Decision details

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Interim Head of Development Management presented the report which sought the Committee to consider the Officer response to the consultation on proposals to increase planning application fees and the potential implications of this. It was noted that in England planning fees were set by central Government and were last updated in January 2018 when a 20% increase was applied to all planning fees. The Interim Head of Development Management also clarified that the recommendation was for the Committee to note and endorse the consultation response attached in the report.

One Member welcomed that suggestion that retrospective planning applications should be double the cost of a new application and further suggested that a differentiation in charges along similar lines between applications within the Local Plan and those seeking a departure from it also be considered. The Group Head of Planning noted that what was or was not a departure from the Local Plan was subjective and that the Planning Inspectorate might disagree making the process impossible to manage in reality.

Another Member, whilst also in support of the doubling of fees for retrospective applications, was less comfortable with the Officer-proposed disagreement with a 25% increase for householder planning applications. She also noted the difference between Listed Building consent and Listed Building planning applications and asked whether the difference in work involved for Officers merited a differentiation in fees. The Interim Head of Development Management confirmed that currently there were no fees charged on any Listed Building consent but did note that due to the complexities of some applications specialist advice was needed which could be expensive, and the suggestion of introducing fees for Listed Building consent was in response to the consultation question asking whether there were any other application types or planning services which could be chargeable. Councillor Thurston proposed an amendment to the draft consultation response that the response to question 4 not include suggesting a charge on Listed Building consent applications. This was seconded by Councillor Hamilton. Following a vote, the motion was declared NOT CARRIED.

The substantive recommendation was then proposed by Councillor Lury and seconded by Councillor Blanchard-Cooper.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That they note and endorse the consultation response attached in the report.