process applications efficiently. Because there is a cost to delays in planning applications to services that are not efficient. And so I would argue that ensuring that local planning authorities can make those high quality and timely decisions can support viability and investment just as much as keeping application fees proportionate.
Yes, Gareth.
The shadow minister spoke at some length about viability, pressures and the role that regulations have played in those viability pressures. I gently say to him, in lots of the regulations that we are either bringing into force or that were in force, were introduced by his government. Second staircase is a good example. We recognise that developers must meet a range of costs when bringing forward development. We are acutely aware that viability pressures remain very pressing in many parts of the country. London is a very good example and that they have become, in many cases, more acute over recent months as a result of the conflict in the Middle East.
He will know the statistics when it comes to an increase in, for example, buildings, materials, costs that all developers are facing. But I come back to the point I made in my opening remarks. Sir John. Planning application fees are typically a very small proportion of overall development costs. The purpose of these regulations to ensure that planning applications and services are properly resourced so that they can process applications efficiently. Because there is a cost to delays in planning applications to services that are not efficient. And so I would argue that ensuring that local planning authorities can make those high quality and timely decisions can support viability and investment just as much as keeping application fees proportionate.
Yes, Gareth.
16:46
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you very much. I don't doubt the minister's sincerity on that point at all. But taking it back to what I said in my remarks, the government is expecting something to happen is not the same as the government requiring it to happen. So in the event that that doesn't happen, what steps will the government take to make sure that it does?
16:46
16:46
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And I will come to that, and I will specifically answer the point on on ring fencing as well, because I think the minister slightly misrepresented shadow Minister, sorry, slightly misrepresented my response to to the honourable gentleman on a related point in terms of viability, and he sort of tempts me to stray way beyond the the regulations that are that are in front of us. But it is important to say that we obviously consulted on the fee schedule that we're discussing. We received 173 responses to that consultation. Overall, 59% of respondents supported the proposed national fee schedule.
Support included 68% of local planning authorities and 52% of respondents there is support for the fee increases out there provided, as I said, that those fee increases result in an improved service, specifically in terms of ring fencing, the government is clear that planning fee should be invested in planning application services, the Planning Infrastructure Act, and this is where I sort of slightly take issue with the shadow minister saying that we're just relying on, you know, the pressure, moral suasion to to ensure that planning departments do that. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 introduces a statutory ring fencing requirement to ensure that fee income is retained and applied to the delivery of the planning function.
Once commenced, the ring fencing measures will come into force through separate regulations at the same time as the local fee setting. Measures that I've mentioned earlier are introduced, and the ring fencing duty will apply, regardless of whether fees have been set nationally or locally, so he can be assured in due course. As soon as we've commenced those regulations that that ring fencing will apply. But while those provisions are not in force, the government expectation remains that planning fee income should be reinvested into planning application services. But once we have commenced those regulations, it will not be an option for those authorities in terms of general planning performance.
He will know that we monitor through planning statistics and our planning performance regime, which is in place. Many of his colleagues have squirmed at their own local authorities being put on to that performance regime for not making timely decisions, not having the performance required. We'll continue to monitor where we need to intervene using the powers available for individual local authorities. But to conclude, Sir John, these regulations are a key step towards improving local planning authority resourcing, enabling faster decision making, higher service standards and stronger overall performance across the planning system. They will facilitate, as I've said, an immediate funding uplift for all local planning authorities and by providing for a new national fee schedule, will provide a more robust baseline for the operation of future local fee setting arrangements, which will come to debate on a future statutory instrument.
A fast, effective and reliable planning service is essential to support housing delivery, economic growth and the provision of infrastructure. These regulations will ensure that local planning authorities are sufficiently resourced to determine applications in a timely and high quality manner, and I commend them to the Committee.
Support included 68% of local planning authorities and 52% of respondents there is support for the fee increases out there provided, as I said, that those fee increases result in an improved service, specifically in terms of ring fencing, the government is clear that planning fee should be invested in planning application services, the Planning Infrastructure Act, and this is where I sort of slightly take issue with the shadow minister saying that we're just relying on, you know, the pressure, moral suasion to to ensure that planning departments do that. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 introduces a statutory ring fencing requirement to ensure that fee income is retained and applied to the delivery of the planning function.
Once commenced, the ring fencing measures will come into force through separate regulations at the same time as the local fee setting. Measures that I've mentioned earlier are introduced, and the ring fencing duty will apply, regardless of whether fees have been set nationally or locally, so he can be assured in due course. As soon as we've commenced those regulations that that ring fencing will apply. But while those provisions are not in force, the government expectation remains that planning fee income should be reinvested into planning application services. But once we have commenced those regulations, it will not be an option for those authorities in terms of general planning performance.
He will know that we monitor through planning statistics and our planning performance regime, which is in place. Many of his colleagues have squirmed at their own local authorities being put on to that performance regime for not making timely decisions, not having the performance required. We'll continue to monitor where we need to intervene using the powers available for individual local authorities. But to conclude, Sir John, these regulations are a key step towards improving local planning authority resourcing, enabling faster decision making, higher service standards and stronger overall performance across the planning system. They will facilitate, as I've said, an immediate funding uplift for all local planning authorities and by providing for a new national fee schedule, will provide a more robust baseline for the operation of future local fee setting arrangements, which will come to debate on a future statutory instrument.
A fast, effective and reliable planning service is essential to support housing delivery, economic growth and the provision of infrastructure. These regulations will ensure that local planning authorities are sufficiently resourced to determine applications in a timely and high quality manner, and I commend them to the Committee.
16:49
16:49
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:51