Skip to content

Summary: Legislation for planning application fees and developer contributions

by on June 27, 2019

**Update – 24 July 2019: Both pieces of legislation are now made and will come into force as detailed below**

Planning application fees

The legislation makes two changes.

Firstly, it has removed the regulation that would have caused the main fees legislation to expire in November. This has averted the prospect of all planning applications becoming free of charge at that point.

Secondly, based on the consultation response on permitted development rights, it is introducing a £96 fee for the prior approval application required for larger home extensions under Schedule 2; Part 1; Class A of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

The £96 fee will apply for applications submitted from the 19th August 2019 onward.

We have updated our fee schedule accordingly and, later in the year, when we add this prior approval type to 1App, the fee will be included.

With the permitted development right in regard to larger home extensions being made permanent and latest government statistics showing that over 70 per cent of all prior approval applications are of this type, this sets the fee in line with similar procedures for other permitted changes of use.

Developer contributions

Government published a response to their most recent consultation on developer contributions in June 2019.

This, alongside the legislation to which it relates, proposes “to make developer contributions through CIL and planning obligations fairer and more effective, as well as to make their application more transparent.”

The legislative amendments to CIL have now been made and will take effect from 1 September 2019.

We are working with MHCLG to provide updated CIL forms and guidance for when the legislation takes effect, and will communicate further when more details of the changes are known.

While around half of local authorities currently charge, the changes look to simplify the process of putting a charging schedule in place (or revising an existing one), the aim being to encourage further adoption of the levy.

Separately, measures to better consider the effects of ceasing to charge are also included, to promote continued use of CIL once in place.

They also free up the current restrictions on ‘pooling’ contributions for single infrastructure projects, to allow more flexibility when allocating funding.

With this, comes the requirement that local authorities make details of allocations transparent through the yearly publication of ‘infrastructure funding statements’.

In regard to the amounts charged, the proposed changes to the way CIL rates are indexed is not being taken forward. However, it does ensure that any amendment to a planning consent that alter the development’s CIL liabilities are based on the rates that applied at the time of the original permission and at the time of the amendment, rather than simply being recalculated at the latest rate.

It also reduces the “disproportionate” penalties for late submission of ‘Commencement Notices’ (which inform the local authority when development will begin) where exemptions and/or relief from CIL apply, and will also confirm that these notices are not required for exempt residential extensions.

7 Comments
  1. David thomas Seear permalink

    Whilst buyers with a million pounds can afford to purchase a house almost anywhere. Why should so many new detached houses be built. It is those who do not have a sufficient income who are denied houses in areas of their choice. It makes more sense to build 100 starter homes rather than 50 mansions. This would certainly give the first time buyers a greater chance to realize their dream and help to reduce the shortage of new homes.

    • Roger Dawson permalink

      David,
      We have this discussion quite often but it always comes back to the same thing, profit. Developers want the easiest money they can find and while some are conscious of the need and provide some element of affordable homes, the larger developers have to be forced into providing via a 106 Agreement. While ever we live in a capitalist system, your and our desires in this vein will not be realised.

      • Andrew Thompson permalink

        Most Council’s now have housing mix policies which requires developers to build a mix that is in need (both commercial and affordable), further affordable housing and market housing should also be similar in design and there is the re-introduction of making efficient use of land in the NPPF (para 118-123). In short there should be a mix of properties which also takes account of policy, the area and design aspirations.

  2. Penny Little permalink

    CIL charges need to be clarified for domestic equestrian developments, from experience, different local authorities seem to be confused when met with anything other than straight forward new house builds.

  3. Ionic permalink

    “Developer” contributions are in effect contributions by the seller of the development land. The developer expecting to have to fund the levy will pay less for the land. They are what amounts to Development Land Tax. If the tax becomes too punitive the supply of land will dry up, as it did a few years ago when the contributions were called by their proper name. Legislation enabling the levy to be charged on land within a given time from permission being granted would soon release more building land and would reduce the number of eyesore sites started just to meet the three year limit but left undeveloped for years

    • John Coleman permalink

      Problem with that is the vendor of the land is not affected by the CIL. They also do not have to sell in many cases. So it is not a tax on land at all it is a tax on development

  4. Emmet Johnson permalink

    Just think the affordable contribution should be
    Dropped for small builders building ten houses or less and the national parks should do the same I have a plot in national parks and it’s 50% contribution to affordable at 250 per square meter how is a small builder to afford this

Leave a Reply to Emmet Johnson Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: