Decision details

Decision: Introduction of an administrative fee for processing invalid planning applications to come into effect on 1 April 2025 

 

 

Background 

 

Our planning technical support teams have been dealing with a high volume of invalid planning applications for an extended period. On average, we start validation on approximately 360 applications each month, with 58% of these being found to be missing key information that is clearly required and set out in our planning validation checklist.  Legislation requires that when a planning application is submitted to the local planning authority, it includes all necessary information to be considered valid.  

 

Invalidated applications involve additional correspondence with the applicant/agent, rechecking the missing information if submitted and/or returning the entire fee if it is withdrawn or not validated. At present this additional work is performed at no cost, but it has a resource impact upon the team.   

 

In common with many other local planning authorities, it is the intention to introduce an administrative fee for processing of invalid applications to recover costs. This will be charged along the following lines: 

 

 

 

Based upon current rates of invalid applications this would generate an income of around £140,000. However, the fee is intended to recognise the additional resource demands placed upon the service rather than generate an income stream. Therefore, our overarching aim is to continue working closely with applicants and agents to ensure applications are submitted with the correct information at the outset in accordance with our published validation checklist.  

 

Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003 provides that local authorities may charge for discretionary services, in this case to recover costs for additional work to process/validate invalid applications. 

 

The planning application fee itself is not discretionary. However, in the event that we discover that the submission does not contain the necessary information for it to be validated, the Local Planning Authority could close the application and simply inform the applicant/agent that it is not valid. This is not in the interests of the applicant/agent so we are able to set out why the application is not valid, provide a detailed list of what is necessary to rectify this, and allow additional time for the missing information to be submitted before rechecking and completing the validation process. This element of the service is discretionary on our part,  but naturally is a resource cost for the LPA,  which is why we would seek to recover some of those costs through a proportionate administrative charge.  

 

Our aim is to have applications that are valid from the outset, but in order to ensure our validation team is able to be in a position to provide applicants and agents with the assistance to identify and submit the mission information, we consider an administrative charge to recover costs is necessary and is in the interest of applicants. 

 

Under the Council’s officer scheme of delegation, para. 64 delegates the following to all chief officers: 

 

To set any fee, charge and/or any method of charge for any matter relating wholly and/or partly to the Chief Officer’s Service area(s) provided that: (a) the Council has not already formally determined the fee and/or charge for that work for the proposed period of time to be covered; and (b) the amount of the fee and/or charge is in accordance with any such fee and charge expressly set by legislation. 

 

This is a new administrative charge which has no prior formal determination from the Council, and it does not affect the statutory planning fees that are currently set nationally. 

 

Our approach will also be consistent with the Council’s aims to recover our costs, and we have made agents aware of the intention to charge an administrative fee.  

 

The Council’s Fees and Charges Policy (Fees and Charges Policy 2023 - Dorset Council) states the following: 

 

‘All decisions on fees and charges for services and trading activities should support the delivery of the council’s priorities and to be approved by the relevant Executive Director, in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder, and if necessary, with the Section 151 Officer and recorded as delegated decisions, as appropriate’. 

 

Consultation has taken place with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Emergency Planning (Cllr. Shane Bartlett). We have also briefed the Cabinet member about the legal basis and advice we have received from the planning solicitor in relation to the administrative charge, noting also that this approach is followed by other local planning authorities.  

 

The Cabinet member verbally indicated support for the administrative charge and has since emailed to confirm support for the fee, but also flagged his concern about the risk of disproportionate costs being felt by smaller bespoke developers and, whilst recognising this would be difficult to accommodate within the levy, would be supportive of this being recognised in the charge regime. In lieu of this, the Cabinet Member was keen to ensure we be proactive and supportive of agents and developers. The text from the email is set out below in italics: 

 

‘I am happy to progress with introducing fees for invalid applications. I am however mindful of the disproportionate costs incurred by our small bespoke developers when compared to the big multi nationals who due to scale of economics are much better placed to absorb those additional costs. 

I wonder whether there should be a two-tier charging scale to reflect this,  taking into account the size of the developer but I appreciate it would be difficult to employ operationally, and the scale of fees may well mitigate my concerns in this area. 

 

I understand that our general culture within the planning team would continue to  be proactive and supportive of the agents and developers when discussing the applications being processed. 

 

The current state of the economy and markets would suggest that there could be a significant downturn in the local economy which will impact on housing delivery’. 

 

This is noted and the Planning team has held an online webinar forum for planning agents to set out our approach, explaining there is a proportionate approach to reflect the scale of the planning fee (being more modest for smaller applications). In the light of this, and in preparation for the introduction of the administrative fee, the team has prepared internal guidance and instructions for validation officers to be clear about minor discrepancies that can be quickly rectified without the need for an administrative fee, to ensure they apply this in a suitably pragmatic and consistent manner. This can be kept under review and updated as necessary. 

 

The Cabinet member has therefore been reassured that the team will apply this in a pragmatic way, allowing for minor discrepancies that are easy and quick to resolve, and providing support as necessary to ensure the applications are validated in a timely manner. 

 

Notwithstanding this, the Director of Planning can use his delegated authority to exercise discretion and authorise any variation or waiving of the administrative fee in circumstances where a valid and reasonable justification is submitted, taking account of the Cabinet Member’s intention to recognise the economic difficulties faced by small bespoke developers.  

 

To recover costs for additional administrative tasks involved in processing invalid applications.  

 

Continue with process without levying a proportionate administrative fee. This approach adds a significant resource cost to the Local Planning Authority which is not consistent with the Fees and Charges Policy 2023.  

 

No conflicts of interest.