Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 General Committees

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, as always. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate the remarks he has made. I also welcome the opportunity to speak to the draft regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition.

British house building is being buried by cumbersome and expensive regulation. Layers of protocol regulation and fiscal burdens are stifling house building and inhibiting economic growth. The industry needs relief, not red tape, so I am concerned to find the Government proposing to increase planning fees and add yet another straw to the camel’s already broken back. I have reminded multiple Ministers of the excessive costs and regulations that developers already find themselves saddled with. I will keep on doing so for as long as the Government fail to relieve the industry.

According to the Home Builders Federation, house builders already face 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 more than £23,000 per property in regulatory costs, including £7,770 for building regulations, £5,700 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, such as 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’s decision to stop building new homes in London. Its chief executive, Jennie Daly, attributed this decision to the fact that in London:

“Baseline viability is…fundamentally broken”.

She said that reward for development has “just evaporated” in some cases.

It is clear that the greatest barrier to unleashing a new wave of house building in England is viability. It is even clearer that the biggest damage to viability comes from state regulation and taxes. The Opposition therefore oppose efforts to increase additional up-front costs for developers. We will seek to divide the Committee on that point.

It is not just the Opposition who recognise the disproportionate impact of the policy on developers: the Government’s own impact assessment estimates an increased fee revenue of £143 million to £190 million a year if fees are increased to 90% cost recovery, as proposed by the regulations, with average undiscounted impacts amounting to costs of £141 million for businesses every year. It is also not businesses alone that are affected, with another £3 million of additional costs for householders as a result of the fee increases.

The fact that house building is already so expensive rather begs the question of why the Government are doing this. What defence can the Minister possibly present? In both the 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. The Minister also made that claim in his speech. Why? Local authorities all over the country are increasingly hard pressed financially, not least those that are the victims of the Government’s malicious so-called fair funding review.

It would be no surprise to find the extra money funnelled elsewhere as the Government try to keep up with funding cuts, increased taxation and social care costs. After all, the money the policy will raise is not ringfenced. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, the Minister said the Government “expect” that the money will be ringfenced and spent on planning. Those of us who have been in this place for a little while know that is classic Government-speak; it is not the same as requiring local authorities to do what the Minister wants them to do. We therefore cannot guarantee with any certainty that this change will benefit the planning system or that the money raised will even go towards planning applications.

A system that is not working does not need more barriers, such as hiked-up costs; it needs streamlining and simplifying. It needs fixing, not taxing. The Opposition would welcome a simplified system, clearer fee categories, improved planning system performance and speedier decisions, but we believe the policy does not deliver on any of those targets, because greater cost to developers means further weakened viability.

Before we seek to divide the Committee, I hope the Minister will take the time to address our 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 into force any additional layers of expense? We on the Opposition Benches would be more than happy to help. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) announced in Birmingham a couple of weeks ago, we have a plan that, all in all, will cut the cost of delivering and therefore buying a new home by up to £50,000.

Will the Minister also commit to a planning system that supports rather than restrains the market, 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 those questions. I encourage all Members present to vote against this cost to business and householders, and to back British house building instead.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for his response and the questions he put to me. Before I address each of them in turn, I want to reinforce a general point that I made concerning the rationale for the 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 they are able to charge and the cost of processing and determining planning applications. It is entirely reasonable, on 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 of regulations in those pressures. I gently say to him that lots of the regulations either that we are bringing into force or that were in force were introduced by his Government—the requirement for second staircases 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 pressing in many parts of the country—London is a 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. The shadow Minister will know the statistics when it comes to the increase in, for example, building materials costs that all developers are facing.

I come back, though, to the point I made in my opening remarks. Planning application fees are typically a very small proportion of overall development costs. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that planning application services are properly resourced so that they can process applications efficiently, because there is a cost to delays resulting from planning application services that are not efficient. I argue that by ensuring that local planning authorities can make high-quality and timely decisions we can support viability and investment, just as much as by keeping application fees proportionate.

[Gareth Bacon]

I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity on that point but, to take him back to what I said in my speech, the Government expecting something to happen is not the same as their requiring it to happen. If that does not happen, what steps will the Government take to make sure that it does?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come to that, and I will answer the specific point on ringfencing as well, because I think the shadow Minister slightly misrepresented my response to the hon. Member for Broxbourne.

On a related point about viability—the shadow Minister tempts me to stray way beyond the the regulations before us—it is important to say that we consulted on the fee schedule that we are discussing. We received 173 responses to that consultation and, overall, 59% of respondents supported the proposed national fee schedule. The support included 68% of local planning authorities and 52% of developer respondents. There is, then, support out there for the fee increases, provided, as I said, that they result in an improved service.

On ringfencing, the Government are clear that planning fee income should be invested in planning application services. I slightly take issue with the shadow Minister saying that we are just relying on moral suasion to ensure that planning departments do that. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 introduced a statutory ringfencing requirement to ensure that fee income is retained and applied to the delivery of the planning function. The ringfencing measures will come into force through separate regulations at the same time as the local fee-setting measures I mentioned earlier are introduced.

The ringfencing duty will apply regardless of whether fees have been set nationally or locally, so the shadow Minister can be assured that, in due course, as soon as we have commenced those regulations, the ringfencing will apply. While those provisions are not in force, the Government expectation remains that planning fee income should be reinvested into planning application services. Once we have commenced those regulations, that will not be an option for authorities.

On general planning performance, the shadow Minister will know that we monitor through planning statistics and our planning performance regime. Many of his colleagues have squirmed at their local authorities being put on to that performance regime for not making timely decisions and not performing as required. We will continue to monitor where we need to intervene using the powers available for us in respect of individual local authorities.

To conclude, the regulations are a key step towards improving local planning authority resourcing, thereby enabling faster decision making, higher service standards and stronger overall performance across the planning system. As I have said, they will facilitate an immediate funding uplift for all local planning authorities and, by providing for a new national fee schedule, provide a more robust baseline for the operation of future local fee-setting arrangements, which we will debate in respect of a future statutory instrument. A fast, effective and reliable planning service is essential to support housing delivery, economic growth and the provision of infrastructure. The regulations will ensure that local planning authorities are sufficiently resourced to determine applications in a timely and high-quality manner. I commend them to the Committee.

Question put.