Planning fees to rise and councillors will lose their call-in powers

What do the new rules mean for landlords?

By Tom Entwistle, LandlordZONE

Three planning changes are coming in England within a few weeks of each other. Since 31 October, most planning applications must be decided by council planning officers rather than elected councillors. 

From 8 December, planning fees will increase, in some cases by more than 20 per cent. But importantly, the number of outside agencies a council must consult before deciding an application is being cut back. 

These factors have been serious roadblocks to speedy approvals, so bode well for a streamlined system. For landlords and owners who extend, convert or build, the combined effect should result in a system that’s quicker and more predictable.

The downside is the additional cost but it will reward those who can provide a well-prepared, well-argued application. 

Most landlords don’t go anywhere near the planning system personally, but a good many do. A rear extension, a loft extension, a commercial to residential conversion, a change of use to a house in multiple occupation, where an Article 4 direction applies, or a small infill scheme for a block of flats, 

The combinations are endless and all of these will bring landlords into contact with the local planning authority. The latest round of reform, therefore, is usefully summarised in a briefing paper last week put out by Abel Bunu, Principal Planner at Land and Property Professionals Robinson & Hall, a leading regional firm of Chartered Surveyors, Auctioneers, Planners and Estate Agents. Founded in 1882.

This article applied to England only. It is intended as general information for landlords and property professionals and does not constitute legal or planning advice. The fee figures are drawn from the draft regulations and have yet to be confirmed. Always take professional advice, ideally from a qualified planning consultant.

The Fees - paying close to the real cost

The simplest change first is the most straightforward. New fee regulations, still formally in draft form but approved by the House of Commons on 27 October by 321 votes to 66, will take effect for applications made on or after 8 December 2026. 

The Government says its aim is a cross-national default fee schedule that recovers around 90 per cent of what it actually costs councils to process each type of application. 

Ministers have estimated the current recovery gap between fee income and processing costs of about £330 million a year in total. This, it argues, goes some way to explaining why so many planning departments are currently struggling to meet deadlines.

Reported fees for the various categories deemed most relevant to landlords are set out below. Note these are only rough examples and should be checked against the final regulations before an application.

Householder extension or alteration (single dwelling) - old £548, new £575

New dwellings, fewer than 10 (per dwelling) – old £610, new £752

New dwellings, 10 to 49 (per dwelling) – old £659, new £818

Material change of use – old £610, new £732

Discharge of householder conditions – old £89, new £125

Prior approval types that are currently free nil, new £310

There is yet a second layer to come. Under powers in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, local councils will have the power to set their own fees, that is above the national default level. Reportedly, they can rise by up to 30 per cent, provided the council can provide evidence that the default fee does not cover their costs. 

However, the fee must not exceed the cost of determining the application, and the income must be ringfenced for the planning department rather than absorbed into general council spending. In addition, it is planned to introduce annual inflation-linked increases beginning in April 2027.

In cash terms you could say the rise is irrelevant given the overall cost of a development project: for example, a four-flat infill scheme would pay around £570 more than it does today. 

The timing does matter. Robinson & Hall recons that in the very short-term, where an application is lodged before 8 December, but the council requests more supporting information, if it arrives after the deadline, the new fee may be due. 

Commentary on these draft regulations claims the new fees will be tied to the date the application is made. An application that is incomplete may not be treated as made until it is put right.  Flood risk assessments, ecology and biodiversity net gain work, and transport statements all take time. Rushing a submission that is not complete in every respect and validated will gain you nothing.

Officers to decide 

This is a significant change. The Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 introduced a national scheme of delegation on 31 October. This will replace the current patchwork quilt of local arrangements under which each council decides for itself which applications go before its planning committee.

Applications will now fall into one of two schedules:

‍
Schedule 1 covers householder and owner applications. These are mainly minor residential schemes of up to nine homes on sites under half a hectare, minor commercial developments, prior approvals, certificates of lawfulness and the discharge of conditions. These must be decided by planning officers and cannot be taken to committee. Minor exceptions might be applications made by the council itself or its members. 

Schedule 2 covers larger and more complex schemes. Even here, the presumption is that officers will decide. An application will usually only go to committee if it raises a significant planning issue. This will need both a nominated senior planning officer and a nominated committee member, usually the chair, to agree that it should.

Ward councillors will no longer be able to call an application into committee on their own initiative. And a set number of objections will no longer trigger a committee hearing, and nor will an objection from a parish or town council on a major application. Planning committees themselves are to be capped at 13 members.

For landlords, this will matter most where applications have tended to become political. HMO proposals are a prime example here. Some councils, Sandwell among these, had proposed taking HMO decisions away from officers altogether. But under the new regime, a smaller application should be determined on its planning merits against adopted policy, rather than on the strength of a neighbourhood campaign. 

That of course works both ways. A proposal that complies fully with the local plan and has all its technical issues resolved, should face less political risk. On the other hand, a proposal that relies on persuading a committee to overlook a policy conflict no longer works. So, the obvious conclusion is that the quality of the application, and its close fit with policy, will in future carry more weight than ever.

These changes will no doubt be controversial. The Local Government Association has described the proposed new scheme as a "one-size-fits-all" solution and has asked the Government to bring forward its statutory review of the regulations from 2028 to 2027. 

Many councillors have expressed the view that the loss of a call-in option as a reduction in local democratic accountability. But supporters argue that it brings in consistency across authorities and frees committees to focus on genuinely more complex and strategic schemes. Both arguments have their merits and the forthcoming review will be worth keeping an eye on. 

What if councils refuse to comply?

A small number of councils have refused to amend their constitutions to reflect the new scheme. Central Bedfordshire councillors voted against the necessary changes on 24 September, by 20 votes to six with 23 abstentions, that’s despite the council's monitoring officer advising that the legislation applies whether or not the constitution is updated. 

Also, Bolton, Tameside and Fenland initially refused. Bolton has said it cannot lawfully hold planning committee meetings or determine applications until the position is resolved and is due to reconsider on 10 November.

According to Robinson & Hall’s briefing, Central Bedfordshire's chief executive has warned its members that the council could neither lawfully continue its old arrangements nor operate the new ones. It has estimated that undetermined applications would build up at around 15 per week. But any decisions made outside the legal national scheme could be open to legal challenge.

If you are an applicant in one of these areas, the advice is quite simple. Check the council's current position before submitting. Keep a careful note of the statutory determination period and be ready to consider an appeal if a decision is not forthcoming. These disputes are likely to be resolved given time, but if you are a landlord with securing finance or a purchase riding on a decision, you cannot always afford to wait.

Fewer consultations and a firm policy

The third strand is the weeding out statutory consultation. The revised National Planning Policy Framework, published on 17 August 2026, tells councils to consult statutory and internal consultees only where it is necessary. 

Decisions should not be held up waiting for advice beyond the consultee's statutory deadline unless there is not enough information to decide. If there is a public safety risk, or more detailed advice might allow an approval rather than a refusal, that’s a different matter.

When the Government confirmed which bodies are affected, The Theatres Trust and the Gardens Trust lost statutory consultee status. Historic England is no longer to be notified of Grade II listed building consent applications, except for total demolition. And Sport England's remit will be narrowed down to the most significant of cases. However, the regulations which will give effect to these changes are yet to come.

The new planning framework will contain some points of interest to small-scale landlords. It strengthens the presumption in favour of development within existing settlements, it introduces a new "medium development" category for schemes of 10 to 49 homes, and it brings forward Vacant Building Credit for bringing empty buildings back into use. In addition it limits the scope for councils to impose their own quantitative standards on matters such as space and energy efficiency unless local variation is justified.

A more predictable system

Taken in the round these reforms should make planning decisions faster, more consistent and be less exposed to local politics. The additional cost is there to pay for the officers needed to make it happen. 

For those who have experienced the ordeal of sitting through committee meetings where a policy-compliant scheme is refused, on the strength of vocal objections, there is much to be said for these changes.  

Whether the promised improvements materialise is very much dependent on whether the higher fee income really does translate into better-staffed planning departments. There is some way to go yet especially as some councils are resisting the change. 

In the meantime, the key message for landlords with a project in mind is to make sure your application is thoroughly prepared and submitted early.

[Main image credit: Gustavo Fring]