Content

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and/or returning the entire fee if it is withdrawn or not validated.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.