Open consultation

Fees for planning applications

Published 23 March 2026

Applies to England

Scope of the consultation

This consultation seeks views on proposals to:

• establish a new national default fee schedule, based on 90% of estimated costs, to bring planning fees to a level closer to cost recovery and act as a baseline from which a new local fee setting model will operate
• introduce new fees and restructure existing fee categories in order to reduce complexity for users
• implement a surcharge on planning fees for statutory consultees, set in the region of 10% of the national default fee
• establish the key principles behind local fee setting, as well as seek views on the potential to implement a cap on locally set fees
• review the future role of discretionary services such as Planning Performance Agreements and pre-application advice in light of proposed increases to default fees and the introduction of the local variation model

Geographical scope

These proposals relate to England only.

Impact assessment

We will use feedback from the consultation to inform our assessment of the impact of the measures.

Body responsible for the consultation

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Duration

This consultation will last for 8 weeks from 23 March 2026 to 18 May 2026.

Enquiries

For any enquiries about the consultation please email: planningfees@communities.gov.uk

How to respond

You may respond by completing the online survey.

We strongly encourage responses via the online survey, particularly from organisations with access to online facilities, such as local authorities, representative bodies, and businesses. 

Consultations on planning matters receive a high level of interest across many sectors. Using the online survey greatly assists our analysis of the responses, enabling more efficient and effective consideration of the issues raised for each question.

Alternatively you can email your response to the questions in this consultation to: planningfees@communities.gov.uk

If you are responding in writing, please make it clear which questions you are responding to.

Written responses should be sent to:

Fees for Planning Applications Consultation
Third Floor, Fry Building
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

When you reply it would be very useful if you confirm whether you are replying as an individual or submitting an official response on behalf of an organisation and include:

• your name

• your position (if applicable)

• the name of organisation (if applicable)

• an address (including post-code)

• an email address

• a contact telephone number

Introduction and background

Ensuring local planning authorities (LPAs) have the resources they need to deliver timely, high-quality planning decisions is essential to achieving our mission to unlock economic growth and deliver 1.5 million new homes this Parliament. A new National Default Fee Schedule, designed to better reflect the costs LPAs incur, is a key step towards better resourcing LPAs and driving better outcomes including faster determination times, improved service standards and stronger performance across the planning system.

Planning application fees are currently set nationally in England by central government to help LPAs meet the costs of determining applications. These fees will be increased in line with inflation from 1 April 2026. However, even with this adjustment and earlier uplifts there remains a substantial gap between fee income and service costs. In 2024/25, the annual shortfall is estimated to be around £330 million. This underfunding limits LPA capacity, leading to delays and poorer decision-making.

The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 introduced new powers for local fee setting which will enable LPAs to set their own planning application fees through a local variation model. Under this approach, a national default fee will remain in place and apply to all LPAs, unless an LPA chooses to vary from the default fee for any or all application fee categories to reflect their own costs recovery needs. This flexibility will allow LPAs to secure the funding necessary to strengthen their capacity, invest in skilled staff, and deliver a more efficient, high-quality planning service.

Importantly, local fee‑setting is not about increasing fees without change. It is about creating a system that supports efficiency and innovation, helping LPAs to reduce costs over time. The national default fee should not be considered a minimum. Where efficiency gains are achieved, such as through improved processes, new ways of working, or through digital tools and emerging technologies like AI, these savings should be reflected appropriately in locally‑set fees so that charges remain proportionate and aligned with the actual cost of delivering the service.

These proposals also sit alongside wider proposed reforms in the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published for consultation on 16 December 2025, to support a more efficient planning system. These include streamlined requirements for medium-sized developments and greater standardisation of information, conditions and section 106 planning obligations. These measures will improve efficiency and productivity in LPAs and reduce the costs of processing planning applications.

Following engagement with LPAs, this consultation seeks views on a proposed National Default Fee Schedule as the foundation for the local variation model. It also proposes restructuring certain existing fee categories, and introducing new fees for prior approval applications, permission in principle, and applications to vary planning permissions under section 73 and section 73B. We also invite feedback on how local fee setting should operate in practice, including whether a cap on local variations is appropriate and how these changes might affect the future role of planning performance agreements (PPAs) and other discretionary charges.

The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 also introduced powers to levy a surcharge on planning fees to help fund organisations such as national statutory consultees which support the planning application process. To enable informed responses to the wider proposed increases to the national default fee, this consultation seeks initial views on the surcharge being in the region of 10% of the national default fee, even where local variations exist. We will consult in due course on further details of the surcharge via a separate consultation, including the types of planning applications where the surcharge would apply.

While we recognise these proposals will mean additional costs for applicants, everyone stands to benefit from a properly funded and well-functioning planning system, and by strengthening the financial sustainability of LPAs and statutory consultees. These measures sit alongside wider reforms to help to encourage innovation through digital tools and streamlined processes, to help build a planning system that is quicker, smarter, and more responsive, unlocking economic growth and accelerating the delivery of much-needed homes across the country.

With these anticipated improvements across the system, LPAs will be expected to provide a faster and more reliable local planning service. The performance of LPAs will be scrutinised more closely to ensure that all planning applications are determined quickly and to the required standard. Where an LPA falls short, action will be taken to ensure that performance is improved.

National Default Fee Schedule   

Between August and September 2025, the Local Government Association (LGA) and Planning Advisory Service (PAS) surveyed LPAs in England to understand how well current planning fees reflect the actual cost of processing applications and to identify where the biggest cost recovery challenges lie.

The survey found that no planning fee fully covers the cost of determining a planning application, with shortfalls ranging from 18% for the least underpriced to 60% for the most underpriced. The applications most frequently considered underpriced, identified by 92% of LPAs, were applications to remove or vary a condition following grant of planning permission (section 73 applications) for major developments and applications to discharge conditions. Outline planning applications, particularly for major developments, and section 73 applications for non-major developments, were also highlighted, with 88% of LPAs considering them to be underpriced. These application types were also identified as the highest priority for review.

In response to the survey evidence, we are proposing a new National Default Fee Schedule as set out in Annex A. The proposed National Default Fee Schedule would increase all current planning fees to 90% of the estimated full cost of processing each application type. For applications where no direct evidence was available, proposed fee increases have been based on comparable application types. In some cases, fees and the maximum caps have also been adjusted to ensure alignment across similar application categories.

The proposed increases vary according to the current shortfall for each application type. For example, to achieve 90% of the estimated cost, the increase for householder applications for the enlargement, improvement or alteration of an existing dwellinghouse is £27, around 8% of the fee as indexed from 1 April 2026. For major section 73 applications, the increase is more significant at £1,074, around 52% from the fee as indexed from 1 April 2026. The maximum application fee would increase by around 25% from £427,537, as indexed from 1 April 2026 to £513,512. The national default fee would continue to be uplifted annually in line with inflation to maintain its real value over time.

Setting the national default fee at 90% of the full estimated cost provides a strong contribution towards the actual costs that LPAs face when determining applications and will provide an immediate boost to resourcing. This approach should mean that many authorities will be able to adequately meet their costs through the new national default fee rates. We are not proposing full cost recovery for 2 key reasons. First, in some cases, full cost recovery could result in fees exceeding actual costs for some LPAs, particularly where efficiencies have already been achieved. Second, setting fees at 90% creates an important incentive for LPAs to continue driving service improvements and reducing costs, for example through greater digitisation, streamlined processes, or investment in modern project management systems. Local variation powers will still allow LPAs to set their own fees where this can be evidenced and justified.

We are not proposing to introduce national fees for applications for listed building consent or works to protected trees. These special control consents have historically been exempt from fees in order to encourage owners to engage proactively with LPAs, reduce the risk of unauthorised works to listed buildings or protected trees, and recognise that the conservation of historic buildings and the natural environment is a public good.

Therefore, while the national default fee will make a significant contribution toward reducing the annual shortfall in operating costs that LPAs face, we recognise that full cost recovery across the entire planning application service will not be possible, as certain applications and services will continue to not attract fees. It is also acknowledged that as service and efficiency gains are realised the overall cost of delivering the service may change over time. To ensure the system remains fair to both applicants and authorities, the National Default Fee Schedule will be reviewed regularly, as well as being automatically annually adjusted for inflation, to ensure it continues to reflect actual costs and provides an appropriate baseline for all fee-charging application types.

Question 1

Do you support the proposed National Default Fee Schedule, set at 90% of full estimate cost?

Yes / No / Unsure 

Please explain your reasoning.

Question 2

Are there any proposed fees in the National Default Fee Schedule that you consider to be unrepresentative of 90% of estimated full cost levels for LPAs (either too low or too high)?

Yes / No / Unsure 

If yes, please specify which application categories and provide evidence to support your view, including what you believe the fee should be.

Restructuring of existing fee categories and new application fees    

As part of developing the National Default Fee Schedule, we are also considering whether there are opportunities to improve existing fee arrangements. We want to ensure that fee structures are simpler, more transparent, and better reflect both the scale of development and the level of work involved in determining applications. Our focus is on those areas identified by LPAs as top priorities for review, but we would welcome views on any other opportunities for improvement.

Fees for outline, full and reserved matters applications

We are seeking views on proposals to simplify and update the fee structure for outline, full, and reserved matters applications. Feedback from LPAs has highlighted that the current fee structures for residential (category 1) and non-residential (category 2) development has become increasingly complex, with multiple categories, baseline fees and differing methods of calculation. This can lead to inconsistency, confusion for applicants, and fees that do not always reflect the nature of the development.

To address this, the proposed National Default Fee Schedule adjusts existing bandings to align with the proposed new medium-sized development category and removes baseline fees to create a simpler and more consistent structure. We invite feedback on these proposed amendments.

We are also mindful that development patterns and the complexity of applications have changed significantly since the current fee structures were first introduced. In particular, outline applications for major developments now often require significantly greater levels of assessment than in the past, and many of the larger outline applications are now for complex multi-phase developments. LPAs must review many detailed technical statements, undertake extensive statutory consultation, and continue to process related reserved matters applications over many years.

Because outline fees are based on site area alone, they do not always reflect the differing complexities associated with contrasting site characteristics — for example, a low-density greenfield residential development  may be simpler to assess and determine than a high-density brownfield residential development of the same hectarage. Similar issues arise for mixed use development, which can be complicated to calculate, particularly where multiple categories interact. A simplified approach may therefore provide a fairer and more proportionate system.

Another area for potential reform is the structure of fee increments. At present, many fees increase per unit, per dwelling, per 75 sqm, or per 0.1 hectare. We are considering whether a simplified banding system (for example, fixed fees for developments of 10–24, 25–49, or 50–99 dwellings) may offer a more practical, predictable and proportionate approach.

We are also reviewing the role of the existing maximum fee caps. These caps currently provide a clear upper limit and can give applicants certainty, especially for large or complex schemes. In addition, for applicants seeking the approval of reserved matters a flat fee applies where the maximum fee for the full application has already been reached. In practice, this can be complex to administer, especially for large multi‑phase developments delivered over extended timeframes. In a system that allows LPAs greater flexibility to vary fees locally, maximum fees may become less meaningful. We are therefore interested in views on whether maximum fees and caps on fees for approval of reserved matters remain appropriate, or whether their removal could support a simpler and more proportionate fee structure overall.

Finally, we also recognise that some major applications require environmental impact assessment (EIA) under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, creating a significantly higher workload for LPAs. The need to review complex technical information, and sometimes to seek external specialist advice, increases the cost of processing such applications. We are therefore considering whether an additional band for EIA development would help ensure greater alignment between fees charged and the actual work involved.

Overall, while the proposed changes in the National Default Fee Schedule would simplify some elements of the existing fee structures, we are keen to understand views on whether there is scope for more fundamental reform of the approach to outline, full and reserved matters fees. In particular, we are interested in views on how fee structures could better reflect modern development patterns, multiphase strategic schemes, the complexity of large mixed use or brownfield regeneration projects, and the need for clarity and fairness for applicants.

Question 3

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?

Yes / No / Unsure

Please explain your reasoning.

Question 4

What further changes, if any, do you think should be made to the structure of fees for outline, full and reserved matters applications?

In your response, you may wish to comment on:

• whether a more simplified banding structure would be preferable to increments per unit or per area
• how fees could better reflect varying site characteristics or levels of complexity
• whether the current approach to mixed use development fees should be simplified
• how fees should operate for large multi‑phase developments, including whether it remains appropriate to have maximum fee levels or caps for reserved matters applications
• whether an additional band or higher fee should apply to applications requiring EIA

Please provide evidence where possible.

Fees for applications for agricultural development

The current fee structure for agricultural development (category 3) is widely viewed as overly complex, with multiple thresholds and bespoke calculation methods that differ from the approach used for other non‑residential development. This complexity can make fees harder for applicants to understand and administer, and does not always provide a clear or proportionate relationship between the scale of development and the assessment required.

In many cases, the considerations involved in determining proposals for agricultural buildings, such as landscape and visual effects, access, drainage and environmental impacts are broadly comparable to those associated with other forms of non‑residential development. However, the agricultural fee structure has developed separately over time, resulting in a more fragmented and less transparent system.

As part of the proposed National Default Fee Schedule, we are proposing to rationalise the fee structure for agricultural development. The aim is to simplify existing arrangements and bring them into closer alignment with the structure used for other non‑residential buildings. This approach is intended to improve transparency for applicants, reduce administrative complexity, and more accurately reflect the level of work involved in determining agricultural applications. We welcome views on the proposed approach and on any further opportunities to simplify and improve the fee structure for agricultural development.

Question 5

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?

Yes / No / Unsure

Please explain your reasoning.

Fees for permission in principle applications

Permission in principle (PiP) was introduced in 2017 as a proportionate mechanism to give developers and landowners certainty that a site is suitable for housing-led development without requiring a full planning application at the outset. If PiP is granted, the applicant must then secure technical details consent to obtain full planning permission for the residential development. The fee for technical details consent is the same as that for approval of reserved matters.

Currently, PiP can be granted either through inclusion of a site on Part 2 of a Brownfield Land Register or by an application to the LPA for, or inclusive of, minor residential development (up to 9 dwellings). To encourage greater use of PiP, particularly for sites suitable for SME builders, the draft NPPF consultation proposes extending the PiP application route to sites suitable for medium development (10 to 49 dwellings, up to 2.5 hectares).

The fee for PiP applications, as indexed from 1 April 2026 is £531 per 0.1 hectare. However, PiP applications are designed only to establish the principle of development, meaning the scope of assessment is limited and does not involve detailed matters such as design, transport or sustainable drainage or negotiation of section 106 negotiations. While we recognise larger PiP applications will need greater assessment if the PiP route is extended to medium development, a finely-grained hectarage scale could lead to high fees for these applications which are difficult to justify given the scale of the assessment (for instance, a 2 hectare application would attract a £10,620 fee). We therefore believe PiP applications should attract a simple flat fee structure similar to section 73 applications.

We propose introducing the following fee bands. The second band would apply only if, following consideration of responses to the draft NPPF consultation, we decided to extend the PiP route to sites suitable for medium development:

• PiP applications for developments of up to 9 dwellings - £825
• PiP applications for developments of 10 to 49 dwellings – £3,150

This approach recognises that larger sites may require more consideration, even at the in-principle stage, while remaining lower than the fee for an outline planning application of comparable scale. We welcome views on both the proposed structure and the level of the proposed fees.

Question 6

Do you support the proposal that PiP applications should attract a flat fee for 2 bands?

• PiP applications for developments of up to 9 dwellings
• PiP applications for developments of 10 to 49 dwellings

Yes / No / Unsure

If no, what alternative approach would you suggest and why? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Question 7

Do you agree with the proposed fee level for PiP applications for:

a) developments of up to 9 dwellings - £825?

Yes / No / Unsure

If no, what do you consider to be an appropriate fee? Please provide evidence to support your view.

b) developments of 10 to 49 dwellings - £3,150?

Yes / No / Unsure

If no, what do you consider to be an appropriate fee? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Fees for section 73 and section 73B applications

Section 73 applications allow applicants to seek permission to develop without complying with conditions attached to an existing planning permission (i.e. to vary or remove those conditions). These applications should focus on the change to the planning condition but can involve complex considerations, particularly for major schemes, as often there can be significant changes to the design of the development. The government is also aware that some developers seek through section 73 applications to revisit fundamental issues of viability which can lead to renegotiations of planning obligations, including affordable housing obligations, creating further work for LPAs.

Section 73B, introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, provides for a new statutory route to vary an existing planning permission to make material changes to the description of development as well as conditions, provided the effect of the varied permission is substantially the same as the existing permission. We are committed to implementing this new route later this year.

In 2025, we introduced a new 3-tier fee structure for section 73 applications. Under the proposed National Default Fee Schedule, these fees would increase to the following:

• householder: £112
• non-major: £825
• major: £3,150

We propose fee parity for section 73B across all bands. This removes any perverse incentives, simplifies user choice between routes and facilitates appropriate migration to section 73B where material variation will be the better procedural route.

Despite the recent restructure and increase in section 73 fees, feedback from LPAs and the recent survey indicates that fees for major section 73 applications remain below the actual cost of processing them. Major section 73 applications were ranked as the highest priority for review in the survey. LPAs have highlighted that the level of work required for these applications often varies considerably depending on the scale and complexity of the original permission. We expect similar considerations will apply to major section 73B cases too.

Notably at present, the scope of assessment required for section 73 applications can differ considerably, from minor adjustments to compliance or technical conditions to more substantive changes to a development. We are therefore keen to gather views on whether the existing 3-band structure remains suitable for both section 73 and section 73B applications, or whether a restructured approach would better reflect the varying levels of work involved. This could include, for example, introducing an additional band for very large or complex schemes, or differentiating fees where the variance of the condition is about a specific matter compared to a more general amendment to development.

Question 8

Do you think the three-band fee structure currently used for section 73 applications remains appropriate?

Yes / No / Unsure

If no, what changes would you propose and why? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Question 9

Should section 73 and section 73B applications be charged using the same fee structure?

Yes / No / Unsure

Please explain your reasoning.

Fees for applications to discharge conditions and approve biodiversity gain plans

Applications to discharge planning conditions were identified in the recent survey of LPAs as one of the application types most in need of review. These applications play an important role in ensuring developments comply with planning requirements, but they also place a significant resource demand on LPAs and have been routinely identified by the sector as a key factor contributing to delays in the commencement of development.

The draft NPPF consultation includes a new policy encouraging the use of national model planning conditions which the government will be developing to promote greater standardisation and consistency on the use of conditions. This will help ensure that conditions requiring further approvals from LPAs are applied in a more consistent manner, supporting a more efficient planning process.

Under the proposed National Default Fee Schedule, it is proposed that the fee for applications to discharge conditions would increase to £125 for householders and £435 for all other developments.

In response to the increasing role for Mayors in the planning system as part of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, we also propose to make it clear this fee would apply where a Mayor is  discharging conditions attached to a mayoral development order  or a permission for a development of potential strategic importance granted by the Mayor.

As an alternative we are considering whether fees for the discharge of conditions should instead be charged on a per-condition basis rather than per application. A per‑condition approach may offer a more proportionate reflection of the work involved, but could also result in significantly higher fees where multiple conditions are discharged together. We welcome views on whether a per-condition fee structure would be preferable, and if so, what an appropriate per‑condition fee level might be. We also invite suggestions on any other ways in which the current fee structure for discharging conditions could be improved.

We are also mindful that the approval of biodiversity gain plans is a statutory requirement for many new developments. Approval is secured through a statutory pre-commencement condition, which currently attracts the same fee as other applications to discharge conditions. However, we recognise that assessing biodiversity gain plans can involve more complex considerations and will require specialist input, such as from ecologists. We are therefore seeking views on whether an application for the approval of biodiversity gain plans should be treated separately from other planning conditions and charged a fee which reflects the specific work involved. If so, we welcome views on what an appropriate fee level would be.

Question 10

Do you think the fee for discharging conditions should be charged per condition rather than per application?

Yes / No / Unsure

If yes, what do you consider to be an appropriate fee per condition? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Question 11

Should applications for the approval of biodiversity gain plans be subject to a separate fee to reflect the specific work involved?

Yes / No / Unsure

If yes, what do you consider to be an appropriate fee level? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Question 12

Do you have an alternative suggestion on how the fee structure for discharge of conditions could be improved?

Fees for prior approval applications

Prior approval applications are a specific type of application required for certain forms of permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (“the GPDO”). They allow LPAs to assess and approve details relating to specific impacts of a development, such as transport and flooding, before work can proceed. While these applications are generally simpler than full applications, they still place a resource demand on LPAs who are required to assess these applications in line with statutory requirements.

With the exception of prior approval applications for new dwellings, which already attract a fee per dwelling, and prior approvals for telecommunications development, most other prior approval applications currently attract the same flat fee, which is proposed to increase to £310 under the National Default Fee Schedule. However, some prior approval applications currently attract no fee at all, despite placing a comparable level of demand on LPAs in terms of time and resources. This includes, for example, Class D (toll road facilities) of Part 9 and Class A (development by gas transporters) of Part 15 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO.

In addition, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero recently consulted on amending the right at Class B of Part 15 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO to allow for the installation or replacement of larger electrical substations, with the proposal that this right be subject to prior approval in certain protected areas. In response to the consultation, some respondents suggested that if the proposed changes are brought forward, the prior approval should be subject to a fee.

To ensure consistency and to recognise the comparable resource implications for LPAs, we consider that all prior approvals that currently have no fee should have the same flat fee of £310 as for other prior approval applications. We also consider that the new prior approval under Class B of Part 15 should be subject to the same fee, if the proposed changes are brought forward.

Question 13

Do you support the proposal to apply a flat fee of £310 for all other existing prior approval applications that are currently free of charge as well as the proposed prior approval under Class B of Part 15 (if brought forward)?

Yes / No / Unsure 

Please explain your reasoning.

Fees for applications for certificates for appropriate alternative development

Certificates of appropriate alternative development (CAADs), issued under the Land Compensation Act 1961, play an important role in the compulsory purchase process. They allow landowners or acquiring authorities to establish what description of development could reasonably have been permitted on land in the absence of the scheme underlying a compulsory purpose. This determination can influence the valuation of the land for compensation purposes by identifying a certain description of development (if any) for which planning permission can be assumed would have been granted on the land if the compulsory purchase was not going ahead. The permission indicated in a CAAD can briefly be described as that which a landowner might reasonably have expected to sell their land in the open market with if it had not been acquired by compulsory purchase.

Applications for a CAAD often require a detailed and robust assessment of the planning prospects of hypothetical development scenarios. Unlike other certificate processes that confirm an existing or proposed use, applications for a CAAD often involve complex policy interpretation, consideration of multiple alternative outcomes, and the use of planning judgement including preparation of formal reasoning for the granting or refusing of a CAAD application which will support the assessment of compensation processes. This can result in a high level of resource intensive analytical work.

At present, the fee for an application for a CAAD is set at the same level as a certificate of lawful use for existing development, which does not reflect the greater complexity and resource requirements involved. To ensure that fees more accurately correspond to the level of assessment required, and to support a more proportionate recovery of costs by LPAs, we propose increasing the fee for applications for a CAAD to £964. This represents 90% of the estimated, inflation adjusted cost for a medium-scale CAAD application based on separate analysis undertaken by the Department for the CAAD process reforms implemented under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.

Question 14

Do you agree with the proposed fee for CAAD applications of £964?

Yes/No/Unsure

If no, what do you consider to be an appropriate fee? Please provide evidence to support your view.

Fees for section 106A Applications

Section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is the statutory route for modifying or discharging planning obligations. Where an obligation no longer serves a useful purpose, or would serve that purpose equally well, subject to modifications, section 106A allows applicants to seek its removal or modification. This process does not revisit the full planning application, but only focuses on whether the specific obligation should be modified or discharged.

As set out in the consultation on Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system, published on 16 December 2025, the government recognises the practical constraints associated with the existing, statutory route to modify or discharge planning obligations via section 106A, and the limits that any policy or guidance reforms could achieve. The consultation therefore seeks views on how the process of modifying planning obligations under section 106A, where needed once a section 106 agreement has been entered into, could be improved. The consultation of reforms to the NPPF forms part of a wider review of the statutory framework for modifying or discharging existing planning obligations.

At present, there is no national fee for applications made under section 106A, although we are aware that some authorities charge their own locally-set administrative fees for handling these applications. In order to provide greater transparency and consistency for applications, it is proposed that a new national default fee for section 106A applications be introduced. Any proposed fee would need to reasonably account for the costs to an LPA of processing such an application, while equally accounting for the variation that can incur when assessing planning obligations.

Question 15

Do you support the introduction of a new national default fee for section 106A applications?

Yes/No/Unsure

If yes, what would represent an appropriate structure and fee(s)? Please provide evidence to support your view.

If you do not support this proposal, please explain why.

Other fee categories

We welcome any additional views on whether there are other existing fee categories, not mentioned in this section, which could benefit from restructuring to be simpler, more transparent and better reflect the work involved in determining applications.

Question 16

Are there any other existing fee categories not mentioned above that you believe would benefit from restructuring?

Yes / No / Unsure

If yes, please specify which categories and explain how you think they should be improved.

Planning fee surcharge for statutory consultees   

The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 introduced new powers to provide for a surcharge on planning fees, which could be used to help fund organisations such as national statutory consultees which support the planning application process. We intend to consult on proposals to introduce this surcharge in due course. However, we recognise that it is necessary to provide some indication of the level at which the surcharge will be levied, in order to enable informed responses to this wider fee consultation.

Following initial analysis, the government is proposing that the surcharge would be set in the region of 10% of the national default fee, even where local variations exist.

We think it is appropriate to set the surcharge in relation to the national default fee, as the local factors which impact on local planning authority costs and which may justify fee variation, are unlikely to apply in relation to statutory consultation.

There are further policy choices, including the range of applications which should be subject to the charge, and whether some types of application should be subject to a zero or lower rated charge, on which we will consult in due course.

The surcharge will apply only to Town and Country Planning Act 1990 applications, and will not apply in relation to local plans and Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects under the Planning Act 2008. In accordance with the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, surcharge funds will need to cover “relevant costs” linked to casework. We expect the surcharge to support wider housing and growth objectives, by delivering service improvements, including improving the reliability of the service statutory consultees can provide and streamlining their engagement in the planning application process.

Question 17

Do you agree with our working proposal that the planning fee surcharge should be in the region of 10% of the national default fee (subject to further policy development and consultation)?

Yes / No / Unsure

Please explain your reasoning.

Local fee setting

While a national default fee, set at a level that recovers around 90% of estimated costs, represents a major improvement in resourcing for LPAs, we recognise that local circumstances differ, and some LPAs may wish to go further. The new powers introduced in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 allow LPAs to be given the flexibility to set their own fees locally to meet their actual costs. This offers authorities a real opportunity to deliver a more sustainable, responsive, and transparent planning service.

This section explains how we anticipate local fee-setting will operate in practice. We invite feedback on this approach and on whether there is anything further that should be included in guidance to support implementation.

Following this consultation, government will set out further details in regulations, where required by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, and through guidance. Support will also be available from PAS to help LPAs implement these requirements effectively.

Key Principles

The local variation model will empower LPAs to set fees to reflect their own local costs. To ensure the system remains fair, transparent, and easy to navigate for applicants, local fee setting will operate within the following principles. These principles will help ensure that fees are evidence‑based, proportionate, and applied consistently across all LPAs:

1. Flexibility to vary from the national default fee

LPAs may choose to vary from the national default fee for one or more fee categories. While the national default fee is expected to be appropriate in most cases, local variation provides LPAs with the flexibility to reflect specific local costs.

2. Public consultation and notification requirements

Before setting their own planning fees, LPAs will be expected to undertake a public consultation. Where fees are being adjusted only to reflect the annual inflation uplift, consultation will not be required. LPAs must still provide public notification at least 28 days before any new or adjusted fees, including annual inflation uplift, take effect.

3. Publishing local fee schedules and evidence

To ensure transparency for all users LPAs must publish a clear “local fee schedule” identifying which fees follow the national default fee and which have been locally varied. LPAs must also publish the evidence base used to justify any locally-set fees, demonstrating how the charge reflects the actual cost of the service.

4. Local fees must operate within existing national fee categories

All locally‑set fees must operate within the national fee categories defined by government. LPAs cannot create new categories, introduce alternative fee structures, or charge fees for application types that do not have a national fee, such as listed building consent or work to protected trees. This ensures consistency and fairness across the system.

5. National exemptions and guarantees must be maintained

Nationally specified exemptions, reductions and refunds, including the Planning Guarantee, must continue to apply and be implemented consistently to ensure equal treatment of applicants.

6. Fees should reflect average cost estimates and not exceed cost recovery

LPAs should ensure that any locally-set fees are based on the average cost of determining the application type. Fees cannot be set above cost recovery for that category.

7. Cross-subsidisation between fee categories is not permitted

While some variation within an individual application fee category is inevitable, LPAs must not set fees above cost recovery for one application category to subsidise another, including categories where no fee is charged.

8. Local fees should be reviewed regularly

LPAs will be expected to review local fees regularly to ensure they continue to reflect actual costs. This may include annual adjustments in line with inflation, consistent with the approach taken for the national default fee.

9. Planning fee income must be ringfenced for the statutory planning decision-making function.

It is a legislative requirement that all income from planning fees must be retained for delivering the statutory planning decision-making function. Any surplus from one year to the next must be used exclusively for this purpose.

10. Planning fees must not fund wider planning services

Planning fees must not exceed cost recovery in order to fund other planning functions such as plan‑making, enforcement, or CIL and section 106 monitoring.

Calculating costs

Each LPA will have its own approach of establishing the cost of delivering its planning application service. While the government is not prescribing detailed requirements for how these calculations should be undertaken, we recommend that LPAs have regard to the following components:

1. Direct planning application service staff costs

Salaries and associated costs for planning officers, case officers and administrative staff directly involved in processing and determining planning applications, including servicing planning committees.

2. In-house specialist advice costs

Salaries and associated costs for internal technical specialists, such as planning policy, highways, design and conservation, environmental health, ecology, and other relevant disciplines, where their work relates directly to determining the application or they act as formal consultees.

3. External specialist advice

Commissioned expertise not available in-house (e.g., ecology/habitats, highways modelling, engineering, landscape/visual, viability, noise/air quality), including technical input from other local authorities.

4. Indirect costs

Proportionate overheads such as office accommodation, utilities, IT systems, and corporate support services.

5. Activity-based costs

Time and resources for specific tasks, including validation, consultation and publicity, site visits, report writing, committee preparation, and decision-making.

6. Legal costs

Only where required and directly related to processing and determining the application, such as drafting section 106 agreements where costs are not covered through the agreement.

7. Training and capability

Proportionate costs for essential professional training and development, including training for planning committee members, to maintain service quality and competence.

8. Digital enablement and data

Investment in digital platforms, software, and data management tools that support efficient application processing.

Secretary of State Intervention

To ensure oversight, LPAs that set their own planning fees must notify the Secretary of State at least 28 days before the changes take effect. This notification should confirm which fees differ from the national default fee. LPAs will not need to notify the Secretary of State when applying annual inflation adjustments.

The Secretary of State has the power to intervene if an LPA is considered to have set fees at an inappropriate level, whether too high or too low, without adequate justification. Intervention may occur at any time following notification from the LPA.  The intervention process would begin by the Secretary of State first directing the LPAs to review its fees or provide additional evidence. If following review, or in the event of non-compliance, the fees are still considered to be inappropriate, the Secretary of State may direct the LPA to adopt the national default fee or a different fee, for example to align with fees charged by adjoining or similar authorities.

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?

Local variation cap

To enable LPAs to recover their full costs, local fee setting could remain uncapped, provided fees are evidence-based. This approach also recognises that costs in some areas, particularly in London, can be significantly higher due to factors such as increased staffing and accommodation costs. Allowing uncapped fees may therefore offer greater flexibility for authorities, while still requiring transparency and justification. Even under an uncapped system, the Secretary of State would retain the ability to intervene where a fee is considered unreasonable.

Alternatively, we are considering whether it would be appropriate to set a ‘local variation cap’, for example somewhere in the range of 15 to 25% above the national default fee, provided this is supported by evidence. This could strike a balance between giving LPAs flexibility to address genuine costs shortfalls while preventing excessive fees that might be at greater risk of exceeding actual costs or reduce incentives for efficiency. Under this proposal any fee set outside the cap would automatically be subject to review by the Secretary of State. We would welcome views on these options.

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?

• yes - 15%
• yes - 25%
• yes - other (please specify)
• no
• unsure

Please explain your reasoning

Planning performance agreements and discretionary charging

Under the Local Government Act 2003, LPAs already have powers to set their own fees for discretionary services such as planning performance agreements (PPAs), pre-application advice, and fast-track services. PPAs are designed to promote proactive and collaborative engagement between LPAs and applicants on complex planning proposals. They are particularly useful where specialist resources are required and timescales beyond statutory determination periods are required. Through a PPA, applicants can agree a bespoke timetable and service level in return for an additional fee.

PPAs have traditionally played an important role in supporting collaborative working on large-scale or technically complex developments and in providing additional resourcing for LPAs. However, with the introduction of a new National Default Fee Schedule and powers for LPAs to set their own fees, we believe it is an appropriate time to consider the role of PPAs in delivering and resourcing planning services.

For example, how might the ability to set a localised planning fee reduce the need for PPAs as a mechanism for funding core planning activities. On the other hand, we know that many developers, particularly those promoting large or complex schemes, value PPAs as a way of agreeing bespoke timetabling and supporting collaborative working. Even within a new National Default Fee Schedule and localised fee setting, developers may still prefer the option of PPAs for tailored service enhancements.

Our intention is that planning fees, rather than PPAs, should be the primary mechanism for resourcing planning services. It is recognised that PPAs can still play a valuable role for larger and more complex schemes where bespoke arrangements are genuinely needed. However, their role may need to be clarified to ensure they remain focused on service enhancements rather than core planning functions. In addition, LPAs may wish to continue offering other discretionary services on a bespoke charging basis, such as pre-application advice and fast-track services.

Question 20

In the context of localised planning fees, what are your views on the future role of PPAs, pre-application advice and other discretionary charging regimes?

Please provide any suggestions, experiences or evidence to support your view.

Public Sector Equality Duty   

We would like to hear about any potential impacts of the proposals in the consultation on businesses, or of any differential impacts on persons with a relevant protected characteristic as defined by the Equality Act 2010 compared to persons without that protected characteristic, together with any appropriate mitigation measures, which may assist in deciding the final policy approach in due course.

Question 21

Do you have any views on how the proposals in this consultation might affect you, the group or business you represent, or others – particularly those with protected characteristics?

If so, please explain who might be affected and how.

Is there anything that could be done to mitigate any impact identified?

Annex A: Proposed national default fee schedule

Operations

Category of Development	Fee applicable from 1 April 2026	Proposed National Default Fee
1. The erection of dwellinghouses (other than development in category 6)	(1) Where the application is for outline planning permission and— (a) the site area is less than 0.5 hectares, £610 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area; (b) the site area is at least 0.5 hectares but does not exceed 2.5 hectares, £659 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area; (c) the site area exceeds 2.5 hectares, £16,291 and an additional £196 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 2.5 hectares, subject to a maximum in total of £213,769. (2) Where the application is for permission in principle, £531 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area.* (3) In any other case— (a) where the number of dwellinghouses to be created by the development is fewer than 10, £610 for each dwellinghouse; (b) where the number of dwellinghouses to be created by the development is at least 10 but no more than 50, £659 for each dwellinghouse; (c) where the number of dwellinghouses to be created by the development is more than 50, £32,578 and an additional £196 for each dwellinghouse in excess of 50, subject to a maximum in total of £427,537.	(1) Where the application is for outline planning permission and— (a) the site area is less than 0.5 hectares, £719 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area; (b) the site area is at least 0.5 hectares but does not exceed 2.5 hectares, £896 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area; (c) the site area exceeds 2.5 hectares, £896 per 0.1 hectare for the first 2.5 hectares and an additional £267 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 2.5 hectares, subject to a maximum in total of £290,625. (2) In any other case— (a) where the number of dwellinghouses to be created by the development is fewer than 10, £752 for each dwellinghouse; (b) where the number of dwellinghouses to be created by the development is at least 10 but no more than 49, £818 for each dwellinghouse; (c) where the number of dwellinghouses to be created by the development is 50 dwellinghouses or more, £818 per dwellinghouse for the first 49 dwellinghouses and an additional £236 for each dwellinghouse in excess of 49, subject to a maximum in total of £513,512. * A new separate fee category is proposed for applications for permission in principle.
2. The erection of buildings (other than buildings in categories 1, 3, 4, 5 or 7)	(1) Where the application is for outline planning permission and— (a) the site area is less than 1 hectare, £610 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area; (b) the site area is at least 1 hectare but does not exceed 2.5 hectares, £659 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area; (c) the site area exceeds 2.5 hectares, £16,291 and an additional £196 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 2.5 hectares, subject to a maximum in total of £213,769. (2) Where the application is for permission in principle, £531 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area.* (3) In any other case— (a) where no floor space is to be created by the development, £309; (b) where the area of gross floor space to be created by the development does not exceed 40 square metres, £309; (c) where the area of gross floor space created by the development exceeds 40 square metres but is less than 1000 square metres, £610 for each 75 square metres (or part thereof); (d) where the area of gross floor space created by the development is at least 1000 square metres but does not exceed 3750 square metres, £659 for each 75 square metres (or part thereof); (e) where the area of gross floor space created by the development exceeds 3750 square metres, £32,578 and an additional £196 for each 75 square metres (or part thereof) in excess of 3750 square metres, subject to a maximum in total of £427,537.	(1) Where the application is for outline planning permission and— (a) the site area is less than 1 hectare, £719 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area; (b) the site area is at least 1 hectare but does not exceed 2.5 hectares, £896 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area; (c) the site area exceeds 2.5 hectares, £896 per 0.1 hectare for the first 2.5 hectares and an additional £267 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 2.5 hectares, subject to a maximum in total of £290,625. (2) In any other case— (a) where no floor space is to be created by the development, £357; (b) where the area of gross floor space to be created by the development does not exceed 40 square metres, £357; (c) where the area of gross floor space created by the development exceeds 40 square metres but is less than 1000 square metres, £705 for each 75 square metres (or part thereof); (d) where the area of gross floor space created by the development is at least 1000 square metres but does not exceed 3750 square metres, £759 for each 75 square metres (or part thereof); (e) where the area of gross floor space created by the development exceeds 3750 square metres, £759 per 75 square metres for the first 3,750 square metres and an additional £226 for each 75 square metres (or part thereof) in excess of 3750 square metres, subject to a maximum in total of £513,512. * A new separate fee category is proposed for applications for permission in principle.
3. The erection, on land used for the purposes of agriculture, or buildings used for agricultural purposes (other than buildings in category 4)	(1) Where the application is for outline planning permission and— (a) the site area is less than 1 hectare, £610 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area; (b) the site area is at least 1 hectare but does not exceed 2.5 hectares, £659 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area; (c) the site area exceeds 2.5 hectares, £16,291 and an additional £196 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 2.5 hectares, subject to a maximum in total of £213,769. (2) Where the application is for permission in principle, £531 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area.* (3) In any other case— (a) where the area of gross floor space to be created by the development does not exceed 465 square metres, £127; (b) where the area of gross floor space to be created by the development exceeds 465 square metres but does not exceed 540 square metres, £610; (c) where the area of gross floor space to be created by the development exceeds 540 square metres but is less than 1000 square metres, £610 and an additional £610 for each 75 square metres (or part thereof) in excess of 540 square metres; (d) where the area of gross floor space to be created by the development is at least 1000 square metres but does not exceed 4215 square metres, £5,270 and an additional £659 for each 75 square metres (or part thereof) in excess of 1000 square metres; (e) where the area of gross floor space to be created by the development exceeds 4215 square metres, £32,578 and an additional £196 for each 75 square metres (or part thereof) in excess of 4215 square metres, subject to a maximum in total of £427,537.	(1) Where the application is for outline planning permission and— (a) the site area is less than 1 hectare, £719 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area; (b) the site area is at least 1 hectare but does not exceed 2.5 hectares, £896 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area; (c) the site area exceeds 2.5 hectares, £896 per 0.1 hectare for the first 2.5 hectares and an additional £267 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 2.5 hectares, subject to a maximum in total of £290,625. (2) In any other case— (a) where the area of gross floor space to be created by the development does not exceed 465 square metres, £147; (b) where the area of gross floor space to be created by the development exceeds 465 square metres but does not exceed 1000 square metres, £707 for each 75 square metres (or part thereof) in excess of 465 square metres; (c) where the area of gross floor space created by the development is at least 1000 square metres but does not exceed 4215 square metres, £742 for each 75 square metres (or part thereof) in excess of 465 square metres (d) where the area of gross floor space to be created by the development exceeds 4215 square metres, £742 per 75 square metres (or part thereof) in excess of 465 square metres for the first 4215 square metres (or part thereof), and an additional £221 for each 75 square metres (or part thereof) in excess of 4215 square metres, subject to a maximum total fee of £513,512. * A new separate fee category is proposed for applications for permission in principle.
4. The erection of glasshouses on land used for the purposes of agriculture	(1) Where the area of gross floor space to be created by the development does not exceed 465 square metres, £127. (2) Where the area of gross floor space to be created by the development exceeds 465 square metres but is less than 1000 square metres, £3,405. (3) Where the area of gross floor space to be created by the development is 1000 square metres or more, £3,677.	(1) Where the area of gross floor space to be created by the development does not exceed 465 square metres, £147. (2) Where the area of gross floor space to be created by the development exceeds 465 square metres but is less than 1000 square metres, £3,950. (3) Where the area of gross floor space to be created by the development is 1000 square metres or more, £4,267.
5. The erection, alteration of replacement of plant or machinery	(1) Where the site area is less than 1 hectare, £610 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area. (2) Where the site area is at least 1 hectare but does not exceed 5 hectares, £659 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area. (3) Where the site area exceeds 5 hectares, £32,578 and an additional £196 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 5 hectares, subject to a maximum in total of £427,537.	(1) Where the site area is less than 1 hectare, £660 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area. (2) Where the site area is at least 1 hectare but does not exceed 5 hectares, £712 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area. (3) Where the site area exceeds 5 hectares, £712 per 0.1 hectare for the first 5 hectares and an additional £212 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 5 hectares, subject to a maximum in total of £513,512.
6. The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of existing dwellinghouses	(1) Where the application relates to a single dwellinghouse, £548. (2) Where the application relates to 2 or more dwellinghouses, £1,083.	(1) Where the application relates to a single dwellinghouse, £575. (2) Where the application relates to 2 or more dwellinghouses, £1,130.
7. The carrying out of operations (including the erection of a building) within the curtilage of an existing dwellinghouse, for purposes ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such, or the erection or construction of gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure along a boundary of the curtilage of an existing dwellinghouse.	£272	£285
8. The construction of car parks, service roads and other means of access on land used for the purposes of a single undertaking, where the development is required for a purpose incidental to the existing use of the land.	£309	£357
9. The carrying out of any operations connected with exploratory drilling for oil or natural gas.	(1) Where the site area does not exceed 7.5 hectares, £725 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area. (2) Where the site area exceeds 7.5 hectares, £54,255 and an additional £215 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area in excess of 7.5 hectares, subject to a maximum in total of £427,537.	£994 per 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) for the first 7.5 hectares and an additional £282 per 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 7.5 hectares, subject to a maximum in total of £513,512.
10. The carrying out of any operations (other than operations coming within category 9) for the winning and working of oil or natural gas.	(1) Where the site area does not exceed 15 hectares, £366 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area. (2) Where the site area exceeds 15 hectares, £54,896 and an additional £215 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 15 hectares, subject to a maximum in total of £111,159.	£458 per 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) for the first 15 hectares and an additional £270 per 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 15 hectares, subject to a maximum in total of £146,309.
11. The carrying out of any operations not coming within any of the above categories.	(1) In the case of operations for the winning and working of minerals— (a) where the site area does not exceed 15 hectares, £333 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site; (b) where the site area exceeds 15 hectares, £49,786 and an additional £196 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 15 hectares, subject to a maximum in total of £111,159. (2) In any other case, £309 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area, subject to a maximum in total of £2,676.	(1) In the case of operations for the winning and working of minerals— £458 per 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) for the first 15 hectares and an additional £270 per 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 15 hectares, subject to a maximum in total of £146,309. (2) In any other case, £425 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area, subject to a maximum in total of £3,682.

Uses of land

Category of Development	Fee applicable from 1 April 2026	Proposed National Default Fee
12. The change of use of a building to use as one or more separate dwellinghouses.	(1) Where the change of use is from a previous use as a single dwellinghouse to use as 2 or more single dwellinghouses— (a) where the change of use is to use as fewer than 10 dwellinghouses, £610 for each additional dwellinghouse; (b) where the change of use is to use as at least 10 but no more than 50 dwellinghouses, £659 for each additional dwellinghouse; (c) where the change of use is to use as more than 50 dwellinghouses, £32,578 and an additional £196 for each dwellinghouse in excess of 50 dwellinghouses, subject to a maximum in total of £427,537. (2) In all other cases— (a) where the change of use is to use as fewer than 10 dwellinghouses, £610 for each dwellinghouse; (b) where the change of use is to use as at least 10 but no more than 50 dwellinghouses, £659 for each dwellinghouse; (c) where the change of use is to use as more than 50 dwellinghouses, £32,578 and an additional £196 for each dwellinghouse in excess of 50 dwellinghouses, subject to a maximum in total of £427,537.	(1) Where the change of use is from a previous use as a single dwellinghouse to use as 2 or more single dwellinghouses— (a) where the change of use is to use as fewer than 10 dwellinghouses, £700 for each additional dwellinghouse; (b) where the change of use is to use as at least 10 but no more than 49 dwellinghouses, £799 for each additional dwellinghouse; (c) where the change of use is to use as at least 50 dwellinghouses, £799 per dwellinghouse for the first 49 dwellinghouses and an additional £237 for each dwellinghouse in excess of 49 dwellinghouses, subject to a maximum in total of £513,512. (2) In all other cases— (a) where the change of use is to use as fewer than 10 dwellinghouses, £700 for each dwellinghouse; (b) where the change of use is to use as at least 10 but no more than 49 dwellinghouses, £799 for each dwellinghouse; (c) where the change of use is to use as at least 50 dwellinghouses, £799 per dwellinghouse for the first 49 dwellinghouses and an additional £237 for each dwellinghouse in excess of 49 dwellinghouses, subject to a maximum in total of £513,512.
13. The use of land for— (a) the disposal of refuse or waste materials, (b) the deposit of material remaining after minerals have been extracted from land, or (c) the storage of minerals in the open.	(1) Where the site area does not exceed 15 hectares, £333 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area. (2) Where the site area exceeds 15 hectares, £49,786 and an additional £196 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area in excess of 15 hectares, subject to a maximum in total of £111,159.	£458 per 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) for the first 15 hectares and an additional £270 per 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) in excess of 15 hectares, subject to a maximum in total of £146,309.
14. The making of a material change in use of a building or land (other than a material change of use in category 12 or 13(a), (b) or (c)).	£610	£732

Fees for other applications

Reserved matters	Fee applicable from 1 April 2026	Proposed National Default Fee
Approval of reserved matters following outline approval.	Full application fee due;  or If Full Application already paid, £610.	Full application fee due;  If Full Application already paid, £749.

Permission in Principle	Fee applicable from 1 April 2026	Proposed National Default Fee
Where the application is for Permission in Principle	£531 for each 0.1 hectare (or part thereof) of the site area.	2) Where the application is for, or inclusive of, development for: (a) up to 9 dwellings, £825 (b) between 10 and 49 dwellings, £3,150

Matter relating to conditions or amendments	Fee applicable from 1 April 2026	Proposed National Default Fee
Removal or variation of a condition (to develop land without compliance with conditions previously attached).	Where the application relates to a householder application, £89. Where the application relates to major development, £2,076. In any other case, £608.	Where the application relates to a householder application, £112. Where the application relates to major development, £3,150. In any other case, £825.
Discharge of condition(s) – Approval of details and/or confirmation that one or more planning conditions have been complied with.	Where it relates to householder development, £89. In any other case (including condition relating to the submission of a Biodiversity Gain Plan), £309.	Where it relates to householder development,£125. In any other case (including condition relating to the submission of a Biodiversity Gain Plan), £435.
Non-material changes to planning permission or permission in principle.	Where the application relates to householder development, £46. In any other case, £309.	Where the application relates to householder development, £53. In any other case, £360.

Certificates of lawful use or development	Fee applicable from 1 April 2026	Proposed National Default Fee
Existing use or operation.	Same as Full Application fee.	Same as Full Application fee.
Existing use or operation – lawful not to comply with any condition or limitation.	£309	£360
Proposed use or operation.	Half the Full Application fee.	Half the Full Application fee.

Prior Approval Applications (under permitted development rights)	Fee applicable from 1 April 2026	Proposed National Default Fee
Householder development:  - Larger rear extension or other alteration of a dwellinghouse (Part1 Class A). - Building upwards to extend a dwellinghouse (Part 1 Class AA).	£249	£310
Change of use from commercial, business and service uses (Use Class E) to dwellinghouses (Part 3 Class MA).	£260 for each proposed dwellinghouse.	£323 for each proposed dwellinghouse
Change of use of other buildings) to dwellinghouses (Part 3, Classes M, N, Q).	£249 £536 if it includes building operations in connection with the change of use.	£310 £667 if it includes building operations in connection with the change of use.
Construction of new dwellinghouses:   - Demolition of certain buildings and construction of new dwellinghouses (Part 20 Class ZA). - Extending certain existing buildings upwards to create new dwellinghouses (Part 20 Classes A, AA, AB, AC, AD).	Where the number of new dwellinghouses is fewer than 10, £441 for each new dwellinghouse.  Where the number of new dwellinghouses is at least 10 but no more than 50, £476 for each new dwellinghouse.  Where the number of new dwellinghouses is more than 50, £23,550, and an additional £142 for each dwellinghouse in excess of 50, subject to a maximum in total of £427,537.	Where the number of new dwellinghouses is fewer than 10, £597 for each new dwellinghouse.  Where the number of new dwellinghouses is at least 10 but no more than 49, £638 for each new dwellinghouse.  Where the number of new dwellinghouses is at least 50, £638 per dwellinghouse for the first 49 dwellinghouses, and an additional £185 for each dwellinghouse in excess of 49, subject to a maximum in total of £513,512.
Electronic communications (Part 16 Class A).	£610	£760
All other applications for prior approval	£249	£310

Other applications continued	Fee applicable from 1 April 2026	Proposed National Default Fee
Applications for Urgent Crown Development, made to the Secretary of State.	Same as fee for application for planning permission.	Same as fee for application for planning permission.
Monitoring of mining and landfill sites.	Where the whole or part of the site is active, £523. In any other case, £174.	Where the whole or part of the site is active, £607. In any other case, £202.
Certificates of appropriate alternative development.	£309	£964
Application or deemed application is made or deemed to be made by or on behalf of a club, society or other organisation (including any persons administering a trust) which is not established or conducted for profit and whose objects are the provision of facilities for sport or recreation.	£610	£675

Fees for Applications for Consent to Display Advertisements

Category of Development	Fee applicable from 1 April 2026	Proposed National Default Fee
1. Advertisements displayed externally on business premises, the forecourt of business premises or other land within the curtilage of business premises, wholly with reference to all or any of the following matters— (a) the nature of the business or other activity carried on the premises; (b) the goods sold or the services provided on the premises; or (c) the name and qualifications of the person carrying on such business or activity or supplying such goods or services.	£174	£192
2. Advertisements for the purpose of directing members of the public to, or otherwise drawing attention to the existence of, business premises which are in the same locality as the site on which the advertisement is to be displayed but which are not visible from that site.	£174	£192
3. All other advertisements.	£610	£675

About this consultation

This consultation document and consultation process have been planned to adhere to the Consultation Principles issued by the Cabinet Office.

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent, and where relevant who else they have consulted in reaching their conclusions when they respond.

Information provided in response to this consultation may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and UK data protection legislation.  In certain circumstances this may therefore include personal data when required by law.

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, as a public authority, the Department is bound by the information access regimes and may therefore be obliged to disclose all or some of the information you provide. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will at all times process your personal data in accordance with UK data protection legislation and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. A full privacy notice is included below.

Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested.

Your opinions are valuable to us. Thank you for taking the time to read this document and respond.

Are you satisfied that this consultation has followed the Consultation Principles?  If not or you have any other observations about how we can improve the process please contact us via the complaints procedure.

Personal data

The following is to explain your rights and give you the information you are  entitled to under UK data protection legislation.

Note that this section only refers to personal data (your name, contact details and any other information that relates to you or another identified or identifiable individual personally) not the content otherwise of your response to the consultation.

1. The identity of the data controller and contact details of our Data Protection Officer    

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is the data controller. The Data Protection Officer can be contacted at dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or by writing to the following address:

Data Protection Officer,
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government,
Fry Building,
2 Marsham Street,
London
SW1P 4DF

2. Why we are collecting your personal data  

Your personal data is being collected as an essential part of the consultation process, so that we can contact you regarding your response and for statistical purposes. We may also use it to contact you about related matters.

We will collect your IP address if you complete a consultation online. We may use this to ensure that each person only completes a survey once. We will not use this data for any other purpose.

Sensitive types of personal data

Please do not share special category personal data or criminal offence data  if we have not asked for this unless absolutely necessary for the purposes of your consultation response. By ‘special category personal data’, we mean information about a living individual’s:

• race
• ethnic origin
• political opinions
• religious or philosophical beliefs
• trade union membership
• genetics
• biometrics 
• health (including disability-related information)
• sex life
• sexual orientation

By ‘criminal offence data’, we mean information relating to a living individual’s criminal convictions or offences or related security measures.

3. Our legal basis for processing your personal data

The collection of your personal data is lawful under article 6(1)(e) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation as it is necessary for the performance by MHCLG of a task in the public interest/in the exercise of official authority vested in the data controller.  Section 8(d) of the Data Protection Act 2018 states that this will include processing of personal data that is necessary for the exercise of a function of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department i.e. in this case a consultation.

Where necessary for the purposes of this consultation, our lawful basis for the processing of any special category personal data or ‘criminal offence’ data (terms explained under ‘Sensitive Types of Data’) which you submit in response to this consultation is as follows. The relevant lawful basis for the processing of special category personal data is Article 9(2)(g) UK GDPR (‘substantial public interest’), and Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (‘statutory etc and government purposes’). The relevant lawful basis in relation to personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences data is likewise provided by Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

4. With whom we will be sharing your personal data

MHCLG may appoint a ‘data processor’, acting on behalf of the Department and under our instruction, to help analyse the responses to this consultation.  Where we do we will ensure that the processing of your personal data remains in strict accordance with the requirements of the data protection legislation.

5. For how long we will keep your personal data, or criteria used to determine the retention period.

Your personal data will be held for 2 years from the closure of the consultation, unless we identify that its continued retention is unnecessary before that point.

6. Your rights, e.g. access, rectification, restriction, objection

The data we are collecting is your personal data, and you have considerable say over what happens to it. You have the right:

a. to see what data we have about you

b. to ask us to stop using your data, but keep it on record

c. to ask to have your data corrected if it is incorrect or incomplete

d. to object to our use of your personal data in certain circumstances

e. to lodge a complaint with the independent Information Commissioner (ICO) if you think we are not handling your data fairly or in accordance with the law.  You can contact the ICO at https://ico.org.uk/, or telephone 0303 123 1113.

Please contact us at the following address if you wish to exercise the rights listed above, except the right to lodge a complaint with the ICO: dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or

Knowledge and Information Access Team,
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government,
Fry Building,
2 Marsham Street,
London
SW1P 4DF

7. Your personal data will not be sent overseas.

8. Your personal data will not be used for any automated decision making.

9. Your personal data will be stored in a secure government IT system.

We use a third-party system, Citizen Space, to collect consultation responses. In the first instance your personal data will be stored on their secure UK-based server. Your personal data will be transferred to our secure government IT system as soon as possible, and it will be stored there for 2 years before it is deleted.